One more question-goal weight

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Skiur, Feb 16, 2004.

  1. Skiur

    Skiur Guest

    Hi everyone,

    This is a bit of a silly question. When you set your target, do you go by your own goal or is the
    chart weight assigned to you?

    I'm not really confident that I can get to the chart assigned weight for my height. I've never been
    that weight. I can't imagine it or picture myself that way.

    Julie
     
    Tags:


  2. Fred

    Fred Guest

    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.

    BUT, actually, if you find that it really is impossible, you can get a note from your doctor
    assigning you a higher weight. But don't rush that. The WW charts are probably generous for height
    and have a wide range, like 20 pounds per height value. You might like the way you look and feel at
    the WW limits. If really impossible, you can real goal higher.

    On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:49:32 -0600, "skiur" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Hi everyone,
    >
    >This is a bit of a silly question. When you set your target, do you go by your own goal or is the
    >chart weight assigned to you?
    >
    >I'm not really confident that I can get to the chart assigned weight for my height. I've never been
    >that weight. I can't imagine it or picture myself that way.
    >
    >Julie
     
  3. Richard

    Richard Guest

    Fred <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:p[email protected]:

    > 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#.

    --
    Richard Since 1938 JLFAMXUIRWQA(at)spammotel(dot)com
    250/242/225 (first goal)
     
  4. Connie

    Connie Guest

    You go by the chart weight. There is a range and you can pick the weight
    you want in that range. The ranges are at:

    http://www.weightwatchers.com/health/asm/calc_healthyweight.aspx

    The alternative is that you can get a dr. note saying that they think you can be such and
    such a weight.

    If you are doing WW I think the rules are different because you don't get a discount in fee for
    reaching goal.

    --

    Cheers,

    Connie Walsh

    241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5

    skiur wrote:
    > Hi everyone,
    >
    > This is a bit of a silly question. When you set your target, do you go by your own goal or is the
    > chart weight assigned to you?
    >
    > I'm not really confident that I can get to the chart assigned weight for my height. I've never
    > been that weight. I can't imagine it or picture myself that way.
    >
    > Julie
     
  5. Lesanne

    Lesanne Guest

    I went for the top of my range, and did not think I could make it. It became obvious that I could so
    I did. I am about 7 pounds under the top of my range right now.

    "skiur" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected].net...
    > Hi everyone,
    >
    > This is a bit of a silly question. When you set your target, do you go
    by
    > your own goal or is the chart weight assigned to you?
    >
    > I'm not really confident that I can get to the chart assigned weight for
    my
    > height. I've never been that weight. I can't imagine it or picture
    myself
    > that way.
    >
    > Julie
     
  6. Joyce

    Joyce Guest

    On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:38:22 -0600, Richard <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Fred <[email protected]> wrote in news:p[email protected]:
    >
    >> 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#.

    Actually, if you look at the ww charts - they recommend a high weight of 174 for a person of your
    height and age. Your personal goal of 177 isn't really far off the mark. And you would be surprised
    about the *skin and bones* at that 161. I *thought* I would be skin and bones at 140 (I am 46 and
    5'6"). WW recommended a high weight of 155 for me, which I didn't think I would/could ever reach (I
    started out at 228.8). Guess what? I DID reach that 155, wasn't overly difficult and I was still
    highly motivated to keep going down. Hit that 140, and found I wasn't skin and bones as I thought I
    would be. I now hover between 130 and 132 and still don't feel I'm skin and bones. I look healthy
    and feel even healthier.

    Set mini-goals for yourself. I don't believe you have to set a firm final goal yet. See how things
    progress and how you feel as you get more into the journey. You'll know when you're where you feel
    you want to maintain ... then can decide if the recommended range is for you or if you'd rather get
    a drs. note stating a higher goal.

    Joyce started ww 2/5/02 ---> 228.8/129.5/150ww goal/140ish personal goal WW GOAL!!! 2/21/03 --->
    LIFETIME 4/4/03 PERSONAL GOAL: 5/16/03
     
  7. you can get a doctors note but to tell you the truth, I started by setting a
    ten percent loss goal, every time I get to it I set another one... I can't
    deal with not when I started and not even now, with much more than that... I
    will only set my final goal when I can no longer use a ten percent and be
    outside the top number on the chart. HTH, Lee
    skiur <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Hi everyone,
    >
    > This is a bit of a silly question. When you set your target, do you go
    by
    > your own goal or is the chart weight assigned to you?
    >
    > I'm not really confident that I can get to the chart assigned weight for
    my
    > height. I've never been that weight. I can't imagine it or picture
    myself
    > that way.
    >
    > Julie
     
  8. Connie

    Connie Guest

  9. When I started, I set my goal weight at 157, not as low as the high end of WW range, but certainly
    ambitious for me. As I settled into the program and realized that thin and healthy is how I want to
    be and this way of eating is how I want to live, I lowered my goal weight to the high end of WW
    goal. Now that I'm within 15 lbs of reaching it, I'm beginning to think I can get down to 130. I
    won't decide until I've hit my WW goal. It's been since the mid 1970s since I weighed under 160. I
    weighed 140 all through high school, 20 lbs overweight according to my doctor at the time. In other
    words, I've never weighed 130 as an adult. Some part of thinks it might be possible. Even as another
    part of me thinks I'm being ridiculous. Of course, that same part of me doesn't believe I've come as
    far as I have.

    Prairie Roots
    232/158.8/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

    On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:49:32 -0600, "skiur" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Hi everyone,
    >
    >This is a bit of a silly question. When you set your target, do you go by your own goal or is the
    >chart weight assigned to you?
    >
    >I'm not really confident that I can get to the chart assigned weight for my height. I've never been
    >that weight. I can't imagine it or picture myself that way.
    >
    >Julie
     
  10. Skiur

    Skiur Guest

    I've got that same part telling me that I'm being ridiculous in even trying this again. I want that
    part to shut up. So I'm going to try it one step at a time. It joined in chorus with the "you're
    never going to find a decent job so don't bother trying" gremlin.

    Usually when I think I'm being ridiculous, I want to stuff my face with empty calories. Tonight's
    response to stuffing my face was to measure out some chips and salsa and to try that first. That
    wasn't enough so I grabbed a pinch of marinated ginger. That wasn't doing much either so I got a a
    huge bowl of spring mix, 3oz tomatoes, 1 oz peppers, cukes, and 2 tbsp of salad dressing.

    I'm addressing the "want sweet" desire with some bubble gum. Still better that what is lurking in
    the freezer in the dark corners.

    I don't have to stop all the bad habits, just tweek 'em enough to keep going to the next day and not
    turn them into bad decisions.

    Julie

    "Prairie Roots" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > When I started, I set my goal weight at 157, not as low as the high end of WW range, but certainly
    > ambitious for me. As I settled into the program and realized that thin and healthy is how I want
    > to be and this way of eating is how I want to live, I lowered my goal weight to the high end of WW
    > goal. Now that I'm within 15 lbs of reaching it, I'm beginning to think I can get down to 130. I
    > won't decide until I've hit my WW goal. It's been since the mid 1970s since I weighed under 160. I
    > weighed 140 all through high school, 20 lbs overweight according to my doctor at the time. In
    > other words, I've never weighed 130 as an adult. Some part of thinks it might be possible. Even as
    > another part of me thinks I'm being ridiculous. Of course, that same part of me doesn't believe
    > I've come as far as I have.
    >
    > Prairie Roots
    > 232/158.8/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003
    >
    > On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:49:32 -0600, "skiur" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Hi everyone,
    > >
    > >This is a bit of a silly question. When you set your target, do you go
    by
    > >your own goal or is the chart weight assigned to you?
    > >
    > >I'm not really confident that I can get to the chart assigned weight for
    my
    > >height. I've never been that weight. I can't imagine it or picture
    myself
    > >that way.
    > >
    > >Julie
     
  11. Fred

    Fred Guest

    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 <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Fred <[email protected]> wrote in news:p[email protected]:
    >
    >> 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#.
     
  12. Connie

    Connie Guest

    The ranges can be found at:

    http://www.weightwatchers.com/health/asm/calc_healthyweight.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 <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Fred <[email protected]> wrote in news:p[email protected]:
    >>
    >>
    >>>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
     
  13. Connie

    Connie Guest

    Sounds like a great response to your gremlins!!

    Connie

    skiur wrote:
    > I've got that same part telling me that I'm being ridiculous in even trying this again. I want
    > that part to shut up. So I'm going to try it one step at a time. It joined in chorus with the
    > "you're never going to find a decent job so don't bother trying" gremlin.
    >
    > Usually when I think I'm being ridiculous, I want to stuff my face with empty calories. Tonight's
    > response to stuffing my face was to measure out some chips and salsa and to try that first. That
    > wasn't enough so I grabbed a pinch of marinated ginger. That wasn't doing much either so I got a a
    > huge bowl of spring mix, 3oz tomatoes, 1 oz peppers, cukes, and 2 tbsp of salad dressing.
    >
    > I'm addressing the "want sweet" desire with some bubble gum. Still better that what is lurking in
    > the freezer in the dark corners.
    >
    > I don't have to stop all the bad habits, just tweek 'em enough to keep going to the next day and
    > not turn them into bad decisions.
    >
    > Julie
    >
    > "Prairie Roots" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>When I started, I set my goal weight at 157, not as low as the high end of WW range, but certainly
    >>ambitious for me. As I settled into the program and realized that thin and healthy is how I want
    >>to be and this way of eating is how I want to live, I lowered my goal weight to the high end of WW
    >>goal. Now that I'm within 15 lbs of reaching it, I'm beginning to think I can get down to 130. I
    >>won't decide until I've hit my WW goal. It's been since the mid 1970s since I weighed under 160. I
    >>weighed 140 all through high school, 20 lbs overweight according to my doctor at the time. In
    >>other words, I've never weighed 130 as an adult. Some part of thinks it might be possible. Even as
    >>another part of me thinks I'm being ridiculous. Of course, that same part of me doesn't believe
    >>I've come as far as I have.
    >>
    >>Prairie Roots
    >>232/158.8/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003
    >>
    >>On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:49:32 -0600, "skiur" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Hi everyone,
    >>>
    >>>This is a bit of a silly question. When you set your target, do you go
    >>
    > by
    >
    >>>your own goal or is the chart weight assigned to you?
    >>>
    >>>I'm not really confident that I can get to the chart assigned weight for
    >>
    > my
    >
    >>>height. I've never been that weight. I can't imagine it or picture
    >>
    > myself
    >
    >>>that way.
    >>>
    >>>Julie
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >

    --

    Cheers,

    Connie Walsh

    241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5
     
  14. Buck Naked

    Buck Naked Guest

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

    "Connie" <[email protected]_primus.ca> wrote in message news:[email protected]_primus.ca...
    > The ranges can be found at:
    >
    > http://www.weightwatchers.com/health/asm/calc_healthyweight.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 <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Fred <[email protected]> wrote in news:p[email protected]:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>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
     
  15. Connie

    Connie Guest

    So sorry!! Pretend you didn't see it??

    Connie

    buck naked wrote:
    > Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is 116-140....aye caramba
    >
    > "Connie" <[email protected]_primus.ca> wrote in message news:[email protected]_primus.ca...
    >
    >>The ranges can be found at:
    >>
    >>http://www.weightwatchers.com/health/asm/calc_healthyweight.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 <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Fred <[email protected]> wrote in news:p[email protected]:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>WW has charts. The only break is that older folks (was it over 45?? or 50??) get to be slightly
    >>>>>higher. No difference for men or women. It is based on height.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>My first assigned goal is 225#. The assigned ultimate goal is 161#. I feel this is unrealistic
    >>>>for a man 5' 10" and 65 years old. I have no desire to weigh that little. I'd be all bones. My
    >>>>personal goal is
    >>>
    > 177#.
    >
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>--
    >>
    >>Cheers,
    >>
    >>Connie Walsh
    >>
    >>241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5
    >>
    >
    >
    >

    --

    Cheers,

    Connie Walsh

    241.5/204/155 RAFL 210.5/204/198.5
     
  16. Fred

    Fred Guest

    I remember when I first looked at the chart. I kind of shrugged my shoulders and figured if I lost
    about 20 pounds I would be very happy. I concentrated most thought on the 10% goal. I never expected
    to reach the WW goal to be honest. But it happened over the weeks and months.

    On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:35:33 -0600, "buck naked" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is 116-140....aye caramba
    >
    >"Connie" <[email protected]_primus.ca> wrote in message news:[email protected]_primus.ca...
    >> The ranges can be found at:
    >>
    >> http://www.weightwatchers.com/health/asm/calc_healthyweight.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 <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >>Fred <[email protected]> wrote in news:p[email protected]:
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>>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
    >
     
  17. Laura

    Laura Guest

    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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is 116-140....aye caramba
    >
    > "Connie" <[email protected]_primus.ca> wrote in message news:[email protected]_primus.ca...
    > > The ranges can be found at:
    > >
    > > http://www.weightwatchers.com/health/asm/calc_healthyweight.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 <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >>Fred <[email protected]> wrote in news:p[email protected]:
    > > >>
    > > >>
    > > >>>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
    >
     
  18. Joyce

    Joyce Guest

    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+.

    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" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >> Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is 116-140....aye caramba
    >>
    >> "Connie" <[email protected]_primus.ca> wrote in message news:[email protected]_primus.ca...
    >> > The ranges can be found at:
    >> >
    >> > http://www.weightwatchers.com/health/asm/calc_healthyweight.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 <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >>Fred <[email protected]> wrote in news:p[email protected]:
    >> > >>
    >> > >>
    >> > >>>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
    >> >
    >
     
  19. 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 <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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+.

    doesn't

    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" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >

    > >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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    > >kc.rr.com...
    > >>
    > >> Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
    116-140....aye
    > >> caramba
    > >>
    > >> "Connie" <[email protected]_primus.ca> wrote in message
    > >> news:[email protected]_primus.ca...
    > >> > The ranges can be found at:
    > >> >
    > >> > http://www.weightwatchers.com/health/asm/calc_healthyweight.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 <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >>Fred <[email protected]> wrote in news:p[email protected]:
    > >> > >>
    > >> > >>
    > >> > >>>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
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >
     
Loading...