 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2004New dorky pic of me!
My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick/photos/bowling.html The expression on my face is pretty much "Oh crap he's taking my picture." I was not prepared. Anyway, I'm 10-ish pounds lighter than in the flame top pic, but I don't think it really shows. Different clothes, different angle, and, well, I'm still big enough that 10 pounds one way or another is not much of a dramatic difference. Thought I'd share anyway though!  SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. :: My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. :: :: http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick/photos/bowling.html :: :: The expression on my face is pretty much "Oh crap he's taking my picture." :: I was not prepared. Anyway, I'm 10-ish pounds lighter than in the flame :: top pic, but I don't think it really shows. Different clothes, different :: angle, and, well, I'm still big enough that 10 pounds one way or another is :: not much of a dramatic difference. Thought I'd share anyway though! :: :: -- :: Michelle Levin :: http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick Michelle, you look fantastic!!! Fit!! ~Carol Ann >:: My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. >:: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >:: Michelle Levin >:: http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick You look good kiddo! Keep that hair color too. Sleepy --------------------------------- The True Axis of Evil Bush - Cheney - Ashcroft - Rumsfeld --------------------------------- > My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > angle, and, well, I'm still big enough that 10 pounds one way or another is > not much of a dramatic difference. Thought I'd share anyway though! You look GREAT, Luna! SignatureSaffire 205/165/125 - 5'2.5" Atkins since 6/14/03 Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333 Luna wrote: The expression on my face is pretty much "Oh crap he's taking my picture." I was not prepared. Anyway, I'm 10-ish pounds lighter than in the flame top pic, but I don't think it really shows. Different clothes, different angle, and, well, I'm still big enough that 10 pounds one way or another is not much of a dramatic difference. Thought I'd share anyway though! -------------------------------- Luna, I'd give just about anything to have a flat stomach like yours! Congratulations on your loss. Best Wishes; Marty > Luna wrote: > The expression on my face is pretty much "Oh crap he's taking my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Best Wishes; Marty Wha huh what? Flat???! You can't see that roll poking out over the top of my jeans? I have quite the pooky tummy, actually. But, um, thanks! SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. It's almost time for a bikini pic. SignatureMost of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :) Becky P. > > Luna wrote: > > The expression on my face is pretty much "Oh crap he's taking my [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Wha huh what? Flat???! You can't see that roll poking out over the top of > my jeans? I have quite the pooky tummy, actually. But, um, thanks! Ok, that was sarcasm, I'm guessing. But I can't see your face. > It's almost time for a bikini pic. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > of > > my jeans? I have quite the pooky tummy, actually. But, um, thanks! SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. No, that was straight up. It looks like you're within 10 pounds. SignatureMost of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :) Becky P. > Ok, that was sarcasm, I'm guessing. But I can't see your face. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > of > > > my jeans? I have quite the pooky tummy, actually. But, um, thanks! Well, thanks. That must be a particularly flattering pic of me then, because when I look in the mirror naked I do not look at all close to bikini ready. Maybe I should do a bikini pic anyway, (or a sports bra and bike shorts pic) so you all can see the flab that my clothes hide. > No, that was straight up. It looks like you're within 10 pounds. > > > Ok, that was sarcasm, I'm guessing. But I can't see your face. > > > > > It's almost time for a bikini pic. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. Lose the ten pounds first. SignatureMost of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :) Becky P. > Well, thanks. That must be a particularly flattering pic of me then, > because when I look in the mirror naked I do not look at all close to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > > > > It's almost time for a bikini pic. > Well, thanks. That must be a particularly flattering pic of me then, > because when I look in the mirror naked I do not look at all close to > bikini ready. Maybe I should do a bikini pic anyway, (or a sports bra and > bike shorts pic) so you all can see the flab that my clothes hide. You can already see it on that pic, because the would-be vertical orientation of the belt is knocked out 45 degrees by the stomach. If the stomach were flat, there wouldn't be a gap. > > Well, thanks. That must be a particularly flattering pic of me then, > > because when I look in the mirror naked I do not look at all close to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > orientation of the belt is knocked out 45 degrees by the stomach. If the > stomach were flat, there wouldn't be a gap. Exactamundo. And that is just _that_ part of my body. Even if I lost 10 pounds of belly flab, there's still the thunder thighs, chicken wings, and under-bra bulge to deal with. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. Great Pic Luna, you look Mahhhvelous Dahlling. Lori > No, that was straight up. It looks like you're within 10 pounds. What happened to your ruthless objectivity? Ah, you have a weak spot for... > > No, that was straight up. It looks like you're within 10 pounds. > > What happened to your ruthless objectivity? Ah, you have a weak spot for... For good looking pussy? Perhaps. But I believe I was being objective about the 10 pounds. I could be wrong. > Perhaps. > > But I believe I was being objective about the 10 pounds. > I could be wrong. I have seen a "perfect" body gain 10 pounds and the stomach was still flat and legs and arms still thin and delicate. > > Perhaps. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I have seen a "perfect" body gain 10 pounds and the stomach was still > flat and legs and arms still thin and delicate. Are you saying that you don't think losing 10 pounds will get her ready for a bikini picture? Or is this more of your garbled in translation type of communication effort again? > Are you saying that you don't think losing 10 pounds will get her ready for > a bikini picture? I would think you wouldn't be interested in a bikini pic as long visible flabby fat is showing. > > Are you saying that you don't think losing 10 pounds will get her ready for > > a bikini picture? > > I would think you wouldn't be interested in a bikini pic as long visible > flabby fat is showing. How much do you think she needs to lose before she's ready for a bikini? > > > Are you saying that you don't think losing 10 pounds will get her ready > for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How much do you think she needs to lose before she's ready for a bikini? This wasn't addressed to me, but since it's about me I'll chime in anyway! I think I need to lose at least 20 more pounds before I'm ready for a bikini. Or possibly a bit less scale weight if I all of a sudden start putting on a lot more muscle, which I doubt will happen. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > > > > Are you saying that you don't think losing 10 pounds will get her ready > > for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > bikini. Or possibly a bit less scale weight if I all of a sudden start > putting on a lot more muscle, which I doubt will happen. I'll have to take your word for it. :: In article <pEh6c.65$SS5.59@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>, :: "JC Der Koenig" <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: bikini. Or possibly a bit less scale weight if I all of a sudden :: start putting on a lot more muscle, which I doubt will happen. Do you want to put on more muscle? > :: In article <pEh6c.65$SS5.59@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>, > :: "JC Der Koenig" <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Do you want to put on more muscle? I do, and I think I am, though I can't be sure. I am about the same weight I was my senior year of high school, and my prom dress is now too big, which is the only real evidence I have that I've put on some muscle. What I said was "a lot" more muscle. I am doing weight machines, so I think I am gaining some muscle, just not a lot. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > > :: In article <pEh6c.65$SS5.59@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>, > > :: "JC Der Koenig" <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > said was "a lot" more muscle. I am doing weight machines, so I think I am > gaining some muscle, just not a lot. Luna the Barbarian! ::: In article <105jjj9md91c3bc@corp.supernews.com>, ::: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] :: :: Luna the Barbarian! She-Hulk! Yeah!! >>I would think you wouldn't be interested in a bikini pic as long visible >>flabby fat is showing. > > How much do you think she needs to lose before she's ready for a bikini? Depending how tall she is, I might say 30 pounds, as I think she's not a small near-five-feet girl. If she's more like 5'2" or her bone structure is thick then her own estimate of 20 pounds might work. But of course, lots of wiggly women are found in bikinis that press grand canyons into their backs and hips... > >>I would think you wouldn't be interested in a bikini pic as long visible > >>flabby fat is showing. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lots of wiggly women are found in bikinis that press grand canyons into > their backs and hips... I don't like the way fat women look, but I also don't like to see ribs, abs or veins on women. If you want all that, why don't you just get with a boy? > I don't like the way fat women look, but I also don't like to see ribs, abs > or veins on women. If you want all that, why don't you just get with a boy? I don't like bones sticking out, but I like to see stomach muscles (not as a 6pack), and the ribs should show in the sides, and the thighs shouldn't touch unless the knees do. Watch Alias. > > I don't like the way fat women look, but I also don't like to see ribs, abs > > or veins on women. If you want all that, why don't you just get with a boy? > > I don't like bones sticking out, but I like to see stomach muscles (not > as a 6pack), and the ribs should show in the sides, and the thighs > shouldn't touch unless the knees do. Watch Alias. No thanks. >>I don't like bones sticking out, but I like to see stomach muscles (not >>as a 6pack), and the ribs should show in the sides, and the thighs >>shouldn't touch unless the knees do. Watch Alias. > > No thanks. http://rarecelebs.com/jennifer-garner/02.jpg > >>I don't like bones sticking out, but I like to see stomach muscles (not > >>as a 6pack), and the ribs should show in the sides, and the thighs [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://rarecelebs.com/jennifer-garner/02.jpg Heh. To bad about her ribs sticking out. > >>I don't like bones sticking out, but I like to see stomach muscles (not > >>as a 6pack), and the ribs should show in the sides, and the thighs [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://rarecelebs.com/jennifer-garner/02.jpg Isn't it nice that your ideal woman doesn't have to 1. cook her own meals 2. do her(family's) laundry 3. do the shopping 4. clean her own house 5. worry about money isn't it nice for her that she can 1. have a chef prepare her food so it is good and healthy 2. have her laundry done 3. shop for fabulous clothes by having them delivered to her 4. have a house cleaner (assumption on my part) 5. work out hours per day without other things being left. 6. have a personal trainer 7. have a nip and a tuck if she wants (on the low-down) so it's great that she is your ideal woman but not "real". Oh an BTW she committed adultery and that is why she is divorced and seeing her costar. SignatureLori 220/156/150 LC since 1/17/03 Devoted wife of Curtis, Stage 4 Prostate cancer at age 40 http://community.webshots.com/user/lorismiller-date also fulltime mom m-f work 24hr per weekend (2 twelve hour shifts every Sa-Sun) FT wife 24/7 head cook and bottle-washer, laundress, shopper, cleaning lady, booboo-kisser, gardener, decorator, baseball-football-basketball mom, garbage collector, and gopher who gets up at 0515 every morning I can(if I have the energy) to get to workout before my children wake up. ::: JC Der Koenig wrote: :::: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] :: she committed adultery and that is why she is divorced and seeing :: her costar. No, it not nice....I'd rather have a real (normal) woman that does LC to control her weight (or doesn't have a weight problem), and does for herself many of those things on your list..including NOT CHEATING....but that's just me... > so it's great that she is your ideal woman but not "real". Oh an BTW she > committed adultery and that is why she is divorced and seeing her costar. I'm not talking about the perseon, but using the stoutness as a reference for how I think the fat level and muscle level should be (I especially like the arms and shoulders). It is what I would aim for if I were a woman. Hehe, my girlfriend and another female friend says Garner has fat thighs, and a third female friend commented that she wears too tight clothes so her fat is showing... Archon burbled across the ether: >> so it's great that she is your ideal woman but not "real". Oh an BTW >> she committed adultery and that is why she is divorced and seeing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > especially like the arms and shoulders). It is what I would aim for > if I were a woman. Athletic without being overmuscled or underfatted, so to speak. Someone who looks trim and fit yet still feminine and curvy. I'd like that look for myself-- but not so much that I'd spend the effort on it at the expense of my other priorities. Besides, it sounds like all work and no fun. > Hehe, my girlfriend and another female friend says Garner has fat > thighs, and a third female friend commented that she wears too tight > clothes so her fat is showing... Piffle. I hear the modeling industry's infectious memes crying out in the wilderness, with a bit of jealousy edging it's voice. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park." -Jim Moran > Athletic without being overmuscled or underfatted, so to speak. Someone > who looks trim and fit yet still feminine and curvy. Exactly! > I'd like that look > for myself-- but not so much that I'd spend the effort on it at the > expense of my other priorities. Besides, it sounds like all work and no > fun. Excercise IS fun! > Piffle. I hear the modeling industry's infectious memes crying out in > the wilderness, with a bit of jealousy edging it's voice. These women are thinner than Garner (but not as muscular). Archon burbled across the ether: >> Athletic without being overmuscled or underfatted, so to speak. >> Someone who looks trim and fit yet still feminine and curvy. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Excercise IS fun! Yeah, all you cultists say that. De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt. <g> >> Piffle. I hear the modeling industry's infectious memes crying out >> in the wilderness, with a bit of jealousy edging it's voice. > > These women are thinner than Garner (but not as muscular). Doesn't make the meme go away. And they're jealous that you drool over her (type) and not them. :) Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please A company is known by the people it keeps. >>These women are thinner than Garner (but not as muscular). > > Doesn't make the meme go away. And they're jealous that you drool over > her (type) and not them. :) I drool over one of them! Archon burbled across the ether: > I drool over one of them! Good for you. LOL Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please "Our country was colonized by the religious, political, economic, and criminal rejects of every country in the world. We have been carefully breeding insane, obsessive, fanatic lunatics with each other for over 400 years, resulting in the glorious strain of humanity known as "Americans". You have to expect some... peculiarities." -Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes :: revek wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: :: These women are thinner than Garner (but not as muscular). Then they are stick women...too thin. > ::: Piffle. I hear the modeling industry's infectious memes crying out > ::: in the wilderness, with a bit of jealousy edging it's voice. > :: > :: These women are thinner than Garner (but not as muscular). > > Then they are stick women...too thin. Nope, my girlfriend is about perfect. Just a bit more muscle (like myself). > > ::: Piffle. I hear the modeling industry's infectious memes crying out > > ::: in the wilderness, with a bit of jealousy edging it's voice. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nope, my girlfriend is about perfect. Just a bit more muscle (like myself). You're also a stick figure. HTH > myself). > > You're also a stick figure. HTH My reference for men's "normal" (perfect) stoutness is Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. > > myself). > > > > You're also a stick figure. HTH > > My reference for men's "normal" (perfect) stoutness is Spike from Buffy > the Vampire Slayer. You obviously watch too much TV. :: JC Der Koenig wrote: ::: myself). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: My reference for men's "normal" (perfect) stoutness is Spike from :: Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Spike boney as hell. > Spike boney as hell. If 66% of Americans and 50% of Danes are overweight, and there has to be room for chubbiness in the remaining 33%/50%, then normal has to be more in the veins of my definitions, because there's pretty many people who are like me and my both here and in DK. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Spike boney as hell. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: to be more in the veins of my definitions, because there's pretty :: many people who are like me and my both here and in DK. Hey, have it your way, bro....Spike is still skinny as hell. > > I don't like the way fat women look, but I also don't like to see ribs, abs > > or veins on women. If you want all that, why don't you just get with a boy? > > I don't like bones sticking out, but I like to see stomach muscles (not > as a 6pack), and the ribs should show in the sides, and the thighs > shouldn't touch unless the knees do. De gustibus non disputandum est. What you are describing sounds like heroin chic, and to me is not the slightest bit attractive. carla > De gustibus non disputandum est. What you are describing sounds like heroin > chic, and to me is not the slightest bit attractive. Only to people who feel it is impossible to ever look like that oneself, and thus need to call the berries sour. > > De gustibus non disputandum est. What you are describing sounds like heroin > > chic, and to me is not the slightest bit attractive. > > Only to people who feel it is impossible to ever look like that oneself, > and thus need to call the berries sour. Wrong answer doofus. I've been that thin and I don't find it particularly attractive or healthy looking. > > De gustibus non disputandum est. What you are describing sounds like heroin > > chic, and to me is not the slightest bit attractive. > > Only to people who feel it is impossible to ever look like that oneself, > and thus need to call the berries sour. No; rather, to people to whom it is simply unattractive to see bones sticking out. Do you not understand that different people have different taste? It is not a matter of what I believe I can look like - I have no desire to look as you describe. Really. I have no desire for my ribs to show or for there to be space between my thighs. I don't want a four-pack either. It's not because I don't believe I could do it - it's because I don't want to. I think it looks icky. If that means you won't find me attractive when I get to my goal, well Archon, I think I'll just have to learn to live with that. carla > > De gustibus non disputandum est. What you are describing sounds like heroin > > chic, and to me is not the slightest bit attractive. > > Only to people who feel it is impossible to ever look like that oneself, > and thus need to call the berries sour. Another thought about this. About a month ago I was in a restaurant and one of the servers was a woman in her early twenties who clearly worked out with weights and took great care of her body. She had strong shoulders and great big biceps, and wide curvy hips and fantastic skin. She also had not terribly low body fat - probably 20%, by my estimation - it gave a soft smoothness to her musculature. She looked strong and healthy and fit, but not super-lean or chiseled in any way. By your description, Archon, you would have found her too fat. However, I couldn't take my eyes off of her. I thought she was drop-dead unbelievably gorgeous, and a month later I can still picture her in my mind's eye. The reason I remember her so clearly is that I was so floored by how awesome she looked that I made a mental note of it to use as my goal. Do you understand that? I saw someone *I* thought was hot, and I chose to set my goal to look like her. Do you understand how wrong your statement above is? carla > Another thought about this. About a month ago I was in a restaurant > and one of the servers was a woman in her early twenties who clearly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > She looked strong and healthy and fit, but not super-lean or chiseled > in any way. I've seen big women like that and found them sexy, too. But it requires that their body structure works for it, big bones and nice big muscle layer, deluted (not covered) by fat, so that it is not wiggly soft. > Do you understand that? I saw someone *I* thought was hot, and I > chose to set my goal to look like her. Do you understand how wrong > your statement above is? No, because you chose to use condescending words about my style, calling it malnutrition as a result of drug abuse, while it objectively is healthy. You could say that you don't want an athletic look like that but a more muscular image. The fact that you chose not to, shows that you are too emotionally affected (threatened) by my words. :: carla wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] :: No, because you chose to use condescending words about my style, :: calling it malnutrition as a result of drug abuse, ::while it :: objectively is healthy. Bullshit. You could say that you don't want an :: athletic look like that but a more muscular image. The fact that you :: chose not to, shows that you are too emotionally affected :: (threatened) by my words. > > Do you understand that? I saw someone *I* thought was hot, and I > > chose to set my goal to look like her. Do you understand how wrong [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but a more muscular image. The fact that you chose not to, shows that > you are too emotionally affected (threatened) by my words. What you described *sounded* like heroin chic. If it *sounded* like an athletic look we would have had a very different conversation. Let's ask the rest of the group: does visible space between the thighs sound "athletic" to any of you? I'm giving up on this. So long as you refuse to acknowledge that I can have different taste from you, and insist one thinking it's some sort of reflection of jealousy on my part, there's really no point. You are convinced that your standard of attractiveness is absolute - a completely absurd notion. But I'm not changing my body to please you, I really don't care whether you will think the end result is good enough. Bottom line: what you think is attractive I think is too scrawny. What I think is attractive you think is too fat. A difference of taste, not a matter of right and wrong. I'm not the least bit threatened by you and your standards. But you are welcome to go on assuming that I am - it will make no difference to my goals. carla > Let's ask the rest of the group: does visible space between the thighs > sound "athletic" to any of you? Maybe for a bronco buster. ;-) :::: Do you understand that? I saw someone *I* thought was hot, and I :::: chose to set my goal to look like her. Do you understand how wrong [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] :: Let's ask the rest of the group: does visible space between the :: thighs sound "athletic" to any of you? No...it sounds....well....strange...but some people like super skinny... > :: Let's ask the rest of the group: does visible space between the > :: thighs sound "athletic" to any of you? > > No...it sounds....well....strange...but some people like super skinny... I've NEVER had visible space between my thighs unless I'm deliberately spreading them (as I do for my progress photos -- I actually have to squat slightly in order to accomplish that), even when I was a thin little girl. In fact, I remember one of my sister's friends POINTING OUT that my thighs touched and that I was LUCKY because that was supposed to be sexy and womanly -- I was 9 years old at the time, so genetics just are what they are and while being overweight certainly CAN make a difference in that area, that particular TRAIT has nothing to do with being fat or thin. SignatureSaffire 205/165/125 - 5'2.5" Atkins since 6/14/03 Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333 > What you described *sounded* like heroin chic. > If it *sounded* like an > athletic look we would have had a very different conversation. > > Let's ask the rest of the group: does visible space between the thighs > sound "athletic" to any of you? Look at professional athletes - lots of space between the thighs (and ribs showing). If they touch, it's muscle, not fat. I have space between the thighs, even though my thighs are somewhat big: http://www.cvmt.dk/~mnielsen/lowcarb/I_AM_FAT_LOL%21.jpg And I don't do drugs, so it is in fact possible to have showing ribs and space between thighs without doing heroin. > I'm giving up on this. So long as you refuse to acknowledge that I can have > different taste from you, and insist one thinking it's some sort of > reflection of jealousy on my part, there's really no point. You are > convinced that your standard of attractiveness is absolute - a completely > absurd notion. Strange conclusion - I've seen overweight people I found attractive, because they carried the fat well. But that doesn't change my opinion on what's optimal and athletic. > I'm not the least bit threatened by you and your standards. But you are > welcome to go on assuming that I am - it will make no difference to my > goals. I'm not saying you should. :: carla wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] :: because they carried the fat well. But that doesn't change my :: opinion on what's optimal and athletic. Well, as long as you know it's an opinion....you're entitled to it...but I think you're flipflopping off being a fat person to being, or trying to be, a thin person. BTW, your link doesn't work for me. ::: I'm not the least bit threatened by you and your standards. But ::: you are welcome to go on assuming that I am - it will make no ::: difference to my goals. :: :: I'm not saying you should. > Well, as long as you know it's an opinion....you're entitled to it...but I > think you're flipflopping off being a fat person to being, or trying to be, > a thin person. I don't understand flipflopping? > BTW, your link doesn't work for me. It's the last pic on this page: http://www.cvmt.dk/~mnielsen/lowcarb/ Archon burbled across the ether: >> Well, as long as you know it's an opinion....you're entitled to >> it...but I think you're flipflopping off being a fat person to >> being, or trying to be, a thin person. > > I don't understand flipflopping? It's onomatopoeiac regional slang. It means "flipping back and forth between one stance (idea, etc) and another". He thinks your old 'fat person' mentality and your new 'thin person' mentality are conflicting with each other. Personally I've never thought you were fat. Out of shape maybe, but not fat. So when you would go on about it, I was rather puzzled, and I said so. *I* think you may have absorbed some unconcious snobbery about fat, fatness vs thinness and health, and maybe even fat people. But I like you anyway. :) Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please "It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order. This lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it." -Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince", Chapter 6, 1537 > It's onomatopoeiac regional slang. It means "flipping back and forth > between one stance (idea, etc) and another". He thinks your old 'fat > person' mentality and your new 'thin person' mentality are conflicting > with each other. Well, there is some degree of subjective evaluation regarding the labels skinny, normal/perfect, chubby, overweight, fat/obese. Especially since each has to be evaluated for each body type. > Personally I've never thought you were fat. Out of shape maybe, but not > fat. So when you would go on about it, Go on about what? The fat on my stomach? > I was rather puzzled, and I said > so. *I* think you may have absorbed some unconcious snobbery about fat, > fatness vs thinness and health, and maybe even fat people. But I like > you anyway. Well, I have no problem with fat people (I have lots of fat friends), I just think they should do something about it. It's not only about them, especially in a socialistic soceity. And I think people are too scared of skinniness, so they aim for something close to fat out of fear of being labelled as skinny. People look down upon skinny people. It seems these days it's more acceptable to be fat or overweight than skinny or "normal". At least in Denmark it is so. And I think it is very stupid to think the media is to blame for mental diseases (and violence for that matter). > And I think people are too scared of skinniness, so they aim for something > close to fat out of fear of being labelled as skinny. you think wrong. and you make nasty generalizations. > you think wrong. They don't even know it themselves, but whenever they see a skinny person they think "Anorexia!" and "that damn media". > and you make nasty generalizations. I know other reasons for aiming otherwise, like feeling "I'm never going to be thin", or "hey that chubby chick is hot, I want to be like that, too". I did not say "all people". > > you think wrong. > > They don't even know it themselves, but whenever they see a skinny > person they think "Anorexia!" and "that damn media". you don't know what everyone thinks. i don't think that way. > > and you make nasty generalizations. > > I know other reasons for aiming otherwise, like feeling "I'm never going > to be thin", or "hey that chubby chick is hot, I want to be like that, > too". I did not say "all people". you said "people" which can easily be construed as "all people." if you mean "some people" say "some people." it's pretty simple. Archon burbled across the ether: >> Personally I've never thought you were fat. Out of shape maybe, but >> not fat. So when you would go on about it, > > Go on about what? The fat on my stomach? Yah. That and your chest. You didn't like your chest-- too doughy you said. > Well, I have no problem with fat people (I have lots of fat friends), > I just think they should do something about it. It's not only about > them, especially in a socialistic soceity. Ah, that explains a lot. The "your fatness is costing me" thing. We have that over here too, but it is usually targeted to people who actually make use of social services like social security disability or welfare or food stamps. In my opinion it is beneath us as a civilized people. And I think people are too > scared of skinniness, so they aim for something close to fat out of > fear of being labelled as skinny. Real skinniness is unhealthy (and won't get you any dates either). It is just as bad as being overweight health and medicalwise, but here in the USA it doesn't have the same stigma as it does in DK. People look down upon skinny > people. It seems these days it's more acceptable to be fat or > overweight than skinny or "normal". At least in Denmark it is so. And > I think it is very stupid to think the media is to blame for mental > diseases (and violence for that matter). I don't blame the media for causing the disease, but they do excaberate (sp?) the situation a *lot*. Some people can't handle the stress of society's perfectionism and this is one of the ways that those people cope (badly I admit)-- obsessing on their weight or overcontrolling their food. The media *could* be used to promote healthy ideas about body image, self worth, etc, but it's too easy to twist people up in knots over body odor or dandruff to make a buck or two. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please A day without sun shine is like, you know, night. Exacerbate. > Archon burbled across the ether: > >> Personally I've never thought you were fat. Out of shape maybe, but [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > body image, self worth, etc, but it's too easy to twist people up in > knots over body odor or dandruff to make a buck or two. JC Der Koenig burbled across the ether: > Exacerbate. thank you Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please It was all very well going on about pure logic and how the universe was ruled by logic and the harmony of numbers, but the plain fact of the matter was that the disc was manifestly traversing space on the back of a giant turtle and the gods had a habit of going round to atheists' houses and smashing their windows. - Terry Pratchet, The Color Of Magic > Yah. That and your chest. You didn't like your chest-- too doughy you > said. The only thing I said about my chest was too little muscle. Never doughy (I don't even know what you mean by doughy). > Ah, that explains a lot. The "your fatness is costing me" thing. Not really costing me, but costing society. I wouldn't get money back if nobody were fat, but the money could be spent on other health problems that are not selfinflicted, such as the mental problems that makes some people fat. It's free to have your loose belly skin removed, but you must pay thousands for treating acne. A friend of mine lost 110 pounds and had her skin removed, and I reminded her that now it was her duty not to gain the weight again (when we were teenagers she had a pound of each breast removed for free and gained it all back), and she agreed. > Real skinniness is unhealthy Yes, but not the kind of skinniness that we are talking about here, such as Garner, Spike and me. People who eat a lot can be pretty skinny, even more so than these people. > I don't blame the media for causing the disease, but they do excaberate > (sp?) the situation a *lot*. Some people can't handle the stress of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > body image, self worth, etc, but it's too easy to twist people up in > knots over body odor or dandruff to make a buck or two. Even if this makes some of the people choose the anorexia way, they would have turned to other selfdestructive insanities instead, if there was no media, or try to blow up their school. Archon burbled across the ether: >> Yah. That and your chest. You didn't like your chest-- too doughy >> you said. > > The only thing I said about my chest was too little muscle. Never > doughy (I don't even know what you mean by doughy). Hmmm. My memory must be playing tricks again. Doughy as in like raw dough. Soft and unformed-- much like your definition of chubby. >> Ah, that explains a lot. The "your fatness is costing me" thing. > > Not really costing me, but costing society. Society is made up of people. I wouldn't get money back > if nobody were fat, but the money could be spent on other health > problems that are not selfinflicted, such as the mental problems that > makes some people fat. Could be. But not necessarily so. It's free to have your loose belly skin > removed, but you must pay thousands for treating acne. That is not right. But at least it's better than over here. Over here you pay thousands for both. >> Real skinniness is unhealthy > > Yes, but not the kind of skinniness that we are talking about here, > such as Garner, Spike and me. Then it ought to be differentiated by some other word, such as slenderness. People who eat a lot can be pretty > skinny, even more so than these people. I hear Calista Flockheart is natrually skinny and doesn't diet or anything. Eats like a horse and is a size zero. Still, someone that thin needs to see a doctor. >> I don't blame the media for causing the disease, but they do >> excaberate (sp?) the situation a *lot*. Some people can't handle [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Even if this makes some of the people choose the anorexia way, I don't think it's one thing that makes a person "choose" that, but a whole host of little straws that end up breaking the camel's back. Media is just one-- but one that is everywhere, magazines, billboards, tv...movies even. And they have the wherewithall to do this without bankrupting themselves and garner a little positive public opinion too, so why don't they? they > would have turned to other selfdestructive insanities instead, if > there was no media, or try to blow up their school. I don't think so. Blowing up a school is outward directed, even if the 'stewing' takes a while to build up to critical levels. Anorexia is inward directed. Personality plays a large part in what direction behavours take and they're pretty consistant. Even serial killers fit a rigid pattern that they don't deviate from.* *mini rant follows: which is why I hate the movie seven so much. It was perfect textbook and a really great movie right up til the end when they needed a big twist and broke the character's behavioral patterns completely out of any relation to the type of serial killer he was. <spit> :rant over. Why yes, I spend a lot of recreational time reading about serial killers, not just 'true crime' but the really odd stuff like the psychology and profiling. I find it fun and relaxing, why do you ask? Ok, ya'll can go back to your regularly scheduled ranch dipped veggies now. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please Never have I seen a word as accurate as politics. Poly meaning many, and tic being a blood-sucking thing. > That is not right. But at least it's better than over here. Over here > you pay thousands for both. Lol! > Then it ought to be differentiated by some other word, such as > slenderness. That's why I want to call it "normal", reserving skinny to the unhealthy state. > I hear Calista Flockheart is natrually skinny and doesn't diet or > anything. Eats like a horse and is a size zero. Still, someone that > thin needs to see a doctor. If it's not causing her problems other than people shouting anorexia at her (because they think it's a physical state, BMI under X), I don't see why she should. > I don't think it's one thing that makes a person "choose" that, but a > whole host of little straws that end up breaking the camel's back. > Media is just one-- but one that is everywhere, magazines, billboards, > tv...movies even. And they have the wherewithall to do this without > bankrupting themselves and garner a little positive public opinion too, > so why don't they? To do what without bankrupting themselves? > I don't think so. Blowing up a school is outward directed, even if the > 'stewing' takes a while to build up to critical levels. Anorexia is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Ok, ya'll can go back to your regularly scheduled ranch dipped veggies > now. Lol! Archon burbled across the ether: > To do what without bankrupting themselves? Promote healthier body imaging and self esteem. It doesn't have to be blatant. It can be quite subtle if they care to put a little effort into it. >> Ok, ya'll can go back to your regularly scheduled ranch dipped >> veggies now. > > Lol! Have you seen that one? Wha'dja think? Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please "And to close on, the Usenet Dept. of Small Consolations. Some kibologist just figured out that if you allow for every troll and spammer and net.kook a space one KB by two you could store them all on the six hundred forty Gigabyte HDD space of the news server at zanzibar.com." > Promote healthier body imaging and self esteem. It doesn't have to be > blatant. It can be quite subtle if they care to put a little effort > into it. They show many different sizes of people, not just so-called "skinny" ones. In DK there's an ad on TV about exercising 30 min per day. > Have you seen that one? Wha'dja think? I've seen it, but I don't remember much of it, other than a few scenes of the mutilated sinners. I have no idea what the twist you are talking about was. > especially in a socialistic soceity. And I think people are too scared > of skinniness, so they aim for something close to fat out of fear of > being labelled as skinny. People look down upon skinny people. It seems > these days it's more acceptable to be fat or overweight than skinny or > "normal". At least in Denmark it is so. Right ... I'm moving to Denmark ... :o) Rachel (still in fat-phobic New Zealand) > Right ... I'm moving to Denmark ... > > :o) You'd have to get off the diet (and if you make a lot of money, quit your job), though, because in DK we have the Jante Law which makes everybody hate people who does something special, making the others look bad. > >>I would think you wouldn't be interested in a bikini pic as long visible > >>flabby fat is showing. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lots of wiggly women are found in bikinis that press grand canyons into > their backs and hips... I'm 5'4 and 3/4." I'm currently 156 pounds, and I'm aiming for 130-ish. I'll see when I get to 135 if I need to lose any more. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. >> >>I would think you wouldn't be interested in a bikini pic as long >> visible [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'm 5'4 and 3/4." I'm currently 156 pounds, and I'm aiming for 130-ish. > I'll see when I get to 135 if I need to lose any more. I'm 5'8 and 1/132". ;-) (I.e., why not just say you're 5'5"? Who cares about 1/4 inch?) SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply > >> >>I would think you wouldn't be interested in a bikini pic as long > >> visible [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'm 5'8 and 1/132". ;-) (I.e., why not just say you're 5'5"? Who cares > about 1/4 inch?) That's my "official" height when I got measured at Curves. I don't want to be a liar, I guess. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. Luna wrote: The expression on my face is pretty much "Oh crap he's taking my picture." I was not prepared. Anyway, I'm 10-ish pounds lighter than in the flame top pic, but I don't think it really shows. Different clothes, different angle, and, well, I'm still big enough that 10 pounds one way or another is not much of a dramatic difference. Thought I'd share anyway though! -------------------------------- Luna, I'd give just about anything to have a flat stomach like yours! Congratulations on your loss. Best Wishes; Marty -------------------------------- Wha huh what? Flat???! You can't see that roll poking out over the top of my jeans? I have quite the pooky tummy, actually. But, um, thanks! -------------------------------- Compared to mine, it's flat. <G> Oh, I see it, that's just a little pooch, I don't consider that a roll at all. LOL Best Wishes; Marty > The expression on my face is pretty much "Oh crap he's taking my > picture." I was not prepared. Anyway, I'm 10-ish pounds lighter than in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Best Wishes; Marty "Flat" is a relative term. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply "Flat" is a relative term. -------------------------------- Exactly, (Thank you, Bob). I know it's not an ironing board, but I still think she looks nice and meant it as a compliment. Marty :: Bob in CT wrote: :: "Flat" is a relative term. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: Exactly, (Thank you, Bob). I know it's not an ironing board, but I :: still think she looks nice and meant it as a compliment. One can be fat and look nice -- very nice, in fact. Before the skinny crazy hit, women like Luna were considered "hot" (and she is "hot"). > One can be fat and look nice -- very nice, in fact. Before the skinny crazy > hit, women like Luna were considered "hot" (and she is "hot"). I don't consider Jennifer Garner skinny. It is my reference for a "normal" (perfect) body. > > One can be fat and look nice -- very nice, in fact. Before the skinny crazy > > hit, women like Luna were considered "hot" (and she is "hot"). > > I don't consider Jennifer Garner skinny. It is my reference for a > "normal" (perfect) body. I think she's pretty skinny. I like the bodies of Angelina Jolie and Drew Barrymore, personally. Curvy, but not fat. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > > > One can be fat and look nice -- very nice, in fact. Before the skinny crazy > > > hit, women like Luna were considered "hot" (and she is "hot"). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I think she's pretty skinny. I like the bodies of Angelina Jolie and Drew > Barrymore, personally. Curvy, but not fat. Angelina Jolie is about right. But all I really remember about her is the lips. > I think she's pretty skinny. I like the bodies of Angelina Jolie and Drew > Barrymore, personally. Curvy, but not fat. Angelina Jolie is good (about the same as Garner, but less feminime I think - less curves), but Barrymore is chubby (not in an unattractive way, though). :: Luna wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: think - less curves), but Barrymore is chubby (not in an unattractive :: way, though). Little bit chubby is fine on a woman... >:: Luna wrote: >::: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Little bit chubby is fine on a woman... And Barrymore is hardly "chubby." Like Kate Winslet, she's just not underweight, like most actresses. Dawn :: On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:08:54 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> announced in front of God and everybody: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] :: And Barrymore is hardly "chubby." Like Kate Winslet, she's just not :: underweight, like most actresses. Well, two of us think Barrymore is chubby...but I like her that way... >:: And Barrymore is hardly "chubby." Like Kate Winslet, she's just not >:: underweight, like most actresses. > >Well, two of us think Barrymore is chubby...but I like her that way... Well, liking her is all well and good -- but both of you need to redefine your definition of the word "chubby". It's awfully easy to get a distorted idea of what constitutes a healthy body weight by looking at actresses in TV and movies -- keep in mind that actors look several inches taller and 10-15 pounds heavier on-camera than they do in real life. Dawn :: On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:11:32 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> announced in front of God and everybody: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: Well, liking her is all well and good -- but both of you need to :: redefine your definition of the word "chubby". no, I don't. :: It's awfully easy to :: get a distorted idea of what constitutes a healthy body weight by :: looking at actresses in TV and movies -- keep in mind that actors :: look several inches taller and 10-15 pounds heavier on-camera than :: they do in real life. They may seem taller -- with the way camera shots are done....why do they seem heavier? >:: On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:11:32 -0500, "Roger Zoul" >:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> announced in front of God and everybody: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >no, I don't. Okay. Be as incorrect as you like ... no skin off my nose. >:: It's awfully easy to >:: get a distorted idea of what constitutes a healthy body weight by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >They may seem taller -- with the way camera shots are done....why do they >seem heavier? Dimensionality. Photographs -- still or moving pictures -- are one-dimensional, so they essentially "flatten" whatever's in front of the camera. Gives the impression of more width. Dawn > Dimensionality. Photographs -- still or moving pictures -- are > one-dimensional, so they essentially "flatten" whatever's in front of > the camera. Gives the impression of more width. But it doesn't create lumps and skinfolds. Barrymore is so chubby you can even see it in her face. >> Dimensionality. Photographs -- still or moving pictures -- are >> one-dimensional, so they essentially "flatten" whatever's in front of >> the camera. Gives the impression of more width. > >But it doesn't create lumps and skinfolds. Barrymore is so chubby you >can even see it in her face. You, sir, have some sort of weird visual version of anorexia. The woman ain't chubby. But then, given your other posts in this thread, it's fairly clear that your idea of what consitutes a "healthy" or -- God help us all -- "normal" body type for women is something around 15 pounds underweight, so that their ribs are showing and their cheekbones look like you could slice cheese on them. You're certainly not alone in that preference, not in this culture in this century. And taste is taste -- you find scrawny, hipless androgychicks appealing, that's certainly an individual thing and your absolute right. But really, Hollywood Wasting Disease is a sad thing to admire, much less to claim that it's a universal standard of beauty ... much less healthy and normal. Dawn >>> Dimensionality. Photographs -- still or moving pictures -- are >>> one-dimensional, so they essentially "flatten" whatever's in front of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > underweight, so that their ribs are showing and their cheekbones look > like you could slice cheese on them. You mean like Maria Shriver? > You're certainly not alone in that preference, not in this culture in > this century. And taste is taste -- you find scrawny, hipless [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Dawn When did we go from Marilyn Monroe to the ultra-thin babes of today? SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply > When did we go from Marilyn Monroe to the ultra-thin babes of today? As medicine progressed and we got smarter, hehe :D > > When did we go from Marilyn Monroe to the ultra-thin babes of today? > > As medicine progressed and we got smarter, hehe :D No, actually, it had to do with the women's movement of the 70's. Soft, round, squishy bodies are a sign of fertility and motherhood, and the ideal woman used to be a wife and mother. In the 70's was when the women's movement really started to take off, and curves went out of fashion, replaced by the stick-thin "Twiggy" ideal. In the 90's and today, imo, the ideal body is once again curvy, but more muscular than the 50's ideal. Which, personally, I'm happy about, because it's a more healthy body type than either the squishy 50's one or the waiflike 70's one. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. >When did we go from Marilyn Monroe to the ultra-thin babes of today? Well, there's definitely a sociological connection between periods of women having more political/financial power and being portrayed in popular media (movies, TV, advertising) as less womanly ... I don't buy most of the uber-feminist arguments of those theories, but it's something to chew on. It is bizarre, though. I saw "Dr. No" again recently and was stunned with how insanely beautiful Ursula Andress was: http://www.bondmovies.net/girls/ursula-andress3.jpg The Bond girls, back in the day were luscious. But now, they're along the lines of Halle Berry and Denise Richards: http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/MMPH-E/253701.jpg http://www.extractando.com/entretenimiento/image/Richards_15.jpg It's like women with actual flesh on their bones are -- what? -- scary or something? Dawn > It is bizarre, though. I saw "Dr. No" again recently and was stunned > with how insanely beautiful Ursula Andress was: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's like women with actual flesh on their bones are -- what? -- scary > or something? H.B and D.R looks more balanced than U. A. Ursulas stomach bends inwards (giving her the squared hips I dont like. The new ones have nice round hips), what's up with that? No muscles on her body? Stoutness-wise they are about equal. The new ones have more muscle. Men need 3% fat and women need 12 % - anything else is excess and for decoration only. What is wrong with some of the models and atresses today is that they have too little muscle and don't eat well, not that they have too little fat. > > It is bizarre, though. I saw "Dr. No" again recently and was stunned > > with how insanely beautiful Ursula Andress was: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > today is that they have too little muscle and don't eat well, not that > they have too little fat. Let's chat about your lack of lean body mass. Do you want to go first, or shall I? > Let's chat about your lack of lean body mass. Do you want to go first, or > shall I? I'm thin but don't have unhealthilly little. I function very well, and outlasts most people on the skates and tenniscourt... I armwrestled a guy whose arms are the size of my thighs (and my thighs are large because of my skating) and it was a draw. Nothing wrong with my muscles... > > Let's chat about your lack of lean body mass. Do you want to go first, or > > shall I? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > guy whose arms are the size of my thighs (and my thighs are large > because of my skating) and it was a draw. Nothing wrong with my muscles... There would be nothing wrong with your muscles if your name was Calista Flockhart. You are practically devoid of muscle mass. You haven't added any muscle mass since you were 12 years old. Little boys have as muscle as you do. Little girls have as much muscle as you do. > You, sir, have some sort of weird visual version of anorexia. The > woman ain't chubby. 2 other guys here have confirmed it... > But then, given your other posts in this thread, it's fairly clear > that your idea of what consitutes a "healthy" or -- God help us all -- [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to admire, much less to claim that it's a universal standard of beauty > ... much less healthy and normal. You have misunderstood something. Garner has large ROUND hips: http://www.gasf.com/comm/userimages/garner.jpg I don't like it when the hipbones stick out. Ribs are showing in the side even in clinically overweight people. Human anatomy is not designed to cover the ribs. >> You, sir, have some sort of weird visual version of anorexia. The >> woman ain't chubby. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > side even in clinically overweight people. Human anatomy is not designed > to cover the ribs. Ribs don't show on me. And I'm obese by BMI. (I have no idea what "clinically overweight" is.) And she's extremely thin. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply > Ribs don't show on me. And I'm obese by BMI. Ie not in a healthy state. Try to lift your arms over your head and see in the side. At some point before your goal weight you should see the ribs showing. I know a guy who is deemed obese and must loose weight by his doctor, and his ribs are showing in the side... > (I have no idea what > "clinically overweight" is.) Whatever measure they use when they say 50% of Danes are overweight (66% for USA) and 10% are obese (dont remember for USA). I'd say something in the line of Body fat percentages of 18%-25% for men and 25-31% (often referred to as "not fit, but acceptable"), and above 25%/31% is obese. I've been 16% and that's nasty. >You have misunderstood something. Garner has large ROUND hips: > >http://www.gasf.com/comm/userimages/garner.jpg Interesting. I look at that same picture and I don't see any hips. I'm not saying that Garner isn't an attractive woman -- she is -- and she does appear to be, for the most part, naturally slim. But she doesn't have hips and her pelvic bones are poking out: http://img.studenti.it/images/monitor/wallpaper/jennifer_garner/garner15.jpg She's on television. Actresses have to diet to the point of being notably underweight to be considered TV material -- in Garner's case, her face often looks positively gaunt at times and she's lost weight to point of not having any breasts: http://tinyurl.com/yvlts >I don't like it when the hipbones stick out. Ribs are showing in the >side even in clinically overweight people. Human anatomy is not designed >to cover the ribs. Gee, you mean like this: http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/images/tattoo/boyle1.jpg ?? Yeah, now THAT's a good-looking woman! Dawn >>You have misunderstood something. Garner has large ROUND hips: >> >>http://www.gasf.com/comm/userimages/garner.jpg > > Interesting. I look at that same picture and I don't see any hips. Hips are made from bones not fat as you seem to think. The hips should not be wider than the hip bones, but there should be enough tissue to make a nice well rounded transition. > I'm not saying that Garner isn't an attractive woman -- she is -- and > she does appear to be, for the most part, naturally slim. But she > doesn't have hips and her pelvic bones are poking out: > http://img.studenti.it/images/monitor/wallpaper/jennifer_garner/garner15.jpg you can see it but the skin is not stretched around it. > She's on television. Actresses have to diet to the point of being > notably underweight to be considered TV material -- in Garner's case, > her face often looks positively gaunt at times and she's lost weight > to point of not having any breasts: > http://tinyurl.com/yvlts There's still breasts. They just won't smack you in the face coming around the corner. > Gee, you mean like this: > http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/images/tattoo/boyle1.jpg ?? Now that's nasty! Chubby is much better than that. >>>You have misunderstood something. Garner has large ROUND hips: >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >not be wider than the hip bones, but there should be enough tissue to >make a nice well rounded transition. But there ought to be such a thing as a waist. And flesh covering those hip bones. Dawn :: On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:14:54 -0800, Archon <sequoia@MAPSONtiscali.dk> :: announced in front of God and everybody: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: she does appear to be, for the most part, naturally slim. But she :: doesn't have hips and her pelvic bones are poking out: http://img.studenti.it/images/monitor/wallpaper/jennifer_garner/garner15.jpg She is too skinny, imo. Nice looking though, but weak and frail looking. :: She's on television. Actresses have to diet to the point of being :: notably underweight to be considered TV material -- in Garner's case, :: her face often looks positively gaunt at times and she's lost weight :: to point of not having any breasts: :: http://tinyurl.com/yvlts I agree with you. ::: I don't like it when the hipbones stick out. Ribs are showing in the ::: side even in clinically overweight people. Human anatomy is not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: :: Yeah, now THAT's a good-looking woman! Oh my...how in the world did you find that? Dawn Taylor burbled across the ether: > Gee, you mean like this: > http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/images/tattoo/boyle1.jpg ?? > > Yeah, now THAT's a good-looking woman! Oh jeez. That brought back memories. Only my hip bones poked out more. Still trying to find balance, which is why I don't try to lose the weight so agressively anymore-- I was heading right back down *that* path last year before I put the breaks on. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please "Religion is for those who fear going to hell. Spirituality is for those who've been there."-Unknown I bet she looks great in clothes though. LOL -- Cheri Type 2, no meds for now. revek wrote in message ... >Dawn Taylor burbled across the ether: >> Gee, you mean like this: >> http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/images/tattoo/boyle1.jpg ?? >> >> Yeah, now THAT's a good-looking woman! > Dawn Taylor burbled across the ether: > > Gee, you mean like this: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > weight so agressively anymore-- I was heading right back down *that* > path last year before I put the breaks on. Those would be "brakes". HTH JC Der Koenig burbled across the ether: >> Dawn Taylor burbled across the ether: >>> Gee, you mean like this: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > HTH My spell-checker is on the blink. Thankyou for volunteering! Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please TANSTAAFL or "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." -- Robert Heinlein in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress > > Dimensionality. Photographs -- still or moving pictures -- are > > one-dimensional, so they essentially "flatten" whatever's in front of > > the camera. Gives the impression of more width. > > But it doesn't create lumps and skinfolds. Barrymore is so chubby you > can even see it in her face. http://www.drew-barrymore.konta.waw.pl/galerie/IMAGES/drew-barrymore-8.jpg http://www.drew-barrymore.konta.waw.pl/galerie/IMAGES/drew-barrymore-11.jpg Ok, where is this chub? Sure, she's not a body builder, she probably doesn't work out as much as Garner (except for when she was doing Charlie's Angels) Maybe Drew's a size 2 or 4 instead of the Hollywood ideal size 0, but I would hestitate to call her chubby. Maybe "soft" is a better word. She looks to me like she is muscular enough to be healthy, but maybe her body fat percentage is in the mid or high range of normal, instead of low-normal or too low like most actresses. Calista Flockhart is a stick, Jennifer Garner is buff, Drew is soft, Kelly Osbourne is chubby, Rosie Odonell is fat, the chick on The Practice is obese. Anyway, the reason I hold Drew up as my ideal is based on her proportions, and the way the normal-weight women in my family look. I think her shape is a healthy, attainable one for me. I think at a healthy BF% that is close to what my body will look like. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > http://www.drew-barrymore.konta.waw.pl/galerie/IMAGES/drew-barrymore-8.jpg > > http://www.drew-barrymore.konta.waw.pl/galerie/IMAGES/drew-barrymore-11.jpg > > Ok, where is this chub? The stomach under the white shirt. The cheeks. But especially when she moves (eg in C. A.) you can see it. Orange skin around the soft spots. The soft stuff extends the hips (under the real hips) when she stands (it's not so much about absolute measures of inches, but the texture and balance). http://www.pusateri.org/cruft/images/barrymore.gif see orange skin in the inner thighs and the lump on the outer thigh. > Sure, she's not a body builder, she probably > doesn't work out as much as Garner (except for when she was doing Charlie's > Angels) Maybe Drew's a size 2 or 4 instead of the Hollywood ideal size 0, > but I would hestitate to call her chubby. Maybe "soft" is a better word. My definition of chubby is soft. Chubby to me is below overweight. I use it to describe when the muscles are hidden by fat. > She looks to me like she is muscular enough to be healthy, but maybe her > body fat percentage is in the mid or high range of normal, instead of > low-normal or too low like most actresses. I think she's healthy *enough*. Like I said, she is chubby in a good way, but nevertheless chubby. Of course she wouldn't allow the pics that really shows it to be published. > Calista Flockhart is a stick, This one? http://www.web-original.com/ally/immagini/Calista-Flockhart-p305.jpg Look fine to me. Round curves around the hips, smooth transition between the abs and ribs. And nice muscles (not the quality of Garner, of course): http://www.web-original.com/ally/immagini/ally10.jpg > Jennifer Garner is buff, Drew is soft, Kelly Osbourne is chubby, Rosie > Odonell is fat, the chick on The Practice is obese. Jennifer Tilly is fat, too. I don't distinguish between fat and obese. I've never seen fat% tables saying w-x: fat, y-z: obese. It goes directly from acceptable (which I call chubby) to obese. > Anyway, the reason I hold Drew up as my ideal is based on her proportions, > and the way the normal-weight women in my family look. I think her shape is > a healthy, attainable one for me. I think at a healthy BF% that is close to > what my body will look like. It's in nice goal, as I believe your body types are the same. > Jennifer Tilly is fat, too. > I don't distinguish between fat and obese. I've never seen fat% tables > saying w-x: fat, y-z: obese. It goes directly from acceptable (which I > call chubby) I meant the category acceptable moves from "chubby" to "overweight". Where exactly the transition is, is difficult to say. For visual inspection it depends how well the person carries the weight (a thickboned person can carry more without looking bad than a thin boned person). >> Calista Flockhart is a stick, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >http://www.web-original.com/ally/immagini/ally10.jpg You have a bit of a problem. I mean, taste is taste, but promoting that as an ideal body for women is the reason there's so many women with eating disorders. Dawn > You have a bit of a problem. I mean, taste is taste, but promoting > that as an ideal body for women is the reason there's so many women > with eating disorders. No, eating disorders are unrelated to physical features. It is a mental problem, feeling alone, unwanted, bad childhood, out of control. Need something to blame (and they are often already thin, so you can't say it is to become thin they do it) or at least one thing to control or punish themselves with. My first girlfriend had anorexia. Anorexia has nothing to do with being thin. >> You have a bit of a problem. I mean, taste is taste, but promoting >> that as an ideal body for women is the reason there's so many women [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >themselves with. My first girlfriend had anorexia. Anorexia has nothing >to do with being thin. Eating disorders arise from a lot of different factors, and living in a society where an unrealistic standard of beauty is crammed down girls' throats their entire lives -- combined with the message that they're losers if they don't look that way-- is definitely a contributing factor. A big one. Dawn Absolutely. Back in the day when Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield were the hot bods you never heard of eating disorders. I don't remember anyone going on a diet when I was in high school (graduated in '53) and there weren't many fat kids either. Pop was a treat and there certainly weren't machines that sold it in schools. In news:uvom50t1326o77nmmbs47niu68g8656clj@4ax.com, Dawn Taylor <dawnetta@pacifier.com> stated | Eating disorders arise from a lot of different factors, and living in | a society where an unrealistic standard of beauty is crammed down [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | | Dawn > Eating disorders arise from a lot of different factors, and living in > a society where an unrealistic standard of beauty is crammed down > girls' throats their entire lives -- combined with the message that > they're losers if they don't look that way-- is definitely a > contributing factor. A big one. No, sane people who want to lose weight do not starve themselves. They eat healthy and excercise. My anorexic ex did not excercise, and all she ate was potato chips and water, until she passed out. Later it was razorblades and a hundred headache pills. Parent neglection and overprotection is a major player. Both parents working, living with single parent downtown, no personal contact, moving a lot, not making friends, etc.. This is why you see it more (and the media is why you hear about it). It is excredibly naive to think anorexia is a new phenomen. There's records dating back to 16xx. It has always existed and the disease can be triggered by phychologcal stress when a person is dealing with a difficult transition, loss, puberty, divorce, family problems, death, new job, new school, relationship break up, sexual or physical abuse, etc. Blaming the media is typical weak human behaviour - rationalisation: I had nothing to do with it, it must be X or Y, certainly not me. Like the white dude, who loses a woman to an immigrant: "those damned immigrants, they steal our women", or the immigrant, who doesn't get the job position: "they are all just racist". There's always someone to blame but oneself. See now what you did. You made me emotional in a discusion and I hate that. :: On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 12:00:48 -0800, Archon <sequoia@MAPSONtiscali.dk> :: announced in front of God and everybody: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: that as an ideal body for women is the reason there's so many women :: with eating disorders. No....the reason that so many women have eating disorders is because they buy into it....and they promote it. No one cares what Archon thinks. >> Calista Flockhart is a stick, > >This one? > >http://www.web-original.com/ally/immagini/Calista-Flockhart-p305.jpg Oh, and by the way -- that's not her body. That's a PhotoShop job. Dawn My husband saw a magazine with Drew Barrymore's new (20 pounds lighter than "Charlie's Angels") look and was horrified. His exact words: "She's ruined herself!" Also, my grandmother, who wasn't rail-thin at all, lived in her own home and did her own cooking/cleaning/gardening until the age of 97. She wasn't obese by any means, but a sturdy woman like the late Queen Mother of England. Oh, wait--she, too, lived an active lifestyle until she was 100. I have thus disproved Doug Lerner's point that all people who live active lives in their 90s are "rail-thin". You guys may not have known my grandma, but there are photos of her look-a-like contemporary, the late Queen Mother, all over the Internet. T. :: My husband saw a magazine with Drew Barrymore's new (20 pounds :: lighter than "Charlie's Angels") look and was horrified. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] :: known my grandma, but there are photos of her look-a-like :: contemporary, the late Queen Mother, all over the Internet. Thank you! :: Luna wrote: http://www.drew-barrymore.konta.waw.pl/galerie/IMAGES/drew-barrymore-8.jpg http://www.drew-barrymore.konta.waw.pl/galerie/IMAGES/drew-barrymore-11.jpg ::: Ok, where is this chub? :: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] :: I think she's healthy *enough*. Like I said, she is chubby in a good :: way, but nevertheless chubby. Your problem is that you keep associating healthy with skinny...that ain't so...there is not reason why Barrymore is not healthy. :: Of course she wouldn't allow the pics that really shows it to be :: published. No matter, she's a major babe... ::: Calista Flockhart is a stick, :: :: This one? :: :: http://www.web-original.com/ally/immagini/Calista-Flockhart-p305.jpg That pic must be dececptive somehow...flockhard is a skinny-benny... :: Look fine to me. Round curves around the hips, smooth transition :: between :: the abs and ribs. In that one pose, yes...she must have put on some weight there.... :: And nice muscles (not the quality of Garner, of course): :: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: :: Jennifer Tilly is fat, too. Then I like fat girls... :: I don't distinguish between fat and obese. I've never seen fat% :: tables saying w-x: fat, y-z: obese. It goes directly from acceptable [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: :: It's in nice goal, as I believe your body types are the same. > :: I think she's healthy *enough*. Like I said, she is chubby in a good > :: way, but nevertheless chubby. > > Your problem is that you keep associating healthy with skinny...that ain't > so...there is not reason why Barrymore is not healthy. I never said she wasn't healthy. Just not optimal. > :: Of course she wouldn't allow the pics that really shows it to be > :: published. > > No matter, she's a major babe... Not major, but still attractive. > That pic must be dececptive somehow...flockhard is a skinny-benny... Someone mentioned it's superimposed. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::::: I think she's healthy *enough*. Like I said, she is chubby in a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: :: I never said she wasn't healthy. Just not optimal. You said "I think she's healthy *enough*." How in the world can you know jack about how healthy she is? You're making your statement solely on her looks -- and what you think is healthy based on looks. Sorry, but that's silly. You can find zillions of skinny people who have health problems and are otherwise not "healthy" (whatever that means). And just in case you didn't know, one can be fat and still be "healthy". Had you said "She not at a healthy weight" or something like that, I would be silent. Otherwise, I harp on like a broken record... ::::: Of course she wouldn't allow the pics that really shows it to be ::::: published. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: :: Someone mentioned it's superimposed. > You said "I think she's healthy *enough*." Had you said "She not at a healthy weight" When we are talking about weight that is a given. I think she's at a healthy weight. She just doesn't look as fit as Garner. > How in the world can you know jack about how healthy she is? You're making > your statement solely on her looks -- and what you think is healthy based on > looks. Sorry, but that's silly. You can find zillions of skinny people who > have health problems and are otherwise not "healthy" (whatever that means). But not weight related health problems (and in the start I said as long we are not talking malnutrition and drug abuse). 6 months ago I was on your side of the table saying the exact same things, but I couldn't find any reason whatsoever why a woman should not be what you call skinny (except for decoration), and the other person had all the physiology (e.g. saying that there's nothing that is supposed to cover the ribs), medical studies etc. as a reference from med school. Healthwise there's nothing wrong for a woman with being e.g. 5'8" and e.g. 115 pounds, or 5'1" and 80 pounds. The body does not need more fat that 3%/12% (male/female). The only reason I thought and most people think skinny is a bad thing, is because it has become very popular to be negative about the model/actress world (political correctness perhaps) and blaming eating disorders on them, etc. People are brainwashed to lynch the skinny woman. > And just in case you didn't know, one can be fat and still be "healthy". I think that carrying too much excess fat is always unhealthy. The fat stores lots of "old stuff" and it mechanically loads the body, and changes the body chemistry, e.g. in women it increases their estrogen levels which cancer just loves. The only case where the fat is an advantage is when you are lost in the wilderness, but never in this excessive food abundant life we lead. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: When we are talking about weight that is a given. I think she's at a :: healthy weight. She just doesn't look as fit as Garner. There you go again...I know you can't help it...but tell me how you can tell which of the two is more fit? What does fit mean, exactly? You do realize that one person can have higher bf than another but be able to out perform, on several measures, the one of lower bf? Hence, bf % is NOT a measure of fitness. She may indeed not be a fit as Garner, but that really depends. You've misused the word "fit". It doesn't imply the lowest possible bf %. ::: How in the world can you know jack about how healthy she is? ::: You're making [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: long :: we are not talking malnutrition and drug abuse). There are a world of other things outside of malnutrtion and drug abuse... 6 months ago I was :: on :: your side of the table saying the exact same things, but I couldn't [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: or 5'1" and 80 pounds. The body does not need more fat that 3%/12% :: (male/female). Nonsense. My last gf was 5'8" and 110 lbs. She was skinny -- with a capital S. Ribs sticking out -- hip bones like razors sticking out -- even her doctor told her she needed higher bf. Also, she tended to get sick a lot too, though I can't honestly say that was weight related. But she would have looked much much better at 130 lbs. Her legs were just boney and she had an gap between them...not attractive. She does have a very cute face and a nice butt, BTW -- and most of her fat was on her butt -- I enjoyed that about her :) And exactly where are you getting these "needed" bodyfat numbers? You realize that you stand alone (or in company of very few) in promoting those numbers, right? Many women will have issues with reproduction at 12% bf... :: The only reason I thought and most people think skinny is a bad :: thing, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: disorders on them, etc. People are brainwashed to lynch the skinny :: woman. Nonsense....while there are way way way too many overweight people, it is possible to be too skinny too. There is no need to recoil to the opposite extreme. Please don't be part of that. Most people would not be able to reach your stated levels of bf %, and that's a good thing, by and large. ::: And just in case you didn't know, one can be fat and still be ::: "healthy". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: changes the body chemistry, e.g. in women it increases their estrogen :: levels which cancer just loves. Key on the words "too much" and then figure out what it means. :: The only case where the fat is an advantage is when you are lost in :: the :: wilderness, but never in this excessive food abundant life we lead. This is according to you. Fat has a function too and one of them is to make us look good. > There you go again...I know you can't help it...but tell me how you can tell > which of the two is more fit? What does fit mean, exactly? You do realize > that one person can have higher bf than another but be able to out perform, > on several measures, the one of lower bf? Yes, I know that. > Hence, bf % is NOT a measure of > fitness. She may indeed not be a fit as Garner, but that really depends. > > You've misused the word "fit". It doesn't imply the lowest possible bf %. I said *look* fit and athletic. > There are a world of other things outside of malnutrtion and drug abuse... Yes, but we are not talking about those, only stoutness now. > Nonsense. My last gf was 5'8" and 110 lbs. She was skinny -- with a > capital S. Ribs sticking out -- hip bones like razors sticking out -- even The one I know has very small bones so no bones are sticking out and she is quite soft, and the doctor says it's fine. And the 80 lbs woman was healthy enough to give birth to multiple kids. > her doctor told her she needed higher bf. Also, she tended to get sick a > lot too, though I can't honestly say that was weight related. But she would > have looked much much better at 130 lbs. Her legs were just boney and she > had an gap between them...not attractive. She does have a very cute face and > a nice butt, BTW -- and most of her fat was on her butt -- I enjoyed that > about her :) I agree that when there's a big gap between the top of the legs, when the knees are toughing eachother, then it is too skinny. Figure skaters have awesome legs. Low fat but big and round thighs/butt. It sounds like your GF was another bodytype. Some people look best with more stuffing, others can't carry much. > And exactly where are you getting these "needed" bodyfat numbers? You > realize that you stand alone (or in company of very few) in promoting those > numbers, right? Many women will have issues with reproduction at 12% bf... All the lists out there about bf... Here's one http://www.am-i-fat.com/body_fat_percentage.html The American Council of Exercise provides the following:- General Body Fat Percentage Categories Classification Women (% fat) Men (% fat) Essential Fat 10-12% 2-4% Athletes 14-20% 6-13% Fitness 21-24% 14-17% Acceptable 25-31% 18-25% Obese 32% plus 25% plus > Nonsense....while there are way way way too many overweight people, it is > possible to be too skinny too. There is no need to recoil to the opposite > extreme. Please don't be part of that. Most people would not be able to > reach your stated levels of bf %, and that's a good thing, by and large. I agree it is possible to be too skinny, but Garner is not close. And I've never said that all people should aim for 3%/12%. I'm satisfied with 10% for myself (maybe 8-9% as I've still got a bit too much on the stomach making folds when I sit). I said earlier that everything more than these numbers are for decoration only, and does nothing to make your health better, nor make the body less "scrawny" and "fragile". But I consider the fat that you can't see the muscle tone (both men and women) way too much, and am convinced that is unhealthy. Archon burbled across the ether: >> That pic must be dececptive somehow...flockhard is a skinny-benny... > > Someone mentioned it's superimposed. I'll say. Calista is too damn thin. http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2000/07/21/calista.JPG Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my Dad, not in a screaming panic.... like his passengers. > Archon burbled across the ether: > >> That pic must be dececptive somehow...flockhard is a skinny-benny... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'll say. Calista is too damn thin. > http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2000/07/21/calista.JPG Damn. Someone get that woman a sandwich. ::: Archon burbled across the ether: ::::: That pic must be dececptive somehow...flockhard is a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: :: Damn. Someone get that woman a sandwich. sh.t....get her a jug of lard....and be quick about it. > ::: Archon burbled across the ether: > ::::: That pic must be dececptive somehow...flockhard is a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > sh.t....get her a jug of lard....and be quick about it. Heh. I just can't get into the scarecrow look. Perhaps she can hook up with Iggy Pop. > > Archon burbled across the ether: > > >> That pic must be dececptive somehow...flockhard is a skinny-benny... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Damn. Someone get that woman a sandwich. Sandwiches are not low carb. SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. Luna burbled across the ether: >>> Archon burbled across the ether: >>>>> That pic must be dececptive somehow...flockhard is a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sandwiches are not low carb. LOL!!! Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please Into every life, some carbs must fall. Reb :: In article <9YX6c.766$8j5.426@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com>, :: "JC Der Koenig" <jcderkoenig@ibm.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] :: :: Sandwiches are not low carb. And that is the point!!! Last thing ally needs is to lose weight. Roger Zoul burbled across the ether: > And that is the point!!! Last thing ally needs is to lose weight. Yeah well *we* know that, but it mimics a certain person's knee jerk reaction to seeing certain words on the screen, regardless of their context. It's perfect. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please "A plateau is just a landing strip for the Whoosh Fairy" --Peggy S. > > > Archon burbled across the ether: > > > >> That pic must be dececptive somehow...flockhard is a skinny-benny... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sandwiches are not low carb. Exactly. > Archon burbled across the ether: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'll say. Calista is too damn thin. > http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2000/07/21/calista.JPG That looks really strange. snip >>>> Calista Flockhart is a stick, >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That pic must be dececptive somehow...flockhard is a skinny-benny... It's photoshopped. I don't think CF ever posed for a pic like that and she does not a shape like that. >>> Look fine to me. Round curves around the hips, smooth transition >>> between [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>> >>> It's in nice goal, as I believe your body types are the same. Signaturenimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock Do not taunt happy fun ball. SNL :: In article <K_2dna_RgcpeqcbdRVn-vw@omsoft.com>, :: Archon <sequoia@MAPSONtiscali.dk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] ::: But it doesn't create lumps and skinfolds. Barrymore is so chubby ::: you can even see it in her face. http://www.drew-barrymore.konta.waw.pl/galerie/IMAGES/drew-barrymore-8.jpg Nice... http://www.drew-barrymore.konta.waw.pl/galerie/IMAGES/drew-barrymore-11.jpg A little chubby, but still works for me... :: Ok, where is this chub? Sure, she's not a body builder, she probably :: doesn't work out as much as Garner (except for when she was doing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] :: buff, Drew is soft, Kelly Osbourne is chubby, Rosie Odonell is fat, :: the chick on The Practice is obese. Drew is soft? Okay....I call that chubby, just not unattractively so...I like KO and she is definitely inthe chubby range... :: Anyway, the reason I hold Drew up as my ideal is based on her :: proportions, and the way the normal-weight women in my family look. : I think her shape is a healthy, attainable one for me. I think at a :: healthy BF% that is close to what my body will look like. Me too. http://www.drew-barrymore.konta.waw.pl/galerie/IMAGES/drew-barrymore-11.jpg > A little chubby, but still works for me... > > Drew is soft? Okay....I call that chubby, just not unattractively so...I > like KO and she is definitely inthe chubby range... That's chubby? I don't see it. http://www.drew-barrymore.konta.waw.pl/galerie/IMAGES/drew-barrymore-11.jpg ::: A little chubby, but still works for me... ::: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: :: I don't see it. Just a little bit....Soft might be a better term....Still, it works for me... http://www.drew-barrymore.konta.waw.pl/galerie/IMAGES/drew-barrymore-11.jpg > ::: A little chubby, but still works for me... > ::: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Just a little bit....Soft might be a better term....Still, it works for > me... Ok, I see soft. And it works for me too. JC Der Koenig burbled across the ether: http://www.drew-barrymore.konta.waw.pl/galerie/IMAGES/drew-barrymore-11.jpg >> A little chubby, but still works for me... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I don't see it. Archon is a Dane, remember, and English is his second language. You might ask him to define what he means by chubby. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please "It was only after their population of fifty mysteriously shrank to eight, that the other seven dwarfs began to suspect Hungry." > JC Der Koenig burbled across the ether: http://www.drew-barrymore.konta.waw.pl/galerie/IMAGES/drew-barrymore-11.jpg > >> A little chubby, but still works for me... > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Archon is a Dane, remember, and English is his second language. You > might ask him to define what he means by chubby. I really don't want to know what he's thinking. > Archon is a Dane, remember, and English is his second language. You > might ask him to define what he means by chubby. I already defined it as NOT overweight, but soft. > > Archon is a Dane, remember, and English is his second language. You > > might ask him to define what he means by chubby. > > I already defined it as NOT overweight, but soft. So when you don't know a word in English you just make up a definition for it? That's rather unusual. Is that a common Danish practice? > So when you don't know a word in English you just make up a definition for > it? That's rather unusual. Is that a common Danish practice? Apparently, Roger used the same definition and he is not a Dane. > > So when you don't know a word in English you just make up a definition for > > it? That's rather unusual. Is that a common Danish practice? > > Apparently, Roger used the same definition and he is not a Dane. So you didn't understand what Roger wrote either. > So you didn't understand what Roger wrote either. He said: 1. Drew looks chubby 2. Drew looks healthy 3. Soft might be a better word >> So you didn't understand what Roger wrote either. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 2. Drew looks healthy > 3. Soft might be a better word Drew looks silly with that cigarette hanging out of her mouth. That about sums it up. Marsha/Ohio > > Dimensionality. Photographs -- still or moving pictures -- are > > one-dimensional, so they essentially "flatten" whatever's in front of > > the camera. Gives the impression of more width. > > But it doesn't create lumps and skinfolds. Barrymore is so chubby you > can even see it in her face. oh, the horror! *eyeroll* > > > Dimensionality. Photographs -- still or moving pictures -- are > > > one-dimensional, so they essentially "flatten" whatever's in front of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > *eyeroll* LOL > redefine your definition of the word "chubby". It's awfully easy to > get a distorted idea of what constitutes a healthy body weight by > looking at actresses in TV and movies -- keep in mind that actors look > several inches taller and 10-15 pounds heavier on-camera than they do > in real life. Yea, but she still looks chubby, always has. >> redefine your definition of the word "chubby". It's awfully easy to >> get a distorted idea of what constitutes a healthy body weight by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Yea, but she still looks chubby, always has. She has a round face. As in bone structure, not fat. Not everybody is born with chiseled cheekbones. Plus she has tits and a.s. God forbid a woman have those. Good lord, I'd hate to see how "fat" people would think she was if she hadn't gotten a breast reduction. The rest of her is tiny, stopping short of bony. LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 5'7" 265/219/140 & hubby- 6' 310/239/180 > :: Angelina Jolie is good (about the same as Garner, but less feminime I > :: think - less curves), but Barrymore is chubby (not in an unattractive > :: way, though). > > Little bit chubby is fine on a woman... But "normal" and even skinny is healthier. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::::: Angelina Jolie is good (about the same as Garner, but less [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: :: But "normal" and even skinny is healthier. Prove it. > ::: Little bit chubby is fine on a woman... > :: > :: But "normal" and even skinny is healthier. > > Prove it. I don't have the reference, but a doctor told me about it (as long we are not talking about malnutrition) and refered to some rat experiments that showed the skinny ones live longer. It might be the same that JC talked about when he said undernutrition extends life. On 3/19/04 6:15 PM, in article gvqdnTWpafG7J8fdRVn-hQ@omsoft.com, "Archon" <sequoia@MAPSONtiscali.dk> wrote: >> ::: Little bit chubby is fine on a woman... >> :: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that showed the skinny ones live longer. It might be the same that JC > talked about when he said undernutrition extends life. I realize it's just anecdotal, and not a scientific survey by any means, but there are lots of very old and healthy men and women in my neighborhood here in Tokyo. I am talking about people who walk, tend their gardens, go shopping, etc., well into their 90s. 100% of them are rail thin. You *never* see anybody like that in their 90s when who are overweight. Never. doug :: On 3/19/04 6:15 PM, in article gvqdnTWpafG7J8fdRVn-hQ@omsoft.com, :: "Archon" <sequoia@MAPSONtiscali.dk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] :: You *never* see anybody like that in their 90s when who are :: overweight. Never. Why is it that healthy is assciated with "thin" and old age? Many of these people will have various health problems and end up just hanging on til they drop dead...just being alive doesn't imply healthy--- well, for many it seems to if you've 90. > Why is it that healthy is assciated with "thin" and old age? Many of these > people will have various health problems and end up just hanging on til they > drop dead...just being alive doesn't imply healthy--- well, for many it > seems to if you've 90. He's not associating thin with healthy, but "I am talking about people who walk, tend their gardens, go shopping, etc." with healthy. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Why is it that healthy is assciated with "thin" and old age? Many [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: people :: who walk, tend their gardens, go shopping, etc." with healthy. Hmm...well, let's say I'm 35, weight 300 lbs, have T2 diabetes, and walk, tend gardens, and go shopping....does that make me healthy? Apparently, if I'm 90 and thin, it does, no matter if I have other health issues. My point is a person may have managed to live into old age with a variety of health problems and may yet still be able to function in the manner described. Many of us might just assume this person is a paragon of health, but is that true? If someone said to me that a person is 90 and has no outstanding health issues and rarely gets ill, then I'd say that person is healthy -- whether thin or not. On 3/19/04 6:43 PM, in article 105lg6qk0qs25ff@corp.supernews.com, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: > :: I realize it's just anecdotal, and not a scientific survey by any > :: means, but there are lots of very old and healthy men and women in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > drop dead...just being alive doesn't imply healthy--- well, for many it > seems to if you've 90. Well, you were presumably replying to what I wrote, right? And I said that these people were active, walking around, tending their gardens, going shopping by themselves, etc. I assume they probably have some health problems. Most people accumulate problems with health as they get old. But these people are obviously relatively healthy. The point though is that 100% of them are very thin. You never ever ever see anybody active and healthy like in their 90s who is overweight. Absolutely never. That must mean something. doug :: You never ever ever see anybody active and healthy like in their 90s :: who is overweight. Absolutely never. Absolutely never, huh? There is always, absolutely always, an exception. Unfortunately, I don't know any 90 yo at all, so I can't prove my claim. > You never ever ever see anybody active and healthy like in their 90s who is > overweight. Absolutely never. > > That must mean something. I wonder about the cause and effect here, though. Mr. carla's grandmother is in her 90s, and though she was quite active 10 years ago she no longer is because her knees and other joints have stopped working and she just can't get around any more. As a consequence, she's put on weight. carla :: On 3/19/04 6:43 PM, in article 105lg6qk0qs25ff@corp.supernews.com, :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] :: :: That must mean something. Sure, I'd agree. But what does it mean and what is the reason for it. You're assuming the reason they are 90 yo is because they are thin. However, could the reason they are thin be because they are 90 yo? Perhaps they are genetically inclined for long life, so they would naturally have long lives. And perhaps they have dulled taste buds, and hence don't enjoy food as much as when they were younger. Also, do you know if all of these people have been rail thin their entire lives or is it a recent thing? :: doug :: Roger Zoul wrote: :::::: Little bit chubby is fine on a woman... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: experiments that showed the skinny ones live longer. It might be the :: same that JC talked about when he said undernutrition extends life. Thing is, that doesn't prove skinny is healthier. Once can live a long life and not be as healthy as someone who dies earlier. > Thing is, that doesn't prove skinny is healthier. Once can live a long life > and not be as healthy as someone who dies earlier. Yes, and there are 90 y olds who smoke, but that doesn't mean it's not unhealthy to smoke. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: Yes, and there are 90 y olds who smoke, but that doesn't mean it's :: not unhealthy to smoke. Right....so there can be 90 yo who are just clinging to life and shouldn't be termed healthy merely because of it... > Right....so there can be 90 yo who are just clinging to life I doubt they'd be hopping around if they are just clinging to life :) :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Right....so there can be 90 yo who are just clinging to life :: :: I doubt they'd be hopping around if they are just clinging to life :) Well, not the ones doug mentioned...but there must be some who are... > > ::: Little bit chubby is fine on a woman... > > :: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that showed the skinny ones live longer. It might be the same that JC > talked about when he said undernutrition extends life. Archon, if you are going to cite those rat studies you have to understand that those rats are starved - they don't have much fat, but they don't have much muscle either. From what you have describes, I think the human version of those rats would be too skinny and bony even for your emaciated taste. The Callista Flockharts of the rat world, if you will. Mr. carla has a friend who has decided to apply those rat studies to his life - and he looks horrible. His face looks like thin leather stretched across a skull. His arms are like toothpicks. When he stands sideways, you can't see him. He may live 100 years, I don't know. And if he does, there's no way to know whether it's due to his extreme diet. Either way, he doesn't look like you. carla ::: Roger Zoul wrote: ::::::: Little bit chubby is fine on a woman... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] :: to know whether it's due to his extreme diet. Either way, he :: doesn't look like you. That's just plain scary.... > Archon, if you are going to cite those rat studies you have to understand > that those rats are starved - they don't have much fat, but they don't have [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > He may live 100 years, I don't know. And if he does, there's no way to know > whether it's due to his extreme diet. Either way, he doesn't look like you. That just means that I may take some years off my life by being (what I call) "normal". But rather live a bit shorter good life than a bit longer deprived life... :: In article <LNqdnYw0F5gTfMTd4p2dnA@omsoft.com>, :: Archon <sequoia@MAPSONtiscali.dk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: I think she's pretty skinny. I like the bodies of Angelina Jolie :: and Drew Barrymore, personally. Curvy, but not fat. Me too. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: I don't consider Jennifer Garner skinny. It is my reference for a :: "normal" (perfect) body. Normal ain't perfect, dude... > :: I don't consider Jennifer Garner skinny. It is my reference for a > :: "normal" (perfect) body. > > Normal ain't perfect, dude... When using it to define stoutness with that as a reference, it is. >My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. > >http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick/photos/bowling.html >The expression on my face is pretty much "Oh crap he's taking my picture." >I was not prepared. Anyway, I'm 10-ish pounds lighter than in the flame >top pic, but I don't think it really shows. Different clothes, different >angle, and, well, I'm still big enough that 10 pounds one way or another is >not much of a dramatic difference. Thought I'd share anyway though! Forget the dorky, you look absolutely hot, Luna! :) Ina 213/152/150 since 8/15/03, 5'8" www.skreee.de Hey Luna, look at the difference between the red dress pics and your bowling picture! You look so much more comfortable with yourself! Looks good. Let's see some topless shots. > My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > angle, and, well, I'm still big enough that 10 pounds one way or another is > not much of a dramatic difference. Thought I'd share anyway though! You look marvelous!! Camille > My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > angle, and, well, I'm still big enough that 10 pounds one way or another is > not much of a dramatic difference. Thought I'd share anyway though! > My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > angle, and, well, I'm still big enough that 10 pounds one way or another is > not much of a dramatic difference. Thought I'd share anyway though! You look wonderful, Luna! SignatureJean B. > My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. > > http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick/photos/bowling.html You look extremely sexy and cute. i Michelle, you are looking great! It looks like you changed hair color, too. Mark. > My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > angle, and, well, I'm still big enough that 10 pounds one way or another is > not much of a dramatic difference. Thought I'd share anyway though! Nothing dorky about it, Michelle! You're looking fantastic! Carol Signature227/221.5/150 Atkins since March 12, 2004 Type 2 Diabetic since May 15, 2001 Thanks. It changes by itself, lol. Actually, what happens is (ok, about to get way OT here) I dye my hair with permanent dye from Herbal Essences. It starts to fade before my roots are showing too badly, so instead of dying it again with the permanent stuff and damaging it more, I use a semi-permanent fire engine red dye that brightens it up without damaging it. So depending on which stage my hair is in, it is varying shades of red. > Michelle, > you are looking great! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > is > > not much of a dramatic difference. Thought I'd share anyway though! SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. Hi, > My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > another is not much of a dramatic difference. Thought I'd share > anyway though! The picture doesn't look dorky to me. You're cute. :-) Take care, Carmen > My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. > > http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick/photos/bowling.html Wow! You look really great!!! What an inspiration to the rest of us! >My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >angle, and, well, I'm still big enough that 10 pounds one way or another is >not much of a dramatic difference. Thought I'd share anyway though! You look like you're having a helluva good time! Paper If it's not one thing - it's your mother. High Weight 308/225-Atkins Start/221.5/150 You look awesome. Keep it up CM > >My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If it's not one thing - it's your mother. > High Weight 308/225-Atkins Start/221.5/150 >> My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. How'd you like your date (the person, not the event)? SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply > >> My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. > > How'd you like your date (the person, not the event)? He's super awesome. :o) SignatureMichelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws. > My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > angle, and, well, I'm still big enough that 10 pounds one way or another is > not much of a dramatic difference. Thought I'd share anyway though! You are looking great! I don't think it looks dorky at all. Pictures taking at the spur of the moment are cool. You are a inspiration Luna! Nice pic! CM >My date took this pic of me when we went bowling on Sunday. > >http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick/photos/bowling.html Congrats. Great job, you can see the "success" in your stance. I just started back on LC (South Beach this time), and have been away from this group for several years. It was always a great place to be. -- Dave (LC -again- since 2/29/04) 180/173/145 dave@markson.removeit.net http://markson.net/lowcarb.htm (My Lowcarb Page) (overhaul soon) > From: Dave Markson (Sat, 20 Mar 2004 09:44:20 -0500) > MsgId: <valo50tdn0k5bc7qv8u8g33hb12a0s2ji8@4ax.com> > > I just started back on LC (South Beach this time), and have > been away from this group for several years. It was always > a great place to be. Why'd you stop LC'ing? What do you like about South Beach as opposed to other LC plans? >> I just started back on LC (South Beach this time), and have >> been away from this group for several years. It was always >> a great place to be. > >Why'd you stop LC'ing? What do you like about South Beach as opposed to >other LC plans? That is a very good question. I turned into LC all day until after dinner and then LC turned to HC. I dropped my exercise program too. Why? Hard to pick just one reason. More hours at work. More time on-line. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Really no good reason. Now that I am back on LC and exercise I feel so much better. You forget that part of it. Energy is up considerably. Not sure if its the exercise, the LC, the excitement of losing inches, or a combination of all of them. Guess it really does not matter, it's working :) Why South Beach? I am concerned about the amount of fat I eat. It seems reasonable to choose some lower fat items, such as lower fat meats, low fat cheese, and other things, that do not replace fat with sugars. OTOH, I can't live with ONLY low fat, yuk. . South Beach gets into the "good carbs" and "bad carbs" where Atkins shuns them all. I'm thinking of this as a refinement of the Atkins program. The other big reason is that I don't have to have a different meal than the rest of the family. I can have some stuffing (whole wheat), limited pasta (whole wheat), slow cook brown rice, etc. That's what they tell me. That's the plan. We'll see where it goes. I've been trying to get back on LC for over a year. It took that picture last month (on my main LC page) to get me moving again. -- Dave (LC -again- since 2/29/04) 180/173/145 dave@markson.removeit.net http://markson.net/lowcarb.htm (My Lowcarb Page) >>> I just started back on LC (South Beach this time), and have >>> been away from this group for several years. It was always >>> a great place to be. >>> CarbAddict said: >> >> Why'd you stop LC'ing? What do you like about South Beach >> as opposed to other LC plans? > From: Dave Markson (Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:31:19 -0500) > MsgId: <tg9p509thshpuabnmfdh86pq5uh6bv2f2l@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why? Hard to pick just one reason. More hours at work. More > time on-line. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Really no good reason. Internally, there's always a "good reason" for our choices. Sometimes it just has to do with prioritizing immediate gratification over long term goals. It can be helpful in changing behavior to know why you held on to the old behavior in the first place. Then you can make conscious decisions as opposed to decisions by default (which tend to be "easiest as the moment.") > Why South Beach? I am concerned about the amount of fat > I eat. It seems reasonable to choose some lower fat items, > such as lower fat meats, low fat cheese, and other things, > that do not replace fat with sugars. I've eaten Low Fat for several years and the only conscious thing I've decided to do is eat fat rather than carbs. That doesn't mean I HAVE to eat fat. It just means if I'm not getting enough food to satiate me, add more protein and fat to my diet, not carbs. > OTOH, I can't live with ONLY low fat, yuk.. I actually did OK with it, but it didn't address my hunger. > South Beach gets into the "good carbs" and "bad carbs" > where Atkins shuns them all. Really? I thought Atkins said you can add back in things like vegetables as long as you stay below your threshhold. > I'm thinking of this as a refinement of the Atkins program. I don't have a name for my diet anymore. It's just "LC" :). > The other big reason is that I don't have to have a different > meal than the rest of the family. I can have some stuffing > (whole wheat), limited pasta (whole wheat), slow cook brown > rice, etc. That's what they tell me. That's the plan. We'll > see where it goes. Ah, I see. Well, I'm in my "somewhat low" carb stage right now. My Body Fat % is improving, which is my goal. My appetite is great. Energy is OK too. I don't plan to make high carb meals a regular part of my diet going forward. I just expect to have more carbs on some days than others. I had a rotisserie chicken recently and had mashed potatoes with it. I didn't consider it a failure. It is built in as something I'm going to do on an on-going basis as desired (but not regularly). I'm still staying away from things like dressing, etc. but of course that's an individual choice. > I've been trying to get back on LC for over a year. It > took that picture last month (on my main LC page) to get > me moving again. I do wonder what mentally stood in your way. I'm asking you these questions because it seems (and appearances can be deceiving) that you consider LC'ing a sacrifice and something you have to force yourself to do. I still think I was one of the worst carb addicts known to mankind, but I find now that I cleaned out my system a bit, I don't miss them anywhere near as much as everyone (including me) thought I would. Maybe for you it is just the social thing of eating differently than everyone else in your family. Food for thought. >Internally, there's always a "good reason" for our choices. Sometimes it >just has to do with prioritizing immediate gratification over long term >goals. It can be helpful in changing behavior to know why you held on to >the old behavior in the first place. Then you can make conscious decisions >as opposed to decisions by default (which tend to be "easiest as the >moment.") Realizing that there is not an end to the goal is probably the key. I am the kind of person that would rather solve a problem quick and then go relax for awhile, rather than continue steady forever. Obviously that does not work for eating for life. >> South Beach gets into the "good carbs" and "bad carbs" >> where Atkins shuns them all. >Really? I thought Atkins said you can add back in things like vegetables as >long as you stay below your threshhold. That is true. What I think I meant to say is that Atkins does not really tell you to limit fat at all. And if you don't limit fat then you have to be very careful about carbs. By being more careful with fat, it should allow a bit more on the carbs (realizing that calories still count). >Ah, I see. Well, I'm in my "somewhat low" carb stage right now. My Body Fat >% is improving, which is my goal. My appetite is great. Energy is OK too. I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >on-going basis as desired (but not regularly). I'm still staying away from >things like dressing, etc. but of course that's an individual choice. Yeah, moderation is always the king. Glad your system works. >I do wonder what mentally stood in your way. I'm asking you these questions >because it seems (and appearances can be deceiving) that you consider [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >social thing of eating differently than everyone else in your family. Food >for thought. I actually enjoy LC. I can't point to the one "thing" that threw me off the wagon. I guess once I got to my goal, I subconsciously thought that I was done. In reality, I had just begun! I guess I have been in the 95% of the crowd statistic that can't stick to a new WOL for that long. This time ... I need to plan for maintenance much better than I did last time. -- Dave (LC -Take II- since 2/29/04) 180/172/145 dave@markson.removeit.net http://markson.net/lowcarb.htm (My Lowcarb Page) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.