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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The problem with Weight Watchers...
....is that their plan is almost certainly absolutely correct.
I'm not actually on WW, as most of you know. Because there is no WW where I live (Japan) I ended up devising my own diet. But I participate in this group because it turned out that the plan I came up with mirrors WW very closely. I just use calories directly instead of "flex points". But the ideas are all very similar - a daily target limit of calories, a week bonus to spread out over the week. Counting activity to let me eat more, etc. But after 84 weeks and about 100 lb lost, my weight loss has come to a stand-still. My current BMI is 26.0. To get down to the upper limit of "normal weight" I still need to lost about 10 more lb. At this morning's weight of 176 lb, I figure that since I average about 1700 net calories a day that my CPP (calories per pound) needed to maintain my weight must hover about 9.6 - 10. In other words, I'm eating about about balance right now for this weight. WW would tell me I need to eat closer to 1200 calories/day to keep losing weight. Then maybe add points back until it comes to like 1600 calories/day to maintain it. And they would be correct, I'm sorry to say. So I am faced with the following choices (because of restrictions imposed by reality): (1) Eat less to lose more weight and then eat less FOREVER to maintain it. I would find both very difficult to do, I'm afraid. (2) Exercise like three times as much per day than I am doing now. Sounds nice, but I know myself. That would be really hard to do. (3) Try a different kind of exercise that I wouldn't necessarily count towards activity points, but that I would try to do to increase muscles. Like weight lifting. The idea here would be that more muscles would naturally increase my body's metabolism thus allowing me to lose some more weight without eating less. I'm going to investigate this some more, but I don't know what is really required. I'm not ready for 2 hours of lifting weights a day... (4) Just be happy with my current weight and maintain it! Hey - I'm already at a weight I never dreamed I would achieve in my adult life. I fit comfortably in an ordinary L size shirt (down from like 5L at peak). My pants waist size is a comfortable, even loose, 36", down from like 52" or more. And I fit in comfortably everywhere now - economy seats on planes, booths in restaurants, etc. I think I'll aim for something between (3) and (4) and see what happens. I don't think I am ready for tweaking my calorie limits yet... doug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The problem with Weight Watchers...
have you considered getting a body fat measure in one of those floating
tanks to get a really accurate measure to see if you might actually be where you need to be? Lee doug lerner wrote in message ups.com... ...is that their plan is almost certainly absolutely correct. I'm not actually on WW, as most of you know. Because there is no WW where I live (Japan) I ended up devising my own diet. But I participate in this group because it turned out that the plan I came up with mirrors WW very closely. I just use calories directly instead of "flex points". But the ideas are all very similar - a daily target limit of calories, a week bonus to spread out over the week. Counting activity to let me eat more, etc. But after 84 weeks and about 100 lb lost, my weight loss has come to a stand-still. My current BMI is 26.0. To get down to the upper limit of "normal weight" I still need to lost about 10 more lb. At this morning's weight of 176 lb, I figure that since I average about 1700 net calories a day that my CPP (calories per pound) needed to maintain my weight must hover about 9.6 - 10. In other words, I'm eating about about balance right now for this weight. WW would tell me I need to eat closer to 1200 calories/day to keep losing weight. Then maybe add points back until it comes to like 1600 calories/day to maintain it. And they would be correct, I'm sorry to say. So I am faced with the following choices (because of restrictions imposed by reality): (1) Eat less to lose more weight and then eat less FOREVER to maintain it. I would find both very difficult to do, I'm afraid. (2) Exercise like three times as much per day than I am doing now. Sounds nice, but I know myself. That would be really hard to do. (3) Try a different kind of exercise that I wouldn't necessarily count towards activity points, but that I would try to do to increase muscles. Like weight lifting. The idea here would be that more muscles would naturally increase my body's metabolism thus allowing me to lose some more weight without eating less. I'm going to investigate this some more, but I don't know what is really required. I'm not ready for 2 hours of lifting weights a day... (4) Just be happy with my current weight and maintain it! Hey - I'm already at a weight I never dreamed I would achieve in my adult life. I fit comfortably in an ordinary L size shirt (down from like 5L at peak). My pants waist size is a comfortable, even loose, 36", down from like 52" or more. And I fit in comfortably everywhere now - economy seats on planes, booths in restaurants, etc. I think I'll aim for something between (3) and (4) and see what happens. I don't think I am ready for tweaking my calorie limits yet... doug |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The problem with Weight Watchers...
http://www.stormpc.com/ww/wendie_plan.htm
Doug, the Wendie Plan was used with another type of WW program about five years ago. It is just a different way of looking at your total calories for the week and instead of extremely reducing your daily total, you have low days and higher days. It worked for a lot of people I knew you tried it at the time. Audrey "doug lerner" wrote in message ups.com... ...is that their plan is almost certainly absolutely correct. I'm not actually on WW, as most of you know. Because there is no WW where I live (Japan) I ended up devising my own diet. But I participate in this group because it turned out that the plan I came up with mirrors WW very closely. I just use calories directly instead of "flex points". But the ideas are all very similar - a daily target limit of calories, a week bonus to spread out over the week. Counting activity to let me eat more, etc. But after 84 weeks and about 100 lb lost, my weight loss has come to a stand-still. My current BMI is 26.0. To get down to the upper limit of "normal weight" I still need to lost about 10 more lb. At this morning's weight of 176 lb, I figure that since I average about 1700 net calories a day that my CPP (calories per pound) needed to maintain my weight must hover about 9.6 - 10. In other words, I'm eating about about balance right now for this weight. WW would tell me I need to eat closer to 1200 calories/day to keep losing weight. Then maybe add points back until it comes to like 1600 calories/day to maintain it. And they would be correct, I'm sorry to say. So I am faced with the following choices (because of restrictions imposed by reality): (1) Eat less to lose more weight and then eat less FOREVER to maintain it. I would find both very difficult to do, I'm afraid. (2) Exercise like three times as much per day than I am doing now. Sounds nice, but I know myself. That would be really hard to do. (3) Try a different kind of exercise that I wouldn't necessarily count towards activity points, but that I would try to do to increase muscles. Like weight lifting. The idea here would be that more muscles would naturally increase my body's metabolism thus allowing me to lose some more weight without eating less. I'm going to investigate this some more, but I don't know what is really required. I'm not ready for 2 hours of lifting weights a day... (4) Just be happy with my current weight and maintain it! Hey - I'm already at a weight I never dreamed I would achieve in my adult life. I fit comfortably in an ordinary L size shirt (down from like 5L at peak). My pants waist size is a comfortable, even loose, 36", down from like 52" or more. And I fit in comfortably everywhere now - economy seats on planes, booths in restaurants, etc. I think I'll aim for something between (3) and (4) and see what happens. I don't think I am ready for tweaking my calorie limits yet... doug |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The problem with Weight Watchers...
You know, Doug, you might decide to maintain for a period of time--maybe 2
or 3 months--until your body settles into its new "weight zone." Giving yourself a break form having to lose might be just what you do need to do. As you say, you've never been this low before. Maybe your body just needs time to adjust. "doug lerner" wrote in message ups.com... ...is that their plan is almost certainly absolutely correct. I'm not actually on WW, as most of you know. Because there is no WW where I live (Japan) I ended up devising my own diet. But I participate in this group because it turned out that the plan I came up with mirrors WW very closely. I just use calories directly instead of "flex points". But the ideas are all very similar - a daily target limit of calories, a week bonus to spread out over the week. Counting activity to let me eat more, etc. But after 84 weeks and about 100 lb lost, my weight loss has come to a stand-still. My current BMI is 26.0. To get down to the upper limit of "normal weight" I still need to lost about 10 more lb. At this morning's weight of 176 lb, I figure that since I average about 1700 net calories a day that my CPP (calories per pound) needed to maintain my weight must hover about 9.6 - 10. In other words, I'm eating about about balance right now for this weight. WW would tell me I need to eat closer to 1200 calories/day to keep losing weight. Then maybe add points back until it comes to like 1600 calories/day to maintain it. And they would be correct, I'm sorry to say. So I am faced with the following choices (because of restrictions imposed by reality): (1) Eat less to lose more weight and then eat less FOREVER to maintain it. I would find both very difficult to do, I'm afraid. (2) Exercise like three times as much per day than I am doing now. Sounds nice, but I know myself. That would be really hard to do. (3) Try a different kind of exercise that I wouldn't necessarily count towards activity points, but that I would try to do to increase muscles. Like weight lifting. The idea here would be that more muscles would naturally increase my body's metabolism thus allowing me to lose some more weight without eating less. I'm going to investigate this some more, but I don't know what is really required. I'm not ready for 2 hours of lifting weights a day... (4) Just be happy with my current weight and maintain it! Hey - I'm already at a weight I never dreamed I would achieve in my adult life. I fit comfortably in an ordinary L size shirt (down from like 5L at peak). My pants waist size is a comfortable, even loose, 36", down from like 52" or more. And I fit in comfortably everywhere now - economy seats on planes, booths in restaurants, etc. I think I'll aim for something between (3) and (4) and see what happens. I don't think I am ready for tweaking my calorie limits yet... doug |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The problem with Weight Watchers...
"doug lerner" wrote in message
ups.com... ...is that their plan is almost certainly absolutely correct. I'm not actually on WW, as most of you know. Because there is no WW where I live (Japan) I ended up devising my own diet. But I participate in this group because it turned out that the plan I came up with mirrors WW very closely. I just use calories directly instead of "flex points". But the ideas are all very similar - a daily target limit of calories, a week bonus to spread out over the week. Counting activity to let me eat more, etc. But after 84 weeks and about 100 lb lost, my weight loss has come to a stand-still. My current BMI is 26.0. To get down to the upper limit of "normal weight" I still need to lost about 10 more lb. At this morning's weight of 176 lb, I figure that since I average about 1700 net calories a day that my CPP (calories per pound) needed to maintain my weight must hover about 9.6 - 10. In other words, I'm eating about about balance right now for this weight. WW would tell me I need to eat closer to 1200 calories/day to keep losing weight. Then maybe add points back until it comes to like 1600 calories/day to maintain it. And they would be correct, I'm sorry to say. So I am faced with the following choices (because of restrictions imposed by reality): (1) Eat less to lose more weight and then eat less FOREVER to maintain it. I would find both very difficult to do, I'm afraid. (2) Exercise like three times as much per day than I am doing now. Sounds nice, but I know myself. That would be really hard to do. (3) Try a different kind of exercise that I wouldn't necessarily count towards activity points, but that I would try to do to increase muscles. Like weight lifting. The idea here would be that more muscles would naturally increase my body's metabolism thus allowing me to lose some more weight without eating less. I'm going to investigate this some more, but I don't know what is really required. I'm not ready for 2 hours of lifting weights a day... (4) Just be happy with my current weight and maintain it! Hey - I'm already at a weight I never dreamed I would achieve in my adult life. I fit comfortably in an ordinary L size shirt (down from like 5L at peak). My pants waist size is a comfortable, even loose, 36", down from like 52" or more. And I fit in comfortably everywhere now - economy seats on planes, booths in restaurants, etc. I think I'll aim for something between (3) and (4) and see what happens. I don't think I am ready for tweaking my calorie limits yet... A couple of things may be happening here- -your body needs time to get used to its new size. Maintaining this weight for a few months may just be what it needs. It will also help you get used to the idea of doing things for the rest of your life. Your body may also be just recovering from your traveling. -I think you hit it squarely on the head that you need to reduce the calories consumed and/or increase the amount of exercise. Reducing the calories can be accomplished by substituting lower calorie foods without drastically reducing the amount of food. Have you been weighing and measuring your foods? I know that I had to reduce my protein portions (chicken/beef) at lunch and dinner as I lost weight. I just increased the amount of veggies at those meals to make up for the lower calories. I started with 5-7oz dinner portions and now average about 4 oz at dinner and 2-3 oz at lunch. Do it gradually and your body won't notice the reduction. How about posting a few of your typical day's menus and maybe we can offer some suggestions. Most importantly, don't give up. You will figure this out. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lost weight now I got a problem | [email protected] | General Discussion | 9 | January 4th, 2007 10:35 PM |
Weight Watchers!! Safe Weight Loss Program | George | Weightwatchers | 0 | September 17th, 2004 05:08 AM |
Study credits Weight Watchers with helping many to keep weight off | Neutron | General Discussion | 4 | May 30th, 2004 03:46 PM |
Study credits Weight Watchers with helping many to keep weight off | Neutron | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | May 29th, 2004 06:07 PM |
Study credits Weight Watchers with helping many to keep weight off | Neutron | Weightwatchers | 0 | May 29th, 2004 06:07 PM |