View Single Post
  #131  
Old March 8th, 2004, 02:40 AM
Miss Violette
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Darn!! Up TWO pounds???

We ended up eating it with asparagus, noodles itialano SP? and the pie, an
entire TJ meal,... I will purchase again...will purchase again... will.. Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
It does sound good, I'll take a look at it next trip in. Thanks for the

info.
See? Even now YOU are pushing Trader Joe's products. It doesn't take

long, does
it? grin

Joyce

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 03:43:11 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

It is a pi deal, philo dough, spinach and cheese in layers, top and

bottom
crust. We used it as the main entree, but you could make it six pieces

and
use as a side. It reminded me of those little spinach turnovers from a
Greek restaurant but with a little more pepper. If we have time tomorrow

I
think we will have it with cauliflower and buttered parmesan noodles, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
What is this? Is it like a lasagna ... or a pot pie? I'm never sure

how
things
like this will swing past the rest of the family. I'd probably like

it,
but they
are a much fussier crew.

Joyce

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 00:05:25 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

Try the Mediterranean spinach pie from Trader Joe's for something new,

that
was tonight's dinner, really good, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
Ok, ok, no pushing food ... today anyway. I haven't had anything

new
and
interesting to push, and probably best if I didn't push the spinach

pizza
we had
for dinner last night (although I'd like to, have half of the dang

thing
in the
fridge still). It was good though. G

Joyce

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:59:59 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Hey, you are not allowed to push food! (G) High tech toys are
entirely different (G)

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:25:58 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Arggggggh! you are really trying hard to talk me into that

wirless,
aren't you?
At least I push you to the cheaper things (bulk icecream). G

Although
... less
calories in a wireless adapter.

Joyce

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 06:47:50 -0800, Fred


wrote:

I will not discuss weight at the moment (which appears up again

this
morning)

Good for getting in all that exercise. I believe that I am

taking
the
day off to hit the downhill slopes on cross-country gear. At

least
that is the email I just sent my secretary (G)

Wireless is really neat. Yesterday, a few times I opened the

laptop
downstairs and just surfed the web and checked some stuff out.

Also
moved a file or two between computers.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:09:19 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Evidentally, weight dropped way down today, right back to where

it
should be. I
did get in two treadmill sessions today though, so made up a bit

for
being out of
commission for the past few days. Don't think I'm going to make

a
habit of that
though. The time hub chooses to exercise is tough for me. Just
finish up and
have to move right into dinner prep - while he rests quietly on

his
chair. Guess
I shouldn't complain, I'm probably still burning those calories.

G

I'm totally jealous of your wireless connection, and moving into

a
second one.
I'm scared silly to even attempt the first. Then again, maybe I
should just bite
the bullet and do it ... while Linksys still offers free tech

support.
G I will
definitely go with Linksys merchandise, the customer service is

worth
every extra
penny.

Joyce

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 07:10:56 -0800, Fred


wrote:

Well, bitching about a submerged treadmill probably was worth

some
points anyway.

Yes, crossing fingers, Linksys gets my vote. I have also

called a
few
times. And probably will again as I have another wireless to

hookup
(G)

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:37:36 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

I usually avoid tech support as much as I can, didn't have a

choice
with the modem
issue as from what I've discovered dsl modems can not be

purchased
from any stores
around me. Cable modems, yes ... dsl, no. Don't know why and

no
one seems to be
able to give me an answer. I've contacted Linksys twice now,

both
times they have
been extremely helpful and courteous (maybe I've just been

lucky?).
I've noticed
the same thing with support going to charging, might have been

when
I stopped
calling. Paying for help with a product is one of those

things
that
really
irritates me. Is it any different than visiting a customer

service
desk in a
retail store? Or a cashier checking me out at a grocer? Or a

bank
teller? next
thing ya know, we'll be paying for those services as well. I

figure
that these
salaries are already covered in the inflated merchandise

prices
...
now it's just
another way to nick the consumer. sigh

No treadmill for the past 2 days. Hub decided to unload all

the
bike parts on TOP
of the treadmill ... thus putting me out of commission. I

bitched
loud and long
today ... bike is now put together and treadmill is once again
usable. MEN! g

Joyce

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 06:29:59 -0800, Fred


wrote:

Sorry you had the usual response from support people but

managed
to
get going eventually. I am still waiting for linksys to end

their
pretty universal coverage - so many now charge fees

IMMEDIATELY.
There use to be free tech, then 90 days free tech. Now there

is
NO
tech. I guess it was to be expected since some much of this

stuff
has
substantially dropped in price.

Breathe deeply and hit the treadmill - oh, I don't mean with

your
fist!

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:59:38 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

After the day I had today, trying to get router to work with

new
modem, the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit.

I
am
not up to any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have to

do
was plug the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well.

WRONG!
Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no tech
support - only told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking

service.
I was not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I

finally
screamed at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you will

push
the magic switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be

told
that customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling

that
my
questions were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind

young
man who had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason

the
router ran on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept

switching
to
those wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no sense

to
me,
but it did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:21:07 -0800, Fred
wrote:

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:20:12 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and

vacuuming
are concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new

vacuum
yesterday, have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I

would
have used the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:38:06 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and

dusting
and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body

definitely
finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:40:01 -0600, Joyce
wrote:

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the

vacuuming,
dusting - general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending

the
entire day on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my

brain
works, and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that

laundry
was great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do

anything
else. And since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not

losing
weight ... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:32:46 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of

it
I
do not take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take

points
for things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I

have
lost as well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise.

But
having said that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry

and
in
my case I walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took

the
APs
for the big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for

seven
hours with just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the
discrepancy in points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but

along
with that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually,
eventually adapt to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order to

eat
the points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
news:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al7g03qot ...
No more mudslides - too bad (G)

I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are

definitely
a
oddball
factor in WW. I think, though, that you are

correct -
they
are
intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so

that
the point
values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain

benefit
even
if you eat
the calories/points. But like you, even though I was

very
active in
my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not

earning
as many
points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60

pounds
less fuel to
burn. I guess we should not second guess this

stuff -
we
know that it
works pretty well and they do constantly come up with

new
tweaks
(probably both for commercial reasons and practical
reasons.)

Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and

why
on some days
to just keep the mind fresh (G)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce


wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred

wrote:



On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce


wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred

wrote:


You may be right. Too little main course might

lead
to even more
snacking. The body may just want to hold at

this
weight. And maybe
I
just need to cater to it. A WW leader who

shall
remain nameless has
suggested that my weekend's probably need more

food.
After all I am
not still burning off the self-storage points

that
use to gather
around my waist.

I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting

the
same thing that
I have ...
we're just where our bodies want or need to be.
Up/down a few
pounds, it all
balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem

to
stay
in place
permanently. I
think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a

prior
post
when she said
that if we
are still losing weight easily, then we aren't

*there*
yet. I'm
thinking, my
friend, we are there ... whether we like it or

not.

I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of

just
wobbling in place
- like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit

right
and
mostly straight
ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on


MAINTENANCE.

Which is as it should be when you are where you

belong.

Yup, I think it is finally registering with me

that
seesawing a bit is
just going
to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to

where I
was last week.
Then I
killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back

up
tomorrow. G I

Well, since I read down below, I think you needed

the
mudslide to
clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than

the
fact that I
will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I

think
this might be
another slightly up week - so says the scale this
morning. I need a
down week again! Oh, still under goal.

Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected -

nothing
major. And that
bottle is
now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so

it
will no longer
bother me.
Probably be another year before I see one again. G

I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking

was
better last
night -
that's two nights after the weekend. And I

recall
it
was similar
last
week. Or is it just that today is WI and my

mind
accepts LESS.

For the most part my snacking has been pretty

well
under control,
with exception
to last week. G Don't know what got into me

or
why.
The last few
days I
haven't felt those same hunger munchies that

nothing
would satisfy.
Maybe I need
to keep better track of these episodes? I

wonder
if
they have
anything to do with
hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body
sending signals to
eat, eat, eat!

Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of

course,
we definitely
accepted as the reason why we could not get the

excess
weight off
BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the

body
does
have its
limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it,

I'm
sure, is working
to keep the body working correctly and nourished

right.
I do know (I
wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry

but
just snacking.
Are those the signals that I really do need those
snacks? They are
better snacks than years past.

Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I

do
snack, usually
(but not
always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but

it
definitely is
nowhere near the
amount that I was snacking on last year. When I

hit
those constant
snacking
phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to

myself
and everyone
else. My
stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little
lightheaded or just not
feeling
quite right. Then there are the times when I am

just
bored and eating
seems to be
the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get

control
of
... as I sit
here in front
of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there

is a
bowl of meringues
sitting
right in front of me. I may go dump them back

into
the
container.

Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike

ride,
that breakfast
cookie. too much stuff.

Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have

you
ever
just felt like
you've
really overdone things - yet when thinking it all

out
it
really wasn't
THAT bad?
Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've

eaten
has
left me
feeling
incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what,

nothing I
can really put my
finger
on. The only good thing about feeling this way is

that
it
keeps me from
snacking.
I haven't had one snack all day long.

Ok, here's something else I was thinking about

today
...
and I'm
probably way off
base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense.
Regarding the
amount of
activity points earned, and eaten. I understand

that
100 calories
expended = 1
activity point, and this made sense to me as I was
losing weight. Ok,
so what if
roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's

we
earned, we could
still lose
weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat

of a
deficit mode,
which really
does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to
maintain ... by still
working
with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing

ourselves
in by not
eating enough
and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so

later?
Did I convey
my thoughts
well enough for anyone to understand? I guess

this
came
into play
today when I
was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had

splurged
on
last week.
Roughly 13
points for a large one (I really splurged!) ...

600
or
close to it
calories.
Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5

days
to
earn enough
activity
points to work it off. Today for some reason my

brain
kicked into
calorie mode
instead ... which told me that no, it really is

only
2
workout sessions
on my
treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off
everyday, and only
eating what ww
says I've earned ... could that explain those

hungry
days? And explain
why my
weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it

would
when I did hit
that feeding
frenzy?

Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting
points to calories
and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe

less
clear but you
folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned

might
have
a better
handle on things. So you think WW did not quite

tell
us
the truth?
(G) That could explain why I lost so well during

the
program - I was
getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a

weekend
a
some more
during the week. And I was better at limiting the
snacking back then
- driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own

FAT
points to burn,
I did not need or desire the extra points I am now
consuming.

I'm going on information passed along by others, as

to
the
calorie vs.
points
conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm
*thinking* makes any
sense at
all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just
outthinking myself
once again.
My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie
difference between
points eaten
and activity points is probably because most people

will
figure those
activity
points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to

what
is really
considered high
exertion. I know my perception was quite different

when I
was sitting at
220
pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the
neighborhood leisurely
was a
chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to

speak)
even if
figured high,
you should still lose some weight. I'm also

thinking
of
ww telling
people that 30
minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points

....
still can't quite
figure
that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is

pretty
much
nothing other
than a
few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less
exertion than 30
minutes on
the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is

also a
BIG factor.
While I do
still have that drive and still consider myself as

trying
to succeed, the
goal
itself has definitely changed.

I'm confused again. G

Same here.

Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it.

Joyce