A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dieting is hard!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 4th, 2004, 01:37 PM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old August 18th, 2004, 05:20 PM
jmk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 18th, 2004, 05:20 PM
jmk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 18th, 2004, 05:59 PM
Annabel Smyth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 18th, 2004, 08:30 PM
janice
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 18th, 2004, 08:30 PM
janice
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 19th, 2004, 12:49 AM
Chris Braun
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 19th, 2004, 12:49 AM
Chris Braun
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old August 19th, 2004, 02:59 AM
JMA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old August 19th, 2004, 02:59 AM
JMA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.