 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / August 2004Dieting is hard!
Hi. Been off the diet almost two years. I've gained almost enough weight to make another person, so I guess it's time to get back on track. Of course I've said that time and time again. I've meant it each time, too. Hopefully this time I REALLY mean it. Trouble is, I like to eat. I also enjoy beer and baseball. *Sigh* I guess that's all I have to say. Thanks for reading. > Hi. Been off the diet almost two years. I've gained almost enough weight > to make another person, so I guess it's time to get back on track. > > Of course I've said that time and time again. I've meant it each time, too. > Hopefully this time I REALLY mean it. I thought dieting would be hard, too, but what made it easier was: 1) committing to lose no *more* than 1% of my total weight per week. 2) getting a lot of exercise so I didn't have to starve myself to lose that 1%. 3) Figuring out that limiting calories is easiest on the stomach by cutting out sugar, but *not* cutting fat. These three things together made losing nearly 50lbs in 6 months relatively painless. I ate normal food. I snacked on (1 serving of!!!) high-fat almonds to keep me satiated in the afternoon. If I had known it was going to be that easy I would have started a long time ago. Heywood 232/186/182 Play baseball instead of watching it. Cut back on the beer. Get into other sports. Eat a wide variety of high fiber low fat food. > Hi. Been off the diet almost two years. I've gained almost enough weight > to make another person, so I guess it's time to get back on track. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I guess that's all I have to say. Thanks for reading. > Hi. Been off the diet almost two years. I've gained almost enough weight > to make another person, so I guess it's time to get back on track. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Trouble is, I like to eat. I also enjoy beer and baseball. *Sigh* You mean, you enjoy watching baseball on TV? > I guess that's all I have to say. Thanks for reading. Dieting is not that hard once you get into the right mindset... Now, carrying "another person" on you all the time, now that is hard. i > Hi. Been off the diet almost two years. I've gained almost enough weight > to make another person, so I guess it's time to get back on track. To go on a diet? Nah, you already tried that. It didn't work. > Of course I've said that time and time again. I've meant it each time, too. > Hopefully this time I REALLY mean it. > > Trouble is, I like to eat. I also enjoy beer and baseball. *Sigh* Look closely at those two lines. Take them apart and stare at them. You want to lose fat because of WHY? When you "mean it" what does that mean? Losing fat is going to be hard. What's in it for you? Why decide to do it? What do you value about being slender? And what's in it for you about being fat? You get to use your free time lying around on the couch. You like beer and recreational eating. [You don't prefer to get sweaty. You don't like clothes shopping, even for smaller sizes... I'm just throwing in some examples here.] List out what WORKS for you about being fat. Because you CHOSE to become fat and you're going to have to CHOOSE to become slender if you are going to lose weight. Don't leave this part off. I've recently come to the realization that my four step weight-loss plan really has five steps. Here they are: 0. Fix your head. 1. Eat less 2. Exercise more 3. Repeat 4. Forever. Each one of those five steps has it's own challenges to be met. But if you decide to do it, if you CHOOSE to do it knowing what it's going to cost you, then you can meet those challenges and change your life. Good luck in whatever you decide to do. Dally 244/174/168 > > Hi. Been off the diet almost two years. I've gained almost enough weight > > to make another person, so I guess it's time to get back on track. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > Trouble is, I like to eat. I also enjoy beer and baseball. *Sigh* 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. Bottom line, you're in or you're out. if you intend to lose weight changes will have to be made. Not tomorrow! Live Now!  SignatureDiva ****** There is no substitute for the right food > > > Trouble is, I like to eat. I also enjoy beer and baseball. *Sigh* > > > 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. ? you banging the domino's guy? ;0 > > > > Trouble is, I like to eat. I also enjoy beer and baseball. *Sigh* > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ? you banging the domino's guy? ;0 Go see "The Door in the Floor" Forget Domino's. My future ex son in law delivered pizza for Pizza Hut for 10 years and that's all he did, We finally unloaded him. Give me a Fed Ex guy in brown shorts anytime. SignatureDiva ***** The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman >> > > > Trouble is, I like to eat. I also enjoy beer and baseball. *Sigh* >> > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >for 10 years and that's all he did, We finally unloaded him. Give me a >Fed Ex guy in brown shorts anytime. Ha! The Fed Ex guy wouldn't have brown shorts unless he was eating sugar alcohol candies. ;) Lee Rodgers Lowcarb Retreat http://www.lowcarb.org CHAT http://www.lowcarb.org/parachat.html Low-Carb Connoisseur http://www.low-carb.com > >> > > > Trouble is, I like to eat. I also enjoy beer and baseball. *Sigh* > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > sugar alcohol candies. ;) > Lee Rodgers Yo. Lee how ya doing? SignatureDiva ***** The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman > 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. Happy Ending sundaes from Friendly's are very nice too ;-) SignatureWalking (but mostly biking!) on . . . Laurie in Maine 207/110 60 inches of attitude! Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 > 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... >Because you CHOSE to become fat That's a misconception. Most people don't choose to become fat. I know in my case, I never changed my eating habits and then one day I was fat. I could always eat anything I wanted and as much of it as a teen. As my late 20's arrived, so did the pounds, but I never noticed because I never weighed myself. Not to long after, when the clothes started getting tight - it was time to do something. >>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. Signaturejmk in NC >>>Because you CHOSE to become fat >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >attention -- or maybe they never start to pay attention -- and then they >are fat. Right - they don't consciously choose to become fat. That was my point. >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. For many, it's not a conscious choice to "not pay attention". They never did since day one, so there was no choice to make. Once the fat builds up when metabolism slows down - then people become aware and choose to lose weight. >>>>Because you CHOSE to become fat >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > since day one, so there was no choice to make. Once the fat builds up when > metabolism slows down - then people become aware and choose to lose weight. For me, gaining weight was half conscious and half unconscious. What this means is that I was aware of its rise, but since it would go up and down by a few pounds, I was never sure if the gain is real or not. When I realized that I was "obese", though, it became harder to deny that my weight gain was real. Then, for some time, I harbored some "fit and fat" illusions. That because I could still run and do one pullup, I was "fit". It was a form of rationalization and denial of reality. 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. All of these factors were why I became obese and did not take an action earlier. To my credit, though, I stopped at that point. My major reason for starting to diet was a hunch that I was approaching a "point of no return", beyond which it would be impossible for me to effectively lose weight and keep it off. 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. i 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! SignatureAnnabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/88/80kg > Ignoramus22762 wrote in alt.support.diet on Wed, 18 Aug 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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] >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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 >> Ignoramus22762 wrote in alt.support.diet on Wed, 18 Aug 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >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 >>> Ignoramus22762 wrote in alt.support.diet on Wed, 18 Aug 2004: >>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > janice That's the question, yes. First, is this real, and second, if it is real, is it because men are more consistent and persistent, or for some "organic" reason having to do with genetics of sex. i >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) >>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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > uncommon for a man, this is a lot more feasible than for someone who > has been eating 2000 or less. That's sensible, yes. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and metabolism, it of course also makes a difference how much > overweight the person is to start with.) For me, personally, losing weight was easy, like in a dream. Maybe you even remember my posts from then. It was as though my weight melted off me. Of course, I am relatively young, exercised, and it was my first serious attempt at dieting. Also, by luck, I restricted a lot of junk carbs. 45 lbs in 100 days. Everything changed as soon as I got to 178 lbs. Weight loss became a whole lot harder quite suddenly. That's, obviously, a very individual experience. i >>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 [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > 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 JMA wrote in alt.support.diet on Wed, 18 Aug 2004: >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. *Tell* me about it..... sigh..... all the same, oh, the bliss of being done with "all that"! >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. Naturally, especially where the dictatorial men on this group are concerned.... SignatureAnnabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/88/80kg > JMA wrote in alt.support.diet on Wed, 18 Aug 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > *Tell* me about it..... sigh..... all the same, oh, the bliss of being > done with "all that"! Hm, if one's weight goes up due to water retention, and then down, every month, does it make it harder to lose weight over the period of several months? i >>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. >> > Naturally, especially where the dictatorial men on this group are > concerned.... >> JMA wrote in alt.support.diet on Wed, 18 Aug 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> Naturally, especially where the dictatorial men on this group are >> concerned.... I also find it amusing that a woman who lost, according to her, 155 lbs, or more than half of her body weight, in less than a year on a crash diet, is trying to be sarcastic here in regards to a question asking for evidence to support a claim that it is harder for women to lose weight than it is for men. i >>> JMA wrote in alt.support.diet on Wed, 18 Aug 2004: >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > i Gee, even you know that anyone can lose a large amount of weight when you only consume 800 cal/day, but I guess you forgot that - how convenient. The men in my HMR class actually lost faster than the women in the same period of time and we were all consuming a similar number of calories. Men have a higher BMR because by nature they generally have more muscle mass. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a study to figure out that it would simply lead to faster weight loss, it's a mathematical reality. I'd still love to see you wake up to 10 lbs of hormonally induced water weight overnight. That would definitely stop you from being so amused. Jenn > >>> JMA wrote in alt.support.diet on Wed, 18 Aug 2004: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Jenn Now THAT was amusing!!! Martha > I also find it amusing that a woman who lost, according to her, 155 > lbs, or more than half of her body weight, in less than a year on a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > i Ig, out of curiousity, why do you feel the need to include things like "according to her" in this reply? How quickly did you lose your weight? Could that be classified as a "crash diet?" Signaturejmk in NC >> I also find it amusing that a woman who lost, according to her, 155 >> lbs, or more than half of her body weight, in less than a year on a >> crash diet, is trying to be sarcastic here in regards to a question >> asking for evidence to support a claim that it is harder for women to >> lose weight than it is for men. > How quickly did you lose your weight? I reached normal weight in 100-102 days. That was a loss of about 45 lbs. I then proceeded to lose 5 more pounds over the course of many more months. > Could that be classified as a "crash diet?" I was eating about 1900 calories per day, hardly a crash diet of any sort. After an initial loss of 23 lbs in June, which probably included a good deal of "water weight", I lost 8 lbs in July, and 12 lbs in August. i >>>I also find it amusing that a woman who lost, according to her, 155 >>>lbs, or more than half of her body weight, in less than a year on a >>>crash diet, is trying to be sarcastic here in regards to a question >>>asking for evidence to support a claim that it is harder for women to >>>lose weight than it is for men. Again, Ig, out of curiousity, why do you feel the need to include things like "according to her" in your reply? ording to her" in your reply? Signaturejmk in NC >>>I also find it amusing that a woman who lost, according to her, 155 >>>lbs, or more than half of her body weight, in less than a year on a >>>crash diet, is trying to be sarcastic here in regards to a question >>>asking for evidence to support a claim that it is harder for women to >>>lose weight than it is for men. Again, Ig, out of curiousity, why do you feel the need to include things like "according to her" in this reply? Why did he avoid the first question I asked? >>How quickly did you lose your weight? > > I reached normal weight in 100-102 days. That was a loss of about 45 > lbs. I then proceeded to lose 5 more pounds over the course of many > more months. What does that come to? 3.15 pounds per week? Isn't that a bit excessive? Why would 3.15 pounds per week on your plan be better than 3.8 pounds per week on anohterh plan? Signaturejmk in NC >>>>I also find it amusing that a woman who lost, according to her, 155 >>>>lbs, or more than half of her body weight, in less than a year on a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > like "according to her" in this reply? Why did he avoid the first > question I asked? I feel that you are trying to engage me in a meaningless discussion. Therefore I decline to answer your question. >>>How quickly did you lose your weight? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > excessive? Why would 3.15 pounds per week on your plan be better than > 3.8 pounds per week on anohterh plan? After the initial water loss in June, my weight loss in July and August was 20 lbs, or 2.33 lbs per week. A quite reasonable rate. And, again, 1900 calories per month is not a crash diet... i >>>>>I also find it amusing that a woman who lost, according to her, 155 >>>>>lbs, or more than half of her body weight, in less than a year on a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I feel that you are trying to engage me in a meaningless discussion. So it was meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments above? If so, then why did you write that? To me it seemed rather a loaded sentence. >>>>How quickly did you lose your weight? >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > After the initial water loss in June, my weight loss in July and > August was 20 lbs, or 2.33 lbs per week. A quite reasonable rate. So weight loss of 3.15 pounds per week on your plan was fine for you then? And a loss of 3.8 pounds per week on another plan would, presumably, also be fine? Is that right? > And, again, 1900 calories per month is not a crash diet... Again, you will see that my question was not how much were you eating so much as how quickly were you lost weight. Signaturejmk in NC >>>>>How quickly did you lose your weight? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So weight loss of 3.15 pounds per week on your plan was fine for you > then? Aside from the first month, I was losing at the rate of 2.3 lbs per week. A quite reasonable rate. > And a loss of 3.8 pounds per week on another plan would, > presumably, also be fine? Is that right? There is more to dieting than the rate of weight loss. 3.8 pounds per week appears to be excessive for ongoing weight loss. >> And, again, 1900 calories per month is not a crash diet... > > Again, you will see that my question was not how much were you eating so > much as how quickly were you lost weight. You asked a question: ``Could that be classified as a "crash diet?"''. i >>>>>>How quickly did you lose your weight? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > 3.8 pounds per week appears to be excessive for ongoing weight loss. 3.15 pounds per week also seems to be somewhat excessive. >>>And, again, 1900 calories per month is not a crash diet... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > i Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments above? If so, then why did you write that? ' So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me to ask you about them? hmmm. Signaturejmk in NC >>>>>>>How quickly did you lose your weight? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > 3.15 pounds per week also seems to be somewhat excessive. I am glad, therefore, that the two months out of three I was losing at a much lower rate. >>>>And, again, 1900 calories per month is not a crash diet... >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So it's ok for you to make these loaded comments but it's not ok for me > to ask you about them? hmmm. Am I required to answer every question of yours? i >>Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was >>meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > i Nope. I was just wondering why you made that comment is all. Signaturejmk in NC > >>Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was > >>meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- > jmk in NC I'll tell you why. Because he didn't think he would be called to the carpet for it. He thought he could do his little nasty dig and get away with it. When someone asks him up front and honestly why he was so nasty, he tries to slide around it, he lies and then eventually creeps back into his corner with his tail between his legs. Quite cowardly behavior. Martha >> >>Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I also asked a question: 'So it was >> >>meaningless that you added that "according to her" in your comments [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Martha Pretty much how I saw it, except you forgot to mention that this is his usual M.O. of dropping these snarky little comments (ie attention seeking lies) in hopes that it will lead to him being called names so he can whine about how much of a victim he is and how irrational the rest of us are being. He *never* responds when people point out his obviously nasty behavior, only when there is a chance he can spin it to make it look like an innocent mistake. If he wants to call my weight loss into question, by all means he should have the stones to do it directly - to me...but again, that would then reinforce the kind of person he really is. I just don't get what he thinks he's accomplishing by putting down my weight loss when he gets the chance. Am I supposed to go back to being 300 lbs and do it "the right way" because I followed an extreme diet? Umm, no, don't think so. Jenn > > I'll tell you why. Because he didn't think he would be called to the > > carpet [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Jenn Every word is the truth, Jenn. Remember back when he asked how he could be more rugged? Well, first off, act like a man, chickenshits are NEVER rugged. : ) Martha Ignoramus29728 wrote in alt.support.diet on Thu, 19 Aug 2004: >> JMA wrote in alt.support.diet on Wed, 18 Aug 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >every month, does it make it harder to lose weight over the period of >several months? It's not just water retention; it's to do with hormone fluctuation, etc. You may choose to disbelieve us, but that is your privilege. http://www.detnews.com/2003/health/0306/20/d01-197825.htm SignatureAnnabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/88/80kg > Ignoramus29728 wrote in alt.support.diet on Thu, 19 Aug 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > http://www.detnews.com/2003/health/0306/20/d01-197825.htm I do not "disbelieve", as such, I want to see some evidence. So many things are said without evidence, that it only makes sense to ask for it. Thanks for the article, I will read it. It seems to say that men have higher BMR (``In a preliminary study recently conducted on 76 Beaumont patients who were morbidly obese (a 5-foot-8 person who weighs 310 pounds, for example), the men burned 13.6 calories per minute at their peak exercise level, while the women burned 10.5 calories per minute.''). Besides that, would a man with a 500 calorie per day deficit lose faster than a woman with a 500 calorie per day deficit? i Ignoramus29728 wrote in alt.support.diet on Thu, 19 Aug 2004: >Besides that, would a man with a 500 calorie per day deficit lose >faster than a woman with a 500 calorie per day deficit? Given a man and a woman of equal height and build, probably yes, since the man is liable to have more muscle tissue and less fat for his weight than the woman is. SignatureAnnabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/88/80kg > Ignoramus29728 wrote in alt.support.diet on Thu, 19 Aug 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the man is liable to have more muscle tissue and less fat for his weight > than the woman is. Even so, remember, they still have the same calorie deficit, 500 calories in my example. i Ignoramus29728 wrote in alt.support.diet on Thu, 19 Aug 2004: >> Ignoramus29728 wrote in alt.support.diet on Thu, 19 Aug 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Even so, remember, they still have the same calorie deficit, 500 >calories in my example. In which case, the man is probably eating more than the woman; if they were both eating the same, he would have a larger calorie deficit than her. SignatureAnnabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/88/80kg > Ignoramus29728 wrote in alt.support.diet on Thu, 19 Aug 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > were both eating the same, he would have a larger calorie deficit than > her. I have to agree with that. Maybe we can say that it is easier for men to have a certain calorie deficit than for women. But, probably, men and women who have the same calorie deficit, would lose weight at the same rate. i Try drinking plenty of water. Sometimes thrist and hunger is hard to distinguish. I have a friend who regularly drinks 3 gallons of water everyday and is able to survive with just 800-1000 calories longterm. >>Ignoramus29728 wrote in alt.support.diet on Thu, 19 Aug 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > i They would not. A man can more easily achieve a defict and eat a quantity of calories that would require women to go on VLCD. I see math is not your strong suit. Signaturejmk in NC >> Ignoramus29728 wrote in alt.support.diet on Thu, 19 Aug 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > i Possibly not, but it would be much easier for a man to obtain a 500 calorie deficit - thus the "painless" weight loss that some men have been able to report. Jenn >>JMA wrote in alt.support.diet on Wed, 18 Aug 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > every month, does it make it harder to lose weight over the period of > several months? That's not what she said. She said, "the body wants to maintain fat." In addition, there are water weight issues which put different psychological stresses on women than men. Signaturejmk in NC >>>JMA wrote in alt.support.diet on Wed, 18 Aug 2004: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > addition, there are water weight issues which put different psychological > stresses on women than men. It's not just psychological but physical depending on the amount of water retention and where it's located. Try going out and doing your normal exercise routine carrying a 5-10 lb dumbbell *and* barely being able to stand up straight if there are cramps involved. Women normally just do it because we're used to it but men do take that for granted. Jenn <snip> > Plus, women have hormone issues - > > Jenn ... and men have more stress since we're forced to prepare and correctly react to womens hormone issues - <duck & sprint > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > <duck & sprint> Umm, dude, you know what PMS *really* stands for right? Putting up with Men's S*** :) > 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)? According to my nutritionist who has a Ph.D. from Tufts University school of nutrition and is also a research scientist, it is true. He said I have many things working against me right now that want me to regain the weight -- being female and over 40 and having been overweight all my life, and some other hormone that I forget. He explains it all scientifically but I don't retain a lot of the actual information -- just the concept that I need to be extra vigilant. He also said that once I keep in goal weight range for a year, my body will stop fighting so much. 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'm sure you can find them if you try. I couldn't care less about studies myself. Mary >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > vigilant. He also said that once I keep in goal weight range for a > year, my body will stop fighting so much. Thank you for a good reference. It was not as hard for me to lose weight -- I stopped at a relatively high normal BMI -- but keeping it off was quite a challenge as I felt hungry and was going on willpower. Obviously, you do have more impediments than myself, so we cannot compare. Even 10 months after weight loss, it was not appreciably easier to keep weight off. I was going on willpower. It was tolerable, but barely. Since Jul 20, I switched to a "paleo diet" and am much less hungry. We'll see if it works for me long term. i |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.