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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your DH is so skinny at 135 lbs.

Yeah, that's gross.

There are elite soccer players in european soccer that weight.

Mind you, they usually are with 100-110 latin american or european models.

[Anonymous]

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.

Body fat percentage AND body volume. At 205 and 190 pounds, what size are you?

[Anonymous]

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.

But not EVERYONE has your body type. I just don't understand how my body, with a perfectly healthy amount of fat, is so awful. Why is it so bad to have more muscle? Why would you want to cut muscle off of your body, just to get down to a certain number. The activities you mentioned aren't muscle building activities. They'll make you lean but not pack on muscle. I lift heavy weights - I could comfortably squat much more than your body weight and I have a body that shows that. I think it's sad that so many women prefer skinny to strong.

Also, 4 or 6 for a woman who is 5'10 is NOT "average". It is very, very, thin. I know very few tall women who are so small. You probably already know this, but you have a very distorted body image and it explains your very strong feelings on this matter. I don't feel insulted by what you are saying, I just feel bad for you.

[Anonymous]

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.

Body fat percentage AND body volume. At 205 and 190 pounds, what size are you?

Why does my size matter? If my body fat is fine, I am not concerned with being small. Should I drop fat enough to stop menstruating so I can squeeze into that size 4? (I am not sure even that would do it, honestly). More muscle (and a bigger frame) means I am going to be bigger than someone with a smaller frame and little muscle.

I know you are trying to convince me that I should hate my body, but it's not possible. I am not interested in being skinny and I feel sorry for all of you that are just trying to be small and weigh less. My point is just that you cannot categorically say that someone is too fat based on her weight. I am not trying to convince YOU that I am NOT too fat for my weight. My point would be the same if I were morbidly obese, or if I were 6'1 and 130. You aren't educated on fitness so you should stop trying to fat shame people.

[Anonymous]

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.

Body fat percentage AND body volume. At 205 and 190 pounds, what size are you?

Why does my size matter? If my body fat is fine, I am not concerned with being small. Should I drop fat enough to stop menstruating so I can squeeze into that size 4? (I am not sure even that would do it, honestly). More muscle (and a bigger frame) means I am going to be bigger than someone with a smaller frame and little muscle.

I know you are trying to convince me that I should hate my body, but it's not possible. I am not interested in being skinny and I feel sorry for all of you that are just trying to be small and weigh less. My point is just that you cannot categorically say that someone is too fat based on her weight. I am not trying to convince YOU that I am NOT too fat for my weight. My point would be the same if I were morbidly obese, or if I were 6'1 and 130. You aren't educated on fitness so you should stop trying to fat shame people.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

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.

Body fat percentage AND body volume. At 205 and 190 pounds, what size are you?

Where do you get the idea that body volume is valid metric for determining overall health or fitness level? That makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But not EVERYONE has your body type. I just don't understand how my body, with a perfectly healthy amount of fat, is so awful. Why is it so bad to have more muscle? Why would you want to cut muscle off of your body, just to get down to a certain number. The activities you mentioned aren't muscle building activities. They'll make you lean but not pack on muscle. I lift heavy weights - I could comfortably squat much more than your body weight and I have a body that shows that. I think it's sad that so many women prefer skinny to strong.

Also, 4 or 6 for a woman who is 5'10 is NOT "average". It is very, very, thin. I know very few tall women who are so small. You probably already know this, but you have a very distorted body image and it explains your very strong feelings on this matter. I don't feel insulted by what you are saying, I just feel bad for you.

I'm not trying to convince YOU your body is awful. You aren't the person posting here that your husband doesn't want to sleep with you, the OP is.

I must have missed the point in her comment where she said, "I started going to the gym and lifting heavy weights, gained 40 pounds and now my DH doesn't want to sleep with me." You know perfectly well that 99% says OP didn't gain her 40 pounds building muscle. She gained it the old-fashioned way - making her fitness less of a priority, and putting bad stuff down her throat. So yes, I feel completely comfortable saying her 40 pounds are fat, and aren't good for her in terms of health and in terms of looks.

Also, building muscle and bulking up is not the only way to be fit, so stop pretending that it is. Competitive skaters, runners, gymnasts, skiers, jumpers, bikers are not bulky but fit as hell. Michelle Kwan is probably fitter that you even though she can't lift her body weight. You probably can't jump the way she does or can't stretch the way she does. There are many ways to be strong and fit. Bulk is not the only way, so lean is not worse than bulky.

Be honest with yourself. Put one hundred 190-pound women into a room. How many of them will be "all muscle"? Most will have gained it in fat, not in muscle.

