Posts by ibez

Think of how the people on this forum act about super-skinny models.

That's the mindset that's causing this, and a lot of people who think they're against it are actively doing it. There are all kinds of things we discriminate against in our daily lives. If a very unkempt person who didn't seem to have shaved or bathed or changed his clothes in months came up to you, would you accept him for his personality and not his outward state? What if they were wearing extremely tacky clothes?

To a certain extent, it's something you can't fix. Because when it comes down to it, humans are judged by their appearance. I don't think there's a real answer to the "problem"; just that if you want admiration you have to work for it, I guess. And if you don't, that probably makes your life a lot easier.

Yes, they work, because they encourage a better hormonal profile for weight loss. There's less insulin in the blood stream, so fat can be burned primarily for fuel instead of carbs. Studies have consistently reflected the superiority of low carb, high protein diets over high carb, low fat diets in terms of weight loss, metabolism, and various health markers.

A lot of people give low-carb diets undue and un-researched criticism. Anyone can say a diet is bad, but are they prepared to provide scientific evidence that supports their claims? They misunderstand the mechanisms behind fat loss and make the assumption that macronutrient ratios have no effect on it.

However, macronutrient ratios are very important and do make a large difference on weight loss and its sustainability.

Original Post by cs2501:

muscles are made of protein, not calories :) I'm working with a fitness trainer who graduated from Baylor school of health and fitness. I'm going to have to take their advice over yours. My main advice was to loose weight though muscel buidling activity rather than cardio and dieting. Look at the amount of junk food Michael Phelps eats while conditioning. I think it is much better to turn your body into a calorie burning machine than to practice calorie deprivation.

Just so you know, protein breaks down into calories (energy), so yes, muscles are "made of calories". Muscles are also catabolized (broken down) for that energy, so if you don't have a sufficient alternative energy source through food (calorie surplus), you can not achieve a net gain in muscle mass. Your fitness trainer is one thing, but any researched expert in the field will tell you that you absolutely can not gain muscle while in a calorie deficit (Which you are in, because your weight is decreasing).

Also, Michael Phelps is an ectomorph who does demanding physical exercise for many, many hours every day, and was never overweight to begin with.

Original Post by kurichan:

Most of that weight will be lost as soon as the woman gives birth, and the rest should be lost naturally as the body returns to normal after pregnancy.  The only real weight that is put on is the 5-9 lbs of fat stores that ibez mentioned.  Anything more than about 10 lbs of fat is excessive weight gain.  Too many women nowadays use the "eating for two" excuse to gorge themselves while pregnant, and that's why they end up so much heavier after giving birth.

And saying men shouldn't worry about pregnancy and women's health issues is rediculous.  A lot of great doctors and scientists, if not most of them, are men.

Yes, this is the point I was trying to make, though it seems I didn't phrase it as well. Thanks.

Original Post by nicolemurphy18:

Original Post by ibez:

Original Post by missmoonlight:

Fitness and looks, in most people's opinions, tend to be completely mutual. We are attracted to healthy mates.

And simply from the health angle, that abdominal panniculus is certainly no good. And not only that, but the lifestyle that put it there.

The lifestyle? many "in shape" and otherwise healthy women gain a panniculus simply from bearing children. I really don't understand why some people believe there's only one way for things to happen. And considering you don't know this model, I really don't know how you can be so sure as to knowing exactly how her body is the way it is (or was.)

So "normal" is an acceptable word as well. Again, being "normal" is certainly no badge of honor.

Clearly you've put yourself on a pedestal.  What do you consider yourself?

This thread wasn't about the model's weight loss or gain. And considering she's a model, she must have something her modeling contract adheres to, even if she's isn't a super-fit,  non-mediocre size -0 model.

Putting on 20, 30, 40 pounds etc. during pregnancy is still caused by poor lifestyle choices and can be easily avoided.

There are not a lot of ways for someone to get overweight; in almost everyone, excess body fat is due to poor or misinformed health choices.

I have not put myself on a pedestal and this is not about me, though I certainly do practice what I preach.

And again, this is not so black and white. I am not saying that everyone should aspire to be size 0 and 100 lbs, that's hyperbole, and it really gets old. There is a middle ground here, and I've already said that.

Though I've always found it curious how people on this site readily insult and deride skinny people while being lenient and open towards obesity. I think many here are every bit as judgmental and shallow as the "fashion magazines" they complain about. (And I have to stress with this once again before someone says it that I am NOT trying to say how this model should look as I don't care what people actually do with themselves; I am replying to the reaction and not the person it's directed at.)

 

'Putting on 20, 30, 40 pounds etc. during pregnancy is still caused by poor lifestyle choices and can be easily avoided.'

Ibez, perhaps you should educate yourself about what a healthy pregnancy really is before making statements like this. 

http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/healthy-weigh t-gain

Obviously I was talking about pounds of fat and not temporary weight that leaves with the pregnancy. I do not consider temporary weight gain from sources other than fat to be classified as "putting on weight" in this sense, nor relevant to the question of ultimate body image and health. As that article says, one should not be putting on more than 5-9 lbs of fat while pregnant.

Original Post by missmoonlight:

You should still be eating well and some things should even be avoided, but everything needs to be balanced.

A lot of people use the word to balanced to mean you shouldn't be too overly strict, but "balanced" means not lacking in any one area; junk food does not provide absolutely any health benefits over healthy meals, and there is no reason to include them aside from the psychological. I'm sure the cravings are there, but there's no reason to be consuming pints of ice cream or what have you.

Original Post by missmoonlight:

Fitness and looks, in most people's opinions, tend to be completely mutual. We are attracted to healthy mates.

And simply from the health angle, that abdominal panniculus is certainly no good. And not only that, but the lifestyle that put it there.

The lifestyle? many "in shape" and otherwise healthy women gain a panniculus simply from bearing children. I really don't understand why some people believe there's only one way for things to happen. And considering you don't know this model, I really don't know how you can be so sure as to knowing exactly how her body is the way it is (or was.)

So "normal" is an acceptable word as well. Again, being "normal" is certainly no badge of honor.

Clearly you've put yourself on a pedestal.  What do you consider yourself?

This thread wasn't about the model's weight loss or gain. And considering she's a model, she must have something her modeling contract adheres to, even if she's isn't a super-fit,  non-mediocre size -0 model.

Putting on 20, 30, 40 pounds etc. during pregnancy is still caused by poor lifestyle choices and can be easily avoided.

There are not a lot of ways for someone to get overweight; in almost everyone, excess body fat is due to poor or misinformed health choices.

I have not put myself on a pedestal and this is not about me, though I certainly do practice what I preach.

And again, this is not so black and white. I am not saying that everyone should aspire to be size 0 and 100 lbs, that's hyperbole, and it really gets old. There is a middle ground here, and I've already said that.

Though I've always found it curious how people on this site readily insult and deride skinny people while being lenient and open towards obesity. I think many here are every bit as judgmental and shallow as the "fashion magazines" they complain about. (And I have to stress with this once again before someone says it that I am NOT trying to say how this model should look as I don't care what people actually do with themselves; I am replying to the reaction and not the person it's directed at.)

Original Post by foiegras:

No, she isn't fat - (assuming the 180lbs, 5'11" is correct) she'd need to put on 6lbs before being classed as obese (120% of 'ideal' body weight).

Is 25.2 OK for a BMI? What about her WHR (waist-hip ratio) - do we have her statistics? However, we can get a very close approximation of her body fat percentage, using the 1985 Garrow & Webster formula. She is 180.34cm tall and weighs 81.65kg, which gives (using the formula for women - see below*):

26.54kg of fat

body fat % 32.5

'normal' for women is 22-28%, according to UCLA, although the American Council on Exercise gives 25-31% as 'acceptable', 32-41% 'overweight', 42%+ 'obese', while Nutribase gives 22-25% 'normal', 25-29% 'above average', 29-35% 'overfat' and 35%+ 'obese'. 

Any way you look at it, she is overweight and has excess body fat.

* Fat (kg) = (0.713 W/H2- 9.74)H2 

The order of magnitude of error for this formula is about the same as that for hydrostatic densitometry (the gold standard of body fat estimation).

If you want to know more about this stuff, start here: http://www.cellinteractive.com/ucla/nutrition _101/phys_lect5.html

Bodyfat is a great measure, but it has to be measured properly.

Basing body fat on weight and height is no different than taking BMI - It does not take into account any of the individual factors at play. That means it is only accurate for the exact average person - the 50th percentile. A super-lean bodybuilder might be seen as obese with that criteria. There is absolutely no way that that formula is as accurate as hydrostatic testing, which isolates the weight of one's own bodyfat, in anyone but the aforementioned 50th percentile.

I personally think excess abdominal fat is really unattractive, so I wouldn't call her "beautiful".

Sure, maybe that makes her like the "average" woman. "Average" is plain, boring, under-achieving and accessible anywhere. It's not "average" to care enough about your appearance and health to actually do research and then work hard to achieve your goals. Average people enjoy average lives with average success stemming from average effort, and met with an average gracious helping of complaining. I don't want to be average. My stomach used to look like that, and I didn't like it, so I changed it.

You know, you don't have to counter "anorexic" with "overweight". There is another option. It's called "fit", where you are nicely filled out with muscle and not a bunch of flab. It's also a much healthier thing to be encouraging.

And who cares about BMI? BMI is a crock. Bodyfat % is a far more accurate indicator of health than BMI, and she clearly has some extra bodyfat to lose.

And that doesn't bother me, she can be average if she wants to. I just personally don't understand why you would call mediocrity beautiful.

Heh, he sounds somewhat similar to me. I might be a bit more of a hermit due to lack of school and such, but my opinions are as such:

Firstly, don't assume things about him. I noticed that you think he must have been bullied or something; this may not be the case at all. He may simply feel a barrier between him and other people he meets, like he's living in his own world and other people can't see it from his perspective. I know that personally, my poor sociability and lack of confidence stem from feelings of fundamentally being separate from and different from "normal people". It's hard to really meaningfully elaborate, but anyway, it does not have anything to do with being bullied or hurt (and certainly not envy). That might be the case for him too.

He probably just feels better at home. I don't think that's something that's easy to change; at least, I've noticed being extremely introverted since early childhood.

Even if you don't talk a lot, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not good at talking to people I know, but that doesn't always mean that I don't enjoy being around them. You can communicate in ways more subtle than talking, I guess.

It's hard to really "give advice" because I imagine his feelings are pretty deep-rooted and have had some time to set. But above all, I would recommend accepting his personality for what it is. Don't look down on him or judge him for it (It can be easily to do subconsciously, even if you don't intend to), because he'll probably know when you're doing it, and it will annoy him even if he doesn't say anything. He may have a lot of things he wants to say but decides not to because they might be a hassle.

Original Post by jackattack07:

Original Post by ibez:

I don't think you should really advise "people" in general to up their calories. There are drastic differences between losing weight with a long way to go, and losing weight with only a few stubborn pounds to shave off. 1800 should easily suffice for someone with 30+ pounds to lose, but once you get down to 20,10,5,etc, you may find that doesn't cut it anymore. Honestly, all I can say is get there, and you'll see. I used to give advice when I had lost ~15 lbs and still had about 70 to go, and most of it was laughable now that I've experienced the perils of the home stretch.

As a small aside, nobody "loses" a pound [of fat] after eating 3500 calories for 2 days. "Losing weight" can mean all kinds of things, and a lot of people here at CC have trouble understanding that noticeable weight changes taking place in a time frame any shorter than a week or so are because of temporary changes in glucose and water storage.

Read my other posts in this thread. I am advising the majority of this website that is classified as "severely overweight" or "obese" to not eat too little. I am advising people that are similar to me, not people who are already thin and trying to lose 5 pounds, lol.

Oh, my apologies if so. So many long threads on CC, it gets too easy to start assuming rather than sorting out all the pages.

There is mainly one goal of a "cheat" or high-calorie day (I don't like the word "cheat day" because that infers you can pig out and eat any type of junk that enters your field of vision. That's not what you want to do and that will hurt your weight loss.)

An ideal "cheat day" consists of about 500-1000 calories ABOVE your maintenance level, consisting mostly of simple carbs and low in fat (That means you still want to avoid the cookies, donuts, fried foods, etc).

Also, you should lift weights on this day if you're trying to preserve muscle (you should be).

Now, the whole reason for this is to increase levels of a hormone called leptin. Leptin is an "energy hormone" if you will, that regulates your appetite and energy expenditure. Higher leptin levels tell your body you have fat you can burn. Lower leptin levels (Which will inevitably follow calorie restriction) tell your body to more carefully regulate and preserve energy (making it harder to lose fat). Gaining fat will increase leptin levels. And yes, on your cheat days, you will gain a small amount of fat (we're talking fractions of a pound here; the change you see on the scale is stored glucose and the water that comes with it). However, that will help you maintain your metabolism while dieting for longer than if you ate lower calories every day.

How often to "cheat" or refeed depends on how much weight you have to lose. If you're more on the heavy side, it can be every few weeks or possibly not at all. If you're very close to your goal, you may need to do it ~2 times per week for it to be effective.

Sitting at home. I'm a social rock.

I personally have regular 1400 calorie days, but before I'm crucified, I should say that I incorporate 2 weekly high days, 3000 and 2500 cals respectively, which works out to about 1800 average per day. (These are to raise leptin levels and keep my metabolism running normal). I absolutely do not lose weight eating more than this, even fresh off months of higher (2500/day) calorie eating.

I didn't mean to explain that so much there... I figured I should to avoid angry replies though.

Anyway, my advice is to stick with the 1500 cals, or maybe even go slightly higher and see how it works at first, then decrease slowly if you're not having success. I used to lose weight eating 2000 cals/day, then hit a plateau. Instead of decreasing cals, I increased my protein consumption and lowered my carb consumption to more moderate levels. I also started doing HIIT (High intensity interval training, you can google it for more info) a couple times per week. At that point, another 20 pounds dropped away, straight off of a plateau. Eventually I have had to decrease calories more, but when you consider over 65 pounds lost, it's no surprise that I'd be burning less.

Also, try to make sure that the carbs you're eating are complex carbs, such as fruits and veggies, whole wheat grains, beans and legumes, etc. Junk-food types of carbs will make fat loss much harder because of the hormonal effects they have on the body.

Weight lifting will also be a big help. Don't worry, you won't get big and bulky (You won't even gain any muscle at all, it will just help you keep the muscle you do have right now). Just remember to start light and focus on proper form.

A calculator can't solve things for you, your body will adapt to that calorie level. Changes such as increasing protein/lowering carbs, changing what type and what intensity exercise you are doing, cycling calories and/or carbs, will all contribute to avoiding the sort of adaptation that causes the weight loss forum to be filled with frustrated threads about plateau woes.

Irishmum, you quoted 'normal', though Lagerfeld never uses the word normal himself in the quotes contained in that article. Words he did use to describe who he's talking about were "curvy" and "round".

Theholla, I'm certainly not saying one thing has to be more attractive than another, but the fashion industry collectively seems to think that way, and so it's probably best that if one wants to succeed at earning a living from modelling, they conform to those standards. Women who think that's ridiculous can just get a normal job. In any other line of work, people go out of their way to make their qualifications acceptable for the field. One of the main qualifications in modelling is outward appearance, and judgment of appearance is completely subjective.

Though I do think it's strange that "normal women" would go out of their way to  demean the looks of "clothes hangers". Isn't that the very same thing Lagerfeld is doing in the first place, just reversed?

I somehow developed an aversion to eating corn.

I will sneak a bite of a donut here or there on my high carb days, maybe even half a cookie, but for some reason I will not touch corn (I don't even mind the taste of it at all).

Maybe due to irrational over-association with corn syrup.