94% FF Micro popcorn points...
Tim
few months (I took the holidays off from WW--I know, a bad idea) and the
receptionist was telling me the 94% fat-free microwave popcorn is 4
points/bag. This seems like a lot. I have always counted it as 2. Is 4
correct?
jo...@nothere.net
automatically considered an entire bag as one serving. I count the bag as 2
servings (I think a serving size is 6 or 7 cups popped, which is about half
the bag) - and 2 points per serving ... which would come out to 4 pts. per
entire bag.
Joyce
--
NAFC website can be found at: http://home.earthlink.net/~jaw179/
Kali
news:BA44EA6B.445A%t...@nospamminghotmail.com...
If it's the snack size bag, it's two points. A large bag is more.
Miss Violette
Tony Florida
Well, I guess I've been under-reporting.... Hmmmm.....
Tony Florida
259/237/155 (since Oct 9, '02)
1st 10% goal = 233; WAYOOM goal 246
=============================
Tim <t...@nospamminghotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BA44EA6B.445A%t...@nospamminghotmail.com...
SuzyQ
it's 1 point per serving. The problem comes when you eat 2 servings because
there is some debate about counting the fiber again. I figure if 1 serving
is 1 point then 2 servings is 2 points. I also don't think I got overweight
by eating too much FF popcorn!
--
SuzyQ
141 / 131.4 / 130
125 NAFC and personal goal
WW 11/7/2002
"Tim" <t...@nospamminghotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BA44EA6B.445A%t...@nospamminghotmail.com...
Miss Violette
SuzyQ <ne...@chiefimaging.com> wrote in message
news:avpmvq$i590f$1...@ID-88342.news.dfncis.de...
Chris
news:BA44EA6B.445A%t...@nospamminghotmail.com:
Depends on the brand. The Jolly Time is 1 point per serving and 2.5
servings per bag. Others are more points. This is the lowest point (and
best tasting IMHO) of the bunch.
--
Started Weight Watchers together February 2002:
Chris
332.4/224/185
Pat
198.4/162/155
2002 loss 139
2003 loss 5.2
Combined loss of 144.2 lbs
JR
system, and it has worked for me wonderfully. I lost 50 lbs on it, 210 down
to 160. But along the way, I learned something. (which my WIFE, by the
way, hasn't seemed to realize)...
Please excuse my rant. (and pontification). I have been there, done that,
several times, and realized that I have made BAD mistakes.
I see WAY too many posts about the consumption of large amounts of food just
because they are low cal, low fat, high fiber.
It's NOT just what you are eating, but the WAY you are eating.
Weight Watchers is not about being able to eat 2 bags of popcorn in front of
the TV just because it's only 2 points a bag. Weight Watchers is not about
eating 5 bowls of 0 point soup for dinner just because you can. Weight
Watchers is not about making and eating an entire large batch of chili with
meatless crumbles because it's only 3 points because of all the fiber (old
system). Weight Watchers is not about sitting in front of the TV eating and
entire bag of baby carrots and dipping them in fat free ranch salad
dressing.
If you do all of the above, you are (most likely) doomed to failure.
Weight Watchers is about changing your bad eating habits and learning to
exercise a little. Changing your entire way of life (particularly if your
way of life totally revolves around eating).
That includes not eating when you're not hungry. Just because you're in
front of the TV doesn't mean it's time to eat. I had to teach myself to do
several things. One is, NEVER eat in front of the TV. I used to grab a
sandwich, turn on the TV and sit down in front of it. Oh yeah, it's a
commercial, go grab that bag of chips, and a beer....What happens when
you've lost the weight and start buying fattier foods again? You sit in
front of the TV and eat again. And you're not even hungry! What helped me?
I ONLY eat at the dinner table now. Even if there's no one home.
Don't eat something just because it's low points. Once again, if you eat
when you're hungry, and seek out decent things to eat, that include
vegetables, instead of junk, you'll fill up, and you won't have to eat as
much. I could eat an entire bag of Doritos, even when not hungry, just
because they LOOKED good. Somehow, I learned, and don't ask me how, not to
eat when I wasn't hungry. And, BTW, it IS difficult at parties, and I
sometimes fall "off the WW wagon", but I try to eat things that are filling
but are also good for me, like vegetables and stuff.
Watch your portion sizes. I think that this for me was one of the keys.
Like eating an entire bag of popcorn. Of 5 bowls of 0 point soup. If you
teach yourself to eat proper portions, then when the fatty stuff at a
restaurant comes along when you're out someday, you won't "supersize" it.
Sorry for the rant, but I see way to many posts about incredibly large
amounts of food eaten just in the name of low points. That's not the way to
go.
Jeff.
Miss Violette
low point food serves the purpose of a little bit of chosen to allow our
heads, stomachs and bodies to begin relearning. I am not a big portion in
front of the TV but if I were it would be better to eat a few points of
popcorn rather than a huge points worth of fudge. Eventually we must each
learn what is best for our own individual bodies. Some eat small volume,
high point foods and do fine others eat a much larger volume of food for
fewer points, I am sorry I just don't think there is a hard and fast rule
here, Lee
JR <jric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qIKV9.831$mX3.36...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
elaine
I'm not convinced you're completely right here....
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 03:25:10 GMT, "JR" <jric...@hotmail.com> wrote:>
>I see WAY too many posts about the consumption of large amounts of food just
>because they are low cal, low fat, high fiber.>
>It's NOT just what you are eating, but the WAY you are eating.
>
>Weight Watchers is not about being able to eat 2 bags of popcorn in front of
>the TV just because it's only 2 points a bag. <snip>>
>If you do all of the above, you are (most likely) doomed to failure.
>
>Weight Watchers is about changing your bad eating habits and learning to
>exercise a little. Changing your entire way of life (particularly if your
>way of life totally revolves around eating).
The thing is, eating something that is low fat, low cal and high
fiber, especially if it gets you down to a decent weight *is* changing
the way that people are eating! And for healthier eating to be
maintained over the long term (lifetime) it has to fit people's
lifestyle. So when it's -40 here and pitch dark and I decide to watch
TV instead of going out, and I have saved points for a snack, there's
nothing wrong with that bag of popcorn, if it keeps me at a healthy
weight and on program over the long term.
elaine
Thyme
just
> because they are low cal, low fat, high fiber.
Are we reading the same newsgroup? The only thing I see way too many posts
about is consumption of large volumes of water, which I happen to think is
unneccesary. 5 bowls of zero point vegetable soup is a lot of water and a
lot of servings of vegetables (which is a very good thing).
> Weight Watchers is not about being able to eat 2 bags of popcorn in front
of
> the TV just because it's only 2 points a bag.
No, but if you *consciously* choose to do so, I think it can fit into the WW
plan and a lifetime way of eating that supports healthy weight management.
It's eating mindlessly most of the time that gets us in trouble. And I say
this as a person who doesn't eat popcorn and, who, except for vegetables,
often chooses snacks that are more calorie dense (small portion of soy
crisps with cheese and caviar) than less (larger portion of air popped
popcorn).
I know that many people find it helpful when they eat to do NOTHING else but
eat. I don't happen to find that helpful. My life is too busy. My problem
is that when multitasking in the past I made mindless choices. Now, when
multitasking, and when that multitasking includes eating, I make sure that
part of the multitasking is to make a consicous and deliberate food choice.
Sometimes I simultaneously eat, browse the internet, watch TV and fold
laundry. But I choose beforehand what I will eat and how much. That was
the key for me.
> Weight Watchers is not about
> eating 5 bowls of 0 point soup for dinner just because you can.
But it could be about eating 5 bowls of 0 point vegetable soup because you
are very hungry, and want to eat a lot of servings of vegetables.
Not only that, but 5 bowls of 0 point soup would no longer be 0 points. (I
know that some people count them this way, but strictly speaking one should
count up the calories, fat, and fiber for the whole serving size -- 5
bowls -- and figure the point count based on that. It would no longer be 0
points for 5 bowls.) This is one of the reasons I like the online WW etools.
It dutifully counts up the points when I have, say, 1 lb of frozen stir-fry
vegetables. Which, BTW, I consider a very healthy part of my diet and
something I wished I ate more of (I don't usually have 1 lb of frozen stir
fry vegetables every day).
Getting used to smaller portions IS important. But more important, IMO, is
getting used to monitoring your intake and making conscious choices every
time you eat. Every time. If at first it helps to focus on the foods that
are less energy dense, so be it. I think people will eventually get tired
of just eating such foods and start realizing they can have the richer foods
they used to eat, just in smaller portions.
Also, I think a good case can be made that the standard american (or
western) diet is too high in energy density and that we should be filling up
a little more than we are on the less calorie dense food (like non-starchy
vegetables).
> That includes not eating when you're not hungry.
I often eat when I am not hungry. I do so before going to a party that will
have only high calorie, non-nutritious foods and I will be trapped there for
a long time. I do so before a long car trip where I won't have time to stop
for food, don't have time to prepare portable food and would get hungry and
perhaps dangerously dizzy on the road if I didn't eat. I do so when someone
makes a special dish and asks me to taste it and give my opinion. I did so
in Thailand when I searched and searched for someone offering fresh durian
and finally found someone at a time I wasn't hungry (I was halfway around
the world and wanted to taste this infamous fruit). I do so when travelling
with a large group of people and we have to compromise on when the meal time
is. I do so when I am sick and my appetite is gone but I know it is
important to get nutrition in so I heal faster.
The important thing is to do so consciously and rationally and know why you
are.
> One is, NEVER eat in front of the TV. I used to grab a
> sandwich, turn on the TV and sit down in front of it. Oh yeah, it's a
> commercial, go grab that bag of chips, and a beer....What happens when
> you've lost the weight and start buying fattier foods again? You sit in
> front of the TV and eat again. And you're not even hungry! What helped
me?
> I ONLY eat at the dinner table now. Even if there's no one home.
I don't have a dinner table. I don't even have a table. I eat in front of
the TV almost everyday (simultaneously in front the TV and computer). I buy
fatty, rich foods (and lots of healthy ones, too). I don't watch
commercials (I have TIVO yeah!). But I don't mindlessly eat food or get
more without thinking. I decide what I will have and eat that. If I want
more, I decide if I should have more and eat more only if appropriate.
In fact, I have found that I can eat appropriately in every situation I've
encountered. At every restaurant, friend's house, party, and with every
kind of food, including cheesecake, steak, fettucine alfredo, etc. In front
of the TV, while doing other things, alone, with friends, and every
situation so far. THAT's real power, for me.
I know that one very, very important skill for some people is identifying
"trigger" foods and "trigger" events that they have to totally avoid. At
this point, I don't have ANY foods or situations I've had to eliminate from
my life to succeed. Some foods and events are harder than others, but I
plan for them. I CAN do the bad party and get my meal there if I have to
(or it is unexpected), but I prefer to eat beforehand (more enjoyable). So,
I certainly don't want to give the impression that elimination or avoidance
is bad -- some people find this critical to their success. It's just that
there is another way: choosing to appropriately eat in every situation, even
when that situation is eating in front of the TV.
> Watch your portion sizes. I think that this for me was one of the keys.
> .... If you
> teach yourself to eat proper portions, then when the fatty stuff at a
> restaurant comes along when you're out someday, you won't "supersize" it.
YES!! Totally agree. I think it is important to learn what the proper
portion sizes of rich foods are. It was key for me, as well. AND it is
what enables me to eat proper portions, even when I have my breakfast and
snack of cheese and caviar in front of the TV. :-)
Thyme
236/181/158
Lesanne
SUCH a rant as I was going to, but...
There are days, when a whole bag of popcorn is the only thing that is
between me and some not so great choice, days when I feel so hungry that I
am badly uncomfortable.
I have no trigger foods either, much as Thyme describes. I can eat a little
of anything and go on about my business and it makes no difference to me
where I eat it either. Much like my naturally thin friends.
That said, if I am having one of those "hungry" days, I will seek out high
volume low point foods, and feed my hungry body. I can tell physical hunger
from emotional hunger *finally* after a lot of work and therapy :).
The really important thing here, is what works for Me is not the same as
what works for You. I won't tell you to try to do it my way.
Lesanne
(365)247/187.8/159
"JR" <jric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qIKV9.831$mX3.36...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
SuzyQ
to imagine someone eating 5 bowls of 0 point soup for any other reason than
hunger. Still realizing that would be better than a binge on any other food
in the universe.
--
SuzyQ
141 / 131/ 132
125 NAFC and personal goal
WW 11/7/2002
"Lesanne" <latx4...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CLTV9.14918$Dq.14...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Tony Florida
shred the writer of this post. Decided to wait. Good choice.
JR, first things first. This is a WW *support* group. Now, I'm
not a fan of jargon, nor of pop psychology, nor of
pseudo-intellectualism. I *do,* however, know rudeness when I see
it.
Internet protocol generally is that when visiting a newsgroup,
one introduces oneself, after reading for a decent interval. One
does not barge in with a fistful of opinions and pronouncements,
and start defecating on everyone's monitor with them.
Your parents may have thought that brow-beating, shaking a
finger, and screaming 'Bad boy!' were support; this group does
not.
In short, who the hell do you think you are, you picayune little
smart-ass??
The Weight Watchers program is designed so that people of all
eating profiles, all backgrounds, all ages and sizes can LEARN to
eat in a more healthy manner. You twit! If we were all so bloody
perfect, we wouldn't need to be here, would we??
And, along that line: If you're so damn smart, how did you become
a fatso?!? Seems to me someone with the erudition and superior
position you claim for yourself would *never* be caught dead in
such a situation.
Lastly, if you think you are in a position to drop in and tell us
what WW is "about" and "not about," you'd better bring a note
from the board of directors. Your opinions are your opinions;
they don't mean spit. Now sit down and shut up until you can
learn some manners.
Tony Florida
259/234.5/155 (since Oct 9, '02)
1st 10% goal = 233; NAFC = 220
=============================
JR <jric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qIKV9.831$mX3.36...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
elaine
<tonyNOS...@comcast.net> wrote:
>In short, who the hell do you think you are, you picayune little
>smart-ass??
>
The more I think about the original post the more I wonder whether the
answer to this question is a five letter word starting with tr and
rhyming with poll....
elaine :)
Tony Florida
Thanks, elaine. :-))
Tony Florida
259/234.5/155 (since Oct 9, '02)
1st 10% goal = 233; NAFC = 220
=============================
elaine <eg...@noteluspamlanet.net> wrote in message
news:3e28470c...@news.telusplanet.net...
Elaine Kirkham
Elaine K
331.4/197.2/179
JR
"Miss Violette" <Rgr...@mcleodusa.net> wrote in message
news:3e27810c$1...@news.teranews.com...
> I think you are partly right. In the beginning I think large portions of
..> Some eat small volume,
> high point foods and do fine others eat a much larger volume of food for
> fewer points, I am sorry I just don't think there is a hard and fast rule
> here
Agreed, but I would think in general, changing the way you eat, not just
WHAT you eat will help alot. I know many friends who have done diets,
including WW, who have, when they have reached their goal, gone back to bad
eating HABITS, primarily because they never learned to eat "correctly" while
they were on the diet, and went right back where they were. Me included.
Maintaining is NOT easy. As a matter of fact, I think it's HARDER than
dieting to begin with. It is a life long process. Sad, depressing, but
true.
JR
"Thyme" <th...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:C5NV9.61175$Ik.22...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> "JR" <jric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qIKV9.831$mX3.36...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> >> I see WAY too many posts about the consumption of large amounts of food
> just
> > because they are low cal, low fat, high fiber.
>
> Are we reading the same newsgroup? The only thing I see way too many
posts
> about is consumption of large volumes of water, which I happen to think is
> unneccesary.
Dunno Thyme. I've been lurking here for 3 years, and I have seen plenty of
posts about people who are all excited that they can eat large amounts of
food JUST because it is low points.
> bowls of zero point vegetable soup is a lot of water and a
> lot of servings of vegetables (which is a very good thing).
Then you're missing my point. A new way of eating DOES include eating
different foods, but it does also include how much you eat, when you eat,
etc.
>
> > Weight Watchers is not about being able to eat 2 bags of popcorn in
front
> of
> > the TV just because it's only 2 points a bag.
>
> No, but if you *consciously* choose to do so,
Now you're talking something different. For me it was, TV-> eat.
Automatic. Didn't even think about it. And I would guess that there is a
fair majority of people who do/did the same thing, regardless of the fact
that they want to admit it or not.
> It's eating mindlessly most of the time that gets us in trouble.
Exactly.
> laundry. But I choose beforehand what I will eat and how much. That was
> the key for me.
Then you are probably on a successful road.
>
> > Weight Watchers is not about
> > eating 5 bowls of 0 point soup for dinner just because you can.
>
> But it could be about eating 5 bowls of 0 point vegetable soup because you
> are very hungry, and want to eat a lot of servings of vegetables.
Hmmmm. Yes, but get real. If you follow a plan of eating small portions
more often, like WW suggests, and vary your foods, do you really think that
people will be hungry enough all the time to eat huge amounts of food? I'm
not talking the once in a while, out shoveling snow all day, come in and eat
5 bowls of soup, I'm talking about the day to day thing.
>
> Not only that, but 5 bowls of 0 point soup would no longer be 0 points.
(I
> know that some people count them this way, but strictly speaking one
should
> count up the calories, fat, and fiber for the whole serving size -- 5
Ah, yes. And why do you think that WW changed the "formula"? Because
people were abusing it. They realized that if they ate high fiber foods
that would reduce the point value. And things happened. For one, they had
gastro problems probably. For another, they probably did NOT lose the
weight they thought they would. And they still maintained the proper amount
of points! Which just plays right into my "learn to eat different" theory.
