Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / March 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

body for life

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ignoramus5568 - 17 Mar 2004 20:12 GMT
My opinion: this woman started off looking better than she is ended
up.

http://www.nicoleweeks.com/2000challenge.html
Paul - 17 Mar 2004 20:51 GMT
I have to disagree with you on this one.  Although she looks good before I
think she looks better and healthier with the additional muscle.

Paul
300/206/175

> My opinion: this woman started off looking better than she is ended
> up.
>
> http://www.nicoleweeks.com/2000challenge.html
Jayjay - 17 Mar 2004 21:18 GMT
I'm not sure if its so much as additional muscle - as she lost the fat
in her butt cheeks.   Otherwise she looks very much the same (asside
from being too damned tan and glossed for the photos).

Remember, lighting and posing angles make a world of difference in
photos.

>I have to disagree with you on this one.  Although she looks good before I
>think she looks better and healthier with the additional muscle.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.631 / Virus Database: 404 - Release Date: 3/17/04
Paul - 18 Mar 2004 16:31 GMT
I concur it could be fat loss as well.

Paul

> I'm not sure if its so much as additional muscle - as she lost the fat
> in her butt cheeks.   Otherwise she looks very much the same (asside
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.631 / Virus Database: 404 - Release Date: 3/17/04
J.J. in WA State - 18 Mar 2004 03:18 GMT
Hark! I heard "Paul" <paulftw@charter.net> say:

> > My opinion: this woman started off looking better than she is ended
> > up.
> >
> > http://www.nicoleweeks.com/2000challenge.htm

> I have to disagree with you on this one.  Although she looks good
> before I think she looks better and healthier with the additional
> muscle.
>
> Paul
> 300/206/175

Or she would look better, sans tan and oil (yuck!). But that's a female
opinion...

Signature

J.J. in WA State
(251/241/150)

Julianne - 18 Mar 2004 04:19 GMT
> I have to disagree with you on this one.  Although she looks good before I
> think she looks better and healthier with the additional muscle.
>
> Paul
> 300/206/175

I have two opinions on this.  The first is that I think the 'after' pic
looks better.  It is a higher quality photograph and really defines her
progress.  On a personal level, I like the before pics.  I appreciate the
desire to be healthy but (strike me dead for saying this) there is a certain
woman who is so self absorbed that how she looks is tantatmount to all.  In
my own life, looking good is secondary to being healthy (and there are
always improvements I can make).

I guess I would have to say that I would need to more about the woman
pictured before I could come up with a real opinion.

Am I making sense?

j

> > My opinion: this woman started off looking better than she is ended
> > up.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.631 / Virus Database: 404 - Release Date: 3/17/04
Ignoramus5568 - 18 Mar 2004 04:51 GMT
>> I have to disagree with you on this one.  Although she looks good before I
>> think she looks better and healthier with the additional muscle.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Am I making sense?

You are making sense.

I looked at her solely from personal attractiveness standpoint. I
would prefer to have sex with the woman on the first photograph, than
on the last (with fake tan). On the fits one, she looked very hot.

Otherwise, I agree with you and jayjay in that she went beyond a point
where the relation of benefit to expenditure of efforts is reasonable.

i

> j
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>> Version: 6.0.631 / Virus Database: 404 - Release Date: 3/17/04
Dally - 18 Mar 2004 14:59 GMT
> I looked at her solely from personal attractiveness standpoint. I
> would prefer to have sex with the woman on the first photograph, than
> on the last (with fake tan). On the fits one, she looked very hot.

It turns out that actual women care about things other than what body
fat percentage is most appealing to you, Igor.

Dally
Ignoramus21235 - 18 Mar 2004 15:47 GMT
>> I looked at her solely from personal attractiveness standpoint. I
>> would prefer to have sex with the woman on the first photograph, than
>> on the last (with fake tan). On the fits one, she looked very hot.
>
> It turns out that actual women care about things other than what body
> fat percentage is most appealing to you, Igor.

I am shocked!

How would you define good looking without being subjective, though.

i
Beverly - 18 Mar 2004 14:56 GMT
> > I have to disagree with you on this one.  Although she looks good before I
> > think she looks better and healthier with the additional muscle.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> my own life, looking good is secondary to being healthy (and there are
> always improvements I can make).

After reading the website I think her before pic is after her first
challenge in 1999.  She did two challenges.  The link took us to the second
one.  She was heavier in her first challenge.

> I guess I would have to say that I would need to more about the woman
> pictured before I could come up with a real opinion.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.631 / Virus Database: 404 - Release Date: 3/17/04
B Sneap - 18 Mar 2004 23:07 GMT
thats not her body!
her face is white and body to big for her, looks like someones stuck her
head on another bodyy

> > I have to disagree with you on this one.  Although she looks good before I
> > think she looks better and healthier with the additional muscle.
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.631 / Virus Database: 404 - Release Date: 3/17/04
Dally - 19 Mar 2004 00:24 GMT
> thats not her body!
> her face is white and body to big for her, looks like someones stuck her
> head on another bodyy

Well, it's SOMEONE's body, and they got that way by eating clean and
exercising a lot.

Dally, who has done FIVE Body for Life challenges and they really work!
Beverly - 17 Mar 2004 21:09 GMT
> My opinion: this woman started off looking better than she is ended
> up.
>
> http://www.nicoleweeks.com/2000challenge.html

I can't agree with you on this one.  I think the girl looks fantastic in
the after pics.  She was nice looking in the before pics but she's fab in
the after!  I don't care for massive muscles on a woman but she seems to
have just about the right amount.

Beverly
Jayjay - 17 Mar 2004 21:26 GMT
>> My opinion: this woman started off looking better than she is ended
>> up.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Beverly

One thing to consider in her "after" vs. "before" shots.

The after shots - having a body like that takes a TON of work, and to
keep a body like that takes just as much work to maintain.   Diet,
exercise, etc become the main focus on life.   We're talking hours of
workouts in the gym each day and meticulous eating habits

Whereas w/ the before shots, she already looks good and is pretty
ripped (check out her abs before - pretty impressive).

For me, my end all goal is to be about how she looks in her before
shots.   For me, that is an easily maintainable image that fits into
my lifestyle of being mom, wife, career woman, soccer mom, and
fun/fitness.   I can have the occasional party indulgence along with
the fun of life and if life is too hectic to get to the gym for a week
or 2, then I'm still ok.
Paul - 18 Mar 2004 16:39 GMT
I never said she didn't look good before only I disagreed with Iggy as far
as she looked better before than after.  I think she gained muscle and lost
fat, looks healthier.  I know she has paint on her body, but they do that to
help show definition at contests.  No biggie...  Also, this isn't about who
I'd want in the sack Iggy, it's about being healthy and feeling good about
yourself.  I bet that she feels better in the latter pic and I bet most
others would be too.  IMHO

Paul

> >> My opinion: this woman started off looking better than she is ended
> >> up.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> the fun of life and if life is too hectic to get to the gym for a week
> or 2, then I'm still ok.
Ignoramus21235 - 18 Mar 2004 16:52 GMT
> I never said she didn't look good before only I disagreed with Iggy as far
> as she looked better before than after.  I think she gained muscle and lost
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> yourself.  I bet that she feels better in the latter pic and I bet most
> others would be too.  IMHO

I would actually bet that she feels worse in the latter pic. She
looked like a paragon of health in the first picture.

i
Beverly - 18 Mar 2004 17:16 GMT
> > I never said she didn't look good before only I disagreed with Iggy as far
> > as she looked better before than after.  I think she gained muscle and lost
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> i

How in the hell can you tell that from a picture?  If you read the entire
website you'll find she's much happier with the new body and lifestyle.
Geez....sometimes you're so damn stubborn you're funny<g>
You need to read the rest of the website.
http://www.nicoleweeks.com/2000essay.html
Ignoramus21235 - 18 Mar 2004 17:32 GMT
>> > I never said she didn't look good before only I disagreed with Iggy as
> far
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> You need to read the rest of the website.
> http://www.nicoleweeks.com/2000essay.html

Beverly, if you re-read her essay, you will see that she is happy to
have met her challenge, that she is proud of herself etc. All quite
valid feelings about having reached an ambitious goal. She does not
talk much about how well she is feeling physically. Things like
whether she is sleeping well, whether she is starving all the time,
whether her periods are still going well, etc etc etc. That's what I
am wondering about.

i
Jayjay - 18 Mar 2004 16:55 GMT
>I never said she didn't look good before only I disagreed with Iggy as far
>as she looked better before than after.  I think she gained muscle and lost
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Paul

Actually, my point was - I've been there...  and the work it takes to
keep up the "after" is more than my lifestyle permits.    

