Blankness of mind!

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 at 15:45:57, Ignoramus25231
wrote:

Without salt. Which I couldn't find - without salt, I mean.

How about

Potatoes, boiled, cooked without skin, flesh, without salt
Nutrition Facts

Thanks

Well, I also eat "coleslaw mix", which is cabbage, a bit of carrots,
and a bit of red cabbage, all shredded.

I eat it without dressing or with whatever I like at the moment.

I quite like that, but I wouldn't want it every day. Rather have a
lettuce salad.

melon, charentais
melon, galia

I have no idea what these melons are, are "watermelons, raw" a good
substitute?

No; I used honeydew melon, but the flesh is denser.

Okay, it is probably going to be close nutritionally, just a guess.

I rather suspect the Charentais and Galen (not sure which is which - the
green-skinned, orange-fleshed jobs, the ones that you cut in half) are
more energetic, since they are sweeter.


You know, if you find something close (say boiled instead of steamed),
it is a good start.

Indeed yes. But I'm sure it's making my calorie count far lower than it
actually is.

Why, because some nutrients leech out of the food during boiling and
remain in the food due to steaming?Is that your logic?

No, because I am sure I'm eating more than that..... I'm not eating much
less than I was, but the calorie count seems too low. I'm probably
doing something wrong....
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 18 July 2004

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:36:23 +0100, Annabel Smyth
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 at 20:57:26, janice wrote:

I'm in the UK too, and I use http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/ I
find it much easier than fitday, and well geared to all the products
available here. The only snag is you have to pay, but they let you
try it for 3 days free.

I had a look at that yesterday. Mind you, as a friend said this
morning, *all* calorie-counters seem to be geared to bought foods, very
little said about fresh foods.....

When I tried Fitday, my impression was that it was far more geared to
the US, despite having a UK option. This may explain why you can't
find some of the foods you're looking for.

janice

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:36:23 +0100, Annabel Smyth
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 at 20:57:26, janice wrote:

I'm in the UK too, and I use http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/ I
find it much easier than fitday, and well geared to all the products
available here. The only snag is you have to pay, but they let you
try it for 3 days free.

I had a look at that yesterday. Mind you, as a friend said this
morning, *all* calorie-counters seem to be geared to bought foods, very
little said about fresh foods.....

When I tried Fitday, my impression was that it was far more geared to
the US, despite having a UK option. This may explain why you can't
find some of the foods you're looking for.

janice

On 27 Jul 2004 16:11:25 GMT, Ignoramus25231
wrote:

In article , janice wrote:
233/183/133

you're halfway there!

Thanks for noticing, but I don't post my numbers every time I
contribute nowadays because they fluctuate so much. Last year I was
quite a bit more than half way there, but at least I've been
travelling in the right direction for some weeks now

Maybe you could consider your present condition as maintaining your
weight at around something reasonable. You were around 166 last year,
183 now, maybe if you keep it in perspective, there would be less
concern. Maybe you are not "meant to be" 133, somehow. How tall are
you?

i

Gosh, ig, do you keep track of everyone

I'm 5ft 6in, but am very pear-shaped. When I was down into the 160s
my hips were still over 40" and I had a lot to lose on my thighs, even
though I looked quite gaunt around my face and neck, arms, etc. I
certainly felt I needed to lose a bit more to get my body into more
proportion, despite the amount of loose wrinkled skin. I chose 133 as
an arbitrary goal as I remember being there years ago. I'll be the
first to admit if it seems too low as I get closer, and would re-set
my goal to something more realistic.

janice

On 27 Jul 2004 16:11:25 GMT, Ignoramus25231
wrote:

In article , janice wrote:
233/183/133

you're halfway there!

Thanks for noticing, but I don't post my numbers every time I
contribute nowadays because they fluctuate so much. Last year I was
quite a bit more than half way there, but at least I've been
travelling in the right direction for some weeks now

Maybe you could consider your present condition as maintaining your
weight at around something reasonable. You were around 166 last year,
183 now, maybe if you keep it in perspective, there would be less
concern. Maybe you are not "meant to be" 133, somehow. How tall are
you?

i

Gosh, ig, do you keep track of everyone

I'm 5ft 6in, but am very pear-shaped. When I was down into the 160s
my hips were still over 40" and I had a lot to lose on my thighs, even
though I looked quite gaunt around my face and neck, arms, etc. I
certainly felt I needed to lose a bit more to get my body into more
proportion, despite the amount of loose wrinkled skin. I chose 133 as
an arbitrary goal as I remember being there years ago. I'll be the
first to admit if it seems too low as I get closer, and would re-set
my goal to something more realistic.

janice

Ignoramus25231 wrote:

I wish they standardized all labels for 100 grams of product.

I am sure that they do not do that due to food industry lobbying.

Or perhaps due to the fact that we actually measure our food in cups and
ounces? I'm just not giving in on this.

*serving* however, ticks me off

--
Walking on . . .
Laurie in Maine
207/110 60 inches of attitude!
Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03

On 27 Jul 2004 20:29:18 -0700, (Heywood Mogroot)
wrote:

(janice) wrote in message . ..

I'm 5ft 6in, but am very pear-shaped. When I was down into the 160s
my hips were still over 40" and I had a lot to lose on my thighs, even
though I looked quite gaunt around my face and neck, arms, etc.

You sound like me! I could still stand to lose another ~20lbs between
my abdomen and upper legs, but 168 would leave me looking like a
scarecrow -- at my thinnest at this height I was 175.

I'm worried too that I will slip up and not keep my current losses
ratcheted. I think having a scale in the bathroom helps, but then
again I had one in the bathroom when I went from 211-230 over 2
years.

I've now been weighing and recording my weight daily for nearly 6
months, and I credit that for some large part of my consistent
progress. It helps that I keep to a relatively simple, consistent menu
too though. It's hard to gain weight if you eat consistently between
1500 and 2000 kcal/day. It's those 2000 kcal *meals* that get you I
think. That and extra 300 kcal snackfoods that add up over a day.

Heywood

232/187.5/182

Well, in one thing you couldn't be less like me! I don't think I will
ever become someone who weighs themselves daily. I know I'll lose
weight if I stick to my WOE, so it's totally beyond me to understand
why I would need to consult the scale every single day, or probably
even every week. Just my own experience - I've probably been at this
game for too long

janice
233/183/133