> > That includes not eating when you're not hungry.
>
> I often eat when I am not hungry. I do so before going to a party that
will
> have only high calorie, non-nutritious foods and I will be trapped there
for
You're being silly. Of course you would eat if you're not hungry in those
situations. You know darn well I was talking about people who just eat for
the sake of eating.
> > I ONLY eat at the dinner table now. Even if there's no one home.
>
> I don't have a dinner table. I don't even have a table.
You're being silly again. The point was that don't eat in the familiar
places where you have eaten improperly before. I do think that you are in
the minority, not having a dinner table, and all.
> In front
> of the TV, while doing other things, alone, with friends, and every
> situation so far. THAT's real power, for me.
Then that's good. But once again, I think you are in the vast minority. I
may be wrong.
>
> I know that one very, very important skill for some people is identifying
> "trigger" foods and "trigger" events that they have to totally avoid.
Yeah, and a trigger is the TV. Sheesh, I don't think it's THAT hard to
figure out that I wasn't specifically talking about just a TV.
>
> YES!! Totally agree. I think it is important to learn what the proper
> portion sizes of rich foods are. It was key for me, as well. AND it is
> what enables me to eat proper portions, even when I have my breakfast and
> snack of cheese and caviar in front of the TV. :-)
Well, except for the sodium, I don't think that caviar is too bad. Just
expensive. :-)
JR
> Hi,
>
> I'm not convinced you're completely right here....
I'll take just a little bit right, though....:-)
>
JR
"Lesanne" <latx4...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CLTV9.14918$Dq.14...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
on
> SUCH a rant as I was going to, but...
Thank you. You seem to have more restraint than others. :-)
>
> There are days, when a whole bag of popcorn is the only thing that is
> between me and some not so great choice, days when I feel so hungry that I
> am badly uncomfortable.
You said it. There are days. But not EVERY day. I don't think that it is
too hard to glean from my post that I meant every single day, for the rest
of your life, you couldn't sit in front of the TV and eat a whole bag of
popcirn.
>
> Much like my naturally thin friends.
I don't know what it is with our naturally thin friends. I have seen them
eat and eat and eat, and they don't seem to gain weight. However, I do
notice, as they get into their 40s, things start to change a little, and
they have real problems, because they can't EVEN begin to eat the way they
did in the past. Sometimes I think that we, who are on diets, have it
easier, in that regard.
>
> The really important thing here, is what works for Me is not the same as
> what works for You. I won't tell you to try to do it my way.
Hmmm. It seems to me that there are reasonably intelligent people in this
group, and they can read a little in between the lines. Sure I did not
say in my post, "This is what worked for me", but I would have thought it
was pretty obvious.
Oh well.
JR
> I'm with you Lesanne, I decided not to rant, but felt like it. I was
trying
> to imagine someone eating 5 bowls of 0 point soup for any other reason
than
> hunger. Still realizing that would be better than a binge on any other
food
> in the universe.
But binge-ing on 0 point soup, in my opinion (read that, in my opinion), is
no better than bingeing on twinkies. You have not learned anything. And
sooner or later you're going to binge on something else, that's not 0
points.
If you want to do that, then fine. It just don't work for me.
JR
"Tony Florida" <tonyNOS...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:klOdnZ9INb3...@comcast.com...
> Okay, I admit it. I was going to come on here last night and
> shred the writer of this post. Decided to wait. Good choice.
>
> JR, first things first. This is a WW *support* group. Now, I'm
> not a fan of jargon, nor of pop psychology, nor of
> pseudo-intellectualism. I *do,* however, know rudeness when I see
> it.
Tough love. :-) Maybe I should have put this on the top of my post:
WARNING: THIS IS WHAT WORKED FOR ME. IT MAY WORK FOR OTHERS, AND IT MAY
NOT WORK FOR YOU. IF YOU'RE OFFENDED, THEN I'M SORRY, MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T
REAL ANY FURTHER.
> One
> does not barge in with a fistful of opinions and pronouncements,
> and start defecating on everyone's monitor with them.
a) there is no such thing as internet protocol.
b) I have been on the internet since 1992, and rarely have people had a
problem with my posts
c) perhaps the people who were most upset were the ones that maybe realized
that they had a history like mine
d) if anyone really thought that I was telling EVERYONE how to survive on
WW, then they should get a dose of reality. It was patently obvious (to me,
that is) that everything I wrote is very subjective and doesn't work for
everyone. How could it? You're taking things WAY to literally.
Anyway... Let us continue.
> In short, who the hell do you think you are, you picayune little
> smart-ass??
Hmmm. Doesn't "internet protocol", if such a thing exists, eschew things
like name calling, and personal attacks? I guess not, in your case.
>
> The Weight Watchers program is designed so that people of all
> eating profiles, all backgrounds, all ages and sizes can LEARN to
> eat in a more healthy manner.
Isn't that what i said? You have to learn to change your way of eating?
Maybe you couldn't figure that out. For me, and a lot of other people I
know who have been successful on WW, after several tries, have learned that
eating smaller portions, and not eating in "trigger" situations, is part of
the trick. The different "way of eating" or "way of life".
> You twit!
There goes that name calling, personal attack thing again.
>
> And, along that line: If you're so damn smart, how did you become
> a fatso?!? Seems to me someone with the erudition and superior
> position you claim for yourself would *never* be caught dead in
> such a situation.
Maybe you didn't read my post. I had to teach myself differnt eating
habits.
>
> Lastly, if you think you are in a position to drop in and tell us
> what WW is "about" and "not about," you'd better bring a note
> from the board of directors. Your opinions are your opinions;
> they don't mean spit.
OK, this is the FIRST thing you've said that is true. My opinions are my
opinions.
> Now sit down and shut up until you can
> learn some manners.
Rude is as rude does.
Let's take a count. How many times in my original (and this one) post did I
use the words
twit
pseudo-intellectual
picayune little smart-ass
fatso
You're right. I used them 4 times, in repeating what you said.
Is it possible that I struck a raw nerve or something? No one else replied
with such vitriol. Others have disagreed with my post, and some have agreed
with some points, but that is the nature of Usenet.
JR
Nope. If you want to see trolls, go over to alt.support.diet.
JR
"Elaine Kirkham" <ekir...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3E2855C2...@rogers.com...
> Thanks, JR, that was a great rant! A keeper, if I ever saw one.
Well, Elaine, you seem to be in the minority. And I'll agree, I did come
off a little bit brash, and some people seem to think that I was saying that
my experience was what everyone should do, but I would think that the
reasonable, intelligent Usenet reader would be able to figure out that that
was not the case.
Guess I'm wrong. Some people have to have things spelled out for them.
Oh well.
Lesanne
> Hmmm. It seems to me that there are reasonably intelligent people in this
> group, and they can read a little in between the lines. Sure I did not
> say in my post, "This is what worked for me", but I would have thought it
> was pretty obvious.
>
> Oh well.
If you believe in those IQ test things, I am sort of radically above
"reasonably intelligent" but I did not get that you were saying "this is
what worked for me". I have to be fair though and say that many times I am
sorely misunderstood online. So much so that I figure that I don't
communicate that well in print. Like the bit in my post about my naturally
thin friends, I did not mean to impart in any way that they ate a large
amount of calories overall, just that they tended to eat pretty much Only in
response to physiological hunger, and sometimes that was an amazing lot,
other times an amazing little...... I think it is a very very bad thing to
separate the "feeling" of physiological hunger, from eating. One can do
that by eating too much, or by dieting in a *too* controlled (ie against
nature) manner. For the sake of clarity this is my opinion only. My
particular body wants a lot some days, aka popcorn soup and chile days?
Lesanne
"JR" <jric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LJ1W9.44$YY4.19...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Thyme
>
> "Thyme" <th...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:C5NV9.61175$Ik.22...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > "JR" <jric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:qIKV9.831$mX3.36...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> > >> I see WAY too many posts about the consumption of large amounts of
food
> > just
> > > because they are low cal, low fat, high fiber.
> >
> > Are we reading the same newsgroup? The only thing I see way too many
> posts
> > about is consumption of large volumes of water, which I happen to think
is
> > unneccesary.
>
> Dunno Thyme. I've been lurking here for 3 years, and I have seen plenty
of
> posts about people who are all excited that they can eat large amounts of
> food JUST because it is low points.
OK. I challenge you to find posts by regulars of the group (i.e. those who
post at least twice a month) who say they like WW because they can binge
mindlessly on large amounts of food on a regular basis, rather than the
exceptional cases that even you acknowledge.
> Then you're missing my point. A new way of eating DOES include eating
> different foods, but it does also include how much you eat, when you eat,
> etc.
Which is a theme repeated often by regulars of the group.
