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: 5/16/03Fred 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.
><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
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>