Movingthrough Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 Hey everyone, I have had this topic on my mind for a while now, but wasn't really sure how to post it. I know a lot of people deal with this and i think its an interesting topic. I used to do a lot of posting in the break up section, went through a bad one myself, but learned more then i could ever imagine from it. Main thing I'm sure we have all learned, is listen to the red flags and don't doubt them. Realistically, i knew me and my ex were doomed from the start, but it was something i wanted, something i never had...but it wasn't what i needed and i knew it. Now, months later, i have been involved off and on with someone who i have known for years. Great person inside and out, one of those where you really cant say anything bad about. They cover my needs in areas that have never been covered and I'm happy around them. But...on a physical level its not what I'm looking for. Its not that the person is ugly, quite the opposite, but I'm a very active person and this person is not. The term "they let it go" comes to play here. I seem to connect the fact that they have let it go over the years to not caring about yourself and not having the drive to make things happen when it comes to health etc. Also, i want someone i can enjoy doing active things with, which with them i cant. Never have i been in a position where a person can cover my needs so much, but be missing in one department enough for it to not work. I have had all the thoughts of feeling shallow etc because I'm basing a lot of this off of physical features. But to me that stuff represents a lot more, this person has even shown that they are somewhat insecure about their body type, yet even at their young age, does nothing to fix it. We are talking about a young person in their mid 20's that could very much get up and get out there. Like i have said, i know now from my ex that if there are issues in the beginning like this, you cant push it. I have heard all the comments about "you don't want to let this one get away", "who knows when you will find something like that again", "you have to take the good with the bad". The flip side is the idea of you don't want to "settle" either. I don't mean at all to sound shallow, but its something that I'm not feeling in a relationship that literally has 98% of everything else i want, and i sometimes feel its what i need, a laid back supportive person, but those laid back qualities seem to represent more to me.. Where is the thin line between settling and being realistic? Needing or wanting? Discuss...
Arasae Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 If it helps, I, for one, don't think it is shallow at all to not want to date a couch potatoe. Here is why: My mother was similar to how you described.. Ideal in most ways, but she "let herself go." She put on ten.. Then thirty.. Then a hundred.. Always swore she would lose it, never did. By the time I was born, she was 375 lbs. Because she was physically incapable, she missed out on hugely important events in my life and family activities. After 25+ years, she crushed both her knees, had a botched surgery, retired on disability, and is now b practically s prisoner trapped in her own body. Extreme case? Maybe. But no one plans to live that way. So yeah, it doesn't look as good, but more importantly, it is a potential serious health issue that might end up impacting significant parts of your lives together. I won't seriously date someone who doesn't take care of himself. This doesn't mean muscly gym ray, this means someone who exercises occasionally but consistently and doesn't gorge himself on junk constantly. Young guys in my age group might naturally LOOK good or physically fit, but I still won't date them seriously if they aren't active.
sunshinegirl Posted June 3, 2011 Posted June 3, 2011 I can relate. My H sounds like your SO. I'm fairly active and in shape; my H once was but is on the heavier side now and not terribly active (he's about 6'2" and 250 lbs). Early on in our relationship I had to consider how much this mattered to me, and here's where I landed on it: My physical attraction to him: I initially thought this would be an issue for me, but it's not. I love the whole of who he is, and so his body -- quite unlike the athletic men I've dated in the past -- is attractive to me as well. We agree that it would up the "grrr" bedroom factor if he were 20-30 lbs lighter, but his current physique is by no means a turn off. (If it were, our relationship would have been a non-starter!) His less-active lifestyle: This does bum me out and is likely to be a life long difference between us. Last year H trained with me for a 100-mile relay race, and I was so proud that he completed his 12 miles. But he never developed a love of running, and he often dragged his feet during training. Which in itself is fine - he doesn't have to run (he decided he wanted to do it, I didn't push him a bit). But he hasn't found an aerobic activity he likes enough to self-motivate to do. It's hard for me to relate, as I love running, yoga, and rock climbing. He often says that he wants to lose weight and exercise more, but his follow-through is good for about 2 weeks before trailing off. That being said, he is pretty good at getting annual physicals and seeing doctors when needed. At the moment his cholesterol and blood pressure numbers are fine, and I do believe that if they start to go downhill he'll wake up a bit and make the necessary changes. In the meantime, I accept that this is part of who he is even though it's not what I would prefer. In your shoes, I understand and think it makes sense that you would hesitate to be with someone whose health isn't a priority. In my case, my H is so incredible in so many other areas that I never seriously considered breaking up with him over his health habits. I truly can't imagine meeting someone who is a better match for me in the myriad other ways that H is; we are truly peas in a pod and I wouldn't trade that away for the hope of finding someone just as great who was more active/health-focused.
Author Movingthrough Posted June 4, 2011 Author Posted June 4, 2011 I can relate. My H sounds like your SO. I'm fairly active and in shape; my H once was but is on the heavier side now and not terribly active (he's about 6'2" and 250 lbs). Early on in our relationship I had to consider how much this mattered to me, and here's where I landed on it: My physical attraction to him: I initially thought this would be an issue for me, but it's not. I love the whole of who he is, and so his body -- quite unlike the athletic men I've dated in the past -- is attractive to me as well. We agree that it would up the "grrr" bedroom factor if he were 20-30 lbs lighter, but his current physique is by no means a turn off. (If it were, our relationship would have been a non-starter!) His less-active lifestyle: This does bum me out and is likely to be a life long difference between us. Last year H trained with me for a 100-mile relay race, and I was so proud that he completed his 12 miles. But he never developed a love of running, and he often dragged his feet during training. Which in itself is fine - he doesn't have to run (he decided he wanted to do it, I didn't push him a bit). But he hasn't found an aerobic activity he likes enough to self-motivate to do. It's hard for me to relate, as I love running, yoga, and rock climbing. He often says that he wants to lose weight and exercise more, but his follow-through is good for about 2 weeks before trailing off. That being said, he is pretty good at getting annual physicals and seeing doctors when needed. At the moment his cholesterol and blood pressure numbers are fine, and I do believe that if they start to go downhill he'll wake up a bit and make the necessary changes. In the meantime, I accept that this is part of who he is even though it's not what I would prefer. In your shoes, I understand and think it makes sense that you would hesitate to be with someone whose health isn't a priority. In my case, my H is so incredible in so many other areas that I never seriously considered breaking up with him over his health habits. I truly can't imagine meeting someone who is a better match for me in the myriad other ways that H is; we are truly peas in a pod and I wouldn't trade that away for the hope of finding someone just as great who was more active/health-focused. Great points, i didnt want this to be so much a question but more of a waht other people think thing. Personally, i never thought it was possible to be in a situation where i can honestly say 90% of what i want and need is there, but because of this one thing (which is a big deal to me) its basically a deal breaker. @sunshinegirl - you sound a lot like me! If you dont mind me asking, these thoughts of him being not as active or not as into these things like you are, do they pop up a lot? I feel like you are very active and out there, so to have your SO not really be into that stuff, and only really doing it because you are, does that effect your relationship a lot? It seems like he has so much more, but even in your avatar you are outside, so to always be in that different "realm" almost of a very active lifestyle, and him not, almost sounds like at some point it would cause a problem.....? Im very curious on your take.
welikeincrowds Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 Needs/wants - There are exactly three needs for humans, food, clothing, shelter. Everything else is a -desire-. Desires are very important in life, but they aren't critical to sustaining it. Citation needed. While you're off finding one, the reason I bring it up is because procreation is required to sustain a species, and this thread is pretty much exclusively dedicated to the topic of picking a healthy mate.
Saxis Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 I've been in that situation and gave it a shot. Ended up regretting it 2 years later. It felt way too much like settling. It's not something I'm willing to do again...
good_vibes Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 Everyone has their priorities. I'm a marathon runner and endurance athlete and I need the person I'm with to be at least fairly fit and active. It's not just an attraction thing (but that's part of it), I want someone who thinks it's important to take care of themselves and also then we have some commonalities, too. I find if they are inactive it's like they are dragging me down. Trying to get me to stay home instead of going out running or whatever, while I am expending energy trying to pull them up. It can be kind of a downer. Someone who is a couch potato would probably be OK with someone else who is too. If that is important to you then to me that is what you need to be happy.
Author Movingthrough Posted June 5, 2011 Author Posted June 5, 2011 Everyone has their priorities. I'm a marathon runner and endurance athlete and I need the person I'm with to be at least fairly fit and active. It's not just an attraction thing (but that's part of it), I want someone who thinks it's important to take care of themselves and also then we have some commonalities, too. I find if they are inactive it's like they are dragging me down. Trying to get me to stay home instead of going out running or whatever, while I am expending energy trying to pull them up. It can be kind of a downer. Someone who is a couch potato would probably be OK with someone else who is too. If that is important to you then to me that is what you need to be happy. Im right there with you, endurance is my thing. But there is a deeper side of it, i mean i dont need them to be marathon runners but if you dont have a "push" inside of you that makes you want to get up and get out, that says something about you. But i have sometimes thought that there should more to someone then just that, and if what i just typed means everything...
Nexus One Posted June 6, 2011 Posted June 6, 2011 Where is the thin line between settling and being realistic? I'm probably the worst example when it comes to this, but I'll try to give my view of how I go about dealing with this. Don't get me wrong I think my position is quite probably shallow, but I can't seem to get over it. I like slender girls with the body types of Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis. I happen to know that those girls do train to stay in shape for their work. I have wondered myself about the following, is it wrong of me to focus on such girls and in the process sort of blur out other girls? I can't seem to come up with a definitive answer, I suspect that yes it's probably wrong, but then again I can't seem to get over it. As a guy I have a very hard time to get over the physical aspect when it comes to developing a crush. I've met girls that have been absolutely compatible with me in terms of personality, but for some reason I wasn't attracted to them. That reason, and I really dislike to admit it, was probably physical attraction. Girls though, have one thing going for them. And that is that men have different tastes. The 2 biggest groups of male's tastes can be divided into those who like curvy women like Scarlett Johansson and those who like slender girls like Natalie Portman. http://bit.ly/mAIuzk There are other groups though, there are groups of men that like chubby girls for example. I fall into the group with the slender taste, because, and this is the only way I can describe it with words, those girls seem to have an elegant "gazelle" quality about them. So what it comes down to, for me at least, is do I find her beautiful, do I like her personality, is she intelligent enough to have an interesting conversation with. Over the years personality has been gaining in importance for me and I'm glad it has, as personality can in the eye of the beholder make a woman more attractive. However looks have not decreased in importance, at least not yet for me. (I'm 29) I probably have a fairly exclusive taste when it comes to physical attractiveness, but I do see that in order to get the type of girl/woman I like I need to bring good physical qualities to the table too. It's only fair. So I try to work on the parts of the spectrum that I can improve. I run for 3.5 hours every day (with intervals of regular walking) and also do fitness training at home. I'm kind of lucky that I have an athletic body type by default, but I still need to train and watch what I eat. I burn roughly 5000 calories a day, so in order to prevent becoming skinny I intend to change my diet from a regular one to a high protein one, because you don't only lose fat and water when exercising, you lose muscle tissue too, so you need to counter that by taking in enough proteins to compensate for the loss of muscle tissue. In physical terms, that's something a guy can work on. In terms of facial attractiveness, I've always found this a tough one, because I'd have to rate my own face. First of all there are 2 immediate problems with that. How do you rate a male face when you are straight? And it's also been proven that guys are positively biased when it comes to their own faces. So I've always needed feedback from females for that. And incidentally today, and I'm not making this up, I was running and 2 girls of around 20 walked in the opposite direction of me towards me and as I walked by I heard one of them say, and I quote: "So totally hot, a ten." Don't get me wrong, that doesn't make me think that I'm a 10 for every girl, just that one, but her saying that did feel good. For some reason it seems that these things always happen when you don't expect it. Anyways, my point is, if what I deem to be high on the ladder in terms of physical attractiveness, then (in my opinion) I also need to try to bring something to the table, if only to be fair. So why did I think I was a bad example when answering OP's question? I think I'm a bad example because when I look at what I'm doing, then you could conclude that I'm trying to avoid "settling". I don't know what that means though, perhaps a lot of people do that, but many do not. I'm not sure if it is wrong or right, I haven't thoroughly thought about it. I tend to think that it is wrong, because if I'd be honest, then I must admit that I've passed on perfectly good girls/women. It is shallow to do that and in the process I do make mistakes. I think that we men in general can't make up any excuses in this regard, while it may vary per guy, most of us are quite shallow in this respect, i.e. physical attraction.
Author Movingthrough Posted June 6, 2011 Author Posted June 6, 2011 I'm probably the worst example when it comes to this, but I'll try to give my view of how I go about dealing with this. Don't get me wrong I think my position is quite probably shallow, but I can't seem to get over it. I like slender girls with the body types of Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis. I happen to know that those girls do train to stay in shape for their work. I have wondered myself about the following, is it wrong of me to focus on such girls and in the process sort of blur out other girls? I can't seem to come up with a definitive answer, I suspect that yes it's probably wrong, but then again I can't seem to get over it. As a guy I have a very hard time to get over the physical aspect when it comes to developing a crush. I've met girls that have been absolutely compatible with me in terms of personality, but for some reason I wasn't attracted to them. That reason, and I really dislike to admit it, was probably physical attraction. Girls though, have one thing going for them. And that is that men have different tastes. The 2 biggest groups of male's tastes can be divided into those who like curvy women like Scarlett Johansson and those who like slender girls like Natalie Portman. http://bit.ly/mAIuzk There are other groups though, there are groups of men that like chubby girls for example. I fall into the group with the slender taste, because, and this is the only way I can describe it with words, those girls seem to have an elegant "gazelle" quality about them. So what it comes down to, for me at least, is do I find her beautiful, do I like her personality, is she intelligent enough to have an interesting conversation with. Over the years personality has been gaining in importance for me and I'm glad it has, as personality can in the eye of the beholder make a woman more attractive. However looks have not decreased in importance, at least not yet for me. (I'm 29) I probably have a fairly exclusive taste when it comes to physical attractiveness, but I do see that in order to get the type of girl/woman I like I need to bring good physical qualities to the table too. It's only fair. So I try to work on the parts of the spectrum that I can improve. I run for 3.5 hours every day (with intervals of regular walking) and also do fitness training at home. I'm kind of lucky that I have an athletic body type by default, but I still need to train and watch what I eat. I burn roughly 5000 calories a day, so in order to prevent becoming skinny I intend to change my diet from a regular one to a high protein one, because you don't only lose fat and water when exercising, you lose muscle tissue too, so you need to counter that by taking in enough proteins to compensate for the loss of muscle tissue. In physical terms, that's something a guy can work on. In terms of facial attractiveness, I've always found this a tough one, because I'd have to rate my own face. First of all there are 2 immediate problems with that. How do you rate a male face when you are straight? And it's also been proven that guys are positively biased when it comes to their own faces. So I've always needed feedback from females for that. And incidentally today, and I'm not making this up, I was running and 2 girls of around 20 walked in the opposite direction of me towards me and as I walked by I heard one of them say, and I quote: "So totally hot, a ten." Don't get me wrong, that doesn't make me think that I'm a 10 for every girl, just that one, but her saying that did feel good. For some reason it seems that these things always happen when you don't expect it. Anyways, my point is, if what I deem to be high on the ladder in terms of physical attractiveness, then (in my opinion) I also need to try to bring something to the table, if only to be fair. So why did I think I was a bad example when answering OP's question? I think I'm a bad example because when I look at what I'm doing, then you could conclude that I'm trying to avoid "settling". I don't know what that means though, perhaps a lot of people do that, but many do not. I'm not sure if it is wrong or right, I haven't thoroughly thought about it. I tend to think that it is wrong, because if I'd be honest, then I must admit that I've passed on perfectly good girls/women. It is shallow to do that and in the process I do make mistakes. I think that we men in general can't make up any excuses in this regard, while it may vary per guy, most of us are quite shallow in this respect, i.e. physical attraction. I know where you are coming from, i feel the same way. To me the "in shape" girl represents something more, something about them that shows pride and dicsipline, but obviously its something that is personal to me. But like you said, sometimes i think back and think wow, i mean really i have turned down some very good girls, girls that were almost the definition of the "perfect" girlfriend. So, sometimes i wonder if that is always the right thing to do, but i also wont lie to myself and go for something that im not fully into (especially after my last breakup). I dont think anything you said is shallow, its just being honest. To me its not about just having some "hot" girl, its about a girl (or person in general) that cares about their well being. Another point is most people that are not taking care of themselves show it in other areas as far as where they are in life and how they get what they want. Its tough, i have a few ex's that i sometimes wonder about, but that "spark" on the physical level was never there..
sunshinegirl Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 @sunshinegirl - you sound a lot like me! If you dont mind me asking, these thoughts of him being not as active or not as into these things like you are, do they pop up a lot? I feel like you are very active and out there, so to have your SO not really be into that stuff, and only really doing it because you are, does that effect your relationship a lot? It seems like he has so much more, but even in your avatar you are outside, so to always be in that different "realm" almost of a very active lifestyle, and him not, almost sounds like at some point it would cause a problem.....? Im very curious on your take. I described H earlier as not very active, and I still think that’s accurate. But I shouldn’t paint him as a total couch potato. He has an adventurous spirit and enjoys doing lots of outdoor things – whitewater rafting, swimming, golfing, skiing to name a few. However, he doesn’t participate in any of those activities on a regular basis so they don’t improve his fitness level. When it comes to the kind of exercise that would improve his aerobic fitness level, he has a really hard time motivating, like I described in the last post. Add in a love of food and drink to a weekend warrior type of guy, and voila, there’s your 30 extra pounds. So it’s less that I’m paired with a man who has an active dislike of doing outdoorsy things and only does them to make me happy…it’s more that I chose a man who likes adventures (and will try anything once) but isn’t an endurance guy and doesn’t like the daily discipline it takes to stay in shape. If he were, say, a gamer or an artist or bookworm who had absolutely zero interest in the outdoors and being adventurous, we wouldn’t have worked out. That would have been too big a difference to bridge, I think. The difference with us is mainly that I really enjoy working out regularly, and he doesn’t. A few years ago, this difference would have been a deal breaker, as I really viewed “healthy, active lifestyle” as a need, not a want. I can say more about what caused a change in my perspective, but I don’t want to hijack your thread too much so I'll stop here for now.
Author Movingthrough Posted June 7, 2011 Author Posted June 7, 2011 I can say more about what caused a change in my perspective Please do..
heartshaped Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 Hmm, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think sometimes people translate being in shape to being slender which isn't always the case. I'm slender, but by my own admittance, out of shape. I used to exercise regularly, but life got busy and I haven't really worked out in years. I still retain my slim physique though just no muscle or definition. I have a friend that's a twig and can't even run half a mile. In opposite, my sister is in excellent health and shape, but not nearly as slim. She's not 'overweight', but isn't a size 2 either. Then, there's being in shape, but not wanting to do certain activities. My boyfriend is in excellent shape partly from once being an athlete, but he has no interest in doing all of the outdoorsy, active activities I like to do. He works out, just in the gym, and that's how he likes it. I personally like to run through the park or go hiking or etc etc. I think really it's just about how important this is to you and what exactly are you looking for.
sunshinegirl Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) Please do.. My last boyfriend was a very in-shape runner and rock climber. We were definitely on the same wavelength there, and I loved the outdoor adventures that we had together (camping, climbing, running, skiing). What I didn’t love was that that was about the only bond we shared. That boyfriend was a positively rotten support in pretty much every other area of my life, but I stayed in the relationship partly because the physical connection was so strong. I really did appreciate that he took care of himself, but I felt a painful isolation with him because he was emotionally withdrawn and offered me very little support -- even on our athletic endeavors. For example, we ran a 1/2 marathon together (him finishing 30 minutes before I did) and he was nowhere near the finish line when I got there. I found him 10 minutes later wandering through the crowds, saying "oh! you finished!" when I showed up. It was my first 1/2 marathon in 10 years, and I had no cheering section and no one celebrating the accomplishment with me. Sadly, that relationship ended only when he cheated on me, and I then spent a long time licking those wounds and sorting out why I had stayed in such an obviously bad relationship for so long. I met H about a year after the breakup, and to be honest at first I wasn’t physically attracted to him. But he made me laugh, and there was a confidence about him that made me not write him off entirely. Over a period of months, I got to know him better in various settings, and started to see all these big and small ways that he just seemed great. He cheered me on during a 1/2 marathon, bringing 'thunder sticks' and getting strangers to cheer for me along the course. He picked me up for a morning date, and brought me a pre-breakfast protein smoothie because he knew I'd be hungry long before we were going to have brunch. Etc. I still had this bit of resistance because of him being overweight and not active the way I am, but I can’t explain it any better than this: one night the light bulb came on for me, and I realized that this is the guy for me. The qualities I *need* in a man -- like-minded, supportive, funny, generous, family-oriented, empathetic, adventurous -- those were present in spades. And I suddenly really really wanted to kiss him. (I had held him at arms length for quite a while.) I never looked back; we were engaged 7 months later and married a year after our first kiss. As for how our lifestyle differences have played out thus far? I trained for and ran the Boston marathon last year, and he was an awesome cheering section. He was there on race day in two different locations, and greeted me at the finish line with flowers and a hug. He bought me my first climbing rope for my birthday, and came climbing with me a couple of times. He joined the relay team run as I mentioned in my first post, and he has actually signed up to do it again this September even though I will be out of town and can’t run it myself. (Though he hasn't started training yet and I worry he's going to cause injury to himself if he doesn't get on it soon!) On a daily basis we haven’t run into any real issues, mostly because eight months ago I was diagnosed with cancer and all of my physical activity ground to a halt while I was in treatment (I’m fine now). It was a scary time, but also one that only confirmed how good of a man I had married in terms of being a partner who could support me through a crisis physically and emotionally. When I was contemplating whether I was going to be alive in five years (early on, we didn’t know how bad it was), our difference in activity levels was the last thing on my mind. He proved that he could be strong when I was weak, and hold me up when I was falling down. I feel even more strongly now that I won the lottery with my husband, and I don’t feel the slightest twinge of wondering if I settled. That's been my path, and I'm not sharing it to convince anyone else that a healthy lifestyle should be a "want" and not a "need". I think my experience of that extreme - having the physical/heath compatibility but nothing else - crystallized things for me and shifted its position from one list to the other. Edited June 7, 2011 by sunshinegirl
Dinsdale Piranha Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) Speaking as someone who used to think that Keith Richards was an admirable role model, and who has developed distinct couch potato qualities as the years have rolled by, and who used to be married to a woman who enjoyed outdoor stuff and exercise far more than me, I can understand the difficulties that occur when partners' lifestyles don't really gel. You have to have things in common that you enjoy doing together, otherwise you end up leading pretty separate lives. That said, if your partner provides you with most of what you need then it would seem foolish to jeopardize that lightly. It may just be a simple case of encouraging them to do things. And if you suggest doing them together, you may be pleasantly surprised by the response. Some people need to be helped to break the inertia they've fallen into. Trust me, I know all about inertia! The key thing is to encourage and reward, not nag, scold or criticize. A bit like training dogs really. Or raising children. Edited June 7, 2011 by Dinsdale Piranha
utterer of lies Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 I run for 3.5 hours every day (with intervals of regular walking) and also do fitness training at home. I'm sorry to derail, but how the hell do you find so much time to spend on exercise?
OliveOyl Posted June 7, 2011 Posted June 7, 2011 My last boyfriend was a very in-shape runner and rock climber. We were definitely on the same wavelength there, and I loved the outdoor adventures that we had together (camping, climbing, running, skiing). What I didn’t love was that that was about the only bond we shared. That boyfriend was a positively rotten support in pretty much every other area of my life, but I stayed in the relationship partly because the physical connection was so strong. I really did appreciate that he took care of himself, but I felt a painful isolation with him because he was emotionally withdrawn and offered me very little support -- even on our athletic endeavors. For example, we ran a 1/2 marathon together (him finishing 30 minutes before I did) and he was nowhere near the finish line when I got there. I found him 10 minutes later wandering through the crowds, saying "oh! you finished!" when I showed up. It was my first 1/2 marathon in 10 years, and I had no cheering section and no one celebrating the accomplishment with me. Sadly, that relationship ended only when he cheated on me, and I then spent a long time licking those wounds and sorting out why I had stayed in such an obviously bad relationship for so long. I met H about a year after the breakup, and to be honest at first I wasn’t physically attracted to him. But he made me laugh, and there was a confidence about him that made me not write him off entirely. Over a period of months, I got to know him better in various settings, and started to see all these big and small ways that he just seemed great. He cheered me on during a 1/2 marathon, bringing 'thunder sticks' and getting strangers to cheer for me along the course. He picked me up for a morning date, and brought me a pre-breakfast protein smoothie because he knew I'd be hungry long before we were going to have brunch. Etc. I still had this bit of resistance because of him being overweight and not active the way I am, but I can’t explain it any better than this: one night the light bulb came on for me, and I realized that this is the guy for me. The qualities I *need* in a man -- like-minded, supportive, funny, generous, family-oriented, empathetic, adventurous -- those were present in spades. And I suddenly really really wanted to kiss him. (I had held him at arms length for quite a while.) I never looked back; we were engaged 7 months later and married a year after our first kiss. As for how our lifestyle differences have played out thus far? I trained for and ran the Boston marathon last year, and he was an awesome cheering section. He was there on race day in two different locations, and greeted me at the finish line with flowers and a hug. He bought me my first climbing rope for my birthday, and came climbing with me a couple of times. He joined the relay team run as I mentioned in my first post, and he has actually signed up to do it again this September even though I will be out of town and can’t run it myself. (Though he hasn't started training yet and I worry he's going to cause injury to himself if he doesn't get on it soon!) On a daily basis we haven’t run into any real issues, mostly because eight months ago I was diagnosed with cancer and all of my physical activity ground to a halt while I was in treatment (I’m fine now). It was a scary time, but also one that only confirmed how good of a man I had married in terms of being a partner who could support me through a crisis physically and emotionally. When I was contemplating whether I was going to be alive in five years (early on, we didn’t know how bad it was), our difference in activity levels was the last thing on my mind. He proved that he could be strong when I was weak, and hold me up when I was falling down. I feel even more strongly now that I won the lottery with my husband, and I don’t feel the slightest twinge of wondering if I settled. That's been my path, and I'm not sharing it to convince anyone else that a healthy lifestyle should be a "want" and not a "need". I think my experience of that extreme - having the physical/heath compatibility but nothing else - crystallized things for me and shifted its position from one list to the other. This is a wonderful story, SunshineGirl. Thank you for sharing it with us.
thatone Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) honestly, i think you guys are absolutely being too shallow. when you see your older family members, how many of the women over 50 are as thin and trim as they were when they were 20 to 30? none? one? that's about how many are like that in my family. and the one that is that way didn't get it from exercise. she has been often bedridden by medical problems since she was 50. she was just born that way. unless these women have the perfect genetic mix of metabolism to go with the desire to work out all the time, they won't be that way for very long, certainly not past their mid 30s and a couple/three kids. and what are the odds of finding one that way who also matches all of your other needs and wants? i'm thinking about a typical day for a SINGLE person who doesn't have to make time for anyone else.... 7 hours of sleep 1 hour of travel to/from work 1 hour of cooking meals 9 hours of work counting an hour in the middle for lunch 1 hour of cleaning up around the house, taking a shower, brushing teeth, etc 1 hour of watching the news, reading the paper, etc. that's 20 hours already. if you spend 3 and a half hours working out like nexus said he does, when's the last time you read a book? when's the last time you went to a ball game or a concert or some other such thing normal people do for fun? when's the last time you learned how to do something new, like work on a car, or something artistic, or play music, or other such hobby? when do you spend a couple of hours looking at the investments in your 401k or IRA to make sure you're not losing your butt in the stock market? what are you gonna do when you wind up with small children that eliminate ALL of the free time that you now devote to the gym? see why people who don't work out like that call those people who are ALWAYS at the gym or working out shallow or ignorant or dumb or stupid other such stereotypes? because very often, they are those things. if they know more about exercise supplements than the revolutions going on in libya and egypt they could certainly do the rest of us a favor by not voting in any more elections, that's for sure. just as people who let themselves get up to 300-400 pounds are obsessive about food and are maintaining a lifestyle that they can't sustain, so are people who spend a significant amount (or all) of their free time and money on exercise, supplements, at the gym, etc. such people are no more healthy than the 300-400 pounders are, actually. because they have forsaken intellectual activity for physical activity. they are effectively cave men walking around in 2011. Edited June 8, 2011 by thatone
Author Movingthrough Posted June 8, 2011 Author Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) For example, we ran a 1/2 marathon together (him finishing 30 minutes before I did) and he was nowhere near the finish line when I got there. I found him 10 minutes later wandering through the crowds, saying "oh! you finished!" when I showed up. It was my first 1/2 marathon in 10 years, and I had no cheering section and no one celebrating the accomplishment with me. Sadly, that relationship ended only when he cheated on me, and I then spent a long time licking those wounds and sorting out why I had stayed in such an obviously bad relationship for so long. First off thanks for your reply and insight on this thread, second, I'm glad everything has worked out for you in the long run health wise and relationship wise. This above quote pretty much sums up what i was trying to get at with this thread. I don't agree with the poster before this where people who are in shape are always shallow, but i do see their point, sometimes it becomes more of who we are then something we do. When i was reading the above quoted story i felt very at home, only because that is very close to what happened to me. I feel that every ex i have met where the physical was there, the connection as far as interests was there - the intensity and "love" was also there too. BUT every one of those relationships ended badly, ended with a lot of pain, and my last one is something i will never go through again because it turned me inside and out. I think what we see here (and i can be guilty of it too) is most of the time people that are highly active and make their life outdoors or just always moving, usually have a sort of passion that comes with that. For me, i do it because its a great release, and I'm not the type of bar hoping socialite that wants to always be out doing the trendy stuff. Because of that, i have a confidence that comes with it, which would also hold true to someone i was with that would be highly active etc. The flip side to that is i feel that it has, and can, come back to bite you. My ex was a very attractive, in shape girl. Spent her free time out there whether it was hiking, gym, running etc. In the long run, she met someone else (haven't confirmed cheating but could have) IN that environment. So, the very reason i liked her, is almost the reason it ended. Don't get me wrong, there were other issues, and anyone girl or guy with some discipline would not have let anyone else get in the way, but she was in a sense "wow'ed" but another guy doing the things that i was so attracted to her for. Her attitude (which is not every girl) was not scandalous, but very determined and confident, i do feel that made it easier for her to "move on" to someone else if that is the word. Now, like i said, there were other issues, but ultimately the things that i always wanted to do with her, was attracted to her for, is where she met her new guy to basically leave me for. And when it "came out" to the world (via facebook photos), every one of those photos was them doing outdoor stuff, all things we planned on doing but never did due to distance and time in the beginning of the relationship. In a sense, the confidence and the drive that comes with these girls i have been attracted to, seems to in the end be a big variable on how easy it is for them to leave. Really i have only had this happen once (one a long time ago that i don't count and my ex recently) but it does make me think. I'm open to the fact that i also had issues during the relationship and it wasn't all them, but the girls that i was "less" attracted to physically where i had more of a mental connection, would have never done what my ex did, no way. I guess you have to find the fine line, but after reading sunshines post, i see that it can be common, where everything else is there except that one piece (big piece) and that piece is what ends the relationship in the long run. I'm not hinting at all in shape, attractive girls or guys are like this (obviously my story was about a girl, sunshines was a guy) but its a funny correlation when i look back on my life and how the ones that i have been really into looks and interest wise, always end because of those very things. This is why the settling can be so easy to do.... Edited June 8, 2011 by Movingthrough
Andy_K Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 when you see your older family members, how many of the women over 50 are as thin and trim as they were when they were 20 to 30? none? one? that's about how many are like that in my family. I don't think this is a valid point. 30 years ago we simply did not have the same exercise/gym culture that we do now. Even just ten years ago there about half as many gyms and gym classes. Nor did we have the same knowledge of nutrition. People who are 50 now (certainly in the UK) probably didn't even have a local gym when they were 20, much less attend one. In short, people who are 20-30 now and regular gym goers or exercise enthusiasts will not put on the same weight by the time they are 50 as the current generation has.
thatone Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) I don't think this is a valid point. 30 years ago we simply did not have the same exercise/gym culture that we do now. Even just ten years ago there about half as many gyms and gym classes. Nor did we have the same knowledge of nutrition. People who are 50 now (certainly in the UK) probably didn't even have a local gym when they were 20, much less attend one. In short, people who are 20-30 now and regular gym goers or exercise enthusiasts will not put on the same weight by the time they are 50 as the current generation has. it is a valid point, man. everyone changes when they get older. i have family members who hit the gym daily in their 50s in addition to living on a farm and keeping/maintaining horses. and they aren't ever going to be thin/athletic again. it just isn't possible. they look just like everyone else their age. even at 35 it's harder to lose weight, i see that now. i could shed 10 pounds like nothing in my 20s, but at 35 it takes twice as long. some people have the metabolism to be thin, some don't. and even of the ones that do very few will be that way past 40 or 45, it's a simple fact of life. and their working out every day past 50 is on borrowed time too. at some point they simply will not be able to do the workouts anymore when knees/hips/shoulders start to suffer from the years. one of those examples i mentioned above with the horse farm and the daily trips to the gym is already looking at knee replacements in the next couple of years. food is worse now than it was years ago by a long shot, that's why people are getting bigger and bigger. look at pictures from 50 years ago since you brought it up. people weren't fat then for the most part, and they weren't going to the gym every day either. but they didn't buy food that was advertised as "low fat" and had sugar added as a filler to replace the fat, either though. look at the NBA players with chronic back/knee problems in their late 20s and early 30s. you think that's an anomaly amongst professional athletes? someone doing half the high impact exercise that they are will have the same problems, it'll just take them until their 50s to get that bad instead of 30. same goes for NFL players, why do you think the average longevity is 3-4 years? you think they have more rewarding opportunities elsewhere? no, it's the fact that there's a certain amount of damage you can do before it just won't heal anymore. i'm not arguing that exercise is bad. but 3-4 hours every day is no more healthy than the couch potato is, and no matter how much those people work out now they won't be as thin as they are now once they pass 40 without starving themselves. Edited June 8, 2011 by thatone
Nexus One Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 I'm sorry to derail, but how the hell do you find so much time to spend on exercise? I rather not go off-topic (too much), but since you asked. 1. I work part-time for an employer, so I have extra free time compared to when I would work full-time. 2. Some of my "free" time I spend working on my own company and another co-owned company. Being my own boss allows me to work flexibly time-wise. Some things I do myself, some tasks are being done by others, which also saves me time. 3. I don't have a girlfriend right now, so that "saves" time too. I skip exercising 1 or 2 days per week though, as exercising every day would be counterproductive as it would prevent muscle tissue from regenerating. However, it's quite possible that if/when I get a girlfriend that she would ask me to spend more time with her, so then I would probably cut down on my daily running time. Another option I'm considering is running with a weighted vest and with dumbbells in my hands, that way the exercise becomes more intense and you can then cut down on the exercise time. ( Example of a weighted vest: http://bit.ly/ldX0Aq ) But all that exercise doesn't mean I'm ripped like a professional bodybuilder though, that's also not the body type I'm aiming for. I'm trying to maintain an athletic body type, that's pretty much it.
denise_xo Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 Where is the thin line between settling and being realistic? Needing or wanting? I haven't read the whole thread so am just responding to the OP. I think it's hard to answer this in the abstract because it will vary so much from person to person. After my first serious relationship ended I had a long dialogue with myself where I tried to identify some of my non-negotiables, the can-be-negotiated-but-would-rather-not, the would maybe prefer it this way or that but I'm actually fairly flexible, and the I'm pretty open/ it doesn't really matter. If you want to put 'active and fit partner' in the non-negotiable category, I think that's absolutely fine. From there, it's a matter of gauging and possibly adjusting your categories based on real life experiences of a) the people you actually meeting and the extent you value their company, and b) what your priorities are in life (e.g., how important is it for you to settle down to have a family and have children before you're thirty-two, or whatever). I would generally say that if you have doubts at a very early stage in a relationship, you should take those pretty seriously.
Author Movingthrough Posted June 10, 2011 Author Posted June 10, 2011 Yeah i hate to go off topic, but i think its a crappy excuse when people say they dont have time to be active. You dont have an hour in your day? Its an excuse people use to get out of it. Honestly thats what im trying to avoid in a realtionship, i think that tells a lot about a person..
Queen Zenobia Posted June 10, 2011 Posted June 10, 2011 honestly, i think you guys are absolutely being too shallow. when you see your older family members, how many of the women over 50 are as thin and trim as they were when they were 20 to 30? none? one? that's about how many are like that in my family. and the one that is that way didn't get it from exercise. she has been often bedridden by medical problems since she was 50. she was just born that way. unless these women have the perfect genetic mix of metabolism to go with the desire to work out all the time, they won't be that way for very long, certainly not past their mid 30s and a couple/three kids. and what are the odds of finding one that way who also matches all of your other needs and wants? i'm thinking about a typical day for a SINGLE person who doesn't have to make time for anyone else.... 7 hours of sleep 1 hour of travel to/from work 1 hour of cooking meals 9 hours of work counting an hour in the middle for lunch 1 hour of cleaning up around the house, taking a shower, brushing teeth, etc 1 hour of watching the news, reading the paper, etc. that's 20 hours already. if you spend 3 and a half hours working out like nexus said he does, when's the last time you read a book? when's the last time you went to a ball game or a concert or some other such thing normal people do for fun? when's the last time you learned how to do something new, like work on a car, or something artistic, or play music, or other such hobby? when do you spend a couple of hours looking at the investments in your 401k or IRA to make sure you're not losing your butt in the stock market? what are you gonna do when you wind up with small children that eliminate ALL of the free time that you now devote to the gym? see why people who don't work out like that call those people who are ALWAYS at the gym or working out shallow or ignorant or dumb or stupid other such stereotypes? because very often, they are those things. if they know more about exercise supplements than the revolutions going on in libya and egypt they could certainly do the rest of us a favor by not voting in any more elections, that's for sure. just as people who let themselves get up to 300-400 pounds are obsessive about food and are maintaining a lifestyle that they can't sustain, so are people who spend a significant amount (or all) of their free time and money on exercise, supplements, at the gym, etc. such people are no more healthy than the 300-400 pounders are, actually. because they have forsaken intellectual activity for physical activity. they are effectively cave men walking around in 2011. I really think this thread might belong in the "Physical Fitness" section but oh well. Anyway here's how my fiance does it (I join him about 1/2 of the time): 20-30 minutes 4-5 times a week ab training, 30-45 minutes 4-5 times a week cardio and 90 minutes 3 times a week upper body strength training. All in all 9 hours a week (give or take). I too think 3.5 hours a day is a bit excessive, but it's not unreasonable to take time out to devote to physical activity. And considering he's a developmental economist with the IMF, he's definitely not a "cave man walking around in 2011". He's simply a well rounded person.
Recommended Posts