Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why do people overeat and/or become obese? Is it harder than average for some to lose weight?
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »In general I think people think they burn much more than in reality. My mind still boggles at how little I burn. Finding out how little I burn just by being alive has been key for me. Without knowing, I would have never lost weight.
This was somewhat true for me. I started regaining when I went from active to sedentary (various life issues). Once I gained weight I felt like I was already out of shape so it didn't matter (dumb, yes, but there was more to it also), and ate more and continued to gain.
Yes! I have asked myself a million times why I do that. Very dumb!!And what I did say was that snacking didn't have as big of an impact as inferred otherwise it wouldn't be recommended during weight loss...guess you missed that part
I brought up snacking because I believe people in general are snacking more than in past generations. There are more high calorie snacks available more often. There are more snacking opportunities. I believe this is one reason why some people have the desire to overeat.
I agree there are more chances to snack with more options out there as well...but I don't think that is a major reason for people overeating and being obese and why some feel it is so hard for them to lose weight.
Baseball and peanuts and hotdogs and beer have been around for generations...it's only in the last what 30 years that obesity is on the rise...and if you look at places where snacking isn't common there is still obesity...0 -
More snacking was part of why I gained weight. It wasn't the do it on a special occasion like a baseball game or cook-out. It was eating between meals becoming routine and extending into constant grazing. Since I don't find such eating satisfying or eat much less at other meals when I do it, it's bad for me. And when it's a habit I find myself wanting to eat all the time, just recreationally. I think one reason I didn't gain weight in school was that it wasn't easy to eat outside of meal time -- I never kept snacks at home and they weren't offered everywhere back then. Now if I don't snack I tend to eat around my TDEE without trying. If I let myself graze all day as I often see people do I'd go over my TDEE, even when active. I think there's lots more snacking now than when I was a kid. We'd have maybe one planned snack as kids, but I don't recall there being lots of snacks at my parents' work places or people thinking it was normal to eat lots between meals. We had soda as a special occasion/rare thing too, whereas I think some people drink it throughout the day, now, not even thinking of it as food, despite the calories (most worrisome when it's kids with the high consumption).
People who count calories and enjoy lots of snacking can fit it in, but most people don't count calories and I think more eating opportunities being common is part of why average calorie consumption has increased.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »More snacking was part of why I gained weight. It wasn't the do it on a special occasion like a baseball game or cook-out. It was eating between meals becoming routine and extending into constant grazing. Since I don't find such eating satisfying or eat much less at other meals when I do it, it's bad for me. And when it's a habit I find myself wanting to eat all the time, just recreationally. I think one reason I didn't gain weight in school was that it wasn't easy to eat outside of meal time -- I never kept snacks at home and they weren't offered everywhere back then. Now if I don't snack I tend to eat around my TDEE without trying. If I let myself graze all day as I often see people do I'd go over my TDEE, even when active. I think there's lots more snacking now than when I was a kid. We'd have maybe one planned snack as kids, but I don't recall there being lots of snacks at my parents' work places or people thinking it was normal to eat lots between meals. We had soda as a special occasion/rare thing too, whereas I think some people drink it throughout the day, now, not even thinking of it as food, despite the calories (most worrisome when it's kids with the high consumption).
People who count calories and enjoy lots of snacking can fit it in, but most people don't count calories and I think more eating opportunities being common is part of why average calorie consumption has increased.
I agree totally with that but then it comes down to lack of knowledge (which was my main point at the start of this thread)
Growing up we did snack on fruit or crackers and cheese...on Friday nights it was chips and dip and pop aka soda.
As I became an adult I snacked....but it was my lack of knowledge that caused the weight gain...because now I still snack everyday...sometimes 3x a day and eat regular meals...depends on my hunger levels...but now that I am educated and count calories it's easy to snack and stay in goal.0 -
I brought up snacking because I believe people in general are snacking more than in past generations. There are more high calorie snacks available more often. There are more snacking opportunities. I believe this is one reason why some people have the desire to overeat.
Do people snack more now than in the past? I seem to remember people eating all the time when I was growing up. I know I personally snacked more when I was thin than when I was gaining weight.0 -
your post is irrelevant to the op and this isn't a discussion on individuals but those who overeat and those who say it's harder for them to lose that normal people.I think we've lost sight of the original topic of discussion. It was not about the population in general, but about those individuals who say they have a harder time than most to lose weight and what drives them to eat even knowing the harm it's doing to them.
...
Because when someone says "Hi, I maintain on less than 2k" and your immediate response is ARE YOU LOGGING ARE YOU TINY YOU MUST BE SEDENTARY that doesn't imply "I would like clarification" that implies disbelief. If you actually believed Deb when she said she maintained <2k you wouldn't have asked for clarification in the first place. I could question your apparent maintenance because it doesn't line up with my personal experience, but I didn't. Because I believe you, on account of human variance being... varied.I asked a few clarifying questions so what. You seem angry that I went that routeAnd what evidence did you provide your bmr so...mine is 50 above that...proves nothing neither does an arbitrary calculation of 1.3 against it a study of 1 is not gospel.
But your study of 1 is. (Also multiple people on this thread have now pointed out that they maintain on sub-2,000. The only thing I did was back it up with actual numbers as a "hey, look, totally possible to maintain on this number without being a tiny sedentary person")
I mean I also have the evidence of "using that number I am losing exactly the amount of weight I should be losing with the deficit I have against said number" as I'm sure the other low maintainers do also (except that's not my BMR. Mine's below that as I pointed out last time I posted in this thread. I was providing stats for a person my height/age/weight without a metabolic issue)
This just in though: BMR and TDEE calculations prove nothing and are useless.As well you haven't responded once in the 16 pages...seems odd you jump in to post about something that is irrelevant to the OP...
I mean, I have. But I've just been reading for a while because I only post when I have something to contribute to the conversation as it currently stands. The conversation as it stood was about maintenance cals.
If you think maintenance cals are irrelevant to the OP about why certain individuals may have a harder time (or believe they do) than other people then... er...
Whatever, I'm done here.8 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I brought up snacking because I believe people in general are snacking more than in past generations. There are more high calorie snacks available more often. There are more snacking opportunities. I believe this is one reason why some people have the desire to overeat.
Do people snack more now than in the past? I seem to remember people eating all the time when I was growing up. I know I personally snacked more when I was thin than when I was gaining weight.
I was my thinnest when I was in college during the day and was working at night at a grocery store. I had little time available to eat.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »More snacking was part of why I gained weight. It wasn't the do it on a special occasion like a baseball game or cook-out. It was eating between meals becoming routine and extending into constant grazing. Since I don't find such eating satisfying or eat much less at other meals when I do it, it's bad for me. And when it's a habit I find myself wanting to eat all the time, just recreationally. I think one reason I didn't gain weight in school was that it wasn't easy to eat outside of meal time -- I never kept snacks at home and they weren't offered everywhere back then. Now if I don't snack I tend to eat around my TDEE without trying. If I let myself graze all day as I often see people do I'd go over my TDEE, even when active. I think there's lots more snacking now than when I was a kid. We'd have maybe one planned snack as kids, but I don't recall there being lots of snacks at my parents' work places or people thinking it was normal to eat lots between meals. We had soda as a special occasion/rare thing too, whereas I think some people drink it throughout the day, now, not even thinking of it as food, despite the calories (most worrisome when it's kids with the high consumption).
People who count calories and enjoy lots of snacking can fit it in, but most people don't count calories and I think more eating opportunities being common is part of why average calorie consumption has increased.
Yup, all of this. Snacking does seem more constant now rather than just "we're going to a game/barbeque/fair/event of some description". I didn't really snack at all as a kid but I go to folks' houses now and they all seem to have the cupboards stocked up with biscuits (cookies)/cakes/chocolate/crisps (chips) etc which we never did "back then" (admittedly "back then" for me is only the mid-late 90s but there's been quite a shift even in that time, I think?) and drink soda all the time.
Which, as you rightly say, is 100% fine if you have the calories and can fit it in.
Of course maybe my family was just weird with not constantly snacking, I just don't really remember it being as much of a thing. Certainly none of us were overweight as kids (there was ONE overweight kid in my primary (er... approx age 5-11 for you Americans) school who's been that way forever and is, afaik, still overweight)0 -
It is complex. Current science seems to believe that weight loss is more complicated than simply CICO.
Certain foods cause hormonal responses that can heighten hunger and increase fat storage in certain individuals. There are some people who genetically find it easier to gain or to lose weight, although they may be outliers. Some people have emotional issues that cause them to overeat. Certain medications can cause food cravings and weight gain.
Age obviously has an impact, but it's not the same for everyone. Many post-menopausal women gain weight. But I was talking to a very slim woman I know who said she and her mother lost that stubborn 10 pounds after menopause. (She actually never looked like she had to lose any weight to me. Interestingly, she had been very chubby until about 20. She lost the weight by changing her eating habits and it never came back. She's almost 70. And she eats a lot. Much more than I can. She's shorter than me, weighs more, yet looks thinner -- that's the vagaries of body fat distribution for you.)
None of the above reasons is an excuse to overeat to the point of health-threatening obesity. You have to examine yourself, figure out your particular problems and tackle them. Certainly, being aware of the amount of calories and the nutritional value of the food you consume will never be a negative. It just may not be the sole answer.4 -
lexbubbles wrote: »your post is irrelevant to the op and this isn't a discussion on individuals but those who overeat and those who say it's harder for them to lose that normal people.I think we've lost sight of the original topic of discussion. It was not about the population in general, but about those individuals who say they have a harder time than most to lose weight and what drives them to eat even knowing the harm it's doing to them.
...
Because when someone says "Hi, I maintain on less than 2k" and your immediate response is ARE YOU LOGGING ARE YOU TINY YOU MUST BE SEDENTARY that doesn't imply "I would like clarification" that implies disbelief. If you actually believed Deb when she said she maintained <2k you wouldn't have asked for clarification in the first place. I could question your apparent maintenance because it doesn't line up with my personal experience, but I didn't. Because I believe you, on account of human variance being... varied.I asked a few clarifying questions so what. You seem angry that I went that routeAnd what evidence did you provide your bmr so...mine is 50 above that...proves nothing neither does an arbitrary calculation of 1.3 against it a study of 1 is not gospel.
But your study of 1 is. (Also multiple people on this thread have now pointed out that they maintain on sub-2,000. The only thing I did was back it up with actual numbers as a "hey, look, totally possible to maintain on this number without being a tiny sedentary person")
I mean I also have the evidence of "using that number I am losing exactly the amount of weight I should be losing with the deficit I have against said number" as I'm sure the other low maintainers do also (except that's not my BMR. Mine's below that as I pointed out last time I posted in this thread. I was providing stats for a person my height/age/weight without a metabolic issue)...
If you think maintenance cals are irrelevant to the OP about why certain individuals may have a harder time (or believe they do) than other people then... er...
Whatever, I'm done here.
You are correct. Maintenance calories are hugely relevant. Until I figured mine out I had no idea that they were so low. I kept eating like I had when my metabolism was faster and wondered why my weight crept up slowly over the years. I have had to reign in and reduce my daily calories to compensate.
I don't mind that Stef can eat more than me and still lose weight. More power to her. But I am fairly sure that there is a bigger population than she is aware of represented on MFP who gain weight if they eat 2000+ calories.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I really don't understand becoming very overweight or obese. I don't know what makes some nip it in the bud before it gets really out of control while others take to a level that to me would seem to take the pleasure out of it.
I don't understand it either. Although admittedly, I have been nipping it later in the bud than in the past, the point at which I get disgusted with myself does seem to come earlier than for some people. But then I see rail-thin people walking around who clearly have a much more sensitive fat alarm than I do.
In the past, I used to be able to successfully challenge myself to sacrifice things, not to gain weight, but just to see if I could do it. I once gave up added sugar and fatty foods for two years. Now I don't seem to have the same will, I keep thinking, "But this is one of my few pleasures." Maybe some people feel that way earlier.
BTW, I do need to lose a few pounds, but on all the weight ranges, I'm at the low end of normal. But I am at an historically high weight, so it is a concern. I wish I were around super-thin people my age all the time because frankly, the peer-pressure would help. Unfortunately, I'm often around older people who have given up and are obese.
3 -
You are correct. Maintenance calories are hugely relevant. Until I figured mine out I had no idea that they were so low. I kept eating like I had when my metabolism was faster and wondered why my weight crept up slowly over the years. I have had to reign in and reduce my daily calories to compensate.
I don't mind that Stef can eat more than me and still lose weight. More power to her. But I am fairly sure that there is a bigger population than she is aware of represented on MFP who gain weight if they eat 2000+ calories.
Aye. As I pointed out way back when this thread was but a baby (aw, remember that, you guys? It was so long ago. Times were simpler then) I gained weight when my maintenance cals dropped by about 200 and I didn't know that was what had happened (neither did medical professionals, which is the worrying thing here. You'd think doctors would have a handle on this lark). Until then I'd never even worked it out. I just sort of ate around maintenance naturally and was 125-130lb for like... 4 years. It honestly took so long for that to click. Embarrassingly long, really.
I have no doubt that there's also a large population on MFP who can maintain on +2k. Again, human variance etc etc.
But also I suspect (disclaimer: personal experience, scientifically worthless, just a side thought based on folk I know) that your average MFP-er is more active than regular Joe, and so accounting for that exercise would have higher maintenance (as I said, if I wanted to maintain my current weight with the exercise I do, it would in fact be around 2.5k but I ain't here to maintain my fat-*kitten* self). Almost nobody I know in real life outside of my gym works out, like, ever. Whereas all my MFPals are exercising on the daily. So there's that.
(Which is not to say people shouldn't exercise because, duh, but it sure does chip a few hundred of the ol' cal limit if you don't and then those Friday meeting donuts really start catching up with ya ESPECIALLY if you've a lower figure to start with)0 -
lexbubbles wrote: »your post is irrelevant to the op and this isn't a discussion on individuals but those who overeat and those who say it's harder for them to lose that normal people.I think we've lost sight of the original topic of discussion. It was not about the population in general, but about those individuals who say they have a harder time than most to lose weight and what drives them to eat even knowing the harm it's doing to them.
...
Because when someone says "Hi, I maintain on less than 2k" and your immediate response is ARE YOU LOGGING ARE YOU TINY YOU MUST BE SEDENTARY that doesn't imply "I would like clarification" that implies disbelief. If you actually believed Deb when she said she maintained <2k you wouldn't have asked for clarification in the first place. I could question your apparent maintenance because it doesn't line up with my personal experience, but I didn't. Because I believe you, on account of human variance being... varied.I asked a few clarifying questions so what. You seem angry that I went that routeAnd what evidence did you provide your bmr so...mine is 50 above that...proves nothing neither does an arbitrary calculation of 1.3 against it a study of 1 is not gospel.
But your study of 1 is. (Also multiple people on this thread have now pointed out that they maintain on sub-2,000. The only thing I did was back it up with actual numbers as a "hey, look, totally possible to maintain on this number without being a tiny sedentary person")
I mean I also have the evidence of "using that number I am losing exactly the amount of weight I should be losing with the deficit I have against said number" as I'm sure the other low maintainers do also (except that's not my BMR. Mine's below that as I pointed out last time I posted in this thread. I was providing stats for a person my height/age/weight without a metabolic issue)
This just in though: BMR and TDEE calculations prove nothing and are useless.As well you haven't responded once in the 16 pages...seems odd you jump in to post about something that is irrelevant to the OP...
I mean, I have. But I've just been reading for a while because I only post when I have something to contribute to the conversation as it currently stands. The conversation as it stood was about maintenance cals.
If you think maintenance cals are irrelevant to the OP about why certain individuals may have a harder time (or believe they do) than other people then... er...
Whatever, I'm done here.
Those two top statements say the same thing...this is not about individual in this topic posting about themselves per say it's about those who say they have a harder time losing then others...
To your 2nd point...I did ask questions...note the question marks at the end of the sentences to indicate I was asking if she was smaller and/or sedentary etc...and me saying "I have to ask...."
and I have to ask if you gain on 2k a day are you totally sedentary? exceptionally short (under 5ft tall) and a very tiny woman?
and I have to ask if you use a food scale and are you sure you only eat 1200 and gain on 2k...
The conversation was not about maintenance calories...2 posts were...it was about why people overeat and find it harder to lose weight and the off shoot was possibly snacking...
@DebSozo and @lexbubbles es Maintenance calories have nothing to do with why people over eat...or are obese or find it harder to lose weight lack of understanding of what maintenance calories are and how to achieve maintenance maybe but I said that on page 1...lack of education not know how to lose but mostly not knowing how to maintain. Not understand CICO or even what calories/servings mean.
but again not going to further this debate with non on topic debates with how people interpret text with prejudice due to their own issues.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I really don't understand becoming very overweight or obese. I don't know what makes some nip it in the bud before it gets really out of control while others take to a level that to me would seem to take the pleasure out of it.
I don't understand it either. Although admittedly, I have been nipping it later in the bud than in the past, the point at which I get disgusted with myself does seem to come earlier than for some people. But then I see rail-thin people walking around who clearly have a much more sensitive fat alarm than I do.
In the past, I used to be able to successfully challenge myself to sacrifice things, not to gain weight, but just to see if I could do it. I once gave up added sugar and fatty foods for two years. Now I don't seem to have the same will, I keep thinking, "But this is one of my few pleasures." Maybe some people feel that way earlier.
BTW, I do need to lose a few pounds, but on all the weight ranges, I'm at the low end of normal. But I am at an historically high weight, so it is a concern. I wish I were around super-thin people my age all the time because frankly, the peer-pressure would help. Unfortunately, I'm often around older people who have given up and are obese.
I'm not sure I understand that last part. Why do you think you need to lose weight if you are on the low end of normal?
But I too have seen the point at which I become disgusted with myself gradually increase over the years. The reality is that I've slowly been doing this all my life. I used to nip it in the bud if I gained 5 lbs, that gradually became 10, then 15, then 20 and so on. It took about 40 years to actually become overweight.1 -
I stress eat, personally. I understand all the math and the nutrition and what I should eat...but sometimes the "comfort" of eating sugar and simple carbs wins out over the logic of eating fruit and veg and protein.3
-
I stress eat, personally. I understand all the math and the nutrition and what I should eat...but sometimes the "comfort" of eating sugar and simple carbs wins out over the logic of eating fruit and veg and protein.
I think this is probably a very common reason. Maybe the most common. If more people worked on controlling stress there would likely be a lot less obesity.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I really don't understand becoming very overweight or obese. I don't know what makes some nip it in the bud before it gets really out of control while others take to a level that to me would seem to take the pleasure out of it.
I don't understand it either. Although admittedly, I have been nipping it later in the bud than in the past, the point at which I get disgusted with myself does seem to come earlier than for some people. But then I see rail-thin people walking around who clearly have a much more sensitive fat alarm than I do.
Honestly for a bit there (looking at you, last summer) I just stopped caring. I have chronic pain and got sick of having to take breaks from physical exercise and then my diet going suitably down the pan and either maintaining or slowly gaining. But I never got to "very overweight", I don't think. Might have touched on the border of it, but certainly didn't hit obese.
I got to 175lb (from 125-130) on the meds before I figured out what the hickle heckle was going on, lost half of it (down to 150), and then just stopped caring.
The point at which I'm like "alright, enough now" seems to be around 170-175lb which isn't massive in the grand scheme, I suppose. Trying to be less... intensive with my exercise this time out and avoid my own personal physical issues that way, especially since I now have a better grasp of them so I don't fall back into "no, this is 100% not worth it. There aren't enough pain meds in the world to justify this".
Some people definitely have a much bigger 'trigger point' for that. I think my best friend just hit hers and she's about 4 dress sizes larger than me. When I met her, she was about the size I am now (so relatively we've stayed the same, which is interesting)1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »In general I think people think they burn much more than in reality. My mind still boggles at how little I burn. Finding out how little I burn just by being alive has been key for me. Without knowing, I would have never lost weight.
This was somewhat true for me. I started regaining when I went from active to sedentary (various life issues). Once I gained weight I felt like I was already out of shape so it didn't matter (dumb, yes, but there was more to it also), and ate more and continued to gain.
Yes! I have asked myself a million times why I do that. Very dumb!!And what I did say was that snacking didn't have as big of an impact as inferred otherwise it wouldn't be recommended during weight loss...guess you missed that part
I brought up snacking because I believe people in general are snacking more than in past generations. There are more high calorie snacks available more often. There are more snacking opportunities. I believe this is one reason why some people have the desire to overeat.
I agree there are more chances to snack with more options out there as well...but I don't think that is a major reason for people overeating and being obese and why some feel it is so hard for them to lose weight.
Baseball and peanuts and hotdogs and beer have been around for generations...it's only in the last what 30 years that obesity is on the rise...and if you look at places where snacking isn't common there is still obesity...
I don't see an issue with the kind of snacking you have been discussing. But, I do see a worrisome trend with kids in that snacks are expected for everything, even things that involve no real physical activity. Math counts meeting for 45 minutes - snack. Girl scouts for 1.5 hours mainly doing crafts - snack. Study hall class - snack. I do agree that this is probably not the main reason for our obesity problem, but I wonder if it does affect the ability to determine true hunger.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I brought up snacking because I believe people in general are snacking more than in past generations. There are more high calorie snacks available more often. There are more snacking opportunities. I believe this is one reason why some people have the desire to overeat.
Do people snack more now than in the past? I seem to remember people eating all the time when I was growing up. I know I personally snacked more when I was thin than when I was gaining weight.
and that was my point..one of the things people often suggest is snacks or 6 small meals to prevent extreme hunger and then over indulging.
Growing up we snacked and I am in my 40's...my husband grew up in the 80s and 90s he snacked all the time...rail thin...son grew up 90's and 2000's...snacked..thin as well almost too thin...Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I stress eat, personally. I understand all the math and the nutrition and what I should eat...but sometimes the "comfort" of eating sugar and simple carbs wins out over the logic of eating fruit and veg and protein.
I think this is probably a very common reason. Maybe the most common. If more people worked on controlling stress there would likely be a lot less obesity.
and this as well...I know a lot of people who use food to compensate and get "over" stuff...or deal with stuff like a poster up thread indicate she got obese after a trauma at 16...which lots of people who suffer something do.-1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I really don't understand becoming very overweight or obese. I don't know what makes some nip it in the bud before it gets really out of control while others take to a level that to me would seem to take the pleasure out of it.
I don't understand it either. Although admittedly, I have been nipping it later in the bud than in the past, the point at which I get disgusted with myself does seem to come earlier than for some people. But then I see rail-thin people walking around who clearly have a much more sensitive fat alarm than I do.
... I do need to lose a few pounds, but on all the weight ranges, I'm at the low end of normal. But I am at an historically high weight, so it is a concern. I wish I were around super-thin people my age all the time because frankly, the peer-pressure would help. Unfortunately, I'm often around older people who have given up and are obese.
I can relate to this. I am going to Hershey Park next weekend and my 14 year old son wants to do the water park. I put on a bikini and have been going outside to get a little bit of a base tan beforehand so that I don't burn on Saturday. The current physique I have will not work for me in the public in a bikini, so I will settle for a one piece that day.
If all of my peers were thin and able to get into one I would be a bit more concerned. But I know most of the moms at Hershey Park will be my size or larger. Conversely, when I was much thinner most of my friends were my size or smaller so I worked harder to stay slim. Peer pressure has something to do with it for sure.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I really don't understand becoming very overweight or obese. I don't know what makes some nip it in the bud before it gets really out of control while others take to a level that to me would seem to take the pleasure out of it.
I don't understand it either. Although admittedly, I have been nipping it later in the bud than in the past, the point at which I get disgusted with myself does seem to come earlier than for some people. But then I see rail-thin people walking around who clearly have a much more sensitive fat alarm than I do.
In the past, I used to be able to successfully challenge myself to sacrifice things, not to gain weight, but just to see if I could do it. I once gave up added sugar and fatty foods for two years. Now I don't seem to have the same will, I keep thinking, "But this is one of my few pleasures." Maybe some people feel that way earlier.
BTW, I do need to lose a few pounds, but on all the weight ranges, I'm at the low end of normal. But I am at an historically high weight, so it is a concern. I wish I were around super-thin people my age all the time because frankly, the peer-pressure would help. Unfortunately, I'm often around older people who have given up and are obese.
I'm not sure I understand that last part. Why do you think you need to lose weight if you are on the low end of normal?
But I too have seen the point at which I become disgusted with myself gradually increase over the years. The reality is that I've slowly been doing this all my life. I used to nip it in the bud if I gained 5 lbs, that gradually became 10, then 15, then 20 and so on. It took about 40 years to actually become overweight.
It took me about 20 years to move from lower normal to highest normal BMI. I have a 5 pound "allowance" before I nip it.
My middle son is 6 feet tall and weighs 172 pounds. He stays within a 2 pound range and has a big appetite, works out, and has 6 pack abs. I used to do the Nautilus equipment back in the old days, but subsequently injured myself (neck and back) so I cannot work out like I used to without painful consequences.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions