One more question-goal weight

I think that's what I'll do first. I want something attainable. Heck,
right now I'll settle with anything with a 1 in front of it.

"Laura" wrote in message
...
Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the journey is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250 last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is 116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in message
...
The ranges can be found at:

http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2 inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary goal at a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is 161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal goal is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me do not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long bones, I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"
wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in message
...
The ranges can be found at:

http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake
or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary goal
at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard
wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it
over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

Ok, this site might make you feel better. G
http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html According to this, using the wrist
measurement is an ok way of determining frame size, but measuring the elbow
breadth is much more accurate. Not sure how true it is, but they *say* so. G
Maybe the bones in the elbow don't move or hold as much as we gain/lose weight, at
least in the same manner as the wrists?

And here's another site that calculates using either or both of the above, PLUS
height and sex. http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/fsz I don't put much stock
in this though, as playing around with it I can see how it *says* my frame size
changes with each measurement. Common sense tells me that before I lost weight I
had a bunch of fat hanging on my wrists (as well as elsewhere), yet my frame size
would have still been the same.

Regardless ... I am still considered a large frame ... 6.75 wrist, 3" elbow
breadth, 5'6" tall. sigh I either have to grow several inches or lose more in
my wrist to get the frame size to change.

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:38:32 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long bones, I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said that it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue. Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"
wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in message
...
The ranges can be found at:

http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2 inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary goal at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard
wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ... here's a website
that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html Going only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to come into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight. Nothing else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the world is
large framed. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me do not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long bones, I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"
wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in message
...
The ranges can be found at:

http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake
or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary goal
at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard
wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it
over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

Ummmm, not really. I have always had a large frame size, even in my youth when I
was normal weight as well as when I was a young adult and underweight. The only
difference I have seen in my body build has been after child birth. The more
definitive waistline disappeared but a bustline finally appeared. G Losing
weight now hasn't seemed to change those factors much.

My wrist measurement did decline as I lost weight. I don't have exact numbers as
I didn't keep a tally on that - but I have taken several links out of my
watchbands. My neck has also decreased - I can now wear necklaces that were too
tight on me in the past. But ... measurements everywhere have decreased, which
really does make sense ... fat is more than likely distributed well throughout the
body, as are fluids.

I have heard many overweight people say that they were large framed, only to learn
that when they lost weight they really weren't. I think it's a somewhat misguided
or misunderstood thing with the wrist measurements. Fat likes to also be stored
in the wrists ... so it makes sense that when we are overweight our wrist
measurements are going to be larger than when we are normal weight. Yet the
measurement tools for using the wrist number in determining frame size doesn't
change - weight is not considered. I also think that *thinking* we have large
frame sizes makes us feel better about being overweight ... kind of one more
excuse for us to hide behind if you know what I mean. So ... my interpretation of
this wrist calculation method is that it is really only valid if used when you are
within a normal weight range for your height.

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:52:30 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now that I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45, next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said that it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue. Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders, bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to see what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura" wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250 last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in message
...
The ranges can be found at:

http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2 inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary goal at a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts match and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means is that it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the right idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever comes first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ... here's a
website
that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight. Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"
wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in message
...
The ranges can be found at:


http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary
goal
at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard
wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it
over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men
or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

I was thinking about excuses as well, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Ummmm, not really. I have always had a large frame size, even in my youth
when I
was normal weight as well as when I was a young adult and underweight.
The only
difference I have seen in my body build has been after child birth. The
more
definitive waistline disappeared but a bustline finally appeared. G
Losing
weight now hasn't seemed to change those factors much.

My wrist measurement did decline as I lost weight. I don't have exact
numbers as
I didn't keep a tally on that - but I have taken several links out of my
watchbands. My neck has also decreased - I can now wear necklaces that
were too
tight on me in the past. But ... measurements everywhere have decreased,
which
really does make sense ... fat is more than likely distributed well
throughout the
body, as are fluids.

I have heard many overweight people say that they were large framed, only
to learn
that when they lost weight they really weren't. I think it's a somewhat
misguided
or misunderstood thing with the wrist measurements. Fat likes to also be
stored
in the wrists ... so it makes sense that when we are overweight our wrist
measurements are going to be larger than when we are normal weight. Yet
the
measurement tools for using the wrist number in determining frame size
doesn't
change - weight is not considered. I also think that *thinking* we have
large
frame sizes makes us feel better about being overweight ... kind of one
more
excuse for us to hide behind if you know what I mean. So ... my
interpretation of
this wrist calculation method is that it is really only valid if used when
you are
within a normal weight range for your height.

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:52:30 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"
wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in message
...
The ranges can be found at:

http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake
or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary goal
at a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard
wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

That was me too

"skiur" wrote in message
...
I think that's what I'll do first. I want something attainable. Heck,
right now I'll settle with anything with a 1 in front of it.

"Laura" wrote in message
...
Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in message
...
The ranges can be found at:

http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2 inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary goal at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard
wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

I have very long narrow bones, so my hands are good piano playing hands and
most the men in my past have been fascinated with my legs.
As a way to measure frame size, the narrow wrists are really meaningless on
me.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"
wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in message
...
The ranges can be found at:


http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary
goal
at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard
wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it
over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men
or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

oh yeah. My wrist used to put me in the large frame size. My elbow puts me
in medium now, and my wrist is below the small range.
And what about Muscle?

"Joyce" wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ... here's a
website
that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight. Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"
wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in message
...
The ranges can be found at:


http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary
goal
at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard
wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it
over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men
or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5