ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
19 Jun 2012, 11:08 am
Kurgan wrote:
Just because this is true in your case, doesn't make it so for everyone else. Your fertility problems are because you eat too little. In most cases, obesity actually stalls fertility.
It's only at extremely high weights that obesity affects female fertility.
Fat is necessary for basic endocrine function.
There's a reason why sustainable weight loss is so damned difficult for some people- their bodies' set points are simply higher than current trends deem acceptable.
If I ate more, I'd be in the overweight range (much as I was obese up until around a year ago), and this thread makes evident the ignorant assumptions which would be made about me on the basis of it.
I already pull an hour at the gym for every 250 calories I eat, and spending more than 2 at the gym on average is just not in my schedule.
19 Jun 2012, 12:09 pm
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Just because this is true in your case, doesn't make it so for everyone else. Your fertility problems are because you eat too little. In most cases, obesity actually stalls fertility.
It's only at extremely high weights that obesity affects female fertility.
Fat is necessary for basic endocrine function.
There's a reason why sustainable weight loss is so damned difficult for some people- their bodies' set points are simply higher than current trends deem acceptable.
If I ate more, I'd be in the overweight range (much as I was obese up until around a year ago), and this thread makes evident the ignorant assumptions which would be made about me on the basis of it.
I already pull an hour at the gym for every 250 calories I eat, and spending more than 2 at the gym on average is just not in my schedule.In all fairness, there is gym time, then there is gym productivity. I know dudes that spend twice as long as me to do half the work. Assuming a 1000 calorie diet, that means 4 hours a day at the gym, in a normal week that would be around 28 hours a week. Something about that sounds very inaccurate.
Did you look into cutting out your carbs to less than 20g per day, 50g on workout days, and living on a mainly fat/protein diet? I tend to balloon when I indulge in quick carbs too much, regardless of if my calorie expenditure is higher than my calorie consumption. It could also have to do with your vegetarian lifestyle, I know a few people who were veggies at earlier times but feel much better with some animal protein and fats in their diet.
¨
If you've been eating well below maintenance calories for a while, it could also be that your body has put itself in storage mode and decided to store any excess calorie you consume because its scared to death of dying.
19 Jun 2012, 1:28 pm
ValentineWiggin wrote:
It's only at extremely high weights that obesity affects female fertility.
Fat is necessary for basic endocrine function.
There's a reason why sustainable weight loss is so damned difficult for some people- their bodies' set points are simply higher than current trends deem acceptable.
Fat is necessary for basic endocrine function.
There's a reason why sustainable weight loss is so damned difficult for some people- their bodies' set points are simply higher than current trends deem acceptable.
As previously stated, the MEDICAL ideal weight range is between 22 and 32% bodyfat for a woman (closer to the former for a 20-something woman; closer to the latter for a 50-something woman). Fertility declines if you're more than 40 lbs overweight. There's really no such thing as a set point, but there is a lower limit. Almost every woman who tries, can reach at least 18% body fat (not that it's a good idea to be this cut more than a few weeks every year).
Quote:
If I ate more, I'd be in the overweight range (much as I was obese up until around a year ago), and this thread makes evident the ignorant assumptions which would be made about me on the basis of it. I already pull an hour at the gym for every 250 calories I eat, and spending more than 2 at the gym on average is just not in my schedule.
I already pull an hour at the gym for every 250 calories I eat, and spending more than 2 at the gym on average is just not in my schedule.If you did strength training, excess calories would become muscle mass before they became calories. If you spend more than two hours a day in the gym, you have f*ckarounditis. This happens when you value quantity over quality. I cured my f*ckarounditis with compound exercises.
19 Jun 2012, 1:30 pm
19 Jun 2012, 1:40 pm
MeshugenahMama wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
SpiritBlooms wrote:
And your point would be? A woman should do her best to look good to you? Maybe she has other priorities, such as feeling good physically and happy with herself - for herself.
My point is that beauty standards have VERY LITTLE to do with novelty and trends, at least when it comes to what men prefer. None of the women I posted were underweight fashion models and all have (or at least had) good health.
I think it's cute you only posted photos from the last few decades and implied beauty standards are based on them something enduring.
Evolutionarily, fertility and attractiveness has more to do with certain ratios (bust-waist-hips) for example, than BMI.
I was hourglass shaped and had no fertility problems when I was obese.
Now (a hundred pounds later) I'll be lucky if I can ever conceive.
Just because this is true in your case, doesn't make it so for everyone else. Your fertility problems are because you eat too little. In most cases, obesity actually stalls fertility.
The romans had beauty standards a lot like the ones today. Apart from the fact that it favours slightly chubby eomen (most likely because people didn't eat a lot everyday), the Perfumed Garden also describes what we still find beautiful.
The standard of being thin (or what you label as "healthy") has only existed for less than 100 years. It probably started with Twiggy in the 20's. For a good bit of history men were not looking for women who were thin. They were looking for women who had a little weight behind them so they could handle the hard work of keeping a home, wouldn't die in the occasional famine, and had breeder hips so they wouldn't die in childbirth. There probably was not a whole lot of obesity, aside from the very wealthy, because your average woman had a physically demanding life, but they were not thin.
Throughout history a woman being thin, was a sign of poverty, and not viewed as a positive trait.
The ancient romans were pigs, but your right-their standards were not so different than today. They were obsessed with beauty, and that defined everything.
side note: I noticed you included Halle Berry with the idea of including women of color, but the fact of the matter is that the only woman that fit into your narrow category, are the ones that look white (have white features). African american culture accepts its women as large and curvy, with no apologies.
400 years ago, you couldn't walk into a grocery store and buy lots of food for 20 dollars. In any culture where you eat three or more meals every day, the medical ideal range is seen as the most attractive. Wide hips are still considered attractive (what would Shakira or Beyonce be without them?) and if Europe and Northern America went into a massive famine, sooner or later fat women would be considered more attractive. Natural selection has an invisible hand that corrects stuff.
Much of what's considered "normal" today (eg. monogamy, large cities and so on) are Roman standards that have survived to this day.
Seems to me as if white and black Americans like the same women. One study concluded that both ethnic groups on average rated physically fit mulatto women as most attractive. Curvy and fat is not the same thing, btw. Because of racism being more prevalent in the past (allthough it's still there today), sex symbols of the past were white.
19 Jun 2012, 2:14 pm
Kurgan wrote:
Quote:
If I ate more, I'd be in the overweight range (much as I was obese up until around a year ago), and this thread makes evident the ignorant assumptions which would be made about me on the basis of it. I already pull an hour at the gym for every 250 calories I eat, and spending more than 2 at the gym on average is just not in my schedule.
I already pull an hour at the gym for every 250 calories I eat, and spending more than 2 at the gym on average is just not in my schedule.If you did strength training, excess calories would become muscle mass before they became calories. If you spend more than two hours a day in the gym, you have f*ckarounditis. This happens when you value quantity over quality. I cured my f*ckarounditis with compound exercises.
Some Mark Rippetoe quotes...
Quote:
Women who do look like men have taken some rather drastic steps in that direction that have little to do with their exercise program.
Quote:
The vast majority of women cannot get large, masculine muscles from barbell training. If it were that easy, I would have them.
Quote:
Women who claim to be afraid to train hard because they “always bulk up too much” are often already pretty bulky, or “skinny fat” (thin but weak and deconditioned) and have found another excuse to continue life sitting on their butts.
Quote:
Rip: "You would look better if you gained about 10 lbs of muscle" Woman responds with look of utter horror. Rip: "Trust me, I've been looking at women a long time, and I'm really good at it."
Female Olympic lifters, assuming they're not like heavyweights or super heavyweights, are usually quite attractive by damned near anyone's standards. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRkfaG38t7Y
Anyway, Wiggin, lifting heavy weights is something you should try. It's fun, even aside from the physical benefits, the mental benefits are great, the Olympic lifts especially, just the feeling of putting a bar over your head just gives you a ton of confidence. Please give it a try.
19 Jun 2012, 2:45 pm
19 Jun 2012, 3:39 pm
Kurgan wrote:
MeshugenahMama wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
SpiritBlooms wrote:
And your point would be? A woman should do her best to look good to you? Maybe she has other priorities, such as feeling good physically and happy with herself - for herself.
My point is that beauty standards have VERY LITTLE to do with novelty and trends, at least when it comes to what men prefer. None of the women I posted were underweight fashion models and all have (or at least had) good health.
I think it's cute you only posted photos from the last few decades and implied beauty standards are based on them something enduring.
Evolutionarily, fertility and attractiveness has more to do with certain ratios (bust-waist-hips) for example, than BMI.
I was hourglass shaped and had no fertility problems when I was obese.
Now (a hundred pounds later) I'll be lucky if I can ever conceive.
Just because this is true in your case, doesn't make it so for everyone else. Your fertility problems are because you eat too little. In most cases, obesity actually stalls fertility.
The romans had beauty standards a lot like the ones today. Apart from the fact that it favours slightly chubby eomen (most likely because people didn't eat a lot everyday), the Perfumed Garden also describes what we still find beautiful.
The standard of being thin (or what you label as "healthy") has only existed for less than 100 years. It probably started with Twiggy in the 20's. For a good bit of history men were not looking for women who were thin. They were looking for women who had a little weight behind them so they could handle the hard work of keeping a home, wouldn't die in the occasional famine, and had breeder hips so they wouldn't die in childbirth. There probably was not a whole lot of obesity, aside from the very wealthy, because your average woman had a physically demanding life, but they were not thin.
Throughout history a woman being thin, was a sign of poverty, and not viewed as a positive trait.
The ancient romans were pigs, but your right-their standards were not so different than today. They were obsessed with beauty, and that defined everything.
side note: I noticed you included Halle Berry with the idea of including women of color, but the fact of the matter is that the only woman that fit into your narrow category, are the ones that look white (have white features). African american culture accepts its women as large and curvy, with no apologies.
400 years ago, you couldn't walk into a grocery store and buy lots of food for 20 dollars. In any culture where you eat three or more meals every day, the medical ideal range is seen as the most attractive. Wide hips are still considered attractive (what would Shakira or Beyonce be without them?) and if Europe and Northern America went into a massive famine, sooner or later fat women would be considered more attractive. Natural selection has an invisible hand that corrects stuff. More or less agreed
Much of what's considered "normal" today (eg. monogamy, large cities and so on) are Roman standards that have survived to this day. I have nothing to say about roman culture or their supposed "monogamy" that would be appropriate to this thread, so I will refrain from voicing my less than complementary viewpoint here.
Seems to me as if white and black Americans like the same women. One study concluded that both ethnic groups on average rated physically fit mulatto women as most attractive. Curvy and fat is not the same thing, btw. Because of racism being more prevalent in the past (allthough it's still there today), sex symbols of the past were white.
19 Jun 2012, 3:53 pm
MeshugenahMama wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
MeshugenahMama wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
SpiritBlooms wrote:
And your point would be? A woman should do her best to look good to you? Maybe she has other priorities, such as feeling good physically and happy with herself - for herself.
My point is that beauty standards have VERY LITTLE to do with novelty and trends, at least when it comes to what men prefer. None of the women I posted were underweight fashion models and all have (or at least had) good health.
I think it's cute you only posted photos from the last few decades and implied beauty standards are based on them something enduring.
Evolutionarily, fertility and attractiveness has more to do with certain ratios (bust-waist-hips) for example, than BMI.
I was hourglass shaped and had no fertility problems when I was obese.
Now (a hundred pounds later) I'll be lucky if I can ever conceive.
Just because this is true in your case, doesn't make it so for everyone else. Your fertility problems are because you eat too little. In most cases, obesity actually stalls fertility.
The romans had beauty standards a lot like the ones today. Apart from the fact that it favours slightly chubby eomen (most likely because people didn't eat a lot everyday), the Perfumed Garden also describes what we still find beautiful.
The standard of being thin (or what you label as "healthy") has only existed for less than 100 years. It probably started with Twiggy in the 20's. For a good bit of history men were not looking for women who were thin. They were looking for women who had a little weight behind them so they could handle the hard work of keeping a home, wouldn't die in the occasional famine, and had breeder hips so they wouldn't die in childbirth. There probably was not a whole lot of obesity, aside from the very wealthy, because your average woman had a physically demanding life, but they were not thin.
Throughout history a woman being thin, was a sign of poverty, and not viewed as a positive trait.
The ancient romans were pigs, but your right-their standards were not so different than today. They were obsessed with beauty, and that defined everything.
side note: I noticed you included Halle Berry with the idea of including women of color, but the fact of the matter is that the only woman that fit into your narrow category, are the ones that look white (have white features). African american culture accepts its women as large and curvy, with no apologies.
400 years ago, you couldn't walk into a grocery store and buy lots of food for 20 dollars. In any culture where you eat three or more meals every day, the medical ideal range is seen as the most attractive. Wide hips are still considered attractive (what would Shakira or Beyonce be without them?) and if Europe and Northern America went into a massive famine, sooner or later fat women would be considered more attractive. Natural selection has an invisible hand that corrects stuff. More or less agreed
Much of what's considered "normal" today (eg. monogamy, large cities and so on) are Roman standards that have survived to this day. I have nothing to say about roman culture or their supposed "monogamy" that would be appropriate to this thread, so I will refrain from voicing my less than complementary viewpoint here.
Seems to me as if white and black Americans like the same women. One study concluded that both ethnic groups on average rated physically fit mulatto women as most attractive. Curvy and fat is not the same thing, btw. Because of racism being more prevalent in the past (allthough it's still there today), sex symbols of the past were white.
I've seen a lot of black men complain that there are too many fat black women.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxeArUZqY-s[/youtube]
Black men are not significantly different than white men, allthough they tend to get more sh!t thrown after them because they're the minority.
Using 'curvy' to sugar coat 'fat' ruins the word. Andra Dworkin was fat; Katy Perry is curvy.
19 Jun 2012, 3:54 pm
TM wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
If you did strength training, excess calories would become muscle mass before they became calories. If you spend more than two hours a day in the gym, you have f*ckarounditis. This happens when you value quantity over quality. I cured my f*ckarounditis with compound exercises.
QFT (Quoted for truth).
On Oly lifts: They are a great workout and a great addition to a strength training regiment provided you know how to execute them as they are as much of not more about technique than brute force.
Because of motor clumsiness, few aspies benefit from isolation exercises where "form is everything".
19 Jun 2012, 4:06 pm
Kurgan wrote:
TM wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
If you did strength training, excess calories would become muscle mass before they became calories. If you spend more than two hours a day in the gym, you have f*ckarounditis. This happens when you value quantity over quality. I cured my f*ckarounditis with compound exercises.
QFT (Quoted for truth).
On Oly lifts: They are a great workout and a great addition to a strength training regiment provided you know how to execute them as they are as much of not more about technique than brute force.
Because of motor clumsiness, few aspies benefit from isolation exercises where "form is everything".
Tbh, I'd be pretty fearful with the deadlifts I've been doing lately if motor clumsiness was a problem for me. Not to mention heavy freeweight squats.
19 Jun 2012, 5:12 pm
TM wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
TM wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
If you did strength training, excess calories would become muscle mass before they became calories. If you spend more than two hours a day in the gym, you have f*ckarounditis. This happens when you value quantity over quality. I cured my f*ckarounditis with compound exercises.
QFT (Quoted for truth).
On Oly lifts: They are a great workout and a great addition to a strength training regiment provided you know how to execute them as they are as much of not more about technique than brute force.
Because of motor clumsiness, few aspies benefit from isolation exercises where "form is everything".
Tbh, I'd be pretty fearful with the deadlifts I've been doing lately if motor clumsiness was a problem for me. Not to mention heavy freeweight squats.
You can switch them with rack pulls and instead go ass to the grass more often on squats.
Most injuries from deadlifts happen just above the floor.
My point was, however, that many aspies (including me), lack the motor skills needed to do for example lateral raises, even if they're strong. If you go ass to the grass on squats and keep your lower back straight, squats are very safe, though.
19 Jun 2012, 5:22 pm
Kurgan wrote:
You can switch them with rack pulls and instead go ass to the grass more often on squats.
Most injuries from deadlifts happen just above the floor. My point was, however, that many aspies (including me), lack the motor skills needed to do for example lateral raises, even if they're strong. If you go ass to the grass on squats and keep your lower back straight, squats are very safe, though.
Yeah, I know I can switch the deads out, but I love deadlifting. What was it Sigmarsson said "life isn't worth living if you can't deadlift". Funnily enough, I've never hurt myself by lifting "wrong", but I did throw my back out when sneezing.
I see your point on the fine motor skills though.
19 Jun 2012, 5:40 pm
Kurgan wrote:
MeshugenahMama wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
MeshugenahMama wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
SpiritBlooms wrote:
And your point would be? A woman should do her best to look good to you? Maybe she has other priorities, such as feeling good physically and happy with herself - for herself.
My point is that beauty standards have VERY LITTLE to do with novelty and trends, at least when it comes to what men prefer. None of the women I posted were underweight fashion models and all have (or at least had) good health.
I think it's cute you only posted photos from the last few decades and implied beauty standards are based on them something enduring.
Evolutionarily, fertility and attractiveness has more to do with certain ratios (bust-waist-hips) for example, than BMI.
I was hourglass shaped and had no fertility problems when I was obese.
Now (a hundred pounds later) I'll be lucky if I can ever conceive.
Just because this is true in your case, doesn't make it so for everyone else. Your fertility problems are because you eat too little. In most cases, obesity actually stalls fertility.
The romans had beauty standards a lot like the ones today. Apart from the fact that it favours slightly chubby eomen (most likely because people didn't eat a lot everyday), the Perfumed Garden also describes what we still find beautiful.
The standard of being thin (or what you label as "healthy") has only existed for less than 100 years. It probably started with Twiggy in the 20's. For a good bit of history men were not looking for women who were thin. They were looking for women who had a little weight behind them so they could handle the hard work of keeping a home, wouldn't die in the occasional famine, and had breeder hips so they wouldn't die in childbirth. There probably was not a whole lot of obesity, aside from the very wealthy, because your average woman had a physically demanding life, but they were not thin.
Throughout history a woman being thin, was a sign of poverty, and not viewed as a positive trait.
The ancient romans were pigs, but your right-their standards were not so different than today. They were obsessed with beauty, and that defined everything.
side note: I noticed you included Halle Berry with the idea of including women of color, but the fact of the matter is that the only woman that fit into your narrow category, are the ones that look white (have white features). African american culture accepts its women as large and curvy, with no apologies.
400 years ago, you couldn't walk into a grocery store and buy lots of food for 20 dollars. In any culture where you eat three or more meals every day, the medical ideal range is seen as the most attractive. Wide hips are still considered attractive (what would Shakira or Beyonce be without them?) and if Europe and Northern America went into a massive famine, sooner or later fat women would be considered more attractive. Natural selection has an invisible hand that corrects stuff. More or less agreed
Much of what's considered "normal" today (eg. monogamy, large cities and so on) are Roman standards that have survived to this day. I have nothing to say about roman culture or their supposed "monogamy" that would be appropriate to this thread, so I will refrain from voicing my less than complementary viewpoint here.
Seems to me as if white and black Americans like the same women. One study concluded that both ethnic groups on average rated physically fit mulatto women as most attractive. Curvy and fat is not the same thing, btw. Because of racism being more prevalent in the past (allthough it's still there today), sex symbols of the past were white.
I've seen a lot of black men complain that there are too many fat black women.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxeArUZqY-s[/youtube]
Black men are not significantly different than white men, allthough they tend to get more sh!t thrown after them because they're the minority.
Using 'curvy' to sugar coat 'fat' ruins the word. Andra Dworkin was fat; Katy Perry is curvy.
I am not trying to sugar coat anything, but I try not to refer to people in a derogatory way. In my opinion that is what ruins the world. That's all fine, but that doesn't change the fact that his definition of curvy is Queen Latifah, while yours is Katy Perry (beautiful-but a bean pole with boobs-your Playboy type).
19 Jun 2012, 6:05 pm
MeshugenahMama wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
MeshugenahMama wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
MeshugenahMama wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
SpiritBlooms wrote:
And your point would be? A woman should do her best to look good to you? Maybe she has other priorities, such as feeling good physically and happy with herself - for herself.
My point is that beauty standards have VERY LITTLE to do with novelty and trends, at least when it comes to what men prefer. None of the women I posted were underweight fashion models and all have (or at least had) good health.
I think it's cute you only posted photos from the last few decades and implied beauty standards are based on them something enduring.
Evolutionarily, fertility and attractiveness has more to do with certain ratios (bust-waist-hips) for example, than BMI.
I was hourglass shaped and had no fertility problems when I was obese.
Now (a hundred pounds later) I'll be lucky if I can ever conceive.
Just because this is true in your case, doesn't make it so for everyone else. Your fertility problems are because you eat too little. In most cases, obesity actually stalls fertility.
The romans had beauty standards a lot like the ones today. Apart from the fact that it favours slightly chubby eomen (most likely because people didn't eat a lot everyday), the Perfumed Garden also describes what we still find beautiful.
The standard of being thin (or what you label as "healthy") has only existed for less than 100 years. It probably started with Twiggy in the 20's. For a good bit of history men were not looking for women who were thin. They were looking for women who had a little weight behind them so they could handle the hard work of keeping a home, wouldn't die in the occasional famine, and had breeder hips so they wouldn't die in childbirth. There probably was not a whole lot of obesity, aside from the very wealthy, because your average woman had a physically demanding life, but they were not thin.
Throughout history a woman being thin, was a sign of poverty, and not viewed as a positive trait.
The ancient romans were pigs, but your right-their standards were not so different than today. They were obsessed with beauty, and that defined everything.
side note: I noticed you included Halle Berry with the idea of including women of color, but the fact of the matter is that the only woman that fit into your narrow category, are the ones that look white (have white features). African american culture accepts its women as large and curvy, with no apologies.
400 years ago, you couldn't walk into a grocery store and buy lots of food for 20 dollars. In any culture where you eat three or more meals every day, the medical ideal range is seen as the most attractive. Wide hips are still considered attractive (what would Shakira or Beyonce be without them?) and if Europe and Northern America went into a massive famine, sooner or later fat women would be considered more attractive. Natural selection has an invisible hand that corrects stuff. More or less agreed
Much of what's considered "normal" today (eg. monogamy, large cities and so on) are Roman standards that have survived to this day. I have nothing to say about roman culture or their supposed "monogamy" that would be appropriate to this thread, so I will refrain from voicing my less than complementary viewpoint here.
Seems to me as if white and black Americans like the same women. One study concluded that both ethnic groups on average rated physically fit mulatto women as most attractive. Curvy and fat is not the same thing, btw. Because of racism being more prevalent in the past (allthough it's still there today), sex symbols of the past were white.
I've seen a lot of black men complain that there are too many fat black women.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxeArUZqY-s[/youtube]
Black men are not significantly different than white men, allthough they tend to get more sh!t thrown after them because they're the minority.
Using 'curvy' to sugar coat 'fat' ruins the word. Andra Dworkin was fat; Katy Perry is curvy.
I am not trying to sugar coat anything, but I try not to refer to people in a derogatory way. In my opinion that is what ruins the world. That's all fine, but that doesn't change the fact that his definition of curvy is Queen Latifah, while yours is Katy Perry (beautiful-but a bean pole with boobs-your Playboy type).
She's within the ideal fat range (allthough clearly closer to 22% than 32% body fat). Curvy means hourglass shape. Any woman with a narrow waist combined with large breats and wide hips is 'curvy'. This was everyone's definition until fat women started to refer to themselves as 'curvy' in online dating profiles.
Shatbat
Veteran
Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet
19 Jun 2012, 10:45 pm
I once read that men are attracted to one specifif hop-to waist ratio. I believe in that until proved wrong. So... Looking for proof then 
