Dieting is hard!

On 8/24/2004 1:30 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:
In article , jmk wrote:

On 8/24/2004 1:04 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:

In article , jmk wrote:


On 8/19/2004 7:22 AM, Ignoramus29728 wrote:



I also find it amusing that a woman who lost, according to her, 155
lbs, or more than half of her body weight, in less than a year on a
crash diet, is trying to be sarcastic here in regards to a question
asking for evidence to support a claim that it is harder for women to
lose weight than it is for men.



Again, Ig, out of curiousity, why do you feel the need to include things
like "according to her" in this reply? Why did he avoid the first
question I asked?


I feel that you are trying to engage me in a meaningless discussion.

So it was meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your
comments above? If so, then why did you write that? To me it seemed
rather a loaded sentence.


How quickly did you lose your weight?


I reached normal weight in 100-102 days. That was a loss of about 45
lbs. I then proceeded to lose 5 more pounds over the course of many
more months.

What does that come to? 3.15 pounds per week? Isn't that a bit
excessive? Why would 3.15 pounds per week on your plan be better than
3.8 pounds per week on anohterh plan?


After the initial water loss in June, my weight loss in July and
August was 20 lbs, or 2.33 lbs per week. A quite reasonable rate.

So weight loss of 3.15 pounds per week on your plan was fine for you
then? And a loss of 3.8 pounds per week on another plan would,
presumably, also be fine? Is that right?


And, again, 1900 calories per month is not a crash diet...

Again, you will see that my question was not how much were you eating so
much as how quickly were you lost weight.



--
jmk in NC

On 8/24/2004 1:30 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:
In article , jmk wrote:

On 8/24/2004 1:04 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:

In article , jmk wrote:


On 8/19/2004 7:22 AM, Ignoramus29728 wrote:



I also find it amusing that a woman who lost, according to her, 155
lbs, or more than half of her body weight, in less than a year on a
crash diet, is trying to be sarcastic here in regards to a question
asking for evidence to support a claim that it is harder for women to
lose weight than it is for men.



Again, Ig, out of curiousity, why do you feel the need to include things
like "according to her" in this reply? Why did he avoid the first
question I asked?


I feel that you are trying to engage me in a meaningless discussion.

So it was meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your
comments above? If so, then why did you write that? To me it seemed
rather a loaded sentence.


How quickly did you lose your weight?


I reached normal weight in 100-102 days. That was a loss of about 45
lbs. I then proceeded to lose 5 more pounds over the course of many
more months.

What does that come to? 3.15 pounds per week? Isn't that a bit
excessive? Why would 3.15 pounds per week on your plan be better than
3.8 pounds per week on anohterh plan?


After the initial water loss in June, my weight loss in July and
August was 20 lbs, or 2.33 lbs per week. A quite reasonable rate.

So weight loss of 3.15 pounds per week on your plan was fine for you
then? And a loss of 3.8 pounds per week on another plan would,
presumably, also be fine? Is that right?


And, again, 1900 calories per month is not a crash diet...

Again, you will see that my question was not how much were you eating so
much as how quickly were you lost weight.



--
jmk in NC

On 8/24/2004 1:47 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:
In article , jmk wrote:

On 8/24/2004 1:30 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:

How quickly did you lose your weight?


I reached normal weight in 100-102 days. That was a loss of about 45
lbs. I then proceeded to lose 5 more pounds over the course of many
more months.

What does that come to? 3.15 pounds per week? Isn't that a bit
excessive? Why would 3.15 pounds per week on your plan be better than
3.8 pounds per week on anohterh plan?


After the initial water loss in June, my weight loss in July and
August was 20 lbs, or 2.33 lbs per week. A quite reasonable rate.

So weight loss of 3.15 pounds per week on your plan was fine for you
then?


Aside from the first month, I was losing at the rate of 2.3 lbs per
week. A quite reasonable rate.


And a loss of 3.8 pounds per week on another plan would,
presumably, also be fine? Is that right?


There is more to dieting than the rate of weight loss.

3.8 pounds per week appears to be excessive for ongoing weight loss.

3.15 pounds per week also seems to be somewhat excessive.



And, again, 1900 calories per month is not a crash diet...

Again, you will see that my question was not how much were you eating so
much as how quickly were you lost weight.


You asked a question: ``Could that be classified as a "crash diet?"''.

i

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was
meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments
above? If so, then why did you write that? '

So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me
to ask you about them? hmmm.

--
jmk in NC

On 8/24/2004 1:47 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:
In article , jmk wrote:

On 8/24/2004 1:30 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:

How quickly did you lose your weight?


I reached normal weight in 100-102 days. That was a loss of about 45
lbs. I then proceeded to lose 5 more pounds over the course of many
more months.

What does that come to? 3.15 pounds per week? Isn't that a bit
excessive? Why would 3.15 pounds per week on your plan be better than
3.8 pounds per week on anohterh plan?


After the initial water loss in June, my weight loss in July and
August was 20 lbs, or 2.33 lbs per week. A quite reasonable rate.

So weight loss of 3.15 pounds per week on your plan was fine for you
then?


Aside from the first month, I was losing at the rate of 2.3 lbs per
week. A quite reasonable rate.


And a loss of 3.8 pounds per week on another plan would,
presumably, also be fine? Is that right?


There is more to dieting than the rate of weight loss.

3.8 pounds per week appears to be excessive for ongoing weight loss.

3.15 pounds per week also seems to be somewhat excessive.



And, again, 1900 calories per month is not a crash diet...

Again, you will see that my question was not how much were you eating so
much as how quickly were you lost weight.


You asked a question: ``Could that be classified as a "crash diet?"''.

i

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was
meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments
above? If so, then why did you write that? '

So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me
to ask you about them? hmmm.

--
jmk in NC

On 8/24/2004 2:01 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was
meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments
above? If so, then why did you write that? '

So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me
to ask you about them? hmmm.



Am I required to answer every question of yours?

i

Nope. I was just wondering why you made that comment is all.

--
jmk in NC

On 8/24/2004 2:01 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was
meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments
above? If so, then why did you write that? '

So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me
to ask you about them? hmmm.



Am I required to answer every question of yours?

i

Nope. I was just wondering why you made that comment is all.

--
jmk in NC

"jmk" wrote in message
...
On 8/24/2004 2:01 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was
meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments
above? If so, then why did you write that? '

So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me
to ask you about them? hmmm.



Am I required to answer every question of yours?

i

Nope. I was just wondering why you made that comment is all.

--
jmk in NC

I'll tell you why. Because he didn't think he would be called to the carpet
for it. He thought he could do his little nasty dig and get away with it.
When someone asks him up front and honestly why he was so nasty, he tries to
slide around it, he lies and then eventually creeps back into his corner
with his tail between his legs. Quite cowardly behavior.

Martha

"jmk" wrote in message
...
On 8/24/2004 2:01 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was
meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments
above? If so, then why did you write that? '

So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me
to ask you about them? hmmm.



Am I required to answer every question of yours?

i

Nope. I was just wondering why you made that comment is all.

--
jmk in NC

I'll tell you why. Because he didn't think he would be called to the carpet
for it. He thought he could do his little nasty dig and get away with it.
When someone asks him up front and honestly why he was so nasty, he tries to
slide around it, he lies and then eventually creeps back into his corner
with his tail between his legs. Quite cowardly behavior.

Martha

"MH" wrote in message
...

"jmk" wrote in message
...
On 8/24/2004 2:01 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was
meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments
above? If so, then why did you write that? '

So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me
to ask you about them? hmmm.



Am I required to answer every question of yours?

i

Nope. I was just wondering why you made that comment is all.

--
jmk in NC

I'll tell you why. Because he didn't think he would be called to the
carpet
for it. He thought he could do his little nasty dig and get away with it.
When someone asks him up front and honestly why he was so nasty, he tries
to
slide around it, he lies and then eventually creeps back into his corner
with his tail between his legs. Quite cowardly behavior.

Martha

Pretty much how I saw it, except you forgot to mention that this is his
usual M.O. of dropping these snarky little comments (ie attention seeking
lies) in hopes that it will lead to him being called names so he can whine
about how much of a victim he is and how irrational the rest of us are
being. He *never* responds when people point out his obviously nasty
behavior, only when there is a chance he can spin it to make it look like an
innocent mistake.

If he wants to call my weight loss into question, by all means he should
have the stones to do it directly - to me...but again, that would then
reinforce the kind of person he really is. I just don't get what he thinks
he's accomplishing by putting down my weight loss when he gets the chance.
Am I supposed to go back to being 300 lbs and do it "the right way" because
I followed an extreme diet? Umm, no, don't think so.

Jenn

"MH" wrote in message
...

"jmk" wrote in message
...
On 8/24/2004 2:01 PM, Ignoramus13955 wrote:

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was
meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments
above? If so, then why did you write that? '

So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me
to ask you about them? hmmm.



Am I required to answer every question of yours?

i

Nope. I was just wondering why you made that comment is all.

--
jmk in NC

I'll tell you why. Because he didn't think he would be called to the
carpet
for it. He thought he could do his little nasty dig and get away with it.
When someone asks him up front and honestly why he was so nasty, he tries
to
slide around it, he lies and then eventually creeps back into his corner
with his tail between his legs. Quite cowardly behavior.

Martha

Pretty much how I saw it, except you forgot to mention that this is his
usual M.O. of dropping these snarky little comments (ie attention seeking
lies) in hopes that it will lead to him being called names so he can whine
about how much of a victim he is and how irrational the rest of us are
being. He *never* responds when people point out his obviously nasty
behavior, only when there is a chance he can spin it to make it look like an
innocent mistake.

If he wants to call my weight loss into question, by all means he should
have the stones to do it directly - to me...but again, that would then
reinforce the kind of person he really is. I just don't get what he thinks
he's accomplishing by putting down my weight loss when he gets the chance.
Am I supposed to go back to being 300 lbs and do it "the right way" because
I followed an extreme diet? Umm, no, don't think so.

Jenn