PDA

View Full Version : World's Heaviest woman loses 98 lbs. from marathon sex sessions!



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9

MacMadame
07-17-2012, 06:00 AM
So...are you saying that the only solution is to never get overweight in the first place?
I think the only solution is not to diet. :P And to really embrace exercise.

Exercise seems to be the lever that you can pull to both be heather at your current weight (whatever that is) and it's one of the few ways that you can maintain a significant loss because it seems to help reset the body's set point. Or something. We don't really understand the mechanism yet just that exercise, lots of it, not 30 min of moderate exercise 3x a week like some experts say is all we need, can make a difference in the certain circumstances even if, in others, it doesn't lead to weight loss.)

I will give you an example from figure skating about why I hate dieting and think it's a major contributor to our obesity problem:

I have seen literally 600 little girls grow up over a period of 10 years. Many, many of them go through a period where they get chunky, especially in the middle. It happens somewhere in the 8-12 year range. (i.e., when they are in pre-puberty -- the state women's bodies go through prior to getting our menses) Then some of them just grow out of it. You see them at 16 and they weigh the same that they did when they were 12 and chunky but now they are 6 inches taller and so their weight is completely normal for their height. They may even be slender!

But other little girls end up with a weight problem. A life-long weight problem.

There seem to be two differences between the group. One is genetics. But the other is that the group that ends up not slimming down once they get past puberty are the ones getting a fuss made about their weight, which almost always leads to dieting.

Not that I'm going to argue against educating people as to what healthy eating is or banning soda from schools. Those are good things too. They can help create the right supportive atmosphere.

And while we're at it, let's reeducate ourselves as to what a normal portion size is!


Though my appetite control definitely has a different general threshold than someone who's struggling to lose weight.
But it stems from the same cause. Your body's set point is low and your body fights you be a "ridiculously" thin weight. While another person's body fights them to be a ridiculously high weight. But the struggle is the same.

shine
07-17-2012, 06:19 AM
Personally I find it offensive to refer to anyone's physical appearance as groteque as it's very dehumanizing. She is morbidly obese (which I believe is the technical term to describe her weight level), but I wouldn't call her or anyone else's body groteque.

I also don't think this is difficult to understand. They were in love and got married. He had a previous child, and so they had to blend their family. Blended families often fail because of tensions between the children of one parent and the new spouse, and that's apparently what happened here. Doesn't mean the two stopped loving each other, though.

She became depressed after their marriage failed which is also very common. It's not dissimilar to a death--the loss of the spouse and their future lives together is deeply mourned. So the woman began eating for comfort to console herself until it reached a state which jeopardized her life. When her ex-husband realized what had happened, he returned to help her lose the weight. And by this time the child may have been grown, so that was no longer an issue.

Substitute the weight gain for developing a drinking problem, and I don't think it's difficult to see how the situation developed nor how he could still love her. Would you really find it that difficult to understand if a woman still had attraction for her husband if he returned from combat having lost both his legs?

Anyhow, I'm glad she's getting the weight off, and hope things work out with her ex.
Dude, good for you.

Anita18
07-17-2012, 07:13 AM
I think the only solution is not to diet. :P And to really embrace exercise.

Exercise seems to be the lever that you can pull to both be heather at your current weight (whatever that is) and it's one of the few ways that you can maintain a significant loss because it seems to help reset the body's set point. Or something. We don't really understand the mechanism yet just that exercise, lots of it, not 30 min of moderate exercise 3x a week like some experts say is all we need, can make a difference in the certain circumstances even if, in others, it doesn't lead to weight loss.)

I will give you an example from figure skating about why I hate dieting and think it's a major contributor to our obesity problem:

I have seen literally 600 little girls grow up over a period of 10 years. Many, many of them go through a period where they get chunky, especially in the middle. It happens somewhere in the 8-12 year range. (i.e., when they are in pre-puberty -- the state women's bodies go through prior to getting our menses) Then some of them just grow out of it. You see them at 16 and they weigh the same that they did when they were 12 and chunky but now they are 6 inches taller and so their weight is completely normal for their height. They may even be slender!

But other little girls end up with a weight problem. A life-long weight problem.

