Darn!! Up TWO pounds???

Well, it's either remodel or move, which holds even less appeal to me.
If I don't remodel, my bathroom will soon fall into the kitchen. It's
nearly there already. Both rooms need to be gutted, floor to ceiling,
wall to wall.

This way I get exactly what I want. If I moved, I'd get somebody
else's idea of wonderful. The bonus is that for several weeks, I'll
have a houseful of men doing exactly what I want them to do. My idea
of bliss.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:04:44 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Remodel???? DO NOT DO IT!!!! YIKES!

Oh, well, it will eventually be enjoyable (G)

Kitchen and bath - wow - really doing all the water places.

Okay, you are allowed to go to the bike shop a bit later.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:13:08 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

Well I won't be there when the store opens. My contractor called
tonight. He's stopping by at 11 on Saturday to finalize all the
details with me and set a construction start date for my bathroom and
kitchen rehab. With the purchases of these exercise toys, I planned to
cancel my YWCA membership. But I'm keeping it active for now just so
I'll have someplace to shower during the 8-12 weeks of construction.
Good thing it's only 3 blocks from home. Guess I'll be buying a
portapotty this weekend, too, in addition to the bike. Man, my g'ment
check better be deposited tomorrow as scheduled.

Sometimes life is too good.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:23:32 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Good luck purchasing it on Sat - first thing

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:44:42 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

It's either the vitamins or the above freezing temps and melting snow
we're having or the upcoming trip plans. Or all of the above. I'm
feeling good right now.

Addicted to bike commuting? That'll be the day!! First things first. I
have to buy a bike. I called the bike shop today. They have some in
stock. They open at 10 on Saturday. Stay tuned.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:40:58 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Sounds like you have pretty well defined what and when and have found
a solution. Yes, those BIG plans like Atlanta can bouy one for a long
haul. Making my bigger hiking plans right now. Now to find the
vacation time to do it ALL (G)

Many bike commuters get addicted to it to and it helps cabin fever -
may you be so blessed.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:33:15 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I went through the diagnostic evaluation for SAD because I'm so much
worse in the winter. The conclusion was that my "blues" might be
seasonally associated and psychological counseling was indicated, but
I didn't fit the criteria for SAD. Mine starts later and lasts longer
than is typically associated with SAD. I'm usually good through
October. SAD starts in September and begins to lift in February or
March--here in MN, anyway. Mine starts in November and lasts through
April or May at the shortest. September is usually one of my best
months.

I've had enough counseling. I'm managing with my remaining neuroses.
But I do like functioning, so try to remember the importance of
exercise, vitamins, and light. So far that combination keeps me
believing I feel better. As does weight loss.

Yes, I can believe that your weekend activities have the effect of
keeping your spirits uplifted during the week. My upcoming trip to
Atlanta next month has brightened more than a few days for me this
winter.

Alaska in the summer, yes. Alaska in winter: no way. I don't even go
to Duluth in the winter. Cabin fever makes me want to crawl out of my
skin.


On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:48:16 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I can believe she is located here in Seattle where the winter dreary
must drive many to distraction. I know that SAD has been definitively
accepted and this extreme northern clime together with the very gray
weather really does some folks in. Quite a few of those lights on
desks of people at work.

It is terrific that you found a reasonable remedy and one that is not
dependent on artificial drugs.

I think that my ourdoor activities - the skiing keeps me going. I
kind of feel that if it is raining down here, there will be snow
forming up there and that gets me through but sometimes the weekends
are just a gray and the weather up in the mountains is rain rather
than snow. Cabin fever hits a pitch.

A friend's wife got clinically depressed when she joined him in
Alaska. She could not take the perpetual dark

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:31:13 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

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

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

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

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

OH, yeah, wait till that first Change Order and those men hop to it
for extra money (G)

But you are right - you will not inherit someone else's remuddle.

Have fun SOMEHOW! (G)

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:13:28 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

Well, it's either remodel or move, which holds even less appeal to me.
If I don't remodel, my bathroom will soon fall into the kitchen. It's
nearly there already. Both rooms need to be gutted, floor to ceiling,
wall to wall.

This way I get exactly what I want. If I moved, I'd get somebody
else's idea of wonderful. The bonus is that for several weeks, I'll
have a houseful of men doing exactly what I want them to do. My idea
of bliss.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:04:44 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Remodel???? DO NOT DO IT!!!! YIKES!

Oh, well, it will eventually be enjoyable (G)

Kitchen and bath - wow - really doing all the water places.

Okay, you are allowed to go to the bike shop a bit later.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:13:08 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

Well I won't be there when the store opens. My contractor called
tonight. He's stopping by at 11 on Saturday to finalize all the
details with me and set a construction start date for my bathroom and
kitchen rehab. With the purchases of these exercise toys, I planned to
cancel my YWCA membership. But I'm keeping it active for now just so
I'll have someplace to shower during the 8-12 weeks of construction.
Good thing it's only 3 blocks from home. Guess I'll be buying a
portapotty this weekend, too, in addition to the bike. Man, my g'ment
check better be deposited tomorrow as scheduled.

Sometimes life is too good.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:23:32 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Good luck purchasing it on Sat - first thing

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:44:42 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

It's either the vitamins or the above freezing temps and melting snow
we're having or the upcoming trip plans. Or all of the above. I'm
feeling good right now.

Addicted to bike commuting? That'll be the day!! First things first. I
have to buy a bike. I called the bike shop today. They have some in
stock. They open at 10 on Saturday. Stay tuned.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:40:58 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Sounds like you have pretty well defined what and when and have found
a solution. Yes, those BIG plans like Atlanta can bouy one for a long
haul. Making my bigger hiking plans right now. Now to find the
vacation time to do it ALL (G)

Many bike commuters get addicted to it to and it helps cabin fever -
may you be so blessed.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:33:15 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I went through the diagnostic evaluation for SAD because I'm so much
worse in the winter. The conclusion was that my "blues" might be
seasonally associated and psychological counseling was indicated, but
I didn't fit the criteria for SAD. Mine starts later and lasts longer
than is typically associated with SAD. I'm usually good through
October. SAD starts in September and begins to lift in February or
March--here in MN, anyway. Mine starts in November and lasts through
April or May at the shortest. September is usually one of my best
months.

I've had enough counseling. I'm managing with my remaining neuroses.
But I do like functioning, so try to remember the importance of
exercise, vitamins, and light. So far that combination keeps me
believing I feel better. As does weight loss.

Yes, I can believe that your weekend activities have the effect of
keeping your spirits uplifted during the week. My upcoming trip to
Atlanta next month has brightened more than a few days for me this
winter.

Alaska in the summer, yes. Alaska in winter: no way. I don't even go
to Duluth in the winter. Cabin fever makes me want to crawl out of my
skin.


On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:48:16 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I can believe she is located here in Seattle where the winter dreary
must drive many to distraction. I know that SAD has been definitively
accepted and this extreme northern clime together with the very gray
weather really does some folks in. Quite a few of those lights on
desks of people at work.

It is terrific that you found a reasonable remedy and one that is not
dependent on artificial drugs.

I think that my ourdoor activities - the skiing keeps me going. I
kind of feel that if it is raining down here, there will be snow
forming up there and that gets me through but sometimes the weekends
are just a gray and the weather up in the mountains is rain rather
than snow. Cabin fever hits a pitch.

A friend's wife got clinically depressed when she joined him in
Alaska. She could not take the perpetual dark

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:31:13 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

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

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

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

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

snicker
Prairie Roots wrote in message
...
Well, it's either remodel or move, which holds even less appeal to me.
If I don't remodel, my bathroom will soon fall into the kitchen. It's
nearly there already. Both rooms need to be gutted, floor to ceiling,
wall to wall.

This way I get exactly what I want. If I moved, I'd get somebody
else's idea of wonderful. The bonus is that for several weeks, I'll
have a houseful of men doing exactly what I want them to do. My idea
of bliss.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:04:44 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Remodel???? DO NOT DO IT!!!! YIKES!

Oh, well, it will eventually be enjoyable (G)

Kitchen and bath - wow - really doing all the water places.

Okay, you are allowed to go to the bike shop a bit later.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:13:08 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

Well I won't be there when the store opens. My contractor called
tonight. He's stopping by at 11 on Saturday to finalize all the
details with me and set a construction start date for my bathroom and
kitchen rehab. With the purchases of these exercise toys, I planned to
cancel my YWCA membership. But I'm keeping it active for now just so
I'll have someplace to shower during the 8-12 weeks of construction.
Good thing it's only 3 blocks from home. Guess I'll be buying a
portapotty this weekend, too, in addition to the bike. Man, my g'ment
check better be deposited tomorrow as scheduled.

Sometimes life is too good.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:23:32 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Good luck purchasing it on Sat - first thing

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:44:42 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

It's either the vitamins or the above freezing temps and melting snow
we're having or the upcoming trip plans. Or all of the above. I'm
feeling good right now.

Addicted to bike commuting? That'll be the day!! First things first. I
have to buy a bike. I called the bike shop today. They have some in
stock. They open at 10 on Saturday. Stay tuned.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:40:58 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Sounds like you have pretty well defined what and when and have found
a solution. Yes, those BIG plans like Atlanta can bouy one for a
long
haul. Making my bigger hiking plans right now. Now to find the
vacation time to do it ALL (G)

Many bike commuters get addicted to it to and it helps cabin fever -
may you be so blessed.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 07:33:15 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I went through the diagnostic evaluation for SAD because I'm so much
worse in the winter. The conclusion was that my "blues" might be
seasonally associated and psychological counseling was indicated,
but
I didn't fit the criteria for SAD. Mine starts later and lasts
longer
than is typically associated with SAD. I'm usually good through
October. SAD starts in September and begins to lift in February or
March--here in MN, anyway. Mine starts in November and lasts through
April or May at the shortest. September is usually one of my best
months.

I've had enough counseling. I'm managing with my remaining neuroses.
But I do like functioning, so try to remember the importance of
exercise, vitamins, and light. So far that combination keeps me
believing I feel better. As does weight loss.

Yes, I can believe that your weekend activities have the effect of
keeping your spirits uplifted during the week. My upcoming trip to
Atlanta next month has brightened more than a few days for me this
winter.

Alaska in the summer, yes. Alaska in winter: no way. I don't even go
to Duluth in the winter. Cabin fever makes me want to crawl out of
my
skin.


On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:48:16 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I can believe she is located here in Seattle where the winter
dreary
must drive many to distraction. I know that SAD has been
definitively
accepted and this extreme northern clime together with the very
gray
weather really does some folks in. Quite a few of those lights on
desks of people at work.

It is terrific that you found a reasonable remedy and one that is
not
dependent on artificial drugs.

I think that my ourdoor activities - the skiing keeps me going. I
kind of feel that if it is raining down here, there will be snow
forming up there and that gets me through but sometimes the
weekends
are just a gray and the weather up in the mountains is rain rather
than snow. Cabin fever hits a pitch.

A friend's wife got clinically depressed when she joined him in
Alaska. She could not take the perpetual dark

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:31:13 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

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

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

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

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

After the day I had today, trying to get router to work with new modem, the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit. I am not up to any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have to do was plug the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well. WRONG! Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no tech support - only told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking service. I was not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I finally screamed at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you will push the magic switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be told that customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling that my questions were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind young man who had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason the router ran on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept switching to those wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no sense to me, but it did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

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

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

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

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and vacuuming are concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new vacuum yesterday, have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I would have used the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

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

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and dusting and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body definitely finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

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

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the vacuuming, dusting - general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the entire day on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my brain works, and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that laundry was great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything else. And since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not losing weight ... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

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

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it I do not take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take points for things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I have lost as well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But having said that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and in my case I walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took the APs for the big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for seven hours with just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the discrepancy in points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but along with that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually, eventually adapt to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order to eat the points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
om...
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

Sorry you had the usual response from support people but managed to
get going eventually. I am still waiting for linksys to end their
pretty universal coverage - so many now charge fees IMMEDIATELY.
There use to be free tech, then 90 days free tech. Now there is NO
tech. I guess it was to be expected since some much of this stuff has
substantially dropped in price.

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

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

After the day I had today, trying to get router to work with new modem, the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit. I am not up to any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have to do was plug the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well. WRONG! Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no tech support - only told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking service. I was not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I finally screamed at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you will push the magic switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be told that customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling that my questions were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind young man who had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason the router ran on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept switching to those wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no sense to me, but it did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

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

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

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

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and vacuuming are concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new vacuum yesterday, have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I would have used the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

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

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and dusting and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body definitely finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

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

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the vacuuming, dusting - general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the entire day on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my brain works, and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that laundry was great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything else. And since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not losing weight ... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

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

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it I do not take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take points for things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I have lost as well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But having said that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and in my case I walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took the APs for the big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for seven hours with just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the discrepancy in points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but along with that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually, eventually adapt to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order to eat the points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
news:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al7g03qotnf@4ax. com...
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

Glad that you're back online :-)

"Joyce" wrote in message
...
After the day I had today, trying to get router to work with new modem,
the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit. I am not up to
any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have to do was plug
the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well. WRONG!
Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no tech support - only
told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking service. I was
not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I finally screamed
at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you will push the magic
switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be told that
customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling that my questions
were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind young man who
had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason the router ran
on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept switching to those
wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no sense to me, but it
did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

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

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

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

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and vacuuming are
concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new vacuum yesterday,
have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I would have used
the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

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

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and dusting and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body definitely finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

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

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the vacuuming, dusting -
general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the entire day
on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my brain works,
and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that laundry was
great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything else. And
since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not losing weight
.... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it I do not
take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take points for
things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I have lost as
well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But having said
that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and in my case I
walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took the APs for the
big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for seven hours with
just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the discrepancy in
points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but along with
that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually, eventually adapt
to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order to eat the
points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
om...
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 usually avoid tech support as much as I can, didn't have a choice with the modem
issue as from what I've discovered dsl modems can not be purchased from any stores
around me. Cable modems, yes ... dsl, no. Don't know why and no one seems to be
able to give me an answer. I've contacted Linksys twice now, both times they have
been extremely helpful and courteous (maybe I've just been lucky?). I've noticed
the same thing with support going to charging, might have been when I stopped
calling. Paying for help with a product is one of those things that really
irritates me. Is it any different than visiting a customer service desk in a
retail store? Or a cashier checking me out at a grocer? Or a bank teller? next
thing ya know, we'll be paying for those services as well. I figure that these
salaries are already covered in the inflated merchandise prices ... now it's just
another way to nick the consumer. sigh

No treadmill for the past 2 days. Hub decided to unload all the bike parts on TOP
of the treadmill ... thus putting me out of commission. I bitched loud and long
today ... bike is now put together and treadmill is once again usable. MEN! g

Joyce

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

Sorry you had the usual response from support people but managed to
get going eventually. I am still waiting for linksys to end their
pretty universal coverage - so many now charge fees IMMEDIATELY.
There use to be free tech, then 90 days free tech. Now there is NO
tech. I guess it was to be expected since some much of this stuff has
substantially dropped in price.

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

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

After the day I had today, trying to get router to work with new modem, the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit. I am not up to any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have to do was plug the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well. WRONG! Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no tech support - only told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking service. I was not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I finally screamed at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you will push the magic switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be told that customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling that my questions were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind young man who had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason the router ran on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept switching to those wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no sense to me, but it did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

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

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

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

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and vacuuming are concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new vacuum yesterday, have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I would have used the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

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

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and dusting and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body definitely finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

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

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the vacuuming, dusting - general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the entire day on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my brain works, and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that laundry was great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything else. And since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not losing weight ... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

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

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it I do not take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take points for things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I have lost as well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But having said that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and in my case I walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took the APs for the big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for seven hours with just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the discrepancy in points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but along with that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually, eventually adapt to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order to eat the points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
news:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al7g03qotnf@4ax .com...
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

Thanks, it's good to be back cruising smoothly (and quickly) along. G

Joyce

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:43:15 -0600, "skiur" wrote:

Glad that you're back online :-)

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
After the day I had today, trying to get router to work with new modem,
the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit. I am not up to
any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have to do was plug
the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well. WRONG!
Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no tech support - only
told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking service. I was
not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I finally screamed
at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you will push the magic
switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be told that
customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling that my questions
were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind young man who
had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason the router ran
on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept switching to those
wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no sense to me, but it
did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

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

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

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

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and vacuuming are
concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new vacuum yesterday,
have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I would have used
the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

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

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and dusting and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body definitely finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

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

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the vacuuming, dusting -
general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the entire day
on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my brain works,
and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that laundry was
great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything else. And
since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not losing weight
... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it I do not
take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take points for
things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I have lost as
well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But having said
that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and in my case I
walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took the APs for the
big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for seven hours with
just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the discrepancy in
points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but along with
that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually, eventually adapt
to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order to eat the
points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
om...
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, bitching about a submerged treadmill probably was worth some
points anyway.

Yes, crossing fingers, Linksys gets my vote. I have also called a few
times. And probably will again as I have another wireless to hookup
(G)

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

I usually avoid tech support as much as I can, didn't have a choice with the modem
issue as from what I've discovered dsl modems can not be purchased from any stores
around me. Cable modems, yes ... dsl, no. Don't know why and no one seems to be
able to give me an answer. I've contacted Linksys twice now, both times they have
been extremely helpful and courteous (maybe I've just been lucky?). I've noticed
the same thing with support going to charging, might have been when I stopped
calling. Paying for help with a product is one of those things that really
irritates me. Is it any different than visiting a customer service desk in a
retail store? Or a cashier checking me out at a grocer? Or a bank teller? next
thing ya know, we'll be paying for those services as well. I figure that these
salaries are already covered in the inflated merchandise prices ... now it's just
another way to nick the consumer. sigh

No treadmill for the past 2 days. Hub decided to unload all the bike parts on TOP
of the treadmill ... thus putting me out of commission. I bitched loud and long
today ... bike is now put together and treadmill is once again usable. MEN! g

Joyce

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

Sorry you had the usual response from support people but managed to
get going eventually. I am still waiting for linksys to end their
pretty universal coverage - so many now charge fees IMMEDIATELY.
There use to be free tech, then 90 days free tech. Now there is NO
tech. I guess it was to be expected since some much of this stuff has
substantially dropped in price.

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

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

After the day I had today, trying to get router to work with new modem, the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit. I am not up to any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have to do was plug the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well. WRONG! Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no tech support - only told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking service. I was not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I finally screamed at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you will push the magic switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be told that customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling that my questions were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind young man who had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason the router ran on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept switching to those wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no sense to me, but it did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

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

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

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

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and vacuuming are concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new vacuum yesterday, have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I would have used the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

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

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and dusting and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body definitely finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

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

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the vacuuming, dusting - general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the entire day on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my brain works, and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that laundry was great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything else. And since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not losing weight ... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

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

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it I do not take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take points for things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I have lost as well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But having said that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and in my case I walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took the APs for the big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for seven hours with just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the discrepancy in points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but along with that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually, eventually adapt to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order to eat the points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
news:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al7g03qotnf@4a x.com...
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

Evidentally, weight dropped way down today, right back to where it should be. I
did get in two treadmill sessions today though, so made up a bit for being out of
commission for the past few days. Don't think I'm going to make a habit of that
though. The time hub chooses to exercise is tough for me. Just finish up and
have to move right into dinner prep - while he rests quietly on his chair. Guess
I shouldn't complain, I'm probably still burning those calories. G

I'm totally jealous of your wireless connection, and moving into a second one.
I'm scared silly to even attempt the first. Then again, maybe I should just bite
the bullet and do it ... while Linksys still offers free tech support. G I will
definitely go with Linksys merchandise, the customer service is worth every extra
penny.

Joyce

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

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

Yes, crossing fingers, Linksys gets my vote. I have also called a few
times. And probably will again as I have another wireless to hookup
(G)

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

I usually avoid tech support as much as I can, didn't have a choice with the modem
issue as from what I've discovered dsl modems can not be purchased from any stores
around me. Cable modems, yes ... dsl, no. Don't know why and no one seems to be
able to give me an answer. I've contacted Linksys twice now, both times they have
been extremely helpful and courteous (maybe I've just been lucky?). I've noticed
the same thing with support going to charging, might have been when I stopped
calling. Paying for help with a product is one of those things that really
irritates me. Is it any different than visiting a customer service desk in a
retail store? Or a cashier checking me out at a grocer? Or a bank teller? next
thing ya know, we'll be paying for those services as well. I figure that these
salaries are already covered in the inflated merchandise prices ... now it's just
another way to nick the consumer. sigh

No treadmill for the past 2 days. Hub decided to unload all the bike parts on TOP
of the treadmill ... thus putting me out of commission. I bitched loud and long
today ... bike is now put together and treadmill is once again usable. MEN! g

Joyce

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

Sorry you had the usual response from support people but managed to
get going eventually. I am still waiting for linksys to end their
pretty universal coverage - so many now charge fees IMMEDIATELY.
There use to be free tech, then 90 days free tech. Now there is NO
tech. I guess it was to be expected since some much of this stuff has
substantially dropped in price.

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

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

After the day I had today, trying to get router to work with new modem, the
wireless option is going to go on a back burner for a bit. I am not up to any
more frustration. G Silly me thought all I would have to do was plug the old
cords into the new modem and all would once again be well. WRONG! Earthlink
switched brands of modems, would give me absolutely no tech support - only told me
I would first have to subscribe to their home-networking service. I was not kind,
patience worn thin after 2.5 hours of playing around. I finally screamed at the
guy, *can you tell me that if I pay your silly fee you will push the magic switch
to make my modem communicate with my router?* Only to be told that customer
service could give me all the details. I have a feeling that my questions were
not covered in their manual.

So on a whim I called Linksys, spoke to a wonderfully kind young man who had me up
and running in a few minutes. Seems that for some reason the router ran on wrong
settings with the last modem - and of course I kept switching to those wrong
settings when trying to get this one going. Makes no sense to me, but it did to
him and I guess that's all that matters.

Joyce

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

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG - using the wireless adapter more.

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

LOL! Guess I could say the same where the dusting and vacuuming are concerned,
although laundry is constantly going. I ordered a new vacuum yesterday, have no
idea why - probably won't use the thing very often. I would have used the
wireless router more. G

Joyce

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

Well, then I guess I should get points for laundry and dusting and
vacuuming since I do them so infrequently my body definitely finds
them foreign exercise!!!!! (G)

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

I don't take those laundry points either, nor the vacuuming, dusting - general
stuff that I do easily or routinely. If I'm spending the entire day on one
activity, then I may rethink things. I just no how my brain works, and the *old*
me would have seen that indicator from ww saying that laundry was great exercise,
and it would have been one more excuse not to do anything else. And since I've
spent the majority of my life doing laundry ... and not losing weight ... I figure
laundry is not the exercise option for me. G

Joyce

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

As far as the laundry goes, since I do the majority of it I do not take the
points as it is a regular activity for me, I only take points for things
that I normally do not do. I also think this is why I have lost as well as
I have even though I have not done formal exercise. But having said that
you also bend, stretch, lift and haul during laundry and in my case I walk
the length of my house to put them all away. I took the APs for the big
laundry adventure because it was non stop moving for seven hours with just
three small breaks. It does seem that along with the discrepancy in points
eaten Vs calories used is part of the mystery of WW but along with that I
think we get used to some activities so we actually, eventually adapt to the
activity so we must at least change or add in order to eat the points, Lee,
who thinks she and Joyce are related
Fred wrote in message
news:18nm30d1a1omsnsoe3r6374al7g03qotnf@4 ax.com...
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