The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off?
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
Maybe it's just easier to climb the mountain if you can already at least see the top of it a little. I've lost a ton more weight than my ticker indicates and I'd say in the beginning my biggest concern was just looking "normal" so I didn't always stand out as the biggest guy in the room. I'm pretty sure if I was starting at the weight I'm at now I'd be 100% confident I'd be single digit body fat. But I'm not starting out. I've been doing this for years. And years of dieting will drive almost anyone insane. You start out feeling like you're not giving up anything. Then you have to give up more and more. Eventually your calories feel so low that while you in theory CAN eat whatever you want you start to wonder if it's even worth trying to squeeze stuff in. At this point just getting to the 20% picture from the article sounds pretty lofty since things are going to slow. That's why it's frustrating to hear people swearing they don't do much to stay ripped. It's almost the hip thing to do. To play things down so it seems like no big deal.MireyGal76 wrote: »I think this article can cause some who are just getting off the couch to never desire a marathon. And that's kind of sad. But maybe it's good in that they set more realistic initial goals, and allow that marathon to creep up on them?
Firstly - congratulations on the ton of weight you've already lost! May I ask how much you've lost in total?
Secondly - I don't know you well, and don't know your situation, but wonder if maybe you may have food sensitivities that aren't helping you make progress. (E.g. My dad was a celiac for years before he was diagnosed, and he was essentially starving to death even though he ate a pile of food because his body dumped it all into the toilet). Maybe there is something there that could be wreaking havoc with your system. It doesn't hurt to check it out.
Thirdly, I apologize if you feel like I'm trying to be hip, or down playing the activity level I do. It took me three years of high activity to lose those "last ten pounds", and it was only calorie counting that helped me do it in the end. I see that you do log your food, so maybe you can take your diary to the doc and use that to help ensure there aren't any dietary issues at play?
0 -
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?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...
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?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?
While appetite may change based on size (leaving all other things equal - which of course is not realistic), but I do not think it changes in the same proportion, or at least I am not aware of evidence that suggests it does.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...
While the article is written by a coaching team, I did not read it as selling you 'a new you' in X months,
There is a cost to most of being lean. Fit and healthy - the cost/benefit is generally 'worth it' so in that regard there is no net cost or sacrifice. Getting lean, and super lean will mean some sacrifices to most.
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.
most people's "everything else" is surfing the internet- not really losing out most of the time.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.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.
I feel this acutely. If I choose to workout, I choose not to clean my house. If I choose to clean my house, I choose not to mow my lawn. If I choose to mow my lawn, I'm not playing with my kids. If I choose to play with my kids, I'm not getting much of the other stuff done. I often leave a lot of the other stuff for when my kids aren't around.
There are always a million balls in the air that need juggling... each person has to decide which ones can fall and which ones cannot.
I am currently in a high stress situation, I manage my mental health by accelerating my exercise. This means that I am currently sacrificing some sleep, some cleaning, and most of my TV time (which is minimal) in order to do that. But it's what I need in order to stay sane.
Some days, the house needs more attention than my body. So I focus there. Thankfully my lawn is big and my mower heavy, so that becomes a workout in the summer.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.
most people's "everything else" is surfing the internet- not really losing out most of the time.
Agreed, but ultimately that's not your decision to make.
If someone values surfing the internet over exercise or whatever else, that's their decision. But then they need to own that decision and not *kitten* about not losing weight.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?
It's not my position that short people are always at a disadvantage.
All I know is that my own calorie needs have been fairly consistent for much of my time logging calories. There have been times when I've been ravenously hungry on that intake and times when it's been WAY too much food. I just don't think it's quite so simple as "the more calories you'll need, the more you'll want. The less calories you need, the less you'll want."0 -
I have to say that I disagree with the overall tone of the article. I'm definitely in the 16-19% range, if not lower, and I don't make any of the sacrifices they mention. The only bits of fat left to shed is a slight amount covering my abs, they are visible, but not as much as OP's and a little left over my glute/ham tie in - I literally have everything else, back muscles, all muscles in arms, legs etc.
I work out for 1 hour per day (heavy free weights) 5 days per week and I'm generally a reasonably active person. I eat like a horse and don't miss out on anything, neither do my family. I'm also a mum and would never put working out over my child.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.
Typically you can squeeze in an extra hour by compounding some of your other activities. I iron my clothes at night while watching some television (Instead of just watching television). I fold my workout clothes after washing them and keep them organized so they're easy to set out for the next morning. I also keep healthy, easy, nearly instant breakfast items on hand. This gives me close to an extra hour in the morning which I use to workout. I might not be saving a full hour but I think it makes a big difference without making a huge dent in what I do in the evening. The cost is minimal for what the payoff is.
That's really what the term "cost" means. Not the overall dollar/time value but the tradeoff or payoff for the time/money spent. You could purchase a house for $200,000.00 and it might very well be a steal and a huge bargain. A used car for this price isn't a cheap even if a house at this price was.
TL;DR - Don't just look at the time. Look at the trade off for the time spent.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.
most people's "everything else" is surfing the internet- not really losing out most of the time.
Agreed, but ultimately that's not your decision to make.
If someone values surfing the internet over exercise or whatever else, that's their decision. But then they need to own that decision and not *kitten* about not losing weight.
didn't say it was right or wrong.
:P
I would absolutely agree with that statement!0 -
Yeah, I haven't heard of anything either way. Obviously if the evidence disagrees with me then I'm happy to change my position.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?
While appetite may change based on size (leaving all other things equal - which of course is not realistic), but I do not think it changes in the same proportion, or at least I am not aware of evidence that suggests it does.
But if it were true to the extent that it was fair to use it as a sweeping generalization (as it often gets used such as above) then I think it would be reasonable to expect that in a population of people eating ad libitum (which is pretty much everyone who isn't counting calories, so essentially the population as a whole) this would be reflected in obesity rates being skewed by height.
I looked (quickly, I admit) and was unable to find any data for obesity as relates to height.
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.
Interesting you would say that. Just today I mentioned that I would be heading to gym in the evening for Strength Training upper body. But then looked up the weather.com and we are getting rains for next 4 days. I'll be working in my yard instead this evening.
ST will be done tomorrow evening in the gym b'coz tomorrow we have thunderstorms.
Back to work. Off the internet. ;-)0 -
I agree, and I've had the same experience. But I was talking about differences in height, specifically.ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »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?
It's not my position that short people are always at a disadvantage.
All I know is that my own calorie needs have been fairly consistent for much of my time logging calories. There have been times when I've been ravenously hungry on that intake and times when it's been WAY too much food. I just don't think it's quite so simple as "the more calories you'll need, the more you'll want. The less calories you need, the less you'll want."
ETA I know it's not your position that short people are always at a disadvantage, but it is implicit in the "I'm short so I can't eat as many calories" statement that I was responding to.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions