|
Post by girliepurple on Oct 16, 2006 8:55:02 GMT -5
Kathy - "cosmic trouble" - LOL no way - join us! ;D I did not lose my last few pounds "predictably" but I sure did gain them back that way! And now I am back trying to get down to where I want to be. I agree with Beth...if you are happy where you are and your dr. is too, maybe you should get a note and get to goal! Maybe the dr. could say 173 for your goal weight? Sounds like you are already in maintenance mode with your gains/losses of 2 lbs. Whatever you decide, HIHO and we're here for ya...having the same struggles.
|
|
|
Post by vita77 on Oct 18, 2006 20:51:44 GMT -5
Thanks for the advice. I talked to my leader today, and she recommended I reset my goal at, say, 174. That way I can get to lifetime, stop paying, and then lose another 10 if I choose. She thought I might get a psychological boost from doing it this way, and I can see her point.
I'm seeing my doctor Friday, and will ask her what she thinks. If she agrees, I think I'll ask her for a note recommending a goal of 174. But somehow, it feels like cheating! My leader pooh-poohed this when I said it, acknowledging that WW's ranges are unrealistic for many people.
|
|
|
Post by ema2two on Oct 18, 2006 22:10:08 GMT -5
I agree that the daily weighing thing isn't what works for everyone, but it was interesting to see that it's important for many people, especially because the WW party line actively discourages any weighing besides weekly weigh-ins at meetings (and weighing food on flex and for WPA, of course). I think it is about mindfulness and about keeping weight management on our mental radar screens before things get very far from the target we want them to stay at.
Vita--I have to say that WW ranges are very straight BMI ranges, and especially given your biking, BMI might not be the best estimate of an appropriate lean body mass for you. Many elite atheletes have high BMI's but incredibly low % body fat, which is why their BMI isn't the best indicator of an ideal weight for them. If your doctor is OK with you at 173, and writes you the note, it's not cheating. The rules say your goal is in the range or what your doctor sets for you. You are totally playing by the rules. The only thing that is different between a goal in the WW weight range and one outside that range set by your doctor is that you can't work for WW unless your goal is within their range (that's a new rule, BTW).
And, remember, goals are not carved in stone. You can change your goal (up or down!) in 6 months, a year or 3 years if you think it should be different.
|
|
|
Post by katelight on Oct 19, 2006 6:21:48 GMT -5
Vita, I, along with my DR. set my goal at 175. I'm 5'6". I knew that trying to maintain the 155 that WW reccomends would be very difficult for me. I did choose to lose another 10lbs after reaching my goal of 175, and do maintain at 165. I went through the "am I cheating the system and myself" period too. I finally realized that this whole process has been for me. Not my Dr., not WW, not what some sheet of paper says I should do, But for ME. and I am content with how I look and what the numbers on the scale read. The big dissapointment for me was not being able to work for WW, but I got over that, wouldn't have worked into my schedule anyway. As Ema stated you can still choose to lose more even after reaching lifetime. You have to make the right decisions for you. Take care Katie
|
|
|
Post by vita77 on Oct 21, 2006 12:36:01 GMT -5
Cathy, Ema, Katie....thanks so much for the advice. I saw my doctor, who was very happy with my progress, and recommended a goal weight of 174 (BMI = 26). She considers this in the 'green zone,' or normal weight range.
She's written me a note, and unless I have a change of heart between now & Wednesday, I'll turn it into my leader and change my goal officially. THEN....I'll be only 3.4 pounds from goal!!! Like you, Katie, I'm disappointed that I won't be able to work for WW, but I'll deal with it.
I'm still trying to get over the feeling that it's cheating to set my goal higher than the WW max. All your arguments make sense, but the bottom line is that it just feels funny to think about myself AT goal, at a NORMAL weight. The last time I was NOT overweight was when I was a child, probably at about 8 years old. And after a lifetime of trying to lose weight, it's odd to contemplate not having to.
I must be thinking too hard about this. I have the knowledge and the skills to maintain!
|
|
|
Post by becky on Oct 21, 2006 15:23:12 GMT -5
Hi all.
I've been lurking and reading posts daily, and not contributing, but I feel compelled to comment here. I'm still 5 pounds over my official WW goal, but as a lifetimer and having had maintained for over 3 years, I think I have something valid to share.
In support of the argument that BMI is not always an accurate indicator of a healthy weight, I offer myself as an example, though I'm still a work in progress.
I have been seriously strength training since early June. During that time, I have had my body fat tested by a pro three times. I have lost only about 10 pounds in body weight, but I have lost 15 pounds of fat and gained 5 pounds of muscle. I'm wearing clothes that fit when I weighed 10 pounds less than I do now. I'm 53 years old, 5'6", 160 pounds and my size 8s are getting big.
My attitude is bluntly this: screw the scale. Body fat is what is unhealthy, so I'm burning the fat and building muscle and one of the payoffs is surprising the heck out of the weigher at WW (and my doctor) who can't believe I weigh as much as I do.
So, Kathy, here is my comment to you. First, let me congratulate you on your success at losing so much weight. That is a lifetime achievement and you deserve to be be very proud.
As much biking as you do, you are bound to have a much lower body fat percentage than a relatively non-active person at your weight. If you can find someone to do a caliper test of body fat, do it. (I do it at my health club.) A healthy percentage for average women is 21-25%. "Lean" is about 16-20% body fat. Once you see you are carrying around more muscle than most people, the guilty thoughts that you are "cheating" should evaporate.
I predict that once the stress of the number on the scale is set aside, those remaining few pounds will let go.
I'm sorry this turned into such a long post, but it's something I feel strongly about because it's working for me, after a long struggle. Good luck in your continued success.
Becky
|
|
|
Post by katelight on Oct 23, 2006 6:35:52 GMT -5
Great points Becky, and Congratulations on your fantastic journey.
Kathy, I so get the "I'm cheating" thoughts. This is where you have to KNOW that You know what is best for your body. Have faith in yourself. WW has a guideline for weight ranges, BMI is a guideline. Each person has to set what is right for them. Remember you can always change your goal later if you choose to, or continue to lose if you choose. Right now, maybe you need to start learning how to be a normal sized person. (It does take adjustment). You have done a fantastic job, and will continue to. Only 3.4 to goal. AWESOME!!! Katie
|
|
|
Post by vita77 on Oct 23, 2006 17:47:39 GMT -5
Becky, I love the 'screw the scale' philosophy. It could be so liberating!
I happened to talk to my trainer today, and she liked the body fat % idea. Check my logic and see if it makes sense.
I had my body fat % measured 4-5 months ago - it was 28% (calipers method). Let's say I weighed 180 at the time. So I have (180 x .28) = 50 pounds of fat, and a lean body mass of 130 (180 - 50).
If I set a goal of 174, I'll have lost an additional 6 pounds of fat, so I'll have 44 pounds of fat. 44/174 = 25% body fat. I'll be considered at the top end of the 'fit' range.
If, on the other hand, I drop to 164 (and lose fat, not lean muscle mass), I'll have 34 pounds of fat. 34/164 = 21% body fat. That's the low end of the fit range, approaching lean.
Then I factor in the fact that I have a lot of excess skin which will only disappear with surgery - no weight loss or workout program will remove it. Say the skin weighs 8 pounds. This means that at 164, I'll actually have only 26 pounds of actual "removable" fat, or 16% body fat. Even at 174, I'll have 36 pounds of fat, or 21% body fat.
So it now seems like it would require Herculean effort to try to drop to 164, without a lot of substantive benefit (I'm already fit and healthy at 174!). So attention, math people. Does my logic make sense, or is my math faulty?
|
|
|
Post by katelight on Oct 24, 2006 6:42:55 GMT -5
Sorry, no help on the math, but it sure looks impressive. I'm glad you brought up the skin issue (something I also relate to) I think you are deffinately on the right track. Katie
|
|
|
Post by becky on Oct 24, 2006 11:03:33 GMT -5
Kathy, I think your logic is sound. Keep in mind that it's hard to lose fat only. Some muscle loss is to be expected with overall weight loss. Strength training and higher intake of protein work for me. Your trainer will be able to provide you the expert guidance on the details. I think occasional bodyfat testing is good to ensure you're not losing lean mass along with the fat. I have a set of skinfold calipers I use at home for weekly checking. It's not as accurate as the test I get at the gym every 2 months or so; it's more like MY version of weighing every day. So I'm compulsive; what can I say? I have excess skin, too, having lost about 90 pounds total (4 years ago). My belly still sags a bit, but I'm not in a hurry to wear a bikini. My upper arms will take time, but my strength training is working there. Muscles are now filling the space where the fat was. My arms are big, but firmer. It's a trade off I am happy to accept. Overall, my skin is slowing tightening up. My dermatologist suggests: drink lots of water, use lots of moisturizer, get massages. If I lose interest in strength training, then I may reconsider surgery, but right now, I don't think it's for me. My mother had a few nips and tucks after massive weight loss, and in her mid-70s. It's definitely a personal thing. Keep up the good work. Your success helps the rest of us stay motivated. Becky
|
|