Its a matter of priorities.   I'd rather look like her "before" shots
and maintain my lifestyle of being a soccer mom, wife, career woman,
than to dedicate my life to my body image.   Don't get me wrong, I am
an egomaniac and my body image is important to an extent.   But, my
livelyhood and lifestyle do not dictate I maintain that "after" look.

Now, were I a fitness model and that was my livelyhood, it would be a
different story.   Then again, it wouldn't require me to spend 14hrs a
day in front of computers either.   :-)

Its a balance.
Ignoramus21235 - 18 Mar 2004 17:01 GMT
>>I never said she didn't look good before only I disagreed with Iggy as far
>>as she looked better before than after.  I think she gained muscle and lost
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Its a balance.  

So, JayJay, if you were in both fitness categories, which one leaves
you feeling better?

i
Jayjay - 18 Mar 2004 17:17 GMT
>>>I never said she didn't look good before only I disagreed with Iggy as far
>>>as she looked better before than after.  I think she gained muscle and lost
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
>i

the before.

I have to say that I would feel "fine" at both catagories.    If you
go back thru her website to see her first before pics (from 1999) that
would be at a stage for me where I felt a bit sluggish, etc.  

The fact is, I feel "Fine" now.   I feel healthy (well, dispite the
knee pain, but that is an injury that could accure at ANY stage in
body composition).

Where I don't feel healthy would be at a stage where there is more
body fat on my body AND I slack off on the workouts.    No workouts
for a while makes my sleep patterns get erratic, which then affects my
waking hours and eating habits, which then also affects the muscle
soreness in the upper back, and hips.    Its a downward spiral effect.

But, if I spend some time working out each day to help regulate
sleeping patterns, it carries thru to the rest of the way I feel.

Now, don't get me wrong here.   Right now I look more like the womans
earliest photos on her website.   I put weight on before the wedding,
then some on during the trip and since I haven't been working out well
since the trips return, I've put on more weight.
Ignoramus21235 - 18 Mar 2004 17:29 GMT
>>>>I never said she didn't look good before only I disagreed with Iggy as far
>>>>as she looked better before than after.  I think she gained muscle and lost
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> knee pain, but that is an injury that could accure at ANY stage in
> body composition).

That injury does not count, yes.

> Where I don't feel healthy would be at a stage where there is more
> body fat on my body AND I slack off on the workouts.    No workouts
> for a while makes my sleep patterns get erratic, which then affects my
> waking hours and eating habits, which then also affects the muscle
> soreness in the upper back, and hips.    Its a downward spiral effect.

No exercise for me makes me feel irritable.

> But, if I spend some time working out each day to help regulate
> sleeping patterns, it carries thru to the rest of the way I feel.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> then some on during the trip and since I haven't been working out well
> since the trips return, I've put on more weight.  

Thanks for a thoughtful answer.

i
Jayjay - 18 Mar 2004 17:41 GMT
>Thanks for a thoughtful answer.
>
>i

"Healthy" is such a subjective word.  

"Healthy" to me does not just comprise looks and bodyfat percentages.

"Healhty" also does not just pertain to the inner health (cold,
disease, etc).
"Healthy" doesn't mean someone can run 5 miles or squat 200lbs, do 100
pushups and 100 situps in 60 seconds each.  

Health also takes into consideration the outward and the inward.
Someone can be energetic without being healthy.   Someone can look
like a fitness model, yet have cancer.   Does that mean they are
"healthy"?  

To me, healthy means I feel good, I have no major illness or diseases,
and I look good (skin coloring, as well as body composition).  It also
means that I sleep well, eat well, and can keep up with life's
pressures and demands.   I can go run around the soccer field with my
son, and deal with the office political stress without having a mental
meltdown.

I've seen people with twice the body fat I have that can run circles
around me.  Likewise I've seen people with half the bodyfat I have
that I can run circles around.  

The current cold/bug running around the office these days is affecting
people for a 2 to 3 week stint of feeling like crap.   I got it, and
it lasted 1 week and I'm feeling 100% better again.   My immune system
still "catches" things, but my healing time is much faster than the
"average" person.

My cholesterol, blood sugar, blood pressure is low and well withing
"healthy" ranges.   My resting heart rate is high but still within
healthy ranges.   In BMI standards I'm about 10% above my "healthy"
weight range.  In BF% I'm still within healthy ranges.

If you asked me this question, this time last week, my answer would
have been "I'm not healthy" right now, because I had a cold and felt
like utter crap.   Today, I feel great!.   My energy level is up, my
stress level is high, but it is not triggering food binges or mental
breakdowns/panic attacks.    ANd tonight I could easily go out for a
bike ride when I get off of work, for a good workout.   Or I could go
to the Y for a weight routine.   Which ever I feel like.
Ignoramus21235 - 18 Mar 2004 20:25 GMT
><ignoramus21235@NOSPAM.21235.invalid> wrote:
>>Thanks for a thoughtful answer.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> "Healthy" doesn't mean someone can run 5 miles or squat 200lbs, do 100
> pushups and 100 situps in 60 seconds each.  

To me, being healthy means:

1. Feeling good
2. Looking good in the mirror
3. Being good at various physical fitness tasks
4. Not being sick too often
5. Having a rationally based high expectation of remaining life expectancy

> Health also takes into consideration the outward and the inward.
> Someone can be energetic without being healthy.   Someone can look
> like a fitness model, yet have cancer.   Does that mean they are
> "healthy"?  

Not to me.

> To me, healthy means I feel good, I have no major illness or
> diseases, and I look good (skin coloring, as well as body
> composition).  It also means that I sleep well, eat well, and can
> keep up with life's pressures and demands.  I can go run around the
> soccer field with my son, and deal with the office political stress
> without having a mental meltdown.

I would tend to agree that it makes sense.

> My cholesterol, blood sugar, blood pressure is low and well withing
> "healthy" ranges.   My resting heart rate is high but still within
> healthy ranges.   In BMI standards I'm about 10% above my "healthy"
> weight range.  In BF% I'm still within healthy ranges.

Remember though, that for women before menopause and without big
hormonal problems, supposedly estrogen somehow protects you from high
cholesterol etc. After menopause, cholesterol may get worse, and
before, having low cholesterol is not as much an accomplishment.
Obviously, you have other great health accomplishments.

> If you asked me this question, this time last week, my answer would
> have been "I'm not healthy" right now, because I had a cold and felt
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> bike ride when I get off of work, for a good workout.  Or I could go
> to the Y for a weight routine.  Which ever I feel like.

Yeah, for me, also, when Ifeel good, life seems to be much better.

i
Dally - 19 Mar 2004 00:34 GMT
> Or I could go
> to the Y for a weight routine.   Which ever I feel like.    

Want to plan to go to the Y with me on Saturday morning April 17th?  :-)

Dally
JayJay - 19 Mar 2004 03:47 GMT
> > Or I could go
> > to the Y for a weight routine.   Which ever I feel like.
>
> Want to plan to go to the Y with me on Saturday morning April 17th?  :-)
>
> Dally

Certainly!
Dally - 19 Mar 2004 04:24 GMT
>>>Or I could go
>>>to the Y for a weight routine.   Which ever I feel like.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
> Certainly!

It had better not be too early in the day.  I'm due for a 24 hour sleep
right about then!  (Last time I got to Florida I fell asleep on the car
ride home from the airport and slept pretty much the next 18 hours
straight.)

I'm so tired.  I'm sitting on usenet knowing I have to finish a
corporate return in the next hour so I can get to bed so I can get up in
time to get my workout in before my first client tomorrow.  But I've
already put in a 12 hour day and, well, I'm tired.

I wish I knew some way to balance my life better.  It's a little like
being a farmer: you make hay while the sun shines.  Anyone who has ever
hayed knows what I mean: you do it when it's ready or it doesn't get
done and you lose the money.  Apple picking is like that, too: you've
got to get the harvest in before the storm.  So I work seven days and
five nights a week and just try to harvest as much as I can because this
is my entire income this year.

So far changes I've made include getting a receptionist to handle the
phones and the door and specifying client slots that I use for workouts.
 I've got healthy snacks around and drink water or tea all day long.
Does anything else come to mind on how to manage stress of going from a
15 hour work week to a 70 hour work week?

Dally
Jayjay - 19 Mar 2004 16:09 GMT
>It had better not be too early in the day.  I'm due for a 24 hour sleep
>right about then!  (Last time I got to Florida I fell asleep on the car
>ride home from the airport and slept pretty much the next 18 hours
>straight.)

I'm not much of a morning person, so early isn't gonna happen.   No, I
wont' drag you out to a 5am bootcamp session.   :-)  

>I'm so tired.  I'm sitting on usenet knowing I have to finish a
>corporate return in the next hour so I can get to bed so I can get up in
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>Dally

You are doing well.  And you don't have too much more to go before
this year is over.    

What I would suggest is possibly skipping or cutting a couple workouts
short a couple days a week in order to take the time to just "relax"
and do something for yourself.   (go sit in the hot tub or steam room
and read a book, instead of the workout).  

You know the exercise is good for the stress.   But so is the
relaxation.
estella - 19 Mar 2004 16:28 GMT
>I'm so tired.  I'm sitting on usenet knowing I have to finish a
>corporate return in the next hour so I can get to bed so I can get up in
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>Does anything else come to mind on how to manage stress of going from a
>15 hour work week to a 70 hour work week?

I've got an idea.
Work less. I can't think of any job that needs be done in 70 hours a
week.
If most people in the world work 40 hours a week, there must be a
reason. :-)
Jayjay - 19 Mar 2004 16:47 GMT
>>I'm so tired.  I'm sitting on usenet knowing I have to finish a
>>corporate return in the next hour so I can get to bed so I can get up in
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>If most people in the world work 40 hours a week, there must be a
>reason. :-)

The reason for Dally is - she's an accountant, and this is tax season.
And going by what she has posted, I believe she makes the bulk of her
yearly income during these few short months.  

I too, have a job that sometimes requires 70 - 80hr weeks.   It all
depends on the workload.   But let me tell you - to pull hours like
that for a couple weeks, while it is exhausting, its also awesome for
the pocketbook.   :-)   Can we say, "shopping spree".....
Dally - 20 Mar 2004 01:22 GMT
<snipped bitching about long work hours>

> I've got an idea.
> Work less. I can't think of any job that needs be done in 70 hours a
> week.

Apple picking before a storm is about to arrive.  Any apples you don't
get picked are going to go to waste.  So you pick until you can't pick
anymore.

> If most people in the world work 40 hours a week, there must be a
> reason. :-)

Yeah, they don't have my job.

Dally
estella - 20 Mar 2004 05:50 GMT
><snipped bitching about long work hours>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>get picked are going to go to waste.  So you pick until you can't pick
>anymore.

Oh. I thought you were in the accountant business.
If you are in the apple picking business, I'm glad for you, it is much
more interesting. :-)

>> If most people in the world work 40 hours a week, there must be a
>> reason. :-)
>
>Yeah, they don't have my job.

(Estella thinking if it is impossibile to hire people in the apple
picking business :-O

>Dally

Apart from silly jokes, I have beeen reading that you were working 50,
60, now 70 hours a week. I would either try not to get too many
customers or to hire people for a short time.
Sorry if the statement is stupid for some *very good * reason.
Dally - 23 Mar 2004 05:48 GMT
>>>estella wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> If you are in the apple picking business, I'm glad for you, it is much
> more interesting. :-)

LOL, you may have a point.  But I actually don't find my job boring, but
that's part of what makes it my job.  Accountant is more of a
personality type than a skillset.  It runs in my family.  A true story:
my mother gave a baby up for adoption.  He found us 30 years later.
He's a tax accountant, too.

But my point was that there are other jobs like mine.

> Apart from silly jokes, I have beeen reading that you were working 50,
> 60, now 70 hours a week. I would either try not to get too many
> customers or to hire people for a short time.
> Sorry if the statement is stupid for some *very good * reason.

It's the way the season is built and highly dependent on deadlines
imposed by others.  My clients receive the information they need to
prepare their taxes by January 30th.  The next day they all want to come
see me.  I schedule them in back to back to back during every
conceivable time slot.  I do this for all of February.

Then in the first two weeks of March I turn my attention away from the
individuals to the Corporations, which all have a deadline of March
15th.  Each one of them takes an uninterrupted 8 hours of concentration.
 That uninterrupted period tends to start AFTER the workday is done,
i.e., 6 pm to 2 am, because even though I'm trying not to deal with
individual returns during that time, I really am anyway.  (They don't
stop calling or stopping by, for example.)

With the corporations done (and completely exhausted from the effort) I
turn back to scheduling clients every moment of every day.  In the time
before and after clients (I'm usually with them from 9 am to 9 pm)
there's always returns waiting for me to finish.  I went upstairs at 10
pm to brush my teeth and get ready for bed, but came back down to finish
another return.  (Which I just did.)  I've currently got nine returns
ready to finish, which means that there are nine people likely to call
tomorrow asking why their return isn't done yet.  Do I go to bed and
figure I'll shrug them off tomorrow, or do I stay up and tackle another one?

I don't know if this answers your question or provides any insight.
Hiring workers isn't feasible with my business at the moment.  I've got
a receptionist to do all the not-taxes stuff (today I had to send her to
pick up my daughter since I was stuck with a client that ran over by
quite a lot) and she's a big help.  But the work I do is fundamentally
linked to knowing my client's situation intimantly as well as having a
highly specialized body of knowledge.  If I'm going to shift over from
DOING the work to training others and supervising their work then I need
to buy a building and get four or five tax staff all at once.  I'm
planning on doing this, actually - I'm hoping to buy out an existing CPA
firm and just take over his entire operation... but not this week.

Taking less clients is certainly an option.  I've certainly been content
to make less money in the past.  But I'm financially in the hole from my
over-budget kitchen remodel this summer and really trying to rake in the
cash when it's lying around ready to be raked.  Honestly, if you knew it
would cost you $100/hour in lost wages to go watch an episode of
Friends, would you?  Which activities would you choose to do instead of
earning $100/hour?  It's only for ten weeks, and then it all goes away.

So I work as hard as I can for the two and a half months I can make
money.  That's just the way this life goes.

By the way, as off topic as this is, I ought to mention that I'm in the
12th week of my fifth Body for Life challenge.  I'm eating well, I'm
exercising regularly... I've lost 11 pounds in the past 12 weeks.  I
know this doesn't make sense in the context of everything else I've
said, but there it is.  I've taken four client slots a week and given
them to the gym, i.e., I'm paying something like $400/week to go to the
gym in opportunity cost.  (But I figure I'll make it up in increased
longevity at the other end of my life.)

Dally
Julianne - 23 Mar 2004 14:45 GMT
Wendy,

I work the same way.  I take on projects for clients and when they have a
deadline (they all do!), I work the extra hours.  All weekend, I worked on
regulatory paperwork for a deal that closed yesterday.  Friday, a client had
an emergent need in Alexandria (2.5 hours away) and I was there and will go
back today.

As a consultant of any kind, if you don't respect your clients deadlines,
you don't work.

On the other hand, when all of my clients are doing well because I have done
my job, I get to goof off for a couple of days.  Most of the time, I devote
it to developing new products such as educational pieces that can be used
for my clients because something new has come up in the industry.  I am
currently working on online continuing education for nurses.

Unlike you, my deadlines are more evenly distributed but end of year
(holidays) tends to be bad in the health care industry because everyone's fy
ends 12/31.

I love to work.  I am good at what I do and I love the flexibility of
working for myself.  I have a bitch for a boss but she pays me well.

Exercise is easier for me because I frequently have hours that are not
billed to clients.  I also have a stable of clients who pay me a flat
quarterly rate for oversight of agency functions.  So, my bills are being
paid while I am on the treadmill.

As an aside, I met up with a nurse last week that I don't see very often.
He began body for life in October.  He has done enormously well.  He has
lost 40 plus pounds and seems more relaxed than I have seen him in ages.  I
saw him the first time about six weeks ago and couldn't believe the change.
Last week, he looked even better than he did when I saw him the first time.

As I embark on two huge projects, I am looking for ways to exercise with
increased intensity for a shorter duration of time.  Although I still prefer
the treadmill followed by modest weights, it is a luxury in terms of hours
and minutes that I will not have frequently for another few weeks.  Thus, I
got some new toys last week and am trying to build some muscle even though I
might not be losing weight as rapidly as I should.

j
> >>>estella wrote:
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 82 lines]
>
> Dally
JMA - 23 Mar 2004 15:17 GMT
> I love to work.  I am good at what I do and I love the flexibility of
> working for myself.  I have a bitch for a boss but she pays me well.

DH (who has his own business) says he has a tyrant for a boss and a slacker
for an employee.
Dally - 25 Mar 2004 18:40 GMT
>>I love to work.  I am good at what I do and I love the flexibility of
>>working for myself.  I have a bitch for a boss but she pays me well.
>
> DH (who has his own business) says he has a tyrant for a boss and a slacker
> for an employee.

Good one.  :-)

The good thing about my boss is I don't have to tell her all my whiney
excuses for why I didn't get things done, i.e., "but I had to pick a kid
up from school RIGHT THEN so I couldn't return the IRS agent's phone
call."

But one of the bad things about my boss is she critiques my parenting.

Oh, and she tends to tell me to butch the f.ck up.  (Who wants to hear
that sort of coarse language?)

Dally
JMA - 25 Mar 2004 22:00 GMT
> >>I love to work.  I am good at what I do and I love the flexibility of
> >>working for myself.  I have a bitch for a boss but she pays me well.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Dally

Sue her for making you work in a hostile environment :P

My boss gives people the finger when the kids aren't looking.  Then the kids
ask me why I'm always telling him to grow up.

Jenn
JayJay - 24 Mar 2004 00:52 GMT
> Wendy,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> an emergent need in Alexandria (2.5 hours away) and I was there and will go
> back today.

Me too...   :)

In IT, as a one woman show, basically, I do it all.   If a piece of hardware
fails, its my responsibility to dowhat it takes to get it running so the
company doesn't lose money.

There have been numerous situations where I've put in many long hours.   And
there are plenty of times when I'll easily put in 70 hr weeks for a few
weeks on end, to get the project done.

Actually, since I can work from home at times, I'll put in a typical 50hr
work week at the office, and a good nother 10hrs in at home just doing
catchup work.  And thats in a normal week, on a regular basis.  Not to
mention being on call, basically 24/7...  (although its generally 6am -
10pm, as people I work with really do sleep at night).
estella - 26 Mar 2004 06:34 GMT
>> Apart from silly jokes, I have beeen reading that you were working 50,
>> 60, now 70 hours a week. I would either try not to get too many
>> customers or to hire people for a short time.
>> Sorry if the statement is stupid for some *very good * reason.

>Taking less clients is certainly an option.  I've certainly been content
>to make less money in the past.  But I'm financially in the hole from my
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>So I work as hard as I can for the two and a half months I can make
>money.  That's just the way this life goes.

I understand your point.
That would not work for me.
I have a highly paid job but want to quit because I never see my kids
and my kids are the most important thing in my life.
estella - 26 Mar 2004 14:40 GMT
>>> Apart from silly jokes, I have beeen reading that you were working 50,
>>> 60, now 70 hours a week. I would either try not to get too many
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>That would not work for me.
>I have a highly paid job

Ehm, no, not a 100$/hour job, I've never earned that much and probably
never will :-)
Jayjay - 26 Mar 2004 15:38 GMT
>>> Apart from silly jokes, I have beeen reading that you were working 50,
>>> 60, now 70 hours a week. I would either try not to get too many
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>I have a highly paid job but want to quit because I never see my kids
>and my kids are the most important thing in my life.

With your job, it seems you do the long hours alot, and because you
don't get to see your kids enough, you would consider quitting.

In Dally's case, we are talking 2 months out of the year that are a
mad dash to cram in as much work and make as much money as possible,
that then allows her to work basically "part time" hours the other 10
months a year.   It also means that she has limited work hours over
the summer months when the kids are out of school.

To me, that sounds like a wonderful sacrifice that I'm sure the whole
family can work around for the temporary inconvienence.
MH - 19 Mar 2004 03:45 GMT
> I never said she didn't look good before only I disagreed with Iggy as far
> as she looked better before than after.  I think she gained muscle and lost
> fat, looks healthier.  I know she has paint on her body, but they do that to
> help show definition at contests.  No biggie...  Also, this isn't about who
> I'd want in the sack Iggy,

Only he was thinking about that, no one else, and I mean NO ONE ELSE.

Martha
JayJay - 19 Mar 2004 03:55 GMT
> > I never said she didn't look good before only I disagreed with Iggy as far
> > as she looked better before than after.  I think she gained muscle and
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Martha

I was...   :)

NOT!
MH - 19 Mar 2004 05:26 GMT
> > > I never said she didn't look good before only I disagreed with Iggy as
> far
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> NOT!

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh I needed a good laugh today, thanks, jayjay!!!

Martha
Ignoramus5568 - 17 Mar 2004 21:37 GMT
>> My opinion: this woman started off looking better than she is ended
>> up.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> the after!  I don't care for massive muscles on a woman but she seems to
> have just about the right amount.

Just to be clear, she is a great looking woman in both pictures. She
does not look bad in the second picture. The first one though, is
more attractive as far as I am concerned.

i
A Ross - 17 Mar 2004 21:10 GMT
> 2000challenge.html

I disagree--I think she looks great! 'Course, a nice
tan and an oil-job do wonders for any body.

She had a nice, proportional figure to begin with--I
have a lot more to work with (against) than she did.

Amy
MH - 19 Mar 2004 03:42 GMT
> > 2000challenge.html
>
> I disagree--I think she looks great! 'Course, a nice
> tan and an oil-job do wonders for any body.

I agree with everything but the tan. People who are too tan look wierd, not
to mention setting themselves up for cancer. Sheesh, doesn't everyone
know...tanning booths are dangerous???

Martha
Elise Converse - 18 Mar 2004 02:58 GMT
I like her new look - except for the fake painted on tan.  Hate those tans.

Elise.
> My opinion: this woman started off looking better than she is ended
> up.
>
> http://www.nicoleweeks.com/2000challenge.html
Chris Braun - 18 Mar 2004 04:47 GMT
>I like her new look - except for the fake painted on tan.  Hate those tans.

I agree on both counts.  But if her bodyfat percentage is really
12.27, that's an unhealthy level for a woman.  Women at that bf% can
develop amenorrhea, osteoporosis, and cardiac problems.  

Chris
Dally - 18 Mar 2004 14:58 GMT
>>I like her new look - except for the fake painted on tan.  Hate those tans.
>
> I agree on both counts.  But if her bodyfat percentage is really
> 12.27, that's an unhealthy level for a woman.  Women at that bf% can
> develop amenorrhea, osteoporosis, and cardiac problems.  

The Body for Life winning strategy involves severe cutting during the
last four weeks.  She's exactly the person who wins this sort of thing:
she didn't actually have any WEIGHT to lose, she just needed to build
some muscle and dehydrate herself and get professional posing.  If you
look at her stats she stayed at about 130 pounds the entire time.

Dally
Beverly - 18 Mar 2004 15:02 GMT
> >>I like her new look - except for the fake painted on tan.  Hate those tans.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Dally

These stats are for her latest challenge.  But she never had too much
weight to lose.  In her original challenge (1999) she lost 16 pounds and
went from size 14 to 8/10 according to the website.
 
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.