No longer attracted to my girlfriend

bb1234567

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Lol, if you believe that then why do you think there are so many bald men around?

Because they dont catch it when its beginning to thin, you can save your hair then and keep it. most men dont worry about it until most their hairs gone

bb1234567

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Rogaine only helps the back and top of the head from thinning. There's special shampoo for the front and then medication, in pill form, that helps slow down balding or receding but lots of people report crazy side effects from it.

such as?

jackofalltrades

eternal wrote: »

I mean if she's hogging chips every night tell her to stop...

Real healthy attitude to take, treating your partner like a child.:eek:

I find this whole thing to be very shallow and selfish of the poster and if he loved her a bit of weight wouldn't be that big of a deal.

According to the OP it was "a lot of weight over the past year".
This isn't the OP looking to dump her because she had to let her belt out a notch, after a big dinner.

Life isn't like a Disney film, looks are very important when it comes to being attracted to someone.
Unless the OP is solely attracted to women based on looks then there is nothing shallow about his behaviour.

Potatoeman

People are saying its very shallow but attraction is very important. I doubt most of them chose their partners only on personality.

Unless there is a medical reason for it then it shows a lack of concern for your partner. If you dont care about your health or being attractive to your partner, arent they being the selfish one?

DoYouEvenLift

bb1234567 wrote: »

such as?

The most important one would be loss of libido

Maximus Alexander

It's not shallow - if you're not sexually attracted to your partner, then they're just a good friend, surely?

Daenarys

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It's not shallow - if you're not sexually attracted to your partner, then they're just a good friend, surely?

I agree, a relationship without sex/sexual attraction is a friendship.

eternal

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Real healthy attitude to take, treating your partner like a child.:eek:

According to the OP it was "a lot of weight over the past year".
This isn't the OP looking to dump her because she had to let her belt out a notch, after a big dinner.

Life isn't like a Disney film, looks are very important when it comes to being attracted to someone.
Unless the OP is solely attracted to women based on looks then there is nothing shallow about his behaviour.

Hello, all Disney films have extra beautiful people in them so this makes no sense.

jackofalltrades

bb1234567 wrote: »

such as?

Hair loss for one.
And the manufacturers don't guarantee that this hair will grow back.

Here's a list of other side effects.

Users should discontinue treatment and seek medical attention right away if they experience any of the following serious side effects: severe allergic reactions (e.g. rash, hives, itching, difficulty breathing, tightness in the chest, or swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue), chest pain, dizziness, fainting, tachycardia (rapid heartbeat), sudden and unexplained weight gain, or swelling of the hands and feet

Side effects of oral minoxidil may include swelling of the face and extremities, rapid and irregular heartbeat, lightheadedness, cardiac lesions, and focal necrosis of the papillary muscle and subendocardial areas of the left ventricle

So to save your hair you have to risk getting heart damage.:eek:

Yeah I think it's safe to say that men losing their hair is in no way comparable to a woman putting on weight, in terms of what can be done to prevent it.

Tarzana2

Blowfish wrote: »

That'd still be a huge cause for concern as if she's gone from an 8 to 12 or 14 in a year and yet doesn't change diet/exercise patterns, then in the next year she'll just keep going and hit medically obese levels.

Not necessarily, she might have topped out at her current weight. Again, we just don't know. For example, I said earlier that I've gained a lot this year but it did stabilise, and that was before I began my weight loss plan.

DoYouEvenLift

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Hair loss for one.
And the manufacturers don't guarantee that this hair will grow back.

Here's a list of other side effects.



So to save your hair you have to risk getting heart damage.:eek:

Yeah I think it's safe to say that men losing their hair is in no way comparable to a woman putting on weight, in terms of what can be done to prevent it.

And those are just the side effects for rogaine? Had no idea rogaine had those, I thought the worst was apparently it can cause dark spots under the eyes. I was more talking about the sides from propecia which also has some shocking potential side effects

Saipanne

I don't see a huge issue with male hair loss. A shaved head suits most fellas. Although I'd hate to go bald myself, at least I know that there is a style that suits it.

