No longer attracted to my girlfriend

Dean0088 wrote: »

Quote me where I said that I despise fat people or obsess over the choices of others.

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.

Related diseases like type 2 diabetes are rocketing in children and OAPs.

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.

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.

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 vary

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Daenarys wrote: »

For the average woman to maintain 14% not even factoring in age, it is not "easy as hell".

+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.

Dean0088 wrote: »

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.

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.

bluewolf wrote: »

The 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.

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 scale ) 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.