The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off?
Replies
-
I think this is true to some extent for anyone who excels at anything. I don't think it's true if you mean it's to the point of a legit "disorder." I do believe there is such a thing as a healthy obsession.4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »MireyGal76 wrote: »I think I struggle with the statements surrounding the WOMEN 16-19% category (which is where I think I fall into).
In particular - Tradeoffs:
- may struggle in social situations, especially those involving food
- May not have time for social opportunities outside of exercise
- May have to give up other hobbies and interests outside of fitness
And in the WOMEN <16%:
The only listed benefit is - May feel pride at achieving an athletic goal
but the tradeoffs are:
- will have difficulty socializing in most typical situations where food is involved
- may lose out of fun events with family and friends
- big time commitment to measure and weigh and track all foods
- hyper focus on diet and exercise may contribute to disordered eating
- time require for exercise. May crowd out all other pursuits and interests.
MY COMMENTS:
These statements make it seem like in order to be lean, you need to give up your entire life and be just a gym junkie. And it seems like it promotes others into thinking that if you are lean, that MUST be what your life is like.
I think this is alot more to do with personality than it does your physique. I have seen plenty of people on here who are overweight, trying to lose, that stress aout about social situations involving food because it does not fit into their new goals. There are also plenty of people who get a really low body fat% but don't let that rule their life all the time (obviously there is some effort there though)
I am really not trying to troll with this idea, it is a legitimate curiosity I have so please don't get angry: I would be curious to see if there is a correlation and/or higher percentage of very fit/low bf% people who do have OCD type tendancies compared to the average weight populations. I am thinking along the correlation is not causation lines here, more OCD type people are able to accomplish that body type (maybe due to an increased focus and drive alot of other people don't have) so it is being steriotyped that way. Getting that body type does not necessarily cause you to be OCD.
0 -
I believe this hits the nail on the head! Especially the part about making molehills out of mountains!! What an awesome attitude. Some people are better at that too! We can all improve but it is definitely a personality thing!4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »MireyGal76 wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »MireyGal76 wrote: »MireyGal76 wrote: »I guess I just don't think it's being balanced enough to those with lower body fats.
Full disclosure, not lean now, never been lean, probably won't ever be really lean (shooting for 15ish %). That said, the article makes a lot of generalizations. Some of the points seem generally true but others seem like more of a reach. In the end it comes down to individual circumstances. You say you don't work out 45 minutes a day but are very active. Some days you eat roughly 1000 calories more than me but maintain your six pack (did a diary check). Me? I sit at a desk all day for work. Sure, I lift 4-5 days a week but what does it take to get the scale to inch down at .5-.75lbs a week (at 5'11" 230lbs 28% body fat no less)? 1800 calories a day. As everyone has said to me, your reality is not everyone elses. Count yourself lucky you're in the situation you are. Some of us are really struggling even though it feels like we're working just as hard. For my part I see myself doing the same things others do and getting less of a result and it feels like crap. Sorry you're having such an easy time being fit.
I hear your frustration, and I get that. I'm sorry that it is a struggle for some, and appears to be less of a struggle for others.
I may eat roughly more than 1000 calories than you.. but one of the big things is that I'm at maintenance now, which I figure is somewhere around 2200 cals. (I am 6'1", 165lbs). So when I exercise, because I'm not trying to lose weight (and am actually looking at wanting to gain a little more muscle), I eat back ALL my calories.
I was not complaining (as your point in bold seems to say) that I am having an easy time being fit. My comments were more tailored towards trying to make sure that others know that just because they see someone with visible abs, doesn't mean that they necessarily do all those things that the article says they do. I have too many female acquaintances who seem to think that in order to have abs, I must be sacrificing my children - and that is not the case.
But - I DO go to the park with my kids and we play tag, and badminton, and run around like crazy. I carry both of them around my back and run around the yard (and they're both over 60lbs each). I take them swimming and throw them around in the pool, or swim underwater with them on my back... I play with them very actively. I also have a two storey home with a big yard that I maintain myself, and live in the great white north, without a snowblower - so I shovel (some years a helluva lot). So while I don't hit the gym for hours every day, I am also not sitting on the couch eating bon bons all day long, rubbing my six pack and laughing at all the women doing the 30 day shred.
I do work for the body I have, I'm not saying I don't. All I am saying is that it's not at the expense of my time (or the quality thereof) with family and friends.
Is it really that it is easier for you, or do you just perceive it to be easier?
I had an ahah moment the other day when I got a well deserved "kick in the butt" so to speak from my husband when I was in my pitty party over a class. I felt like I was working hard to do well in it and not getting good results. His response is "well lets really look at this, how hard are you actually working". I am a little embarassed to finish that story....
I guess what I am saying is sometimes people take the hard work and incorperate it and it seems like no big deal to them. Sometimes people see the same process and feel like there is no way they could possibly do that.....maybe its personality/work ethic, maybe its luck of the draw (just easier for you to fit that work in), maybe they are just more inventive with ways of fitting it in (as you describe what I would consider a pretty hefty workout as playing with your kids at the park!), i am sure there are other factors you could think of that I just can't come up with right this second.
I don't know if it is "easier" for me. I really don't. I guess it's hard for anyone to say whether it is or not, because they aren't in my shoes.
Some days I do better than others. I rarely have much opportunity to sit down after I'm done work, so I guess that makes up for my sedentary work life. I am active, I fit in pushups and chinups where I can. I try to eat as healthy as I can, given my lifestyle - and yes, I eat a lot of processed foods because I don't have a lot of free time for cooking (a sacrifice I guess I make for other stuff).
When I do workout, I try to push as hard as I can. When I play, I try to play hard. I've always been active, and pretty self sufficient. It's the way my life is. Some days I am overwhelmed by the amount of work it takes to raise the kids, work 40 - 50 hours a week, maintain a home AND find time to exercise. Sometimes my exercise is in the form of raising the kids. I try to fit activity in whereever I can, and my activity is often using my kids as my workout equipment. (They're 7 and 9, and I still carry them around - for fun.)
I have a gym in my basement, so I have done a workout at midnight, even 1am. I have a heavy bag that I use to box out stress and frustration. I have a treadmill to manage a run when the kids are sleeping. I do my pushups before bed, my chin ups often then too, or when my kids are playing nicely (which seems to be rare these days). My life revolves around kids and work, and I do what I can.
Is it "EASY", no I don't think I'd say it is easy. But my life seems to fit my body, or maybe my body reflects my life?
YOU DON'T EAT CLEANNNNN GASPPPP, just kidding
To ME it does sound like you put in alot of work, but you have a pretty laid back happy go lucky personality so it just kinda no big deal to you. Which is awesome for you!
If some people can make mountains out of molehills who is to say others can't make molehills out of mountains?
OP I had to laugh at the picture your comment about carrying your kids on your back made for me. My oldest is 6'1" and 175 lbs. (I'm 5'2" and fairly small). The picture in my head of me doing that. . . . Priceless!
Seriously, though, as the kids get older, "playing" with them often comes to mean sitting for hours at their sporting events! So there is a new Challenge! I remember when mine were young--we would all put on skates and go to a nearby church parking lot and skate for hours! Or ride our bikes all day and then bike to a pizza parlor and eat massive amounts of pizza. No longer! Things change and life changes and our goals change as we go through our lives! So suddenly the amount of perceived sacrifice changes, or our goals have to change. That is just real life.
OP and others, I'm sorry if people are pointing fingers. What is that old saying about "walk a mile in someone else's moccasins. . . . ? And That goes both ways! Why are we all so judgemental? No two people are exactly alike!
0 -
This has already been noted in this thread, but what is a sacrifice/hardship/not enjoyable for one, is not for another. Some people love being active, some do not, some peoples lifestyles are conducive to being active, others are not.
There is also genetics to take into consideration (also touched on in this post and in this thread already) - some people just have a higher BMR and/or lower appetite - plus people hold body fat differently and have different muscle mass.
I maintain on pretty high calories for someone of my age (about 2,400 - 2,500). I am not very tall (5 6") and am not active at all outside of lifting. There is a genetic component there - I have always had relatively high muscle mass, and have a higher muscle mass than most women of my size. I also do not have any metabolic issues that many women (especially of my age do). I also love lifting - it is not sacrifice - the body composition and impact on my caloric burn are a very welcome side benefit.
That being said, if I want to maintain a sub 20% BF, then I would have to make sacrifices - or at least be far more focused and restrictive than I am now. If I find this restrictive, then people who are shorter, have a different social life, lower LBM, more appetite (mine is quite low), metabolic issues would find it very hard imo. Mirey, you are over 6', have an active lifestyle, have genetics for a visible 6 pack and are likely not to have genetic issues (I am guessing here though) - and I am not minimizing at all what you have achieved - but many people find it much harder to get and stay lean. The only part that they refer to parenting is in the super lean category (see below for my comments on this) - and very few people fall into this as this is really referring to competitive bb'er lean - which is very lean.
To address some of the comments in the article a little more - some people just cannot get abs without a significant amount of work - there is a huge genetic component at play here - where your bf is distributed and how 'tight' the tendons are that give that six pack separation (as well as how well your ab muscles react to stimulus). I have only had a glimmer of that separation even at about 18% bf - I just do not have the genetics, and to get that six pack I would have to make too many sacrifices that it is not worth it to me.
The fitness industry does 'sell' those images - its marketing and as with most of these types of things (all the creams, pills and treatments to make us wrinkle and cellulite and to 'blast our fat') that image is not attainable for many (I would say the majority), let alone without significant sacrifice.
Looking at the first set of infographics - they are generally what I have seen in the main and are not out of line with what I experience - with exceptions (and this is where the article falls down imo). My 'issue' with them is that, for me, lifting is pretty much my prefered activity (and is the case for many), so there is no trade off. I tend not to go out drinking, so that is not a sacrifice either, With regard to the lowest level of BF% 'slide' - it is not outside what I have seen from many competitive bb'ers. There are trade offs at that level of BF% - but that is what they need to do to achieve their goals (I also think the pro's are too minimized in that slide).
The part of the article that talks about getting 'super-lean' is basically about being competitive bb'er lean. Some of these points are true - however they are not all true for everyone - and some are just not true for most. All the bb'ers I know have regular jobs, keep their parenting as a priority (I mean, playing with your kids is cardio!), and usually only train 2 - 3 times a day (cardio + lifting) in the darkest part of their prep (and only some need to even then).
In summary, the general gist of the article is kind of on point - but there are some specific points that are not - and there are some sweeping generalizations, that are just not true.0 -
I believe this hits the nail on the head! Especially the part about making molehills out of mountains!! What an awesome attitude. Some people are better at that too! We can all improve but it is definitely a personality thing!4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »MireyGal76 wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »MireyGal76 wrote: »MireyGal76 wrote: »I guess I just don't think it's being balanced enough to those with lower body fats.
Full disclosure, not lean now, never been lean, probably won't ever be really lean (shooting for 15ish %). That said, the article makes a lot of generalizations. Some of the points seem generally true but others seem like more of a reach. In the end it comes down to individual circumstances. You say you don't work out 45 minutes a day but are very active. Some days you eat roughly 1000 calories more than me but maintain your six pack (did a diary check). Me? I sit at a desk all day for work. Sure, I lift 4-5 days a week but what does it take to get the scale to inch down at .5-.75lbs a week (at 5'11" 230lbs 28% body fat no less)? 1800 calories a day. As everyone has said to me, your reality is not everyone elses. Count yourself lucky you're in the situation you are. Some of us are really struggling even though it feels like we're working just as hard. For my part I see myself doing the same things others do and getting less of a result and it feels like crap. Sorry you're having such an easy time being fit.
I hear your frustration, and I get that. I'm sorry that it is a struggle for some, and appears to be less of a struggle for others.
I may eat roughly more than 1000 calories than you.. but one of the big things is that I'm at maintenance now, which I figure is somewhere around 2200 cals. (I am 6'1", 165lbs). So when I exercise, because I'm not trying to lose weight (and am actually looking at wanting to gain a little more muscle), I eat back ALL my calories.
I was not complaining (as your point in bold seems to say) that I am having an easy time being fit. My comments were more tailored towards trying to make sure that others know that just because they see someone with visible abs, doesn't mean that they necessarily do all those things that the article says they do. I have too many female acquaintances who seem to think that in order to have abs, I must be sacrificing my children - and that is not the case.
But - I DO go to the park with my kids and we play tag, and badminton, and run around like crazy. I carry both of them around my back and run around the yard (and they're both over 60lbs each). I take them swimming and throw them around in the pool, or swim underwater with them on my back... I play with them very actively. I also have a two storey home with a big yard that I maintain myself, and live in the great white north, without a snowblower - so I shovel (some years a helluva lot). So while I don't hit the gym for hours every day, I am also not sitting on the couch eating bon bons all day long, rubbing my six pack and laughing at all the women doing the 30 day shred.
I do work for the body I have, I'm not saying I don't. All I am saying is that it's not at the expense of my time (or the quality thereof) with family and friends.
Is it really that it is easier for you, or do you just perceive it to be easier?
I had an ahah moment the other day when I got a well deserved "kick in the butt" so to speak from my husband when I was in my pitty party over a class. I felt like I was working hard to do well in it and not getting good results. His response is "well lets really look at this, how hard are you actually working". I am a little embarassed to finish that story....
I guess what I am saying is sometimes people take the hard work and incorperate it and it seems like no big deal to them. Sometimes people see the same process and feel like there is no way they could possibly do that.....maybe its personality/work ethic, maybe its luck of the draw (just easier for you to fit that work in), maybe they are just more inventive with ways of fitting it in (as you describe what I would consider a pretty hefty workout as playing with your kids at the park!), i am sure there are other factors you could think of that I just can't come up with right this second.
I don't know if it is "easier" for me. I really don't. I guess it's hard for anyone to say whether it is or not, because they aren't in my shoes.
Some days I do better than others. I rarely have much opportunity to sit down after I'm done work, so I guess that makes up for my sedentary work life. I am active, I fit in pushups and chinups where I can. I try to eat as healthy as I can, given my lifestyle - and yes, I eat a lot of processed foods because I don't have a lot of free time for cooking (a sacrifice I guess I make for other stuff).
When I do workout, I try to push as hard as I can. When I play, I try to play hard. I've always been active, and pretty self sufficient. It's the way my life is. Some days I am overwhelmed by the amount of work it takes to raise the kids, work 40 - 50 hours a week, maintain a home AND find time to exercise. Sometimes my exercise is in the form of raising the kids. I try to fit activity in whereever I can, and my activity is often using my kids as my workout equipment. (They're 7 and 9, and I still carry them around - for fun.)
I have a gym in my basement, so I have done a workout at midnight, even 1am. I have a heavy bag that I use to box out stress and frustration. I have a treadmill to manage a run when the kids are sleeping. I do my pushups before bed, my chin ups often then too, or when my kids are playing nicely (which seems to be rare these days). My life revolves around kids and work, and I do what I can.
Is it "EASY", no I don't think I'd say it is easy. But my life seems to fit my body, or maybe my body reflects my life?
YOU DON'T EAT CLEANNNNN GASPPPP, just kidding
To ME it does sound like you put in alot of work, but you have a pretty laid back happy go lucky personality so it just kinda no big deal to you. Which is awesome for you!
If some people can make mountains out of molehills who is to say others can't make molehills out of mountains?
OP I had to laugh at the picture your comment about carrying your kids on your back made for me. My oldest is 6'1" and 175 lbs. (I'm 5'2" and fairly small). The picture in my head of me doing that. . . . Priceless!
Seriously, though, as the kids get older, "playing" with them often comes to mean sitting for hours at their sporting events! So there is a new Challenge! I remember when mine were young--we would all put on skates and go to a nearby church parking lot and skate for hours! Or ride our bikes all day and then bike to a pizza parlor and eat massive amounts of pizza. No longer! Things change and life changes and our goals change as we go through our lives! So suddenly the amount of perceived sacrifice changes, or our goals have to change. That is just real life.
OP and others, I'm sorry if people are pointing fingers. What is that old saying about "walk a mile in someone else's moccasins. . . . ? And That goes both ways! Why are we all so judgemental? No two people are exactly alike!
:flowerforyou: Thank you for such a nice post! My feelings don't get hurt that easily (or if they do, they bounce back pretty quickly). I get that weight loss and body comp is a sensitive topic, and a very frustrating one, so that comes out in our posts. (I mean, hey - I was sensitive in posting it!) All is good over here. 0 -
This is getting a little off topic, maybe, but it's something I've thought for a long time.
To be really accomplished at something, say the top 5% of all people, you have to have both a talent and an affection for that something. You have to love it, and you have to be gifted at it. If you are only 1 of those things, never mind neither of them, you'll work exceptionally hard for relatively less result.
So someone with both the natural love and the natural aptitude, "sacrifice" (in terms of what they have to give up) will be relatively little. Someone with little interest an little natural ability will have to sacrifice a whole lot to make even moderate progress.
^^I agree with this. There are sacrifices, but the cost/benefit is very different to those that do not love it and/or do not have an aptitude for it.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
PikaKnight wrote: »
Isn't there a little talking out of both sides of the mouth going on then? You hear it constantly preached that all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficit. OK, so getting a six pack is easy? Just cut your calories and lose weight until you get to whatever body fat does that. "Oh no no no. There's more to it." The six pack person will say. "Blah blah blah body holds on to vital stores, discipline, etc etc, other stuff that makes it sound very special." Sooooooo which is it? Is it no big deal or is it a special accomplishment that takes a little bit of extra dedication compared to maybe just having a flat stomach vs being lean? Go.PikaKnight wrote: »awesomewastaken wrote: »I think that for the "average Joe/Joanne", this is a great article because it highlights the effort needed to get the results you see on magazine covers. I can also see why lean people might get a little bit huffy reading the points that seem to say that in order to be fit, fitness is all your life will revolve around.
But I believe herein lies the key difference - the article wasn't written for those of you who have already put in the effort (no matter how much effort it actually took), or are just genetically blessed. It was written for people like me, who look at a pictures of Candice Swna-whatsherface or Jennifer Nicole Lee and think "man, I'd like to look like that", without an inkling of an idea how much effort having a body like that actually takes. And for me, the article was very informative and helpful. I would love to look like a fitness model but realistically I know I will probably never be able to put in the work required (the gym scares the hell out of me, so that's my downfall already). Which in turn makes it easier for me to set realistic expectations for my weight loss. I might never look like somebody from Sports Illustrated, but I can damn well fit into my old jeans and maybe even run around the block without getting winded. And for that reason, I personally believe that sharing information like this is important, because in a way it helps to keep people motivated. There's nothing worse than setting yourself an unattainable goal - just cutting out sweets is not going to give you the body of a top model. But if a person is able to evaluate the effort they are willing to put in vs. the gains they can expect then it should be far easier to see small improvements and to work towards the goal.
Except the article isn't accurate in regards to the levels of "sacrifice" they put out there. If anything, they are feeding the misconceptions of what it might take to really get down to and maintain 18-25% body fat.
But this isn't about 6 packs specifically, especially since having visible abs can very depending on the person. This is about body fat %, which doesn't have to be as hard or extreme as that article makes it to be (speaking about getting within that 18-25% range, that is).
Even the items mentioned at the below 16% (for women) is very misleading. I mean really. "Will have difficulty socializing in most typical situations where food is involved" :huh:
Here's another thought to throw out there--your height can affect how difficult all this is. Now, I know that height doesn't change BMR and calorie requirements, but it does affect ideal weight goals. For instance, at my height (5'2") with a small frame ideal weight is often said to be around 110-115 lbs. On a gal who is 5'8", Im guessing 110 would be underweight. I have no idea what ideal weight would be, but it would be higher. And thus her "calorie allowance" would be higher.
At 112 lbs(my lowest post-MFP weight) my "calorie allowance" was smaller and thus my level of sacrifice was greater. Now, at 132 lbs, maintaining that weight is much easier. My "calorie allowance" is greater and thus I don't feel as much sacrifice!
So the question for me, and for each of us, is, do I want to cut calories to maintain 112 lbs, (insert whatever weight needed here) which definitely puts me at a lower bodyfat, assuming I lose the weight correctly and not by crash dieting, or do I want to live with a more easily maintainable higher weight? And yes, I know there are variations in metabolism with bodyfat percentage, and you can have more weight with greater LBM and less bodyfat. . . . . But that is beyond the scope of my comment here. And from what I understand, gaining lean body mass is even more difficult than losing weight or fat.
0 -
I really don't understand this idea that "being smaller = less calories" is somehow an advantage to tall people. I'm pretty sure that I require a bigger portion to get the same amount of satisfaction out of a meal.PikaKnight wrote: »
Isn't there a little talking out of both sides of the mouth going on then? You hear it constantly preached that all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficit. OK, so getting a six pack is easy? Just cut your calories and lose weight until you get to whatever body fat does that. "Oh no no no. There's more to it." The six pack person will say. "Blah blah blah body holds on to vital stores, discipline, etc etc, other stuff that makes it sound very special." Sooooooo which is it? Is it no big deal or is it a special accomplishment that takes a little bit of extra dedication compared to maybe just having a flat stomach vs being lean? Go.PikaKnight wrote: »awesomewastaken wrote: »I think that for the "average Joe/Joanne", this is a great article because it highlights the effort needed to get the results you see on magazine covers. I can also see why lean people might get a little bit huffy reading the points that seem to say that in order to be fit, fitness is all your life will revolve around.
But I believe herein lies the key difference - the article wasn't written for those of you who have already put in the effort (no matter how much effort it actually took), or are just genetically blessed. It was written for people like me, who look at a pictures of Candice Swna-whatsherface or Jennifer Nicole Lee and think "man, I'd like to look like that", without an inkling of an idea how much effort having a body like that actually takes. And for me, the article was very informative and helpful. I would love to look like a fitness model but realistically I know I will probably never be able to put in the work required (the gym scares the hell out of me, so that's my downfall already). Which in turn makes it easier for me to set realistic expectations for my weight loss. I might never look like somebody from Sports Illustrated, but I can damn well fit into my old jeans and maybe even run around the block without getting winded. And for that reason, I personally believe that sharing information like this is important, because in a way it helps to keep people motivated. There's nothing worse than setting yourself an unattainable goal - just cutting out sweets is not going to give you the body of a top model. But if a person is able to evaluate the effort they are willing to put in vs. the gains they can expect then it should be far easier to see small improvements and to work towards the goal.
Except the article isn't accurate in regards to the levels of "sacrifice" they put out there. If anything, they are feeding the misconceptions of what it might take to really get down to and maintain 18-25% body fat.
But this isn't about 6 packs specifically, especially since having visible abs can very depending on the person. This is about body fat %, which doesn't have to be as hard or extreme as that article makes it to be (speaking about getting within that 18-25% range, that is).
Even the items mentioned at the below 16% (for women) is very misleading. I mean really. "Will have difficulty socializing in most typical situations where food is involved" :huh:
Here's another thought to throw out there--your height can affect how difficult all this is. Now, I know that height doesn't change BMR and calorie requirements, but it does affect ideal weight goals. For instance, at my height (5'2") with a small frame ideal weight is often said to be around 110-115 lbs. On a gal who is 5'8", Im guessing 110 would be underweight. I have no idea what ideal weight would be, but it would be higher. And thus her "calorie allowance" would be higher.
At 112 lbs(my lowest post-MFP weight) my "calorie allowance" was smaller and thus my level of sacrifice was greater. Now, at 132 lbs, maintaining that weight is much easier. My "calorie allowance" is greater and thus I don't feel as much sacrifice!
So the question for me, and for each of us, is, do I want to cut calories to maintain 112 lbs, (insert whatever weight needed here) which definitely puts me at a lower bodyfat, assuming I lose the weight correctly and not by crash dieting, or do I want to live with a more easily maintainable higher weight? And yes, I know there are variations in metabolism with bodyfat percentage, and you can have more weight with greater LBM and less bodyfat. . . . . But that is beyond the scope of my comment here. And from what I understand, gaining lean body mass is even more difficult than losing weight or fat.
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »
Isn't there a little talking out of both sides of the mouth going on then? You hear it constantly preached that all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficit. OK, so getting a six pack is easy? Just cut your calories and lose weight until you get to whatever body fat does that. "Oh no no no. There's more to it." The six pack person will say. "Blah blah blah body holds on to vital stores, discipline, etc etc, other stuff that makes it sound very special." Sooooooo which is it? Is it no big deal or is it a special accomplishment that takes a little bit of extra dedication compared to maybe just having a flat stomach vs being lean? Go.PikaKnight wrote: »awesomewastaken wrote: »I think that for the "average Joe/Joanne", this is a great article because it highlights the effort needed to get the results you see on magazine covers. I can also see why lean people might get a little bit huffy reading the points that seem to say that in order to be fit, fitness is all your life will revolve around.
But I believe herein lies the key difference - the article wasn't written for those of you who have already put in the effort (no matter how much effort it actually took), or are just genetically blessed. It was written for people like me, who look at a pictures of Candice Swna-whatsherface or Jennifer Nicole Lee and think "man, I'd like to look like that", without an inkling of an idea how much effort having a body like that actually takes. And for me, the article was very informative and helpful. I would love to look like a fitness model but realistically I know I will probably never be able to put in the work required (the gym scares the hell out of me, so that's my downfall already). Which in turn makes it easier for me to set realistic expectations for my weight loss. I might never look like somebody from Sports Illustrated, but I can damn well fit into my old jeans and maybe even run around the block without getting winded. And for that reason, I personally believe that sharing information like this is important, because in a way it helps to keep people motivated. There's nothing worse than setting yourself an unattainable goal - just cutting out sweets is not going to give you the body of a top model. But if a person is able to evaluate the effort they are willing to put in vs. the gains they can expect then it should be far easier to see small improvements and to work towards the goal.
Except the article isn't accurate in regards to the levels of "sacrifice" they put out there. If anything, they are feeding the misconceptions of what it might take to really get down to and maintain 18-25% body fat.
But this isn't about 6 packs specifically, especially since having visible abs can very depending on the person. This is about body fat %, which doesn't have to be as hard or extreme as that article makes it to be (speaking about getting within that 18-25% range, that is).
Even the items mentioned at the below 16% (for women) is very misleading. I mean really. "Will have difficulty socializing in most typical situations where food is involved" :huh:
I would not say its very misleading - I would say that it is too much of a blanket statement that does not apply to everyone. Many women will have difficulty - however, some will not. My issue with the article is the will - its more of a 'may likely' when getting to competitive bb'er leanness. Planning allows some social 'outings' - but they are likely to be more limited than usual (with men and women) and food choices will be adapted. It's interesting seeing a bunch of competitive bb'ers eating out - their food choices vary significantly depending on the individual and whether they are in prep or off season.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I really don't understand this idea that "being smaller = less calories" is somehow an advantage to tall people. I'm pretty sure that I require a bigger portion to get the same amount of satisfaction out of a meal.PikaKnight wrote: »
Isn't there a little talking out of both sides of the mouth going on then? You hear it constantly preached that all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficit. OK, so getting a six pack is easy? Just cut your calories and lose weight until you get to whatever body fat does that. "Oh no no no. There's more to it." The six pack person will say. "Blah blah blah body holds on to vital stores, discipline, etc etc, other stuff that makes it sound very special." Sooooooo which is it? Is it no big deal or is it a special accomplishment that takes a little bit of extra dedication compared to maybe just having a flat stomach vs being lean? Go.PikaKnight wrote: »awesomewastaken wrote: »I think that for the "average Joe/Joanne", this is a great article because it highlights the effort needed to get the results you see on magazine covers. I can also see why lean people might get a little bit huffy reading the points that seem to say that in order to be fit, fitness is all your life will revolve around.
But I believe herein lies the key difference - the article wasn't written for those of you who have already put in the effort (no matter how much effort it actually took), or are just genetically blessed. It was written for people like me, who look at a pictures of Candice Swna-whatsherface or Jennifer Nicole Lee and think "man, I'd like to look like that", without an inkling of an idea how much effort having a body like that actually takes. And for me, the article was very informative and helpful. I would love to look like a fitness model but realistically I know I will probably never be able to put in the work required (the gym scares the hell out of me, so that's my downfall already). Which in turn makes it easier for me to set realistic expectations for my weight loss. I might never look like somebody from Sports Illustrated, but I can damn well fit into my old jeans and maybe even run around the block without getting winded. And for that reason, I personally believe that sharing information like this is important, because in a way it helps to keep people motivated. There's nothing worse than setting yourself an unattainable goal - just cutting out sweets is not going to give you the body of a top model. But if a person is able to evaluate the effort they are willing to put in vs. the gains they can expect then it should be far easier to see small improvements and to work towards the goal.
Except the article isn't accurate in regards to the levels of "sacrifice" they put out there. If anything, they are feeding the misconceptions of what it might take to really get down to and maintain 18-25% body fat.
But this isn't about 6 packs specifically, especially since having visible abs can very depending on the person. This is about body fat %, which doesn't have to be as hard or extreme as that article makes it to be (speaking about getting within that 18-25% range, that is).
Even the items mentioned at the below 16% (for women) is very misleading. I mean really. "Will have difficulty socializing in most typical situations where food is involved" :huh:
Here's another thought to throw out there--your height can affect how difficult all this is. Now, I know that height doesn't change BMR and calorie requirements, but it does affect ideal weight goals. For instance, at my height (5'2") with a small frame ideal weight is often said to be around 110-115 lbs. On a gal who is 5'8", Im guessing 110 would be underweight. I have no idea what ideal weight would be, but it would be higher. And thus her "calorie allowance" would be higher.
At 112 lbs(my lowest post-MFP weight) my "calorie allowance" was smaller and thus my level of sacrifice was greater. Now, at 132 lbs, maintaining that weight is much easier. My "calorie allowance" is greater and thus I don't feel as much sacrifice!
So the question for me, and for each of us, is, do I want to cut calories to maintain 112 lbs, (insert whatever weight needed here) which definitely puts me at a lower bodyfat, assuming I lose the weight correctly and not by crash dieting, or do I want to live with a more easily maintainable higher weight? And yes, I know there are variations in metabolism with bodyfat percentage, and you can have more weight with greater LBM and less bodyfat. . . . . But that is beyond the scope of my comment here. And from what I understand, gaining lean body mass is even more difficult than losing weight or fat.
I actually would not assume that. Not sure if there has been any studies/surveys done on this however. There is also the issue of getting enough nutrients when smaller with a lower TDEE.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I really don't understand this idea that "being smaller = less calories" is somehow an advantage to tall people. I'm pretty sure that I require a bigger portion to get the same amount of satisfaction out of a meal.PikaKnight wrote: »
Isn't there a little talking out of both sides of the mouth going on then? You hear it constantly preached that all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficit. OK, so getting a six pack is easy? Just cut your calories and lose weight until you get to whatever body fat does that. "Oh no no no. There's more to it." The six pack person will say. "Blah blah blah body holds on to vital stores, discipline, etc etc, other stuff that makes it sound very special." Sooooooo which is it? Is it no big deal or is it a special accomplishment that takes a little bit of extra dedication compared to maybe just having a flat stomach vs being lean? Go.PikaKnight wrote: »awesomewastaken wrote: »I think that for the "average Joe/Joanne", this is a great article because it highlights the effort needed to get the results you see on magazine covers. I can also see why lean people might get a little bit huffy reading the points that seem to say that in order to be fit, fitness is all your life will revolve around.
But I believe herein lies the key difference - the article wasn't written for those of you who have already put in the effort (no matter how much effort it actually took), or are just genetically blessed. It was written for people like me, who look at a pictures of Candice Swna-whatsherface or Jennifer Nicole Lee and think "man, I'd like to look like that", without an inkling of an idea how much effort having a body like that actually takes. And for me, the article was very informative and helpful. I would love to look like a fitness model but realistically I know I will probably never be able to put in the work required (the gym scares the hell out of me, so that's my downfall already). Which in turn makes it easier for me to set realistic expectations for my weight loss. I might never look like somebody from Sports Illustrated, but I can damn well fit into my old jeans and maybe even run around the block without getting winded. And for that reason, I personally believe that sharing information like this is important, because in a way it helps to keep people motivated. There's nothing worse than setting yourself an unattainable goal - just cutting out sweets is not going to give you the body of a top model. But if a person is able to evaluate the effort they are willing to put in vs. the gains they can expect then it should be far easier to see small improvements and to work towards the goal.
Except the article isn't accurate in regards to the levels of "sacrifice" they put out there. If anything, they are feeding the misconceptions of what it might take to really get down to and maintain 18-25% body fat.
But this isn't about 6 packs specifically, especially since having visible abs can very depending on the person. This is about body fat %, which doesn't have to be as hard or extreme as that article makes it to be (speaking about getting within that 18-25% range, that is).
Even the items mentioned at the below 16% (for women) is very misleading. I mean really. "Will have difficulty socializing in most typical situations where food is involved" :huh:
Here's another thought to throw out there--your height can affect how difficult all this is. Now, I know that height doesn't change BMR and calorie requirements, but it does affect ideal weight goals. For instance, at my height (5'2") with a small frame ideal weight is often said to be around 110-115 lbs. On a gal who is 5'8", Im guessing 110 would be underweight. I have no idea what ideal weight would be, but it would be higher. And thus her "calorie allowance" would be higher.
At 112 lbs(my lowest post-MFP weight) my "calorie allowance" was smaller and thus my level of sacrifice was greater. Now, at 132 lbs, maintaining that weight is much easier. My "calorie allowance" is greater and thus I don't feel as much sacrifice!
So the question for me, and for each of us, is, do I want to cut calories to maintain 112 lbs, (insert whatever weight needed here) which definitely puts me at a lower bodyfat, assuming I lose the weight correctly and not by crash dieting, or do I want to live with a more easily maintainable higher weight? And yes, I know there are variations in metabolism with bodyfat percentage, and you can have more weight with greater LBM and less bodyfat. . . . . But that is beyond the scope of my comment here. And from what I understand, gaining lean body mass is even more difficult than losing weight or fat.
You're assuming that a person's hunger/satisfaction is going to be in direct proportion to their calorie needs, which isn't necessarily the case imo.0 -
Maybe it's just easier to climb the mountain if you can already at least see the top of it a little. I've lost a ton more weight than my ticker indicates and I'd say in the beginning my biggest concern was just looking "normal" so I didn't always stand out as the biggest guy in the room. I'm pretty sure if I was starting at the weight I'm at now I'd be 100% confident I'd be single digit body fat. But I'm not starting out. I've been doing this for years. And years of dieting will drive almost anyone insane. You start out feeling like you're not giving up anything. Then you have to give up more and more. Eventually your calories feel so low that while you in theory CAN eat whatever you want you start to wonder if it's even worth trying to squeeze stuff in. At this point just getting to the 20% picture from the article sounds pretty lofty since things are going to slow. That's why it's frustrating to hear people swearing they don't do much to stay ripped. It's almost the hip thing to do. To play things down so it seems like no big deal.MireyGal76 wrote: »I think this article can cause some who are just getting off the couch to never desire a marathon. And that's kind of sad. But maybe it's good in that they set more realistic initial goals, and allow that marathon to creep up on them?
Firstly - congratulations on the ton of weight you've already lost! May I ask how much you've lost in total?
Secondly - I don't know you well, and don't know your situation, but wonder if maybe you may have food sensitivities that aren't helping you make progress. (E.g. My dad was a celiac for years before he was diagnosed, and he was essentially starving to death even though he ate a pile of food because his body dumped it all into the toilet). Maybe there is something there that could be wreaking havoc with your system. It doesn't hurt to check it out.
Thirdly, I apologize if you feel like I'm trying to be hip, or down playing the activity level I do. It took me three years of high activity to lose those "last ten pounds", and it was only calorie counting that helped me do it in the end. I see that you do log your food, so maybe you can take your diary to the doc and use that to help ensure there aren't any dietary issues at play?
0 -
I know appetite varies among individuals with the same stats, but I would think (all other things being equal) it would change in proportion with needs. Otherwise super tall people would all be super skinny for lack of appetite. Or obesity would trend by height. I'm not aware of evidence of either of these things.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I really don't understand this idea that "being smaller = less calories" is somehow an advantage to tall people. I'm pretty sure that I require a bigger portion to get the same amount of satisfaction out of a meal.PikaKnight wrote: »
Isn't there a little talking out of both sides of the mouth going on then? You hear it constantly preached that all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficit. OK, so getting a six pack is easy? Just cut your calories and lose weight until you get to whatever body fat does that. "Oh no no no. There's more to it." The six pack person will say. "Blah blah blah body holds on to vital stores, discipline, etc etc, other stuff that makes it sound very special." Sooooooo which is it? Is it no big deal or is it a special accomplishment that takes a little bit of extra dedication compared to maybe just having a flat stomach vs being lean? Go.PikaKnight wrote: »awesomewastaken wrote: »I think that for the "average Joe/Joanne", this is a great article because it highlights the effort needed to get the results you see on magazine covers. I can also see why lean people might get a little bit huffy reading the points that seem to say that in order to be fit, fitness is all your life will revolve around.
But I believe herein lies the key difference - the article wasn't written for those of you who have already put in the effort (no matter how much effort it actually took), or are just genetically blessed. It was written for people like me, who look at a pictures of Candice Swna-whatsherface or Jennifer Nicole Lee and think "man, I'd like to look like that", without an inkling of an idea how much effort having a body like that actually takes. And for me, the article was very informative and helpful. I would love to look like a fitness model but realistically I know I will probably never be able to put in the work required (the gym scares the hell out of me, so that's my downfall already). Which in turn makes it easier for me to set realistic expectations for my weight loss. I might never look like somebody from Sports Illustrated, but I can damn well fit into my old jeans and maybe even run around the block without getting winded. And for that reason, I personally believe that sharing information like this is important, because in a way it helps to keep people motivated. There's nothing worse than setting yourself an unattainable goal - just cutting out sweets is not going to give you the body of a top model. But if a person is able to evaluate the effort they are willing to put in vs. the gains they can expect then it should be far easier to see small improvements and to work towards the goal.
Except the article isn't accurate in regards to the levels of "sacrifice" they put out there. If anything, they are feeding the misconceptions of what it might take to really get down to and maintain 18-25% body fat.
But this isn't about 6 packs specifically, especially since having visible abs can very depending on the person. This is about body fat %, which doesn't have to be as hard or extreme as that article makes it to be (speaking about getting within that 18-25% range, that is).
Even the items mentioned at the below 16% (for women) is very misleading. I mean really. "Will have difficulty socializing in most typical situations where food is involved" :huh:
Here's another thought to throw out there--your height can affect how difficult all this is. Now, I know that height doesn't change BMR and calorie requirements, but it does affect ideal weight goals. For instance, at my height (5'2") with a small frame ideal weight is often said to be around 110-115 lbs. On a gal who is 5'8", Im guessing 110 would be underweight. I have no idea what ideal weight would be, but it would be higher. And thus her "calorie allowance" would be higher.
At 112 lbs(my lowest post-MFP weight) my "calorie allowance" was smaller and thus my level of sacrifice was greater. Now, at 132 lbs, maintaining that weight is much easier. My "calorie allowance" is greater and thus I don't feel as much sacrifice!
So the question for me, and for each of us, is, do I want to cut calories to maintain 112 lbs, (insert whatever weight needed here) which definitely puts me at a lower bodyfat, assuming I lose the weight correctly and not by crash dieting, or do I want to live with a more easily maintainable higher weight? And yes, I know there are variations in metabolism with bodyfat percentage, and you can have more weight with greater LBM and less bodyfat. . . . . But that is beyond the scope of my comment here. And from what I understand, gaining lean body mass is even more difficult than losing weight or fat.
You're assuming that a person's hunger/satisfaction is going to be in direct proportion to their calorie needs, which isn't necessarily the case imo.
If appetite doesn't change in proportion with needs, what evidence is there that it necessarily does so to the disadvantage of short people?0 -
The article was crap. And if I never exercised before, I would say why bother?
The article is of course selling you a package that will get you a "new you" and in 12 months... whatever..
There is no cost associated with being fit and healthy and feeling better and even looking better. You do not have to have loss of time or expended energy keeping you away from your responsibilities, work or family or your friends.
What happened to when you feel better about your self everyone around you feels better and wants to be around you? I am not talking about those with serious OCD or addicted to exercise or have true body morphism.
What happened to prioritizing the things you need to do like take a shower, brush your teeth and workout...
People can take things way too far and that in itself is unhealthy. The happy medium is a life in balance...
0 -
The article was crap. And if I never exercised before, I would say why bother?
The article is of course selling you a package that will get you a "new you" and in 12 months... whatever..
There is no cost associated with being fit and healthy and feeling better and even looking better. You do not have to have loss of time or expended energy keeping you away from your responsibilities, work or family or your friends.
What happened to when you feel better about your self everyone around you feels better and wants to be around you? I am not talking about those with serious OCD or addicted to exercise or have true body morphism.
