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

Darn!! Up TWO pounds???



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old March 8th, 2004, 03:40 AM
Miss Violette
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Darn!! Up TWO pounds???

We ended up eating it with asparagus, noodles itialano SP? and the pie, an
entire TJ meal,... I will purchase again...will purchase again... will.. Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
It does sound good, I'll take a look at it next trip in. Thanks for the

info.
See? Even now YOU are pushing Trader Joe's products. It doesn't take

long, does
it? grin

Joyce

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 03:43:11 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

It is a pi deal, philo dough, spinach and cheese in layers, top and

bottom
crust. We used it as the main entree, but you could make it six pieces

and
use as a side. It reminded me of those little spinach turnovers from a
Greek restaurant but with a little more pepper. If we have time tomorrow

I
think we will have it with cauliflower and buttered parmesan noodles, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
What is this? Is it like a lasagna ... or a pot pie? I'm never sure

how
things
like this will swing past the rest of the family. I'd probably like

it,
but they
are a much fussier crew.

Joyce

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 00:05:25 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

Try the Mediterranean spinach pie from Trader Joe's for something new,

that
was tonight's dinner, really good, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
Ok, ok, no pushing food ... today anyway. I haven't had anything

new
and
interesting to push, and probably best if I didn't push the spinach

pizza
we had
for dinner last night (although I'd like to, have half of the dang

thing
in the
fridge still). It was good though. G

Joyce

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:59:59 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Hey, you are not allowed to push food! (G) High tech toys are
entirely different (G)

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:25:58 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Arggggggh! you are really trying hard to talk me into that

wirless,
aren't you?
At least I push you to the cheaper things (bulk icecream). G

Although
... less
calories in a wireless adapter.

Joyce

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 06:47:50 -0800, Fred


wrote:

I will not discuss weight at the moment (which appears up again

this
morning)

Good for getting in all that exercise. I believe that I am

taking
the
day off to hit the downhill slopes on cross-country gear. At

least
that is the email I just sent my secretary (G)

Wireless is really neat. Yesterday, a few times I opened the

laptop
downstairs and just surfed the web and checked some stuff out.

Also
moved a file or two between computers.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:09:19 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Evidentally, weight dropped way down today, right back to where

it
should be. I
did get in two treadmill sessions today though, so made up a bit

for
being out of
commission for the past few days. Don't think I'm going to make

a
habit of that
though. The time hub chooses to exercise is tough for me. Just
finish up and
have to move right into dinner prep - while he rests quietly on

his
chair. Guess
I shouldn't complain, I'm probably still burning those calories.

G

I'm totally jealous of your wireless connection, and moving into

a
second one.
I'm scared silly to even attempt the first. Then again, maybe I
should just bite
the bullet and do it ... while Linksys still offers free tech

support.
G I will
definitely go with Linksys merchandise, the customer service is

worth
every extra
penny.

Joyce

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 07:10:56 -0800, Fred


wrote:

Well, bitching about a submerged treadmill probably was worth

some
points anyway.

Yes, crossing fingers, Linksys gets my vote. I have also

called a
few
times. And probably will again as I have another wireless to

hookup
(G)

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:37:36 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

I usually avoid tech support as much as I can, didn't have a

choice
with the modem
issue as from what I've discovered dsl modems can not be

purchased
from any stores
around me. Cable modems, yes ... dsl, no. Don't know why and

no
one seems to be
able to give me an answer. I've contacted Linksys twice now,

both
times they have
been extremely helpful and courteous (maybe I've just been

lucky?).
I've noticed
the same thing with support going to charging, might have been

when
I stopped
calling. Paying for help with a product is one of those

things
that
really
irritates me. Is it any different than visiting a customer

service
desk in a
retail store? Or a cashier checking me out at a grocer? Or a

bank
teller? next
thing ya know, we'll be paying for those services as well. I

figure
that these
salaries are already covered in the inflated merchandise

prices
...
now it's just
another way to nick the consumer. sigh

No treadmill for the past 2 days. Hub decided to unload all

the
bike parts on TOP
of the treadmill ... thus putting me out of commission. I

bitched
loud and long
today ... bike is now put together and treadmill is once again
usable. MEN! g

Joyce

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 06:29:59 -0800, Fred


wrote:

Sorry you had the usual response from support people but

managed
to
get going eventually. I am still waiting for linksys to end

their
pretty universal coverage - so many now charge fees

IMMEDIATELY.
There use to be free tech, then 90 days free tech. Now there

is
NO
tech. I guess it was to be expected since some much of this

stuff
has
substantially dropped in price.

Breathe deeply and hit the treadmill - oh, I don't mean with

your
fist!

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:59:38 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

After the day I had today, trying to get router to work with

new
modem, the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit.

I
am
not up to any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have to

do
was plug the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well.

WRONG!
Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no tech
support - only told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking

service.
I was not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I

finally
screamed at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you will

push
the magic switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be

told
that customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling

that
my
questions were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind

young
man who had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason

the
router ran on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept

switching
to
those wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no sense

to
me,
but it did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:21:07 -0800, Fred
wrote:

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:20:12 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and

vacuuming
are concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new

vacuum
yesterday, have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I

would
have used the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:38:06 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and

dusting
and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body

definitely
finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:40:01 -0600, Joyce
wrote:

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the

vacuuming,
dusting - general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending

the
entire day on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my

brain
works, and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that

laundry
was great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do

anything
else. And since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not

losing
weight ... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:32:46 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of

it
I
do not take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take

points
for things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I

have
lost as well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise.

But
having said that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry

and
in
my case I walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took

the
APs
for the big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for

seven
hours with just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the
discrepancy in points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but

along
with that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually,
eventually adapt to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order to

eat
the points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
news:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al7g03qot ...
No more mudslides - too bad (G)

I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are

definitely
a
oddball
factor in WW. I think, though, that you are

correct -
they
are
intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so

that
the point
values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain

benefit
even
if you eat
the calories/points. But like you, even though I was

very
active in
my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not

earning
as many
points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60

pounds
less fuel to
burn. I guess we should not second guess this

stuff -
we
know that it
works pretty well and they do constantly come up with

new
tweaks
(probably both for commercial reasons and practical
reasons.)

Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and

why
on some days
to just keep the mind fresh (G)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce


wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred

wrote:



On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce


wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred

wrote:


You may be right. Too little main course might

lead
to even more
snacking. The body may just want to hold at

this
weight. And maybe
I
just need to cater to it. A WW leader who

shall
remain nameless has
suggested that my weekend's probably need more

food.
After all I am
not still burning off the self-storage points

that
use to gather
around my waist.

I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting

the
same thing that
I have ...
we're just where our bodies want or need to be.
Up/down a few
pounds, it all
balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem

to
stay
in place
permanently. I
think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a

prior
post
when she said
that if we
are still losing weight easily, then we aren't

*there*
yet. I'm
thinking, my
friend, we are there ... whether we like it or

not.

I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of

just
wobbling in place
- like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit

right
and
mostly straight
ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on


MAINTENANCE.

Which is as it should be when you are where you

belong.

Yup, I think it is finally registering with me

that
seesawing a bit is
just going
to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to

where I
was last week.
Then I
killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back

up
tomorrow. G I

Well, since I read down below, I think you needed

the
mudslide to
clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than

the
fact that I
will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I

think
this might be
another slightly up week - so says the scale this
morning. I need a
down week again! Oh, still under goal.

Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected -

nothing
major. And that
bottle is
now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so

it
will no longer
bother me.
Probably be another year before I see one again. G

I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking

was
better last
night -
that's two nights after the weekend. And I

recall
it
was similar
last
week. Or is it just that today is WI and my

mind
accepts LESS.

For the most part my snacking has been pretty

well
under control,
with exception
to last week. G Don't know what got into me

or
why.
The last few
days I
haven't felt those same hunger munchies that

nothing
would satisfy.
Maybe I need
to keep better track of these episodes? I

wonder
if
they have
anything to do with
hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body
sending signals to
eat, eat, eat!

Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of

course,
we definitely
accepted as the reason why we could not get the

excess
weight off
BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the

body
does
have its
limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it,

I'm
sure, is working
to keep the body working correctly and nourished

right.
I do know (I
wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry

but
just snacking.
Are those the signals that I really do need those
snacks? They are
better snacks than years past.

Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I

do
snack, usually
(but not
always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but

it
definitely is
nowhere near the
amount that I was snacking on last year. When I

hit
those constant
snacking
phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to

myself
and everyone
else. My
stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little
lightheaded or just not
feeling
quite right. Then there are the times when I am

just
bored and eating
seems to be
the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get

control
of
... as I sit
here in front
of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there

is a
bowl of meringues
sitting
right in front of me. I may go dump them back

into
the
container.

Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike

ride,
that breakfast
cookie. too much stuff.

Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have

you
ever
just felt like
you've
really overdone things - yet when thinking it all

out
it
really wasn't
THAT bad?
Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've

eaten
has
left me
feeling
incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what,

nothing I
can really put my
finger
on. The only good thing about feeling this way is

that
it
keeps me from
snacking.
I haven't had one snack all day long.

Ok, here's something else I was thinking about

today
...
and I'm
probably way off
base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense.
Regarding the
amount of
activity points earned, and eaten. I understand

that
100 calories
expended = 1
activity point, and this made sense to me as I was
losing weight. Ok,
so what if
roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's

we
earned, we could
still lose
weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat

of a
deficit mode,
which really
does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to
maintain ... by still
working
with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing

ourselves
in by not
eating enough
and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so

later?
Did I convey
my thoughts
well enough for anyone to understand? I guess

this
came
into play
today when I
was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had

splurged
on
last week.
Roughly 13
points for a large one (I really splurged!) ...

