No Loss After 1st Week!!!!!!!
Valerie Whiteside
Reading all the slimming magazines I have noticed that they allow so
many calories or points and unlimited amounts of certain vegetables which
you dont have to count. I decided to do the same and set myself a limit of
1000 cals plus unlimited "free" vegetables. The vegetables really helped to
fill me up and I stuck to this all week except Sunday which I always ( I've
dieted in the past) have off. I went to 3 aerobic classes and walked home
used to drive home most times) which takes 30 - 45 mins at a brisk pace.
Having managed to stick to my plan so much more easily this time I was sure
I would see a nice loss this morning when I weighed in only to
find..........................that I have only lost 0.5 pound !!!!!! YES
!!! HALF A POUND !!!!!!!!! With this being my first week I was really
expecting more !!! HALF A POUND. All that effort for 0.5 pound. I am
SOOOOOO disappointed!!! Do you think it is the vegetables? I always
thought that if you eat enough they must surely make a difference but other
people seem to do it so I thought I would give it a try. Maybe I should go
back to counting the calories in my vegetables too and having 1000 cals
MAX?? What do you all think? I know that it might seem like I am over
reacting but I am soooooooooo disappointed! Makes me wonder what the point
is! If I hadn't exercised I might have even GAINED!!!! What should I do?
I dont think 1000 cals is too low as I am only 5'2" and extremely small
framed. I currently weigh 117 and would like to return to 104 which I used
to be. I dieted down to 101 for my wedding on 29th June on but have put it
all back plus a little extra. I also gave up smoking on 27th July, which
might not be helping. Please dont tell me that I dont need to lose, I know
I am not hugely overweight but I look and feel better when I weigh less.
Thanks in advance
Val
Kevin Haggerty
news:80p2qi$8k5$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
> Hi
> Reading all the slimming magazines I have noticed that they allow so
> many calories or points and unlimited amounts of certain vegetables which
> you dont have to count. I decided to do the same and set myself a limit
of
> 1000 cals plus unlimited "free" vegetables. The vegetables really helped
to
> fill me up and I stuck to this all week except Sunday which I always
Eat more. 1000kcal/day is probably not enough even for someone your size.
I know that I don't have pictures to go off of, but you probably don't look
bad at all at your present weight. FWIW, I believe women look better with
10 extra pounds as opposed to being a couple pounds underweight.
Also, throw out the scale. They are crap. If you want to use some method
of measurement, go with tape or bf analysis.
Then again, those are just my opinions, and most of the responses you get
are going to be mostly opinion anyway.
--
Kevin Haggerty
kev...@purdue.edu
ICQ: 21045492
R+P ROSIE
i see several things in your post that "send up flags" for
me.......................
1. 1000cal is not enough.
2. quitting smoking DOES slow the metabolism and it will take some time to
recover from that!
3. your exercise...........if you are developing muscle at this point, they
will be holding "some water"!
that is a temporary condition, but will effect your numbers!
4. your scale!
do you have a pair of jeans that use to fit? use those to measure
yourself.....................
welcome to the group, i hope to see you reading and posting often!
it really keeps alot of us motivated!
rosie
--
read and post everyday, its a commitment!
rosie
........to be true to life, is to relax into who i am today!
- brady
Valerie Whiteside wrote in message
<80p2qi$8k5$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>Thanks in advance
>
>
>Val
>
>
>
>
JD
not going to tell you not to lose the weight. But do you know your
body-fat ratio? I have a bit of a scale obsession but in truth it's
really the body-fat ratio that's the key to everything. If it's low
enough your scale weight can actually be higher but you'll still be
thinner.
As far as 1000 calories and unlimited "free vegetables" ... I'd nix
that one immediately, because the calories are still adding up and you
might actually be consuming 1300, 1400 or even 1500 calories a day
without even realizing it. I think the 0.5 lb weight loss might well
be reflecting that. At your current 117 lb I think you need to take in
around 1200 calories a week max and reduce the intake as the weight
comes down by 10 calories per lb of weight loss. Also, have many meals
a day did you consume?
You mentioned aerobics, but did you also do any weight training?
That's really imperative, because muscle is leaner and also burns
calories when you're not working out. That, plus the fact that having
muscle requires more calories. To maintain 104 lb without weight
training you might only be able to consume 1000 calories a day, but
with weight training it could be 1500-1700 calories a day just to
maintain things.
The reasons for the 0.5 lb weight loss could be a multitude: too many
calories, insuffient workouit, water retention, etc. Try adjusting
your diet a bit, adding 30-45 min of weight training three days a week
and see if that helps a bit. They also say drinking 6-8 glasses of
water a day is supposed to help, but I'll bow out on that one.
Oh yeah, I read this recently. Go to GNC and look for a product that
is a combination of lecithin, cidar vinegar, kelp and B6. It's
supposed to have fat-burning properties.
And with that said, I'll move aside and let the experts tell you what
you're supposed to do.
Valerie Whiteside <v.whi...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:80p2qi$8k5$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
> Hi
> Reading all the slimming magazines I have noticed that they
allow so
> many calories or points and unlimited amounts of certain vegetables
which
> you dont have to count. I decided to do the same and set myself a
limit of
> 1000 cals plus unlimited "free" vegetables. The vegetables really
helped to
> fill me up and I stuck to this all week except Sunday which I always
( I've
JD
matter squat what *you* think about any woman's body. It matters what
the woman thinks (and the reverse is also true for how women perceive
men's bodies). If Valerie thinks she's too heavy, then she's too
heavy. And as a woman, I'm inclined to agree with her perception of
herself *IF* she has a small frame, because I've got a medium one and
at 5'3" I'm definitely too heavy at 126-1/2 lb with a little under 17%
body-fat ratio.
Kevin Haggerty <kev...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:80p60h$cpr$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
> Valerie Whiteside <v.whi...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:80p2qi$8k5$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
> > Hi
> > Reading all the slimming magazines I have noticed that they
allow so
> > many calories or points and unlimited amounts of certain
vegetables which
> > you dont have to count. I decided to do the same and set myself a
limit
> of
> > 1000 cals plus unlimited "free" vegetables. The vegetables really
helped
> to
> > fill me up and I stuck to this all week except Sunday which I
always
JD
news:vxVX3.30496$827....@nntp0.chicago.il.ameritech.net...
> 2. quitting smoking DOES slow the metabolism and it will take some
time to recover from that!
If I remember correctly, it slows down about 10-15% ... so somebody
who previously weighed 100 lb can anticipate ending up between 110-115
lb after they quit smoking. OTOH, there are people who have lost
weight after quitting. Go figure.
> 3. your exercise...........if you are developing muscle at this
point, they will be holding "some water"! that is a temporary
condition, but will effect your numbers!
W-e-l-l ... for me it's been a permanent condition, which I've finally
found a solution to: diuretics.
> 4. your scale!
> do you have a pair of jeans that use to fit? use those to measure
yourself.....................
Better yet ... think of the commercial for Jenny Craig with actress
Cindy Williams struggling to get into old jeans. As long as you're not
at that level, you ain't too heavy. <vbg>
Mistress Krista
JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in message
news:0EVX3.1838$Dm.5...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com...
> Kevin ... I'm going to tell you what I told another guy once. It don't
> matter squat what *you* think about any woman's body. It matters what
> the woman thinks (and the reverse is also true for how women perceive
> men's bodies). If Valerie thinks she's too heavy, then she's too
> heavy. And as a woman, I'm inclined to agree with her perception of
> herself *IF* she has a small frame, because I've got a medium one and
> at 5'3" I'm definitely too heavy at 126-1/2 lb with a little under 17%
> body-fat ratio.
>
>
Lordamighty. Too heavy at 17% bf and 126? 17% isn't too heavy by any
measurement, considering that a few points lower and you stop menstruating.
If you have muscle, you're going to be heavier. Don't get too focused on
the numbers.
Krista
--
-------------------------
http://krista.tico.com/weights.html
mistres...@home.com
Al DiSanto
"Valerie Whiteside" <v.whi...@virgin.net> wrote:
> Hi
> Reading all the slimming magazines I have noticed that they allow
so
> many calories or points and unlimited amounts of certain vegetables
which
> you dont have to count. I decided to do the same and set myself a
limit of
> 1000 cals plus unlimited "free" vegetables. The vegetables really
helped to
>
> Val
1) It takes longer than a week to really see results
2) your weight can vary from day to day based on many factors :
(clothes, water retention, time of day, etc)
3) ALL CALORIES COUNT, including vegtables, fluids and anything you lick
off a spoon
4) how did you arrive at 1000 calories? You probably need more with what
you are trying to do- the most important thing is to feel energetic
5) quitting smoking can lower your metabolism AND you may feel compelled
to eat more for the sake of having something in your mouth - you may
want to try chewing gum - that helped me
it sounds like you are doing a lot of things right, but BE PATIENT!
just keep exercising and keep track of your calories, and remember that
weight is not the only way to measure your progress
good luck,
AL
--
"Sometimes it's better to shut your mouth and look
like a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"
- Abraham Lincoln
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Adreeanna
--
My favorite Sites and hangouts
http://members.tripod.com/neighborhood-bar/
http://trollarchive.onza.net/
my before and after pics:
http://dietchef.ecorp.net/adreeanna/
R+P ROSIE <reada...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vxVX3.30496$827....@nntp0.chicago.il.ameritech.net...
> dear valerie,
> i see several things in your post that "send up flags" for
> me.......................
>
> 1. 1000cal is not enough.
*** You are hardly capable of making that assumption. 1000 cals may be
fine for her. She and her body are the best judges.
>
> 2. quitting smoking DOES slow the metabolism and it will take some time to
> recover from that!
Not in everyone. Again an assumption.
>
> 3. your exercise...........if you are developing muscle at this point,
they
> will be holding "some water"!
> that is a temporary condition, but will effect your numbers!
>
> 4. your scale!
> do you have a pair of jeans that use to fit? use those to measure
> yourself.....................
Old denim stretches! That is hardly an accurate method of tracking
weight-loss. I have an old pair of jeans that measure 32 inches around yet
the size tag reads 28. If I used your "Reference Jeans" I would now be on a
weight-gain program.
>
> welcome to the group, i hope to see you reading and posting often!
> it really keeps alot of us motivated!
Our motivation and morale would be greatly increased if you crawled back
into the troll hole you crawled out of. I hear it is supposed to be
hibernation season for your ilk.
Adreeanna
> rosie
>
> --
> read and post everyday, its a commitment!
> rosie
>
> ........to be true to life, is to relax into who i am today!
> - brady
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Valerie Whiteside wrote in message
> <80p2qi$8k5$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net>...
> >Hi
> > Reading all the slimming magazines I have noticed that they allow so
> >many calories or points and unlimited amounts of certain vegetables which
> >you dont have to count. I decided to do the same and set myself a limit
> of
> >1000 cals plus unlimited "free" vegetables. The vegetables really helped
> to
> >fill me up and I stuck to this all week except Sunday which I always
Adreeanna
you focused. Weight loss is very individual with some losing rapidly, and
others more slow and steady. There are countless schools of belief with
diet and exercise, and to argue the insignificant things, just places
blinders over our eyes for the significant.
It is difficult for me to offer suggestions of cal intake as I am more like
cowboy. I severly reduced my caloric intake, and radically increased the
amount that I exercised. I broke the standard rules, and for me, it worked.
The important thing is that you do what does work for you. Stick to it.
Count cals if you must, weight yourself daily if it works. These things are
only wrong if they are not working for you.
Adreeanna
--
My favorite Sites and hangouts
http://members.tripod.com/neighborhood-bar/
http://trollarchive.onza.net/
my before and after pics:
http://dietchef.ecorp.net/adreeanna/
Mistress Krista <mistres...@home.com> wrote in message
news:gKVX3.58025$it.13...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
George UK
>As far as 1000 calories and unlimited "free vegetables" ... I'd nix
>that one immediately, because the calories are still adding up and you
>might actually be consuming 1300, 1400 or even 1500 calories a day
>without even realizing it. I think the 0.5 lb weight loss might well
>be reflecting that. At your current 117 lb I think you need to take in
>around 1200 calories a week max and reduce the intake as the weight
>comes down by 10 calories per lb of weight loss. Also, have many meals
>a day did you consume?
All calories count. It also depends on which vegetables she is eating.
After all, potatos are vegetables. Green salad has virtually no
calories. What veggies are you eating Val?
>You mentioned aerobics, but did you also do any weight training?
>That's really imperative, because muscle is leaner and also burns
>calories when you're not working out. That, plus the fact that having
>muscle requires more calories. To maintain 104 lb without weight
>training you might only be able to consume 1000 calories a day, but
>with weight training it could be 1500-1700 calories a day just to
>maintain things.
Weight training will not make her big. She should forget the aerobic
classes, and do a free weight based exercise prog, followed by 30 - 40
mins bike or stepper.
:George UK
-------------
Time to put on another 5 kgs.....
JD
news:383031ed...@news.freeserve.net...
>>>Weight training will not make her big. She should forget the
aerobic classes, and do a free weight based exercise prog, followed by
30 - 40 mins bike or stepper.
I never said weight training would make her big. What I said was it
would develop/build muscle, which in turn will burn calories when
she's not working out.
As far as forgetting aerobics ... absolutely not. I've yet to join,
simply because I'm a slow learner and can't pick up the steps. But if
I can find an instructor with a lot of patience, I'm joining asap and
that's when I'll see the body-fat drop.
And why the bike or stepper in particular? I think the issue, like
many of said, is using what you're most likely to stick with. Neither
of these would work for me for the duration, and they may or may not
for Valerie. She has to find her "point of comfort," and go with that.
JD
Adreeanna <adre...@home.com> wrote in message
news:eAWX3.2714$Zu4....@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
JD
never missed my menses. Late yes, but never missed a single one. No,
wait, I did actually skip it twice: when I was pregnant.
I'm going to tell you what I told Kevin ... what is most important is
*MY* image of my body. I know what I look like in clothing, in
unmentionables and el buffo and I say with total and complete
confidence that I am too heavy. I would not be caught DEAD in a
bathing suit ... and that's a one piece.
And just for the record, so nobody thinks I have this thing for skinny
women, I (personally) think Calista Flockheart and Helen Hunt are too
thin, but that's genetics and there's little they can do about it.
However, I do think that Corey Everson has a fantastic figure.
To each their own.
Jeremy McLaughlin
but, i feel that your are trying to change to many factors at the same time
to find out what is and is not causing anything.
quitting smoking: step one towards a much healthier lifestyle.
exercising: major bonus points
focussing on the number on the scale: bad. the scale does not telll you how
much water you are retaining because of changes in the body. and more
importantly, it does not tell you what your body fat percentage really is,
and this is the number that will tell you if the weight you are trying to
achieve is a healthy one or not
asking what the point of dieting is: good question. unless your diet was
excessive in the beginning it will only make temporary chnges until you
return to your normal eating habits. better off deciding, with all honesty,
how you knowyou will eat on a regular basis and adjust your exercise volume
to that.
restricting your calories to 1000: eating disorder. harsh but true. do
yourself a favor and get a body fat test done by youre doctor or a fitness
professional. take that number to a certified nutritionist. who will look at
your body fat percent your diet, medical history, lifestyle and will be able
to tell you how and what to eat to be and stay a healthy weight.
this ng is great for getting a lot of veiw points, ideas, meeting
professionals from around the country and finding out a lot bad info from
people who shouldn't be giving it. with time and a good background of
knowlege you will be able to tell who does and does not know what they're
talking about. nobody on this ng can give you specific numbers without
sitting down with you and finding out the things listed above
i hope no one takes offense
jam
Valerie Whiteside <v.whi...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:80p2qi$8k5$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
Claudia
a class. It is aerobic, not necessarily aerobics that provide this benefit.
Aerobic exercise is any exercise that moderately elevates your heart rate
and keeps it there for at least 15 minutes. ( Twenty minutes is the usual
recommendation because it takes your body time to reach its aerobic heart
rate level.)
The way to get this type of workout is to use the big muscles of your lower
body, such as your thighs and buttocks. It is easy to achieve with
activities such as walking, jogging, biking and dancing. It is not
necessary to have on a leotard and be a part of a group of people performing
elaborate routines. (Although, there may be a place for that in your
exercise arsenal!)
--
claudia
565/355/157 To email me remove the potatoes
Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay
Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com
For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia's Corner
http://dietchef.ecorp.net
Low-fat cooking mailing list: lowfatcooki...@egroups.com
JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in message
news:Z_WX3.1843$Dm.5...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com...
Mary Lacroix
JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote:
>Horse manure, Kristin. I used to weight 105-110 lb for years and I
>never missed my menses. Late yes, but never missed a single one. No,
>wait, I did actually skip it twice: when I was pregnant.
Err ... let's take a second look at what Krista said:
>> Lordamighty. Too heavy at 17% bf and 126? 17% isn't too heavy by
>any
>> measurement, considering that a few points lower and you stop
>menstruating.
>> If you have muscle, you're going to be heavier. Don't get too
>focused on
>> the numbers.
*IF* you are indeed 17% body fat right now, that means that you are
currently composed of 21.5 pounds of fat and 105 pounds of lean mass.
Assuming that you put on all fat and no muscle as the scale crept
up, when you weighed 105 pounds, there wasn't an ounce of fat on
you. When you weighed 110, you carried a porky 5 pounds of fat,
putting you at a massive 4% body fat.
Given that you had regular periods, bore two kids, and generally
felt pretty good and not at all corpse-like, I'd say these current
readings of 17% body-fat are completely impossible.
Here's a wild guesstimate on my part: you started off at 105 pounds
and 20% body fat (21 pounds of fat and 84 pounds of lean mass). If
you put on 19.5 pounds of fat and 2 pounds of muscle over the years,
your current body composition at 126.5 pounds is now 40.5 pounds of fat
and 86 pounds of muscle: your true fat percentage in this completely
seat-of-my-pants scenario would be about 32%.
Or your body fat percentage may be lower: it really depends on how lean
you were when you were bearing children. But as Krista has said, it is
wildly unlikely that you were under 17%. Using that as my starting point,
here's another guesstimate:
Then: 105 pounds, 17% body fat (17.85 pounds fat, 87.15 pounds lean)
Now, after gaining 2 pounds of muscle and 19.5 pounds of fat, you
weigh 126.5 pounds (37.35 pounds fat and 89.15 pounds lean). This puts
your bodyfat percentage at just under 30%).
If my numbers are even roughly accurate, I can understand your
impatience with those of us who keep saying that 17% body fat is
pretty lean. But you have also demonstrated that these caliper
readings are too low. If you really want to know your current
body fat percentage, try immersion or electrical impedance, or
let an expert take your caliper readings.
Mary.
R+P ROSIE
>> it really keeps alot of us motivated!
>Our motivation and morale would be greatly increased if you crawled back
>into the troll hole you crawled out of
>
dear adr,
how about sticking to support in here?
see what i mean about folks like you, ruining potentially, wonderful
threads?
its just a shame!
rosie
R+P ROSIE
>it sounds like you are doing a lot of things right, but BE PATIENT!
>just keep exercising and keep track of your calories, and remember that
>weight is not the only way to measure your progress
>
>good luck,
>
>AL
>
great advise, al!
i forgot about PATIENCE! :)
rosie
ziggy
Valerie Whiteside <v.whi...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:80p2qi$8k5$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
> Hi
> might not be helping. Please dont tell me that I dont need to lose, I
know
> I am not hugely overweight but I look and feel better when I weigh less.
>
> Thanks in advance
> Val
Hi Val,
While I'm no fitness expert I do know about quitting smoking. You body is
changing due to quitting and one normally gains weight during this process.
You have escaped this probably because of your diet and exercise. It takes
some time for your system to stabilize after quitting smoking. Keep up the
great work and you will see the pounds start to come off if you are not
replacing it all with muscle!
Jeremy McLaughlin
JD
>It don't matter squat what *you* think about any woman's body.
if this is ture then why do they always ask, "does this make me look to
fat?"
> It matters what the woman thinks (and the reverse is also true for how
women perceive men's bodies).
only for insecure people
> If Valerie thinks she's too heavy, then she's too
heavy.
wrong.this is how neurosis begins.
people also believed the earth was the center of the universe it was flat
and that the moon was made of cheese. these _perceptions_, like this one
were believed until evidence proved them wrong. why go throught the pain for
nothing. get a bf% test now and _know_.
> And as a woman, I'm inclined to agree with her perception of herself *IF*
she has a small frame,
good disclaimer. but just because your a woman that does not mean basic
physiological responses to reduced caloric intake and exercise are suspended
for the purposes of cosmetic weight reduction. their are a few key peices of
information misssing from hger post that need to be addressed before anybody
can say she does or does not need to lose weight.
> because I've got a medium one and at 5'3" I'm definitely too heavy at
126-1/2 lb with a little under 17% body-fat ratio.
that's a really low % for a woman, if it's correct and if you still think
your fat then you might want to seek counseling.
i am hungry
Matt Madsen
Valerie Whiteside <v.whi...@virgin.net> wrote:
>many calories or points and unlimited amounts of certain vegetables which
>you dont have to count.
Which veggies are these?
>I decided to do the same and set myself a limit of 1000 cals plus
>unlimited "free" vegetables.
That sounds really low. If you're over 100 lbs, that sounds way too
low, even for a weight-loss diet.
>I went to 3 aerobic classes and walked home used to drive home most times)
>which takes 30 - 45 mins at a brisk pace.
Sounds like an excellent start.
>I would see a nice loss this morning when I weighed in only to
>find...that I have only lost 0.5 pound !!!!!!
You shouldn't expect anything in one week. Anything. At all. On
top of that, the scale is a terrible way to measure progress.
As I've said before:
The scale does not measure fitness,
and it does not measure beauty.
It only measures gravitational pull.
>Please dont tell me that I dont need to lose, I know I am not hugely
>overweight but I look and feel better when I weigh less.
You probably look and feel better when you're fit and lean. It has
little to do with weighing less. If you put on 20 lbs of muscle, you
wouldn't feel or look bad. Get past the scale obsession, and focus on
getting healthy. The fit and healthy look will come.
Matt Madsen
Joke Lapre
more result next week. Just hang in there.
--
Joke from Holland
264/226,5/150
Valerie Whiteside <v.whi...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:80p2qi$8k5$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
> Hi
> Reading all the slimming magazines I have noticed that they allow so
> many calories or points and unlimited amounts of certain vegetables which
> you dont have to count. I decided to do the same and set myself a limit
of
> 1000 cals plus unlimited "free" vegetables. The vegetables really helped
to
> fill me up and I stuck to this all week except Sunday which I always
I've
> dieted in the past) have off. I went to 3 aerobic classes and walked home
> used to drive home most times) which takes 30 - 45 mins at a brisk pace.
> Having managed to stick to my plan so much more easily this time I was
sure
> I would see a nice loss this morning when I weighed in only to
> find..........................that I have only lost 0.5 pound !!!!!! YES
> !!! HALF A POUND !!!!!!!!! With this being my first week I was really
> expecting more !!! HALF A POUND. All that effort for 0.5 pound. I am
> SOOOOOO disappointed!!! Do you think it is the vegetables? I always
> thought that if you eat enough they must surely make a difference but
other
> people seem to do it so I thought I would give it a try. Maybe I should
go
> back to counting the calories in my vegetables too and having 1000 cals
> MAX?? What do you all think? I know that it might seem like I am over
> reacting but I am soooooooooo disappointed! Makes me wonder what the
point
> is! If I hadn't exercised I might have even GAINED!!!! What should I
do?
> I dont think 1000 cals is too low as I am only 5'2" and extremely small
> framed. I currently weigh 117 and would like to return to 104 which I
used
> to be. I dieted down to 101 for my wedding on 29th June on but have put
it
> all back plus a little extra. I also gave up smoking on 27th July, which
> might not be helping. Please dont tell me that I dont need to lose, I
know
> I am not hugely overweight but I look and feel better when I weigh less.
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
>
> Val
>
>
>
>
Mary Lacroix
Mary Lacroix <mlac...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
>*IF* you are indeed 17% body fat right now, that means that you are
>currently composed of 21.5 pounds of fat and 105 pounds of lean mass.
>Assuming that you put on all fat and no muscle as the scale crept
>up, when you weighed 105 pounds, there wasn't an ounce of fat on
>you. When you weighed 110, you carried a porky 5 pounds of fat,
>putting you at a massive 4% body fat.
>
>Given that you had regular periods, bore two kids, and generally
>felt pretty good and not at all corpse-like, I'd say these current
>readings of 17% body-fat are completely impossible.
Bad form to follow up my own post, I know, but just to clarify: if
JD looks and feels fatter than she was several years ago, her weight
gain is largely fat, not muscle. But it is, of course, possible
for a woman to start off at 105 pounds/17% body fat and end up
as 126.5 pounds/17% bodyfat, but she has to put on a serious amount
of muscle to achieve this.
JD, if you've been active enough to gain some muscle over the years,
your body fat percentage may be lower than 30%, maybe 25-28% (given
that you have some fat you can grab on your abdomen), but unless
you have a really bizarre fat deposition pattern, it's not 17%.
Mary, posting on afternoon break instead of lunch this time.
JD
week.
I only know my own gain. It took me close to six months to gain about
2.5
pounds of muscle, and I wasn't even working out to full potential.
As far as the stairmaster and bike becoming enjoyable and producing
tangible results ... I agree with the second statement (results) but
not the first (enjoy). For me, I'll stick with the treadmill.
<cowboy...@nobother.apk.noemail.net> wrote in message
news:80pgn4$pua$1...@plonk.apk.net...
> In alt.support.diet.low-fat JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote:
> > George UK <geo...@gymonthehill.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:383031ed...@news.freeserve.net...
> >>>>Weight training will not make her big. She should forget the
> > aerobic classes, and do a free weight based exercise prog,
followed by
> > 30 - 40 mins bike or stepper.
>
> > I never said weight training would make her big. What I said was
it
> > would develop/build muscle, which in turn will burn calories when
> > she's not working out.
>
> But in one week how much muscle do you REASONABLY expect a person to
gain?
>
> > As far as forgetting aerobics ... absolutely not. I've yet to
join,
> > simply because I'm a slow learner and can't pick up the steps. But
if
> > I can find an instructor with a lot of patience, I'm joining asap
and
> > that's when I'll see the body-fat drop.
>
> Give it a shot. Aerobics are not only a great exercise to burn
calories,
> but it builds endurance, strengthens the heart, increases insulin
> sensitivity, and makes for a fun experience.
>
> > And why the bike or stepper in particular? I think the issue, like
> > many of said, is using what you're most likely to stick with.
Neither
> > of these would work for me for the duration, and they may or may
not
> > for Valerie. She has to find her "point of comfort," and go with
that.
>
> Sometimes it's good to develop yourself on a machine whihc will
become
> enjoyable and produce tangible results. Both of those machines will
do
> that.
>
> cowboy
>
JD
at 110 lb, to be totally honest. I only know what I measured on the
scale and with the tape measure. I know some people told me I was too
thin (size 5), but I think that's because I have what is referred to
as a barrel-shaped chest with I guess you might call protruding ribs.
Too many years of cigarette smoking, according to a former physician.
My current rib cage band width (measurement over ribs and directly
under breasts is 30"). Was I fat back then? Heck no ... so I'm
inclined to agree that my lean body mass is around 104 lb, and
certainly no where near 85 lb.
Around the time I was 21 I joined a health club. My weight was around
118 lb at the time. They said they did body-fat measurements and I
remember I could not eat or drink anything after midnight. They did a
bunch of things, including using calipers, weight on a table ... can't
remember it all, to be totally honest. I was told that I had around
19% body-fat. How accurate it was, I can't say, but I was around a
size 7 back then so I'd say it was probably fairly close.
Moving to today ... I use the calipers and measure four specific
locations: triceps, umbilicus, subumbilcus and thigh. I measure over
and over again. I also have my husband measure. I take his figures and
mine and average them out, since they tend to be a little different. I
add them and follow a formula I got from the EAS web site (don't
remember where) and according to the formula, as of 10/29/99 I had
16.52% body-fat --- total excess fat was 20.73 lb --- lean body weight
was 104.77 lb --- total muscle gained was 2.42 lb.
I *do not* have 30% body-fat, and I guarantee you that one. That fat
I'm definitely not (any longer). My jeans are a size 7-8, so there
ain't no way I've got 30% body-fat.
I think it's time I had my husband take some shots of me in one of my
tighter gym outfits and let people decide for themselves exactly what
they think I look like. And I'll have no problem ... not one ...
telling you all "I told you so!!!" when you say, "Yep, she's
definitely got more weight to lose."
Hell ... I'll steal my daughter's bikini and totally humiliate myself
if it proves my point. I get like a dog with a bone when I know I'm
right and need to convince people about things.
Mary Lacroix <mlac...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:80pivp$m...@shell1.interlog.com...
> In article <CUWX3.1841$Dm.5...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com>,
> JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote:
> >Horse manure, Kristin. I used to weight 105-110 lb for years and I
> >never missed my menses. Late yes, but never missed a single one.
No,
> >wait, I did actually skip it twice: when I was pregnant.
>
> Err ... let's take a second look at what Krista said:
>
> >> Lordamighty. Too heavy at 17% bf and 126? 17% isn't too heavy
by
> >any
> >> measurement, considering that a few points lower and you stop
> >menstruating.
> >> If you have muscle, you're going to be heavier. Don't get too
> >focused on
> >> the numbers.
>
> *IF* you are indeed 17% body fat right now, that means that you are
> currently composed of 21.5 pounds of fat and 105 pounds of lean
mass.
> Assuming that you put on all fat and no muscle as the scale crept
> up, when you weighed 105 pounds, there wasn't an ounce of fat on
> you. When you weighed 110, you carried a porky 5 pounds of fat,
> putting you at a massive 4% body fat.
>
> Given that you had regular periods, bore two kids, and generally
> felt pretty good and not at all corpse-like, I'd say these current
> readings of 17% body-fat are completely impossible.
>
JD
news:s30m7u...@corp.supernews.com...
> JD
> >It don't matter squat what *you* think about any woman's body.
> if this is ture then why do they always ask, "does this make me look
to fat?"
I guess you never listened to Jeff Foxworthy?
>>>It matters what the woman thinks (and the reverse is also true for
how women perceive men's bodies).
> only for insecure people
"It's my body and I'll cry if I want to ..." <g>
>>>If Valerie thinks she's too heavy, then she's too heavy.
> wrong.this is how neurosis begins.
Not true. The people that used to tell me I was too thin, when I was
size 5, usually were
what I would call too heavy, as in women who were size 14 or better.
Neither you nor I know what Valerie looks like, in or out of clothing.
She previously weighed
104 lb and was happy with her appearance back then ... so why not
strive to be that way
again? She has to live with her body ... not you and certainly not me.
>>>people also believed the earth was the center of the universe it
was flat and that the
moon was made of cheese. these _perceptions_, like this one were
believed until evidence
proved them wrong. why go throught the pain for nothing. get a bf%
test now and _know_.
Apples and oranges on the first issue, but I agree with the BF test.
Oh, and just for the record, one of the the 1997 Grand Champions for
EAS was a woman named Meredith Brown. She stood 5'4", weighed 104 lb
and had 12% body-fat. She also had a body to
die for.
>>>just because your a woman that does not mean basic physiological
responses to
reduced caloric intake and exercise are suspended for the purposes of
cosmetic
weight reduction. their are a few key peices of information misssing
from hger post
that need to be addressed before anybody can say she does or does not
need to lose weight.
Right ... like in, the image in the mirror will tell Valerie what she
needs to do.
>>> because I've got a medium one and at 5'3" I'm definitely too heavy
at
> 126-1/2 lb with a little under 17% body-fat ratio.
> that's a really low % for a woman, if it's correct and if you still
think
> your fat then you might want to seek counseling.
Okay, I'll rephrase things. I am not pleased with my physical
appearance. I'm tired of the
cellulite and jiggling. That's fat, my friend ... not a need for
counseling.
Eric Midkiff
> A 5'2" small-boned frame should weigh around 105 lb, so I'm certainly
> not going to tell you not to lose the weight.
This sounds like a rather arbitrary statement. Any particular reason for
making it?
--
Eric Midkiff
Bodybuilding vegetarian is an oxymoron with strong emphasis on the moron. -
Will Brink
JD
Mary Lacroix <mlac...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:80ppu2$j...@shell1.interlog.com...
> In article <80pivp$m...@shell1.interlog.com>, Mary Lacroix
<mlac...@interlog.com> wrote:
> >
>>>*IF* you are indeed 17% body fat right now, that means that you are
currently
composed of 21.5 pounds of fat and 105 pounds of lean mass.
Correct.
>>>Assuming that you put on all fat and no muscle as the scale crept
up, when you
weighed 105 pounds, there wasn't an ounce of fat on you. When you
weighed 110,
you carried a porky 5 pounds of fat, putting you at a massive 4% body
fat.
Good Lord no, I wasn't that thin. I'd say closer to 12% body-fat. Hmmm
... maybe
clothing was cut differently in those days. All I know is that I was a
perfect size 5 for years.
And, yes, as the scales crept up I gained all fat and no muscle.
>>>Given that you had regular periods, bore two kids, and generally
felt pretty good and
not at all corpse-like, I'd say these current readings of 17% body-fat
are completely impossible.
Regular periods, never. Always late, but I didn't have amenorrhea any
time except
during pregnancy. Even when I dropped down to 103 lb (anorexia) I
didn't skip things.
No, wait, yeah there were a few times I did. Damn pregnancy scares.
Anyway ... as far as feeling pretty good. Of course I did. That was
the disco era and
both Friday and Saturday night was for partying!!!
>>>Bad form to follow up my own post, I know, but just to clarify: if
JD looks and feels
fatter than she was several years ago, her weight gain is largely fat,
not muscle. But it is,
of course, possible for a woman to start off at 105 pounds/17% body
fat and end up as
126.5 pounds/17% bodyfat, but she has to put on a serious amount of
muscle to achieve this.
My weight has gone up and down since I was 18 more than two kids on a
seesaw. But I
remained at 110 lb the longest from around 1985 (took four years to
lose weight after kid #2)
until shortly after my current husband and I got involved in 1992.
When we married that year
I had gained almost 10 lb, up to 118 lb, and then it was steadily up
from that point on.
Plateaued around 140 lb in 1994 and then dropped to 127 lb for about
three months, but
regained all the weight and then some, peaking at 150 lb around 1998
where I remained
until April of this year. (does this help any?)
> JD, if you've been active enough to gain some muscle over the years,
> your body fat percentage may be lower than 30%, maybe 25-28% (given
> that you have some fat you can grab on your abdomen), but unless
> you have a really bizarre fat deposition pattern, it's not 17%.
My current body-fat is no where near 30%, I guarantee it. I just don't
know where to get
honest testing. It's also not important enough for me to spend $$$ to
find out what the deal is.
With the fat on the abdomen, I tried something. I bent over,
straighted my back (that felt
good) and then pulled my stomach in. And then I grabbed a chunk of
meat ... 'taint nothing
I can do about it. It's all loose skin and I don't think anything
short of liposuction will get rid
of it. But to give you a handle on what I actually measure ... first
thing in the morning, tape
around the tummy: 32". That's standing like I normally do, without
holding my stomach in
or my back straight. That's the actual measurement as of this morning.
But, if I stand up
really straight, pull in my stomach and straighten my back, it drops
down to around 31%.
That's why I say I've got a major problem with lordosis. That, plus
weak stomach muscles.
JD
<no-spam-...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:sodemdr...@world.std.com...
> >>>>> JD writes:
> JD> 118 lb at the time. (snip)
> JD> 19% body-fat (snip)
> So at that time you had 95.6lbs of lean body mass (118*(1-19%)).
Hmm ... if their calculation was correct, I would agree. Like I said,
I honestly don't know.
> JD> according to the formula, as of 10/29/99 I had
> JD> 16.52% body-fat --- total excess fat was 20.73 lb --- lean
body weight
> JD> was 104.77 lb --- total muscle gained was 2.42 lb.
> That would be a gain of more like 9 pounds of lean body mass, and
> a loss of about 2lbs of fat.
Let's try this ... I lost 27" between 4/20/99 and 10/29/99. That's a
little more than 2 lb of fat.
JD
1. Valerie said she previously weighed 104 lb, currently weighs
117 lb and wants to go back down to where she was "in a former
life."
2. I said that the that 5'2" with small bones is okay at 105 lb.
IOW ... I personally don't see what the problem is with her
dropping down to 105 lb. Others do.
Eric Midkiff <ericm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:80pugq$bl0$3...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
Eric Midkiff
> Sure ...
>
> 1. Valerie said she previously weighed 104 lb, currently weighs
> 117 lb and wants to go back down to where she was "in a former
> life."
> 2. I said that the that 5'2" with small bones is okay at 105 lb.
>
> IOW ... I personally don't see what the problem is with her
> dropping down to 105 lb. Others do.
>
This does not allow for any number of other factors, and could actually make
her feel worse about her weight, which does not seem all that high to me.
Furthermore, 17% bodyfat is quite acceptable.
Valerie Whiteside
Thanks to all who responded to my post, its great to have such support,
I really didnt expect so many replies. Thank you. For the record, I have
been told many times before that I do not need to lose and I am SO pleased
to finally find a group of people who dont think my goal is unreasonable.
Its fantastic, FINALLY...............people who understand, that is
motivation in itself !!!! Thank you all for your support.
Val
Matt Madsen
JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote:
>But to give you a handle on what I actually measure ... first
>thing in the morning, tape around the tummy: 32". That's standing
>like I normally do, without holding my stomach in or my back straight.
How tall are you JD? I can't imagine having a 32" stomach at 17%
body-fat (on a woman). I'd expect you to have something more like
a 24" stomach for that body-fat. A woman with a 32" waist (at, say,
5'5") generally has about 30% body-fat, not 17%.
Matt Madsen
Matt Madsen
JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote:
>My jeans are a size 7-8, so there ain't no way I've got 30% body-fat.
You can be a size 2 and still be 30% body-fat. It would just mean
you don't have any lean mass.
Matt Madsen
Matt Madsen
If people often tell you that you don't need to lose, but you don't
think you look fit, you probably want to add lean mass. That's often
the mystery ingredient that pure scale-weight can't convey.
I wouldn't worry about keeping your calories low so much as staying
active and eating your veggies.
Matt Madsen
Matt Staples
Valerie Whiteside wrote:
> The vegetables really helped to
> fill me up and I stuck to this all week except Sunday which I always ( I've
> dieted in the past) have off. I went to 3 aerobic classes and walked home
> used to drive home most times) which takes 30 - 45 mins at a brisk pace.
> Having managed to stick to my plan so much more easily this time I was sure
> I would see a nice loss this morning when I weighed in only to
> find..........................that I have only lost 0.5 pound !!!!!! YES
> !!! HALF A POUND !!!!!!!!! With this being my first week I was really
> expecting more !!! HALF A POUND. All that effort for 0.5 pound. I am
> SOOOOOO disappointed!!!
Valerie, you should keep in mind that water levels tend to fluctuate in
people for reasons that are obvious and not so obvious. The time of day
can also affect how much you weigh. Of course, you must make sure that
you wear the same clothing (underwear, or whatever else suits you) when
weighing yourself for it to mean anything, and you must use the same
scale. Many people espouse weighing only once a week, but I think it's
far more effective to weigh yourself daily while ONLY worrying about
trends, not daily fluctuations. That way, if you find yourself steadily
going down over the course of the week and then on the day when you
would have been doing your weekly weighing, you weigh the same as the
last week, you will almost certainly know that it is merely a
fluctuation.
(snip)
> What should I do?
> I dont think 1000 cals is too low as I am only 5'2" and extremely small
> framed. I currently weigh 117 and would like to return to 104 which I used
> to be. I dieted down to 101 for my wedding on 29th June on but have put it
> all back plus a little extra. I also gave up smoking on 27th July, which
> might not be helping. Please dont tell me that I dont need to lose, I know
> I am not hugely overweight but I look and feel better when I weigh less.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Val
Val, just keep doing what you're doing. Alternate periods of dieting
of, say, 5 weeks with a week of eating normally. Additionally,
incorporate the occasional cheat day (or 2 days) to keep your metabolic
rate up, at least as much as you can. You're doing great losing half a
pound - next week you could lose 4 times that. It's certainly within
the realm of possibilities. You also may want to consider weight
training - if you think that's a viable option, check out
http://krista.tico.com.
Take care ...
--
Matt Staples
http://www.thegym.net/mbbfr
Eric Midkiff
> Let's separate the issues ...
>
> 1. She *should* weight 105 lb ... according to the health charts.
> I forgot to clarify that point.
Oh yes. The health charts. Based on the average fat slob American who
carries far more fat and far less muscle than he or she should. Basing what
someone should way on this is completely rediculuos, unless of course, the
goal is to be just as out of shape as the avereage idiot of her height. So
many athletes, of various sports, are incredibly overweight by these
standards, and are in so much better physical condition it almost defies
description. And spare us the equally idiotic BMI.
> 2. If 17% BF is acceptable to you, then you have 17% BF.
Eh. I said it was acceptable on a woman. How did you arrive at this
decision?
If that
> is what I have, it's too much for me.
>
Me as well, but then, as I am not female, it is much easier for me to
maintain a lower % bodyfat than most women.
Kevin Haggerty
news:tW1Y3.1879$Dm.5...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com...
> Let's separate the issues ...
>
> 1. She *should* weight 105 lb ... according to the health charts.
> I forgot to clarify that point.
> is what I have, it's too much for me.
You are showing yourself to be a fool. First off, the health charts are
absolute crap. They are meant for sedentary individuals and do not fair
well at all for anyone who may have significant muscle mass. Secondly,
your statement about BF is incredulous. Judging from your statements, you
appear to me male. If you knew the first thing about BF %ages, you would
know that 17% is pretty damn good for a female. 17% would be nothing to
write home about for a male, but it is for a female.
--
Kevin Haggerty
kev...@purdue.edu
ICQ: 21045492
Doe
The Exercise Advocate....Doe <G>
Claudia wrote:
> You can do aerobic exercise with out having to learn all the steps and join
> a class. It is aerobic, not necessarily aerobics that provide this benefit.
> Aerobic exercise is any exercise that moderately elevates your heart rate
> and keeps it there for at least 15 minutes. ( Twenty minutes is the usual
> recommendation because it takes your body time to reach its aerobic heart
> rate level.)
>
> The way to get this type of workout is to use the big muscles of your lower
> body, such as your thighs and buttocks. It is easy to achieve with
> activities such as walking, jogging, biking and dancing. It is not
> necessary to have on a leotard and be a part of a group of people performing
> elaborate routines. (Although, there may be a place for that in your
> exercise arsenal!)
>
> --
>
> claudia
>
> 565/355/157 To email me remove the potatoes
>
> Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay
> Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com
>
> For hundreds of free low-fat recipes and info visit Claudia's Corner
> http://dietchef.ecorp.net
>
> Low-fat cooking mailing list: lowfatcooki...@egroups.com
>
> JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in message
> news:Z_WX3.1843$Dm.5...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com...
> > George UK <geo...@gymonthehill.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:383031ed...@news.freeserve.net...
> > >>>Weight training will not make her big. She should forget the
> > aerobic classes, and do a free weight based exercise prog, followed by
> > 30 - 40 mins bike or stepper.
> >
> > I never said weight training would make her big. What I said was it
> > would develop/build muscle, which in turn will burn calories when
> > she's not working out.
> >
> > As far as forgetting aerobics ... absolutely not. I've yet to join,
> > simply because I'm a slow learner and can't pick up the steps. But if
> > I can find an instructor with a lot of patience, I'm joining asap and
> > that's when I'll see the body-fat drop.
> >
Whitney Richtmyer
> Let's separate the issues ...
>
> 1. She *should* weight 105 lb ... according to the health charts.
> I forgot to clarify that point.
As I have stated in other posts, these health charts are based on the
AVERAGE (read: fat and minimally muscled) individuals and have no
applicability for any athletes.
Whitney
> 2. If 17% BF is acceptable to you, then you have 17% BF. If that
> is what I have, it's too much for me.
>
>
>
>
> Eric Midkiff <ericm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:80pvaa$f49$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in message
> > news:D5%X3.1857$Dm.5...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com...
> > > Sure ...
> > >
> > > 1. Valerie said she previously weighed 104 lb, currently
> weighs
> > > 117 lb and wants to go back down to where she was "in a former
> > > life."
> > > 2. I said that the that 5'2" with small bones is okay at 105
> lb.
> > >
> > > IOW ... I personally don't see what the problem is with her
> > > dropping down to 105 lb. Others do.
> > >
> > I still do not understand why you said she *should* weigh about
> 105 lbs.
> > This does not allow for any number of other factors, and could
> actually make
> > her feel worse about her weight, which does not seem all that
> high to me.
> > Furthermore, 17% bodyfat is quite acceptable.
Tom Morley
> Valerie Whiteside <v.whi...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:80p2qi$8k5$1...@nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
> > Hi
> > I also gave up smoking on 27th July, which
> > might not be helping. Please dont tell me that I dont need to lose, I
> know
> > I am not hugely overweight but I look and feel better when I weigh less.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> > Val
>
> Hi Val,
> While I'm no fitness expert I do know about quitting smoking. You body is
> changing due to quitting and one normally gains weight during this process.
> You have escaped this probably because of your diet and exercise. It takes
> some time for your system to stabilize after quitting smoking. Keep up the
> great work and you will see the pounds start to come off if you are not
> replacing it all with muscle!
I quit smoking and started swimming at the same time. Lost fat.
--
Tom Morley |
mor...@math.gatech.edu | Cronopio, cronopio.
tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com |
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~morley | -- Cronopios y de Famas
ICQ: 24798603 | Julio Cortazar
JD
1. She *should* weight 105 lb ... according to the health charts.
I forgot to clarify that point.
Julien Gauthier
JD wrote:
> Let's separate the issues ...
>
> 1. She *should* weight 105 lb ... according to the health charts.
> I forgot to clarify that point.
Those charts ain`t worth the paper they are written on. ....And I am
being diplomatic here. Just in case you needed clarifications.
JG
JD
weights, so at least there's some guide for them to go by. In fact,
according to a recent health report I heard on TV two days ago "the
average 5'4" female weighs 143 lb."
I didn't arrive at any "decision" regarding the 17% BF issue, and
you eliminated the rest of the statement so I don't remember the
entire context.
And applause on your ability to maintain much less BF than women.
That's you.
Eric Midkiff <ericm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:80qb39$e4s$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
>
> JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in message
> news:tW1Y3.1879$Dm.5...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com...
> > Let's separate the issues ...
> >
> > 1. She *should* weight 105 lb ... according to the health
charts.
> > I forgot to clarify that point.
>
> Oh yes. The health charts. Based on the average fat slob American
who
> carries far more fat and far less muscle than he or she should.
Basing what
> someone should way on this is completely rediculuos, unless of
course, the
> goal is to be just as out of shape as the avereage idiot of her
height. So
> many athletes, of various sports, are incredibly overweight by
these
> standards, and are in so much better physical condition it almost
defies
> description. And spare us the equally idiotic BMI.
>
> > 2. If 17% BF is acceptable to you, then you have 17% BF.
>
> Eh. I said it was acceptable on a woman. How did you arrive at
this
> decision?
>
> If that
> > is what I have, it's too much for me.
> >
> Me as well, but then, as I am not female, it is much easier for
me to
> maintain a lower % bodyfat than most women.
>
JD
with people. First , I know the health charts are not applicable
but I admit to having that on my mind when I concurred with the
weight issue. Second, I am female. Third, while 17% on other
females is something to write home about TO YOU it is too much on
my body. Me. Moi. Yours truly. The one and only.
Anything else?
Kevin Haggerty <kev...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:80qbgq$1tl$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
> JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in message
> news:tW1Y3.1879$Dm.5...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com...
> > Let's separate the issues ...
> >
> > 1. She *should* weight 105 lb ... according to the health
charts.
> > I forgot to clarify that point.
> > 2. If 17% BF is acceptable to you, then you have 17% BF. If
that
> > is what I have, it's too much for me.
>
JD
don't necessarily perceive them as an athlete.
Whitney Richtmyer <whi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:80qbuf$7ho$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in message
> news:tW1Y3.1879$Dm.5...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com...
> > Let's separate the issues ...
> >
> > 1. She *should* weight 105 lb ... according to the health
charts.
> > I forgot to clarify that point.
>
> As I have stated in other posts, these health charts are based on
the
> AVERAGE (read: fat and minimally muscled) individuals and have no
> applicability for any athletes.
>
> Whitney
>
> > 2. If 17% BF is acceptable to you, then you have 17% BF. If
that
> > is what I have, it's too much for me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric Midkiff <ericm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:80pvaa$f49$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in message
> > > news:D5%X3.1857$Dm.5...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com...
> > > > Sure ...
> > > >
> > > > 1. Valerie said she previously weighed 104 lb, currently
> > weighs
> > > > 117 lb and wants to go back down to where she was "in a
former
> > > > life."
> > > > 2. I said that the that 5'2" with small bones is okay at
105
> > lb.
> > > >
> > > > IOW ... I personally don't see what the problem is with her
> > > > dropping down to 105 lb. Others do.
> > > >
> > > I still do not understand why you said she *should* weigh
about
> > 105 lbs.
> > > This does not allow for any number of other factors, and
could
> > actually make
> > > her feel worse about her weight, which does not seem all that
> > high to me.
> > > Furthermore, 17% bodyfat is quite acceptable.
Eric Midkiff
> The average American does not do aerobics and work out with
> weights, so at least there's some guide for them to go by. In fact,
> according to a recent health report I heard on TV two days ago "the
> average 5'4" female weighs 143 lb."
>
completely idiot, given what fat, out shape, weak pieces of crap they are.
> I didn't arrive at any "decision" regarding the 17% BF issue, and
> you eliminated the rest of the statement so I don't remember the
> entire context.
>
> And applause on your ability to maintain much less BF than women.
This is not diffiuclt for most men, possibly if you started producing
testoserone, your ability to do so would improve as well.
> That's you.
>
You said you were not happy with it either.
Eileen Kelly
for me at 5'2", so obviously I don't see why she is trying so hard.
JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in message
news:<0EVX3.1838$Dm.5...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com>...
> Kevin ... I'm going to tell you what I told another guy once. It don't
> matter squat what *you* think about any woman's body. It matters what
> the woman thinks (and the reverse is also true for how women perceive
> men's bodies). If Valerie thinks she's too heavy, then she's too
> heavy. And as a woman, I'm inclined to agree with her perception of
> herself *IF* she has a small frame, because I've got a medium one and
JD
> > The average American does not do aerobics and work out with
> > weights, so at least there's some guide for them to go by. In
fact,
> > according to a recent health report I heard on TV two days ago
"the
> > average 5'4" female weighs 143 lb."
> Basing any statement of what one should weigh on the average
American is
> completely idiot, given what fat, out shape, weak pieces of crap
they are.
Uh ... the news piece was about the dangers of the thin actresses
in Tinseltown and it's effect on teenage girls, who believe thin is
the only way to be, i.e. Calista Flockheart.
> > And applause on your ability to maintain much less BF than
women.
> This is not diffiuclt for most men, possibly if you started
producing
> testoserone, your ability to do so would improve as well.
Yeah right ... like I'd want to produce testerone. I want to
produce that as much as I want to look like (IMO) those freaks in
the gym who are pumped up on steroids, men and women alike.
JD
for the same reason you are content to weigh 160 lb ... it's what
gives you pleasure. It makes you feel good about yourself.
Isn't that really the bottom line here?
Eileen Kelly <eke...@ccsworks4u.com> wrote in message
news:80rm3d$18o$1...@ffx2nh3.news.uu.net...
> I agree it is what she thinks/feels that is important. I think
160 is great
> for me at 5'2", so obviously I don't see why she is trying so
hard.
>
> JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in message
Mistress Krista
of a so-called "objective" measurement (i.e. the weight chart saying 105 is
an ideal weight for 5'2"), and simultaneous unbridled relativism of "do what
you perceive is right for you". Does this incongruity strike anyone else
besides me? You can't decide which epistemological paradigm you want to
use; you lurch back and forth between two extremes of
rule-by-medical-authority and anything-goes.
The thing is, in fact, there is likely no incongruity at all. Beneath the
mantra of free choice, there is an obvious internalized ideal which really
leaves no choice at all. What kind of free choice requires you to be in
thrall to a number on a piece of paper? Thus we are left with the question:
is any ideal which a person has OK? Should we fall into complete
relativism? Or should we aim for what has been called "strong objectivity";
the notion that some things and ideas are more useful or true than others?
One test for good ideas is whether or not they are practical and/or valid in
a concrete sense. I can say I want to be 68 lbs. but is this practical?
Would people tell me to do what feels best for me if I said I felt best at
68 lbs? I suspect not. Our endorsement, then, of this woman's insane goal
of 1000 cals worth of sticks and twigs and dryer lint in order to catabolize
whatever shreds of muscle tissue she may have left, speaks more to the
underlying notion that medical charts must be "right" since they come from
"experts". We actually are not saying that she should do what she wants,
because what she wants is well within our cultural norms of appropriate;
rather we are saying do what is endorsed by epistemological authority.
Krista
R+P ROSIE
>Uh ... the news piece was about the dangers of the thin actresses
>in Tinseltown and it's effect on teenage girls, who believe thin is
>the only way to be, i.e. Calista Flockheart.
>
last night tom and i went to see Bette, in probably one of the best stage
shows i have seen in awhile! made me laugh, made me cry!
she has a troop of 10 women (including the Harlettes) not one of them was
skinny, not one!
Real Women come in all shapes, colors, and sizes and she made sure that her
crew demonstrated that!
rosie
Zaf
<j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote:
> Eric Midkiff <ericm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:80rdv3$q8k$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > > The average American does not do aerobics and work out with
> > > weights, so at least there's some guide for them to go by. In
> fact,
> > > according to a recent health report I heard on TV two days ago
> "the
> > > average 5'4" female weighs 143 lb."
> > Basing any statement of what one should weigh on the average
> American is
> > completely idiot, given what fat, out shape, weak pieces of crap
> they are.
> in Tinseltown and it's effect on teenage girls, who believe thin is
> the only way to be, i.e. Calista Flockheart.
The point Eric was trying to make is those height to weight charts are
about as accurate as guessing your bra size based on how tall you are.
It is quite possible for someone to the correct weight for their height
and still have 40 % bodyfat. It is also possible for someone to be 30
lbs heavier than the chart says you should be but have a healthy
bodyfat %.
> > > And applause on your ability to maintain much less BF than
> women.
> > This is not diffiuclt for most men, possibly if you started
> producing
> > testoserone, your ability to do so would improve as well.
> Yeah right ... like I'd want to produce testerone. I want to
> produce that as much as I want to look like (IMO) those freaks in
> the gym who are pumped up on steroids, men and women alike.
Again I think you missed Eric's point.
Because men have more testosterone than women, than are able to build
more muscle, which in turn allows them to have a lower bodyfat %.
He was not implying you should use anabolic steroids.
Zaf
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Zaf
Hey Krista, when did you become Mike Mentzer? ;)
Leo
"Valerie Whiteside" <v.whi...@virgin.net> wrote:
> Hi
> Reading all the slimming magazines I have noticed that they allow so
> many calories or points and unlimited amounts of certain vegetables which
> you dont have to count. I decided to do the same and set myself a limit of
> 1000 cals plus unlimited "free" vegetables. The vegetables really helped to
> fill me up and I stuck to this all week except Sunday which I always ( I've
> dieted in the past) have off. I went to 3 aerobic classes and walked home
> used to drive home most times) which takes 30 - 45 mins at a brisk pace.
> Having managed to stick to my plan so much more easily this time I was sure
> I would see a nice loss this morning when I weighed in only to
> find..........................that I have only lost 0.5 pound !!!!!! YES
> !!! HALF A POUND !!!!!!!!! With this being my first week I was really
> expecting more !!! HALF A POUND. All that effort for 0.5 pound. I am
> thought that if you eat enough they must surely make a difference but other
> people seem to do it so I thought I would give it a try. Maybe I should go
> back to counting the calories in my vegetables too and having 1000 cals
> MAX?? What do you all think? I know that it might seem like I am over
> reacting but I am soooooooooo disappointed! Makes me wonder what the point
> is! If I hadn't exercised I might have even GAINED!!!! What should I do?
> I dont think 1000 cals is too low as I am only 5'2" and extremely small
> framed. I currently weigh 117 and would like to return to 104 which I used
> to be. I dieted down to 101 for my wedding on 29th June on but have put it
> might not be helping. Please dont tell me that I dont need to lose, I know
> I am not hugely overweight but I look and feel better when I weigh less.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Val
Dear Val,
First things first: No one has a right to tell you that you don't need to
look the best you can. I think that if you want to lose ten pounds then
it's your deal. *period*.
Second, I have a lot to say about not being able to lose weight on a low
low calorie, high exercise diet. It is incredible, isn't it???? And
maddening. I don't think that the vegetables have anything to do with
it, unless you are eating starchy ones (potatoes, sweet potatoes, etc).
It has happened to me before, and has been a big time problem. I have,
however, suffered from an eating disorder where I ate 500 calories a day
for about a year (this was over 5+ years ago). My body, therefore, hates
to be deprived. And since I have tried to lose the 30+ lbs I put on last
year (and totally within reason given my height), I have lost only 15 in
4 months and it has been *tough*. Really tough. When I am eating High
Protein, Low Cal and then waver for one meal, my body won't let the
weight come off. Simple as that.
SO I guess what i am saying is that the body remembers and has
extraordinary ways of protecting itself when it feels in danger. 1000
calories might be too little. OR, you might be a "saver upper" as my
friend who works for THe Diet Center says. SOmeone who holds onto weight
until the last minute and then loses the 2.5 lbs or whatever. ANd since
you are reasonably slim to begin with (I am NOT saying you don't have a
right to want to be 104...), your body may feel comfortable where it is
and therefore fighting all the harder.
*the hardest part*??Staying the course when your body refuses to budge.
Logically, if you are eating right and exercising regularly, the weight
has to come off. It has to. Laws of nature.
But maybe try a more moderate 1200 calories, + the vegetables?
Good luck and don't give up!
leo
161/146/125
Staying the Course is the hardest part...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Julien Gauthier
Eileen Kelly wrote:
> I agree it is what she thinks/feels that is important. I think 160 is great
> for me at 5'2", so obviously I don't see why she is trying so hard.
And what about if what she feels is important to her is to stick a loaded gun
deep in her mouth and shoot?
JG
jak
>Second, I have a lot to say about not being able to lose weight on a low
>low calorie, high exercise diet. It is incredible, isn't it???? And
>maddening. I don't think that the vegetables have anything to do with
>it, unless you are eating starchy ones (potatoes, sweet potatoes, etc).
>It has happened to me before, and has been a big time problem. I have,
>however, suffered from an eating disorder where I ate 500 calories a day
>for about a year (this was over 5+ years ago). My body, therefore, hates
>to be deprived. And since I have tried to lose the 30+ lbs I put on last
>year (and totally within reason given my height), I have lost only 15 in
>4 months and it has been *tough*. Really tough. When I am eating High
>Protein, Low Cal and then waver for one meal, my body won't let the
>weight come off. Simple as that.
>
>SO I guess what i am saying is that the body remembers and has
>extraordinary ways of protecting itself when it feels in danger. 1000
>calories might be too little. OR, you might be a "saver upper" as my
>friend who works for THe Diet Center says. SOmeone who holds onto weight
>until the last minute and then loses the 2.5 lbs or whatever. ANd since
>you are reasonably slim to begin with (I am NOT saying you don't have a
>right to want to be 104...), your body may feel comfortable where it is
>and therefore fighting all the harder.
Yeah, it's nature's way of telling you "YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING STUPID" Just
because you weighed at certain weight at one time in your life, doesn't mean
it's right for your now.
JAK
Mark Francis
>don't necessarily perceive them as an athlete.
very well put.
"There would be nothing to fear if you refused to be afraid"
-Ghandi
George UK
>George UK <geo...@gymonthehill.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:383031ed...@news.freeserve.net...
>>>>Weight training will not make her big. She should forget the
>aerobic classes, and do a free weight based exercise prog, followed by
>30 - 40 mins bike or stepper.
>
>I never said weight training would make her big. What I said was it
>would develop/build muscle, which in turn will burn calories when
>she's not working out.
Which is good.
>As far as forgetting aerobics ... absolutely not. I've yet to join,
>simply because I'm a slow learner and can't pick up the steps. But if
>I can find an instructor with a lot of patience, I'm joining asap and
>that's when I'll see the body-fat drop.
Aerobic classes alone are far inferior to gym work. Aerobic classes
seem to be filled with fat women who stay fat.
Why do you need an instructor with a lot of patience? All you need is
a programme for the gym that gets updated every 6 - 8 weeks. The hard
work and discipline comes from yourself.
>And why the bike or stepper in particular? I think the issue, like
>many of said, is using what you're most likely to stick with. Neither
>of these would work for me for the duration, and they may or may not
>for Valerie. She has to find her "point of comfort," and go with that.
>
Because YOU have full control over how long, and how hard you go. You
don't have to fit in with the times of classes. Why would these not
work for you? This is a bit defeatest. Sticking to a point of
"comfort" is no fun. Intensity of a relatively high nature gives more
a buzz.
:George UK
-------------
Time to put on another 5 kgs.....
George UK
>Yeah right ... like I'd want to produce testerone. I want to
>produce that as much as I want to look like (IMO) those freaks in
>the gym who are pumped up on steroids, men and women alike.
>
Better than those people who endlessly do classes, but never improve
1%. (IMO)
George UK
>Your statementson aerobics intensity shows you haven't a clue what you
>speak about. If you go easy, it's YOUR fault. Don't be a fool and
>generalize like you do.
>
Whoop de doo. The truth hurts doesn't it. The aerobics part of
aerobics classes are piss easy. It's only the "dancing about" which is
hard.
Aerobics classes are shite.
Eric Midkiff
Zaf <zafar.hash...@unilever.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:000b8d9b...@usw-ex0107-042.remarq.com...
> > > > The average American does not do aerobics and work out with
> > > > weights, so at least there's some guide for them to go by. In
> > fact,
> > > > according to a recent health report I heard on TV two days ago
> > "the
> > > > average 5'4" female weighs 143 lb."
> > > Basing any statement of what one should weigh on the average
> > American is
> > > completely idiot, given what fat, out shape, weak pieces of crap
> > they are.
> > Uh ... the news piece was about the dangers of the thin actresses
> > in Tinseltown and it's effect on teenage girls, who believe thin is
> > the only way to be, i.e. Calista Flockheart.
>
> The point Eric was trying to make is those height to weight charts are
> about as accurate as guessing your bra size based on how tall you are.
> It is quite possible for someone to the correct weight for their height
> and still have 40 % bodyfat. It is also possible for someone to be 30
> lbs heavier than the chart says you should be but have a healthy
> bodyfat %.
>
This seemed more than obvious to me.
> > > > And applause on your ability to maintain much less BF than
> > women.
> > > This is not diffiuclt for most men, possibly if you started
> > producing
> > > testoserone, your ability to do so would improve as well.
> > Yeah right ... like I'd want to produce testerone. I want to
> > produce that as much as I want to look like (IMO) those freaks in
> > the gym who are pumped up on steroids, men and women alike.
>
Neither would I.
> Again I think you missed Eric's point.
> Because men have more testosterone than women, than are able to build
> more muscle, which in turn allows them to have a lower bodyfat %.
>
This is true as well.
> He was not implying you should use anabolic steroids.
>
No I was not. Thanks, Zaf,
JD
big. She's buxom.
R+P ROSIE <reada...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:S2eY3.30865$827....@nntp0.chicago.il.ameritech.net...
>
>
> >Uh ... the news piece was about the dangers of the thin
actresses
> >in Tinseltown and it's effect on teenage girls, who believe thin
is
> >the only way to be, i.e. Calista Flockheart.
> >
>
>
JD
respond to what he's replying "the right way."
Zaf <zafar.hash...@unilever.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:000b8d9b...@usw-ex0107-042.remarq.com...
> In article <MudY3.1892$Dm.7...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com>, "JD"
> <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote:
> > Eric Midkiff <ericm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:80rdv3$q8k$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in message
> > > news:#60Io$$L$GA.240@cpmsnbbsa05...
> > > > The average American does not do aerobics and work out with
> > > > weights, so at least there's some guide for them to go by.
In
> > fact,
> > > > according to a recent health report I heard on TV two days
ago
> > "the
> > > > average 5'4" female weighs 143 lb."
> > > Basing any statement of what one should weigh on the average
> > American is
> > > completely idiot, given what fat, out shape, weak pieces of
crap
> > they are.
> > Uh ... the news piece was about the dangers of the thin
actresses
> > in Tinseltown and it's effect on teenage girls, who believe
thin is
> > the only way to be, i.e. Calista Flockheart.
>
> The point Eric was trying to make is those height to weight
charts are
> about as accurate as guessing your bra size based on how tall you
are.
> It is quite possible for someone to the correct weight for their
height
> and still have 40 % bodyfat. It is also possible for someone to
be 30
> lbs heavier than the chart says you should be but have a healthy
> bodyfat %.
>
> > > > And applause on your ability to maintain much less BF than
> > women.
> > > This is not diffiuclt for most men, possibly if you started
> > producing
> > > testoserone, your ability to do so would improve as well.
> > Yeah right ... like I'd want to produce testerone. I want to
> > produce that as much as I want to look like (IMO) those freaks
in
> > the gym who are pumped up on steroids, men and women alike.
>
> Again I think you missed Eric's point.
> Because men have more testosterone than women, than are able to
build
> more muscle, which in turn allows them to have a lower bodyfat %.
>
> He was not implying you should use anabolic steroids.
>
>
JD
your life, doesn't mean it's right for you now.
Bottom line: How VALERIE wants to look is her business. She
doesn't need your approval or acceptance. If she wants to weigh 104
lb, so be it.
jak <jan...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:c9fY3.36$7N3....@typ12.deja.bcandid.com...
JD
point.
I think you have an excellent web site. That being said ...
I have also seen your recent pictures and I (personally) think
you're too heavy. I think you'd look much better if you knocked off
about 10 pounds.
But, it don't matter sh*t what *I* think about the way you look or
how much body-fat you have, now does it? All that matter is what
YOU think about the way you look and how much body-fat you have.
I think I've made my point, loud and clear.
Mistress Krista <mistres...@home.com> wrote in message
news:6TdY3.61288$it.15...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Eileen Kelly <eke...@ccsworks4u.com> wrote in message
> news:80rm3d$18o$1...@ffx2nh3.news.uu.net...
> > I agree it is what she thinks/feels that is important. I think
160 is
> great
> > for me at 5'2", so obviously I don't see why she is trying so
hard.
> >
> > JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in message
JD
Julien Gauthier <ju...@supernet.ca> wrote in message
news:38317686...@supernet.ca...
>
>
> Eileen Kelly wrote:
>
> > I agree it is what she thinks/feels that is important. I think
160 is great
> > for me at 5'2", so obviously I don't see why she is trying so
hard.
>
JD
(run, duck ...)
<cowboy...@nobother.apk.noemail.net> wrote in message
> OK, so you're a jackass. Thanks for showing us all that.
>
> Cowboy
>
JD
(boy oh boy ... I would love to transcribe your autopsy)
George UK <geo...@gymonthehill.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:383183d5...@news.freeserve.net...
>
>
> >Yeah right ... like I'd want to produce testerone. I want to
> >produce that as much as I want to look like (IMO) those freaks
in
> >the gym who are pumped up on steroids, men and women alike.
> >
> Better than those people who endlessly do classes, but never
improve
> 1%. (IMO)
>
JD
> Aerobic classes alone are far inferior to gym work. Aerobic
classes
> seem to be filled with fat women who stay fat.
Never the ones that I've seen.
> Why do you need an instructor with a lot of patience? All you
need is
> a programme for the gym that gets updated every 6 - 8 weeks. The
hard
> work and discipline comes from yourself.
Because ... I have difficulty learning routines. Don't ask me why.
Arthur Murray would make a fortune off of me, because I require
2-3x as long to learn dance steps than anyone else. And this from
the person who is dying to learn the lindy.
> Because YOU have full control over how long, and how hard you go.
You
> don't have to fit in with the times of classes. Why would these
not
> work for you? This is a bit defeatest. Sticking to a point of
> "comfort" is no fun. Intensity of a relatively high nature gives
more a buzz.
Not defeatest in the least. I hate the stairmaster and I'm not
overly fond of using the stationary bike for long periods of time.
The treadmill is my "comfort zone" but that doesn't mean that I
don't increase the intensity. I try to stay over 130 bpm throughout
at this point in time. I'll increase a little at a time.
I know me and what works for me and what will scare me off if I
push too hard. Trust me ... this is the longest I've stuck with any
program of this nature, so I know I'm doing what's right for me.
JD
I know this'll come as a shock, but you don't have the patent on
what's right for everyone.
George UK <geo...@gymonthehill.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38319e12...@news.freeserve.net...
>
>
> >Your statementson aerobics intensity shows you haven't a clue
what you
> >speak about. If you go easy, it's YOUR fault. Don't be a fool
and
> >generalize like you do.
> >
> Whoop de doo. The truth hurts doesn't it. The aerobics part of
> aerobics classes are piss easy. It's only the "dancing about"
which is
> hard.
>
> Aerobics classes are shite.
>
Mistress Krista
> Okay Krista, let's cut through the BS and get straight to the
> point.
>
> I think you have an excellent web site. That being said ...
>
> I have also seen your recent pictures and I (personally) think
> you're too heavy. I think you'd look much better if you knocked off
> about 10 pounds.
<laugh> Well, thanks. I think you'd be be less full of shit if you did some
research, but did I feel compelled to share that with the class? No.
Currently my bodyfat is in the high range of "lean" at about 19%. This is
optimal for strength gain. The average bodyfat of a healthy woman is
21-25%. I still have visible abs, and I can fit into a size 4-6. I can
also easily maintain 14-15% bodyfat, and have done so, although this level
of bodyfat is counterproductive to strength gain. You may have noticed that
I have funny bulgy things, which are called muscles. They move heavy things
around, and keep my metabolism so fast that I can hog down 2500 cals a day
and still stay lean.
>
> But, it don't matter sh*t what *I* think about the way you look or
> how much body-fat you have, now does it? All that matter is what
> YOU think about the way you look and how much body-fat you have.
>
> I think I've made my point, loud and clear.
Actually, you've just exposed yourself as someone who uses ad hominem
attacks to make their point. You haven't helped your case at all.
Krista
--
-------------------------
http://krista.tico.com/weights.html
mistres...@home.com
Matt Madsen
>First things first: No one has a right to tell you that you don't need to
>look the best you can. I think that if you want to lose ten pounds then
>it's your deal. *period*.
I don't think that's what they're saying. They're saying that starving
won't get you the look (or health) you want, and the scale weight is a
terrible indicator of leanness (or health).
Matt Madsen
Neefer Duir
> > 2. If 17% BF is acceptable to you, then you have 17% BF.
> Eh. I said it was acceptable on a woman. How did you arrive at this
> decision?
> > If that is what I have, it's too much for me.
> >
> Me as well, but then, as I am not female, it is much easier for me
> to maintain a lower % bodyfat than most women.
According to the American Heart Association, a healthy bodyfat for
women is less than 27%. That is, up to 27%, there are no additional
risks of obesity related diseases. If you are basing "acceptable" on
healthy, then 27% (rather than 17%) is very acceptable.
Of course, if you are basing "acceptable" on fashion, then you probably
feel differently about visible bodyfat, and so I suppose 17% might be
or might not be considered acceptable. It would all depend on where
the woman in question stores her fat. There is absolutely no
guarrentee that a low bodyfat level will result in a fashionable
body. The woman in question may find that she still has visible
bodyfat on her hips and thighs and none where her breasts usually are.
IMHO, heathly is much more meaningful than fashionable.
Jennifer in California, http://www.oaktrees.org/fitness/
obi-john
> Okay Krista, let's cut through the BS and get straight to the
> point.
>
> I think you have an excellent web site. That being said ...
>
> I have also seen your recent pictures and I (personally) think
> you're too heavy. I think you'd look much better if you knocked off
> about 10 pounds.
>
> But, it don't matter sh*t what *I* think about the way you look or
> how much body-fat you have, now does it? All that matter is what
> YOU think about the way you look and how much body-fat you have.
I think you are the most misguided, full of shit person I've seen on mfw
in quite a while. I measured Krista at under 16% bodyfat about a month
ago. If she lost 10 lbs she'd look emaciated.
If you're leaner than Krista, I'll eat my hat. And if you look fitter
and stronger than Krista, I'll eat your hat, too. Idiot.
john
--
obi...@cavesofice.org / http://www.jwash.com
"My quest for hamstring flexiblity isn't related to SLDLs,
but rather kicking people in the head." -- Viki
obi-john
> Currently my bodyfat is in the high range of "lean" at about 19%.
There's no way you're over 18%. You're not really at a noticeably higher bodyfat
than you were a month ago, and 3% on you would be pretty visible.
JD
totally on the defensive and spewed forth 5000 platitudes trying to
"justify" your weight, your muscles, your pant size, your body-fat
and whatever else you were trying to "justify." Big wow ... you're
19%, size 4-6 and consume twice as many calories as me. Yes and?
Let's try this again ...
Bottom line: I could care less about any of the above. It's not
my body. It's your body. If you're happy with your body, that's the
only thing of importance.
This all started because Valerie expressed an interest in weighing
104 lb again and was looking for assistance. Some people jumped her
case about it. I didn't. Her body, her choice.
And as far as doing research ... I don't have to do research on
furs to know what I like. Even if all facts point to, perhaps, mink
having a longer life than seal, it won't change the fact that if I
choose to buy a fuy coat I'm going to purchase a seal coat.
Personal choice is the bottom line. Always has been and always will
be. Why can't you see that without getting your knickers in a twist
and feel that I'm attacking your body? Never was.
Mistress Krista <mistres...@home.com> wrote in message
news:XliY3.61712$it.15...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
> JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in message
> news:91iY3.1968$Dm.7...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com...
> > Okay Krista, let's cut through the BS and get straight to the
> > point.
> >
> > I think you have an excellent web site. That being said ...
> >
> > I have also seen your recent pictures and I (personally) think
> > you're too heavy. I think you'd look much better if you knocked
off
> > about 10 pounds.
>
>
> <laugh> Well, thanks. I think you'd be be less full of shit if
you did some
> research, but did I feel compelled to share that with the class?
No.
>
> Currently my bodyfat is in the high range of "lean" at about 19%.
This is
> optimal for strength gain. The average bodyfat of a healthy
woman is
> 21-25%. I still have visible abs, and I can fit into a size 4-6.
I can
> also easily maintain 14-15% bodyfat, and have done so, although
this level
> of bodyfat is counterproductive to strength gain. You may have
noticed that
> I have funny bulgy things, which are called muscles. They move
heavy things
> around, and keep my metabolism so fast that I can hog down 2500
cals a day
> and still stay lean.
>
>
> >
> > But, it don't matter sh*t what *I* think about the way you look
or
> > how much body-fat you have, now does it? All that matter is
what
> > YOU think about the way you look and how much body-fat you
have.
> >
JD
starving, although some people might say that I am. Believe me ...
I get plenty to eat: three good-sized meals and two snacks (if I'm
in the mood to eat them).
Matt Madsen <mma...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:80sbtu$a48$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
JD
waist down with big breasts and have 16% body-fat, another woman
can be slender from the waist up and have the same 16% body-fat ...
but one woman would appear to be thinner than the other.
Like I said before ... I consider Corey Everson to have "the
perfect body." Not too thin and not too heavy. I just have no idea
what her BF ratio is.
Neefer Duir <neeferdui...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:004aa0e3...@usw-ex0102-012.remarq.com...
> In article <80qb39$e4s$2...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "Eric
Midkiff"
> <ericm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in message
Tommy Bowen
JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote:
> <cowboy...@nobother.apk.noemail.net> wrote :
> > OK, so you're a jackass. Thanks for showing us all that.
> >
> Ever wonder why a man's name precedes the word "ass."
>
No, but I see your point. It also explains how a "Lazy Susan" got its
name.
- Tommy
JD
attacked her. My perception of her body is that she carries too
much weight. I didn't say I was right. I merely said it was *my
perception* of her physique. But I added that it didn't mean jack
what I thought. What mattered is what KRISTA thought of herself.
Hell ... if we both go to a movie together, she loves it and I hate
it, that makes her right and me wrong, or vice versa? Not hardly.
I also happen to think the steroid-pumped women who compete in
bodybuilding contests are totally grotesque to look at. But what
the hey ... they all have less body-fat and more lean muscle mass
than me. They can lift more weights than me. They can do aerobics
far longer and harder than I am. I guess that makes them better
women than me. Fine, so be it. Whatever floats their boat.
Oh, and one more thing. Ask yourself if all the Playboy bunnies are
as physically fit as Krista. If they're not then I guess ... well,
you fill in the blanks.
Perception ... 'tis all it is.
obi-john <obi...@cavesofice.org> wrote in message
news:3831B49D...@cavesofice.org...
> JD wrote:
>
> > Okay Krista, let's cut through the BS and get straight to the
> > point.
> >
> > I think you have an excellent web site. That being said ...
> >
> > I have also seen your recent pictures and I (personally) think
> > you're too heavy. I think you'd look much better if you knocked
off
> > about 10 pounds.
> >
> > But, it don't matter sh*t what *I* think about the way you look
or
> > how much body-fat you have, now does it? All that matter is
what
> > YOU think about the way you look and how much body-fat you
have.
>
> I think you are the most misguided, full of shit person I've seen
on mfw
> in quite a while. I measured Krista at under 16% bodyfat about a
month
> ago. If she lost 10 lbs she'd look emaciated.
>
> If you're leaner than Krista, I'll eat my hat. And if you look
fitter
> and stronger than Krista, I'll eat your hat, too. Idiot.
>
Zafar Hashmi
<80s4km$l1n$1...@plonk.apk.net>...
> Your statementson aerobics intensity shows you haven't a clue what you
> speak about. If you go easy, it's YOUR fault. Don't be a fool and
> generalize like you do.
>
I think you missed George's point.
Using a piece of CV equipment allows one more control of the variables
involved.
The length, intensity, frequency, time of day etc.
While it is true you may not enjoy the stepper, if you can get over the "I
don't like it syndrome" statistically you will miss few stepper session
than you will aerobic classes over the course of a year, simply do to it
convenience.
>
> In alt.support.diet.low-fat George UK
<geo...@gymonthehill.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:00:41 GMT, "JD" <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote:
>
> >>George UK <geo...@gymonthehill.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:383031ed...@news.freeserve.net...
> >>>>>Weight training will not make her big. She should forget the
> >>aerobic classes, and do a free weight based exercise prog, followed by
> >>30 - 40 mins bike or stepper.
> >>
> >>I never said weight training would make her big. What I said was it
> >>would develop/build muscle, which in turn will burn calories when
> >>she's not working out.
>
> > Which is good.
>
> >>As far as forgetting aerobics ... absolutely not. I've yet to join,
> >>simply because I'm a slow learner and can't pick up the steps. But if
> >>I can find an instructor with a lot of patience, I'm joining asap and
> >>that's when I'll see the body-fat drop.
>
> > Aerobic classes alone are far inferior to gym work. Aerobic classes
> > seem to be filled with fat women who stay fat.
>
> > Why do you need an instructor with a lot of patience? All you need is
> > a programme for the gym that gets updated every 6 - 8 weeks. The hard
> > work and discipline comes from yourself.
>
> >>And why the bike or stepper in particular? I think the issue, like
> >>many of said, is using what you're most likely to stick with. Neither
> >>of these would work for me for the duration, and they may or may not
> >>for Valerie. She has to find her "point of comfort," and go with that.
> >>
> > Because YOU have full control over how long, and how hard you go. You
> > don't have to fit in with the times of classes. Why would these not
> > work for you? This is a bit defeatest. Sticking to a point of
> > "comfort" is no fun. Intensity of a relatively high nature gives more
> > a buzz.
>
--
Zaf
Mr Olimpia? Is this the bodybuilding competition for people with injuries?
Chiney
Zafar Hashmi
Eric Midkiff <ericm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<80s7rb$gmm$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> Zaf <zafar.hash...@unilever.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:000b8d9b...@usw-ex0107-042.remarq.com...
> > > > > The average American does not do aerobics and work out with
> > > > > weights, so at least there's some guide for them to go by. In
> > > fact,
> > > > > according to a recent health report I heard on TV two days ago
> > > "the
> > > > > average 5'4" female weighs 143 lb."
> > > > Basing any statement of what one should weigh on the average
> > > American is
> > > > completely idiot, given what fat, out shape, weak pieces of crap
> > > they are.
> > > Uh ... the news piece was about the dangers of the thin actresses
> > > in Tinseltown and it's effect on teenage girls, who believe thin is
> > > the only way to be, i.e. Calista Flockheart.
> >
> > The point Eric was trying to make is those height to weight charts are
> > about as accurate as guessing your bra size based on how tall you are.
> > It is quite possible for someone to the correct weight for their height
> > and still have 40 % bodyfat. It is also possible for someone to be 30
> > lbs heavier than the chart says you should be but have a healthy
> > bodyfat %.
> >
>
> This seemed more than obvious to me.
True, but you have encounter 100's of PL'er and BB'er who do not fall into
the correct height to weight ratio.
If the average person see someone over 220 lbs they are usually fat
therefore they are more likely to believe the height to weight thing.
Zafar Hashmi
Mistress Krista <mistres...@home.com> wrote in article
<XliY3.61712$it.15...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>...
> I have funny bulgy things,
Yep, most of the guys have noticed those.
> which are called muscles.
Oh those bulgy thing. ;)
Zafar Hashmi
JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote in article
<2ciY3.1974$Dm.7...@typhoon.midsouth.rr.com>...
> I hope you aren't running out of track marks.
>
> (boy oh boy ... I would love to transcribe your autopsy)
>
>
Scar tissue not track marks.
They're IM not IV.
Vitore Selca
>I have also seen your recent pictures and I (personally) think
>you're too heavy. I think you'd look much better if you knocked off
>about 10 pounds.
That's insane. She very clearly doesn't have 10 pounds to lose.
Unless, of course, as I mentioned earlier, your personal goal is
not leanness or fitness, but to simply take up less space. Sure,
that's your perogative, but it's also comes across as neurotic
and ... so anti-body.
Anyway, let's see your pics.
Viki
--
If you asked me what I came into this world to do, I will
tell you: I came to live out loud. -- Emile Zola
JD
Tommy Bowen <lif...@roxboro.net> wrote in message
news:h9jY3.1728$9F4....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
JD
where the needle enters the body: IV or IM ... heroin addict or
insulin-dependent diabetic.
Zafar Hashmi <yp...@uk.uumail.com> wrote in message
news:01bf3075$b2c009e0$LocalHost@zhashmi95...
JD
suppose. However long it takes. That means, no bulges, ripples and
paunches.
Like I said before, here's my perception of a gorgeous body that's
both lean and physically fit:
http://www.amazon.com/images/P/0399518584.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif
You can have them both.
Vitore Selca <vse...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:e6kY3.408$j4.9445@uchinews...
viz...@bellsouth.net
> You may have noticed that I have funny bulgy things
>
> Krista
I'll bet Chris likes those two (too) :)
Kevin
Julien Gauthier
question what is "ideal".
JG
Matt Madsen
JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote:
>Like I said before, here's my perception of a gorgeous body that's
>both lean and physically fit:
>http://www.amazon.com/images/P/0399518584.01.LZZZZZZZ.gif
Do you have any idea how much that gorgeous, lean, and fit body
(Cory Everson's) weighs? It's not 100 lbs. It's not 110 lbs.
It's not 120 lbs. It's not 130 lbs.
That physique has a LOT of muscle and weighs quite a bit. (I
assume someone on the weights group knows her weight or where
to find it.)
Matt Madsen
Whitney Richtmyer
> Yet if her choice is to have an "ideal shape" , its legitimate to
> question what is "ideal".
>
>
> JG
Well, that could fill a volume right there. She probably has a mental
picture of the "ideal shape" for her, just like I have an image of what it
would be for me. The problem is that she is stuck with her bone structure,
her muscle attachments, etc. She can change her body shape to some extent,
but her hips, her breasts (not withstanding surgery), etc. are hers for
life, just like my (mediocre) biceps peak, etc. are with me. My ideal shape
might be 5'11, but since I'm just shy of 5'10, that's a little unrealistic.
Now, bear in mind that I am not a bber (I do not work out for the PURPOSE of
aesthetics FIRST), I am an athlete who enjoys the "looks" aspect of what
strength training can bring me, but looks come AFTER performance for me.
Fortunately, in most cases, looks and performance are somewhat complementary
for MY IDEAL SHAPE. Maybe she wants to look like Elizabeth Hurley, or
Andrulla Blanchette? WHo knows? It's her goddamn body, and nobody can tell
her what her IDEAL SHAPE is but her.
Whitney
S & R Heard
definitely try measuring next time.
Matt Madsen
JD <j...@do.not.reply.com> wrote:
>I tend to perceive all injections in the same manner, no matter
>where the needle enters the body: IV or IM ... heroin addict or
>insulin-dependent diabetic.
Those are both IV injections -- into a vein. Steroids are injected
intra-muscularly, like all the various shots in the arm or butt you've
received at the doctor over the years.
Also, anabolic-androgenic steroids are really just the male equivalent
of the female birth control pill. They're synthetic "male" hormones
-- nothing at all like any narcotic drug.
Matt Madsen
Tom Morley
Krista" <mistres...@home.com> wrote:
> <laugh> Well, thanks. I think you'd be be less full of shit if you did some
> research, but did I feel compelled to share that with the class? No.
>
> Currently my bodyfat is in the high range of "lean" at about 19%. This is
> optimal for strength gain. The average bodyfat of a healthy woman is
> 21-25%. I still have visible abs, and I can fit into a size 4-6. I can
> also easily maintain 14-15% bodyfat, and have done so, although this level
> of bodyfat is counterproductive to strength gain. You may have noticed that
> I have funny bulgy things, which are called muscles. They move heavy things
> around, and keep my metabolism so fast that I can hog down 2500 cals a day
> and still stay lean.
>
>
I want some funny bulgy things, too!
--
Tom Morley |
mor...@math.gatech.edu | Cronopio, cronopio.
tmo...@bmtc.mindspring.com |
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~morley | -- Cronopios y de Famas
ICQ: 24798603 | Julio Cortazar
viz...@bellsouth.net
> I hope you aren't running out of track marks.
>
> (boy oh boy ... I would love to transcribe your autopsy)
I really doubt George has track marks and will be leaving this earth
anytime soon. He happens to be one of the most perfect human
specimens living.
If you don't believe me take a gander at his website sometime, see
the pictures of his magnificent physique and maybe you may learn
something.
George don't listen to this person they are just jealous.
Kevin Clements
viz...@bellsouth.net
> Interestingly enough, I don't think Bette Midler is not all that
> big. She's buxom.
>
> R+P ROSIE
You obviously haven't seen her lately, she's a FAT COW !
I saw her about a month ago at the National Car Rental Center near Ft
Lauderdale and believe me she looked like she had been grazing in the
cow pastures just a mile or so away from the stadium.
Kevin Clements
R+P ROSIE
KEVIN SAID:
>You obviously haven't seen her lately, she's a FAT COW !
>
Hey, what's that all about?
why the name calling?
she didn't look fat to me, and she sure looks to be in good shape! you
should have seen her dance!
she sang for 3 hours, with only a 15minute break!
some COW!
rosie