There seem to be two differences between the group. One is genetics. But the other is that the group that ends up not slimming down once they get past puberty are the ones getting a fuss made about their weight, which almost always leads to dieting.

Not that I'm going to argue against educating people as to what healthy eating is or banning soda from schools. Those are good things too. They can help create the right supportive atmosphere.

And while we're at it, let's reeducate ourselves as to what a normal portion size is!
I agree that "dieting" or generally treating food as some kind of negative control thing is bad. You need to eat. You can't live without food. And if you mess up your relationship with food, it can definitely mess your body up in the long run because of what you decide to put in it, or not put in it.

And I agree that exercising, or movement in general, is the bar that we should set for health. If you're overweight but can kick serious ass in kickboxing, those extra pounds don't matter much. I think my personal threshold for thinking that someone is "too big" is when they have visible trouble walking because of their size.


But it stems from the same cause. Your body's set point is low and your body fights you be a "ridiculously" thin weight. While another person's body fights them to be a ridiculously high weight. But the struggle is the same.
But I'm still having trouble understanding how someone's body could even have that set point be at such a ridiculously high weight (I'm talking obese BMI) to begin with, unless they inherited it from somewhere. The thing about the obesity epidemic is how recent it is. I just have trouble imagining that say, their grandparents' bodies really wanted to be obese as well, but there simply wasn't enough food available so they spent their entire lives figuratively starving....

Japanfan
07-17-2012, 07:21 AM
I think the only solution is not to diet. :P And to really embrace exercise.

Exercise seems to be the lever that you can pull to both be heather at your current weight (whatever that is) and it's one of the few ways that you can maintain a significant loss because it seems to help reset the body's set point. Or something. We don't really understand the mechanism yet just that exercise, lots of it, not 30 min of moderate exercise 3x a week like some experts say is all we need, can make a difference in the certain circumstances even if, in others, it doesn't lead to weight loss.)


Interesting. And what do you mean by "lots of it"?

I probably exercise 5-6 hours a week, which includes weight-training, the odd session on the eliptical trainer, hiking whenever I can fit it in, and a wee bit of kayaking (wish I could do more but it is not logistically possible). I've maintained this routine for about 10 years and have still gained 5-10 pounds without changing my diet, but look at it from the viewpoint that I'm holding and am fairly strong. I'm within a healthy weight range I would guess, for my age of 53. Some of the women I know in my age range have just ballooned, seemingly like magic. . .

In truth I'm a lazy worker-outer. I read books between sets and enjoy conversation and nature while hiking/walking. I burn 500 calories an hour on the trainer, whereas other around me burn double and sweat like crazy (I don't like to sweat). Exercise is more about mental than physical benefits for me.

But I wonder what I would have to do to lose five-ten pounds just through exercise? I get that I have to 'change it up' and get my heart rate up, but don't know what that means in terms of time/type of exercise/amount of sweat.

Anita18
07-17-2012, 07:47 AM
Interesting. And what do you mean by "lots of it"?

I probably exercise 5-6 hours a week, which includes weight-training, the odd session on the eliptical trainer, hiking whenever I can fit it in, and a wee bit of kayaking (wish I could do more but it is not logistically possible). I've maintained this routine for about 10 years and have still gained 5-10 pounds without changing my diet, but look at it from the viewpoint that I'm holding and am fairly strong. I'm within a healthy weight range I would guess, for my age of 53. Some of the women I know in my age range have just ballooned, seemingly like magic. . .

In truth I'm a lazy worker-outer. I read books between sets and enjoy conversation and nature while hiking/walking. I burn 500 calories an hour on the trainer, whereas other around me burn double and sweat like crazy (I don't like to sweat). Exercise is more about mental than physical benefits for me.

