Married coworkers want me but I'm to heavy for hubby

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"At 150 pounds, you were not thin." If this isn't some pro-ana BS, I don't know what is. PP, read what you wrote here to your therapist. Tell him or her that you were disgusted with yourself when you gained five pounds after having a child. At your height, you should barely notice five pounds. (I know this because I am your height, and I lost 40 lbs as an adult, and no one noticed. I dropped from a tight 14 to a comfortable 12. 5 lbs? I weigh five pounds more on Sunday if I had chinese on Saturday!)

Therapists? You mean people who get paid by other people to make them feel like gaining 40 pounds is OK? No thank you.

Going from 140 to 150 is quite a change on MY body.

I don't know how you're built, and you don't know how I'm built, so your opinion doesn't mean very much. If size 12 is comfortable for you, good for you. My comfortable size, at which I am my comfortable, fit, toned best, is size 6. I don't go by what other people notice. I notice and that's enough. I don't tell you how much you should weigh so quit pretending you know what's right for other people.

There aren't words enough in the English language to make me believe going from 150 to 190 pound doesn't make one fat.

New poster - are you denying that you have body image issues?
I don't think anyone is denying that OP is overweight.

You don't know me so it's silly to think you can diagnose anything. I know myself and what's best on me, and that's good enough. The PC brigade need not approve.

Backpedal much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You don't need to be "PC" to feel sorry for someone who thinks that a five pound weight gain on a 5'10" frame is disgusting. We're not talking about 40 lbs, which on YOUR frame might be too much.

But remember that this ridiculous comment line started when you insisted that OP was grossly overweight at 190, and you know that you should weigh only 145, suggesting that 145 is the ideal weight for every woman of your height. Now you are backpedaling and saying that you just want what you feel is best for YOUR body, but you used that arbitrary number to judge OP.

145 might be truly healthy for you. 190 is likely too much for OP, but it is foolish to suggest that because you feel you are disgusting at 150, OP should also feel disgusting at 150.

Your view toward your body is unhealthy. When I gain five pounds I don't feel disgusting. I make some minor tweaks in my diet if necessary and move a little more, appreciating that fluctuations in body weight are normal, and plod along happily. I don't start a downward spiral of self-loathing.

Well now you're putting words in my mouth. Here is my original comment to OP:

"OP, I'm sorry. But I think you're fudging things a bit. You are not "a few pounds" over your weight. 40 pounds is a LOT of weight. And at 150 pounds, you were not thin. I know that because I'm 5'10'', and 150 is my upper range weight. I'm not fat per se at 150 pounds, but not thin either, and if I kept up my gym routine, I'd never get beyond 145. What I'm saying is that you have a weight problem. You really do. Whether this is the reason your DH is turned off or not, we'll never know, but your weight is an issue. It's up to you whether to take care of that or not, but your weight is not normal. "

As you can see, I never suggested she should weigh 145. I know she probably can't. But I stand by my comment that a 40-pound gain on a woman who was previously 150 is not "a few pounds", and neither can it be healthy or explained by some mysterious growth in muscle tissue. I judge her weight based on the 190 number. Not the 150 number. I never told her she should feel disgusting at 150. That, you made up. I still think 150 is not thin but no one has to be thin. Staying at 150 would have been an improvement for her.

Being 150 is not a five-pound gain for me, it's more like 10.

You and me may have different definitions of thin. To me, thin women are size 2, zero, double zero. Runway models are thin. This condition is not achievable for most women, nor is it healthy for them. So yes, 150 is not a thin woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know! But it is too late to make different decisions. We have a toddler.[/quote

Troll thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not all just the simple math of (calories in through food) - (calories burned through exercise). I've watched my wife eat far less than me while exercising far more than me (as in, among other things, training for and running a marathon) and still struggle with her weight. So, if you believe it's that simple, then you're either stupid, naive, or willfully ignorant.

But it really is simple math. You are right in that different people have different caloric needs -- we all have those friends that eat TONS and weigh 120 lbs. Life is unfair in this respect. But you can lose weight if you simply expend more calories than you consume. Typically you do that through a combination of cutting calories (and very healthy eating) and exercise.

Losing weight isn't easy in the sense that being hungry all the time sucks. And unfortunately, that is what it takes. I lost 40 lbs in about 6 months and have kept it off. It wasn't easy for sure (I'm almost 40 yo and have had 3 kids). But it can be done if you commit to it.

I agree that calories in/calories as the basic, underlying formula will work for most (not all) people. And I agree that weight loss can be achieved by most people. But it isn't "simple" for most people, on multiple levels.

And, it need not suck, and one need not be hungry all the time. I lost more than 145 lbs over 16 months, and was rarely hungry while losing weight. It definitely didn't suck; if it had, I couldn't have kept at the weight loss as long as I did. I actually think one of the keys to successful weight loss for a lot of people is finding a path that DOESN'T suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm always dumbfounded by threads like these. It's amazing to me that people can spout off numbers and formulas and such about weight. Here's what I do: eat right, work out, stay in my clothes. If my clothes don't fit right anymore, I don't buy new ones, I make changes to reestablish my fitness. I picture people going to the gym with calculators and spread sheets. I mean come on here. Some of you are really obsessed.

If you add 40 pounds, your clothes won't fit right anymore.

See? Foolproof method.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not all just the simple math of (calories in through food) - (calories burned through exercise). I've watched my wife eat far less than me while exercising far more than me (as in, among other things, training for and running a marathon) and still struggle with her weight. So, if you believe it's that simple, then you're either stupid, naive, or willfully ignorant.

But it really is simple math. You are right in that different people have different caloric needs -- we all have those friends that eat TONS and weigh 120 lbs. Life is unfair in this respect. But you can lose weight if you simply expend more calories than you consume. Typically you do that through a combination of cutting calories (and very healthy eating) and exercise.

Losing weight isn't easy in the sense that being hungry all the time sucks. And unfortunately, that is what it takes. I lost 40 lbs in about 6 months and have kept it off. It wasn't easy for sure (I'm almost 40 yo and have had 3 kids). But it can be done if you commit to it.

I agree that calories in/calories as the basic, underlying formula will work for most (not all) people. And I agree that weight loss can be achieved by most people. But it isn't "simple" for most people, on multiple levels.

And, it need not suck, and one need not be hungry all the time. I lost more than 145 lbs over 16 months, and was rarely hungry while losing weight. It definitely didn't suck; if it had, I couldn't have kept at the weight loss as long as I did. I actually think one of the keys to successful weight loss for a lot of people is finding a path that DOESN'T suck.

Wow! That's incredible. Congratulations.

AGree that you don't need to be hungry all the time. If you eat enough protein, fat and veggies and lose weight at a reasonable pace you shouldn't be hungry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm always dumbfounded by threads like these. It's amazing to me that people can spout off numbers and formulas and such about weight. Here's what I do: eat right, work out, stay in my clothes. If my clothes don't fit right anymore, I don't buy new ones, I make changes to reestablish my fitness. I picture people going to the gym with calculators and spread sheets. I mean come on here. Some of you are really obsessed.

If you add 40 pounds, your clothes won't fit right anymore.

See? Foolproof method.

That's what I'm saying. I'm agreeing with you. Ergo, the gain of 40 pounds = not good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm always dumbfounded by threads like these. It's amazing to me that people can spout off numbers and formulas and such about weight. Here's what I do: eat right, work out, stay in my clothes. If my clothes don't fit right anymore, I don't buy new ones, I make changes to reestablish my fitness. I picture people going to the gym with calculators and spread sheets. I mean come on here. Some of you are really obsessed.

If you add 40 pounds, your clothes won't fit right anymore.

See? Foolproof method.

That's what I'm saying. I'm agreeing with you. Ergo, the gain of 40 pounds = not good.

I know! I got ya. I'm just emphasizing how great the method really is.

[Anonymous]

You're the perfect weight to stuff full of meat!

[Anonymous]

If you are 5'10" and 100 pounds, you definitely need to gain 40 pounds!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A 135 pound man? Unless this is Kevin Hart we are talking about, he sounds disgustingly emaciated. Just no.

x2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saying that a 135 pound man is "gross" and "disgusting" seems like an awfully strong reaction. That's a fairly normal weight for a man who is a bit shorter than average.

Maybe some of you are reacting so strongly because skinny men make you unpleasantly aware of your own bovine proportions.

Or maybe the idea of a skinny, short dude grosses us all out. Women have liked tall, muscular men for ages- deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm sorry. But I think you're fudging things a bit. You are not "a few pounds" over your weight. 40 pounds is a LOT of weight. And at 150 pounds, you were not thin. I know that because I'm 5'10'', and 150 is my upper range weight. I'm not fat per se at 150 pounds, but not thin either, and if I kept up my gym routine, I'd never get beyond 145. What I'm saying is that you have a weight problem. You really do. Whether this is the reason your DH is turned off or not, we'll never know, but your weight is an issue. It's up to you whether to take care of that or not, but your weight is not normal.

I am not OP, but people have different body types. I am 5'11 and would have to lose a LOT of muscle (on purpose, which would be stupid) to get down to 150. I put on muscle easily.

Weight is meaningless without a body fat percentage. I posted above - at 205, I was 26% body fat. My ideal would be no lower than 190. I'd have to stop exercising entirely and severely limit calories to drop enough muscle to get down to 150. Anyone who is educated on exercise and body composition knows that you can't really tell if someone is "overweight" based on a number on the scale.

If at 5'10 you are 150 and not "thin" then you probably could do some work to improve your fitness and add some muscle. I wouldn't trade my body for yours, ever, even though given my numbers, you'd probably describe me as obese.

Since I know my body and you don't, it's meaningless for you to prescribe or diagnose my fitness level. But since you brought this up, here are the numbers.

I'm 5'10''. When I was at the gym four times a week kickboxing, stepping and lifting weight PLUS on the ice for six hours a week, I was 135 pounds and you could crack walnuts on my inner thighs. I had fabulous muscle tone all over. That schedule, though, wasn't realistic or sustainable for me beyond the two years I had it. With that, my ass and hips were still not model material since that's not the way I am built, and I'll always be slim on top and heavier on the bottom. Models my height are 115, 120 pounds. That's not achievable for me so I don't bother myself with it.

When I cut out the ice time, I settled at 140-145 pounds for the next six years. That is my target weight that takes some work to maintain because I eat out regularly and don't deny myself. And because I gain weight easily. At that weight, I am size six on bottom and potentially a four on top. That is healthy and fit but not in any way slim or thin. It's not a 2. It's not a double zero. It's a healthy, average, very average 4 to 6.

Post-baby 2, I couldn't work out as much as I could, or ever, and my weight rocketed to 152. At that point, I feel disgusted with myself. Currently pregnant with 2 and can't wait to shed it. Mind you, I know my body will change and I will never again be 135, or even potentially 140. But I know that at 190, I would be a buffalo.

So to an extent, you are right. You cannot tell whether someone is overweight or not based on numbers on a scale. But only up to a point. There is no way anyone who is 5'10'' be 300 pounds and NOT overweight. The not being able to tell thing works in a range of 10, 15, maybe 20 pounds. But not 40 pounds. Sorry.

And yes, I don't want your body. At 190 pounds, I'd want to take a knife and start slicing flesh off myself. The last thing I'd tell myself would be that this is normal, and hell, DH should desire me...just because he ought to! If that's your normal and you're happy, I'm happy for you. To me, that would be a freaking code triple red.

new poster here - you have MAJOR issues.

"At 150 pounds, you were not thin." If this isn't some pro-ana BS, I don't know what is. PP, read what you wrote here to your therapist. Tell him or her that you were disgusted with yourself when you gained five pounds after having a child. At your height, you should barely notice five pounds. (I know this because I am your height, and I lost 40 lbs as an adult, and no one noticed. I dropped from a tight 14 to a comfortable 12. 5 lbs? I weigh five pounds more on Sunday if I had chinese on Saturday!)

x2. As someone who has had an eating disorder, this rhetoric sounds all too familiar.

[Anonymous]

OP, if lots of guys are interested in you, clearly you are beautiful! Don't let the hubby's lack of interest get to you.

In all honesty, I am used to dating 6 feet plus muscular dudes. If some scrawny little 135 weasel tried critiquing my body, I would tell him he needs to be the one making some changes!!! Some people have a lot of nerve...

[Anonymous]

True and loyal love is 100% unconditional OP. Always remember that.

If your husband cannot love you at 190 lbs., then his love for you is worthless.

I am not telling you to sleep w/your co-workers, that will only complicate the situation more.

What I am telling you is to practice some self-love right now and to ask yourself if you think you deserve a man who will only "love" you at a certain weight or one who will love you no matter how much of you there is to love?

I think you already know the answer to this.