The big "Weight" issue in dating...

[FitChick]

Gee, if I were doing everything verhrzn was doing and it didn't seem to be working for me, I'd consult the professionals: endocrinologist, registered dietician, certified personal trainer. That would take care of the physical problems.

 

Now, for the mental problems, I'd consult Shelly Lefkoe.

 

Of course, no living creature does things that don't have some benefit. It might appear that being a few pounds overweight was a problem for some people, but we have seen pictures and heard stories of people even fatter who are happily coupled or married. So what could be the benefit of staying stuck? Could it be that some people get lots and lots of attention? Hmmmm...

 

If verhrzn met the man of her dreams, she'd reject him because she'd believe there was something wrong with him for wanting her.

[tman666]

Last night I ate six jalapeno poppers.

 

Wait, hold on...

 

You eat jalapeno poppers and are simultaneously complaining that you haven't lost any weight?

 

How the? Wha.. I don't even..

[verhrzn]

1) Isn't that hard--eat pre-portioned meals during weight-loss periods if measuring has proven to be that difficult for you.

2) I measured my BMR by eating ~2500 calories for a few weeks, ~2000 for a few weeks, and ~1500 for a few weeks to see how much I was losing. Not that difficult with some experimentation. Exactly how inaccurate are the activity calculators out there that base their numbers solely on weight?

3) Don't drastically reduce your calories.

4) If I thought this had happened, I'd remeasure my BMR again.

5) Don't drastically reduce your calories.

6) Agree, increase your calories.

 

Read my post to Kaylan about the accuracy of calorie counters and activity counters. Unless I'm eating nothing but pre-packaged food, the calorie count is going to be a guesstimate, at best.

 

And to pound home a point... once again, all of your assertions are about YOU. How things worked for YOU. Calorie in/calorie out worked for YOU. That does NOT mean it works for the vast amount of people, or that it will work in exactly the same way. Come back with research that explains how calories in/calories out works perfectly for every person in a controlled test, and THEN it might be possible to have a discussion. Until then, all you're doing is continuing to ignore research that demonstrates over and over, losing weight for the vast majority of people is MORE COMPLICATED than calories in/calories out.

[oaks]

Wait, hold on...

 

You eat jalapeno poppers and are simultaneously complaining that you haven't lost any weight?

 

How the? Wha.. I don't even..

 

I had to look up what these are... Deep-fried cheese in batter (with a chilli pepper in there somewhere to hold it all together). What could be healthier?

 

Sounds yummy. I'll have to try those.

[tman666]

I had to look up what these are... Deep-fried cheese in batter (with a chilli pepper in there somewhere to hold it all together). What could be healthier?

 

Sounds yummy. I'll have to try those.

 

They're amazing. Highly recommended.

[verhrzn]

Wait, hold on...

 

You eat jalapeno poppers and are simultaneously complaining that you haven't lost any weight?

 

How the? Wha.. I don't even..

 

Natural jalapeno poppers, no breading. Jalapenos stuffed with cream cheese and wrapped in bacon, simply cooked in the oven at 400 degrees for 20 minutes. Going by a (very very) rough estimate, six of them are about 350 calories total, with 32g of fat, 6g of carbs, and 20g of protein*. I then did two hours of martial arts, which is supposedly anywhere from 600 to 1000 calories.

 

Though what a fun opportunity to point out that you immediately jumped to assuming I was eating something deep fried and extremely high in carbs and fat. Judging a stranger ain't so smooth, is it?

 

*Recipe: http://www.tastebook.com/recipes/2113883-Almost-Primal-Poppers

Edited February 1, 2012 by verhrzn

[oaks]

Natural jalapeno poppers, no breading. Jalapenos stuffed with cream cheese and wrapped in bacon, simply cooked in the oven at 400 degrees for 20 minutes. Going by a (very very) rough estimate, six of them are about 350 calories total, with 32g of fat, 6g of carbs, and 20g of protein*. I then did two hours of martial arts, which is supposedly anywhere from 600 to 1000 calories.

 

Though what a fun opportunity to point out that you immediately jumped to assuming I was eating something deep fried and extremely high in carbs and fat. Judging a stranger ain't so smooth, is it?

 

*Recipe: http://www.tastebook.com/recipes/2113883-Almost-Primal-Poppers

 

I see you went for the healthy non-deep fried option, with added bacon.

[ditzchic]

You're not fat. 10 to 15 pounds would lose some boob size, but you'd still be sizable. You might go from a D to a C, but I bet you'd still be a D, maybe right on the C/D line. My mom is 5' 1" and 180 pounds...when she was 95 pounds, she was a C, she's a D at 180 pounds. Current girlfriend is a D at 155 pounds at 6' 1", she was an E at 200 pounds in pics I've seen many years before I met her.

 

This is entirely different from woman to woman. When I was 300 lbs. I was a DD. At 200 lbs a D. At 150 lbs I have wiggle room in a B cup.

 

Just because you know a few women that went from this to this, doesn't mean it holds true for everyone.

 

I've known friends that have lost 20 lbs and dropped 2 cup sizes because they were all t&a to begin with.

[verhrzn]

I see you went for the healthy non-deep fried option, with added bacon.

 

Bacon is thoroughly healthy. Lots of good protein. Look at the nutritional break down, the highest nutrients were fat and protein, exactly what you want when you're on the Paleo/Primal diet.

 

Of course, what did it matter if I choose the deep fried option? Long as it's "calories in, calories out" right?

 

Unless you're saying that it's more complicated than that? And that maybe overweight people AREN'T just lazy idiots, but people who are genuinely baffled by the thousands of conflicting pieces of advice about what is healthy and not... Like, an entire set of people who swear by bacon, and you, who *eye roll* that it's unhealthy.

[soserious1]

Wait... hasn't anybody explained to all the fat women that if they'd just focus and lose weight that the guys here would then let them slurp on their Johnson's (provided they pay for their own coffee on the date?)

 

I'm middle aged & slim & shaming me never accomplished anything besides making me want to avoid the person doing the shaming. Everybody is entitled to their preferred physical types in dating but is making people we aren't attracted to feel bad about it really necessary?

[xxoo]

My mom is 5' 1" and 180 pounds...when she was 95 pounds, she was a C, she's a D at 180 pounds. .

 

If she went from 180-95, she might not have the same effect in reverse.

 

Why on earth do you know your mom's cup sizes over the years?

[tman666]

Natural jalapeno poppers, no breading. Jalapenos stuffed with cream cheese and wrapped in bacon, simply cooked in the oven at 400 degrees for 20 minutes. Going by a (very very) rough estimate, six of them are about 350 calories total, with 32g of fat, 6g of carbs, and 20g of protein. I then did two hours of martial arts, which is supposedly anywhere from 600 to 1000 calories.

 

I can almost promise you that you didn't burn that many calories doing martial arts for 2 hours. Very, very few activities burn that many calories, and even then, those activities have to be performed at very high levels to approach that (think Olympic-level cross country skiing).

 

I would also put money on the table that unless you made those poppers with very strict measurements (particularly with the cream cheese and bacon), that you are underestimating their caloric load.

 

Another thing that I've noticed is that you seem to be of the belief that if you eat low or no-carbs (ala Gary Taubes), that your body will be incapable of storing fat. I can tell you from personal experience that you still need to watch your caloric intake. Calories still matter. As Enigmatic Clarity has been trying to explain, energy cannot be created or destroyed. When you put calories into your body (energy), it has to be metabolized somehow. The energy is either used, stored, or released as waste. The human body is very efficient at this.

 

While it's true that fat does not spike insulin, there are other metabolic pathways to breakdown ingested lipids to be absorbed into the bloodstream to be used for activity or stored as... fat. Your blood lipid levels do not rise indefinitely, just as your blood sugar levels do not rise indefinitely. Eventually, that energy either needs to be used up or stored. Either that, or you'd die. Therefore, if you're not using up the amount of fat you're ingesting, your body tends to store it, and easily. Do you think that your body, a machine designed to survive against the odds, would allow a precious, high energy resource such as fat to be wasted?

 

The bottom line is that all calories count. It's true that the various nutrients stimulate different hormonal patterns within the body (hence the need for a good, clean diet), but you can eat cleanly and still get fat. Trust me on this one; I've been there.

 

If you're the type of person that loves to eat, learn to come up with low caloricly dense meals with higher bulk and flavor (heavy on the spices, low on the sauces). Usually this involves lots of veggies, leafy greens, and lean proteins. "Slow" carbs (complex forms of sugars that take longer to break down) such as sweet potatoes, oats, and brown rice are smarter carb choices, but should generally be consumed (in my opinion) when you are in a state of glycogen depletion (first thing in the morning or after a workout). Think about your cells as a bunch of tiny buckets. Each of those buckets can only hold so much. Your body can't overflow the buckets too much without poisoning itself, so its choices are to either take enough out of the bucket to match or exceed the amount flowing into the bucket, or get a bigger bucket (getting fat or putting on muscle, depending on the stimuli being placed upon the body). Try to match your caloric intake to the activity you're doing.

 

As you know, it's more complicated than my bucket analogy, but you can take yourself a LONG way by respecting the laws of thermodynamics, eating for your level of activity, and paying attention to the indicators of progress.

[oaks]

Bacon is thoroughly healthy. Lots of good protein. Look at the nutritional break down, the highest nutrients were fat and protein, exactly what you want when you're on the Paleo/Primal diet.

 

Of course, what did it matter if I choose the deep fried option? Long as it's "calories in, calories out" right?

 

Unless you're saying that it's more complicated than that? And that maybe overweight people AREN'T just lazy idiots, but people who are genuinely baffled by the thousands of conflicting pieces of advice about what is healthy and not... Like, an entire set of people who swear by bacon, and you, who *eye roll* that it's unhealthy.

 

I'm genuinely baffled at the idea of bacon being healthy. I love the stuff, but I don't kid myself that fatty salted meat is healthy.

 

If it fits in with your paleo diet then that's great, but then I'm left scratching my head over the cheese, because I thought that dairy was out for such a diet. Still, whatever works for you, I guess.

[Els]

While I don't think V needs to lose weight, I do agree that the poppers aren't in any way a good weight-loss meal. IMO there are some foods that are excessively hyped-up for weight loss, like nuts, muesli, fruit smoothies and yogurt. Sure, those are healthy foods, but if one's primary goal is to lose weight (as opposed to getting more nutrients and healthy fats/amino acids), they definitely aren't going to do the trick. I could get a whole roast chicken breast meal (with gravy, lots of veggies and potatoes!) for 350 cals.

[oaks]

While I don't think V needs to lose weight, I do agree that the poppers aren't in any way a good weight-loss meal. IMO there are some foods that are excessively hyped-up for weight loss, like nuts, muesli, fruit smoothies and yogurt. Sure, those are healthy foods, but if one's primary goal is to lose weight (as opposed to getting more nutrients and healthy fats/amino acids), they definitely aren't going to do the trick. I could get a whole roast chicken breast meal (with gravy, lots of veggies and potatoes!) for 350 cals.

 

You're making me hungry.

 

Oh, and I agree with your first point. V isn't even overweight (based on numbers previously posted).

[tman666]

IMO there are some foods that are excessively hyped-up for weight loss, like nuts, muesli, fruit smoothies and yogurt. Sure, those are healthy foods, but if one's primary goal is to lose weight (as opposed to getting more nutrients and healthy fats/amino acids), they definitely aren't going to do the trick. I could get a whole roast chicken breast meal (with gravy, lots of veggies and potatoes!) for 350 cals.

 

Hit the nail on the head.

 

EFAs are important for regulating proper hormonal balance and a host of other processes within the body, but 3,000 calories of walnuts is still 3,000 calories...

[verhrzn]

I can almost promise you that you didn't burn that many calories doing martial arts for 2 hours. Very, very few activities burn that many calories, and even then, those activities have to be performed at very high levels to approach that (think Olympic-level cross country skiing).

 

I would also put money on the table that unless you made those poppers with very strict measurements (particularly with the cream cheese and bacon), that you are underestimating their caloric load.

 

Another thing that I've noticed is that you seem to be of the belief that if you eat low or no-carbs (ala Gary Taubes), that your body will be incapable of storing fat. I can tell you from personal experience that you still need to watch your caloric intake. Calories still matter. As Enigmatic Clarity has been trying to explain, energy cannot be created or destroyed. When you put calories into your body (energy), it has to be metabolized somehow. The energy is either used, stored, or released as waste. The human body is very efficient at this.

 

While it's true that fat does not spike insulin, there are other metabolic pathways to breakdown ingested lipids to be absorbed into the bloodstream to be used for activity or stored as... fat. Your blood lipid levels do not rise indefinitely, just as your blood sugar levels do not rise indefinitely. Eventually, that energy either needs to be used up or stored. Either that, or you'd die. Therefore, if you're not using up the amount of fat you're ingesting, your body tends to store it, and easily. Do you think that your body, a machine designed to survive against the odds, would allow a precious, high energy resource such as fat to be wasted?

 

The bottom line is that all calories count. It's true that the various nutrients stimulate different hormonal patterns within the body (hence the need for a good, clean diet), but you can eat cleanly and still get fat. Trust me on this one; I've been there.

 

If you're the type of person that loves to eat, learn to come up with low caloricly dense meals with higher bulk and flavor (heavy on the spices, low on the sauces). Usually this involves lots of veggies, leafy greens, and lean proteins. "Slow" carbs (complex forms of sugars that take longer to break down) such as sweet potatoes, oats, and brown rice are smarter carb choices, but should generally be consumed (in my opinion) when you are in a state of glycogen depletion (first thing in the morning or after a workout). Think about your cells as a bunch of tiny buckets. Each of those buckets can only hold so much. Your body can't overflow the buckets too much without poisoning itself, so its choices are to either take enough out of the bucket to match or exceed the amount flowing into the bucket, or get a bigger bucket (getting fat or putting on muscle, depending on the stimuli being placed upon the body). Try to match your caloric intake to the activity you're doing.

 

As you know, it's more complicated than my bucket analogy, but you can take yourself a LONG way by respecting the laws of thermodynamics, eating for your level of activity, and paying attention to the indicators of progress.

 

This is actually my entire point. No, I DON'T think martial arts burned up that many calories. That's why I'm saying that calorie counting (either for food intake or exercise consumption) is a flawed way to look for weight loss, because it's inaccurate and difficult to measure.

 

As to the rest of your post, I've got an entire forum that strongly disagrees that fat is the enemy. Grains, according to them, are actually the enemy. Want to lose weight, reduce your carbs and sugars, and have as much fat (fat as in the nutrition) as you want.

 

And you probably have a whole forum that espouses your side. That's been my entire point this forum.... is that there's tons of contradictory information, and nothing seems to work for everything (but some things work for some people.) So trying to judge someone by their weight and physical appearance, and automatically labeling them as lazy, undisciplined, or stupid ignores mounds of evidence that experts can't even agree, and something that works for you won't work for me.

[Els]

Hit the nail on the head.

 

EFAs are important for regulating proper hormonal balance and a host of other processes within the body, but 3,000 calories of walnuts is still 3,000 calories...

 

Yep. Once I figured out that fad diets were just that - fads - and started shopping for myself based on calories, my weight actually went down fairly effortlessly. I have 3 solid meals a day (a low-cal lean meat meal, an average-cal steamed rice + meat meal and a whatever-bf-wants-to-eat meal, and random fruits, chocs and juices during the course of the day) instead of the fruits, nuts, yogurt and salad crap that fad diets push around, and lost 10 lbs over the course of the past 6 months. Yeah, that isn't a lot, but I pretty much eat what I like so it's completely sustainable, and I'm really in no hurry since there's only 10 more to go before I reach my aesthetic ideal (lower end of the healthy range) .

[tman666]

I've got an entire forum that strongly disagrees that fat is the enemy.

 

Where exactly did I say this? I don't recall saying this... I do recall attempting to explain why calories from fat can still make you fat...

 

And you probably have a whole forum that espouses your side. That's been my entire point this forum.... is that there's tons of contradictory information, and nothing seems to work for everything (but some things work for some people.) So trying to judge someone by their weight and physical appearance, and automatically labeling them as lazy, undisciplined, or stupid ignores mounds of evidence that experts can't even agree, and something that works for you won't work for me.

 

I definitely agree with you here. What works for me might not work for you. That being said, it's good to have at least a basic understanding of the various metabolic processes at work so that you can make your eating plan work for you, rather than constantly being caught up in a vicious cycle of yo-yo dieting and self doubt...

 

I think we're on the same page here.

[EnigmaticClarity]

If she went from 180-95, she might not have the same effect in reverse.

 

Why on earth do you know your mom's cup sizes over the years?

 

Photographs...including some I found while helping her clean out the attic that I'm sure she meant for me never to find.

[Mme. Chaucer]

V, you can argue until your eyeballs pop out, but it won't change the fact that IF YOUR CALORIC INTAKE IS LESS THAN YOUR CALORIC USAGE, over time, you will lose weight.

 

Yes, even for you.

 

Why don't you let go of your need to have problems and issues that are vastly beyond the comprehension of other people? Because, really, lots of us understand perfectly. We could help you if you would listen and engage rather than refute and argue with EVERY. SINGLE. THING.

 

Sheesh.

[verhrzn]

V, you can argue until your eyeballs pop out, but it won't change the fact that IF YOUR CALORIC INTAKE IS LESS THAN YOUR CALORIC USAGE, over time, you will lose weight.

 

Yes, even for you.

 

Why don't you let go of your need to have problems and issues that are vastly beyond the comprehension of other people? Because, really, lots of us understand perfectly. We could help you if you would listen and engage rather than refute and argue with EVERY. SINGLE. THING.

 

Sheesh.

 

Yeah, if I starve myself and turn into an anorexic, I'm sure I WOULD lose weight. Because I'm only about 100 calories off of that. I've been taking in less than 1500 calories a day... my average is 1380ish... and then by the very meanest exercise calculation, I'm getting at least 100-200 calories of exercise. 1200 is starting to border into starvation. And I still haven't lost weight.

 

I argue because people are not listening. Maybe you don't find it infuriating when no one listens to you and/or calls you a liar, but I rather mind.

[EnigmaticClarity]

Photographs...including some I found while helping her clean out the attic that I'm sure she meant for me never to find.

 

Oh, plus my dad told me this too, just last month actually, which is probably why I still had it floating around in my mind.

[Titania22]

Yeah, if I starve myself and turn into an anorexic, I'm sure I WOULD lose weight. Because I'm only about 100 calories off of that. I've been taking in less than 1500 calories a day... my average is 1380ish... and then by the very meanest exercise calculation, I'm getting at least 100-200 calories of exercise. 1200 is starting to border into starvation. And I still haven't lost weight.

 

I argue because people are not listening. Maybe you don't find it infuriating when no one listens to you and/or calls you a liar, but I rather mind.

 

Actually I have been trying to stick around 1000 calories intake, it's hard at first, but when you shrink your meal size and don't snack at all it isn't so bad.

 

1500 calories is way too many to call it a diet.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Yeah, if I starve myself and turn into an anorexic, I'm sure I WOULD lose weight. Because I'm only about 100 calories off of that. I've been taking in less than 1500 calories a day... my average is 1380ish... and then by the very meanest exercise calculation, I'm getting at least 100-200 calories of exercise. 1200 is starting to border into starvation. And I still haven't lost weight.

 

That's nonsense. You don't have to turn into an anorexic to lose weight.

 

Maybe you don't find it infuriating when no one listens to you and/or calls you a liar, but I rather mind.

 

YOU listen to no one here, even though many threads I visit seem to end up focussed upon you.

 

And, it might be said that YOU call all of us liars as well. How many times have people told you that you are not fat and not ugly? Several hundred by now. But you refute every one of our statements in favor of the remarks you claim some pathetic basement dwelling loser made.

 

Those of us who engage with you here on LS have LOTS of experience of not being listened to / heard, and being treated as if we're liars. Or, stupid.

 

Is this enjoyable for you? Dumb question, obviously you're loving it.