Back in the 100 club! Yahoo!

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:29:42 -0400, marengo wrote:

Ken Bessler wrote:
[9 quoted lines suppressed]


Ken, it's *great* that you've lost so much weight, congratulations!

But I have a question about your pans size. How tall are you? Are you
wearing your belt at your waist, or tucked under your belly? Can you post a
picture?

I'm serious; not trying to be smart or funny. I'm trying to figure out the
clothes size difference. I was wearing 48" waist pants at 270 pounds, and
am now wearing 40" waist at 215 pounds. At 202 lbs I expect I'll be down to
38" pants; I lose about an inch at my waist for every ten to fifteen pounds
lost. The last time I wore 34" was when I was 170 pounds, and I'm 6'2".

I've always worn my pants at waist level (I gained weight with dignity!). I
have a brother-in-law though, who wears the same waist size pants as I do,
and t is 70 pounds heavier than I. But he wears his pants around his hips,
under his belly with his gut hanging over the belt. He's not really
anywhere close to the waist size of the pants that he wears.

As i said, I'm curious about a 34" waist at 202 pounds! Are you 7 feet tall
... or built like Ahnold Schwarzenegger? g
--
Peter
270/215/180
Before/Current Pix:
http://users.thelink.net/marengo/wei...htlosspix.html

Different builds. I am 6ft tall 180Lbs and am wearing size 32 waist (34
length). I wear them about 1 inch below my belly button (no belly hanging
over). I don't have enough belly left to hang over! Twenty five years ago
at 170 lbs I wore size 30 waist. When I was at 234Lbs last year, I was
wearing size 38 although they were too tight and my belly did hang over a
bit. Size 40 would probably have fit me fine.

I wear size 15 1/2 or medium shirt.

I am not overly muscular, average build and medium frame.


--
Randy M
234/180/175 6'0" Tall
Atkins since 7/14/03
crmartin47 --nospam-- at hotmail dot com

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:29:42 -0400, marengo wrote:

Ken Bessler wrote:
[9 quoted lines suppressed]


Ken, it's *great* that you've lost so much weight, congratulations!

But I have a question about your pans size. How tall are you? Are you
wearing your belt at your waist, or tucked under your belly? Can you post a
picture?

I'm serious; not trying to be smart or funny. I'm trying to figure out the
clothes size difference. I was wearing 48" waist pants at 270 pounds, and
am now wearing 40" waist at 215 pounds. At 202 lbs I expect I'll be down to
38" pants; I lose about an inch at my waist for every ten to fifteen pounds
lost. The last time I wore 34" was when I was 170 pounds, and I'm 6'2".

I've always worn my pants at waist level (I gained weight with dignity!). I
have a brother-in-law though, who wears the same waist size pants as I do,
and t is 70 pounds heavier than I. But he wears his pants around his hips,
under his belly with his gut hanging over the belt. He's not really
anywhere close to the waist size of the pants that he wears.

As i said, I'm curious about a 34" waist at 202 pounds! Are you 7 feet tall
... or built like Ahnold Schwarzenegger? g
--
Peter
270/215/180
Before/Current Pix:
http://users.thelink.net/marengo/wei...htlosspix.html

Different builds. I am 6ft tall 180Lbs and am wearing size 32 waist (34
length). I wear them about 1 inch below my belly button (no belly hanging
over). I don't have enough belly left to hang over! Twenty five years ago
at 170 lbs I wore size 30 waist. When I was at 234Lbs last year, I was
wearing size 38 although they were too tight and my belly did hang over a
bit. Size 40 would probably have fit me fine.

I wear size 15 1/2 or medium shirt.

I am not overly muscular, average build and medium frame.


--
Randy M
234/180/175 6'0" Tall
Atkins since 7/14/03
crmartin47 --nospam-- at hotmail dot com