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.
"Unrealistic" body goals
Replies
-
Whatsthemotive wrote: »The OP appeared to be identifying “perfection” goals. I suppose part of the issue is that people may not be using common definitions. For example, what is meant by a flat stomach. I noticed that some people disagreed with my statement that women have organs. Which is odd. Because clearly women have organs. I suppose the dispute is whether those organs prevent a healthy woman from having a “flat stomach.” I’m not worried about me. But I’ve got two daughters in their 20s. I want them to be fit and healthy. I don’t think some of the images thrown at them are healthy.
Yeah, this is something I waffle on and feel conflicted about. I'm not big into the "fat acceptance" movement (at least as far as saying that being obese is as perfectly healthy as weighing less - because of course people have dignity no matter their size or any other characteristic), but I do have a problem with the types of bodies we glorify as a culture - bodies that are literally impossible and spliced up via photo editing. I do value beauty and don't even necessarily mind having an ideal, but somewhere along the line there's this thing that happens where we harshly judge real individuals (including ourselves) for not meeting that ideal, for having scars, or being too old (which seems to get younger all the time and THAT's really alarming to me), and I interpret that as evidence of something really gone amiss.
I'm kind of "typing out loud" here so I don't know to what degree I am making any sense. Maybe that can serve as evidence that I am not really sure what I think about this yet. Undoubtedly, I think it's worth it to strive for excellence, to pursue becoming a better person. The degree and direction this takes will be individual. But one's inherent worth is not dependent on the degree to which they succeed or fail at that, and I think that's where I get cautious, because I think at least in Western, postmodern society, achievement trumps all, and if you exclude large swathes of the population from being able to achieve this very narrow set of standards, then that's not psychologically healthy on an individual or societal level.
You can swap out fitness here for academics, or employment, wealth, or any other metric we use and I think probably the same criticisms can roughly apply. But I'm probably moving too far past the topic thread at this point, sorry.
6 -
I agree. I also think that the obsession with competition and perfection create untold problems. I’m convinced that people are less active than they should be because there is so little space for sports activities unless kids excel. If you can’t be a competitive athlete, you needn’t apply. That’s not new either. In the early 1970s, my PE teacher/basketball coach assigned me to sweep the gymnasium instead of taking part in the activities of the class. I had moved into a small school where every girl was put on the basketball team. There was no option not to be on the team. The other girls had been playing as a team for a couple of years. I learned to avoid physical activity like the plague because I associated it with being ostracized and bullied.7
-
I get what the OP is saying. I've seen a lot of threads refer to a healthy BMI range as unrealistic. I've also see a ton of people put quotes around the words overweight and obese as though they were part of the marginal body builder exception, when in reality they're overweight or obese. As a woman who is 5'6" the ideal range is 115lbs-154lbs. So at 120lbs and 5'6" a person would be a healthy weight and I bet they'd have a flat stomach- nothing unrealistic about it. Of course losing 50lbs in 2 weeks is unrealistic or gaining muscle mass while refusing to workout is unrealistic, but most things I've seen referred to as unrealistic are actually entirely possible, although difficult. Difficult to attain and unrealistic are different in my book.5
-
As someone who sees a lot of women naked?
No. not even 120lb 5'6" woman has a flat lower stomach - at least not for a whole month (if they have a uterus) or a whole day (depending on what and when they've last eaten and pooped). In fact even at lower weights (the woman I'm thinking about is about 5'6 and weighs 112lbs) doesn't even have a flat lower stomach.
And one who has lost quite a lot of weight or had kids doesn't for any part of the month.9 -
I've seen a lot of threads refer to a healthy BMI range as unrealistic.
I've seen posters with weight to lose saying it would be in their case (and in some cases guys in really good shape saying that, likely correctly).
What I've never seen is what OP seemed to be suggesting -- a bunch of posters jumping in and telling someone who said she was 5'3 and had a goal weight of 115 (within the healthy range) that such a goal would be unrealistic. Not only haven't I seen that, but I honestly would be shocked to see it on MFP, as it is not at all how the conversations I've seen go (and none of the regular posters are likely to think a weight in the healthy range is unrealistic when the poster herself or himself does not).I've also see a ton of people put quotes around the words overweight and obese as though they were part of the marginal body builder exception, when in reality they're overweight or obese.
Same comments as above, except it seems even more clear that you aren't really talking about community reaction, as I think OP was, but an individual who doesn't think he or she (it's usually a he) is overweight at a particular weight. If someone has a lot to lose, I think they are likely to change their mind as they lose, and there are a number of in shape men on this site who are technically overweight but have other evidence (BF% measurement or waste measurement) that makes me think they are right. It's not all that uncommon for men to be at a decent BF% despite having an overweight (rarely obese) BMI -- I recently listened to an interesting Sigma Nutrition that discussed the issue.
Bigger point is that if some guy says I'm 15% BF and happy with that and don't care about my overweight BMI, it's not an issue -- as OP claimed -- of the community being discouraging.As a woman who is 5'6" the ideal range is 115lbs-154lbs. So at 120lbs and 5'6" a person would be a healthy weight and I bet they'd have a flat stomach- nothing unrealistic about it.
Whether it is unrealistic depends on the person and what they mean by flat stomach, but just being a healthy weight hardly means you will have a flat stomach. Often it is going to depend on when the fat comes off your middle vs other areas, loose skin (from weight loss or pregnancy), age, and may require strength training. And for some it may not be realistic given their other goals (i.e., if it leaves them too thin for their taste in other areas) or stuff that really can't be fixed without surgery (loose skin).
Typically, though, I don't see people being discouraging (again) if someone says she wants to work on her stomach. There's even a great thread called "So You Want a Great Stomach" or something similar that gets recommended (and is inspiring).3 -
I get what the OP is saying. I've seen a lot of threads refer to a healthy BMI range as unrealistic. I've also see a ton of people put quotes around the words overweight and obese as though they were part of the marginal body builder exception, when in reality they're overweight or obese. As a woman who is 5'6" the ideal range is 115lbs-154lbs. So at 120lbs and 5'6" a person would be a healthy weight and I bet they'd have a flat stomach- nothing unrealistic about it. Of course losing 50lbs in 2 weeks is unrealistic or gaining muscle mass while refusing to workout is unrealistic, but most things I've seen referred to as unrealistic are actually entirely possible, although difficult. Difficult to attain and unrealistic are different in my book.
"Flat stomach" in the sense of what? Some women are absolutely basing their definition on unrealistic expectations from fitness influencers and the like. I've seen girls/women who are very slender still concerned because their stomach isn't at that photo-ready state 24 hours a day, every single day of the month.
Even people who look that way for a living don't attain that. I agree that there is a difference between difficult and unrealistic, but when someone says they want a "flat stomach" or a similar goal, you can't immediately tell if they're referring to the first or the second.7 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »siberiantarragon wrote: »My weight issues have/had nothing to do with food addiction, that's why. And I'm sure that's the case for many obese people.
Well, if it wasn't caused by food addiction, then what was it caused by?
I'd also like to point out that a hallmark of addiction is denial. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case for you, I'm just saying it's a fact in general.Reminds me of a former coworker who was surprised to learn that I like vegetables, another one of those prejudiced notions about overweight/obese people.
I know plenty of overweight/obese people who like vegetables.
Not everyone who becomes obese has a "food addiction". I was just over the line of overweight into obese when I started back in 2012. I didn't have food issues or food addiction. I put on about 40-50 Lbs over the course of about 8 years. I graduated university when I was 30 and went from being a very active student that didn't own a car and walked or road my bike everywhere and worked landscape construction in the summers and in a liquor warehouse during the school year moving boxes of booze to being an accountant and sitting on my butt all day.
My appetite has always been pretty consistent with my activity level, so I was definitely eating less working my desk job....but still slightly more than I needed to maintain weight...like basically 5-6 Lbs per year.
Just playing devil's advocate, but if not a food addiction (and I don't believe in term in the literal, clinical sense) why did you keep eating when you noticed you pants didn't fit any more? The pleasure you got short term was perceived greater than any threat to your health or other factor?
Nah...I just didn't really care about my weight or any of that kind of stuff. I had no notion of any threat to my health either...health stuff didn't come into play until a decade later...prior to my 30s I was always lean and healthy, competitive athlete, etc. I was hard charging the corporate ladder, working 70-80 hours per week and traveling 25-30 weeks out of the year for work and working my portfolio in what little off time I had. My goals at the time were to climb as fast and hard as I could and get ahead of everyone else in the game at the firm. I've never been an emotional eater...or a stress eater...or had any kind of "relationship" to think about with food. I've always been a three squares a day kind of guy. Hell, sometimes I was so busy that I didn't eat...but I spent 70-80 hours per week just sitting for the most part. Most of my life I've had difficulty just holding onto what weight I did have. I was about a buck 30 soaking wet my senior year in high school and about 165-175 in my 20s and six pack lean. "Dieting" was just something that never crossed my mind until my Dr. told me I needed to lose some weight...I didn't even perceive myself as being particularly overweight, let alone class 1 obese.
Really, if it hadn't been for a change in career vector and leaving the firm at the urging of my wife who grew weary of my corporate climb (that I initially told her would be a year or two at most before I would move on) and didn't want to raise her kids on her own, I probably would have just ignored the Dr. and everything else because I was completely immersed in work and keeping on partner track, etc. Everything else outside of my wife and kids was just noise distracting me from what I perceived at the time as "greatness". Family and work were the only two things of particular importance to me.6 -
I get what the OP is saying. I've seen a lot of threads refer to a healthy BMI range as unrealistic. I've also see a ton of people put quotes around the words overweight and obese as though they were part of the marginal body builder exception, when in reality they're overweight or obese. As a woman who is 5'6" the ideal range is 115lbs-154lbs. So at 120lbs and 5'6" a person would be a healthy weight and I bet they'd have a flat stomach- nothing unrealistic about it. Of course losing 50lbs in 2 weeks is unrealistic or gaining muscle mass while refusing to workout is unrealistic, but most things I've seen referred to as unrealistic are actually entirely possible, although difficult. Difficult to attain and unrealistic are different in my book.
Universally? I doubt it. Though, as others have said, it may depend on how one defines "flat".
5'6" and 120lbs is BMI 19.4. I'm 5'5". When I overshot goal weight, I reached 116lbs, which is BMI 19.3. I did *not* have what *I'd* call a flat stomach, and I'm not completely devoid of muscle mass, not "metabolically obese normal weight" a.k.a. "skinny fat" or anything like that. I'd guess my BF% at that weight around the lower 20s somewhere . . . but my upper body gets almost alarmingly fat depleted while I still have lower body padding, including abdominal fat.
Would some women have a flat stomach at that weight? Sure. I can think of one around here (who I won't name) who's about my height, maybe 20 or so pounds heavier, and who has a flat stomach . . . unless you count a well-defined six-pack as "not flat" (might even be more than 6, can't say I've counted). (Is a mom, besides.)
(It would be "not realistic" for me to look like her, because I'm kinda lazy.)
It's a tangent to this thread, but I feel like "don't chase someone else's look, chase an improved version of me" is a good kind of goal . . . and nearly always realistic, if willing to do the required work.
6 -
I get what the OP is saying. I've seen a lot of threads refer to a healthy BMI range as unrealistic. I've also see a ton of people put quotes around the words overweight and obese as though they were part of the marginal body builder exception, when in reality they're overweight or obese. As a woman who is 5'6" the ideal range is 115lbs-154lbs. So at 120lbs and 5'6" a person would be a healthy weight and I bet they'd have a flat stomach- nothing unrealistic about it. Of course losing 50lbs in 2 weeks is unrealistic or gaining muscle mass while refusing to workout is unrealistic, but most things I've seen referred to as unrealistic are actually entirely possible, although difficult. Difficult to attain and unrealistic are different in my book.
I’ll take that bet, since it doesn’t have a thing to do with reality.
At one point when I was about 20 I was 112, and 5’8” - underweight. I was a catalogue model at the time. I did not have a flat stomach - not even close. I have always had a pooch of fat on my lower belly, and I have no idea how much weight I would have to lose to get rid of it.6 -
I get what the OP is saying. I've seen a lot of threads refer to a healthy BMI range as unrealistic. I've also see a ton of people put quotes around the words overweight and obese as though they were part of the marginal body builder exception, when in reality they're overweight or obese. As a woman who is 5'6" the ideal range is 115lbs-154lbs. So at 120lbs and 5'6" a person would be a healthy weight and I bet they'd have a flat stomach- nothing unrealistic about it. Of course losing 50lbs in 2 weeks is unrealistic or gaining muscle mass while refusing to workout is unrealistic, but most things I've seen referred to as unrealistic are actually entirely possible, although difficult. Difficult to attain and unrealistic are different in my book.
As you yourself point out with example of losing 50lbs in 2 weeks, unrealistic doesn't necessarily mean impossible. Unhealthy, impractical, and/or varying degrees of unlikely? For sure. Some goals are unrealistic because they are impossible without medical intervention - like getting rid of cellulite or stretch marks. Other goals are unrealistic because they are generally unhealthy and impractical (hard to maintain long term) - like losing 25lbs/week. Depending on the individual asking, and how they define the goal, the flat belly goal could be all three (impossible, unhealthy, impractical).
In my experience, most people who specifically ask how to achieve a flat belly (including myself) are looking to magically lose fat (and water bloat) in one area, or spot train. You can't chose where, when, and to what degree the fat burns off, or will away certain physiological or health conditions that hinder achieving an idealized look. Focusing on one body part like this, and expecting that body part to consistentally adhere to an arbitrary standard that has no bearing on your unique history, physiology, and needs, is what makes this an unrealistic goal.
In comparison, a goal to become slimmer from healthy fat loss, or developing abdominal muscle strength and quantity through a steady body building regime (two separate goals working in tandem) are realistically achievable and more honest than the plea for a fat stomach.
1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. I've seen a lot of threads refer to a healthy BMI range as unrealistic. I've also see a ton of people put quotes around the words overweight and obese as though they were part of the marginal body builder exception, when in reality they're overweight or obese. As a woman who is 5'6" the ideal range is 115lbs-154lbs. So at 120lbs and 5'6" a person would be a healthy weight and I bet they'd have a flat stomach- nothing unrealistic about it. Of course losing 50lbs in 2 weeks is unrealistic or gaining muscle mass while refusing to workout is unrealistic, but most things I've seen referred to as unrealistic are actually entirely possible, although difficult. Difficult to attain and unrealistic are different in my book.
I’ll take that bet, since it doesn’t have a thing to do with reality.
At one point when I was about 20 I was 112, and 5’8” - underweight. I was a catalogue model at the time. I did not have a flat stomach - not even close. I have always had a pooch of fat on my lower belly, and I have no idea how much weight I would have to lose to get rid of it.
Yep, i was going to specifically say 'go ask women about their pooch', specifically that word, or their FUPA (https://www.healthline.com/health/weight-loss/how-to-get-rid-of-fupa#:~:text=Excess fat over the area,also called a “panniculus.”&text=For many people, having a,part of their body shape.) , even women heavily into fitness Is that what these women asking are referring to? I don't know. But I bet most women asked about it in either of those terms? Would groan deeply and tell you they hate it.3 -
wunderkindking wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. I've seen a lot of threads refer to a healthy BMI range as unrealistic. I've also see a ton of people put quotes around the words overweight and obese as though they were part of the marginal body builder exception, when in reality they're overweight or obese. As a woman who is 5'6" the ideal range is 115lbs-154lbs. So at 120lbs and 5'6" a person would be a healthy weight and I bet they'd have a flat stomach- nothing unrealistic about it. Of course losing 50lbs in 2 weeks is unrealistic or gaining muscle mass while refusing to workout is unrealistic, but most things I've seen referred to as unrealistic are actually entirely possible, although difficult. Difficult to attain and unrealistic are different in my book.
I’ll take that bet, since it doesn’t have a thing to do with reality.
At one point when I was about 20 I was 112, and 5’8” - underweight. I was a catalogue model at the time. I did not have a flat stomach - not even close. I have always had a pooch of fat on my lower belly, and I have no idea how much weight I would have to lose to get rid of it.
Yep, i was going to specifically say 'go ask women about their pooch', specifically that word, or their FUPA (https://www.healthline.com/health/weight-loss/how-to-get-rid-of-fupa#:~:text=Excess fat over the area,also called a “panniculus.”&text=For many people, having a,part of their body shape.) , even women heavily into fitness Is that what these women asking are referring to? I don't know. But I bet most women asked about it in either of those terms? Would groan deeply and tell you they hate it.
A flat(ter) stomach is one of my goals, but I have no illusions about what "flat" means in my case. It's a relative term. I know I'm never going to look like I haven't had kids (even without the pooch I have stretch marks, though they're faded). And I am 100% OK with that. It's also about functionality - I have never had diastasis recti, but I know women who have and it's killer on the back. My muscles have a job to do and I want them to do it so I can do my life.
Maybe it isn't surprising that it's like this, but one of the things I don't like about standards today is how much we're supposed to look like we've never experienced life - that we've been carefully cocooned in a bubble where nothing difficult has ever happened to us. Maybe it's a worshipping youth thing. I moisturize, but my hands still have calluses because I do a lot with them. I don't cover my gray hairs. I'd rather have people assume I look really good for my real age, than like I'm trying too hard to be 20 again. And I was really dumb when I was 20, so, I don't aspire to return to that, anyway.9 -
penguinmama87 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. I've seen a lot of threads refer to a healthy BMI range as unrealistic. I've also see a ton of people put quotes around the words overweight and obese as though they were part of the marginal body builder exception, when in reality they're overweight or obese. As a woman who is 5'6" the ideal range is 115lbs-154lbs. So at 120lbs and 5'6" a person would be a healthy weight and I bet they'd have a flat stomach- nothing unrealistic about it. Of course losing 50lbs in 2 weeks is unrealistic or gaining muscle mass while refusing to workout is unrealistic, but most things I've seen referred to as unrealistic are actually entirely possible, although difficult. Difficult to attain and unrealistic are different in my book.
I’ll take that bet, since it doesn’t have a thing to do with reality.
At one point when I was about 20 I was 112, and 5’8” - underweight. I was a catalogue model at the time. I did not have a flat stomach - not even close. I have always had a pooch of fat on my lower belly, and I have no idea how much weight I would have to lose to get rid of it.
Yep, i was going to specifically say 'go ask women about their pooch', specifically that word, or their FUPA (https://www.healthline.com/health/weight-loss/how-to-get-rid-of-fupa#:~:text=Excess fat over the area,also called a “panniculus.”&text=For many people, having a,part of their body shape.) , even women heavily into fitness Is that what these women asking are referring to? I don't know. But I bet most women asked about it in either of those terms? Would groan deeply and tell you they hate it.
A flat(ter) stomach is one of my goals, but I have no illusions about what "flat" means in my case. It's a relative term. I know I'm never going to look like I haven't had kids (even without the pooch I have stretch marks, though they're faded). And I am 100% OK with that. It's also about functionality - I have never had diastasis recti, but I know women who have and it's killer on the back. My muscles have a job to do and I want them to do it so I can do my life.
Maybe it isn't surprising that it's like this, but one of the things I don't like about standards today is how much we're supposed to look like we've never experienced life - that we've been carefully cocooned in a bubble where nothing difficult has ever happened to us. Maybe it's a worshipping youth thing. I moisturize, but my hands still have calluses because I do a lot with them. I don't cover my gray hairs. I'd rather have people assume I look really good for my real age, than like I'm trying too hard to be 20 again. And I was really dumb when I was 20, so, I don't aspire to return to that, anyway.
Yep.
Most of my fat is right around my middle/spare tire kind of thing (stomach, hips, above my butt but not my butt), and I'd like to see that go down some and I'm sure as heck working on my core muscles but. It's not gonna be a 20 year old's stomach - or someone who's never been fat, or anyone but mine's and it's sure as heck not going to be FLAT.
I'm okay with that because I earned my gray hair and stretch marks.4 -
Maybe this is unfair, but in my mind I definitely separate goals like this into two categories:
1. Goals about what one's body looks like
2. Goals about what one's body can do
The first, it seems to me, is much more likely to have problematic elements involved than the second. Not that the second can't be problematic, because there are limits to human strength and endurance, and we see in the news with some frequency issues with performance enhancing drugs, weird therapies, etc. But I don't think, generally, that the typical person is setting *truly* unrealistic goals about the second, more about the first.4 -
IMO, there is a fine line that separates unrealistic body goals and simply managing ones expectations...6
-
I would stay away from the instagram body goals because the models take steroids ( for men) tits and butt injections (for women) social media now has a huge effects on body expectations/self image some people think its possible to achieve such bodies naturally which is impossible1
-
HungryasFuark wrote: »I would stay away from the instagram body goals because the models take steroids ( for men) tits and butt injections (for women) social media now has a huge effects on body expectations/self image some people think its possible to achieve such bodies naturally which is impossible
not to mention camera filters....2 -
-
rheddmobile wrote: »I get what the OP is saying. I've seen a lot of threads refer to a healthy BMI range as unrealistic. I've also see a ton of people put quotes around the words overweight and obese as though they were part of the marginal body builder exception, when in reality they're overweight or obese. As a woman who is 5'6" the ideal range is 115lbs-154lbs. So at 120lbs and 5'6" a person would be a healthy weight and I bet they'd have a flat stomach- nothing unrealistic about it. Of course losing 50lbs in 2 weeks is unrealistic or gaining muscle mass while refusing to workout is unrealistic, but most things I've seen referred to as unrealistic are actually entirely possible, although difficult. Difficult to attain and unrealistic are different in my book.
I’ll take that bet, since it doesn’t have a thing to do with reality.
At one point when I was about 20 I was 112, and 5’8” - underweight. I was a catalogue model at the time. I did not have a flat stomach - not even close. I have always had a pooch of fat on my lower belly, and I have no idea how much weight I would have to lose to get rid of it.
When I had my DEXA I was 7% BF on my torso....and still didn't have a flat lower stomach IMO.3 -
You know addressing realism, along the lines of social media and just media representation.:
Other things a lot of women are not aware of are things like... the impact of clothes on the appearance of how flat stomachs are.
Ie: If I go up a size in jeans from my waist size, and/or wear shape wear my stomach appears pretty flat, too.
Put me in my waist size jeans and/or skip the shape wear - LOL NO. Naked? WAY BIGGER lol no.
And we don't usually see that many other women naked in order to be able to judge.
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 898 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions