One thing that greatly irks me is that many articles and such seem to make out that having a 'good body image' can only seem to come from not caring less what you look like.
Its kind of like the ideas that the fat movement have where they say its either 'be overweight, or be anorexic'.
It seems these articles are saying 'You can only either not care less about your appearance, or be overly obsessed and constantly worried about it'.
Why does everything always have to be at extremes?
Why is it always you can only not care less, or care to much?
Why's there never a middle ground?
What about those who just like doing a workout and making their body look good, put on some nice clothes or do their hair and just enjoy it. As I always say, people shouldn't feel they HAVE to look a certain way, but that doesn't mean that those who would like to do something with their appearance are 'overly obsessing' about it either.
It's like saying 'you can only not care less about your exams, or completely stress out about them'.
It's the same as the fat movements view that changing something can only come from self hate.
Its always one extreme to the other with these people. There’s never a middle ground.
And they also don't seem to see the difference between 'accepting your body' and doing nothing with it. Just because you accept things about yourself (body shape, structure etc), doesn't mean you can't also find your potential and improve yourself either.
I read an article once that said 'It seems married people have better body images. People who are single usually work on their appearance (note: see its stuff like this. That simply doing something with your appearance means 'bad body image' ), whilst those in marriages and relationships often didn't'........well to me that doesn't sound like they have better body image.
That sounds like the exact reason people end up going to things like sex therapy because their intimacy has died, due to one partner not looking after their physical self (whether you deny it or not, for many people, physical attraction is needed in relationships. You can read my post ‘Why needing physical attraction doesn’t not make you shallow‘ too find out my views on this), or end up on sites asking for help.
Married people not caring about appearance in anyway doesn't sound like they have better body image.
It sounds like they do they thing that brings resentment to many marriages where one partner looks after themselves until they have the other....then stop bothering to look after themselves because they are 'off the market' now.
Saying that looking after your appearance, or doing something with it shows 'bad body image', is no different then saying you have a 'bad self image'....if you actually choose to do something with yourself.
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Sunday, 30 March 2008
The role of looks in personal relationships and why needing physical attraction doesn't make you shallow
A starter point:
I have never understood some peoples strange and undying need to deny that physical attraction has an important role to play in a healthy relationship.
The way you look is a part of who you are, your body goes everywhere with you.
Everyone has 'bad days' and such, and no-one is expected to look perfect all the time, however a politically correct segment of the world has decided that any mention of needing physical attraction means there is something wrong with you, and feed out insult after insult, guilt trip after guilt trip.
Hence, many are unlikely to (at least openly) admit that physical attraction is important to them.
Some people claim it's 'only personality that counts' but if that was the be-all and end-all then we'd simply be married to all of our friends, after all we like their personalities.
But then the difference between friendship and a relationship is that you don't (generally) have sex with your friends, and you don't have sex with personalities or emotions, we have sex with our bodies. Sex is PHYSICAL.
We are naturally drawn to what we are attracted too, like a beautiful sunset, or a sunny beach, a nice house etc, yet others will say 'Well people aren't beaches are they', but then go off and tell others 'Looks don't matter, after all you can't judge a book by its cover'…….so are we books? No!
Is sex really that important?:
Sex is an important aspect of a healthy relationship, it is simply wrong to deny this. It is complete fact, sex is healthy and it is a perfectly natural human need.
Some people feel they can go without it or that its not important, which is fine if that's right for them, their views and their life, but forcing this onto other people's lives is ludicrous.
You cannot tell other people what things they can/can't or should/shouldn't look for in a relationship.And physical attraction is one of them.
Twisting commitments and vows:
It is a common occurrence to hear in relationships that when total commitment has been verified (or after marriage), vows or commitments get twisted to mean 'No matter what I do, you have to shut up and like it'.
But why does being in a full relationship then mean you don't have to try anymore?
Relationships need constant maintenance to keep them alive. Just like anything else, if it is not looked after, it stops working and falls apart.
Some spouses who have deliberately stopped caring, or 'let themselves go' hide behind their vows from marriage and twist their meanings.
The most popular vow to twist is 'For better or for worse', but they seem to drastically miss the point that when you love someone, you're actually supposed to try to keep yourself on the BETTER side of the equation.
Just like you say 'For richer or poorer', but that doesn't mean its fine to just be unemployed and never earn any money.
A person who loves someone would want to bring their best to the relationship, not say 'You have to love me no matter what I do and like it'.
Vows are there to say that you will both bring your best to a relationship and work through any problems together. They are not there to excuse poor behaviour.
The vows are not 'For better or for worse, whichever one I can be bothered with at the time'.
They are talking about situations that are out of peoples control, and then together, working through them. Not what people deliberately bring on themselves, and that the other person is just stuck with it.
There will always be consequences:
Here is a simple fact of life: All actions lead to consequences.
And in a relationship (or marriage) that changes nothing, this rule still holds true.
: If you're abusive to your spouse, there will be consequences
: If you gamble or throw money away, there will be consequences
: If you are unreliable or untrustworthy, there will be consequences
And yes, if you do something to yourself or your appearance there will be consequences.
Whether the consequences are good or bad, there WILL be consequences all the same.
And this is something that those who harness politically correct guilt trips need to understand.
If you choose to put food, laziness, television, gambling, alcohol or anything else, above looking after an aspect of your relationship, then there WILL be consequences to those actions.
Some people just seem to feel that they can eat, drink, gamble, be lazy etc all they want and no matter what, there will be no consequence for this.
Their partner has to just shut up and accept it, or 'be happy that their spouse is happy'.
Well sorry but this is real life, you're actions will lead to consequences, so it is definitely in your own best interest that you think your actions through.
Being in a committed relationship does not change this rule. You reap what you sow, and if you choose to put excessive food, laziness, alcohol etc ahead of looking after a part of your relationship, then there will be no-one else to blame when the consequences of your actions come knocking. Because whether you like it or not, they WILL be there! And they will not be good!
Is it fascism?:
A Fascist is someone who will force their views on others, and this accusation is a regular insult aimed towards those who encourage the idea of health and looking after oneself.
But how is asking your partner 'Could you please exercise and eat healthy for us both' such a 'fascist' thing to say? How?
If the partner asking also does nothing to look after themselves then yes maybe it could be, however if one is looking after themselves for their partner, wants their partner to find them attractive, wants to bring their best to the relationship then no, it could not be further from something 'fascist'.
If asking your partner to look after themselves to increase sexual attraction and their health is 'fascist', then is it also fascist if a parent says to their child 'Please could you study for your exams as i want you to have a successful life'? No of course not.
What separates a relationship from a friendship or companionship is sex, plain and simple. In a friendship or companionship you connect on the same levels, you enjoy each others company, you care about each other etc. In a relationship you do all that plus have sex, you are intimate with someone, that's why they are called PHYSICAL relationships. That is why sex is known as 'showing your love PHYSICALLY'. So if you're doing something physically, is it really that difficult to understand why physical attraction would come into play?
You can't connect with someone on an intellectual level if you find them to be as 'thick as a plank'. So how do some people think you can connect with them on a physical level if you're not physically attracted?
There's more to a relationship then looks:
This is a true statement, there is more to a relationship then just looks. However to some people this translates too: Looks don't matter, and there's something wrong with you if you think (or openly say) they do.
There is more to a relationship then looks, but why does this mean they shouldn't still play a part?Let's drop physical attraction for the moment and concentrate on some other aspects.
If you loved a sense of humour and your partner had a great one.......then became as boring as watching paint dry, it would bother you. So then is there something wrong with you? More to a relationship then a sense of humour right?
What if you love intelligence and your partner had plenty, then you're partner couldn't be bothered stimulating their mind anymore or caring about that stuff, and so became as 'thick as a plank', it would bother you. So then is there something wrong with you? More to a relationship then intelligence right?
If you loved a partner who was active but then they became a coach potato and never went out, and you hated it, is it because you are in the wrong? More to life then going out right?
What if they lost or quit their job and didn't bother getting a new one, they were 'happy being unemployed and you should be too', ah well never mind, more to life then money right?
Physical attraction is one of the many aspects that make up a healthy relationship and all aspects play a role, and all aspects need to be looked after, and sex is what differentiates a relationship from a friendship or a companionship.
If looks aren't important to YOU in a relationship then fine, but you can't force this onto other people, or put them down for what they need.
You concentrate too much on the physical:
A very common argument from those who try to deny physical attraction matters. However it is usually aimed at anyone who even mentions physical attraction, or those who say they want their partner to look after their physical appearance, when their partner does little to nothing to keep the spark and attraction in their relationship.
How is this 'concentrating too much on the physical'?
They are simply asking their partner to look after one of the aspects of their relationship. It is not all they care about, but it is a part of what they care about, and why shouldn't they?
Why is looking after the physical aspect any less important then looking after any other?
Why should it be expected that everyone deny themselves the basic human need of physical attraction and physical relationships, or at least one they enjoy and look forward to participating in.
An obvious fact that politically correct arguers miss is this:A women who is not turned on by a partner who has deliberately not looked after his physical side will not enjoy sex. A man who is not turned on by a woman who has deliberately not looked after her physical side (if you understand male anatomy) can't have sex.
Instead they believe that not wanting sex is due to 'shallowness' and 'selfishness', not reality, human desires, needs and biology.It's considered very politically incorrect to say that you need physical attraction, but political correctness has no relation to reality or common sense. It's a moral high horse, and completely unrealistic.
The 'love them for who they are' statement:
'You should love them for who they are' is a constantly uttered guilt trip used whenever a person mentions their feelings towards their partners lack of caring about their appearance and staying attractive for their partner.
But how can you 'love someone for who they are' if you don't love what they have become? If someone was once nice but is now abusive can you just 'love them for who they are'?