What happened to prioritizing the things you need to do like take a shower, brush your teeth and workout...
People can take things way too far and that in itself is unhealthy. The happy medium is a life in balance...
Is this an emotional response to the article, or a logical one? Or both?0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I know appetite varies among individuals with the same stats, but I would think (all other things being equal) it would change in proportion with needs. Otherwise super tall people would all be super skinny for lack of appetite. Or obesity would trend by height. I'm not aware of evidence of either of these things.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I really don't understand this idea that "being smaller = less calories" is somehow an advantage to tall people. I'm pretty sure that I require a bigger portion to get the same amount of satisfaction out of a meal.PikaKnight wrote: »
Isn't there a little talking out of both sides of the mouth going on then? You hear it constantly preached that all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficit. OK, so getting a six pack is easy? Just cut your calories and lose weight until you get to whatever body fat does that. "Oh no no no. There's more to it." The six pack person will say. "Blah blah blah body holds on to vital stores, discipline, etc etc, other stuff that makes it sound very special." Sooooooo which is it? Is it no big deal or is it a special accomplishment that takes a little bit of extra dedication compared to maybe just having a flat stomach vs being lean? Go.PikaKnight wrote: »awesomewastaken wrote: »I think that for the "average Joe/Joanne", this is a great article because it highlights the effort needed to get the results you see on magazine covers. I can also see why lean people might get a little bit huffy reading the points that seem to say that in order to be fit, fitness is all your life will revolve around.
But I believe herein lies the key difference - the article wasn't written for those of you who have already put in the effort (no matter how much effort it actually took), or are just genetically blessed. It was written for people like me, who look at a pictures of Candice Swna-whatsherface or Jennifer Nicole Lee and think "man, I'd like to look like that", without an inkling of an idea how much effort having a body like that actually takes. And for me, the article was very informative and helpful. I would love to look like a fitness model but realistically I know I will probably never be able to put in the work required (the gym scares the hell out of me, so that's my downfall already). Which in turn makes it easier for me to set realistic expectations for my weight loss. I might never look like somebody from Sports Illustrated, but I can damn well fit into my old jeans and maybe even run around the block without getting winded. And for that reason, I personally believe that sharing information like this is important, because in a way it helps to keep people motivated. There's nothing worse than setting yourself an unattainable goal - just cutting out sweets is not going to give you the body of a top model. But if a person is able to evaluate the effort they are willing to put in vs. the gains they can expect then it should be far easier to see small improvements and to work towards the goal.
Except the article isn't accurate in regards to the levels of "sacrifice" they put out there. If anything, they are feeding the misconceptions of what it might take to really get down to and maintain 18-25% body fat.
But this isn't about 6 packs specifically, especially since having visible abs can very depending on the person. This is about body fat %, which doesn't have to be as hard or extreme as that article makes it to be (speaking about getting within that 18-25% range, that is).
Even the items mentioned at the below 16% (for women) is very misleading. I mean really. "Will have difficulty socializing in most typical situations where food is involved" :huh:
Here's another thought to throw out there--your height can affect how difficult all this is. Now, I know that height doesn't change BMR and calorie requirements, but it does affect ideal weight goals. For instance, at my height (5'2") with a small frame ideal weight is often said to be around 110-115 lbs. On a gal who is 5'8", Im guessing 110 would be underweight. I have no idea what ideal weight would be, but it would be higher. And thus her "calorie allowance" would be higher.
At 112 lbs(my lowest post-MFP weight) my "calorie allowance" was smaller and thus my level of sacrifice was greater. Now, at 132 lbs, maintaining that weight is much easier. My "calorie allowance" is greater and thus I don't feel as much sacrifice!
So the question for me, and for each of us, is, do I want to cut calories to maintain 112 lbs, (insert whatever weight needed here) which definitely puts me at a lower bodyfat, assuming I lose the weight correctly and not by crash dieting, or do I want to live with a more easily maintainable higher weight? And yes, I know there are variations in metabolism with bodyfat percentage, and you can have more weight with greater LBM and less bodyfat. . . . . But that is beyond the scope of my comment here. And from what I understand, gaining lean body mass is even more difficult than losing weight or fat.
You're assuming that a person's hunger/satisfaction is going to be in direct proportion to their calorie needs, which isn't necessarily the case imo.
If appetite doesn't change in proportion with needs, what evidence is there that it necessarily does so to the disadvantage of short people?
While appetite may change based on size (leaving all other things equal - which of course is not realistic), but I do not think it changes in the same proportion, or at least I am not aware of evidence that suggests it does.0 -
The article was crap. And if I never exercised before, I would say why bother?
The article is of course selling you a package that will get you a "new you" and in 12 months... whatever..
There is no cost associated with being fit and healthy and feeling better and even looking better. You do not have to have loss of time or expended energy keeping you away from your responsibilities, work or family or your friends.
What happened to when you feel better about your self everyone around you feels better and wants to be around you? I am not talking about those with serious OCD or addicted to exercise or have true body morphism.
What happened to prioritizing the things you need to do like take a shower, brush your teeth and workout...
People can take things way too far and that in itself is unhealthy. The happy medium is a life in balance...
While the article is written by a coaching team, I did not read it as selling you 'a new you' in X months,
There is a cost to most of being lean. Fit and healthy - the cost/benefit is generally 'worth it' so in that regard there is no net cost or sacrifice. Getting lean, and super lean will mean some sacrifices to most.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
There is no cost associated with being fit and healthy and feeling better and even looking better. You do not have to have loss of time or expended energy keeping you away from your responsibilities, work or family or your friends.
There's an opportunity cost associated with everything we do. If you spend an hour doing one thing that means you're taking an hour away from everything else you're not doing. I'm not saying this is good/bad but simply that there is always a cost.
most people's "everything else" is surfing the internet- not really losing out most of the time.0 -
There is no cost associated with being fit and healthy and feeling better and even looking better. You do not have to have loss of time or expended energy keeping you away from your responsibilities, work or family or your friends.
There's an opportunity cost associated with everything we do. If you spend an hour doing one thing that means you're taking an hour away from everything else you're not doing. I'm not saying this is good/bad but simply that there is always a cost.
At face value, I agree. There are times when my workout is more improtant/urgent than doing the dishes. And while I hate a sink full of dishes, I hate it less than I hate missing a workout. But that's how I prioritize. Other people may/do prioritize differently.
But given your history/previous posts, this SCREAMS "EXCUSE" to me.0 -
There is no cost associated with being fit and healthy and feeling better and even looking better. You do not have to have loss of time or expended energy keeping you away from your responsibilities, work or family or your friends.
There's an opportunity cost associated with everything we do. If you spend an hour doing one thing that means you're taking an hour away from everything else you're not doing. I'm not saying this is good/bad but simply that there is always a cost.
I feel this acutely. If I choose to workout, I choose not to clean my house. If I choose to clean my house, I choose not to mow my lawn. If I choose to mow my lawn, I'm not playing with my kids. If I choose to play with my kids, I'm not getting much of the other stuff done. I often leave a lot of the other stuff for when my kids aren't around.
There are always a million balls in the air that need juggling... each person has to decide which ones can fall and which ones cannot.
I am currently in a high stress situation, I manage my mental health by accelerating my exercise. This means that I am currently sacrificing some sleep, some cleaning, and most of my TV time (which is minimal) in order to do that. But it's what I need in order to stay sane.
Some days, the house needs more attention than my body. So I focus there. Thankfully my lawn is big and my mower heavy, so that becomes a workout in the summer.0 -
There is no cost associated with being fit and healthy and feeling better and even looking better. You do not have to have loss of time or expended energy keeping you away from your responsibilities, work or family or your friends.
There's an opportunity cost associated with everything we do. If you spend an hour doing one thing that means you're taking an hour away from everything else you're not doing. I'm not saying this is good/bad but simply that there is always a cost.
most people's "everything else" is surfing the internet- not really losing out most of the time.
Agreed, but ultimately that's not your decision to make.
If someone values surfing the internet over exercise or whatever else, that's their decision. But then they need to own that decision and not *kitten* about not losing weight.0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I know appetite varies among individuals with the same stats, but I would think (all other things being equal) it would change in proportion with needs. Otherwise super tall people would all be super skinny for lack of appetite. Or obesity would trend by height. I'm not aware of evidence of either of these things.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I really don't understand this idea that "being smaller = less calories" is somehow an advantage to tall people. I'm pretty sure that I require a bigger portion to get the same amount of satisfaction out of a meal.PikaKnight wrote: »
Isn't there a little talking out of both sides of the mouth going on then? You hear it constantly preached that all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficit. OK, so getting a six pack is easy? Just cut your calories and lose weight until you get to whatever body fat does that. "Oh no no no. There's more to it." The six pack person will say. "Blah blah blah body holds on to vital stores, discipline, etc etc, other stuff that makes it sound very special." Sooooooo which is it? Is it no big deal or is it a special accomplishment that takes a little bit of extra dedication compared to maybe just having a flat stomach vs being lean? Go.PikaKnight wrote: »awesomewastaken wrote: »I think that for the "average Joe/Joanne", this is a great article because it highlights the effort needed to get the results you see on magazine covers. I can also see why lean people might get a little bit huffy reading the points that seem to say that in order to be fit, fitness is all your life will revolve around.
But I believe herein lies the key difference - the article wasn't written for those of you who have already put in the effort (no matter how much effort it actually took), or are just genetically blessed. It was written for people like me, who look at a pictures of Candice Swna-whatsherface or Jennifer Nicole Lee and think "man, I'd like to look like that", without an inkling of an idea how much effort having a body like that actually takes. And for me, the article was very informative and helpful. I would love to look like a fitness model but realistically I know I will probably never be able to put in the work required (the gym scares the hell out of me, so that's my downfall already). Which in turn makes it easier for me to set realistic expectations for my weight loss. I might never look like somebody from Sports Illustrated, but I can damn well fit into my old jeans and maybe even run around the block without getting winded. And for that reason, I personally believe that sharing information like this is important, because in a way it helps to keep people motivated. There's nothing worse than setting yourself an unattainable goal - just cutting out sweets is not going to give you the body of a top model. But if a person is able to evaluate the effort they are willing to put in vs. the gains they can expect then it should be far easier to see small improvements and to work towards the goal.
Except the article isn't accurate in regards to the levels of "sacrifice" they put out there. If anything, they are feeding the misconceptions of what it might take to really get down to and maintain 18-25% body fat.
But this isn't about 6 packs specifically, especially since having visible abs can very depending on the person. This is about body fat %, which doesn't have to be as hard or extreme as that article makes it to be (speaking about getting within that 18-25% range, that is).
Even the items mentioned at the below 16% (for women) is very misleading. I mean really. "Will have difficulty socializing in most typical situations where food is involved" :huh:
Here's another thought to throw out there--your height can affect how difficult all this is. Now, I know that height doesn't change BMR and calorie requirements, but it does affect ideal weight goals. For instance, at my height (5'2") with a small frame ideal weight is often said to be around 110-115 lbs. On a gal who is 5'8", Im guessing 110 would be underweight. I have no idea what ideal weight would be, but it would be higher. And thus her "calorie allowance" would be higher.
At 112 lbs(my lowest post-MFP weight) my "calorie allowance" was smaller and thus my level of sacrifice was greater. Now, at 132 lbs, maintaining that weight is much easier. My "calorie allowance" is greater and thus I don't feel as much sacrifice!
So the question for me, and for each of us, is, do I want to cut calories to maintain 112 lbs, (insert whatever weight needed here) which definitely puts me at a lower bodyfat, assuming I lose the weight correctly and not by crash dieting, or do I want to live with a more easily maintainable higher weight? And yes, I know there are variations in metabolism with bodyfat percentage, and you can have more weight with greater LBM and less bodyfat. . . . . But that is beyond the scope of my comment here. And from what I understand, gaining lean body mass is even more difficult than losing weight or fat.
You're assuming that a person's hunger/satisfaction is going to be in direct proportion to their calorie needs, which isn't necessarily the case imo.
If appetite doesn't change in proportion with needs, what evidence is there that it necessarily does so to the disadvantage of short people?
It's not my position that short people are always at a disadvantage.
All I know is that my own calorie needs have been fairly consistent for much of my time logging calories. There have been times when I've been ravenously hungry on that intake and times when it's been WAY too much food. I just don't think it's quite so simple as "the more calories you'll need, the more you'll want. The less calories you need, the less you'll want."0 -
I have to say that I disagree with the overall tone of the article. I'm definitely in the 16-19% range, if not lower, and I don't make any of the sacrifices they mention. The only bits of fat left to shed is a slight amount covering my abs, they are visible, but not as much as OP's and a little left over my glute/ham tie in - I literally have everything else, back muscles, all muscles in arms, legs etc.
I work out for 1 hour per day (heavy free weights) 5 days per week and I'm generally a reasonably active person. I eat like a horse and don't miss out on anything, neither do my family. I'm also a mum and would never put working out over my child.0 -
There is no cost associated with being fit and healthy and feeling better and even looking better. You do not have to have loss of time or expended energy keeping you away from your responsibilities, work or family or your friends.
There's an opportunity cost associated with everything we do. If you spend an hour doing one thing that means you're taking an hour away from everything else you're not doing. I'm not saying this is good/bad but simply that there is always a cost.
Typically you can squeeze in an extra hour by compounding some of your other activities. I iron my clothes at night while watching some television (Instead of just watching television). I fold my workout clothes after washing them and keep them organized so they're easy to set out for the next morning. I also keep healthy, easy, nearly instant breakfast items on hand. This gives me close to an extra hour in the morning which I use to workout. I might not be saving a full hour but I think it makes a big difference without making a huge dent in what I do in the evening. The cost is minimal for what the payoff is.
That's really what the term "cost" means. Not the overall dollar/time value but the tradeoff or payoff for the time/money spent. You could purchase a house for $200,000.00 and it might very well be a steal and a huge bargain. A used car for this price isn't a cheap even if a house at this price was.
TL;DR - Don't just look at the time. Look at the trade off for the time spent.0 -
There is no cost associated with being fit and healthy and feeling better and even looking better. You do not have to have loss of time or expended energy keeping you away from your responsibilities, work or family or your friends.
There's an opportunity cost associated with everything we do. If you spend an hour doing one thing that means you're taking an hour away from everything else you're not doing. I'm not saying this is good/bad but simply that there is always a cost.
most people's "everything else" is surfing the internet- not really losing out most of the time.
Agreed, but ultimately that's not your decision to make.
If someone values surfing the internet over exercise or whatever else, that's their decision. But then they need to own that decision and not *kitten* about not losing weight.
didn't say it was right or wrong.
:P
I would absolutely agree with that statement!0 -
Yeah, I haven't heard of anything either way. Obviously if the evidence disagrees with me then I'm happy to change my position.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I know appetite varies among individuals with the same stats, but I would think (all other things being equal) it would change in proportion with needs. Otherwise super tall people would all be super skinny for lack of appetite. Or obesity would trend by height. I'm not aware of evidence of either of these things.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I really don't understand this idea that "being smaller = less calories" is somehow an advantage to tall people. I'm pretty sure that I require a bigger portion to get the same amount of satisfaction out of a meal.PikaKnight wrote: »
Isn't there a little talking out of both sides of the mouth going on then? You hear it constantly preached that all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficit. OK, so getting a six pack is easy? Just cut your calories and lose weight until you get to whatever body fat does that. "Oh no no no. There's more to it." The six pack person will say. "Blah blah blah body holds on to vital stores, discipline, etc etc, other stuff that makes it sound very special." Sooooooo which is it? Is it no big deal or is it a special accomplishment that takes a little bit of extra dedication compared to maybe just having a flat stomach vs being lean? Go.PikaKnight wrote: »awesomewastaken wrote: »I think that for the "average Joe/Joanne", this is a great article because it highlights the effort needed to get the results you see on magazine covers. I can also see why lean people might get a little bit huffy reading the points that seem to say that in order to be fit, fitness is all your life will revolve around.
But I believe herein lies the key difference - the article wasn't written for those of you who have already put in the effort (no matter how much effort it actually took), or are just genetically blessed. It was written for people like me, who look at a pictures of Candice Swna-whatsherface or Jennifer Nicole Lee and think "man, I'd like to look like that", without an inkling of an idea how much effort having a body like that actually takes. And for me, the article was very informative and helpful. I would love to look like a fitness model but realistically I know I will probably never be able to put in the work required (the gym scares the hell out of me, so that's my downfall already). Which in turn makes it easier for me to set realistic expectations for my weight loss. I might never look like somebody from Sports Illustrated, but I can damn well fit into my old jeans and maybe even run around the block without getting winded. And for that reason, I personally believe that sharing information like this is important, because in a way it helps to keep people motivated. There's nothing worse than setting yourself an unattainable goal - just cutting out sweets is not going to give you the body of a top model. But if a person is able to evaluate the effort they are willing to put in vs. the gains they can expect then it should be far easier to see small improvements and to work towards the goal.
Except the article isn't accurate in regards to the levels of "sacrifice" they put out there. If anything, they are feeding the misconceptions of what it might take to really get down to and maintain 18-25% body fat.
But this isn't about 6 packs specifically, especially since having visible abs can very depending on the person. This is about body fat %, which doesn't have to be as hard or extreme as that article makes it to be (speaking about getting within that 18-25% range, that is).
Even the items mentioned at the below 16% (for women) is very misleading. I mean really. "Will have difficulty socializing in most typical situations where food is involved" :huh:
Here's another thought to throw out there--your height can affect how difficult all this is. Now, I know that height doesn't change BMR and calorie requirements, but it does affect ideal weight goals. For instance, at my height (5'2") with a small frame ideal weight is often said to be around 110-115 lbs. On a gal who is 5'8", Im guessing 110 would be underweight. I have no idea what ideal weight would be, but it would be higher. And thus her "calorie allowance" would be higher.
At 112 lbs(my lowest post-MFP weight) my "calorie allowance" was smaller and thus my level of sacrifice was greater. Now, at 132 lbs, maintaining that weight is much easier. My "calorie allowance" is greater and thus I don't feel as much sacrifice!
So the question for me, and for each of us, is, do I want to cut calories to maintain 112 lbs, (insert whatever weight needed here) which definitely puts me at a lower bodyfat, assuming I lose the weight correctly and not by crash dieting, or do I want to live with a more easily maintainable higher weight? And yes, I know there are variations in metabolism with bodyfat percentage, and you can have more weight with greater LBM and less bodyfat. . . . . But that is beyond the scope of my comment here. And from what I understand, gaining lean body mass is even more difficult than losing weight or fat.
You're assuming that a person's hunger/satisfaction is going to be in direct proportion to their calorie needs, which isn't necessarily the case imo.
If appetite doesn't change in proportion with needs, what evidence is there that it necessarily does so to the disadvantage of short people?
While appetite may change based on size (leaving all other things equal - which of course is not realistic), but I do not think it changes in the same proportion, or at least I am not aware of evidence that suggests it does.
But if it were true to the extent that it was fair to use it as a sweeping generalization (as it often gets used such as above) then I think it would be reasonable to expect that in a population of people eating ad libitum (which is pretty much everyone who isn't counting calories, so essentially the population as a whole) this would be reflected in obesity rates being skewed by height.
I looked (quickly, I admit) and was unable to find any data for obesity as relates to height.
0 -
There is no cost associated with being fit and healthy and feeling better and even looking better. You do not have to have loss of time or expended energy keeping you away from your responsibilities, work or family or your friends.
There's an opportunity cost associated with everything we do. If you spend an hour doing one thing that means you're taking an hour away from everything else you're not doing. I'm not saying this is good/bad but simply that there is always a cost.
Interesting you would say that. Just today I mentioned that I would be heading to gym in the evening for Strength Training upper body. But then looked up the weather.com and we are getting rains for next 4 days. I'll be working in my yard instead this evening.
ST will be done tomorrow evening in the gym b'coz tomorrow we have thunderstorms.
Back to work. Off the internet. ;-)0 -
I agree, and I've had the same experience. But I was talking about differences in height, specifically.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I know appetite varies among individuals with the same stats, but I would think (all other things being equal) it would change in proportion with needs. Otherwise super tall people would all be super skinny for lack of appetite. Or obesity would trend by height. I'm not aware of evidence of either of these things.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
I really don't understand this idea that "being smaller = less calories" is somehow an advantage to tall people. I'm pretty sure that I require a bigger portion to get the same amount of satisfaction out of a meal.PikaKnight wrote: »
Isn't there a little talking out of both sides of the mouth going on then? You hear it constantly preached that all you need to lose weight is a calorie deficit. OK, so getting a six pack is easy? Just cut your calories and lose weight until you get to whatever body fat does that. "Oh no no no. There's more to it." The six pack person will say. "Blah blah blah body holds on to vital stores, discipline, etc etc, other stuff that makes it sound very special." Sooooooo which is it? Is it no big deal or is it a special accomplishment that takes a little bit of extra dedication compared to maybe just having a flat stomach vs being lean? Go.PikaKnight wrote: »awesomewastaken wrote: »I think that for the "average Joe/Joanne", this is a great article because it highlights the effort needed to get the results you see on magazine covers. I can also see why lean people might get a little bit huffy reading the points that seem to say that in order to be fit, fitness is all your life will revolve around.
But I believe herein lies the key difference - the article wasn't written for those of you who have already put in the effort (no matter how much effort it actually took), or are just genetically blessed. It was written for people like me, who look at a pictures of Candice Swna-whatsherface or Jennifer Nicole Lee and think "man, I'd like to look like that", without an inkling of an idea how much effort having a body like that actually takes. And for me, the article was very informative and helpful. I would love to look like a fitness model but realistically I know I will probably never be able to put in the work required (the gym scares the hell out of me, so that's my downfall already). Which in turn makes it easier for me to set realistic expectations for my weight loss. I might never look like somebody from Sports Illustrated, but I can damn well fit into my old jeans and maybe even run around the block without getting winded. And for that reason, I personally believe that sharing information like this is important, because in a way it helps to keep people motivated. There's nothing worse than setting yourself an unattainable goal - just cutting out sweets is not going to give you the body of a top model. But if a person is able to evaluate the effort they are willing to put in vs. the gains they can expect then it should be far easier to see small improvements and to work towards the goal.
Except the article isn't accurate in regards to the levels of "sacrifice" they put out there. If anything, they are feeding the misconceptions of what it might take to really get down to and maintain 18-25% body fat.
But this isn't about 6 packs specifically, especially since having visible abs can very depending on the person. This is about body fat %, which doesn't have to be as hard or extreme as that article makes it to be (speaking about getting within that 18-25% range, that is).
Even the items mentioned at the below 16% (for women) is very misleading. I mean really. "Will have difficulty socializing in most typical situations where food is involved" :huh:
Here's another thought to throw out there--your height can affect how difficult all this is. Now, I know that height doesn't change BMR and calorie requirements, but it does affect ideal weight goals. For instance, at my height (5'2") with a small frame ideal weight is often said to be around 110-115 lbs. On a gal who is 5'8", Im guessing 110 would be underweight. I have no idea what ideal weight would be, but it would be higher. And thus her "calorie allowance" would be higher.
At 112 lbs(my lowest post-MFP weight) my "calorie allowance" was smaller and thus my level of sacrifice was greater. Now, at 132 lbs, maintaining that weight is much easier. My "calorie allowance" is greater and thus I don't feel as much sacrifice!
So the question for me, and for each of us, is, do I want to cut calories to maintain 112 lbs, (insert whatever weight needed here) which definitely puts me at a lower bodyfat, assuming I lose the weight correctly and not by crash dieting, or do I want to live with a more easily maintainable higher weight? And yes, I know there are variations in metabolism with bodyfat percentage, and you can have more weight with greater LBM and less bodyfat. . . . . But that is beyond the scope of my comment here. And from what I understand, gaining lean body mass is even more difficult than losing weight or fat.
You're assuming that a person's hunger/satisfaction is going to be in direct proportion to their calorie needs, which isn't necessarily the case imo.
If appetite doesn't change in proportion with needs, what evidence is there that it necessarily does so to the disadvantage of short people?
It's not my position that short people are always at a disadvantage.
All I know is that my own calorie needs have been fairly consistent for much of my time logging calories. There have been times when I've been ravenously hungry on that intake and times when it's been WAY too much food. I just don't think it's quite so simple as "the more calories you'll need, the more you'll want. The less calories you need, the less you'll want."
ETA I know it's not your position that short people are always at a disadvantage, but it is implicit in the "I'm short so I can't eat as many calories" statement that I was responding to.0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions