I used to tell people when I could see I could gain weight looking in a WW
magazine, Lee
Fred wrote in message
...
Pretzel Sticks and scones will put fat on bones
But words will never harm you! (g)

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 20:35:23 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

I'll have you know I think I gained reading this post, Lee drooling...
Fred wrote in message
.. .
Pushing TUNA is just fine. I like the stuff and it is healthy.

I saw the chocolate cake but I still have some frozen so do not NEED
IT YET (G)

I saw the brownie bites as I quickly turned an aisle corner. They are
set very visibly on the aisle end. No, I just know that those are
dangerous in size and munchiness. I don't think I could eat just one.
The chocolate cake is just a reward and it is cake and gets eaten from
a plate with a fork. Brownie bites - just pop one in and swallow, pop
in another and swallow, pop in yet a third and ...... You get the
idea. Much more dangerous than Mango (G)

I like pizza but it was never an "often" item anyway. More when I was
in Junior HS (G) when it was first introduced and was 0.10 cents a
slice with free coke!!! It was a staple back then. I still remember
the real olive oil running down the forearm and dripping off the
elbow......



On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 03:08:30 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Alright!!!!! Today I'm pushing the costco Tuna - shouldn't do you in
too
badly.
G I did look at the chocolate cake once again, and brownie bites
....
they
stayed in the store. And checked for the skinny cow larger pack ...
nope, nothing
... only healthy choice in the icecream section.

Pizza is a staple in this house, had it all the way through ww. It's
nice to know
that it can be done. I suppose what I get is somewhat lower in
points,
considering it has no meat, only spinach. And the crust is more of a
cornmeal
crust - not a tough, doughy type. Still, much better choices out
there -
but as
far as pizza goes, this is my favorite.

Joyce

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 16:57:57 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Okay, today you can push food (G)

Ski trip was work. But ultimately fun after I stopped (g)

Have not had pizza in a long while. The last time may have been last
April in Moab, Utah (G)

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 12:25:47 -0600, Joyce wrote:

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:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al7g03 ...
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