A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Weightwatchers
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

One more question-goal weight



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old February 26th, 2004, 07:42 AM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default One more question-goal weight

I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when trying to add
points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I still do not
add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same satisfaction as I do
when eating more sustainable foods.

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of meat. I
love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my
friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now that I
eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really struggled
when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes I will
be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am also
thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I am sure
I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that adding
points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time. Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your goal

... 20
points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was

difficult,
it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things so

quickly.
There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies -

making it
very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen.

Joyce

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
How many points are you currently eating though? You have to remember
that when
you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work with

than
you
currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is much
harder to
not go over. G

Joyce

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen

when
I
have to start adding back, Lee
Lesanne wrote in message
...
oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual

hunger,
rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more,

then
you
know you are not there
"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts
match
and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means

is
that
it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the
right
idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever

comes
first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine
frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ...
here's
a
website
that explains both:

http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going

to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist
measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going

to
be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person

in
the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else

about
me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with

err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee

to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to

be
made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate

frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very

Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not

Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build

after
you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier
boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set

up
into
4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next
for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies

have
said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height

related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us
now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would

think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and
feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until

well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an
absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me
where
I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at

least
it
was
a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be
interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into
consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you

that
is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around

140-150
as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so

that
the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know

that
it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after

being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal
reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at

a
time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight

is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in message
...
The ranges can be found at:


http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew

the
ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is

164,
so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have

made
a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my
secondary
goal
at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great

step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard

wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

WW has charts. The only break is that older

folks
(was
it
over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No

difference
for
men
or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned
ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65
years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones.

My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5




















  #82  
Old February 26th, 2004, 03:45 PM
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default One more question-goal weight

No juice here either - just too many points for not any substance. I
use to guzzle the stuff.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:42:49 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when trying to add
points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I still do not
add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same satisfaction as I do
when eating more sustainable foods.

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of meat. I
love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my
friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now that I
eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really struggled
when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes I will
be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am also
thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I am sure
I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that adding
points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time. Lee
Joyce wrote in message
. ..
You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your goal

... 20
points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was

difficult,
it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things so

quickly.
There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies -

making it
very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen.

Joyce

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
How many points are you currently eating though? You have to remember
that when
you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work with

than
you
currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is much
harder to
not go over. G

Joyce

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen

when
I
have to start adding back, Lee
Lesanne wrote in message
...
oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual

hunger,
rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more,

then
you
know you are not there
"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts
match
and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means

is
that
it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the
right
idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever

comes
first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine
frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ...
here's
a
website
that explains both:

http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going

to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist
measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going

to
be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person

in
the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else

about
me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with

err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee

to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to

be
made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate

frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very

Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not

Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build

after
you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier
boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set

up
into
4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next
for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies

have
said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height

related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us
now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would

think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and
feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until

well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an
absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me
where
I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at

least
it
was
a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be
interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into
consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you

that
is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around

140-150
as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so

that
the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know

that
it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after

being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal
reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at

a
time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight

is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in message
...
The ranges can be found at:


http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew

the
ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is

164,
so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have

made
a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my
secondary
goal
at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great

step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard

wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

WW has charts. The only break is that older

folks
(was
it
over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No

difference
for
men
or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned
ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65
years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones.

My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5




















  #83  
Old February 26th, 2004, 06:09 PM
Miss Violette
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default One more question-goal weight

the good news is that you guys who are already there all say it does get
less scary and that makes it better somehow, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when trying

to add
points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I still

do not
add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same satisfaction

as I do
when eating more sustainable foods.

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of meat.

I
love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my
friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now that

I
eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really struggled
when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes I

will
be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am also
thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I am

sure
I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that

adding
points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time. Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your

goal
... 20
points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was

difficult,
it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things

so
quickly.
There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies -

making it
very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen.

Joyce

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
How many points are you currently eating though? You have to

remember
that when
you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work

with
than
you
currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is

much
harder to
not go over. G

Joyce

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen

when
I
have to start adding back, Lee
Lesanne wrote in message
...
oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual

hunger,
rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose

more,
then
you
know you are not there
"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her

parts
match
and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really

means
is
that
it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has

the
right
idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever

comes
first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to

determine
frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements

....
here's
a
website
that explains both:

http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are

going
to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist
measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are

overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously

going
to
be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight

person
in
the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else

about
me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage

with
err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from

knee
to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having

to
be
made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate

frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have

very
Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people,

not
Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build

after
you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself

med./heavier
boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is

set
up
into
4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25,

next
for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies

have
said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height

related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to

us
now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those

wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would

think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look

and
feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You

are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal

until
well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told

an
absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see

me
where
I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at

least
it
was
a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be
interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into
consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you

that
is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around

140-150
as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with

so
that
the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I

know
that
it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after

being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal
reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step

at
a
time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target

weight
is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in

message
...
The ranges can be found at:



http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I

knew
the
ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range

is
164,
so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have

made
a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my
secondary
goal
at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great

step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard

wrote:


Fred wrote in

news


WW has charts. The only break is that older

folks
(was
it
over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No

difference
for
men
or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned
ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and

65
years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones.

