RAFL Oh whatever

I guess you can't be athletic and still have a thick waist... hasn't
seen some of the women hockey players that I know!!

Connie

Joyce wrote:
I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:


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
m...

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






--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/205/155
RAFL 210.5/205/198.5

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

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

That was her beef - somewhere this scale was doing some kind of
computing which seemed based on girl/boy and not real values - she's a
computer programmer and wants to know what's hidden behind the
"curtain!" (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:41:20 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Well, if she figures out that formula - have her pass it along to the rest of us.
I can see where this *formula* might be another one of those general guideline
type things, but there are so many different body types - male and female - that I
really don't see how just one specific body measurement (such as waist) can give a
totally accurate account. Eh, maybe just playing that *close enough* game?

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:28:28 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, that's what a friend just lost her patience with - her new
Tanita scale gave too completely different results for the same data
of Weight, height, etc but changed Female to Male and saw such a
change in percentage fat. She now wants to know Tanita's secrety
formula (G)

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:34:46 -0600, Joyce wrote:

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
m...
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 would make a great lawyer. 2 guys. Very different. Biker, and History
professor.

"Fred" wrote in message
news
Now, I could ask if those were separate X's or just one with two minds
or two bodies or just you and YOU discussing the one guy but from two
different (personality) perspectives? (G)

You could be a lawyer if you can do both sides with reason.

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

i got one.

"Joyce" wrote in message
...
Dig deep girl, I'm sure you can find in judge in there somewhere. G

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:27:18 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:21:22 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Now, I could ask if those were separate X's or just one with two minds
or two bodies or just you and YOU discussing the one guy but from two
different (personality) perspectives? (G)

This is beginning to sound a little like the song "I'm My Own
Grandpa."

You could be a lawyer if you can do both sides with reason.

So far, we've got a jury and attys for the plaintiff AND defense. All
we need now is da JUDGE.

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

I think it is another guesstimate thing.

"Connie" wrote in message
...
I guess you can't be athletic and still have a thick waist... hasn't
seen some of the women hockey players that I know!!

Connie

Joyce wrote:
I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ...
maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those
women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But
I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a
tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm
also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM ..
if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal
with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:


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
m...

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






--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/205/155
RAFL 210.5/205/198.5

Ah, a _WOMEN_ of extremes.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:53:01 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

I would make a great lawyer. 2 guys. Very different. Biker, and History
professor.

"Fred" wrote in message
news
Now, I could ask if those were separate X's or just one with two minds
or two bodies or just you and YOU discussing the one guy but from two
different (personality) perspectives? (G)

You could be a lawyer if you can do both sides with reason.

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

we agree with all of you, Lee
Lesanne wrote in message
...
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

YUP! That is pretty much exactly what I've been thinking. I may have learned a
lesson though. Do NOT measure yourself the day of TOM and the morning after
eating chinese. Results are NOT pretty. LOL! I measured again a few days ago,
results changed dramatically. I am now *fit* and hovering on *athletic*. Guess
this is just like myself ... changes moods whenever it feels like it. G

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:06:13 -0500, Connie wrote:

I guess you can't be athletic and still have a thick waist... hasn't
seen some of the women hockey players that I know!!

Connie

Joyce wrote:
I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:


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
om...

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

Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare tires too.
G Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had something to do
with the measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the
measurement changed by more than a full inch ... thus moving me into the fit
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the athletic part).
I think nothing is gonna please me. G

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting tomorrow. I
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the music, so
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there Wednesday
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to make sure it
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around when moving
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped back up,
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since I was ill
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to stick with 130
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred wrote:

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized
sparetires, you'd think us guys would be able to have undersized spare
tires, too! (G)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain
is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with
distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But I do know
my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a tiny
waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm also
interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

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