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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
One more question-goal weight
I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when trying to add
points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I still do not add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same satisfaction as I do when eating more sustainable foods. Joyce On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of meat. I love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now that I eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really struggled when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes I will be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am also thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I am sure I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that adding points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time. Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your goal ... 20 points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was difficult, it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things so quickly. There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies - making it very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen. Joyce On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . How many points are you currently eating though? You have to remember that when you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work with than you currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is much harder to not go over. G Joyce On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen when I have to start adding back, Lee Lesanne wrote in message ... oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual hunger, rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more, then you know you are not there "Miss Violette" wrote in message ... I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts match and so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means is that it will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the right idea, I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever comes first, Lee Joyce wrote in message ... Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame size other than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ... here's a website that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html Going only on what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to come into the smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements are accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight. Nothing else is taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be larger due to fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the world is large framed. G Joyce On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me do not seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err large attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to ankle, tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual Lesanne wrote in message ... Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made smaller? I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame size? Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long bones, I think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us. "Miss Violette" wrote in message ... were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had lost some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now that I have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee Joyce wrote in message ... The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4 different columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45, next for 45+. Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said that it doesn't matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue. Not sure I believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G What isn't taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders, bigger boned frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that someone my height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much worse carrying the same amount of weight around that I do. But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting your goal exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into the game. When I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute minimum he would like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was that he just threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a number and I knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to see what he has to say when I have my checkup this week. G Joyce On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura" wrote: Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or sex. Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher than the WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the journey is not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should be around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250 last year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with your doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One goal at a time. "buck naked" wrote in message ... Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is 116-140....aye caramba "Connie" wrote in message ... The ranges can be found at: http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx Hope this helps. Connie Fred wrote: Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you posted were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2 inches taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake or misread the chart. Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary goal at a 2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal. But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard wrote: Fred wrote in news WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it over 45?? or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men or women. It is based on height. My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is 161#. I feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I have no desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal goal is 177#. -- Cheers, Connie Walsh 241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
One more question-goal weight
No juice here either - just too many points for not any substance. I
use to guzzle the stuff. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:42:49 -0600, Joyce wrote: I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when trying to add points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I still do not add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same satisfaction as I do when eating more sustainable foods. Joyce On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of meat. I love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now that I eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really struggled when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes I will be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am also thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I am sure I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that adding points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time. Lee Joyce wrote in message . .. You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your goal ... 20 points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was difficult, it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things so quickly. There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies - making it very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen. Joyce On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . How many points are you currently eating though? You have to remember that when you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work with than you currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is much harder to not go over. G Joyce On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen when I have to start adding back, Lee Lesanne wrote in message ... oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual hunger, rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more, then you know you are not there "Miss Violette" wrote in message ... I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts match and so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means is that it will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the right idea, I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever comes first, Lee Joyce wrote in message ... Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame size other than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ... here's a website that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html Going only on what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to come into the smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements are accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight. Nothing else is taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be larger due to fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the world is large framed. G Joyce On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me do not seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err large attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to ankle, tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual Lesanne wrote in message ... Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made smaller? I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame size? Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long bones, I think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us. "Miss Violette" wrote in message ... were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had lost some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now that I have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee Joyce wrote in message ... The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4 different columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45, next for 45+. Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said that it doesn't matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue. Not sure I believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G What isn't taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders, bigger boned frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that someone my height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much worse carrying the same amount of weight around that I do. But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting your goal exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into the game. When I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute minimum he would like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was that he just threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a number and I knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to see what he has to say when I have my checkup this week. G Joyce On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura" wrote: Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or sex. Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher than the WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the journey is not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should be around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250 last year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with your doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One goal at a time. "buck naked" wrote in message ... Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is 116-140....aye caramba "Connie" wrote in message ... The ranges can be found at: http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx Hope this helps. Connie Fred wrote: Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you posted were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2 inches taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake or misread the chart. Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary goal at a 2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal. But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard wrote: Fred wrote in news WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it over 45?? or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men or women. It is based on height. My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is 161#. I feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I have no desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal goal is 177#. -- Cheers, Connie Walsh 241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5 |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
One more question-goal weight
the good news is that you guys who are already there all say it does get
less scary and that makes it better somehow, Lee Joyce wrote in message ... I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when trying to add points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I still do not add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same satisfaction as I do when eating more sustainable foods. Joyce On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of meat. I love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now that I eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really struggled when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes I will be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am also thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I am sure I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that adding points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time. Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your goal ... 20 points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was difficult, it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things so quickly. There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies - making it very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen. Joyce On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . How many points are you currently eating though? You have to remember that when you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work with than you currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is much harder to not go over. G Joyce On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen when I have to start adding back, Lee Lesanne wrote in message ... oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual hunger, rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more, then you know you are not there "Miss Violette" wrote in message ... I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts match and so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means is that it will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the right idea, I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever comes first, Lee Joyce wrote in message ... Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame size other than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements .... here's a website that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html Going only on what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to come into the smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements are accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight. Nothing else is taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be larger due to fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the world is large framed. G Joyce On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me do not seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err large attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to ankle, tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual Lesanne wrote in message ... Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made smaller? I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame size? Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long bones, I think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us. "Miss Violette" wrote in message ... were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had lost some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now that I have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee Joyce wrote in message ... The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4 different columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45, next for 45+. Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said that it doesn't matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue. Not sure I believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G What isn't taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders, bigger boned frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that someone my height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much worse carrying the same amount of weight around that I do. But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting your goal exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into the game. When I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute minimum he would like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was that he just threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a number and I knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to see what he has to say when I have my checkup this week. G Joyce On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura" wrote: Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or sex. Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher than the WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the journey is not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should be around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250 last year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with your doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One goal at a time. "buck naked" wrote in message ... Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is 116-140....aye caramba "Connie" wrote in message ... The ranges can be found at: http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx Hope this helps. Connie Fred wrote: Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you posted were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2 inches taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake or misread the chart. Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary goal at a 2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal. But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard wrote: Fred wrote in news WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it over 45?? or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men or women. It is based on height. My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is 161#. I feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I have no desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal goal is 177#. -- Cheers, Connie Walsh 241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5 |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
One more question-goal weight
It really does become less scary. I think it is in part because it is so much
less daunting to attack things when it's only 1, 2 or 3 pounds as opposed to 20, 50 or more. So if I do overdo things a bit, it is easy to cut back. Joyce On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:09:25 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: the good news is that you guys who are already there all say it does get less scary and that makes it better somehow, Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when trying to add points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I still do not add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same satisfaction as I do when eating more sustainable foods. Joyce On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of meat. I love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now that I eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really struggled when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes I will be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am also thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I am sure I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that adding points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time. Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your goal ... 20 points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was difficult, it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things so quickly. There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies - making it very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen. Joyce On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . How many points are you currently eating though? You have to remember that when you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work with than you currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is much harder to not go over. G Joyce On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen when I have to start adding back, Lee Lesanne wrote in message ... oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual hunger, rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more, then you know you are not there "Miss Violette" wrote in message ... I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts match and so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means is that it will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the right idea, I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever comes first, Lee Joyce wrote in message ... Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame size other than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ... here's a website that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html Going only on what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to come into the smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements are accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight. Nothing else is taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be larger due to fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the world is large framed. G Joyce On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me do not seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err large attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to ankle, tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual Lesanne wrote in message ... Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made smaller? I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame size? Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long bones, I think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us. "Miss Violette" wrote in message ... were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had lost some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now that I have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee Joyce wrote in message ... The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4 different columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45, next for 45+. Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said that it doesn't matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue. Not sure I believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G What isn't taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders, bigger boned frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that someone my height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much worse carrying the same amount of weight around that I do. But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting your goal exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into the game. When I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute minimum he would like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was that he just threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a number and I knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to see what he has to say when I have my checkup this week. G Joyce On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura" wrote: Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or sex. Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher than the WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the journey is not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should be around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250 last year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with your doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One goal at a time. "buck naked" wrote in message ... Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is 116-140....aye caramba "Connie" wrote in message ... The ranges can be found at: http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx Hope this helps. Connie Fred wrote: Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you posted were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2 inches taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake or misread the chart. Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary goal at a 2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal. But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard wrote: Fred wrote in news WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it over 45?? or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men or women. It is based on height. My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is 161#. I feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I have no desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal goal is 177#. -- Cheers, Connie Walsh 241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
One more question-goal weight
VERY reassuring, Lee
Joyce wrote in message ... It really does become less scary. I think it is in part because it is so much less daunting to attack things when it's only 1, 2 or 3 pounds as opposed to 20, 50 or more. So if I do overdo things a bit, it is easy to cut back. Joyce On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:09:25 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: the good news is that you guys who are already there all say it does get less scary and that makes it better somehow, Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when trying to add points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I still do not add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same satisfaction as I do when eating more sustainable foods. Joyce On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of meat. I love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now that I eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really struggled when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes I will be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am also thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I am sure I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that adding points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time. Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your goal ... 20 points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was difficult, it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things so quickly. There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies - making it very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen. Joyce On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . How many points are you currently eating though? You have to remember that when you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work with than you currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is much harder to not go over. G Joyce On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen when I have to start adding back, Lee Lesanne wrote in message ... oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual hunger, rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more, then you know you are not there "Miss Violette" wrote in message ... I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts match and so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means is that it will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the right idea, I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever comes first, Lee Joyce wrote in message ... Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame size other than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ... here's a website that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html Going only on what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to come into the smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements are accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight. Nothing else is taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be larger due to fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the world is large framed. G Joyce On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me do not seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err large attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to ankle, tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual Lesanne wrote in message ... Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made smaller? I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame size? Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long bones, I think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us. "Miss Violette" wrote in message ... were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had lost some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now that I have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee Joyce wrote in message ... The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4 different columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45, next for 45+. Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said that it doesn't matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue. Not sure I believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G What isn't taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders, bigger boned frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that someone my height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much worse carrying the same amount of weight around that I do. But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting your goal exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into the game. When I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute minimum he would like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was that he just threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a number and I knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to see what he has to say when I have my checkup this week. G Joyce On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura" wrote: Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or sex. Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher than the WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the journey is not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should be around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250 last year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with your doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One goal at a time. "buck naked" wrote in message ... Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is 116-140....aye caramba "Connie" wrote in message ... The ranges can be found at: http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx Hope this helps. Connie Fred wrote: Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you posted were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2 inches taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake or misread the chart. Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary goal at a 2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal. But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard wrote: Fred wrote in news WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it over 45?? or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men or women. It is based on height. My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is 161#. I feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I have no desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal goal is 177#. -- Cheers, Connie Walsh 241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
One more question-goal weight
BOO! (G)
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:09:25 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: the good news is that you guys who are already there all say it does get less scary and that makes it better somehow, Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when trying to add points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I still do not add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same satisfaction as I do when eating more sustainable foods. Joyce On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of meat. I love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now that I eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really struggled when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes I will be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am also thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I am sure I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that adding points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time. Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your goal ... 20 points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was difficult, it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things so quickly. There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies - making it very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen. Joyce On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . How many points are you currently eating though? You have to remember that when you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work with than you currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is much harder to not go over. G Joyce On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen when I have to start adding back, Lee Lesanne wrote in message ... oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual hunger, rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more, then you know you are not there "Miss Violette" wrote in message ... I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts match and so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means is that it will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the right idea, I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever comes first, Lee Joyce wrote in message ... Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame size other than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ... here's a website that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html Going only on what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to come into the smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements are accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight. Nothing else is taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be larger due to fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the world is large framed. G Joyce On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me do not seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err large attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to ankle, tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual Lesanne wrote in message ... Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made smaller? I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame size? Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long bones, I think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us. "Miss Violette" wrote in message ... were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had lost some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now that I have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee Joyce wrote in message ... The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4 different columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45, next for 45+. Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said that it doesn't matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue. Not sure I believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G What isn't taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders, bigger boned frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that someone my height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much worse carrying the same amount of weight around that I do. But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting your goal exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into the game. When I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute minimum he would like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was that he just threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a number and I knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to see what he has to say when I have my checkup this week. G Joyce On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura" wrote: Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or sex. Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher than the WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the journey is not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should be around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250 last year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with your doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One goal at a time. "buck naked" wrote in message ... Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is 116-140....aye caramba "Connie" wrote in message ... The ranges can be found at: http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx Hope this helps. Connie Fred wrote: Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you posted were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2 inches taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake or misread the chart. Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary goal at a 2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal. But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard wrote: Fred wrote in news WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it over 45?? or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men or women. It is based on height. My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is 161#. I feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I have no desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal goal is 177#. -- Cheers, Connie Walsh 241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5 |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
One more question-goal weight
good one, Lee
Fred wrote in message ... BOO! (G) On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:09:25 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: the good news is that you guys who are already there all say it does get less scary and that makes it better somehow, Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when trying to add points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I still do not add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same satisfaction as I do when eating more sustainable foods. Joyce On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of meat. I love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now that I eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really struggled when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes I will be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am also thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I am sure I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that adding points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time. Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your goal ... 20 points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was difficult, it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things so quickly. There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies - making it very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen. Joyce On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee Joyce wrote in message .. . How many points are you currently eating though? You have to remember that when you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work with than you currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is much harder to not go over. G Joyce On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen when I have to start adding back, Lee Lesanne wrote in message ... oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual hunger, rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more, then you know you are not there "Miss Violette" wrote in message ... I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts match and so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means is that it will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the right idea, I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever comes first, Lee Joyce wrote in message ... Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame size other than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ... here's a website that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html Going only on what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to come into the smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements are accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight. Nothing else is taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be larger due to fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the world is large framed. G Joyce On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette" wrote: The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me do not seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err large attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to ankle, tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual Lesanne wrote in message ... Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made smaller? I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame size? Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long bones, I think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us. "Miss Violette" wrote in message ... were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had lost some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now that I have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee Joyce wrote in message ... The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4 different columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45, next for 45+. Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said that it doesn't matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue. Not sure I believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G What isn't taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders, bigger boned frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that someone my height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much worse carrying the same amount of weight around that I do. But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting your goal exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into the game. When I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute minimum he would like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was that he just threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a number and I knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to see what he has to say when I have my checkup this week. G Joyce On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura" wrote: Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or sex. Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher than the WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the journey is not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should be around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250 last year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with your doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One goal at a time. "buck naked" wrote in message ... Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is 116-140....aye caramba "Connie" wrote in message ... The ranges can be found at: http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx Hope this helps. Connie Fred wrote: Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you posted were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2 inches taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake or misread the chart. Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my secondary goal at a 2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal. But in any event, get below 200 will be a great step. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard wrote: Fred wrote in news WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it over 45?? or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No difference for men or women. It is based on height. My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is 161#. I feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I have no desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal goal is 177#. -- Cheers, Connie Walsh 241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ok, fine, whatever, I give up | Luna | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 101 | November 1st, 2005 04:33 AM |
We may be screwed | That T Woman | General Discussion | 2 | December 7th, 2004 10:03 AM |
Study credits Weight Watchers with helping many to keep weight off | Neutron | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | May 29th, 2004 06:07 PM |
Glycogen weight question and a status update | JJ | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 27 | April 19th, 2004 10:51 PM |
goal weight | Sam Hain | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | January 10th, 2004 05:36 AM |