My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5






















  #84  
Old February 26th, 2004, 08:35 PM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default One more question-goal weight

It really does become less scary. I think it is in part because it is so much
less daunting to attack things when it's only 1, 2 or 3 pounds as opposed to 20,
50 or more. So if I do overdo things a bit, it is easy to cut back.

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:09:25 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

the good news is that you guys who are already there all say it does get
less scary and that makes it better somehow, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when trying

to add
points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I still

do not
add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same satisfaction

as I do
when eating more sustainable foods.

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of meat.

I
love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my
friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now that

I
eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really struggled
when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes I

will
be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am also
thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I am

sure
I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that

adding
points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time. Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your

goal
... 20
points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was
difficult,
it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things

so
quickly.
There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies -
making it
very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen.

Joyce

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
How many points are you currently eating though? You have to

remember
that when
you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work

with
than
you
currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is

much
harder to
not go over. G

Joyce

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen
when
I
have to start adding back, Lee
Lesanne wrote in message
...
oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual
hunger,
rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose

more,
then
you
know you are not there
"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her

parts
match
and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really

means
is
that
it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has

the
right
idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever
comes
first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to

determine
frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements

...
here's
a
website
that explains both:
http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are

going
to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist
measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are

overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously

going
to
be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight

person
in
the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else
about
me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage

with
err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from

knee
to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having

to
be
made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate
frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have

very
Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people,

not
Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build
after
you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself

med./heavier
boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is

set
up
into
4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25,

next
for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies
have
said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height
related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to

us
now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those

wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would
think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look

and
feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You

are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal

until
well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told

an
absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see

me
where
I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at
least
it
was
a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be
interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into
consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you
that
is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around
140-150
as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with

so
that
the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I

know
that
it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after
being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal
reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step

at
a
time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target

weight
is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in

message
...
The ranges can be found at:



http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I

knew
the
ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range

is
164,
so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have
made
a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my
secondary
goal
at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great
step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard

wrote:


Fred wrote in

news

WW has charts. The only break is that older
folks
(was
it
over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No
difference
for
men
or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned
ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and

65
years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones.
My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5






















  #85  
Old February 27th, 2004, 02:08 AM
Miss Violette
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default One more question-goal weight

VERY reassuring, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
It really does become less scary. I think it is in part because it is so

much
less daunting to attack things when it's only 1, 2 or 3 pounds as opposed

to 20,
50 or more. So if I do overdo things a bit, it is easy to cut back.

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:09:25 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

the good news is that you guys who are already there all say it does get
less scary and that makes it better somehow, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when

trying
to add
points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I

still
do not
add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same

satisfaction
as I do
when eating more sustainable foods.

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of

meat.
I
love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my
friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now

that
I
eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really

struggled
when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes

I
will
be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am

also
thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I

am
sure
I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that

adding
points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time.

Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your

goal
... 20
points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first

was
difficult,
it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to

things
so
quickly.
There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and

veggies -
making it
very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen.

Joyce

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
How many points are you currently eating though? You have to

remember
that when
you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work

with
than
you
currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is

much
harder to
not go over. G

Joyce

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will

happen
when
I
have to start adding back, Lee
Lesanne wrote in message
...
oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual
hunger,
rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose

more,
then
you
know you are not there
"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her

parts
match
and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really

means
is
that
it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has

the
right
idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him

whichever
comes
first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to

determine
frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth

measurements
...
here's
a
website
that explains both:
http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are

going
to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist
measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are

overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously

going
to
be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight

person
in
the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything

else
about
me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage

with
err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller

from
knee
to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept

having
to
be
made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to

indicate
frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have

very
Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average

people,
not
Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in

message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body

build
after
you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself

med./heavier
boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it

is
set
up
into
4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to

25,
next
for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new

studies
have
said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and

height
related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold

to
us
now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those

wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I

would
think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will

look
and
feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician.

You
are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal

until
well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was

told
an
absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to

see
me
where
I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but

at
least
it
was
a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be
interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into
consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for

you
that
is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around
140-150
as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal

with
so
that
the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I

know
that
it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point

after
being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal
reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one

step
at
a
time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message

...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target

weight
is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in

message
...
The ranges can be found at:



http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I

knew
the
ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of

range
is
164,
so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may

have
made
a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set

my
secondary
goal
at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a

great
step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard

wrote:


Fred wrote in

news

WW has charts. The only break is that

older
folks
(was
it
over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No
difference
for
men
or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The

assigned
ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10"

and
65
years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all

bones.
My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5
























  #86  
Old February 27th, 2004, 03:28 AM
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default One more question-goal weight

BOO! (G)

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:09:25 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

the good news is that you guys who are already there all say it does get
less scary and that makes it better somehow, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when trying

to add
points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I still

do not
add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same satisfaction

as I do
when eating more sustainable foods.

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of meat.

I
love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my
friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now that

I
eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really struggled
when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes I

will
be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am also
thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I am

sure
I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that

adding
points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time. Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your

goal
... 20
points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was
difficult,
it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things

so
quickly.
There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies -
making it
very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen.

Joyce

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
How many points are you currently eating though? You have to

remember
that when
you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work

with
than
you
currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is

much
harder to
not go over. G

Joyce

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen
when
I
have to start adding back, Lee
Lesanne wrote in message
...
oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual
hunger,
rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose

more,
then
you
know you are not there
"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her

parts
match
and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really

means
is
that
it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has

the
right
idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever
comes
first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to

determine
frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements

...
here's
a
website
that explains both:
http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are

going
to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist
measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are

overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously

going
to
be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight

person
in
the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else
about
me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage

with
err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from

knee
to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having

to
be
made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate
frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have

very
Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people,

not
Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build
after
you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself

med./heavier
boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is

set
up
into
4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25,

next
for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies
have
said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height
related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to

us
now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those

wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would
think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look

and
feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You

are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal

until
well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told

an
absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see

me
where
I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at
least
it
was
a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be
interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into
consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you
that
is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around
140-150
as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with

so
that
the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I

know
that
it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after
being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal
reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step

at
a
time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target

weight
is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in

message
...
The ranges can be found at:



http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I

knew
the
ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range

is
164,
so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have
made
a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set my
secondary
goal
at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a great
step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard

wrote:


Fred wrote in

news

WW has charts. The only break is that older
folks
(was
it
over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No
difference
for
men
or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned
ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and

65
years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones.
My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5






















  #87  
Old February 27th, 2004, 05:04 AM
Miss Violette
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default One more question-goal weight

good one, Lee
Fred wrote in message
...
BOO! (G)

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:09:25 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

the good news is that you guys who are already there all say it does get
less scary and that makes it better somehow, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
I think the first few months of maintenance were the scariest when

trying
to add
points, so I avoided it pretty much. Now it's danged easy. G I

still
do not
add juice for points. I like juice, but don't get the same

satisfaction
as I do
when eating more sustainable foods.

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:39:47 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of

meat.
I
love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my
friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now

that
I
eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really

struggled
when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes

I
will
be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am

also
thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I

am
sure
I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that

adding
points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time.

Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your

goal
... 20
points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first

was
difficult,
it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to

things
so
quickly.
There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and

veggies -
making it
very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen.

Joyce

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:22:42 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
How many points are you currently eating though? You have to

remember
that when
you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work

with
than
you
currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is

much
harder to
not go over. G

Joyce

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will

happen
when
I
have to start adding back, Lee
Lesanne wrote in message
...
oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual
hunger,
rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose

more,
then
you
know you are not there
"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her

parts
match
and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really

means
is
that
it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has

the
right
idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him

whichever
comes
first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to

determine
frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth

measurements
...
here's
a
website
that explains both:
http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are

going
to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist
measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are

overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously

going
to
be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight

person
in
the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:13:13 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything

else
about
me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage

with
err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller

from
knee
to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept

having
to
be
made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to

indicate
frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have

very
Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average

people,
not
Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in

message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body

build
after
you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself

med./heavier
boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it

is
set
up
into
4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to

25,
next
for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new

studies
have
said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and

height
related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold

to
us
now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those

wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I

would
think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will

look
and
feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician.

You
are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal

until
well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was

told
an
absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to

see
me
where
I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but

at
least
it
was
a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be
interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura"

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into
consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for

you
that
is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around
140-150
as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal

with
so
that
the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I

know
that
it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point

after
being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal
reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one

step
at
a
time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message

...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target

weight
is
116-140....aye
caramba

"Connie" wrote in

message
...
The ranges can be found at:



http://www.weigh****chers.com/health...thyweight.aspx

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I

knew
the
ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of

range
is
164,
so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may

have
made
a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

Yes, WW first assigns a 10% loss. And I set

my
secondary
goal
at
a
2nd ten percent. Then I set the WW goal.

But in any event, get below 200 will be a

great
step.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard

wrote:


Fred wrote in

news

WW has charts. The only break is that

older
folks
(was
it
over
45??
or 50??) get to be slightly higher. No
difference
for
men
or
women.
It is based on height.


My first assigned goal is 225#. The

assigned
ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10"

and
65
years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all

bones.
My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5
























 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ok, fine, whatever, I give up Luna Low Carbohydrate Diets 101 November 1st, 2005 05:33 AM
We may be screwed That T Woman General Discussion 2 December 7th, 2004 11:03 AM
Study credits Weight Watchers with helping many to keep weight off Neutron Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 May 29th, 2004 06:07 PM
Glycogen weight question and a status update JJ Low Carbohydrate Diets 27 April 19th, 2004 10:51 PM
goal weight Sam Hain Low Carbohydrate Diets 5 January 10th, 2004 06:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.