RAFL Oh whatever

I guess you can't be athletic and still have a thick waist... hasn't seen some of the women hockey
players that I know!!

Connie

Joyce said:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain is just tired
today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with distinctive waists ... not those
that have little to no waistline. But I do know my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know
I'm never gonna have a tiny waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm
also interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any difference at
all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

Lesanne said:

Well if you Were M, then that would be a very small WAIST measurement that you had there. This
thing is using that tool the docs' came up with a couple of years ago using the waist measurement
to figure cardiac risk factors? The ole apple shaped thing? I am going to go see what I come out
with if I go minimal...

"Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats but use

minimal for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thing and

Quoted message said:

get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know women carry more

natural

Quoted message said:

fatty tissue, but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to believe there is

THAT much

Quoted message said:

of a difference. And what if you fall somewhere in between? Like I swear

I was

Quoted message said:

supposed to be born a male, but came out a female ... super wide

shoulders, monkey

Quoted message said:

arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens are too short in

length

Quoted message said:

and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice versa ... I

know a

Quoted message said:

few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine than my own.

<G>

Quoted message said:

I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but according to

charts it

Quoted message said:

puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) - and my

wrist bone

Quoted message said:

really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer hands -

probably

Quoted message said:

not as long as yours, but not near as tiny as my *petite* daughter ... who

happens

Quoted message said:

to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of us *tweeners*

fall? Or

Quoted message said:

is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type of things?

One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights, just have

some

Quoted message said:

other [censored] to straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of muscle,

always have,

Quoted message said:

probably always will ... just not as much as I'd like. <G> I think I need

to

Quoted message said:

build the muscles in the stomach area - everything else is doin' pretty

well. <G>

Quoted message said:

And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it mean going down to even

smaller

Quoted message said:

sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants already - and

those 6's

Quoted message said:

tend to be pretty hard to find.

I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be consuming - think my

daily

Quoted message said:

trends tend to flucuate way too much right now to even try and figure it

out. I

Quoted message said:

may just have to take a stab at the program you like ... is always fun to

play

Quoted message said:

with new things. <G>

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I have slender "bones" but long ones? My
>hands are larger than almost any woman I know, but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is hard
>to use many of the indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right into the
>recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either. I am religiously logging every
>bite right now into diet power to see what my metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is
>telling me I am burning 2300 calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay at a
>stable weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that much. It is reacting right
>now to me losing from that evil one six place.
>
>I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and those will burn off any tummy fat
>that is hanging around 🙂. "Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>"]news:[email hidden]...
>
>>Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much more than
>

just

Quoted message said:

>the
>
>>number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is wonderful! I
>
>checked
>
>>the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to his little
>

quiz.

Quoted message said:

>I'm
>
>>not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since it
>
>currently is TOM
>
>>(ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. <G> Regardless, there was
>

something

Quoted message said:

>else
>
>>there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight ...
>

129-158.

Quoted message said:

>So why
>
>>should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to quit
>
>worrying about
>
>>the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying in the
>

low

Quoted message said:

>to mid
>
>>130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away. <G>
>>
>>Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long way!!!
>>
>>Joyce
>>
>>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]>
>

Quoted message said:

>>>My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
>>
>will
>
>>>be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that
>>

it

Quoted message said:

>is
>
>>>probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my measurements into a site
>>>that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at 19. something percent body
>>>fat. I am going to
>>
>quit
>
>>>trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
>>
>fifties,
>
>>>y Ya as they say here
>>>
>>

--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/205/155 RAFL 210.5/205/198.5

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized sparetires, you'd think us
guys would be able to have undersized spare tires, too! (G)

Joyce said:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain is just tired
today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with distinctive waists ... not those
that have little to no waistline. But I do know my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know
I'm never gonna have a tiny waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm
also interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any difference at
all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

Lesanne said:

Well if you Were M, then that would be a very small WAIST measurement that you had there. This
thing is using that tool the docs' came up with a couple of years ago using the waist measurement
to figure cardiac risk factors? The ole apple shaped thing? I am going to go see what I come out
with if I go minimal...

"Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats but use

minimal for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thing and

Quoted message said:

get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know women carry more

natural

Quoted message said:

fatty tissue, but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to believe there is

THAT much

Quoted message said:

of a difference. And what if you fall somewhere in between? Like I swear

I was

Quoted message said:

supposed to be born a male, but came out a female ... super wide

shoulders, monkey

Quoted message said:

arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens are too short in

length

Quoted message said:

and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice versa ... I

know a

Quoted message said:

few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine than my own.

<G>

Quoted message said:

I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but according to

charts it

Quoted message said:

puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) - and my

wrist bone

Quoted message said:

really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer hands -

probably

Quoted message said:

not as long as yours, but not near as tiny as my *petite* daughter ... who

happens

Quoted message said:

to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of us *tweeners*

fall? Or

Quoted message said:

is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type of things?

One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights, just have

some

Quoted message said:

other [censored] to straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of muscle,

always have,

Quoted message said:

probably always will ... just not as much as I'd like. <G> I think I need

to

Quoted message said:

build the muscles in the stomach area - everything else is doin' pretty

well. <G>

Quoted message said:

And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it mean going down to even

smaller

Quoted message said:

sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants already - and

those 6's

Quoted message said:

tend to be pretty hard to find.

I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be consuming - think my

daily

Quoted message said:

trends tend to flucuate way too much right now to even try and figure it

out. I

Quoted message said:

may just have to take a stab at the program you like ... is always fun to

play

Quoted message said:

with new things. <G>

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I have slender "bones" but long ones?
>My hands are larger than almost any woman I know, but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is
>hard to use many of the indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right into the
>recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either. I am religiously logging every
>bite right now into diet power to see what my metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is
>telling me I am burning 2300 calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay at a
>stable weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that much. It is reacting right
>now to me losing from that evil one six place.
>
>I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and those will burn off any tummy fat
>that is hanging around 🙂. "Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>"]news:[email hidden]...
>> Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much more than

just

Quoted message said:

>the
>> number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is wonderful! I
>checked
>> the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to his little

quiz.

Quoted message said:

>I'm
>> not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since it
>currently is TOM
>> (ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. <G> Regardless, there was

something

Quoted message said:

>else
>> there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight ...

129-158.

Quoted message said:

>So why
>> should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to quit
>worrying about
>> the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying in the

low

Quoted message said:

>to mid
>> 130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away. <G>
>>
>> Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long way!!!
>>
>> Joyce
>>
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

>>
>> >My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
>will
>> >be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that

it

Quoted message said:

>is
>> >probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my measurements into a site
>> >that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at 19. something percent body
>> >fat. I am going to
>quit
>> >trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
>fifties,
>> >y Ya as they say here
>> >
>>
>

That was her beef - somewhere this scale was doing some kind of computing which seemed based on
girl/boy and not real values - she's a computer programmer and wants to know what's hidden behind
the "curtain!" (G)

Joyce said:

Well, if she figures out that formula - have her pass it along to the rest of us. I can see where
this *formula* might be another one of those general guideline type things, but there are so many
different body types - male and female - that I really don't see how just one specific body
measurement (such as waist) can give a totally accurate account. Eh, maybe just playing that *close
enough* game?

Joyce

Fred said:

Well, that's what a friend just lost her patience with - her new Tanita scale gave too completely
different results for the same data of Weight, height, etc but changed Female to Male and saw such
a change in percentage fat. She now wants to know Tanita's secrety formula (G)

Joyce said:

Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats but use minimal for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know women carry more natural fatty tissue,
but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to believe there is THAT much of a difference. And what if
you fall somewhere in between? Like I swear I was supposed to be born a male, but came out a
female ... super wide shoulders, monkey arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens
are too short in length and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice versa ... I
know a few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine than my own. <G>

I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but according to charts it puts me right on
the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) - and my wrist bone really sticks out! I also seem
to be blessed with those longer hands - probably not as long as yours, but not near as tiny as my
*petite* daughter ... who happens to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of us
*tweeners* fall? Or is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type of things?

One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights, just have some other [censored] to
straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of muscle, always have, probably always will ... just
not as much as I'd like. <G> I think I need to build the muscles in the stomach area - everything
else is doin' pretty well. <G> And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it mean going down
to even smaller sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants already - and those 6's
tend to be pretty hard to find.

I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be consuming - think my daily trends tend to
flucuate way too much right now to even try and figure it out. I may just have to take a stab at
the program you like ... is always fun to play with new things. <G>

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I have slender "bones" but long ones? My
>hands are larger than almost any woman I know, but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is hard
>to use many of the indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right into the
>recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either. I am religiously logging every
>bite right now into diet power to see what my metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is
>telling me I am burning 2300 calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay at a
>stable weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that much. It is reacting right
>now to me losing from that evil one six place.
>
>I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and those will burn off any tummy fat
>that is hanging around 🙂. "Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>"]news:[email hidden]...
>> Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much more than just
>the
>> number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is wonderful! I
>checked
>> the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to his little quiz.
>I'm
>> not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since it
>currently is TOM
>> (ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. <G> Regardless, there was something
>else
>> there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight ... 129-158.
>So why
>> should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to quit
>worrying about
>> the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying in the low
>to mid
>> 130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away. <G>
>>
>> Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long way!!!
>>
>> Joyce
>>
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> >My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
>will
>> >be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that it
>is
>> >probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my measurements into a site
>> >that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at 19. something percent body
>> >fat. I am going to
>quit
>> >trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
>fifties,
>> >y Ya as they say here
>> >
>>

Went to that site and even when I get to goal it says I'm overweight. Tha Nerve!! Apparently he
hasn't heard that WW says it's okay for me to weigh 155... Later that morning ... Oh no WW says that
I should weigh 148 since I'm less than 45... oh bummer!! Well I'm not changing my goal... so there!!

Connie Confused but sufficiently Happy

Connie said:

Thanks Fred and Lesanne!!

Connie

Fred said:

It is getwiththeprogram.ORG

Lesanne said:

getwiththeprogram.comgetwiththeprogram.comOpen ↗ I hope ;0

"Connie" <walshclan@nospam_primus.ca> wrote in message news:4026A3B7.6020000@nospam_primus.ca...

> Lesanne:
>
> What is the Bob Greene site?
>
> Connie
>
> Lesanne wrote:
>
>> Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and thats
>
>
it",

>> that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to 157
>
>
this

>> morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my muscle
>
>
mass,

>> and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am done. Also, I do still have
>> enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it has
>
>
done a

>> fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything. And the
>
>
way

>> I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get below
>
>
where

>> I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began weightlifting while I was
>> still in the mid 250's and I was not dieting
>
>
at

>> the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still
>
>
clearly

>> see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and my shoulders. Bob Greene
>> uses height, age, weight, waist measurement and
>
>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me (lets
>
>
not

>> get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't care
>
>
to

>> totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick as
>
>
close to

>> 157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but
>
>
whatever.

>> She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there.
>>
>> 🙂 Lesanne
>> 365/160/157 "Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> "]news:[email hidden]...
>>
>>
>>> A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say).
>>>
>>> Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone size or bone density or?????
>>>
>>> What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination?
>>>
>>> And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it down "thar?"
>>>
>>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
>>>
>>>
>> will
>>
>>
>>>> be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that it
>>>
>>>
>> is
>>
>>
>>>> probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my measurements into a site
>>>> that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at 19. something percent body
>>>> fat. I am going to
>>>
>>>
>> quit
>>
>>
>>>> trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
>>>
>>>
>> fifties,
>>
>>
>>>> y Ya as they say here
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
> Connie Walsh
>
> 241.5/205/155 RAFL 210.5/205/198.5
>

--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/205/155 RAFL 210.5/205/198.5

I may not be *athletic*, but me is one smart woman. <G>

Joyce

Lesanne said:

good for you, I wondered how you found it with my messup

"Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I never looked at the official url - I typed in bobgreene.com and my

browser took

Quoted message said:

me to the site you listed. LOL!

Joyce

Lesanne said:

getwiththeprogram.comgetwiththeprogram.comOpen ↗ I hope ;0

"Connie" <walshclan@nospam_primus.ca> wrote in message news:4026A3B7.6020000@nospam_primus.ca...
> Lesanne:
>
> What is the Bob Greene site?
>
> Connie
>
> Lesanne wrote:
> > Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and thats
it",
> > that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to 157
this
> > morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my muscle
mass,
> > and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am

done.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Also, I do still have enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it has
done a
> > fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything. And

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

way
> > I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get

below

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

where
> > I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began weightlifting while I was
> > still in the mid 250's and I was not

dieting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

at
> > the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still
clearly
> > see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and my shoulders. Bob Greene
> > uses height, age, weight, waist measurement

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me

(lets

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not
> > get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't

care

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to
> > totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick as
close to
> > 157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but
whatever.
> > She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there.
> >
> > 🙂 Lesanne
> > 365/160/157 "Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > "]news:[email hidden]...
> >
> >>A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say).
> >>
> >>Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone

size

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>or bone density or?????
> >>
> >>What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination?
> >>
> >>And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it down "thar?"
> >>
> >>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next

week

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>
> > will
> >
> >>>be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>
> > is
> >
> >>>probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my measurements into a
> >>>site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at 19. something percent
> >>>body fat. I am going

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>
> > quit
> >
> >>>trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
> >>
> > fifties,
> >
> >>>y Ya as they say here
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
> Connie Walsh
>
> 241.5/205/155 RAFL 210.5/205/198.5
>

yeah me too. and me too mee too yeah si an how....

"Prairie Roots" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Who needs a husband to argue with? All by myself, the discussion can get pretty heated.

Lesanne said:

PR and I together could make up a jury pool. You know, it is funny, one

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the things that one of my exes said drove him crazy was the way I could argue both sides of
things in the same discussion. That would be the ex with the brain. As opposed to the ex with the
body...

"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You know if they ever call you for jury duty you could serve all alone (sort of!) (G)

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:37:38 -0600, Prairie Roots <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Modifying my size is proving to be MUCH easier than modifying my mood swings. When you get
>that one figured out, let us know.
>
>In the meantime, I'm carrying on with strength training and aerobic exercise. Activity seems
>to fatigue Sybil/Eve/Jasmine/Tawanda/et al. It hasn't been this quiet in a long time. LOL
>
>Prairie Roots
>
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:33 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>I am a happy camper this morning. I think that history does make

some

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>difference. I used to be quite happy at 200 and thought I would stay

there.

Quoted message said:

>>Compared to 365, it was truly much better. Compared to now, no

contest.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I

Quoted message said:

>>really think I need to accept this as the spot and learn to modify

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mood

Quoted message said:

>>swings instead of my size "Lynne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>"]news:[email hidden]...
>>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you feel good stay where you are. Unrealistic goals that are impossible to attain just
>>> wreck self-esteem. You've come a very

long

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> way, and you need to be proud of your accomplishments. A BF of 19

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> AMAZING!!! You're my hero!
>>>
>>> Lynne
>>>
>>> >My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next

week

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>will
>>> >be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it

Quoted message said:

>>is
>>> >probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put

my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> >measurements into a site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at
>>> >19. something percent body fat. I am going

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>quit
>>> >trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>fifties,
>>> >y Ya as they say here
>>> >
>>>
>>

Prairie Roots
232/163.6/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

re: hunger

Yes. Earlier on during the early WW, I would do my very steep hike and try resisting my sandwich
trying to limit points within reason. But the hike made it unreasonable resistance. I would get
halfway down and NEED to eat and I would have to stop and get out the sandwich. It was not that I
had not had a brief snack at the top but it was not enough.

I try not letting that happen since there is always RESERVE foods in my lunch bag like gorp and
dried fruits and chocolates. The lunch bag always has additional foods that stays from trip to trip.
Too famished might have me attacking too much of that extra stuff.

Lesanne said:

of fat to draw from, when the body is trying to repair tissue it will Insist on energy sources of
some kind. It is truly a different quality of hunger from that one that I would feel for a couple
of weeks when I had to drop my points? That one was intense too, but perversely almost enjoyable
compared to the exercise and lower weigh induced one. It felt "healthy" or something, whereas the
other feels "CRITICAL". I can't describe it, do you feel the difference? good deal on the nice ski
trip. I wonder if I could ski.? Upper body development almost requires resistance training i.e.
inside boring stuff. I am on here putting off starting, but gonna do it this morning. I am reminded
of green tea by your post, gonna make a pot.

"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sardines with onions are fine but too much efforts early in the a.m. before a ski trip, a GREAT
SKI TRIP, as it turns out.

I get that famished feeling after a lot of exercise and it cannot easily be quenched. Tomorrow is
probably going to be one of those days, which is why I don't believe that Flex's requirement that
I eat all of my activity points on the day of activity is right - not for _ME_.

I also don't think I can go down much more - Most of my lower body is muscle but like you, I
could work the upper body quite a bit more. Very little, other than ski poling, works that but my
lower body gets all kinds of exercise. (sipping port now that the skinny cow is finished) I'm
hoping to counter the green tea from sushi dinner as it appears to keep me awake so the port is
intended to redeaden things
(G)

I think you have done great and there is no reason to push down the range. I think WW has worked
wonders and I think that their weight ranges are pretty realistic and there is a RANGE for a
reason - not everyone should be top or bottom.

Funny, just now at sushi the folks sitting next to me ordered sashimi (no rice) and I made an
Atkins comment. They both said they did WW
(G). He made lifetime and she was also there, I believe. They also mentioned that they bought
the stock when it first went public and did well. He lost 20 pounds and asked me how much.
I said 60 and they were both dumbfounded - asking about twice more! We had a great time
discussing foods and diets while eating dinner (G)

Lesanne said:

oh man, what a great breakfast, oatmeal and sardines. I love sardines,

but

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with onion (iced) and ak mak crackers. Bob did not force me, but it did give me another opinion.
And it kind of agrees with all the people who

see

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

me. Nobody is encouraging me to lose any more, even my thin women

friends

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have all said Stop. The ones that used to look at me like I was nuts

when I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wanted to stop at 200 and 180 etc. I get hungry when I overeat, but it

is a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

different hungry than the hungry that shows up when I hit 156. THAT is

an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eat the paint off the walls, dizzy spells kind of hungry. And I do want

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

try and build up my upper body strength to where it was when I started

this,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

which may call for more food. I know I am most likely to get

dizzy/hungry

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

days when I do a real lively weights workout, and have the lower end of

my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

weight range. "Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> Interesting info. All of it including Bob Greene forcing you to make a choice (G)
>
> Now, how do you pronounce Y Ya?
>
> I think the famished is probably a good indication that the body needs more food. But then
> again, I would have said that at a HIGHER weight since I still somewhat believe those damn
> little fat cells are secreting hormones demanding to be fed again!!!?????? That would cause
> the resultant demand for food????
>
> I'm in hover mode now - up a fraction, down a fraction. I like it here, too just around 158 or
> so. At least, the way I feel biking and skiing....
>
> Sardines (second course) are calling....
>
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:01:50 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and thats

it",

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to 157

this

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my muscle
mass,
> >and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am

done.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >Also, I do still have enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it has
done a
> >fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything. And

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

way
> >I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get below
where
> >I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began weightlifting while I was
> >still in the mid 250's and I was not dieting

at

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still

clearly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and my shoulders. Bob Greene
> >uses height, age, weight, waist measurement and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me

(lets

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not
> >get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't care

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick as

close

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to
> >157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but

whatever.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there.
> >
> >🙂 Lesanne
> >365/160/157 "Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > "]news:[email hidden]...
> >> A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say).
> >>
> >> Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone

size

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> or bone density or?????
> >>
> >> What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination?
> >>
> >> And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it down "thar?"
> >>
> >> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next

week

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >will
> >> >be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it
> >is
> >> >probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put

my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> >measurements into a site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at
> >> >19. something percent body fat. I am going

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >quit
> >> >trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
> >fifties,
> >> >y Ya as they say here
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

I approx waist and rounded to 157 where I might plant myself. I did not toy with the numbers to see
what would make me an athlete.

Lesanne said:

WHAT!??! How can this bee?? Wait, where is fit in that range? I am just barely in athletic, a half
inch more on my waist and I would be outta there.

"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(sigh) - I only came out as "fit!" (sniff)

Lesanne said:

getwiththeprogram.comgetwiththeprogram.comOpen ↗ I hope ;0

"Connie" <walshclan@nospam_primus.ca> wrote in message news:4026A3B7.6020000@nospam_primus.ca...
> Lesanne:
>
> What is the Bob Greene site?
>
> Connie
>
> Lesanne wrote:
> > Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and thats
it",
> > that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to 157
this
> > morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my muscle
mass,
> > and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am

done.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Also, I do still have enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it has
done a
> > fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything. And

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

way
> > I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get

below

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

where
> > I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began weightlifting while I was
> > still in the mid 250's and I was not

dieting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

at
> > the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still
clearly
> > see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and my shoulders. Bob Greene
> > uses height, age, weight, waist measurement

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me

(lets

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not
> > get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't

care

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to
> > totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick as
close to
> > 157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but
whatever.
> > She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there.
> >
> > 🙂 Lesanne
> > 365/160/157 "Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > "]news:[email hidden]...
> >
> >>A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say).
> >>
> >>Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone

size

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>or bone density or?????
> >>
> >>What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination?
> >>
> >>And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it down "thar?"
> >>
> >>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next

week

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>
> > will
> >
> >>>be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>
> > is
> >
> >>>probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my measurements into a
> >>>site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at 19. something percent
> >>>body fat. I am going

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>
> > quit
> >
> >>>trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
> >>
> > fifties,
> >
> >>>y Ya as they say here
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
> Connie Walsh
>
> 241.5/205/155 RAFL 210.5/205/198.5
>

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:21:22 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Now, I could ask if those were separate X's or just one with two minds or two bodies or just you
and YOU discussing the one guy but from two different (personality) perspectives? (G)

This is beginning to sound a little like the song "I'm My Own Grandpa."

Quoted message said:

You could be a lawyer if you can do both sides with reason.

So far, we've got a jury and attys for the plaintiff AND defense. All we need now is da JUDGE.

Quoted message said:

Lesanne said:

PR and I together could make up a jury pool. You know, it is funny, one of the things that one of
my exes said drove him crazy was the way I could argue both sides of things in the same
discussion. That would be the ex with the brain. As opposed to the ex with the body...

"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You know if they ever call you for jury duty you could serve all alone (sort of!) (G)

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:37:38 -0600, Prairie Roots <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Modifying my size is proving to be MUCH easier than modifying my mood swings. When you get that
>one figured out, let us know.
>
>In the meantime, I'm carrying on with strength training and aerobic exercise. Activity seems to
>fatigue Sybil/Eve/Jasmine/Tawanda/et al. It hasn't been this quiet in a long time. LOL
>
>Prairie Roots
>
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:33 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>I am a happy camper this morning. I think that history does make some difference. I used to be
>>quite happy at 200 and thought I would stay

there.

Quoted message said:

>>Compared to 365, it was truly much better. Compared to now, no contest.

I

Quoted message said:

>>really think I need to accept this as the spot and learn to modify the

mood

Quoted message said:

>>swings instead of my size "Lynne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>"]news:[email hidden]...
>>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you feel good stay where you are. Unrealistic goals that are impossible to attain just
>>> wreck self-esteem. You've come a very long way, and you need to be proud of your
>>> accomplishments. A BF of 19 is AMAZING!!! You're my hero!
>>>
>>> Lynne
>>>
>>> >My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
>>will
>>> >be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that

it

Quoted message said:

>>is
>>> >probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my measurements into a
>>> >site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at 19. something percent
>>> >body fat. I am going to
>>quit
>>> >trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
>>fifties,
>>> >y Ya as they say here
>>> >
>>>
>>

I would make a great lawyer. 2 guys. Very different. Biker, and History professor.

"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now, I could ask if those were separate X's or just one with two minds or two bodies or just you
and YOU discussing the one guy but from two different (personality) perspectives? (G)

You could be a lawyer if you can do both sides with reason.

Lesanne said:

PR and I together could make up a jury pool. You know, it is funny, one

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the things that one of my exes said drove him crazy was the way I could argue both sides of
things in the same discussion. That would be the ex with the brain. As opposed to the ex with the
body...

"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You know if they ever call you for jury duty you could serve all alone (sort of!) (G)

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:37:38 -0600, Prairie Roots <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Modifying my size is proving to be MUCH easier than modifying my mood swings. When you get
>that one figured out, let us know.
>
>In the meantime, I'm carrying on with strength training and aerobic exercise. Activity seems
>to fatigue Sybil/Eve/Jasmine/Tawanda/et al. It hasn't been this quiet in a long time. LOL
>
>Prairie Roots
>
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:33 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>I am a happy camper this morning. I think that history does make

some

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>difference. I used to be quite happy at 200 and thought I would stay

there.

Quoted message said:

>>Compared to 365, it was truly much better. Compared to now, no

contest.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I

Quoted message said:

>>really think I need to accept this as the spot and learn to modify

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mood

Quoted message said:

>>swings instead of my size "Lynne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>"]news:[email hidden]...
>>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you feel good stay where you are. Unrealistic goals that are impossible to attain just
>>> wreck self-esteem. You've come a very

long

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> way, and you need to be proud of your accomplishments. A BF of 19

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> AMAZING!!! You're my hero!
>>>
>>> Lynne
>>>
>>> >My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next

week

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>will
>>> >be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it

Quoted message said:

>>is
>>> >probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put

my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> >measurements into a site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at
>>> >19. something percent body fat. I am going

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>quit
>>> >trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>fifties,
>>> >y Ya as they say here
>>> >
>>>
>>

I think it is another guesstimate thing.

"Connie" <walshclan@nospam_primus.ca> wrote in message news:4028E555.2070900@nospam_primus.ca...

Quoted message said:

I guess you can't be athletic and still have a thick waist... hasn't seen some of the women hockey
players that I know!!

Connie

Joyce said:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ...

maybe my brain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is just tired today. This method definitely does seem to favor those

women with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline. But

I do know

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know I'm never gonna have a

tiny

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm

also

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM ..

if any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal

with.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Joyce

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well if you Were M, then that would be a very small WAIST measurement

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you had there. This thing is using that tool the docs' came up with a couple of years ago using
the waist measurement to figure cardiac risk factors? The ole apple shaped thing? I am going to
go see what I come

out

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with if I go minimal...

"Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

>Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats but use

minimal for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thing and

>get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know women carry

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

natural

>fatty tissue, but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to believe there

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

THAT much

>of a difference. And what if you fall somewhere in between? Like I

swear

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was

>supposed to be born a male, but came out a female ... super wide

shoulders, monkey

>arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens are too short

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

length

>and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice versa

... I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

know a

>few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine than my

own.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<G>

>I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but according to

charts it

>puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) - and my

wrist bone

>really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer hands -

probably

>not as long as yours, but not near as tiny as my *petite* daughter ...

who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

happens

>to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of us *tweeners*

fall? Or

>is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type of

things?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights, just

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

some

>other [censored] to straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of muscle,

always have,

>probably always will ... just not as much as I'd like. <G> I think I

need

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to

>build the muscles in the stomach area - everything else is doin' pretty

well. <G>

>And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it mean going down to

even

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

smaller

>sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants already -

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

those 6's

>tend to be pretty hard to find.
>
>I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be consuming - think

my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

daily

>trends tend to flucuate way too much right now to even try and figure

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

out. I

>may just have to take a stab at the program you like ... is always fun

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

play

>with new things. <G>
>
>Joyce
>
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>
>>Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I have

slender

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>"bones" but long ones? My hands are larger than almost any woman I

know,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is hard to use many of the indicators of frame size.
>>And taller women don't fit right into the recommended averages as far as calorie consumption
>>goes either. I am religiously logging every bite right now into diet power to see what

my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is telling me I am burning

2300

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay at a

stable

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that much. It

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>reacting right now to me losing from that evil one six place.
>>
>>I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and those

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>burn off any tummy fat that is hanging around 🙂. "Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>"]news:[email hidden]...
>>
>>>Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much more than
>>
just

>>the
>>
>>>number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is wonderful!

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>>checked
>>
>>>the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to his little
>>
quiz.

>>I'm
>>
>>>not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since it
>>
>>currently is TOM
>>
>>>(ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. <G> Regardless, there was
>>
something

>>else
>>
>>>there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight ...
>>
129-158.

>>So why
>>
>>>should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to quit
>>
>>worrying about
>>
>>>the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying in the
>>
low

>>to mid
>>
>>>130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away. <G>
>>>
>>>Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long way!!!
>>>
>>>Joyce
>>>
>>>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]>
>>
wrote:

>>>>My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next

week

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>
>>will
>>
>>>>be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that
>>>
it

>>is
>>
>>>>probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my measurements into a site
>>>>that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at 19. something percent body
>>>>fat. I am going

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>
>>quit
>>
>>>>trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
>>>
>>fifties,
>>
>>>>y Ya as they say here
>>>>
>>>

--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/205/155 RAFL 210.5/205/198.5

YUP! That is pretty much exactly what I've been thinking. I may have learned a lesson though. Do NOT
measure yourself the day of TOM and the morning after eating chinese. Results are NOT pretty. LOL! I
measured again a few days ago, results changed dramatically. I am now *fit* and hovering on
*athletic*. Guess this is just like myself ... changes moods whenever it feels like it. <G>

Joyce

Connie walshclan@nospam_primus.ca said:

I guess you can't be athletic and still have a thick waist... hasn't seen some of the women hockey
players that I know!!

Connie

Joyce said:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain is just tired
today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with distinctive waists ... not
those that have little to no waistline. But I do know my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also
know I'm never gonna have a tiny waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the
road? I'm also interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any
difference at all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

Lesanne said:

Well if you Were M, then that would be a very small WAIST measurement that you had there. This
thing is using that tool the docs' came up with a couple of years ago using the waist measurement
to figure cardiac risk factors? The ole apple shaped thing? I am going to go see what I come out
with if I go minimal...

"Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

>Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats but use

minimal for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thing and

>get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know women carry more

natural

>fatty tissue, but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to believe there is

THAT much

>of a difference. And what if you fall somewhere in between? Like I swear

I was

>supposed to be born a male, but came out a female ... super wide

shoulders, monkey

>arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens are too short in

length

>and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice versa ... I

know a

>few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine than my own.

<G>

>I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but according to

charts it

>puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) - and my

wrist bone

>really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer hands -

probably

>not as long as yours, but not near as tiny as my *petite* daughter ... who

happens

>to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of us *tweeners*

fall? Or

>is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type of things?
>
>One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights, just have

some

>other [censored] to straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of muscle,

always have,

>probably always will ... just not as much as I'd like. <G> I think I need

to

>build the muscles in the stomach area - everything else is doin' pretty

well. <G>

>And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it mean going down to even

smaller

>sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants already - and

those 6's

>tend to be pretty hard to find.
>
>I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be consuming - think my

daily

>trends tend to flucuate way too much right now to even try and figure it

out. I

>may just have to take a stab at the program you like ... is always fun to

play

>with new things. <G>
>
>Joyce
>
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I have slender "bones" but long ones?
>>My hands are larger than almost any woman I know, but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is
>>hard to use many of the indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right into the
>>recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either. I am religiously logging every
>>bite right now into diet power to see what my metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is
>>telling me I am burning 2300 calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay at a
>>stable weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that much. It is reacting right
>>now to me losing from that evil one six place.
>>
>>I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and those will burn off any tummy fat
>>that is hanging around 🙂. "Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>"]news:[email hidden]...
>>
>>>Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much more than
>>
just

>>the
>>
>>>number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is wonderful! I
>>
>>checked
>>
>>>the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to his little
>>
quiz.

>>I'm
>>
>>>not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since it
>>
>>currently is TOM
>>
>>>(ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. <G> Regardless, there was
>>
something

>>else
>>
>>>there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight ...
>>
129-158.

>>So why
>>
>>>should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to quit
>>
>>worrying about
>>
>>>the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying in the
>>
low

>>to mid
>>
>>>130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away. <G>
>>>
>>>Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long way!!!
>>>
>>>Joyce
>>>
>>>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]>
>>
wrote:

>>>>My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
>>>
>>will
>>
>>>>be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that
>>>
it

>>is
>>
>>>>probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my measurements into a site
>>>>that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at 19. something percent body
>>>>fat. I am going to
>>>
>>quit
>>
>>>>trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
>>>
>>fifties,
>>
>>>>y Ya as they say here
>>>>
>>

Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare tires too.
<G> Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had something to do with the
measurement factor ... checked again earlier this week and the measurement changed by more than
a full inch ... thus moving me into the fit range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't
buy either (the athletic part). I think nothing is gonna please me. <G>

On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting tomorrow. I have avoided the
scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the music, so to speak - also hasn't been
forefront on my mind. Hiked down there Wednesday morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar
thing down to zero to make sure it was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it
around when moving things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped back up, same
reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since I was ill in the early '80's.
And this after finally making that decision to stick with 130 for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe
it was only playing games with me.

Joyce

Fred said:

Yeah, yeah, you deal with baggage but with cars coming with undersized sparetires, you'd think us
guys would be able to have undersized spare tires, too! (G)

Joyce said:

I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ... maybe my brain is just tired
today. This method definitely does seem to favor those women with distinctive waists ... not those
that have little to no waistline. But I do know my own flaws and I can't argue that. I also know
I'm never gonna have a tiny waistline - never have so why would I think I would down the road? I'm
also interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM .. if any difference at
all. LOL Us women sure have a lot of baggage to deal with.

Joyce

Lesanne said:

Well if you Were M, then that would be a very small WAIST measurement that you had there. This
thing is using that tool the docs' came up with a couple of years ago using the waist measurement
to figure cardiac risk factors? The ole apple shaped thing? I am going to go see what I come out
with if I go minimal...

"Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
> Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats but use
minimal for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

thing and
> get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know women carry more
natural
> fatty tissue, but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to believe there is
THAT much
> of a difference. And what if you fall somewhere in between? Like I swear
I was
> supposed to be born a male, but came out a female ... super wide
shoulders, monkey
> arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens are too short in
length
> and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice versa ... I
know a
> few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine than my own.
<G>
>
> I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but according to
charts it
> puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) - and my
wrist bone
> really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer hands -
probably
> not as long as yours, but not near as tiny as my *petite* daughter ... who
happens
> to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of us *tweeners*
fall? Or
> is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type of things?
>
> One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights, just have
some
> other [censored] to straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of muscle,
always have,
> probably always will ... just not as much as I'd like. <G> I think I need
to
> build the muscles in the stomach area - everything else is doin' pretty
well. <G>
> And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it mean going down to even
smaller
> sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants already - and
those 6's
> tend to be pretty hard to find.
>
> I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be consuming - think my
daily
> trends tend to flucuate way too much right now to even try and figure it
out. I
> may just have to take a stab at the program you like ... is always fun to
play
> with new things. <G>
>
> Joyce
>
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I have slender "bones" but long ones?
> >My hands are larger than almost any woman I know, but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is
> >hard to use many of the indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right into the
> >recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either. I am religiously logging every
> >bite right now into diet power to see what my metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is
> >telling me I am burning 2300 calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay at a
> >stable weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that much. It is reacting right
> >now to me losing from that evil one six place.
> >
> >I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and those will burn off any tummy
> >fat that is hanging around 🙂. "Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> >"]news:[email hidden]...
> >> Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much more than
just
> >the
> >> number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is wonderful! I
> >checked
> >> the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to his little
quiz.
> >I'm
> >> not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since it
> >currently is TOM
> >> (ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. <G> Regardless, there was
something
> >else
> >> there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight ...
129-158.
> >So why
> >> should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to quit
> >worrying about
> >> the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying in the
low
> >to mid
> >> 130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away. <G>
> >>
> >> Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long way!!!
> >>
> >> Joyce
> >>
> >> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
> >>
> >> >My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
> >will
> >> >be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that
it
> >is
> >> >probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my measurements into a
> >> >site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at 19. something percent
> >> >body fat. I am going to
> >quit
> >> >trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
> >fifties,
> >> >y Ya as they say here
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

I wonder how one would go about finding out what IS behind those curtains. Bet this is something
we're never gonna know. <G>

Joyce

Fred said:

That was her beef - somewhere this scale was doing some kind of computing which seemed based on
girl/boy and not real values - she's a computer programmer and wants to know what's hidden behind
the "curtain!" (G)

Joyce said:

Well, if she figures out that formula - have her pass it along to the rest of us. I can see where
this *formula* might be another one of those general guideline type things, but there are so many
different body types - male and female - that I really don't see how just one specific body
measurement (such as waist) can give a totally accurate account. Eh, maybe just playing that
*close enough* game?

Joyce

Fred said:

Well, that's what a friend just lost her patience with - her new Tanita scale gave too completely
different results for the same data of Weight, height, etc but changed Female to Male and saw
such a change in percentage fat. She now wants to know Tanita's secrety formula (G)

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:34:46 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Now this I find really bizarre. I enter the exact same stats but use minimal for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>get slammed with 25.3%. Why the huge difference? I know women carry more natural fatty tissue,
>but c'mon - I find it pretty dang hard to believe there is THAT much of a difference. And what
>if you fall somewhere in between? Like I swear I was supposed to be born a male, but came out a
>female ... super wide shoulders, monkey arms (really need more of a mens sizing shirts as womens
>are too short in length and sleeve length, and too narrow in the shoulders). And vice versa ...
>I know a few men whose bone/body structure is actually more feminine than my own. <G>
>
>I have what I think of as a normal wrist measurement, but according to charts it puts me right
>on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) - and my wrist bone really sticks out! I also
>seem to be blessed with those longer hands - probably not as long as yours, but not near as tiny
>as my *petite* daughter ... who happens to be only 1 inch shorter than me. So where do those of
>us *tweeners* fall? Or is this just another one of those *take your best guess* type of things?
>
>One of these days I am going to get out and buy those weights, just have some other [censored] to
>straighten out first. I do have quite a bit of muscle, always have, probably always will ...
>just not as much as I'd like. <G> I think I need to build the muscles in the stomach area -
>everything else is doin' pretty well. <G> And yikes ... if I lose more in any area - will it
>mean going down to even smaller sizes? I'm in some 6's, some 8's ... depending ... pants already
>- and those 6's tend to be pretty hard to find.
>
>I have no idea as to what calorie count I should be consuming - think my daily trends tend to
>flucuate way too much right now to even try and figure it out. I may just have to take a stab at
>the program you like ... is always fun to play with new things. <G>
>
>Joyce
>
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:42:03 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>Thanks Joyce. I know muscle weighs. And Burns calories. I have slender "bones" but long ones?
>>My hands are larger than almost any woman I know, but I have a tiny wrist measurement. It is
>>hard to use many of the indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right into the
>>recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either. I am religiously logging every
>>bite right now into diet power to see what my metabolic rate is, and at this moment it is
>>telling me I am burning 2300 calories a day. I expect that to come down some when I stay at a
>>stable weight for a couple of weeks. I don't even Want to eat that much. It is reacting right
>>now to me losing from that evil one six place.
>>
>>I think you are at a great weight, now build some muscles and those will burn off any tummy fat
>>that is hanging around 🙂. "Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>"]news:[email hidden]...
>>> Wow Lesanne, sometimes those other indicators tell us much more than just
>>the
>>> number seen on the scale. Being considered *athletic* is wonderful! I
>>checked
>>> the website out, found out I am *acceptable* according to his little quiz.
>>I'm
>>> not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since it
>>currently is TOM
>>> (ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. <G> Regardless, there was something
>>else
>>> there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight ... 129-158.
>>So why
>>> should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to quit
>>worrying about
>>> the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying in the low
>>to mid
>>> 130's. And work on that body fat that just won't go away. <G>
>>>
>>> Congrats on your new and fit body. You've come a long way!!!
>>>
>>> Joyce
>>>
>>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
>>will
>>> >be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that it
>>is
>>> >probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my measurements into a site
>>> >that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at 19. something percent body
>>> >fat. I am going to
>>quit
>>> >trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
>>fifties,
>>> >y Ya as they say here
>>> >
>>>

I had noticed that 🙂

"Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I may not be *athletic*, but me is one smart woman. <G>

Joyce

Lesanne said:

good for you, I wondered how you found it with my messup

"Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I never looked at the official url - I typed in bobgreene.com and my

browser took

Quoted message said:

me to the site you listed. LOL!

Joyce

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:42:05 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>getwiththeprogram.comgetwiththeprogram.comOpen ↗ I hope ;0
>
>"Connie" <walshclan@nospam_primus.ca> wrote in message
>news:4026A3B7.6020000@nospam_primus.ca...
>> Lesanne:
>>
>> What is the Bob Greene site?
>>
>> Connie
>>
>> Lesanne wrote:
>> > Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and

thats

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>it",
>> > that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to

157

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>this
>> > morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my

muscle

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>mass,
>> > and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am

done.

Quoted message said:

>> > Also, I do still have enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>done a
>> > fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything.

And

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

>way
>> > I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get

below

Quoted message said:

>where
>> > I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began weightlifting while I was
>> > still in the mid 250's and I was not

dieting

Quoted message said:

>at
>> > the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still
>clearly
>> > see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and

my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> > shoulders. Bob Greene uses height, age, weight, waist measurement

and

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> > failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me

(lets

Quoted message said:

>not
>> > get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't

care

Quoted message said:

>to
>> > totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>close to
>> > 157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but
>whatever.
>> > She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there.
>> >
>> > 🙂 Lesanne
>> > 365/160/157 "Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> > "]news:[email hidden]...
>> >
>> >>A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say).
>> >>
>> >>Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone

size

Quoted message said:

>> >>or bone density or?????
>> >>
>> >>What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination?
>> >>
>> >>And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it down "thar?"
>> >>
>> >>On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next

week

Quoted message said:

>> >>
>> > will
>> >
>> >>>be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it

Quoted message said:

>> >>
>> > is
>> >
>> >>>probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put

my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >>>measurements into a site that Bob Greene has up, and came out

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >>>"athletic" category at 19. something percent body fat. I am

going

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

>> >>
>> > quit
>> >
>> >>>trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >>
>> > fifties,
>> >
>> >>>y Ya as they say here
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Connie Walsh
>>
>> 241.5/205/155 RAFL 210.5/205/198.5
>>
>

I think your goal can be higher if you feel comfortable there, KID!
(G)

Connie walshclan@nospam_primus.ca said:

Went to that site and even when I get to goal it says I'm overweight. Tha Nerve!! Apparently he
hasn't heard that WW says it's okay for me to weigh 155... Later that morning ... Oh no WW says
that I should weigh 148 since I'm less than 45... oh bummer!! Well I'm not changing my goal...
so there!!

Connie Confused but sufficiently Happy

Connie said:

Thanks Fred and Lesanne!!

Connie

Fred said:

It is getwiththeprogram.ORG

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:42:05 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> getwiththeprogram.comgetwiththeprogram.comOpen ↗ I hope ;0
>
> "Connie" <walshclan@nospam_primus.ca> wrote in message
> news:4026A3B7.6020000@nospam_primus.ca...
>
>> Lesanne:
>>
>> What is the Bob Greene site?
>>
>> Connie
>>
>> Lesanne wrote:
>>
>>> Loosely translated y Ya, means "and whatever" "and so on" "and thats
>>
>>
> it",
>
>>> that kind of thing. I am a happy camper my own scale is back to 157
>>
>>
> this
>
>>> morning. The leader thinks 155 is not realistic because of my muscle
>>
>>
> mass,
>
>>> and the size I am right now, as in measurements. She thinks I am done. Also, I do still have
>>> enough skin to cover 365 pounds although it has
>>
>>
> done a
>
>>> fabulous job of shrinking up, It doesn't flake off or anything. And the
>>
>>
> way
>
>>> I tend to get Ferociously hungry and feel weak when I try to get below
>>
>>
> where
>
>>> I am right now. My bone structure is fairly average, but I began weightlifting while I was
>>> still in the mid 250's and I was not dieting
>>
>>
> at
>
>>> the time. I have lost some of the muscle mass, but you can still
>>
>>
> clearly
>
>>> see quite a bit of it here and there, particularly in my quads and my shoulders. Bob Greene
>>> uses height, age, weight, waist measurement and
>>
>>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> failing). My waist measurement is 29 inches. Also, the top of me (lets
>>
>>
> not
>
>>> get too specific) still has two rather large weights that I don't care
>>
>>
> to
>
>>> totally lose, they give the body some shape. Y Ya. Gonna stick as
>>
>>
> close to
>
>>> 157 as I can. She does not think that is realistic either, but
>>
>>
> whatever.
>
>>> She thinks the 164 goal is good. But I am not going there.
>>>
>>> 🙂 Lesanne
>>> 365/160/157 "Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>> "]news:[email hidden]...
>>>
>>>
>>>> A MAINTAIN below GOAL is a GOOD THING (as Martha would say).
>>>>
>>>> Mind if I ask why the leader thought 155 was not realistic? Bone size or bone density
>>>> or?????
>>>>
>>>> What does that Bob Greene site use to make that determination?
>>>>
>>>> And is that "y Ya?" And if so, what does it mean when they say it down "thar?"
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
>>>>
>>>>
>>> will
>>>
>>>
>>>>> be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that it
>>>>
>>>>
>>> is
>>>
>>>
>>>>> probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my measurements into a
>>>>> site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at 19. something percent
>>>>> body fat. I am going to
>>>>
>>>>
>>> quit
>>>
>>>
>>>>> trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
>>>>
>>>>
>>> fifties,
>>>
>>>
>>>>> y Ya as they say here
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Connie Walsh
>>
>> 241.5/205/155 RAFL 210.5/205/198.5
>>
>

One more split and you will have an entire country! (G)

Prairie Roots said:

Fred said:

Now, I could ask if those were separate X's or just one with two minds or two bodies or just you
and YOU discussing the one guy but from two different (personality) perspectives? (G)

This is beginning to sound a little like the song "I'm My Own Grandpa."

Quoted message said:

You could be a lawyer if you can do both sides with reason.

So far, we've got a jury and attys for the plaintiff AND defense. All we need now is da JUDGE.

Quoted message said:

Lesanne said:

PR and I together could make up a jury pool. You know, it is funny, one of the things that one of
my exes said drove him crazy was the way I could argue both sides of things in the same
discussion. That would be the ex with the brain. As opposed to the ex with the body...

"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> You know if they ever call you for jury duty you could serve all alone (sort of!) (G)
>
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:37:38 -0600, Prairie Roots <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >Modifying my size is proving to be MUCH easier than modifying my mood swings. When you get
> >that one figured out, let us know.
> >
> >In the meantime, I'm carrying on with strength training and aerobic exercise. Activity seems
> >to fatigue Sybil/Eve/Jasmine/Tawanda/et al. It hasn't been this quiet in a long time. LOL
> >
> >Prairie Roots
> >
> >On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:33 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >>I am a happy camper this morning. I think that history does make some difference. I used to
> >>be quite happy at 200 and thought I would stay
there.
> >>Compared to 365, it was truly much better. Compared to now, no contest.
I
> >>really think I need to accept this as the spot and learn to modify the
mood
> >>swings instead of my size "Lynne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> >>"]news:[email hidden]...
> >>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If you feel good stay where you are. Unrealistic goals that are impossible to attain just
> >>> wreck self-esteem. You've come a very long way, and you need to be proud of your
> >>> accomplishments. A BF of 19 is AMAZING!!! You're my hero!
> >>>
> >>> Lynne
> >>>
> >>> >My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
> >>will
> >>> >be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that
it
> >>is
> >>> >probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my measurements into a
> >>> >site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at 19. something
> >>> >percent body fat. I am going to
> >>quit
> >>> >trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
> >>fifties,
> >>> >y Ya as they say here
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
>

Dig deep girl, I'm sure you can find in judge in there somewhere. <G>

Joyce

Prairie Roots said:

Fred said:

Now, I could ask if those were separate X's or just one with two minds or two bodies or just you
and YOU discussing the one guy but from two different (personality) perspectives? (G)

This is beginning to sound a little like the song "I'm My Own Grandpa."

Quoted message said:

You could be a lawyer if you can do both sides with reason.

So far, we've got a jury and attys for the plaintiff AND defense. All we need now is da JUDGE.

Quoted message said:

Lesanne said:

PR and I together could make up a jury pool. You know, it is funny, one of the things that one of
my exes said drove him crazy was the way I could argue both sides of things in the same
discussion. That would be the ex with the brain. As opposed to the ex with the body...

"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> You know if they ever call you for jury duty you could serve all alone (sort of!) (G)
>
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:37:38 -0600, Prairie Roots <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >Modifying my size is proving to be MUCH easier than modifying my mood swings. When you get
> >that one figured out, let us know.
> >
> >In the meantime, I'm carrying on with strength training and aerobic exercise. Activity seems
> >to fatigue Sybil/Eve/Jasmine/Tawanda/et al. It hasn't been this quiet in a long time. LOL
> >
> >Prairie Roots
> >
> >On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:33 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >>I am a happy camper this morning. I think that history does make some difference. I used to
> >>be quite happy at 200 and thought I would stay
there.
> >>Compared to 365, it was truly much better. Compared to now, no contest.
I
> >>really think I need to accept this as the spot and learn to modify the
mood
> >>swings instead of my size "Lynne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> >>"]news:[email hidden]...
> >>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If you feel good stay where you are. Unrealistic goals that are impossible to attain just
> >>> wreck self-esteem. You've come a very long way, and you need to be proud of your
> >>> accomplishments. A BF of 19 is AMAZING!!! You're my hero!
> >>>
> >>> Lynne
> >>>
> >>> >My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next week
> >>will
> >>> >be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said that
it
> >>is
> >>> >probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put my measurements into a
> >>> >site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at 19. something
> >>> >percent body fat. I am going to
> >>quit
> >>> >trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high one
> >>fifties,
> >>> >y Ya as they say here
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
>

Ah, a _WOMEN_ of extremes.

Lesanne said:

I would make a great lawyer. 2 guys. Very different. Biker, and History professor.

"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Now, I could ask if those were separate X's or just one with two minds or two bodies or just you
and YOU discussing the one guy but from two different (personality) perspectives? (G)

You could be a lawyer if you can do both sides with reason.

Lesanne said:

PR and I together could make up a jury pool. You know, it is funny, one

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the things that one of my exes said drove him crazy was the way I could argue both sides of
things in the same discussion. That would be the ex with the brain. As opposed to the ex with
the body...

"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> You know if they ever call you for jury duty you could serve all alone (sort of!) (G)
>
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:37:38 -0600, Prairie Roots <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >Modifying my size is proving to be MUCH easier than modifying my mood swings. When you get
> >that one figured out, let us know.
> >
> >In the meantime, I'm carrying on with strength training and aerobic exercise. Activity seems
> >to fatigue Sybil/Eve/Jasmine/Tawanda/et al. It hasn't been this quiet in a long time. LOL
> >
> >Prairie Roots
> >
> >On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:33 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >>I am a happy camper this morning. I think that history does make

some

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>difference. I used to be quite happy at 200 and thought I would stay
there.
> >>Compared to 365, it was truly much better. Compared to now, no

contest.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I
> >>really think I need to accept this as the spot and learn to modify

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mood
> >>swings instead of my size "Lynne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> >>"]news:[email hidden]...
> >>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If you feel good stay where you are. Unrealistic goals that are impossible to attain just
> >>> wreck self-esteem. You've come a very

long

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>> way, and you need to be proud of your accomplishments. A BF of 19

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>> AMAZING!!! You're my hero!
> >>>
> >>> Lynne
> >>>
> >>> >My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next

week

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>will
> >>> >be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it
> >>is
> >>> >probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I put

my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>> >measurements into a site that Bob Greene has up, and came out with "athletic" category at
> >>> >19. something percent body fat. I am going

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>quit
> >>> >trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>fifties,
> >>> >y Ya as they say here
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
>

we agree with all of you, Lee
Lesanne <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

yeah me too. and me too mee too yeah si an how....

"Prairie Roots" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Who needs a husband to argue with? All by myself, the discussion can get pretty heated.

Lesanne said:

PR and I together could make up a jury pool. You know, it is funny,

one

Quoted message said:

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the things that one of my exes said drove him crazy was the way I could argue both sides of
things in the same discussion. That would be the

ex

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with the brain. As opposed to the ex with the body...

"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> You know if they ever call you for jury duty you could serve all

alone

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> (sort of!) (G)
>
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 09:37:38 -0600, Prairie Roots <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >Modifying my size is proving to be MUCH easier than modifying my

mood

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >swings. When you get that one figured out, let us know.
> >
> >In the meantime, I'm carrying on with strength training and aerobic exercise. Activity seems
> >to fatigue Sybil/Eve/Jasmine/Tawanda/et al. It hasn't been this quiet in a long time. LOL
> >
> >Prairie Roots
> >
> >On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:41:33 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >>I am a happy camper this morning. I think that history does make

some

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>difference. I used to be quite happy at 200 and thought I would

stay

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there.
> >>Compared to 365, it was truly much better. Compared to now, no

contest.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I
> >>really think I need to accept this as the spot and learn to modify

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mood
> >>swings instead of my size "Lynne" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> >>"]news:[email hidden]...
> >>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:24:42 GMT, "Lesanne"

<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If you feel good stay where you are. Unrealistic goals that are impossible to attain just
> >>> wreck self-esteem. You've come a very

long

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>> way, and you need to be proud of your accomplishments. A BF of 19

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>> AMAZING!!! You're my hero!
> >>>
> >>> Lynne
> >>>
> >>> >My average for the week was 160. At least I am fairly sure next

week

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>will
> >>> >be a loss. My leader at my meeting (where I was at 159.5) said

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it
> >>is
> >>> >probably not realistic for me to try to get to 155 anyway. I

put

Quoted message said:

my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>> >measurements into a site that Bob Greene has up, and came out

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>> >"athletic" category at 19. something percent body fat. I am

going

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>quit
> >>> >trying to lose more and just concentrate on staying in the high

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>fifties,
> >>> >y Ya as they say here
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
>

Prairie Roots
232/163.6/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003