Re: For what its worth...

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

Friday, October 5, 2007, 12:04:02 PM, you wrote:

> When I did Weight Watchers pre-op I did great as far as losing so I know that

knowing the

> amount of calories I needed to consume to consistently lose were correct. I

looked up my Points

> allowed for how much I weigh now (considerably less than when I did WW) and I

should use 28

> points per day with a bank of 35 points that I can use per week for a splurge.

Each point = 50

> calories, hence 28 points would be 1,400 calories per day for me to

consistently lose with that

> weekly bank of 35 points that = 1,750 that I can use over the

> course of the week or all at once.

You're completely correct. Actually, the 1400 calories is

approximate. One point is fifty calories, more or less. 30 to 40

calories can be a point if it is high fat food, and 60 or 70 for low

fat. But the 50 is a good guideline. With that 28 points/1400

calories, you would theoretically maintain a weight of 140 pounds

(again, we all vary). For the info of others, men get more points

than women, and they also vary by age, so those two factors are taken

into account.

One should lose with the extra five points a day (35 a week) as well,

but since about 3500 calories (or 70 points) is a pound, I try not to

use them, as that means a half pound less I'll lose.

What, me losing? Well, I got down to 210 about 18 months ago, but

then spent much of last year dealing with my little brother's illness

and death, followed by my mother's, I ate way too many soft foods,

liquid calories, comfort foods, etc, In case anyone doubts you can

gain with a tight band, I'm proof. I got up to 240 about two weeks

after my mother's funeral. So, went to WW with Gail. I've never told

them about the band, never will. I'm really like anyone else in most

respects, I've got a little extra " cheating " going on according to

some. As of now I'm 218. Doc says my goal should be 195, which fits

with my original idea of getting below 200 (something starting with a

one). For BMI of 25 I'd have to be about 172, and that won't happen,

nor should it.

> I never chose to use the banked points. My point here is I think that for my

weight range I

> should be consuming the 1,400 calories per day and if I desire I can tap into

that banked

> amount. I'm not pushing Weight Watchers or suggesting that I am going to

follow their program.

> I am only saying that I think I have figured out the calories I need to

consume daily.

As noted, you can use them or not. And that idea fits with the idea

of bandsters " living like normal people " in that you occasionally eat

" bad things " or " splurge " and that's fine, as long as you don't overdo

it all the time.

I too am not pushing WW, though for me it offers some face to face and

personal support (since the original group of bandsters in Boise, who

were all banded in MX) has sort of fallen apart, and the band docs who

are practicing here now (but weren't then) have their own closed

groups. Also, the face to face reminders on " healthy eating and

living " never hurt either. I'll always appreciate and love all of you

and those of a couple other groups I'm involved with on the net, but

there is certainly some benefit to face to face when possible.

cheers,

dan

[Guest guest]

Dan,

interesting about goal weights. i joined WW in 1971. my goal was

150. i was in my upper 20's back then and easily got there with a 40

pound loss in about 16 weeks. my wedding pictures will testify to

that.

When i got out of hospital after my post tummy tuck infection I was 3

pounds less than i was when i joined WW. And at my current age, that

is a realistic place for me. i'm not skinny, but i do look good,

feel good and know that at that old goal weight, at this age, i'd

look like a cadaver. also working in my favor is that there is

plenty of gravity working on me these days, so any excess corpulence

drops out of sight. LOL. i was laughing about the effects of

gravity on age the other day at my bridge club and one of the women

said that when she was young she had stand out boobs. And now

they're a 44 long. i laugh every time i think of that and am doing

that right now.

i'm finding the longer i live, the more opportunity there is to enjoy

life. and not lugging around all that fat i had makes it even sweeter

george

-- In , Dan Lester <honu@...> wrote:

>

> Hello ,

>

> Friday, October 5, 2007, 12:04:02 PM, you wrote:

>

> > When I did Weight Watchers pre-op I did great as far as losing so

I know that knowing the

> > amount of calories I needed to consume to consistently lose were

correct. I looked up my Points

> > allowed for how much I weigh now (considerably less than when I

did WW) and I should use 28

> > points per day with a bank of 35 points that I can use per week

for a splurge. Each point = 50

> > calories, hence 28 points would be 1,400 calories per day for me

to consistently lose with that

> > weekly bank of 35 points that = 1,750 that I can use over the

> > course of the week or all at once.

>

> You're completely correct. Actually, the 1400 calories is

> approximate. One point is fifty calories, more or less. 30 to 40

> calories can be a point if it is high fat food, and 60 or 70 for low

> fat. But the 50 is a good guideline. With that 28 points/1400

> calories, you would theoretically maintain a weight of 140 pounds

> (again, we all vary). For the info of others, men get more points

> than women, and they also vary by age, so those two factors are

taken

> into account.

>

> One should lose with the extra five points a day (35 a week) as

well,

> but since about 3500 calories (or 70 points) is a pound, I try not

to

> use them, as that means a half pound less I'll lose.

>

> What, me losing? Well, I got down to 210 about 18 months ago, but

> then spent much of last year dealing with my little brother's

illness

> and death, followed by my mother's, I ate way too many soft foods,

> liquid calories, comfort foods, etc, In case anyone doubts you can

> gain with a tight band, I'm proof. I got up to 240 about two weeks

> after my mother's funeral. So, went to WW with Gail. I've never

told

> them about the band, never will. I'm really like anyone else in

most

> respects, I've got a little extra " cheating " going on according to

> some. As of now I'm 218. Doc says my goal should be 195, which

fits

> with my original idea of getting below 200 (something starting with

a

> one). For BMI of 25 I'd have to be about 172, and that won't

happen,

> nor should it.

>

> > I never chose to use the banked points. My point here is I think

that for my weight range I

> > should be consuming the 1,400 calories per day and if I desire I

can tap into that banked

> > amount. I'm not pushing Weight Watchers or suggesting that I am

going to follow their program.

> > I am only saying that I think I have figured out the calories I

need to consume daily.

>

> As noted, you can use them or not. And that idea fits with the idea

> of bandsters " living like normal people " in that you occasionally

eat

> " bad things " or " splurge " and that's fine, as long as you don't

overdo

> it all the time.

>

> I too am not pushing WW, though for me it offers some face to face

and

> personal support (since the original group of bandsters in Boise,

who

> were all banded in MX) has sort of fallen apart, and the band docs

who

> are practicing here now (but weren't then) have their own closed

> groups. Also, the face to face reminders on " healthy eating and

> living " never hurt either. I'll always appreciate and love all of

you

> and those of a couple other groups I'm involved with on the net, but

> there is certainly some benefit to face to face when possible.

>

> cheers,

>

> dan

>

[Guest guest]

OMG! That is too funny! Well, speaking of 44L, you know you are old when you

start walking on your nipples! Sometimes being a loser is a GOOD

thing! 5'11 " 306 / 229 / 180 PreOp / Now/ Goal Banded 09/14/06

@...: georgezimme@...: Sat, 6 Oct

2007 14:27:27 +0000Subject: Re: For what its worth...

Dan,interesting about goal weights. i joined WW in 1971. my goal was 150. i was

in my upper 20's back then and easily got there with a 40 pound loss in about 16

weeks. my wedding pictures will testify to that.When i got out of hospital after

my post tummy tuck infection I was 3 pounds less than i was when i joined WW.

And at my current age, that is a realistic place for me. i'm not skinny, but i

do look good, feel good and know that at that old goal weight, at this age, i'd

look like a cadaver. also working in my favor is that there is plenty of gravity

working on me these days, so any excess corpulence drops out of sight. LOL. i

was laughing about the effects of gravity on age the other day at my bridge club

and one of the women said that when she was young she had stand out boobs. And

now they're a 44 long. i laugh every time i think of that and am doing that

right now.i'm finding the longer i live, the more opportunity there is to enjoy

life. and not lugging around all that fat i had makes it even sweetergeorge-- In

, Dan Lester <honu@...> wrote:>> Hello ,>

> Friday, October 5, 2007, 12:04:02 PM, you wrote:> > > When I did Weight

Watchers pre-op I did great as far as losing so I know that knowing the> >

amount of calories I needed to consume to consistently lose were correct. I

looked up my Points> > allowed for how much I weigh now (considerably less than

when I did WW) and I should use 28> > points per day with a bank of 35 points

that I can use per week for a splurge. Each point = 50> > calories, hence 28

points would be 1,400 calories per day for me to consistently lose with that> >

weekly bank of 35 points that = 1,750 that I can use over the> > course of the

week or all at once.> > You're completely correct. Actually, the 1400 calories

is> approximate. One point is fifty calories, more or less. 30 to 40> calories

can be a point if it is high fat food, and 60 or 70 for low> fat. But the 50 is

a good guideline. With that 28 points/1400> calories, you would theoretically

maintain a weight of 140 pounds> (again, we all vary). For the info of others,

men get more points> than women, and they also vary by age, so those two factors

are taken> into account.> > One should lose with the extra five points a day (35

a week) as well,> but since about 3500 calories (or 70 points) is a pound, I try

not to> use them, as that means a half pound less I'll lose.> > What, me losing?

Well, I got down to 210 about 18 months ago, but> then spent much of last year

dealing with my little brother's illness> and death, followed by my mother's, I

ate way too many soft foods,> liquid calories, comfort foods, etc, In case

anyone doubts you can> gain with a tight band, I'm proof. I got up to 240 about

two weeks> after my mother's funeral. So, went to WW with Gail. I've never told>

them about the band, never will. I'm really like anyone else in most> respects,

I've got a little extra " cheating " going on according to> some. As of now I'm

218. Doc says my goal should be 195, which fits> with my original idea of

getting below 200 (something starting with a> one). For BMI of 25 I'd have to be

about 172, and that won't happen,> nor should it.> > > I never chose to use the

banked points. My point here is I think that for my weight range I> > should be

consuming the 1,400 calories per day and if I desire I can tap into that banked>

> amount. I'm not pushing Weight Watchers or suggesting that I am going to

follow their program.> > I am only saying that I think I have figured out the

calories I need to consume daily.> > As noted, you can use them or not. And that

idea fits with the idea> of bandsters " living like normal people " in that you

occasionally eat> " bad things " or " splurge " and that's fine, as long as you

don't overdo> it all the time.> > I too am not pushing WW, though for me it

offers some face to face and> personal support (since the original group of

bandsters in Boise, who> were all banded in MX) has sort of fallen apart, and

the band docs who> are practicing here now (but weren't then) have their own

closed> groups. Also, the face to face reminders on " healthy eating and> living "

never hurt either. I'll always appreciate and love all of you> and those of a

couple other groups I'm involved with on the net, but> there is certainly some

benefit to face to face when possible.> > cheers,> > dan>

_________________________________________________________________

Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last.  Get it

now.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033

[Guest guest]

heather,

my dear departed grandmother was especially well endowed. the girls

had once been outstanding, as i've seen in pictures. however,

gravity once again played its tricks. my brother once told me he had

a small gift for her (we were barely teenagers at the time). it was

his idea of a brazier. he opened the small package and revealed shoe

laces.

we were very disrespecful behind closed doors when we were rascals

back than.

george---

In , Modispaw <hmodispaw@...>

wrote:

>

>

> OMG! That is too funny! Well, speaking of 44L, you know you are

old when you start walking on your nipples! Sometimes being

a loser is a GOOD thing! 5'11 " 306 / 229 / 180 PreOp / Now/ Goal

Banded 09/14/06

>

>

> @...: georgezimme@...: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 14:27:27

+0000Subject: Re: For what its worth...

>

>

>

>

> Dan,interesting about goal weights. i joined WW in 1971. my goal

was 150. i was in my upper 20's back then and easily got there with a

40 pound loss in about 16 weeks. my wedding pictures will testify to

that.When i got out of hospital after my post tummy tuck infection I

was 3 pounds less than i was when i joined WW. And at my current age,

that is a realistic place for me. i'm not skinny, but i do look good,

feel good and know that at that old goal weight, at this age, i'd

look like a cadaver. also working in my favor is that there is plenty

of gravity working on me these days, so any excess corpulence drops

out of sight. LOL. i was laughing about the effects of gravity on age

the other day at my bridge club and one of the women said that when

she was young she had stand out boobs. And now they're a 44 long. i

laugh every time i think of that and am doing that right now.i'm

finding the longer i live, the more opportunity there is to enjoy

life. and not lugging around all that fat i had makes it even

sweetergeorge-- In , Dan Lester

<honu@> wrote:>> Hello ,> > Friday, October 5, 2007, 12:04:02

PM, you wrote:> > > When I did Weight Watchers pre-op I did great as

far as losing so I know that knowing the> > amount of calories I

needed to consume to consistently lose were correct. I looked up my

Points> > allowed for how much I weigh now (considerably less than

when I did WW) and I should use 28> > points per day with a bank of

35 points that I can use per week for a splurge. Each point = 50> >

calories, hence 28 points would be 1,400 calories per day for me to

consistently lose with that> > weekly bank of 35 points that = 1,750

that I can use over the> > course of the week or all at once.> >

You're completely correct. Actually, the 1400 calories is>

approximate. One point is fifty calories, more or less. 30 to 40>

calories can be a point if it is high fat food, and 60 or 70 for low>

fat. But the 50 is a good guideline. With that 28 points/1400>

calories, you would theoretically maintain a weight of 140 pounds>

(again, we all vary). For the info of others, men get more points>

than women, and they also vary by age, so those two factors are

taken> into account.> > One should lose with the extra five points a

day (35 a week) as well,> but since about 3500 calories (or 70

points) is a pound, I try not to> use them, as that means a half

pound less I'll lose.> > What, me losing? Well, I got down to 210

about 18 months ago, but> then spent much of last year dealing with

my little brother's illness> and death, followed by my mother's, I

ate way too many soft foods,> liquid calories, comfort foods, etc, In

case anyone doubts you can> gain with a tight band, I'm proof. I got

up to 240 about two weeks> after my mother's funeral. So, went to WW

with Gail. I've never told> them about the band, never will. I'm

really like anyone else in most> respects, I've got a little

extra " cheating " going on according to> some. As of now I'm 218. Doc

says my goal should be 195, which fits> with my original idea of

getting below 200 (something starting with a> one). For BMI of 25 I'd

have to be about 172, and that won't happen,> nor should it.> > > I

never chose to use the banked points. My point here is I think that

for my weight range I> > should be consuming the 1,400 calories per

day and if I desire I can tap into that banked> > amount. I'm not

pushing Weight Watchers or suggesting that I am going to follow their

program.> > I am only saying that I think I have figured out the

calories I need to consume daily.> > As noted, you can use them or

not. And that idea fits with the idea> of bandsters " living like

normal people " in that you occasionally eat> " bad things "

or " splurge " and that's fine, as long as you don't overdo> it all the

time.> > I too am not pushing WW, though for me it offers some face

to face and> personal support (since the original group of bandsters

in Boise, who> were all banded in MX) has sort of fallen apart, and

the band docs who> are practicing here now (but weren't then) have

their own closed> groups. Also, the face to face reminders

on " healthy eating and> living " never hurt either. I'll always

appreciate and love all of you> and those of a couple other groups

I'm involved with on the net, but> there is certainly some benefit to

face to face when possible.> > cheers,> > dan>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at

last.  Get it now.

> http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?

pid=CL100626971033

>

>