Unfair Rant Time
Replies
-
OKAY WHO ELSE THINKS IT'S UNFAIR THAT GUYS LOSE WEIGHT SO MUCH FASTER AND EASIER THAN WOMEN!?!?
Im flipping over this ^
My completely unscientific theory is that men's bodies don't think they have to be constantly prepared for the possibility of pregnancy. Mine doesn't either, but it doesn't know that.0 -
Eh, men in general are taller/bigger/have lower BF% than women, it makes sense that their BMR are higher. It's not necessarily easier but the potential for a bigger deficit. An active, 5'10", 170 pound, 25 year old man has a TDEE of 2600, so if he ate the 1500 cal/day minimum recommended for men he's lose more than two pounds per week. An active, 25 year old, 5'2", 120 pound woman has a TDEE of 1800, so even at 1200 cal/day the most she'd lose is 1.2 pounds per week.
Taller/bigger women have the potential to lose weight faster than I do, but hey, running's much easier on my knees.0 -
0
-
These conversations always remind me of Lyle Mcdonald's take on the trade off of being female vs male. ( First paragraph under Background. .)0
-
I think it's unfair that I'm not independently wealthy. Something is wrong, yo.
0 -
Second that. If anything, I always appreciate the perspective that life is bigger than some of my rants.0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »Eh. I stopped caring about the fairness of genetically assigned attributes when I started caring about reality.
Ya know what's not fair? That no more than 30mi away there's some poor kid going to bed without dinner while I sit here trying not to eat all of mine, and *thats* a problem I can actually do something about.
God yes! Perspective.0 -
OKAY WHO ELSE THINKS IT'S UNFAIR THAT GUYS LOSE WEIGHT SO MUCH FASTER AND EASIER THAN WOMEN!?!?
Im flipping over this ^
My completely unscientific theory is that men's bodies don't think they have to be constantly prepared for the possibility of pregnancy. Mine doesn't either, but it doesn't know that.
My highschool biology teacher had a saying, " Men are built for the sprint, women for the marathon". Bacisallt meaning that, for the purposes of reproduction and therefore evolution, women need to survive longer than men. Men have to survive long enough to have sex. After that, if they die, their child will still survive. Women have to survive long enough to have sex, grow a baby, birth a baby, feed that baby till at least the age of 1 and after that another non-milk making adult could possibly take over.
All these things that are seen as bad, fat retention, cravings, etc are actually major advantages. We've just changed our habitat so much it's no longer necessary.
/hypotheticals0 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
Right... and people are two-dimensional... you don't math, do you?
So far I still have 3 dimensions but if I keep losing weight I hope to hit only 2 dimensions really soon!
0 -
Apparently not everyone agrees!
Second that. If anything, I always appreciate the perspective that life is bigger than some of my rants.-1 -
Apparently not everyone agrees!
Second that. If anything, I always appreciate the perspective that life is bigger than some of my rants.
I think people take things how they want to take them and I do my best to give the poster benefit of doubt that they meant well and it's advisory rather than harmful. Inappropriate abuse flags are annoying.0 -
mangrothian wrote: »I think it's unfair that there's no such thing as a negative calorie hamburger.
Cauliflower bun LOL0 -
it's so unfair how some people back in college only needed to read the material maybe once to Ace the test and for some of the other mortals took days and days of hard work.
I wasted so much money on books I never opened. Now I digitally rent just in case I need to read something. LOL0 -
madhatter2013 wrote: »mangrothian wrote: »I think it's unfair that there's no such thing as a negative calorie hamburger.
Cauliflower bun LOL
Is this a real thing?! Ew.0 -
actually in my house it is the opposite... I have lost 15 pounds in approx. 2 months and my partner (who is male) has only lost a couple of pounds but he has lost inches...we just had to go buy him new pants0
-
madhatter2013 wrote: »mangrothian wrote: »I think it's unfair that there's no such thing as a negative calorie hamburger.
Cauliflower bun LOL
Is this a real thing?! Ew.
Oh you can substitute cauliflower for anything if you know how to cook it. Now whether it tastes good or not, that's a whole different story. I make a mean mashed cauliflower in place of mashed potatoes.0 -
RBracken34 wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »Eh. I stopped caring about the fairness of genetically assigned attributes when I started caring about reality.
Ya know what's not fair? That no more than 30mi away there's some poor kid going to bed without dinner while I sit here trying not to eat all of mine, and *thats* a problem I can actually do something about.
God yes! Perspective.
Here here!!!!0 -
madhatter2013 wrote: »madhatter2013 wrote: »mangrothian wrote: »I think it's unfair that there's no such thing as a negative calorie hamburger.
Cauliflower bun LOL
Is this a real thing?! Ew.
Oh you can substitute cauliflower for anything if you know how to cook it. Now whether it tastes good or not, that's a whole different story. I make a mean mashed cauliflower in place of mashed potatoes.
I'm with you on the mashed potatoes and I love cauliflower, but I will budget all the calories and carbs it takes to eat my burger the RIGHT way.0 -
madhatter2013 wrote: »madhatter2013 wrote: »mangrothian wrote: »I think it's unfair that there's no such thing as a negative calorie hamburger.
Cauliflower bun LOL
Is this a real thing?! Ew.
Oh you can substitute cauliflower for anything if you know how to cook it. Now whether it tastes good or not, that's a whole different story. I make a mean mashed cauliflower in place of mashed potatoes.
I'm with you on the mashed potatoes and I love cauliflower, but I will budget all the calories and carbs it takes to eat my burger the RIGHT way.
LOL, I can get behind that.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
I think it unfair that BMI penalizes people who have weight trained at maintenance or a calorie surplus before.
0 -
Preach it!yopeeps025 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
I think it unfair that BMI penalizes people who have weight trained at maintenance or a calorie surplus before.
0 -
Well this thread spiraled delightfully out of control
0 -
They don't have monthly hormones to deal with either. I've stopped the comparing game with my hubby.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It does, because it only rises as the square of the height but people's mass rises as more than the square but less than the cube. The farther you are from the mean, the more BMI understates what your mass should be if you're tall and overstates it if you're short.DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
Was just gonig to say - it plays against short people as well. Im 5"6', 12 stone and in perfectly good shape - because Im quite broad/stocky built. According to BMI I should be somewhere around 2 stone lighter. If I ever got that low people would assume I was critically ill!0 -
No, it plays in favor of short people, generally.samhennings wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It does, because it only rises as the square of the height but people's mass rises as more than the square but less than the cube. The farther you are from the mean, the more BMI understates what your mass should be if you're tall and overstates it if you're short.DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
Was just gonig to say - it plays against short people as well. Im 5"6', 12 stone and in perfectly good shape - because Im quite broad/stocky built. According to BMI I should be somewhere around 2 stone lighter. If I ever got that low people would assume I was critically ill!
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, it plays in favor of short people, generally.samhennings wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It does, because it only rises as the square of the height but people's mass rises as more than the square but less than the cube. The farther you are from the mean, the more BMI understates what your mass should be if you're tall and overstates it if you're short.DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
Was just gonig to say - it plays against short people as well. Im 5"6', 12 stone and in perfectly good shape - because Im quite broad/stocky built. According to BMI I should be somewhere around 2 stone lighter. If I ever got that low people would assume I was critically ill!
How so?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, it plays in favor of short people, generally.samhennings wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It does, because it only rises as the square of the height but people's mass rises as more than the square but less than the cube. The farther you are from the mean, the more BMI understates what your mass should be if you're tall and overstates it if you're short.DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
Was just gonig to say - it plays against short people as well. Im 5"6', 12 stone and in perfectly good shape - because Im quite broad/stocky built. According to BMI I should be somewhere around 2 stone lighter. If I ever got that low people would assume I was critically ill!
It certainly doesnt play in favour of me. Or almost anyone Ive spoken to about it, actually.
As stated many times on here, its great to use looking at a population, but genereally not good at all when looking at individuals. It takes no acount of a persons frame at all.0 -
Because of the square root in the denominator of the formula. People scale in three dimensions, not two. The constants in the numerator and the too-low scaling factor in the denominator mean the results are off by about a point for each six inches by which you differ from the average adult height. The formula outputs a value that's that much too high on the tall end of the curve and that much too low on the short end of the curve. Someone, ahem, 15 inches taller than average gets a BMI about 2.5 points higher than it should be if the scaling in the formula more closely matched the scaling in the physical world.DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, it plays in favor of short people, generally.samhennings wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It does, because it only rises as the square of the height but people's mass rises as more than the square but less than the cube. The farther you are from the mean, the more BMI understates what your mass should be if you're tall and overstates it if you're short.DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
Was just gonig to say - it plays against short people as well. Im 5"6', 12 stone and in perfectly good shape - because Im quite broad/stocky built. According to BMI I should be somewhere around 2 stone lighter. If I ever got that low people would assume I was critically ill!
How so?0 -
That's why I said, "generally."samhennings wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
No, it plays in favor of short people, generally.samhennings wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
It does, because it only rises as the square of the height but people's mass rises as more than the square but less than the cube. The farther you are from the mean, the more BMI understates what your mass should be if you're tall and overstates it if you're short.DeguelloTex wrote: »I think it's unfair that BMI penalizes tall people.
It doesn't. That's why height is part of the equation.
Was just gonig to say - it plays against short people as well. Im 5"6', 12 stone and in perfectly good shape - because Im quite broad/stocky built. According to BMI I should be somewhere around 2 stone lighter. If I ever got that low people would assume I was critically ill!
It certainly doesnt play in favour of me.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions