The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off?
Replies
-
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.
I confess that I have a lot of growth opportunity in this area... I squirrel a lot, and tend to focus on what I do when I'm doing it... so trying to fold laundry while watching tv, I forget to fold because I get so engrossed in what I watch. I start a load of laundry and forget to check if the wash is done. I put something on the stove, and I have to stay with it or I'll forget it. So, yes... I have some challenges to work through!
and... Iron? Seriously? The only time I ever use an iron these days is to melt plastic bead crafts for my kids! haha... If it wrinkles, it doesn't get warn... unless I can justify the wrinkles.
0 -
As my buddy daypal would say, "Ironing: not even once!"MireyGal76 wrote: »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.
I confess that I have a lot of growth opportunity in this area... I squirrel a lot, and tend to focus on what I do when I'm doing it... so trying to fold laundry while watching tv, I forget to fold because I get so engrossed in what I watch. I start a load of laundry and forget to check if the wash is done. I put something on the stove, and I have to stay with it or I'll forget it. So, yes... I have some challenges to work through!
and... Iron? Seriously? The only time I ever use an iron these days is to melt plastic bead crafts for my kids! haha... If it wrinkles, it doesn't get warn... unless I can justify the wrinkles.
0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
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.
Fair enough, on both counts. If there's any data on whether either assertion is true (that short people are less satisfied because they have to eat less calories or that tall people need more food to be satisfied), I'm not aware of it. All I know on the topic is that hunger, ime, is complex.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.
I lift 4-5 days a week. I wasn't really talking about myself or even working out. Just the common sense statement that if you do one thing that means time is being taken away from something else. And again, the "fit person ranting vs less fit person ranting" thing comes out. If you're less fit and you hint you're having any sort of issue or problem then you're immediately labelled as making excuses. You're not dedicated. You log your food wrong. You're lying about something. I've had people swear I log my cottage cheese wrong because the MFP database only lists the servings in cups and I have to use math to determine how many servings I'm eating. "It's not in grams. You're logging wrong. That's why you're not losing. It has to be something you're doing. It's not in grams."
*hugs*
I'll be the first to say that sometimes it's real easy to say... SCIENCE! the equation has to balance! Cals in vs Cals Out! But what makes up the "in" and what makes up the "out" can be so.. mysterious.
Cals IN: what you're eating and consuming... that is controllable by you and seems to be controlled if I take what you're saying as truth (and I will)
Cals OUT: mysterious. who knows what your body actually needs in terms of cals, who knows what your body actually burns, who knows what your muscle mass is? who knows if you're actually burning the calories you think you are?
We use a bunch of tools to estimate these things, but if those tools, in conjunction with your diet aren't yielding results, then it's time to see what is the unknown factor in the calories out equation. That's why we say... doctor, blood workup, check hormones, check diet... maybe you just need a tweak to set yourself on the right path... or maybe it'll show you whether you need to adjust your cals in to make it work.
I hear your frustration and I wish I had the answers. I think you're doing everything you can think of to do. That's why I am saying... get someone else involved.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?
Neither... I thought the article and what it sold was terrible..0 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
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.
Fair enough, on both counts. If there's any data on whether either assertion is true (that short people are less satisfied because they have to eat less calories or that tall people need more food to be satisfied), I'm not aware of it. All I know on the topic is that hunger, ime, is complex.
This is one of the complex issues that can be a real struggle for women specifically who are more often than not smaller than their partner. I'm about 6'2" and my girlfriend is about 5'1". I think I weigh at least 75% more than she does. The topic occasionally comes up. "You've had two beers, I just had one." I have to remind her that me drinking one is the equivalent of her being handed half a bottle of beer. It's nearly the same calories per weight ratio.
In the past with my ex this was always a HUGE deal at dinner time. She wanted the same food portions I was eating and that was very evident when it came to sweets or desserts. She's get moody or even angry if I gave her a smaller bowl of ice cream or a smaller slice of cake. I have no doubt that eating a larger piece of cake is more enjoyable than a smaller piece of cake. I know it sucks but if you eat like your husband you'll be the same weight as your husband. It's true.0 -
#thestruggleisrealMireyGal76 wrote: »
and... Iron? Seriously? The only time I ever use an iron these days is to melt plastic bead crafts for my kids! haha... If it wrinkles, it doesn't get warn... unless I can justify the wrinkles.
I spritz with water and hang dry if it's really bad... or pull it out (if I'm really being hooah about it) hang it in the bathroom the night before while I shower and let it relax. But that requires some thought in advance- which I rarely have.
otherwise- nope- wrinkles away. I only iron seams on sewing projects.. never clothes I wear.0 -
#thestruggleisrealMireyGal76 wrote: »
and... Iron? Seriously? The only time I ever use an iron these days is to melt plastic bead crafts for my kids! haha... If it wrinkles, it doesn't get warn... unless I can justify the wrinkles.
I spritz with water and hang dry if it's really bad... or pull it out (if I'm really being hooah about it) hang it in the bathroom the night before while I shower and let it relax. But that requires some thought in advance- which I rarely have.
otherwise- nope- wrinkles away. I only iron seams on sewing projects.. never clothes I wear.
I
you 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.
I lift 4-5 days a week. I wasn't really talking about myself or even working out. Just the common sense statement that if you do one thing that means time is being taken away from something else. And again, the "fit person ranting vs less fit person ranting" thing comes out. If you're less fit and you hint you're having any sort of issue or problem then you're immediately labelled as making excuses. You're not dedicated. You log your food wrong. You're lying about something. I've had people swear I log my cottage cheese wrong because the MFP database only lists the servings in cups and I have to use math to determine how many servings I'm eating. "It's not in grams. You're logging wrong. That's why you're not losing. It has to be something you're doing. It's not in grams."
Go see a doctor and get blood work done. Until you follow through on this (as was first suggested to you in November) you need to stop whining.0 -
MireyGal76 wrote: »
#thestruggleisrealMireyGal76 wrote: »
and... Iron? Seriously? The only time I ever use an iron these days is to melt plastic bead crafts for my kids! haha... If it wrinkles, it doesn't get warn... unless I can justify the wrinkles.
I spritz with water and hang dry if it's really bad... or pull it out (if I'm really being hooah about it) hang it in the bathroom the night before while I shower and let it relax. But that requires some thought in advance- which I rarely have.
otherwise- nope- wrinkles away. I only iron seams on sewing projects.. never clothes I wear.
I you
I you very much too. Seriously- busy people tend to be REALLY busy- sacrifices need to be made- and it's usually our own personal things.
I also wind up double washing my clothes because I forget them a lot. - but I eat well and look good without clothes on so- the sacrifice seems to be worth it.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.
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.
I lift 4-5 days a week. I wasn't really talking about myself or even working out. Just the common sense statement that if you do one thing that means time is being taken away from something else. And again, the "fit person ranting vs less fit person ranting" thing comes out. If you're less fit and you hint you're having any sort of issue or problem then you're immediately labelled as making excuses. You're not dedicated. You log your food wrong. You're lying about something. I've had people swear I log my cottage cheese wrong because the MFP database only lists the servings in cups and I have to use math to determine how many servings I'm eating. "It's not in grams. You're logging wrong. That's why you're not losing. It has to be something you're doing. It's not in grams."
Considering the forum, of course those are going to be the standard answers... but they are standard answers for anyone who hasn't proven they know what they are doing. I don't think it has to do with level of fitness (though someone might get more leeway if they are fit, as some may assume they have a reasonable understanding of the basics). Also, that advice is given within the context of "no extenuating health issues" which , if present, can drastically change the conversation.
If you are doing all the standard stuff, doing it well, and doing it consistently (and only you can say whether or not you are, assuming you're honest with yourself about those things) and not seeing ANY progress, then your only option is a doctor or a specialist. An internet forum can't help you. You've been given this advise several times, so at this point you're either being stubborn or just looking for attention - neither of which will actually help you make progress.0 -
I think the article is correct in there is a cost in getting and staying lean and sacrifices socially. Like the article says, you need to decide if it's worth it for you and up to what level.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.
I lift 4-5 days a week. I wasn't really talking about myself or even working out. Just the common sense statement that if you do one thing that means time is being taken away from something else. And again, the "fit person ranting vs less fit person ranting" thing comes out. If you're less fit and you hint you're having any sort of issue or problem then you're immediately labelled as making excuses. You're not dedicated. You log your food wrong. You're lying about something. I've had people swear I log my cottage cheese wrong because the MFP database only lists the servings in cups and I have to use math to determine how many servings I'm eating. "It's not in grams. You're logging wrong. That's why you're not losing. It has to be something you're doing. It's not in grams."
Go see a doctor and get blood work done. Until you follow through on this (as was first suggested to you in November) you need to stop whining.
I dropped my calories and the scale is moving (some at least). I think it's just the diminishing returns thing and a slowing metabolism from dieting for so long. I don't have a thyroid issue. Besides, even if I did I wouldn't want another "excuse" to use right?
I told you back in November that you needed to fix hormonal issues from losing that much weight. I said you should maintain for a while, which you sort of did for about a month (without actually increasing calories that much). I wasn't talking just thyroid for the blood work.
Do you know for a fact that your testosterone levels are adequate or do you assume they are because you haven't had major issues? Do you know if you are potentially borderline diabetic? Do you know if you have cholesterol issues?
You had admitted it had been a while since you saw a doctor. If you want to keep wasting time and feeling sorry for yourself then keep doing what you are doing. If you want to get to the bottom of your problems take time off from dieting and try to get your calories as high as you can in maintenance and see your doctor for blood work.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.
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.
I lift 4-5 days a week. I wasn't really talking about myself or even working out. Just the common sense statement that if you do one thing that means time is being taken away from something else. And again, the "fit person ranting vs less fit person ranting" thing comes out. If you're less fit and you hint you're having any sort of issue or problem then you're immediately labelled as making excuses. You're not dedicated. You log your food wrong. You're lying about something. I've had people swear I log my cottage cheese wrong because the MFP database only lists the servings in cups and I have to use math to determine how many servings I'm eating. "It's not in grams. You're logging wrong. That's why you're not losing. It has to be something you're doing. It's not in grams."
Go see a doctor and get blood work done. Until you follow through on this (as was first suggested to you in November) you need to stop whining.
I dropped my calories and the scale is moving (some at least). I think it's just the diminishing returns thing and a slowing metabolism from dieting for so long. I don't have a thyroid issue. Besides, even if I did I wouldn't want another "excuse" to use right?
I told you back in November that you needed to fix hormonal issues from losing that much weight. I said you should maintain for a while, which you sort of did for about a month (without actually increasing calories that much). I wasn't talking just thyroid for the blood work.
Do you know for a fact that your testosterone levels are adequate or do you assume they are because you haven't had major issues? Do you know if you are potentially borderline diabetic? Do you know if you have cholesterol issues?
You had admitted it had been a while since you saw a doctor. If you want to keep wasting time and feeling sorry for yourself then keep doing what you are doing. If you want to get to the bottom of your problems take time off from dieting and try to get your calories as high as you can in maintenance and see your doctor for blood work.
So stay overweight longer basically. Useless advice. Some chick wants to drop a size to get into a smaller bikini she'll get tons of cheers. I want to go from being obese to overweight (yup, at my goal I'll literally still be classified as overweight) and I get told to take a year off. No thanks.
But understand that hormone issues might be the variable that separates you from the general population. All those posts you make about how you do the same exact thing as someone else but see no progress... this could be why - your scenario might be different. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Getting back on topic...Assuming the article is meant for a larger, general audience, I thought it was pretty good. I didn't like some of the absolutes, but the general point of it was good.
The whole trade-off thing is hard, because it will vary depending on the preferences/tendencies of the person. For example, some people's social life centers on consumption, which will be REALLY hard to balance with higher-level goals. Genetics will also come into play for many. For example, I've been in the low double-digits body fat, caliper tested as low as 10%, but was FAR from having visible abs because I carry all my fat in my stomach. So for me, to go from looking decent to looking good (at least what I consider decent and good) would require a level of dedication and consistency that I'm not sure I can/want to do based on other priorities in life. That tradeoff likely wouldn't be worth it for 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.
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.
I lift 4-5 days a week. I wasn't really talking about myself or even working out. Just the common sense statement that if you do one thing that means time is being taken away from something else. And again, the "fit person ranting vs less fit person ranting" thing comes out. If you're less fit and you hint you're having any sort of issue or problem then you're immediately labelled as making excuses. You're not dedicated. You log your food wrong. You're lying about something. I've had people swear I log my cottage cheese wrong because the MFP database only lists the servings in cups and I have to use math to determine how many servings I'm eating. "It's not in grams. You're logging wrong. That's why you're not losing. It has to be something you're doing. It's not in grams."
Go see a doctor and get blood work done. Until you follow through on this (as was first suggested to you in November) you need to stop whining.
I dropped my calories and the scale is moving (some at least). I think it's just the diminishing returns thing and a slowing metabolism from dieting for so long. I don't have a thyroid issue. Besides, even if I did I wouldn't want another "excuse" to use right?
I told you back in November that you needed to fix hormonal issues from losing that much weight. I said you should maintain for a while, which you sort of did for about a month (without actually increasing calories that much). I wasn't talking just thyroid for the blood work.
Do you know for a fact that your testosterone levels are adequate or do you assume they are because you haven't had major issues? Do you know if you are potentially borderline diabetic? Do you know if you have cholesterol issues?
You had admitted it had been a while since you saw a doctor. If you want to keep wasting time and feeling sorry for yourself then keep doing what you are doing. If you want to get to the bottom of your problems take time off from dieting and try to get your calories as high as you can in maintenance and see your doctor for blood work.
So stay overweight longer basically. Useless advice. Some chick wants to drop a size to get into a smaller bikini she'll get tons of cheers. I want to go from being obese to overweight (yup, at my goal I'll literally still be classified as overweight) and I get told to take a year off. No thanks.
Okay, then enjoy the struggle. Don't fix your hormones and start starving yourself for results like you keep saying you will do. I'm sure you'll reach your goal and complain that you maintain on 1500 calories or you gained it all back. I don't really care what you do, I'm just tired of seeing you complain. Just think, if you had been building up your maintenance calories starting in November when you were first told to you would be almost half way through a year of maintenance by now. Just keep ignoring me and others in favor of not making progress.
Also, stop comparing your situation to others. You aren't them. You aren't just trying to drop a size and your history of how much you lost in the time frame you did is a very important factor.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.
I lift 4-5 days a week. I wasn't really talking about myself or even working out. Just the common sense statement that if you do one thing that means time is being taken away from something else. And again, the "fit person ranting vs less fit person ranting" thing comes out. If you're less fit and you hint you're having any sort of issue or problem then you're immediately labelled as making excuses. You're not dedicated. You log your food wrong. You're lying about something. I've had people swear I log my cottage cheese wrong because the MFP database only lists the servings in cups and I have to use math to determine how many servings I'm eating. "It's not in grams. You're logging wrong. That's why you're not losing. It has to be something you're doing. It's not in grams."
Go see a doctor and get blood work done. Until you follow through on this (as was first suggested to you in November) you need to stop whining.
I dropped my calories and the scale is moving (some at least). I think it's just the diminishing returns thing and a slowing metabolism from dieting for so long. I don't have a thyroid issue. Besides, even if I did I wouldn't want another "excuse" to use right?
I told you back in November that you needed to fix hormonal issues from losing that much weight. I said you should maintain for a while, which you sort of did for about a month (without actually increasing calories that much). I wasn't talking just thyroid for the blood work.
Do you know for a fact that your testosterone levels are adequate or do you assume they are because you haven't had major issues? Do you know if you are potentially borderline diabetic? Do you know if you have cholesterol issues?
You had admitted it had been a while since you saw a doctor. If you want to keep wasting time and feeling sorry for yourself then keep doing what you are doing. If you want to get to the bottom of your problems take time off from dieting and try to get your calories as high as you can in maintenance and see your doctor for blood work.
So stay overweight longer basically. Useless advice. Some chick wants to drop a size to get into a smaller bikini she'll get tons of cheers. I want to go from being obese to overweight (yup, at my goal I'll literally still be classified as overweight) and I get told to take a year off. No thanks.
But understand that hormone issues might be the variable that separates you from the general population. All those posts you make about how you do the same exact thing as someone else but see no progress... this could be why - your scenario might be different. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
So stay fat then? Then I'll just be labelled as the lazy fat guy. CICO right? Everyone can get lean. No exceptions. Stop making excuses, etc. I'll consider it once I at least get below the obese/overweight line which is around 215 but I don't really see how it's productive to do before that.
Complain about no progress and struggle to make no additional progress for over a year.
VS
Take time off from dieting to fix hormones and eventually get back to dieting to finally reach your goal.
We all know you pick the first.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?
Maybe this is conditioning, upbringing, social cues, not listening to my body, etc, but if I don't stop myself, I can eat as much as my 170 lb 6 ft tall super active 16 year old son. I am 5'2" tall and weigh 132 lbs. If my appetite matched my needs, I wouldn't have a problem! My body needs around 1700 cals a day to maintain. Unfortunately, my appetitie wants more like 2700!
Now, I'm not sure I could out eat my 14 year old beanpole. We, as a family, look at him and say--where does he put it??? So there you go--genetic?
When the 14 year old was in preschool, I worked in his room helping serve lunch to offset school costs. My son was a skinny kid then too. He sat by a little boy who looked like a butterball. At lunch, my sons lunchbox would be packed with food. He would eat pretty much all of it every day. The "round" little boy had half a sandwich and an apple slice or two. He would eat about four bites. So why was my son, even at age 3, eating like a horse and skinny while his friend ate almost nothing and was already considerably fat? I've got to say there were some genetic things going on here. When I met the parents, they were shaped exactly like the round son. Now, I can't say about my son because he is adopted. But it sure makes you think!0 -
And yes, my cholesterol is high even though I feel like I eat like a bird. My glucose is normal. I don't know about my testosterone.
I guess I'm curious as to why you don't want to go to the doctor? Is it cost? fear?
I haven't been around on the forums much lately, so I don't know your story, but it sounds like you've done a lot of work and just need some adjustments.0 -
Hi, Thanks for the link I enjoyed reading it and everyone else's comments.
I sort of agree that it does make getting down to certain body fat percentages sound really hard work to the point that it puts people off. To stay between 6-10% body fat at a decent muscle mass must be hard work and require dedication/commitment that I'm not prepared to do. Full admiration to people that can. But to sit between 10-15% is pretty achievable (in my opinion) without even considering yourself a fitness freak/gym rat etc. I can sit at 200Lbs (6ft) 15% body fat and I hardly make any sacrifices diet/socially wise (Eat protein/complex carbs and beer most nights). I lift four times a week, but far from obsessed. (I talk from personal experience only).0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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?
Maybe this is conditioning, upbringing, social cues, not listening to my body, etc, but if I don't stop myself, I can eat as much as my 170 lb 6 ft tall super active 16 year old son. I am 5'2" tall and weigh 132 lbs. If my appetite matched my needs, I wouldn't have a problem! My body needs around 1700 cals a day to maintain. Unfortunately, my appetitie wants more like 2700!
I *can* eat as much as a 6' active guy...however, I would say that my appetite is actually lower than average. My height is a touch (1/2 - 1 inch I think) above average. Appetite (and the ease of ignoring it) has very little to do with the amount I eat. I am just not convinced that height has a significant bearing on appetite.0 -
MireyGal76 wrote: »And yes, my cholesterol is high even though I feel like I eat like a bird. My glucose is normal. I don't know about my testosterone.
I guess I'm curious as to why you don't want to go to the doctor? Is it cost? fear?
I haven't been around on the forums much lately, so I don't know your story, but it sounds like you've done a lot of work and just need some adjustments.
Cost. I have a high deductible plan and lab work equals an $400+ bill in the mail. Also I don't want a medicalized solution that I have to rely on. The whole point of losing weight is to get off the medications/devices you're on when you're fat. I used to use a sleep apnea machine. Now I don't have to for instance. I never took medication when I was heavy so it seems silly to think I should rely on it now. My blood pressure was never bad but I was pre-diabetic when I was heavier. I was basically a step away from medicine. My glucose numbers are normal now. Lipids are normal. My cholesterol was very high and has climbed since my heaviest even. It seems backwards considering my diet has improved so much. This was from my work's biometric screening.
I can understand this. Cost can be a huge factor, especially if they say that you need to then go on pricey prescriptions - even for a short term.
Assuming you do have high cholesterol... Have you done any research (on the interwebs) to see if there's a better diet to manage to try and manage it? Maybe if you can get it under control, that will help you?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yes and no? It's worth the work to get to a healthy BMI, which for me is 21 and about 25% body fat. It would not be worth it to get down to a really low body fat range. Healthy/attractive is plenty good enough for me. I'm not one to look for perfection.0
-
MireyGal76 wrote: »MireyGal76 wrote: »And yes, my cholesterol is high even though I feel like I eat like a bird. My glucose is normal. I don't know about my testosterone.
I guess I'm curious as to why you don't want to go to the doctor? Is it cost? fear?
I haven't been around on the forums much lately, so I don't know your story, but it sounds like you've done a lot of work and just need some adjustments.
Cost. I have a high deductible plan and lab work equals an $400+ bill in the mail. Also I don't want a medicalized solution that I have to rely on. The whole point of losing weight is to get off the medications/devices you're on when you're fat. I used to use a sleep apnea machine. Now I don't have to for instance. I never took medication when I was heavy so it seems silly to think I should rely on it now. My blood pressure was never bad but I was pre-diabetic when I was heavier. I was basically a step away from medicine. My glucose numbers are normal now. Lipids are normal. My cholesterol was very high and has climbed since my heaviest even. It seems backwards considering my diet has improved so much. This was from my work's biometric screening.
I can understand this. Cost can be a huge factor, especially if they say that you need to then go on pricey prescriptions - even for a short term.
Assuming you do have high cholesterol... Have you done any research (on the interwebs) to see if there's a better diet to manage to try and manage it? Maybe if you can get it under control, that will help you?
I've made an attempt to increase my fiber with a high fiber oatmeal. Supposedly soluble fiber can help reduce cholesterol. If it doesn't work at least I supposed it's no harm no foul. All I know is I never see the advice "wait, take a break, stay heavy for longer." I'm sure everyone has seen that famous "why aren't you losing" page where all the guy does is list of "you're eating too much" 10 times in a row. He doesn't say to break a break. Drop calories is the theme.
Would you tell a woman with a BMR of 1400, who is eating 1200 calories to drop her calories? No? Then stop thinking that is your answer as well.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions