Re: Re: Eat all Points?/Betty

[Guest guest]

Dear Betty,

Please do not say I said things that I did not.

I did not say I counted calories. Read what you copied/pasted from my post

down below my message.

And yes according to my points calculator that I got from WW when I joined we do

use calories. We have to take calories/fiber/fat into account to figure points,

and if you average it out you are getting about 50 calories per point.

I have been on WW since 10/12/2004 and I go to the meetings, and I have lost

26.4 as of last tuesdays weigh in, and many days ago last week someone posted

asking about eating all their points when they were not hungry and I said that I

usually did not eat all my points and I was just loosing fine.

And since then everyone ganged up on me with their pseudo science about the

bodies furnace ect... and that you needed to eat ALL your points or you would

have troubles ect...

Bette Holzer wrote:

I agree that you need at least 1000 a day to keep your body from thinking

you are starving and stopping burning calories, but to say that we need to

eat ALL your points or you will not loose well and have trouble on

maintenance is just plain junk science.

Huh???????

First of all, we don't count calories on the Weight Watchers plan, we count

points. And no one said to eat OVER your points, but rather to eat all that

Weight Watchers has determined to be right for your current weight. I don't

understand your apparent anger about this....have you been on the WW plan

for long? Are you not losing?

Since both Tory and I have lost over 100 pounds each, I would challenge you

to argue with our success -- both of us having stated that we have lost

while eating ALL our points. Do you have a problem with that?

Bette

[Guest guest]

Cindy

As a moderator I am going to ask you to lower your guns. You are

starting to offend people. You've offended me. A few others have

emailed me off list.

You have been on Weight Watchers since October and that's wonderful.

Congratulations on your weight loss. However please understand that a

number of us have been on it for much, much longer. Some people have

even read the research on how the body works, as I have and as I

pointed out clearly in another email. Please understand that you're

not addressing simple minded morons. You are addressing people with

multiple degrees, a great deal of life experience, and varying depths

of understanding.

It would also be very nice if, when you addressed people directly, you

made sure to get their names correct. Bette has lost over 100 pounds

and is a wonderful source of information.

It's easy to feel like you were attacked because people suggested that

it was important NOT to go below your points every day. That was not

anyone's intention. What is the intention of the group is to support

each other (calling someone's information " junk science " is not

supportive) and share information. That's all we were doing. We were

answering the question of the original poster and were not attacking

you. You did, however, share a suggestion that might not have the

effects that the original poster would have desired. Because of that

we shared facts related to reducing calories too fast.

So I'm asking that in the future when you disagree with someone you

are respectful. Don't take things personally, especially when they

aren't directed at you. (I've re-read the thread and NO ONE scolded

you or took you to task.) Please do continue to share your successes

with Weight Watchers. We need people who are successful on the group

to help others as they are new. Someday when you've got more

experience with the program you can be the kind of resource that Bette

and other long-term Weight Watchers are. We hope you'll stick with us

that long!

Tory 222/116/130

On WWers since February 2, 2002

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:03:53 -0800 (PST), Jaquith

wrote:

>

> Tory, while I agree that Cindy was being aggressive, I

> am with her in saying that people here do come off as

> rather hostile. I have been put into a defensive

> position on this list before.

I don't recall where she said anyone was being aggressive, but she did

call what I had written " Junk Science " which was uncalled for.

You're right, though. People do get aggressive at times and I know

you've been the brunt of part of it. Sometimes a carelessly thrown out

statement can come across as a direct attack on someone. I think the

other thing that has seen you in the thick of things is that the

premise of this group is to take WWers seriously, don't whine about

things, ask for help when you need it but take personal

responsibility. Sometimes when we are going through something it is

easy to believe that we are the only ones who have ever dealt with

it...that the grass is greener in everyone else's yard...and that no

one understands. So when you toss out something like " Only rich people

have... " or act like no one else understands, it makes some people say

" Hey now Mister! We're all dealing with the same hockey you are. We

will help, but don't make it sound like we've all got it easy just

because we aren't in your situation. "

I actually get that a lot. I'm told that it's way easier for me

because I have no children. I'm told I'm selfish because I have no

children. I'm told that I'm lucky because I have no children. Of

course the tune changes when I point out to the person, who doesn't

mean to be offensive, that the reason I have no children is that I

can't.

> The biggest problem with online groups like this is

> that you can't easily convey emotions and as such, you

> have to supply your own to what is being said. That

> can lead to bad feelings and thus someone becoming

> defensive.

I think that you are right. But I see two things at work in most

groups...and this one tends to get along VERY well 99% of the time.

1) People who say things flippantly or in humor, but those things are

taken wrong by others. I think that maybe this is what has happened to

you. We aren't all used to your sense of humor and I think you've said

things in jest and some of us have taken offense to it. You were blown

away because that's not how you meant it! For that, I know I'm sorry.

2) People who say things because they are able to hide behind the

security of the computer. I'm sure we have ALL done this at times. I

think this is what happened in Cindy's case. She felt that we were

attacking her, which was not anyone's intent. I have re-read the

thread a few times to see where someone said something out of line

prior to the " junk science " comment. Nope. People were answering a

question posted by one person, and then another asked for how others

were doing their weight loss (to flex or not to flex, that is the

question). Bette and I, separately, offered up a simplified version of

why you should not lower your calories by too much and we were

referred to as passing on " junk science. "

Now I'll be honest. When someone treats me with disrespect, I turn

from Mild Mannered MsTeechur into the Hulk. I don't post information

lightly and am VERY careful about what I do post. In fact, I am

teaching Health this year for the first time in a long time. Because

it's been awhile I have made sure to read the research on each of the

topics I've taught to ensure that the information I give my students

is up to date and based in science. That's probably why the " junk

science " comment steamed my 0-point bean so much. Part of what I love

doing, because I truly think I was called to it, is teach. When my

teaching is called into question I am offended. I want to make sure

when I teach that I'm not passing on information I read in a women's

magazine or Fred's weight loss website. I want it to be actual factual

information. I teach my students to do the same thing.