600
or
close to it
calories.
Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5

days
to
earn enough
activity
points to work it off. Today for some reason my

brain
kicked into
calorie mode
instead ... which told me that no, it really is

only
2
workout sessions
on my
treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off
everyday, and only
eating what ww
says I've earned ... could that explain those

hungry
days? And explain
why my
weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it

would
when I did hit
that feeding
frenzy?

Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting
points to calories
and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe

less
clear but you
folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned

might
have
a better
handle on things. So you think WW did not quite

tell
us
the truth?
(G) That could explain why I lost so well during

the
program - I was
getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a

weekend
a
some more
during the week. And I was better at limiting the
snacking back then
- driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own

FAT
points to burn,
I did not need or desire the extra points I am now
consuming.

I'm going on information passed along by others, as

to
the
calorie vs.
points
conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm
*thinking* makes any
sense at
all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just
outthinking myself
once again.
My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie
difference between
points eaten
and activity points is probably because most people

will
figure those
activity
points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to

what
is really
considered high
exertion. I know my perception was quite different

when I
was sitting at
220
pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the
neighborhood leisurely
was a
chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to

speak)
even if
figured high,
you should still lose some weight. I'm also

thinking
of
ww telling
people that 30
minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points

....
still can't quite
figure
that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is

pretty
much
nothing other
than a
few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less
exertion than 30
minutes on
the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is

also a
BIG factor.
While I do
still have that drive and still consider myself as

trying
to succeed, the
goal
itself has definitely changed.

I'm confused again. G

Same here.

Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it.

Joyce









  #132  
Old March 8th, 2004, 03:43 AM
Miss Violette
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Darn!! Up TWO pounds???

I love them, but I am terribly afraid of them, too good to have around, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
But see, I DO need that chocolate cake - my freezer is crying for it. G

I'm
letting the freezer cry. I know me, it would not ever make it to the

freezer -
and I have to recover from the pizza first. Well, guess I have to kill

off the
pizza before I can recover from it. g

And yes, those brownie bites are purely evil. Hub picked up the

container, put it
down, picked it up, put it down. Then tried to convince me that he was

really
only thinking of purchasing them for me. I told him if they came home I

would
personally force feed every damn one to him .. in one evening. They

stayed on
that very visible table (probably the same place they are residing at your

store).

Plain, regular, cheap pizza never was brought in regularly, guess we only

had it
once every few months. But GOOD pizza (by my standards) is another story.

It was
a safe item before we were able to get it locally. Lou Malnati's on rare
occassions, as there wasn't one nearby. Having a similar type restaurant

within a
few miles is dangerous. g I did tell hub though, that next time we are

ordering
much less ... just too much leftover this trip, no one came home to help

eat it as
usual. You were from the original pizza era? Oh boy, I won't make any

age
related jokes here. G I do remember those thin crust greasy pizzas,

funny how I
loved them when I was a kid, funnier how I can't handle them any longer.

I think
it might be true though. Only chicagoans truly love the chicago deep dish

pizzas.

Joyce

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

wrote:

Pushing TUNA is just fine. I like the stuff and it is healthy.

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

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

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



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

Alright!!!!! Today I'm pushing the costco Tuna - shouldn't do you in

too badly.
G I did look at the chocolate cake once again, and brownie bites ...

they
stayed in the store. And checked for the skinny cow larger pack ...

nope, nothing
... only healthy choice in the icecream section.

Pizza is a staple in this house, had it all the way through ww. It's

nice to know
that it can be done. I suppose what I get is somewhat lower in points,
considering it has no meat, only spinach. And the crust is more of a

cornmeal
crust - not a tough, doughy type. Still, much better choices out

there - but as
far as pizza goes, this is my favorite.

Joyce

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

wrote:

Okay, today you can push food (G)

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

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

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

Ok, ok, no pushing food ... today anyway. I haven't had anything new

and
interesting to push, and probably best if I didn't push the spinach

pizza we had
for dinner last night (although I'd like to, have half of the dang

thing in the
fridge still). It was good though. G

Joyce

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:59:59 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Hey, you are not allowed to push food! (G) High tech toys are
entirely different (G)

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:25:58 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Arggggggh! you are really trying hard to talk me into that wirless,

aren't you?
At least I push you to the cheaper things (bulk icecream). G

Although ... less
calories in a wireless adapter.

Joyce

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 06:47:50 -0800, Fred

wrote:

I will not discuss weight at the moment (which appears up again

this
morning)

Good for getting in all that exercise. I believe that I am taking

the
day off to hit the downhill slopes on cross-country gear. At least
that is the email I just sent my secretary (G)

Wireless is really neat. Yesterday, a few times I opened the

laptop
downstairs and just surfed the web and checked some stuff out.

Also
moved a file or two between computers.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:09:19 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Evidentally, weight dropped way down today, right back to where it

should be. I
did get in two treadmill sessions today though, so made up a bit

for being out of
commission for the past few days. Don't think I'm going to make a

habit of that
though. The time hub chooses to exercise is tough for me. Just

finish up and
have to move right into dinner prep - while he rests quietly on

his chair. Guess
I shouldn't complain, I'm probably still burning those calories.

G

I'm totally jealous of your wireless connection, and moving into a

second one.
I'm scared silly to even attempt the first. Then again, maybe I

should just bite
the bullet and do it ... while Linksys still offers free tech

support. G I will
definitely go with Linksys merchandise, the customer service is

worth every extra
penny.

Joyce

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 07:10:56 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Well, bitching about a submerged treadmill probably was worth

some
points anyway.

Yes, crossing fingers, Linksys gets my vote. I have also called

a few
times. And probably will again as I have another wireless to

hookup
(G)

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:37:36 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I usually avoid tech support as much as I can, didn't have a

choice with the modem
issue as from what I've discovered dsl modems can not be

purchased from any stores
around me. Cable modems, yes ... dsl, no. Don't know why and

no one seems to be
able to give me an answer. I've contacted Linksys twice now,

both times they have
been extremely helpful and courteous (maybe I've just been

lucky?). I've noticed
the same thing with support going to charging, might have been

when I stopped
calling. Paying for help with a product is one of those things

that really
irritates me. Is it any different than visiting a customer

service desk in a
retail store? Or a cashier checking me out at a grocer? Or a

bank teller? next
thing ya know, we'll be paying for those services as well. I

figure that these
salaries are already covered in the inflated merchandise prices

.... now it's just
another way to nick the consumer. sigh

No treadmill for the past 2 days. Hub decided to unload all the

bike parts on TOP
of the treadmill ... thus putting me out of commission. I

bitched loud and long
today ... bike is now put together and treadmill is once again

usable. MEN! g

Joyce

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 06:29:59 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Sorry you had the usual response from support people but

managed to
get going eventually. I am still waiting for linksys to end

their
pretty universal coverage - so many now charge fees

IMMEDIATELY.
There use to be free tech, then 90 days free tech. Now there

is NO
tech. I guess it was to be expected since some much of this

stuff has
substantially dropped in price.

Breathe deeply and hit the treadmill - oh, I don't mean with

your
fist!

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:59:38 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

After the day I had today, trying to get router to work with

new modem, the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit. I

am not up to any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have to

do was plug the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well.

WRONG! Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no tech

support - only told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking

service. I was not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I

finally screamed at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you will

push the magic switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be told

that customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling that

my questions were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind

young man who had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason the

router ran on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept switching

to those wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no sense to

me, but it did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:21:07 -0800, Fred

wrote:

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:20:12 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and

vacuuming are concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new

vacuum yesterday, have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I

would have used the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:38:06 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and

dusting and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body

definitely finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:40:01 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the

vacuuming, dusting - general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the

entire day on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my

brain works, and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that

laundry was great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything

else. And since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not

losing weight ... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:32:46 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it

I do not take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take

points for things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I

have lost as well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But

having said that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and

in my case I walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took the

APs for the big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for

seven hours with just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the

discrepancy in points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but

along with that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually,

eventually adapt to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order to

eat the points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
news:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al7g0 ...
No more mudslides - too bad (G)

I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are

definitely a oddball
factor in WW. I think, though, that you are correct -

they are
intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so

that the point
values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain benefit

even if you eat
the calories/points. But like you, even though I was

very active in
my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not

earning as many
points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60 pounds

less fuel to
burn. I guess we should not second guess this stuff -

we know that it
works pretty well and they do constantly come up with

new tweaks
(probably both for commercial reasons and practical

reasons.)

Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and

why on some days
to just keep the mind fresh (G)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred


wrote:



On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred


wrote:


You may be right. Too little main course might

lead to even more
snacking. The body may just want to hold at this

weight. And maybe
I
just need to cater to it. A WW leader who shall

remain nameless has
suggested that my weekend's probably need more

food. After all I am
not still burning off the self-storage points

that use to gather
around my waist.

I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting

the same thing that
I have ...
we're just where our bodies want or need to be.

Up/down a few
pounds, it all
balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem to

stay in place
permanently. I
think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a prior

post when she said
that if we
are still losing weight easily, then we aren't

*there* yet. I'm
thinking, my
friend, we are there ... whether we like it or

not.

I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of

just wobbling in place
- like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit right

and mostly straight
ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on

MAINTENANCE.

Which is as it should be when you are where you

belong.

Yup, I think it is finally registering with me that

seesawing a bit is
just going
to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to

where I was last week.
Then I
killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back

up tomorrow. G I

Well, since I read down below, I think you needed the

mudslide to
clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than

the fact that I
will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I

think this might be
another slightly up week - so says the scale this

morning. I need a
down week again! Oh, still under goal.

Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected -

nothing major. And that
bottle is
now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so

it will no longer
bother me.
Probably be another year before I see one again. G

I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking was

better last
night -
that's two nights after the weekend. And I

recall it was similar
last
week. Or is it just that today is WI and my mind

accepts LESS.

For the most part my snacking has been pretty well

under control,
with exception
to last week. G Don't know what got into me or

why. The last few
days I
haven't felt those same hunger munchies that

nothing would satisfy.
Maybe I need
to keep better track of these episodes? I wonder

if they have
anything to do with
hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body

sending signals to
eat, eat, eat!

Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of

course, we definitely
accepted as the reason why we could not get the

excess weight off
BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the body

does have its
limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it,

I'm sure, is working
to keep the body working correctly and nourished

right. I do know (I
wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry

but just snacking.
Are those the signals that I really do need those

snacks? They are
better snacks than years past.

Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I do

snack, usually
(but not
always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but it

definitely is
nowhere near the
amount that I was snacking on last year. When I hit

those constant
snacking
phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to

myself and everyone
else. My
stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little

lightheaded or just not
feeling
quite right. Then there are the times when I am

just bored and eating
seems to be
the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get control

of ... as I sit
here in front
of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there is

a bowl of meringues
sitting
right in front of me. I may go dump them back into

the container.

Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike

ride, that breakfast
cookie. too much stuff.

Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have you

ever just felt like
you've
really overdone things - yet when thinking it all out

it really wasn't
THAT bad?
Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've eaten

has left me
feeling
incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what, nothing

I can really put my
finger
on. The only good thing about feeling this way is

that it keeps me from
snacking.
I haven't had one snack all day long.

Ok, here's something else I was thinking about today

.... and I'm
probably way off
base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense.

Regarding the
amount of
activity points earned, and eaten. I understand

that 100 calories
expended = 1
activity point, and this made sense to me as I was

losing weight. Ok,
so what if
roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's

we earned, we could
still lose
weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat of

a deficit mode,
which really
does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to

maintain ... by still
working
with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing

ourselves in by not
eating enough
and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so

later? Did I convey
my thoughts
well enough for anyone to understand? I guess this

came into play
today when I
was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had splurged

on last week.
Roughly 13
points for a large one (I really splurged!) ... 600

or close to it
calories.
Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5

days to earn enough
activity
points to work it off. Today for some reason my

brain kicked into
calorie mode
instead ... which told me that no, it really is only

2 workout sessions
on my
treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off

everyday, and only
eating what ww
says I've earned ... could that explain those hungry

days? And explain
why my
weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it

would when I did hit
that feeding
frenzy?

Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting

points to calories
and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe

less clear but you
folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned might

have a better
handle on things. So you think WW did not quite tell

us the truth?
(G) That could explain why I lost so well during the

program - I was
getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a

weekend a some more
during the week. And I was better at limiting the

snacking back then
- driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own FAT

points to burn,
I did not need or desire the extra points I am now

consuming.

I'm going on information passed along by others, as to

the calorie vs.
points
conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm

*thinking* makes any
sense at
all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just

outthinking myself
once again.
My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie

difference between
points eaten
and activity points is probably because most people

will figure those
activity
points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to

what is really
considered high
exertion. I know my perception was quite different

when I was sitting at
220
pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the

neighborhood leisurely
was a
chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to

speak) even if
figured high,
you should still lose some weight. I'm also thinking

of ww telling
people that 30
minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points

.... still can't quite
figure
that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is pretty

much nothing other
than a
few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less

exertion than 30
minutes on
the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is

also a BIG factor.
While I do
still have that drive and still consider myself as

trying to succeed, the
goal
itself has definitely changed.

I'm confused again. G

Same here.

Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it.

Joyce





  #133  
Old March 8th, 2004, 04:08 AM
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Darn!! Up TWO pounds???

Pretzel Sticks and scones will put fat on bones
But words will never harm you! (g)

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

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

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

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

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



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

Alright!!!!! Today I'm pushing the costco Tuna - shouldn't do you in too

badly.
G I did look at the chocolate cake once again, and brownie bites ...

they
stayed in the store. And checked for the skinny cow larger pack ...

nope, nothing
... only healthy choice in the icecream section.

Pizza is a staple in this house, had it all the way through ww. It's

nice to know
that it can be done. I suppose what I get is somewhat lower in points,
considering it has no meat, only spinach. And the crust is more of a

cornmeal
crust - not a tough, doughy type. Still, much better choices out there -

but as
far as pizza goes, this is my favorite.

Joyce

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

wrote:

Okay, today you can push food (G)

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

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

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

Ok, ok, no pushing food ... today anyway. I haven't had anything new

and
interesting to push, and probably best if I didn't push the spinach

pizza we had
for dinner last night (although I'd like to, have half of the dang

thing in the
fridge still). It was good though. G

Joyce

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:59:59 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Hey, you are not allowed to push food! (G) High tech toys are
entirely different (G)

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:25:58 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Arggggggh! you are really trying hard to talk me into that wirless,

aren't you?
At least I push you to the cheaper things (bulk icecream). G

Although ... less
calories in a wireless adapter.

Joyce

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 06:47:50 -0800, Fred

wrote:

I will not discuss weight at the moment (which appears up again this
morning)

Good for getting in all that exercise. I believe that I am taking

the
day off to hit the downhill slopes on cross-country gear. At least
that is the email I just sent my secretary (G)

Wireless is really neat. Yesterday, a few times I opened the laptop
downstairs and just surfed the web and checked some stuff out. Also
moved a file or two between computers.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:09:19 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Evidentally, weight dropped way down today, right back to where it

should be. I
did get in two treadmill sessions today though, so made up a bit

for being out of
commission for the past few days. Don't think I'm going to make a

habit of that
though. The time hub chooses to exercise is tough for me. Just

finish up and
have to move right into dinner prep - while he rests quietly on his

chair. Guess
I shouldn't complain, I'm probably still burning those calories.

G

I'm totally jealous of your wireless connection, and moving into a

second one.
I'm scared silly to even attempt the first. Then again, maybe I

should just bite
the bullet and do it ... while Linksys still offers free tech

support. G I will
definitely go with Linksys merchandise, the customer service is

worth every extra
penny.

Joyce

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 07:10:56 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Well, bitching about a submerged treadmill probably was worth some
points anyway.

Yes, crossing fingers, Linksys gets my vote. I have also called a

few
times. And probably will again as I have another wireless to

hookup
(G)

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:37:36 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I usually avoid tech support as much as I can, didn't have a

choice with the modem
issue as from what I've discovered dsl modems can not be

purchased from any stores
around me. Cable modems, yes ... dsl, no. Don't know why and no

one seems to be
able to give me an answer. I've contacted Linksys twice now,

both times they have
been extremely helpful and courteous (maybe I've just been

lucky?). I've noticed
the same thing with support going to charging, might have been

when I stopped
calling. Paying for help with a product is one of those things

that really
irritates me. Is it any different than visiting a customer

service desk in a
retail store? Or a cashier checking me out at a grocer? Or a

bank teller? next
thing ya know, we'll be paying for those services as well. I

figure that these
salaries are already covered in the inflated merchandise prices

... now it's just
another way to nick the consumer. sigh

No treadmill for the past 2 days. Hub decided to unload all the

bike parts on TOP
of the treadmill ... thus putting me out of commission. I

bitched loud and long
today ... bike is now put together and treadmill is once again

usable. MEN! g

Joyce

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 06:29:59 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Sorry you had the usual response from support people but managed

to
get going eventually. I am still waiting for linksys to end

their
pretty universal coverage - so many now charge fees IMMEDIATELY.
There use to be free tech, then 90 days free tech. Now there is

NO
tech. I guess it was to be expected since some much of this

stuff has
substantially dropped in price.

Breathe deeply and hit the treadmill - oh, I don't mean with

your
fist!

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:59:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

After the day I had today, trying to get router to work with

new modem, the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit. I

am not up to any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have to do

was plug the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well.

WRONG! Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no tech

support - only told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking

service. I was not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I

finally screamed at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you will

push the magic switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be told

that customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling that

my questions were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind

young man who had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason the

router ran on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept switching

to those wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no sense to

me, but it did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:21:07 -0800, Fred

wrote:

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:20:12 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and

vacuuming are concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new vacuum

yesterday, have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I would

have used the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:38:06 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and

dusting and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body definitely

finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:40:01 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the

vacuuming, dusting - general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the

entire day on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my

brain works, and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that

laundry was great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything

else. And since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not

losing weight ... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:32:46 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it

I do not take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take

points for things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I

have lost as well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But

having said that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and

in my case I walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took the

APs for the big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for seven

hours with just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the

discrepancy in points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but

along with that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually,

eventually adapt to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order to eat

the points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
news:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al7g03 ...
No more mudslides - too bad (G)

I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are definitely

a oddball
factor in WW. I think, though, that you are correct -

they are
intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so

that the point
values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain benefit

even if you eat
the calories/points. But like you, even though I was

very active in
my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not

earning as many
points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60 pounds

less fuel to
burn. I guess we should not second guess this stuff -

we know that it
works pretty well and they do constantly come up with

new tweaks
(probably both for commercial reasons and practical

reasons.)

Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and

why on some days
to just keep the mind fresh (G)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred


wrote:



On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred


wrote:


You may be right. Too little main course might

lead to even more
snacking. The body may just want to hold at this

weight. And maybe
I
just need to cater to it. A WW leader who shall

remain nameless has
suggested that my weekend's probably need more

food. After all I am
not still burning off the self-storage points that

use to gather
around my waist.

I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting

the same thing that
I have ...
we're just where our bodies want or need to be.

Up/down a few
pounds, it all
balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem to

stay in place
permanently. I
think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a prior

post when she said
that if we
are still losing weight easily, then we aren't

*there* yet. I'm
thinking, my
friend, we are there ... whether we like it or not.

I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of just

wobbling in place
- like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit right

and mostly straight
ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on

MAINTENANCE.

Which is as it should be when you are where you

belong.

Yup, I think it is finally registering with me that

seesawing a bit is
just going
to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to

where I was last week.
Then I
killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back up

tomorrow. G I

Well, since I read down below, I think you needed the

mudslide to
clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than the

fact that I
will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I

think this might be
another slightly up week - so says the scale this

morning. I need a
down week again! Oh, still under goal.

Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected - nothing

major. And that
bottle is
now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so it

will no longer
bother me.
Probably be another year before I see one again. G

I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking was

better last
night -
that's two nights after the weekend. And I recall

it was similar
last
week. Or is it just that today is WI and my mind

accepts LESS.

For the most part my snacking has been pretty well

under control,
with exception
to last week. G Don't know what got into me or

why. The last few
days I
haven't felt those same hunger munchies that

nothing would satisfy.
Maybe I need
to keep better track of these episodes? I wonder

if they have
anything to do with
hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body

sending signals to
eat, eat, eat!

Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of

course, we definitely
accepted as the reason why we could not get the

excess weight off
BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the body

does have its
limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it, I'm

sure, is working
to keep the body working correctly and nourished

right. I do know (I
wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry

but just snacking.
Are those the signals that I really do need those

snacks? They are
better snacks than years past.

Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I do

snack, usually
(but not
always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but it

definitely is
nowhere near the
amount that I was snacking on last year. When I hit

those constant
snacking
phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to

myself and everyone
else. My
stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little

lightheaded or just not
feeling
quite right. Then there are the times when I am just

bored and eating
seems to be
the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get control

of ... as I sit
here in front
of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there is a

bowl of meringues
sitting
right in front of me. I may go dump them back into

the container.

Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike

ride, that breakfast
cookie. too much stuff.

Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have you

ever just felt like
you've
really overdone things - yet when thinking it all out

it really wasn't
THAT bad?
Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've eaten

has left me
feeling
incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what, nothing I

can really put my
finger
on. The only good thing about feeling this way is that

it keeps me from
snacking.
I haven't had one snack all day long.

Ok, here's something else I was thinking about today

... and I'm
probably way off
base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense.

Regarding the
amount of
activity points earned, and eaten. I understand that

100 calories
expended = 1
activity point, and this made sense to me as I was

losing weight. Ok,
so what if
roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's we

earned, we could
still lose
weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat of a

deficit mode,
which really
does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to

maintain ... by still
working
with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing

ourselves in by not
eating enough
and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so

later? Did I convey
my thoughts
well enough for anyone to understand? I guess this

came into play
today when I
was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had splurged

on last week.
Roughly 13
points for a large one (I really splurged!) ... 600

or close to it
calories.
Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5 days

to earn enough
activity
points to work it off. Today for some reason my

brain kicked into
calorie mode
instead ... which told me that no, it really is only

2 workout sessions
on my
treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off

everyday, and only
eating what ww
says I've earned ... could that explain those hungry

days? And explain
why my
weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it would

when I did hit
that feeding
frenzy?

Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting

points to calories
and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe

less clear but you
folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned might

have a better
handle on things. So you think WW did not quite tell

us the truth?
(G) That could explain why I lost so well during the

program - I was
getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a weekend

a some more
during the week. And I was better at limiting the

snacking back then
- driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own FAT

points to burn,
I did not need or desire the extra points I am now

consuming.

I'm going on information passed along by others, as to

the calorie vs.
points
conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm

*thinking* makes any
sense at
all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just

outthinking myself
once again.
My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie

difference between
points eaten
and activity points is probably because most people

will figure those
activity
points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to

what is really
considered high
exertion. I know my perception was quite different

when I was sitting at
220
pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the

neighborhood leisurely
was a
chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to

speak) even if
figured high,
you should still lose some weight. I'm also thinking

of ww telling
people that 30
minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points ...

still can't quite
figure
that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is pretty

much nothing other
than a
few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less

exertion than 30
minutes on
the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is

also a BIG factor.
While I do
still have that drive and still consider myself as

trying to succeed, the
goal
itself has definitely changed.

I'm confused again. G

Same here.

Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it.

Joyce





  #134  
Old March 8th, 2004, 06:44 AM
Miss Violette
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Darn!! Up TWO pounds???

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Alright!!!!! Today I'm pushing the costco Tuna - shouldn't do you in

too
badly.
G I did look at the chocolate cake once again, and brownie bites

....
they
stayed in the store. And checked for the skinny cow larger pack ...

nope, nothing
... only healthy choice in the icecream section.

Pizza is a staple in this house, had it all the way through ww. It's

nice to know
that it can be done. I suppose what I get is somewhat lower in

points,
considering it has no meat, only spinach. And the crust is more of a

cornmeal
crust - not a tough, doughy type. Still, much better choices out

there -
but as
far as pizza goes, this is my favorite.

Joyce

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

wrote:

Okay, today you can push food (G)

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

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

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

Ok, ok, no pushing food ... today anyway. I haven't had anything

new
and
interesting to push, and probably best if I didn't push the spinach

pizza we had
for dinner last night (although I'd like to, have half of the dang

thing in the
fridge still). It was good though. G

Joyce

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:59:59 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Hey, you are not allowed to push food! (G) High tech toys are
entirely different (G)

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:25:58 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Arggggggh! you are really trying hard to talk me into that

wirless,
aren't you?
At least I push you to the cheaper things (bulk icecream). G

Although ... less
calories in a wireless adapter.

Joyce

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 06:47:50 -0800, Fred


wrote:

I will not discuss weight at the moment (which appears up again

this
morning)

Good for getting in all that exercise. I believe that I am

taking
the
day off to hit the downhill slopes on cross-country gear. At

least
that is the email I just sent my secretary (G)

Wireless is really neat. Yesterday, a few times I opened the

laptop
downstairs and just surfed the web and checked some stuff out.

Also
moved a file or two between computers.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:09:19 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Evidentally, weight dropped way down today, right back to where

it
should be. I
did get in two treadmill sessions today though, so made up a bit

for being out of
commission for the past few days. Don't think I'm going to make

a
habit of that
though. The time hub chooses to exercise is tough for me. Just

finish up and
have to move right into dinner prep - while he rests quietly on

his
chair. Guess
I shouldn't complain, I'm probably still burning those calories.

G

I'm totally jealous of your wireless connection, and moving into

a
second one.
I'm scared silly to even attempt the first. Then again, maybe I

should just bite
the bullet and do it ... while Linksys still offers free tech

support. G I will
definitely go with Linksys merchandise, the customer service is

worth every extra
penny.

Joyce

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 07:10:56 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Well, bitching about a submerged treadmill probably was worth

some
points anyway.

Yes, crossing fingers, Linksys gets my vote. I have also

called a
few
times. And probably will again as I have another wireless to

hookup
(G)

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:37:36 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

I usually avoid tech support as much as I can, didn't have a

choice with the modem
issue as from what I've discovered dsl modems can not be

purchased from any stores
around me. Cable modems, yes ... dsl, no. Don't know why and

no
one seems to be
able to give me an answer. I've contacted Linksys twice now,

both times they have
been extremely helpful and courteous (maybe I've just been

lucky?). I've noticed
the same thing with support going to charging, might have been

when I stopped
calling. Paying for help with a product is one of those

things
that really
irritates me. Is it any different than visiting a customer

service desk in a
retail store? Or a cashier checking me out at a grocer? Or a

bank teller? next
thing ya know, we'll be paying for those services as well. I

figure that these
salaries are already covered in the inflated merchandise

prices
... now it's just
another way to nick the consumer. sigh

No treadmill for the past 2 days. Hub decided to unload all

the
bike parts on TOP
of the treadmill ... thus putting me out of commission. I

bitched loud and long
today ... bike is now put together and treadmill is once again

usable. MEN! g

Joyce

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 06:29:59 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Sorry you had the usual response from support people but

managed
to
get going eventually. I am still waiting for linksys to end

their
pretty universal coverage - so many now charge fees

IMMEDIATELY.
There use to be free tech, then 90 days free tech. Now there

is
NO
tech. I guess it was to be expected since some much of this

stuff has
substantially dropped in price.

Breathe deeply and hit the treadmill - oh, I don't mean with

your
fist!

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:59:38 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

After the day I had today, trying to get router to work with

new modem, the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit.

I
am not up to any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have to

do
was plug the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well.

WRONG! Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no tech

support - only told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking

service. I was not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I

finally screamed at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you will

push the magic switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be

told
that customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling

that
my questions were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind

young man who had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason

the
router ran on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept

switching
to those wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no sense

to
me, but it did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:21:07 -0800, Fred

wrote:

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:20:12 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and

vacuuming are concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new

vacuum
yesterday, have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I

would
have used the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:38:06 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and

dusting and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body

definitely
finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:40:01 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the

vacuuming, dusting - general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending

the
entire day on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my

brain works, and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that

laundry was great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do

anything
else. And since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not

losing weight ... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:32:46 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of

it
I do not take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take

points for things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I

have lost as well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise.

But
having said that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry

and
in my case I walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took

the
APs for the big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for

seven
hours with just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the

discrepancy in points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but

along with that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually,

eventually adapt to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order to

eat
the points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
news:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al7g03 ...
No more mudslides - too bad (G)

I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are

definitely
a oddball
factor in WW. I think, though, that you are

correct -
they are
intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so

that the point
values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain

benefit
even if you eat
the calories/points. But like you, even though I was

very active in
my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not

earning as many
points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60

pounds
less fuel to
burn. I guess we should not second guess this

stuff -
we know that it
works pretty well and they do constantly come up with

new tweaks
(probably both for commercial reasons and practical

reasons.)

Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and

why on some days
to just keep the mind fresh (G)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred


wrote:



On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred


wrote:


You may be right. Too little main course might

lead to even more
snacking. The body may just want to hold at

this
weight. And maybe
I
just need to cater to it. A WW leader who

shall
remain nameless has
suggested that my weekend's probably need more

food. After all I am
not still burning off the self-storage points

that
use to gather
around my waist.

I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting

the same thing that
I have ...
we're just where our bodies want or need to be.

Up/down a few
pounds, it all
balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem

to
stay in place
permanently. I
think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a

prior
post when she said
that if we
are still losing weight easily, then we aren't

*there* yet. I'm
thinking, my
friend, we are there ... whether we like it or

not.

I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of

just
wobbling in place
- like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit

right
and mostly straight
ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on

MAINTENANCE.

Which is as it should be when you are where you

belong.

Yup, I think it is finally registering with me

that
seesawing a bit is
just going
to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to

where I was last week.
Then I
killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back

up
tomorrow. G I

Well, since I read down below, I think you needed

the
mudslide to
clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than

the
fact that I
will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I

think this might be
another slightly up week - so says the scale this

morning. I need a
down week again! Oh, still under goal.

Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected -

nothing
major. And that
bottle is
now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so

it
will no longer
bother me.
Probably be another year before I see one again. G

I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking

was
better last
night -
that's two nights after the weekend. And I

recall
it was similar
last
week. Or is it just that today is WI and my

mind
accepts LESS.

For the most part my snacking has been pretty

well
under control,
with exception
to last week. G Don't know what got into me

or
why. The last few
days I
haven't felt those same hunger munchies that

nothing would satisfy.
Maybe I need
to keep better track of these episodes? I

wonder
if they have
anything to do with
hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body

sending signals to
eat, eat, eat!

Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of

course, we definitely
accepted as the reason why we could not get the

excess weight off
BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the

body
does have its
limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it,

I'm
sure, is working
to keep the body working correctly and nourished

right. I do know (I
wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry

but just snacking.
Are those the signals that I really do need those

snacks? They are
better snacks than years past.

Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I

do
snack, usually
(but not
always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but

it
definitely is
nowhere near the
amount that I was snacking on last year. When I

hit
those constant
snacking
phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to

myself and everyone
else. My
stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little

lightheaded or just not
feeling
quite right. Then there are the times when I am

just
bored and eating
seems to be
the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get

control
of ... as I sit
here in front
of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there

is a
bowl of meringues
sitting
right in front of me. I may go dump them back

into
the container.

Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike

ride, that breakfast
cookie. too much stuff.

Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have

you
ever just felt like
you've
really overdone things - yet when thinking it all

out
it really wasn't
THAT bad?
Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've

eaten
has left me
feeling
incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what,

nothing I
can really put my
finger
on. The only good thing about feeling this way is

that
it keeps me from
snacking.
I haven't had one snack all day long.

Ok, here's something else I was thinking about

today
... and I'm
probably way off
base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense.

Regarding the
amount of
activity points earned, and eaten. I understand

that
100 calories
expended = 1
activity point, and this made sense to me as I was

losing weight. Ok,
so what if
roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's

we
earned, we could
still lose
weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat

of a
deficit mode,
which really
does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to

maintain ... by still
working
with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing

ourselves in by not
eating enough
and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so

later? Did I convey
my thoughts
well enough for anyone to understand? I guess

this
came into play
today when I
was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had

splurged
on last week.
Roughly 13
points for a large one (I really splurged!) ...

600
or close to it
calories.
Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5

days
to earn enough
activity
points to work it off. Today for some reason my

brain kicked into
calorie mode
instead ... which told me that no, it really is

only
2 workout sessions
on my
treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off

everyday, and only
eating what ww
says I've earned ... could that explain those

hungry
days? And explain
why my
weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it

would
when I did hit
that feeding
frenzy?

Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting

points to calories
and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe

less clear but you
folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned

might
have a better
handle on things. So you think WW did not quite

tell
us the truth?
(G) That could explain why I lost so well during

the
program - I was
getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a

weekend
a some more
during the week. And I was better at limiting the

snacking back then
- driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own

FAT
points to burn,
I did not need or desire the extra points I am now

consuming.

I'm going on information passed along by others, as

to
the calorie vs.
points
conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm

*thinking* makes any
sense at
all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just

outthinking myself
once again.
My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie

difference between
points eaten
and activity points is probably because most people

will figure those
activity
points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to

what is really
considered high
exertion. I know my perception was quite different

when I was sitting at
220
pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the

neighborhood leisurely
was a
chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to

speak) even if
figured high,
you should still lose some weight. I'm also

thinking
of ww telling
people that 30
minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points

....
still can't quite
figure
that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is

pretty
much nothing other
than a
few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less

exertion than 30
minutes on
the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is

also a BIG factor.
While I do
still have that drive and still consider myself as

trying to succeed, the
goal
itself has definitely changed.

I'm confused again. G

Same here.

Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it.

Joyce







  #135  
Old March 8th, 2004, 06:45 AM
Miss Violette
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Darn!! Up TWO pounds???

I meant itilano noodles
Miss Violette wrote in message
...
We ended up eating it with asparagus, noodles itialano SP? and the pie, an
entire TJ meal,... I will purchase again...will purchase again... will..

Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
It does sound good, I'll take a look at it next trip in. Thanks for the

info.
See? Even now YOU are pushing Trader Joe's products. It doesn't take

long, does
it? grin

Joyce

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 03:43:11 -0600, "Miss Violette"


wrote:

It is a pi deal, philo dough, spinach and cheese in layers, top and

bottom
crust. We used it as the main entree, but you could make it six pieces

and
use as a side. It reminded me of those little spinach turnovers from a
Greek restaurant but with a little more pepper. If we have time

tomorrow
I
think we will have it with cauliflower and buttered parmesan noodles,

Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
What is this? Is it like a lasagna ... or a pot pie? I'm never sure

how
things
like this will swing past the rest of the family. I'd probably like

it,
but they
are a much fussier crew.

Joyce

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 00:05:25 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

Try the Mediterranean spinach pie from Trader Joe's for something

new,
that
was tonight's dinner, really good, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
Ok, ok, no pushing food ... today anyway. I haven't had anything

new
and
interesting to push, and probably best if I didn't push the

spinach
pizza
we had
for dinner last night (although I'd like to, have half of the dang
thing
in the
fridge still). It was good though. G

Joyce

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:59:59 -0800, Fred


wrote:

Hey, you are not allowed to push food! (G) High tech toys are
entirely different (G)

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:25:58 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Arggggggh! you are really trying hard to talk me into that

wirless,
aren't you?
At least I push you to the cheaper things (bulk icecream). G
Although
... less
calories in a wireless adapter.

Joyce

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 06:47:50 -0800, Fred


wrote:

I will not discuss weight at the moment (which appears up again

this
morning)

Good for getting in all that exercise. I believe that I am

taking
the
day off to hit the downhill slopes on cross-country gear. At

least
that is the email I just sent my secretary (G)

Wireless is really neat. Yesterday, a few times I opened the

laptop
downstairs and just surfed the web and checked some stuff out.

Also
moved a file or two between computers.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:09:19 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

Evidentally, weight dropped way down today, right back to

where
it
should be. I
did get in two treadmill sessions today though, so made up a

bit
for
being out of
commission for the past few days. Don't think I'm going to

make
a
habit of that
though. The time hub chooses to exercise is tough for me.

Just
finish up and
have to move right into dinner prep - while he rests quietly

on
his
chair. Guess
I shouldn't complain, I'm probably still burning those

calories.
G

I'm totally jealous of your wireless connection, and moving

into
a
second one.
I'm scared silly to even attempt the first. Then again, maybe

I
should just bite
the bullet and do it ... while Linksys still offers free tech
support.
G I will
definitely go with Linksys merchandise, the customer service

is
worth
every extra
penny.

Joyce

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 07:10:56 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Well, bitching about a submerged treadmill probably was worth

some
points anyway.

Yes, crossing fingers, Linksys gets my vote. I have also

called a
few
times. And probably will again as I have another wireless to
hookup
(G)

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:37:36 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

I usually avoid tech support as much as I can, didn't have a
choice
with the modem
issue as from what I've discovered dsl modems can not be
purchased
from any stores
around me. Cable modems, yes ... dsl, no. Don't know why

and
no
one seems to be
able to give me an answer. I've contacted Linksys twice

now,
both
times they have
been extremely helpful and courteous (maybe I've just been
lucky?).
I've noticed
the same thing with support going to charging, might have

been
when
I stopped
calling. Paying for help with a product is one of those

things
that
really
irritates me. Is it any different than visiting a customer
service
desk in a
retail store? Or a cashier checking me out at a grocer? Or

a
bank
teller? next
thing ya know, we'll be paying for those services as well.

I
figure
that these
salaries are already covered in the inflated merchandise

prices
...
now it's just
another way to nick the consumer. sigh

No treadmill for the past 2 days. Hub decided to unload all

the
bike parts on TOP
of the treadmill ... thus putting me out of commission. I
bitched
loud and long
today ... bike is now put together and treadmill is once

again
usable. MEN! g

Joyce

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 06:29:59 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Sorry you had the usual response from support people but

managed
to
get going eventually. I am still waiting for linksys to

end
their
pretty universal coverage - so many now charge fees

IMMEDIATELY.
There use to be free tech, then 90 days free tech. Now

there
is
NO
tech. I guess it was to be expected since some much of this
stuff
has
substantially dropped in price.

Breathe deeply and hit the treadmill - oh, I don't mean

with
your
fist!

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:59:38 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

After the day I had today, trying to get router to work

with
new
modem, the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit.

I
am
not up to any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have

to
do
was plug the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well.
WRONG!
Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no

tech
support - only told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking
service.
I was not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I
finally
screamed at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you

will
push
the magic switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be

told
that customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling

that
my
questions were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind
young
man who had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason

the
router ran on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept

switching
to
those wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no

sense
to
me,
but it did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:21:07 -0800, Fred
wrote:

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:20:12 -0600, Joyce
wrote:

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and
vacuuming
are concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new

vacuum
yesterday, have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I

would
have used the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:38:06 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and
dusting
and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body

definitely
finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:40:01 -0600, Joyce


wrote:

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the
vacuuming,
dusting - general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending

the
entire day on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my
brain
works, and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that
laundry
was great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do

anything
else. And since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and

not
losing
weight ... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:32:46 -0600, "Miss Violette"

wrote:

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority

of
it
I
do not take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only

take
points
for things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why

I
have
lost as well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise.

But
having said that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry

and
in
my case I walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took

the
APs
for the big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for

seven
hours with just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the
discrepancy in points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW

but
along
with that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually,
eventually adapt to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order

to
eat
the points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
news:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al7g03qot ...
No more mudslides - too bad (G)

I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are

definitely
a
oddball
factor in WW. I think, though, that you are

correct -
they
are
intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss

so
that
the point
values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain

benefit
even
if you eat
the calories/points. But like you, even though I

was
very
active in
my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not
earning
as many
points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60

pounds
less fuel to
burn. I guess we should not second guess this

stuff -
we
know that it
works pretty well and they do constantly come up

with
new
tweaks
(probably both for commercial reasons and practical
reasons.)

Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how

and
why
on some days
to just keep the mind fresh (G)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred

wrote:



On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce

wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred

wrote:


You may be right. Too little main course

might
lead
to even more
snacking. The body may just want to hold at

this
weight. And maybe
I
just need to cater to it. A WW leader who

shall
remain nameless has
suggested that my weekend's probably need

more
food.
After all I am
not still burning off the self-storage points

that
use to gather
around my waist.

I have a feeling you may be finding or

accepting
the
same thing that
I have ...
we're just where our bodies want or need to

be.
Up/down a few
pounds, it all
balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem

to
stay
in place
permanently. I
think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a

prior
post
when she said
that if we
are still losing weight easily, then we aren't
*there*
yet. I'm
thinking, my
friend, we are there ... whether we like it or

not.

I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of

just
wobbling in place
- like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit

right
and
mostly straight
ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right

on

MAINTENANCE.

Which is as it should be when you are where you
belong.

Yup, I think it is finally registering with me

that
seesawing a bit is
just going
to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to
where I
was last week.
Then I
killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably

back
up
tomorrow. G I

Well, since I read down below, I think you needed

the
mudslide to
clear up the activity points issue (g) Other

than
the
fact that I
will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I
think
this might be
another slightly up week - so says the scale this
morning. I need a
down week again! Oh, still under goal.

Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected -

nothing
major. And that
bottle is
now gone, out, been removed from the premises ...

so
it
will no longer
bother me.
Probably be another year before I see one again.

G

I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking

was
better last
night -
that's two nights after the weekend. And I

recall
it
was similar
last
week. Or is it just that today is WI and my

mind
accepts LESS.

For the most part my snacking has been pretty

well
under control,
with exception
to last week. G Don't know what got into me

or
why.
The last few
days I
haven't felt those same hunger munchies that
nothing
would satisfy.
Maybe I need
to keep better track of these episodes? I

wonder
if
they have
anything to do with
hitting a lower than usual weight, like the

body
sending signals to
eat, eat, eat!

Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of
course,
we definitely
accepted as the reason why we could not get the
excess
weight off
BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the

body
does
have its
limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of

it,
I'm
sure, is working
to keep the body working correctly and

nourished
right.
I do know (I
wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably

hungry
but
just snacking.
Are those the signals that I really do need

those
snacks? They are
better snacks than years past.

Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one.

I
do
snack, usually
(but not
always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but

it
definitely is
nowhere near the
amount that I was snacking on last year. When I

hit
those constant
snacking
phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to
myself
and everyone
else. My
stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little
lightheaded or just not
feeling
quite right. Then there are the times when I am

just
bored and eating
seems to be
the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get

control
of
... as I sit
here in front
of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there

is a
bowl of meringues
sitting
right in front of me. I may go dump them back

into
the
container.

Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike
ride,
that breakfast
cookie. too much stuff.

Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have

you
ever
just felt like
you've
really overdone things - yet when thinking it all

out
it
really wasn't
THAT bad?
Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've

eaten
has
left me
feeling
incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what,

nothing I
can really put my
finger
on. The only good thing about feeling this way is

that
it
keeps me from
snacking.
I haven't had one snack all day long.

Ok, here's something else I was thinking about

today
...
and I'm
probably way off
base, but in my head it somewhat makes some

sense.
Regarding the
amount of
activity points earned, and eaten. I understand

that
100 calories
expended = 1
activity point, and this made sense to me as I

was
losing weight. Ok,
so what if
roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all

AP's
we
earned, we could
still lose
weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat

of a
deficit mode,
which really
does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying

to
maintain ... by still
working
with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing
ourselves
in by not
eating enough
and then ending up going on a rampage a day or

so
later?
Did I convey
my thoughts
well enough for anyone to understand? I guess

this
came
into play
today when I
was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had

splurged
on
last week.
Roughly 13
points for a large one (I really splurged!) ...

600
or
close to it
calories.
Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5

days
to
earn enough
activity
points to work it off. Today for some reason my
brain
kicked into
calorie mode
instead ... which told me that no, it really is

only
2
workout sessions
on my
treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off
everyday, and only
eating what ww
says I've earned ... could that explain those

hungry
days? And explain
why my
weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it

would
when I did hit
that feeding
frenzy?

Interesting. I was never quite clear on

converting
points to calories
and activity points/exercise is even more or

maybe
less
clear but you
folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned

might
have
a better
handle on things. So you think WW did not quite

tell
us
the truth?
(G) That could explain why I lost so well during

the
program - I was
getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a

weekend
a
some more
during the week. And I was better at limiting

the
snacking back then
- driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own

FAT
points to burn,
I did not need or desire the extra points I am

now
consuming.

I'm going on information passed along by others,

as
to
the
calorie vs.
points
conversions. And I really have no idea if what

I'm
*thinking* makes any
sense at
all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just
outthinking myself
once again.
My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie
difference between
points eaten
and activity points is probably because most

people
will
figure those
activity
points high in the beginning ... have no idea as

to
what
is really
considered high
exertion. I know my perception was quite

different
when I
was sitting at
220
pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the
neighborhood leisurely
was a
chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so

to
speak)
even if
figured high,
you should still lose some weight. I'm also

thinking
of
ww telling
people that 30
minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity

points
...
still can't quite
figure
that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is

pretty
much
nothing other
than a
few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely

less
exertion than 30
minutes on
the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed

is
also a
BIG factor.
While I do
still have that drive and still consider myself as
trying
to succeed, the
goal
itself has definitely changed.

I'm confused again. G

Same here.

Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it.

Joyce











  #136  
Old March 8th, 2004, 08:52 AM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Darn!! Up TWO pounds???

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

Joyce

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

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



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

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

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

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

Joyce

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

Pushing TUNA is just fine. I like the stuff and it is healthy.

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

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

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



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

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

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

Joyce

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

Okay, today you can push food (G)

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

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

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

Ok, ok, no pushing food ... today anyway. I haven't had anything new and
interesting to push, and probably best if I didn't push the spinach pizza we had
for dinner last night (although I'd like to, have half of the dang thing in the
fridge still). It was good though. G

Joyce

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:59:59 -0800, Fred wrote:

Hey, you are not allowed to push food! (G) High tech toys are
entirely different (G)

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:25:58 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Arggggggh! you are really trying hard to talk me into that wirless, aren't you?
At least I push you to the cheaper things (bulk icecream). G Although ... less
calories in a wireless adapter.

Joyce

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 06:47:50 -0800, Fred wrote:

I will not discuss weight at the moment (which appears up again this
morning)

Good for getting in all that exercise. I believe that I am taking the
day off to hit the downhill slopes on cross-country gear. At least
that is the email I just sent my secretary (G)

Wireless is really neat. Yesterday, a few times I opened the laptop
downstairs and just surfed the web and checked some stuff out. Also
moved a file or two between computers.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:09:19 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Evidentally, weight dropped way down today, right back to where it should be. I
did get in two treadmill sessions today though, so made up a bit for being out of
commission for the past few days. Don't think I'm going to make a habit of that
though. The time hub chooses to exercise is tough for me. Just finish up and
have to move right into dinner prep - while he rests quietly on his chair. Guess
I shouldn't complain, I'm probably still burning those calories. G

I'm totally jealous of your wireless connection, and moving into a second one.
I'm scared silly to even attempt the first. Then again, maybe I should just bite
the bullet and do it ... while Linksys still offers free tech support. G I will
definitely go with Linksys merchandise, the customer service is worth every extra
penny.

Joyce

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 07:10:56 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, bitching about a submerged treadmill probably was worth some
points anyway.

Yes, crossing fingers, Linksys gets my vote. I have also called a few
times. And probably will again as I have another wireless to hookup
(G)

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:37:36 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I usually avoid tech support as much as I can, didn't have a choice with the modem
issue as from what I've discovered dsl modems can not be purchased from any stores
around me. Cable modems, yes ... dsl, no. Don't know why and no one seems to be
able to give me an answer. I've contacted Linksys twice now, both times they have
been extremely helpful and courteous (maybe I've just been lucky?). I've noticed
the same thing with support going to charging, might have been when I stopped
calling. Paying for help with a product is one of those things that really
irritates me. Is it any different than visiting a customer service desk in a
retail store? Or a cashier checking me out at a grocer? Or a bank teller? next
thing ya know, we'll be paying for those services as well. I figure that these
salaries are already covered in the inflated merchandise prices ... now it's just
another way to nick the consumer. sigh

No treadmill for the past 2 days. Hub decided to unload all the bike parts on TOP
of the treadmill ... thus putting me out of commission. I bitched loud and long
today ... bike is now put together and treadmill is once again usable. MEN! g

Joyce

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 06:29:59 -0800, Fred wrote:

Sorry you had the usual response from support people but managed to
get going eventually. I am still waiting for linksys to end their
pretty universal coverage - so many now charge fees IMMEDIATELY.
There use to be free tech, then 90 days free tech. Now there is NO
tech. I guess it was to be expected since some much of this stuff has
substantially dropped in price.

Breathe deeply and hit the treadmill - oh, I don't mean with your
fist!

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:59:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

After the day I had today, trying to get router to work with new modem, the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit. I am not up to any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have to do was plug the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well. WRONG! Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no tech support - only told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking service. I was not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I finally screamed at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you will push the magic switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be told that customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling that my questions were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind young man who had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason the router ran on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept switching to those wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no sense to me, but it did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:21:07 -0800, Fred wrote:

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:20:12 -0600, Joyce wrote:

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and vacuuming are concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new vacuum yesterday, have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I would have used the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:38:06 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and dusting and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body definitely finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:40:01 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the vacuuming, dusting - general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the entire day on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my brain works, and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that laundry was great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything else. And since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not losing weight ... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:32:46 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it I do not take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take points for things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I have lost as well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But having said that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and in my case I walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took the APs for the big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for seven hours with just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the discrepancy in points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but along with that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually, eventually adapt to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order to eat the points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
news:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al7 ...
No more mudslides - too bad (G)

I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are definitely a oddball
factor in WW. I think, though, that you are correct - they are
intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so that the point
values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain benefit even if you eat
the calories/points. But like you, even though I was very active in
my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not earning as many
points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60 pounds less fuel to
burn. I guess we should not second guess this stuff - we know that it
works pretty well and they do constantly come up with new tweaks
(probably both for commercial reasons and practical reasons.)

Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and why on some days
to just keep the mind fresh (G)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred
wrote:



On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred
wrote:


You may be right. Too little main course might lead to even more
snacking. The body may just want to hold at this weight. And maybe
I
just need to cater to it. A WW leader who shall remain nameless has
suggested that my weekend's probably need more food. After all I am
not still burning off the self-storage points that use to gather
around my waist.

I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting the same thing that
I have ...
we're just where our bodies want or need to be. Up/down a few
pounds, it all
balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem to stay in place
permanently. I
think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a prior post when she said
that if we
are still losing weight easily, then we aren't *there* yet. I'm
thinking, my
friend, we are there ... whether we like it or not.

I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of just wobbling in place
- like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit right and mostly straight
ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on MAINTENANCE.

Which is as it should be when you are where you belong.

Yup, I think it is finally registering with me that seesawing a bit is
just going
to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to where I was last week.
Then I
killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back up tomorrow. G I

Well, since I read down below, I think you needed the mudslide to
clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than the fact that I
will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I think this might be
another slightly up week - so says the scale this morning. I need a
down week again! Oh, still under goal.

Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected - nothing major. And that
bottle is
now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so it will no longer
bother me.
Probably be another year before I see one again. G

I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking was better last
night -
that's two nights after the weekend. And I recall it was similar
last
week. Or is it just that today is WI and my mind accepts LESS.

For the most part my snacking has been pretty well under control,
with exception
to last week. G Don't know what got into me or why. The last few
days I
haven't felt those same hunger munchies that nothing would satisfy.
Maybe I need
to keep better track of these episodes? I wonder if they have
anything to do with
hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body sending signals to
eat, eat, eat!

Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of course, we definitely
accepted as the reason why we could not get the excess weight off
BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the body does have its
limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it, I'm sure, is working
to keep the body working correctly and nourished right. I do know (I
wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry but just snacking.
Are those the signals that I really do need those snacks? They are
better snacks than years past.

Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I do snack, usually
(but not
always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but it definitely is
nowhere near the
amount that I was snacking on last year. When I hit those constant
snacking
phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to myself and everyone
else. My
stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little lightheaded or just not
feeling
quite right. Then there are the times when I am just bored and eating
seems to be
the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get control of ... as I sit
here in front
of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there is a bowl of meringues
sitting
right in front of me. I may go dump them back into the container.

Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike ride, that breakfast
cookie. too much stuff.

Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have you ever just felt like
you've
really overdone things - yet when thinking it all out it really wasn't
THAT bad?
Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've eaten has left me
feeling
incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what, nothing I can really put my
finger
on. The only good thing about feeling this way is that it keeps me from
snacking.
I haven't had one snack all day long.

Ok, here's something else I was thinking about today ... and I'm
probably way off
base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense. Regarding the
amount of
activity points earned, and eaten. I understand that 100 calories
expended = 1
activity point, and this made sense to me as I was losing weight. Ok,
so what if
roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's we earned, we could
still lose
weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat of a deficit mode,
which really
does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to maintain ... by still
working
with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing ourselves in by not
eating enough
and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so later? Did I convey
my thoughts
well enough for anyone to understand? I guess this came into play
today when I
was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had splurged on last week.
Roughly 13
points for a large one (I really splurged!) ... 600 or close to it
calories.
Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5 days to earn enough
activity
points to work it off. Today for some reason my brain kicked into
calorie mode
instead ... which told me that no, it really is only 2 workout sessions
on my
treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off everyday, and only
eating what ww
says I've earned ... could that explain those hungry days? And explain
why my
weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it would when I did hit
that feeding
frenzy?

Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting points to calories
and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe less clear but you
folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned might have a better
handle on things. So you think WW did not quite tell us the truth?
(G) That could explain why I lost so well during the program - I was
getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a weekend a some more
during the week. And I was better at limiting the snacking back then
- driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own FAT points to burn,
I did not need or desire the extra points I am now consuming.

I'm going on information passed along by others, as to the calorie vs.
points
conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm *thinking* makes any
sense at
all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just outthinking myself
once again.
My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie difference between
points eaten
and activity points is probably because most people will figure those
activity
points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to what is really
considered high
exertion. I know my perception was quite different when I was sitting at
220
pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the neighborhood leisurely
was a
chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to speak) even if
figured high,
you should still lose some weight. I'm also thinking of ww telling
people that 30
minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points ... still can't quite
figure
that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is pretty much nothing other
than a
few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less exertion than 30
minutes on
the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is also a BIG factor.
While I do
still have that drive and still consider myself as trying to succeed, the
goal
itself has definitely changed.

I'm confused again. G

Same here.

Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it.

Joyce



  #137  
Old March 8th, 2004, 03:16 PM
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Darn!! Up TWO pounds???

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

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

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

Joyce

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

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



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

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

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

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

Joyce

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

Pushing TUNA is just fine. I like the stuff and it is healthy.

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

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

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



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

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

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

Joyce

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

Okay, today you can push food (G)

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

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

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

Ok, ok, no pushing food ... today anyway. I haven't had anything new and
interesting to push, and probably best if I didn't push the spinach pizza we had
for dinner last night (although I'd like to, have half of the dang thing in the
fridge still). It was good though. G

Joyce

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 07:59:59 -0800, Fred wrote:

Hey, you are not allowed to push food! (G) High tech toys are
entirely different (G)

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 01:25:58 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Arggggggh! you are really trying hard to talk me into that wirless, aren't you?
At least I push you to the cheaper things (bulk icecream). G Although ... less
calories in a wireless adapter.

Joyce

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 06:47:50 -0800, Fred wrote:

I will not discuss weight at the moment (which appears up again this
morning)

Good for getting in all that exercise. I believe that I am taking the
day off to hit the downhill slopes on cross-country gear. At least
that is the email I just sent my secretary (G)

Wireless is really neat. Yesterday, a few times I opened the laptop
downstairs and just surfed the web and checked some stuff out. Also
moved a file or two between computers.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 01:09:19 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Evidentally, weight dropped way down today, right back to where it should be. I
did get in two treadmill sessions today though, so made up a bit for being out of
commission for the past few days. Don't think I'm going to make a habit of that
though. The time hub chooses to exercise is tough for me. Just finish up and
have to move right into dinner prep - while he rests quietly on his chair. Guess
I shouldn't complain, I'm probably still burning those calories. G

I'm totally jealous of your wireless connection, and moving into a second one.
I'm scared silly to even attempt the first. Then again, maybe I should just bite
the bullet and do it ... while Linksys still offers free tech support. G I will
definitely go with Linksys merchandise, the customer service is worth every extra
penny.

Joyce

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 07:10:56 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, bitching about a submerged treadmill probably was worth some
points anyway.

Yes, crossing fingers, Linksys gets my vote. I have also called a few
times. And probably will again as I have another wireless to hookup
(G)

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 01:37:36 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I usually avoid tech support as much as I can, didn't have a choice with the modem
issue as from what I've discovered dsl modems can not be purchased from any stores
around me. Cable modems, yes ... dsl, no. Don't know why and no one seems to be
able to give me an answer. I've contacted Linksys twice now, both times they have
been extremely helpful and courteous (maybe I've just been lucky?). I've noticed
the same thing with support going to charging, might have been when I stopped
calling. Paying for help with a product is one of those things that really
irritates me. Is it any different than visiting a customer service desk in a
retail store? Or a cashier checking me out at a grocer? Or a bank teller? next
thing ya know, we'll be paying for those services as well. I figure that these
salaries are already covered in the inflated merchandise prices ... now it's just
another way to nick the consumer. sigh

No treadmill for the past 2 days. Hub decided to unload all the bike parts on TOP
of the treadmill ... thus putting me out of commission. I bitched loud and long
today ... bike is now put together and treadmill is once again usable. MEN! g

Joyce

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 06:29:59 -0800, Fred wrote:

Sorry you had the usual response from support people but managed to
get going eventually. I am still waiting for linksys to end their
pretty universal coverage - so many now charge fees IMMEDIATELY.
There use to be free tech, then 90 days free tech. Now there is NO
tech. I guess it was to be expected since some much of this stuff has
substantially dropped in price.

Breathe deeply and hit the treadmill - oh, I don't mean with your
fist!

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:59:38 -0600, Joyce wrote:

After the day I had today, trying to get router to work with new modem, the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit. I am not up to any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have to do was plug the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well. WRONG! Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no tech support - only told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking service. I was not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I finally screamed at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you will push the magic switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be told that customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling that my questions were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind young man who had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason the router ran on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept switching to those wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no sense to me, but it did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:21:07 -0800, Fred wrote:

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:20:12 -0600, Joyce wrote:

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and vacuuming are concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new vacuum yesterday, have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I would have used the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:38:06 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and dusting and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body definitely finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:40:01 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the vacuuming, dusting - general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the entire day on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my brain works, and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that laundry was great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything else. And since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not losing weight ... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:32:46 -0600, "Miss Violette"
wrote:

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it I do not take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take points for things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I have lost as well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But having said that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and in my case I walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took the APs for the big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for seven hours with just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the discrepancy in points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but along with that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually, eventually adapt to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order to eat the points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
news:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al ...
No more mudslides - too bad (G)

I'll move stuff up here. Activity points are definitely a oddball
factor in WW. I think, though, that you are correct - they are
intended as a positive benefit and help weightloss so that the point
values may be somewhat skewed so that you gain benefit even if you eat
the calories/points. But like you, even though I was very active in
my hiking/etc, it is much easier now and I am not earning as many
points but I seem to be hungrier. But I have 60 pounds less fuel to
burn. I guess we should not second guess this stuff - we know that it
works pretty well and they do constantly come up with new tweaks
(probably both for commercial reasons and practical reasons.)

Keep on doing what works and keep questioning how and why on some days
to just keep the mind fresh (G)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:46:06 -0600, Joyce wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:10 -0800, Fred
wrote:



On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:40:11 -0600, Joyce wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:09:51 -0800, Fred
wrote:


You may be right. Too little main course might lead to even more
snacking. The body may just want to hold at this weight. And maybe
I
just need to cater to it. A WW leader who shall remain nameless has
suggested that my weekend's probably need more food. After all I am
not still burning off the self-storage points that use to gather
around my waist.

I have a feeling you may be finding or accepting the same thing that
I have ...
we're just where our bodies want or need to be. Up/down a few
pounds, it all
balances out - but no dramatic drops that seem to stay in place
permanently. I
think Lesanne hit the nail on the head in a prior post when she said
that if we
are still losing weight easily, then we aren't *there* yet. I'm
thinking, my
friend, we are there ... whether we like it or not.

I think you are right - I'm doing a good job of just wobbling in place
- like riding a bicycle - a bit left and bit right and mostly straight
ahead. A bit up, a bit down and mostly right on MAINTENANCE.

Which is as it should be when you are where you belong.

Yup, I think it is finally registering with me that seesawing a bit is
just going
to be a fact of life. Down again today, back to where I was last week.
Then I
killed off the mudslides tonite - so probably back up tomorrow. G I

Well, since I read down below, I think you needed the mudslide to
clear up the activity points issue (g) Other than the fact that I
will not wi officially if I'm too late on Weds, I think this might be
another slightly up week - so says the scale this morning. I need a
down week again! Oh, still under goal.

Up a teeny bit this morning, which I expected - nothing major. And that
bottle is
now gone, out, been removed from the premises ... so it will no longer
bother me.
Probably be another year before I see one again. G

I may experiment a bit. I think the snacking was better last
night -
that's two nights after the weekend. And I recall it was similar
last
week. Or is it just that today is WI and my mind accepts LESS.

For the most part my snacking has been pretty well under control,
with exception
to last week. G Don't know what got into me or why. The last few
days I
haven't felt those same hunger munchies that nothing would satisfy.
Maybe I need
to keep better track of these episodes? I wonder if they have
anything to do with
hitting a lower than usual weight, like the body sending signals to
eat, eat, eat!

Well, that's the ol' set point theory which, of course, we definitely
accepted as the reason why we could not get the excess weight off
BEFORE we got it off. But I am sure that the body does have its
limits. Starvation mode or a modest form of it, I'm sure, is working
to keep the body working correctly and nourished right. I do know (I
wrote to Lesanne) that I am not noticeably hungry but just snacking.
Are those the signals that I really do need those snacks? They are
better snacks than years past.

Hmmmmm, not sure what to tell you on this one. I do snack, usually
(but not
always, I'm not a saint) healthier options - but it definitely is
nowhere near the
amount that I was snacking on last year. When I hit those constant
snacking
phases, I am definitely noticeably hungry ... to myself and everyone
else. My
stomach is grumbling loudly, sometimes a little lightheaded or just not
feeling
quite right. Then there are the times when I am just bored and eating
seems to be
the thing to do. THAT'S what I need to get control of ... as I sit
here in front
of my computer, definitely not hungry, yet there is a bowl of meringues
sitting
right in front of me. I may go dump them back into the container.

Yesterday it was Meringues, mango and on the bike ride, that breakfast
cookie. too much stuff.

Today *feels* like one of those days to me. Have you ever just felt like
you've
really overdone things - yet when thinking it all out it really wasn't
THAT bad?
Well, that's where I'm at today. Something I've eaten has left me
feeling
incredibly full and bloated ... no idea what, nothing I can really put my
finger
on. The only good thing about feeling this way is that it keeps me from
snacking.
I haven't had one snack all day long.

Ok, here's something else I was thinking about today ... and I'm
probably way off
base, but in my head it somewhat makes some sense. Regarding the
amount of
activity points earned, and eaten. I understand that 100 calories
expended = 1
activity point, and this made sense to me as I was losing weight. Ok,
so what if
roughly 50 calories = 1 point , if we ate all AP's we earned, we could
still lose
weight. I figured ww had us working in somewhat of a deficit mode,
which really
does make sense. BUT ... since we are trying to maintain ... by still
working
with those same numbers, are we somewhat doing ourselves in by not
eating enough
and then ending up going on a rampage a day or so later? Did I convey
my thoughts
well enough for anyone to understand? I guess this came into play
today when I
was thinking about the Wendy's frosty I had splurged on last week.
Roughly 13
points for a large one (I really splurged!) ... 600 or close to it
calories.
Normally I think that it would take about 4 or 5 days to earn enough
activity
points to work it off. Today for some reason my brain kicked into
calorie mode
instead ... which told me that no, it really is only 2 workout sessions
on my
treadmill. So if I've been working my tail off everyday, and only
eating what ww
says I've earned ... could that explain those hungry days? And explain
why my
weight didn't skyrocket as I had anticipated it would when I did hit
that feeding
frenzy?

Interesting. I was never quite clear on converting points to calories
and activity points/exercise is even more or maybe less clear but you
folks with TOYS that calculate calories burned might have a better
handle on things. So you think WW did not quite tell us the truth?
(G) That could explain why I lost so well during the program - I was
getting in the main 15-30 activity points on a weekend a some more
during the week. And I was better at limiting the snacking back then
- driven to succeed. Or maybe since I had my own FAT points to burn,
I did not need or desire the extra points I am now consuming.

I'm going on information passed along by others, as to the calorie vs.
points
conversions. And I really have no idea if what I'm *thinking* makes any
sense at
all, or has any truth behind it ... or if I'm just outthinking myself
once again.
My cynical mind has me thinking that the calorie difference between
points eaten
and activity points is probably because most people will figure those
activity
points high in the beginning ... have no idea as to what is really
considered high
exertion. I know my perception was quite different when I was sitting at
220
pounds, than it is now. Heck, just cruising the neighborhood leisurely
was a
chore to me. g So by giving double credit (so to speak) even if
figured high,
you should still lose some weight. I'm also thinking of ww telling
people that 30
minutes of doing laundry is worth 2 activity points ... still can't quite
figure
that out since 30 minutes of laundry for me is pretty much nothing other
than a
few trips up and down the stairs ... definitely less exertion than 30
minutes on
the treadmill. I do think that drive to succeed is also a BIG factor.
While I do
still have that drive and still consider myself as trying to succeed, the
goal
itself has definitely changed.

I'm confused again. G

Same here.

Just another constant in my life. I'm used to it.

Joyce



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
soc.support.fat-rejectance FAQ Appendix A Version 5.0 NR General Discussion 6 June 18th, 2004 12:37 PM
soc.support.fat-rejectance FAQ Appendix A Version 5.0 NR Low Carbohydrate Diets 6 June 18th, 2004 12:37 PM
soc.support.fat-rejectance FAQ Appendix A Version 5.0 NR General Discussion 0 May 22nd, 2004 05:39 PM
How fat are the fat acceptors? The New Lady Veteran General Discussion 2 April 21st, 2004 06:47 AM
How fat are the fat acceptors? The New Lady Veteran Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 April 21st, 2004 06:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:51 AM.


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