Why Exercise Won't Make You ThinFollow

Poor mortals.

I could do Super-Size Me and still maintain my 18 BMI.
(I pretty much did when I worked for McD's)

Most people say that number seems high, looking at me.

It comes with less death and self-loathing however. That alone is worth at least 2000 calories.

I'm having fun ignoring work to calculate calorie crunching.

According to This site I have a base metabolic rate of around 1900 calories. Meaning, if I did nothing else all day I would burn 1900 calories. That seems really high, but I guess it'll do for now.

I also try and work out for 45-50 minutes (high impact; DDR) or an hour 10 (medium impact; elliptical for 40, exercise bike for 30). The numbers on those seem really high for me as well; In DDR it says I burn 1000 calories in that time, and the other two combined... well, the Elliptical is typically around 430 calories (seems about right, I sweat like crazy), but the exercise bike is something insane, like 750 calories for half an hour when it is SO much easier than the Elliptical. I would cut those figures in half, so 500-600 calories burnt exercising each day. So, calories out is:

1900 + 500-600 = 2400-2500.

I also watch what I eat, as much as possible. My average for the past three days has been 1330 calories per day. However, I eat more on the weekends and don't usually write down what I eat, so I would guess it's closer to 1600 average.

Even then, I feel like I should be a lot thinner than I am. Maybe it's just hard to see the changes by myself?

On the plus side, since July 12th or so (when I really started to get serious about this and exercising, instead of just watching my weight) I've gone down a notch in belt size. Truth be told, it's more than a notch; when I first dropped one size I noticed the belt was a little too tight and would kind of squeak when moving. As of this week it no longer squeaks, and fits me just fine. If I go down more than one more hole, I'll need to get a new belt! That's exciting :-P

I suppose the problem is that I don't SEE much of a difference. I might have lost a little weight (since college I've dropped about 10 pounds), but I haven't toned too much that I can see (besides my triceps, which are once again rivaling my biceps in size. Ah, the trouble with being a swimmer for years.

Anyway, enough rambling, time to go reconcile stuff.

Edited, Aug 13th 2009 2:29pm by LockeColeMA

Except that I was speaking of body image, not some kind of ideal health weight. Hence, the use of the word "skinny" instead of the phrase "lower weight". A 6 foot tall person weighing 160 with 20% body fat will look like he weighs 200 pounds. In the other direction, the same person wanting to look like he's 160 with 2% body fat will have to starve himself down to 130ish to do so. Which may *not* be healthy at all.

Health is about settling at a body weight that is natural for the person. But this may not result in a body image that person wants (this is particularly true of women in our society). A woman weighing 135 with good muscle tone will look similarly "slim" as one weighing 110, and will almost certainly be in better health. That was the point I was making. People tend to seek out a body image they want (particular dress size for instance), and exercise is almost always going to be a healthier way to get there.

How on earth did you read that and conclude I was saying that health = body image?

I said that most people would prefer to be thinner looking than their natural and healthy ideal weight would place them at and that it is much healthier to achieve that "look" via exercise than by losing weight. Didn't think this fairly obvious statement was so darn controversial. Are you saying that a woman who wants to lose a couple dress sizes should just diet until she can fit? Always? I thought you worked in the health business...?

I dont think Nobby works in the mental health services.

I know I dont, and that is probably why I struggle to follow your mental convolutions, and fail to divine any consistency in meaning, whilst wading through the quagmire of verbosity that you constantly wallow in.



The crazies always say that......

I loved that I had to enter 5'12" instead of 6' or I got an error.

My BMR is a little over 3k, which is easy to stay far below, aside from my continuing problems with sweet drinks.

I posted a pic a while back.


Also, I've lost 10 pounds since my last weigh in(two weeks ago).

Damn. I just finished breakfast and that still made me hungry again!

Except that I was speaking of body image, not some kind of ideal health weight. Hence, the use of the word "skinny" instead of the phrase "lower weight". A 6 foot tall person weighing 160 with 20% body fat will look like he weighs 200 pounds. In the other direction, the same person wanting to look like he's 160 with 2% body fat will have to starve himself down to 130ish to do so. Which may *not* be healthy at all.

Health is about settling at a body weight that is natural for the person. But this may not result in a body image that person wants (this is particularly true of women in our society). A woman weighing 135 with good muscle tone will look similarly "slim" as one weighing 110, and will almost certainly be in better health. That was the point I was making. People tend to seek out a body image they want (particular dress size for instance), and exercise is almost always going to be a healthier way to get there.

Except it isn't. Restricting caloric intake is tied to better health. Did you mean, maybe "fitness"? Or did you mean you find athletic women more attractive than thin women? Many closeted gay men feel this way before the figure it out. Do you like tall women with small breasts and rugged stubble?

Really? So the fewer calories someone takes in, the healthier they are? Is this your position? Cause there's a great big gaping flaw in it. Let's see if you can noodle it out on your own or if you need a map and compass...

So you're not saying that Ethiopia should have the healthiest, longest-lived population??