3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community  

Go Back   3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community > Diet Central > South Beach Diet

South Beach Diet Fat Chicks on the Beach!

10 reasons you're not losing weight

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-21-2008, 12:48 PM   #1
Come on ONEderland!
 
uscarchie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 367

S/C/G: 254/ticker/175

Height: 5'-7"

Default 10 reasons you're not losing weight

Some of us feel like we've stalled out a bit (I only do 1/2 of the time, and most of that is associated with TOM), but here's a link to an article on MSN:

http://health.msn.com/weight-loss/sl...8&imageindex=1

The one I thought was pretty silly was the claim that we should be aiming to be a size 2 rather than a size 6.... That's a long way off from where I'm at right now, and I don't even think a size 2 is physically possible for me... damn my curvy sexy hips.

Also, I think the starting all your life changing goals at one time is a good idea. It can be really challenging, but you're more motivated to work hard.

Food for thought.
__________________
Life Goal

4th of July Challenge


Don't let "Not Perfect" be the enemy of "Good."
uscarchie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 01:27 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Schmoodle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East Coast US
Posts: 4,170

S/C/G: 245/???/145

Height: 5'4"

Default

According to them I am okay!
I am not an early riser, drink some wine weekly, don't have central AC in my house, hate to exercise, eat 1 oz dark chocolate every week, am practically perfect in every way other than weight, eat my fruit and veggies, get plenty of potassium. that sarcopenial thing, well, guess I gotta work on it.
__________________
Life's a journey, not a destination.
It's easier to stay on plan than to get back on plan.
Schmoodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 01:32 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
JulieJ08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: California
Posts: 7,097

S/C/G: 197/135/?

Height: 5'7"

Default

LOL, was gonna check it out, but was not going to page through one by one by one. Something about we should aim for a size 2 sounds like utter BS though.
__________________
Started 4/14/08 LINK TO PROGRESS PICS 1/1/2009
"It is impossible to live pleasurably without living wisely, well, and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely, well, and justly without living pleasurably" Epicurus
JulieJ08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 01:37 PM   #4
No longer super size!!!
 
grneyedmustang's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,371

S/C/G: 282/ticker/190

Height: 6' 0"

Default

According to this formula and approach in their article:

Detour: If you try the diet-only approach, you need a clear idea of how much you should be eating. Multiply your weight by 10, then add your weight again to that sum: That gives you the number of calories you need to maintain your current weight without activity. For example, 135 pounds x 10 = 1,350 + 135 = 1,485 calories.

I should be eating less than 2761 calories in order to lose weight. If it were only that easy!

And I will NEVER be a size two. I was aiming for a size 12, I think I might go a little more optimistic and aim for a size 10.
__________________


Visit me on Sparkpeople!
http://www.sparkpeople.com/mypage.asp?id=LEXIEMUSTANG

Add me on pinterest! http://www.pinterest.com/grneyedmustang/

"Losers quit when they're tired, winners quit when they've won!" --Kevin Hart

"You can't out-exercise poor eating habits." - nelie, 3fc

Last edited by grneyedmustang : 08-21-2008 at 01:38 PM.
grneyedmustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 01:53 PM   #5
Determined to lose!
 
Loriann7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,331

Default

According to this formula and approach in their article:

Detour: If you try the diet-only approach, you need a clear idea of how much you should be eating. Multiply your weight by 10, then add your weight again to that sum: That gives you the number of calories you need to maintain your current weight without activity. For example, 135 pounds x 10 = 1,350 + 135 = 1,485 calories.


I agree, I should eat less than 2002 calories! hhmmm, doing that, and maintaining (yet once again) at 182!
__________________
Timothy 4:8 (King James Version) 8For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.


Nov weight loss goals
Loriann7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 01:57 PM   #6
Come on ONEderland!
 
uscarchie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 367

S/C/G: 254/ticker/175

Height: 5'-7"

Default

Ever get the idea that this article was written by a very skinny person?
__________________
Life Goal

4th of July Challenge


Don't let "Not Perfect" be the enemy of "Good."
uscarchie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:06 PM   #7
Healthy mommy
 
Fat Melanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 1,418

S/C/G: 246/235/150

Height: 5'8 3/4

Default

I am nearly 5'9 and I have a small waist but curvy hips as well, and I will also never be a size 2, nor do I want to be.

Why in the WORLD should we all strive to be cookie cut-outs of eachother, everyone a size 2, no matter what frame or height or sort of shape you naturally have? So me at 5'9, at a size 2, would be ANOREXIC, whereas perhaps a 5'1 person with a smaller frame could look fantastic at size 2. Or size 6. Or 8! And of course, there are probably 5'9 women who have smaller frames and would look great at a size 2. But we're all different!

Why is that article saying that? God, it's just another damn way to make us women with weight problems feel like crap!

I'm gonna go read the article beside although I'm ranting, I haven't read it yet.
__________________
First Goal: 25-40lbs by December 25th



Second goal: To be decided when the first goal is obtained

Last edited by Fat Melanie : 08-21-2008 at 02:09 PM.
Fat Melanie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:15 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Schmoodle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East Coast US
Posts: 4,170

S/C/G: 245/???/145

Height: 5'4"

Default

My impression was, what they were suggesting was that you would not make your goal, so if you shot for a size 10, then you would probably end up a 12, so by shooting for a size 2, you might end up an 8. I don't think this approach would work for me, I would just get frustrated that I could never get to goal! I'm not shooting for any particular size, and the weight I picked is pretty random. I figure when I get that close, my body is going to let me know where we are comfortable for maintenance, whatever size that is, so be it. Although, if they keep up with the vanity sizing, and making the sizes bigger, we might all be able to end up a size 2!
__________________
Life's a journey, not a destination.
It's easier to stay on plan than to get back on plan.
Schmoodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:23 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
kaplods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,349

S/C/G: SW:394/310/180

Height: 5'6"

Default

The problem with some of these, I suppose begs the question "is weight loss all there is?" If weight loss is your only goal, then maybe it makes sense to set unrealisticly low goals that may allow you to lose more weight, but may also lead you to feel crappier about yourself. Or to tolerate being uncomfortably warm in order to lose a little more a little faster.

I don't drink, not because I'm intentionally depriving myself, but because I never did care for alcohols effects, much. And now I'm on medications that aren't really alcohol compatible (my pharmacist says I can have one drink now and again safely) as one drink makes it "beddie bye" time for me). And I'm not going to start, just becaue it might help me lose a few pounds.

I think this is typical "chick-lit" magazine advice. Light, interesting, and of little to no practical value whatsoever.
__________________
My Etsy shop (currently closed for the summer)

http://www.dreamstormdesigns.etsy.com
etsy link by permission from 3fc! Want to add yours? Ask them!
kaplods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:26 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
prepping's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,158

S/C/G: 184/181/160

Height: 5'11"

Default my 2 cents... ; )

I read the article and understood their "size 2" comment as just an exaggerated example. It's directly related to how much *umph* you put into reaching your goals.

If I was to apply it to myself, I had to constantly adjust my goal weight as I was losing. First I thought 180 would be just right and anything else would be too skinny. Then I got to 180 and found that I could probably be happy at 170. Once I got to 170 I figured I'd aim for 160 -- but if I find a happy place in between now and then I'll stick with it. It's just seeing that end goal means that it's not yet time to quit and I just have to keep striving.

I am not aiming to be a size 2 - but I understand the mentality to which this statement was applied. I suggest anyone who questions it could read the article and identify how they want to interpret it. No cookie cutter scenarios, just an example used.
__________________
prepping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:29 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
JulieJ08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: California
Posts: 7,097

S/C/G: 197/135/?

Height: 5'7"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmoodle View Post
My impression was, what they were suggesting was that you would not make your goal, so if you shot for a size 10, then you would probably end up a 12, so by shooting for a size 2, you might end up an 8.
Now if that's what was meant, it bothers me too. Because I think maintenance is only possible by becoming more honest with yourself, and living more in reality, not less.

Sounds like the games a person plays to try to keep up with unrealistic pressures.
__________________
Started 4/14/08 LINK TO PROGRESS PICS 1/1/2009
"It is impossible to live pleasurably without living wisely, well, and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely, well, and justly without living pleasurably" Epicurus
JulieJ08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:31 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
prepping's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,158

S/C/G: 184/181/160

Height: 5'11"

Default

Schmoodle, that would be something if we all ended up a size 2 eh! LOL I'm still trying to figure out how "00" girls continue to exist. I'd say once you hit size 0, it's like you become your own black hole. (nothing against small women, just peculiar sizing methods)

Maybe sizes will start going into the negatives? or maybe fractions... hmmm, something to think about indeed.
__________________
prepping is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:35 PM   #13
Shooting for the moon
 
Thin4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Hampton Roads
Posts: 662

S/C/G: 210/151/140

Height: 5' 5.5"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmoodle View Post
My impression was, what they were suggesting was that you would not make your goal, so if you shot for a size 10, then you would probably end up a 12, so by shooting for a size 2, you might end up an 8. I don't think this approach would work for me, I would just get frustrated that I could never get to goal! I'm not shooting for any particular size, and the weight I picked is pretty random. I figure when I get that close, my body is going to let me know where we are comfortable for maintenance, whatever size that is, so be it. !
this was my understanding too - and I had the same reaction. I can see where they are coming from but that doesn't mean the theory is correct! They may be able to say that z follows x and y but I don't think they have enough evidence to say whether it was caused by x OR y if that makes any sense. - Ever since I read Freakonomics my view on statements like that has been a little different. - there can always be less obvious causes for the end result.

That (what Schmoodle said) is also pretty much how I feel about my "goal" weight. I think when I get close to there, (whenever that is!) I will have a better idea of what I need to do, how I feel, etc... right now I really have no idea what I should eventually weigh or what size I should be. I just know that I should not weigh this much or be this big. - I am not comfortable with myself as I am so I am trying to change it.
__________________



Starting Weight 7.22.2008 = 210 1st Mini Goal Met 10.5.2008 = 185 2nd Mini Goal = 170 Met January 9, 2009 3rd Mini Goal = 155 Met March 27, 2009
Progress pics

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. -1 Corinthians 9:24


Thin4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:38 PM   #14
Healthy mommy
 
Fat Melanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 1,418

S/C/G: 246/235/150

Height: 5'8 3/4

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by preppingbride View Post

I am not aiming to be a size 2 - but I understand the mentality to which this statement was applied. I suggest anyone who questions it could read the article and identify how they want to interpret it. No cookie cutter scenarios, just an example used.
Well, I went and read it after my cookie cutter comment. And I can now see how it was meant to be interpreted.

HOWEVER, I still don't agree with it, at least, not as a weight-loss-plan that I myself would personally implement. If I told myself to think 'size 2' rather than size '8', then I would become discouraged and feel like a fat bloated whale because I don't care how skinny I get, I will never, EVER in a billion years be a size 2 and telling myself to 'shoot for size 2' won't get me there any quicker. I understand the article doesn't mean LITERALLY shoot for a size 2 or that you even have to use size 2 as the size (for example, I could shoot for size 6 when really wanting to be a size 10 or something, if I were to use their technique). But however their technique could be used, it wouldn't work for me. It would only serve to discourage me. Because after awhile, say for example that I did get to that size 8/10... then I'd feel like, well wait a minute, I was shooting for a 6, so that's not good enough! Even if I looked fantastic as an 8.

It could potentially work for some. Just not for me.
__________________
First Goal: 25-40lbs by December 25th



Second goal: To be decided when the first goal is obtained
Fat Melanie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:41 PM   #15
Healthy mommy
 
Fat Melanie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 1,418

S/C/G: 246/235/150

Height: 5'8 3/4

Default

I'm shooting for 150 lbs.... to me, in their scenario, I should probably strive to acheive an emaciated 115 lbs because if I don't, I won't actually ever make it to 150... but sorry, I just don't buy that. I'll make it to 150 and that's that and I refuse to be unrealistic and shoot for an unrealistic goal just because some magazine article claims that if I do, I'll lose more weight.
__________________
First Goal: 25-40lbs by December 25th



Second goal: To be decided when the first goal is obtained
Fat Melanie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Posts by members, moderators and admins are not considered medical advice
and no guarantee is made against accuracy.


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:39 AM.






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2