One more question-goal weight

There is a whole lot of truth to that statement ... if you still lose when eating
reasonably, you probably aren't *there* yet. Which is why I really do think I am
*there* now. It seems I play with the same few pounds regardless as to whether I
eat reasonably, undereat or overeat. I bet my body has been telling me enough is
enough, this is where I want to be. At 140 the pounds were still coming off very
easily ... maybe slowly, but still definitely dropping. At 135 it really became
very hard work to shed anything.

Joyce

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:02:12 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual hunger,
rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more, then you
know you are not there
"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts match
and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means is that
it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the right
idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever comes first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ... here's a
website
that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight. Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into
4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was
a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

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


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

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

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

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

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

wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

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


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

Feel on both sides of your elbow when bent at a 90 degree angle, you should feel 2
bones that somewhat protrude (they are easy to feel). You take the measurement of
the distance between those two bones. Easier said than done. G

Joyce

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:44:28 -0800, Fred wrote:

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

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

Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ... here's a website
that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html Going only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to come into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight. Nothing else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the world is
large framed. G

Joyce

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

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me do not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long bones, I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

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

Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration age or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being almost 250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate it with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

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

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

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so 2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a mistake
or
misread the chart.

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

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

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


Fred wrote in
news

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


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

How many points are you currently eating though? You have to remember that when
you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work with than you
currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is much harder to
not go over. G

Joyce

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

I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen when I
have to start adding back, Lee
Lesanne wrote in message
...
oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual hunger,
rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more, then
you
know you are not there
"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts match
and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means is
that
it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the right
idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever comes
first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ... here's
a
website
that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after
you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up
into
4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have
said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an
absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where
I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it
was
a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that
the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a
time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

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


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

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the
ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

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

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

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

wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

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


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

Yeah, muscle has nothing to do with frame size, but the more muscle, the
more weight per sq inch. AND the more muscle the more bone Density. I have
never heard whether or not bone density affects weight but it might be
logical. The actual "training" of the muscles improves bone density.
So basing natural weight on frame size is also not a very exact science I
think.

"Joyce" wrote in message
...
Well, I don't think muscle has anything to do with frame size or bone
structure
... unfortunately. G The way I understood the website was that there is
less
fat and muscle between the two bones of the elbow (each side) which is why
it is
the best indicator as to frame size. My elbow puts me well into the large
frame
size, wrist borders on medium and large - depending on how tight I pull
the tape
and where exactly the measurement is taken. The problem I have with
taking a
wrist measurement, is that my wrist bones (on both sides) stick out
majorly ...
looks like two big lumps on my arm. G I'm constantly rapping the
outside bone
on things, and I certainly don't ever remember doing that before. I'm
waiting for
some study to come up with using head measurements (around the forehead)
to
determine something. I have such a pinhead - is the joke of the family.
My son
inherited it, yet my daughter seems to have inherited her fathers big
head. LOL!

Joyce

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:01:06 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

oh yeah. My wrist used to put me in the large frame size. My elbow puts
me
in medium now, and my wrist is below the small range.
And what about Muscle?

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ... here's
a
website
that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up
into 4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it
was a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

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


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

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

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

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

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

wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

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


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

Ahhhhh, very good points! I would also think that bone density could very well
play a role in weight, seems logical to me also. Obviously more muscle will
usually mean more weight, so if more muscle=more bone density, that should be even
more weight ... if I'm thinking clearly. I haven't seen or heard of any studies
regarding this. Probably because it doesn't fit neatly into one category, can't
be easily tested for results by individuals. Maybe this is also why whoever sets
the standard ranges for *healthy* weights, is always changing those numbers?

Joyce

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:09:50 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

Yeah, muscle has nothing to do with frame size, but the more muscle, the
more weight per sq inch. AND the more muscle the more bone Density. I have
never heard whether or not bone density affects weight but it might be
logical. The actual "training" of the muscles improves bone density.
So basing natural weight on frame size is also not a very exact science I
think.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Well, I don't think muscle has anything to do with frame size or bone
structure
... unfortunately. G The way I understood the website was that there is
less
fat and muscle between the two bones of the elbow (each side) which is why
it is
the best indicator as to frame size. My elbow puts me well into the large
frame
size, wrist borders on medium and large - depending on how tight I pull
the tape
and where exactly the measurement is taken. The problem I have with
taking a
wrist measurement, is that my wrist bones (on both sides) stick out
majorly ...
looks like two big lumps on my arm. G I'm constantly rapping the
outside bone
on things, and I certainly don't ever remember doing that before. I'm
waiting for
some study to come up with using head measurements (around the forehead)
to
determine something. I have such a pinhead - is the joke of the family.
My son
inherited it, yet my daughter seems to have inherited her fathers big
head. LOL!

Joyce

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:01:06 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

oh yeah. My wrist used to put me in the large frame size. My elbow puts
me
in medium now, and my wrist is below the small range.
And what about Muscle?

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ... here's
a
website
that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up
into 4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it
was a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

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


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

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164, so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

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

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

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

wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

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


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

Bone is kind of like those molasses crisp candies they used to make, full of
holes I don't know how much the density would affect the weight, but
some surely. And we all know about the muscle. I think they just Had to
come up with some general guidelines so they just ignored any variations
that fell out of the high part of the bell curve.

"Joyce" wrote in message
...
Ahhhhh, very good points! I would also think that bone density could very
well
play a role in weight, seems logical to me also. Obviously more muscle
will
usually mean more weight, so if more muscle=more bone density, that should
be even
more weight ... if I'm thinking clearly. I haven't seen or heard of any
studies
regarding this. Probably because it doesn't fit neatly into one category,
can't
be easily tested for results by individuals. Maybe this is also why
whoever sets
the standard ranges for *healthy* weights, is always changing those
numbers?

Joyce

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:09:50 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

Yeah, muscle has nothing to do with frame size, but the more muscle, the
more weight per sq inch. AND the more muscle the more bone Density. I
have
never heard whether or not bone density affects weight but it might be
logical. The actual "training" of the muscles improves bone density.
So basing natural weight on frame size is also not a very exact science I
think.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Well, I don't think muscle has anything to do with frame size or bone
structure
... unfortunately. G The way I understood the website was that there
is
less
fat and muscle between the two bones of the elbow (each side) which is
why
it is
the best indicator as to frame size. My elbow puts me well into the
large
frame
size, wrist borders on medium and large - depending on how tight I pull
the tape
and where exactly the measurement is taken. The problem I have with
taking a
wrist measurement, is that my wrist bones (on both sides) stick out
majorly ...
looks like two big lumps on my arm. G I'm constantly rapping the
outside bone
on things, and I certainly don't ever remember doing that before. I'm
waiting for
some study to come up with using head measurements (around the
forehead)
to
determine something. I have such a pinhead - is the joke of the
family.
My son
inherited it, yet my daughter seems to have inherited her fathers big
head. LOL!

Joyce

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:01:06 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

oh yeah. My wrist used to put me in the large frame size. My elbow
puts
me
in medium now, and my wrist is below the small range.
And what about Muscle?

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine
frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ...
here's
a
website
that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist
measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in
the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about
me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be
made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after
you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier
boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up
into 4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have
said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us
now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an
absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me
where I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it
was a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be
interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into
consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that
the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that
it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal
reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a
time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

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


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

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the
ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164,
so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

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

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

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

wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

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


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

the one thing I do know is that I am not willing to stay hungry to lose
more. If it becomes apparent that I am hungry more than not then I will
quit. Even if this means a note from *shudder* doctor, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
There is a whole lot of truth to that statement ... if you still lose when
eating
reasonably, you probably aren't *there* yet. Which is why I really do
think I am
*there* now. It seems I play with the same few pounds regardless as to
whether I
eat reasonably, undereat or overeat. I bet my body has been telling me
enough is
enough, this is where I want to be. At 140 the pounds were still coming
off very
easily ... maybe slowly, but still definitely dropping. At 135 it really
became
very hard work to shed anything.

Joyce

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 14:02:12 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual hunger,
rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more, then
you
know you are not there
"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts match
and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means is
that
it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the right
idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever comes
first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine
frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ...
here's a
website
that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in
the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about
me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be
made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after
you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up
into
4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have
said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an
absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where
I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it
was
a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that
the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that
it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a
time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

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


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

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the
ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164,
so 2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

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

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

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

wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

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


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65 years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
How many points are you currently eating though? You have to remember
that when
you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work with than
you
currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is much
harder to
not go over. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen when
I
have to start adding back, Lee
Lesanne wrote in message
...
oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual hunger,
rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more, then
you
know you are not there
"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts
match
and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means is
that
it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the
right
idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever comes
first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine
frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ...
here's
a
website
that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist
measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to
be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in
the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about
me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be
made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after
you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier
boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up
into
4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next
for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have
said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us
now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and
feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an
absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me
where
I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least
it
was
a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be
interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into
consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that
is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150
as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that
the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that
it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal
reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a
time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

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


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

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the
ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164,
so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made
a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

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

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

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

wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

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


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned
ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65
years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your goal ... 20
points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was difficult,
it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things so quickly.
There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies - making it
very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen.

Joyce

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

just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
How many points are you currently eating though? You have to remember
that when
you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work with than
you
currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is much
harder to
not go over. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen when
I
have to start adding back, Lee
Lesanne wrote in message
...
oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual hunger,
rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more, then
you
know you are not there
"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts
match
and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means is
that
it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the
right
idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever comes
first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine
frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ...
here's
a
website
that explains both: http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist
measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going to
be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person in
the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else about
me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to be
made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build after
you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier
boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up
into
4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next
for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies have
said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us
now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and
feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an
absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me
where
I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least
it
was
a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be
interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into
consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that
is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150
as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so that
the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that
it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal
reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a
time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
caramba

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


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

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew the
ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is 164,
so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have made
a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

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

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

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

wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

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


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned
ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65
years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

I would rather eat a can of spinach or grapefruit than a piece of meat. I
love pasta but get too hungry too quick so I avoid it, potatoes are my
friend and lower fat cheese does it OK for me, the truth is that now that I
eat counting points it is even harder to eat enough. I really struggled
when the points were higher. I am hoping that when maintenance comes I will
be able to add back more nuts and that should take care of it, I am also
thinking juice would be nice and so would raisins more regularly. I am sure
I will make it work it is just kinda intimidating to me to think that adding
points is necessary as I have worked at cutting back all this time. Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
You won't lose more than 2 points then no matter where you set your goal
.... 20
points is as low as you go for losing. Adding the points at first was
difficult,
it's become much easier now though. Funny how you get used to things so
quickly.
There are days though, when I fill up on too much fruit and veggies -
making it
very tough to eat all my points. Not often, but it does happen.

Joyce

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

wrote:

just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee
Joyce wrote in message
.. .
How many points are you currently eating though? You have to remember
that when
you get to your goal, you probably will have less points to work with
than
you
currently do. Trust me, it isn't hard getting them all in ... is much
harder to
not go over. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen
when
I
have to start adding back, Lee
Lesanne wrote in message
...
oh, and another thing. You still eat reasonably. From actual
hunger,
rather than recreationally? Most the time. And if you lose more,
then
you
know you are not there
"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
I don't really care but when I talk to my sister all of her parts
match
and
so do my mom's I think I am mismatched and what that really means
is
that
it
will be harder to determine my final weight. I think DH has the
right
idea,
I lose until I feel right to me or to skinny to him whichever
comes
first,
Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
Unfortunately for you Lee, I have seen no other way to determine
frame
size other
than using wrist measurements or elbow breadth measurements ...
here's
a
website
that explains both:
http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_frame_size.html
Going
only on
what you say about your body build, it sounds like you are going
to
come
into the
smaller frame size. Personally, I don't think the wrist
measurements
are
accurate, at least not when being taken when we are overweight.
Nothing
else is
taken into account, and those measurements are obviously going
to
be
larger due to
fat that is stored. And obviously, not every overweight person
in
the
world is
large framed. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

The reason I asked is because my bones, like everything else
about
me
do
not
seem to match, chipmunk arms, no shoulders, large ribcage with
err
large
attachments, long bones from hip to knees and smaller from knee
to
ankle,
tiny feet, Lee, confused as usual
Lesanne wrote in message
...
Ha, this was one for me too. My wrist watch kept having to
be
made
smaller?
I recalled that wrist measurement was supposed to indicate
frame
size?
Well. Mine indicates Small. On the other hand I have very
Long
bones,
I
think all that average stuff, applies to average people, not
Us.

"Miss Violette" wrote in message
...
were you confronted with a difference in your body build
after
you
had
lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier
boned
now
that
I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce wrote in message
...
The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set
up
into
4
different
columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next
for
25-45,
next
for 45+.
Sex is not taken into account as I believe new studies
have
said
that
it
doesn't
matter what sex you are, weight is an age and height
related
issue.
Not
sure I
believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us
now.
G
What
isn't
taken into account is body build ... such as those wide
shoulders,
bigger
boned
frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would
think
that
someone
my
height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and
feel
much
worse
carrying
the same amount of weight around that I do.

But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are
setting
your
goal
exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until
well
into
the
game. When
I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an
absolute
minimum
he would
like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me
where
I
was
that
he just
threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at
least
it
was
a
number
and I
knew by that point that it was doable. It will be
interesting
to
see
what
he has
to say when I have my checkup this week. G

Joyce

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

wrote:

Just remember that the chart does not take into
consideration
age
or
sex.
Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you
that
is
higher
than
the
WW one. At this point I would just aim for around
140-150
as
your
preliminary goal. Something your head can deal with so
that
the
journey
is
not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know
that
it
should
be
around 135. I'd be happy at 150 at this point after
being
almost
250
last
year. Once you get closer to that preliminary goal
reevaluate
it
with
your
doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at
a
time.
One
goal
at
a time.

"buck naked" wrote in message
...

Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight
is
116-140....aye
caramba

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


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

Hope this helps.

Connie

Fred wrote:
Joyce probably found the correct values. I knew
the
ones
you
posted
were wrong since I'm 5'8" and my top of range is
164,
so
2
inches
taller would be higher. Someone at WW may have
made
a
mistake
or
misread the chart.

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

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

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

wrote:


Fred wrote in
news

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


My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned
ultimate
goal
is
161#.
I
feel this is unrealistic for a man 5' 10" and 65
years
old.
I
have
no
desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones.
My
personal
goal
is
177#.





--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/204/155
RAFL 210.5/204/198.5