So I reacted in response to Cindy's original post because I felt like

my teaching and knowledge was being directly insulted. In addition, I

wanted to make sure that others knew the facts. It never ceases to

amaze me, and I mean no personal judgement by this, how little we care

to learn about our bodies. I know for years I even KNEW the stuff, yet

I still abused my body. But when it comes to our bodies depending on

Weight Watchers literature or Prevention magazine, or People magazine

for health information...well that just blows my mind. It's not that I

think everyone needs to do in-depth research on every aspect of their

health, but when it comes to weight loss we know that there is so much

MORE to it than eat less, lose weight. We're talking about what fuels

our bodies here, and our bodies are complicated machines! People put

more time and effort into researching what gasoline to put in their

car than they do what they put into their bodies and it blows my

little pink mind!

> I say we all dress is tie-dyed clothing and sit around

> a camp fire while singing songs. Come on. It can be fun.

Ironically I am wearing tie-dye right now. I don't normally...it's

just so last millenium.

[Guest guest]

>>So I reacted in response to Cindy's original post because I felt like

>my teaching and knowledge was being directly insulted. In addition, I

>wanted to make sure that others knew the facts. It never ceases to

>amaze me, and I mean no personal judgement by this, how little we care

>to learn about our bodies. I know for years I even KNEW the stuff, yet

>I still abused my body. But when it comes to our bodies depending on

>Weight Watchers literature or Prevention magazine, or People magazine

>for health information...well that just blows my mind. It's not that I

>think everyone needs to do in-depth research on every aspect of their

>health, but when it comes to weight loss we know that there is so much

>MORE to it than eat less, lose weight. We're talking about what fuels

>our bodies here, and our bodies are complicated machines! People put

>more time and effort into researching what gasoline to put in their

>car than they do what they put into their bodies and it blows my

>little pink mind!

Tory...You are so right about this. In all of your research, you have found

any good sites, books, articles, ect. that gives info in easy to understand

language that you are willing to share? I am guilty of researching other

stuff, and not learning about my own body. When I was pregnant, I was a

sponge soaking up info...I could not find enough. I know that is why I had

a healthy pregnancy and child, even though I was 100+ pounds overweight.

That was one thing that hit me...I would do it for the baby, but not for

myself? That doesn't make sense. Any thing you are willing to share, I

know I for one would appreciate!

Thanks,

Ronica Jo

_________________________________________________________________

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

There have been some responses that have been kinda harsh and I can see where

one may get their feelings hurt.

This group is supposed to be about supporting one another and helping them get

through and make their WW journey as smooth as possible NOT cutting one down or

making them feel like pooh!

I think the nails really came out on some of the responses about Eat All Points.

cryssyzip wrote:

I agree how ridiculously easy it is to get feelings hurt on one of

these message boards.

For example, as self-centered & illogical it is, I got a little hurt

that I spent a long time thinking about the " Tory's WI " message, and

posted a heartfelt response to Tory, but got no response. I know

that she & Bette have history and maybe that's why she responded to

Bette, and that I am a newbie here, but I felt slighted.

How ridiculous! I am not the center of the universe, I know. I

think the problem's that it's a little exposing to put your feelings

& thoughts in writing in a national forum, then once it's out there

you worry about what others are going to think of you. Then you

move on to assuming that you're being ignored or your input is not

highly regarded.

You read sooo much into a few lines of text. Just Tory mentioning

that Prevention magazine may not be the most scientific source made

me embarrassed that I mentioned months ago an article from there

that spoke of water raising your metabolism. I'm sure I'm the only

one who remembered that, and I'm sure no one thought I was foolish

for posting it then. But my brain feels foolish now.

So, I know these feelings are unreasonable, but they are real. I

think it would go a long way towards harmony in the group if we all

try to put ourselves in the place of others in the group, and for

all of us to remember that a lot of us feel vulnerable, especially

due to the unique emotional minefield of a weight loss journey.

If you made it to the end of this ramble, thanks for listening,

Crystal

> >

> > Tory, while I agree that Cindy was being aggressive, I

> > am with her in saying that people here do come off as

> > rather hostile. I have been put into a defensive

> > position on this list before.

>

> I don't recall where she said anyone was being aggressive, but she

did

> call what I had written " Junk Science " which was uncalled for.

>

> You're right, though. People do get aggressive at times and I know

> you've been the brunt of part of it. Sometimes a carelessly thrown

out

> statement can come across as a direct attack on someone. I think

the

> other thing that has seen you in the thick of things is that the

> premise of this group is to take WWers seriously, don't whine about

> things, ask for help when you need it but take personal

> responsibility. Sometimes when we are going through something it is

> easy to believe that we are the only ones who have ever dealt with

> it...that the grass is greener in everyone else's yard...and that

no

> one understands. So when you toss out something like " Only rich

people

> have... " or act like no one else understands, it makes some people

say

> " Hey now Mister! We're all dealing with the same hockey you are. We

> will help, but don't make it sound like we've all got it easy just

> because we aren't in your situation. "

>

> I actually get that a lot. I'm told that it's way easier for me

> because I have no children. I'm told I'm selfish because I have no

> children. I'm told that I'm lucky because I have no children. Of

> course the tune changes when I point out to the person, who doesn't

> mean to be offensive, that the reason I have no children is that I

> can't.

>

> > The biggest problem with online groups like this is

> > that you can't easily convey emotions and as such, you

> > have to supply your own to what is being said. That

> > can lead to bad feelings and thus someone becoming

> > defensive.

>

> I think that you are right. But I see two things at work in most

> groups...and this one tends to get along VERY well 99% of the time.

>

> 1) People who say things flippantly or in humor, but those things

are

> taken wrong by others. I think that maybe this is what has

happened to

> you. We aren't all used to your sense of humor and I think you've

said

> things in jest and some of us have taken offense to it. You were

blown

> away because that's not how you meant it! For that, I know I'm

sorry.

>

> 2) People who say things because they are able to hide behind the

> security of the computer. I'm sure we have ALL done this at times.

I

> think this is what happened in Cindy's case. She felt that we were

> attacking her, which was not anyone's intent. I have re-read the

> thread a few times to see where someone said something out of line

> prior to the " junk science " comment. Nope. People were answering a

> question posted by one person, and then another asked for how

others

> were doing their weight loss (to flex or not to flex, that is the

> question). Bette and I, separately, offered up a simplified

version of

> why you should not lower your calories by too much and we were

> referred to as passing on " junk science. "

>

> Now I'll be honest. When someone treats me with disrespect, I turn

> from Mild Mannered MsTeechur into the Hulk. I don't post

information

> lightly and am VERY careful about what I do post. In fact, I am

> teaching Health this year for the first time in a long time.

Because

> it's been awhile I have made sure to read the research on each of

the

> topics I've taught to ensure that the information I give my

students

> is up to date and based in science. That's probably why the " junk

> science " comment steamed my 0-point bean so much. Part of what I

love

> doing, because I truly think I was called to it, is teach. When my

> teaching is called into question I am offended. I want to make sure

> when I teach that I'm not passing on information I read in a

women's

> magazine or Fred's weight loss website. I want it to be actual

factual

> information. I teach my students to do the same thing.

>

> So I reacted in response to Cindy's original post because I felt

like

> my teaching and knowledge was being directly insulted. In

addition, I

> wanted to make sure that others knew the facts. It never ceases to

> amaze me, and I mean no personal judgement by this, how little we

care

> to learn about our bodies. I know for years I even KNEW the stuff,

yet

> I still abused my body. But when it comes to our bodies depending

on

> Weight Watchers literature or Prevention magazine, or People

magazine

> for health information...well that just blows my mind. It's not

that I

> think everyone needs to do in-depth research on every aspect of

their

> health, but when it comes to weight loss we know that there is so

much

> MORE to it than eat less, lose weight. We're talking about what

fuels

> our bodies here, and our bodies are complicated machines! People

put

> more time and effort into researching what gasoline to put in their

> car than they do what they put into their bodies and it blows my

> little pink mind!

>

> > I say we all dress is tie-dyed clothing and sit around

> > a camp fire while singing songs. Come on. It can be fun.

>

> Ironically I am wearing tie-dye right now. I don't normally...it's

> just so last millenium.

[Guest guest]

There have been some responses that have been kinda harsh and I can see where

one may get their feelings hurt.

This group is supposed to be about supporting one another and helping them get

through and make their WW journey as smooth as possible NOT cutting one down or

making them feel like pooh!

I think the nails really came out on some of the responses about Eat All Points.

cryssyzip wrote:

I agree how ridiculously easy it is to get feelings hurt on one of

these message boards.

For example, as self-centered & illogical it is, I got a little hurt

that I spent a long time thinking about the " Tory's WI " message, and

posted a heartfelt response to Tory, but got no response. I know

that she & Bette have history and maybe that's why she responded to

Bette, and that I am a newbie here, but I felt slighted.

How ridiculous! I am not the center of the universe, I know. I

think the problem's that it's a little exposing to put your feelings

& thoughts in writing in a national forum, then once it's out there

you worry about what others are going to think of you. Then you

move on to assuming that you're being ignored or your input is not

highly regarded.

You read sooo much into a few lines of text. Just Tory mentioning

that Prevention magazine may not be the most scientific source made

me embarrassed that I mentioned months ago an article from there

that spoke of water raising your metabolism. I'm sure I'm the only

one who remembered that, and I'm sure no one thought I was foolish

for posting it then. But my brain feels foolish now.

So, I know these feelings are unreasonable, but they are real. I

think it would go a long way towards harmony in the group if we all

try to put ourselves in the place of others in the group, and for

all of us to remember that a lot of us feel vulnerable, especially

due to the unique emotional minefield of a weight loss journey.

If you made it to the end of this ramble, thanks for listening,

Crystal

> >

> > Tory, while I agree that Cindy was being aggressive, I

> > am with her in saying that people here do come off as

> > rather hostile. I have been put into a defensive

> > position on this list before.

>

> I don't recall where she said anyone was being aggressive, but she

did

> call what I had written " Junk Science " which was uncalled for.

>

> You're right, though. People do get aggressive at times and I know

> you've been the brunt of part of it. Sometimes a carelessly thrown

out

> statement can come across as a direct attack on someone. I think

the

> other thing that has seen you in the thick of things is that the

> premise of this group is to take WWers seriously, don't whine about

> things, ask for help when you need it but take personal

> responsibility. Sometimes when we are going through something it is

> easy to believe that we are the only ones who have ever dealt with

> it...that the grass is greener in everyone else's yard...and that

no

> one understands. So when you toss out something like " Only rich

people

> have... " or act like no one else understands, it makes some people

say

> " Hey now Mister! We're all dealing with the same hockey you are. We

> will help, but don't make it sound like we've all got it easy just

> because we aren't in your situation. "

>

> I actually get that a lot. I'm told that it's way easier for me

> because I have no children. I'm told I'm selfish because I have no

> children. I'm told that I'm lucky because I have no children. Of

> course the tune changes when I point out to the person, who doesn't

> mean to be offensive, that the reason I have no children is that I

> can't.

>

> > The biggest problem with online groups like this is

> > that you can't easily convey emotions and as such, you

> > have to supply your own to what is being said. That

> > can lead to bad feelings and thus someone becoming

> > defensive.

>

> I think that you are right. But I see two things at work in most

> groups...and this one tends to get along VERY well 99% of the time.

>

> 1) People who say things flippantly or in humor, but those things

are

> taken wrong by others. I think that maybe this is what has

happened to

> you. We aren't all used to your sense of humor and I think you've

said

> things in jest and some of us have taken offense to it. You were

blown

> away because that's not how you meant it! For that, I know I'm

sorry.

>

> 2) People who say things because they are able to hide behind the

> security of the computer. I'm sure we have ALL done this at times.

I

> think this is what happened in Cindy's case. She felt that we were

> attacking her, which was not anyone's intent. I have re-read the

> thread a few times to see where someone said something out of line

> prior to the " junk science " comment. Nope. People were answering a

> question posted by one person, and then another asked for how

others

> were doing their weight loss (to flex or not to flex, that is the

> question). Bette and I, separately, offered up a simplified

version of

> why you should not lower your calories by too much and we were

> referred to as passing on " junk science. "

>

> Now I'll be honest. When someone treats me with disrespect, I turn

> from Mild Mannered MsTeechur into the Hulk. I don't post

information

> lightly and am VERY careful about what I do post. In fact, I am

> teaching Health this year for the first time in a long time.

Because

> it's been awhile I have made sure to read the research on each of

the

> topics I've taught to ensure that the information I give my

students

> is up to date and based in science. That's probably why the " junk

> science " comment steamed my 0-point bean so much. Part of what I

love

> doing, because I truly think I was called to it, is teach. When my

> teaching is called into question I am offended. I want to make sure

> when I teach that I'm not passing on information I read in a

women's

> magazine or Fred's weight loss website. I want it to be actual

factual

> information. I teach my students to do the same thing.

>

> So I reacted in response to Cindy's original post because I felt

like

> my teaching and knowledge was being directly insulted. In

addition, I

> wanted to make sure that others knew the facts. It never ceases to

> amaze me, and I mean no personal judgement by this, how little we

care

> to learn about our bodies. I know for years I even KNEW the stuff,

yet

> I still abused my body. But when it comes to our bodies depending

on

> Weight Watchers literature or Prevention magazine, or People

magazine

> for health information...well that just blows my mind. It's not

that I

> think everyone needs to do in-depth research on every aspect of

their

> health, but when it comes to weight loss we know that there is so

much

> MORE to it than eat less, lose weight. We're talking about what

fuels

> our bodies here, and our bodies are complicated machines! People

put

> more time and effort into researching what gasoline to put in their

> car than they do what they put into their bodies and it blows my

> little pink mind!

>

> > I say we all dress is tie-dyed clothing and sit around

> > a camp fire while singing songs. Come on. It can be fun.

>

> Ironically I am wearing tie-dye right now. I don't normally...it's

> just so last millenium.

[Guest guest]

I totally agree. The original poster, Cindy, unsubscribed right after

her last post responding to Betty, so, unfortunately, there's no point

in resolution at this point.

Re: Re: Eat all Points?/Betty

There have been some responses that have been kinda harsh and I can see

where one may get their feelings hurt.

This group is supposed to be about supporting one another and helping

them get through and make their WW journey as smooth as possible NOT

cutting one down or making them feel like pooh!

I think the nails really came out on some of the responses about Eat All

Points.

cryssyzip wrote:

I agree how ridiculously easy it is to get feelings hurt on one of

these message boards.

For example, as self-centered & illogical it is, I got a little hurt

that I spent a long time thinking about the " Tory's WI " message, and

posted a heartfelt response to Tory, but got no response. I know

that she & Bette have history and maybe that's why she responded to

Bette, and that I am a newbie here, but I felt slighted.

How ridiculous! I am not the center of the universe, I know. I

think the problem's that it's a little exposing to put your feelings

& thoughts in writing in a national forum, then once it's out there

you worry about what others are going to think of you. Then you

move on to assuming that you're being ignored or your input is not

highly regarded.

You read sooo much into a few lines of text. Just Tory mentioning

that Prevention magazine may not be the most scientific source made

me embarrassed that I mentioned months ago an article from there

that spoke of water raising your metabolism. I'm sure I'm the only

one who remembered that, and I'm sure no one thought I was foolish

for posting it then. But my brain feels foolish now.

So, I know these feelings are unreasonable, but they are real. I

think it would go a long way towards harmony in the group if we all

try to put ourselves in the place of others in the group, and for

all of us to remember that a lot of us feel vulnerable, especially

due to the unique emotional minefield of a weight loss journey.

If you made it to the end of this ramble, thanks for listening,

Crystal

> >

> > Tory, while I agree that Cindy was being aggressive, I

> > am with her in saying that people here do come off as

> > rather hostile. I have been put into a defensive

> > position on this list before.

>

> I don't recall where she said anyone was being aggressive, but she

did

> call what I had written " Junk Science " which was uncalled for.

>

> You're right, though. People do get aggressive at times and I know

> you've been the brunt of part of it. Sometimes a carelessly thrown

out

> statement can come across as a direct attack on someone. I think

the

> other thing that has seen you in the thick of things is that the

> premise of this group is to take WWers seriously, don't whine about

> things, ask for help when you need it but take personal

> responsibility. Sometimes when we are going through something it is

> easy to believe that we are the only ones who have ever dealt with

> it...that the grass is greener in everyone else's yard...and that

no

> one understands. So when you toss out something like " Only rich

people

> have... " or act like no one else understands, it makes some people

say

> " Hey now Mister! We're all dealing with the same hockey you are. We

> will help, but don't make it sound like we've all got it easy just

> because we aren't in your situation. "

>

> I actually get that a lot. I'm told that it's way easier for me

> because I have no children. I'm told I'm selfish because I have no

> children. I'm told that I'm lucky because I have no children. Of

> course the tune changes when I point out to the person, who doesn't

> mean to be offensive, that the reason I have no children is that I

> can't.

>

> > The biggest problem with online groups like this is

> > that you can't easily convey emotions and as such, you

> > have to supply your own to what is being said. That

> > can lead to bad feelings and thus someone becoming

> > defensive.

>

> I think that you are right. But I see two things at work in most

> groups...and this one tends to get along VERY well 99% of the time.

>

> 1) People who say things flippantly or in humor, but those things

are

> taken wrong by others. I think that maybe this is what has

happened to

> you. We aren't all used to your sense of humor and I think you've

said

> things in jest and some of us have taken offense to it. You were

blown

> away because that's not how you meant it! For that, I know I'm

sorry.

>

> 2) People who say things because they are able to hide behind the

> security of the computer. I'm sure we have ALL done this at times.

I

> think this is what happened in Cindy's case. She felt that we were

> attacking her, which was not anyone's intent. I have re-read the

> thread a few times to see where someone said something out of line

> prior to the " junk science " comment. Nope. People were answering a

> question posted by one person, and then another asked for how

others

> were doing their weight loss (to flex or not to flex, that is the

> question). Bette and I, separately, offered up a simplified

version of

> why you should not lower your calories by too much and we were

> referred to as passing on " junk science. "

>

> Now I'll be honest. When someone treats me with disrespect, I turn

> from Mild Mannered MsTeechur into the Hulk. I don't post

information

> lightly and am VERY careful about what I do post. In fact, I am

> teaching Health this year for the first time in a long time.

Because

> it's been awhile I have made sure to read the research on each of

the

> topics I've taught to ensure that the information I give my

students

> is up to date and based in science. That's probably why the " junk

> science " comment steamed my 0-point bean so much. Part of what I

love

> doing, because I truly think I was called to it, is teach. When my

> teaching is called into question I am offended. I want to make sure

> when I teach that I'm not passing on information I read in a

women's

> magazine or Fred's weight loss website. I want it to be actual

factual

> information. I teach my students to do the same thing.

>

> So I reacted in response to Cindy's original post because I felt

like

> my teaching and knowledge was being directly insulted. In

addition, I

> wanted to make sure that others knew the facts. It never ceases to

> amaze me, and I mean no personal judgement by this, how little we

care

> to learn about our bodies. I know for years I even KNEW the stuff,

yet

> I still abused my body. But when it comes to our bodies depending

on

> Weight Watchers literature or Prevention magazine, or People

magazine

> for health information...well that just blows my mind. It's not

that I

> think everyone needs to do in-depth research on every aspect of

their

> health, but when it comes to weight loss we know that there is so

much

> MORE to it than eat less, lose weight. We're talking about what

fuels

> our bodies here, and our bodies are complicated machines! People

put

> more time and effort into researching what gasoline to put in their

> car than they do what they put into their bodies and it blows my

> little pink mind!

>

> > I say we all dress is tie-dyed clothing and sit around

> > a camp fire while singing songs. Come on. It can be fun.

>

> Ironically I am wearing tie-dye right now. I don't normally...it's

> just so last millenium.

[Guest guest]

It's indeed too bad that the original poster, Cindy, chose to run and hide

by unsubscribing, when she's the one who began the harshness with her " junk

science " statement.

When I first joined SWW in June of 2003, I got slammed down by one of the

then-moderators and some other members because my first post had a " whining "

sound to it. My feelings were a bit miffed, but I stuck around and asked

questions and then, Voila! I GOT IT. This is a SERIOUS group. Or it was

back then anyway. People did not mean to hurt my feelings, but they were

VERY serious about their dedication to the Weight Watchers program. Very

little off-topic posting was allowed by Lyn, the list mom, back then, and

whining was definitely not allowed. People got a kick in the pants when

needed (and we weren't allowed to cry about it), and we got encouragement a

lot. There was give and take, and it worked very well. At that time,

postings were in the hundreds each day. They've decreased in number

significantly since then, and as I've mentioned before here, the tone has

changed. More whining gets by...more sob stories, and less practical advice

is shared by experienced WWers OR received well by the newbies. Still, the

overall benefit of this group continues and I do believe there's potential

for it to return to being a strong, SERIOUS support group that stays on

topic, and where people join together in their determination to win at the

weight-loss war.

Tory is a moderator here, and she has a way of " telling it like it is. " But

no one can argue that she's successful, that she has wisdom and experience

and that we can all benefit from her words of wisdom! She's tops in my

book. I want to be just like her (well....except that my body will never

ever see 116 pounds! LOL!)

Bette

[Guest guest]

It's indeed too bad that the original poster, Cindy, chose to run and hide

by unsubscribing, when she's the one who began the harshness with her " junk

science " statement.

When I first joined SWW in June of 2003, I got slammed down by one of the

then-moderators and some other members because my first post had a " whining "

sound to it. My feelings were a bit miffed, but I stuck around and asked

questions and then, Voila! I GOT IT. This is a SERIOUS group. Or it was

back then anyway. People did not mean to hurt my feelings, but they were

VERY serious about their dedication to the Weight Watchers program. Very

little off-topic posting was allowed by Lyn, the list mom, back then, and

whining was definitely not allowed. People got a kick in the pants when

needed (and we weren't allowed to cry about it), and we got encouragement a

lot. There was give and take, and it worked very well. At that time,

postings were in the hundreds each day. They've decreased in number

significantly since then, and as I've mentioned before here, the tone has

changed. More whining gets by...more sob stories, and less practical advice

is shared by experienced WWers OR received well by the newbies. Still, the

overall benefit of this group continues and I do believe there's potential

for it to return to being a strong, SERIOUS support group that stays on

topic, and where people join together in their determination to win at the

weight-loss war.

Tory is a moderator here, and she has a way of " telling it like it is. " But

no one can argue that she's successful, that she has wisdom and experience

and that we can all benefit from her words of wisdom! She's tops in my

book. I want to be just like her (well....except that my body will never

ever see 116 pounds! LOL!)

Bette

[Guest guest]

>

> There have been some responses that have been kinda harsh and I can see where

one may get their feelings hurt.

>

> This group is supposed to be about supporting one another and helping them get

through and make their WW journey as smooth as possible NOT cutting one down or

making them feel like pooh!

>

> I think the nails really came out on some of the responses about Eat All

Points.

I'm retracting mine. I'll admit, mine did come out. I just have a

" thing " when I feel like someone is pointing at me and saying " Hey,

she's an idiot...look at how bad her information is. "

I'm sorry Cindy unsubbed, though. Really.

> cryssyzip wrote:

>

> I agree how ridiculously easy it is to get feelings hurt on one of

> these message boards.

>

> For example, as self-centered & illogical it is, I got a little hurt

> that I spent a long time thinking about the " Tory's WI " message, and

> posted a heartfelt response to Tory, but got no response. I know

> that she & Bette have history and maybe that's why she responded to

> Bette, and that I am a newbie here, but I felt slighted.

I emailed you off list, and do plan to respond to that email. I got it

at home and it was after Bette's in my queue. I read hers and replied,

then read yours and my husband said " Are you ready to go? " so I marked

it as unread because I wanted to take time to really respond. I'm so

sorry...and I will respond because it was a very meaningful email to

me. Unfortunately it isn't in my Gmail box, it's on my 'puter at home.

> How ridiculous! I am not the center of the universe, I know. I

> think the problem's that it's a little exposing to put your feelings

> & thoughts in writing in a national forum, then once it's out there

> you worry about what others are going to think of you. Then you

> move on to assuming that you're being ignored or your input is not

> highly regarded.

Not at all, but I know it's easy to feel that way. I've been known to

get my nose out of joint at a perceived slight myself. I need to

remind myself often that everyone isn't just sitting staring at their

inbox waiting for something from me.

> You read sooo much into a few lines of text. Just Tory mentioning

> that Prevention magazine may not be the most scientific source made

> me embarrassed that I mentioned months ago an article from there

> that spoke of water raising your metabolism. I'm sure I'm the only

> one who remembered that, and I'm sure no one thought I was foolish

> for posting it then. But my brain feels foolish now.

Don't feel foolish! There is nothing wrong with Prevention Magazine. I

feel foolish because I wasn't clear.

What I meant, but was in the process of being ticked off and when I'm

ticked I am not always coherent, is that magazines like Prevention,

Women's Day, etc. get their information often from other sources and

present it out of context. It's because newsfeeds often give a snippet

of an entire study or piece of information. However to truly

understand the study you have to take a look at it, not not the

synopsis of it.

For example, they may produce information from a single study. (This

is what happens most of the time.) That study may be longitudinal

(meaning it took place over many years) or it may have been short

term. Short term studies are usually used to indicate the need for

longitudinal studies. This comes out of anecdotal information.

Anecdotal is " Wow, I'm noticing that a lot of my patients who are

taking pill xx are seeing this effect, and it's not in the

literature. " Then a short term study is done on it which indicates

that pill xx may cause yy. Then what SHOULD happen is a long term

study is done to figure out for sure if xx causes yy, or if the

underlying problem that requires pill xx causes yy, or if the

combination of xx and something in the air causes yy...etc. Know what

I mean?

So while Prevention is giving health information, it's giving

snapshots of health information that is conclusions of some studies.

It doesn't mean the information is wrong, but it might be incomplete,

so it is a good starting off point for health information and should

make us say, " Okay, Prevention says that water raises the metabolism

by as much as...let's see where they got the information because I'm

really curious about this. "

Of course we don't have time to do that for every article we read, and

there is nothing wrong with passing on " drink water because it can

help raise the metabolism " because you read a reputible, but sometimes

limited resource. (That's just how magazines are, if you know what I

mean. They can't take the time to print out every fact related to a

single study. Who would read that anyhow?) In fact when you posted

that I thought " Now that's interesting and something I can use with my

classes " and it caused me to do more research into it. I could find

lots of references to it, but not the explanation of why it does it,

so I decided to file it away and definitely tell them that drinking

water is important for weight loss, but not quite say that it raises

metabolism because I didn't have enough information.

Does that make sense and clarify? I hope so because I don't want

anyone to think that posting information from Prevention or another

magazine is a bad thing. It gives us some food for thought and allows

us to learn more about our bodies. So please forgive me if somehow you

felt like I was singling out you when I mentioned that...I most

certainly wasn't.

> So, I know these feelings are unreasonable, but they are real. I

> think it would go a long way towards harmony in the group if we all

> try to put ourselves in the place of others in the group, and for

> all of us to remember that a lot of us feel vulnerable, especially

> due to the unique emotional minefield of a weight loss journey.

>

> If you made it to the end of this ramble, thanks for listening,

> Crystal

>

>

> > >

> > > Tory, while I agree that Cindy was being aggressive, I

> > > am with her in saying that people here do come off as

> > > rather hostile. I have been put into a defensive

> > > position on this list before.

> >

> > I don't recall where she said anyone was being aggressive, but she

> did

> > call what I had written " Junk Science " which was uncalled for.

> >

> > You're right, though. People do get aggressive at times and I know

> > you've been the brunt of part of it. Sometimes a carelessly thrown

> out

> > statement can come across as a direct attack on someone. I think

> the

> > other thing that has seen you in the thick of things is that the

> > premise of this group is to take WWers seriously, don't whine about

> > things, ask for help when you need it but take personal

> > responsibility. Sometimes when we are going through something it is

> > easy to believe that we are the only ones who have ever dealt with

> > it...that the grass is greener in everyone else's yard...and that

> no

> > one understands. So when you toss out something like " Only rich

> people

> > have... " or act like no one else understands, it makes some people

> say

> > " Hey now Mister! We're all dealing with the same hockey you are. We

> > will help, but don't make it sound like we've all got it easy just

> > because we aren't in your situation. "

> >

> > I actually get that a lot. I'm told that it's way easier for me

> > because I have no children. I'm told I'm selfish because I have no

> > children. I'm told that I'm lucky because I have no children. Of

> > course the tune changes when I point out to the person, who doesn't

> > mean to be offensive, that the reason I have no children is that I

> > can't.

> >

> > > The biggest problem with online groups like this is

> > > that you can't easily convey emotions and as such, you

> > > have to supply your own to what is being said. That

> > > can lead to bad feelings and thus someone becoming

> > > defensive.

> >

> > I think that you are right. But I see two things at work in most

> > groups...and this one tends to get along VERY well 99% of the time.

> >

> > 1) People who say things flippantly or in humor, but those things

> are

> > taken wrong by others. I think that maybe this is what has

> happened to

> > you. We aren't all used to your sense of humor and I think you've

> said

> > things in jest and some of us have taken offense to it. You were

> blown

> > away because that's not how you meant it! For that, I know I'm

> sorry.

> >

> > 2) People who say things because they are able to hide behind the

> > security of the computer. I'm sure we have ALL done this at times.

> I

> > think this is what happened in Cindy's case. She felt that we were

> > attacking her, which was not anyone's intent. I have re-read the

> > thread a few times to see where someone said something out of line

> > prior to the " junk science " comment. Nope. People were answering a

> > question posted by one person, and then another asked for how

> others

> > were doing their weight loss (to flex or not to flex, that is the

> > question). Bette and I, separately, offered up a simplified

> version of

> > why you should not lower your calories by too much and we were

> > referred to as passing on " junk science. "

> >

> > Now I'll be honest. When someone treats me with disrespect, I turn

> > from Mild Mannered MsTeechur into the Hulk. I don't post

> information

> > lightly and am VERY careful about what I do post. In fact, I am

> > teaching Health this year for the first time in a long time.

> Because

> > it's been awhile I have made sure to read the research on each of

> the

> > topics I've taught to ensure that the information I give my

> students

> > is up to date and based in science. That's probably why the " junk

> > science " comment steamed my 0-point bean so much. Part of what I

> love

> > doing, because I truly think I was called to it, is teach. When my

> > teaching is called into question I am offended. I want to make sure

> > when I teach that I'm not passing on information I read in a

> women's

> > magazine or Fred's weight loss website. I want it to be actual

> factual

> > information. I teach my students to do the same thing.

> >

> > So I reacted in response to Cindy's original post because I felt

> like

> > my teaching and knowledge was being directly insulted. In

> addition, I

> > wanted to make sure that others knew the facts. It never ceases to

> > amaze me, and I mean no personal judgement by this, how little we

> care

> > to learn about our bodies. I know for years I even KNEW the stuff,

> yet

> > I still abused my body. But when it comes to our bodies depending

> on

> > Weight Watchers literature or Prevention magazine, or People

> magazine

> > for health information...well that just blows my mind. It's not

> that I

> > think everyone needs to do in-depth research on every aspect of

> their

> > health, but when it comes to weight loss we know that there is so

> much

> > MORE to it than eat less, lose weight. We're talking about what

> fuels

> > our bodies here, and our bodies are complicated machines! People

> put

> > more time and effort into researching what gasoline to put in their

> > car than they do what they put into their bodies and it blows my

> > little pink mind!

> >

> > > I say we all dress is tie-dyed clothing and sit around

> > > a camp fire while singing songs. Come on. It can be fun.

> >

> > Ironically I am wearing tie-dye right now. I don't normally...it's

> > just so last millenium.

>

>

[Guest guest]

A lot of us are guilty of this, Ronica! We're busy people and it's so easy

if we're not " feeling " the results of unhealthy living to just let it go.

After all, one day won't hurt...but a dozen days do, and those dozens make

months, those months make years. Soon we're mired in unhealthy habits and

reeling from the effects!

www.webmd.com has come good information. I also really like

www.nutritiondata.com and use that with my students for learning about

nutrients and finding foods that meet specific nutrient needs.

www.mayoclinic.com is also excellent.

For exercise I love www.shape.com. If I find a health related article that

I find interesting and I want to share it with my kids, I google it for

other references.

At 07:20 AM 12/14/2004, ronica hutson wrote:

> >>So I reacted in response to Cindy's original post because I felt like

> >my teaching and knowledge was being directly insulted. In addition, I

> >wanted to make sure that others knew the facts. It never ceases to

> >amaze me, and I mean no personal judgement by this, how little we care

> >to learn about our bodies. I know for years I even KNEW the stuff, yet

> >I still abused my body. But when it comes to our bodies depending on

> >Weight Watchers literature or Prevention magazine, or People magazine

> >for health information...well that just blows my mind. It's not that I

> >think everyone needs to do in-depth research on every aspect of their

> >health, but when it comes to weight loss we know that there is so much

> >MORE to it than eat less, lose weight. We're talking about what fuels

> >our bodies here, and our bodies are complicated machines! People put

> >more time and effort into researching what gasoline to put in their

> >car than they do what they put into their bodies and it blows my

> >little pink mind!

>

>Tory...You are so right about this. In all of your research, you have found

>any good sites, books, articles, ect. that gives info in easy to understand

>language that you are willing to share? I am guilty of researching other

>stuff, and not learning about my own body. When I was pregnant, I was a

>sponge soaking up info...I could not find enough. I know that is why I had

>a healthy pregnancy and child, even though I was 100+ pounds overweight.

>That was one thing that hit me...I would do it for the baby, but not for

>myself? That doesn't make sense. Any thing you are willing to share, I

>know I for one would appreciate!

>Thanks,

>Ronica Jo

>

>_________________________________________________________________

>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 09:48 AM 12/14/2004, T G wrote:

>I know I have been told by my WW leader to leave the past in the past, but

>can we get this group back to the way it used to be???

Or as Pumbaa says, " Leave your past in your behind. "

>

>No whining, no off subject topics...and get back to the Serious WW and

>Serious Support.

Yes! I'd love to see us go back to that!

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the websites, Tory! I will definitely have to do some

researching over the break...I have too many grades to get in before

tomorrow!! I have today and 1/2 a day tomorrow, and then Winter Break. I

am not leaving school today until all of my grades are done. I want to

enjoy tomorrow with the students, not worrying about getting grades done!

I am determined to lose the weight this time, and I know that I work better

with information to back me up. Plus, it is important to know the basics of

how the body uses energy, etc.!!! Maybe after I get my masters I could take

some college level health classes...I could become a dietitian when I grow

up!!! (my favorite line).

Thank you so much for giving me several places to start. Happy Holidays,

and enjoy your break!

Ronica Jo

>

>Reply-To: Serious-Weight-Watchers

>To: Serious-Weight-Watchers ,

>Serious-Weight-Watchers

>Subject: Re: Re: Eat all Points?/Betty

>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:19:19 -0800

>

>A lot of us are guilty of this, Ronica! We're busy people and it's so easy

>if we're not " feeling " the results of unhealthy living to just let it go.

>After all, one day won't hurt...but a dozen days do, and those dozens make

>months, those months make years. Soon we're mired in unhealthy habits and

>reeling from the effects!

>

>www.webmd.com has come good information. I also really like

>www.nutritiondata.com and use that with my students for learning about

>nutrients and finding foods that meet specific nutrient needs.

>www.mayoclinic.com is also excellent.

>

>For exercise I love www.shape.com. If I find a health related article that

>I find interesting and I want to share it with my kids, I google it for

>other references.

>

>At 07:20 AM 12/14/2004, ronica hutson wrote:

>

> > >>So I reacted in response to Cindy's original post because I felt like

> > >my teaching and knowledge was being directly insulted. In addition, I

> > >wanted to make sure that others knew the facts. It never ceases to

> > >amaze me, and I mean no personal judgement by this, how little we care

> > >to learn about our bodies. I know for years I even KNEW the stuff, yet

> > >I still abused my body. But when it comes to our bodies depending on

> > >Weight Watchers literature or Prevention magazine, or People magazine

> > >for health information...well that just blows my mind. It's not that I

> > >think everyone needs to do in-depth research on every aspect of their

> > >health, but when it comes to weight loss we know that there is so much

> > >MORE to it than eat less, lose weight. We're talking about what fuels

> > >our bodies here, and our bodies are complicated machines! People put

> > >more time and effort into researching what gasoline to put in their

> > >car than they do what they put into their bodies and it blows my

> > >little pink mind!

> >

> >Tory...You are so right about this. In all of your research, you have

>found

> >any good sites, books, articles, ect. that gives info in easy to

>understand

> >language that you are willing to share? I am guilty of researching other

> >stuff, and not learning about my own body. When I was pregnant, I was a

> >sponge soaking up info...I could not find enough. I know that is why I

>had

> >a healthy pregnancy and child, even though I was 100+ pounds overweight.

> >That was one thing that hit me...I would do it for the baby, but not for

> >myself? That doesn't make sense. Any thing you are willing to share, I

> >know I for one would appreciate!

> >Thanks,

> >Ronica Jo

> >

> >_________________________________________________________________

> >Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's

>FREE!

> >http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the websites, Tory! I will definitely have to do some

researching over the break...I have too many grades to get in before

tomorrow!! I have today and 1/2 a day tomorrow, and then Winter Break. I

am not leaving school today until all of my grades are done. I want to

enjoy tomorrow with the students, not worrying about getting grades done!

I am determined to lose the weight this time, and I know that I work better

with information to back me up. Plus, it is important to know the basics of

how the body uses energy, etc.!!! Maybe after I get my masters I could take

some college level health classes...I could become a dietitian when I grow

up!!! (my favorite line).

Thank you so much for giving me several places to start. Happy Holidays,

and enjoy your break!

Ronica Jo

>

>Reply-To: Serious-Weight-Watchers

>To: Serious-Weight-Watchers ,

>Serious-Weight-Watchers

>Subject: Re: Re: Eat all Points?/Betty

>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:19:19 -0800

>

>A lot of us are guilty of this, Ronica! We're busy people and it's so easy

>if we're not " feeling " the results of unhealthy living to just let it go.

>After all, one day won't hurt...but a dozen days do, and those dozens make

>months, those months make years. Soon we're mired in unhealthy habits and

>reeling from the effects!

>

>www.webmd.com has come good information. I also really like

>www.nutritiondata.com and use that with my students for learning about

>nutrients and finding foods that meet specific nutrient needs.

>www.mayoclinic.com is also excellent.

>

>For exercise I love www.shape.com. If I find a health related article that

>I find interesting and I want to share it with my kids, I google it for

>other references.

>

>At 07:20 AM 12/14/2004, ronica hutson wrote:

>

> > >>So I reacted in response to Cindy's original post because I felt like

> > >my teaching and knowledge was being directly insulted. In addition, I

> > >wanted to make sure that others knew the facts. It never ceases to

> > >amaze me, and I mean no personal judgement by this, how little we care

> > >to learn about our bodies. I know for years I even KNEW the stuff, yet

> > >I still abused my body. But when it comes to our bodies depending on

> > >Weight Watchers literature or Prevention magazine, or People magazine

> > >for health information...well that just blows my mind. It's not that I

> > >think everyone needs to do in-depth research on every aspect of their

> > >health, but when it comes to weight loss we know that there is so much

> > >MORE to it than eat less, lose weight. We're talking about what fuels

> > >our bodies here, and our bodies are complicated machines! People put

> > >more time and effort into researching what gasoline to put in their

> > >car than they do what they put into their bodies and it blows my

> > >little pink mind!

> >

> >Tory...You are so right about this. In all of your research, you have

>found

> >any good sites, books, articles, ect. that gives info in easy to

>understand

> >language that you are willing to share? I am guilty of researching other

> >stuff, and not learning about my own body. When I was pregnant, I was a

> >sponge soaking up info...I could not find enough. I know that is why I

>had

> >a healthy pregnancy and child, even though I was 100+ pounds overweight.

> >That was one thing that hit me...I would do it for the baby, but not for

> >myself? That doesn't make sense. Any thing you are willing to share, I

> >know I for one would appreciate!

> >Thanks,

> >Ronica Jo

> >

> >_________________________________________________________________

> >Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's

>FREE!

> >http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the websites, Tory! I will definitely have to do some

researching over the break...I have too many grades to get in before

tomorrow!! I have today and 1/2 a day tomorrow, and then Winter Break. I

am not leaving school today until all of my grades are done. I want to

enjoy tomorrow with the students, not worrying about getting grades done!

I am determined to lose the weight this time, and I know that I work better

with information to back me up. Plus, it is important to know the basics of

how the body uses energy, etc.!!! Maybe after I get my masters I could take

some college level health classes...I could become a dietitian when I grow

up!!! (my favorite line).

Thank you so much for giving me several places to start. Happy Holidays,

and enjoy your break!

Ronica Jo

>

>Reply-To: Serious-Weight-Watchers

>To: Serious-Weight-Watchers ,

>Serious-Weight-Watchers

>Subject: Re: Re: Eat all Points?/Betty

>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:19:19 -0800

>

>A lot of us are guilty of this, Ronica! We're busy people and it's so easy

>if we're not " feeling " the results of unhealthy living to just let it go.

>After all, one day won't hurt...but a dozen days do, and those dozens make

>months, those months make years. Soon we're mired in unhealthy habits and

>reeling from the effects!

>

>www.webmd.com has come good information. I also really like

>www.nutritiondata.com and use that with my students for learning about

>nutrients and finding foods that meet specific nutrient needs.

>www.mayoclinic.com is also excellent.

>

>For exercise I love www.shape.com. If I find a health related article that

>I find interesting and I want to share it with my kids, I google it for

>other references.

>

>At 07:20 AM 12/14/2004, ronica hutson wrote:

>

> > >>So I reacted in response to Cindy's original post because I felt like

> > >my teaching and knowledge was being directly insulted. In addition, I

> > >wanted to make sure that others knew the facts. It never ceases to

> > >amaze me, and I mean no personal judgement by this, how little we care

> > >to learn about our bodies. I know for years I even KNEW the stuff, yet

> > >I still abused my body. But when it comes to our bodies depending on

> > >Weight Watchers literature or Prevention magazine, or People magazine

> > >for health information...well that just blows my mind. It's not that I

> > >think everyone needs to do in-depth research on every aspect of their

> > >health, but when it comes to weight loss we know that there is so much

> > >MORE to it than eat less, lose weight. We're talking about what fuels

> > >our bodies here, and our bodies are complicated machines! People put

> > >more time and effort into researching what gasoline to put in their

> > >car than they do what they put into their bodies and it blows my

> > >little pink mind!

> >

> >Tory...You are so right about this. In all of your research, you have

>found

> >any good sites, books, articles, ect. that gives info in easy to

>understand

> >language that you are willing to share? I am guilty of researching other

> >stuff, and not learning about my own body. When I was pregnant, I was a

> >sponge soaking up info...I could not find enough. I know that is why I

>had

> >a healthy pregnancy and child, even though I was 100+ pounds overweight.

> >That was one thing that hit me...I would do it for the baby, but not for

> >myself? That doesn't make sense. Any thing you are willing to share, I

> >know I for one would appreciate!

> >Thanks,

> >Ronica Jo

> >

> >_________________________________________________________________

> >Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's

>FREE!

> >http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >