A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Weightwatchers
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RAFL Oh whatever



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old February 18th, 2004, 08:34 AM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RAFL Oh whatever

Ummmmmmm, trekking away in sticky snow flurries and fog is not MY idea of fun.
Glad you enjoyed it though. G I have no good advise to offer you in how to
determine those activity points. I know in the past we discussed listening to our
bodies, refeed/refuel as we feel the necessity. But sometimes that is just plain
old tricky - such as what I've gone through this past week. I've been constantly
hungry - and real hunger, not bored hunger. I know it isn't from over exertion by
any means. Does our body just get into occassional cycles where it demands more
food? Or are those old demons trying hard to come out? Or could the body also be
trying to make up for weeks prior when we didn't give it enough? I haven't quite
figured any of this out, and have a feeling I never will.

Well, I have no mountains anywhere near me to look at ... and I can go in my
backyard and look at the stars. I'll also admit to being able to forego the hot
water and shower daily, but it's still nice to have access to it when the need or
desire arises ... as well as an indoor potty (which I do need on a daily basis).
You aren't going to talk me into camping. G

Joyce

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:02:59 -0800, Fred wrote:

I am beginning to think that I am not earning as many points for my
exercise as I use to. It makes sense but I don't like the idea - how
the heck will I earn my DESSERT points. Today's ski trip just did not
seem like enough points. Oh, it was a hell of trip. Sticky snow
dragging on the bottoms of my skis and it snow flurried the entire
time while foggy. Gee, doesn't it sound like fun (G)

I am doing sushi tonight - forced good food and narrow points.

Camping is generally terrific although there have been days or nights
that were less so. I just love looking up at the stars and being in
the clean mountains altho, there have been days when the amount of
work was extraordinary. Should I admit I can do without the hot water
and shower every day (g)

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 02:49:25 -0600, Joyce wrote:

HA! I was thinking the same thoughts on Friday when I hit the scales. Not trying
to lose, but still happy to see the numbers down ... then eat more and make up for
it after weighin ... only to cut back down the following days/week to make sure
everything is back where it is supposed to be. Is it us playing games with our
minds, or our minds playing games with us, or is there any difference between the
two? G I THINK I have finally realized that I am where I should be. It APPEARS
to be not overly difficult to maintain. Yes, I have to pay attention - but it is
doable. I think I'm thwarting this week. G

I've never been into camping, sad to say. My idea of camping is a hotel room
somewhere, with a nice bed and warm, running water. On the rare occassion that I
get a vacation, I'm taking one ... not working harder than I already do at home!
G Hub never got into it either, tells the kids he had his fill of camping in
Viet Nam.

Joyce

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:53:31 -0800, Fred wrote:

You do realize that we are all playing at this like we are trying to
still lose but also NOT lose while maybe losing is okay but not a good
idea which we then thwart again the next week, etc, etc and who knows
what (G)

Ah, camping - almost getting to be time for that again - in JULY~! (G)
Actually, a Hells Canyon trip may be in the offing in a month or so.
Then again, may save the vacation for other things.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from
what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only weighed
myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use
the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound
higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in december).
But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper.

Joyce
started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal
WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03
PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, I await the OFFICIAL results

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred wrote:

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

Well if you Were M, then that would be a very small WAIST measurement that
you had there. This thing is using that tool the docs' came up with a
couple of years ago using the waist measurement to figure cardiac risk
factors? The ole apple shaped thing? I am going to go see what I come out
with if I go minimal...

"Joyce" wrote in message
news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@4 ax.com...
Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats but use
minimal for
the sex choice G and come up just under 8.7% body fat, fail that sex
thing and
get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know women carry more
natural
fatty tissue, but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to believe there is
THAT much
of a difference. And what if you fall somewhere in between? Like I swear
I was
supposed to be born a male, but came out a female ... super wide
shoulders, monkey
arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens are too short in
length
and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice versa ... I
know a
few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine than my own.
G

I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but according to
charts it
puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) - and my
wrist bone
really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer hands -
probably
not as long as yours, but not near as tiny as my *petite* daughter ... who
happens
to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of us *tweeners*
fall? Or
is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type of things?

One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights, just have
some
other crap to straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of muscle,
always have,
probably always will ... just not as much as I'd like. G I think I need
to
build the muscles in the stomach area - everything else is doin' pretty
well. G
And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it mean going down to even
smaller
sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants already - and
those 6's
tend to be pretty hard to find.

I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be consuming - think my
daily
trends tend to flucuate way too much right now to even try and figure it
out. I
may just have to take a stab at the program you like ... is always fun to
play
with new things. G

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I have slender
"bones" but long ones? My hands are larger than almost any woman I know,
but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is hard to use many of the
indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right into the
recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either. I am
religiously logging every bite right now into diet power to see what my
metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is telling me I am burning 2300
calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay at a stable
weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that much. It is
reacting right now to me losing from that evil one six place.

I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and those will
burn off any tummy fat that is hanging around .
"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much more than
just
the
number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is wonderful! I
checked
the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to his little
quiz.
I'm
not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since it
currently is TOM
(ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. G Regardless, there was
something
else
there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight ...
129-158.
So why
should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to quit
worrying about
the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying in the
low
to mid
130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away. G

Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long way!!!

Joyce

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
will
be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that
it
is
probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my
measurements into a site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with
"athletic" category at 19. something percent body fat. I am going to
quit
trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
fifties,
y Ya as they say here






  #92  
Old February 18th, 2004, 08:36 AM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RAFL Oh whatever

I wish I could say I made it through the entire weightloss process with no gains,
but I can't. There were several blips throughout the year, gains, maintains,
whooshes ... all in all the end result did turn out the same. I do understand
what you're saying though. That first gain was very traumatic. After that they
kind of came in stride and now they don't bug me in the least ... unless they
occur for more than one week.

Joyce

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:06:05 -0800, Fred wrote:

Amen, sister. It does mess with me, for sure.

And I am one of the individuals who lost each and every weigh in until
I reached Lifetime. So that first gain was a real downer. Each one
since has been less apocolyptic but that, too, is scary since you also
don't want to turn a blind eye to gains.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:49:25 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Maybe that's where we have a tougher time settling into just being happy
maintaining? That reward thing! Somehow just staying the same, floating up and
down a bit, just isn't the same as that steady weekly decline ... even when we
know we should be (and are) thrilled with it. Mentally, it really does mess with
you.

Joyce

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:57:36 -0800, Fred wrote:

I don't think seeing 140 for me is in the cards which may be why
trying to get lower without a SOLID goal does not work. Accepting a
half decade is probably just not magical enough. And you have pointed
out the one real issue - the rewards for Maintenance have to be just
maintaining. Hover. Up. Hover. Down. Hover, Hover, waffle,
wiffle.... Oh, and the thrill of still seeing myself in a new light -
it is still terrific but so UNconcrete.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:15:03 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

Even as a lifetimer, seeing a new decade lower on the scale must still
be a thrill. Congrats! I love reading your stats, especially as I'm
getting closer to my WW goal and beginning to entertain thoughts about
my personal goal. Thanks so much for sticking around and sharing your
experience.

Prairie Roots
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from
what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only weighed
myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use
the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound
higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in december).
But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper.

Joyce
started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal
WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03
PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, I await the OFFICIAL results

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred wrote:

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

Well if you Were M, then that would be a very small WAIST measurement that
you had there. This thing is using that tool the docs' came up with a
couple of years ago using the waist measurement to figure cardiac risk
factors? The ole apple shaped thing? I am going to go see what I come out
with if I go minimal...

"Joyce" wrote in message
news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@ 4ax.com...
Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats but use
minimal for
the sex choice G and come up just under 8.7% body fat, fail that sex
thing and
get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know women carry more
natural
fatty tissue, but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to believe there is
THAT much
of a difference. And what if you fall somewhere in between? Like I swear
I was
supposed to be born a male, but came out a female ... super wide
shoulders, monkey
arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens are too short in
length
and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice versa ... I
know a
few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine than my own.
G

I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but according to
charts it
puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) - and my
wrist bone
really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer hands -
probably
not as long as yours, but not near as tiny as my *petite* daughter ... who
happens
to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of us *tweeners*
fall? Or
is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type of things?

One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights, just have
some
other crap to straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of muscle,
always have,
probably always will ... just not as much as I'd like. G I think I need
to
build the muscles in the stomach area - everything else is doin' pretty
well. G
And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it mean going down to even
smaller
sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants already - and
those 6's
tend to be pretty hard to find.

I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be consuming - think my
daily
trends tend to flucuate way too much right now to even try and figure it
out. I
may just have to take a stab at the program you like ... is always fun to
play
with new things. G

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I have slender
"bones" but long ones? My hands are larger than almost any woman I know,
but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is hard to use many of the
indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right into the
recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either. I am
religiously logging every bite right now into diet power to see what my
metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is telling me I am burning 2300
calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay at a stable
weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that much. It is
reacting right now to me losing from that evil one six place.

I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and those will
burn off any tummy fat that is hanging around .
"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much more than
just
the
number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is wonderful! I
checked
the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to his little
quiz.
I'm
not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since it
currently is TOM
(ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. G Regardless, there was
something
else
there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight ...
129-158.
So why
should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to quit
worrying about
the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying in the
low
to mid
130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away. G

Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long way!!!

Joyce

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
will
be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that
it
is
probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my
measurements into a site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with
"athletic" category at 19. something percent body fat. I am going to
quit
trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
fifties,
y Ya as they say here






  #93  
Old February 18th, 2004, 08:39 AM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RAFL Oh whatever

Your sleep schedule (or lack of) sounds much like mine. I'm up between 6:30 and 7
in the morning, hit bed between 3 and 4 - long stretch in between. Sometimes I
knock out on the couch in the evening, sometimes I don't. I still figure my *day*
from the time I get up until the time I go to bed. When I get up the new day, and
new journal, begin ... period. If I ended the day when I ran out of points, I
would have some days that only had 12 hours or less in them ... and also would
have some days that never ended. LOL! Again, it's all in finding what works for
US.

Joyce

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:07:42 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

This is exactly why I love WW. The flex does work better for me but I have
had an ongoing problem with the concept of a "day" due to the way we work
and the stuff going on if I picked a specific 24 hours I would just be
screwed, I can go for a long time awake then sleep for my big sleep time
four hours and go again for another twenty so I decided that since I eat at
least every two hours when I can and I eat just a few points at a time, my
new day would start when I reached the end of the day's points, plus three
hours. Three hours is one more than I like to go without eating and about
the amount of time I sleep on average. Since I have done this I have had no
trouble at all sticking to points. Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
Ahhhhhhh, the journal was a tough one. I used the online journal and set

my target
point at the highest number in my point range ... then totally ignored the
flexpoint number. In the notes section I set up a list for activity

points, for
banked or overage food points, and one more for a daily log of where I was

for the
week ... over or under points. It worked fantastically! I had to

manually figure
out the numbers, but it wasn't difficult at all. And it really does work

much
better for ME than the flexpoint thing.

Joyce

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:38:38 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

What did you settle on for a journal then? Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
That's pretty much exactly what I said when I stepped on the scale ...

go
figure!
I ate more this last week, exercised less, stayed away from the scale.

I
also did
away with the flexpoints way of journalling, and went back 100% to the

old
ww plan
... upped my daily point range and banked/reversed banked away. It
makes no
sense to me at all. It could very well be just a shift in water

weight.
It does
confuse me though as to how the heck I find a firm number where I can
maintain.
sigh Close to a year into the maintainence game and I'm still

playing
with
numbers.

Joyce

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:30:28 -0500, Connie
wrote:

I love it ... an all-time low and she wasn't even trying... ain't that
the way life goes.

Connie

Joyce wrote:
Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized

spare
tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had
something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and

the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into
the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the
athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting
tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face
the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there
Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero

to
make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it

around
when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be.

Stepped
back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low
since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to
stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with
me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred
wrote:


Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with

undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized

spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:


I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ...
maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor

those
women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline.
But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna

have
a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road?
I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after

TOM
.. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to

deal
with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:


Well if you Were M, then that would be a very small WAIST

measurement
that
you had there. This thing is using that tool the docs' came up

with
a
couple of years ago using the waist measurement to figure cardiac
risk
factors? The ole apple shaped thing? I am going to go see what I
come out
with if I go minimal...

"Joyce" wrote in message
om...

Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats but
use

minimal for

the sex choice G and come up just under 8.7% body fat, fail

that
sex

thing and

get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know women
carry more

natural

fatty tissue, but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to believe
there is

THAT much

of a difference. And what if you fall somewhere in between?

Like I
swear

I was

supposed to be born a male, but came out a female ... super wide

shoulders, monkey

arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens are too
short in

length

and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice

versa
... I

know a

few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine than

my
own.

G

I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but

according
to

charts it

puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) -

and
my

wrist bone

really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer
hands -

probably

not as long as yours, but not near as tiny as my *petite*

daughter
... who

happens

to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of us
*tweeners*

fall? Or

is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type of
things?

One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights,

just
have

some

other crap to straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of
muscle,

always have,

probably always will ... just not as much as I'd like. G I

think
I need

to

build the muscles in the stomach area - everything else is doin'
pretty

well. G

And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it mean going

down
to even

smaller

sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants

already -
and

those 6's

tend to be pretty hard to find.

I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be consuming -
think my

daily

trends tend to flucuate way too much right now to even try and
figure it

out. I

may just have to take a stab at the program you like ... is

always
fun to

play

with new things. G

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne"


wrote:


Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I

have
slender
"bones" but long ones? My hands are larger than almost any

woman I
know,
but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is hard to use many of

the
indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right into
the
recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either.

I
am
religiously logging every bite right now into diet power to see
what my
metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is telling me I am

burning
2300
calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay at

a
stable
weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that

much.
It is
reacting right now to me losing from that evil one six place.

I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and

those
will
burn off any tummy fat that is hanging around .
"Joyce" wrote in message
news:8mnc2090sd98ofqkmtrpt70or5mlrkol4e@4ax .com...

Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much more
than

just

the

number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is
wonderful! I

checked

the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to his
little

quiz.

I'm

not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since

it

currently is TOM

(ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. G Regardless, there

was

something

else

there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight

...

129-158.

So why

should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to

quit

worrying about

the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying

in
the

low

to mid

130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away. G

Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long way!!!

Joyce

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne"



wrote:

My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure

next
week

will

be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5)

said
that

it

is

probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I

put
my
measurements into a site that Bob Greene has up, and came out
with
"athletic" category at 19. something percent body fat. I am
going to

quit

trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the

high
one

fifties,

y Ya as they say here








  #94  
Old February 18th, 2004, 09:08 AM
Miss Violette
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RAFL Oh whatever

great clothing NSVs, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Heaven only knows what goes on in my mind, Lee. LOL But whatever it is,

it so
far appears to work for me, and that's what is important. I go up, I come

down, I
hover. I think my body shape is changing again also. I found a pair of

pants I
purchased on sale last month, tucked them into my closet and forgot about

them.
Pulled them out yesterday, tags still on so I know they were unworn ...

put them
on and the dang things are saggy in the behind and waist. sigh I'm

hoping they
will shrink in the wash. DANG! I don't think I've ever said that before.

LOL I
also had purchased a stretchy t-shirt for my mom, which was too small for

her. I
got lazy and never returned it, so figured I would go ahead and wear it.

It's a
cheapie from Wal-Mart, misses size Large, which is what I usually reach

for
because of my danged shoulders. Threw the thing on this morning and it's

huge.
Oh well, I'm wearing it anyway.

Joyce

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:01:37 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

happy anniversary!!! Maybe going into game mode with yourself is how you
maintain? Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
I know we've talked the numbers thing before, and I know that there

really
isn't a
firm number out there for maintaining. It changes constantly due to

many
factors.
Yet I still want that firm number! I would feel better with it! Guess

that's
what I meant by *playing*. I seem to change that target number week by

week,
results don't appear to change at all. Guess that is a good thing?

A year ago, on the button, I was 151.5 - just above my goal (which I

reached the
following week). Geeeesh, next week will be my 1 year at ww goal

anniversary!
I've lost 20 pounds since then, but yes - overall I have been very

steady.
I just
realized I need to do some major update work on my weightloss chart -

hasn't been
updated since the end of may last year! But I do know that it fell by

the
wayside
because I was staying on the right path ... seesawing here and there,

but
overall
... steady.

You're right, as always. I am maintaining ... very happily.

Joyce

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:55:30 -0800, Fred

wrote:

No you are not. You ARE MAINTAINING. Where were you a year ago?
Where now? And where in between? You lost a bit below but have been
pretty steady, no?

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:33:34 -0600, Joyce wrote:

That's pretty much exactly what I said when I stepped on the scale

....
go figure!
I ate more this last week, exercised less, stayed away from the

scale.
I also did
away with the flexpoints way of journalling, and went back 100% to

the
old ww plan
... upped my daily point range and banked/reversed banked away. It

makes no
sense to me at all. It could very well be just a shift in water

weight.
It does
confuse me though as to how the heck I find a firm number where I can

maintain.
sigh Close to a year into the maintainence game and I'm still

playing
with
numbers.

Joyce

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:30:28 -0500, Connie


wrote:

I love it ... an all-time low and she wasn't even trying... ain't

that
the way life goes.

Connie

Joyce wrote:
Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized

spare tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had

something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week

and
the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me

into
the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the

athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very

interesting
tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to

face
the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down

there
Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero

to
make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it

around when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be.

Stepped
back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low

since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision

to
stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games

with
me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred


wrote:


Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with

undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized

spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:


I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me

....
maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor

those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no

waistline.
But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna

have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the

road?
I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after

TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to

deal
with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne"


wrote:


Well if you Were M, then that would be a very small WAIST

measurement that
you had there. This thing is using that tool the docs' came up

with a
couple of years ago using the waist measurement to figure

cardiac
risk
factors? The ole apple shaped thing? I am going to go see what

I
come out
with if I go minimal...

"Joyce" wrote in message
news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@4ax .com...

Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats

but
use

minimal for

the sex choice G and come up just under 8.7% body fat, fail

that
sex

thing and

get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know women

carry more

natural

fatty tissue, but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to believe

there is

THAT much

of a difference. And what if you fall somewhere in between?

Like
I swear

I was

supposed to be born a male, but came out a female ... super

wide

shoulders, monkey

arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens are

too
short in

length

and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice

versa ... I

know a

few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine

than
my own.

G

I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but

according to

charts it

puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) -

and my

wrist bone

really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer

hands -

probably

not as long as yours, but not near as tiny as my *petite*

daughter
... who

happens

to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of us

*tweeners*

fall? Or

is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type

of
things?

One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights,

just have

some

other crap to straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of

muscle,

always have,

probably always will ... just not as much as I'd like. G I

think I need

to

build the muscles in the stomach area - everything else is

doin'
pretty

well. G

And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it mean going

down
to even

smaller

sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants

already - and

those 6's

tend to be pretty hard to find.

I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be consuming -

think my

daily

trends tend to flucuate way too much right now to even try and

figure it

out. I

may just have to take a stab at the program you like ... is

always
fun to

play

with new things. G

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne"


wrote:


Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I

have
slender
"bones" but long ones? My hands are larger than almost any

woman
I know,
but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is hard to use many

of
the
indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right

into
the
recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes

either.
I am
religiously logging every bite right now into diet power to

see
what my
metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is telling me I am

burning 2300
calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay

at a
stable
weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that

much. It is
reacting right now to me losing from that evil one six place.

I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and

those will
burn off any tummy fat that is hanging around .
"Joyce" wrote in message
news:8mnc2090sd98ofqkmtrpt70or5mlrkol4e@4 ax.com...

Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much

more
than

just

the

number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is

wonderful! I

checked

the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to his

little

quiz.

I'm

not sure if there would be any difference in the reading

since
it

currently is TOM

(ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. G Regardless, there

was

something

else

there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight

...

129-158.

So why

should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to

quit

worrying about

the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying

in
the

low

to mid

130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away.

G

Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long way!!!

Joyce

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne"



wrote:

My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure

next week

will

be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5)

said
that

it

is

probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway.

I
put my
measurements into a site that Bob Greene has up, and came

out
with
"athletic" category at 19. something percent body fat. I am

going to

quit

trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the

high
one

fifties,

y Ya as they say here








  #95  
Old February 18th, 2004, 09:24 AM
Miss Violette
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RAFL Oh whatever

The days do sometimes last a great deal less than 24 hours but this week I
am actually behind, at this writing I have eaten very little on Tuesday's
journal, I still have 13 points left and wed. is the last day of my week. I
have 32 flex points left. This has been a stressful week. My aunt has been
diagnosed with a fast growing form of cancer and helping my mom deal with
this has caused me some difficulty as not only am I helping her I am
thinking about my own sister. I have decided that I will eat something
point dense to at least get to the weekly min. I already think that not
eating is going to cause me a disappointment at the scale. The sleep is a
family thing, my grandfather, mother, a brother and his daughter all sleep
the same. I don't need much more than four if I am not ill. My mother
sleeps about like I do and she still works full time as an EMT at the age of
65. Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Your sleep schedule (or lack of) sounds much like mine. I'm up between

6:30 and 7
in the morning, hit bed between 3 and 4 - long stretch in between.

Sometimes I
knock out on the couch in the evening, sometimes I don't. I still figure

my *day*
from the time I get up until the time I go to bed. When I get up the new

day, and
new journal, begin ... period. If I ended the day when I ran out of

points, I
would have some days that only had 12 hours or less in them ... and also

would
have some days that never ended. LOL! Again, it's all in finding what

works for
US.

Joyce

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:07:42 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

This is exactly why I love WW. The flex does work better for me but I

have
had an ongoing problem with the concept of a "day" due to the way we work
and the stuff going on if I picked a specific 24 hours I would just be
screwed, I can go for a long time awake then sleep for my big sleep time
four hours and go again for another twenty so I decided that since I eat

at
least every two hours when I can and I eat just a few points at a time,

my
new day would start when I reached the end of the day's points, plus

three
hours. Three hours is one more than I like to go without eating and

about
the amount of time I sleep on average. Since I have done this I have had

no
trouble at all sticking to points. Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
Ahhhhhhh, the journal was a tough one. I used the online journal and

set
my target
point at the highest number in my point range ... then totally ignored

the
flexpoint number. In the notes section I set up a list for activity

points, for
banked or overage food points, and one more for a daily log of where I

was
for the
week ... over or under points. It worked fantastically! I had to

manually figure
out the numbers, but it wasn't difficult at all. And it really does

work
much
better for ME than the flexpoint thing.

Joyce

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:38:38 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

What did you settle on for a journal then? Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
That's pretty much exactly what I said when I stepped on the scale

....
go
figure!
I ate more this last week, exercised less, stayed away from the

scale.
I
also did
away with the flexpoints way of journalling, and went back 100% to

the
old
ww plan
... upped my daily point range and banked/reversed banked away.

It
makes no
sense to me at all. It could very well be just a shift in water

weight.
It does
confuse me though as to how the heck I find a firm number where I

can
maintain.
sigh Close to a year into the maintainence game and I'm still

playing
with
numbers.

Joyce

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:30:28 -0500, Connie


wrote:

I love it ... an all-time low and she wasn't even trying... ain't

that
the way life goes.

Connie

Joyce wrote:
Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized

spare
tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had
something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week

and
the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me

into
the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either

(the
athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very

interesting
tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to

face
the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down

there
Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to

zero
to
make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it

around
when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be.

Stepped
back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time

low
since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision

to
stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games

with
me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred


wrote:


Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with

undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized

spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:


I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me

....
maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor

those
women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no

waistline.
But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never

gonna
have
a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the

road?
I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ...

after
TOM
.. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to

deal
with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne"


wrote:


Well if you Were M, then that would be a very small WAIST

measurement
that
you had there. This thing is using that tool the docs' came up

with
a
couple of years ago using the waist measurement to figure

cardiac
risk
factors? The ole apple shaped thing? I am going to go see

what I
come out
with if I go minimal...

"Joyce" wrote in message
om...

Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats

but
use

minimal for

the sex choice G and come up just under 8.7% body fat, fail

that
sex

thing and

get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know

women
carry more

natural

fatty tissue, but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to

believe
there is

THAT much

of a difference. And what if you fall somewhere in between?

Like I
swear

I was

supposed to be born a male, but came out a female ... super

wide

shoulders, monkey

arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens are

too
short in

length

and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice

versa
... I

know a

few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine

than
my
own.

G

I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but

according
to

charts it

puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5

inches) -
and
my

wrist bone

really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those

longer
hands -

probably

not as long as yours, but not near as tiny as my *petite*

daughter
... who

happens

to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of us
*tweeners*

fall? Or

is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type

of
things?

One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights,

just
have

some

other crap to straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of
muscle,

always have,

probably always will ... just not as much as I'd like. G I

think
I need

to

build the muscles in the stomach area - everything else is

doin'
pretty

well. G

And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it mean going

down
to even

smaller

sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants

already -
and

those 6's

tend to be pretty hard to find.

I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be

consuming -
think my

daily

trends tend to flucuate way too much right now to even try and
figure it

out. I

may just have to take a stab at the program you like ... is

always
fun to

play

with new things. G

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne"


wrote:


Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I

have
slender
"bones" but long ones? My hands are larger than almost any

woman I
know,
but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is hard to use many

of
the
indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right

into
the
recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes

either.
I
am
religiously logging every bite right now into diet power to

see
what my
metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is telling me I am

burning
2300
calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay

at
a
stable
weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that

much.
It is
reacting right now to me losing from that evil one six place.

I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and

those
will
burn off any tummy fat that is hanging around .
"Joyce" wrote in message
news:8mnc2090sd98ofqkmtrpt70or5mlrkol4e@4ax .com...

Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much

more
than

just

the

number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is
wonderful! I

checked

the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to

his
little

quiz.

I'm

not sure if there would be any difference in the reading

since
it

currently is TOM

(ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. G Regardless, there

was

something

else

there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable

weight
...

129-158.

So why

should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going

to
quit

worrying about

the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on

staying
in
the

low

to mid

130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away.

G

Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long

way!!!

Joyce

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne"



wrote:

My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure

next
week

will

be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5)

said
that

it

is

probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway.

I
put
my
measurements into a site that Bob Greene has up, and came

out
with
"athletic" category at 19. something percent body fat. I

am
going to

quit

trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the

high
one

fifties,

y Ya as they say here










  #96  
Old February 18th, 2004, 03:37 PM
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RAFL Oh whatever

Oh, I've had some remarkable outdoor potties! (G) Not much more will
be said. The less campers, the more for me! (G)

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:34:35 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ummmmmmm, trekking away in sticky snow flurries and fog is not MY idea of fun.
Glad you enjoyed it though. G I have no good advise to offer you in how to
determine those activity points. I know in the past we discussed listening to our
bodies, refeed/refuel as we feel the necessity. But sometimes that is just plain
old tricky - such as what I've gone through this past week. I've been constantly
hungry - and real hunger, not bored hunger. I know it isn't from over exertion by
any means. Does our body just get into occassional cycles where it demands more
food? Or are those old demons trying hard to come out? Or could the body also be
trying to make up for weeks prior when we didn't give it enough? I haven't quite
figured any of this out, and have a feeling I never will.

Well, I have no mountains anywhere near me to look at ... and I can go in my
backyard and look at the stars. I'll also admit to being able to forego the hot
water and shower daily, but it's still nice to have access to it when the need or
desire arises ... as well as an indoor potty (which I do need on a daily basis).
You aren't going to talk me into camping. G

Joyce

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:02:59 -0800, Fred wrote:

I am beginning to think that I am not earning as many points for my
exercise as I use to. It makes sense but I don't like the idea - how
the heck will I earn my DESSERT points. Today's ski trip just did not
seem like enough points. Oh, it was a hell of trip. Sticky snow
dragging on the bottoms of my skis and it snow flurried the entire
time while foggy. Gee, doesn't it sound like fun (G)

I am doing sushi tonight - forced good food and narrow points.

Camping is generally terrific although there have been days or nights
that were less so. I just love looking up at the stars and being in
the clean mountains altho, there have been days when the amount of
work was extraordinary. Should I admit I can do without the hot water
and shower every day (g)

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 02:49:25 -0600, Joyce wrote:

HA! I was thinking the same thoughts on Friday when I hit the scales. Not trying
to lose, but still happy to see the numbers down ... then eat more and make up for
it after weighin ... only to cut back down the following days/week to make sure
everything is back where it is supposed to be. Is it us playing games with our
minds, or our minds playing games with us, or is there any difference between the
two? G I THINK I have finally realized that I am where I should be. It APPEARS
to be not overly difficult to maintain. Yes, I have to pay attention - but it is
doable. I think I'm thwarting this week. G

I've never been into camping, sad to say. My idea of camping is a hotel room
somewhere, with a nice bed and warm, running water. On the rare occassion that I
get a vacation, I'm taking one ... not working harder than I already do at home!
G Hub never got into it either, tells the kids he had his fill of camping in
Viet Nam.

Joyce

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:53:31 -0800, Fred wrote:

You do realize that we are all playing at this like we are trying to
still lose but also NOT lose while maybe losing is okay but not a good
idea which we then thwart again the next week, etc, etc and who knows
what (G)

Ah, camping - almost getting to be time for that again - in JULY~! (G)
Actually, a Hells Canyon trip may be in the offing in a month or so.
Then again, may save the vacation for other things.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from
what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only weighed
myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use
the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound
higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in december).
But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper.

Joyce
started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal
WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03
PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, I await the OFFICIAL results

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred wrote:

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

Well if you Were M, then that would be a very small WAIST measurement that
you had there. This thing is using that tool the docs' came up with a
couple of years ago using the waist measurement to figure cardiac risk
factors? The ole apple shaped thing? I am going to go see what I come out
with if I go minimal...

"Joyce" wrote in message
news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@ 4ax.com...
Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats but use
minimal for
the sex choice G and come up just under 8.7% body fat, fail that sex
thing and
get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know women carry more
natural
fatty tissue, but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to believe there is
THAT much
of a difference. And what if you fall somewhere in between? Like I swear
I was
supposed to be born a male, but came out a female ... super wide
shoulders, monkey
arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens are too short in
length
and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice versa ... I
know a
few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine than my own.
G

I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but according to
charts it
puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) - and my
wrist bone
really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer hands -
probably
not as long as yours, but not near as tiny as my *petite* daughter ... who
happens
to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of us *tweeners*
fall? Or
is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type of things?

One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights, just have
some
other crap to straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of muscle,
always have,
probably always will ... just not as much as I'd like. G I think I need
to
build the muscles in the stomach area - everything else is doin' pretty
well. G
And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it mean going down to even
smaller
sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants already - and
those 6's
tend to be pretty hard to find.

I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be consuming - think my
daily
trends tend to flucuate way too much right now to even try and figure it
out. I
may just have to take a stab at the program you like ... is always fun to
play
with new things. G

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I have slender
"bones" but long ones? My hands are larger than almost any woman I know,
but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is hard to use many of the
indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right into the
recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either. I am
religiously logging every bite right now into diet power to see what my
metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is telling me I am burning 2300
calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay at a stable
weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that much. It is
reacting right now to me losing from that evil one six place.

I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and those will
burn off any tummy fat that is hanging around .
"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much more than
just
the
number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is wonderful! I
checked
the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to his little
quiz.
I'm
not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since it
currently is TOM
(ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. G Regardless, there was
something
else
there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight ...
129-158.
So why
should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to quit
worrying about
the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying in the
low
to mid
130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away. G

Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long way!!!

Joyce

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
will
be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that
it
is
probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my
measurements into a site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with
"athletic" category at 19. something percent body fat. I am going to
quit
trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
fifties,
y Ya as they say here






  #97  
Old February 18th, 2004, 03:38 PM
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RAFL Oh whatever

NO, NOT MORE THAN ONE WEEK!!! Yikes - I may just make it today or
not???

