One more question-goal weight

Dang. I don't want to figure out all those cm and junk

"Fred" wrote in message
...
Okay, here's another site but is seems to say measure the elbow
"BUMPS" side to side and show an image:

http://www.healthyeatingclub.com/boo...a/ch4/4-13.htm



On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:56:00 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, this site might make you feel better. G
http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html According to this, using
the wrist
measurement is an ok way of determining frame size, but measuring the
elbow
breadth is much more accurate. Not sure how true it is, but they *say*
so. G
Maybe the bones in the elbow don't move or hold as much as we gain/lose
weight, at
least in the same manner as the wrists?

And here's another site that calculates using either or both of the
above, PLUS
height and sex. http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/fsz I don't put
much stock
in this though, as playing around with it I can see how it *says* my
frame size
changes with each measurement. Common sense tells me that before I lost
weight I
had a bunch of fat hanging on my wrists (as well as elsewhere), yet my
frame size
would have still been the same.

Regardless ... I am still considered a large frame ... 6.75 wrist, 3"
elbow
breadth, 5'6" tall. sigh I either have to grow several inches or lose
more in
my wrist to get the frame size to change.

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:38:32 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

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

You know - I don't think it matters. Like many of these other NORMS,
they are generalizations to some extent. Besides, you know where you
fit now. You are not passing out from lack of food (generally) nor
are you packing on pounds anymore. You do not need to know frame size
to figure out how much to eat and maintain other than slight
fluctuations.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:53:36 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

Dang. I don't want to figure out all those cm and junk

"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
Okay, here's another site but is seems to say measure the elbow
"BUMPS" side to side and show an image:

http://www.healthyeatingclub.com/boo...a/ch4/4-13.htm



On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:56:00 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, this site might make you feel better. G
http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html According to this, using
the wrist
measurement is an ok way of determining frame size, but measuring the
elbow
breadth is much more accurate. Not sure how true it is, but they *say*
so. G
Maybe the bones in the elbow don't move or hold as much as we gain/lose
weight, at
least in the same manner as the wrists?

And here's another site that calculates using either or both of the
above, PLUS
height and sex. http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/fsz I don't put
much stock
in this though, as playing around with it I can see how it *says* my
frame size
changes with each measurement. Common sense tells me that before I lost
weight I
had a bunch of fat hanging on my wrists (as well as elsewhere), yet my
frame size
would have still been the same.

Regardless ... I am still considered a large frame ... 6.75 wrist, 3"
elbow
breadth, 5'6" tall. sigh I either have to grow several inches or lose
more in
my wrist to get the frame size to change.

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:38:32 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

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

I'm with you Fred!! I'm either medium or large boned depending on where
I grab my elbow. I have a sneaking suspicion I'm medium but I don't want
to believe it. I'll ask my husband what he thinks... maybe he'll tell me
I'm large boned.

Connie

Fred wrote:
I'm not sure I understand where/how to measure the elbow, even after
being to the site (G)

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:59:07 -0600, Joyce wrote:


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
om...

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
news8n1309oseo5uk0fdprhn9tel68bkm2v2q @4ax.com:



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









--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

What do you know I am big boned!! Whew!! That elbow is 3"(7.5cm) and I'm
5'6".

Connie

Fred wrote:
Okay, here's another site but is seems to say measure the elbow
"BUMPS" side to side and show an image:

http://www.healthyeatingclub.com/boo...a/ch4/4-13.htm



On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:56:00 -0600, Joyce wrote:


Ok, this site might make you feel better. G
http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html According to this, using the wrist
measurement is an ok way of determining frame size, but measuring the elbow
breadth is much more accurate. Not sure how true it is, but they *say* so. G
Maybe the bones in the elbow don't move or hold as much as we gain/lose weight, at
least in the same manner as the wrists?

And here's another site that calculates using either or both of the above, PLUS
height and sex. http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/fsz I don't put much stock
in this though, as playing around with it I can see how it *says* my frame size
changes with each measurement. Common sense tells me that before I lost weight I
had a bunch of fat hanging on my wrists (as well as elsewhere), yet my frame size
would have still been the same.

Regardless ... I am still considered a large frame ... 6.75 wrist, 3" elbow
breadth, 5'6" tall. sigh I either have to grow several inches or lose more in
my wrist to get the frame size to change.

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:38:32 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:


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
m...

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
news8n1309oseo5uk0fdprhn9tel68bkm2v2q@ 4ax.com:



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








--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

It was an ounce of sister's bf's homade peanut brittle, 1 oz for 3 points,
Lee, and I had DH get peanut butter so I could use up these flex points
Fred wrote in message
...
Olive Oil or some nuts can up points pretty easily and healthfully

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

My DH has a full beard, and so nananapoopoo!!! Lee
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Okay Lee, you cut it out. No smooching my hairy man. Unless I get to
also.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
as bloated as i feel to day i could smooch all of you, Lee
Fred wrote in message
...
"weight" a second - don't I get a vote in this? Where you fit in the
sandwich? (gd&r)

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 02:02:40 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

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

Right. When it is right, it is right.'
For me, somewhere in the one fives, probably the higher one fives.

"Fred" wrote in message
...
You know - I don't think it matters. Like many of these other NORMS,
they are generalizations to some extent. Besides, you know where you
fit now. You are not passing out from lack of food (generally) nor
are you packing on pounds anymore. You do not need to know frame size
to figure out how much to eat and maintain other than slight
fluctuations.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:53:36 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

Dang. I don't want to figure out all those cm and junk

"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
Okay, here's another site but is seems to say measure the elbow
"BUMPS" side to side and show an image:

http://www.healthyeatingclub.com/boo...a/ch4/4-13.htm



On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:56:00 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, this site might make you feel better. G
http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html According to this,
using
the wrist
measurement is an ok way of determining frame size, but measuring the
elbow
breadth is much more accurate. Not sure how true it is, but they
*say*
so. G
Maybe the bones in the elbow don't move or hold as much as we
gain/lose
weight, at
least in the same manner as the wrists?

And here's another site that calculates using either or both of the
above, PLUS
height and sex. http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/fsz I don't
put
much stock
in this though, as playing around with it I can see how it *says* my
frame size
changes with each measurement. Common sense tells me that before I
lost
weight I
had a bunch of fat hanging on my wrists (as well as elsewhere), yet my
frame size
would have still been the same.

Regardless ... I am still considered a large frame ... 6.75 wrist, 3"
elbow
breadth, 5'6" tall. sigh I either have to grow several inches or
lose
more in
my wrist to get the frame size to change.

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:38:32 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

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

Remember, this is an experiment. You have been losing pretty good and
your string of loss/maintain has been good, so you just want to tweak
a tiny bit and see what happens. But then again, you know the
program.



On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:02:03 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

It was an ounce of sister's bf's homade peanut brittle, 1 oz for 3 points,
Lee, and I had DH get peanut butter so I could use up these flex points
Fred wrote in message
.. .
Olive Oil or some nuts can up points pretty easily and healthfully

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

Probably the same for me, too. Altho, lower might be possible since I
guess I am not starving (hunger pangs are generally absent) when I
seek out snacks. So hunger is not what is adding points, I don't
think.

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:13:08 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

Right. When it is right, it is right.'
For me, somewhere in the one fives, probably the higher one fives.

"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
You know - I don't think it matters. Like many of these other NORMS,
they are generalizations to some extent. Besides, you know where you
fit now. You are not passing out from lack of food (generally) nor
are you packing on pounds anymore. You do not need to know frame size
to figure out how much to eat and maintain other than slight
fluctuations.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:53:36 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

Dang. I don't want to figure out all those cm and junk

"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
Okay, here's another site but is seems to say measure the elbow
"BUMPS" side to side and show an image:

http://www.healthyeatingclub.com/boo...a/ch4/4-13.htm



On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:56:00 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, this site might make you feel better. G
http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html According to this,
using
the wrist
measurement is an ok way of determining frame size, but measuring the
elbow
breadth is much more accurate. Not sure how true it is, but they
*say*
so. G
Maybe the bones in the elbow don't move or hold as much as we
gain/lose
weight, at
least in the same manner as the wrists?

And here's another site that calculates using either or both of the
above, PLUS
height and sex. http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/fsz I don't
put
much stock
in this though, as playing around with it I can see how it *says* my
frame size
changes with each measurement. Common sense tells me that before I
lost
weight I
had a bunch of fat hanging on my wrists (as well as elsewhere), yet my
frame size
would have still been the same.

Regardless ... I am still considered a large frame ... 6.75 wrist, 3"
elbow
breadth, 5'6" tall. sigh I either have to grow several inches or
lose
more in
my wrist to get the frame size to change.

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:38:32 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

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

In my case that snack thing is sort of a nasty Habit. I broke it the last
time it got completely out of control by journaling again for a few days,
then this hospital mess. But the journaling had me on the way back down
before the crisis. I really Love to eat. It takes effort to turn the
upping back into maintenance. .

"Fred" wrote in message
...
Probably the same for me, too. Altho, lower might be possible since I
guess I am not starving (hunger pangs are generally absent) when I
seek out snacks. So hunger is not what is adding points, I don't
think.

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:13:08 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

Right. When it is right, it is right.'
For me, somewhere in the one fives, probably the higher one fives.

"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
You know - I don't think it matters. Like many of these other NORMS,
they are generalizations to some extent. Besides, you know where you
fit now. You are not passing out from lack of food (generally) nor
are you packing on pounds anymore. You do not need to know frame size
to figure out how much to eat and maintain other than slight
fluctuations.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:53:36 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

Dang. I don't want to figure out all those cm and junk

"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
Okay, here's another site but is seems to say measure the elbow
"BUMPS" side to side and show an image:

http://www.healthyeatingclub.com/boo...a/ch4/4-13.htm



On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:56:00 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, this site might make you feel better. G
http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html According to this,
using
the wrist
measurement is an ok way of determining frame size, but measuring
the
elbow
breadth is much more accurate. Not sure how true it is, but they
*say*
so. G
Maybe the bones in the elbow don't move or hold as much as we
gain/lose
weight, at
least in the same manner as the wrists?

And here's another site that calculates using either or both of the
above, PLUS
height and sex. http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/fsz I don't
put
much stock
in this though, as playing around with it I can see how it *says*
my
frame size
changes with each measurement. Common sense tells me that before I
lost
weight I
had a bunch of fat hanging on my wrists (as well as elsewhere), yet
my
frame size
would have still been the same.

Regardless ... I am still considered a large frame ... 6.75 wrist,
3"
elbow
breadth, 5'6" tall. sigh I either have to grow several inches or
lose
more in
my wrist to get the frame size to change.

Joyce

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:38:32 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

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