KathyM Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 To me discipline - or the lack of it - is indicative of someone's character. Just to clarify though, I have been commenting on excessively large/obese people, not those with lovehandles. It's not really fair to say that overweight people are lacking in self discipline, because they may be highly disciplined in other areas of their life. There are overweight people with very demanding jobs that require a lot of self discipline to perform. There are overweight people who give a lot of their time to other pursuits, such as altruistic pursuits, who are very self disciplined when it comes to those things. I know a woman who is obese and donates a huge amount of her time to the church, and she also is a very active and loving wife and mother of small children. She just enjoys food and prefers to spend her time on more altruistic pursuits rather than in the gym. It's a values issue moreso than a self discipline issue. If people put a high value on being slender, they'll invest their time in exercising. If they put a high value on serving others, they'll invest more of their time on doing that. If they value getting ahead in business, they'll invest a lot of time on that. I see it as a values issue, and if people don't value being slender all that much, then they won't invest a lot of time in exercising.
EnigmaticClarity Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 It's kind of difficult to have "rational conclusions through discussion" when you keep coming back to the same tired point without any proof that it works for the majority of people, and when the whole line of reasoning is really just a smoke screen you use to judge complete strangers for something that has little to no impact on your life. Your line of argument is nothing more than a justification for why you should get to feel superior to other people, when you have no idea as to their lifestyle, life circumstances, what they're eating, how they're exercising, or even who they are beyond their physical appearance. You've posted NOTHING to disprove the body can keep running without fuel. If you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight, or you will get sick. Period. I don't feel superior to anyone--I seek the rational. I'm still seeking it. Tell me the ill effects you've suffered from continuing to eat less than you burn--or point me in the direction of those who have--and I will have found the rationale I'm looking for.
Els Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 The rest of your post was about de-empasizing weight loss, which I find uninteresting because I enjoy being attractive and I presume wasn't even directed at me since clearly I'm interested in it since all my posts have been about it. Wanting to be 'attractive' - however you define it - yourself is fine. Judging people who are in a healthy weight range but who prioritize other things over attaining that size zero is not.
Imajerk17 Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I do have to be physically attracted to a woman. BUT that doesn't mean she has to be thin. I said this in another thread, but I've seen women 5'4" 160 whom I would describe as "hot". It really comes down to taking care of yourself physically. It's also hot when a woman really knows how to use her body in the gym, on the dance floor, the playing fields.
EnigmaticClarity Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 The interesting part about this poster is that he has said in another thread that the woman was overwhelmingly shallow for losing attraction to her 225 lbs partner because he was nowhere even close to technical obesity (I agree with that, FTR, but just citing it). Coincidentally, he is choosing to ignore or dispute all the points made here by women who are themselves not technically overweight (I know you, xxoo, and myself are not, at least) by claiming them to be 'defense mechanisms'. Hrmm. Verhrzn doesn't need to lose weight--she's beautiful as she is, I've told her this several times within the last week since I saw her pics last week. But she thinks she does, so I'm trying to understand what the challenge for her is aside from behavior--I'm still not getting it.
EnigmaticClarity Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Judging people who are in a healthy weight range but who prioritize other things over attaining that size zero is not. I haven't judged anyone for being overweight.
Els Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 It's not really fair to say that overweight people are lacking in self discipline, because they may be highly disciplined in other areas of their life. There are overweight people with very demanding jobs that require a lot of self discipline to perform. There are overweight people who give a lot of their time to other pursuits, such as altruistic pursuits, who are very self disciplined when it comes to those things. I know a woman who is obese and donates a huge amount of her time to the church, and she also is a very active and loving wife and mother of small children. She just enjoys food and prefers to spend her time on more altruistic pursuits rather than in the gym. It's a values issue moreso than a self discipline issue. If people put a high value on being slender, they'll invest their time in exercising. If they put a high value on serving others, they'll invest more of their time on doing that. If they value getting ahead in business, they'll invest a lot of time on that. I see it as a values issue, and if people don't value being slender all that much, then they won't invest a lot of time in exercising. I agree with the majority of your post. However, I would probably judge a medically obese person who is not trying to do anything about it (as opposed to those who are), the same as I would judge a chronic smoker, alcoholic, anorexic, etc who is not trying to quit. I think when you get to the point that something you are doing endangers your very life but you don't want to stop it, that is a rather sad attitude to have, as life is so precious.
Els Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Verhrzn doesn't need to lose weight--she's beautiful as she is, I've told her this several times within the last week since I saw her pics last week. But she thinks she does, so I'm trying to understand what the challenge for her is aside from behavior--I'm still not getting it. Fair enough. I'm not sure where your insistence on her trying to ditch even more cals comes from in that case, but meh.
EnigmaticClarity Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Fair enough. I'm not sure where your insistence on her trying to ditch even more cals comes from in that case, but meh. I'm trying to figure out why she thinks that burning more calories than you take in doesn't work. I can't imagine it having anything other than two effects--weight loss, or sickness. I'm particularly interested in what ill effects it can have if you do it in moderation. I presume there are none, but if someone knows what the ill effects are--and even more interestingly, what percentage of the population is subject to those abnormal effects of eating in moderation--I'd love to hear about them. So far it has been many thread pages of finding nothing new.
Imajerk17 Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Except you don't know what they're eating, how they're exercising, or what their lifestyle is by looking at them. You are creating a false dictomoy between obese <-> lazy. The fact is, losing weight is f*ing hard if your body doesn't naturally regulate it. My ex literally ate nothing but pizzas, tacos, and Wendy's, and he's extremely lanky without hardly any exercise. Always has been. It's just his metabolism. Compare that with me. For the past few months, I've been on an intense Paleo diet... no grains, no processed foods, no refined sugar. Nothing but protein, vegetables, and fruits with some dairy. I do weight lifting three times a week, martial arts twice a week, belly dancing once a week, on top of doing interval cardio before every weight lifting session. I drink maybe 3 cans of pop a week. Otherwise it's water with occasional whole milk. And I haven't lost a single pound. In fact, my body fat percentage has stayed the exact same amount as it did from before I was eating healthy and exercising so much. Looking at my body, it's like nothing has changed. I am still fat and squishy. I am in way better shape than a lot of the thin girls I see at the gym. But looking at me, you would have no idea that I can lift as much as I can, move as fast as I can. By judging me entirely on my appearance, a guy would miss out on finding a girl who actually IS physically healthy, can keep up with him at the gym, and isn't in any way "lazy." Seriously vehrzn, I think that is hot. And this is coming from a guy who can lift a decent amount of weight. I've seen your face on here too, going by that picture you are really pretty. I think that if you were to just "own it", you would have a lot of guys interested in you.
FitChick Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Anorexics lose weight because they eat very little, which proves EC's point in an extreme manner. Now, of course, all the whining begins about "I don't want to be anorexic!" So eat more than anorexics do but less than you do now and voila!
verhrzn Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Verhrzn doesn't need to lose weight--she's beautiful as she is, I've told her this several times within the last week since I saw her pics last week. But she thinks she does, so I'm trying to understand what the challenge for her is aside from behavior--I'm still not getting it. No, you told me I needed to lose 10-15 pounds. I have refuted your points over and over with research and personal stories, and you're STILL not listening. I have reduced my calorie intake to nearly starving, exercise more frequently than most people, and still aren't losing weight. So since you seem to have all the answers, please inform me what exactly I'm doing wrong.
kaylan Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) I'll probably stay the same weight because calorie counting is not accurate. And if I restrict it further, I might start losing muscle mass, because my body starts eating my muscles instead of my fat. My body might start eating my heart tissue. I might start going into starvation mode, in which my body actually clings even more to my weight before I finally die. So I guess I might "lose weight." I guess that's all that really matters to people on this thread who have such a disgusting attitude towards other people's bodies. They don't care if you're healthy... just that you're thin. If you are worried about losing muscle mass, protein powder is your friend. Losing weight and getting toned isnt all that complicated. Do check out the muscleandstrength.com forums, or bodybuilding.com female sections. If you lived in NY, id be positive I could be your gym buddy and get you looking hot, while still being well fed. Edited February 1, 2012 by kaylan
EnigmaticClarity Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 No, you told me I needed to lose 10-15 pounds. That's entirely out of context--you stripped the positives out. I said you were beautiful and have a very sexy figure--all true--and that losing weight would be an improvement, but only a slight one, not the major one you think it would be. For some men it would be a major improvement, but not for most, you're WAY more than fine for the great majority of men's taste in figure. Two in three or would see your boobs and forget about everything else below them, and you wouldn't lose much off of them by dropping 10-15 pounds, they'd still be in the ideal range for men, the C to D range. I have reduced my calorie intake to nearly starving, exercise more frequently than most people, and still aren't losing weight. So since you seem to have all the answers, please inform me what exactly I'm doing wrong. I'd love to, but I doubt I can help--you're being too defensive. I've probably been too persistent in trying to figure out why you think moderate eating and exercise doesn't work...I get that way when I'm chasing knowledge, my bad.
