The big "Weight" issue in dating...

[123321]

For some people, it takes YEARS to figure out what works for their bodies, and it goes completely against all the "common sense" health stuff. And they only figure out after years of research and hardcore dedication. Someone who is fat could be undergoing that process.... could be healthy on the inside.... but isn't yet reflected on the outside.

 

Well there is some truth there but really, there are places in the world where hunger is common and fat people are not. That pretty much says it. What you are asking for is a way to be minimally hungry while also being minimally fat, which is not something the survival machine that is your body is really going to cooperate with.

 

 

 

 

I just want some empathy, for how difficult weight loss can be for some people. Why is that so hard? Why the judgment and the shaming and the arguing?

 

Because a lot of overweight people insist on making silly excuses, when really the core is "I can't be hungry around all this food".

[Els]

More carbs....less carbs.....more protein....less protein....more calories....less calories....different calories.....

 

This is exactly my point. It should NOT be this much work to maintain your weight!

 

For some of us, it is easy to be the "desired" size. For others, it is NOT easy--it requires a lot of effort and sacrifice, more than many thin people would be willing to give, if they walked in their shoes. Look at Andy's diet again. How many of us would be thin if it meant cutting out things we love completely?

 

 

 

Beautiful. That's the way it should be Eating should be a pleasure!

 

I agree completely. I do think that if I was morbidly obese, I may consider Andy's diet, since my life is important to me. But at my weight, which is around V's weight, healthy but just a bit above model-like ideals... no way in frickin' hell. What sort of life is that?

 

Well there is some truth there but really, there are places in the world where hunger is common and fat people are not. That pretty much says it. What you are asking for is a way to be minimally hungry while also being minimally fat, which is not something the survival machine that is your body is really going to cooperate with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because a lot of overweight people insist on making silly excuses, when really the core is "I can't be hungry around all this food".

 

Your body was not designed, either, for you to force yourself to be hungry all the time in order to maintain an aesthetic ideal. The female body, especially, was designed to have SOME fat, SOME curves, not to be the size zero that celebrities kill themselves to maintain.

[Els]

You can't cut down more, and you shouldn't. This is the short girl's dilemma. If the other poster was correct in saying you're 5'1" tall, then you're the size of the average 12-year-old girl. (Forgive me, my short sister.) There's a reason that 12-year-olds order from the kid's menu. It's because they generally have smaller appetites than adults. Which works out for them, because those smaller portions provide enough calories for their smaller bodies.

 

But you have an adult appetite. If an adult ate child-size portions at every meal, that adult would always be hungry. So what do you do when you have the caloric needs of a child but the appetite of an adult? You could starve yourself (bad idea) or you could get used to having a few extra pounds on your body (better idea). The reason you're eating so little and exercising so much and still not losing weight is because you and your body are at war. You've reached your set point. Your body doesn't want to go any lower, and it's damn near impossible to bully your body into submission. I learned that the hard way. I think you'd be a lot happier (and healthier) if you learned to accept your current weight instead of fighting it. Not everyone is meant to be at the bottom of their healthy weight range. In fact, most people have their natural set point in the middle of their healthy range. If you do in fact weigh 120, you're right in the middle.

 

 

Count me in in the 5'1" group.

 

To be fair to V, though... re: the bolded, I think SHE used to be fine with her weight but others have bullied her into being not-so-fine. It's sad, but it's the way society works - where I come from, any girl above, say, 100 lbs is deemed 'chubby'. It's depressing to be called 'chubby' all the time when you're 118-120 lbs, and it sort of makes you think, meh, I'll just lose the weight to get them all to shut up.

[123321]

Your body was not designed, either, for you to force yourself to be hungry all the time in order to maintain an aesthetic ideal. The female body, especially, was designed to have SOME fat, SOME curves, not to be the size zero that celebrities kill themselves to maintain.

 

Designed or whatever, the fact remains the human body is well equipped to save in times of plenty and spend frugally in times of little, it's the way we are made and the fact that we seldom or never see "times of little" now in some nations is why we have fat people.

 

It's not some magic invalidation of the laws of physics.

[Els]

Designed or whatever, the fact remains the human body is well equipped to save in times of plenty and spend frugally in times of little, it's the way we are made and the fact that we seldom or never see "times of little" now in some nations is why we have fat people.

 

It's not some magic invalidation of the laws of physics.

 

I don't see how any of this invalidates my point. My point is that the female body holds on to fat for a reason, and that it is unhealthy to go hungry all the time to push it to let go of even more fat when one is already at a healthy weight to begin with, like V.

 

It's extremely worrisome that you talk about your gf being less than 90 lbs like it's a good thing. Unless she's 4'9" or something, it's not. It's really not. And if you were genuinely concerned about her health, you would be concerned about that.

[123321]

I don't see how any of this invalidates my point. My point is that the female body holds on to fat for a reason, and that it is unhealthy to go hungry all the time to push it to let go of even more fat when one is already at a healthy weight to begin with, like V.

 

It's extremely worrisome that you talk about your gf being less than 90 lbs like it's a good thing. Unless she's 4'9" or something, it's not. It's really not. And if you were genuinely concerned about her health, you would be concerned about that.

 

I'm not convinced that it's a health danger for someone 5'1 to dip below 120 pounds. My current GF is in fact 4' 7, under 90 pounds and quite busty; my previous was 5' 1 and a slim 90-95, which was pretty healthy looking to me.

[Els]

I'm not convinced that it's a health danger for someone 5'1 to dip below 120 pounds. My current GF is in fact 4' 7, under 90 pounds and quite busty; my previous was 5' 1 and a slim 90-95, which was pretty healthy looking to me.

 

So it would be healthy for her to force herself to be hungry all the time to lose weight, as you suggest, even if she is already healthy as she is? That is what the human body is meant to do, to stay hungry and shed weight until you hit rock bottom?

 

4'7" and 90 lbs is okay. 5'1" and 90 lbs is 17.0 on the BMI scale, which is quite severely underweight. You must be extremely uneducated if you think that 'a slim 90-95 being healthy looking to you' means that the person is actually healthy and thus there is no cause for concern. Fat has many physiological uses in the body, it isn't just an unwanted thing that you want to get rid off. Some people are overweight and thus may suffer adverse consequences (even if they LOOK radiant and healthy), but that doesn't mean that there aren't any adverse consequences for being underweight as well. Most women's reproductive cycles even grind to a halt when they dip below 90 - 95 lbs (except for very short women like the 4'7" girl), for instance, because the fat % in their body is insufficient to maintain some physiological requirements.

[kaylan]

Your body was not designed, either, for you to force yourself to be hungry all the time in order to maintain an aesthetic ideal. The female body, especially, was designed to have SOME fat, SOME curves, not to be the size zero that celebrities kill themselves to maintain.

Size zero is an extreme, unless someone is naturally that small.

 

The body is in best condition when you maintain an athletes look. And yes, women are designed to have some fat and curves, but that does not men being fat. Kim Kardashian is curvy but in great shape. She obviously has a healthy percentage of body fat for a female. People should aim for that

 

Guys should aim for a Justin Timberlake or Ryan Gosling physique. Those are healthy body types with a healthy amount of body fat. Nothing super low.

 

To everyone:

 

I dont see why people think you need to force yourself to be hungry all the time to stay fit and look good. You are right that you dont need to starve to look great. People are just ignorant of what they need to do. You should be getting the most poundage of food for the correct amount of calories your body needs.

 

People need to know that by putting low calorie, but weighty food in your tummy, you can eliminate hunger but still maintain lose weight.

From:

http://structurehouse.crchealth.com/how-to-satisfy-hunger-and-feel-full-eating-fewer-calories/

 

"If food intake is regulated more by the weight of the food than by the calories in the food, consider the consequences of choosing between one of these two foods: carrots (195 calories per pound) and fat-free potato chips (2431 calories per pound); or strawberries (139 calories per pound) versus Powerbar Performance (1600 calories per pound.)"

 

See the difference? Go read the link. You will be just as full after eating a pound of each of these, but the carrots will make you lose weight with less calories. The chips will make you fat from all the excess calories, and the power bars will have a lot of calories as well but lots of protein. Which brings me to my next point. Composition of calories is VERY important. In all those calories you get in the day, how many are fats, muscle building proteins, or the carbs that fuel us? Not to mention the vitamins and minerals we need.

 

 

I could eat a box of zebra cakes in one sitting and thats over 1500 calories right there. I normally eat 2500 to 3000 calories in a day when Im trying to gain weight and put on muscle. If I take in half of that in one sitting on crappy snack food...Im going to get super hungry later after I have another couple of small meals. But since I had high calorie snacks, Ive eliminated a couple of filling meals I could have had throughout the day. ( I eat about 6 times a day which includes your average sized meals and snacks)

 

And I will have hit my caloric limit for the day by the time dinner hits, because of the junk food. But now Ive cheated myself out of protein and carbs I needed, pumping myself full of sugar and fat in one of my earlier snacks. Damn you zebra cakes and your tasty goodness. I dont do this often...but I have a wicked high metabolism and can get away with it. But its still very unhealthy and robs me of what my body really needs

 

So everyone should keep this is mind when it comes to diet, hunger, and fitness.

 

Check out this link too if you want info on cutting calories but staying full.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12633811/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/cut-your-calories-without-feeling-hungry/

 

Know that many times we eat bigger portions than necessary to make us full. By simply take a small percentage out of a portion and saving it for later, or not eating it at all, you can lose weight and not be hungry.

Edited February 2, 2012 by kaylan

[Titania22]

 

Check out this link too if you want info on cutting calories but staying full.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12633811/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/cut-your-calories-without-feeling-hungry/

 

Know that many times we eat bigger portions than necessary to make us full. By simply take a small percentage out of a portion and saving it for later, or not eating it at all, you can lose weight and not be hungry.

 

in this link they are talking about still eating 1675 calories per day, which at my age maintains weight doesn't actually lose any. Sure you can feel full eating 1675 calories of those healthy foods, that's great, but can you feel full on those foods eating only 1200 calories. That's somewhat harder. I wouldn't saying I feel starving all the time, but I never feel full and I mostly feel hunger after i finish my meal, and starving by the time my next one rolls around.

[oaks]

So... when you guys argue, you're just stating an opinion and are right, but when I argue about my own body and what works (yeah, yay chicken, but kinda hard to eat while driving, and chicken DOES get a little bland when that's ALL you eat) then somehow I'm argumentative and don't listen.

 

How does that hypocrisy work?

 

I'm not even going there.

 

Wait, are you saying the bacon is there to make the food easier to eat while driving? Should you even be eating while driving? It really does seem that you make up new excuses all the time for why any advice offered won't work, or move the goalposts into areas that are unnecessary and possibly incompatible with your goals of weight loss (food needs to be eatable while driving). Hence my agreement with Mme. Chaucer. You apparently eat so little every day that you should be able to find time to sit down to eat it, and I don't mean behind the wheel!

 

I'm sorry that the things you're trying aren't working, but stop making ridiculous excuses.

[kaylan]

in this link they are talking about still eating 1675 calories per day, which at my age maintains weight doesn't actually lose any. Sure you can feel full eating 1675 calories of those healthy foods, that's great, but can you feel full on those foods eating only 1200 calories. That's somewhat harder. I wouldn't saying I feel starving all the time, but I never feel full and I mostly feel hunger after i finish my meal, and starving by the time my next one rolls around.

Did you not read what I wrote above that?

 

Feeling full has to do with poundage of food. Not just calories.

 

If I eat a super sized Mc Donalds meal and add the 3 for a dollar cookies, thats easily 2000 calories. I WILL be hungry later in the day, simply because I need more poundage of food in my stomach through out the day.

 

I can cook up healthy stuff at home thats of more poundage throughout the day, but less calories. I will feel more full.

 

As I said, you want to get the most pounds for the least calories if you wanna lose weight.

[Els]

Size zero is an extreme, unless someone is naturally that small.

 

Certainly, but the poster I quoted was advocating that a woman who is already 120 lbs, make herself go hungry to lose even more. That is just wrong in so many ways, not the least being your own point that being hungry all the time is not the right way.

 

The body is in best condition when you maintain an athletes look. And yes, women are designed to have some fat and curves, but that does not men being fat. Kim Kardashian is curvy but in great shape. She obviously has a healthy percentage of body fat for a female. People should aim for that

 

Guys should aim for a Justin Timberlake or Ryan Gosling physique. Those are healthy body types with a healthy amount of body fat. Nothing super low.

 

Honestly, Kim doesn't look like an athlete at all. Athletes have a lot more muscle than that, even female athletes - their muscle will show through. But otherwise, I checked up on her stats, and yes, 5'2" and 125 lbs is nicely in the middle of the healthy range. However, people need to bear in mind that not everyone with that same height and weight WILL look like Kim, because people have naturally different body shapes.

 

Models are models not just because they work hard, but also because they were blessed with the sort of body shape that is fairly rare. Kim has an hourglass figure, whereas many women are pear. Pear means more weight to the ass, hips, and tummy, and less to the torso, upper body and breasts. I have about the same height/weight ratio as Kim does, but I'll be the first to admit that my breasts aren't as big and my tummy isn't as flat. Waist the same, ass bigger. Does not look as good, but just as healthy. That is the point that many people miss out on. Some guys nowadays, including the poster I quoted, are so fixated on the aesthetic aspect of weight that they don't really think about the health aspect of it, and just use it as an excuse.

[Els]

Did you not read what I wrote above that?

 

Feeling full has to do with poundage of food. Not just calories.

 

If I eat a super sized Mc Donalds meal and add the 3 for a dollar cookies, thats easily 2000 calories. I WILL be hungry later in the day, simply because I need more poundage of food in my stomach through out the day.

 

I can cook up healthy stuff at home thats of more poundage throughout the day, but less calories. I will feel more full.

 

As I said, you want to get the most pounds for the least calories if you wanna lose weight.

 

Yup, very true. The unfortunate thing is that the foods that provide the most pounds for least cals aren't necessarily the most healthy, so one must still eat a variety of foods, not just those with more pounds for least cals - even though those are without a doubt the best for losing weight.

[kaylan]

Yup, very true. The unfortunate thing is that the foods that provide the most pounds for least cals aren't necessarily the most healthy, so one must still eat a variety of foods, not just those with more pounds for least cals - even though those are without a doubt the best for losing weight.

Of course. I didnt mean to leave that out. I thought people would know its important to eat a variety of things so they get all their vitamins, minerals, nutrients, etc

[Andy_K]

More carbs....less carbs.....more protein....less protein....more calories....less calories....different calories.....

 

This is exactly my point. It should NOT be this much work to maintain your weight!

 

For some of us, it is easy to be the "desired" size. For others, it is NOT easy--it requires a lot of effort and sacrifice, more than many thin people would be willing to give, if they walked in their shoes. Look at Andy's diet again. How many of us would be thin if it meant cutting out things we love completely?

 

I agree completely. I do think that if I was morbidly obese, I may consider Andy's diet, since my life is important to me. But at my weight, which is around V's weight, healthy but just a bit above model-like ideals... no way in frickin' hell. What sort of life is that?

 

 

The thing is, it's really not so hard to do once you're into it. It just looks extreme from the outside. I knew a guy once who was addicted to chocolate. One year he gave it up for a year as a new year's resolution. By the end of the year he wasn't that fussed whether he started eating it again or not. What looks like a big sacrifice simply become normal.

 

There are plenty of healthy foods which taste good, and living in this day and age you can eat just those and still enjoy better food than 99% of humans who have ever walked the earth.

[kaylan]

Certainly, but the poster I quoted was advocating that a woman who is already 120 lbs, make herself go hungry to lose even more. That is just wrong in so many ways, not the least being your own point that being hungry all the time is not the right way.

120 is perfect for her height to be honest. I dunno why shed want to lose more weight. If anything its just a matter of sculpting her body more if her goals are aesthetic. By losing some fat and gaining some muscle, she will maintain the healthy weight and still be fit.

 

She shouldnt lose too much fat though, since ladies arent meant to have super low body fat percentage the way male fitness guys do.

 

Honestly, Kim doesn't look like an athlete at all. Athletes have a lot more muscle than that, even female athletes - their muscle will show through. But otherwise, I checked up on her stats, and yes, 5'2" and 125 lbs is nicely in the middle of the healthy range. However, people need to bear in mind that not everyone with that same height and weight WILL look like Kim, because people have naturally different body shapes.

Ok ok, shes not athletic, but def in great shape. She could use a little more muscle and tone...but is great as is.

 

Your right about the height and weight thing. I weigh 185 at 5'9 and am slim. My buddy is 5'10 and weighs the same but looks average build. So everyone will have their own look at a particular weight.

 

Models are models not just because they work hard, but also because they were blessed with the sort of body shape that is fairly rare. Kim has an hourglass figure, whereas many women are pear. Pear means more weight to the ass, hips, and tummy, and less to the torso, upper body and breasts. I have about the same height/weight ratio as Kim does, but I'll be the first to admit that my breasts aren't as big and my tummy isn't as flat. Waist the same, ass bigger. Does not look as good, but just as healthy. That is the point that many people miss out on. Some guys nowadays, including the poster I quoted, are so fixated on the aesthetic aspect of weight that they don't really think about the health aspect of it, and just use it as an excuse.

Ill admit it is easier for me to talk about fitness and become fit because of my body type. I burn calories easily, and put on muscle at an ok rate now even though Im a hard gainer. It used to be tough but I figured out what works calorie wise.

 

I do try and sympathize with those who have a harder time getting in shape, but I just always try to give them new options and tell them to work hard.

 

Im only 25, so maybe when Im older I will have to work as hard as others to keep my weight down and fight food cravings. But my dad and uncle are still slim to average sized dudes at close to 60 years of age. And my older bro is in his late 20s and still a stick. So slim runs in the family.

Edited February 2, 2012 by kaylan

[Els]

120 is perfect for her height to be honest. I dunno why shed want to lose more weight. If anything its just a matter of sculpting her body more if her goals are aesthetic. By losing some fat and gaining some muscle, she will maintain the healthy weight and still be fit.

 

She shouldnt lose too much fat though, since ladies arent meant to have super low body fat percentage the way male fitness guys do.

 

Yep. I think there's nothing wrong with her wanting to lose some - heck, I'm 118 myself and wouldn't mind losing a bit of tummy roll . As long as it is done in moderation and still ends up with a healthy weight and the person doesn't get obsessed about it. What I do mind are the people who insist that anything above their particular aesthetic ideal is 'unhealthy', without even trying to understand the great range of weights and body shapes that 'healthy' encompasses.

 

Ok ok, shes not athletic, but def in great shape. She could use a little more muscle and tone...but is great as is.

 

Your right about the height and weight thing. I weigh 185 at 5'9 and am slim. My buddy is 5'10 and weighs the same but looks average build. So everyone will have their own look at a particular weight.

 

Yep.

 

Ill admit it is easier for me to talk about fitness and become fit because of my body type. I burn calories easily, and put on muscle at an ok rate now even though Im a hard gainer. It used to be tough but I figured out what works calorie wise.

 

I do try and sympathize with those who have a harder time getting in shape, but I just always try to give them new options and tell them to work hard.

 

Im only 25, so maybe when Im older I will have to work as hard as others to keep my weight down and fight food cravings. But my dad and uncle are still slim to average sized dudes at close to 60 years of age. And my older bro is in his late 20s and still a stick. So slim runs in the family.

 

Most guys don't have trouble being lean in their 20s, IME. My bf chows down three bowls of rice at dinner, orders a large double meal whenever he goes to McDs, doesn't do much exercise on purpose other than biking to work and walking around at work.. and weighs 125 lbs at 5'7". He can carry me with extreme ease, too, so there's probably an unusually high % of muscle in that 125 lbs. The only overweight guys in their 20s, that I know of, are guys who really don't care. Actually, the same goes to girls as well. The only thing is that girls are more often incorrectly judged as 'overweight' when medically, they aren't anywhere close. I think this is because the aesthetic ideal for a man includes quite a bit of meat, on the arms and such, (and, like EC said, they're usually taller, allowing for a leaner illusion), whereas the aesthetic ideal for a woman often does not.

 

I don't actually sympathize with morbidly obese people who aren't even trying. But I don't think any of the posters on this thread actually qualify for that.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Elswyth

[EnigmaticClarity]

Diet soda just makes you fatter

 

How do they do that? I'm not contesting it, I've just never really tried them until recently and don't know what their effects are.

[EnigmaticClarity]

I think it's because she's tried that and it didn't work for her. It might be hard to believe, but some people naturally have a low BMR. For those people, "moderate" is not enough.

 

OK, now imagine that you're a woman who's 5'1" tall and you tried eating 1500-1800 calories a day with no exercise. Can you guess what would happen? You'd gain weight at a steady pace. Calorie calculators tell me that at my height (5'1") and weight (110 lb), I'd have to eat around 1400 calories a day to maintain my weight, without exercise. To lose weight, I'd have to eat around 1130 calories a day, without exercise. Women aren't supposed to eat less than 1200 cals a day, for health reasons. Which means I'd have to exercise a lot if I wanted to lose weight while still eating enough. Even then, 1200 cals a day is the bare minimum for adequate nutrition, and not enough to keep me from feeling hungry all day.

 

Obviously I don't think BMR is the same regardless of size or that someone half my weight can do the same things I do in the same quantities and have the same result. The question I hadn't considered before this thread is what's the dietary caloric window--both the ceiling AND the floor--for differently-sized people? Everyone keeps throwing the number of 1200 calories as the threshold below which you're starving yourself--but shouldn't that floor vary based upon your size?

[verhrzn]

120 is perfect for her height to be honest. I dunno why shed want to lose more weight. If anything its just a matter of sculpting her body more if her goals are aesthetic. By losing some fat and gaining some muscle, she will maintain the healthy weight and still be fit.

 

She shouldnt lose too much fat though, since ladies arent meant to have super low body fat percentage the way male fitness guys do.

 

I'm occasionally 120lbs, but I bounce around between 120-125. I've stayed consistently 122-123 since starting the whole diet/fitness thing. Interestingly, I haven't lost any weight but I'm (very, very) slowly reducing body fat. I'm at 26% right now. So I'm no where near needing to worry about having too little body fat. :-P

 

Truth be told, I've actually been making pretty good progress, just NOT in the weight category (less body fat, being able to do more reps with the same weight, etc.) That's why topics like this are a trigger button for me, because there's so much more that goes into health and fitness than just weight, and there are so many other indicators of someone being healthy than just what they look like on the street and the number on the scale. Sacrificing health just for the sake of thinness, or using thinness as an indicator of health, is such a silly and outdated concept, and yet it's one that uneducated people cling to, and impose on others.

 

Wait, are you saying the bacon is there to make the food easier to eat while driving? Should you even be eating while driving? It really does seem that you make up new excuses all the time for why any advice offered won't work, or move the goalposts into areas that are unnecessary and possibly incompatible with your goals of weight loss (food needs to be eatable while driving). Hence my agreement with Mme. Chaucer. You apparently eat so little every day that you should be able to find time to sit down to eat it, and I don't mean behind the wheel!

 

I'm sorry that the things you're trying aren't working, but stop making ridiculous excuses.

 

I have to eat while driving. Once a week, I drive two hours to train for my martial arts. I get off of work at 4 pm, class is 2 hours away and starts at 6. Thus, I have to leave work immediately. So, I either eat on the road, or I starve until 10 pm.

 

The bacon (especially if organic when I can afford it) gives me good protein and fat (good fat being good fuel) for a lower amount of calories, which is the perfect food when preparing to do a long interval of high cardio (martial arts, which is the only time I eat it.) Bacon gives me good nutrients for the amount of calories with some variety. Eating Primal is meant to be a lifestyle, which means it has to be sustainable. While chicken IS good, it can also get boring. Would you like to eat nothing but chicken for every meal for the rest of your life?

 

Now are these excuses? You'll probably mark them as so, because no matter what I say and do, unless I fully agree with you, you'll mark as an excuse. But your argument is coming from ignorance of the situation (the details of my life, the particulars of my diet.)

 

And that's the whole issue with this thread... Judging someone else's food decisions and health based on a limited amount of data.

[FitChick]

Wait, are you saying the bacon is there to make the food easier to eat while driving? It really does seem that you make up new excuses all the time for why any advice offered won't work... but stop making ridiculous excuses.

 

That made me laugh! I also laughed at her childish outburst about not being able to eat chicken not only behind the wheel (!) but every day. Who says to eat it everyday? There are loads of low cal but delicious menus in magazines and online. I posted a link to one upthread.

 

Join Weight Watchers. Year after year they have been voted by nutrition and diet professionals as the best weightloss plan when compared to others. I know so many people who have successfully lost weight. If they backslide and regain a few pounds they immediately go back to the WW way of eating and lose the weight. It's a lifestyle change.

 

Of course, this won't appeal to verhrzn because it works and what would she have to complain about next?

[FitChick]

I'm occasionally 120lbs, but I bounce around between 120-125. I've stayed consistently 122-123 since starting the whole diet/fitness thing. Interestingly, I haven't lost any weight but I'm (very, very) slowly reducing body fat.

 

Truth be told, I've actually been making pretty good progress, just NOT in the weight category (less body fat, being able to do more reps with the same weight, etc.)

 

It seems the problem isn't society being hung up on numbers on a scale but YOU being hung up with your weight. Stop weighing yourself. Buy a tape measure at a fabric store and take your measurements. Your measurements are probably smaller even though the weight is the same if, as you say, you've lost fat. Fat takes up more space. Someone could look thinner than you but weigh far more so you can't go by weight alone.

 

As for driving two hours to class, sounds like you just create more obstacles for yourself. You are sitting in a car not burning calories. Unless you plan to compete in the future, do a different activity that is closer. I don't drive anywhere. I work out at home with weights and DVDs. I walk in my neighborhood. I don't have to go to extremes to stay fit.

 

Women, don't let age be an excuse for gaining weight. Get your hormones balanced, take bioidentical HRT, have your thyroid checked. That is the root of most problems.

[verhrzn]

That made me laugh! I also laughed at her childish outburst about not being able to eat chicken not only behind the wheel (!) but every day. Who says to eat it everyday? There are loads of low cal but delicious menus in magazines and online. I posted a link to one upthread.

 

Join Weight Watchers. Year after year they have been voted by nutrition and diet professionals as the best weightloss plan when compared to others. I know so many people who have successfully lost weight. If they backslide and regain a few pounds they immediately go back to the WW way of eating and lose the weight. It's a lifestyle change.

 

Of course, this won't appeal to verhrzn because it works and what would she have to complain about next?

 

No, it doesn't appeal to me because I don't see it as a sustainable lifestyle (it's why if you backslide, you have to rush right back to them), and it doesn't make sense to me (and if something doesn't make sense to me, how can I possibly follow it?) People backslide because WW ISN'T very sustainable.

 

The "eat chicken at every meal" comment comes from the philosophy that you need to eat meat with every meal. If you cut out bacon, that does leave you with other options, some of which I also eat (lean beef when I can get it) and some of which I don't (I hate hate sliced pork.)

 

Low cal is not the issue. Low cal AND full of good nutrients is what I base my diet philosophy off of. Your "delicious but low cal!" meals contain things that are not allowed in Primal due not so much to calorie reasons, but due to health reasons. Grains (oats, any kind of bread or pasta), high amounts of fruits (due to high sugars and carbs... a banana alone is 30ish grams of carbs, and if you're trying to stay under 80g of carbs a day, that's a HUGE chunk), nonfat substitutes (ditch the idea of "fat" being a bad thing, and limit yourself to good portions of the full fat foods that give you good health benefits), and certain types of oil (ditch the canola and sesame oil, stick with olive and coconut.)

 

Glad that those recipes work for you, but that is not the philosophy I espouse to, and it doesn't work for me. Go ahead and feel superior that I'm denying your truth, but it doesn't work for me. I've eaten those kind of recipes my whole life and stayed the same weight, the same body fat. I'm trying something new, and so far, while it's doing nothing for my weight, I feel much better for eating the way that I am.

 

 

As for driving two hours to class, sounds like you just create more obstacles for yourself. You are sitting in a car not burning calories. Unless you plan to compete in the future, do a different activity that is closer. I don't drive anywhere. I work out at home with weights and DVDs. I walk in my neighborhood. I don't have to go to extremes to stay fit.

 

Bully for you that that works for you. I do the martial arts for reasons beyond just physical fitness, which is why I ALSO go to a gym three times a week.

 

Maybe you don't have to go to extremes because you have a body that doesn't need you to go to extremes. How many times does it need to be pounded into people's heads that people are different, and what works for you doesn't work for other people?

Edited February 2, 2012 by verhrzn

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

 

I have to eat while driving. Once a week, I drive two hours to train for my martial arts. I get off of work at 4 pm, class is 2 hours away and starts at 6. Thus, I have to leave work immediately. So, I either eat on the road, or I starve until 10 pm.

 

The bacon (especially if organic when I can afford it) gives me good protein and fat (good fat being good fuel) for a lower amount of calories, which is the perfect food when preparing to do a long interval of high cardio (martial arts, which is the only time I eat it.) Bacon gives me good nutrients for the amount of calories with some variety. Eating Primal is meant to be a lifestyle, which means it has to be sustainable. While chicken IS good, it can also get boring. Would you like to eat nothing but chicken for every meal for the rest of your life?

 

Now are these excuses? You'll probably mark them as so, because no matter what I say and do, unless I fully agree with you, you'll mark as an excuse. But your argument is coming from ignorance of the situation (the details of my life, the particulars of my diet.)

 

And that's the whole issue with this thread... Judging someone else's food decisions and health based on a limited amount of data.

 

 

AAARGGGGGGGGGGGH! I would write something, but not that my head has exploded, I cannot.

[verhrzn]

AAARGGGGGGGGGGGH! I would write something, but not that my head has exploded, I cannot.

 

*Rolls eyes* Gimme a break.

 

And before people rush right back to claim that bacon is the singular thing making me fat, read this:

 

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/a-quick-guide-to-bacon/#axzz1lFfNVg5i

 

Bacon, especially when I eat it only once or twice a week, is not keeping me from my goal weight, so just give it a rest.