But I wonder what I would have to do to lose five-ten pounds just through exercise? I get that I have to 'change it up' and get my heart rate up, but don't know what that means in terms of time/type of exercise/amount of sweat.
I'm no expert (I only know what pertains to me :lol: ) but I imagine it has to do with heart rate. If you get your heart and breathing rate high for a sustained period of time, I bet that burns calories like whoa. And yes, that does involve sweating. :lol:

I came back from the gym tonight and I swear I could feel myself losing 5 lbs just watching other people sweat away doing circuit training. :lol:

Like you, I don't like to sweat much. Cardio makes me feel pukey, so I don't do cardio. I guess I'm screwed if I'm being chased by a bear, or zombies. But weightlifting makes me feel fantastic, so that's what I do. And considering my already-small frame and my mother developing osteoporosis before she turned 50, I think weightlifting is the way to go for me.

Also, for what it's worth, I think it's better physically to be a little overweight when you're older, than too thin.

antmanb
07-17-2012, 11:38 AM
But I wonder what I would have to do to lose five-ten pounds just through exercise? I get that I have to 'change it up' and get my heart rate up, but don't know what that means in terms of time/type of exercise/amount of sweat.

I can't recommend enough getting a personal trainer, even just for an hour or two to talk to you about your own body, routine, likes/dislikes and design a programme for you to follow. If you can see them regularly like once a week, it makes an incredible difference.

Everyone is different and I think getting someone to work with you is the best way.

Personally for me the best way to lose weight is a combination of strength (weight) training and cardio. Surprisingly (to me anyway) skewing more time towards strength training over a week than cardio has better results than skewing more towards cardio, which is what I would have thought made better sense for fat burning, but we've tried and tested many different combinations and it seems my body reacts really well to the ratio we have now which is slightly more strength than cardio.

Andrushka
07-17-2012, 11:36 PM
Go her! Now 400+more lbs to go!

numbers123
07-18-2012, 01:05 AM
7,000 still sounds like a ton to me....but you're right, it's better than 10,000. :lol:

When I was in college, my nutrition class had us do a food diary for 3 weeks (gotta remember that this was 1972 or so, before people found obsessive food diaries through WW or On line).

I was totally amazed that there were days that I consumed 3,000 or more calories. I weighed 110 pounds at the time. That was before fast food super sizes or even many fast food restaurants. Of course, I was working 2 jobs and going to school - running from class room to class room - burning up a lot of those calories.

I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to consume that many calories a day. It's reported that Michael Phelps eats 12,000 calories-a-day while in training. Many professional sports players consume that or more - a reason why some sports players gain so much weight post their professional careers is because they do not have a sense of what they actually need to consume a day vs. what they are used to consuming.

heckles
07-18-2012, 02:18 AM
I just have trouble imagining that say, their grandparents' bodies really wanted to be obese as well, but there simply wasn't enough food available so they spent their entire lives figuratively starving....

I agree that's unlikely, but what else has changed in our environment since our grandparents' childhoods? Does our food contain more soy, MSG, corn syrup, artificial coloring and other modern additives that may impact one's thyroid, appetite and insulin levels? What common medications that can cause weight gain--various antibiotics, psychotropic medicines, sleeping medications, oral contraceptives and other hormonal drugs--were not even on the market in our grandparents' youth? Could recent pesticides and other chemicals in our environment affect metabolism?

It's easy to call today's young'ins lazy and gluttonous, but such talk ages the accuser considerably. Not that you were tossing those epithets, but those who do aren't going to bring about solutions to the problem.

Anita18
07-18-2012, 02:25 AM
When I was in college, my nutrition class had us do a food diary for 3 weeks (gotta remember that this was 1972 or so, before people found obsessive food diaries through WW or On line).

I was totally amazed that there were days that I consumed 3,000 or more calories. I weighed 110 pounds at the time. That was before fast food super sizes or even many fast food restaurants. Of course, I was working 2 jobs and going to school - running from class room to class room - burning up a lot of those calories.

I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to consume that many calories a day. It's reported that Michael Phelps eats 12,000 calories-a-day while in training. Many professional sports players consume that or more - a reason why some sports players gain so much weight post their professional careers is because they do not have a sense of what they actually need to consume a day vs. what they are used to consuming.
3,000 is still less than halfway to 7,000. You'd have to be eating more than twice your daily normal intake to get up to what some of these people are eating. Unless of course you never ate to fullness. Then it might be easy. :lol: YMMV.

And Michaels Phelps famously only swims, sleeps, and eats when he's training. Eating that many calories must be considered a job at that point, unless you're literally inhaling your food.


