F
Fred
Guest
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[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
>> >> >> >> >>> > >> >
>> >> >> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>
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[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
>> >> >> >> >>> > >> >
>> >> >> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>