59 new of 61 responses total.
Nope, I don't have a bike -- Larry bought me one for my birthday a few years ago and it was stolen from my son before I'd ridden it more than twice. Actually, I prefer walking to bikes. I like the feel of the earth under my feet a little too much, I guess. ;) I've heard that Tai Chi is a very interesting art form and not too difficul\t in the early stages of learning. (Difficult to get really right, but doable even for the rank novice is what I've understood...)
Tai Chi is a bit like slow motion karate. It can be very helpful both as
exercise and relaxation (mind and body).
There was a recent study done of a few thousand people who actually lost
weight (>20lbs I think was the criteria) and kept it off for more than a year.
In some cases, 2-5 years.
The study found that the vast majority of these people did _not_ diet, or make
any real special effort to lose weight. Instead, they either deliberatly or
otherwise just happened to change their life habits. some increased
activities, some reduced eating (volume, not fat/calories/etc), and the like.
most found that after some time, they just didn't eat unless they were
actually hungry (get away from the dinner clock), but that they _always_ ate
something when they were hungry. Result, frequent, small meals instead of
2-3 big ones ("grazing"?).
none cut out the favorites like candy, cakes, cookies, booze, etc. They just
cut down on the amounts. That way they never really felt they were depriving
themselves and the weight just fell off.
I had a similar experience ove the last 1.5 years or so. Without any
conscious effort, I now find I eat a bit less at meals (and I _love_ to eat!)
and I discovered I lost >10lbs. A few weeks ago I got a bit of gastritis and
didn't want to eat at all for awhile and another 8lbs fell off, 5 of which
I put right back on when I felt better, but I'm trying to avoid letting those
last 3 creep up. If I can lose 5-10lbs _per year_ for the next couple of
years I'll be more than happy.
Misti I feel your pain. :o I am 26, 5'9" and ain't telling how much I weigh. But I am a sie 12/14. I am not "huge" but am not skinny either.I like walking, biking and weights. I am not too keen on aerobics. I have been a "big girl" my whole life pretty much. I was my thinnest in 9th grade, when puberty kicked in with a vengeance and everything kinda shifted, shall we say. I was a size 10, but was 5'6" at the time. I still thought I was fat! Well I tried eating better foods. I exercised 4x a week. Ate only when I was hungry or to stave off a crash (I am hypoglycemic). I lost 6 pounds relatively quickly. Like in 2 weeks. That was months ago, and I am totally stuck. My body doesn't seem to want to let go of any fat in its cells. I am so discouraged! I don't want to be skinny. A size 10 would be ok with me. I wouldn't want to be lower than an 8. I'm pretty muscular for a girl and that's ok. Having a little more fat than I need is restrictive to me, and besides it will only be harder to lose as I get older, especially if I have kids. There are some clothes I don't get because they are not as flattering on me than on a person who is thinner. This annoys me. And though no one would call me obese to look at me, according to the charts, I am. That bothers me. But it is so frustrating to do all the right things and then nothing happens. Or i even gain! What's going on? I can accept myself but it's hard knowing I could be so much better.
Jim knows someone who lost a lot of weight by going vegetarian (he says).
Misti, would you like a bike? If you bike instead of driving you will
automatically get lots of exercise. Walking is simply not fast enough to
substitute for driving long distances.
We are still trying to gain weight. Peanut butter and olive oil are
about the only two high-calorie vegan possibilities (sesame oil is rather
strong tasting but okay on salads).
Beeswing, I've seen an actual aerobics instructor who was a bit heavy... obviously she was getting plenty of exercise, it just seems to be the way people are built differently.
She may have been muscular, like me. I got the quads from hell.
The weight-loss industry & some of the simplistic elements of American culture want everyone to believe that the way to look "right" is to believe in a televangelist or Santa. Just believe and either cough up loads of $$$ or "be good", and the looks that they idolize will appear magically under the christmas tree. This works really well them - they get to look down their noses at most of humanity while counting their take. It doesn't work so well for their victims.
Amen! Bees, there's no pain in it for me. I'm 5'3", 200 pounds, and 30 years old. I'm fat. I've always been fatter than average and always will be. When I was young that was a source of a lot of pain to me, but aftre a point I realized that in putting so much effort into trying to be something I wasn't and couldn't be (thin) I was destroying my life and making myself miserable. I started looking into the research that everyone touted about why being too fat is supposed to be so bad and what I discovered was that all the research in the last 30 years or so has been done by the weight loss industry and was performed using very poor statistical method. What the research actually seems to prove is that people with a poor diet and a low or negligible exercise and gfitness rate are far more prone to ill health and early death than people who eat well and exercise regularly. The problem is the assumption is made that only fat people eat poorly and lead sedentary lives. When weight *and* lifestyle are taken into account, they findings suggest that really fir people of all sizes stay healthy and that potato chip and candy munching couch potatoes are prone to chronic ill health and early death. Did you know that fat actually protects people from certain diseases? That's not a widely diseminated piece of information but it's true. Among the protections that fat offers: fat women are far less likely to develop osteoporosis. Fat people who get cancer or tuberculosis are far more likely to recover and go on to live healthy lives. There are others, but I'd have to look them up. Did you know that the new BMI standards the government just released have had the result of making m*most* atheletes "too fat"? Come on! Atheletes are among the fittest people in this country! Since when has the US Government been in the role of making public pronouncements on fashion?? Geez! You say you could be "so much better" -- why does taking up less apace in the world make you better, bees? Because the women's magazines all say so? Because certain patriarchal types will be less threatened by you? Fie! I say! Obviously you take good care of yourself. I'm willing to bet that your ancestors were not small people. Try to consider your glorious (and tiny by my standards) figure a gift from your family and find all the reasons it's lovable. Beating yourself up over what you can't change won't make a lick of difference in your genetic heritage but it will waste your youth. By the way, should anyone think I'm just being defensive because I don't want to "do the work" necessary to lose weight, fo the record I've gone from 300 pounds and a size 30 to 200 pounds and a size 16/18 in the last 15 months. I don't consider it a reason for "congratulations". Excess insulin circulating in your blood - as happens with an uncontrolled type II diabetic in the years before the pancreas quites completely tends to pack on the fat, as does uncontrolled hypothyroid. When those difficulties were diagnosed and fixed, the extra weight just sort of melted. Now I'm probably at the weight my genetic have determined for me and I'm quite content. I still think the weight loss industry is the most dangerous fraud ever perpetuated on this culture. Sindi, thanks but no, I don't want a bike. My drive to work takes 20 minutes by car and I'm a professional who has to look put together when I arrive at work. Biking would make me sweaty and rumpled -- not very professional. Besides, I *like* to walk,I hate biking. So I'll stick with my feet or my car.
Re #0: Well, I do both aerobics and weight-lifting. Don't find it
boring, and love the way I feel after having done it on a regular
basis for a few months now. Different strokes for different folks,
I guess.
Re #10: I'm skeptical of the one-size-fits-all current federal
weight guidelines myself. But I'm gonna try to meet them anyway, as
I have a feeling they're more or less right for me.
I'm curious about a couple of things:
(a) What percentage of your current 200 lb. is lean body mass?
(b) Can you cite some sources for the health benefits of fat that
your referred to?
(c) What is the definition of a "fat person"?
(a) What percentage of your current 200 lb. is lean body mass?
I have absolutely no idea -- and no idea about how one finds out.
(b) Can you cite some sources for the health benefits of fat that
your referred to?
I don't have the information right at hand, but I can suggest a book
that summarizes most of it (with references).
Big Fat Lies : The Truth About Your Weight and Your Health
by Glenn A. Gaesser
Paperback - 336 pages (January 1998)
Ballantine Books (Trd Pap); ISBN: 034540906X
(c) What is the definition of a "fat person"?
That, my friend, varies from person to person.
o Ask any woman of any size and the chances are good she will say she's
fat.
o Ask a doctor and chances are good he or she will look at your BMI.
0 Ask a fashion designer and chances are he or she will name a dress
size and it will usually be not much larger than a size 10 or 12.
But you asked me: I think "fat" is mostly a social concept, and I define
"fat person" as anyone large enough to have been given grief about his
or her size on a pretty regular basis. Which is to say, "I don't know,
really."
I've been called fat when I weighed 160 pounds and I've been told "Oh,
you're not *really* fat" when I weighed 300 pounds. That being the
case, I've decided that it makes a useful shorthand, but has no real
concrete meaning.
(Is that a waffly enough answer for you?) ;)
I am a woman and do not consider myself fat. I weigh about 114 and wear a
size 14 shirt (for the sleeve length and shoulders). People are also composed
of bones, and muscles, you can't just measure total poundage and prove much.
Jim has come out as overweight on weight charts and is mostly muscle/bone.
I expect that a healthy weight differs for each person, depending on bone
structure, metabolism, etc. Charts are statistical, people are individuals.
I consider myself a bit underweight because I am hungry a lot of the time and
am eating healthy food, so am probably below the correct weight. Misti may
be the proper weight for her build and metabolism, losing weight could very
possibly cause more health problems than it would cure in her case, and like
she says, a steady diet of dieting is bad for anyone's health. But I also
think that it can damage your skeletal system, and your cardiovascular system,
to have to deal with excess weight. I doubt that anyone could come up with
a satisfacotyr definition of who is fat. You can choose some cutoff point
for ratios of fat to lean tissue, I suppose, but would you call an Eskimo fat
if she is at the optimum balance for her climate?
I also think that most Americans are not eating a healthy diet and for
that reason are above their optimal weight. Reducing the food intake is not
going to fix things, they have to change the types of things they eat.
I agree with Misti that the healthiest composition for a particular
person's body is not necessarily the same composition which is currently in
style, and that people can do their bodies damage by following body fashions.
Are schools teaching nutrition nowadays?
If only people would focus on taking good care of their bodies and ignore what fashion says is the optimal size and shape we'd all be a lot healthier. But that's not easy unless you make the intentional decision to cut yourself off from the sources of pressure to conform. Some people might get a little larger, some people might get a little smaller, but on the whole we'd all just get a lot healthier. Sindi, the damage to the skeleton and cardio-vascular system comes more from lack of fitness than from weight per se. A fine boned person who through dieting ups his or her appestat and lowers his her or metabolism to the point of gaining a lot of weight and then has no energy to move around much is indeed going to do damage to his or her body -- through malnutrition and through inactivity. But someone who eats well and stays fit will strengthen their bones and circulatory system to the extent needed to support them.
Re resp:12 -
There's a "Body Fat Calculator" on the web at URL
http://top.monad.net/~vsi/java/bfc.html
You take some body measurements that are easy to obtain with a scale and
tape measure, plug them into a java applet, and it shows you your
percentage of body fat. The formula it uses is the same one given in
Sears' book "Enter the Zone", I believe. I'm not qualified to vouch for
the accuracy of the method, but I can say that when applied to me the
results aren't surprising, and I've been watching my percentage go down
over the last few months as I've been making a conscientious effort to
get more fit.
As long as we're talking about "being fat" as a social concept that has
only to do with fashion and outward appearance, I'll agree with you that
it's a pretty subjective concept, and that one person's opinion is about
as good (or bad) as another's. However, in an earlier response you made
claims about health benefits of being a "fat person", and for those to
have any validity, or any precise meaning at all, we need a more
objective concept of what "being fat" means. That's why I asked about a
definition.
The things I've read -- all of it "popular" literature, admittedly --
suggest that one's percentage of fat weight to total weight is a
reasonable measure, and that this doesn't necessarily match external
appearance. A person can "look" thin but have a high percentage of fat
body weight or "look" fat but have a low percentage. Paradoxically, one
can lose weight but become more "fat" because you lose more lean muscle
weight than fat. Or you can gain weight and become less "fat". (Covert
Bailey comments on this in his book "Fit or Fat".) So, what precisely is
meant by "fat" when we are talking about health benefits?
John, I'm not good with details, so I'm researching your questions...I'll get back to you as soon as I can. According the the body fat calculators I'm at 25% body fat on the men's scale and 42% on the women's scale. I'm not entirely convinced that they can accurately determine the proportion of fat to lean body mass just by taking a couple of measurements, though. If either does, at least the men's chart takes bone structure into account.
by the way, in rereading this I discovered I inadvertently lied up there somewhere -- 30 was a typo, I'm actually 39.
OK, here's some URLs with information... http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/users/sharon.curtis/BigFolks/health_FAQ. html#A6 (Specifically section A6) http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/users/sharon.curtis/BigFolks/research_FA Q.html (Specifically section A5) This one addresses less the advantages of a larger body size and more the myth that fat people eat too much. http://generous.net/health/eat2much.shtml All have copious references. But I really do suggest Big Fat Lies. It's also well documented and was written by a (thin) physician after he began doing research on the causes and effects of obesity. (Here I think you can assume the medical definition of a BMI over 25.) To calculate your own BMI, see http://www.kcnet.com/~marc/bmi.html
Thanks for the references. I'll check them out.
OK, here's an article from the New England Journal of medicine. http://www.nejm.org/content/1998/0338/0001/0052.asp Say when... ;)
I read a book claiming that short people live longer, it is less work on the
heart, and that larger people only have an advantage in such things as hunting
and war. Women live longer than men on average, but women and men the same
size live about the same number of years. My grandfather was about 5 4 and
died at about age 95.
I have a set of instructions for measuring how 'fat' you are in a
nutrition book, it has to do with pinching your arm and measuring that and
comparing it with the distance between write bones. Jim came out as very low
for men, and I came out as average for men and extremely low for women. You
can also calculate frame size from height to wrist circumference ratio - Jim
comes out average and I am small-medium.
If anyone has access to calipers, I can describe what measurements to take
and then calculate your results for you from the charts.
The problem with the calipers method (and it's a specialized problem, I'll admit) is that if you have lost a lot of weight suddenly and have a lot of loose skin, that will measure as "fat". That's why the only measure I truly trust is the immersion method. But that's not available just anywhere...
Well, there's the even more accurate dissection method... but it's hard to track changes with that method. ;)
<grin> True -- I think I'll pass on that one.
Misti, the calipers measure the distance between the two sides of a fold of
skin-fat-skin hanging from your upper arm. Loose skin is the same thickness
as tight skin and will not affect measurements, even though it may make your
arm look larger. I am curious - after weight loss does the skin eventually
shrink to fit?
An example of how weight is controlled genetically: I have a wedding
photo of my father's parents. My father, and his father, were about my size,
under 5 feet 6 inches and skinny. So were his three brothers, who all had
thin wives and thin children. My father's mother was probably about 300
pounds in the photo and remained that way until her death (at about age 70
of complications of diabetes, I think). So were her three daughters, and the
husbands and children of the two larger of them. It could not have been
environmental as they were all eating the same way (my father's siblings,
anyway). I don't know if his sisters married heavy men, I was not around at
the time, but both members of the couple were large when I knew them, and one
of my cousins has been described as round in all directions. (He married a
thin wife who stayed relatively thin).
My father's sisters' male children were fat, my father's brothers
female
children thin. I cannot figure out the genetics of this.
There is also definitely an environmental effect, as Jim's thin
daughter found out when she started cooking for and eating with a husband
whose mother is fat and who refuses to eat vegetables. (She never liked
vegetables either). Meat and pastries can put the pounds on.
Whether the skin eventually "shrinks to fit" depends on several factor, Sindi. Age, amount of weight lost, speed with which you lose it, and general health. I don't expect mine will ever completely fit again. (I lost too much, too fast, and when I was too old.
From a book on back exercises:
The Overweight Person with Back Pain
Obesity, a condition in which a person is 20 percent of more above his
or her ideal weight, is inconvent, unhealthy, and psychologically destructive.
Obesity is associated with an increased risk of high blood pressure, heart
disease, stroke, hardening of the arteries, and diabetes.
...excess weight in the abdominal area pulls the belly forward and can
cause the pelvis to tip forward, shortening the psoas and causing strain in
teh lower back.
Overweight people generally are not as mobile as their more fit peers,
and when they exercise, their excess poundage can put extreme stress on their
joings. To protect the joints, increase mobility and fitness, and burn fat,
I recommend a low-impact form of aerobic activity.
I will let Misti point out the unspoken assumptions in the above, as
well as comment on the spoken assumption that overweight people are less
active than average.
The book recommends walking up stairs instead of using an elevator, 'carry
your groceries rather than have them delivered' (does anyone still deliver?),
walk to work, park at the far end of the parking lot, and do lots of exercises
while waiting in line or talking on the phone.
Jim suggests digging in the garden and shoveling snow.
OK, John, I finally found a definition for fatness and obesity on the U of Chicago web site. * Fat is defined as a body mass index 25 or above. * Obesity is defined as a body mass index 40 or above.
How about a definition or discussion of what constitutes fitness?
Re resp:29 - I'm aware of the BMI-based definitions of "overweight" and "obese", and suspect that they're too simplistic for some of the same reasons that you do. I guess what I was really asking was this: What are the definitions of "fat women" and "fat people" in the context of your statement in resp:10 - "Did you know that fat actually protects people from certain diseases? That's not a widely diseminated piece of information but it's true. Among the protections that fat offers: fat women are far less likely to develop osteoporosis. Fat people who get cancer or tuberculosis are far more likely to recover and go on to live healthy lives. There are others, but I'd have to look them up." What is the source of this information, and what definition of "fat" is being used there?
I have read that being overweight predisposes people towards some types of
cancer, by affecting the hormones. Breast cancer I think was one.
Having too little fat might cause problems with the immune system. I expect
there is an optimum range which differs for each person.
My very obese aunt died of colon cancer, but I expect that both the obesity
and the cancer were the result of a poor diet. When visiting there I was fed
peanut butter and jelly on white bread for lunch,and fried chicken (no
vegetables or anything else with fiber) for supper. It is hard to separate
out cause and effect. Someone who eats a healty diet and exercises often,
but remains fat due to metabolic reasons, such as Misti, will avoid many of
the problems statistically associated with fatness (which is often caused by
poor diet and exercise).
Jim and I tried to figure out the percentage of our calories from fat.
Grains and beans are about 5%, vegetables and fruits less. We buy about 3
gallons of oil (olive and peanut) a year between us, and eat some peanuts,
which comes to about 200 calories a day from refined fats and nuts, or maybe
as much as 10% fat of calories from fat. Probably less. How do people manage
to get their fat intake as high as 40% calories from fat? I don't think it
can easily be done on a whole-foods non-animal-product diet unless you eat
an awful lot of fried foods and nuts.
John, have you looked at the web pages I posted the URLs for? Have you looked at the book I suggested? Many of the reports I've read have defined "fat" and "obesity", but I'm afraid that I don't have the URLs or papers available right now. I know that BFL also defines then for many of the studies it reviews, but my copy is in a box somewhere right now. Threfore I can only say that you have to look at particular studies for specific definitions -- but I have been well over the the threshold in all of the studies I've read. (5'3" 300 lbs. -- I read most of them before "the metamorphosis" began.) Sindi, you're right. I've never claimed that fat in the face of a poor diet and no exercise protects anyone from anything. Only when combined with adequate nutrition and exercise does a little padding provide any benefits. I suspect that had her genes been different your aunt would have been slim and still died of colon cancer -- her diet sounds like a nightmare! All that fat is definitely an invitation to trouble. The definition of fit is a lot easier to find. The standard I've heard for "fitness" is the ability to attain and maintain one's "target heart rate" for 10 minutes comfortably -- still able to speak without gasping, no pain, etc.) Now someone is going to ask me to define a target heart rate, right? ;) I'm not sure how to calculate it, but I hve a hunch that Scott might...
For breast cancer (and i think several others), the studies found the correlation with [total or % of] fat calories in the diet. Since the average weight and % body fat of a population will rise as you add more fatty junk food to their diet and reduce exercise, it's easy to get a good statistical correlation between being fatter & higher risks of cancer. Any good statistician knows that correlation is not causation, and statistics applying to the average may not apply to *any* individual, but a do-gooder public health *does* have reason to proclaim "lose weight" as a simplistic message when trying to get through the skulls of Joe & Jane Couchpotato. (I guess i view extreme obesity in a person who's good about diet and exercise about the way i view diabetes - hardly their fault, negative consequences for health & lifestyle are impossible to completely avoid, and a "cure" is beyond the reach of 20th-century medical science.)
(Actually, I don't have a target heart rate formula on tap, though I'm going to guess it is 185-age, or something like that. I'm not very scientific about training, actually.)
220-age is the formula I've seen. Re resp:33 - What with being out of town and other busy-ness, I haven't done the homework yet. But never fear, I shall.
OK. ;) It's not that I don't want to answer your questions,it's just that there's too much information out there for me to try to retype it all here. (Also, I'm not a very good debater. I read critically enough, but I have a memory like a stainless steele seive and tend to remember only the gist of what I've read -- and, if I'm lucky-- where I read it.)
Ok, I'm back. Misti asked why I wanted to lose weight anyway. Good question. Keep in mind I am not one of these whiny-ass girls who can't eat a pea without going ballistic. If I am hungry I will eat, and not shuffle my food around on the plate. If a guy thinks I am a hog then he can just bite me. It comes down to this: 1) I'd feel better 2) Less stress on my ankles, which are about shot 3) I could wear clothes that I like but are not entirely flattering with the physique I have now 4) I just want to. I am in grad school part time and working full time, so now I am doing good to sleep, let alone eat.
Try eating something bulky when you are hungry, such as fruit.
I don;t know about beeswing, but if I'm really hungry, fruit makes me quesy. I'm much better off with brown rice, whole grain bread, cheese, or meat. If I'm only peckish, or if I eat it with other things fruit is wonderful, though.
Brown rice and whole grain bread are also filling. Maybe the fruit sugar bothers you, Misti. If you eat something with fiber and water, including oatmeal and potatoes (without butter) your stomach fills up and you don't feel so hungry (for a while, anyway).
I think the fruit sugar probably is the culprit since I susepct it shoots my blood sugar way out of control if I'm really hungry. Actually I find that a little fat on my carbohydrates both makes them more satisfying and slows the carb release so that my blood sugar makes a much smoother upward and downward curve. (Rather than a huge spike followed by a dramtic drop.)
I don't think fat delays carbohydrate release, but it takes longer to digest and thus lengthens the period in which your blood sugar is high enough. Protein also takes longer to digest that starch.
Well, I don't pretend to know the reason, but I do know that if I eat a slice of bread, within an hour my bloodsugar goes up 30-100 points (I haven't figured out exactly why the difference, and then at 3 hours is down to where it started or less. If I butter the bread, the rise is longer (3 hours or so) but the peak is lower. It seems like maybe the whole mess of carbs and fats is digesting slower so my pancreas doesn't have to deal with 100 units of carb in one hour, but rather gets 30 units per hour for three hours. (That's a verbal illustration. The units don't represent much of anything other than percentage of demand on my pancreas.)
i love rice, fruit, etc. However I seem to function best on a high protein diet. How do I get protein besides meat and beans?
Eggs, dairy products, tofu. Or add protein powder to other things.
Grains and vegetables also have protein. Try a balanced diet without refined foods (which tend not to have much protein) such as white flour or white rice or white sugar.
Re resp:42 and resp:43 - In his book _Mastering the Zone_, Barry
Sears has something to say about the role of fat in relation to
carbohydrates that supports Misti's observations:
"...fat slows down the entry of carbohydrates into the
bloodstream. In essence, fat acts like a control rod in
a nuclear reactor to prevent an overproduction of insulin.
The slower the rate that carbohydrate enters the blood-
stream, the lower the insulin production. And the lower
the insulin levels, the more likely you are to release
stored body fat for energy. So in fact, fat is really
your ally in chipping away stored body fat."
I have heard the Zone is good for hypoglycemics. Is it a vegetarian diet? BTW, eggs are out of the question, I hate them.
The Zone diet is neither vegetarian nor non-vegetarian. The core of it
is a 40%/30%/30% ratio of calories from carbohydrate, protein, and fat
at every meal and snack, together with regulating the total amount you
eat so that you get the right amount of protein per day for your lean
body weight and activity level.
The protein can come from either animal or vegetable sources, although
admittedly it is harder to get the recommended amount of protein from
vegetable sources alone. However, it is possible, and there's a website
with tips and recipes on this (see below).
There's a lot of information on the Zone diet available on the web. A
good place to start is the "Zone Diet Information Center" at
http://www.he.net/~zone/
which has links to other Zone-related sites. Barry Sears' "official"
zone site is "The Zone Files" at
http://www.eicotech.com/
In particular, there's some information on hypoglycemia there. Click on
"Archives", then "Search the Archives", then search for "hypoglycemia".
Zone info for vegetarians is on "The Zone Vegetarian" page at
http://hometown.aol.com/ajbloom/zoneveg/index.htm
I've said this elsewhere, but I've been following the Zone diet for
about three months and it works great for me. (I'm not hypoglycemic
though, to the best of my knowledge.)
*sigh* I should have known that even this item would be overrun with diet talk eventually. Bye, folks.
Misti, we are actually talking about fat here, this was interesting information and new to me. Jim says he cannot be fit and fat, the things he wants to be able to do require that he not carry a lot of weight around. He is already carrying a lot of heavy objects. (Today a washing machine and a freezer). And he cannot bike as far if he weighs more, it is hard on his bike and his own body. He gets a sore butt if he weighs 15 pounds more. He defines fit as being fit for some particular thing you want to do. If you do not want to carry freezers or bike 50 miles, you can be fit and weigh more than he does. He is fit for a particular lifestyle. He also weighs less if he does not eat salt, five pounds easily in fluid retained.
Misti might never read what you just wrote, since she seems to have resigned from this conference (no participation file). I'd hardly describe this item as having been "overrun with diet talk" -- responses 49 and 50 were in that direction, but my #50 was just a response to a question that beeswing raised. That strikes me as normal drift, not worth having a hissy fit over. I *was* planning to offer to start a separate Zone item to take that discussion out of this item, if people showed interest in pursuing that thread.
How do you resign from a conference? There are several that I looked at and never went back to. (Or is this getting too far from the topic?).
Join the conference, then type "resign" at the Ok prompt.
***otter shakes this item until it wakes up*** My own basis for knowing if someone is the wrong weight, either fat or thin, is whether their weight is the very first thing I notice about them. I am probably one of the fittest fat people (or the fattest fit people!) you could know. Based on my experience, I'm carrying about 40 extra pounds right now, but the nurse who weighed me last week stopped everything and had someone re-calibrate the scale before she was satisfied that it was accurate. I weigh a lot for the space I take up, because under my soft exterior is a lovely pile of well-developed muscle, especially legs and gluteals. (that's "major butt" for you layfolk <grin>) I am never still for long, and seldom eat anything that comes from a box. If you lined us all up and said, "walk 'til you can't," I'd be the one of the last to fall, because I've worked and worked on my endurance. Which brings me, I think, to Misti's original point. You can't tell if someone is fit by simply looking at how fat they are, and that as long as you are physically fit, you will be healthier than most regardless of your weight.
Any idea what your body fat percentage is?
Nope, no idea of the percentage of fat to everything else. I firmly believe in the immersion method over calipers, because I would know which places on me to pinch for the most (and least) favorable readings. I do know that my blood pressure is 95/60, resting pulse 80, and "bad" cholesterol was under 150 last year. My DO often kids me that with those numbers, I will live forever unless hit by a bus. Because of thumb reconstruction later today, I will have to nix weight training (a regular part of my life) until autumn, so I imagine I will drop some more body fat due to a planned increase in kinetic activities like power walking and wind sprints from three times weekly to four or five. Wonder if WMU has an immersion scale...you have piqued my curiousity.
Well, I'm deffinately not fit....I keep swearing that I'm going to work on it....(sigh) You'd think that since I just moved to a place that has a couple of swimming pools, a weight room, golf course, and jogging track, plus my living room now has enough room to work out in and my roomie just bought the Tae-Bo DVD, that I'd have done something. *sigh* Well, I'm going to make the big push. Deffinately 5, hopefully 10 lbs. by my brothers wedding at the end of Sept.
I've found that making a goal of "x pounds" is usually pretty frustrating for people to maintain. What looks like a better option is to make a goal of "every day 30 minutes" or something like that. Even walking around the neighborhood could count. Just doing something, anything, tends to get you into the habit of doing it.
If I don't set something, and then work twords it, then I don't work twords anything. And there fore, don't work.
You have several choices: