We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off?
Replies
-
Yes and no? It's worth the work to get to a healthy BMI, which for me is 21 and about 25% body fat. It would not be worth it to get down to a really low body fat range. Healthy/attractive is plenty good enough for me. I'm not one to look for perfection.
Ummm...so people who are lower than 25% aren't healthy or attractive???0 -
I might be wrong, but cant some cases of high cholesterol and blood pressure be hereditary (Familial hypercholesterolaemia etc). It's genetic and social influences such as poor diet etc will not have an impact. Some people might genitally be destined to take statins?0
-
This content has been removed.
-
PikaKnight wrote: »
Ummm...so people who are lower than 25% aren't healthy or attractive???
clearly not.0 -
I *can* eat as much as a 6' active guy...however, I would say that my appetite is actually lower than average. My height is a touch (1/2 - 1 inch I think) above average. Appetite (and the ease of ignoring it) has very little to do with the amount I eat. I am just not convinced that height has a significant bearing on appetite.
Maybe the issue is that if we let ourselves become too large, we always want to eat that much again!
But, seriously, from a logical standpoint, if everyone's appetite matched their NEEDS, everyone would be at their ideal weight and none of us would be having this discussion.
For whatever reason, appetitie goes wrong for some people.
And smaller bodies require fewer calories, thus it can be harder to maintain a smaller weight. The only reason height figures in is that unless you are pretty well muscled, a shorter person will have a smaller ideal weight. I don't think height in and of itself has much to do with it.
Last week hubs and I had a day off. I fixed breakfast (moderate calories and fairly healthy) and we went out for lunch. We had dessert and an appetizer. It was a large meal for me, but not a total calorie bomb. I only had a snack (granola bar) for dinner. Bedtime came, and hubs wanted a nightcap. I had no calories left for even a glass of wine. Did I feel deprived/like I had sacrificed? Yes. Hubs also watches his weight. But he could afford the drink. Because he is mantaining 35 more pounds than I am. That is just the reality of it.
So, in relation to original question, size can determine PERCEIVED sacrifices made. And really this is all about perceptions of sacrifice.
I also REALLY. Need to get off the computer and go for a run!
0 -
determined_14 wrote: »I don't think the article says enough about the health risks of very low body fat. Especially (I think) for women. (I'm not a man, so I'm less versed on that topic.
) Otherwise, it seemed largely accurate. I think the two myths it addresses at the beginning are the most noteworthy part: on Black Friday last year I turned on a "Fitness Blender HIIT and abs workout" to do with my sisters (neither of whom workout regularly). We were about ten minutes in and my older sister was definitely feeling it. "Okay, Thanksgiving is gone!" she said, meaning she surely MUST have burned through her thanksgiving meal by now. I didn't say anything, but the Fitness Blender calorie burn estimate for that workout is about 300-500 calories (for the whole 45 minutes, depending on your weight, effort, etc., obviously). I think this is an example of myth one, that with a few small changes, we can get big results. It was also a reminder to me about how perceived effort =/= actual burn, and how much easier it is to eat a lot of food than it is to burn it off, especially if you don't educate yourself about calorie counts and approximate burns.
What's a fitness blender?0 -
So stay fat then? Then I'll just be labelled as the lazy fat guy. CICO right? Everyone can get lean. No exceptions. Stop making excuses, etc. I'll consider it once I at least get below the obese/overweight line which is around 215 but I don't really see how it's productive to do before that.
No, GO SEE A DOCTOR. Which part of GO SEE A DOCTOR do you not understand? If you have hormonal issues, guess what, THEY CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. It doesn't mean they come back and say "your thyroid is broken just stay fat" or "your t is low, oh well sucks for you, seeya." Seriously dude, quit whining and go DO SOMETHING.0 -
clearly not.
I don't know, but I read her post to be saying that she would feel healthy and attractive at that range, that anything more isn't necessary... the extra effort to get lower wouldn't make her feel that much MORE so.
I gave it a pass. I think that 25% body fat is attractive, and can be healthy, so if she's happy there, *high five*0 -
LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
No, GO SEE A DOCTOR. Which part of GO SEE A DOCTOR do you not understand? If you have hormonal issues, guess what, THEY CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. It doesn't mean they come back and say "your thyroid is broken just stay fat" or "your t is low, oh well sucks for you, seeya." Seriously dude, quit whining and go DO SOMETHING.
The part about it costing $400 for just the tests, let alone the treatments. That's why he's not going to the doctor. He's trying to solve it himself... and if I didn't live in Canada... I think I'd be doing the same thing. I don't have $400 to spend on myself. $400 for my kids... I'd find a way, but $400 on myself - I have a really hard time with that.
So yeah, I get it.0 -
MireyGal76 wrote: »
I don't know, but I read her post to be saying that she would feel healthy and attractive at that range, that anything more isn't necessary... the extra effort to get lower wouldn't make her feel that much MORE so.
I gave it a pass. I think that 25% body fat is attractive, and can be healthy, so if she's happy there, *high five*
I read it that way too.
My Fat2Fit app says that healthy bodyfat percentage for females age 41-50 is 23-35%. I don't kow. I do know I would like the way I look better under 23%. But as long as I am in the healthy range the rest is vanity fitness! Not that there is anything wrong with that. I want to be healthy and feel good first, but looking good is right behind that! And I am totally willing to admit it.
0 -
This has been discussed on many occasions, but unless you are measuring/logging every meal you really do not know how much someone is eating. And that includes your own kids. Perception in this matter is very very inaccurate. So while it may seem like he has a hollow leg, it's extremely unlikely to be the case. Especially if he moves a lot, this can add 1000-2000 calories a day in itself. (And as far as the kid at school, he could be eating buckets of cookies for breakfast, dinner, and second dinner, and pre-bedtime snack, and they're sending him with "health food" to keep up appearances... and the fact that he didn't like the food he was sent with doesn't make it less fishy...)
Maybe this is conditioning, upbringing, social cues, not listening to my body, etc, but if I don't stop myself, I can eat as much as my 170 lb 6 ft tall super active 16 year old son. I am 5'2" tall and weigh 132 lbs. If my appetite matched my needs, I wouldn't have a problem! My body needs around 1700 cals a day to maintain. Unfortunately, my appetitie wants more like 2700!
Now, I'm not sure I could out eat my 14 year old beanpole. We, as a family, look at him and say--where does he put it??? So there you go--genetic?
When the 14 year old was in preschool, I worked in his room helping serve lunch to offset school costs. My son was a skinny kid then too. He sat by a little boy who looked like a butterball. At lunch, my sons lunchbox would be packed with food. He would eat pretty much all of it every day. The "round" little boy had half a sandwich and an apple slice or two. He would eat about four bites. So why was my son, even at age 3, eating like a horse and skinny while his friend ate almost nothing and was already considerably fat? I've got to say there were some genetic things going on here. When I met the parents, they were shaped exactly like the round son. Now, I can't say about my son because he is adopted. But it sure makes you think!
As far as how much you can eat, that's not the same as how much you need to be satisfied. A lot of that depends on the types of food you eat and how much they sate your appetite. It's definitely easy to overeat based on cues, and I remember one experiment where they gave someone a bowl of soup with X amount and they were satisfied with it. Then they had a bowl with a tube hidden in the bottom, imperceptibly feeding more soup into the bowl as the people ate, and they ended up eating way more and not even noticing.
Also, when putting a huge portion on your plate, many of us tend to be completionists and just want to clean off our plates regardless of hunger. This one is definitely me and I've found it makes a huge difference to measure out portions and put the container away before I even start eating.
It's possible that your appetite won't match your needs regardless of what types of foods you eat, I'm sure it happens to plenty of people. But I really don't think it's related to being taller or shorter.0 -
I read it that way too.
My Fat2Fit app says that healthy bodyfat percentage for females age 41-50 is 23-35%. I don't kow. I do know I would like the way I look better under 23%. But as long as I am in the healthy range the rest is vanity fitness! Not that there is anything wrong with that. I want to be healthy and feel good first, but looking good is right behind that! And I am totally willing to admit it.
I know it's sometimes perceived as a negative thing here sometimes but there is nothing wrong with wanting to be a certain bf% for 'vanity' or preference (as long as it's not an unhealthy bf to the individual) I also prefer the way I look at sub 23% (actually at nearer 19% - well, except the bewbs as they get smaller too lol) but I am healthy at anywhere from my leanest (about 18%) to my current fluffier weight of probably about 24 - 25%
(and probably higher). The trade off for me to get much below 22% is just not worth it to me currently - my performance in my chosen sport gets impacted and there are other 'costs' that I am just not willing to pay for the aesthetics. Aesthetics are so individual also as I know that many people do not like the more extreme lean or muscular look - and they are absolutely entitled to those preferences. I may chose to get to my prior leanness or even lower at some point - but not when it is incongruent to my other goals and preferences - which are more of a priority for me.0 -
I know it's sometimes perceived as a negative thing here sometimes but there is nothing wrong with wanting to be a certain bf% for 'vanity' or preference (as long as it's not an unhealthy bf to the individual) I also prefer the way I look at sub 23% (actually at nearer 19% - well, except the bewbs as they get smaller too lol) but I am healthy at anywhere from my leanest (about 18%) to my current fluffier weight of probably about 44 - 45%
(and probably higher). The trade off for me to get much below 22% is just not worth it to me currently - my performance in my chosen sport gets impacted and there are other 'costs' that I am just not willing to pay for the aesthetics. Aesthetics are so individual also as I know that many people do not like the more extreme lean or muscular look - and they are absolutely entitled to those preferences. I may chose to get to my prior leanness or even lower at some point - but not when it is incongruent to my other goals and preferences - which are more of a priority for me.
FIFY
0 -
@SideSteel... I just gigglesnorted at that!! Thankfully I don't have a sinus cold!0
-
To everyone... I just wanted to thank you all for the dialogue. There have been some really interesting discussions and I've found it really helpful.
You guys and gals rock!0 -
0
-
Yeah I saw that part after I'd posted.MireyGal76 wrote: »
The part about it costing $400 for just the tests, let alone the treatments. That's why he's not going to the doctor. He's trying to solve it himself... and if I didn't live in Canada... I think I'd be doing the same thing. I don't have $400 to spend on myself. $400 for my kids... I'd find a way, but $400 on myself - I have a really hard time with that.
So yeah, I get it.
I still don't understand the need to whine about it at every opportunity. (Nor the idea of choosing a plan that has a deductible you can't afford.)0 -
Lots of generalities and they don't address genetics or age among other things...but all in all I think it's pretty good and fairly accurate in that it's basically saying that the leaner you get, the harder it is.
I've generally found this to be pretty true for myself. I feel great and do great right around 15%...basically I can eat pretty well and do some exercise and still drink beer regularly and enjoy pizza night with my boys, etc and maintain 15ish% pretty easily. 12% is not horrible, but it does take more effort...I do have to pay more attention to my diet and there are less "oh wells" when I miss a workout. Below 12% is pretty tough for me...I do feel like I have to give up a lot, and frankly I generally just feel kind of *kitten* that low.
Of course, this was a completely different story when I was in my 20s...I easily maintained 10% or lower in my 20s with no problem...at 40, things seem to be different.0 -
MireyGal76 wrote: »To everyone... I just wanted to thank you all for the dialogue. There have been some really interesting discussions and I've found it really helpful.
You guys and gals rock!
Thank you for starting a good conversation... we need more of these.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...
wut?0 -
Neither... I thought the article and what it sold was terrible..
wut?0 -
MireyGal76 wrote: »
I don't know, but I read her post to be saying that she would feel healthy and attractive at that range, that anything more isn't necessary... the extra effort to get lower wouldn't make her feel that much MORE so.
I gave it a pass. I think that 25% body fat is attractive, and can be healthy, so if she's happy there, *high five*
i read it the same as you did and didn't see any judgement at all.0 -
0
-
Cost. I have a high deductible plan and lab work equals an $400+ bill in the mail. Also I don't want a medicalized solution that I have to rely on. The whole point of losing weight is to get off the medications/devices you're on when you're fat. I used to use a sleep apnea machine. Now I don't have to for instance. I never took medication when I was heavy so it seems silly to think I should rely on it now. My blood pressure was never bad but I was pre-diabetic when I was heavier. I was basically a step away from medicine. My glucose numbers are normal now. Lipids are normal. My cholesterol was very high and has climbed since my heaviest even. It seems backwards considering my diet has improved so much. This was from my work's biometric screening.
The truth is - he knows what's his priorities in life are. Too bad they are not in right order for most people.
A short history - In one of the threads there was a talk about body fat % and @ana3067 was done dealing with his complaints and said he was probably at 42 or whatever % body fat.
Just to prove that he is not @ that high body fat % he took the very next Monday's appointment for Dexa. I think we were talking about it on a Friday.
He then updated the results on his profile.
He has priorities just that they are not in right order for most people.
0 -
uh... no. to both.
uh no to both? what someone being 25% body fact and being healthy and happy?
You think 25% body fat is unhealthy? What are you smoking. Please share.0 -
Well, currently the law is such that he'll have to carry some kind of insurance or else pay a penalty. Even if you consider his medical tests could be $400, the difference between his current plan and a better one (if his work even has options) might be $100 month, so even if it made the tests free, he'd be behind $800. I think the Canadian had it right - down here in the states, healthcare is just to hard to justify to yourself for a lot of people.LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »Yeah I saw that part after I'd posted.
I still don't understand the need to whine about it at every opportunity. (Nor the idea of choosing a plan that has a deductible you can't afford.)
BFDeal, I'm not sure what your financial situation is, but I'd agree a bit with people's off the cuff reaction of go get blood work. If you stop and consider rationally - you're already spending time measuring out your food from the sounds of it, why is that worth it in time spent to fix your health, but getting blood work isn't justifiable in money spent? Just because they find something, doesn't necessitate taking a prescription to treat it, the option to pay for and take a treatment would still be yours.
At the same time, I think people's assumption that it is a hormonal issue is overblown. Even people with thyroid conditions can lose weight, it just gets harder. This idea that dieting causes metabolic damage is pretty unsubstantiated, and tends to defy evolutionary framework - life has been dealing with excess to starvation to excess again cycles for millions of years.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
For the record, BodPod test (much cheaper) LOL. It was an inexpensive practical way to get a reasonably accurate body fat measurement.
Thanks for the correction but that still doesn't change the priorities part.0 -
Because it's the only plan the company offers?
Are you sure for the higher deductible part for once a year blood work?
Most insurance companies and the plans do not have "high deductibles" for a blood work once a year. They as a matter of fact encourage.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.7K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions