If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
Ummmmmmm, trekking away in sticky snow flurries and fog is not MY idea of fun.
Glad you enjoyed it though. G I have no good advise to offer you in how to determine those activity points. I know in the past we discussed listening to our bodies, refeed/refuel as we feel the necessity. But sometimes that is just plain old tricky - such as what I've gone through this past week. I've been constantly hungry - and real hunger, not bored hunger. I know it isn't from over exertion by any means. Does our body just get into occassional cycles where it demands more food? Or are those old demons trying hard to come out? Or could the body also be trying to make up for weeks prior when we didn't give it enough? I haven't quite figured any of this out, and have a feeling I never will. Well, I have no mountains anywhere near me to look at ... and I can go in my backyard and look at the stars. I'll also admit to being able to forego the hot water and shower daily, but it's still nice to have access to it when the need or desire arises ... as well as an indoor potty (which I do need on a daily basis). You aren't going to talk me into camping. G Joyce On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:02:59 -0800, Fred wrote: I am beginning to think that I am not earning as many points for my exercise as I use to. It makes sense but I don't like the idea - how the heck will I earn my DESSERT points. Today's ski trip just did not seem like enough points. Oh, it was a hell of trip. Sticky snow dragging on the bottoms of my skis and it snow flurried the entire time while foggy. Gee, doesn't it sound like fun (G) I am doing sushi tonight - forced good food and narrow points. Camping is generally terrific although there have been days or nights that were less so. I just love looking up at the stars and being in the clean mountains altho, there have been days when the amount of work was extraordinary. Should I admit I can do without the hot water and shower every day (g) On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 02:49:25 -0600, Joyce wrote: HA! I was thinking the same thoughts on Friday when I hit the scales. Not trying to lose, but still happy to see the numbers down ... then eat more and make up for it after weighin ... only to cut back down the following days/week to make sure everything is back where it is supposed to be. Is it us playing games with our minds, or our minds playing games with us, or is there any difference between the two? G I THINK I have finally realized that I am where I should be. It APPEARS to be not overly difficult to maintain. Yes, I have to pay attention - but it is doable. I think I'm thwarting this week. G I've never been into camping, sad to say. My idea of camping is a hotel room somewhere, with a nice bed and warm, running water. On the rare occassion that I get a vacation, I'm taking one ... not working harder than I already do at home! G Hub never got into it either, tells the kids he had his fill of camping in Viet Nam. Joyce On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:53:31 -0800, Fred wrote: You do realize that we are all playing at this like we are trying to still lose but also NOT lose while maybe losing is okay but not a good idea which we then thwart again the next week, etc, etc and who knows what (G) Ah, camping - almost getting to be time for that again - in JULY~! (G) Actually, a Hells Canyon trip may be in the offing in a month or so. Then again, may save the vacation for other things. On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce wrote: Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only weighed myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in december). But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper. Joyce started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03 PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03 On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred wrote: Well, I await the OFFICIAL results On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote: 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 news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@4 ax.com... 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 |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
I wish I could say I made it through the entire weightloss process with no gains,
but I can't. There were several blips throughout the year, gains, maintains, whooshes ... all in all the end result did turn out the same. I do understand what you're saying though. That first gain was very traumatic. After that they kind of came in stride and now they don't bug me in the least ... unless they occur for more than one week. Joyce On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:06:05 -0800, Fred wrote: Amen, sister. It does mess with me, for sure. And I am one of the individuals who lost each and every weigh in until I reached Lifetime. So that first gain was a real downer. Each one since has been less apocolyptic but that, too, is scary since you also don't want to turn a blind eye to gains. On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:49:25 -0600, Joyce wrote: Maybe that's where we have a tougher time settling into just being happy maintaining? That reward thing! Somehow just staying the same, floating up and down a bit, just isn't the same as that steady weekly decline ... even when we know we should be (and are) thrilled with it. Mentally, it really does mess with you. Joyce On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:57:36 -0800, Fred wrote: I don't think seeing 140 for me is in the cards which may be why trying to get lower without a SOLID goal does not work. Accepting a half decade is probably just not magical enough. And you have pointed out the one real issue - the rewards for Maintenance have to be just maintaining. Hover. Up. Hover. Down. Hover, Hover, waffle, wiffle.... Oh, and the thrill of still seeing myself in a new light - it is still terrific but so UNconcrete. On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:15:03 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: Even as a lifetimer, seeing a new decade lower on the scale must still be a thrill. Congrats! I love reading your stats, especially as I'm getting closer to my WW goal and beginning to entertain thoughts about my personal goal. Thanks so much for sticking around and sharing your experience. Prairie Roots On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce wrote: Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only weighed myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in december). But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper. Joyce started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03 PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03 On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred wrote: Well, I await the OFFICIAL results On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote: 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 news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@ 4ax.com... 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 |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
Your sleep schedule (or lack of) sounds much like mine. I'm up between 6:30 and 7
in the morning, hit bed between 3 and 4 - long stretch in between. Sometimes I knock out on the couch in the evening, sometimes I don't. I still figure my *day* from the time I get up until the time I go to bed. When I get up the new day, and new journal, begin ... period. If I ended the day when I ran out of points, I would have some days that only had 12 hours or less in them ... and also would have some days that never ended. LOL! Again, it's all in finding what works for US. Joyce On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:07:42 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: This is exactly why I love WW. The flex does work better for me but I have had an ongoing problem with the concept of a "day" due to the way we work and the stuff going on if I picked a specific 24 hours I would just be screwed, I can go for a long time awake then sleep for my big sleep time four hours and go again for another twenty so I decided that since I eat at least every two hours when I can and I eat just a few points at a time, my new day would start when I reached the end of the day's points, plus three hours. Three hours is one more than I like to go without eating and about the amount of time I sleep on average. Since I have done this I have had no trouble at all sticking to points. Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . Ahhhhhhh, the journal was a tough one. I used the online journal and set my target point at the highest number in my point range ... then totally ignored the flexpoint number. In the notes section I set up a list for activity points, for banked or overage food points, and one more for a daily log of where I was for the week ... over or under points. It worked fantastically! I had to manually figure out the numbers, but it wasn't difficult at all. And it really does work much better for ME than the flexpoint thing. Joyce On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:38:38 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: What did you settle on for a journal then? Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . That's pretty much exactly what I said when I stepped on the scale ... go figure! I ate more this last week, exercised less, stayed away from the scale. I also did away with the flexpoints way of journalling, and went back 100% to the old ww plan ... upped my daily point range and banked/reversed banked away. It makes no sense to me at all. It could very well be just a shift in water weight. It does confuse me though as to how the heck I find a firm number where I can maintain. sigh Close to a year into the maintainence game and I'm still playing with numbers. Joyce On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:30:28 -0500, Connie wrote: I love it ... an all-time low and she wasn't even trying... ain't that the way life goes. Connie Joyce wrote: 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 om... 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 news:8mnc2090sd98ofqkmtrpt70or5mlrkol4e@4ax .com... 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 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
great clothing NSVs, Lee
Joyce wrote in message ... Heaven only knows what goes on in my mind, Lee. LOL But whatever it is, it so far appears to work for me, and that's what is important. I go up, I come down, I hover. I think my body shape is changing again also. I found a pair of pants I purchased on sale last month, tucked them into my closet and forgot about them. Pulled them out yesterday, tags still on so I know they were unworn ... put them on and the dang things are saggy in the behind and waist. sigh I'm hoping they will shrink in the wash. DANG! I don't think I've ever said that before. LOL I also had purchased a stretchy t-shirt for my mom, which was too small for her. I got lazy and never returned it, so figured I would go ahead and wear it. It's a cheapie from Wal-Mart, misses size Large, which is what I usually reach for because of my danged shoulders. Threw the thing on this morning and it's huge. Oh well, I'm wearing it anyway. Joyce On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:01:37 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: happy anniversary!!! Maybe going into game mode with yourself is how you maintain? Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . I know we've talked the numbers thing before, and I know that there really isn't a firm number out there for maintaining. It changes constantly due to many factors. Yet I still want that firm number! I would feel better with it! Guess that's what I meant by *playing*. I seem to change that target number week by week, results don't appear to change at all. Guess that is a good thing? A year ago, on the button, I was 151.5 - just above my goal (which I reached the following week). Geeeesh, next week will be my 1 year at ww goal anniversary! I've lost 20 pounds since then, but yes - overall I have been very steady. I just realized I need to do some major update work on my weightloss chart - hasn't been updated since the end of may last year! But I do know that it fell by the wayside because I was staying on the right path ... seesawing here and there, but overall ... steady. You're right, as always. I am maintaining ... very happily. Joyce On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:55:30 -0800, Fred wrote: No you are not. You ARE MAINTAINING. Where were you a year ago? Where now? And where in between? You lost a bit below but have been pretty steady, no? On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:33:34 -0600, Joyce wrote: That's pretty much exactly what I said when I stepped on the scale .... go figure! I ate more this last week, exercised less, stayed away from the scale. I also did away with the flexpoints way of journalling, and went back 100% to the old ww plan ... upped my daily point range and banked/reversed banked away. It makes no sense to me at all. It could very well be just a shift in water weight. It does confuse me though as to how the heck I find a firm number where I can maintain. sigh Close to a year into the maintainence game and I'm still playing with numbers. Joyce On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:30:28 -0500, Connie wrote: I love it ... an all-time low and she wasn't even trying... ain't that the way life goes. Connie Joyce wrote: 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 news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@4ax .com... 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 news:8mnc2090sd98ofqkmtrpt70or5mlrkol4e@4 ax.com... 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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
