3 or 5 year plan

[Guest guest]

Dean wrote:

If you have 10 lbs

or more to lose, take 5+ years to lose the weight.

I personally suggest if one has a lot of weight to lose, please do so well

beyond three years to complete your weight loss plan.

Dean: these are your words from your posts. Although you didn't " title "

your posts 5 year plan, you were the one who brought them up. (Why else

would we be discussing this??)

I suggest that this topic ends here and now. I don't like the tone that

these posts are taking which is contrary to support list philosophy.

I ask that you respect my request.

[Guest guest]

>

> If you have 10 lbs

> or more to lose, take 5+ years to lose the

weight.

>

> I personally suggest if one has a lot of weight to lose, please do

so well

> beyond three years to complete your weight

loss plan.

>

> Dean: these are your words from your posts. Although you

didn't " title "

> your posts 5 year plan, you were the one who brought them up. (Why

else

> would we be discussing this??)

>

> I suggest that this topic ends here and now. I don't like the tone

that

> these posts are taking which is contrary to support list philosophy.

>

> I ask that you respect my request

I thought crankiness and wisdom came with old age.

It seems we have both at this early stage!!!

[Guest guest]

Dean wrote:

>If you have 10 lbs or more to lose, take 5+ years to lose the weight.

Dean clarifies again:

Yes, and this was DIRECTED at SHARON -AND- NO ONE ELSE. Read my topic

heading with the name SHARON in it. Sharon has an osteo AND thyroid problem.

What I said was/is reasonable for her condition, especially after ALL my

clarifications following that. This is at least the third time I've

clarified this. (I really don't enjoy saying this again.)

Francesca wrote:

>Although you didn't " title " your posts 5 year plan,

>you were the one who brought them up.

Not really. I -answered- someone's question. I -never- started any of these

topics. Then someone else changed the subject, and I've been responding ever

since (and mostly in a defensive posture).

Dean wrote:

>I personally suggest if one has a lot of weight to lose,

>please do so well beyond three years to complete your

>weight loss plan.

Dean clarifies again:

Well, I've said quite a bit more than just that, so this is somewhat out of

context considering the entirety of all my posts on this subject. As noted

" above " in my quote, this is a PERSONAL SUGGESTION (take it or leave it).

Will this be Ok if I say it this way?...

IF one is in good health, and IF one has a lot of weight to lose, and IF one

wants to lose weight slowly, and IF one is concerned about pesticides and

toxins that might be released from your fat stores, and IF one ate foods or

drank fluids that might have had pesticides or toxins, then IF one so

chooses one MIGHT consider losing weight beyond three years to complete

one's weight loss plan. Walford took about 12 years to complete her

weight loss of about 16 lbs. I'm not saying anyone should lose weight set to

any time table.

Should I be anymore clear than this? I'm exhausted.

You and I can respect each other's ideas and opposing opinions of what Dr.

Walford says in his book. Everyone who can think reasonably well on this

list can decide. I trust and believe everyone here is quite capable of that!

You yourself have advised a similar statement while on this topic, so stick

to your word.

I fully intend to get to the bottom of the pesticide and toxin issue. I

only -suggest- you support me in this pursuit of truth, as that is all I

want. I just want answers that are truthful.

I think you -may- have been reading my posts as a personal issue, or attack,

between you and I. We have been good friends off list, so I can assure you

and everyone this is not personal.

All I'm going to do is follow-up on the pesticide and toxin issue, which IS

most helpful to the CRSupport list.

Let's just see where " that " leads. I could care less about " time tables " .

Best, Dean M.

P.S. I seek to do this peacefully and respectfully.