The big "Weight" issue in dating...

[Mme. Chaucer]

Dear V.

 

I put my remaining brains back inside my skull in order to write you one simple message.

 

Your circular reasoning is not helping you any. Please take note about the massive amount of posts you contribute to LoveShack about how what you do is not working, followed by immeasurably MORE posts about all the reasons why you can't change what you're doing, and why all the suggestions are invalid.

 

It's nuts.

 

One more thing:

 

Jalapeno cheese poppers are "Primal"?

 

Okay, just one more thing:

 

How on Earth can you call Weight Watchers "unsustainable"? It's basically just portion control and complete consciousness and accountability of your food choices and caloric intake. It's as sustainable as any other dietary change (which are all hard to sustain if you have "food issues") and it is perfectly sensible. You can take my word for it. I've had a lot of dieting experience.

[ditzchic]

*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.

 

Verhrzn, girl. I feel for ya. You seem like a nice lady (although extremely disillusioned).

 

But why is it that you must argue every point to death when people are just trying to help you think about things differently. You do it in basically every thread.

 

Look, you yourself say that what you're doing isn't working for you. The nice people on this thread are offering alternatives and you keep beating them over the head that you're way is the only way. Even though you aren't happy with the results. It's like you love being able to pinpoint how and why your life sucks. It seems like it gives you some kind of vindication. You gotta stop doing that.

[azsinglegal]

This thread is full of excuses and justifications for being overweight.

 

Just accept yourself and say, "yes, I am overweight and I like me."

 

It's pretty much that easy.

 

I'll never be a small girl and I've accepted that.

[xxoo]

You drive 2 hours (4 hours round trip?) to work out?

 

I think you are focusing to closely on the details and missing the bigger picture of how it all fits together.

[tman666]

You drive 2 hours (4 hours round trip?) to work out?

 

I think you are focusing to closely on the details and missing the bigger picture of how it all fits together.

 

If I recall correctly, I believe she said that her drive to her martial arts class is 2 hours away, and that she only does that once per week...

[Mme. Chaucer]

I really, really want some bacon.

[EnigmaticClarity]

I really, really want some bacon.

 

Go get some! I hear it's good for you.

[azsinglegal]

Go get some! I hear it's good for you.

 

You don't gain weight from eating it a few times a week either. It's super yummy.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I assume this pertains to "sidepork" as well?

 

[Els]

Yep, I just had an awesome meal of streaky bacon, poached eggs, hash browns, french toast with oranges and peaches and a drizzle of sugar, grilled tomato, and coffee. No apologies. I had a lean chicken breast roast and white rice with veggies and steamed meat yesterday, so I'm entitled to this today. Yay!

[FitChick]

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

 

:laugh: I was going to do the same but I realized I was talking to myself.

[FitChick]

But why is it that you must argue every point to death when people are just trying to help you think about things differently.

 

 

Bingo! THIS is why she can't attract or keep a guy, don't you think? Can you imagine dating or living with someone like this?

[Titania22]

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.

 

I did read your post and I agree with it. My point was that only works up to a point. And once you try to undercut calories at that point, it seems much harder to get that feeling of fullness. It's great that carrots have so few calories, but I imagine there are few people who could handle meals that consist of large bowls of carrots.

 

We do vege stew here, but it's the potato (which has more calories then the other veges) that contributes to the feeling of fullness, and even then I am sure I overeat stew, because i don't find it that filling and the pot is right there. And then you can keep it interesting by adding different legumes to it, but legumes have even more calories.

 

So basically I am saying that I agree with you, but at a certain caloric intake it is still hard to feel fully satisfied.

[verhrzn]

Bingo! THIS is why she can't attract or keep a guy, don't you think? Can you imagine dating or living with someone like this?

 

So... I give concrete reasons for why I am following the eating plan that I am, provide links that support my decision, fully acknowledge your opinion and say it's totally right for you, but apparently all of that makes me a horrible, argumentative b*tch who deserves to be mocked and shamed.

 

And for the record, I never, not once, said that my eating and fitness plan was worthless, and not working. Just that I wasn't losing weight. I feel better, I am losing body fat, and I'm stronger. I brought up my eating habits to demonstrate that calories in/calories and weight are not good bench marks of either the efficiency or health of a person.

 

I asked for help in a sarcastic tone only after being bombarded with posters insisting that I was "doing it wrong" because I wasn't losing weight on calories in/calories out. I don't really want a "different perspective" on what I'm doing wrong, because I don't think I'm doing it wrong. I just think that losing weight, and weight in general, is a BS way of measuring someone's health.

 

But feel free to continue to mock me and act superior.

[thehead]

Well, in all fairness to everyone, V, the jalapeno poppers with bacon was kind of a bombshell.

[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....

 

Several hours of hunger a day will not hurt most people. It's a rare person in America that experiences 6 hours of hunger daily, and that's not unhealthy for someone who has plenty of beef to spare. Most people start to look for food and eat when they first begin to feel what some people call "peckish", not really hunger just the start of hungers early warnings.

 

Someone 5' 1 and 120 pounds isn't necessarily fat (might be, depends on the individual) but they are not in danger of starving from a little hunger.

[Els]

Several hours of hunger a day will not hurt most people. It's a rare person in America that experiences 6 hours of hunger daily, and that's not unhealthy for someone who has plenty of beef to spare. Most people start to look for food and eat when they first begin to feel what some people call "peckish", not really hunger just the start of hungers early warnings.

 

Someone 5' 1 and 120 pounds isn't necessarily fat (might be, depends on the individual) but they are not in danger of starving from a little hunger.

 

You do know that even the guidelines for dieting suggest eating small, low-cal, regular meals as soon as you feel 'peckish', instead of letting your stomach go empty? No, I'm pretty sure you don't. Because you have an exceedingly simplistic approach to this, have never tried it, and have not even done any research on anything related to this before spouting opinions of your own as 'facts'.

[123321]

You do know that even the guidelines for dieting suggest eating small, low-cal, regular meals as soon as you feel 'peckish', instead of letting your stomach go empty? No, I'm pretty sure you don't. Because you have an exceedingly simplistic approach to this, have never tried it, and have not even done any research on anything related to this before spouting opinions of your own as 'facts'.

 

Actually every one of your assumptions is incorrect. Sorry.

 

I'm aware of the "guidelines for dieting" and well aware of the approach you are suggesting. It might be great. However I also see people in non-western places who don't have fatass problems and you can be damn sure they don't keep an apple in their pocket in case they get hungry.

 

Point is, being hungry WILL make one slim, every time. Every. Time.

[iris219]

Actually every one of your assumptions is incorrect. Sorry.

 

I'm aware of the "guidelines for dieting" and well aware of the approach you are suggesting. It might be great. However I also see people in non-western places who don't have fatass problems and you can be damn sure they don't keep an apple in their pocket in case they get hungry.

 

Point is, being hungry WILL make one slim, every time. Every. Time.

 

Disagree. Your "method" is setting people up for failure. Those who don't allow themselves to get famished are less likely to overeat and more likely to choose healthy foods. Also, when you regularly fuel your body with food you keep your metabolism regulated and burning most effectively. Eating frequently can raise your metabolism. So, yes, thin people WOULD have an apple in their pocket.

 

I eat every couple of hours. Often it's just a half of a banana and a few almonds (I'll eat the other half with a few more almonds later). I always have a lot of energy and I stay very thin.

 

Will you lose weight by not eating? At first, but how long can you deprive yourself? And not eating has a terrible effect on your metabolism and your energy level. If you're trying to lose weight, I don't recommend starving yourself for 6 hours.

[EnigmaticClarity]

You do know that even the guidelines for dieting suggest eating small, low-cal, regular meals as soon as you feel 'peckish', instead of letting your stomach go empty? No, I'm pretty sure you don't.

 

Yea this is what I do--I'm almost NEVER hungry because I rarely go more than two hours without eating something, been doing that for four years.

 

You DO know that starting sentences with "you do know" is the intellectual equivalent of rolling your eyes, swishing your hips, waggling your finger in someone's face, shaking your head back and forth as you talk, and clicking your tongue up against the top of your mouth in a sassy, disrespectful way, don't you? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

Not directed at you, but another language pet peeve of mine--starting sentences with "honestly." Every time I see that, I think to myself, "WOW, thanks for being honest THIS time instead of feeding me all those half-truths and bull**** you normally throw out there!"

[xxoo]

Actually every one of your assumptions is incorrect. Sorry.

 

I'm aware of the "guidelines for dieting" and well aware of the approach you are suggesting. It might be great. However I also see people in non-western places who don't have fatass problems and you can be damn sure they don't keep an apple in their pocket in case they get hungry.

 

Point is, being hungry WILL make one slim, every time. Every. Time.

 

The difference may be the quality and quantity of food available when a very hungry person does get to eat.

 

If the only food available is the same legume and rice you eat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you won't overeat.

 

But if you have access for a fully stocked pantry, refrigerator, supermarket, restaurant, etc, it is much more likely to overeat when very hungry. It doesn't matter how many hours you went hungry before a meal if you binge on 3000 calories when you get to the food!

 

Reading these past few posts, I realized that I don't eat when "peckish". I don't tend to snack between meals, and I am almost always very hungry before I eat. But my breakfasts and lunch are fairly standard, and there is no temptation to overeat.

 

Dinner is different. I cook for my family every night, and dinner is a real treat around here. I do sometimes feel "stuffed" after dinner, eating past the point of need.

[123321]

Disagree. Your "method" is setting people up for failure.

 

I don't have a method. All I said is that when people claim they are fat and that overeating is not the cause, they are delusional.

 

I backed that up by the easily provable fact that when food is scarce, people are thinner.

 

I also said that a little hunger isn't always a bad thing. I believe that to be true.

 

 

 

 

The difference may be the quality and quantity of food available when a very hungry person does get to eat.

 

If the only food available is the same legume and rice you eat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you won't overeat.

 

No argument.

Edited February 3, 2012 by 123321

[tman666]

With regards to meal frequency and its effect on metabolism, there is no scientific evidence that I'm aware of that suggests that the metabolism runs faster or hotter with greater meal frequency versus lower meal frequencies, at least in the short term (24 hr period).

 

Check out this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

 

Basically, every time you eat something, the breakdown and storage of that food produces heat. This heat is known as the "Thermic Effect of Food", or TEF. There is a proportional relationship between TEF and how many calories one ingests. This means that if you ingest 200 calories, you'll get a small TEF, and if you ingest, say, 900 calories, you'll get a much larger TEF.

 

The current science available concludes that the overall, daily TEF is the same whether a set amount of calories is ingested in large partitions or small, more frequent partitions. Basically, if you eat 2,000 calories per day in one large meal, your body will produce the same overall metabolic response as if you at 5 smaller, 400 calorie meals.

 

The trick with a diet is that we're human beings, not calorimeters. Some people feel and perform better with smaller, more frequent meals. Some folks fare better with larger, less frequent meals. However, it comes down to the what the individual can sustain over a long period of time and make work with their lifestyle. One way has not yet been proven to be better than the other...

 

As an anecdotal aside, for about 11 months now, I have been practicing daily intermittent fasting (ala Martin Berkhan) for periods of between 15 and 18 hours daily, while limiting the period in which I take in calories to around 9 to 6 hours a day. Over the course of this year, I have decreased my bodyfat percentage, built muscle, added significant strength to all my lifts, and have suffered no ill effects whatsoever. I came from the "smaller, frequent meals" camp previously, and trust me, I was HIGHLY skeptical that I.F. would be a sustainable lifestyle, allow me to add or even maintain muscle, etc. While it's not for everyone, I.F. is gaining a lot of ground in the fitness world as of the last 6-8 months. I can almost guarantee you'll be seeing more of it in the future...

[Els]

Actually every one of your assumptions is incorrect. Sorry.

 

I'm aware of the "guidelines for dieting" and well aware of the approach you are suggesting. It might be great. However I also see people in non-western places who don't have fatass problems and you can be damn sure they don't keep an apple in their pocket in case they get hungry.

 

Point is, being hungry WILL make one slim, every time. Every. Time.

 

Errrr... yeah, dude. Being hungry will make one slim, every time. So will taking daily laxatives, contracting AIDS, going on chemotherapy, smoking heavily and taking most recreational drugs. What's your point? Just because something works doesn't mean it's the best way to achieve your goal.

 

So, anyway, enough about us. Have YOU tried any form of dieting before? What did you try and what was the outcome? What's your current BMI? Or if you prefer to call BMI inaccurate, what's your current body fat %?

 

Yea this is what I do--I'm almost NEVER hungry because I rarely go more than two hours without eating something, been doing that for four years.

 

I found that I lost more weight when I ate more regularly too, yes.

 

You DO know that starting sentences with "you do know" is the intellectual equivalent of rolling your eyes, swishing your hips, waggling your finger in someone's face, shaking your head back and forth as you talk, and clicking your tongue up against the top of your mouth in a sassy, disrespectful way, don't you? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

Not directed at you, but another language pet peeve of mine--starting sentences with "honestly." Every time I see that, I think to myself, "WOW, thanks for being honest THIS time instead of feeding me all those half-truths and bull**** you normally throw out there!"

 

Honestly, I was certainly rolling my eyes when I answered him.

 

With regards to meal frequency and its effect on metabolism, there is no scientific evidence that I'm aware of that suggests that the metabolism runs faster or hotter with greater meal frequency versus lower meal frequencies, at least in the short term (24 hr period).

 

Check out this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

 

Basically, every time you eat something, the breakdown and storage of that food produces heat. This heat is known as the "Thermic Effect of Food", or TEF. There is a proportional relationship between TEF and how many calories one ingests. This means that if you ingest 200 calories, you'll get a small TEF, and if you ingest, say, 900 calories, you'll get a much larger TEF.

 

The current science available concludes that the overall, daily TEF is the same whether a set amount of calories is ingested in large partitions or small, more frequent partitions. Basically, if you eat 2,000 calories per day in one large meal, your body will produce the same overall metabolic response as if you at 5 smaller, 400 calorie meals.

 

The trick with a diet is that we're human beings, not calorimeters. Some people feel and perform better with smaller, more frequent meals. Some folks fare better with larger, less frequent meals. However, it comes down to the what the individual can sustain over a long period of time and make work with their lifestyle. One way has not yet been proven to be better than the other...

 

As an anecdotal aside, for about 11 months now, I have been practicing daily intermittent fasting (ala Martin Berkhan) for periods of between 15 and 18 hours daily, while limiting the period in which I take in calories to around 9 to 6 hours a day. Over the course of this year, I have decreased my bodyfat percentage, built muscle, added significant strength to all my lifts, and have suffered no ill effects whatsoever. I came from the "smaller, frequent meals" camp previously, and trust me, I was HIGHLY skeptical that I.F. would be a sustainable lifestyle, allow me to add or even maintain muscle, etc. While it's not for everyone, I.F. is gaining a lot of ground in the fitness world as of the last 6-8 months. I can almost guarantee you'll be seeing more of it in the future...

 

I think the reason for the guideline was not because regular meals increase metabolism per se, but simply because people tend to binge when very hungry. Their judgement goes out the window, they don't care about preparing that grilled chicken breast salad, they grab the first thing they can find to satiate themselves and it tends to be high-cal food. They also will chow down faster, leaving less time for their stomachs to tell their brain that they're full, and get more cravings for sweet food because they become hypoglycemic.

 

I think it's great that it's working for you. However, I honestly don't think the poster who mentioned it has tried it, or has bothered researching the 'why's and 'how's of it. To him, his 90 lbs ex and gf is the ideal, and women should make themselves hungry to attain that, plain and simple. I suspect that he has not tried dieting himself before, and believes all that because it is probably what his ex-gf did to maintain her weight, and to him that is 'okay'.

[tman666]

I think the reason for the guideline was not because regular meals increase metabolism per se, but simply because people tend to binge when very hungry. Their judgement goes out the window, they don't care about preparing that grilled chicken breast salad, they grab the first thing they can find to satiate themselves and it tends to be high-cal food. They also will chow down faster, leaving less time for their stomachs to tell their brain that they're full, and get more cravings for sweet food because they become hypoglycemic.

 

Absolutely correct... It's something that is highly individual... Some people can fast and operate just fine without binging afterwards, while others will struggle. It is liberating, IMO, to know that one does not necessarily HAVE to eat every 2-3 hours.