NYNY - Fred - Dec 3rd

I get to jump on and off all day long, cause of my work at home status.
We are just Fast women these days, right Joyce??

"Joyce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:46:18 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Thanks.

Boy, you and Lesanne were in here fast! (G)

Yup, I have fallen behind with the newsgroup - managed to pop in here for
a few
minutes while I caught my breath from the afternoon running.

Maybe I will just become more of a hermit and not accept any
invitations to any parties. (g)

Yeah, sure - like THAT'S gonna happen. G

Joyce


On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:23:34 -0600, Joyce wrote:

No matter what clothing option you choose, you still are well below your
goal
weight. Congratulations on keeping everything under control through the
first
step of the holiday season.

Joyce


On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:02:06 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Okay, it was up as expected but it was quiet enough (empty) that I
could WI twice (G)

What this means is that I will definitely be UP next week if I use
their numbers and my warmer wardrobe unless I simulaneously pull off a
major drop. Or using the new information on clothing weight, I could
recalculate a "constant" weight by always subtracting the amount shown
below. Too anal - probably! (G)

So (drumroll) the numbers this week are .....

The usual wardrobe (shorts and T-shirt): 158.4
Gain: 1.4

The winter wardrobe weighed 1.6 pounds more and included jeans and a
turtleneck shirt and I weighed 160.0


Fred
219.2/158.4/164.0 (Lifetime)
Started WW: Oct 29, 2002

Actually, other than the work lunch, no one has mentioned Xmas yet -
well, the orphan's dinner (all those folks who moved here from
elsewhere) which has been happening with friends now for 30 years.
That's always xmas day.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:17:37 -0600, Joyce wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:46:18 -0800, Fred wrote:

Thanks.

Boy, you and Lesanne were in here fast! (G)

Yup, I have fallen behind with the newsgroup - managed to pop in here for a few
minutes while I caught my breath from the afternoon running.

Maybe I will just become more of a hermit and not accept any
invitations to any parties. (g)

Yeah, sure - like THAT'S gonna happen. G

Joyce


On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:23:34 -0600, Joyce wrote:

No matter what clothing option you choose, you still are well below your goal
weight. Congratulations on keeping everything under control through the first
step of the holiday season.

Joyce


On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:02:06 -0800, Fred wrote:

Okay, it was up as expected but it was quiet enough (empty) that I
could WI twice (G)

What this means is that I will definitely be UP next week if I use
their numbers and my warmer wardrobe unless I simulaneously pull off a
major drop. Or using the new information on clothing weight, I could
recalculate a "constant" weight by always subtracting the amount shown
below. Too anal - probably! (G)

So (drumroll) the numbers this week are .....

The usual wardrobe (shorts and T-shirt): 158.4
Gain: 1.4

The winter wardrobe weighed 1.6 pounds more and included jeans and a
turtleneck shirt and I weighed 160.0


Fred
219.2/158.4/164.0 (Lifetime)
Started WW: Oct 29, 2002

Maybe it is a good thing that you have that clothing allowance then.
Wouldn't want you arrested for indecent exposure!

"Fred" wrote in message
...
That's enough from the northerly contingent! (G)

It was not quite empty and my leader probably would have me arrested.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:31:50 -0800, "Brenda Hammond"
wrote:

Sorry about the little gain Fred, but you're still under goal and that's
great!
Gee if the place was empty, why didn't you weigh naked?

Yeah, fast and "lose" (G)

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:58:29 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

I get to jump on and off all day long, cause of my work at home status.
We are just Fast women these days, right Joyce??

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:46:18 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Thanks.

Boy, you and Lesanne were in here fast! (G)

Yup, I have fallen behind with the newsgroup - managed to pop in here for
a few
minutes while I caught my breath from the afternoon running.

Maybe I will just become more of a hermit and not accept any
invitations to any parties. (g)

Yeah, sure - like THAT'S gonna happen. G

Joyce


On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:23:34 -0600, Joyce wrote:

No matter what clothing option you choose, you still are well below your
goal
weight. Congratulations on keeping everything under control through the
first
step of the holiday season.

Joyce


On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:02:06 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Okay, it was up as expected but it was quiet enough (empty) that I
could WI twice (G)

What this means is that I will definitely be UP next week if I use
their numbers and my warmer wardrobe unless I simulaneously pull off a
major drop. Or using the new information on clothing weight, I could
recalculate a "constant" weight by always subtracting the amount shown
below. Too anal - probably! (G)

So (drumroll) the numbers this week are .....

The usual wardrobe (shorts and T-shirt): 158.4
Gain: 1.4

The winter wardrobe weighed 1.6 pounds more and included jeans and a
turtleneck shirt and I weighed 160.0


Fred
219.2/158.4/164.0 (Lifetime)
Started WW: Oct 29, 2002

Free is good - it is very good.



On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:54:52 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

Well you can figure that I am in it for the long haul, as long as I can go
to meetings FREE like we can (GIANT G) I figure I can spend the Next 20
years if I want getting that last 5 off. !

"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
I think you will make it, too. But that's what I'm now heading toward
if it seems possible so I ain't letting you get ahead of me just yet
(G). But with my up/down fluctuations it might not be either possible
or comfortable.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 23:36:16 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

Oh, I will eventually get to the 155. Consider that it took me from 1981
to
this past August to get from my highest weight to my WW goal....

"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
YES!!!!!!!!! (g)

We shall see. (g)



On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:41:22 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

I don't think I am going to beat 158.4, so you get this week too.
However, one of these days I am going to get to my Actual goal weight
of
155, so ....

Good going, only 1.4 after a major meal. Very very good.


"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
Okay, it was up as expected but it was quiet enough (empty) that I
could WI twice (G)

What this means is that I will definitely be UP next week if I use
their numbers and my warmer wardrobe unless I simulaneously pull off
a
major drop. Or using the new information on clothing weight, I
could
recalculate a "constant" weight by always subtracting the amount
shown
below. Too anal - probably! (G)

So (drumroll) the numbers this week are .....

The usual wardrobe (shorts and T-shirt): 158.4
Gain: 1.4

The winter wardrobe weighed 1.6 pounds more and included jeans and a
turtleneck shirt and I weighed 160.0


Fred
219.2/158.4/164.0 (Lifetime)
Started WW: Oct 29, 2002

Funny you should mention Cinnabon. The woman who developed their
deadly cinnamon roll had a restaurant north of here that was a very
popular bicycling destination and many of us would eat the cinnamon
rolls. She sold the restaurant and then apparently went on to create
the cinnabon roll. I do forget how many calories and fat grams on in
those things. A one way up and back to the restaurant was 26 miles
or so and the loop was about 37 miles. So maybe the roll was
acceptable and not knowing its values made it safer (G)

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:56:23 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

This is so true. My leader set her goal at the top, and did not go under
it. She is always on probation or something because she is a pound or two
over when any holiday hits, or other stuff, like when the cinnabon opened
their first place here and her husband found it.


"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
Thanks - well, it really does help to be a bit below goal which is
probably why some of us set our goal at the TOP of the WW range. A
group of us here have realized that there is not such thing a ONE
STEADY WEIGHT. There are normal variations based on how much "bulk"
you have left over from the day before's foods, water retention due to
exercise or salt or women's period, etc. So up and down from week to
week is something that just will happen. Anyone who can stay exactly
the same week to week is not normal. So below goal is really the only
way to actually be AT GOAL and Maintain LIFETIME.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 01:21:19 GMT, "Janice Kennish"
wrote:

Fred,

Sorry about the gain but it wasn't much considering Thanksgiving was in
there!!! I have to say I can't wait until the day a 1.4 pound gain still
keeps me under goal!! Way to stay below your goal--you're doing a great
job!!!

I may have figured it out but straying is always too possible.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 23:40:19 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:56:54 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I'm set as long as I keep to the program.

Huh! And here I was thinking you'd figured this out already. G

Prairie Roots
232/175/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

Oh, yes you would! (G)

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:16:20 -0800, "Brenda Hammond"
wrote:

Maybe it is a good thing that you have that clothing allowance then.
Wouldn't want you arrested for indecent exposure!

"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
That's enough from the northerly contingent! (G)

It was not quite empty and my leader probably would have me arrested.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:31:50 -0800, "Brenda Hammond"
wrote:

Sorry about the little gain Fred, but you're still under goal and that's
great!
Gee if the place was empty, why didn't you weigh naked?

I think they have like 40 points a piece or something. I have never tried
one. Not going to either.

"Fred" wrote in message
...
Funny you should mention Cinnabon. The woman who developed their
deadly cinnamon roll had a restaurant north of here that was a very
popular bicycling destination and many of us would eat the cinnamon
rolls. She sold the restaurant and then apparently went on to create
the cinnabon roll. I do forget how many calories and fat grams on in
those things. A one way up and back to the restaurant was 26 miles
or so and the loop was about 37 miles. So maybe the roll was
acceptable and not knowing its values made it safer (G)

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:56:23 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

This is so true. My leader set her goal at the top, and did not go under
it. She is always on probation or something because she is a pound or
two
over when any holiday hits, or other stuff, like when the cinnabon opened
their first place here and her husband found it.


"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
Thanks - well, it really does help to be a bit below goal which is
probably why some of us set our goal at the TOP of the WW range. A
group of us here have realized that there is not such thing a ONE
STEADY WEIGHT. There are normal variations based on how much "bulk"
you have left over from the day before's foods, water retention due to
exercise or salt or women's period, etc. So up and down from week to
week is something that just will happen. Anyone who can stay exactly
the same week to week is not normal. So below goal is really the only
way to actually be AT GOAL and Maintain LIFETIME.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 01:21:19 GMT, "Janice Kennish"
wrote:

Fred,

Sorry about the gain but it wasn't much considering Thanksgiving was
in
there!!! I have to say I can't wait until the day a 1.4 pound gain
still
keeps me under goal!! Way to stay below your goal--you're doing a
great
job!!!

Ah, yes! I find that this kind of self talk helps to drown out the
other kind.

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:40:36 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I may have figured it out but straying is always too possible.

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 23:40:19 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:56:54 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I'm set as long as I keep to the program.

Huh! And here I was thinking you'd figured this out already. G

Prairie Roots
232/175/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

Prairie Roots
232/175/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003