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:36:46 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I wish I could say I made it through the entire weightloss process with no gains,
but I can't. There were several blips throughout the year, gains, maintains,
whooshes ... all in all the end result did turn out the same. I do understand
what you're saying though. That first gain was very traumatic. After that they
kind of came in stride and now they don't bug me in the least ... unless they
occur for more than one week.

Joyce

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:06:05 -0800, Fred wrote:

Amen, sister. It does mess with me, for sure.

And I am one of the individuals who lost each and every weigh in until
I reached Lifetime. So that first gain was a real downer. Each one
since has been less apocolyptic but that, too, is scary since you also
don't want to turn a blind eye to gains.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:49:25 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Maybe that's where we have a tougher time settling into just being happy
maintaining? That reward thing! Somehow just staying the same, floating up and
down a bit, just isn't the same as that steady weekly decline ... even when we
know we should be (and are) thrilled with it. Mentally, it really does mess with
you.

Joyce

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:57:36 -0800, Fred wrote:

I don't think seeing 140 for me is in the cards which may be why
trying to get lower without a SOLID goal does not work. Accepting a
half decade is probably just not magical enough. And you have pointed
out the one real issue - the rewards for Maintenance have to be just
maintaining. Hover. Up. Hover. Down. Hover, Hover, waffle,
wiffle.... Oh, and the thrill of still seeing myself in a new light -
it is still terrific but so UNconcrete.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:15:03 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

Even as a lifetimer, seeing a new decade lower on the scale must still
be a thrill. Congrats! I love reading your stats, especially as I'm
getting closer to my WW goal and beginning to entertain thoughts about
my personal goal. Thanks so much for sticking around and sharing your
experience.

Prairie Roots
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from
what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only weighed
myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use
the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound
higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in december).
But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper.

Joyce
started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal
WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03
PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, I await the OFFICIAL results

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred wrote:

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

Well if you Were M, then that would be a very small WAIST measurement that
you had there. This thing is using that tool the docs' came up with a
couple of years ago using the waist measurement to figure cardiac risk
factors? The ole apple shaped thing? I am going to go see what I come out
with if I go minimal...

"Joyce" wrote in message
news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol @4ax.com...
Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats but use
minimal for
the sex choice G and come up just under 8.7% body fat, fail that sex
thing and
get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know women carry more
natural
fatty tissue, but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to believe there is
THAT much
of a difference. And what if you fall somewhere in between? Like I swear
I was
supposed to be born a male, but came out a female ... super wide
shoulders, monkey
arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens are too short in
length
and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice versa ... I
know a
few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine than my own.
G

I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but according to
charts it
puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) - and my
wrist bone
really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer hands -
probably
not as long as yours, but not near as tiny as my *petite* daughter ... who
happens
to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of us *tweeners*
fall? Or
is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type of things?

One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights, just have
some
other crap to straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of muscle,
always have,
probably always will ... just not as much as I'd like. G I think I need
to
build the muscles in the stomach area - everything else is doin' pretty
well. G
And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it mean going down to even
smaller
sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants already - and
those 6's
tend to be pretty hard to find.

I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be consuming - think my
daily
trends tend to flucuate way too much right now to even try and figure it
out. I
may just have to take a stab at the program you like ... is always fun to
play
with new things. G

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I have slender
"bones" but long ones? My hands are larger than almost any woman I know,
but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is hard to use many of the
indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right into the
recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either. I am
religiously logging every bite right now into diet power to see what my
metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is telling me I am burning 2300
calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay at a stable
weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that much. It is
reacting right now to me losing from that evil one six place.

I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and those will
burn off any tummy fat that is hanging around .
"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much more than
just
the
number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is wonderful! I
checked
the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to his little
quiz.
I'm
not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since it
currently is TOM
(ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. G Regardless, there was
something
else
there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight ...
129-158.
So why
should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to quit
worrying about
the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying in the
low
to mid
130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away. G

Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long way!!!

Joyce

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
will
be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that
it
is
probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my
measurements into a site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with
"athletic" category at 19. something percent body fat. I am going to
quit
trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
fifties,
y Ya as they say here






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RAFL wk 3/THTP wk 7 - Laura (LJ) Laura Weightwatchers 47 February 3rd, 2004 08:34 AM
Post your results here! RafL wk 2 & THTP wk 5 Amberle3 Weightwatchers 35 January 19th, 2004 03:19 PM
RAFL & THTP Laura(LJ) Laura Weightwatchers 9 January 19th, 2004 07:10 AM
RAFL Week 1 I LOST! Billie Severy Weightwatchers 8 January 19th, 2004 07:08 AM
Time to 'fess up - RAFL Nathalie W Weightwatchers 17 January 15th, 2004 09:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.