Tired of all the "real dieters"

i love it when people who haven't had a lot of weight to lose, nor had life events that cause weight gain, come around and make up these threads that try and call others out and dictate to them what they do wrong and why they are fat.
full of win!

I didn't see this any where in the thread. The fact is that there is no ONE RIGHT WAY to build lean mass and lose excess body fat (though it's very difficult to do both without the aid of performance enhancing agents). This is why those who are interested in building lean mass bulk first (this does not mean get fat). They take on more calories for many months in order to facilitate growth. And when they feel they've made enough progress gaining mass they switch up their diet and cardio habits (or simply add cardio back to their routine) in order to MAINTAIN the lean mass they just worked so hard to gain while burning body fat.

So, unless a body adheres to these types of principles (that are simple biological facts - NOT MAGIC) then they are doing it WRONG. period...

If you want to see how I know this... LOOK HERE: http://voices.yahoo.com/photos/bikinimom-pursuing-strength-living-fit-6215496.html?cat=5 20+ years of experience and STILL LEARNING EVERY DAY!!!

aren't you the same person who said they are sporting a 13yr old picture?
LOL
think you missed the point there sporty

AMEN SISTER! THANK YOU FOR SAYING EXACTLY WHAT I'M THINKING!

People on here seem to pride themselves on eating as few of calories as possible, while exercising 3 hours a day and somehow that makes them the real deal....How long is that going to be sustainable?! How long until you're yoyo dieting again?? I hate the word "diet"...I do not diet. I choose to live a healthy lifestyle, meaning that this is not temporary for me and I'm not going to make myself miserable for the rest of my life fighting hunger and cravings. FOOD = FUEL, not the enemy. It is completely possible to live healthy, generally eating healthy and taking care of your body while STILL enjoying the foods you love.

I hope these "real dieters" that you speak of realize that they are just setting themselves up for a lifetime battle against food....and a healthy, sustainable lifestyle does NOT have to be that way!

You look fabulous in your pic by the way

AWWW thanks. you're a sweetheart. I can't believe that people 2x my size are eating 2/3 as much and claiming to be stuffed--It's completely antithetical to what I would view as a sustainable, healthy, and lifelong approach to weight management. Maybe these people really can eat 1200 calories forever, but I honestly doubt it. At some point I think MOST people snap and that's when the weight comes piling back on. I just wish people could be a bit more patient..take one meal at a time, one workout at a time, one day at a time until they reach goal and then continue doing the things that got them to the finish line.

Those folks that claim to be stuffed after eating less than 1200 cal are lying... to us and to themselves. I may not be twice your size, but I feel like I'm starving on 1200 cal/day and can rarely accomplish that. I think they're just trying to brag, like saying some ordinarily painful stimulus really doesn't hurt. Bull! And if it really is true for them, I envy that. I would love to be able to eat only what my body needs to survive in good health and think nothing more about it. But that isn't the case for me and my "diet" is whatever food is available that isn't processed in the portion sizes small enough to fit in the calorie limit that will result in weight loss. I am already in good health, but being overweight increases my risk of future health problems, and that means, probably, that I will never be able to just eat what I like that satisfies me without measuring and counting everything. That means I'll be "on a diet" for the rest of my life, really. That is the way of life I will have to choose in order to reduce my risks.

Those folks that claim to be stuffed after eating less than 1200 cal are lying... to us and to themselves.

Do you think that she got that way "by accident" or "due to good genes"?

To be fair, we have no way of knowing that, as she said it was none of our business how much she had to lose. When I was 23, I ate whatever I wanted, and never gained weight. I weighed 110 lb. In my case, it was totally 'by accident', and I'm sure my genes played a part. Other people ate the same as me and were fat.

Those folks that claim to be stuffed after eating less than 1200 cal are lying... to us and to themselves.

How can you claim with such confidence to know what is in everyone's mind, and how everyone responds to food? That's like saying that anyone who claims not to *kitten* is lying. They may be the minority, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Considering how different everyone is, surely it the likelihood that everyone conforms to a certain pattern is incredibly low.

You seem to be talking in circles but saying the same thing I said.

Example: Because I make healthy choices most of the time I am often asked if I'm on a diet. My answer is "always". And I mean it exactly the way people think I mean it.

You seem to be talking in circles but saying the same thing I said.

Example: Because I make healthy choices most of the time I am often asked if I'm on a diet. My answer is "always". And I mean it exactly the way people think I mean it.

Nope, just trying to explain to you the difference between a broad meaning and a narrow meaning of a word, because you said you didn't see the difference between the two meanings of 'diet' that I stated earlier. It's hard to explain if you haven't come across the concept that words can have both broad and narrow meanings.

But from what you've said here, you do seem to be saying the same as what I am saying - you are using the narrow meaning of diet, which means a prescribed, restricted course of food. You are not using the broad meaning, which you initially said you were. People aren't asking if you happen to eat as part of your life (which is what the broad meaning is) - they assume that you eat, and they are asking if you have a specific restricted course of food. Which you do, so you say yes. You are now saying the same as what I have been saying, so anything either of us say will be circular! I'm assuming you now see the difference between the two meanings of the word - if not explicitly, at least implicitly.

Sorry, but that made me LOL. You're not saying the same thing I am, I am saying the same thing you are. :laugh:

Everyone on here losing or maintaining weight has a restricted course of food, so all are on a diet.

Diet Say it with me again friends. It's a good word.

Those folks that claim to be stuffed after eating less than 1200 cal are lying... to us and to themselves.

How can you claim with such confidence to know what is in everyone's mind, and how everyone responds to food? That's like saying that anyone who claims not to *kitten* is lying. They may be the minority, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Considering how different everyone is, surely it the likelihood that everyone conforms to a certain pattern is incredibly low.

Because it is contradictory to sustaining life is all. Anorexics claim to be full on even fewer calories. They aren't lying necessarily. They've just learned to "control" their hunger and the pains associated with hunger. To espouse that ANYONE desire to gain control over such feelings IMHO is akin to espousing suicide because there are far too many people who succumb to anorexia and bulemia.

Can you cite any research that states that 1200 calories is the minimum number required to sustain human life? I'm not saying that there isn't a point at which life can't be sustained, but I've not seen any evidence that 1200 is the magical number for everyone, and I'm curious where this idea comes from.

Do you think that she got that way "by accident" or "due to good genes"?

To be fair, we have no way of knowing that, as she said it was none of our business how much she had to lose. When I was 23, I ate whatever I wanted, and never gained weight. I weighed 110 lb. In my case, it was totally 'by accident', and I'm sure my genes played a part. Other people ate the same as me and were fat.

Did you see how well-muscled she is? As a former competitive body builder I can tell you THAT didn't happen "by accident" or "due to her genes", especially not by age 23. It took me over 10 years to earn the mass you see in my avatar and this is because I was so concerned with getting fat that though I went to the gym and worked out regularly, I never allowed myself to eat enough...

A muscular body is no accident. It takes years of hard work and very conscious, dedicated effort to intelligent eating.

Thank you for this. I will say that I've never had much weight to lose--vanity weight at most. I've never been overweight or even chubby by most standards but that being said I've also worked my *kitten* off to get the body I have. I run 40-70 miles a week depending on the season, lift HEAVY weights 2-3x a week, and although I eat enough I don't go crazy eating whatever I want in whatever quantity I want. It takes work to build muscle, gain strength, and be healthy. It was no accident.

Those folks that claim to be stuffed after eating less than 1200 cal are lying... to us and to themselves.

How can you claim with such confidence to know what is in everyone's mind, and how everyone responds to food? That's like saying that anyone who claims not to *kitten* is lying. They may be the minority, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Considering how different everyone is, surely it the likelihood that everyone conforms to a certain pattern is incredibly low.

Because it is contradictory to sustaining life is all. Anorexics claim to be full on even fewer calories. They aren't lying necessarily. They've just learned to "control" their hunger and the pains associated with hunger. To espouse that ANYONE desire to gain control over such feelings IMHO is akin to espousing suicide because there are far too many people who succumb to anorexia and bulemia.

Can you cite any research that states that 1200 calories is the minimum number required to sustain human life? I'm not saying that there isn't a point at which life can't be sustained, but I've not seen any evidence that 1200 is the magical number for everyone, and I'm curious where this idea comes from.

I said the number is HIGHER. 1200 is too low to sustain life in a healthy manner. Will a person who takes in NO CALORIES continue to live for more than a day? Umm, ya. How many days it will take that person to starve to death is dependent on several factors. And why on earth would any care what the least amount of calories an adult human being would require "just" to stay alive? Really people?

Those folks that claim to be stuffed after eating less than 1200 cal are lying... to us and to themselves.

How can you claim with such confidence to know what is in everyone's mind, and how everyone responds to food? That's like saying that anyone who claims not to *kitten* is lying. They may be the minority, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. Considering how different everyone is, surely it the likelihood that everyone conforms to a certain pattern is incredibly low.

Because it is contradictory to sustaining life is all. Anorexics claim to be full on even fewer calories. They aren't lying necessarily. They've just learned to "control" their hunger and the pains associated with hunger. To espouse that ANYONE desire to gain control over such feelings IMHO is akin to espousing suicide because there are far too many people who succumb to anorexia and bulemia.

Can you cite any research that states that 1200 calories is the minimum number required to sustain human life? I'm not saying that there isn't a point at which life can't be sustained, but I've not seen any evidence that 1200 is the magical number for everyone, and I'm curious where this idea comes from.

I said the number is HIGHER. 1200 is too low to sustain life in a healthy manner. Will a person who takes in NO CALORIES continue to live for more than a day? Umm, ya. How many days it will take that person to starve to death is dependent on several factors. And why on earth would any care what the least amount of calories an adult human being would require "just" to stay alive? Really people?

Well, the initial poster I was responding to used the number 1200, and you appeared to be speaking on her behalf - there was nothing about a higher number in your post. But regardless of what number you've plumped for, my post was asking for research evidence regarding numbers of calories. If someone states that anyone who feels full on less than 1200 calories is lying, and someone else states that the reason for this is that it's contradictory to sustaining life, I want to know the evidence for their statements, and specifically for the numbers that are used. If we don't know the research about minimum amounts, then how can we possibly know anything about any of the recommended amounts? Research provides the baseline - otherwise people could just be plucking numbers out of the air.

And actually, there are a few people who do care about the minimum amounts, because of the research suggesting that living on minimal amounts can significantly increase lifespan and reduce the risk of age-related diseases. That obviously doesn't mean the levels at which a person becomes ill - anorexia will eventually lead to death. But the levels at which a person can still thrive. The difficulty is when people just randomly throw out numbers and don't state why they have given that number - what reasoning there is behind it.