M
Miss Violette
Guest
I meant smmoosh
Miss Violette <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> as bloated as i feel to day i could smooch all of you, Lee Fred <[email protected]> wrote
> in message news:[email protected]...
> > "weight" a second - don't I get a vote in this? Where you fit in the sandwich? (gd&r)
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 02:02:40 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >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 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > >> 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"
> > ><[email protected]>
> > >> 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 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> >news:[email protected]...
> > >> >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> > >> >> berlin.de...
> > >> >> > 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+.
said
> > >that
> > >> >it
> > >> >> > doesn't
> 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"
> <[email protected]>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > >Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration
> age
> > >or
> > >> >> > > >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" <walshclan@nospam_primus.ca> wrote in message
> > >> >> > > >> news:40319F1C.5030103@nospam_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
[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
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
>
Miss Violette <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> as bloated as i feel to day i could smooch all of you, Lee Fred <[email protected]> wrote
> in message news:[email protected]...
> > "weight" a second - don't I get a vote in this? Where you fit in the sandwich? (gd&r)
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 02:02:40 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >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 <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > >> 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"
> > ><[email protected]>
> > >> 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 <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >> >news:[email protected]...
> > >> >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> > >> >> berlin.de...
> > >> >> > 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+.
said
> > >that
> > >> >it
> > >> >> > doesn't
> 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"
> <[email protected]>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > >Just remember that the chart does not take into consideration
> age
> > >or
> > >> >> > > >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" <walshclan@nospam_primus.ca> wrote in message
> > >> >> > > >> news:40319F1C.5030103@nospam_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
[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
> > >> >> > > >> >
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > > >>
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
>