[Fwd: Re: Newbie Questions]

[Guest guest]

--- In egroups, " jwwright " <jwwright@l...>

wrote:

> Thanks for clarifying what was a big prob for me. I have a greatdeal of

> trouble getting below 180# (down from 233#), using 1800kcals as a guide. It

> was my " best " weight, ie where i felt in best condition. Although i could

> track back to 165# or even 145# if i wanted to go far enough, but i was very

> thin at 145#. It sounds like from what you say, maybe my present 175-180# is

> a good set point?

>

It does sound like it. To get the maximum benefit you should probably

decrease your cal very slowly. Try 1700 for a while and see what

happens. Go slow. It SHOULD take a while to lose the weight or you're

achieving the opposite of what you intend, i.e. bad health not good.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for clarifying what was a big prob for me. I have a greatdeal of

trouble getting below 180# (down from 233#), using 1800kcals as a guide. It

was my " best " weight, ie where i felt in best condition. Although i could

track back to 165# or even 145# if i wanted to go far enough, but i was very

thin at 145#. It sounds like from what you say, maybe my present 175-180# is

a good set point?

regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: <fskelton@...>

< egroups>

Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 9:44 AM

Subject: [Fwd: Re: [ ] Newbie Questions]

> Dawn: I apologize if my last post answering you was a bit harsh. I

> just didn't understand where 4 months and 1200-1300 cal came from. Do

> not rush this. It could take two years or more to arrive at your final

> " destination " . Start slow - ease in and try the higher calorie level -

> 1800 cal as a good place to start. See how you do. As for set point -

> you'll know it when you get to it. It will be difficult to go below

> it. Be patient. Anyone who has been following the main list and

> hearing some of the problems of those who took chances with their

> health (such as the current osteoporosis discussion) will understand my

> point.

> > >