The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off?

tigerblue

LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »

tigerblue wrote: »

LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »

ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »

LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »

tigerblue wrote: »

PikaKnight wrote: »

BFDeal wrote: »

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.

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.

But this isn't about 6 packs specifically, especially since having visible abs can very depending on the person. This is about body fat %, which doesn't have to be as hard or extreme as that article makes it to be (speaking about getting within that 18-25% range, that is).

Even the items mentioned at the below 16% (for women) is very misleading. I mean really. "Will have difficulty socializing in most typical situations where food is involved" :huh:

Here's another thought to throw out there--your height can affect how difficult all this is. Now, I know that height doesn't change BMR and calorie requirements, but it does affect ideal weight goals. For instance, at my height (5'2") with a small frame ideal weight is often said to be around 110-115 lbs. On a gal who is 5'8", Im guessing 110 would be underweight. I have no idea what ideal weight would be, but it would be higher. And thus her "calorie allowance" would be higher.

At 112 lbs(my lowest post-MFP weight) my "calorie allowance" was smaller and thus my level of sacrifice was greater. Now, at 132 lbs, maintaining that weight is much easier. My "calorie allowance" is greater and thus I don't feel as much sacrifice!

So the question for me, and for each of us, is, do I want to cut calories to maintain 112 lbs, (insert whatever weight needed here) which definitely puts me at a lower bodyfat, assuming I lose the weight correctly and not by crash dieting, or do I want to live with a more easily maintainable higher weight? And yes, I know there are variations in metabolism with bodyfat percentage, and you can have more weight with greater LBM and less bodyfat. . . . . But that is beyond the scope of my comment here. And from what I understand, gaining lean body mass is even more difficult than losing weight or fat.

I 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.

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.

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.

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!

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...)

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.

No doubt your food quality makes a huge difference here. If I eat only healthy foods then it is much easier to eat an appropriate amount of calories and not be hungry.

One more thought on this matter: regardless of where you stand on appetite regulation, sticking to, say, a 1200 cal goal is always going to be more difficult (more sacrifice??) than sticking to something like a 1700 goal. And a smaller bodyweight will require a smaller cal goal--therefore more sacrifice, even if it just perceived sacrifice.

RECowgill

Well right off I disagree with the article. I'm somewhere between 22-23% bodyfat, and that article just assumes I'm on meds and I'm gonna drop dead any day now because of my BF %. Couldn't be further from the truth. I've never been healthier, more athletic, more physically capable in my life. It's cause I'm physically trained, I carry a lot of lean mass and in better shape than many people with less bodyfat than me. The premise of the article oversimplifies.