General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

RAFL Oh whatever

Started by Lesanne · 7 February 2004 · Last activity 18 February 2004 · 97 posts · 2,088 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postRAFL Oh whateverLesanne · 7 Feb 2004 02 / This pagePosts 61–80Page 4 of 5 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #97Fred · 18 Feb 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 7 February 2004
Last activity: 18 February 2004
Original author: Lesanne
Posts: 97
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 2,088
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Lesanne
Archived post

16 February 2004, 11:34 UTC #61

i got one.
"Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
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:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:24:04 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>PR and I together could make up a jury pool. You know, it is funny,

one of
Quoted message said:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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 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
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>
>>

Report
Joyce
Archived post

16 February 2004, 11:35 UTC #62

I knew it wouldn't take long to find one. Now the question is ... is she/he willing to come out and
play the part?
joyce
Lesanne said:
i got one.
"Joyce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Dig deep girl, I'm sure you can find in judge in there somewhere. <G>
Joyce
Prairie Roots said:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:21:22 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]> wrote:
>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."
>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.
>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:24:04 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>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
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:
>>> (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:
>>> >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:
>>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:
>>> >>> 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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>> >>> >"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
>>> >>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>

Report
Connie
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #63

Where's my corset...I'm going to be fit yet!! ;-) Maybe in 50 lbs.
Connie
Joyce said:
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
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>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
>>>>>
>>>>

--
Cheers,
Connie Walsh
241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

Report
Fred
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #64

Well, I await the OFFICIAL results
Joyce said:
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
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>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
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>

Report
Fred
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #65

Proprietary, I'm sure. The tanita website makes it sound as if it is validated against studies
so I guess there is a difference in the percent-fat or the normal woman and man who weigh the
same and have the same other appropriate stats (I don't recall if age, height or what are
entered as factors).
Joyce said:
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
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:28:28 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]> wrote:
>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
>>>> >
>>>>
>

Report
Connie
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #66

I love it ... an all-time low and she wasn't even trying... ain't that the way life goes.
Connie
Joyce said:
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
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>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
>>>>>
>>>>

--
Cheers,
Connie Walsh
241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

Report
Connie
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #67

Yep. It's enough to drive ya crazy. Wait a minute I am crazy!! Well it's enough to drive ya to
drink then.
Connie
Joyce said:
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
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:28:28 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]> wrote:
>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
>>>>>
>>>>

--
Cheers,
Connie Walsh
241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

Report
Fred
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #68

Yup - drink - WATER!!!!
Maybe more "interstitial" fat is just pre-supposed for women at any given weight/age/height. So it
makes a generalization when calculating body fat.
Connie walshclan@nospam_primus.ca said:
Yep. It's enough to drive ya crazy. Wait a minute I am crazy!! Well it's enough to drive ya to
drink then.
Connie
Joyce said:
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)
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:41:20 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>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
>
>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 19:28:28 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>>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
>>>>>>
>>>>

Report
Joyce
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #69

Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from what it was on
Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. <sigh> Since I only weighed myself twice in the week ... on
wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use the average, just went with the actual reading of
129.5 ... one tenth of a pound higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in
december). But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper.
Joyce started ww 2/5/02 ---> 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --->
LIFETIME 4/4/03 PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03
Fred said:
Well, I await the OFFICIAL results
Joyce said:
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)
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>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
>
>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>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
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>

Report
Joyce
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #70

That's pretty much exactly what I said when I stepped on the scale ... go figure! I ate more this
last week, exercised less, stayed away from the scale. I also did away with the flexpoints way of
journalling, and went back 100% to the old ww plan ... upped my daily point range and
banked/reversed banked away. It makes no sense to me at all. It could very well be just a shift in
water weight. It does confuse me though as to how the heck I find a firm number where I can
maintain. <sigh> Close to a year into the maintainence game and I'm still playing with numbers.
Joyce
Connie walshclan@nospam_primus.ca said:
I love it ... an all-time low and she wasn't even trying... ain't that the way life goes.
Connie
Joyce said:
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)
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>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
>
>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>>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
>>>>>>
>>>>

Report
Miss Violette
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #71

excellent, Lee
Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a

pound from
Quoted message said:
what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. <sigh> Since I only

weighed
Quoted message said:
myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to

not use
Quoted message said:
the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a

pound
Quoted message said:
higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in

december).
Quoted message said:
But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy

camper.
Quoted message said:

Joyce started ww 2/5/02 ---> 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --->
LIFETIME 4/4/03 PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:
Well, I await the OFFICIAL results
Joyce said:
Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare

tires too.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
<G> Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had

something to do
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the

athletic part).
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I think nothing is gonna please me. <G>
On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting

tomorrow. I
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face the

music, so
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there

Wednesday
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to

make sure it
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around

when moving
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped

back up,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low since

I was ill
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to

stick with 130
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with me.
Joyce
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message 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)
>
>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ...

maybe my brain
Quoted message said:
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:
Quoted message said:
>>distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline.

But I do know
Quoted message said:
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:
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:
Quoted message said:
>>interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM

.. if any
Quoted message said:
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:
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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>couple of years ago using the waist measurement to figure cardiac

risk
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>charts it
>>>> puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) - and

my
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>wrist bone
>>>> really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer

hands -
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>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*
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>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,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>> >indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right into

the
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>> >recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either. I

am
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>> >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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>quiz.
>>>> >I'm
>>>> >> not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since

it
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>> >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

...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>129-158.
>>>> >So why
>>>> >> should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to

quit
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>> >worrying about
>>>> >> the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying in

the
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>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]>
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>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
Quoted message said:
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:
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 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
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>

Report
Fred
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #72

You do realize that we are all playing at this like we are trying to still lose but also NOT lose
while maybe losing is okay but not a good idea which we then thwart again the next week, etc, etc
and who knows what (G)
Ah, camping - almost getting to be time for that again - in JULY~! (G) Actually, a Hells Canyon trip
may be in the offing in a month or so. Then again, may save the vacation for other things.
Joyce said:
Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from what it was on
Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. <sigh> Since I only weighed myself twice in the week ... on
wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use the average, just went with the actual reading of
129.5 ... one tenth of a pound higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime
in december). But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper.
Joyce started ww 2/5/02 ---> 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --->
LIFETIME 4/4/03 PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03
Fred said:
Well, I await the OFFICIAL results
Joyce said:
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
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]> wrote:
>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)
>
>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>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
>>
>>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>

Report
Fred
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #73

No you are not. You ARE MAINTAINING. Where were you a year ago? Where now? And where in between? You
lost a bit below but have been pretty steady, no?
Joyce said:
That's pretty much exactly what I said when I stepped on the scale ... go figure! I ate more this
last week, exercised less, stayed away from the scale. I also did away with the flexpoints way of
journalling, and went back 100% to the old ww plan ... upped my daily point range and
banked/reversed banked away. It makes no sense to me at all. It could very well be just a shift in
water weight. It does confuse me though as to how the heck I find a firm number where I can
maintain. <sigh> Close to a year into the maintainence game and I'm still playing with numbers.
Joyce
Connie walshclan@nospam_primus.ca said:
I love it ... an all-time low and she wasn't even trying... ain't that the way life goes.
Connie
Joyce said:
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
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]> wrote:
>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)
>
>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>>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
>>
>>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Report
Prairie Roots
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #74

Even as a lifetimer, seeing a new decade lower on the scale must still be a thrill. Congrats! I love
reading your stats, especially as I'm getting closer to my WW goal and beginning to entertain
thoughts about my personal goal. Thanks so much for sticking around and sharing your experience.
Prairie Roots On Sat said:
Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from what it was on
Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. <sigh> Since I only weighed myself twice in the week ... on
wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use the average, just went with the actual reading of
129.5 ... one tenth of a pound higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime
in december). But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper.
Joyce started ww 2/5/02 ---> 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --->
LIFETIME 4/4/03 PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03
Fred said:
Well, I await the OFFICIAL results
Joyce said:
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
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]> wrote:
>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)
>
>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>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
>>
>>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>

Report
Miss Violette
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #75

What did you settle on for a journal then? Lee
Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
That's pretty much exactly what I said when I stepped on the scale ... go

figure!
Quoted message said:
I ate more this last week, exercised less, stayed away from the scale. I

also did
Quoted message said:
away with the flexpoints way of journalling, and went back 100% to the old

ww plan
Quoted message said:
... upped my daily point range and banked/reversed banked away. It

makes no
Quoted message said:
sense to me at all. It could very well be just a shift in water weight.

It does
Quoted message said:
confuse me though as to how the heck I find a firm number where I can

maintain.
Quoted message said:
<sigh> Close to a year into the maintainence game and I'm still playing

with
Quoted message said:
numbers.
Joyce
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:30:28 -0500, Connie <walshclan@nospam_primus.ca>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:
I love it ... an all-time low and she wasn't even trying... ain't that the way life goes.
Connie
Joyce said:
Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare

tires too.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
<G> Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had

something to do
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the

athletic part).
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I think nothing is gonna please me. <G>
On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting

tomorrow. I
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face

the music, so
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there

Wednesday
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to

make sure it
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around

when moving
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped

back up,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low

since I was ill
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to

stick with 130
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with

me.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:

Joyce
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message 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)
>
>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>>I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ...

maybe my brain
Quoted message said:
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:
Quoted message said:
>>distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline.

But I do know
Quoted message said:
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:
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:
Quoted message said:
>>interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM

.. if any
Quoted message said:
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:
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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>couple of years ago using the waist measurement to figure cardiac

risk
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>
>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>
>>>charts it
>>>
>>>>puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) - and

my
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>
>>>wrist bone
>>>
>>>>really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer

hands -
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>
>>>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*
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>
>>>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,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>
>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>
>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>>recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either. I

am
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>>
>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>>
>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>>
>>>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
Quoted message said:
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:
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 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Report
Connie
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #76

Excellent results, Joyce, you fit almost athletic person you!!
Connie
Joyce said:
Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from what it was on
Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. <sigh> Since I only weighed myself twice in the week ... on
wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use the average, just went with the actual reading of
129.5 ... one tenth of a pound higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime
in december). But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy camper.
Joyce started ww 2/5/02 ---> 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --->
LIFETIME 4/4/03 PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03
Fred said:
Well, I await the OFFICIAL results
Joyce said:
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
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]> wrote:
>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)
>
>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>>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
>>
>>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

--
Cheers,
Connie Walsh
241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

Report
Joyce
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #77

Maybe that's where we have a tougher time settling into just being happy maintaining? That reward
thing! Somehow just staying the same, floating up and down a bit, just isn't the same as that steady
weekly decline ... even when we know we should be (and are) thrilled with it. Mentally, it really
does mess with you.
Joyce
Fred said:
I don't think seeing 140 for me is in the cards which may be why trying to get lower without a
SOLID goal does not work. Accepting a half decade is probably just not magical enough. And you have
pointed out the one real issue - the rewards for Maintenance have to be just maintaining. Hover.
Up. Hover. Down. Hover, Hover, waffle, wiffle.... Oh, and the thrill of still seeing myself in a
new light - it is still terrific but so UNconcrete.
Prairie Roots said:
Even as a lifetimer, seeing a new decade lower on the scale must still be a thrill. Congrats! I
love reading your stats, especially as I'm getting closer to my WW goal and beginning to entertain
thoughts about my personal goal. Thanks so much for sticking around and sharing your experience.
Prairie Roots On Sat said:
Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from what it was on
Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. <sigh> Since I only weighed myself twice in the week ... on
wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use the average, just went with the actual reading
of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit
sometime in december). But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy
camper.
Joyce started ww 2/5/02 ---> 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --->
LIFETIME 4/4/03 PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Well, I await the OFFICIAL results
>
>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>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
>>
>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>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)
>>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>

Report
Fred
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:11 UTC #78

I am beginning to think that I am not earning as many points for my exercise as I use to. It makes
sense but I don't like the idea - how the heck will I earn my DESSERT points. Today's ski trip just
did not seem like enough points. Oh, it was a hell of trip. Sticky snow dragging on the bottoms of
my skis and it snow flurried the entire time while foggy. Gee, doesn't it sound like fun (G)
I am doing sushi tonight - forced good food and narrow points.
Camping is generally terrific although there have been days or nights that were less so. I just love
looking up at the stars and being in the clean mountains altho, there have been days when the amount
of work was extraordinary. Should I admit I can do without the hot water and shower every day (g)
Joyce said:
HA! I was thinking the same thoughts on Friday when I hit the scales. Not trying to lose, but still
happy to see the numbers down ... then eat more and make up for it after weighin ... only to cut
back down the following days/week to make sure everything is back where it is supposed to be. Is it
us playing games with our minds, or our minds playing games with us, or is there any difference
between the two? <G> I THINK I have finally realized that I am where I should be. It APPEARS to be
not overly difficult to maintain. Yes, I have to pay attention - but it is doable. I think I'm
thwarting this week. <G>
I've never been into camping, sad to say. My idea of camping is a hotel room somewhere, with a nice
bed and warm, running water. On the rare occassion that I get a vacation, I'm taking one ... not
working harder than I already do at home!
<G> Hub never got into it either, tells the kids he had his fill of camping in Viet Nam.
Joyce
Fred said:
You do realize that we are all playing at this like we are trying to still lose but also NOT lose
while maybe losing is okay but not a good idea which we then thwart again the next week, etc, etc
and who knows what (G)
Ah, camping - almost getting to be time for that again - in JULY~! (G) Actually, a Hells Canyon
trip may be in the offing in a month or so. Then again, may save the vacation for other things.
Joyce said:
Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from what it was on
Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. <sigh> Since I only weighed myself twice in the week ... on
wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use the average, just went with the actual reading
of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit
sometime in december). But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy
camper.
Joyce started ww 2/5/02 ---> 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --->
LIFETIME 4/4/03 PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Well, I await the OFFICIAL results
>
>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>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
>>
>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>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)
>>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>

Report
Fred
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:12 UTC #79

Amen, sister. It does mess with me, for sure.
And I am one of the individuals who lost each and every weigh in until I reached Lifetime. So that
first gain was a real downer. Each one since has been less apocolyptic but that, too, is scary since
you also don't want to turn a blind eye to gains.
Joyce said:
Maybe that's where we have a tougher time settling into just being happy maintaining? That reward
thing! Somehow just staying the same, floating up and down a bit, just isn't the same as that
steady weekly decline ... even when we know we should be (and are) thrilled with it. Mentally, it
really does mess with you.
Joyce
Fred said:
I don't think seeing 140 for me is in the cards which may be why trying to get lower without a
SOLID goal does not work. Accepting a half decade is probably just not magical enough. And you
have pointed out the one real issue - the rewards for Maintenance have to be just maintaining.
Hover. Up. Hover. Down. Hover, Hover, waffle, wiffle.... Oh, and the thrill of still seeing myself
in a new light - it is still terrific but so UNconcrete.
Prairie Roots said:
Even as a lifetimer, seeing a new decade lower on the scale must still be a thrill. Congrats! I
love reading your stats, especially as I'm getting closer to my WW goal and beginning to
entertain thoughts about my personal goal. Thanks so much for sticking around and sharing your
experience.
Prairie Roots On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:23:39 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a pound from what it was on
>Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. <sigh> Since I only weighed myself twice in the week ...
>on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to not use the average, just went with the actual
>reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of a pound higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I
>hit sometime in december). But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy
>camper.
>
>Joyce started ww 2/5/02 ---> 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --->
>LIFETIME 4/4/03 PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03
>
>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>>Well, I await the OFFICIAL results
>>
>>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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)
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:12:10 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>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
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>
>>>>

Report
Laura
Archived post

16 February 2004, 12:12 UTC #80

Stop trying to confuse me <g>
"Fred" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
You do realize that we are all playing at this like we are trying to still lose but also NOT lose
while maybe losing is okay but not a good idea which we then thwart again the next week, etc, etc
and who knows what (G)
Ah, camping - almost getting to be time for that again - in JULY~! (G) Actually, a Hells Canyon
trip may be in the offing in a month or so. Then again, may save the vacation for other things.
Joyce said:
Well, they weren't nearly as exciting as the unofficial results. Up a

pound from
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
what it was on Wednesday - wouldn't ya just know it. <sigh> Since I only

weighed
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
myself twice in the week ... on wednesday and on friday ... I decided to

not use
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
the average, just went with the actual reading of 129.5 ... one tenth of

a pound
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
higher than my all-time low since joining ww (which I hit sometime in

december).
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
But it's still well within my maintainence game plan, so I am a happy

camper.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:

Joyce started ww 2/5/02 ---> 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --->
LIFETIME 4/4/03 PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:41:31 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:
Well, I await the OFFICIAL results
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 02:25:14 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Fair 'nuff! You are hereby granted permission to have undersized spare

tires too.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
><G> Evidentally the different phases of my female life also had

something to do
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>range, 1% away from the athletic ... which I don't buy either (the

athletic part).
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>I think nothing is gonna please me. <G>
>
>On another wierd note ... official weigh in will be very interesting

tomorrow. I
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>have avoided the scale the entire week, just not in the mood to face

the music, so
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>to speak - also hasn't been forefront on my mind. Hiked down there

Wednesday
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>morning, stepped up, stepped off. Slid the bar thing down to zero to

make sure it
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>was still well calibrated, thinking the boys must have moved it around

when moving
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>things in the basement. Nope, was still where it should be. Stepped

back up,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>same reading ... a new all time low for me - at least all time low

since I was ill
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>in the early '80's. And this after finally making that decision to

stick with 130
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>for maintanence. We'll see ... maybe it was only playing games with

me.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>
>Joyce
>
>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:52:55 -0800, Fred <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message 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)
>>
>>On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:45:38 -0600, Joyce <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>>I know what you are saying, but it still is mind boggling to me ...

maybe my brain
Quoted message said:
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:
Quoted message said:
>>>distinctive waists ... not those that have little to no waistline.

But I do know
Quoted message said:
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:
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:
Quoted message said:
>>>interested to see what next week's measurements will be ... after TOM

.. if any
Quoted message said:
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:
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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>couple of years ago using the waist measurement to figure cardiac

risk
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>charts it
>>>>> puts me right on the edge of medium/large framed (6.5 inches) -

and my
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>wrist bone
>>>>> really sticks out! I also seem to be blessed with those longer

hands -
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>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*
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>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,
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>> >indicators of frame size. And taller women don't fit right into

the
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>> >recommended averages as far as calorie consumption goes either.

I am
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>> >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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>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
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>quiz.
>>>>> >I'm
>>>>> >> not sure if there would be any difference in the reading since

it
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>> >currently is TOM
>>>>> >> (ugh!) and chinese dinner last night. <G> Regardless, there

was
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>something
>>>>> >else
>>>>> >> there that opened my eyes up a bit more ... acceptable weight

...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>129-158.
>>>>> >So why
>>>>> >> should I keep hoping for 125? Like you, I think I'm going to

quit
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>> >worrying about
>>>>> >> the possibility of seeing the 120's again and work on staying

in the
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>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]>
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
>>>>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
Quoted message said:
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:
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 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
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread