If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Dieting is hard!
"Carol Frilegh" wrote in message
... Very few of us with weight challenges domn't like to eat although we may not all like baseball and beer. sex followed by a pizza is also nice. Actually, I suspect that the problem with many overweight people, myself included at a time, precisely is that we do not like to eat. We just like to have our stomach full. No matter the taste, as long as it is filling. Just read between the line of most successful fad diets : "eat as much as you want.". And then, they proceed to tell you what you can eat without limit, and what you are totally prohibited from eating. That's not something for people who like to eat, that's something for people who want to feel full. That's a dream for bulimia : eat as much as you can, no need to throw up afterwards... You do have people who do not like to eat at all. Though I suspect it's some kind of controlled anorexia or something... Maybe what some writer called "slim obese". On the other hand, people who do *like* to eat usually do not over-eat. I mean, when you start paying attention to your feelings, stuff that you grossly over-eat doesn't taste that good. If you take the best chocolate in the world and eat it right after a 2000 cal meal, it's not going to taste like the 8th marvel of the world it is. That would be no problem for many obese - yeah, some chocolate, good, throw it that way. But if you eat it at 4pm, right during the afternoon hunger, it's going to taste perfect. At the end of that 2000 cal meal, the people who like to eat will just save that chocolate and eat it (much) later when they're hungry again... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/18/2004 11:46 AM, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 16:18:37 -0400, Dally wrote: Because you CHOSE to become fat That's a misconception. Most people don't choose to become fat. In many cases is kind of the opposite. People tend to just stop paying attention -- or maybe they never start to pay attention -- and then they are fat. For me, being "not fat" requires that I pay attention to what I put in my mouth. I *choose* to pay attention just as, at some level, I previously chose not to pay attention. I *choose* to make time to exercise just I previously chose to believe that would take care if itself. -- jmk in NC |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/18/2004 11:46 AM, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 16:18:37 -0400, Dally wrote: Because you CHOSE to become fat That's a misconception. Most people don't choose to become fat. In many cases is kind of the opposite. People tend to just stop paying attention -- or maybe they never start to pay attention -- and then they are fat. For me, being "not fat" requires that I pay attention to what I put in my mouth. I *choose* to pay attention just as, at some level, I previously chose not to pay attention. I *choose* to make time to exercise just I previously chose to believe that would take care if itself. -- jmk in NC |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Ignoramus22762 wrote in alt.support.diet on Wed, 18 Aug 2004:
For me, gaining weight was half conscious and half unconscious. Me too, ditto and likewise. I was large, although not overweight, by 1960s standards (there was a model called Twiggy who made Kate Moss look fat), but then lost a lot of weight in the early 1970s when I left home. To the point that I was too thin at one stage. That stayed off until my mid-30s, in spite of childbirth, when it crept up as it so often does. At 40, I was overweight and had a 40-a-day smoking habit. So I lost 50 lbs, then gave up smoking. And it has crept on a bit over the decade since then - up and down, but more up than down! [Snip] Also, I did not realize that 1) weight loss is relatively easy and 2) that many ailments that I had, including hypertension, heartburn, etc, were due to overeating and eating wrong foods and being fat. That was due to ignorance, rather than lack of realism or willpower. I hate to tell you, but it seems fairly proven that men actually find losing weight a lot easier than women do. Could this be because women are designed to have some body fat? [Snip] People gain weight for various reasons. Some are just "eaters", some are pre-diabetics who experience intense hunger from fluctuations in blood sugar levels, some have thyroid problems, etc. It is not wise to lump them all in the same category and make a moralistic judgment. Amen to that! -- Annabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/88/80kg |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On 18 Aug 2004 17:27:52 GMT, Ignoramus22762
wrote: In article , Annabel Smyth wrote: Ignoramus22762 wrote in alt.support.diet on Wed, 18 Aug 2004: For me, gaining weight was half conscious and half unconscious. Me too, ditto and likewise. I was large, although not overweight, by 1960s standards (there was a model called Twiggy who made Kate Moss look fat), but then lost a lot of weight in the early 1970s when I left home. To the point that I was too thin at one stage. That stayed off until my mid-30s, in spite of childbirth, when it crept up as it so often does. At 40, I was overweight and had a 40-a-day smoking habit. So I lost 50 lbs, then gave up smoking. And it has crept on a bit over the decade since then - up and down, but more up than down! Thanks for a real life story. I realize that I am only in the beginning of a lifetime struggle against overeating. [Snip] Also, I did not realize that 1) weight loss is relatively easy and 2) that many ailments that I had, including hypertension, heartburn, etc, were due to overeating and eating wrong foods and being fat. That was due to ignorance, rather than lack of realism or willpower. I hate to tell you, but it seems fairly proven that men actually find losing weight a lot easier than women do. Could this be because women are designed to have some body fat? I am not sure if it is actually true. Women have lower basal metabolic rate, but do they really have harder time losing weight (as a percentage of their weight)? I would like to see some proof, rather than quotes from fitness websites. Maybe some controlled studies that say that a certain calorie deficit produces more weight loss in men than women, or something of that sort. i I don't have any scientific basis for saying this, but I certainly noticed at all the many slimming clubs and groups I've been to over the years, it nearly always seems to be the men who have the spectacular losses on a sustained weekly basis. Whether there's a physical reason for this, or whether men just stick with it better once they've decided to do something about losing weight, I don't know. janice |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On 18 Aug 2004 17:27:52 GMT, Ignoramus22762
wrote: In article , Annabel Smyth wrote: Ignoramus22762 wrote in alt.support.diet on Wed, 18 Aug 2004: For me, gaining weight was half conscious and half unconscious. Me too, ditto and likewise. I was large, although not overweight, by 1960s standards (there was a model called Twiggy who made Kate Moss look fat), but then lost a lot of weight in the early 1970s when I left home. To the point that I was too thin at one stage. That stayed off until my mid-30s, in spite of childbirth, when it crept up as it so often does. At 40, I was overweight and had a 40-a-day smoking habit. So I lost 50 lbs, then gave up smoking. And it has crept on a bit over the decade since then - up and down, but more up than down! Thanks for a real life story. I realize that I am only in the beginning of a lifetime struggle against overeating. [Snip] Also, I did not realize that 1) weight loss is relatively easy and 2) that many ailments that I had, including hypertension, heartburn, etc, were due to overeating and eating wrong foods and being fat. That was due to ignorance, rather than lack of realism or willpower. I hate to tell you, but it seems fairly proven that men actually find losing weight a lot easier than women do. Could this be because women are designed to have some body fat? I am not sure if it is actually true. Women have lower basal metabolic rate, but do they really have harder time losing weight (as a percentage of their weight)? I would like to see some proof, rather than quotes from fitness websites. Maybe some controlled studies that say that a certain calorie deficit produces more weight loss in men than women, or something of that sort. i I don't have any scientific basis for saying this, but I certainly noticed at all the many slimming clubs and groups I've been to over the years, it nearly always seems to be the men who have the spectacular losses on a sustained weekly basis. Whether there's a physical reason for this, or whether men just stick with it better once they've decided to do something about losing weight, I don't know. janice |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On 18 Aug 2004 17:27:52 GMT, Ignoramus22762
wrote: I am not sure if it is actually true. Women have lower basal metabolic rate, but do they really have harder time losing weight (as a percentage of their weight)? I would like to see some proof, rather than quotes from fitness websites. Maybe some controlled studies that say that a certain calorie deficit produces more weight loss in men than women, or something of that sort. Well, I think some of the difference relates to the lower basal metabolic rate, in that it's hard to achieve the same calorie deficit as a man with a faster metabolism. Someone here (Heywood? Doug?) talks about how easy it is for him to lose two pounds a week or more. This requires a 1000kcal day deficit (typically accomplished partly by eating less and partly by exercising more). For someone who has previously been eating 3500 calories a day or some such -- not uncommon for a man, this is a lot more feasible than for someone who has been eating 2000 or less. The first month of my weight loss (out of 23) was the only one in which I lost as much as 8 pounds. My average monthly loss was about 5 pounds. I doubt I could have managed much more calorie reduction than I did (at the start, about 6.5 times bodyweight) -- and I was exercising quite a bit even before I began dieting so a huge increase there wasn't going to happen either. Does this mean weight loss was harder for me than for a man? I don't know about that, but it was certainly slower. I don't have a problem with you saying that it wasn't all that difficult, but those who continually tell everyone how easy it is to lose 2+ pounds per week may be setting some of us up for failure. It's good to recognize that not everyone can lose at the same rate. (In addition to age, gender, and metabolism, it of course also makes a difference how much overweight the person is to start with.) Chris 262/141/ (145-150) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On 18 Aug 2004 17:27:52 GMT, Ignoramus22762
wrote: I am not sure if it is actually true. Women have lower basal metabolic rate, but do they really have harder time losing weight (as a percentage of their weight)? I would like to see some proof, rather than quotes from fitness websites. Maybe some controlled studies that say that a certain calorie deficit produces more weight loss in men than women, or something of that sort. Well, I think some of the difference relates to the lower basal metabolic rate, in that it's hard to achieve the same calorie deficit as a man with a faster metabolism. Someone here (Heywood? Doug?) talks about how easy it is for him to lose two pounds a week or more. This requires a 1000kcal day deficit (typically accomplished partly by eating less and partly by exercising more). For someone who has previously been eating 3500 calories a day or some such -- not uncommon for a man, this is a lot more feasible than for someone who has been eating 2000 or less. The first month of my weight loss (out of 23) was the only one in which I lost as much as 8 pounds. My average monthly loss was about 5 pounds. I doubt I could have managed much more calorie reduction than I did (at the start, about 6.5 times bodyweight) -- and I was exercising quite a bit even before I began dieting so a huge increase there wasn't going to happen either. Does this mean weight loss was harder for me than for a man? I don't know about that, but it was certainly slower. I don't have a problem with you saying that it wasn't all that difficult, but those who continually tell everyone how easy it is to lose 2+ pounds per week may be setting some of us up for failure. It's good to recognize that not everyone can lose at the same rate. (In addition to age, gender, and metabolism, it of course also makes a difference how much overweight the person is to start with.) Chris 262/141/ (145-150) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Braun" wrote in message ... On 18 Aug 2004 17:27:52 GMT, Ignoramus22762 wrote: I am not sure if it is actually true. Women have lower basal metabolic rate, but do they really have harder time losing weight (as a percentage of their weight)? I would like to see some proof, rather than quotes from fitness websites. Maybe some controlled studies that say that a certain calorie deficit produces more weight loss in men than women, or something of that sort. Well, I think some of the difference relates to the lower basal metabolic rate, in that it's hard to achieve the same calorie deficit as a man with a faster metabolism. Someone here (Heywood? Doug?) talks about how easy it is for him to lose two pounds a week or more. This requires a 1000kcal day deficit (typically accomplished partly by eating less and partly by exercising more). For someone who has previously been eating 3500 calories a day or some such -- not uncommon for a man, this is a lot more feasible than for someone who has been eating 2000 or less. The first month of my weight loss (out of 23) was the only one in which I lost as much as 8 pounds. My average monthly loss was about 5 pounds. I doubt I could have managed much more calorie reduction than I did (at the start, about 6.5 times bodyweight) -- and I was exercising quite a bit even before I began dieting so a huge increase there wasn't going to happen either. Does this mean weight loss was harder for me than for a man? I don't know about that, but it was certainly slower. I don't have a problem with you saying that it wasn't all that difficult, but those who continually tell everyone how easy it is to lose 2+ pounds per week may be setting some of us up for failure. It's good to recognize that not everyone can lose at the same rate. (In addition to age, gender, and metabolism, it of course also makes a difference how much overweight the person is to start with.) Chris 262/141/ (145-150) Plus, women have hormone issues - the body wants to maintain fat more in order to bear children. Plus some women gain weight every month due to their cycle and even though it's water it doesn't necessarily come off as fast or easy as it comes on. Then there's menopause as you know Chris that adds its own difficulties to the mix. Last I heard, men don't deal with this when trying to lose weight, but of course it *has* to be just as easy for women to lose weight and those who can't do it as quickly and easily must be doing something wrong. Jenn |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Braun" wrote in message ... On 18 Aug 2004 17:27:52 GMT, Ignoramus22762 wrote: I am not sure if it is actually true. Women have lower basal metabolic rate, but do they really have harder time losing weight (as a percentage of their weight)? I would like to see some proof, rather than quotes from fitness websites. Maybe some controlled studies that say that a certain calorie deficit produces more weight loss in men than women, or something of that sort. Well, I think some of the difference relates to the lower basal metabolic rate, in that it's hard to achieve the same calorie deficit as a man with a faster metabolism. Someone here (Heywood? Doug?) talks about how easy it is for him to lose two pounds a week or more. This requires a 1000kcal day deficit (typically accomplished partly by eating less and partly by exercising more). For someone who has previously been eating 3500 calories a day or some such -- not uncommon for a man, this is a lot more feasible than for someone who has been eating 2000 or less. The first month of my weight loss (out of 23) was the only one in which I lost as much as 8 pounds. My average monthly loss was about 5 pounds. I doubt I could have managed much more calorie reduction than I did (at the start, about 6.5 times bodyweight) -- and I was exercising quite a bit even before I began dieting so a huge increase there wasn't going to happen either. Does this mean weight loss was harder for me than for a man? I don't know about that, but it was certainly slower. I don't have a problem with you saying that it wasn't all that difficult, but those who continually tell everyone how easy it is to lose 2+ pounds per week may be setting some of us up for failure. It's good to recognize that not everyone can lose at the same rate. (In addition to age, gender, and metabolism, it of course also makes a difference how much overweight the person is to start with.) Chris 262/141/ (145-150) Plus, women have hormone issues - the body wants to maintain fat more in order to bear children. Plus some women gain weight every month due to their cycle and even though it's water it doesn't necessarily come off as fast or easy as it comes on. Then there's menopause as you know Chris that adds its own difficulties to the mix. Last I heard, men don't deal with this when trying to lose weight, but of course it *has* to be just as easy for women to lose weight and those who can't do it as quickly and easily must be doing something wrong. Jenn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The myth of the yo-yo: consistent rate of weight loss with successive dieting by VLCD. | NR | General Discussion | 0 | June 17th, 2004 02:19 AM |
The myth of the yo-yo: consistent rate of weight loss with successive dieting by VLCD. | NR | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | June 17th, 2004 02:19 AM |
The myth of the yo-yo: consistent rate of weight loss with successive dieting by VLCD. | NR | Weightwatchers | 0 | June 17th, 2004 02:19 AM |
The myth of the yo-yo: consistent rate of weight loss with successive dieting by VLCD. | NR | General Discussion | 0 | May 22nd, 2004 05:23 PM |
The myth of the yo-yo: consistent rate of weight loss with successive dieting by VLCD. | NR | Weightwatchers | 0 | May 22nd, 2004 05:23 PM |