You can't expect people to just feel attraction for you no matter what it is you do, or do to yourself. I'm sure these people saying 'love them for who they are' and 'looks don't matter' would be singing a very different tune if their partner then came home with a tattoo on their face.
Looking after yourself shows your partner that you value and respect yourself and them. It's amazing how many people will look after their television and their possessions but not their bodies.
Looking after their bodies is stupid but god forbid anyone spills something in the car.
If you value and respect something then you look after it, not wreck it, and that includes your body and your relationship.
Looking after yourself says to your partner 'I want you to have a good sex life, I want you to enjoy my body, I want to turn you on, I want to be fit and healthy for all the years to come'.
When you love you're partner you look after them and their needs. You look after them emotionally and are kind to them, they shouldn't have to ask you for that. It's something you want to give.
When you love you're partner you look after them financially. You want to put food on the table for them, to give them a great life, they shouldn't have to ask you for help to pay the bills. You love them, you want to help them.
So why is looking after the physical such a politically incorrect thing to need? If you love someone you would want them to have a good sex life, and feel attraction to you. So why do some feel that no effort needs to be given in this aspect of the relationship?
Another common argument is that 'a person shouldn't have to look after themselves, but if they do, it should be only for themselves'……….so should a person only spend money on themselves? Buy food for themselves? Does your partner not matter?
Loss of attraction and loss of love are two different things:
Some people seem to confuse that saying a loss of physical attraction means you never loved them, that looks are all you ever cared about, and that you are sad and shallow.
Here is a following example: 'If your partner cares about looks/weight they never loved you anyway, it's their problem'. Since when do people in relationships say 'It's their problem'? It's no different then saying 'Oh my partner hates my gambling, never mind it's their problem'.
They forget there are two sides to every coin. The other is 'If your partner cares about you, why would they not look after themselves to keep the spark alive, to keep up an important part of the relationship, to keep themselves healthy so they won't end up dead way before their time'.
Also having a problem with your spouse not looking after the physical side of themselves or their relationship doesn't at all mean you don't love them. There is a big difference between love and attraction, you can love someone but not feel attracted. But relationships are physical relationships, and if there is no attraction, an important part of the relationship will suffer.
You can't expect your partner to want sex if you don't look after yourself. And you can't expect them to keep their mouths shut. Physical attraction is human nature, yet political correctness makes out that needing it is a sign of immorality.
When you love someone you say 'I want you to have my best'. Not looking after yourself is saying 'You'll have whatever I choose to give you and like it'.
Both partners need to work together to maintain their relationship and to make their relationship work. They need to look after themselves, for themselves and for each other.
The looks fade argument:
'Looks don't matter because looks fade' is simply not a valid argument, because lifestyle also comes into play. If one person lives a healthy lifestyle and another lives on curries, chips and junk, will they both look the same at 50?
People who say looks fade make it sound like as you get older you become almost grotesque and deformed.
Another way of putting this is 'Looks shouldn't matter because looks fade but personality/character etc stay the same'.
This isn't true either. People can go through many changes during life. Some people can be together for 15/20/25+ years but feelings and emotions change and they decide they don't love each other anymore. Some people are friends for years but then decide they don't like each other anymore, other people dislike each other then can become friends.
If personalities/character/beliefs/opinions etc all stayed the same these things would never happen. Lots of changes happen in life. Some people even change or find religion.
What will you do when you get old/ what if your partner is burnt in a fire or in an accident?:
These types of events have nothing in common with not looking after physical appearance. There's a huge difference between being burnt in a fire and deliberately letting yourself go.
But in reality questions like this aren't fair, who wants to think of their partner being burnt alive? These questions are purely designed to guilt you. It's like someone asking you in-front of your parents 'If i had both your parents here with a gun to their heads and you had to choose which one lived and died, who would you pick?'.
And yes we all get old, but that doesn't mean that you can't look after yourself as best you can. No-one can stay exactly as they once were when they are old as to when they were young, but it's about putting in the effort to look after yourself. To always bring the best you can to your relationship. Old doesn't just equal out of shape.
If looks don't matter then does gender not matter?:
Some people are just so adamant in telling others that the are wrong for what they feel, yet with no rational argument. In their place are endless insults and guilt trips.
So another idea in response to this would be 'if looks don't matter, then why does gender?'
Here's a scenario: A woman is unhappy with her husband who has stopped looking after himself, and she no longer feels sexual attraction to him, yet her husband just constantly puts down her feelings with the line 'Looks shouldn't matter at all'.
So then if looks don't matter, could this man then have a physical relationship with someone of the same sex? If i took all of the personality traits, characteristics, opinions, intelligence etc that he is attracted too and then put them into a mans body, would he be prepared to have a relationship with that person?
Their personality is perfect for him. After all he said looks don't matter so the fact that the other person has a male body shouldn't bother him.
That's on the outside, it's what's inside only that counts like he said. Therefore by the 'looks don't matter' logic, this man is shallow because he won't date another man.
It is because of human nature he finds women attractive, but it is also human nature to need physical attraction. Why is it okay for him to follow his human nature to be with a woman yet at the same time tell her to deny another aspect of human nature which is physical attraction?
Conclusion:
If you care about physical attraction in your relationship you are NOT shallow. Not in the slightest. Physical attraction is one of the many aspects that make up the package.
A person cannot be expected to be happy if their partner deliberately lets this aspect slide anymore then if their spouse let another aspect go (like kindness and instead was rude all the time).
Political correctness is a bullying movement where rationality and realism is replaced with endless guilt trips to make a person feel they are in the wrong for many things, including perfectly normal human needs.And one of these needs is physical attraction.
If you choose to not look after your physical side, then that is your life choice and your right as a person to choose that lifestyle. However you cannot expect, force or guilt someone to feel the same way for you because of that life choice. They have choices too.
The people who try to put you down for any perfectly normal, human feelings you have regarding your relationships, and looking after physical attraction should simply be ignored.
Other people don't have to walk in your shoes or live with your concerns, your spouse, your needs, your relationship or your life, but YOU DO! Its up to each person to decide for themselves what they need in relationships, and whether they need physical attraction in theirs or not, or how much. Not other people.
There is no sexism in this, males and females both need physical attraction, and should not be expected to deny themselves this.
I have never understood some peoples strange and undying need to deny that physical attraction has an important role to play in a healthy relationship.
The way you look is a part of who you are, your body goes everywhere with you.
Everyone has 'bad days' and such, and no-one is expected to look perfect all the time, however a politically correct segment of the world has decided that any mention of needing physical attraction means there is something wrong with you, and feed out insult after insult, guilt trip after guilt trip.
Hence, many are unlikely to (at least openly) admit that physical attraction is important to them.
Some people claim it's 'only personality that counts' but if that was the be-all and end-all then we'd simply be married to all of our friends, after all we like their personalities.
But then the difference between friendship and a relationship is that you don't (generally) have sex with your friends, and you don't have sex with personalities or emotions, we have sex with our bodies. Sex is PHYSICAL.
We are naturally drawn to what we are attracted too, like a beautiful sunset, or a sunny beach, a nice house etc, yet others will say 'Well people aren't beaches are they', but then go off and tell others 'Looks don't matter, after all you can't judge a book by its cover'…….so are we books? No!
Is sex really that important?:
Sex is an important aspect of a healthy relationship, it is simply wrong to deny this. It is complete fact, sex is healthy and it is a perfectly natural human need.
Some people feel they can go without it or that its not important, which is fine if that's right for them, their views and their life, but forcing this onto other people's lives is ludicrous.
You cannot tell other people what things they can/can't or should/shouldn't look for in a relationship.And physical attraction is one of them.
Twisting commitments and vows:
It is a common occurrence to hear in relationships that when total commitment has been verified (or after marriage), vows or commitments get twisted to mean 'No matter what I do, you have to shut up and like it'.
But why does being in a full relationship then mean you don't have to try anymore?
Relationships need constant maintenance to keep them alive. Just like anything else, if it is not looked after, it stops working and falls apart.
Some spouses who have deliberately stopped caring, or 'let themselves go' hide behind their vows from marriage and twist their meanings.
The most popular vow to twist is 'For better or for worse', but they seem to drastically miss the point that when you love someone, you're actually supposed to try to keep yourself on the BETTER side of the equation.
Just like you say 'For richer or poorer', but that doesn't mean its fine to just be unemployed and never earn any money.
A person who loves someone would want to bring their best to the relationship, not say 'You have to love me no matter what I do and like it'.
Vows are there to say that you will both bring your best to a relationship and work through any problems together. They are not there to excuse poor behaviour.
The vows are not 'For better or for worse, whichever one I can be bothered with at the time'.
They are talking about situations that are out of peoples control, and then together, working through them. Not what people deliberately bring on themselves, and that the other person is just stuck with it.
There will always be consequences:
Here is a simple fact of life: All actions lead to consequences.
And in a relationship (or marriage) that changes nothing, this rule still holds true.
: If you're abusive to your spouse, there will be consequences
: If you gamble or throw money away, there will be consequences
: If you are unreliable or untrustworthy, there will be consequences
And yes, if you do something to yourself or your appearance there will be consequences.
Whether the consequences are good or bad, there WILL be consequences all the same.
And this is something that those who harness politically correct guilt trips need to understand.
If you choose to put food, laziness, television, gambling, alcohol or anything else, above looking after an aspect of your relationship, then there WILL be consequences to those actions.
Some people just seem to feel that they can eat, drink, gamble, be lazy etc all they want and no matter what, there will be no consequence for this.
Their partner has to just shut up and accept it, or 'be happy that their spouse is happy'.
Well sorry but this is real life, you're actions will lead to consequences, so it is definitely in your own best interest that you think your actions through.
Being in a committed relationship does not change this rule. You reap what you sow, and if you choose to put excessive food, laziness, alcohol etc ahead of looking after a part of your relationship, then there will be no-one else to blame when the consequences of your actions come knocking. Because whether you like it or not, they WILL be there! And they will not be good!
Is it fascism?:
A Fascist is someone who will force their views on others, and this accusation is a regular insult aimed towards those who encourage the idea of health and looking after oneself.
But how is asking your partner 'Could you please exercise and eat healthy for us both' such a 'fascist' thing to say? How?
If the partner asking also does nothing to look after themselves then yes maybe it could be, however if one is looking after themselves for their partner, wants their partner to find them attractive, wants to bring their best to the relationship then no, it could not be further from something 'fascist'.
If asking your partner to look after themselves to increase sexual attraction and their health is 'fascist', then is it also fascist if a parent says to their child 'Please could you study for your exams as i want you to have a successful life'? No of course not.
What separates a relationship from a friendship or companionship is sex, plain and simple. In a friendship or companionship you connect on the same levels, you enjoy each others company, you care about each other etc. In a relationship you do all that plus have sex, you are intimate with someone, that's why they are called PHYSICAL relationships. That is why sex is known as 'showing your love PHYSICALLY'. So if you're doing something physically, is it really that difficult to understand why physical attraction would come into play?
You can't connect with someone on an intellectual level if you find them to be as 'thick as a plank'. So how do some people think you can connect with them on a physical level if you're not physically attracted?
There's more to a relationship then looks:
This is a true statement, there is more to a relationship then just looks. However to some people this translates too: Looks don't matter, and there's something wrong with you if you think (or openly say) they do.
There is more to a relationship then looks, but why does this mean they shouldn't still play a part?Let's drop physical attraction for the moment and concentrate on some other aspects.
If you loved a sense of humour and your partner had a great one.......then became as boring as watching paint dry, it would bother you. So then is there something wrong with you? More to a relationship then a sense of humour right?
What if you love intelligence and your partner had plenty, then you're partner couldn't be bothered stimulating their mind anymore or caring about that stuff, and so became as 'thick as a plank', it would bother you. So then is there something wrong with you? More to a relationship then intelligence right?
If you loved a partner who was active but then they became a coach potato and never went out, and you hated it, is it because you are in the wrong? More to life then going out right?
What if they lost or quit their job and didn't bother getting a new one, they were 'happy being unemployed and you should be too', ah well never mind, more to life then money right?
Physical attraction is one of the many aspects that make up a healthy relationship and all aspects play a role, and all aspects need to be looked after, and sex is what differentiates a relationship from a friendship or a companionship.
If looks aren't important to YOU in a relationship then fine, but you can't force this onto other people, or put them down for what they need.
You concentrate too much on the physical:
A very common argument from those who try to deny physical attraction matters. However it is usually aimed at anyone who even mentions physical attraction, or those who say they want their partner to look after their physical appearance, when their partner does little to nothing to keep the spark and attraction in their relationship.
How is this 'concentrating too much on the physical'?
They are simply asking their partner to look after one of the aspects of their relationship. It is not all they care about, but it is a part of what they care about, and why shouldn't they?
Why is looking after the physical aspect any less important then looking after any other?
Why should it be expected that everyone deny themselves the basic human need of physical attraction and physical relationships, or at least one they enjoy and look forward to participating in.
An obvious fact that politically correct arguers miss is this:A women who is not turned on by a partner who has deliberately not looked after his physical side will not enjoy sex. A man who is not turned on by a woman who has deliberately not looked after her physical side (if you understand male anatomy) can't have sex.
Instead they believe that not wanting sex is due to 'shallowness' and 'selfishness', not reality, human desires, needs and biology.It's considered very politically incorrect to say that you need physical attraction, but political correctness has no relation to reality or common sense. It's a moral high horse, and completely unrealistic.
The 'love them for who they are' statement:
'You should love them for who they are' is a constantly uttered guilt trip used whenever a person mentions their feelings towards their partners lack of caring about their appearance and staying attractive for their partner.
But how can you 'love someone for who they are' if you don't love what they have become? If someone was once nice but is now abusive can you just 'love them for who they are'?
You can't expect people to just feel attraction for you no matter what it is you do, or do to yourself. I'm sure these people saying 'love them for who they are' and 'looks don't matter' would be singing a very different tune if their partner then came home with a tattoo on their face.
Looking after yourself shows your partner that you value and respect yourself and them. It's amazing how many people will look after their television and their possessions but not their bodies.
Looking after their bodies is stupid but god forbid anyone spills something in the car.
If you value and respect something then you look after it, not wreck it, and that includes your body and your relationship.
Looking after yourself says to your partner 'I want you to have a good sex life, I want you to enjoy my body, I want to turn you on, I want to be fit and healthy for all the years to come'.
When you love you're partner you look after them and their needs. You look after them emotionally and are kind to them, they shouldn't have to ask you for that. It's something you want to give.
When you love you're partner you look after them financially. You want to put food on the table for them, to give them a great life, they shouldn't have to ask you for help to pay the bills. You love them, you want to help them.
So why is looking after the physical such a politically incorrect thing to need? If you love someone you would want them to have a good sex life, and feel attraction to you. So why do some feel that no effort needs to be given in this aspect of the relationship?
Another common argument is that 'a person shouldn't have to look after themselves, but if they do, it should be only for themselves'……….so should a person only spend money on themselves? Buy food for themselves? Does your partner not matter?
Loss of attraction and loss of love are two different things:
Some people seem to confuse that saying a loss of physical attraction means you never loved them, that looks are all you ever cared about, and that you are sad and shallow.
Here is a following example: 'If your partner cares about looks/weight they never loved you anyway, it's their problem'. Since when do people in relationships say 'It's their problem'? It's no different then saying 'Oh my partner hates my gambling, never mind it's their problem'.
They forget there are two sides to every coin. The other is 'If your partner cares about you, why would they not look after themselves to keep the spark alive, to keep up an important part of the relationship, to keep themselves healthy so they won't end up dead way before their time'.
Also having a problem with your spouse not looking after the physical side of themselves or their relationship doesn't at all mean you don't love them. There is a big difference between love and attraction, you can love someone but not feel attracted. But relationships are physical relationships, and if there is no attraction, an important part of the relationship will suffer.
You can't expect your partner to want sex if you don't look after yourself. And you can't expect them to keep their mouths shut. Physical attraction is human nature, yet political correctness makes out that needing it is a sign of immorality.
When you love someone you say 'I want you to have my best'. Not looking after yourself is saying 'You'll have whatever I choose to give you and like it'.
Both partners need to work together to maintain their relationship and to make their relationship work. They need to look after themselves, for themselves and for each other.
The looks fade argument:
'Looks don't matter because looks fade' is simply not a valid argument, because lifestyle also comes into play. If one person lives a healthy lifestyle and another lives on curries, chips and junk, will they both look the same at 50?
People who say looks fade make it sound like as you get older you become almost grotesque and deformed.
Another way of putting this is 'Looks shouldn't matter because looks fade but personality/character etc stay the same'.
This isn't true either. People can go through many changes during life. Some people can be together for 15/20/25+ years but feelings and emotions change and they decide they don't love each other anymore. Some people are friends for years but then decide they don't like each other anymore, other people dislike each other then can become friends.
If personalities/character/beliefs/opinions etc all stayed the same these things would never happen. Lots of changes happen in life. Some people even change or find religion.
What will you do when you get old/ what if your partner is burnt in a fire or in an accident?:
These types of events have nothing in common with not looking after physical appearance. There's a huge difference between being burnt in a fire and deliberately letting yourself go.
But in reality questions like this aren't fair, who wants to think of their partner being burnt alive? These questions are purely designed to guilt you. It's like someone asking you in-front of your parents 'If i had both your parents here with a gun to their heads and you had to choose which one lived and died, who would you pick?'.
And yes we all get old, but that doesn't mean that you can't look after yourself as best you can. No-one can stay exactly as they once were when they are old as to when they were young, but it's about putting in the effort to look after yourself. To always bring the best you can to your relationship. Old doesn't just equal out of shape.
If looks don't matter then does gender not matter?:
Some people are just so adamant in telling others that the are wrong for what they feel, yet with no rational argument. In their place are endless insults and guilt trips.
So another idea in response to this would be 'if looks don't matter, then why does gender?'
Here's a scenario: A woman is unhappy with her husband who has stopped looking after himself, and she no longer feels sexual attraction to him, yet her husband just constantly puts down her feelings with the line 'Looks shouldn't matter at all'.
So then if looks don't matter, could this man then have a physical relationship with someone of the same sex? If i took all of the personality traits, characteristics, opinions, intelligence etc that he is attracted too and then put them into a mans body, would he be prepared to have a relationship with that person?
Their personality is perfect for him. After all he said looks don't matter so the fact that the other person has a male body shouldn't bother him.
That's on the outside, it's what's inside only that counts like he said. Therefore by the 'looks don't matter' logic, this man is shallow because he won't date another man.
It is because of human nature he finds women attractive, but it is also human nature to need physical attraction. Why is it okay for him to follow his human nature to be with a woman yet at the same time tell her to deny another aspect of human nature which is physical attraction?
Conclusion:
If you care about physical attraction in your relationship you are NOT shallow. Not in the slightest. Physical attraction is one of the many aspects that make up the package.
A person cannot be expected to be happy if their partner deliberately lets this aspect slide anymore then if their spouse let another aspect go (like kindness and instead was rude all the time).
Political correctness is a bullying movement where rationality and realism is replaced with endless guilt trips to make a person feel they are in the wrong for many things, including perfectly normal human needs.And one of these needs is physical attraction.
If you choose to not look after your physical side, then that is your life choice and your right as a person to choose that lifestyle. However you cannot expect, force or guilt someone to feel the same way for you because of that life choice. They have choices too.
The people who try to put you down for any perfectly normal, human feelings you have regarding your relationships, and looking after physical attraction should simply be ignored.
Other people don't have to walk in your shoes or live with your concerns, your spouse, your needs, your relationship or your life, but YOU DO! Its up to each person to decide for themselves what they need in relationships, and whether they need physical attraction in theirs or not, or how much. Not other people.
There is no sexism in this, males and females both need physical attraction, and should not be expected to deny themselves this.
Does losing weight for vanity purposes make you bad?
One of my issues with the fat movement is that they believe that wanting to get your body into a certain shape can only come from ‘hating yourself‘.
I have always found this statement ridiculous.
Its no different then saying ‘In order to want to improve/change/gain your education, you must first HATE your mind’.It is complete nonsense.
Why is it that in the fat movement eyes, the want to change things can only come from 'self hate'?
Here is a fact of life: We are NOT born at our full potential. Our potentials are there to be discovered, and the only way to discover them is to actively pursue them.
Other statements from the fat movement are ‘If you choose to lose weight, it means you think fat people are bad, that you think fat is not attractive, and therefore you hate fat people’.
And ‘People who lose weight due to looks, are simply giving in to societies idea of beauty’.
Again this is nonsense.
For one, saying that ‘wanting to lose weight simply means you are giving into societies idea of beauty’ is no different then saying ‘By revising for exams/improving your education, you are simply conforming to societies idea of intelligence’.
The other problem with the line: ‘People who lose weight due to looks, are simply giving in to societies idea of beauty’ is this:By stating this line it is basically implying that NOBODY in their right, honest, working mind, could actually well and truly want this for themselves.It is basically implying you can only either:
A) Truly NOT want it
Or
B) Be brainwashed into wanting it
In other words, nobody could ever make an informed decision that they could want this for themselves.
Now my question is: What is wrong with wanting your body to be athletic/well muscled/trim, with a healthy low body fat level?
I know that not everyone can be a ‘Baywatch babe/hunk’, and that not everyone would want that look (because there is NO look that EVERYONE finds attractive, only looks that are more popular then others), but it is equally untrue that nobody could possibly want to give their body a certain look, or achieve it as best as they can.
I 100% believe that nobody should be made too, or made to feel like they have too, look a certain way. But that does NOT mean that it is wrong if a person chooses for themselves that they want to have a trimmer body.
If we go back to this line: ‘If you choose to lose weight, it means you think fat people are bad, that you think fat is not attractive, and therefore you hate fat people’ the problems with this statement stick out like a sore thumb.
We ALL want different things for ourselves. We all strive for different things from education, from work, from life itself. And we also ALL strive for different things from our body.
It is also a fact of life that physical attraction exists and that it is perfectly human to feel this, whether you want to admit it or not.
And some people will want to gain a trimmer physique as this is what is (and throughout all time, whilst other looks have come and gone) found to be attractive by most.
A good analogy for the fat movements views on losing body fat is:Not everyone for example is born athletic. But there are people who are. Other people on the other hand are born with absolutely no athletic ability. But does it mean that they ‘hate themselves’ if they work hard to improve/gain athletic ability? Does it mean they ‘hate’ non-athletic people because they themselves are trying too become/working on becoming athletic?
Would it have been better if they just sat on the side lines and ‘accepted’ that they had no natural athletic ability, and therefore come to the (wrong) conclusion that they therefore could never possibly have any? And tell themselves that if they did try, the only way they could gain any athletic ability was to train for 12 hours a day until they were sick and collapsed?
Would that have been better?
Could there be no way that a person could actually want athletic ability? That the only way they could want it was if they were ‘brainwashed’?
That if a person wants athletic ability, its because they hate themselves and so are conforming to society because a lot of society likes sports?
If this were true, it would mean that nobody could ever play a sport because they themselves like it?
It is a fact that some people will like the look of an athletic body, and they will want to achieve one for themselves as best they can.
People, as I said, shouldn’t be made to feel they have to look a certain way, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t people who won’t want to work to try and achieve, to the best of their ability, a certain look.
In my opinion it shouldn’t be about stopping people who want to lose weight from losing weight, or encouraging people to do whatever it takes to be ‘thin’.
It should be about people deciding the look they like, whether they are happy as the are, or wanting to become trimmer/more muscular/more athletic or just lose a few extra pounds, and making sure they get there the HEALTHY way.
Yes losing weight should always be about health first, and you shouldn’t do things to your body that will damage it for the sake of physical appearance.
But another fact of life is this:Getting in shape, and being happy and healthy are NOT mutually exclusive.
And gaining the look you want, as best you can, does NOT mean sacrificing your health.
If what you are doing to look good is damaging your health, that means you are doing it WRONG.
Getting into shape is meant to make your life better!!
Getting into shape comes from:
: Sensible resistance training. Building the muscles in your body and strengthening them
: Sensible cardiovascular training, improving your bodies lung power, heart and circulatory systems
: Eating healthy foods throughout the day, not from starvation. To keep burning calories your body needs to gain muscle. Starving yourself causes your body to BURN muscle.It does not come from:
: Eating like a rabbit
: Training in the gym until your between life and death
: Expecting 10 years of weight gain to disappear in a matter of weeks
The term ‘95% of diets fail’ comes from FAD DIETS, which are temporary, require drastic drops in calories, and often don’t include exercise, or at least any exercise that will benefit your muscles or go to the other extreme with monumental workouts that wreck your body and don't geive the muscles adequate time (or nutrition) to recovery.
The term is NOT talking about programs incorporating exercise and healthy nutrition into your life, for life!
The way to gain weight back is to stop what you are doing and return to old habits, which is exactly what happens when people end a diet (as they are temporary, and virtually impossible to maintain for life).
THAT is why 95% of diets fail. NOT because there is NO way to maintain weightloss, but because ‘diets’ are temporary quick fixes that promise monumental weight losses from weight that took years to accumulate, and often encourage unhealthy means in order to get there.
This is also where the ‘dieting is dangerous’ phrase comes from.
Again it is not talking about sensible resistance and cardio training, with a healthy eating plan, but the fad diets.
But the fat movement makes out there’s is no difference. That EVERYTHING to do with losing weight is a trick to get you on a fad, starvation diet, that you can only be fat and happy or thin, hungry and miserable, and that anyway of losing weight is unhealthy because there is ‘no way to maintain weight loss’, which is again ignoring the aforementioned importance of gaining muscle, sensible resistance and cardio training, rest and recuperation and healthy food.
As far as I am concerned, weight loss for ‘vanity reasons’ is not bad, as people like different looks, be it with bodies, hair, make-up, clothing, etc, or different activates, different music, different shows, different beliefs and different lifestyles.
Some people think anything to do with looks is ‘sad’, and that’s fine if they believe that is right for their life. But that does not change the fact that physical attraction is a human need for most people (and a natural and normal one, not an ‘immature’ one).
People should NOT be forced to look a certain way, or be trimmer, but at the same time that does NOT mean that NO-ONE can make a decision that they like a certain look, and therefore want to achieve it, or as best as they can.
What should be focused on is that if someone wants to achieve a certain look, they should be going about it in a healthy way and setting small realistic goals for themselves.
A 350lb man saying ‘I want a six-pack’ is too much at the current point the is at. His goal should first be to change his lifestyle and exercise patterns to incorporate exercise and healthy nutrition, introduce them slowly, and build up his bodies response to this new stimulation, then work on maybe losing 5lbs of fat as his first goal, and go from there.
We all have potential, and we don’t know how far we can go.
If this 350lb man sticks with his programme, is realistic about his goals, and takes it one step at a time, and above all realises that his weight gain took a long time to accumulate, therefore it is unrealistic to assume it will come off in no time at all, but that it will make his rewards all the sweeter when his targets come into view, then who knows where he can go?
Until you go for it and really stick with it, you don’t know where your potential will take you.
We all have limits, but those limits and how far our potential can go are to be discovered.
The key to losing weight and keeping it off is taking it one step at a time and improving bit by bit. Don’t go around telling yourself what you can’t do, FIND OUT WHAT YOU CAN!!
So many have surprised themselves in all areas of life by surpassing what they believed they could.
Even Olympic athletes didn’t know they were going to get to that level. They worked hard, kept going and took the path to discovering their potential and it lead them to greatness.
At any point the could have said ‘I’ll never do it’ and stopped, and I have no doubt there were times when they wanted to quit, or others told them they couldn’t do it, but persevering is what separates them from those who give up.
Not everyone could be an Olympic athlete, but then again no-one knows if they can be until they try.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to achieve a certain body, it absolutely does not mean that you ‘hate’ those who don’t have it, or those who have the same type of body that you yourself are trying to change.
Just like as mentioned, wanting to improve your education doesn’t mean you hate people who are at the level of education you are trying to leave.
And working to earn money doesn’t mean you hate those who have the same amount of money that you have now.
We all like different things. Wanting a certain look does not equal ‘conforming to society’, any more then the education analogy I used earlier.
People should not be forced or pressured to look a certain way, but that doesn’t mean people should be forced or pressured to not make changes that they themselves choose to make, or labelled ‘sell outs’ because of it.
And this includes for physical attraction. Some people like certain looks and therefore want to achieve them.
Physical attraction plays a part in many relationships.
And when choosing to lose body fat you can do it for more than one reason. You can have a whole host. Its not a choice between lose body fat for yourself or lose body fat for your partner etc.
It can be for every and any reason. To make yourself fitter, stronger and healthier, to improve quality of sex lives, which therefore improves quality in other areas (needing sex is not immature, it’s a natural adult need), to achieve a look you like, to give you more energy to cope with children or stress easier etc.
Your reasons are your reasons.
Wanting to lose bodyfat/gain muscle for ‘vanity purposes’ is not wrong, it does not make you hateful of others, and it does not make you ‘brainwashed’.
Make your choices, just make sure you are healthy when you execute your choices and decisions, take it one step at a time, and remember to work to improve, but also enjoy what you have already achieved.
Find your potential, DO NOT tell yourself you have none! (or that there's nothing you can do)
I have always found this statement ridiculous.
Its no different then saying ‘In order to want to improve/change/gain your education, you must first HATE your mind’.It is complete nonsense.
Why is it that in the fat movement eyes, the want to change things can only come from 'self hate'?
Here is a fact of life: We are NOT born at our full potential. Our potentials are there to be discovered, and the only way to discover them is to actively pursue them.
Other statements from the fat movement are ‘If you choose to lose weight, it means you think fat people are bad, that you think fat is not attractive, and therefore you hate fat people’.
And ‘People who lose weight due to looks, are simply giving in to societies idea of beauty’.
Again this is nonsense.
For one, saying that ‘wanting to lose weight simply means you are giving into societies idea of beauty’ is no different then saying ‘By revising for exams/improving your education, you are simply conforming to societies idea of intelligence’.
The other problem with the line: ‘People who lose weight due to looks, are simply giving in to societies idea of beauty’ is this:By stating this line it is basically implying that NOBODY in their right, honest, working mind, could actually well and truly want this for themselves.It is basically implying you can only either:
A) Truly NOT want it
Or
B) Be brainwashed into wanting it
In other words, nobody could ever make an informed decision that they could want this for themselves.
Now my question is: What is wrong with wanting your body to be athletic/well muscled/trim, with a healthy low body fat level?
I know that not everyone can be a ‘Baywatch babe/hunk’, and that not everyone would want that look (because there is NO look that EVERYONE finds attractive, only looks that are more popular then others), but it is equally untrue that nobody could possibly want to give their body a certain look, or achieve it as best as they can.
I 100% believe that nobody should be made too, or made to feel like they have too, look a certain way. But that does NOT mean that it is wrong if a person chooses for themselves that they want to have a trimmer body.
If we go back to this line: ‘If you choose to lose weight, it means you think fat people are bad, that you think fat is not attractive, and therefore you hate fat people’ the problems with this statement stick out like a sore thumb.
We ALL want different things for ourselves. We all strive for different things from education, from work, from life itself. And we also ALL strive for different things from our body.
It is also a fact of life that physical attraction exists and that it is perfectly human to feel this, whether you want to admit it or not.
And some people will want to gain a trimmer physique as this is what is (and throughout all time, whilst other looks have come and gone) found to be attractive by most.
A good analogy for the fat movements views on losing body fat is:Not everyone for example is born athletic. But there are people who are. Other people on the other hand are born with absolutely no athletic ability. But does it mean that they ‘hate themselves’ if they work hard to improve/gain athletic ability? Does it mean they ‘hate’ non-athletic people because they themselves are trying too become/working on becoming athletic?
Would it have been better if they just sat on the side lines and ‘accepted’ that they had no natural athletic ability, and therefore come to the (wrong) conclusion that they therefore could never possibly have any? And tell themselves that if they did try, the only way they could gain any athletic ability was to train for 12 hours a day until they were sick and collapsed?
Would that have been better?
Could there be no way that a person could actually want athletic ability? That the only way they could want it was if they were ‘brainwashed’?
That if a person wants athletic ability, its because they hate themselves and so are conforming to society because a lot of society likes sports?
If this were true, it would mean that nobody could ever play a sport because they themselves like it?
It is a fact that some people will like the look of an athletic body, and they will want to achieve one for themselves as best they can.
People, as I said, shouldn’t be made to feel they have to look a certain way, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t people who won’t want to work to try and achieve, to the best of their ability, a certain look.
In my opinion it shouldn’t be about stopping people who want to lose weight from losing weight, or encouraging people to do whatever it takes to be ‘thin’.
It should be about people deciding the look they like, whether they are happy as the are, or wanting to become trimmer/more muscular/more athletic or just lose a few extra pounds, and making sure they get there the HEALTHY way.
Yes losing weight should always be about health first, and you shouldn’t do things to your body that will damage it for the sake of physical appearance.
But another fact of life is this:Getting in shape, and being happy and healthy are NOT mutually exclusive.
And gaining the look you want, as best you can, does NOT mean sacrificing your health.
If what you are doing to look good is damaging your health, that means you are doing it WRONG.
Getting into shape is meant to make your life better!!
Getting into shape comes from:
: Sensible resistance training. Building the muscles in your body and strengthening them
: Sensible cardiovascular training, improving your bodies lung power, heart and circulatory systems
: Eating healthy foods throughout the day, not from starvation. To keep burning calories your body needs to gain muscle. Starving yourself causes your body to BURN muscle.It does not come from:
: Eating like a rabbit
: Training in the gym until your between life and death
: Expecting 10 years of weight gain to disappear in a matter of weeks
The term ‘95% of diets fail’ comes from FAD DIETS, which are temporary, require drastic drops in calories, and often don’t include exercise, or at least any exercise that will benefit your muscles or go to the other extreme with monumental workouts that wreck your body and don't geive the muscles adequate time (or nutrition) to recovery.
The term is NOT talking about programs incorporating exercise and healthy nutrition into your life, for life!
The way to gain weight back is to stop what you are doing and return to old habits, which is exactly what happens when people end a diet (as they are temporary, and virtually impossible to maintain for life).
THAT is why 95% of diets fail. NOT because there is NO way to maintain weightloss, but because ‘diets’ are temporary quick fixes that promise monumental weight losses from weight that took years to accumulate, and often encourage unhealthy means in order to get there.
This is also where the ‘dieting is dangerous’ phrase comes from.
Again it is not talking about sensible resistance and cardio training, with a healthy eating plan, but the fad diets.
But the fat movement makes out there’s is no difference. That EVERYTHING to do with losing weight is a trick to get you on a fad, starvation diet, that you can only be fat and happy or thin, hungry and miserable, and that anyway of losing weight is unhealthy because there is ‘no way to maintain weight loss’, which is again ignoring the aforementioned importance of gaining muscle, sensible resistance and cardio training, rest and recuperation and healthy food.
As far as I am concerned, weight loss for ‘vanity reasons’ is not bad, as people like different looks, be it with bodies, hair, make-up, clothing, etc, or different activates, different music, different shows, different beliefs and different lifestyles.
Some people think anything to do with looks is ‘sad’, and that’s fine if they believe that is right for their life. But that does not change the fact that physical attraction is a human need for most people (and a natural and normal one, not an ‘immature’ one).
People should NOT be forced to look a certain way, or be trimmer, but at the same time that does NOT mean that NO-ONE can make a decision that they like a certain look, and therefore want to achieve it, or as best as they can.
What should be focused on is that if someone wants to achieve a certain look, they should be going about it in a healthy way and setting small realistic goals for themselves.
A 350lb man saying ‘I want a six-pack’ is too much at the current point the is at. His goal should first be to change his lifestyle and exercise patterns to incorporate exercise and healthy nutrition, introduce them slowly, and build up his bodies response to this new stimulation, then work on maybe losing 5lbs of fat as his first goal, and go from there.
We all have potential, and we don’t know how far we can go.
If this 350lb man sticks with his programme, is realistic about his goals, and takes it one step at a time, and above all realises that his weight gain took a long time to accumulate, therefore it is unrealistic to assume it will come off in no time at all, but that it will make his rewards all the sweeter when his targets come into view, then who knows where he can go?
Until you go for it and really stick with it, you don’t know where your potential will take you.
We all have limits, but those limits and how far our potential can go are to be discovered.
The key to losing weight and keeping it off is taking it one step at a time and improving bit by bit. Don’t go around telling yourself what you can’t do, FIND OUT WHAT YOU CAN!!
So many have surprised themselves in all areas of life by surpassing what they believed they could.
Even Olympic athletes didn’t know they were going to get to that level. They worked hard, kept going and took the path to discovering their potential and it lead them to greatness.
At any point the could have said ‘I’ll never do it’ and stopped, and I have no doubt there were times when they wanted to quit, or others told them they couldn’t do it, but persevering is what separates them from those who give up.
Not everyone could be an Olympic athlete, but then again no-one knows if they can be until they try.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to achieve a certain body, it absolutely does not mean that you ‘hate’ those who don’t have it, or those who have the same type of body that you yourself are trying to change.
Just like as mentioned, wanting to improve your education doesn’t mean you hate people who are at the level of education you are trying to leave.
And working to earn money doesn’t mean you hate those who have the same amount of money that you have now.
We all like different things. Wanting a certain look does not equal ‘conforming to society’, any more then the education analogy I used earlier.
People should not be forced or pressured to look a certain way, but that doesn’t mean people should be forced or pressured to not make changes that they themselves choose to make, or labelled ‘sell outs’ because of it.
And this includes for physical attraction. Some people like certain looks and therefore want to achieve them.
Physical attraction plays a part in many relationships.
And when choosing to lose body fat you can do it for more than one reason. You can have a whole host. Its not a choice between lose body fat for yourself or lose body fat for your partner etc.
It can be for every and any reason. To make yourself fitter, stronger and healthier, to improve quality of sex lives, which therefore improves quality in other areas (needing sex is not immature, it’s a natural adult need), to achieve a look you like, to give you more energy to cope with children or stress easier etc.
Your reasons are your reasons.
Wanting to lose bodyfat/gain muscle for ‘vanity purposes’ is not wrong, it does not make you hateful of others, and it does not make you ‘brainwashed’.
Make your choices, just make sure you are healthy when you execute your choices and decisions, take it one step at a time, and remember to work to improve, but also enjoy what you have already achieved.
Find your potential, DO NOT tell yourself you have none! (or that there's nothing you can do)
What does 'health at any size' really mean?
'Health at any size', a favourite phrase from the fat movement, but does it REALLY mean what it says?
Of course people of all sizes would benefit from incorporating exercise (sensible resistance and cardiovascular training) into their lives along with a solid nutrition plan.
But at the same time, when you do these things, and you gain muscle (a very important part of losing bodyfat), a 'side-effect' of that if you will, would be that bodyfat levels would lower, even just a bit.
And what I’ve seen from the fat movement, it seems that what 'health at any size' REALLY means when the fat movement use it is: 'You are 'allowed' to exercise, and you are 'allowed' to eat healthy, but don't you DARE lose ANY bodyfat doing it, or else you 'hate' us!!'
They appear to be no different then the 'society' they are against so much.
They say 'society says 'conform' or we will cast you out and ridicule you'....but so does the fat movement to their own numbers if you think about it.
It's 'conform or be labelled a sell-out and hateful'.
It's not 'health at any size', it's 'you can look after your health, but if you lose size doing it (which is a natural by product anyway if you have no medical condition, as you gain muscle you'd lose some fat even if you didn't want too, so really, you can't win!), you're out and labelled!!
Is this also why they deny health risks?
Because there’s only so far you can go by looking after your health when you are overweight, by exercising with weights, cardio and healthy food, before at least some body fat comes off (though there are those who will claim otherwise, because apparently their bodies defy science.....which is really just 'hateful people out to get them' anyway).
Is this why you only hear of either being fat or being anorexic? (Or 'destroying' yourself in the gym?).
Is it 'giving permission' to fat people to exercise, but at the same time worrying them with anorexia stories/losing fat can kill stories (whilst ignoring/denying/blowing off the fat can kill stories as 'hate' etc, so that they exercise, but don't put TOO much effort in (too much being so it actually benefits their muscles), because of all the scare stories they hear, so they do 'a bit' of exercise (to feel they are doing something), but not enough to really, truly benefit them and causes their muscles to grow, and hence burn bodyfat.
Do they even know that your body burns more fat when you gain muscle?
If so, is gaining muscle 'self hate', because it will lower bodyfat?
I'm not being a conspiracy theorist here, just this 'health at any size' thing to me, definitely seems to mean more 'don't you DARE lose body fat', then 'you can't lose bodyfat'.
Also going back to the fat acceptance thing and being the same as the 'society', their extremist views cause the same problems they say they hate (when aimed towards them): After reading many comments from people who have been involved it seems that people in their own numbers have been afraid to admit they may want to lose weight.
Afraid they are bad if they feel they do.
Afraid others will mock them if they admit to it.
There have been people in fat movement comments posts saying they were 'afraid to buy salad/vegetables in case anyone thought they may be on a diet'.
Afraid to go to the gym 'in case someone thought they were trying to lose bodyfat'.
Is that what’s known as encouraging ‘health at any size’?
Of course people of all sizes would benefit from incorporating exercise (sensible resistance and cardiovascular training) into their lives along with a solid nutrition plan.
But at the same time, when you do these things, and you gain muscle (a very important part of losing bodyfat), a 'side-effect' of that if you will, would be that bodyfat levels would lower, even just a bit.
And what I’ve seen from the fat movement, it seems that what 'health at any size' REALLY means when the fat movement use it is: 'You are 'allowed' to exercise, and you are 'allowed' to eat healthy, but don't you DARE lose ANY bodyfat doing it, or else you 'hate' us!!'
They appear to be no different then the 'society' they are against so much.
They say 'society says 'conform' or we will cast you out and ridicule you'....but so does the fat movement to their own numbers if you think about it.
It's 'conform or be labelled a sell-out and hateful'.
It's not 'health at any size', it's 'you can look after your health, but if you lose size doing it (which is a natural by product anyway if you have no medical condition, as you gain muscle you'd lose some fat even if you didn't want too, so really, you can't win!), you're out and labelled!!
Is this also why they deny health risks?
Because there’s only so far you can go by looking after your health when you are overweight, by exercising with weights, cardio and healthy food, before at least some body fat comes off (though there are those who will claim otherwise, because apparently their bodies defy science.....which is really just 'hateful people out to get them' anyway).
Is this why you only hear of either being fat or being anorexic? (Or 'destroying' yourself in the gym?).
Is it 'giving permission' to fat people to exercise, but at the same time worrying them with anorexia stories/losing fat can kill stories (whilst ignoring/denying/blowing off the fat can kill stories as 'hate' etc, so that they exercise, but don't put TOO much effort in (too much being so it actually benefits their muscles), because of all the scare stories they hear, so they do 'a bit' of exercise (to feel they are doing something), but not enough to really, truly benefit them and causes their muscles to grow, and hence burn bodyfat.
Do they even know that your body burns more fat when you gain muscle?
If so, is gaining muscle 'self hate', because it will lower bodyfat?
I'm not being a conspiracy theorist here, just this 'health at any size' thing to me, definitely seems to mean more 'don't you DARE lose body fat', then 'you can't lose bodyfat'.
Also going back to the fat acceptance thing and being the same as the 'society', their extremist views cause the same problems they say they hate (when aimed towards them): After reading many comments from people who have been involved it seems that people in their own numbers have been afraid to admit they may want to lose weight.
Afraid they are bad if they feel they do.
Afraid others will mock them if they admit to it.
There have been people in fat movement comments posts saying they were 'afraid to buy salad/vegetables in case anyone thought they may be on a diet'.
Afraid to go to the gym 'in case someone thought they were trying to lose bodyfat'.
Is that what’s known as encouraging ‘health at any size’?
Is criticising the fat movments ideas the same as 'hate speech' or even racism?
The reason i think the fat movement consider their movement the same as combating racism is because they believe weightloss is impossible and they believe they have no say in being overweight, which is the same as a person not having a say in being born black/white or any other colour.
But really the weightloss stuff is about taking a person from 'un-health to health', nothing at all like 'trying to make a black person white' (though they also believe this line to be a ‘cover’ for an ‘I hate fat people’ belief).
But with their 'there is no such thing as health problems from obesity', 'being overweight/obese is natural', 'fat is magically there/you get fat anyway/there’s nothing you can do' and 'weightloss leads to anorexia/it doesn't work/its all a trick anyway' mantras, their 'its like racism' stance will stay where it is.
Basically they see it the same as racism because they believe that like a person not having a say in the colour of their skin, a person has no say in the amount of fat they carry (no matter how large).
So therefore they see anyone talking about 'weightloss' as really, trying to 'change who they are', seeing it as no different then person trying to change another persons skin colour, rather then what it is, which is a person improving/trying to improve health, (this being 'wrong' in the fat movements eyes because there 'no health problems anyway' ).
So no, i sure don't think its anything like racism.
Its funny how 'hate speech' has evolved though isn't it. Once it was (excuse me for this) 'Die nigger', then murdering them, whilst now you get accused of 'hate speech' simply by saying 'Losing bodyfat will make you healthier' or sometimes 'Sorry but i'm not physically attracted to overweight people'.
Bodyfat as something that our body creates when given excesses, our bodies can't create it from nothing, and gaining vast amounts of weight comes from either too much excess, excesses gained from over a long period of time with nothing done to curb it along the way, or a medical condition (and there are simply too many overweight people to fit into this category).
Unless due to medical problems, our body can't create fat if we give it no excess, where else can it make fat from?
Some bodies are less EFFICIENT, but unless a person has a medical condition (and they are in the minority), no-ones body is completely useless at it.
If a persons body CAN'T burn energy, then they wouldn't be conscious/alive to tell us that.
Being alive takes energy, so your body must be burning something.
And it gets that energy from what we give it.
Those who don't eat or eat virtually nothing, stay alive because their bodies burn their muscles instead for energy, whilst clinging to any drop of fat in their stores that it can, these are the anorexics.
Which is why again and again, being on a fitness program does NOT lead to anorexia, because your meant to be putting ON muscle on a fitness program, and if you starve yourself you lose your muscle.
Its fad diets that don't talk about the benefits of muscle, and usually don't involve much exercise (if any) at all, that encourage the eating virtually nothing ideas, and these programs are useless, they just take advantage of peoples want to lose years worth of bodyfat in 2 weeks, and its not possible in a healthy way (hence the 95% of diets fail/losing fat kills lines the fat movement love to use).
But to them (pro fat people), weightloss is impossible, therefore bodyfat isn't seen as something that’s unhealthy (which saying by itself can cause you to undergo accusations of ‘hate speech‘).
Instead they see it as part of their identity, just like our skin colour is a part of our identity.
And as they see it as part of their identity, they see 'weightloss' as trying to change that identity, like making a black person white.
But whilst they see fat as inevitable, and impossible to do anything about, they will hold this 'It's like racism' stance, even though its two different things
But really the weightloss stuff is about taking a person from 'un-health to health', nothing at all like 'trying to make a black person white' (though they also believe this line to be a ‘cover’ for an ‘I hate fat people’ belief).
But with their 'there is no such thing as health problems from obesity', 'being overweight/obese is natural', 'fat is magically there/you get fat anyway/there’s nothing you can do' and 'weightloss leads to anorexia/it doesn't work/its all a trick anyway' mantras, their 'its like racism' stance will stay where it is.
Basically they see it the same as racism because they believe that like a person not having a say in the colour of their skin, a person has no say in the amount of fat they carry (no matter how large).
So therefore they see anyone talking about 'weightloss' as really, trying to 'change who they are', seeing it as no different then person trying to change another persons skin colour, rather then what it is, which is a person improving/trying to improve health, (this being 'wrong' in the fat movements eyes because there 'no health problems anyway' ).
So no, i sure don't think its anything like racism.
Its funny how 'hate speech' has evolved though isn't it. Once it was (excuse me for this) 'Die nigger', then murdering them, whilst now you get accused of 'hate speech' simply by saying 'Losing bodyfat will make you healthier' or sometimes 'Sorry but i'm not physically attracted to overweight people'.
Bodyfat as something that our body creates when given excesses, our bodies can't create it from nothing, and gaining vast amounts of weight comes from either too much excess, excesses gained from over a long period of time with nothing done to curb it along the way, or a medical condition (and there are simply too many overweight people to fit into this category).
Unless due to medical problems, our body can't create fat if we give it no excess, where else can it make fat from?
Some bodies are less EFFICIENT, but unless a person has a medical condition (and they are in the minority), no-ones body is completely useless at it.
If a persons body CAN'T burn energy, then they wouldn't be conscious/alive to tell us that.
Being alive takes energy, so your body must be burning something.
And it gets that energy from what we give it.
Those who don't eat or eat virtually nothing, stay alive because their bodies burn their muscles instead for energy, whilst clinging to any drop of fat in their stores that it can, these are the anorexics.
Which is why again and again, being on a fitness program does NOT lead to anorexia, because your meant to be putting ON muscle on a fitness program, and if you starve yourself you lose your muscle.
Its fad diets that don't talk about the benefits of muscle, and usually don't involve much exercise (if any) at all, that encourage the eating virtually nothing ideas, and these programs are useless, they just take advantage of peoples want to lose years worth of bodyfat in 2 weeks, and its not possible in a healthy way (hence the 95% of diets fail/losing fat kills lines the fat movement love to use).
But to them (pro fat people), weightloss is impossible, therefore bodyfat isn't seen as something that’s unhealthy (which saying by itself can cause you to undergo accusations of ‘hate speech‘).
Instead they see it as part of their identity, just like our skin colour is a part of our identity.
And as they see it as part of their identity, they see 'weightloss' as trying to change that identity, like making a black person white.
But whilst they see fat as inevitable, and impossible to do anything about, they will hold this 'It's like racism' stance, even though its two different things
The fat movement and media
People can find what they want attractive in my mind. But like anything, some things will be more popular then others.
The fat movement, for one, seem to be encouraging the very 'body fascism' they claim they hate.
They hate when slimmer people are put all over the magazines, but at the same time claiming 'being fat means you are 'real'', 'changing yourself can only mean self hate', or pointing almost always to those who are overweight and saying 'this is what a real women/person looks like’' (but does this mean those who are slimmer are therefore above average or below it on this scale? And also as i mentioned, its only average because people today keep getting fatter. Just like if people fail school, the average grades will therefore be low, but that doesn't make it ok to fail exams because 'that’s the average' ) or even something as basic as 'fuck the skinnies' is the exact same thing.
The reason that 'impossibly good looking' slim people get put on the magazines is for a very simple reason.
Because they are people who you don't get to see everyday.
Just like would a person rather pay to see an average athlete, or an elite one?
Its comparing yourself to others that causes heartache, not showing these things in the media.
There’s always someone who has something else you want, whether its someone with a better body, better car, better house, more money, living in a nicer place, better job, happier marriage, more friends, more prospects, more education, more holidays, more sex etc, and these people will still be there if hidden from magazines or shown openly.
And people aren't going to pay money to see stuff that's 'ok, nothing to scream about, but not rubbish either', whether its bodies, places, music, shows or anything at all. They can see 'average' for free by simply standing in the middle of town.
Being overweight doesn't automatically equal ugly, but some looks are just more popular then others.
Also as I will write more of later, just because a look is featured more in the magazines, it isn't going to magically change what people do and don't like. Just like just because a song is played on the radio doesn't mean that everyone will like it.
Deciding to play more death metal on mainstream radio for example, isn't going to suddenly make everyone love the genre is it!
You'll just change the station or turn it off if you don't like it.
Wat i am talking about is that some people feel that the best option would be to have alot more diversity in models in magazines (some even claim, ONLY having average people).
Having diversity does sound like a fair option.
But it still won't change the fact that some looks of the models will be found more attractive then others or be more popular.
And they (magazines and such) are businesses, therefore they will (just like now) eventually go with the more popular option.
Why would they keep something in a magazine that isn't doing well?
Its not their job to 'show diversity', its their job to sell the magazine, that’s it!
Certain looks and body shapes are found more attractive then others. And therefore the ones that didn't do as well will get cut out of the magazines....therefore the ones with that look complain of discrimination and brainwashing, exactly like they do now.
Also , though others claim otherwise, people don't just find things attractive because they are on t.v or in a magazine anyway.
Its not true that we are all gullible and only find things attractive because we are told.
There is more then one top model, why is it that one person picks a favourite whilst another has a different favourite?
And why is it that some people don't find them attractive at all?
Why do some people prefer different features, be it smile, eyes, legs, body, humour, intelligence, character, charisma, hair colour, style, interests etc?
Is there no such thing as preference? Can people not just connect with things?
If this were true it means that everything you like isn't really your choice.
It would mean you couldn't have chosen the clothes you are wearing right now, your hair, the things in your home and everything you have, the music you listen too, the shows you watch, the activities you partake in etc.
Even if two people seem exactly the same in every way people still find ways of picking a favourite, and there will be people on both sides.
If it were true we could all be 'brainwashed' into liking just one thing then that would go for everything else too.
We all like different types of music and shows for example. If it was possible to make people like something because its in the media, then there would only be 1 or 2 shows on t.v and 1 or 2 genres of music, but there isn't, there are millions.
And just like everything else, though there are many, some are found more popular then others. This rule holds true.
It doesn't make you bad if you prefer ones that aren't as popular, but you can't make everyone else love it, or say that others only don't like it because of 'hate and discrimination' either.
Its just a fact of life that some things are more popular then others (does this need to be repeated more?).
Its like a person taking up chess then complaining that their game doesn't get put on 'pay per view'.
If we were all brainwashed, then there wouldn't be these things, and therefore preference could not exist.
Just like you're not going to look at a picture of a rundown town or place and think 'it would be a beautiful place for a holiday' no matter how many magazines it gets put in.
There’s always someone complaining of hurt feelings no matter what.
Should exams be made illegal because some people aren't so academic, so feel bad when their results get back? That the students who get straight A's get the most praise, so this should be stopped because it 'sets an unrealistic standard for others'?
Would the Olympics be better with more average athletes?
What the is with all this 'average' stuff anyway?
Can anyone else say 'accept mediocrity' here?
I know not everyone can be Greek gods, top athletes, rock stars, movie stars, top scientists/geniuses etc, but why is everything now just about being 'average'?
What’s next?
: 'Hi, I’m here to show that you don't have to be excellent at your event to be in the Olympics! I run the 100m at so-and so speed, that’s the speed of the average person!'....wow i'll look forward to that one
or
:'Hi, i'm here to show all you wannabe scientists out there that you don't have to be super clever to work on the space program!. I only got average grades '.....well i feel sorry for the astronauts who are getting onto your rocket.
or another academic one
'Hi there, i got C's and D's on my exams, i could have got A's, but screw those boffins, they set unrealistic examples, C's are average , and average is good enough. If you get C's then its ok, because you are 'real'!'....ooook!
But it seems that rather then become more strong minded, what is encouraged is the 'everytime you see something you don't have, go off on a 'oh everything is against me/people like me' idea.
As always again and again, SOME THINGS ARE MORE POPULAR THEN OTHERS.
This whole 'oh my body shape isn't in all the magazines, it must be because of hate', is no differant then a chess champion complaining he doesn't get a showing on sports channels, or a band claiming its all because of hate that their song doesn't get played on the radio.
Its not, its just somethings are prefered over others.
Thats it!
It doesn't make you bad or worth nothing just because what you have isn't shown in the magazines (be it a body, car, job, where you live, where you holiday, or anything), but you can't MAKE people like it, or want to pay to see it either.
Just like you're not worth nothing if you dont own a flashy car, but complaining that its unrealistic to have all these sports super cars in the magazines, rather then the average car, (or a retired ice cream truck with a dodgy wheel, and no windscreen) isn't going to change what people want to see.
The fat movement, for one, seem to be encouraging the very 'body fascism' they claim they hate.
They hate when slimmer people are put all over the magazines, but at the same time claiming 'being fat means you are 'real'', 'changing yourself can only mean self hate', or pointing almost always to those who are overweight and saying 'this is what a real women/person looks like’' (but does this mean those who are slimmer are therefore above average or below it on this scale? And also as i mentioned, its only average because people today keep getting fatter. Just like if people fail school, the average grades will therefore be low, but that doesn't make it ok to fail exams because 'that’s the average' ) or even something as basic as 'fuck the skinnies' is the exact same thing.
The reason that 'impossibly good looking' slim people get put on the magazines is for a very simple reason.
Because they are people who you don't get to see everyday.
Just like would a person rather pay to see an average athlete, or an elite one?
Its comparing yourself to others that causes heartache, not showing these things in the media.
There’s always someone who has something else you want, whether its someone with a better body, better car, better house, more money, living in a nicer place, better job, happier marriage, more friends, more prospects, more education, more holidays, more sex etc, and these people will still be there if hidden from magazines or shown openly.
And people aren't going to pay money to see stuff that's 'ok, nothing to scream about, but not rubbish either', whether its bodies, places, music, shows or anything at all. They can see 'average' for free by simply standing in the middle of town.
Being overweight doesn't automatically equal ugly, but some looks are just more popular then others.
Also as I will write more of later, just because a look is featured more in the magazines, it isn't going to magically change what people do and don't like. Just like just because a song is played on the radio doesn't mean that everyone will like it.
Deciding to play more death metal on mainstream radio for example, isn't going to suddenly make everyone love the genre is it!
You'll just change the station or turn it off if you don't like it.
Wat i am talking about is that some people feel that the best option would be to have alot more diversity in models in magazines (some even claim, ONLY having average people).
Having diversity does sound like a fair option.
But it still won't change the fact that some looks of the models will be found more attractive then others or be more popular.
And they (magazines and such) are businesses, therefore they will (just like now) eventually go with the more popular option.
Why would they keep something in a magazine that isn't doing well?
Its not their job to 'show diversity', its their job to sell the magazine, that’s it!
Certain looks and body shapes are found more attractive then others. And therefore the ones that didn't do as well will get cut out of the magazines....therefore the ones with that look complain of discrimination and brainwashing, exactly like they do now.
Also , though others claim otherwise, people don't just find things attractive because they are on t.v or in a magazine anyway.
Its not true that we are all gullible and only find things attractive because we are told.
There is more then one top model, why is it that one person picks a favourite whilst another has a different favourite?
And why is it that some people don't find them attractive at all?
Why do some people prefer different features, be it smile, eyes, legs, body, humour, intelligence, character, charisma, hair colour, style, interests etc?
Is there no such thing as preference? Can people not just connect with things?
If this were true it means that everything you like isn't really your choice.
It would mean you couldn't have chosen the clothes you are wearing right now, your hair, the things in your home and everything you have, the music you listen too, the shows you watch, the activities you partake in etc.
Even if two people seem exactly the same in every way people still find ways of picking a favourite, and there will be people on both sides.
If it were true we could all be 'brainwashed' into liking just one thing then that would go for everything else too.
We all like different types of music and shows for example. If it was possible to make people like something because its in the media, then there would only be 1 or 2 shows on t.v and 1 or 2 genres of music, but there isn't, there are millions.
And just like everything else, though there are many, some are found more popular then others. This rule holds true.
It doesn't make you bad if you prefer ones that aren't as popular, but you can't make everyone else love it, or say that others only don't like it because of 'hate and discrimination' either.
Its just a fact of life that some things are more popular then others (does this need to be repeated more?).
Its like a person taking up chess then complaining that their game doesn't get put on 'pay per view'.
If we were all brainwashed, then there wouldn't be these things, and therefore preference could not exist.
Just like you're not going to look at a picture of a rundown town or place and think 'it would be a beautiful place for a holiday' no matter how many magazines it gets put in.
There’s always someone complaining of hurt feelings no matter what.
Should exams be made illegal because some people aren't so academic, so feel bad when their results get back? That the students who get straight A's get the most praise, so this should be stopped because it 'sets an unrealistic standard for others'?
Would the Olympics be better with more average athletes?
What the is with all this 'average' stuff anyway?
Can anyone else say 'accept mediocrity' here?
I know not everyone can be Greek gods, top athletes, rock stars, movie stars, top scientists/geniuses etc, but why is everything now just about being 'average'?
What’s next?
: 'Hi, I’m here to show that you don't have to be excellent at your event to be in the Olympics! I run the 100m at so-and so speed, that’s the speed of the average person!'....wow i'll look forward to that one
or
:'Hi, i'm here to show all you wannabe scientists out there that you don't have to be super clever to work on the space program!. I only got average grades '.....well i feel sorry for the astronauts who are getting onto your rocket.
or another academic one
'Hi there, i got C's and D's on my exams, i could have got A's, but screw those boffins, they set unrealistic examples, C's are average , and average is good enough. If you get C's then its ok, because you are 'real'!'....ooook!
But it seems that rather then become more strong minded, what is encouraged is the 'everytime you see something you don't have, go off on a 'oh everything is against me/people like me' idea.
As always again and again, SOME THINGS ARE MORE POPULAR THEN OTHERS.
This whole 'oh my body shape isn't in all the magazines, it must be because of hate', is no differant then a chess champion complaining he doesn't get a showing on sports channels, or a band claiming its all because of hate that their song doesn't get played on the radio.
Its not, its just somethings are prefered over others.
Thats it!
It doesn't make you bad or worth nothing just because what you have isn't shown in the magazines (be it a body, car, job, where you live, where you holiday, or anything), but you can't MAKE people like it, or want to pay to see it either.
Just like you're not worth nothing if you dont own a flashy car, but complaining that its unrealistic to have all these sports super cars in the magazines, rather then the average car, (or a retired ice cream truck with a dodgy wheel, and no windscreen) isn't going to change what people want to see.
How it's almost impossible to become anorexic from fitness.
Many in the fat movement claim 'exercise and such leads to anorexia', here's why it plain and simply doesn't...and virtually can't:
Those who don't eat or eat virtually nothing, stay alive because their bodies burn their muscles instead for energy, whilst clinging to any drop of fat in their stores that it can, these are the anorexics (or those headed for anorexia).
Which is why again and again, being on a fitness program does NOT/ can NOT lead to anorexia, because your meant to be putting ON muscle on a fitness program, and if you starve yourself you can't gain muscle, you can only lose it.
Which is why the fat movements 'starvation, starvation, its all to do with starvation' chorus grows oh so tiresome.
Along with their 'exercise isn't all its cracked up to be, after all i walked to the shops once....i didn't lose anything' lines.
Its fad diets (and other mainstream articles, that say droll things like 'take the stairs' etc, which is good for an absolute beginner, yet they make out its all everyone needs to do) that don't talk about the benefits of muscle, and usually don't involve much exercise (if any) at all on their programs, that encourage the eating virtually nothing ideas, and these programs are useless.
They just hop on a bandwagon to make a quick buck from peoples want to lose years worth of bodyfat in 2 weeks (then they disappear again. Why else do you think there’s a new fad diet that 'definitely will work this time' every 2 weeks?), and its not possible in a healthy way (hence the 95% of diets fail/losing fat kills lines....very boring).
"So fat movement here’s the question: How can you become anorexic (which means your body burns your muscle as it has nothing else to make energy from because fat (which is stored energy) ISN'T magic, it has to be created) on a PROPER fitness program, when the whole point is to be putting ON muscle, from eating (yes eating) the calories you need whilst avoiding the excess', and building up your muscles with resistance training, and improving lung and heart function with cardio?
How does 'anorexia' fit into this picture at all?
Anorexia is not only more a mental disorder in many cases, but eating disorders also come about when people have NO knowledge of how to lose weight safely and effectivley (though the fat movment deny this is possible).
People find themselves in bad situations when they try to do something whilst having no clue what they are doing, not from learning about how to do it safely, effectivley.Eating disorders come mainly from the thought process 'eating made me fat...therefore not eating must make me unfat, sorted!
But this isn't true, for a start it was WHAT they were eating, or HOW MUCH that caused the excess, NOT the eating itself.
Doing a fitness program properly involves feeding your body without giving it excess', resistance training to build up muscles all over the body, and cardiovascular training to improve heart and lung finctions among other things.
Also putting on muscle means you can eat more food (you will need too) not less, again where does 'starvation' come into the picture? How do you feed muscles and repair them from training if you give them nothing but a glass of water or a celery stick?
I simply don't see how anorexia even comes into it.
Those who don't eat or eat virtually nothing, stay alive because their bodies burn their muscles instead for energy, whilst clinging to any drop of fat in their stores that it can, these are the anorexics (or those headed for anorexia).
Which is why again and again, being on a fitness program does NOT/ can NOT lead to anorexia, because your meant to be putting ON muscle on a fitness program, and if you starve yourself you can't gain muscle, you can only lose it.
Which is why the fat movements 'starvation, starvation, its all to do with starvation' chorus grows oh so tiresome.
Along with their 'exercise isn't all its cracked up to be, after all i walked to the shops once....i didn't lose anything' lines.
Its fad diets (and other mainstream articles, that say droll things like 'take the stairs' etc, which is good for an absolute beginner, yet they make out its all everyone needs to do) that don't talk about the benefits of muscle, and usually don't involve much exercise (if any) at all on their programs, that encourage the eating virtually nothing ideas, and these programs are useless.
They just hop on a bandwagon to make a quick buck from peoples want to lose years worth of bodyfat in 2 weeks (then they disappear again. Why else do you think there’s a new fad diet that 'definitely will work this time' every 2 weeks?), and its not possible in a healthy way (hence the 95% of diets fail/losing fat kills lines....very boring).
"So fat movement here’s the question: How can you become anorexic (which means your body burns your muscle as it has nothing else to make energy from because fat (which is stored energy) ISN'T magic, it has to be created) on a PROPER fitness program, when the whole point is to be putting ON muscle, from eating (yes eating) the calories you need whilst avoiding the excess', and building up your muscles with resistance training, and improving lung and heart function with cardio?
How does 'anorexia' fit into this picture at all?
Anorexia is not only more a mental disorder in many cases, but eating disorders also come about when people have NO knowledge of how to lose weight safely and effectivley (though the fat movment deny this is possible).
People find themselves in bad situations when they try to do something whilst having no clue what they are doing, not from learning about how to do it safely, effectivley.Eating disorders come mainly from the thought process 'eating made me fat...therefore not eating must make me unfat, sorted!
But this isn't true, for a start it was WHAT they were eating, or HOW MUCH that caused the excess, NOT the eating itself.
Doing a fitness program properly involves feeding your body without giving it excess', resistance training to build up muscles all over the body, and cardiovascular training to improve heart and lung finctions among other things.
Also putting on muscle means you can eat more food (you will need too) not less, again where does 'starvation' come into the picture? How do you feed muscles and repair them from training if you give them nothing but a glass of water or a celery stick?
I simply don't see how anorexia even comes into it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
