RAFL Oh whatever

WHAT!??! How can this bee?? Wait, where is fit in that range? I am just
barely in athletic, a half inch more on my waist and I would be outta there.

"Fred" wrote in message
...
(sigh) - I only came out as "fit!" (sniff)

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:42:05 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

http://www.getwiththeprogram.com
I hope ;0

"Connie" wrote in message
...
Lesanne:

What is the Bob Greene site?

Connie

Lesanne wrote:
Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and thats
it",
that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to 157
this
morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my muscle
mass,
and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am
done.
Also, I do still have enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it has
done a
fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything. And
the
way
I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get
below
where
I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began
weightlifting while I was still in the mid 250's and I was not
dieting
at
the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still
clearly
see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and my
shoulders. Bob Greene uses height, age, weight, waist measurement
and
sex
(there was no place for "no" in the sex choices so I went with F for
failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me
(lets
not
get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't
care
to
totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick as
close to
157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but
whatever.
She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there.

Lesanne
365/160/157
"Fred" wrote in message
...

A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say).

Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone
size
or bone density or?????

What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination?

And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it
down "thar?"

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







--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/205/155
RAFL 210.5/205/198.5

good for you, I wondered how you found it with my messup

"Joyce" wrote in message
...
I never looked at the official url - I typed in bobgreene.com and my
browser took
me to the site you listed. LOL!

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:42:05 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

http://www.getwiththeprogram.com
I hope ;0

"Connie" wrote in message
...
Lesanne:

What is the Bob Greene site?

Connie

Lesanne wrote:
Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and thats
it",
that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to 157
this
morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my muscle
mass,
and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am
done.
Also, I do still have enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it has
done a
fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything. And
the
way
I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get
below
where
I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began
weightlifting while I was still in the mid 250's and I was not
dieting
at
the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still
clearly
see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and my
shoulders. Bob Greene uses height, age, weight, waist measurement
and
sex
(there was no place for "no" in the sex choices so I went with F for
failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me
(lets
not
get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't
care
to
totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick as
close to
157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but
whatever.
She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there.

Lesanne
365/160/157
"Fred" wrote in message
...

A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say).

Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone
size
or bone density or?????

What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination?

And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it
down "thar?"

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







--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/205/155
RAFL 210.5/205/198.5

Went to that site and even when I get to goal it says I'm overweight.
Tha Nerve!! Apparently he hasn't heard that WW says it's okay for me to
weigh 155... Later that morning ... Oh no WW says that I should weigh
148 since I'm less than 45... oh bummer!! Well I'm not changing my
goal... so there!!

Connie
Confused but sufficiently Happy


Connie wrote:
Thanks Fred and Lesanne!!

Connie

Fred wrote:

It is getwiththeprogram.ORG

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:42:05 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:


http://www.getwiththeprogram.com
I hope ;0

"Connie" wrote in message
...

Lesanne:

What is the Bob Greene site?

Connie

Lesanne wrote:

Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and thats


it",

that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to 157


this

morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my muscle


mass,

and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am done.
Also, I do still have enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it has


done a

fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything.
And the


way

I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get below


where

I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began
weightlifting while I was still in the mid 250's and I was not dieting


at

the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still


clearly

see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and my
shoulders. Bob Greene uses height, age, weight, waist measurement and


sex

(there was no place for "no" in the sex choices so I went with F for
failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me
(lets


not

get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't care


to

totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick as


close to

157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but


whatever.

She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there.

Lesanne
365/160/157
"Fred" wrote in message
...


A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say).

Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone size
or bone density or?????

What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination?

And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it
down "thar?"

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





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/205/155
RAFL 210.5/205/198.5









--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/205/155
RAFL 210.5/205/198.5

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

I may not be *athletic*, but me is one smart woman. G

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:25:47 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

good for you, I wondered how you found it with my messup

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
I never looked at the official url - I typed in bobgreene.com and my
browser took
me to the site you listed. LOL!

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:42:05 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

http://www.getwiththeprogram.com
I hope ;0

"Connie" wrote in message
...
Lesanne:

What is the Bob Greene site?

Connie

Lesanne wrote:
Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and thats
it",
that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to 157
this
morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my muscle
mass,
and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am
done.
Also, I do still have enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it has
done a
fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything. And
the
way
I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get
below
where
I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began
weightlifting while I was still in the mid 250's and I was not
dieting
at
the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still
clearly
see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and my
shoulders. Bob Greene uses height, age, weight, waist measurement
and
sex
(there was no place for "no" in the sex choices so I went with F for
failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me
(lets
not
get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't
care
to
totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick as
close to
157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but
whatever.
She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there.

Lesanne
365/160/157
"Fred" wrote in message
...

A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say).

Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone
size
or bone density or?????

What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination?

And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it
down "thar?"

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







--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/205/155
RAFL 210.5/205/198.5

I had noticed that

"Joyce" wrote in message
...
I may not be *athletic*, but me is one smart woman. G

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:25:47 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

good for you, I wondered how you found it with my messup

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
I never looked at the official url - I typed in bobgreene.com and my
browser took
me to the site you listed. LOL!

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:42:05 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

http://www.getwiththeprogram.com
I hope ;0

"Connie" wrote in message
...
Lesanne:

What is the Bob Greene site?

Connie

Lesanne wrote:
Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and
thats
it",
that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to
157
this
morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my
muscle
mass,
and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am
done.
Also, I do still have enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it
has
done a
fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything.
And
the
way
I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get
below
where
I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began
weightlifting while I was still in the mid 250's and I was not
dieting
at
the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still
clearly
see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and
my
shoulders. Bob Greene uses height, age, weight, waist measurement
and
sex
(there was no place for "no" in the sex choices so I went with F
for
failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me
(lets
not
get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't
care
to
totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick
as
close to
157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but
whatever.
She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there.

Lesanne
365/160/157
"Fred" wrote in message
...

A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say).

Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone
size
or bone density or?????

What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination?

And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it
down "thar?"

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







--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/205/155
RAFL 210.5/205/198.5

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
...
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

snort. 5.6% bodyfat. Right.

"Joyce" wrote in message
...
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

Who needs a husband to argue with? All by myself, the discussion can
get pretty heated.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:24:04 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

PR and I together could make up a jury pool. You know, it is funny, one of
the things that one of my exes said drove him crazy was the way I could
argue both sides of things in the same discussion. That would be the ex
with the brain. As opposed to the ex with the body...

"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
You know if they ever call you for jury duty you could serve all alone
(sort of!) (G)

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:37:38 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

Modifying my size is proving to be MUCH easier than modifying my mood
swings. When you get that one figured out, let us know.

In the meantime, I'm carrying on with strength training and aerobic
exercise. Activity seems to fatigue Sybil/Eve/Jasmine/Tawanda/et al.
It hasn't been this quiet in a long time. LOL

Prairie Roots

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:33 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

I am a happy camper this morning. I think that history does make some
difference. I used to be quite happy at 200 and thought I would stay
there.
Compared to 365, it was truly much better. Compared to now, no contest.
I
really think I need to accept this as the spot and learn to modify the
mood
swings instead of my size
"Lynne" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

If you feel good stay where you are. Unrealistic goals that are
impossible to attain just wreck self-esteem. You've come a very long
way, and you need to be proud of your accomplishments. A BF of 19 is
AMAZING!!! You're my hero!

Lynne

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






Prairie Roots
232/163.6/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

yeah me too.
and me too
mee too
yeah
si
an how....

"Prairie Roots" wrote in message
...
Who needs a husband to argue with? All by myself, the discussion can
get pretty heated.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:24:04 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

PR and I together could make up a jury pool. You know, it is funny, one
of
the things that one of my exes said drove him crazy was the way I could
argue both sides of things in the same discussion. That would be the ex
with the brain. As opposed to the ex with the body...

"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
You know if they ever call you for jury duty you could serve all alone
(sort of!) (G)

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:37:38 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

Modifying my size is proving to be MUCH easier than modifying my mood
swings. When you get that one figured out, let us know.

In the meantime, I'm carrying on with strength training and aerobic
exercise. Activity seems to fatigue Sybil/Eve/Jasmine/Tawanda/et al.
It hasn't been this quiet in a long time. LOL

Prairie Roots

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:33 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

I am a happy camper this morning. I think that history does make
some
difference. I used to be quite happy at 200 and thought I would stay
there.
Compared to 365, it was truly much better. Compared to now, no
contest.
I
really think I need to accept this as the spot and learn to modify
the
mood
swings instead of my size
"Lynne" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

If you feel good stay where you are. Unrealistic goals that are
impossible to attain just wreck self-esteem. You've come a very
long
way, and you need to be proud of your accomplishments. A BF of 19
is
AMAZING!!! You're my hero!

Lynne

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






Prairie Roots
232/163.6/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003