MamaBirdBoss Member

Because it's fun to eat. Just like people over-spend even though most people are capable of adding and subtracting. Might as well say, I don't understand how people with decent jobs say, "I chose to be in debt and to spend more than I can afford" if they are educated in basic mathematics. And yet more than 10% of…

I believe that it's not medically correct to call it an addiction, for various reasons, but a COMPULSION, absolutely. It has more in common with hoarding, anorexia, and OCD disorders than it does with substance abuse. And you CAN control it. No one puts a gun to your head and makes you eat too much...or drink too much...or…

At a BMI of 18.5-27, things like fat free mass become more and more important. Greater fat free mass has proven to be protective (in the absence of excessive fat mass). So a girl who has 25% fat mass at a BMI of 26 is very LIKELY to have better survivability of a ton of things than a girl with 25% fat mass and a BMI of…

I didn't mention smoking. :) I mentioned the things they absolutely DID NOT adjust for, and I also mentioned the fact that the study design made the entire conclusions invalid because it was based on weight at death, not at development of the fatal condition. And the large study DID find different risk factors at different…

A lot of that has to do with the type of sport. That's another thing...we assume that athletes are healthy, but a number do things that are either bad for them now (like some powerlifters who are obese to make their bases more stable...or some gymnasts who deliberately drop pounds below healthy levels to fly higher) and…

Most very young people die of accident. People who are overweight are less active and undertake fewer risks, so they are less likely to die of accident at all ages. This becomes statistically significant when you're less than...45, I think it was, because NO ONE who's overweight is yet dying of illnesses caused by weight…

It's like saying that you can be a healthy smoker. Weeeeeeell, by some measures, yes, you can be very healthy while also being a smoker. But you're completely delusional if you think that the smoking isn't impacting your health now and might have dire consequences later.

Yep. Explain that you're doing it to gain, and people without histories of obesity tend to have a better mental tab of what they eat, and so they may not need this (if their goals aren't that ambitious) but that it will help you gain at the right rate.

Oh, if you've been doing fairly intense circuit training already, then YES, I would totally recommend Zuzana's stuff. She's amazing. Also, you can try out fitnessrum.com for 2 3-month programs followed by a 1-month challenge. Fitnessrum is free. And Rumi's workouts are 20-40 minutes, I think almost always 30 or less. But…

Zuzana is now at Zuzanalight.com, and her stuff is way better than the new bodyrock. But it's HARD. I'm hoping to be up to it in a year or so.

I wouldn't call it "unhealthy" not to have abs. :) It sounds like you have a good amount of room for recomp, so you might want to slow down the weight gain by a lot to give yourself time to put on some muscle. How much you can put on partly depends on genetics, partly by your frame size, partly by how much (and to a lesser…

My husband is right at your height. At 145, he's cut. He has a full 6 pack always visible, no spare weight at all round his middle, obvious pecs, shoulders, nice shape, gets looks on the beach, etc. Benches over 160 every time he goes to the gym, which is 2x per week for about 45 minutes at a time. Well-developed legs and…

Depends on your surgeon, the surgery, and whether you try to force it.

It IS a quick fix. You walk in being able to eat 3000 to 8000 calories in a day. You walk out with a stomach the size of a walnut. Even people with the most atrocious habits/addictions/attitudes lose weight at first because they cannot physically keep down food. HOWEVER...for a certain segment of people, it gives them the…

Lots of people have negative associations with exercise. Many people have only ever exercised TO lose weight, and since they found it ineffective for that (which it is, without calorie-counting!), they learned to hate it. Some people are too heavy to do what you'd call "exercise" or too ill. Also, heavier people can lose a…

Because I know the range of healthy weights and what they look like on women. I had DDs and a rear the size of J Lo's. So clearly, I must have been TERRIBLY EMACIATED. Oh, yeah, and I actually did lift heavily at that weight. So my body fat was down in the lower levels of the "athletic" range, which means that I was small…

Or it could be that she has crap friend who want her chubbier so they feel better about themselves. The idea of 115lbs looking "too thin" and losing one's curves at 5'4"...I'd like to see a frame that's SO heavy-boned! I'm betting your waist measurement was around 26, maybe 27 at that weight, with hips and bust…

This makes zero sense. If she recomps at 127, she would lose her periods due to low fat mass if that were, indeed, the original cause. Periods are dependent on stress and fat mass. They don't care about fat-free mass AT ALL.

At 5'3", your face wouldn't look "sunken" at 115. I would personally believe that people who prefer you at 127 just want to make themselves feel better. Not one person ever told me I looked too thin at 118 and 5'6". Because I didn't. THere is also NO WAY, unless she was insanely athletic, that she would be skipping periods…

Ouch! No kidding!

With size inflation now, size is completely meaningless. I'm wearing 4s now. I'm quite noticeably chubby still. And before you go, "Oh, you just don't see your body the way it is"--by actual MEASUREMENTS, I should be in a 12. If you go by dress patterns (where the sizing hasn't changed since the 50s or 60s), I think I'm…

Not a chance that a woman who is 5'4" wouldn't look and be obese at 180lbs. 5'4" female competitive bodybuilders who heavily use steroids (not talking bikini division, here) clock in around 150lbs.

First, I would absolutely choose a HEALTHY weight. So 145 would be my top. Second, I'd be looking at losing until I got under 30% body fat, 35" belly circumference, and .8 waist/hip ratio. After that, it's up to you. I'm 5'6" at 137 now and too heavy for a recomp. Won't recomp until I'm below 130. I like having a flat…

Under 130 for sure. 137 now.

And your diary's still closed.

No, you don't.

You should be lightly active and need to STOP counting your walking or else sedentary and counting your walking. You're burning way, way less than you suppose! You're at LEAST double-counting your burns! You're also eating more, since you don't weight your meat! I don't hit active walking 4 miles a day on a treadmill AND…

Mine's always open. :) There's nothing particularly exciting about it, though!

That's nice, because there are plenty of shorter women whose TDEEs are less than 1400 calories a day. Should they all get fat, then?

You're fine. You are NOT going into "starvation mode." If you're not happy with what you're eating, though, you can choose to lose a little more slowly by eating more. I eat anywhere between 1000 and 1600 a day, depending on how hungry I am. You're also not burning nearly as much in exercise as you likely think you are.…