Tarzana2

Saipanne wrote: »

I don't see a huge issue with male hair loss. A shaved head suits most fellas. Although I'd hate to go bald myself, at least I know that there is a style that suits it.

I love hairy men and really don't dig baldness. But if my BF started to go bald, of course I'd accept it. I just be a bit disappointed. Shaved heads never trump a full head of hair for me. And shaved heads don't suit a lot of men, actually!

jackofalltrades

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

And those are just the side effects for rogaine?

Yes, and other Minoxidil base products as well.

Saipanne

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I love hairy men and really don't dig baldness. But if my BF started to go bald, of course I'd accept it. I just be a bit disappointed. Shaved heads never trump a full head of hair for me. And shaved heads don't suit a lot of men, actually!

I suppose the point I forgot to make is that a lot of guys don't seem to do much that they have. Hairstyles are as big a deal, for guys.

DoYouEvenLift

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I love hairy men and really don't dig baldness. But if my BF started to go bald, of course I'd accept it. I just be a bit disappointed. Shaved heads never trump a full head of hair for me. And shaved heads don't suit a lot of men, actually!

Shaved heads never trump a full head of hair at all. Everyone would look better with thick and styled hair to suit their face. In the future, if they manage to sort that stem cell hair follicle stuff for use in hair transplants I could see hair transplants being totally normal for men, and some women, to do. Even nowadays the stigma of hair transplants is nowhere near as bad as it was when they were terrible and most of my friends even agree if we ever went bald we'd get one lol.

NoMore MrNiceGuy

Patrick Stewart didn't need no rogaine.

That said the soccer player part spud part hobbit looking guy looks better with hair.

Fukuyama

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Not necessarily, she might have topped out at her current weight. Again, we just don't know. For example, I said earlier that I've gained a lot this year but it did stabilise, and that was before I began my weight loss plan.

There's no "topping out" when it comes to weight gain. It's a myth.

The reason why people stop gaining weight despite still eating the same amount is because their body has gotten bigger, which burns more calories. This might seem like an ironic blip in body function but it's just maths and thermodynamics.

The "topping out" usually results in a continuation of weight gain within a few weeks due to increased craving (not need) for calories caused by food addiction or the person looks at themselves in the mirror, panics and stops eating so much leading to weight loss.

looking_around

Dean0088 wrote: »

There's no "topping out" when it comes to weight gain. It's a myth.

The reason why people stop gaining weight despite still eating the same amount is because their body has gotten bigger, which burns more calories. This might seem like an ironic blip in body function but it's just maths and thermodynamics.

The "topping out" usually results in a continuation of weight gain within a few weeks due to increased craving (not need) for calories caused by food addiction or the person looks at themselves in the mirror, panics and stops eating so much leading to weight loss.

this isn't true.

Many people will stay size 16 etc for years and years.

My grandmother was a size 18-20 most of her life.

I know people who are size 14-16, have been for a long time, and probably will be for an equally long time.

they don't necessarily start eating more and more..or the opposite stop eating.

Fukuyama

looking_around wrote: »

this isn't true.

Many people will stay size 16 etc for years and years.

My grandmother was a size 18-20 most of her life.

I know people who are size 14-16, have been for a long time, and probably will be for an equally long time.

they don't necessarily start eating more and more..or the opposite stop eating.

On well, jesus, a few people you know. I guess you're counting every calorie they eat?

A size 18-20 isn't an accurate measurement - fat people clothes have more room for growth, shrinkage. You could go up and down pounds and still remain in that range.

If you get fat it's because you're eating a calorie excess. If you lose weight, it's because you're eating a calorie deficit. There is literally no other way for it to occur.

Even extreme medical conditions depend on this little equation.

The Masculinist

I would start a fitness regime (running, going to the gym, eating right etc.) and suggest for her to tag along. Unfortunately, if she doesn't join in you are in a difficult situation. When you start to find your girlfriend unattractive it is hard to go back. This may cause strain on the relationship and ultimately it may end. It might be better to take your chances and break up before too much time is wasted.

Tarzana2

Dean0088 wrote: »

There's no "topping out" when it comes to weight gain. It's a myth.

Except when it's not.

I topped out this year. Could not eat the amount needed to keep gaining even if I wanted.

But it's a myth. Alrighty!

More like pseudoscience. Unless you can back any of this up? I really doubt it though.

Dean0088 wrote: »

A size 18-20 isn't an accurate measurement - fat people clothes have more room for growth, shrinkage.

What on earth are you wittering on about here?

looking_around

Dean0088 wrote: »

On well, jesus, a few people you know. I guess you're counting every calorie they eat?

A size 18-20 isn't an accurate measurement - fat people clothes have more room for growth, shrinkage. You could go up and down pounds and still remain in that range.

If you get fat it's because you're eating a calorie excess. If you lose weight, it's because you're eating a calorie deficit. There is literally no other way for it to occur.

Even extreme medical conditions depend on this little equation.

yes excess calories..but say you eat 4000 a day...you will eventually stop at a certain size, unless you increase that caloric intake you won't gain more weight.

nor will you lose it. ie, it will stabilise........

Tarzana2

looking_around wrote: »

yes excess calories..but say you eat 4000 a day...you will eventually stop at a certain size, unless you increase that caloric intake you won't gain more weight.

nor will you lose it. ie, it will stabilise........

Well, basal metabolic rate decreases with every year, so it you eat the same, you will slowly gain. But it decreases by tiny amounts and if you eat well over what you need, that decrease becomes even less significant.

DoYouEvenLift

looking_around wrote: »

yes excess calories..but say you eat 4000 a day...you will eventually stop at a certain size, unless you increase that caloric intake you won't gain more weight.

nor will you lose it. ie, it will stabilise........

This is the case for people looking to gain weight/muscle as well such as athletes and bodybuilders. Say, for example, someone is 6'2 and 180lbs and they need to eat 4,000 calories to gain weight and try to reach 200lbs. They will gain the weight but as they get bigger, and closer to 200lbs, they have more muscle tissue requiring nutrients and so their caloric needs also increase. So the original 4,000 calories increases to e.g. 4,200.

looking_around

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

This is the case for people looking to gain weight/muscle as well such as athletes and bodybuilders. Say, for example, someone is 6'2 and 180lbs and they need to eat 4,000 calories to gain weight and try to reach 200lbs. They will gain the weight but as they get bigger, and closer to 200lbs, they have more muscle tissue requiring nutrients and so their caloric needs also increase. So the original 4,000 calories increases to e.g. 4,200.

it's no different for people who get fat.....it's just stored differently.

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Well, basal metabolic rate decreases with every year, so it you eat the same, you will slowly gain. But it decreases by tiny amounts and if you eat well over what you need, that decrease becomes even less significant.

people also commonly get full easier/start eating less the older they get, so......

idk about you, but alot of the overweight people I know, stay the same....it doesn't increase..it doesn't change. just stays the same.

Tarzana2

looking_around wrote: »

idk about you, but alot of the overweight people I know, stay the same....it doesn't increase..it doesn't change. just stays the same.

Same, I know plenty like this. Completely inane to say it's a myth, as in some cases, it's not.

Tarzana2

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Well, it's actually that Homer can work from home, it's not claiming benefits

Ah I am doing alright for someone who does not even own a television

bb1234567

Break up with her if youre not attracted to her, life is too short to stay with somebody you dont really like. Get the best you can while youre younger and more attractive, by the time youre 50+ or so youll be with a wife youre not really attracted to anyway,youll both have lost your looks, and thats not a bad thing most people seem fine with not being attracted to their partner physically by that age, its more about loving them as people by then
so enjoy having a partner youre physically attracted while you can

Fukuyama

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Except when it's not.

I topped out this year. Could not eat the amount needed to keep gaining even if I wanted.

But it's a myth. Alrighty!

More like pseudoscience. Unless you can back any of this up? I really doubt it though.



What on earth are you wittering on about here?

Yeah... thermodynamics is pseudoscience. :rolleyes:

You didn't "top out" this year. Your body doesn't have it's own special snowflake regulatory system. What happened was that you were consuming lets say 3,000 calories per day, and you got fat to the point that your body actually reached a point in size that it was burning all of those 3,000 calories per day to keep itself alive, move around etc... So weight gain stopped because your calories in equaled your calories out. This is entirely different from the myth that we all have a "topping out point" pre-determined by our genes or some such.

Weightloss requires will power, a trait lacking in many, many overweight and obese people. So, what happens is that even though they're consuming 3,000 calories per day they find themselves still peckish because their body is consuming it instead of storing it as fat. So they will instinctively up their calories by eating eight biscuits instead of the usual five or whatever. And the weight gain continues.

OR

Something small changes in their life. Maybe they get a new job and have less time to eat, or they actively make a decision to lose weight. This means burning more calories than they consume. Hence weight-loss.

I was wittering on about the fact that you can't measure people fatness by the size of their clothes - particularly womens clothes made for fat chicks because they're normally "flowly" to conceal the fatness, measurements differ and vanity sizing is the fashion industry's way of making fat people feel good about buying certain sizes

. It's a poor measurement. For example, a size 20 moomoo - this person could easily gobble her way to an additional 10-15 pounds and still wear the same clothes. And because fat gain is less apparent on already fat people (as opposed to fit, thin people), the person themselves and their friends/family are unlikely to even notice that she's gained another fifteen pounds because it's a drop in the ocean at this stage.

However, if a normal healthy person gained 15 pounds they'd likely rocket up quite a few "sizes" and their friends, family (and definitely their OH) would notice.

Fukuyama

looking_around wrote: »

yes excess calories..but say you eat 4000 a day...you will eventually stop at a certain size, unless you increase that caloric intake you won't gain more weight.

nor will you lose it. ie, it will stabilise........

I completely agree. However, the reason isn't because of a pre-determined "topping out" point. It's because their body got to a size that meant moving, blood supply actually now REQUIRES those 4,000 calories which is a sorry state to be in. This is fundamental energy usage governed by the laws of physics - a 200lb person walking for five minutes will use 1/2 the energy of a 400lb person walking for five minutes (assuming the same or similar muscle mass).

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

This is the case for people looking to gain weight/muscle as well such as athletes and bodybuilders. Say, for example, someone is 6'2 and 180lbs and they need to eat 4,000 calories to gain weight and try to reach 200lbs. They will gain the weight but as they get bigger, and closer to 200lbs, they have more muscle tissue requiring nutrients and so their caloric needs also increase. So the original 4,000 calories increases to e.g. 4,200.

Agreed, and again I'm sure you'll agree that this is because of how the body (and everything else in the universe) transforms stored energy (food) into kinetic and other forms of stored energy (glucose, fat etc...).

The main social difference here (and it's an important one) is that bodybuilders are normally (in my experience) very strong willed, determined people. So they'll force themselves to eat and lift when they don't want to to meat their macro goals and keep making gains.

Whereas fat people, generally are quite weak-willed when it comes to fitness/diet and are likely to start feeling peckish when their body reaches a point of using up all their food intake calories and so just reach for the cook jar again.

Bodybuilders and fat people are also a poor comparison in terms of calories burned and BMR because fat people will have 'dead weight' fat which in itself doesn't burn fat, where as body builders will have mostly muscle which DOES burn fat and builds upon itself as it's used.

Tarzana2

Dean0088 wrote: »

What happened was that you were consuming lets say 3,000 calories per day, and you got fat to the point that your body actually reached a point in size that it was burning all of those 3,000 calories per day to keep itself alive, move around etc... So weight gain stopped because your calories in equaled your calories out. This is entirely different from the myth that we all have a "topping out point" pre-determined by our genes or some such.

That is exactly want I meant. As in I couldn't possibly eat enough to keep gaining.

We clearly have different definitions of topping out. Why get so het up?

You really have a bee in your bonnet about this, don't you? It's a bit odd, TBH, to be *that* fixated on something. Yeesh. I would not usually say something like what I'm about to say, but I would pity whatever girl ends up with you. Heaven help her if she gains even a bit of weight. But then you'd dump her, and she's be free of you, and that would probably be a good outcome for all concerned.

One other thing - there are many ways a lack of willpower manifests itself. Smoking, drinking to excess and being overweight are just the most visible kinds. But shur I suppose they give people a focus for their free-floating need to feel superior. People loovve to find a way to feel superior.

Fukuyama

Tarzana2 wrote: »

That is exactly want I meant. As in I couldn't possibly eat enough to keep gaining.

We clearly have different definitions of topping out. Why get so het up?

You really have a bee in your bonnet about this, don't you? It's a bit odd, TBH, to be *that* fixated on something. Yeesh. I would not usually say something like what I'm about to say, but I would pity whatever girl ends up with you. Heaven help her if she gains even a bit of weight. But then you'd dump her, and she's be free of you, and that would probably be a good outcome for all concerned.

One other thing - there are many ways a lack of willpower manifests itself. Smoking, drinking to excess and being overweight are just the most visible kinds. But shur I suppose they give people a focus for their free-floating need to feel superior. People love to find a way to feel superior.

So we're agreed that fatness is caused by consuming more calories than you burn. Bit of a scenic route but we got there.

Yeah, if my wife or girlfriend got fat I would no longer find them attractive and, failing an intervention like the OP's, I'd break it off. This is often a hard to accept fact but the majority of men don't like fat women just the same as they don't like anorexic women. Instead, they prefer healthy women. Despite media brain washing about "Real Women", "Curves" or whatever, fat above a certain level is unsightly and an indicator of laziness.

Will power is a personality trait - not a symptom which "manifests". If I was a betting man and had to choose which one would be successful at giving up smoking, a bodybuilder or an obese person, I'd chose the body builder.

It's getting harder and harder not to feel slightly "superior" if that's the term you want to use when, walking down O' Connell Street you're more likely to see an obese person lumbering along than a fit, healthy person. So yes, in terms of fitness, I'm probably superior to the national average although I'm no athlete or bodybuilder myself.

Tarzana2

Dean0088 wrote: »

So we're agreed that fatness is caused by consuming more calories than you burn. Bit of a scenic route but we got there.

Reading comprehension fail, as I never said otherwise.

OK, so you say you've been searching for a girlfriend who measures up physically for a while now. I'm sure you've come across a few. So, what's the problem here? Why have you not paired up with any of them? I mean, clearly you have a dazzling, charming personality. :pac:

ThinkAboutIt

Has the OP dumped her?

Fukuyama

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Reading comprehension fail, as I never said otherwise.

You repeatedly said that the basic Calories in - Calories out = Excess calories was a myth. Perhaps not directly, but this was your reply to the general idea of how the human body create excess fat.

OK, so you say you've been searching for a girlfriend who measures up physically for a while now. I'm sure you've come across a few. So, what's the problem here? Why have you not paired up with any of them? I mean, clearly you have a dazzling, charming personality. :pac:

I said I was single pringle - not ready to mingle :cool: .

In all seriousness though, there's no need to resort to personal jabs. It doesn't take an abusive Nazi who can't get a girlfriend (as you seem to be painting me here) to appreciate when your other half is a ride or to enjoy the benefits of same.

I'm sure if your boyfriend/husband was asked (and was brave enough to give an honest answer), he'd prefer if you had a BF% of 14%. The fact that it's totally achievable to the average overweight person within a few months (and easy as hell to maintain) means it's not exactly a huge ask in a relationship. It's not like asking a person to stay in shape is the same as demanding some fundamental shift in their morals, beliefs or whatever.

Tarzana2

Dean0088 wrote: »

You repeatedly said that the basic Calories in - Calories out = Excess calories was a myth. Perhaps not directly, but this was your reply to the general idea of how the human body create excess fat.

No, I said if you're overeating the same amount every day, eventually that even will stabilise. It'll stabilise at an overweight weight, with lots of fat, but stabilise you will. An equilibrium is met, that it leaves you overweight doesn't change that. And that was how it was with me.

The thing that gets me is that I have known people in the "it just takes willpower, eat less, move more" camp who themselves for whatever reason become overweight and it shocks them that it happens. I won't bother naming the reasons why this happened to them because honestly, what's the point? But these would have been people who would never have thought it would happen to them. I think what many here find so unpalatable is that there seems to be very little allowance for something happening that might leave you overweight for a period in your life. Becoming overweight for a while doesn't mean you'll stay that way, but many seem quite impatient about someone getting back to where they were.

Registered Dolphin

The fatter you get the more you need to eat to put on weight.

Tarzana2

Registered Dolphin wrote: »

The fatter you get the more you need to eat to put on weight.

That wasn't the case for me.

looking_around

Tarzana2 wrote: »

That wasn't the case for me.

yes it was.

what he means is, you gain weight at 3k cals daily, you reach max weight gain, to gain more weight, you need to eat 3,5k daily.

and at dean, you misunderstood what tarz meant by "topping out". No need to explain how calories work to me. I know. I never meant that human bodies reach their max and don't go higher. I meant, and what tarz meant...that if they continue the same way, they will stabilize, or "top out" for that intake.

The One Doctor

Dean0088 wrote: »

So we're agreed that fatness is caused by consuming more calories than you burn. Bit of a scenic route but we got there.

Yeah, if my wife or girlfriend got fat I would no longer find them attractive and, failing an intervention like the OP's, I'd break it off. This is often a hard to accept fact but the majority of men don't like fat women just the same as they don't like anorexic women. Instead, they prefer healthy women. Despite media brain washing about "Real Women", "Curves" or whatever, fat above a certain level is unsightly and an indicator of laziness.

Will power is a personality trait - not a symptom which "manifests". If I was a betting man and had to choose which one would be successful at giving up smoking, a bodybuilder or an obese person, I'd chose the body builder.

It's getting harder and harder not to feel slightly "superior" if that's the term you want to use when, walking down O' Connell Street you're more likely to see an obese person lumbering along than a fit, healthy person. So yes, in terms of fitness, I'm probably superior to the national average although I'm no athlete or bodybuilder myself.

You don't like obese people. We get it. I'm obese, I'm not bothered about it, but I'm glad its bothering you. Can you feel that rage build in the back of your head now? Someone out there is eating whatever they like! Frustrating, isn't it? And I probably have lower blood pressure than you as well.

Tarzana2

looking_around wrote: »

yes it was.

what he means is, you gain weight at 3k cals daily, you reach max weight gain, to gain more weight, you need to eat 3,5k daily.

I thought he was saying you feel like eating more the fatter you get, and more and more, and more and more. And I'm just saying I did get to a point where I definitely couldn't.

What's you're saying there is exactly my point, that at every weight, you can reach an equilibrium and that to gain weight you need to eat more kcals a day, but that you might not want to and so you stabilise.

Registered Dolphin

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I thought he was saying you feel like eating more the fatter you get, and more and more, and more and more. And I'm just saying I did get to a point where I definitely couldn't.

What's you're saying there is exactly my point, that at every weight, you can reach an equilibrium and that to gain weight you need to eat more kcals a day, but that you might not want to and so you stabilise.

The more the human body weighs the more calories it takes to maintain basic functions. Walking to the fridge takes more calories because you are moving a heavier body.

Tarzana2

Registered Dolphin wrote: »

The more the human body weighs the more calories it takes to maintain basic functions. Walking to the fridge takes more calories because you are moving a heavier body.

:pac: Very interesting, brand new user not at all affiliated with anyone else posting on this thread.

Fukuyama

Tarzana2 wrote: »

No, I said if you're overeating the same amount every day, eventually that even will stabilise. It'll stabilise at an overweight weight, with lots of fat, but stabilise you will. An equilibrium is met, that it leaves you overweight doesn't change that. And that was how it was with me.

The thing that gets me is that I have known people in the "it just takes willpower, eat less, move more" camp who themselves for whatever reason become overweight and it shocks them that it happens. I won't bother naming the reasons why this happened to them because honestly, what's the point? But these would have been people who would never have thought it would happen to them. I think what many here find so unpalatable is that there seems to be very little allowance for something happening that might leave you overweight for a period in your life. Becoming overweight for a while doesn't mean you'll stay that way, but many seem quite impatient about someone getting back to where they were.

I think we're in agreement with the calories and weight gain thing.

Your use of the phrase "topping out" - I obviously took your meaning of this up wrong. I know now you meant reaching a size whereby you'll burn all your calories simply by being that size.

However, that phrase "topping out" is frequently used to describe something which actually is a myth (that people just have this internal "setting" which, regardless of exercise or diet, they'll just "be". It comes from the HAES (Health at Every Size) movement in the US which are very active online and have huge influence over female health and weight issues online. Look at any blog post, article or video online in these genres and you'll find HAES activists.

They basically target the insecurities of overweight females to recruit them into this ridiculous 'crabs in a bucket'.

Here is their mantra:

Let’s face facts. We’ve lost the war on obesity. Fighting fat hasn’t made the fat go away. And being thinner, even if we knew how to successfully accomplish it, will not necessarily make us healthier or happier.

On your last point: that's literally all it takes. Yes, people have personal lives and health issues. If someone gets a big injury or an operation that prevents exercise, or becomes depressed, weight gain is to be expected.

However, this cannot stand as a shield. Ireland is at 33% overweight/obese. It's in children at a growing rate. The vast, overwhelming majority of the time, when someone gains weight, it's because they ate too much, moved too little and lack will power to do the opposite.

The One Doctor wrote: »

You don't like obese people. We get it. I'm obese, I'm not bothered about it, but I'm glad its bothering you. Can you feel that rage build in the back of your head now? Someone out there is eating whatever they like! Frustrating, isn't it? And I probably have lower blood pressure than you as well.

I don't mind obese people. I have friends who are obese, and indeed one who is very much so on the upper end of that spectrum. I don't hate them and their weight doesn't concern me outside of occasionally thinking about their health.

I eat around 2500 - 3500 calories per day depending on what I'm doing. I eat whatever I want but obviously I limit "treats" to once every few days, or if I've gained a few pounds, none at all for a week or two. Every person in Ireland 'eats whatever they want' - some people want to be healthy, other people want instant gratification in junk food.

If you're obese then, in all likelihood, your blood pressure isn't lower than mine. Of course that's just probability. You also definitely have fat building up around your vital organs which should be a cause for concern. It leads to a myriad of health problems of which over 10,000 people in Ireland die each year, and a multiple of that number live reduced lifestyles. If you're truly happy with that then bully for you.

Fukuyama

Tarzana2 wrote: »

:pac: Very interesting, brand new user not at all affiliated with anyone else posting on this thread.

If you insinuating that's me, I can assure it's not.

Wibbs

The One Doctor wrote: »

You don't like obese people. We get it. I'm obese, I'm not bothered about it, but I'm glad its bothering you. Can you feel that rage build in the back of your head now? Someone out there is eating whatever they like! Frustrating, isn't it?

That's the bit I don't get at all tOD. So you don't find fat/skinny/whatever attractive in men/women, OK that's fine, but why freak out about other people and their choices?

I mean it doesn't affect anyone but them, if it affects them at all. You can't exactly get "secondhand fat" after all.

Dean0088 wrote:

I'm sure if your boyfriend/husband was asked (and was brave enough to give an honest answer), he'd prefer if you had a BF% of 14%.

1) 14% is pretty low. Don't get me wrong and contrary to some nonsense out there, it's not anorexic, nor would a woman's periods stop(unless there was some other underlying issue), but it would be on the low enough side. 2) You may dig thin women. I do myself. However, not all men do. Indeed quite the number like 'bigger" women. I know and have known quite the few. And these weren't no hopers, these were men with choice and they consistently went for women who were at least size 14/16 and more and size 8 women were damn near invisible to them. From the other side I've known women who preferred a bit of bulk on a man. Not obese(but would be within sniffing distance of same medically), more feed of pints and spuds old stylee pre roids rugby player type build. I'm thin enough myself(especially for these days) and I know I've been invisible to women in the past because of it.

I would reckon that it's a bit of a cultural thing too. IMHO and IME Irish men as a generic group/culture are much more accepting and into bigger women, compared to say Italian/Spanish/French men(among others). The fact that Spain has the highest rate of anorexia in Europe reflects that(and Italy isn't far behind). Interestingly while 20-30 year old Spanish women are thinner than the average 20-30 year old Irish women, by 40 they're the same and the Spaniards can even be slightly heavier.

Even so, let's face it, we're not turning into America. TBH I dunno where people are seeing all these morbidly obese folks wandering about. YOu kinda have to look for them, especially in the younger folks. On the gender front I'd personally reckon more young men are tubby than younger women. Still it's not that common. IMH anyway.

The fact that it's totally achievable to the average overweight person within a few months (and easy as hell to maintain) means it's not exactly a huge ask in a relationship

A few months? Ah c'mon. What's the average dress size in Ireland? 14-16? No way could someone drop to 14% bodyfat in a few months, not healthily anyway. Someone who is bigger than that? No way Ted. A mate of mine got pretty podgy and went hell for leather to drop the weight and he took well over a year to do it. And he was a bloke, so more muscle mass, testosterone and far less of the hormonal stuff going on. It's a lot more work than that and even more work if the weight is on someone for many a year, never mind that some people have a setpoint weight that's bigger and even if they starved themselves while running on a treadmill won't ever be skinny. As I said I'm skinny and I've mates who are bigger and the same height as me and they'd end up hospitalised if they got down to my weight.

Wibbs

Dean0088 wrote: »

I eat around 2500 - 3500 calories per day depending on what I'm doing.

OK try something D. I eat a CRON diet or close to it. I always had a low appetite and pretty much see food as a fuel. It honestly wouldn't bother me that much if a magic wand was waved and I never had to eat again. I'm 5'11", weigh around 10 stones(usually just under*) and my daily calorie intake is 1000 cals or less per day. There would be a couple of days a month I'd eat more and equally a couple of days a month when I'd eat nada and pass the day chugging tea, black or green. And I can run on that no bother. I'm a lean burn engine . Try my diet. Better yet try my diet for a year D. See how easy it is. Then maybe you might see how it's not so easy for many people out there struggling with food, appetite and weight. I'd be willing to bet you'd be chewing the furniture after a week on my diet. And fair enough. It would be difficult to drop your intake by over a half. Again that's what is suggested as "pretty easy" for fat folks.






*And at that weight/height I'm not that skinny either. I dunno if anyone that has seen me nekkid is reading this but I'm really not. You can't count my ribs or anything.

MistyCheese

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

Has the OP dumped her?

No, he talked to her and she said she was already aware and had decided to join a gym in the new year. OP is joining too and supporting her.

Girl will have lost the weight 'n' all and this thread will still be here, half the posters arguing 'fat people are yuck, fat people need to do this thing I'm saying. So simple, gawwwd!' and the other half protesting 'don't call people fat, that is the worst thing you could ever call someone, I'm telling the world on you!"

Tarzana2

MistyCheese wrote: »

No, he talked to her and she said she was already aware and had decided to join a gym in the new year. OP is joining too and supporting her.

Girl will have lost the weight 'n' all and this thread will still be here, half the posters arguing 'fat people are yuck, fat people need to do this thing I'm saying. So simple, gawwwd!' and the other half protesting 'don't call people fat, that is the worst thing you could ever call someone, I'm telling the world on you!"

Yeah, we all dog-with-a-bone eejits AND PROUD! :pac::D