> Down 0.4
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Ralph
> 300/291.2/270
Same loss for me too!
Audrey
Way to go Ralph........0.4 is a great loss! Don't be in hurry. I might
disagree with you a bit about the muscle thing. Muscle takes a very long
time to build and during any form of weight loss, it's pretty difficult not
to lose muscle.
keep up the good work.
Eddie
Weight June05-359lbs
Current Weight-284.4lbs
Loss to date=74.6lbs
Goal Weight-180lbs
Down 0.4
I walked a lot this week, my sense is that I added muscle so I didn't
get the weight loss I expected. Trying not to be too disappointed.
It's a loss right.
Ralph
300/291.2/270
Uncle Bonzi - 29 May 2006 16:56 GMT
> Way to go Ralph........0.4 is a great loss! Don't be in hurry. I might
> disagree with you a bit about the muscle thing. Muscle takes a very long
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Ralph
> 300/291.2/270
Really? I was going by an article they (WW) had at my center next to
the scales.
Sigh.... I suppose your right though, dang it.
Ralph
Try to look at the problem unemotionally. You realized a weight loss of
less than ten percent of what the body can safely achieve. Why?
If you strictly followed the WW plan, you allowed yourself to eat
"treats", meaning nil-nutrition, high-calorie junk food that you
continue to crave just because you think of it as a "treat".
WW wants to keep you as a paying lifelong member, and that's how they do
it.
Instead, take your health into your own hands, use common sense eating
habits that include complete rejection of all junk food, and watch as
nature loses the excess weight for you at the far faster rate that your
body is capable of.
You can't just "cut down" on junk food, just as you can't just cut down
on tobacco, alcohol or drugs.
And above all, don't expect helpful advice from the weak people on this
NG who keep themselves fat, as most do.
George
BMI=24
> Down 0.4
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Ralph
> 300/291.2/270
Uncle Bonzi - 29 May 2006 16:57 GMT
> Try to look at the problem unemotionally. You realized a weight loss of
> less than ten percent of what the body can safely achieve. Why?
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> > Ralph
> > 300/291.2/270
Thanks for the support!!
Now be gone knave....
- R
rmr - 31 May 2006 20:14 GMT
>Try to look at the problem unemotionally. You realized a weight loss of
>less than ten percent of what the body can safely achieve. Why?
So the body can safely lose more than 4 pounds per week. Where does
that come from? Can you post the paper please?
Bear in mind that you have been suggesting that the body can lose 10
pounds a week safely - why have you come down to 4? Is it some new
research you've been looking up? Or just your "common sense"?
4 pounds of fat is about 14000 Calories. So to lose that I'd have to
eat nothing all week, and some exercise into the bargain. That isn't
safe, and you if you keep it up for any length of time it'll kill you.
Get it into your head that what you are suggesting is dangerous
>You can't just "cut down" on junk food, just as you can't just cut down
>on tobacco, alcohol or drugs.
Your idea is that stopping eating is the only way to lose weight,
exactly like tobacco, alcohol, and drugs.
In fact losing weight is nothing like cutting out cigarettes.
Ray
and there is often water retention when you do extra exercise, increase your
water and I bet you get a great loss this next week, Lee
> Down 0.4
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Ralph
> 300/291.2/270