Posts by xicarneimi

People here give very inconsistent answers because they don't really know the science behind most of what they say. A good biochemistry book would suffice.

I wouldn't increase a lot, if I were you. One sure way to know if your metabolism is "slowed" (whatever simplistic meaning people give to that) is if you feel less energetic, more lethargic. If this is so, then you should eat more, but if you can still do your exercises and feel fine, you are eating enough and should only continue your diet until a change happens. Don't freak out and don't be discouraged. You're 36 years old, which could explain why your body takes longer to lose weight, since you metabolism does become slower with age. It all depends on your height too, as you can imagine, because 1750 Calories is NOT eating little at all, but again, height is a factor.

And even though feeling cold could be a sign of slow metabolism, it could also be a sign, like you mentioned, of less insulation. I'm very small, and I'm able to lose 2-3 pounds per week, eating normally (just no sweets) which I would think would make me a person with "fast" metabolism. I'm always cold, but that's because I am small, and don't have much fat.

Okay, I'm 4'11, currently 106 trying to reach 90. I'm in.

:) I have a problem with not liking big butts... or maybe it's that I don't think a big butt looks good on me. Right now my butt is a bit too big. What I did to lose that weigh was to stop eating too much sugar. I love my coffee and milk in the mornings, with lots of sugar, after I stopped that, the weight went down. I just have it once a week, that's fine with me. I think it's the thin genes from my mom's side. It's strange to see a Cuban lady with such thin genes, but I was lucky to get them.

I'm sorry to say this, but 1 pound is ALWAYS 3500 calories. Just like 1 foot is 12 inches, it's that kind of conversion. This is NOT an average. The way your body breaks breaks down fat/ builds muscle is just an observation and an average, but 1 pound is always 1 pound and 3500kilocalories are ALWAYS 3500kilocalories: and they're both the same.

Original Post by mysticjbyrd:

Original Post by nosouix:

I am with you! I hate all the "DIET" ads! Have you ever seen one promoting a "Life Style Change"?

The diet pills really get to me as they all carry the disclaimer "when used with a diet and exercise program". If you are using a diet and exercise program, why do you need the pills? LOL.

The was a study by the British Medical Journal that some weight loss pills do help you lose weight. I think it was 6-9 extra lbs over a YEAR.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7631/ 1194?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&R ESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=orlistat&search id=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Of course when you stop taking the pills you just gain the weight back. It is basically a placebo that makes you take it for the rest of your life to work. Can you think of a better way to make money?

What do you mean by "placebo"? A placebo is a substance or activity given to a patient as medicine, but which in reality has no therapeutic advantage. It only works because the person thinks it will. I would imagine that if the British Medical Journal indicates that the pills do indeed help lose weight, they're not placebo.

I completely understand. I'm a small person, and neither Old Navy nor the Gap have sizes small enough for me. I once went in there (I'm also a student, and I needed some new clothes) and NOTHING fit me. S was huge, size 0 was HUGE, XS was inexistent in a lot of outfits. I really don't understand those stores. I mean, I know Americans are big, but... I've lived in the U.S. almost my entire life, and I just can't (and for god's sake, WON"T) keep up.

Original Post by petite_powerhouse:

I think that article, while very interesting and quite informative, undervalues muscle in women. And it pushes cardio that can lead to an abundance of body fat—for an athletic physique, at any rate—like long-distance running.

But, then, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I think Britney is too thin in that first pic, and lacks definition. She's a young girl there, after all. I don't want to look like a young girl my whole life. She looks like I could snap her in half with my bare hands.

She has perhaps gone too far in the next pic (although that's a really unflattering picture)—and the author is absolutely right that if you put on weight after building up your abs, or build them while you have extra fat around your tummy, then you may very well end up with your stomach protruding like hers does in the gladiator pics—but all the same I like a little muscle on a woman's stomach. And if you don't have that extra layer of fat there, well-toned ab muscles can actually hold the stomach in throughout the day. You can also achieve a slimmer waist while working your abs, if you do the right exercises. My waist is 23".

I like muscle on women, period, all over the body. If it isn't overdone, I think it's very attractive. But again, I'm biased: I'm into weight lifting. And I do think the other women in that article have lovely bodies. You can tell they have muscle tone, and they clearly got that from lifting weights. But I think you can be more defined than that and still very attractive—and attractive to the opposite sex.

Well, the trainer does say some women prefer more muscle, thus should refer to other articles.

No offense to anyone, but I think too much definition in women looks disgusting. I prefer the first picture of Britney, she looks more feminine. But then again, most of my friends think the second one is way better *shrug* while I think it's gross; to me, no muscles should show in the tummy. To each its own, as the author of the article puts it.