The problem with your post was your tone. You come barging in declaring
that there are "way too many" such posts (put up or shut up, I want to see
you quote at least 5 regulars of this group who say they *regularly* like to
binge on low point foods.) and that YOU have the one true answer and all the
rest of us are deluded fools and you are here to save us. This despite the
fact that portion size and consicious eating is a CONSTANT theme here. And
I can back up my claim with quotes if necessary.
Do a google groups search on my email and this group. I think you'll see
that I often cover the portion size issue again and again (especially eating
out in restaurants and how to handle it). And also how it requires eternal
vigilence. Since we often post about this topic, it is rather silly when a
new poster comes in saying how we don't understand this fundamental concept.
I posted a similar response to the fellow who came in with his 4 word diet
(eat less move more). He was preaching to the choir.
> Now you're talking something different. For me it was, TV-> eat.
> Automatic. Didn't even think about it. And I would guess that there is a
> fair majority of people who do/did the same thing, regardless of the fact
> that they want to admit it or not.
I used to, too. But, unlike you, I didn't have to eliminate eating in front
of the TV. I just changed how I ate in front of the TV. Your way is not the
only way. You made absolute statements.
> Yeah, and a trigger is the TV. Sheesh, I don't think it's THAT hard to
> figure out that I wasn't specifically talking about just a TV.
For some people it is a trigger. Not for everyone. And not even for
everyone who used to mindlessly eat in front of the TV. I used to eat
mindless in front of the TV, and now I eat mindfully in front of the TV.
You chose not to eat in front of the TV. I think my way is more powerful,
since I now know how to act when in a situation that may even require eating
in front of the TV. It's like your advice to learn the portion sizes of
restaurant food so you won't slip when in that situation. Learn how to eat
properly in front of the TV and maybe when you end up in another situation
that encourages you to mindless eating, you won't slip then, either.
Maybe it makes you feel good to promote your ideas by putting down others
(..there are way too many posts [with this bad attitude]). You would have
gotten a much better reception by starting off first acknowledging that the
regulars here *already* accept the importance of portion size and mindful
eating and adding your AGREEMENT with us and how you handled triggers
specific to your life, rather than accusing us of not having this attitude
already and saying that everyone must react the same way as you.
You seem to think you are way more enlightened than us, even though we have
already posted about the value of limiting portion size, eliminating
mindless eating and binging many more times than you have.
As an example, look up the thread on the new guy who came in and wanted to
add fiber powder to his food just to lower the points. Not a single person
here supported him. I think that says it all about what the real view of
this group is. Also look up how many times we have questioned the
commitment of newcomers and warned them that unless they are ready to accept
they will have to make a huge attitude change and approach to food for life,
their weightloss with WW will not be permanent. Both I and Lesanne
frequently recommend the book _Changing for Good_ which focuses not on the
mechanics of weightloss, but what permanent lifestyle change (any lifestyle
change) involves (thank you, Lesanne, for recommending it to us initially).
Thyme
236/181/158
Thyme
>
> WARNING: THIS IS WHAT WORKED FOR ME. IT MAY WORK FOR OTHERS, AND IT MAY
> NOT WORK FOR YOU. IF YOU'RE OFFENDED, THEN I'M SORRY, MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T
> REAL ANY FURTHER.
No, how about instead of saying:
"I see WAY too many posts about [bad attitude]....NEVER eat in front of the
TV."
Say this:
"I agree with the posters here who find that the key to weight management is
portion size and conscious eating. For me, a big trigger was eating in
front of the TV, and no matter how I've tried, I can't eat properly when
watching the boob tube (I guess that's why they call it the "boob" tube).
So I made a hard and fast rule for myself: no eating in front of the TV,
ever. I only eat at the table, even when eating alone."
Big difference. The first one proclaims your superiority to posters here
and gives an absolute rule without any advice on how someone else with
different triggers might learn from your experience. The second one
acknowledges the intelligence and contributions of other posters here and
gives a better general rule (deal with trigger events, if you can't, then
eliminate those trigger events from your life) and a specific example from
your life that others can learn from.
> a) there is no such thing as internet protocol.
Each Usenet newsgroup develops its own culture.
> b) I have been on the internet since 1992
And I've been on the internet since 1984 and reading and posting to Usenet
since 1986 (under a different ID). So what?
> c) perhaps the people who were most upset were the ones that maybe
realized
> that they had a history like mine
On the contrary, I think it's the people with DIFFERENT experiences (such as
the ability to adapt to trigger events so that they can still engage in them
rather than having to eliminate them -- e.g. I eat mindfully in front of the
TV instead of eliminating eating in front the TV). Also, those who were
"most upset" where those with a history of posting about portion control and
conscious eating who took exception to being assumed by you to not be
enlightened about this ("WAY too many posts". and no acknowledgement of
previous posts about the subject of portion control, eliminating binge
eating, and conscious eating -- if you've read for 3 years, you can't tell
me you haven't read them).
You still like to put people down, I see. Here's how your responses now come
across: "The ones who were most upset must be the ones with a history of
binge eating and I just struck a nerve. It couldn't possibly have been my
tone. No, it must be the readers fault, all of them must just have raw
nerves and binge histories. Yeah, that's it. They are lousy people, it's
not me."
I'd love to see this from you instead: "when I reread what I wrote I see
how it could come across wrong and I'm sorry about that, I didn't mean that
at all. I read this group because lots of you have very helpful and
insightful things to say and I've learned a lot reading them over the past 3
years (including about portion control, eliminating binge eating, and the
importance of eating consciously for life). I was just caught up in my own
revelation about my trigger events and in my excitement to share it, got a
little carried away. It's frustrating seeing all the new folks at WW trying
to fulfill their new year's resolutions and knowing they won't make it
because they haven't made a fundamental commitment to changing their
approach to food (they seem to want to find ways to overcome the system
rather than changing themselves). There are new posters and readers here
too, and I was thinking about them rather than the regular posters here
whose words of wisdom have helped me."
I bet you'd find overwhelming support and positive feedback to something
like that.
Thyme
236/181/158
Thyme
> Guess I'm wrong. Some people have to have things spelled out for them.
Is it really necessary to assume that people who disagree with what you say
are stupid or just not as mentally advanced as you?
I find that I get along better with people if I don't continually insult
them. Maybe your experience is different, I don't know.
Thyme
236/181/156
JR
> The problem with your post was your tone.
I might agree with that, but your reaction to my post was WAY stronget than
any one elses in this newsgroup. OK, so you react more strongly that the
average person. I can deal with that. Name calling, and personal attacks,
on the other hand, are a different story.
> Do a google groups search on my email and this group. I think you'll see
> that I often cover the portion size issue again and again (especially
eating
Irrelevant. For some reason you seem to think that I was specifically
targeting you. I was not.
> and that YOU have the one true answer and all the
> rest of us are deluded fools and you are here to save us.
Well, as I said in my post to you, and to the posts of others, which you
have decided to reply to anyway (yeah, I know it's Usenet, all posts are to
everyone), that I thought my original post was pretty apparent that this is
what worked for me, and that doesn't necessarily work for everyone. But you
still choose to ignore that. Okay, how's this. I apologize. Does that
make you happy now? Fine. Let's move on.
Tony Florida
your thread, knock yourself out......
Tony Florida
259/234.5/155 (since Oct 9, '02)
1st 10% goal = 233; NAFC = 220
=============================
JR <jric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WY1W9.50$th5.20...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Thyme
> Aw, shoot, Roose -- ya got me!! Happy New Year....I'm out; it's
> your thread, knock yourself out......
Nah, it's not him. Different writng style. I'd guess he is a well-meaning
person but he refuses to believe that he could have communcated better and
that therefore anyone who takes offense must be doing so because they are
stupid or "sensitive" or are so dumb they "have to have things spelled out".
(talk about namecalling! (though you also were over-the-top, but I'm kinda
used to your style by now, Tony, :-) ). He also doesn't want to acknowledge
that he hasn't made any points that haven't already been made here dozens,
if not hundreds, of times. While it's true that we often don't take these
issues to heart until we have (re)discovered them for ourselves, most of us
can recognize in retrospect all the voices that have been trying to tell us
that all along.
I'm certainly not perfect and put my foot in my mouth and say insulting
things sometimes, too, but unlike JR, I will generally admit it (at least
after a few hours reflection :-) ) instead of putting all the blame on the
other party. Maybe he has an inferiority complex and that's why he
continually puts his correspondents down. Maybe he'll come around later. I
even gave him the words to get himself out of the hole he dug, but he just
continues with the putdowns. You can lead a horse to water ...
Thyme
236/181/158
Tony Florida
not to post b.c. (before coffee). :-)
Tony Florida
259/234.5/155 (since Oct 9, '02)
1st 10% goal = 233; NAFC = 220
=============================
Thyme <th...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:kz7W9.61343$Ik.22...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Thyme
> >
> > The problem with your post was your tone.
>
> I might agree with that, but your reaction to my post was WAY stronget
than
> any one elses in this newsgroup.
Nope, Tony's was stronger.
> OK, so you react more strongly that the
> average person.
I did not react particularly strongly to your original post, other than to
correct the absolutionist statements. I did, however, react strongly to
your characterization of those who responded as lacking in intelligence
(e.g. needing things spelled out, sensitive, etc).
> I can deal with that. Name calling, and personal attacks,
> on the other hand, are a different story.
And my name calling is where? You also engaged in personal attacks. This
is what putting down other people as "sensitive" is, or saying they need
things spelled out.
> Irrelevant. For some reason you seem to think that I was specifically
> targeting you. I was not.
No, you were targeting posters to this newsgroup in general: "WAY too many
posts". Those were your words. I used myself as merely one example of a
regular poster. I could have chosen any regular poster here -- we have
pretty much all posted on this subject of smaller portions and conscious
eating.
> Well, as I said in my post to you, and to the posts of others, which you
> have decided to reply to anyway (yeah, I know it's Usenet, all posts are
to
> everyone), that I thought my original post was pretty apparent that this
is
> what worked for me, and that doesn't necessarily work for everyone. But
you
> still choose to ignore that.
Wrong -- I accept that you didn't intend the absolutionist statements you
made and actually intended to put forward the rather standard, common, and
important views about portion control and conscious eating.
But you seem to ignore that almost all of the regulars have repeatedly
posted the exact same opinions you intended (the ones you intended, not the
ones you literally wrote) to this newsgroup and that posts encouraning
mindless binging to this newsgroup are somewhat rare and when they happen,
usually result in a dogpile from regular posters here correcting the newbie
on their naivete. (like what happened when the poster came in asking if he
could add fiber to his portions to reduce the points).
> Okay, how's this. I apologize.
If you are apologizing for mistakenly calling your correspondents too
"sensitive" and insulting them by claiming they "need things spelled out",
and are apologizing for implying that posters here regularly encourage
binging rather than good eating habits, then apology is accepted. If you now
realize that the vast majority of regular posters here are already aware of
the importance of portion control and conscious eating, then apology
accepted (this can be verifiied by searching the past postings of regular
posters, not just me). Is that what you are apologizing for?
> Let's move on.
BTW, I don't hold grudges, so you get a fresh start with me at any time,
whether or not we come to a meeting of the minds now or any apologies are
exchanged or accepted.
Thyme
236/181/158
ray miller
>>
>> The problem with your post was your tone.
>
>I might agree with that, but your reaction to my post was WAY stronget than
>any one elses in this newsgroup.
No it wasn't. My reaction was way stronger. So much so I never posted
it.
Ray
--
rmnsuk
overall - 273/231/189
nafc - 233/231/215
Lesanne
> > answer to this question is a five letter word starting with tr and
> > rhyming with poll....
>
> Nope. If you want to see trolls, go over to alt.support.diet.
I was kicking myself for not sticking up for you here JR, since I know you
from your occational appearance Here on alt support diet. So better late
than never, no folks JR is def. not a troll.
Lesanne
humor, but I gotta point out right here that Two of the people who have
admitted to having had some pretty bad binge eating problems in the past,
one of which was MOI, and the other I shall not name publicly, did react in
a rather disproportionately negative way to the first post *smirk*. I for
one, got some good out of this food fight. Controversy is not Always a bad
thing.
The first post also reminded me of my ex husband (I am trying hard not to
laugh at myself here) in it's "tone" and how the heck does a person impart
"tone" in a post? I know Thyme really rewrote that post in a way that
pushed no old buttons. But hey, think about this one? I would probably not
have really thought about those issues again, which of course reinforced my
fairly new skills, which pumped me up considerable..... had this food fight
not occurred.
I am one who learns from debate. Even contentious debate. Now when dealing
with trolls, they start a debate then degenerate into na na na na na and
name calling and the meat is gone right away. I don't see a problem with an
occational misunderstanding. Now lets see, what can we start up next?
Thyme, you need to add some splenda to your cucumber recipe, I tried that
vinegar lime thing and my eyeballs inverted to the back of my head... :):):)
Lesanne is on a silly roll here right before meeting time this morning oh
please if there is a GOD let the WW scale come something like agreeing with
mine.....
(that little irrevelance will probably guarantee that theirs is on an evil
weighing heavy day)
"Tony Florida" <tonyNOS...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v6OcnXd4ZJ5...@comcast.com...
SuzyQ
>
>
> But binge-ing on 0 point soup, in my opinion (read that, in my opinion),
is
> no better than bingeing on twinkies.
WAYOOYM?
Define better. This ng is about weight control, isn't it? And health? I
haven't been near a twinkie in 15 years, since a 20YO twinkie was discovered
still edible.
--
SuzyQ
141 / 131/ 132
125 NAFC and personal goal
WW 11/7/2002
SuzyQ
--
SuzyQ
141 / 131/ 132
125 NAFC and personal goal
WW 11/7/2002
"Tony Florida" <tonyNOS...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:klOdnZ9INb3...@comcast.com...
> Okay, I admit it. I was going to come on here last night and
> shred the writer of this post. Decided to wait. Good choice.
>
> JR, first things first. This is a WW *support* group. Now, I'm
> not a fan of jargon, nor of pop psychology, nor of
> pseudo-intellectualism. I *do,* however, know rudeness when I see
> it.
>
> Internet protocol generally is that when visiting a newsgroup,
> one introduces oneself, after reading for a decent interval. One
> does not barge in with a fistful of opinions and pronouncements,
> and start defecating on everyone's monitor with them.
>
> Your parents may have thought that brow-beating, shaking a
> finger, and screaming 'Bad boy!' were support; this group does
> not.
>
> In short, who the hell do you think you are, you picayune little
> smart-ass??
>
> The Weight Watchers program is designed so that people of all
> eating profiles, all backgrounds, all ages and sizes can LEARN to
> eat in a more healthy manner. You twit! If we were all so bloody
> perfect, we wouldn't need to be here, would we??
>
> And, along that line: If you're so damn smart, how did you become
> a fatso?!? Seems to me someone with the erudition and superior
> position you claim for yourself would *never* be caught dead in
> such a situation.
>
> Lastly, if you think you are in a position to drop in and tell us
> what WW is "about" and "not about," you'd better bring a note
> from the board of directors. Your opinions are your opinions;
> they don't mean spit. Now sit down and shut up until you can
> learn some manners.
>
> Tony Florida
> 259/234.5/155 (since Oct 9, '02)
> 1st 10% goal = 233; NAFC = 220
> =============================
> JR <jric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qIKV9.831$mX3.36...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> > OK. I never went to a WW meeting in my life, but I do use the
> WW point
> > system, and it has worked for me wonderfully. I lost 50 lbs on
> it, 210 down
> > to 160. But along the way, I learned something. (which my
> WIFE, by the
> > way, hasn't seemed to realize)...
> >
> > Please excuse my rant. (and pontification). I have been there,
> done that,
> > several times, and realized that I have made BAD mistakes.
> >
> > I see WAY too many posts about the consumption of large amounts
> of food just
> > because they are low cal, low fat, high fiber.
> >
> > It's NOT just what you are eating, but the WAY you are eating.
> >
> > Weight Watchers is not about being able to eat 2 bags of
> popcorn in front of
> > the TV just because it's only 2 points a bag. Weight Watchers
> is not about
> > eating 5 bowls of 0 point soup for dinner just because you can.
> Weight
> > Watchers is not about making and eating an entire large batch
> of chili with
> > meatless crumbles because it's only 3 points because of all the
> fiber (old
> > system). Weight Watchers is not about sitting in front of the
> TV eating and
> > entire bag of baby carrots and dipping them in fat free ranch
> salad
> > dressing.
> >
> > If you do all of the above, you are (most likely) doomed to
> failure.
> >
> > Weight Watchers is about changing your bad eating habits and
> learning to
> > exercise a little. Changing your entire way of life
> (particularly if your
> > way of life totally revolves around eating).
> >
> > That includes not eating when you're not hungry. Just because
> you're in
> > front of the TV doesn't mean it's time to eat. I had to teach
> myself to do
> > several things. One is, NEVER eat in front of the TV. I used
> to grab a
> > sandwich, turn on the TV and sit down in front of it. Oh yeah,
> it's a
> > commercial, go grab that bag of chips, and a beer....What
> happens when
> > you've lost the weight and start buying fattier foods again?
> You sit in
> > front of the TV and eat again. And you're not even hungry!
> What helped me?
> > I ONLY eat at the dinner table now. Even if there's no one
> home.
> >
> > Don't eat something just because it's low points. Once again,
> if you eat
> > when you're hungry, and seek out decent things to eat, that
> include
> > vegetables, instead of junk, you'll fill up, and you won't have
> to eat as
> > much. I could eat an entire bag of Doritos, even when not
> hungry, just
> > because they LOOKED good. Somehow, I learned, and don't ask me
> how, not to
> > eat when I wasn't hungry. And, BTW, it IS difficult at
> parties, and I
> > sometimes fall "off the WW wagon", but I try to eat things that
> are filling
> > but are also good for me, like vegetables and stuff.
> >
> > Watch your portion sizes. I think that this for me was one of
> the keys.
> > Like eating an entire bag of popcorn. Of 5 bowls of 0 point
Hillary Israeli
JR <jric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*Sorry for the rant, but I see way to many posts about incredibly large
*amounts of food eaten just in the name of low points. That's not the way to
*go.
Clearly you're making the program work for you. Great. Fabulous, even.
What's the problem with other people finding other ways to make the
program work for them?
--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net in...@hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)
JR
I don't ever recall posting in alt.support.diet, maybe I have.
I have, on occasion, in the last few years posted here, though. Usually
recipes and stuff. Oh yeah, I posted something about the treadmill walking
to Disney thing. Unfortunately, I haven't done to well in that arena, both
physically and financially. At the rate that I'm going now, it will take me
YEARS to walk to Florida. I have an excuse, a decent excuse, but I prefer
not to make it (wife has been sleeping on the couch because she has a
herniated disc in her back, treadmill makes too much noise, not to mention
the TV), but we got a new mattress which is much more firm, so now she's
back upstairs, so I have no exucse now. I MUST do the 'mill at 6:00 AM,
every morning. Yeah, right....
JR
> > > The problem with your post was your tone.
> >
> > I might agree with that, but your reaction to my post was WAY stronget
> than
> > any one elses in this newsgroup.
>
> Nope, Tony's was stronger.
Sorry, some how I got you two confused. I see you made no personal attacks.
Lesanne
will have to go look up the URL for ya. :)
"SuzyQ" <ne...@chiefimaging.com> wrote in message
news:b0bkpl$njb8d$1...@ID-88342.news.dfncis.de...
Lesanne
SEE how the written (typed) word is all full of problems I meant HERE, I
just had a brain fart before getting to the WW part.
> I have, on occasion, in the last few years posted here, though. Usually
> recipes and stuff. Oh yeah, I posted something about the treadmill
walking
> to Disney thing. Unfortunately, I haven't done to well in that arena,
both
> physically and financially. At the rate that I'm going now, it will take
me
> YEARS to walk to Florida. I have an excuse, a decent excuse, but I prefer
> not to make it (wife has been sleeping on the couch because she has a
> herniated disc in her back, treadmill makes too much noise, not to mention
> the TV), but we got a new mattress which is much more firm, so now she's
> back upstairs, so I have no exucse now. I MUST do the 'mill at 6:00 AM,
> every morning. Yeah, right....
>
Okay, we shall be blunt. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE is going to be able to
keep off weight they have lost unless they exercise (ya hahaha, that was
just my opinion :):) ) It is worth at least twice what it costs er lemmie
see 0 X 2 =? Anyone take algebra out there? And yes, this was another sick
joke, I see you ARE exercising.....
SuzyQ
interested a google search will turn up several.
http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/activity/h/humor/Generic/twinkie.experiments
You have to be scared of eating something that will not support mold.
Have you noticed the bread and milk in the last few years. When I was a
newly wed (1969) bread and milk had to be purchased every few days or it
would go bad. The bread would mold the milk would sour. Of course you
could use soured milk for biscuits, etc. Now the bread *does not mold* you
can keep that stuff a month, it will get hard and dry but no mold. The milk
won't sour either, it goes rancid, which is a whole different thing.
Ok rant over, getting down off soap box.......
--
SuzyQ
141 / 131/ 132
125 NAFC and personal goal
WW 11/7/2002
"Lesanne" <latx4...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Q0gW9.17630$Dq.16...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
SuzyQ
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
the Twinkie's survival of a 120-foot drop, along with some of
the unusual phenomena associated with the ``creamy filling'' and
artificial coloring, should give pause to those observers who would
unequivocally categorize the Twinkie as ``food.'' Further clinical
inquiry is required before any definite conclusions can be drawn.
"SuzyQ" <ne...@chiefimaging.com> wrote in message
news:b0c4nc$o6sqk$1...@ID-88342.news.dfncis.de...
Thyme
> Thyme, you need to add some splenda to your cucumber recipe, I tried that
> vinegar lime thing and my eyeballs inverted to the back of my head...
:):):)
:-) I like really strong tasting food, have I mentioned that?
But yeah, I don't know if every time I repost it I remember to include the
warnings about the dressing. My family liked it better sweeter, too, --
made with white balsamic instead of aged sherry vinegar (and you did at
least use sherry vinegar? It has some sweetness).
I think I'll change to the name of the salad to Thyme's Eyeball-Inverting
Cucumber Salad, if that's all right with you.
> how the heck does a person impart "tone" in a post?
Is that a rhetorical question are do you really want to know? Hint:
capitalization is a major conveyor of tone in a post -- it comes across as
shouting (and if JR has really been around Usenet since 1992, he knows this,
just do a google groups search on capitalization and shouting and you'll see
this is commonly accepted). Combine shoutingj (strong emphasis) with a
sentence that implies something about your audience, especially when that
something is bad, and you have established a solid, probably irreversable
tone for the remainder of the post. For example:
"I see WAY too many posts about the consumption of large amounts of food
just
because they are low cal, low fat, high fiber. It's NOT just what you are
eating, but the WAY you are eating."
Start off your writing by shouting at your audience and implying they are
all completely wrong (when most of the regulars here do not now do what he
claims) and there's your "tone".
That concludes our lesson for today.
BTW, splenda is vile, I tell ya, VILE!
Thyme
236/181/158
Lesanne
Yeah. And it really was all a part of my excessively great mood today that
I brought that up. I do a salad that is somewhat closer to your cuke one,
with black beans, celery chopped fine, onion also chopped fine, maybe a
tomato chopped, cilantro, lime, a good flavorful vinegar (not raspberry or
any other that has sweet, a balsalmic works) a pinch of dried ground
chili... oh to die for, but quite er.. lively. And of course a point or
two.
> But yeah, I don't know if every time I repost it I remember to include the
> warnings about the dressing. My family liked it better sweeter, too, --
> made with white balsamic instead of aged sherry vinegar (and you did at
> least use sherry vinegar? It has some sweetness).
>
> I think I'll change to the name of the salad to Thyme's Eyeball-Inverting
> Cucumber Salad, if that's all right with you.
Be my guest. You may also use and publish my "be sure to duck when you
fart, black bean salad".
> > how the heck does a person impart "tone" in a post?
>
> Is that a rhetorical question are do you really want to know?
It was totally rhetorical. When I first read that post I was SURE he was
chanelling my ex-husband, Mr Get Under My Control or I will Passively
Aggressively wear you down until you do..... I could almost hear the
derision. Thing is, he really meant to be helpful. Some people are just
frustrated tech school civics teachers. Cannot open their mouths without
something that sounds like a lecture coming out. As I tend to have to
Beware of that type of post managing to creep off the ends of my fingers, I
felt sort of empathetic with him. Probably his style is the reason he does
not post more.
Nathalie W
too :-)
--
Nathalie from Belgium
134.1/115.1/minigoal 114.1/Goal 68 Kg
295.6/253.8/minigoal 251.5/Goal 150 pounds
NAFC 253.8/253.8/238
"Thyme" <th...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:g2jW9.61386$Ik.22...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Thyme
> > :-) I like really strong tasting food, have I mentioned that?
>
> Yeah. And it really was all a part of my excessively great mood today
that
> I brought that up.
I'm so glad you came back to the group. This thread turned out to be a lot
of fun, in fact, I hereby invite JR to post with his foot in his mouth here
any time he wants. :-)
At least we had actual discussion here for a change -- I mean, I'm glad that
so many are quick with the supportive posts, lord knows I'm not, but more
discussion oriented interchanges are also welcome.
> It was totally rhetorical. When I first read that post I was SURE he was
> chanelling my ex-husband, Mr Get Under My Control or I will Passively
> Aggressively wear you down until you do..... I could almost hear the
> derision. Thing is, he really meant to be helpful.
Yeah, I got that, and I, too, am actually sympathetic because I sometimes
shoot off my mouth too. I guess I just have so much more experience doing
it that I've learned to backpedal a bit faster when someone points out the
foot hanging outa my mouth. I admit being a bit frustrated with people who
continue to mumble over the foot in their mouth protesting its presence.
That gets me more than the foot itself ("I oo na' av a fu' in my mouf oo are
yus fenfi-iv!") BTW, did we ever come to a conclusion on how may WW points
there are for foot-in-mouth?
Thyme
236/181/158
Lesanne
fiber from trotting around the backyard barefoot, probably is kinda low
points, and hey, my feet actually have Bones I can See! Also the fiber
content does tend to make me spit em out in a hurry as well.
"Thyme" <th...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ArmW9.61408$Ik.22...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Hillary Israeli
JR <jric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*a) there is no such thing as internet protocol.
You've gotta be kidding.
Not only is there such a thing, they are up to version six.
Hillary Israeli
JR <jric...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
*"SuzyQ" <ne...@chiefimaging.com> wrote in message
*news:b0923j$n9bju$1...@ID-88342.news.dfncis.de...
*> I'm with you Lesanne, I decided not to rant, but felt like it. I was
*trying
*> to imagine someone eating 5 bowls of 0 point soup for any other reason
*than
*> hunger. Still realizing that would be better than a binge on any other
*food
*> in the universe.
*
*But binge-ing on 0 point soup, in my opinion (read that, in my opinion), is
*no better than bingeing on twinkies. You have not learned anything. And
*sooner or later you're going to binge on something else, that's not 0
*points.
I guess it depends on how you define "binge." I, a nursing mom who is
alloted 32-37 points daily, spent most of the day today fighting hunger.
Usually I am quite satisfied and actually have a hard time eating all my
points while making healthful food choices. Today, however, I was really
really hungry. I ate my usual bowl of oatmeal with dried fruit and flax
seed for breakfast, along with two 14 oz glasses of water. Still felt
hungry but tried to ignore it and kept drinking more water. I had an early
lunch - veggieburger with lowfat cheese and a lot of salad. Still hungry
half an hour later so I ate a banana. Still hungry 45 minutes later so I
ate a just two points bar. This whole time, btw, I was drinking water - in
fact, I drank two big bottles of perrier. I finally couldn't deal with the
hunger so I ate a gigantic bowl of my homemade coleslaw (12 oz bag
shredded carrot, 12 oz bag shredded red cabbage, mixed with dressing made
from 1 T light mayo, 2 T mustard, and rice wine vinegar in quantity
sufficient to create nice dressing :0) - I probably ate half a batch of
the stuff. But what was I going to do? I literally felt like I was
starving until I finished that bowl. I don't have "food as emotional
crutch" issues, either. I eat when I'm hungry. It's just that I'm hungry a
LOT. If you want to call that a binge, fine. Go ahead. I don't think that
eating to satisfy one's legitimate hunger is the same thing as bingeing,
though.
BTW, the coleslaw didn't hold me that long, either. I ate the rest of it
before dinner, and then ate dinner, and was finally satisfied.
-h.
Miss Violette
someone else is eating than the "reality" of WW so I want you guys to re
read this with that in mind and tell me if maybe I am paranoid or he is
upset at not controlling his wife? Lee who likes to double check her
negative thoughtsnews:b0923j$n9bju$1...@ID-88342.news.dfncis.de...
> I'm with you Lesanne, I decided not to rant, but felt like it. I was
> to imagine someone eating 5 bowls of 0 point soup for any other reason
> hunger. Still realizing that would be better than a binge on any other
> in the universe.
> --
> SuzyQ
> 141 / 131/ 132
> 125 NAFC and personal goal
> WW 11/7/2002
>
> > After reading everyone elses' responses to this, I don't think I will go
> on
> > SUCH a rant as I was going to, but...
> >
> > There are days, when a whole bag of popcorn is the only thing that is
> > between me and some not so great choice, days when I feel so hungry that
I
> > am badly uncomfortable.
> >
> > I have no trigger foods either, much as Thyme describes. I can eat a
> little
> > of anything and go on about my business and it makes no difference to me
> > where I eat it either. Much like my naturally thin friends.
> >
> > That said, if I am having one of those "hungry" days, I will seek out
high
> > volume low point foods, and feed my hungry body. I can tell physical
> hunger
> > from emotional hunger *finally* after a lot of work and therapy :).
> >
> > The really important thing here, is what works for Me is not the same as
> > what works for You. I won't tell you to try to do it my way.
> >
> > Lesanne
> > (365)247/187.8/159
> > > OK. I never went to a WW meeting in my life, but I do use the WW
point
> > > system, and it has worked for me wonderfully. I lost 50 lbs on it,
210
> > down
> > > to 160. But along the way, I learned something. (which my WIFE, by
the
> > > way, hasn't seemed to realize)...
> > >
> > > Please excuse my rant. (and pontification). I have been there, done
> that,
> > > several times, and realized that I have made BAD mistakes.
> > >
food
> > just
> > > because they are low cal, low fat, high fiber.
> > >
> > > It's NOT just what you are eating, but the WAY you are eating.
> > >
> you
> > > teach yourself to eat proper portions, then when the fatty stuff at a
> > > restaurant comes along when you're out someday, you won't "supersize"
> it.
> > >
> way
> > to
> > >
> > > Jeff.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Miss Violette
in her lifenews:v6OcnXd4ZJ5...@comcast.com...
Miss Violette
post rudely? Leenews:U0kW9.18006$Dq.16...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Miss Violette
Maybe because the way you downed your wife's not learning your lessons?
Each person who struggles with weight has different issues so saying that
your wife hasn't learned what you have is really not relevant to her weight
loss, Lee who can't ever remember having a binge
JR <jric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t02W9.53$Ni5.20...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Elaine Kirkham" <ekir...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:3E2855C2...@rogers.com...
> > Thanks, JR, that was a great rant! A keeper, if I ever saw one.
>
> Well, Elaine, you seem to be in the minority. And I'll agree, I did come
> off a little bit brash, and some people seem to think that I was saying
that
> my experience was what everyone should do, but I would think that the
> reasonable, intelligent Usenet reader would be able to figure out that
that
> was not the case.
>
> Guess I'm wrong. Some people have to have things spelled out for them.
>
> Oh well.
>
>
>
Miss Violette
truthfully, your first post did not seem to allow for that and after I read
it again seemed to be written while you were angry with your wife for not
eating exactly as you do, Leenews:1C1W9.37$6N4.18...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Miss Violette" <Rgr...@mcleodusa.net> wrote in message
> news:3e27810c$1...@news.teranews.com...
> > I think you are partly right. In the beginning I think large portions
of
>
> ..> Some eat small volume,
> > high point foods and do fine others eat a much larger volume of food for
> > fewer points, I am sorry I just don't think there is a hard and fast
rule
> > here
>
> Agreed, but I would think in general, changing the way you eat, not just
> WHAT you eat will help alot. I know many friends who have done diets,
> including WW, who have, when they have reached their goal, gone back to
bad
> eating HABITS, primarily because they never learned to eat "correctly"
while
> they were on the diet, and went right back where they were. Me included.
>
> Maintaining is NOT easy. As a matter of fact, I think it's HARDER than
> dieting to begin with. It is a life long process. Sad, depressing, but
> true.
>
>
Miss Violette
doesn't generally eat junk foodnews:b0bkpl$njb8d$1...@ID-88342.news.dfncis.de...
jo...@nothere.net
wife. I took the brief comment as only a comment - much as I would make about
my hub. He watches me weigh and measure my food, watches me choose fruit as
snacks - yet he decides not to. It doesn't mean I'm trying to control him, only
means that he isn't in the same frame of mind yet that I am. That's how I took
Jeff's comment also. Nowhere else in the post does he ever mention his wife.
Just my opinion ... you asked for it, you got it. LOL!
Joyce
--
228.8/154/150 - beginning 2/5/02
total weight loss to date: 74.8 pounds
NAFC website can be found at: http://home.earthlink.net/~jaw179/
SuzyQ
guy or anyone else shake you. That's what made me angry at his whole post.
1. He's trying to control other people
2. He's promoting a stricter program than WW
3. He's an asshole
Don't give him a place rent free in your head!
--
SuzyQ
141 / 131/ 132
125 NAFC and personal goal
WW 11/7/2002
"Hillary Israeli" <hil...@hillary.net> wrote in message
news:slrnb2k00v....@manx.misty.com...
SuzyQ
decided to do it here instead. I'm betting his wife will never be able to
lose because a part of her eats out of rebellion! It's probably the only
thing she can control. Been there done that. That may be why he made me so
angry, reminded me of an ex-husband.
He also admits he's never been to a WW meeting, and is obviously upset that
it is so easy to follow that some of us can eat a LOT and still lose weight.
So he is trying to make us adopt a stricter program.
--
SuzyQ
141 / 131/ 132
125 NAFC and personal goal
WW 11/7/2002
"Miss Violette" <Rgr...@mcleodusa.net> wrote in message
news:3e29f694$1...@news.teranews.com...
Lesanne
chanelling my ex husband, who always had something to say about how I was
"doing it wrong" no matter what I was doing, from eating to clipping my
toenails...... But then again, I admit to being a bit touchy :):)
"Miss Violette" <Rgr...@mcleodusa.net> wrote in message
news:3e29f694$1...@news.teranews.com...
Lesanne
"binge" on 0 point soup. Or your slaw. Eating a lot of food when I am
physically hungry is not even in the same universe as a binge. I am sure
that there are times way back when, that I would eat a whole lot of low fat
healthy stuff from the same old motivators that I had back in my binge days,
but it would degenerate in a few days to cookies and ribs. As Tony is
always saying "ITS NOT ABOUT THE FOOD" And what it IS about, is the
"whatever" that is being fed. Is it physical hunger? A whole lot of low
point foods will usually get that physical hunger satisfied. Even one of
those BIG ones, like the day after a real intense weightlifting workout or
something. Or the transition to a lower points level. Nothing Food
satisfied me when I had that gaping groaning sucking emotional hole... I
used to throw food in there, but over time it made it worse. Or it got
buried under that great big garbage pile catch all "my problems are Fat and
Food" Hah, she says....
For ME a binge is the serial drive through day, with the frozen cake at the
end of it, washed down with the pint or two of Ben and Jerry's. Thank God
that is a faint and mildly sore memory, rather than a lifestyle (or better
Deathstyle)
Lesanne
(365)247/187/159
Oh golly I love to type that 187. Why is that such a great one I wonder. I
will probably get goosebumps when I get to 17 something :)
Ray Miller
Ray
560/406.8/200
Lesanne
Don't count the points until you swallow a chunk.
"Ray Miller" <raym...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1aam2vkpqs719inp2...@4ax.com...
Miss Violette
the wife comment was interpreted by my over analytical brain as a passive
aggressive thing, he could come here and rant in general when he was mad at
her for not doing it his way, thanks for the input, Lee
<jo...@nothere.net> wrote in message news:3E2A63CB...@earthlink.net...
Miss Violette
overreact, thanks, Leenews:GpyW9.784$Sv3.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Miss Violette
put-down, like he has and she is too stupid, but I tend to be oversensitive
to controlling behavior so that is why I brought it up. It would be much
more pleasant to believe that he is a guy who means well but just writes
poorly than to think about a woman whose only outlet is to eat to get even,
Leenews:b0eblp$o7k2j$1...@ID-88342.news.dfncis.de...
Miss Violette
CherylDCTX
news:qIKV9.831$mX3.36...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> OK. I never went to a WW meeting in my life, but I do use the WW point
> system, and it has worked for me wonderfully. I lost 50 lbs on it, 210
down
> to 160. But along the way, I learned something. (which my WIFE, by the
> way, hasn't seemed to realize)...
>
Hi, Jeff ... welcome to ASDWW board... I have been on and off this board for
a while... can't say that I have read many of your posts before but there
are so many, I probably missed them. Again, welcome.
> Please excuse my rant. (and pontification). I have been there, done that,
> several times, and realized that I have made BAD mistakes.
>
> I see WAY too many posts about the consumption of large amounts of food
just
> because they are low cal, low fat, high fiber.
>
> It's NOT just what you are eating, but the WAY you are eating.
>
> Weight Watchers is not about being able to eat 2 bags of popcorn in front
of
> the TV just because it's only 2 points a bag. Weight Watchers is not
about
> eating 5 bowls of 0 point soup for dinner just because you can. Weight
> Watchers is not about making and eating an entire large batch of chili
with
> meatless crumbles because it's only 3 points because of all the fiber (old
> system). Weight Watchers is not about sitting in front of the TV eating
and
> entire bag of baby carrots and dipping them in fat free ranch salad
> dressing.
>
CHERYL:
Actually, IMHO, Weight Watchers gives you the opportunity to make better
choices that will not have you crying the weight gain blues on weigh-in day.
Let's face it. Some people have different objectives when we walk into WW
that first day; but, we all have the same goal - to lose weight. Some
think... oh, I love it... I'm going to do this for the rest of my life...
this is the ONLY way to eat and live... and nobody better tell me different;
while others think... I am here to lose my weight and then no more
point-counting for me - yipee! Then there are others who dash back and
front between the two extremes.
For all the 'Weight Watchers is not about...' statements, I have one...
Weight Watchers is not about... any one individual saying that other
individuals are not adhering program as that individual has defined it. If
I have not had my 5 fruit/veggie servings... I may decide to eat 5 cups of
WW soup... everyday... just to get my veggies in... and I know the scale
will still love me. Now, if I have 5 cups of batter-fried veggie tempura as
my way of getting my veggies, I know the scale will NOT love me. Once
again, it's about choices... something that I learned with this program.
> If you do all of the above, you are (most likely) doomed to failure.
>
CHERYL:
I have disagree with you on this one; but, I also accept that it is your
opinion. In my opinion, if it were doomed to failure... you'd see a lot of
unhappy folks here saying... I ate 5 bowls of Zero point soup and I GAINED
weight. I haven't seen that yet... but once again, there are so many posts,
I could have missed that one. I have seen people post where he/she ate a
whole box of Girl Scout cookies and gained....a few years back.... hmmmm...
I think it was me (smile).
> Weight Watchers is about changing your bad eating habits and learning to
> exercise a little. Changing your entire way of life (particularly if your
> way of life totally revolves around eating).
>
CHERYL:
I agree to a certain point. It is about changing your eating habits so that
they fit within the guidelines of the Weight Watchers program and getting up
off the couch and exercising for 20 minutes - at least.
> That includes not eating when you're not hungry. Just because you're in
> front of the TV doesn't mean it's time to eat. I had to teach myself to
do
> several things. One is, NEVER eat in front of the TV. I used to grab a
> sandwich, turn on the TV and sit down in front of it. Oh yeah, it's a
> commercial, go grab that bag of chips, and a beer....What happens when
> you've lost the weight and start buying fattier foods again? You sit in
> front of the TV and eat again. And you're not even hungry! What helped
me?
> I ONLY eat at the dinner table now. Even if there's no one home.
>
CHERYL:
I agree with you. Emotional eating is something that a lot of us have deal
with. WW is not very good about tell us how to deal with that.... 'cause
saying "Don't do it" doesn't work. I like that you mentioned what helped
you.
> Don't eat something just because it's low points. Once again, if you eat
> when you're hungry, and seek out decent things to eat, that include
> vegetables, instead of junk, you'll fill up, and you won't have to eat as
> much.
CHERYL:
Now, I have to disagree here. For me, if my emotional eating trigger has
been switched on... I would rather be eating the zero point soup than
something that will put the pounds on. I don't call that bingeing. I call
that making a better food CHOICE. You could eat decent things all day and
still want to eat. There's physical hunger and emotional hunger. While
Weight Watchers addresses how to lose weight through diet and exercise,
they're not what you call by by any stretch head doctors... they don't
really deal too well with the emotional side eating. If they did... there
wouldn't be so many rejoins. The meeting leaders talk about red-light
foods, trigger foods, high point foods to steer clear of ... and ... making
BETTER CHOICES. You mentioned that you do not go to meetings that your
knowledge about WW has been gleaned from... I am assuming... the WW At Home
program materials? Please don't tell me that you don't even have those. I
would be very disappointed because it would mean that you took a component
from the program came down from the mountain top and wanted to share with
the masses what you found. I don't think that's the case though. I'm going
to assume that you've got the materials in hand.
> I could eat an entire bag of Doritos, even when not hungry, just
> because they LOOKED good. Somehow, I learned, and don't ask me how, not
to
> eat when I wasn't hungry. And, BTW, it IS difficult at parties, and I
> sometimes fall "off the WW wagon", but I try to eat things that are
filling
> but are also good for me, like vegetables and stuff.
>
CHERYL:
How can you be falling off the wagon if you are eating stuff that's good for
you? WW is about making better food choices, isn't it? Just going over
points alone does not mean you've fallen off the wagon. Sounds like you've
stayed on the wagon to me. IMHO, falling of the wagon consists of saying
F*** it.... and eating a pint of ice cream when all your points are gone...
LIKE I DID LAST NIGHT... drove out and bought it... bad, Cheryl... bad,
Cheryl.
> Watch your portion sizes. I think that this for me was one of the keys.
> Like eating an entire bag of popcorn. Of 5 bowls of 0 point soup. If you
> teach yourself to eat proper portions, then when the fatty stuff at a
> restaurant comes along when you're out someday, you won't "supersize" it.
>
> Sorry for the rant, but I see way to many posts about incredibly large
> amounts of food eaten just in the name of low points. That's not the way
to
> go.
>
CHERYL:
I see those same posts; but, frankly, I'd rather see those than posts than
posts about how they made a choice to eat 5 cups of ice cream/Doritos/junk
food instead of 5 cups of zero point soup. Once again... it's about choice.
WW provides guidelines for healthier eating and living. They provides us
with tools necessary to reach our goals... Stay in your points range; drink
your water; drink your milk; eat your veggies; take a vitamin supplement;
and, exercise at least 20 minutes a day. Do this and you're on program!
Everything else is subject to interpretation. I believe that each person
customizes the WW program to suit their needs in order to stay on program
and lose weight.
> Jeff.
>
CHERYL:
Look forward to more posts from you... Jeff... just plain old WW posts. I
weighed in, I reached milestone, I've lost such an such. This thread and
the replies related to it should not be the ONLY type of post that we
receive from you. Mix it up a bit (smile). Good luck in your weight loss
efforts.
>
>