Slightly underweight or curvy/slightly overweight?

Page 2 of 14 [ 207 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,379
Location: Scandinavia

17 Dec 2013, 1:40 pm

Eureka13 wrote:
May I repeat: People come in all shapes and sizes, and what makes a woman (or man) beautiful (or not) should have very little to do with the shape of her (his) body.

"Normal" should be anything but anorexic or morbidly obese, and should include everything in between. Some men prefer skinny women, some men prefer fat women. There are whole websites devoted to "Big & Beautiful" dating.

On average, I think most people have bought into the idea that if you're showing a bulge or even a hint of cellulite, you're "too fat." "Too skinny" I think has to be more extreme before it gets thought to be unattractive.

If you're naturally skinny, rejoice! Most women gain weight as they age, so you've got a better starting place, assuming your goal is to never be fat. If you'd prefer to be plump, well, you have my condolences - it's just as hard to fight a too-fast metabolism as it is to fight a too-slow one. Also rejoice because you have the media on your side - they hold you up as the ultimate standard of feminine beauty, and many models literally starve themselves to achieve that standard. You can further rejoice in that well over half of the men's profiles on any dating site openly state that they "prefer slender/petite women." You see maybe one in 200 or 300 that specifically say they "like curvy women."

My beef is with women who starve themselves to maintain an unrealistic weight/body shape. I've known plenty of women who were "Big & Beautiful" and were perfectly healthy. Go with what god/nature/genetics gave you, embrace it, and love yourself for you naturally are.


Actually, genetics have very little to say for overall fat levels. Everyone has a basal metabolic rate required to keep the body temperature at the right levels.



Eureka13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,058
Location: The wilds of Colorado

17 Dec 2013, 1:48 pm

Yuzu wrote:
Eureka13 wrote:
My beef is with women who starve themselves to maintain an unrealistic weight/body shape. I've known plenty of women who were "Big & Beautiful" and were perfectly healthy. Go with what god/nature/genetics gave you, embrace it, and love yourself for you naturally are.


Do you have beef with obese women as well? Or you just hate anorexic women more. If so, why?


You keep trying to turn my belief that "pandering to society's/the media's vision of what a woman should look like is misguided and unhealthy" into me "hating skinny people."

What part of "love yourself as you naturally are" translates into "I hate skinny people"?



Eureka13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,058
Location: The wilds of Colorado

17 Dec 2013, 1:56 pm

Kurgan wrote:
Actually, genetics have very little to say for overall fat levels. Everyone has a basal metabolic rate required to keep the body temperature at the right levels.


Genetics plays a large part in any person's body fat levels. Certainly it is influenced by factors such as diet and exercise (i.e., maintaining a specific basal metabolic rate), but your genes are the hand of cards you are dealt at birth, and you don't get a do-over on your genetic makeup.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/19/n ... s-genetic/

My personal belief is that if you have to starve yourself (i.e., eat less than 1800-2400 calories per day) and work out for hours every day to maintain a particular body weight, that means that you are fighting your genetic pattern. Many medical professionals are now beginning to believe it is just as detrimental to your health to constantly be fighting your "fat destiny" as it is to be either too overweight or too underweight.

(BTW, my opinions are not strictly "pie in the sky" - I studied molecular biology and biochemistry in college, along with genetics. I also worked in biotechnology for many years.)



Yuzu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,248
Location: Bay area, California

17 Dec 2013, 2:00 pm

Eureka13 wrote:
Yuzu wrote:
Eureka13 wrote:
My beef is with women who starve themselves to maintain an unrealistic weight/body shape. I've known plenty of women who were "Big & Beautiful" and were perfectly healthy. Go with what god/nature/genetics gave you, embrace it, and love yourself for you naturally are.


Do you have beef with obese women as well? Or you just hate anorexic women more. If so, why?


You keep trying to turn my belief that "pandering to society's/the media's vision of what a woman should look like is misguided and unhealthy" into me "hating skinny people."

What part of "love yourself as you naturally are" translates into "I hate skinny people"?


Because I don't see you bashing unhealthy obese women who are more prevalent than anorexic women. I don't see you positing a shocking picture of obese woman. Do you have more problem with anorexic women than obese women? If not, why didn't you state "I have beef with both women who starve themselves and women who stuff themselves with food"?

By the way I'm not underweight.



Yuzu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,248
Location: Bay area, California

17 Dec 2013, 2:14 pm

It was just a yes/no question. If you said yes (I also have problem with obese women), I was fine with it. If the answer was no, I'd wanted to hear why. That's all.



leafplant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,222

17 Dec 2013, 2:26 pm

While I know I don't find super skinny ladies attractive in a 'would I want to make out with her' way, everyone is an individual, and you fall for an individual, not a type. I've been really skinny too at one point in my life and I really didn't like it. I don't like it when I am over weight either. But each to their own. I think people should really aim to be healthy first and foremost and that means mentally as well as physically. Love yourself exactly as you are, appreciate yourself and don't try to be or become someone else who you think will attract more attention because all you are doing with that is making yourself into an object.



machf
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2007
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 324
Location: Lima, Peru

17 Dec 2013, 2:58 pm

If those women are only "slightly" underweight, I'm the heir to the throne of Byzantium...



BrandonSP
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,335
Location: Fallbrook, CA

17 Dec 2013, 3:25 pm

Eureka13 wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Actually, genetics have very little to say for overall fat levels. Everyone has a basal metabolic rate required to keep the body temperature at the right levels.


Genetics plays a large part in any person's body fat levels. Certainly it is influenced by factors such as diet and exercise (i.e., maintaining a specific basal metabolic rate), but your genes are the hand of cards you are dealt at birth, and you don't get a do-over on your genetic makeup.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/19/n ... s-genetic/

My personal belief is that if you have to starve yourself (i.e., eat less than 1800-2400 calories per day) and work out for hours every day to maintain a particular body weight, that means that you are fighting your genetic pattern. Many medical professionals are now beginning to believe it is just as detrimental to your health to constantly be fighting your "fat destiny" as it is to be either too overweight or too underweight.

(BTW, my opinions are not strictly "pie in the sky" - I studied molecular biology and biochemistry in college, along with genetics. I also worked in biotechnology for many years.)

Pardon me, but since you place such emphasis on genetic factors in explaining individuals' fat levels, would you go so far as to claim that the skyrocketing rates of obesity in America within the last half-century can be explained "largely" by genetics?
[img][800:720]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/overweight/overweight_adult_03_fig2.gif[/img]
As for this whole conversation over the "ideal" body weight for humans, while that is subjective to a large degree, I would argue that nomadic hunter-gatherers would have the most "natural" physiques (as in the physiques most prevalent among humans for most of our species' existence). I can't say I've seen a whole lot of photos showing obese Hadza or Ju/’hoansi.


_________________
Check out my art for sale over at Society6, dudes!


Eureka13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,058
Location: The wilds of Colorado

17 Dec 2013, 3:25 pm

Yuzu wrote:
Eureka13 wrote:
Yuzu wrote:
Eureka13 wrote:
My beef is with women who starve themselves to maintain an unrealistic weight/body shape. I've known plenty of women who were "Big & Beautiful" and were perfectly healthy. Go with what god/nature/genetics gave you, embrace it, and love yourself for you naturally are.


Do you have beef with obese women as well? Or you just hate anorexic women more. If so, why?


You keep trying to turn my belief that "pandering to society's/the media's vision of what a woman should look like is misguided and unhealthy" into me "hating skinny people."

What part of "love yourself as you naturally are" translates into "I hate skinny people"?


Because I don't see you bashing unhealthy obese women who are more prevalent than anorexic women. I don't see you positing a shocking picture of obese woman. Do you have more problem with anorexic women than obese women? If not, why didn't you state "I have beef with both women who starve themselves and women who stuff themselves with food"?

By the way I'm not underweight.


Because the media/society does not ENCOURAGE women to be obese - it not only encourages them to be underweight, it more or less demands it. I'm not railing against underweight women - I'm railing against popular sentiment. See the difference?



Krakken
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 92

17 Dec 2013, 3:28 pm

Curvy! Christina Hendricks has the antidote.



Eureka13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,058
Location: The wilds of Colorado

17 Dec 2013, 3:29 pm

BrandonSP wrote:
Eureka13 wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Actually, genetics have very little to say for overall fat levels. Everyone has a basal metabolic rate required to keep the body temperature at the right levels.


Genetics plays a large part in any person's body fat levels. Certainly it is influenced by factors such as diet and exercise (i.e., maintaining a specific basal metabolic rate), but your genes are the hand of cards you are dealt at birth, and you don't get a do-over on your genetic makeup.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/19/n ... s-genetic/

My personal belief is that if you have to starve yourself (i.e., eat less than 1800-2400 calories per day) and work out for hours every day to maintain a particular body weight, that means that you are fighting your genetic pattern. Many medical professionals are now beginning to believe it is just as detrimental to your health to constantly be fighting your "fat destiny" as it is to be either too overweight or too underweight.

(BTW, my opinions are not strictly "pie in the sky" - I studied molecular biology and biochemistry in college, along with genetics. I also worked in biotechnology for many years.)

Pardon me, but since you place such emphasis on genetic factors in explaining individuals' fat levels, would you go so far as to claim that the skyrocketing rates of obesity in America within the last half-century can be explained "largely" by genetics?
[img][800:720]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/overweight/overweight_adult_03_fig2.gif[/img]
As for this whole conversation over the "ideal" body weight for humans, while that is subjective to a large degree, I would argue that nomadic hunter-gatherers would have the most "natural" physiques (as in the physiques most prevalent among humans for most of our species' existence). I can't say I've seen a whole lot of photos showing obese Hadza or Ju/’hoansi.


Because of increasing poverty, more and more Americans have Type II diabetes. Since diabetes itself is genetically predisposed, couple that with "the poverty diet" (empty carbs and fat-filled foods), and we're breeding a nation of chubby diabetics. No surprise there. Just means that as more time passes, more and more people are going to be fighting their "genetic destiny." Get the society back to hunting and gathering as a way of sustenance, and you will see people on average being thinner, and the prevalence of diabetes decreasing.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,721
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

17 Dec 2013, 4:00 pm

BrandonSP wrote:
Eureka13 wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Actually, genetics have very little to say for overall fat levels. Everyone has a basal metabolic rate required to keep the body temperature at the right levels.


Genetics plays a large part in any person's body fat levels. Certainly it is influenced by factors such as diet and exercise (i.e., maintaining a specific basal metabolic rate), but your genes are the hand of cards you are dealt at birth, and you don't get a do-over on your genetic makeup.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/19/n ... s-genetic/

My personal belief is that if you have to starve yourself (i.e., eat less than 1800-2400 calories per day) and work out for hours every day to maintain a particular body weight, that means that you are fighting your genetic pattern. Many medical professionals are now beginning to believe it is just as detrimental to your health to constantly be fighting your "fat destiny" as it is to be either too overweight or too underweight.

(BTW, my opinions are not strictly "pie in the sky" - I studied molecular biology and biochemistry in college, along with genetics. I also worked in biotechnology for many years.)

Pardon me, but since you place such emphasis on genetic factors in explaining individuals' fat levels, would you go so far as to claim that the skyrocketing rates of obesity in America within the last half-century can be explained "largely" by genetics?
[img][800:720]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/overweight/overweight_adult_03_fig2.gif[/img]
As for this whole conversation over the "ideal" body weight for humans, while that is subjective to a large degree, I would argue that nomadic hunter-gatherers would have the most "natural" physiques (as in the physiques most prevalent among humans for most of our species' existence). I can't say I've seen a whole lot of photos showing obese Hadza or Ju/’hoansi.


Because you Americans are evolving faster than other humans, in the same speed rate of new junk food and tech inventions; Wall-e comes to mind.

Indian people are not wealthy in average but they are not generally fat!



Uprising
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,968

17 Dec 2013, 4:05 pm

Curvy, but it depends on the individual.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,721
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

17 Dec 2013, 4:09 pm

I am not denying the genetic factors but honestly, sometimes I don't buy what overweight people claim.

For example, I have a friend of mine who's quite obese for her height; she kept telling me that she eats nothing and live on lettuce; I believed her until she showed me a pic of her typical diet breakfast: Four large turkey sheets, four white toast breads, a handful dozen of cherry tomatoes and 5 medium cucumbers.
My reaction: O.o

I mean seriously?? This is the "nothing breakfast" for her??! I barely eat the half of this as breakfast!!

And last weekend she went for a swiss-cheese burger in the resto, even I hesitate to eat such stuff!



bumble
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,112

17 Dec 2013, 4:38 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I am not denying the genetic factors but honestly, sometimes I don't buy what overweight people claim.

For example, I have a friend of mine who's quite obese for her height; she kept telling me that she eats nothing and live on lettuce; I believed her until she showed me a pic of her typical diet breakfast: Four large turkey sheets, four white toast breads, a handful dozen of cherry tomatoes and 5 medium cucumbers.
My reaction: O.o

I mean seriously?? This is the "nothing breakfast" for her??! I barely eat the half of this as breakfast!!

And last weekend she went for a swiss-cheese burger in the resto, even I hesitate to eat such stuff!


Actually not all overweight women eat a lot. I have trouble losing weight that I gained on antidepressants (mirtazapine...well known for causing obesity) and I don't eat a lot of processed crap as I was a paleo for a while (meat, veg, fruits and nuts). I also worked out at the gym 4 times a week, swam 3 or so times a week, walked and hiked, danced and so on.

Didn't lose weight...

Am now trying calorie control using western eating tips instead of paleo as it does not work for weight loss.

Paleo is great for health but no good for losing weight. It is also impractical if you are out and about all day. Avoiding wheat when you need to eat out is almost impossible, so not worth attempting.

I hate carrying packed lunch as well. Too much to lug around with my gym bag, flask, books and everything else and its no where warm to sit and eat my food. Betting to eat at a cafe or eatery instead.