If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
I love them, but I am terribly afraid of them, too good to have around, Lee
Joyce wrote in message ... 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:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al7g0 ... 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 |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
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 |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
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 |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
I meant itilano noodles
Miss Violette wrote in message ... 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 |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
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:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al7 ... 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 |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Darn!! Up TWO pounds???
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
soc.support.fat-rejectance FAQ Appendix A Version 5.0 | NR | General Discussion | 6 | June 18th, 2004 12:37 PM |
soc.support.fat-rejectance FAQ Appendix A Version 5.0 | NR | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 6 | June 18th, 2004 12:37 PM |
soc.support.fat-rejectance FAQ Appendix A Version 5.0 | NR | General Discussion | 0 | May 22nd, 2004 05:39 PM |
How fat are the fat acceptors? | The New Lady Veteran | General Discussion | 2 | April 21st, 2004 06:47 AM |
How fat are the fat acceptors? | The New Lady Veteran | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | April 21st, 2004 06:47 AM |