Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
No longer attracted to my girlfriend
Comments
-
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?
Quote me where I said that I despise fat people or obsess over the choices of others.
The only think that irks me is the proliferation over the past few years of saying obesity if "okay".
If an individual is happy with the way they are then fine. However, it's pretty obnoxious to dispute doctors who are banging a steel drum all the time warning Ireland about rising obesity. As I've said, people become obese for numerous reasons. However, the core (and it's the vast majority) is because they eat too much processed junk food, sweet sugary snacks and drink fizzy drinks/beer. Related diseases like type 2 diabetes are rocketing in children and OAPs.
This has been my core argument throughout this thread, not attacking fat people as individuals.I mean it doesn't affect anyone but them, if it affects them at all. You can't exactly get "secondhand fat" after all.
Hmm. I disagree. Forgetting about airlines for a minute, because that's another issue in and of itself:
What about children of obese parents and parents who know fcuk all about basic nutrition? Its gotten to a point where schools have had to implement carpet bans on crisps, chocolate etc... because SOME parents were loading up their kids lunch boxes with the stuff as opposed to giving them as an odd treat.
Or even worse, just handing their kid a fiver each morning and letting him/her plan their own meals out of a sweet shop :rolleyes: .
To be, it's child neglect (I wouldn't say abuse, as some would call it).
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.
14% isn't THAT low. To start inhibiting periods and so on you'd need to be at athlete level which is 10% for women. However, 14% is by no means a standard for looking well.
I posted this chart earlier.
As you can see, women can look and be fine right up to 30%. After that, 35% and you're what I'd call chubby/fat depending on muscle. I suspect this is what men who like "larger women" enjoy - a feminine physique with extra padding. Not sure what the health implications would be at that stage (likely minimal) but I can see how someone would be into it.
Beyond that and you've reached obesity and beyond. If somebody is happy being at 40 or 50% bodyfat (or more) then fine. And if their OH is 'into it' then fine. However, I just can't comprehend how sagging rolls of fat is attractive.
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.
Fair enough. If Irish men are far more accepting of larger women it might be cultural, or it might be basic 'free market' principals. I'd go with the latter. Irish men are no oil painting themselves, and it's quite rare to see couples in their 20s with significantly different body sizes. There's a finite number of slim females so, numbers wise, males make do.
Survey the average college aged male and ask which one he would choose.
You see big body size difference as couples get into 40s, but I think that's due to the issue the OP faced. :PEven 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.
You're basing that on the tabloid style "AMERICA IS MORBIDLY OBESE" train of though which is incorrect. Most fat people in America are either overweight or obese. Only a small percentage are morbidly obese.
America in 1990 was at 33% overweight and obese combined. So, in 20 years their problem doubled in size.
Ireland's weight problem as similarly doubled since 1990 from around 16% to 33%. If this tend continues I find it hard to believe we WON'T end up like the US. All we have to do is look at the UK who were in our position a decade ago. They're no straddling 45% obesity+overweight and the NHS spends billions each year on the problem.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.
Depends on the starting point. 25%? Yup. Could easily drop 10% of your bodyweight in 3-4 months healthily hitting all macro nutrients along the way.
As for this "set point" stuff - it doesn't exist. Any 'set point' is a psychological habit for eating X amount of food and can be easily readjusted by training yourself to lower portion sizes. No different to training yourself to wake up half an hour early.
If you starved yourself and ran on a treadmill, you'd lose weight and at some point, consciousness.0 -
-
-
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.
I disagree Wibbs.
Many, many times I've gone weeks running at a 1,500 deficit and been active in those periods. Yes, the first week or so the hunger pangs are kicking in. I simply drink a pint of water and my mind is happy. After the first week 1,000-1,500 becomes a norm. If I tried to eat 3,000 I'd likely feel bloated despite this being the norm.
On the flip side, try gaining lean mass for 12 weeks. This means eating **** load of calories every day. This sounds great until you realise it's 8pm and you've only hit 30% of your calorie intake. I've literally ate to the point of feeling awfully sick (and even puked) and then ate some more because I had to hit X calorie goal for the day.
Between the two, I'd pick dieting over bulking any day.
It's all psychological.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
davidfitz22 wrote: »was in the same boat last year mate, ask her if she would like to start exercising and dieting as a couple, she'll think its not directed totally at her.
Ha! She'll know exactly what it means. And your GF would have a year ago. That's not to say they wouldn't have appreciated that approach. Think I'd prefer a more direct one myself. No BS. But don't kid yourself, your GF would have been aware she had gained weight and what you were getting at. 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
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.
With all due respect Dean, you must either be very young or else very naive to think in these terms.
A girlfriend,maybe?
But your wife?
You are viewing relationships in shallow terms and purely on aesthetics.
I would hazard a guess that you have never really and truly been in love. Oh it may start out as an attraction but thats only one layer to it. As you get older, you still get weak knees from looking at her, although her skin may not be as taught as it once was but she still has the devilish glint in her eye and you know exactly what it means.
She may have bingo wings after years of marriage having given you children and there are now grandchildren but if you had love to begin with that wouldn't even be an issue as the years pass. She could still drive you crazy with a simple touch.
You could be setting yourself up for a fall with this kind of outlook.
Sure, you can get a way with it now that you're young and buff. But as the years pass, you just watch how your body begins to betray you DESPITE every effort you make.
Go for the long game
0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59098
I didn't say you despised fat people D. Maybe read what I actually wrote, rather than trying to put words into my mouth to back up your worldview. Clearly you have more than a few horses in this race considering your input into the debate. I mean I prefer skinny women, what other guys dig or how other women are doesn't concern me.Quote me where I said that I despise fat people or obsess over the choices of others.
I'd agree here. I'd add in what I would term as type 3 diabetes which comes out in things like dementia, which is growing like a bastard as we speak and more and more younger men and women are getting it, not just 80 year olds.Related diseases like type 2 diabetes are rocketing in children and OAPs.
Oh ditto D. You're preaching to the choir on that front. However it can be very cultural. Quite the number of cultures prefer and select for near corpulence. Mauritania, a couple of Polynesian cultures, a few in Islamic cultures etc. It does varyBeyond that and you've reached obesity and beyond. If somebody is happy being at 40 or 50% bodyfat (or more) then fine. And if their OH is 'into it' then fine. However, I just can't comprehend how sagging rolls of fat is attractive.
Actually I find that of interest. Women's bodies and the cultural ideals of their bodies varies a lot over time and culture. Far less than men's bodies and ideals. Just look at art over millennia. The very first figurative representations of humans come along around 30-35,000 years ago and they're of women and those women are really fat. The first male representations are either stick figures, or something like the lion man of Hohlenstein. Defo not fat. Move further along and Greek and Roman male ideals would be still attractive today. Leonardo's Vitruvian man, if he walked out from the surf a la Daniel Craig would have women swooning still. Yet across those same cultures the ideal for women was incredibly variable. Hell forget going back that far, the crowned Miss World of say 1960, wouldn't get within an asses roar of the regionals today and no way in hell would she win.
I'll say this; I used to self describe as a feminist, but don't any more as the word has become a lodestone for too many gobshítes, snowflakes and just plain flakes, but in the case of body image women have most definitely got a real heavy duty pressure aimed at them and that pressure has a very deep history. Anorexia was first described by Greek docs back in the day as the Greek ideal was not far off our own. These days that pressure is beyond madness and confusing as hell. Too fat, too skinny, not the "right" shape and size. Hell, women have got fashion on top of that. A consumerist medley of bullshít making them think in "seasons" and such. No matter what, they will be judged and that shíte must get old really quickly.
As I said, those men I know into bigger women have choices. We're not talking Dungeons and Dragons(showing my age) autistic nerds here. They are exposed to thinner women and can get thinner women, but actively chose heavier women.Fair enough. If Irish men are far more accepting of larger women it might be cultural, or it might be basic 'free market' principals. I'd go with the latter. Irish men are no oil painting themselves, and it's quite rare to see couples in their 20s with significantly different body sizes. There's a finite number of slim females so, numbers wise, males make do.
You really need to read more Ted. I mean actual scientific studies, rather than gym forum bro science. Setpoint if very much in play. There's a reason why those who get gastric band surgery initially lose tons of weight, but the majority on follow up have gained back to nearly the point where they started.As for this "set point" stuff - it doesn't exist. Any 'set point' is a psychological habit for eating X amount of food and can be easily readjusted by training yourself to lower portion sizes. No different to training yourself to wake up half an hour early.
+1 It's not. I've had a few exes who were at that size and lower. Three had "four packs". Very fit. In each case they were putting in serious effort. Now that was their thing, they loved that effort, endorphins or whatever, but effort it was, looking from the outside in. In one case she would be in the gym 7 days a week, cycling 3 miles there and back, doing one spinning class and then another and with running on top of that. Another was doing full on dancing(and I ain't talking the foxtrot) 5 nights a week, and cycling around 60-100 miles per week on top. Another was putting the miles in on the bike and doing weights(not the pink 1Kg placcy dumbells either). Oh and on top of that none were "big eaters" by any stretch. Other women I've known who were light and weren't gym bunnies were like me, very low level appetites, one meal a day types.For the average woman to maintain 14% not even factoring in age, it is not "easy as hell".
OK as I said, try my diet for a year. Try 800 cals per day, for 365 days. A couple of weeks is "easy", try it for longer. MY point is that someone who is very overweight would have to follow such a comparative regimen for that length of time.I disagree Wibbs.
Many, many times I've gone weeks running at a 1,500 deficit and been active in those periods. Yes, the first week or so the hunger pangs are kicking in. I simply drink a pint of water and my mind is happy. After the first week 1,000-1,500 becomes a norm. If I tried to eat 3,000 I'd likely feel bloated despite this being the norm.
On the flip side, try gaining lean mass for 12 weeks. This means eating **** load of calories every day. This sounds great until you realise it's 8pm and you've only hit 30% of your calorie intake. I've literally ate to the point of feeling awfully sick (and even puked) and then ate some more because I had to hit X calorie goal for the day.
Between the two, I'd pick dieting over bulking any day.
It's all psychological.
Yep B, very much so and it also depends on how an individual responds to hormones. It's not just about the bald stats. For example, I have some congenital fcukup which means my body produces more testosterone than average. Quite a bit more. At 25 my reading(can't recall the scaleThe key physiological differences between men and women relate to the fact that the male hormone testosterone is a much more potent anabolic agent than female oestrogen. Thus men tend to have larger, stronger muscles and less subcutaneous fat than women.
) was well over a 1000 somethings(1300 IIRC), where the average is 400-800 somethings. The last time I got readings I was 42 and it was 800 plus somethings. I should be a colossus of muscle and vigour, a veritable Rambo*, but since we've met Bluey, try not peeing yourself laughing and firing snotters at your keyboard. You bastid. What's worse is when my family doc when I first found this out damn near wet himself laughing when telling me the results. Damned fine doc, but also a slagging cnut.
What that told me is how people can differ soooo much. One size most certainly does not fit all. No matter what the cold stats say. Yes we are getting bigger and taller and fatter as a people in the West, but the explanations are not so clear cut and neither are the solutions offered.
This may seem like its going agin my first post on the matter. I don't think it is. If you want to change, you most certainly can, but it won't be easy, but don't let that dissuade you, if that's what you truly want.
EDIT *though I could grow a full man beard at 15, so that must count for something, right? Bone density is A OK too and it seems having thicker skin means far fewer wrinkles for my age. That's about it mind you. I wish I had more muscles though. Yep I am that shallow.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
ahnowbrowncow wrote: »What I mean is you're more likely to notice an obese woman, even though it's only slightly higher than men. Being overweight is defined as having a BMI of 25-29 whereas being obese is anything from 30 to 70 so I wouldn't pass much remark on seeing someone with a BMI of 27 but I'd likely notice someone with a BMI of 40.
I'm not sure why but it seems you're being quite competitive on this, does it really matter to you which gender is more overweight or obese?
:pac: You were the one who made the claim that more women were obese, which doesn't really seem to be shown in the figures! (well negligibly more) I probably am being competitive, but there you go. Maybe I'm just a bit fed up of the scrutiny over women's appearances (a landslide more scrutiny than men receive), when men are doing no better and actually seem to be doing a bit worse overall. So yeah, I feel it does matter.
Why are you more likely to notice an obese woman than an obese man? In the figures given, it really is an tiny amount more, you wouldn't notice that. In a group of 100 men and 100 women, that'd be 24 obese men, 26 obese women. Disperse them throughout a crowd, it would become even less noticeable. 0 -
Advertisement
-
:pac: You were the one who made the claim that more women were obese, which doesn't really seem to be shown in the figures! (well negligibly more) I probably am being competitive, but there you go. Maybe I'm just a bit fed up of the scrutiny over women's appearances, when men are doing no better and actually seem to be doing a bit worse overall.
Why are you more likely to notice an obese woman than an obese man? In the figures given, it really is an tiny amount more, you wouldn't notice that. In a group of 100 men and 100 women, that'd be 24 obese men, 26 obese women. Disperse them throughout a crowd, it would become even less noticeable.
Yes it has been shown in the figures, I don't know why you're saying it hasn't really
Yes I'd notice the 4% more woman than men who are obese. And it's nearly 7% going by the WHO study.
Anyway let's drop it because I can understand you being fed up with the scrutiny.0 -
ahnowbrowncow wrote: »Yes it has been shown in the figures, I don't know why you're saying it hasn't really
Yes I'd notice the 4% more woman than men who are obese. And it's nearly 7% going by the WHO study.
Where are you getting 4%?
You didn't link the WHO study but you mentioned it specified European women, not Irish women. You can't really use that to illustrate your point.
Based on the figures we have seen:
- One in four Irish adults are obese, for both sexes.
- Significantly more Irish men than Irish women are overweight (45% to 33%).
- Between 1990 and 2000, obesity in Ireland rose at double the rate for men than women
This was all contained within the information you provided.0 -
ahnowbrowncow wrote: »Yes it has been shown in the figures, I don't know why you're saying it hasn't really
Yes I'd notice the 4% more woman than men who are obese. And it's nearly 7% going by the WHO study.
Anyway let's drop it because I understand being fed up with the scrutiny.
Would you notice the shrink-wrapped look too?
Honestly, if you can differentiate four overweight women in a crowd of 100, that's some eagle set of eyeballs you've got! 0 -
-
ahnowbrowncow wrote: »If there are 50 obese people, 24 are men and 26 are women, 48% are men and 52% are women and voila, we have a 4% difference.
EDIT: miscalculation. But no way in hell would you notice that. Bull to the shít. You'd just notice females more as that's where your sexual interest lies (I'm guessing)
It's one on four for both give or take. Meanwhile, far more men are overweight. Wanna work out your percentage point magic on that? :pac:
Again, the WHO report is Europe-wide. You can't extrapolate for Ireland based on that.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement