I don't understand (goal weight rant)

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Well I am just full of esoteric information. I read about it years ago when I was on a fitness kick. Because your foot has heal to toe contact with the ground, the calves are more efficient at pumping the blood to your heart. Sounds very plausable to me. With running you come down on the ball of your foot and spend more time in the air. The only advantage running offers is that it takes less time to get in a workout. Walking burns more fat per mile and there is much less chance of injury.

Great. Show me the study!

I hate running, I don't defend running, I think it sucks. I've made that more than clear previously. I just want to see the science behind your own claims.

[phyllisc 0]

Sigh. Boy, are you being this obtuse on purpose?

Just own your weight and your goal. Revel in your success in achieving YOUR goals. But accept it and own it in all its facets, do not try to justify it to me as not having a down side. Its when you do that that I immediately see someone NOT happy with their decision, NOT comfortable with it. Tell me to bugger off, you're happy and you dont give a fig what I think. Dont tell me that you're the one in a million who can have a BMI of 35 but somehow not be obese. That's crapola.

I have been duly ticked off, I know my original opinion was arrogant and that the way I have done things is not for everyone. In my mind we werent even arguing that, but you obviously see it differently.

I won't take it as an insult that you are calling me obtuse, because you come across as someone with tunnel vision. So perhaps that is just your narrow assessment based on your own bias.

What I am trying to get across is that obese, fat, overweight, whatever you want to call it may not be unhealthy in some individuals. There is such a thing as waist to hip ratio that is considered a good indicator of potential health problems. A person who is considered obese according to those BMI charts that are refered to often in this post can be healthier and and fitter than someone of a "normal" BMI.

I believe the op was trying to understand why someone would aim for a BMI that is not considered healthy according to those charts. I think many have offered their explanation as to why. So to oversimplify this whole issue based on BMI charts is very short sighted.

I will not tell you to "bugger off" because that would be rude of me. I have nothing more to say on this issue.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

What I am trying to get across is that obese, fat, overweight, whatever you want to call it may not be unhealthy in some individuals. There is such a thing as waist to hip ratio that is considered a good indicator of potential health problems.

Ohhh, this is WRONG WRONG WRONG!

What you are referring to is "specific" weight related health issues. One might be fat yet not a major cardiac risk because their waist line is not huge enough. That does NOT mean they are not at risk for diabetes. Where one carries their weight statistically determines WHICH of the MAJOR health problems they will likely experience.

If you carry your fat in your waist you are likely to have heart problems. If you carry your fat in your legs and thighs you are likely to suffer diabetes.

You tell me, where is it that you carry fat in excess that is safe. Something that is unlikely to cause SERIOUS weight related issues and I'll show you proof you are wrong.

I believe the op was trying to understand why someone would aim for a BMI that is not considered healthy according to those charts. I think many have offered their explanation as to why. So to oversimplify this whole issue based on BMI charts is very short sighted.

Yes, it would appear it is short sighted indeed. I personally call it denial.

I will not tell you to "bugger off" because that would be rude of me. I have nothing more to say on this issue.

See, now... I would. I call it realistic and honest vs. denial.

[Mariposa Bella 3]

Point out to me where I have said I am better than you. Please.

Did you think my post was directed at you?? It was not. Why have you taken all my posts personally??

[kagoscuba 0]

I'm a runner, and I'm always having to take grief from people (especially my wife) who happily point out that you'll get the same benefit walking three miles as you will running the same distance, and you won't risk crippling arthritis of all your major body parts. So the other day I had a flash! Going back to high school auto mechanics and some hot-rod magazines, I explained to my wife that since I'm exerting the same force to move the same mass the same distance, I'm doing the same amount of work--but since I'm doing it twice as fast, I'm exerting two times the power and probably using twice the calories. My wife is pretty bright, though: she pointed out that if I run and exert twice the power in half the time, and then sit on my butt desperately trying to catch my breath for the other half of the time, then average power exerted is a wash. Is she right? Does running have any calorie advantage over walking, or am I really being that dumb (not like it would be the first time)? --Peter Prout, Winchester, Virginia

Cecil replies:

A complicated question, often answered wrong even by those who ought to know. We'll take it by steps:

1. The unschooled view, which springs from the ancient instinct that pain = gain, is that running is better than walking because afterward you're sweating like a horse and gasping for breath.

2. Those with a semester or two of physics under their belts, on the other hand, reason that since the amount of work involved is the same, running a mile has the same impact as walking an equal distance.

3. However, this assumes that running and walking are equally efficient means of locomotion. Generally speaking they're not--running requires substantially more energy per unit of distance. Several factors contribute to this. Shall we start with entropy and the second law of thermodynamics? Eh, maybe not. How about aerodynamic drag, which increases with the square of the speed? Probably not something you need to worry about unless you've really been hitting the steroids. Here's something a little more relevant: Analyses of the biomechanics of walking vs. running suggest that walking is a more efficient gait except at higher speeds. The crossover point is somewhere around 5 mph, varying with the individual. At that speed, walking and running are equally efficient. Below the crossover point, running is less efficient, apparently because you lose energy absorbing the impact of the ground with your bent knees. Above it, walking falls behind because of the awkwardness of the racewalking gait. Gait is the critical issue, incidentally--running speed is irrelevant. Subtracting out the energy required just to keep you breathing, you'll use about the same amount of juice finishing the marathon in two hours or four.

4. To return to our main point, running consumes more calories per unit of distance than walking. For a person who weighs 70 kilograms (about 154 pounds), walking at 5 kilometers per hour (3.1 miles per hour) consumes 50 calories per kilometer, whereas running at 10 kph (6.2 mph) consumes 78 calories per kilometer.

5. Aha, you say, running is better than walking! Not necessarily, even if we narrowly define "better" as "consumes more calories." When you begin a workout your body is metabolizing carbohydrates, but as the minutes tick by you start burning fat--at minute 50 of light exercise, you're chugging along on a 75/25 fat/carb mix. Sixty percent of your maximum aerobic capacity (reached at roughly 75 percent of maximal heart rate, which is generally calculated as 220 minus your age) is optimal for fat burning; as exercise becomes increasingly strenuous you start burning more carbs. Some have seized on these facts to claim that sustained low- to moderate-intensity exercise is a better way to shed flab than going all out. The point is hotly disputed; I merely note that for the significantly overweight, walking can be easier on the heart, joints, etc.

6. At any rate, calorie consumption isn't the chief goal of exercise; cardiovascular fitness is. The American College of Sports Medicine says you should exercise three to five times a week in 20- to 60-minute sessions intense enough to raise your pulse to between 60 and 90 percent of your maximal heart rate. Such exercise should be aerobic, meaning something like running, brisk walking, biking, swimming, or cross-country skiing, as opposed to, say, weight training. Is running better than walking for this purpose? Depends. Running is certainly more of a workout per unit of time, but if your idea is that 15 minutes of running equals 30 minutes of walking, forget it--sustained exertion is the key. Then again, while any exercise is better than none, if your wife thinks a no-sweat half-hour amble around the neighborhood is the equivalent of your three-mile run, she's kidding herself too.

[green 6]

Maybe someone ought to start a poll as to what form of exercise each of us prefers: walking or running or bicycling? :ranger: (There are some cycling fans on LBT. :mad:) I am a walker. Fat or thin, I love walking. I always have. :biggrin1:

[Wheetsin 714]

I used to go by a goal weight. I quit that about 16 mos ago. My goal weight was 180, which was the weight I was last happy with my body. Understanding of course that my body this time around is going to look nothing like my body that time around.

By most BMI charts, this has me in the overweight category by 0.05 pts.

After weighing almost 400 lbs for the last 8 years, I would consider myself at goal if I could get to that weight, even though it's still technically classified as overweight.

Because I believe I will be happy there.

And for me a goal is a goal, not a rule. If I get to 180 and am not happy, then we'll go more. Simple as that.

I absolutely believe there's a fear of failure. That's why so many of us never maintained any loss ever. But there's also an element of compromise. Think of it this way:

I was once talking to a plastic surgeon who commented that he LOVED doing surgeries for WLS patients. In fact, he said he would like to be an exclusive WLS provider, if it could support the business. His reasoning was that when you take someone who has been morbidly obese or beyond for the better part of their lives, they're THRILLED with anything you can do for them. They will GLADLY take the surgical scar over the wrecked skin. He said that's not the case with non-WLS patients - they're nit-picky, finding fault in everything, and generally not grateful for their results.

So maybe your surgery results aren't perfect, and we know they could be better, but damn - compared to where we were, it's GREAT to be there, and we'll take it.

[losingjusme 12]

I used to go by a goal weight. I quit that about 16 mos ago. My goal weight was 180, which was the weight I was last happy with my body. Understanding of course that my body this time around is going to look nothing like my body that time around.

By most BMI charts, this has me in the overweight category by 0.05 pts.

After weighing almost 400 lbs for the last 8 years, I would consider myself at goal if I could get to that weight, even though it's still technically classified as overweight.

Because I believe I will be happy there.

And for me a goal is a goal, not a rule. If I get to 180 and am not happy, then we'll go more. Simple as that.

take 3 - my computer hates me ...

Wheetsin,

my thoughts exactly. we have the same 'goal' weights and i started at 400 as well (although i believe you are a tad taller than i am).

if i get to 180 (my feelings right now), i would be overjoyed. if i dont like where i am then i'll keep trudging along ... :rolleyes

if i dont have a clearly set goal, i go nowhere.

[losingjusme 12]

Maybe someone ought to start a poll as to what form of exercise each of us prefers: walking or running or bicycling? :ranger: (There are some cycling fans on LBT. :mad:) I am a walker. Fat or thin, I love walking. I always have. :biggrin1:

**ducking**

you forgot the favorite of many ...

*none

[green 6]

Very cool post, Wheets. And, losin', lol, grrl.

[sweetviolet 0]

I currently am 3 lbs from my doctors projected weight loss at 2 yrs...I am 16 months out and have surpassed his prediction already...MY goal is 40 more lbs. Currently I have lost 120# and EVERY thing I sit on/sleep on/ride in HURTS!! I cannot imagine the new furniture bills...and my husband was worried about clothes LOL!! My doctor does more rny...the lap band was said not to be as successful and certainly not as quick....but alas I thought it would be a better venue for me so I dug my heels in and got the lapband--and a better set of eating habits in spite of myself...to be very honest with all of you, if I never lost another lb it would be ok...I am a normal size and a 60 yr old grandmother...not a model on the cover of a bathing suit magazine!! I went from a 5x to a loose 16 and thinner than the day I married...I AM DONE WITH DIETS!! I have learned to eat a healthy proportioned meal and have taken the adult responsibility that comes with th band program..have I had temptation???of course but so its 1 cup of ice cream once in a while...don't ya think thin people live this way??? I want to live a normal life that the band affords me...all my life I did ww/exchange/atkins/south beach etc etc etc.........I am now a normal size, can sit in any seat ,wear a seatbelt, go on rides, and I am going to eat like a normal person and not give thought ever again to any crazy program that entices a fat person to think by doing or using their plan they will have instant success....whew!!! thanks for letting me say this!!!

[Chickie 15]

Did you think my post was directed at you?? It was not. Why have you taken all my posts personally??

Because you use my size when you post, and you have referred to my size as scrawny.

Being told, even in a round about way, that you are skinny and scrawny is down right offensive.

[Jachut 487]

Interesting thoughts everyone.

I want to clarify something though.

I do not have a problem with what anyone wants to weigh.

I dont care what you want to weigh.

I can see the sense in if you've had a BMI of 50, then 35 is a fantastic achievement and may take MORE effort than it took me to lose weight

I dont care what you want to weight

I have no problem with what you want to weigh

What you want to weigh is your own personal business.

Phew. Hope that's clear?

What I wanted to understand is why people choose those higher weights. Not because I deep down need to understand it, just because it was an interesting discussion and this is R&R and we can discuss anything.

So do I understand it now?. Hmmm. Not really. Im a very driven person, I have really really rigid personal definitions of success. I cant see stopping short of anything but normal BMI. But that's me.

So then, what have I learned? That my definitions of success make my life quite difficult and its rather hard to achieve said success, happiness and personal satisfaction when you cant give an inch either way. I've had to accept lesser goals in some areas of my life, so please dont think I cant apply this to someone else's goal weight and understand it. To me though, I've had to give on some issues because the sacrifices arent worth the goal, or they affect other people or I just plain cant do what I set out to do. But in my head, I'm on a breather, I havent given up on the goal. That's my personality and that's perhaps why I'm unable to really empathise with the goal weight thing.

I've also learned that the way I view life - to be conquered, and won over in a blaze of glory is not how everyone sees it. Ok, I think my way is more joyous but some people dont so well, why would that worry me unduly? It doesnt.

So what did I conclude? That I dont think the same way as some people and they dont think the same way as me and there's really no way to bridge that, other than to respect one another's decisions, we cant get into one another's heads.

So then, if all is so hunky dory, why do I keep coming back here for more?

Because some people keep flapping their mouths without engaging their brains! And I am nothing if not stubborn. Some people I respect highly have made great points here - Wheetsin, Kat, LosingJustMe, Alexandra, Chickie, Wasa to name a few. Points that dont necessarily coincide with what I was thinking but I respect the opinion just the same becuase its considered and moderate and has made me think.

Yet others are hysterically spewing made up information at us that is just so flipping stupid that I cant resist. Phyllis, I am now never going to think of you as anything other than a defensive person who is intimidated by anyone who she thinks considers themselves superior.

Show me where I said running was better than anything else - I used it as an analogy to show how I felt about things in general and made the point that it frustrated me when people dismissed it becuase I believe they dont know what they're missing. How is that saying thou SHALT run?! I didnt! I said I loved it, nothing more. Did I ever say heavier was ugly, did I say ALL thin people are healthier than fat people? No, I didnt.

Did I ever say that you must lose weight on a horrid, strict very low calorie diet? Nup. In fact I have ALWAYS been an advocate on this board of moderate eating, making this a lifestyle and losing slowly.

Hmm, methinks that people who go all hysterical when someone mentions things like running or that statistically speaking, having a "normal" BMI is more likely to result in health and long life than being obese are the ones who have the problem. They dont strike me as confident, self reliant people who are secure in their own beliefs. They strike me as people with inferiority complexes.

Oh, and just to clarify even further.

I dont care what you weigh.

It's your business what you weigh.

It doesnt bother me what you weigh.

Just own it. Dont feed me all the bullsh*t around it OK? In no way am I arguing that you dont have the right to choose a higher goal weight. What I am arguing is that your stated reasons for doing so are for the most part flawed. You are going nutso about there being exceptions to every rule. You are right, there are. But the rule holds true for MOST and I'm fascinated to know what makes you so sure that YOU are the exception to the rule, that YOU can have a BMI of say 35 and mysteriously not be obese or at risk of any health problems. And I'd also like to know why being healthier than a sick person of lighter weight is any real reason to be happy?

I'm not even going to go into the arguments for why that theory of walking burning more fat than running (or why more moderate exercise burns more fat than harder exercise if you like) is debatable. There's a wealth of information out there that shows just how flawed that one is - suffice to say dont believe everything you read on the internet. Try actually doing both and see what results you get.

[babygrl1234 6]

Jacqui,

The goal weight I picked is the highest normal BMI I could choose. Why? Because I want to be a normal BMI. Why the top of the normal range? Because I have been heavy my whole life. I have no idea what it feels like to be smaller than a size 14. As many times as I have failed on diets in my life it is hard for me to wrap my mind around this band working for me. Hell everything worked for me for awhile. So I figured if I set my goal higher it will be easier to achieve. At 278 it was hard to ever believe that I could get down to 155, even though that is what I had chosen for my goal. And to be prefectly honest with you it was more of a cosmetic goal...I just wanted it to be lower on my ticker in my signature lol. When I started this journey I really did not even think I could get below 200.

So for me I think a lot has to do with what I expect to achieve from all of my previous experiences. If you have never been thin it is really hard to imaging yourself at a low weight. It seems downright impossible. I am only 27 and it is hard for me to envision, I can't image how much more difficult it would be if I was 10 or 20 years older.

Anyhow I don't know if that helps at all but it is just my experience with the whole thing.

[green 6]

What I have been getting out of this thread is that some of us are more goal oriented than others. I believe that people used to refer to type A and type B personalities. (I don't know if they still do.) Anyhow, As are very focussed, intense, and goal-oriented folk. Bs are very laid-back, diffuse; they are gadflies or slackers. I suspect, and I may be very wrong, that part of the variance in our approaches to weight loss goals may be linked to our different personality types.

I also suspect that many of those who set more modest goals for themselves fall into at least one of the following two groups: 1) they have had serious weight issues throughout their entire lives 2) they are older women (or men) who do not believe that it is possible (or perhaps even advisable) for themselves to return to the weights which they enjoyed when they were in their teens and early 20s. Certainly middle-aged people, and I am talking about normos here, do tend to beef up. Both men and women will grow wider in the waist and hips. It seems that nature does not plan for us to be as light as we were as adolescents.

And as for the first group, the folks who have always suffered from obesity, these are individuals who have never ever experienced life within the normo range. To expect someone who is in this situation to make the emotional leap and set a normo goal toute de suite may well be impossible. Many folks want the band because they just want and dream of shedding some of their excess weight. I personally see nothing wrong with setting a modest goal for oneself; once this achieved the bar can always be raised, you know.