Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76   ^
Old Sun, Jan-17-16, 22:34
jschwab jschwab is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 6,150
 
Plan: Atkins72/Paleo/NoGrain/IF
Stats: 285/224.5/200 Female 5 feet 5.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 71%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cotonpal
There was Richard Simmons who was fat through childhood and into early adulthood I believe. He still has a website and they sell his dvd's on Amazon. He used to have a tv show. He was always a little too exuberant for me but lots of people liked him.

Jean


Yes! He's another great example from way back when. I always felt like you could tell on him that he was a fat person inside a skinny body. There is an ultra runner named Scott Jurek who is now skinny but who was similar, always heavy as a child. He has the same look. He might also have that lookm because he follows a vegan diet, maybe similar to the low fat diet of Richard Simmons.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #77   ^
Old Mon, Jan-18-16, 05:17
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 352
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 190/179/175 Female 5 feet 5 inches
BF:
Progress: 85%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cotonpal
There was Richard Simmons who was fat through childhood and into early adulthood I believe. He still has a website and they sell his dvd's on Amazon. He used to have a tv show. He was always a little too exuberant for me but lots of people liked him.

Jean


What I always found problematic about Richard Simmons was the belief that exercise alone is all you need to lose weight. Volek et al have finally proven that this is not true for everyone. Granted marathon runners are extremely thin but they run for many hours every day. The rest of us might exercise half an hour a day, if that. Simmons always seemed to retain his 'baby fat' look.

I am glad to hear the French fashion industry has decided to abandon the anorexic look for their models.
Reply With Quote
  #78   ^
Old Mon, Jan-18-16, 13:52
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 4,009
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benay
Simmons always seemed to retain his 'baby fat' look.
That's what I see in many people who focus on calories or points and do not tweak their diet to figure out which foods are inflammatory for them. I could never get below 150 until I eliminated dairy and grain proteins as well as sugar; the last 15 lbs of "baby fat" came off with no effort (of course I was well-satiated by fat & protein and it is easier to keep on track if you are never hungry).
Reply With Quote
  #79   ^
Old Mon, Jan-18-16, 15:04
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Posts: 9,450
 
Plan: Atkins/LCHF/Keto
Stats: 195/172/150 Female 63in
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

Quote:
What I always found problematic about Richard Simmons was the belief that exercise alone is all you need to lose weight.
Not exactly. I once owned a gimmick from Richard Simmons called "Deal a Meal." It was a bunch of cards--foods, I guess--with a slotted folder for the day. You could select and plan your meals in advance--or put the card in as you went along--to calculate your diet. It was a good gimmick. If you used it!

At the age of 33--a recreational runner/10K participant up to that point--I trained hard and ran a marathon in 4:17. At the end of the day, I weighed my all-time adult low weight, and all the fat I had left was stored, never to be accessed as always, in my thunder thighs. I keep that in mind when I criticize myself almost forty years later. Neither diet nor exercise will solve every problem.
Reply With Quote
  #80   ^
Old Mon, Jan-18-16, 22:32
jschwab jschwab is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 6,150
 
Plan: Atkins72/Paleo/NoGrain/IF
Stats: 285/224.5/200 Female 5 feet 5.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 71%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkloots
At the age of 33--a recreational runner/10K participant up to that point--I trained hard and ran a marathon in 4:17. At the end of the day, I weighed my all-time adult low weight, and all the fat I had left was stored, never to be accessed as always, in my thunder thighs. I keep that in mind when I criticize myself almost forty years later. Neither diet nor exercise will solve every problem.


That's me except reverse. My thighs are 21" which is really small for someone who weighs over 200 pounds - and that's AFTER working hard to pump them up with muscle. One the other hand, I just lost 40 pounds I gained while sick and I'm still wearing the same bras and they fit just fine. I never lose up there at all.
Reply With Quote
  #81   ^
Old Tue, Jan-19-16, 05:25
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 352
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 190/179/175 Female 5 feet 5 inches
BF:
Progress: 85%
Default

"Thunder thighs" and breasts that don't lose fat --
I have always had 'thunder thighs' Inherited trait.
As a young woman I was small breasted. That had changed by the time I hit 250 and had a 'cleavage' for the first time in my life.
When I lost 80 pounds (and regained 20) the 'thunder thighs' were still there and so was the cleavage. Interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #82   ^
Old Tue, Jan-19-16, 07:23
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 11,979
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

When I was 16 and 17 (and overweight) I had a job in town that I got to on my bicycle. We lived in the suburbs. That was an hour and a half of bicycle riding, almost every day.

Didn't lose a pound.
Reply With Quote
  #83   ^
Old Tue, Jan-19-16, 09:34
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Posts: 9,450
 
Plan: Atkins/LCHF/Keto
Stats: 195/172/150 Female 63in
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

Quote:
That's me except reverse.
When I get to envying women with slender legs, I take time to observe that they may have other concerns. When looking for strategic clothes, it is easier, I think, to deal with (let's say disguise) lower body than upper body disproportions. Big shirts from Roaman's or Woman Within (love 'em!) even out my shape. Not so much for women with broad shoulders and bigger back and chest measurements compared to their slender hips. So...yeah. We all have something to obsess about, right?

