were you confronted with a difference in your body build after you had lost
some weight. I have always considered myself med./heavier boned now that I
have lost some weight I see I might not be Lee
Joyce <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The chart does take age into acount. I believe it is set up into 4
different
> columns, one for all adults, next for ages up to 25, next for 25-45, next
for 45+.
doesn't
sure I
> believe that, but it seems to be what is being sold to us now. <G> What
isn't
> taken into account is body build ... such as those wide shoulders, bigger
boned
> frames, etc, which I think is very important. I would think that someone
my
> height who is petite (such as my daughter) will look and feel much worse
carrying
> the same amount of weight around that I do.
>
> But yes, definitely check in with the physician. You are setting your
goal
> exactly as I did. I don't think I set my ww goal until well into the
game. When
> I reached it I did talk to my physician and was told an absolute minimum
he would
> like to see me at. I think he was so thrilled to see me where I was that
he just
> threw a number out of the top of his head ... but at least it was a number
and I
> knew by that point that it was doable. It will be interesting to see what
he has
> to say when I have my checkup this week. <G>
>
> Joyce
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:15:05 GMT, "Laura" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Your doctor may recommend a different weight for you that is higher than
the
> >WW one. At this point I would just aim for around 140-150 as your preliminary goal. Something
> >your head can deal with so that the journey
is
> >not overwhelming. My current "goal" is 150 when I know that it should be around 135. I'd be happy
> >at 150 at this point after being almost 250 last year. Once you get closer to that preliminary
> >goal reevaluate it with
your
> >doctor to see just how far you can go. Take one step at a time. One goal
at
> >a time.
> >
> >"buck naked" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> >kc.rr.com...
> >>
> >> Hope it helps??? I'm depressed now....my target weight is
116-140....aye
> >> caramba
> >>
> >> "Connie" <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
> >> >
> >>
> >