verhrzn Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 That's entirely out of context--you stripped the positives out. I said you were beautiful and have a very sexy figure--all true--and that losing weight would be an improvement, but only a slight one, not the major one you think it would be. For some men it would be a major improvement, but not for most, you're WAY more than fine for the great majority of men's taste in figure. Two in three or would see your boobs and forget about everything else below them, and you wouldn't lose much off of them by dropping 10-15 pounds, they'd still be in the ideal range for men, the C to D range. I'd love to, but I doubt I can help--you're being too defensive. I've probably been too persistent in trying to figure out why you think moderate eating and exercise doesn't work...I get that way when I'm chasing knowledge, my bad. Except I get labeled as fat by people exactly like you... people who think I'm lying when I say I AM exercising and eating healthy. They judge me as being either a liar, an idiot, or lazy, that I know my life and my body better than them. And it's impossible to lose weight and NOT lose the boobs. Boobs are almost entirely fat. The whole "thin woman with big boobs" is an insane ideal. Like maybe 3% of women have that figure naturally. Only 8% of the entire population is hourglass. Lose the weight, lose the boobs. You're not chasing knowledge... chasing knowledge would be reading the links and books I pointed you to, and actually PONDERING them instead of running right back to "But my theory is right!" That's not chasing knowledge, that's clinging to ignorance.
kaylan Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Pics? Because everyone here seems to know what you look like but me lol. Im very curious now.
EnigmaticClarity Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Except I get labeled as fat by people exactly like you... people who think I'm lying when I say I AM exercising and eating healthy. They judge me as being either a liar, an idiot, or lazy, that I know my life and my body better than them. And it's impossible to lose weight and NOT lose the boobs. Boobs are almost entirely fat. The whole "thin woman with big boobs" is an insane ideal. Like maybe 3% of women have that figure naturally. Only 8% of the entire population is hourglass. Lose the weight, lose the boobs. You're not chasing knowledge... chasing knowledge would be reading the links and books I pointed you to, and actually PONDERING them instead of running right back to "But my theory is right!" That's not chasing knowledge, that's clinging to ignorance. You're not fat. 10 to 15 pounds would lose some boob size, but you'd still be sizable. You might go from a D to a C, but I bet you'd still be a D, maybe right on the C/D line. My mom is 5' 1" and 180 pounds...when she was 95 pounds, she was a C, she's a D at 180 pounds. Current girlfriend is a D at 155 pounds at 6' 1", she was an E at 200 pounds in pics I've seen many years before I met her. I read every link and tried to start a dialogue about several of them--to which you responded to by posting more links. My question is EXTREMELY simple in nature--it fits in a single sentence that's fairly short. It remains unanswered--when you burn more than you eat in moderation, what happens? You CAN'T stay the same, it's impossible. Something else happens--that's what I'm looking for, the other things that happen. You do lose muscle if you don't exercise, so exercise if that's a concern. I'm doubting the muscle loss even matters for a minor 10-15 pound loss--someone correct me if they have specific information about how such a minor loss mostly from muscle can have noticably adverse effects. I've lost 30 pounds in the past from eating 1500 - 1800 calories a day with zero exercise in the past--if that's having a measurable impact on my health, I'm interested in what that impact is, because I noticed no difference other than I was thinner. Edited February 1, 2012 by EnigmaticClarity
FitChick Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) That's entirely out of context--you stripped the positives out. That's her MO, haven't you noticed? Even if she had the perfect body, she'd still be complaining that men were so shallow because they only wanted her body and not her fine mind. You know I'm right! People with low self-esteem don't like being challenged and told they are wrong. They believe they aren't good enough, aren't lovable, aren't worth loving, aren't important, ad infinitum and don't you DARE tell them otherwise! They know best! Which is why arguing with them is pointless. I don't care if people are fat. They will make me look thinner when I stand next to them. Less competition for me in the dating world. Edited February 1, 2012 by FitChick
verhrzn Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I read every link and tried to start a dialogue about several of them--to which you responded to by posting more links. My question is EXTREMELY simple in nature--it fits in a single sentence that's fairly short. It remains unanswered--when you burn more than you eat in moderation, what happens? You CAN'T stay the same, it's impossible. Something else happens--that's what I'm looking for, the other things that happen. You do lose muscle if you don't exercise, so exercise if that's a concern. I'm doubting the muscle loss even matters for a minor 10-15 pound loss--someone correct me if they have specific information about how such a minor loss mostly from muscle can have noticably adverse effects. I've lost 30 pounds in the past from eating 1500 - 1800 calories a day with zero exercise in the past--if that's having a measurable impact on my health, I'm interested in what that impact is, because I noticed no difference other than I was thinner. I have answered your questions every time. "When you burn more than you eat in moderation, what happens." 1) There is no accurate way to measure if you are eating more than you're burning. 2) The BMR is a general calculation that does not take into account body shape, genetics, and other factors that strongly influence how people's bodies burn calories, aka, Exercise A may burn 100 calories for one person but may only burn 80 calories for someone else. 3) It's possible that NOTHING will happen, because your body is switching into survival mode depending on how much of a calorie deficient you have imposed on it. If you've drastically reduced your calories, your body may 'cling' to the fat it has thinking there is a famine. 4) If you've put your body into a yo-yo process of constant gain and loss, even with the same calorie reduction each time, your body may not respond in the same way because you have LOWERED your BMI (metabolism.) 5) If you lower your calorie intake too much, your body may begin eating muscle, instead of fat. So, you'll 'lose weight,' but it will be muscle mass and not necessarily fat. This is what effects anorexics... their body eats away at their heart muscle in a form of self-cannibalism for nutrients when they've starved themselves enough. 6) If you exercise, you should actually be INCREASING your calorie rate, because you need more fuel to propel that exercise. If you reduce your calorie rate to 1500 by eating, and then actually burn 300-500 calories working out, you've just triggered your body's survival need to cling to fat, and don't have enough energy to go towards building muscle. And you won't notice these differences between your focus is entirely on weight/thinness, NOT HEALTH.
xxoo Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Good question. Let's see, what do I already sacrifice? I spend around 5-6 hours a week doing some form of intense exercise - be it gym, running, fencing, football, etc. Diet-wise, 95% of the time I do this: The only sugar I eat comes from fruit. The only fat I eat comes from nuts. No carbs after 3pm. Eat every 2-3 hours. No junk food, cakes, sweets, fizzy drinks, or any of that stuff. It costs me a fair bit more every month to eat this healthily, rather than just throw together some pasta. The other 5% is when I'm eating out or something, and I'll allow myself a cheat meal. I do love pizza, chips, burgers, chocolate, and everything else that's bad for you. I just don't eat it any more. I don't have good genes, a great bone structure that carries weight well, or a naturally good metabolism. What I have is willpower and motivation. Thanks for this, Andy! I'll compare to what I do, as a "genetically thin" person: I spend about 2.5 hours a week doing intense exercise (three 30 minute runs, and one 60 minute run...this is my "me" time on the trails, and I love it). I didn't always do this, and I was still thin. With the running, I am very thin. I am a big walker, and will walk instead of drive whenever time and distance allow. That was my primary exercise for years. Diet wise: I eat according to my hunger. I never count calories. I use butter, olive oil, nut butters, and other fat sources generously. I eat meat and cheese in moderation (one meal a day). I eat a lot of veggies. I eat carbs with every meal (bread, pasta, or rice usually). I believe I learned good eating habits growing up that tell my body to "stop eating" before I overeat, so it isn't a struggle. I eat chocolate most afternoons, and ice cream right before bed most nights. I will eat chips a couple times a week, but I crave sweets more. I don't eat restaurant food often at all, because I cook better than most restaurants we can afford We do make and eat pizza, burgers, etc, but they are probably a lot healthier than the standard versions. No sodas, but I put sugar in my coffee and tea. When cake or doughnuts are available, I will always indulge--but I never go out of my way to have them (don't buy them or make them, outside of birthdays). I really don't think I could follow Andy's diet and exercise regime! I give you a lot of credit for having that will power, and I wouldn't judge someone for choosing to be happy with a larger size than to be that regulated with food.
verhrzn Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 That's her MO, haven't you noticed? Even if she had the perfect body, she'd still be complaining that men were so shallow because they only wanted her body and not her fine mind. You know I'm right! I don't care if people are fat. They will make me look thinner when I stand next to them. Less competition for me in the dating world. What exactly are the positives of being told I should lose 10-15 pounds? Or the positives of being told by the general society that I am fat, and thus deserves of scorn, judgment, and hatred?
kaylan Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) 1) There is no accurate way to measure if you are eating more than you're burning. Not sure if srs 5) If you lower your calorie intake too much, your body may begin eating muscle, instead of fat. So, you'll 'lose weight,' but it will be muscle mass and not necessarily fat. This is what effects anorexics... their body eats away at their heart muscle in a form of self-cannibalism for nutrients when they've starved themselves enough. You keep talking about survival mode and losing muscle but clinging to fat. I really think you should check out bodybuilding and fitness forums. You will be clued in on how to get enough fuel to make it through work outs, but still do the right amount of cardio that you simply burn fat and not muscle. 6) If you exercise, you should actually be INCREASING your calorie rate, because you need more fuel to propel that exercise. If you reduce your calorie rate to 1500 by eating, and then actually burn 300-500 calories working out, you've just triggered your body's survival need to cling to fat, and don't have enough energy to go towards building muscle. And you won't notice these differences between your focus is entirely on weight/thinness, NOT HEALTH. Um, you increase calories based on what your goals are. For muscle building, or bulking, you want to increase calories. For fat loss, aka cutting, you want to decrease calories. Its possible to get the carbs you need for energy in workouts without overdoing calories. Youll get the energy you need to burn the fat you dont need. Again, please check out those forums I talked about. They are very helpful. Weight loss and muscle building isnt this complicated. Edited February 1, 2012 by kaylan
verhrzn Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Not sure if srs Fine, here's a fun experiment for you. I do martial arts once a week for two hours. However, that entire time isn't high intensive cardio. Sometimes it is... sometimes it's moderate intensive. Sometimes it's basics, which can be intensive, depending on which basic you're doing but not always. Sometimes it's sparring, which can be intensive cardio IF I'm sparring a more experienced fighter, but isn't always. So tell me... how many calories am I burning? Here's another fun one. Last night I ate six jalapeno poppers. If you use the calorie counter on http://www.livestrong.com/myplate/, and put in "jalapeno" you'll get about a dozen results, all of which have different serving sizes and different calorie counts. So which is the correct amount? What if the jalapeno I bought at the store (and thus doesn't have a calorie count attached to it) doesn't fit any description in that list? Then what? THAT'S what I mean by its not accurate, and that's only the counting itself, not even getting into the fact that "our bodies are incredibly complex systems and it is very hard to track exactly how much energy we are absorbing and how much we are burning."
verhrzn Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Um, you increase calories based on what your goals are. For muscle building, or bulking, you want to increase calories. For fat loss, aka cutting, you want to decrease calories. Its possible to get the carbs you need for energy in workouts without overdoing calories. Youll get the energy you need to burn the fat you dont need. Again, please check out those forums I talked about. They are very helpful. Weight loss and muscle building isnt this complicated. And if you're doing both? Then what? Are you arguing that it's impossible to build muscle and cut fat? Then what should your calorie decrease/increase be? I HAVE checked out those forums, and they're worthless to me. They work for a subset of people. But it doesn't work for everyone. It doesn't explain hormones, or different metabolisms, or types of calories. Some people don't need to worry about those. But some people do, and for those people, the sort of dumbed down logic of "calories in, calories out" is worthless. Again... are people assuming I'm a liar or an idiot?
EnigmaticClarity Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I have answered your questions every time. "When you burn more than you eat in moderation, what happens." 1) There is no accurate way to measure if you are eating more than you're burning. 2) The BMR is a general calculation that does not take into account body shape, genetics, and other factors that strongly influence how people's bodies burn calories, aka, Exercise A may burn 100 calories for one person but may only burn 80 calories for someone else. 3) It's possible that NOTHING will happen, because your body is switching into survival mode depending on how much of a calorie deficient you have imposed on it. If you've drastically reduced your calories, your body may 'cling' to the fat it has thinking there is a famine. 4) If you've put your body into a yo-yo process of constant gain and loss, even with the same calorie reduction each time, your body may not respond in the same way because you have LOWERED your BMI (metabolism.) 5) If you lower your calorie intake too much, your body may begin eating muscle, instead of fat. So, you'll 'lose weight,' but it will be muscle mass and not necessarily fat. This is what effects anorexics... their body eats away at their heart muscle in a form of self-cannibalism for nutrients when they've starved themselves enough. 6) If you exercise, you should actually be INCREASING your calorie rate, because you need more fuel to propel that exercise. If you reduce your calorie rate to 1500 by eating, and then actually burn 300-500 calories working out, you've just triggered your body's survival need to cling to fat, and don't have enough energy to go towards building muscle. And you won't notice these differences between your focus is entirely on weight/thinness, NOT HEALTH. 1) Isn't that hard--eat pre-portioned meals during weight-loss periods if measuring has proven to be that difficult for you. 2) I measured my BMR by eating ~2500 calories for a few weeks, ~2000 for a few weeks, and ~1500 for a few weeks to see how much I was losing. Not that difficult with some experimentation. Exactly how inaccurate are the activity calculators out there that base their numbers solely on weight? 3) Don't drastically reduce your calories. 4) If I thought this had happened, I'd remeasure my BMR again. 5) Don't drastically reduce your calories. 6) Agree, increase your calories.
Recommended Posts