Now if we were Oprah, we'd have a fashion stylist, a talented photographer, a first-class airbrush artist, and a thousand photos to edit for the best cover shot.
I wanna see her when she rolls out of bed in the morning. NOT!

Reiterating: I love Oprah and wish her well.
Reply With Quote
  #84   ^
Old Tue, Jan-19-16, 13:19
jschwab jschwab is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 6,150
 
Plan: Atkins72/Paleo/NoGrain/IF
Stats: 285/224.5/200 Female 5 feet 5.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 71%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkloots
When looking for strategic clothes, it is easier, I think, to deal with (let's say disguise) lower body than upper body disproportions. Big shirts from Roaman's or Woman Within (love 'em!) even out my shape.


Yes, and what is it with empire waists? They just make me look 100 pounds heavier! But then pants for you are a pain. I'd rather have the pear shape for sure, though.
Reply With Quote
  #85   ^
Old Tue, Jan-19-16, 17:09
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 11,979
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jschwab
Yes, and what is it with empire waists?


And low-rise pants!
Reply With Quote
  #86   ^
Old Tue, Jan-19-16, 18:04
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Posts: 4,577
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
And low-rise pants!


Low rise pants are for me fall down pants. I need the waist to fall at the waist. By and large clothes are not designed for the "mature" figure or at least they're not designed for my "mature" figure.

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #87   ^
Old Wed, Jan-20-16, 13:17
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Posts: 9,450
 
Plan: Atkins/LCHF/Keto
Stats: 195/172/150 Female 63in
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

I own two or three pairs of jeans that actually fit me. Hope they last forever. The lower-rise feature actually works better for me, because my waist is so much smaller proportionately than my butt. Other than elastic at the waist, a lower rise (not low mind you!) seems to help.

Empire styles don't look good on any body!

What I've missed all my life is the pencil skirt, and the straight shift. These two garments NEVER fit (or look right) on my x-treme pear shape. The pencil skirt seems to be the answer to everything fashion-wise. But even tailoring won't overcome my non-conforming shape. Oh well. If that's my worst clothing complaint, I'm grateful. I'm only doomed to be creative and colorful, not nekkid.
Reply With Quote
  #88   ^
Old Thu, Jan-21-16, 06:03
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,220
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Read this on a FB page today..True??

" I just had a neighbor tell me ww is now $44 a month with whatever e-tools they also supply a person with."

I think that is not far off from what it has been, when they charged by the week. But when FB, Reddit, and this forum are free and available 24 hours a day...why?

Another thing (know I am blessed by location and having health insurance) but my co-pay to see Dr. Westman use to be $25 for a once/month visit.
Reply With Quote
  #89   ^
Old Thu, Jan-21-16, 06:30
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 352
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 190/179/175 Female 5 feet 5 inches
BF:
Progress: 85%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Read this on a FB page today..True??

I think that is not far off from what it has been, when they charged by the week. But when FB, Reddit, and this forum are free and available 24 hours a day...why? .


I suspect, and this is just a guess, WW meetings must pay rent and salaries so they have to charge to cover the costs.

Why people go to meetings, instead of being on free forums, may have to do with needing the face-to-face encouragement. For some, writing of any kind is a chore but talking is pure pleasure. So they go to talk and share their issues and get immediate answers to questions.

My problem with the WW meetings was that they were run by successful WW's. The mantra was "If I can do it, you can do it." As a result, most could never deviate from the plan when giving advice. They had no answers for those who followed the plan strictly (me) but did not lose. It was not till I read Protein Power (and lost) that I discovered we all had different metabolisms and food type was as important, if not more important, than calories. WW then and now must follow the Dietary Guidelines which is low fat. For some of us, that just doesn't work.

I hope it works for Oprah.
Reply With Quote
  #90   ^
Old Thu, Jan-21-16, 07:39
Seejay's Avatar
Seejay Seejay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,025
 
Plan: Optimal Diet
Stats: 00/00/00 Female 62 inches
BF:
Progress: 8%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benay
I suspect, and this is just a guess, WW meetings must pay rent and salaries so they have to charge to cover the costs.
At one time they were paying low or no rent because they persuaded members to host meetings at churches and businesses. Our church ended one such association because they wouldn't pay market rate for renting the facility, and we found it offensive that on their web site they presented this practice as a feature to benefit shareholders. We as a church decided we were open to such deals for non-profits but not to profit-making enterprises.

Quote:
WW then and now must follow the Dietary Guidelines which is low fat.
It is a choice for them what they follow. The original plan was carb restricted along the lines of Lutz. Low fat came later. Their program has been designed and tested such that if it works for some, enough to make money, and avoiding any taint of not following govt guidelines, then that's ok, never mind who it doesn't work for. IN the 80s it actually made metabolic syndrome worse from the low fat approach.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:54.


Copyright © 2000-2019 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.