[Anonymous]

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.

Body fat percentage AND body volume. At 205 and 190 pounds, what size are you?

Where do you get the idea that body volume is valid metric for determining overall health or fitness level? That makes no sense.

If it makes no sense, why did you mention that your lifting partner is size 2 to 4?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your DH is so skinny at 135 lbs.

Yeah, that's gross.

Wow, you're a bitch.

[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.

Body fat percentage AND body volume. At 205 and 190 pounds, what size are you?

Where do you get the idea that body volume is valid metric for determining overall health or fitness level? That makes no sense.

If it makes no sense, why did you mention that your lifting partner is size 2 to 4?

Okay, clarification - body volume, independent of body fat, is irrelevant. IF someone is 25% fat that person is categorically not overweight or obese, whether she is a size 2 or size 12.

(and, given the fact that you people seem to think that size 4 is acceptable for someone who is 5'11, I am surprised that you don't think my friend is fat)

I am not going to engage anymore. In the unlikely event that OP is still here - OP, if you decide to make a physical change, do it because you love yourself, not because you hate yourself. You deserve the time and attention it takes to get your body in shape. You will not want to exercise if you see it as a punishment for being fat (and I doubt you are very fat to begin with). Enjoy the journey and all the milestones that come along with your fitness journey, enjoy all the improvements and gains even if the number on the scale isn't dropping as you expect it to.

(I do suspect that your DH is self conscious about beign so thin and is now making it your problem)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But not EVERYONE has your body type. I just don't understand how my body, with a perfectly healthy amount of fat, is so awful. Why is it so bad to have more muscle? Why would you want to cut muscle off of your body, just to get down to a certain number. The activities you mentioned aren't muscle building activities. They'll make you lean but not pack on muscle. I lift heavy weights - I could comfortably squat much more than your body weight and I have a body that shows that. I think it's sad that so many women prefer skinny to strong.

Also, 4 or 6 for a woman who is 5'10 is NOT "average". It is very, very, thin. I know very few tall women who are so small. You probably already know this, but you have a very distorted body image and it explains your very strong feelings on this matter. I don't feel insulted by what you are saying, I just feel bad for you.

I'm not trying to convince YOU your body is awful. You aren't the person posting here that your husband doesn't want to sleep with you, the OP is.

I must have missed the point in her comment where she said, "I started going to the gym and lifting heavy weights, gained 40 pounds and now my DH doesn't want to sleep with me." You know perfectly well that 99% says OP didn't gain her 40 pounds building muscle. She gained it the old-fashioned way - making her fitness less of a priority, and putting bad stuff down her throat. So yes, I feel completely comfortable saying her 40 pounds are fat, and aren't good for her in terms of health and in terms of looks.

Also, building muscle and bulking up is not the only way to be fit, so stop pretending that it is. Competitive skaters, runners, gymnasts, skiers, jumpers, bikers are not bulky but fit as hell. Michelle Kwan is probably fitter that you even though she can't lift her body weight. You probably can't jump the way she does or can't stretch the way she does. There are many ways to be strong and fit. Bulk is not the only way, so lean is not worse than bulky.

Be honest with yourself. Put one hundred 190-pound women into a room. How many of them will be "all muscle"? Most will have gained it in fat, not in muscle.

No one is saying that being bulky is the only way to be fit. But people who have a different body type than you do aren't disgusting. Given that you said you'd want to take a knife to your flesh if you had a body like mine, clearly you think that my body would be revolting to you...and that is just depressing. I don't have the body type to be a sprinter or a jumper because I'm naturally bigger and I put on muscle quickly. There is nothing wrong with that. Just as my friends who are naturally lean and wirey shouldn't feel badly about the way that they are built. It just seems that bigger is always worse here in the body image disordered land, no matter what. and my final point - YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT OP'S BODY IS LIKE. Maybe she was unhealthily thin when she got married and now she's at a healtheir weight. You simply cannot say that someone is categorically obese at 190.

Now I'm really signing off. This is ridiculous. I can't believe "you can't judge someone's body fat and fitness solely by her body weight" is so damn controversial. Only on DCUM, my friends.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your DH is so skinny at 135 lbs.

Yeah, that's gross.

Wow, you're a bitch.

\

But the posters calling OP fat aren't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You need to be in a more professional workplace. I can't imagine having multiple coworkers express sexual interest in a married female colleague. That's just a huge EEO catastrophe waiting to happen in most workplaces.

Um yeah. SEVERAL coworkers have expressed in interest? I predict several openings when the shit hits the fan at OP's employer!