SummitPost.org

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2010 5:20 pm**

Lolli wrote:My question is simply - when does it become dangerous, (and how much do I need to eat in order to not be there) ?

There is no general answer to your question, it depends on so many individual parameters.

On another note: an internet forum is the wrong place to seek medical advice

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2010 7:55 pm**

MikeTX wrote:this is a common misconception. my wife struggled with this for most of her life. she finally put some real effort into exercising about 18 months ago and she's lost like 40 lbs. same thing with her sister as well.

some people seem to think, "hey, i'm on my feet at work most of the day" and they count that as exercise. or they go for a run once every two weeks or something like that.

if you want to lose weight, you must do exercises that elevate your heartrate to a training level for 30 minutes or more at least three or four times a week. this will make you hungry and you will likely eat more. that's okay. just eat healthy foods when you're hungry and you'll be just fine.

Not considering underlying health issues, if your calorie expenditure exceeds caloric intake you will loose weight

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2010 8:16 pm**

So if I go running tonight, I can snarf down a few of these?

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2010 8:25 pm**

Lolli wrote:tigerlilly, you're a darling, but I have a very high probabililty answer as to WHY my metabolism is slow. So high it's certain. Don't you worry none. That's not my question, as to why it is slow.

My question is simply - when does it become dangerous, (and how much do I need to eat in order to not be there) ?

Lolli, it seems pretty simple to me. If you are happy with how you look, generally have enough energy to exercise as you wish to and your weight is stable you are eating enough. I wouldn't worry about it other than to make sure the food you eat is nutrient dense, not junk.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2010 8:27 pm**

John Duffield wrote:So if I go running tonight, I can snarf down a few of these?

truly disgusting....

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2010 8:31 pm**

John Duffield wrote:So if I go running tonight, I can snarf down a few of these?

Hmmm--maybe a thousand miles of light jogging to run all that off followed by applying a roto router to your arteries to unclog the obstruction. But I guess this is the way some people live except they skip the jogging and the roto router.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2010 9:13 pm**

John Duffield wrote:So if I go running tonight, I can snarf down a few of these?

Mmmm! Bacon AND Donuts! There is a God!

(Now all I need is a beer to wash it down with.)

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2010 9:26 pm**

Gotta have fries and a monster soft drink to wash it all down.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2010 9:32 pm**

MikeTX wrote:yes. i guess my point is that most people are more sedentary than they think. for most people, weight loss takes sticking to a rigorous exercise program. i believe that if most people focused more on the exercise side of the equation, they could afford to not worry so much about the caloric intake side. the problem is that most people hate exercising, so they try to limit their caloric intake instead. this is just the wrong approach imo.

I completely agree. There are two, probably equally important, factors: diet <b>and</b> exercise

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2010 9:43 pm**

squishy wrote:
SoCalHiker wrote:
On another note: an internet forum is the wrong place to seek medical advice

+1

Doctors are the ones to ask...

Yes. But do you consider this "medical advice"? I don't. But this is a site made up of people wo are a lot into training etc, using their bodies sometimes to the extreme limits of its capacity and have experiences of various sorts.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2010 9:45 pm**

MikeTX wrote:i guess my point is that most people are more sedentary than they think. for most people, weight loss takes sticking to a rigorous exercise program. i believe that if most people focused more on the exercise side of the equation, they could afford to not worry so much about the caloric intake side. the problem is that most people hate exercising, so they try to limit their caloric intake instead. this is just the wrong approach imo.

True stuff. I often see non-handicapped people using the dumbass elevator to go up one floor. WTF.

If maintaining an inactive lifestyle, dieting to lose weight just puts your body into an even bigger slump. Blah.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2010 9:56 pm**

MikeTX wrote:
Lolli wrote:I could well do with losing a few pounds, but since I don't lose them eating as I do, I assume I'm rather stuck with them.

this is a common misconception. my wife struggled with this for most of her life. she finally put some real effort into exercising about 18 months ago and she's lost like 40 lbs. same thing with her sister as well.

some people seem to think, "hey, i'm on my feet at work most of the day" and they count that as exercise. or they go for a run once every two weeks or something like that.

if you want to lose weight, you must do exercises that elevate your heartrate to a training level for 30 minutes or more at least three or four times a week. this will make you hungry and you will likely eat more. that's okay. just eat healthy foods when you're hungry and you'll be just fine.

I don't want to lose weight. I mean, in context it was that I'm not a skinny anorectic.
Nor am I an athletic type, my body simply doesn't look like that. I have a woman's classical pearshaped ass and overall a "soft" look. I could lose a few kilos, and it'd be great, but I'm not fat.
I'm not on a diet. I have never dieted in my life.
Wrong, once. I ditched it fast, as utterly stupid.

I agree on the training thing.

Posted: **Wed May 05, 2010 10:00 pm**

lisae wrote:
Lolli wrote:tigerlilly, you're a darling, but I have a very high probabililty answer as to WHY my metabolism is slow. So high it's certain. Don't you worry none. That's not my question, as to why it is slow.

My question is simply - when does it become dangerous, (and how much do I need to eat in order to not be there) ?

Lolli, it seems pretty simple to me. If you are happy with how you look, generally have enough energy to exercise as you wish to and your weight is stable you are eating enough. I wouldn't worry about it other than to make sure the food you eat is nutrient dense, not junk.

I buy that!!

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2010 12:11 am**

MikeTX wrote:
Lolli wrote:I have a woman's classical pearshaped ass.

ummm...wow, that's like WAY more than i wanted to know.

Americans are so odd sometimes. Now what's sensitive about that?
It's a build, as opposed to the athletically built woman, who has a straighter form...

Posted: **Thu May 06, 2010 1:00 am**

SoCalHiker wrote:
Lolli wrote:My question is simply - when does it become dangerous, (and how much do I need to eat in order to not be there) ?

There is no general answer to your question, it depends on so many individual parameters.

Agree. Without testing your basal metabolic rate, nobody is going to be able to answer your question. The National Academy of Sciences lists the following daily calorie requirements for women: 14 cal/lb body weight for sedentary, 18 for moderately active and 22 for active. However this (like the previously posted equations) is probably for someone with an average basal metabolic rate, which you apparently don't have.

Since there is no number to guide you, the warning signs of overly-restricting calories are a low energy level or loss of muscle mass.

SummitPost.org

Eating