Losing Weight Properly

Well I don't think that you'd be losing muscle unless you went way under
what the WW program recommended. If you are careful to include your
activity points, and eat lots of veggies you shouldn't have a problem.
Also eat enough protien and healthy fat b/c you want to gain muscles
mass to speed weight loss. I think in general your body tends to use up
stored fat before muscle unless you starve yourself. I know since I
started WW just 3 weeks ago I feel a lot leaner even though I've only
lost 6 pounds. That tells me that my body fat is decreasing and/or my
muscle mass is increasing from working out. With any weight loss program
if you go off the program and back to your old eating habits- or even
somewhere between the two, you will gain the weight back there is no way
around that. I don't see how being on WW for a lifetime would be hard. I
love the way that it teaches me how much I should eat, and allows me to
"cheat." It is normal for your body to pleatu w/ weight loss for a
while, you might just want to give it some time.

Amber
214/208/165

John Hrusovszky wrote:
I've never tried weight - watchers .. from what I've read, it's one of those
diets that works, but people seem to gain back the weight once they've went
off that program. I'd love to be able to eat "normal" meals instead of
buying pre-packaged meals. My concern is to know what I should be eating in
terms of calories, to lose fat, but not to lose lean muscle mass -- no one
can seem to tell me this. I realize that lean muscle mass helps raise one's
metabolism, thus I don't want to lose any more of this than I need to.
Perhaps, I'm thinking wrong and should just forget about losing muscle and
get my weight where I want it, and THEN go back and start to build muscle?


"Elaine Kirkham" wrote in message
...

Hi John, welcome aboard. Have you every tried Weigh Watchers? It does

work.

Elaine K
331.4/215.6/179

John wrote:


I am very confused on the entire weight loss scheme -- nearly everyone I
talk to tells me something different. Some say the old food pyramid is
proven a failure, others say the newer mediterranean diet is the way to

go,

others say no carbs, still others say very low calorie diets, etc.

The main thing that gets me is this:
I am 295 pounds, 6'2", and 45 years old. I am told by some that I

should be

eating around 3200 - 3500 calories per day just to maintain my weight

with

little or no exercise. I have software where I log my meals, and I

average

around 2000 calories per day and unless I exercise vigorously (like
volleyball, tennis, etc.), I cannot lose weight ... in fact, I'll slowly
gain at those calorie counts. What would happen if I added another 1000
calories per day? I'm afraid I'd blow up like a balloon. I did begin

back

in June of 2002 weighing 329. I've lose 34 pounds in that year and a

half

now, but have been bouncing between 289 and 300 for the past month ...

not

able to take any more off. I've tried getting down to around 1200

calories

per day, but I'm afraid I'm losing lean muscle mass along with the fat

when

I do that, and I've been told I'll train my body to only use 1200

calories

per day so I'll never be able to go back to normal eating once I get

down to

where I want.

So, what is the key to nutritionally get the proper content for your

body,

yet lose a couple pounds a week (or even more if possible) so I can get

to

that 175 range I'd like to be? Should I be working out with weights at

the

same time I'm attempting to lose weight, or does that fight somehow

against

the weight loss as that requires me to eat more protein and fats to

attempt

to build the muscle I need to increase my metabolism (a sort of

catch-22)?

I hope someone here has some really good advice that can help me get to
where I need to be with my weight.

Thank you.

There are no pre-packaged meals with WW, unless you want to buy their frozen
dinners (available at supermarkets). Essentially, all food is assigned a
points value based on calories, fat and fiber (I'm assuming you're in the
USA - the formula varies from country to country). You are then given a
number of points to eat for the day depending on your current weight and
sex. You can gain bonus points by exercising, which you can either use to
eat extra or hold onto to increas your weightloss.

WW works out to be a simpler way of counting calories, while encouraging a
low fat, high fiber diet. It also encourages exercise, and learning how to
eat normal foods in a normal way (something a lot of people have forgotten
how to do!).

--
Julie.
93.5/73.2/74 (WW)/72 (Personal) kg
205.7/161.0/162.8 (WW)/158 (Personal) lb

"John Hrusovszky" wrote in message
...
Can I ask you to briefly explain what WW actually is? Perhaps what I've
been led to believe it is, is wrong? I've been led to believe that it is
an
expensive "meal plan" where you buy their meals and continue buying their
meals (pre-package) for life.

As to your statement of not eating enough food ... how does one arrive at
the proper amount a person should be eating?

Thanks in advance.


"Laura" wrote in message
...

"Robin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John" wrote:

I am very confused on the entire weight loss scheme -- nearly
everyone
I
talk to tells me something different. Some say the old food pyramid
is
proven a failure, others say the newer mediterranean diet is the way
to
go,
others say no carbs, still others say very low calorie diets, etc.

The main thing that gets me is this:
I am 295 pounds, 6'2", and 45 years old. I am told by some that I
should be
eating around 3200 - 3500 calories per day just to maintain my
weight
with
little or no exercise. I have software where I log my meals, and I
average
around 2000 calories per day and unless I exercise vigorously (like
volleyball, tennis, etc.), I cannot lose weight ... in fact, I'll
slowly
gain at those calorie counts. What would happen if I added another
1000
calories per day? I'm afraid I'd blow up like a balloon. I did
begin
back
in June of 2002 weighing 329. I've lose 34 pounds in that year and
a
half
now, but have been bouncing between 289 and 300 for the past month
....
not
able to take any more off. I've tried getting down to around 1200
calories
per day, but I'm afraid I'm losing lean muscle mass along with the
fat
when
I do that, and I've been told I'll train my body to only use 1200
calories
per day so I'll never be able to go back to normal eating once I get
down to
where I want.

So, what is the key to nutritionally get the proper content for your
body,
yet lose a couple pounds a week (or even more if possible) so I can
get
to
that 175 range I'd like to be? Should I be working out with weights
at
the
same time I'm attempting to lose weight, or does that fight somehow
against
the weight loss as that requires me to eat more protein and fats to
attempt
to build the muscle I need to increase my metabolism (a sort of
catch-22)?

I hope someone here has some really good advice that can help me get
to
where I need to be with my weight.

Thank you.



John,
I am SO with you, my situation EXACTLY. A recent change to a new diet
is low carb, which I've been doing for a month, lost initial 5 lbs in
the first week, that's been it. I have not had a slice of bread in all
that time. Nor do I miss it. I am significantly overweight, and in
perimenopause, but have had weight issues all my life. Genetic
predisposition, but cannot, will not give up, it doesn't even make
sense, that with the sensible way I eat (food types and in
moderation),
that my body won't loose. I've been checked, no medical issues causing
this. I'm considering switching over to Weight Watchers which I have
not tried, hoping that for whatever reason with my particular
metabolism, it might respond better to WW. I do not over eat, not a
compulsive eater or binger. No diet is particularly difficult for me
to
stay on. My body just wants to be fat. One day I'll accept this and
move on.

Have you ever thought that maybe you are not eating enough food to lose
weight? I know that it sounds strange but it is true. It was not untill
I
started WW that I was able to lose weight. Atkins worked for me for a
couple
of months but I could not maintain the way of eating for very long. Way
too
restrictive. Too many hidden carbs in everyday things. WW on the other
hand
forces you to eat the right amount of food for your weight. You
gradually
lower the amount of food as you lose weight. It teaches you the right
amount
of food to eat to then maintain that weight when you get to goal. It is
a
way of life not a diet. That is a key difference between WW and the
other
diets out there. They all work in the short term but don't teach you how
to
eat properly. WW does. It is also easy to follow which makes it nice
too.
Good luck.

Sorry, this ISN'T brief.

The beauty of Weight Watchers is that you can eat according to the old
pyramid, the new pyramid, the South Beach diet, the low carb, high
protein, high carb, low fat, diabetic, vegetarian, mediterranean, or
Ornish, or The Zone, or any other plan you might come across. Weight
Watchers is not about which foods to eat but about serving sizes,
portion control, and finding what works for you. You can choose to
follow a specified meal plan, which I did when I first started while I
learned about points and to get a good sense of serving sizes. Every
once in a while, when I need new ideas or am having trouble adjusting
a reduction in daily points, I'll try a meal plan or two to get myself
back on track again. But it's totally my choice to do that.

Instead of counting calories alone, Weight Watchers assigns every food
a points value, taking into account calories, fat, and fiber. (If you
live in the U.S. Nutritional info requirements vary from country to
country, and thus, so does the WW points calculation.) The number of
points you can eat in a day is determined by your current weight. As
you lose weight, your daily points decrease as well. The daily points
target for someone weighing 295 lbs is 31 points. It's hard to say how
that converts to calories because of the fat and fiber variables, but
roughly 31 points works out to approximately 1700 calories. On days
you exercise, you can eat more points depending on the level of
exercise and time spent.

If you're eating 1200 calories a day, you might have put your body
into something called "starvation" mode, where your metabolism slows
and becomes an even more efficient fuel burner simply because you
aren't eating enough. To give you some perspective, my daily points
target is 22 points, which works out to approximately 1250 calories.
My current weight is 173.6 lbs.

Here are some sample food points values: a 3 oz. lean beef steak (fist
size) = 5 pts., a small apple = 1 pt., a scoop of regular ice cream =
4 pts, 1 cup of almost any vegetable = 0 pts. If you join WW, either
by attending a weekly meeting, or joining Online, you'll receive all
kinds of information about how to calculate and track your daily
points. You might want to snoop around weigh****chers.com, although I
don't know any more how much info is available with signing up first.
Another good site to look at for WW info is Dotti's Weight Loss Zone,
www.dwlz.com. It was on her site that I found the points to calories
conversion.

Yeah, lots of people who've lost weight on WW regain it. That's also
true of every weight loss program out there. But the reason for that
is people tend to gradually return to their old ways of eating. It's
not the fault of WW.

Most of us here on asdww are aware of the possibility of regaining the
weight we've lost after we reach our goal. Many of us have been down
this road before and know that keeping it off FOR LIFE is, in some
ways, a trickier road than getting off.

Good luck
--
Prairie Roots
232/173.6/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:37:38 -0600, "John Hrusovszky"
wrote:

Can I ask you to briefly explain what WW actually is? Perhaps what I've
been led to believe it is, is wrong? I've been led to believe that it is an
expensive "meal plan" where you buy their meals and continue buying their
meals (pre-package) for life.

As to your statement of not eating enough food ... how does one arrive at
the proper amount a person should be eating?

Thanks in advance.


"Laura" wrote in message
...

"Robin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John" wrote:

I am very confused on the entire weight loss scheme -- nearly everyone
I
talk to tells me something different. Some say the old food pyramid
is
proven a failure, others say the newer mediterranean diet is the way
to
go,
others say no carbs, still others say very low calorie diets, etc.

The main thing that gets me is this:
I am 295 pounds, 6'2", and 45 years old. I am told by some that I
should be
eating around 3200 - 3500 calories per day just to maintain my weight
with
little or no exercise. I have software where I log my meals, and I
average
around 2000 calories per day and unless I exercise vigorously (like
volleyball, tennis, etc.), I cannot lose weight ... in fact, I'll
slowly
gain at those calorie counts. What would happen if I added another
1000
calories per day? I'm afraid I'd blow up like a balloon. I did begin
back
in June of 2002 weighing 329. I've lose 34 pounds in that year and a
half
now, but have been bouncing between 289 and 300 for the past month ...
not
able to take any more off. I've tried getting down to around 1200
calories
per day, but I'm afraid I'm losing lean muscle mass along with the fat
when
I do that, and I've been told I'll train my body to only use 1200
calories
per day so I'll never be able to go back to normal eating once I get
down to
where I want.

So, what is the key to nutritionally get the proper content for your
body,
yet lose a couple pounds a week (or even more if possible) so I can
get
to
that 175 range I'd like to be? Should I be working out with weights
at
the
same time I'm attempting to lose weight, or does that fight somehow
against
the weight loss as that requires me to eat more protein and fats to
attempt
to build the muscle I need to increase my metabolism (a sort of
catch-22)?

I hope someone here has some really good advice that can help me get
to
where I need to be with my weight.

Thank you.



John,
I am SO with you, my situation EXACTLY. A recent change to a new diet
is low carb, which I've been doing for a month, lost initial 5 lbs in
the first week, that's been it. I have not had a slice of bread in all
that time. Nor do I miss it. I am significantly overweight, and in
perimenopause, but have had weight issues all my life. Genetic
predisposition, but cannot, will not give up, it doesn't even make
sense, that with the sensible way I eat (food types and in moderation),
that my body won't loose. I've been checked, no medical issues causing
this. I'm considering switching over to Weight Watchers which I have
not tried, hoping that for whatever reason with my particular
metabolism, it might respond better to WW. I do not over eat, not a
compulsive eater or binger. No diet is particularly difficult for me to
stay on. My body just wants to be fat. One day I'll accept this and
move on.

Have you ever thought that maybe you are not eating enough food to lose
weight? I know that it sounds strange but it is true. It was not untill I
started WW that I was able to lose weight. Atkins worked for me for a
couple
of months but I could not maintain the way of eating for very long. Way
too
restrictive. Too many hidden carbs in everyday things. WW on the other
hand
forces you to eat the right amount of food for your weight. You gradually
lower the amount of food as you lose weight. It teaches you the right
amount
of food to eat to then maintain that weight when you get to goal. It is a
way of life not a diet. That is a key difference between WW and the other
diets out there. They all work in the short term but don't teach you how
to
eat properly. WW does. It is also easy to follow which makes it nice too.
Good luck.

Definitely continue to excercise. WW's recommends this also. The one thing that
is great about WW's is that it teaches you to each normal meals but with portion
control. One of the others on this group will have to help you about how much
exercise & what kind to do, as I have to force myself to do any at all other
than walking & dancing. I can't help you on the calories either as I simply
follow the WW point system & don't have to worry about calories at all. Wish you
luck.
Elaine K
331.4/215.6/179

John Hrusovszky wrote:

I've never tried weight - watchers .. from what I've read, it's one of those
diets that works, but people seem to gain back the weight once they've went
off that program. I'd love to be able to eat "normal" meals instead of
buying pre-packaged meals. My concern is to know what I should be eating in
terms of calories, to lose fat, but not to lose lean muscle mass -- no one
can seem to tell me this. I realize that lean muscle mass helps raise one's
metabolism, thus I don't want to lose any more of this than I need to.
Perhaps, I'm thinking wrong and should just forget about losing muscle and
get my weight where I want it, and THEN go back and start to build muscle?

"Elaine Kirkham" wrote in message
...
Hi John, welcome aboard. Have you every tried Weigh Watchers? It does
work.
Elaine K
331.4/215.6/179

John wrote:

I am very confused on the entire weight loss scheme -- nearly everyone I
talk to tells me something different. Some say the old food pyramid is
proven a failure, others say the newer mediterranean diet is the way to
go,
others say no carbs, still others say very low calorie diets, etc.

The main thing that gets me is this:
I am 295 pounds, 6'2", and 45 years old. I am told by some that I
should be
eating around 3200 - 3500 calories per day just to maintain my weight
with
little or no exercise. I have software where I log my meals, and I
average
around 2000 calories per day and unless I exercise vigorously (like
volleyball, tennis, etc.), I cannot lose weight ... in fact, I'll slowly
gain at those calorie counts. What would happen if I added another 1000
calories per day? I'm afraid I'd blow up like a balloon. I did begin
back
in June of 2002 weighing 329. I've lose 34 pounds in that year and a
half
now, but have been bouncing between 289 and 300 for the past month ...
not
able to take any more off. I've tried getting down to around 1200
calories
per day, but I'm afraid I'm losing lean muscle mass along with the fat
when
I do that, and I've been told I'll train my body to only use 1200
calories
per day so I'll never be able to go back to normal eating once I get
down to
where I want.

So, what is the key to nutritionally get the proper content for your
body,
yet lose a couple pounds a week (or even more if possible) so I can get
to
that 175 range I'd like to be? Should I be working out with weights at
the
same time I'm attempting to lose weight, or does that fight somehow
against
the weight loss as that requires me to eat more protein and fats to
attempt
to build the muscle I need to increase my metabolism (a sort of
catch-22)?

I hope someone here has some really good advice that can help me get to
where I need to be with my weight.

Thank you.

Just to emphasize, in WW, you eat NORMAL foods that you buy at the
fruit stand, the meat market and the shelves of grocery stores. While
WW does have labeled food items that are available, they do not push
that stuff.

They teach you how much to eat and how to control some of the bad
behaviors and how to reinforce positive behaviors.


On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:33:21 -0600, "John Hrusovszky"
wrote:

One of the responses said I shouldn't plan to go back to "normal eating".
What I meant by "normal" was what a standard, 6'2" 45 year old man should
eat per day ... not what was "normal" for me the past 20 years. I dont'
know the exact figures, but I would imagine a "normal" 6'2" 45 year old, 175
pound man shoudl eat around 2200 calories per day with a light activity
lifestyle.


"Robin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John" wrote:

I am very confused on the entire weight loss scheme -- nearly everyone I
talk to tells me something different. Some say the old food pyramid is
proven a failure, others say the newer mediterranean diet is the way to
go,
others say no carbs, still others say very low calorie diets, etc.

The main thing that gets me is this:
I am 295 pounds, 6'2", and 45 years old. I am told by some that I
should be
eating around 3200 - 3500 calories per day just to maintain my weight
with
little or no exercise. I have software where I log my meals, and I
average
around 2000 calories per day and unless I exercise vigorously (like
volleyball, tennis, etc.), I cannot lose weight ... in fact, I'll slowly
gain at those calorie counts. What would happen if I added another 1000
calories per day? I'm afraid I'd blow up like a balloon. I did begin
back
in June of 2002 weighing 329. I've lose 34 pounds in that year and a
half
now, but have been bouncing between 289 and 300 for the past month ...
not
able to take any more off. I've tried getting down to around 1200
calories
per day, but I'm afraid I'm losing lean muscle mass along with the fat
when
I do that, and I've been told I'll train my body to only use 1200
calories
per day so I'll never be able to go back to normal eating once I get
down to
where I want.

So, what is the key to nutritionally get the proper content for your
body,
yet lose a couple pounds a week (or even more if possible) so I can get
to
that 175 range I'd like to be? Should I be working out with weights at
the
same time I'm attempting to lose weight, or does that fight somehow
against
the weight loss as that requires me to eat more protein and fats to
attempt
to build the muscle I need to increase my metabolism (a sort of
catch-22)?

I hope someone here has some really good advice that can help me get to
where I need to be with my weight.

Thank you.



John,
I am SO with you, my situation EXACTLY. A recent change to a new diet
is low carb, which I've been doing for a month, lost initial 5 lbs in
the first week, that's been it. I have not had a slice of bread in all
that time. Nor do I miss it. I am significantly overweight, and in
perimenopause, but have had weight issues all my life. Genetic
predisposition, but cannot, will not give up, it doesn't even make
sense, that with the sensible way I eat (food types and in moderation),
that my body won't loose. I've been checked, no medical issues causing
this. I'm considering switching over to Weight Watchers which I have
not tried, hoping that for whatever reason with my particular
metabolism, it might respond better to WW. I do not over eat, not a
compulsive eater or binger. No diet is particularly difficult for me to
stay on. My body just wants to be fat. One day I'll accept this and
move on.

--
"Be kind, because everyone you meet is fighting a desperate battle." Philo
of Alexandria. Do not email if posting a response. TO EMAIL, REPLACE X WITH
4

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:35:22 +1100, "JulieB"
wrote:

WW works out to be a simpler way of counting calories, while encouraging a
low fat, high fiber diet.

Well, I was simply counting calories before I decided to go for
Weigh****chers, and frankly, I found that to be a lot simpler. Every
food you buy tells you how many calories are in it, right on the
label. To find out how many points are in that food takes more work
than that.

Mind you, I'm happy to go through the extra work to get the results I
want, and I can't argue with success (35 lbs. in just over two
months).

But I've seen others who agree with you, that the Points are a great
way of simplifying nutrition information and calorie intake, and I
just don't see it.

Stan
309/273.5/199

John Hrusovszky wrote:

I've never tried weight - watchers .. from what I've read, it's one of those
diets that works, but people seem to gain back the weight once they've went
off that program. I'd love to be able to eat "normal" meals instead of
buying pre-packaged meals. My concern is to know what I should be eating in
terms of calories, to lose fat, but not to lose lean muscle mass -- no one
can seem to tell me this. I realize that lean muscle mass helps raise one's
metabolism, thus I don't want to lose any more of this than I need to.
Perhaps, I'm thinking wrong and should just forget about losing muscle and
get my weight where I want it, and THEN go back and start to build muscle?

You can eat what you like on WW! It's all about portion control and
eating sensibly. If you stop doing this, on ANY 'diet' you will gain
back the weight you lost. HOWEVER, if you keep control of portion
sizes, eat sensibly (and not too much!) you will maintain your new lower
weight.

I am losing weight nicely (if slowly!), and eating normal meals. I use
lower fat versions of things, make sure I don't eat too much, and cook
the same thing for all of us he it's working. I also use quite a few
of the WW cookbooks, which allow me to be lazy about working out portion
sizes and points values - that'd done for you! It's lower calorie
versions of things, and all the recipes I used so far have been
excellent. I made an excellent chicken curry for dinner last night, for
example, and there's home made pizza on the menu for tomorrow and
sausages and chips later in the week! Real food all the way! Lo-fat
oven chips and lo-fat sausages for me! In fact, both my son and my DH
like the low fat sausages nearly as much as some of the 'normal'
ones... Like Cumberland, Toulouse and pork and apple sausages!

The thing you have to remember with all of this is that it takes self
discipline: without that, you learn nothing, and if you go back to the
way you ate before (which made you fat in the first place), you WILL get
fat again.

The way to keep lean muscle going while losing weight it to exercise: it
doesn't have to be high impact stuff - a good brisk 2 mile walk every
day will do fine. Start slowly and build up... The other thing to
remember is that as you get smaller, you will need less food to maintain
the weight you are at... WW decreases the amount you are 'allowed' in
slow stages, allowing you to adjust as you shrink. Your appetite will
decrease over the time as well, so you won't want as much food as you
used to eat. As you get slimmer, you can increase the exercise
programme.
--
Kate XXXXXX
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk
Click on Kate's Pages and explore!

I eat very few prepackaged meals, you need to decide what is important to
you, what you are willing to change for life and just do it, good luck, Lee
John Hrusovszky wrote in message
...
I've never tried weight - watchers .. from what I've read, it's one of
those
diets that works, but people seem to gain back the weight once they've
went
off that program. I'd love to be able to eat "normal" meals instead of
buying pre-packaged meals. My concern is to know what I should be eating
in
terms of calories, to lose fat, but not to lose lean muscle mass -- no one
can seem to tell me this. I realize that lean muscle mass helps raise
one's
metabolism, thus I don't want to lose any more of this than I need to.
Perhaps, I'm thinking wrong and should just forget about losing muscle and
get my weight where I want it, and THEN go back and start to build muscle?


"Elaine Kirkham" wrote in message
...
Hi John, welcome aboard. Have you every tried Weigh Watchers? It does
work.
Elaine K
331.4/215.6/179

John wrote:

I am very confused on the entire weight loss scheme -- nearly everyone
I
talk to tells me something different. Some say the old food pyramid
is
proven a failure, others say the newer mediterranean diet is the way
to
go,
others say no carbs, still others say very low calorie diets, etc.

The main thing that gets me is this:
I am 295 pounds, 6'2", and 45 years old. I am told by some that I
should be
eating around 3200 - 3500 calories per day just to maintain my weight
with
little or no exercise. I have software where I log my meals, and I
average
around 2000 calories per day and unless I exercise vigorously (like
volleyball, tennis, etc.), I cannot lose weight ... in fact, I'll
slowly
gain at those calorie counts. What would happen if I added another
1000
calories per day? I'm afraid I'd blow up like a balloon. I did begin
back
in June of 2002 weighing 329. I've lose 34 pounds in that year and a
half
now, but have been bouncing between 289 and 300 for the past month ...
not
able to take any more off. I've tried getting down to around 1200
calories
per day, but I'm afraid I'm losing lean muscle mass along with the fat
when
I do that, and I've been told I'll train my body to only use 1200
calories
per day so I'll never be able to go back to normal eating once I get
down to
where I want.

So, what is the key to nutritionally get the proper content for your
body,
yet lose a couple pounds a week (or even more if possible) so I can
get
to
that 175 range I'd like to be? Should I be working out with weights
at
the
same time I'm attempting to lose weight, or does that fight somehow
against
the weight loss as that requires me to eat more protein and fats to
attempt
to build the muscle I need to increase my metabolism (a sort of
catch-22)?

I hope someone here has some really good advice that can help me get
to
where I need to be with my weight.

Thank you.

if you do WW as prescribed you will learn what is right for you, there is no
real normal for everyone to follow. If you read this group you will find
that some of us cannot eat very many carbos or we gain, some must learn to
eat more protein and some of us must learn to cut out much of the sugar we
love. It is truly different for each person, good luck Lee
John Hrusovszky wrote in message
news
One of the responses said I shouldn't plan to go back to "normal eating".
What I meant by "normal" was what a standard, 6'2" 45 year old man should
eat per day ... not what was "normal" for me the past 20 years. I dont'
know the exact figures, but I would imagine a "normal" 6'2" 45 year old,
175
pound man shoudl eat around 2200 calories per day with a light activity
lifestyle.


"Robin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John" wrote:

I am very confused on the entire weight loss scheme -- nearly everyone
I
talk to tells me something different. Some say the old food pyramid
is
proven a failure, others say the newer mediterranean diet is the way
to
go,
others say no carbs, still others say very low calorie diets, etc.

The main thing that gets me is this:
I am 295 pounds, 6'2", and 45 years old. I am told by some that I
should be
eating around 3200 - 3500 calories per day just to maintain my weight
with
little or no exercise. I have software where I log my meals, and I
average
around 2000 calories per day and unless I exercise vigorously (like
volleyball, tennis, etc.), I cannot lose weight ... in fact, I'll
slowly
gain at those calorie counts. What would happen if I added another
1000
calories per day? I'm afraid I'd blow up like a balloon. I did begin
back
in June of 2002 weighing 329. I've lose 34 pounds in that year and a
half
now, but have been bouncing between 289 and 300 for the past month ...
not
able to take any more off. I've tried getting down to around 1200
calories
per day, but I'm afraid I'm losing lean muscle mass along with the fat
when
I do that, and I've been told I'll train my body to only use 1200
calories
per day so I'll never be able to go back to normal eating once I get
down to
where I want.

So, what is the key to nutritionally get the proper content for your
body,
yet lose a couple pounds a week (or even more if possible) so I can
get
to
that 175 range I'd like to be? Should I be working out with weights
at
the
same time I'm attempting to lose weight, or does that fight somehow
against
the weight loss as that requires me to eat more protein and fats to
attempt
to build the muscle I need to increase my metabolism (a sort of
catch-22)?

I hope someone here has some really good advice that can help me get
to
where I need to be with my weight.

Thank you.



John,
I am SO with you, my situation EXACTLY. A recent change to a new diet
is low carb, which I've been doing for a month, lost initial 5 lbs in
the first week, that's been it. I have not had a slice of bread in all
that time. Nor do I miss it. I am significantly overweight, and in
perimenopause, but have had weight issues all my life. Genetic
predisposition, but cannot, will not give up, it doesn't even make
sense, that with the sensible way I eat (food types and in moderation),
that my body won't loose. I've been checked, no medical issues causing
this. I'm considering switching over to Weight Watchers which I have
not tried, hoping that for whatever reason with my particular
metabolism, it might respond better to WW. I do not over eat, not a
compulsive eater or binger. No diet is particularly difficult for me to
stay on. My body just wants to be fat. One day I'll accept this and
move on.

--
"Be kind, because everyone you meet is fighting a desperate battle."
Philo
of Alexandria. Do not email if posting a response. TO EMAIL, REPLACE X
WITH
4

where it seems to be easier is in the addition, 3 points instead of 463 or
165 that sort of thing, Lee, mathematically challenged
Stan wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:35:22 +1100, "JulieB"
wrote:

WW works out to be a simpler way of counting calories, while encouraging
a
low fat, high fiber diet.

Well, I was simply counting calories before I decided to go for
Weigh****chers, and frankly, I found that to be a lot simpler. Every
food you buy tells you how many calories are in it, right on the
label. To find out how many points are in that food takes more work
than that.

Mind you, I'm happy to go through the extra work to get the results I
want, and I can't argue with success (35 lbs. in just over two
months).

But I've seen others who agree with you, that the Points are a great
way of simplifying nutrition information and calorie intake, and I
just don't see it.

Stan
309/273.5/199