The days do sometimes last a great deal less than 24 hours but this week I
am actually behind, at this writing I have eaten very little on Tuesday's journal, I still have 13 points left and wed. is the last day of my week. I have 32 flex points left. This has been a stressful week. My aunt has been diagnosed with a fast growing form of cancer and helping my mom deal with this has caused me some difficulty as not only am I helping her I am thinking about my own sister. I have decided that I will eat something point dense to at least get to the weekly min. I already think that not eating is going to cause me a disappointment at the scale. The sleep is a family thing, my grandfather, mother, a brother and his daughter all sleep the same. I don't need much more than four if I am not ill. My mother sleeps about like I do and she still works full time as an EMT at the age of 65. Lee Joyce wrote in message ... Your sleep schedule (or lack of) sounds much like mine. I'm up between 6:30 and 7 in the morning, hit bed between 3 and 4 - long stretch in between. Sometimes I knock out on the couch in the evening, sometimes I don't. I still figure my *day* from the time I get up until the time I go to bed. When I get up the new day, and new journal, begin ... period. If I ended the day when I ran out of points, I would have some days that only had 12 hours or less in them ... and also would have some days that never ended. LOL! Again, it's all in finding what works for US. Joyce On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:07:42 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: This is exactly why I love WW. The flex does work better for me but I have had an ongoing problem with the concept of a "day" due to the way we work and the stuff going on if I picked a specific 24 hours I would just be screwed, I can go for a long time awake then sleep for my big sleep time four hours and go again for another twenty so I decided that since I eat at least every two hours when I can and I eat just a few points at a time, my new day would start when I reached the end of the day's points, plus three hours. Three hours is one more than I like to go without eating and about the amount of time I sleep on average. Since I have done this I have had no trouble at all sticking to points. Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . Ahhhhhhh, the journal was a tough one. I used the online journal and set my target point at the highest number in my point range ... then totally ignored the flexpoint number. In the notes section I set up a list for activity points, for banked or overage food points, and one more for a daily log of where I was for the week ... over or under points. It worked fantastically! I had to manually figure out the numbers, but it wasn't difficult at all. And it really does work much better for ME than the flexpoint thing. Joyce On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 17:38:38 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: What did you settle on for a journal then? Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . That's pretty much exactly what I said when I stepped on the scale .... go figure! I ate more this last week, exercised less, stayed away from the scale. I also did away with the flexpoints way of journalling, and went back 100% to the old ww plan ... upped my daily point range and banked/reversed banked away. It makes no sense to me at all. It could very well be just a shift in water weight. It does confuse me though as to how the heck I find a firm number where I can maintain. sigh Close to a year into the maintainence game and I'm still playing with numbers. Joyce On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:30:28 -0500, Connie wrote: I love it ... an all-time low and she wasn't even trying... ain't that the way life goes. Connie Joyce wrote: 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 om... 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 news:8mnc2090sd98ofqkmtrpt70or5mlrkol4e@4ax .com... 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 |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
Oh, I've had some remarkable outdoor potties! (G) Not much more will
be said. The less campers, the more for me! (G) On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:34:35 -0600, Joyce wrote: Ummmmmmm, trekking away in sticky snow flurries and fog is not MY idea of fun. Glad you enjoyed it though. G I have no good advise to offer you in how to determine those activity points. I know in the past we discussed listening to our bodies, refeed/refuel as we feel the necessity. But sometimes that is just plain old tricky - such as what I've gone through this past week. I've been constantly hungry - and real hunger, not bored hunger. I know it isn't from over exertion by any means. Does our body just get into occassional cycles where it demands more food? Or are those old demons trying hard to come out? Or could the body also be trying to make up for weeks prior when we didn't give it enough? I haven't quite figured any of this out, and have a feeling I never will. Well, I have no mountains anywhere near me to look at ... and I can go in my backyard and look at the stars. I'll also admit to being able to forego the hot water and shower daily, but it's still nice to have access to it when the need or desire arises ... as well as an indoor potty (which I do need on a daily basis). You aren't going to talk me into camping. G Joyce On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:02:59 -0800, Fred wrote: I am beginning to think that I am not earning as many points for my exercise as I use to. It makes sense but I don't like the idea - how the heck will I earn my DESSERT points. Today's ski trip just did not seem like enough points. Oh, it was a hell of trip. Sticky snow dragging on the bottoms of my skis and it snow flurried the entire time while foggy. Gee, doesn't it sound like fun (G) I am doing sushi tonight - forced good food and narrow points. Camping is generally terrific although there have been days or nights that were less so. I just love looking up at the stars and being in the clean mountains altho, there have been days when the amount of work was extraordinary. Should I admit I can do without the hot water and shower every day (g) On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 02:49:25 -0600, Joyce wrote: HA! I was thinking the same thoughts on Friday when I hit the scales. Not trying to lose, but still happy to see the numbers down ... then eat more and make up for it after weighin ... only to cut back down the following days/week to make sure everything is back where it is supposed to be. Is it us playing games with our minds, or our minds playing games with us, or is there any difference between the two? G I THINK I have finally realized that I am where I should be. It APPEARS to be not overly difficult to maintain. Yes, I have to pay attention - but it is doable. I think I'm thwarting this week. G I've never been into camping, sad to say. My idea of camping is a hotel room somewhere, with a nice bed and warm, running water. On the rare occassion that I get a vacation, I'm taking one ... not working harder than I already do at home! G Hub never got into it either, tells the kids he had his fill of camping in Viet Nam. Joyce On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 12:53:31 -0800, Fred wrote: You do realize that we are all playing at this like we are trying to still lose but also NOT lose while maybe losing is okay but not a good idea which we then thwart again the next week, etc, etc and who knows what (G) Ah, camping - almost getting to be time for that again - in JULY~! (G) Actually, a Hells Canyon trip may be in the offing in a month or so. Then again, may save the vacation for other things. On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce wrote: Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only weighed myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in december). But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper. Joyce started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03 PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03 On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred wrote: Well, I await the OFFICIAL results On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote: 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 news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol@ 4ax.com... 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 |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
RAFL Oh whatever
NO, NOT MORE THAN ONE WEEK!!! Yikes - I may just make it today or
not??? On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:36:46 -0600, Joyce wrote: I wish I could say I made it through the entire weightloss process with no gains, but I can't. There were several blips throughout the year, gains, maintains, whooshes ... all in all the end result did turn out the same. I do understand what you're saying though. That first gain was very traumatic. After that they kind of came in stride and now they don't bug me in the least ... unless they occur for more than one week. Joyce On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:06:05 -0800, Fred wrote: Amen, sister. It does mess with me, for sure. And I am one of the individuals who lost each and every weigh in until I reached Lifetime. So that first gain was a real downer. Each one since has been less apocolyptic but that, too, is scary since you also don't want to turn a blind eye to gains. On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 03:49:25 -0600, Joyce wrote: Maybe that's where we have a tougher time settling into just being happy maintaining? That reward thing! Somehow just staying the same, floating up and down a bit, just isn't the same as that steady weekly decline ... even when we know we should be (and are) thrilled with it. Mentally, it really does mess with you. Joyce On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:57:36 -0800, Fred wrote: I don't think seeing 140 for me is in the cards which may be why trying to get lower without a SOLID goal does not work. Accepting a half decade is probably just not magical enough. And you have pointed out the one real issue - the rewards for Maintenance have to be just maintaining. Hover. Up. Hover. Down. Hover, Hover, waffle, wiffle.... Oh, and the thrill of still seeing myself in a new light - it is still terrific but so UNconcrete. On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:15:03 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: Even as a lifetimer, seeing a new decade lower on the scale must still be a thrill. Congrats! I love reading your stats, especially as I'm getting closer to my WW goal and beginning to entertain thoughts about my personal goal. Thanks so much for sticking around and sharing your experience. Prairie Roots On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce wrote: Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. sigh Since I only weighed myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in december). But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper. Joyce started ww 2/5/02 --- 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --- LIFETIME 4/4/03 PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03 On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred wrote: Well, I await the OFFICIAL results On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce wrote: 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 news:a39f2013l10dh3bg9f0dim9ic30vvfcvol @4ax.com... 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RAFL wk 3/THTP wk 7 - Laura (LJ) | Laura | Weightwatchers | 47 | February 3rd, 2004 07:34 AM |
Post your results here! RafL wk 2 & THTP wk 5 | Amberle3 | Weightwatchers | 35 | January 19th, 2004 02:19 PM |
RAFL & THTP Laura(LJ) | Laura | Weightwatchers | 9 | January 19th, 2004 06:10 AM |
RAFL Week 1 I LOST! | Billie Severy | Weightwatchers | 8 | January 19th, 2004 06:08 AM |
Time to 'fess up - RAFL | Nathalie W | Weightwatchers | 17 | January 15th, 2004 08:17 PM |