One more question-goal weight



I don't know if it is behavior that should be emulated. I think it is still experimental, actually.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:04:57 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I actually envy those of you who give up journalling at least for periods of time, I can foresee
>always having to do it and that is fine with me, I will only try it after I have gone for a pretty
>long period of time at my personal goal, Lee Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I understand. Maybe I should turn back to Journaling. Then I might count the Miss Meringues and
>> the mango slices and the raisin nibbles. The snacking is still better than it use to be, when
>> cheese and CANS of peanuts were the rule interspersed generously with potato chips.
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:59:45 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In my case that snack thing is sort of a nasty Habit. I broke it the
>last
>> >time it got completely out of control by journaling again for a few days, then this hospital
>> >mess. But the journaling had me on the way back down before the crisis. I really Love to eat. It
>> >takes effort to turn the upping back into maintenance. :).
>> >
>> >"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> Probably the same for me, too. Altho, lower might be possible since I guess I am not starving
>> >> (hunger pangs are generally absent) when I seek out snacks. So hunger is not what is adding
>> >> points, I don't think.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:13:08 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Right. When it is right, it is right.' For me, somewhere in the one fives, probably the
>> >> >higher one fives.
>> >> >
>> >> >"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> You know - I don't think it matters. Like many of these other
>NORMS,
>> >> >> they are generalizations to some extent. Besides, you know where
>you
>> >> >> fit now. You are not passing out from lack of food (generally) nor are you packing on
>> >> >> pounds anymore. You do not need to know frame
>size
>> >> >> to figure out how much to eat and maintain other than slight fluctuations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:53:36 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Dang. I don't want to figure out all those cm and junk
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> >> Okay, here's another site but is seems to say measure the elbow "BUMPS" side to side and
>> >> >> >> show an image:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://www.healthyeatingclub.com/bookstore/foodqa/ch4/4-13.htm
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:56:00 -0600, Joyce <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Ok, this site might make you feel better. <G> http://www.am-i-
>> >> >> >> >fat.com/body_frame_size.html According to
>this,
>> >> >using
>> >> >> >the wrist
>> >> >> >> >measurement is an ok way of determining frame size, but
>measuring
>> >the
>> >> >> >elbow
>> >> >> >> >breadth is much more accurate. Not sure how true it is, but
>they
>> >> >*say*
>> >> >> >so. <G>
>> >> >> >> >Maybe the bones in the elbow don't move or hold as much as we
>> >> >gain/lose
>> >> >> >weight, at
>> >> >> >> >least in the same manner as the wrists?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >And here's another site that calculates using either or both of
>the
>> >> >> >above, PLUS

>don't
>> >> >put
>> >> >> >much stock
>> >> >> >> >in this though, as playing around with it I can see how it
>*says*
>> >my
>> >> >> >frame size
>> >> >> >> >changes with each measurement. Common sense tells me that
>before I
>> >> >lost
>> >> >> >weight I
>> >> >> >> >had a bunch of fat hanging on my wrists (as well as elsewhere),
>yet
>> >my
>> >> >> >frame size
>> >> >> >> >would have still been the same.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Regardless ... I am still considered a large frame ... 6.75
>wrist,
>> >3"
>> >> >> >elbow
>> >> >> >> >breadth, 5'6" tall. <sigh> I either have to grow several inches
>or
>> >> >lose
>> >> >> >more in
>> >> >> >> >my wrist to get the frame size to change.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Joyce
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:38:32 GMT, "Lesanne"
><[email protected]>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>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

>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"
>> >> ><[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: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
>> >> >> >> >>> > >> >
>> >> >> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>
 
I think DH has the right idea also, Lee. I'm a firm believer that those charts are only rough ideas
anyway. We all know how we feel or how we look at certain weights. What is possible for us to
maintain, what is not, and where are we happy. Those are better indicators than any silly ol' chart!

Joyce

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+.

>that
>> >it
>> >> > doesn't

>> >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: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
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
 
I know that I enjoy Not journaling some of the time, it is still there when I need it.

"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't know if it is behavior that should be emulated. I think it is still experimental,
> actually.
>
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:04:57 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I actually envy those of you who give up journalling at least for periods
of
> >time, I can foresee always having to do it and that is fine with me, I
will
> >only try it after I have gone for a pretty long period of time at my personal goal, Lee Fred
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> I understand. Maybe I should turn back to Journaling. Then I might count the Miss Meringues and
> >> the mango slices and the raisin nibbles. The snacking is still better than it use to be, when
> >> cheese and CANS of peanuts were the rule interspersed generously with potato chips.
> >>
> >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:59:45 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In my case that snack thing is sort of a nasty Habit. I broke it the
> >last
> >> >time it got completely out of control by journaling again for a few
days,
> >> >then this hospital mess. But the journaling had me on the way back
down
> >> >before the crisis. I really Love to eat. It takes effort to turn the upping back into
> >> >maintenance. :).
> >> >
> >> >"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> Probably the same for me, too. Altho, lower might be possible since
I
> >> >> guess I am not starving (hunger pangs are generally absent) when I seek out snacks. So
> >> >> hunger is not what is adding points, I don't think.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:13:08 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Right. When it is right, it is right.' For me, somewhere in the one fives, probably the
> >> >> >higher one fives.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> You know - I don't think it matters. Like many of these other
> >NORMS,
> >> >> >> they are generalizations to some extent. Besides, you know where
> >you
> >> >> >> fit now. You are not passing out from lack of food (generally)
nor
> >> >> >> are you packing on pounds anymore. You do not need to know frame
> >size
> >> >> >> to figure out how much to eat and maintain other than slight fluctuations.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:53:36 GMT, "Lesanne"
<[email protected]>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Dang. I don't want to figure out all those cm and junk
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> >> Okay, here's another site but is seems to say measure the
elbow
> >> >> >> >> "BUMPS" side to side and show an image:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> http://www.healthyeatingclub.com/bookstore/foodqa/ch4/4-13.htm
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:56:00 -0600, Joyce <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Ok, this site might make you feel better. <G> http://www.am-i-
> >> >> >> >> >fat.com/body_frame_size.html According to
> >this,
> >> >> >using
> >> >> >> >the wrist
> >> >> >> >> >measurement is an ok way of determining frame size, but
> >measuring
> >> >the
> >> >> >> >elbow
> >> >> >> >> >breadth is much more accurate. Not sure how true it is, but
> >they
> >> >> >*say*
> >> >> >> >so. <G>
> >> >> >> >> >Maybe the bones in the elbow don't move or hold as much as we
> >> >> >gain/lose
> >> >> >> >weight, at
> >> >> >> >> >least in the same manner as the wrists?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >And here's another site that calculates using either or both
of
> >the
> >> >> >> >above, PLUS

> >don't
> >> >> >put
> >> >> >> >much stock
> >> >> >> >> >in this though, as playing around with it I can see how it
> >*says*
> >> >my
> >> >> >> >frame size
> >> >> >> >> >changes with each measurement. Common sense tells me that
> >before I
> >> >> >lost
> >> >> >> >weight I
> >> >> >> >> >had a bunch of fat hanging on my wrists (as well as
elsewhere),
> >yet
> >> >my
> >> >> >> >frame size
> >> >> >> >> >would have still been the same.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Regardless ... I am still considered a large frame ... 6.75
> >wrist,
> >> >3"
> >> >> >> >elbow
> >> >> >> >> >breadth, 5'6" tall. <sigh> I either have to grow several
inches
> >or
> >> >> >lose
> >> >> >> >more in
> >> >> >> >> >my wrist to get the frame size to change.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Joyce
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:38:32 GMT, "Lesanne"
> ><[email protected]>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>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+.

have
> >> >said
> >> >> >> >that it
> >> >> >> >> >>> doesn't

> >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"
> >> >> ><[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: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
> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>> > >>
> >> >> >> >> >>> > >>
> >> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
 
unfortunately with all the traveling and family stuff I am not eating enough
again this week, I decided that it was better to not eat rather than hurk it
back up so now that has been decided, I am not going to worry about it until
things get better, I will journal and drink the water but if I don't make
all the points I just don't, Lee
Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Good luck starting that new streak but the last one was enviable.
>
> Shaking up the diet is probably always reasonable if done reasonably
> (G)
>
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:01:42 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The best part is that the one oz was enough for the taste, I have also
found
> >that peanut butter is great, I don't have to eat a whole lot of it and am happy for the taste but
> >only eat a little, Lee, working on starting a new streak Fred <[email protected]> wrote
> >in message news:[email protected]...
> >> Remember, this is an experiment. You have been losing pretty good and your string of
> >> loss/maintain has been good, so you just want to tweak a tiny bit and see what happens. But
> >> then again, you know the program.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:02:03 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >It was an ounce of sister's bf's homade peanut brittle, 1 oz for 3
> >points,
> >> >Lee, and I had DH get peanut butter so I could use up these flex
points
> >> >Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> Olive Oil or some nuts can up points pretty easily and healthfully
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen
> >when
> >> >I
> >> >> >have to start adding back, Lee Lesanne <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> >> >> >> berlin.de...
> >> >> >> > 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+.

> >have
> >> >> >said
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > > >it
> >> >> >> > > >> > doesn't

> >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"
> >> >> >> <[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: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
> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >
> >> >> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> >> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
 
the part I envy is that you have the confidence to try it, Lee
Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't know if it is behavior that should be emulated. I think it is still experimental,
> actually.
>
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:04:57 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I actually envy those of you who give up journalling at least for periods
of
> >time, I can foresee always having to do it and that is fine with me, I
will
> >only try it after I have gone for a pretty long period of time at my personal goal, Lee Fred
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> I understand. Maybe I should turn back to Journaling. Then I might count the Miss Meringues and
> >> the mango slices and the raisin nibbles. The snacking is still better than it use to be, when
> >> cheese and CANS of peanuts were the rule interspersed generously with potato chips.
> >>
> >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:59:45 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In my case that snack thing is sort of a nasty Habit. I broke it the
> >last
> >> >time it got completely out of control by journaling again for a few
days,
> >> >then this hospital mess. But the journaling had me on the way back
down
> >> >before the crisis. I really Love to eat. It takes effort to turn the upping back into
> >> >maintenance. :).
> >> >
> >> >"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> Probably the same for me, too. Altho, lower might be possible since
I
> >> >> guess I am not starving (hunger pangs are generally absent) when I seek out snacks. So
> >> >> hunger is not what is adding points, I don't think.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:13:08 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Right. When it is right, it is right.' For me, somewhere in the one fives, probably the
> >> >> >higher one fives.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> You know - I don't think it matters. Like many of these other
> >NORMS,
> >> >> >> they are generalizations to some extent. Besides, you know where
> >you
> >> >> >> fit now. You are not passing out from lack of food (generally)
nor
> >> >> >> are you packing on pounds anymore. You do not need to know frame
> >size
> >> >> >> to figure out how much to eat and maintain other than slight fluctuations.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:53:36 GMT, "Lesanne"
<[email protected]>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Dang. I don't want to figure out all those cm and junk
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> >> Okay, here's another site but is seems to say measure the
elbow
> >> >> >> >> "BUMPS" side to side and show an image:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> http://www.healthyeatingclub.com/bookstore/foodqa/ch4/4-13.htm
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:56:00 -0600, Joyce <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >Ok, this site might make you feel better. <G> http://www.am-i-
> >> >> >> >> >fat.com/body_frame_size.html According to
> >this,
> >> >> >using
> >> >> >> >the wrist
> >> >> >> >> >measurement is an ok way of determining frame size, but
> >measuring
> >> >the
> >> >> >> >elbow
> >> >> >> >> >breadth is much more accurate. Not sure how true it is, but
> >they
> >> >> >*say*
> >> >> >> >so. <G>
> >> >> >> >> >Maybe the bones in the elbow don't move or hold as much as we
> >> >> >gain/lose
> >> >> >> >weight, at
> >> >> >> >> >least in the same manner as the wrists?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >And here's another site that calculates using either or both
of
> >the
> >> >> >> >above, PLUS

> >don't
> >> >> >put
> >> >> >> >much stock
> >> >> >> >> >in this though, as playing around with it I can see how it
> >*says*
> >> >my
> >> >> >> >frame size
> >> >> >> >> >changes with each measurement. Common sense tells me that
> >before I
> >> >> >lost
> >> >> >> >weight I
> >> >> >> >> >had a bunch of fat hanging on my wrists (as well as
elsewhere),
> >yet
> >> >my
> >> >> >> >frame size
> >> >> >> >> >would have still been the same.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Regardless ... I am still considered a large frame ... 6.75
> >wrist,
> >> >3"
> >> >> >> >elbow
> >> >> >> >> >breadth, 5'6" tall. <sigh> I either have to grow several
inches
> >or
> >> >> >lose
> >> >> >> >more in
> >> >> >> >> >my wrist to get the frame size to change.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Joyce
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:38:32 GMT, "Lesanne"
> ><[email protected]>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>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+.

have
> >> >said
> >> >> >> >that it
> >> >> >> >> >>> doesn't

> >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"
> >> >> ><[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: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
> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>> > >>
> >> >> >> >> >>> > >>
> >> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
 
That sounds like a plan for dealing with and making it through this stressful period. I hope all
works out well.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:01:48 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:

>unfortunately with all the traveling and family stuff I am not eating enough again this week, I
>decided that it was better to not eat rather than hurk it back up so now that has been decided, I
>am not going to worry about it until things get better, I will journal and drink the water but if I
>don't make all the points I just don't, Lee Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Good luck starting that new streak but the last one was enviable.
>>
>> Shaking up the diet is probably always reasonable if done reasonably
>> (G)
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:01:42 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >The best part is that the one oz was enough for the taste, I have also
>found
>> >that peanut butter is great, I don't have to eat a whole lot of it and am happy for the taste
>> >but only eat a little, Lee, working on starting a new streak Fred <[email protected]>
>> >wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> >> Remember, this is an experiment. You have been losing pretty good and your string of
>> >> loss/maintain has been good, so you just want to tweak a tiny bit and see what happens. But
>> >> then again, you know the program.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:02:03 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >It was an ounce of sister's bf's homade peanut brittle, 1 oz for 3
>> >points,
>> >> >Lee, and I had DH get peanut butter so I could use up these flex
>points
>> >> >Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> Olive Oil or some nuts can up points pretty easily and healthfully
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen
>> >when
>> >> >I
>> >> >> >have to start adding back, Lee Lesanne <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
>> >> >> >> berlin.de...
>> >> >> >> > 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+.

>> >have
>> >> >> >said
>> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > > >it
>> >> >> >> > > >> > doesn't

>> >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"
>> >> >> >> <[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: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
>> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> > > >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> > > >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> > > >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>
 
When significant life events occur, our eating changes. When your schedule and your situation can
accommodate a return to normal, I'm sure you'll be ready to jump right back to it. In the meantime,
try not to add this to your list of worries. Drinking your water and journaling your food seems to
be the right things to give your attention, in addition to your family and self-care.

Prairie Roots On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:01:48 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:

>unfortunately with all the traveling and family stuff I am not eating enough again this week, I
>decided that it was better to not eat rather than hurk it back up so now that has been decided, I
>am not going to worry about it until things get better, I will journal and drink the water but if I
>don't make all the points I just don't, Lee Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Good luck starting that new streak but the last one was enviable.
>>
>> Shaking up the diet is probably always reasonable if done reasonably
>> (G)
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:01:42 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >The best part is that the one oz was enough for the taste, I have also
>found
>> >that peanut butter is great, I don't have to eat a whole lot of it and am happy for the taste
>> >but only eat a little, Lee, working on starting a new streak Fred <[email protected]>
>> >wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> >> Remember, this is an experiment. You have been losing pretty good and your string of
>> >> loss/maintain has been good, so you just want to tweak a tiny bit and see what happens. But
>> >> then again, you know the program.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:02:03 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >It was an ounce of sister's bf's homade peanut brittle, 1 oz for 3
>> >points,
>> >> >Lee, and I had DH get peanut butter so I could use up these flex
>points
>> >> >Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> Olive Oil or some nuts can up points pretty easily and healthfully
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen
>> >when
>> >> >I
>> >> >> >have to start adding back, Lee Lesanne <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
>> >> >> >> berlin.de...
>> >> >> >> > 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+.

>> >have
>> >> >> >said
>> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > > >it
>> >> >> >> > > >> > doesn't

>> >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"
>> >> >> >> <[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: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
>> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> > > >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> > > >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> > > >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> > > >> >
>> >> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>
 
Yes and since I purchased about 4 of the old style (non-flex) Journals I have the tools if and when
I need them.

Today should be interesting - I'm trying to decide if I need more points or just should rein it in.
I've been cutting down the snacking since Thur. But today I did my 8 mile hike up 3,400 feet and
then came home and pruned about 40 linear feet of hedges up/down ladder and work. Beautiful day
here today.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:03:23 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I know that I enjoy Not journaling some of the time, it is still there when I need it.
>
>"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I don't know if it is behavior that should be emulated. I think it is still experimental,
>> actually.
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:04:57 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I actually envy those of you who give up journalling at least for periods
>of
>> >time, I can foresee always having to do it and that is fine with me, I
>will
>> >only try it after I have gone for a pretty long period of time at my personal goal, Lee Fred
>> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> >> I understand. Maybe I should turn back to Journaling. Then I might count the Miss Meringues
>> >> and the mango slices and the raisin nibbles. The snacking is still better than it use to be,
>> >> when cheese and CANS of peanuts were the rule interspersed generously with potato chips.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:59:45 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In my case that snack thing is sort of a nasty Habit. I broke it the
>> >last
>> >> >time it got completely out of control by journaling again for a few
>days,
>> >> >then this hospital mess. But the journaling had me on the way back
>down
>> >> >before the crisis. I really Love to eat. It takes effort to turn the upping back into
>> >> >maintenance. :).
>> >> >
>> >> >"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> Probably the same for me, too. Altho, lower might be possible since
>I
>> >> >> guess I am not starving (hunger pangs are generally absent) when I seek out snacks. So
>> >> >> hunger is not what is adding points, I don't think.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:13:08 GMT, "Lesanne" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Right. When it is right, it is right.' For me, somewhere in the one fives, probably the
>> >> >> >higher one fives.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> >> You know - I don't think it matters. Like many of these other
>> >NORMS,
>> >> >> >> they are generalizations to some extent. Besides, you know where
>> >you
>> >> >> >> fit now. You are not passing out from lack of food (generally)
>nor
>> >> >> >> are you packing on pounds anymore. You do not need to know frame
>> >size
>> >> >> >> to figure out how much to eat and maintain other than slight fluctuations.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:53:36 GMT, "Lesanne"
><[email protected]>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Dang. I don't want to figure out all those cm and junk
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >"Fred" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> >> >> Okay, here's another site but is seems to say measure the
>elbow
>> >> >> >> >> "BUMPS" side to side and show an image:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> http://www.healthyeatingclub.com/bookstore/foodqa/ch4/4-13.htm
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 00:56:00 -0600, Joyce <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >Ok, this site might make you feel better. <G> http://www.am-i-
>> >> >> >> >> >fat.com/body_frame_size.html According to
>> >this,
>> >> >> >using
>> >> >> >> >the wrist
>> >> >> >> >> >measurement is an ok way of determining frame size, but
>> >measuring
>> >> >the
>> >> >> >> >elbow
>> >> >> >> >> >breadth is much more accurate. Not sure how true it is, but
>> >they
>> >> >> >*say*
>> >> >> >> >so. <G>
>> >> >> >> >> >Maybe the bones in the elbow don't move or hold as much as we
>> >> >> >gain/lose
>> >> >> >> >weight, at
>> >> >> >> >> >least in the same manner as the wrists?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >And here's another site that calculates using either or both
>of
>> >the
>> >> >> >> >above, PLUS

>> >don't
>> >> >> >put
>> >> >> >> >much stock
>> >> >> >> >> >in this though, as playing around with it I can see how it
>> >*says*
>> >> >my
>> >> >> >> >frame size
>> >> >> >> >> >changes with each measurement. Common sense tells me that
>> >before I
>> >> >> >lost
>> >> >> >> >weight I
>> >> >> >> >> >had a bunch of fat hanging on my wrists (as well as
>elsewhere),
>> >yet
>> >> >my
>> >> >> >> >frame size
>> >> >> >> >> >would have still been the same.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Regardless ... I am still considered a large frame ... 6.75
>> >wrist,
>> >> >3"
>> >> >> >> >elbow
>> >> >> >> >> >breadth, 5'6" tall. <sigh> I either have to grow several
>inches
>> >or
>> >> >> >lose
>> >> >> >> >more in
>> >> >> >> >> >my wrist to get the frame size to change.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Joyce
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:38:32 GMT, "Lesanne"
>> ><[email protected]>
>> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>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+.

>have
>> >> >said
>> >> >> >> >that it
>> >> >> >> >> >>> doesn't

>> >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"
>> >> >> ><[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: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
>> >> >> >> >> >>> > >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>
 
I just got my journal caught up and I am doing better on points than I
thought, so things are looking up in the food area if not for my aunt,
thanks for your concern, Lee
Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That sounds like a plan for dealing with and making it through this stressful period. I hope all
> works out well.
>
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:01:48 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >unfortunately with all the traveling and family stuff I am not eating
enough
> >again this week, I decided that it was better to not eat rather than hurk
it
> >back up so now that has been decided, I am not going to worry about it
until
> >things get better, I will journal and drink the water but if I don't make all the points I just
> >don't, Lee Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Good luck starting that new streak but the last one was enviable.
> >>
> >> Shaking up the diet is probably always reasonable if done reasonably
> >> (G)
> >>
> >> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:01:42 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The best part is that the one oz was enough for the taste, I have also
> >found
> >> >that peanut butter is great, I don't have to eat a whole lot of it and
am
> >> >happy for the taste but only eat a little, Lee, working on starting a
new
> >> >streak Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> Remember, this is an experiment. You have been losing pretty good
and
> >> >> your string of loss/maintain has been good, so you just want to
tweak
> >> >> a tiny bit and see what happens. But then again, you know the program.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:02:03 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >It was an ounce of sister's bf's homade peanut brittle, 1 oz for 3
> >> >points,
> >> >> >Lee, and I had DH get peanut butter so I could use up these flex
> >points
> >> >> >Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> Olive Oil or some nuts can up points pretty easily and
healthfully
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will
happen
> >> >when
> >> >> >I
> >> >> >> >have to start adding back, Lee Lesanne <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> >> > 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]...
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > 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+.

studies
> >> >have
> >> >> >> >said
> >> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> >> > > >it
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > doesn't

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"
> >> >> >> >> <[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]...
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> 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: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
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
 
it was better thank I thought it would be, I got the points in and for the
most part not total junk, I am still having trouble eating but it is easier
since I am allowing myself to eat a few bites at time instead of eating a
whole item at once. MY stress will be over when all test come back and my
mom gets used to the results, at that point all I can do is listen and that
is easy as she has always listened to me, Lee , feeling much better this
evening
Prairie Roots <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When significant life events occur, our eating changes. When your schedule and your situation
> can accommodate a return to normal, I'm sure you'll be ready to jump right back to it. In the
> meantime, try not to add this to your list of worries. Drinking your water and journaling
> your food seems to be the right things to give your attention, in addition to your family and
> self-care.
>
> Prairie Roots On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:01:48 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >unfortunately with all the traveling and family stuff I am not eating
enough
> >again this week, I decided that it was better to not eat rather than hurk
it
> >back up so now that has been decided, I am not going to worry about it
until
> >things get better, I will journal and drink the water but if I don't make all the points I just
> >don't, Lee Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Good luck starting that new streak but the last one was enviable.
> >>
> >> Shaking up the diet is probably always reasonable if done reasonably
> >> (G)
> >>
> >> On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:01:42 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The best part is that the one oz was enough for the taste, I have also
> >found
> >> >that peanut butter is great, I don't have to eat a whole lot of it and
am
> >> >happy for the taste but only eat a little, Lee, working on starting a
new
> >> >streak Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> Remember, this is an experiment. You have been losing pretty good
and
> >> >> your string of loss/maintain has been good, so you just want to
tweak
> >> >> a tiny bit and see what happens. But then again, you know the program.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:02:03 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >It was an ounce of sister's bf's homade peanut brittle, 1 oz for 3
> >> >points,
> >> >> >Lee, and I had DH get peanut butter so I could use up these flex
> >points
> >> >> >Fred <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> Olive Oil or some nuts can up points pretty easily and
healthfully
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:12:20 -0600, "Miss Violette" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will
happen
> >> >when
> >> >> >I
> >> >> >> >have to start adding back, Lee Lesanne <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> >> > 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]...
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > 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+.

studies
> >> >have
> >> >> >> >said
> >> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> >> > > >it
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > doesn't

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"
> >> >> >> >> <[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]...
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> 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: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
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
 
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" <[email protected]> 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" <[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+.

>that
>> >it
>> >> > doesn't

>> >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: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
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>
 
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" <[email protected]> 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"
><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> 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+.

>> 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: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
>> > >> > > >> >
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > > >>
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
 
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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" <[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+.

>>>it
>>>> > doesn't

>>>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: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
>>>> > > >> >
>>>> > > >>
>>>> > > >>
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>
 
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" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen when I have to start adding
>back, Lee Lesanne <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
>> berlin.de...
>> > 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: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
>> > > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
 
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> 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" <[email protected]> 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" <[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+.

> >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: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
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
 
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" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> 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" <[email protected]> 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" <[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+.

>> >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: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
>> >> >> > > >> >
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>
 
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> 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" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> 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" <[email protected]>
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" <[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: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
> >> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
 
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 <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> >berlin.de...
> >> 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: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
> >> > >> > > >> >
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > > >>
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
 
just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee
Joyce <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen when
I
> >have to start adding back, Lee Lesanne <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> >> berlin.de...
> >> > 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: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
> >> > > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
 
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" <[email protected]> wrote:

>just 22 points a day, and it is usually OK if I work at it, Lee Joyce <[email protected]> wrote in
>message news:[email protected]...
>> 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"
><[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I have trouble eating all my points now don't know what will happen when
>I
>> >have to start adding back, Lee Lesanne <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
>> >> berlin.de...
>> >> > 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: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
>> >> > > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>