I agree that's unlikely, but what else has changed in our environment since our grandparents' childhoods? Does our food contain more soy, MSG, corn syrup, artificial coloring and other modern additives that may impact one's thyroid, appetite and insulin levels? What common medications that can cause weight gain--various antibiotics, psychotropic medicines, sleeping medications, oral contraceptives and other hormonal drugs--were not even on the market in our grandparents' youth? Could recent pesticides and other chemicals in our environment affect metabolism?

It's easy to call today's young'ins lazy and gluttonous, but such talk ages the accuser considerably. Not that you were tossing those epithets, but those who do aren't going to bring about solutions to the problem.
I actually think there's less MSG, corn syrup, hormones, artificial coloring, trans fats, etc, than there was back in say, the 60s and 70s. (Although there might be more soy...the pushback on soy has been much more recent.) Because we know about those additives now and what they can do. And yet people are getting fatter still...

overedge
07-18-2012, 02:31 AM
I think the only solution is not to diet. :P And to really embrace exercise.


I see what you mean about "diet" and the potential problems with portion control, balance of foods, etc. (and the mindset that goes along with that). But OTOH no matter what your physiology, I think it's a pretty safe bet that someone who eats mostly junk food and processed crap is going to gain more weight than someone who eats mostly vegetables and healthy food.

MacMadame
07-18-2012, 02:48 AM
I was totally amazed that there were days that I consumed 3,000 or more calories.
I find that I can't eat more than about 4000 a day and even that is pushing it -- which means on days I do things like a Century Ride and burn more than 5000, I have to eat up for a few days to catch up.

But that's just me. OTOH, I'm sure Michael Phelps has to work pretty hard to get in 12,000 a day. I know a few professional athletes who say they have to work hard not to lose weight when training.


I think it's a pretty safe bet that someone who eats mostly junk food and processed crap is going to gain more weight than someone who eats mostly vegetables and healthy food.

Well, you'd think that but in fact there are plenty of thin people who eat like crap. But, if they do things like go to McDonalds and get a Double Quarter Pounder with a Large drink and Fries, they might not eat anything else for the rest of the day.

I see my son and his friends eat like that all the time and most of them are underweight.

overedge
07-18-2012, 02:50 AM
Well, you'd think that but in fact there are plenty of thin people who eat like crap.

But that doesn't mean they wouldn't weigh less if they didn't eat crap.

Anita18
07-18-2012, 02:52 AM
I find that I can't eat more than about 4000 a day and even that is pushing it -- which means on days I do things like a Century Ride and burn more than 5000, I have to eat up for a few days to catch up.

But that's just me. OTOH, I'm sure Michael Phelps has to work pretty hard to get in 12,000 a day. I know a few professional athletes who say they have to work hard not to lose weight when training.
Right. Michael Phelps isn't "accidentally" eating 12K calories a day. He's very methodically eating that much, and probably on a schedule to remind himself. Like I mentioned, it must be another job.


Well, you'd think that but in fact there are plenty of thin people who eat like crap. But, if they do things like go to McDonalds and get a Double Quarter Pounder with a Large drink and Fries, they might not eat anything else for the rest of the day.

I see my son and his friends eat like that all the time and most of them are underweight.
How old is your son? I know of many, many young men in their early 20's who are very thin and lanky no matter what junk they eat. They usually fill out as they approach their 30s.

I'm still waiting on my fiance, who turned 30 this year and still looks like a high schooler because he's so slight. :lol:

numbers123
07-18-2012, 03:11 AM
1 Mc Donalds' Deluxe Breakfast = 1,220 calories
1 large OJ = 250 calories

2 Big Mac = 1120 calories
2 order big fries = 1140 calories

1 large triple thick chocolate shake = 1,160 calories
2 large colas = 620 calories

This alone would be 5510. Would not include snacks or even an evening meal.

just sayin' - Not that I could eat that much, but probably not too far off for someone to do. Just because most of us couldn't do that, doesn't mean that there is not a group of people who don't do something like that on a daily basis. it is amazing what you might observe at an "all you can eat" buffet