The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off?
Replies
-
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.
Ummm...so people who are lower than 25% aren't healthy or attractive???0 -
I might be wrong, but cant some cases of high cholesterol and blood pressure be hereditary (Familial hypercholesterolaemia etc). It's genetic and social influences such as poor diet etc will not have an impact. Some people might genitally be destined to take statins?0
-
This content has been removed.
-
PikaKnight wrote: »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.
Ummm...so people who are lower than 25% aren't healthy or attractive???
clearly not.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!
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.
Maybe the issue is that if we let ourselves become too large, we always want to eat that much again!
But, seriously, from a logical standpoint, if everyone's appetite matched their NEEDS, everyone would be at their ideal weight and none of us would be having this discussion.
For whatever reason, appetitie goes wrong for some people.
And smaller bodies require fewer calories, thus it can be harder to maintain a smaller weight. The only reason height figures in is that unless you are pretty well muscled, a shorter person will have a smaller ideal weight. I don't think height in and of itself has much to do with it.
Last week hubs and I had a day off. I fixed breakfast (moderate calories and fairly healthy) and we went out for lunch. We had dessert and an appetizer. It was a large meal for me, but not a total calorie bomb. I only had a snack (granola bar) for dinner. Bedtime came, and hubs wanted a nightcap. I had no calories left for even a glass of wine. Did I feel deprived/like I had sacrificed? Yes. Hubs also watches his weight. But he could afford the drink. Because he is mantaining 35 more pounds than I am. That is just the reality of it.
So, in relation to original question, size can determine PERCEIVED sacrifices made. And really this is all about perceptions of sacrifice.
I also REALLY. Need to get off the computer and go for a run!
0 -
determined_14 wrote: »I don't think the article says enough about the health risks of very low body fat. Especially (I think) for women. (I'm not a man, so I'm less versed on that topic.
) Otherwise, it seemed largely accurate. I think the two myths it addresses at the beginning are the most noteworthy part: on Black Friday last year I turned on a "Fitness Blender HIIT and abs workout" to do with my sisters (neither of whom workout regularly). We were about ten minutes in and my older sister was definitely feeling it. "Okay, Thanksgiving is gone!" she said, meaning she surely MUST have burned through her thanksgiving meal by now. I didn't say anything, but the Fitness Blender calorie burn estimate for that workout is about 300-500 calories (for the whole 45 minutes, depending on your weight, effort, etc., obviously). I think this is an example of myth one, that with a few small changes, we can get big results. It was also a reminder to me about how perceived effort =/= actual burn, and how much easier it is to eat a lot of food than it is to burn it off, especially if you don't educate yourself about calorie counts and approximate burns.
What's a fitness blender?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.
No, GO SEE A DOCTOR. Which part of GO SEE A DOCTOR do you not understand? If you have hormonal issues, guess what, THEY CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. It doesn't mean they come back and say "your thyroid is broken just stay fat" or "your t is low, oh well sucks for you, seeya." Seriously dude, quit whining and go DO SOMETHING.0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »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.
Ummm...so people who are lower than 25% aren't healthy or attractive???
clearly not.
I don't know, but I read her post to be saying that she would feel healthy and attractive at that range, that anything more isn't necessary... the extra effort to get lower wouldn't make her feel that much MORE so.
I gave it a pass. I think that 25% body fat is attractive, and can be healthy, so if she's happy there, *high five*0 -
LiftAllThePizzas 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.
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.
No, GO SEE A DOCTOR. Which part of GO SEE A DOCTOR do you not understand? If you have hormonal issues, guess what, THEY CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. It doesn't mean they come back and say "your thyroid is broken just stay fat" or "your t is low, oh well sucks for you, seeya." Seriously dude, quit whining and go DO SOMETHING.
The part about it costing $400 for just the tests, let alone the treatments. That's why he's not going to the doctor. He's trying to solve it himself... and if I didn't live in Canada... I think I'd be doing the same thing. I don't have $400 to spend on myself. $400 for my kids... I'd find a way, but $400 on myself - I have a really hard time with that.
So yeah, I get it.0 -
MireyGal76 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »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.
Ummm...so people who are lower than 25% aren't healthy or attractive???
clearly not.
I don't know, but I read her post to be saying that she would feel healthy and attractive at that range, that anything more isn't necessary... the extra effort to get lower wouldn't make her feel that much MORE so.
I gave it a pass. I think that 25% body fat is attractive, and can be healthy, so if she's happy there, *high five*
I read it that way too.
My Fat2Fit app says that healthy bodyfat percentage for females age 41-50 is 23-35%. I don't kow. I do know I would like the way I look better under 23%. But as long as I am in the healthy range the rest is vanity fitness! Not that there is anything wrong with that. I want to be healthy and feel good first, but looking good is right behind that! And I am totally willing to admit it.
0 -
This has been discussed on many occasions, but unless you are measuring/logging every meal you really do not know how much someone is eating. And that includes your own kids. Perception in this matter is very very inaccurate. So while it may seem like he has a hollow leg, it's extremely unlikely to be the case. Especially if he moves a lot, this can add 1000-2000 calories a day in itself. (And as far as the kid at school, he could be eating buckets of cookies for breakfast, dinner, and second dinner, and pre-bedtime snack, and they're sending him with "health food" to keep up appearances... and the fact that he didn't like the food he was sent with doesn't make it less fishy...)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!
As far as how much you can eat, that's not the same as how much you need to be satisfied. A lot of that depends on the types of food you eat and how much they sate your appetite. It's definitely easy to overeat based on cues, and I remember one experiment where they gave someone a bowl of soup with X amount and they were satisfied with it. Then they had a bowl with a tube hidden in the bottom, imperceptibly feeding more soup into the bowl as the people ate, and they ended up eating way more and not even noticing.
Also, when putting a huge portion on your plate, many of us tend to be completionists and just want to clean off our plates regardless of hunger. This one is definitely me and I've found it makes a huge difference to measure out portions and put the container away before I even start eating.
It's possible that your appetite won't match your needs regardless of what types of foods you eat, I'm sure it happens to plenty of people. But I really don't think it's related to being taller or shorter.0 -
MireyGal76 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »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.
Ummm...so people who are lower than 25% aren't healthy or attractive???
clearly not.
I don't know, but I read her post to be saying that she would feel healthy and attractive at that range, that anything more isn't necessary... the extra effort to get lower wouldn't make her feel that much MORE so.
I gave it a pass. I think that 25% body fat is attractive, and can be healthy, so if she's happy there, *high five*
I read it that way too.
My Fat2Fit app says that healthy bodyfat percentage for females age 41-50 is 23-35%. I don't kow. I do know I would like the way I look better under 23%. But as long as I am in the healthy range the rest is vanity fitness! Not that there is anything wrong with that. I want to be healthy and feel good first, but looking good is right behind that! And I am totally willing to admit it.
I know it's sometimes perceived as a negative thing here sometimes but there is nothing wrong with wanting to be a certain bf% for 'vanity' or preference (as long as it's not an unhealthy bf to the individual) I also prefer the way I look at sub 23% (actually at nearer 19% - well, except the bewbs as they get smaller too lol) but I am healthy at anywhere from my leanest (about 18%) to my current fluffier weight of probably about 24 - 25%
(and probably higher). The trade off for me to get much below 22% is just not worth it to me currently - my performance in my chosen sport gets impacted and there are other 'costs' that I am just not willing to pay for the aesthetics. Aesthetics are so individual also as I know that many people do not like the more extreme lean or muscular look - and they are absolutely entitled to those preferences. I may chose to get to my prior leanness or even lower at some point - but not when it is incongruent to my other goals and preferences - which are more of a priority for me.0 -
MireyGal76 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »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.
Ummm...so people who are lower than 25% aren't healthy or attractive???
clearly not.
I don't know, but I read her post to be saying that she would feel healthy and attractive at that range, that anything more isn't necessary... the extra effort to get lower wouldn't make her feel that much MORE so.
I gave it a pass. I think that 25% body fat is attractive, and can be healthy, so if she's happy there, *high five*
I read it that way too.
My Fat2Fit app says that healthy bodyfat percentage for females age 41-50 is 23-35%. I don't kow. I do know I would like the way I look better under 23%. But as long as I am in the healthy range the rest is vanity fitness! Not that there is anything wrong with that. I want to be healthy and feel good first, but looking good is right behind that! And I am totally willing to admit it.
I know it's sometimes perceived as a negative thing here sometimes but there is nothing wrong with wanting to be a certain bf% for 'vanity' or preference (as long as it's not an unhealthy bf to the individual) I also prefer the way I look at sub 23% (actually at nearer 19% - well, except the bewbs as they get smaller too lol) but I am healthy at anywhere from my leanest (about 18%) to my current fluffier weight of probably about 44 - 45%
(and probably higher). The trade off for me to get much below 22% is just not worth it to me currently - my performance in my chosen sport gets impacted and there are other 'costs' that I am just not willing to pay for the aesthetics. Aesthetics are so individual also as I know that many people do not like the more extreme lean or muscular look - and they are absolutely entitled to those preferences. I may chose to get to my prior leanness or even lower at some point - but not when it is incongruent to my other goals and preferences - which are more of a priority for me.
FIFY
0 -
@SideSteel... I just gigglesnorted at that!! Thankfully I don't have a sinus cold!0
-
To everyone... I just wanted to thank you all for the dialogue. There have been some really interesting discussions and I've found it really helpful.
You guys and gals rock!0 -
MireyGal76 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »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.
Ummm...so people who are lower than 25% aren't healthy or attractive???
clearly not.
I don't know, but I read her post to be saying that she would feel healthy and attractive at that range, that anything more isn't necessary... the extra effort to get lower wouldn't make her feel that much MORE so.
I gave it a pass. I think that 25% body fat is attractive, and can be healthy, so if she's happy there, *high five*
I read it that way too.
My Fat2Fit app says that healthy bodyfat percentage for females age 41-50 is 23-35%. I don't kow. I do know I would like the way I look better under 23%. But as long as I am in the healthy range the rest is vanity fitness! Not that there is anything wrong with that. I want to be healthy and feel good first, but looking good is right behind that! And I am totally willing to admit it.
I know it's sometimes perceived as a negative thing here sometimes but there is nothing wrong with wanting to be a certain bf% for 'vanity' or preference (as long as it's not an unhealthy bf to the individual) I also prefer the way I look at sub 23% (actually at nearer 19% - well, except the bewbs as they get smaller too lol) but I am healthy at anywhere from my leanest (about 18%) to my current fluffier weight of probably about 44 - 45%
(and probably higher). The trade off for me to get much below 22% is just not worth it to me currently - my performance in my chosen sport gets impacted and there are other 'costs' that I am just not willing to pay for the aesthetics. Aesthetics are so individual also as I know that many people do not like the more extreme lean or muscular look - and they are absolutely entitled to those preferences. I may chose to get to my prior leanness or even lower at some point - but not when it is incongruent to my other goals and preferences - which are more of a priority for me.
FIFY
You are a <insert the word you know I am thinking> 
0 -
Yeah I saw that part after I'd posted.MireyGal76 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas 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.
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.
No, GO SEE A DOCTOR. Which part of GO SEE A DOCTOR do you not understand? If you have hormonal issues, guess what, THEY CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. It doesn't mean they come back and say "your thyroid is broken just stay fat" or "your t is low, oh well sucks for you, seeya." Seriously dude, quit whining and go DO SOMETHING.
The part about it costing $400 for just the tests, let alone the treatments. That's why he's not going to the doctor. He's trying to solve it himself... and if I didn't live in Canada... I think I'd be doing the same thing. I don't have $400 to spend on myself. $400 for my kids... I'd find a way, but $400 on myself - I have a really hard time with that.
So yeah, I get it.
I still don't understand the need to whine about it at every opportunity. (Nor the idea of choosing a plan that has a deductible you can't afford.)0 -
Lots of generalities and they don't address genetics or age among other things...but all in all I think it's pretty good and fairly accurate in that it's basically saying that the leaner you get, the harder it is.
I've generally found this to be pretty true for myself. I feel great and do great right around 15%...basically I can eat pretty well and do some exercise and still drink beer regularly and enjoy pizza night with my boys, etc and maintain 15ish% pretty easily. 12% is not horrible, but it does take more effort...I do have to pay more attention to my diet and there are less "oh wells" when I miss a workout. Below 12% is pretty tough for me...I do feel like I have to give up a lot, and frankly I generally just feel kind of *kitten* that low.
Of course, this was a completely different story when I was in my 20s...I easily maintained 10% or lower in my 20s with no problem...at 40, things seem to be different.0 -
MireyGal76 wrote: »To everyone... I just wanted to thank you all for the dialogue. There have been some really interesting discussions and I've found it really helpful.
You guys and gals rock!
Thank you for starting a good conversation... we need more of these.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...
wut?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..
wut?0 -
MireyGal76 wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »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.
Ummm...so people who are lower than 25% aren't healthy or attractive???
clearly not.
I don't know, but I read her post to be saying that she would feel healthy and attractive at that range, that anything more isn't necessary... the extra effort to get lower wouldn't make her feel that much MORE so.
I gave it a pass. I think that 25% body fat is attractive, and can be healthy, so if she's happy there, *high five*
i read it the same as you did and didn't see any judgement at all.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..
wut?
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.
The truth is - he knows what's his priorities in life are. Too bad they are not in right order for most people.
A short history - In one of the threads there was a talk about body fat % and @ana3067 was done dealing with his complaints and said he was probably at 42 or whatever % body fat.
Just to prove that he is not @ that high body fat % he took the very next Monday's appointment for Dexa. I think we were talking about it on a Friday.
He then updated the results on his profile.
He has priorities just that they are not in right order for most people.
0 -
uh... no. to both.MireyGal76 wrote: »I gave it a pass. I think that 25% body fat is attractive, and can be healthy, so if she's happy there, *high five*
uh no to both? what someone being 25% body fact and being healthy and happy?
You think 25% body fat is unhealthy? What are you smoking. Please share.0 -
Well, currently the law is such that he'll have to carry some kind of insurance or else pay a penalty. Even if you consider his medical tests could be $400, the difference between his current plan and a better one (if his work even has options) might be $100 month, so even if it made the tests free, he'd be behind $800. I think the Canadian had it right - down here in the states, healthcare is just to hard to justify to yourself for a lot of people.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »Yeah I saw that part after I'd posted.
I still don't understand the need to whine about it at every opportunity. (Nor the idea of choosing a plan that has a deductible you can't afford.)
BFDeal, I'm not sure what your financial situation is, but I'd agree a bit with people's off the cuff reaction of go get blood work. If you stop and consider rationally - you're already spending time measuring out your food from the sounds of it, why is that worth it in time spent to fix your health, but getting blood work isn't justifiable in money spent? Just because they find something, doesn't necessitate taking a prescription to treat it, the option to pay for and take a treatment would still be yours.
At the same time, I think people's assumption that it is a hormonal issue is overblown. Even people with thyroid conditions can lose weight, it just gets harder. This idea that dieting causes metabolic damage is pretty unsubstantiated, and tends to defy evolutionary framework - life has been dealing with excess to starvation to excess again cycles for millions of years.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
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.
The truth is - he knows what's his priorities in life are. Too bad they are not in right order for most people.
A short history - In one of the threads there was a talk about body fat % and @ana3067 was done dealing with his complaints and said he was probably at 42 or whatever % body fat.
Just to prove that he is not @ that high body fat % he took the very next Monday's appointment for Dexa. I think we were talking about it on a Friday.
He then updated the results on his profile.
He has priorities just that they are not in right order for most people.
For the record, BodPod test (much cheaper) LOL. It was an inexpensive practical way to get a reasonably accurate body fat measurement.
Thanks for the correction but that still doesn't change the priorities part.0 -
Because it's the only plan the company offers?LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
Yeah I saw that part after I'd posted.MireyGal76 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas 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.
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.
No, GO SEE A DOCTOR. Which part of GO SEE A DOCTOR do you not understand? If you have hormonal issues, guess what, THEY CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. It doesn't mean they come back and say "your thyroid is broken just stay fat" or "your t is low, oh well sucks for you, seeya." Seriously dude, quit whining and go DO SOMETHING.
The part about it costing $400 for just the tests, let alone the treatments. That's why he's not going to the doctor. He's trying to solve it himself... and if I didn't live in Canada... I think I'd be doing the same thing. I don't have $400 to spend on myself. $400 for my kids... I'd find a way, but $400 on myself - I have a really hard time with that.
So yeah, I get it.
I still don't understand the need to whine about it at every opportunity. (Nor the idea of choosing a plan that has a deductible you can't afford.)
Are you sure for the higher deductible part for once a year blood work?
Most insurance companies and the plans do not have "high deductibles" for a blood work once a year. They as a matter of fact encourage.
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