Girl gaining weight

[Kamille]

Most women who were mildly overweight wore girdles (like Spanx) which flattened everything out so they had one butt cheek instead of two (like a sausage). If corsets were meant to be worn with evening gowns, no one I knew ever wore one because there were few to no formal affairs. Sorry, it's a red herring in the argument as to whether people today are fatter than in the past.

 

This argument wasn't about fat but about frames. Are Americans faced with more obesity? Yes. Are they taller? Yes. Are women's clothes designed for taller women? Yes. I'm a current size 8 ( at Club Monaco and Elie Tahari for instance), and far from being fat. So I don't understand why you conflate frame and obesity.

 

And how old are you that you know so much about what women wore to formal affairs? This is the website that discussed evening wear and size: http://www.sazzvintage.com/size-chart.html and I quote:

 

Some Facts you Should Know about Vintage Clothing

 

A) There was no uniform dress sizing. NEVER go by the vintage size!

B) 1950s & 60s dress waists were much narrower because the designers assumed the use of a girdle or corset- Women forced their bodies to fit the dresses

 

(And ps: I do get my share of attention from men, although, don't worry, I am not competition since I am madly in love with my boyfriend who happily returns the affection in troves.)

[waynesworld]

For eerie_reverie, I'm not sure how much she gained; we've never talked about weight and I don't think exact numbers are important here anyway. I go by look and feel, so I'm guessing the gain was pretty significant. For example, I noticed that her face is rounder and that she doesn't fit into some of her clothes anymore. She's short (5'2) so that probably made it all the more noticeable though.

 

For anyone else who's interested, here's an update.

 

I talked to her Friday night. She cried. I talked about making a lifestyle change together and mentioned some of the suggestions given in this thread (thanks). By then though, she was very upset and had stopped listening. I didn't want to push it, so I backed off and gave her time to cool down. She didn't talk to me for a couple of days, but she came around yesterday.

 

We talked again, and the plan is for her to go to her doctor to get checked out in case there's some kind of hidden health issue behind all of this. In any case, she's going to try to start making changes right away, which is key. To start, we're going to go for walks together after dinner 2-3 times a week. It's just a start, but I'm happy because at least she's trying.

[Kamille]

I just went and punched in some numbers to see really how much age differences really account for BMR.

5'5 Female

135lbs

Age 15 :1477 Calories per day

Age 20 :1453

Age 25 :1430

Age 30 :1406

Age 35 :1383

Age 40 :1359

Age 50 :1312

 

So basically over a 35 year period her daily calorie needs change by less then 200 calories per day. Essentially the metabolism theory is pretty much BS. A womans basic caloric needs change by 47 daily calories throughout her 20s.

 

 

 

It's all a matter of scale. Those 200 calories a day amount to 1400 calories a week. At that rate, someone who didn't modify their eating habits would gain one pound in less than 3 weeks. Or, put another way, would have to consume 1400 calories less a week to maintain their weight.

 

But let's take the difference between 20 and 30. The difference is -329 calories a week. Someone who doesn't modify their eating habits would gain one pound in 5 weeks, or 10 pounds in one year.

 

So 47 calories a day may not seem like a lot, but it amounts to an important difference.

[FitChick]

I measure body fat.

[FitChick]

We talked again, and the plan is for her to go to her doctor to get checked out in case there's some kind of hidden health issue behind all of this. In any case, she's going to try to start making changes right away, which is key. To start, we're going to go for walks together after dinner 2-3 times a week.

 

Well done! Remember not to stroll but to walk briskly. I like walking with boyfriends. Any activity you do together brings you together. Why not ask her to pick an activity for the weekend? Rent bikes, go horseback riding or do other fun things that burn calories but don't look like exercise. I think dancing is especially good for couples. Start watching Dancing with the Stars for inspiration.

[D-Lish]

When I was in high school and very thin, I tried on one of my mom's work suits from her single days. I couldn't fasten the skirt button because it was for a 24" waist. I was 5'8" and she was 5'4." The suit was a size 10. She used to brag, "When I was single, I was a perfect size 10." It's what women aspired to in the Forties and Fifties. The sexy figure was always described, usually by a man using his hands to trace an hourglass in the air, as 36-24-36.

 

Fashions change throughout history. In about five years the perfect figure will be shaped like a beach ball.

 

Holy Crap, can totally relate. I tried on some of my mother's clothing when I was in my late teens that were a size 8- couldn't even pull the dress up over my shins:lmao: Okay thighs to be realistic.

 

Women were freaking tiny in the 50's/60's/70's. Marilyn Monroe was a size 8-10 and considered curvy... I didn't fit into my mom's 8- and people would consider me thin nowadays.

 

I think it's the hormones injected in the foods we eat. I am considering going all organic with my food.

[Calutaxi484]

It's all a matter of scale. Those 200 calories a day amount to 1400 calories a week. At that rate, someone who didn't modify their eating habits would gain one pound in less than 3 weeks. Or, put another way, would have to consume 1400 calories less a week to maintain their weight.

 

But let's take the difference between 20 and 30. The difference is -329 calories a week. Someone who doesn't modify their eating habits would gain one pound in 5 weeks, or 10 pounds in one year.

 

So 47 calories a day may not seem like a lot, but it amounts to an important difference.

 

Where are you getting 200 calories a day from? Someone isn't going to eat the exact same thing everyday for 35 years to the exact calorie. Even if they did there's a point where she'd no longer gain weight because her calorie count would equalize.

 

My point was that metabolic changes are TINY. Basically 47 calories are irrelevant. The example I used showed a metabolic slowing of 47 calories at a 10 year difference. If it was anything it would be closer to the 25-30 cutoff and that's 24 calories per day. So hypothetically IF someone ate the exact same thing, and only went over their daily calorie needs by 24cals/day it would take them 145 days to gain 1lb. So more or less 1lb in 5 months.

 

Obviously if she's gaining that much weight it's a result of overeatting by a substantial amount.

[Kamille]

I got the 200 calorie difference from your own post. It is the difference you indicated between a 15 year old and a 50 year old.

 

47 or 23 calories a day (which is what the BMR calculators indicate) makes a difference. Especially since if you go into a daily calorie need calculator, the difference increases.

 

The fact is, that even though the difference might seem tiny, it is a difference. The medical community considers it a significant difference, enough so that they accept it as a fact that our metabolism decrease over the years (and your posts actually demonstrates it does, even though you want to claim it's so tiny as to be insignificant). Our metabolisms do slow down. When you compound the difference over the course of a year, then over the course of five years, then over the course of a decade, it means we consistently have to modify our habits to maintain the same weight. It does accumulate. We either have to adjust over time and eat consistently less and expand more energy. Or, if we gain weight and want to lose some, we will need to work a little bit harder to achieve the same goals we might have had in our 20s.

[thatone]

 

I think it's the hormones injected in the foods we eat. I am considering going all organic with my food.

 

fwiw my cousin agrees. she has a 13 year old daughter that i could bring in any bar i normally go to for 30 somethings and introduce as my 25 year old girlfriend, rather than a 13 year old niece.

 

but organic food is a scam, generally.

 

organic is nothing more than a marketing term. people were not better off when they handled animal waste every day. that's how we got the great plagues of the middle ages.

 

there's nothing wrong with eating healthier, obviously. but paying whole foods 200 bucks a week to do it instead of paying kroger 100 bucks a week to do the same thing isn't the answer.

[FitChick]

Women were freaking tiny in the 50's/60's/70's. Marilyn Monroe was a size 8-10 and considered curvy... I didn't fit into my mom's 8- and people would consider me thin nowadays.

 

I think it's the hormones injected in the foods we eat. I am considering going all organic with my food.

 

Marilyn's measurements according to her dressmaker were 35-23-35 and she weighed around 115 lbs. That was when she was working. She gained a few pounds when "off duty" as most actresses do. She had a classic hourglass figure. I've seen her costumes in a museum exhibit and they were TINY.

 

You don't have to go all organic to avoid hormones. Just don't eat any poultry or meat. Avoid soy which is genetically modified unless specifically organic.

[make me believe]

My point was that metabolic changes are TINY. Basically 47 calories are irrelevant. The example I used showed a metabolic slowing of 47 calories at a 10 year difference. If it was anything it would be closer to the 25-30 cutoff and that's 24 calories per day. So hypothetically IF someone ate the exact same thing, and only went over their daily calorie needs by 24cals/day it would take them 145 days to gain 1lb. So more or less 1lb in 5 months.

 

Obviously if she's gaining that much weight it's a result of overeatting by a substantial amount.

 

I'm glad you posted that information! I hate it when people blame their weight gain on aging, as if it's inevitable to get fat as you get older. Sure, aging makes a difference, but as you posted it IS tiny. If somebody can't adjust their eating or exercising to account for burning 25-50 calories less per day, then they are just LAZY and it's ridiculous for them to blame "aging" for their weight gain. Even at the high end, 50 calories a day is NOTHING. Skip the candy bar one day and you'll have saved half a week's worth of calories that you aren't burning naturally anymore. Sheesh.

[Calutaxi484]

I got the 200 calorie difference from your own post. It is the difference you indicated between a 15 year old and a 50 year old.

 

47 or 23 calories a day (which is what the BMR calculators indicate) makes a difference. Especially since if you go into a daily calorie need calculator, the difference increases.

 

The fact is, that even though the difference might seem tiny, it is a difference. The medical community considers it a significant difference, enough so that they accept it as a fact that our metabolism decrease over the years (and your posts actually demonstrates it does, even though you want to claim it's so tiny as to be insignificant). Our metabolisms do slow down. When you compound the difference over the course of a year, then over the course of five years, then over the course of a decade, it means we consistently have to modify our habits to maintain the same weight. It does accumulate. We either have to adjust over time and eat consistently less and expand more energy. Or, if we gain weight and want to lose some, we will need to work a little bit harder to achieve the same goals we might have had in our 20s.

 

While I'm not disagreeing with you about the very basics of the information I posted. I am however disagreeing it's anywhere near the scale that people make it out to be.

 

In truth calories are all about NET gains and losses. Most people don't track calories ( and even if you do it's not an exact number, my daily caloric intake probably has greater then a +/- rate of 23 calories per day margin of error). So while someone may go over their daily caloric needs by say 25, the next day they might be under by 30. That results in a net -5 calories.

 

People love to make excuses. Age related metabolic changes are an excuse. In many cases people say "oh i'm 50lbs overweight because...." and simply don't take the blame for their own choices. Part of it is ignorance. If we use my imaginary woman from up top lets say she needs 1400 calories per day. A standard size ( 16oz right?) vending machine bottle of pop contains about 300 calories. She drinks 3 per day she's already at about 65% of her daily calorie needs without ever putting a scrap of food in her mouth.

 

Nutrition is very easy. It's not hard to lose weight at all once you know how it works. People are either just too lazy to follow through with it, or totally unwilling to learn in the first place.

 

The fitness/diet/healtcare industry THRIVE off of misinformation. They make money through repeat offenders. It's not profitable to fix the weight/diet problem in America. Although honestly it's one of the easiest things in the world to do.

[Kamille]

People who are looking for excuses not to change their habits will always find them. For instance, now they could use the idea that metabolism doesn't slow down over time to not modify their habits.

 

And I agree that calorie intake varies from day to day. But that's precisely why mild weight gain sneaks up on people. It's much easier to keep habits, to keep eating 1800 calories (bmr + activity) a day than it is to notice that we should be eating 1773 calories a day. The balance tends to favor weight gain, not weight maintenance or weight loss.

 

I also have to say that I'm allergic to any discourses that describes others as lazy. Weight maintenance might not be someone's priority, but that doesn't mean they don't have a lot going on in their life.

 

I'm also opposed to ideological misinformation, which is what I see this "metabolism doesn't change enough" stand point to be. The fact is metabolism slows down. There is no denying it. I know my metabolism has slowed down and that I need to hit the gym one more time a week if I want to get my back to what I weighed in my early twenties. I also know that my current weight and fat level is healthy, my size is, according to me, perfect for my frame. I can make informed decision on what is right for me.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Kamille

[KR10N]

Bull****. People get lazier and tend to eat more as they get older...if you want to blame that on age, feel free, but the exact same thing can happen to anyone at any age.

After age 25 your metabolism starts to slow down. People who are older will have to work harder. Just as memories can fade, so can health.

[thatone]

 

People love to make excuses. Age related metabolic changes are an excuse. In many cases people say "oh i'm 50lbs overweight because...." and simply don't take the blame for their own choices. Part of it is ignorance. If we use my imaginary woman from up top lets say she needs 1400 calories per day. A standard size ( 16oz right?) vending machine bottle of pop contains about 300 calories. She drinks 3 per day she's already at about 65% of her daily calorie needs without ever putting a scrap of food in her mouth.

 

 

 

standard size is now more like 20oz.

 

there you have it, lol.

[cutecatch]

The girl I've been seeing has put on some weight. Her eating habits have gotten worse and she isn't as active lately. It seems to be getting worse, and my physical attraction to her is waning. I don't expect a bikini model's body, but health and fitness is an important part of my life.

 

How do I tactfully bring this up? I've suggested that we work out together to both get in better shape, but she begs off because she doesn't like going to the gym or playing sports.

 

Dump her fat ass. That will give her the motivation to be thin