Fascinating history of pizza in Da Windy City. I recall those first
two from what I lived there. I guess I had Uno's once or twice.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 01:52:24 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I believe Uno's is the original. Due was opened on the opposite street corner, as
they (Uno's) had no room to expand. Gino's followed many years later, started by
two taxi drivers. Lou Malnati's was next, and I believe this restaurant was
started by the chef from Uno's (or son of the chef - can't remember exactly).
Emeril just did a show on this a few months ago, was very interesting (at least to
me). All three restaurants are still going strong and have expanded to the
suburbs. I have an Uno's about a mile east of me. Gino's is about 2 miles west.
Malnati's is maybe 5 miles southwest ... in the old firehouse/policestation where
I had many firehouse dinners in my youth. grin I love going there, the firepole
is still in place.

Joyce

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 11:48:06 -0800, Fred wrote:

Yeah, I recall Chicago Pizza - Uno or Du'e's or some such..... (G)



On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 10:58:03 -0600, Joyce wrote:

But see, I DO need that chocolate cake - my freezer is crying for it. G I'm
letting the freezer cry. I know me, it would not ever make it to the freezer -
and I have to recover from the pizza first. Well, guess I have to kill off the
pizza before I can recover from it. g

And yes, those brownie bites are purely evil. Hub picked up the container, put it
down, picked it up, put it down. Then tried to convince me that he was really
only thinking of purchasing them for me. I told him if they came home I would
personally force feed every damn one to him .. in one evening. They stayed on
that very visible table (probably the same place they are residing at your store).

Plain, regular, cheap pizza never was brought in regularly, guess we only had it
once every few months. But GOOD pizza (by my standards) is another story. It was
a safe item before we were able to get it locally. Lou Malnati's on rare
occassions, as there wasn't one nearby. Having a similar type restaurant within a
few miles is dangerous. g I did tell hub though, that next time we are ordering
much less ... just too much leftover this trip, no one came home to help eat it as
usual. You were from the original pizza era? Oh boy, I won't make any age
related jokes here. G I do remember those thin crust greasy pizzas, funny how I
loved them when I was a kid, funnier how I can't handle them any longer. I think
it might be true though. Only chicagoans truly love the chicago deep dish pizzas.

Joyce

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 07:09:48 -0800, Fred wrote:

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:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al ...
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