Darn!! Up TWO pounds???

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

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

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
...
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

I've been wondering something about your concerns with (over)snacking
and feelings of hunger. I know you load up on carbs for energy on your
weekend warrior days. But do you get enough protein the rest of the
week to replenish your muscles? Just a thought. I'm no expert and I'm
not trying to tell you what to do (as if!). But the little bit of
Atkins literature I've read, as well as the stuff I've read about the
relationship between carb cravings and protein intake makes me wonder
if it might be worth taking some time to think about your protein.
FWIW.

Prairie Roots

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:39 -0800, Fred
wrote:

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

I probably have protein with each meal altho, breakfast may be slim.

Breakfast is usually cereal with milk or soy milk, ahem, soy drink
(can't call it milk since it did not originate from mad cows!) So
there is some protein there??? Not much.

Lunch is either chicken teriaki or pastrami sandwich (said sandwich
has 3.5 oz meat and I get a second one of equal for later in the week
- the entire sandwich is 7oz meat). Lots of chicken in that teriaki.
Dinner has a protein source - fish, chicken, lamb. And frankly, I
think my muscles are doing okay in hiking, etc, altho, maybe this past
sunday's bike ride was a bitch!!! (g)

The other thing is I'm not hungry for the snacking - I'm snacking when
UN-hungry. Or at least, I don't feel hungry. Boredom? A returned
old habit? Lost the focus or will? Or need for more food - since I
guess I really am MAINTAINING. So maybe you are right - maybe I
should up the main meals and see if the snacking is reduced.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:01:36 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I've been wondering something about your concerns with (over)snacking
and feelings of hunger. I know you load up on carbs for energy on your
weekend warrior days. But do you get enough protein the rest of the
week to replenish your muscles? Just a thought. I'm no expert and I'm
not trying to tell you what to do (as if!). But the little bit of
Atkins literature I've read, as well as the stuff I've read about the
relationship between carb cravings and protein intake makes me wonder
if it might be worth taking some time to think about your protein.
FWIW.

Prairie Roots

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:39 -0800, Fred
wrote:

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

Well, it was just a thought. I do know that higher protein helps me
curb my cravings for sweets. It's something SuzyQ used to mention as
well. So for some people it seems to be true.

Of course, maybe you just need some afternoon sun! (referring to the
spam posting earlier today) G

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:19:47 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I probably have protein with each meal altho, breakfast may be slim.

Breakfast is usually cereal with milk or soy milk, ahem, soy drink
(can't call it milk since it did not originate from mad cows!) So
there is some protein there??? Not much.

Lunch is either chicken teriaki or pastrami sandwich (said sandwich
has 3.5 oz meat and I get a second one of equal for later in the week
- the entire sandwich is 7oz meat). Lots of chicken in that teriaki.
Dinner has a protein source - fish, chicken, lamb. And frankly, I
think my muscles are doing okay in hiking, etc, altho, maybe this past
sunday's bike ride was a bitch!!! (g)

The other thing is I'm not hungry for the snacking - I'm snacking when
UN-hungry. Or at least, I don't feel hungry. Boredom? A returned
old habit? Lost the focus or will? Or need for more food - since I
guess I really am MAINTAINING. So maybe you are right - maybe I
should up the main meals and see if the snacking is reduced.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:01:36 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I've been wondering something about your concerns with (over)snacking
and feelings of hunger. I know you load up on carbs for energy on your
weekend warrior days. But do you get enough protein the rest of the
week to replenish your muscles? Just a thought. I'm no expert and I'm
not trying to tell you what to do (as if!). But the little bit of
Atkins literature I've read, as well as the stuff I've read about the
relationship between carb cravings and protein intake makes me wonder
if it might be worth taking some time to think about your protein.
FWIW.

Prairie Roots

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:39 -0800, Fred
wrote:

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

Prairie Roots
232/161/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

I did not go to that spam site but recalled that I got a Costco email
yesterday that mentioned a "mood" light. Some folks at work have them
- maybe it is not a bad idea. Where did that site lead?

I make quite a few shrimp when I do that stir "fry". Probably always
a fish steak/filet of reasonable size - 5-6 oz.

No, thanks for the suggestions.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:19 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

Well, it was just a thought. I do know that higher protein helps me
curb my cravings for sweets. It's something SuzyQ used to mention as
well. So for some people it seems to be true.

Of course, maybe you just need some afternoon sun! (referring to the
spam posting earlier today) G

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:19:47 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I probably have protein with each meal altho, breakfast may be slim.

Breakfast is usually cereal with milk or soy milk, ahem, soy drink
(can't call it milk since it did not originate from mad cows!) So
there is some protein there??? Not much.

Lunch is either chicken teriaki or pastrami sandwich (said sandwich
has 3.5 oz meat and I get a second one of equal for later in the week
- the entire sandwich is 7oz meat). Lots of chicken in that teriaki.
Dinner has a protein source - fish, chicken, lamb. And frankly, I
think my muscles are doing okay in hiking, etc, altho, maybe this past
sunday's bike ride was a bitch!!! (g)

The other thing is I'm not hungry for the snacking - I'm snacking when
UN-hungry. Or at least, I don't feel hungry. Boredom? A returned
old habit? Lost the focus or will? Or need for more food - since I
guess I really am MAINTAINING. So maybe you are right - maybe I
should up the main meals and see if the snacking is reduced.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:01:36 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I've been wondering something about your concerns with (over)snacking
and feelings of hunger. I know you load up on carbs for energy on your
weekend warrior days. But do you get enough protein the rest of the
week to replenish your muscles? Just a thought. I'm no expert and I'm
not trying to tell you what to do (as if!). But the little bit of
Atkins literature I've read, as well as the stuff I've read about the
relationship between carb cravings and protein intake makes me wonder
if it might be worth taking some time to think about your protein.
FWIW.

Prairie Roots

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:39 -0800, Fred
wrote:

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

Prairie Roots
232/161/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

I wonder how she is, I miss her, Lee
Prairie Roots wrote in message
...
Well, it was just a thought. I do know that higher protein helps me
curb my cravings for sweets. It's something SuzyQ used to mention as
well. So for some people it seems to be true.

Of course, maybe you just need some afternoon sun! (referring to the
spam posting earlier today) G

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:19:47 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I probably have protein with each meal altho, breakfast may be slim.

Breakfast is usually cereal with milk or soy milk, ahem, soy drink
(can't call it milk since it did not originate from mad cows!) So
there is some protein there??? Not much.

Lunch is either chicken teriaki or pastrami sandwich (said sandwich
has 3.5 oz meat and I get a second one of equal for later in the week
- the entire sandwich is 7oz meat). Lots of chicken in that teriaki.
Dinner has a protein source - fish, chicken, lamb. And frankly, I
think my muscles are doing okay in hiking, etc, altho, maybe this past
sunday's bike ride was a bitch!!! (g)

The other thing is I'm not hungry for the snacking - I'm snacking when
UN-hungry. Or at least, I don't feel hungry. Boredom? A returned
old habit? Lost the focus or will? Or need for more food - since I
guess I really am MAINTAINING. So maybe you are right - maybe I
should up the main meals and see if the snacking is reduced.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:01:36 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I've been wondering something about your concerns with (over)snacking
and feelings of hunger. I know you load up on carbs for energy on your
weekend warrior days. But do you get enough protein the rest of the
week to replenish your muscles? Just a thought. I'm no expert and I'm
not trying to tell you what to do (as if!). But the little bit of
Atkins literature I've read, as well as the stuff I've read about the
relationship between carb cravings and protein intake makes me wonder
if it might be worth taking some time to think about your protein.
FWIW.

Prairie Roots

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:39 -0800, Fred
wrote:

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

Prairie Roots
232/161/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

DH and I really miss daylight and our apartment is pretty dark due to the
layout...when we were at Costco we found lightbulbs (Sylvania) that were
supposed to simulate daylight. I'll be darned it looks pretty good. .. for
what it's worth...

"Fred" wrote in message
...
I did not go to that spam site but recalled that I got a Costco email
yesterday that mentioned a "mood" light. Some folks at work have them
- maybe it is not a bad idea. Where did that site lead?

I make quite a few shrimp when I do that stir "fry". Probably always
a fish steak/filet of reasonable size - 5-6 oz.

No, thanks for the suggestions.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:19 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

Well, it was just a thought. I do know that higher protein helps me
curb my cravings for sweets. It's something SuzyQ used to mention as
well. So for some people it seems to be true.

Of course, maybe you just need some afternoon sun! (referring to the
spam posting earlier today) G

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:19:47 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I probably have protein with each meal altho, breakfast may be slim.

Breakfast is usually cereal with milk or soy milk, ahem, soy drink
(can't call it milk since it did not originate from mad cows!) So
there is some protein there??? Not much.

Lunch is either chicken teriaki or pastrami sandwich (said sandwich
has 3.5 oz meat and I get a second one of equal for later in the week
- the entire sandwich is 7oz meat). Lots of chicken in that teriaki.
Dinner has a protein source - fish, chicken, lamb. And frankly, I
think my muscles are doing okay in hiking, etc, altho, maybe this past
sunday's bike ride was a bitch!!! (g)

The other thing is I'm not hungry for the snacking - I'm snacking when
UN-hungry. Or at least, I don't feel hungry. Boredom? A returned
old habit? Lost the focus or will? Or need for more food - since I
guess I really am MAINTAINING. So maybe you are right - maybe I
should up the main meals and see if the snacking is reduced.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:01:36 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I've been wondering something about your concerns with (over)snacking
and feelings of hunger. I know you load up on carbs for energy on your
weekend warrior days. But do you get enough protein the rest of the
week to replenish your muscles? Just a thought. I'm no expert and I'm
not trying to tell you what to do (as if!). But the little bit of
Atkins literature I've read, as well as the stuff I've read about the
relationship between carb cravings and protein intake makes me wonder
if it might be worth taking some time to think about your protein.
FWIW.

Prairie Roots

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:39 -0800, Fred
wrote:

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

Prairie Roots
232/161/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

I didn't click on the hyperlink, but the topic of the relationship
between light and its effects on mood and food cravings has been of
interest to me for a while.

Although I've had a couple of bouts of depression serious enough to
warrant medication, I haven't needed medication for a couple of years.
Yet througout my life I've frequently experienced extended periods of
what I call "low grade depression," not serious enough to start the
zoloft, but present enough that my mood, my sleep, my appetites, my
energy, and my concentration abilities are not quite normal.

During my informal research about what might be the solution, I came
across a book called "When Your Body Gets the Blues." The woman behind
the theory of Body Blues is a professor at the University of
Washington in Seattle. I think she has a clinic there as well. Anyway,
the symptoms of Body Blues a
Low Energy
Overeating
Weight Gain
Tension and Irritability
Sleep Difficulties
Difficulty Concentrating
Mild Anxiety
Mild Depression
Decreased Interest in Sex

I can honestly say that's a dead-on description of me.

Long story short: the recommended therapy for Body Blues is 1. walking
outdoors at a brisk pace for 20 minutes daily; 2. getting more light
during the day; 3. vitamins B-1, B-6, B-12, folic acid, D, and
selenium.

Anyone interested in reading more about it, there's a Web site:
http://www.bodyblues.com

Maybe it's the placebo effect, but I'm a different person when I
follow the regimen, including the vitamins. Especially the vitamins.

I'm not recommending this to anyone else. I'm just stating what seems
to be true for me.

So yes, I do believe there's a connection between light and food
cravings.

Prairie Roots

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:47 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I did not go to that spam site but recalled that I got a Costco email
yesterday that mentioned a "mood" light. Some folks at work have them
- maybe it is not a bad idea. Where did that site lead?

I make quite a few shrimp when I do that stir "fry". Probably always
a fish steak/filet of reasonable size - 5-6 oz.

No, thanks for the suggestions.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:50:19 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

Well, it was just a thought. I do know that higher protein helps me
curb my cravings for sweets. It's something SuzyQ used to mention as
well. So for some people it seems to be true.

Of course, maybe you just need some afternoon sun! (referring to the
spam posting earlier today) G

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:19:47 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I probably have protein with each meal altho, breakfast may be slim.

Breakfast is usually cereal with milk or soy milk, ahem, soy drink
(can't call it milk since it did not originate from mad cows!) So
there is some protein there??? Not much.

Lunch is either chicken teriaki or pastrami sandwich (said sandwich
has 3.5 oz meat and I get a second one of equal for later in the week
- the entire sandwich is 7oz meat). Lots of chicken in that teriaki.
Dinner has a protein source - fish, chicken, lamb. And frankly, I
think my muscles are doing okay in hiking, etc, altho, maybe this past
sunday's bike ride was a bitch!!! (g)

The other thing is I'm not hungry for the snacking - I'm snacking when
UN-hungry. Or at least, I don't feel hungry. Boredom? A returned
old habit? Lost the focus or will? Or need for more food - since I
guess I really am MAINTAINING. So maybe you are right - maybe I
should up the main meals and see if the snacking is reduced.

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:01:36 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I've been wondering something about your concerns with (over)snacking
and feelings of hunger. I know you load up on carbs for energy on your
weekend warrior days. But do you get enough protein the rest of the
week to replenish your muscles? Just a thought. I'm no expert and I'm
not trying to tell you what to do (as if!). But the little bit of
Atkins literature I've read, as well as the stuff I've read about the
relationship between carb cravings and protein intake makes me wonder
if it might be worth taking some time to think about your protein.
FWIW.

Prairie Roots

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 06:21:39 -0800, Fred
wrote:

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

Prairie Roots
232/161/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003