Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Men, Love and Physical Attraction towards Women

Page 4 of 8 [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

27 May 2012, 2:06 pm

edgewaters wrote:
Yes but metabolism is not. It's like saying a dollar is a dollar for everyone and therefore everyone is equally wealthy - ignoring the fact that incomes vary. It's not rational.


It's like saying gravity is gravity and regular people fall at roughly the same speed, with some slight differences because of drag coefficient. It's also like saying a newspaper is two dollars for everyone, but somebody has bonus points from previous transactions, lowering the price by ten cents.

Quote:

Again, metabolic differences impact how many calories are burned in a day. Your original statement - "met girls who don't workout at all who look like models because they eat healthy" - fails to account for metabolic differences, and you compound the error when someone asks if you think this is representative of all females by saying that you do. Sorry but the science couldn't disagree with you more here.


Science agress with me. Ask and I'll find plenty of links debunking any self-reinforcing delusion.



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

27 May 2012, 2:16 pm

1000Knives wrote:
Yep, someone's gonna get some serious nutritional deficiencies by eating 200 calories less. You can't like, eat something more nutritious while eating less calories afterall. You realize for most people this cutting 200 calories would consist of like...not drinking a bottle of soda?


I wasn't talking about "most people", I was talking about the people who eat healthfully, low calorie to the point of danger, and exercise, and still can't lose weight, who are being rendered invisible with flat categorical declarations of their non-existence in this conversation. I've been in contact with many people over the years who struggle with this, and constantly being told they're either lying or stupid by people with a different metabolism is devastating psychologically.

If you're on a weight loss journey and haven't even cut out soda, that's pretty silly. My comments were in the context of my personal experience.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

27 May 2012, 2:16 pm

Kurgan wrote:
It's like saying gravity is gravity and regular people fall at roughly the same speed, with some slight differences because of drag coefficient.


"Slight" differences. So now there are differences, you're just saying they are "slight". This is an alteration of your original position. Define "slight".

Quote:
Science agress with me.


No, it plainly does not. Science does not say that all women need to do to maintain a healthy weight is just eat right, and exercise is unnecessary in all cases, as you claimed. Although now you're waffling, or trying to move to a different and more defensible position without acknowledging the original one was incorrect and not rational. I expect semantical wriggling about the original statement to begin now.



Last edited by edgewaters on 27 May 2012, 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

27 May 2012, 2:18 pm

Kurgan wrote:
Science agress with me. Ask and I'll find plenty of links debunking any self-reinforcing delusion.


Link me to something that explains why I "maintain" on what is supposedly around a net loss of 1200 calories a day, and gain on much above that.

You never explained how far you think people should go to not be overweight.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

27 May 2012, 2:20 pm

edgewaters wrote:

"Slight" differences. So now there are differences, you're just saying they are "slight". This is an alteration of your original position. Define "slight".



Pretty laughable. My sister (adopted) didn't gain weight eating around 6,000 calories a day, while I essentially lived on lettuce for years and stayed obese. Neither one of us had any diagnosable pathology. You'd have to live under a rock to not understand that there are vast differences in individual physiology.

This is really akin to attempting to argue with someone who believes Harry Potter is a historical document.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

27 May 2012, 2:23 pm

Kurgan wrote:
ValentineWiggin wrote:
[
So, I consume around 300 calories a day and walk 7.6 miles at a 15% incline in order to not be obese.


Then you're doing it wrong. You're more likely to burn muscle mass than fat at that rate. this is called "f-ckarounditis" by many athletes today.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/53867 ... mperature/


Cool.

So, like, what SHOULD I do, given that the instant I exercise less or eat more, it packs on?

~rests chin in hands~



Quote:
Quote:
"Lowering your diet by 200 calories" is all well and good, until you face serious nutritional deficiencies in order to not be a certain size.
How is that healthful?


Read my posts again. If you burn 200 calories less than a regular person a day, then 200 calories less is what you actually need.

Right, cause THERE ARE NO NUTRIENTS OTHER THAN CALORIES. :lol:


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

27 May 2012, 2:43 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:
Kurgan wrote:

Again: Thermodynamics are the same for everyone, just like gravity and Newton's laws are the same for everyone. The differences in genetical composition are how much water you hold, your hormone levels and stuff like that. Nobody's doomed to obesity; it's a choice. If somebody burns 200 calories less than an average person does every day, it's his or her reaponsibility to lower their diet by 200 calories less than the average person.


So, I consume around 300 calories a day and walk 7.6 miles at a 15% incline in order to not be obese
(I was doing more exercise on fewer calories when I was obese, until I took a weight loss medication for months that altered my metabolism).
Are you declaring that that's what all people should do if that's what it takes?

No one's saying thermodynamics are individual.
The "stuff like that" which you brush off are WHAT DETERMINES people's metabolic rate.

Most people eat an amount I'd rapidly become morbidly obese consuming,
and I eat what would cause them to become emaciated and die.
How does that fit into your narrow-minded worldview?

"Lowering your diet by 200 calories" is all well and good, until you face serious nutritional deficiencies in order to not be a certain size.
How is that healthful?
Maybe it's true that "no one's doomed to obesity" (categorical declarations are laughable, but whatever)
but are you saying people should starve and exercise hours and hours per day if that's what it takes?

I'm interested in how far you think people should go to not be a certain size.


My post is thoroughly off topic and possibly annoying but it just kills me when I see people write things like this. The "eat less, exercise more" dogma -which mistakes biology for physics and mistakes live organisms for closed systems- makes so many people needlessly miserable. I follow the advice of this linked guy Lyle McDonald and it has been really helpful. He understands the actual physiology of weight gain, loss and maintenance.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-lo ... -loss.html


It's possible that your current regimen is trapping you in cortisol hell. I did not really understand the role of cortisol and other hormones until I read all his articles.

He is a personal trainer. I would train with him in a heartbeat if I could. His articles were a revelation. There is a real science to this and "eat l;ess, exercise more" isn't it, . Read this. Really.

(Snipe at Kurgan removed because his subsequent post of "less cardio, more strength training, eat more" is part of what McDonald says).



Last edited by Janissy on 27 May 2012, 2:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

27 May 2012, 2:43 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:

Cool.

So, like, what SHOULD I do, given that the instant I exercise less or eat more, it packs on?

~rests chin in hands~


You went on a crash diet and need to keep this up not to gain weight. My suggestion is to start eating 1,200 calories and NOT WORRY about the measly 10 lbs you'll gain at the most before you metabolism has increased signifiantly. Supplement your cardio (you may even partly replae it) by strength training. Then calories will be used to repair wear and tear to muscle before it's stored as fat.

Quote:
Right, cause THERE ARE NO NUTRIENTS OTHER THAN CALORIES. :lol:


Some nutrients are less likely to be stored as fat. Examples are unsaturated fat and proteins.



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

27 May 2012, 2:47 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:
]
Pretty laughable. My sister (adopted) didn't gain weight eating around 6,000 calories a day, while I essentially lived on lettuce for years and stayed obese. Neither one of us had any diagnosable pathology. You'd have to live under a rock to not understand that there are vast differences in individual physiology.


There are slight differences. Again, read some of the links I've posted or Google the 650 lb virgin.

You're most likely underestimating your intake and overestimating hers.

Quote:
This is really akin to attempting to argue with someone who believes Harry Potter is a historical document.


The scientifially accepted null hypothesis (that it's a lifestyle choice) has more followers than the alternative hypothesis on how some people just naturally are that way. Therefore, you're the one who believe in fairy tales.



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

27 May 2012, 2:48 pm

Janissy wrote:
My post is thoroughly off topic and possibly annoying but it just kills me when I see people write things like this. The "eat less, exercise more" dogma -which mistakes biology for physics and mistakes live organisms for closed systems- makes so many people needlessly miserable. I follow the advice of theis linked guy Lyle McDonald and it has been really helpful. He understands the actual physiology of weight gain, loss and maintenance.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-lo ... -loss.html


It's possible that your current regimen is trapping you in cortisol hell. I did hnot really understand the role of cortisol and other hormones until I read all his articles.


Thank you very much for the information! I've been thinking about it more lately, and the more I read academically, the more I doubt the calorie-is-a-calorie-is-a-calorie BS. I think it has much more to do with spikes in glucose and bodily hormones than anything- interesting to me that when the West declared war on fat as a nutrient, everyone BECAME fat, because it was replaced with sugar. The obsession with wheat products in particular astounds me.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

27 May 2012, 2:51 pm

Kurgan wrote:
The scientifially accepted null hypothesis (that it's a lifestyle choice)


Let's stick to your original assertion that exercise is unnecessary and stop trying to shift the goalposts, shall we? Yield, retreat, or defend. It's simple.



Last edited by edgewaters on 27 May 2012, 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

27 May 2012, 2:51 pm

Kurgan wrote:
.

You're most likely underestimating your intake and overestimating hers.

No "estimation" involved. Product packages are labeled plainly as required by law,
and rough estimates of the nutritional value of produce are and have been available for years.

Today I've had 4 servings of steamed cauliflower at 25 calories each, and 2/3 cups of TVP.
That's 220, according to their labeling.

Likewise, I'm more than capable of reading other packages, and was at 16 when I watched her live on entire litres of soda and boxes of oatmeal cream pies daily.

Where is there "estimation", and where do you get off suggesting anyone who exists outside your little world must be incompetent?

Quote:

The scientifially accepted null hypothesis (that it's a lifestyle choice) has more followers than the alternative hypothesis on how some people just naturally are that way. Therefore, you're the one who believe in fairy tales.


Strawmanning, again, I see.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

27 May 2012, 2:53 pm

edgewaters wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
The scientifially accepted null hypothesis (that it's a lifestyle choice)


Let's stick to your original assertion that exercise is unnecessary and stop trying to shift the goalposts, shall we? Yield, retreat, or defend. It's simple.

I'll shut up now. I really would like to see this proceed in a simplistic and Socratic way.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

27 May 2012, 3:05 pm

Kurgan wrote:

You went on a crash diet

Nope.

I started dieting in middle school because I was obese eating the same as or less than all the other kids (I was born overweight).
Progressively, I ate less and less and increased exercise more and more, because that's what society constantly chants at overweight people to do.
It didn't work.

The current routine is the result of over a decade of trial and error,
as well as half a year of prescription medication.

Kurgan wrote:
My suggestion is to start eating 1,200 calories and NOT WORRY about the measly 10 lbs you'll gain at the most before you metabolism has increased significantly.


Except I won't gain ten pounds. The last time I tried to increase my calories on a daily basis, I gained twenty six in a month, going from 300 to 500 daily, and was still rapidly gaining. That's when my endo put me on a prescription. You're not listening.

Kurgan wrote:
Supplement your cardio (you may even partly replae it) by strength training. Then calories will be used to repair wear and tear to muscle before it's stored as fat.

I've noticed I weighed more at my smallest, after having started at the gym, than at a lower weight achieved by starvation.


For serious. I wanna be quiet, and have Edgewaters examine why you think everyone is operating on the same paradigm.


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

27 May 2012, 3:49 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:
Except I won't gain ten pounds. The last time I tried to increase my calories on a daily basis, I gained twenty six in a month, going from 300 to 500 daily, and was still rapidly gaining. That's when my endo put me on a prescription. You're not listening.


That's impossible. Experiments conducted on inmates in American prisons, shows that big boned men with a slow metabolism can at the most gain 20 lbs of raw fat in six months by DOUBLING their intake.

Nobody's metabolism is able to violate the laws of physics.



Kinme
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,002
Location: Spaghetti

27 May 2012, 4:50 pm

It's what usually begins the attraction, is it not? I don't think it should solely be focused on appearance. It may, at first, but it should become more about personality than looks if a relationship is actually meaningful and worth being a part of. Looks will fade eventually, and those people will be left with nothing if appearance is all that matters.