Mark Wahlberg lived on liquids + nuts for 6 months. What was your most extreme diet?

Wibbs · 08-02-2015 10:27PM

mzungu wrote: »

I read in an article a few weeks ago that our bodies settle on a healthy weight after a period of time.

The set point weight can go up too. It can be a major reason why very obese people have a near impossible task to drop the weight and keep it dropped below a certain point. The elastic stretches but there comes a point where it doesn't rebound to the original size. If you look at the stats for gastric bypass, sure people lose a lot of weight after one year, but the weight loss plateaus at two years and quite the number start to slowly creep up. Must be bloody soul destroying.

Donegal Dan wrote: »

It's fair to say as well that metabolism decides to go on holidays and never really come back once you hit 30. The intake of food I could do daily and maintain a jean size (or even two) lower than I am now when I was 20 was unreal.

Just my humble mind you, but I reckon the ageing metabolism is only part of it and a small part at that. Doubly so for men as they don't have the changing hormonals going on over the course of a month, never mind years. A guy at twenty all things being equal has the same hormonal profile as a guy of thirty and if healthy that drops by only 1% per year after that. Again IMH it's a load of little and subtle lifestyle changes that are making the difference. Compare college bloke of 20 to the same guy in an office job at thirty. The former is generally moving way more than the latter. He's also likely to be going out more, not driving, may be playing more sports etc. It doesn't take much. Look at how folks can gain weight after giving up ciggies. Nicotine can act as an appetite suppressor/snack substitute, but even the act of smoking and the metabolic hit amounts to IIRC about 200 calories a day. If someone gives up and eats exactly the same amount of food and has exactly the same level of exercise, 200 extra cals a day over a year adds up.

Tarzana2 wrote: »

As for Victoria's Secret models. Even a generous B cup is pushing it as too big a bust to model for them these days.

+1 VS models are just as tiny framed. Not as lanky as your catwalk types maybe, but damned thin. The catwalk types were "bigger" in the supermodel days, but the 16 year old who eats feck all and just had a growth spurt has been the look ever since.

Littlekittylou wrote: »

Baryshnikov needs his own thread by the way.

Male ballet dancers have incredible physiques. And it's all functional strength. It's muscle for a reason as it were. Like gymnasts. Not like the (non natural)bloated bodybuilder look.

Deleted User wrote: »

Same with runners, most runners will lose toenails at some point. Is yocky.

Apparently Apollo moonwalkers could lose fingernails :eek: Trying to grab samples and tools and the like in a pressurised glove in a vacuum was hell on the nails. Bloody nails were nigh a given. Ooouch.

choons · 08-02-2015 10:53PM

HardenendMan wrote: »

Christian Bale is some man;

http://i.imgur.com/IYA2t.jpg

Although pay days of about 10 million per movie is a lot of motivation!

With a bit of forward planning they could have filmed all the skinny movies together and then all the batmans later. Would have saved him the hassle!

Littlekittylou · 08-02-2015 11:24PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Same with runners, most runners will lose toenails at some point. Is yocky.

Yeah When I took it up I was told it wouldn't help. I never show them to anyone. I look after them pretty well but for normal women's feet they don't look good. I have a hammer toe on both feet. Not my big toe the third one in. And the joint looks weird.

Just read the last page of posts.
Soccer players have the same problem in so far as they wear boots 1-2 sizes too small for them +for greater control of the ball] and they always lose their big toenails...........for what its worth,due to a medical condition, I lose all mine and my fingernails too....it definitely ain't pretty

That's interesting. It's to do with toe length in ballet if all the toes are not the same size the pressure is not equal. And so to protect the actual joints they use hession triangles layered up and up into blocks going up into the vamp (the box with is the bit you go up on). The tightness is to try and keep the actual joints as injury free as possible but the tightness itself can cause small little problems. You can get growths and stuff.

Different techniques of ballet use different shanks (the arch of the sole) because they go up on pointe in different ways. And different shanks cause different issues too.

And shoes are very hard when you first buy them and by the time they are soft and comfortable it means they are dead and not safe to dance in anymore. :rolleyes:

Beginners or people with low arches use soft shanks but they wear out fast (all manufacturers say they don't but they do)and don't 'prop up' much so don't give must support.With the shanks you have to actually physically break them in a door frame or by banging them on the floor for ages before you wear them.
It's a trade off and it all depends on your feet and leg structure and what weight you are. Also more than anything the type of Ballet you are learning.
Vaganova is ALL about the vamp. (the toe box bit)

TheBeardedLady · 08-02-2015 11:24PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

You often hear skinny people say they eats loads but just cannot put on weight, but they and their bigger friends greatly overestimate what the skinny person puts in their mouth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAQr77QMJiw

Watched that documentary. Interesting. Explains a few things, at least for me. Might be worth watching, Whoopsy. Not as simple as consuming less calories than you burn.

Venus In Furs · 09-02-2015 01:14AM

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 VS models are just as tiny framed. Not as lanky as your catwalk types maybe, but damned thin. The catwalk types were "bigger" in the supermodel days, but the 16 year old who eats feck all and just had a growth spurt has been the look ever since.

Oh yes the VS models are very slender - some have biggish boobs relative to their frame, but otherwise they're typical willowy models... however they look healthy.

Yeh Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer, Tyra Banks and co. looked healthy in the "supermodel" days. Still had unusually slender physiques though.

One eyed Jack · 09-02-2015 01:34AM

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Oh yes the VS models are very slender - some have biggish boobs relative to their frame, but otherwise they're typical willowy models... however they look healthy.

Yeh Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer, Tyra Banks and co. looked healthy in the "supermodel" days. Still had unusually slender physiques though.

:eek:

I'd always considered Cindy Crawford and Tyra Banks were the standout supermodels among that group as they were more curvaceous and feminine looking than the others? Remember Kate Moss and that whole "heroin chic" thing she had going on?

Helena Christiansen too, stunning looking (those eyes, honestly!) and Eva Herezigova, the original Wonderbra girl, most successful advertising campaign of the last century I think I remember reading before.

I think the most recent group of VS girls are definitely headed the way of the theatrical performance variety with the models having less curves and definitely a more noticeably slender frame, they look healthy and all but... feminine?

I know it's personal taste and all but they're becoming as androgynous as their catwalk counterparts IMO

Venus In Furs · 09-02-2015 01:37AM

Yeh Cindy Crawford and Tyra Banks were curvy but still very slim. Probably dress size 8-10.

Donegal Dan · 09-02-2015 04:29PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

:eek:

Remember Kate Moss and that whole "heroin chic" thing she had going on?

Apparently even by supermodel standards she was a complete an utter geebag in her heyday. I always found her to be very unattractive.

Mark Wahlberg lived on liquids + nuts for 6 months. What was your most extreme diet?

Comments