Why men find thinner women attractive

[Alan C.]

Why men find thinner women attractive: Scientists say 'evolutionary fitness' makes slimmer females more appealing

 

Men find thinner women attractive because they associate their body shape with youth, fertility and a lower risk of disease.

This is according to a new study by the University of Aberdeen which found 'evolutionary fitness' determines what men find appealing.

This contradicts earlier theories which suggest people are drawn to body types with more fat as they could historically survive a famine.

Professor John Speakman, who co-ordinated the study, said that in evolutionary terms fitness was made up of two things: survival and the ability to reproduce.

'What we wanted to investigate was the idea that when we look at someone and think they are physically attractive,' he said.

'Are we actually making that assessment based on a hard-wired evolutionary understanding of their potential for future survival and reproductive ability?' he said.

 

[jpahmad]

Angelina Jolie, too skinny, frail, weak.  Blown away with a high enough wind.  Not good for survival.

[NotDarkYet]

Here's the math your brain does:

 

Thin = Youth

Youth = Lots of Eggs

Lots of Eggs = Sexy

 

 

For myself, I don't even like big breasts.  I like extremely skinny women.

 

These ad campaigns that say "everybody is beautiful", that's just visual socialism.  Nope, not everybody is hot.  Sorry.

[shirgall]

Yeah, a study that considers BMI important is questionable on its face. It's an extremely poor metric.

[russoft]

Did they include Africans in this study?

 

In Sub-Saharan Africa, being called fat isn't an insult and is rather a compliment. It means you're healthy for two major reasons:

 

1.) You probably come from a wealthy family and didn't suffer malnutrition (which has serious consequences if it occurs in childhood).

 

2.) You probably don't have HIV/AIDS. 

[J. D. Stembal]

Yeah, a study that considers BMI important is questionable on its face. It's an extremely poor metric.

 

In the future of medicine, hemoglobin A1c will be probably be the metric of choice for predicting health outcomes. It already correlates perfectly with risk of developing dementia.

 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1215740#t=articleMethods

 

As a man who has spent eight weeks in a gym, I can confidently say even if a woman trains 6-7 days a week and cuts out most sugar, she isn't going to lose her mammary glands entirely, although they firm up a little. The jock girls at the gym make up for it by having expansive bubble butts, though. Squats and such compound movements that include the glutes are the best way to get a more prominent posterior, male or female.

 

Michael, is there any chance we can get a health and wellness sub-forum category in the future?

[st434u]

I think it's more likely to be cultural.

 

In general and except in extreme cases (on both ends), I don't find weight to be an issue when determining how much I'm attracted to a woman. This doesn't mean that "everyone is beautiful", as some say. It just means that there are other much more important factors that make me more or less physically attracted to a woman.

 

By the way, I also find long nails (especially fake nails), high heels and makeup to be extremely unattractive. But that's just me.

 

And where did they come up with the idea that it's because thinner = younger? How many obese grandmothers do you know? How about skinny and frail grandmothers? I mean sure, on average, younger women are thinner, but it's not like you can't estimate someone's age regardless of her weight. So it's not like you're gonna go, "oh, she's thin, so she must be young"

 

Also, being overweight doesn't always correlate with worse health outcomes: http://www.medicaldaily.com/health-benefits-being-overweight-higher-bmi-linked-longer-life-and-faster-healing-249203

 

A study in The Journal of the American Medical Association recently found that while being overweight may indeed lead to a heightened risk of developing diabetes, high blood pressure, and coronary heart disease, those additional pounds also come with a slew of health benefits. Together, these lower the risk of dying from any cause by about 6 percent.

 

 

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/3/543.abstract

 

In the general population, a high body mass index (BMI; in kg/m²) is associated with increased cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. However, the effect of overweight (BMI: 25–30) or obesity (BMI: >30) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) is paradoxically in the opposite direction; ie, a high BMI is associated with improved survival.

[Wuzzums]

What a complete waste of money. They should have been studying why people eat food. This question has plagued great minds for millennia and it's about high time we get an answer.

[green banana]

Statues of fertility goddesses show them to be chubby / fat. I think the attactiveness is correlated with the abundance of food. In times with not enough food, overweight women are attractive, in times of plenty, slim women are preferred. 

[J. D. Stembal]

Statues of fertility goddesses show them to be chubby / fat. I think the attactiveness is correlated with the abundance of food. In times with not enough food, overweight women are attractive, in times of plenty, slim women are preferred. 

 

The only reason fertility goddesses are depicted as overweight is because that's what happens to women when they are fertile and attractive. They get knocked up and grow more humans inside of them. Staying overweight after the fact is the perfect way to not have another child. Likewise, being obese without children is a mark of infertility due to the hormonal ravages of metabolic disorder. Men do have sex with the overweight, on occasion, so it's not as if fat women are not getting laid enough.

 

Please explain the logic behind your assertions, Green. Why would food have any bearing on what humans find attractive sexually?

[Mister Mister]

^well it just seems to hold up historically, that having some fat (not obese by modern standards, but portly), and being pale used to be the standard for beauty, and now it is being thin and tan.

[MagnumPI]

Hmmm... So in hot-as-balls ancient Egypt, which probably meant little clothing, trim and dark was in.

 

But in Europe through whatever their heyday was, 15-18th centuries, when corsets and big ass dresses , with lots of makeup, were cool, fat and pale was the thing. I mean, sure. Big tits and a small waist is always cool. Even through the 50's, it's easy to say curves and weight were cool, because, form altering dresses and bras were stylish.

 

Ancient Greece is a terrible example what with the rampant homosexuality. If fat chicks were so hot, why were so many dudes banging each other? Say, what time period does that remind me of? I feel like this is important...

 

I may be wrong, but all Asian cultures have desired small, thin women for always?

 

Another real big pain in the ass deciphering trends, is with older paintings as proof of what women looked like. They were commissioned by rich people. Rich people naturally don't need to give a shit, they got money. They can eat all they want and still be rich enough to get it whenever they wanted it and the strong nobility/family negotiations took the element of preference out of the equation.

[Frosty]

What are the other options? That men find young and skinny women attractive because someone told us to? Or because media portrays it this way? Quite frankly I find all of the alternatives absurd.

 

It's a common feminist assumption that media depiction of women fuels men to prefer that body type, when in reality the exact opposite is the case, as usual among feminists, the cause and effects have become confused, in the same way they think women are feminine because they grew up with feminine toys, and men grew up with masculine toys. It's not that there's a great toy conspiracy it's just that toy makers are businesses in a free market and which ever meets the demand of their target customers are the ones which are more successful, the same goes for fashion/lifestyle magazines portraying sexy women. As such the products evolve to most closely match that of the demand through trial and error and ultimately the best thing winning out.

 

It's almost inconceivable that the preferred body type for men isn't something guided by evolutionary processes because it guides just about every other aspects of our biology. There is obviously some variation about a more general trend as there is with almost every metric related to human or animal behaviour, but the average is very clear. If you look younger, fitter, and slimmer then you're generally more attractive than if you were fatter and unhealthy. Also this more recent fat positivity movement to try make fat people feel good is trying to divorce weight from health which is stupid because they're so well correlated for a huge number of medical issues, again generally fatter people are less healthy, this isn't controversial outside of feminist rhetoric.

[J. D. Stembal]

^well it just seems to hold up historically, that having some fat (not obese by modern standards, but portly), and being pale used to be the standard for beauty, and now it is being thin and tan.

 

Could you point me to the evidence for this assertion, please?

[Mister Mister]

well if you look at paintings of attractive women in the past, they have a lot more belly and thigh than the modern super-model.  again, not obese by modern standards, but not rail-thin Cindy Crawford either.

http://umbandaimagens.blogspot.com/2011/07/afrodite-e-adonis.html

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/36.29

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/49.7.16

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/10.189

[green banana]

Please explain the logic behind your assertions, Green. Why would food have any bearing on what humans find attractive sexually?

 

Shortage of food leads to rewiring of your brain. And the times that chubby women were seen as attractive, coincide with regional cooling in Western Europe leading to bad harvests. 

[AccuTron]

Angelina Jolie, too skinny, frail, weak.  Blown away with a high enough wind.  Not good for survival.

Love it.

Please explain the logic behind your assertions, Green. Why would food have any bearing on what humans find attractive sexually?

If borderline starvation is a common problem and struggle, as in much of human history, fat will look good.  Like in a rainy climate, a solid roof looks good.  In times like ours, fat means lack of self control probably, so looks bad.

 

 

I think the word fat is not well defined some places here.  I saw a link about redrawing gaming female characters, and frankly I thought they looked better filled out.  My taste of course, and they were NOT obese, the belly did NOT flop and fold.  

 

A heavy woman can't be picked up and moved around for fun, be it quick smooch or something more involved.  The difference between picking up a bicycle and picking up a riding lawnmower.  One is fun, one is labor.  

 

Someone here said they prefer skinny women, which is fine and good, assuming we're talking still healthy.  Said they didn't care for the big boobs, and I agree, can we pleeeeasssse get rid of that one.  Cutest boobies I've ever seen didn't hang at all.  

 

And if you as male found yourself legitimately rescuing a female from a sudden flash flood or such, a lightweight female is easy to lift, the heavy woman will have to drown, despite good intentions.  It's very practical at some levels.  

[J. D. Stembal]

If borderline starvation is a common problem and struggle, as in much of human history, fat will look good.  Like in a rainy climate, a solid roof looks good.  In times like ours, fat means lack of self control probably, so looks bad.

 

Fat never looks good unless you are eating it off of a dead animal carcass. There are one or maybe two exceptions, a woman's mammary glands/posterior.

 

Humans store fat because it is an evolutionary adaptation to waiting out SHORT periods of starvation, usually the winter months away from the equator, out of necessity. Being fat all year round, especially in the modern day, is the definition of gluttony. Fat was never sexually attractive, and it still isn't.

[AccuTron]

It's a definition issue again:  curvy yes, blubbery no.  If it hangs or folds, and it ain't mammary or butt, that's blubber.

[J. D. Stembal]

It's a definition issue again:  curvy yes, blubbery no.  If it hangs or folds, and it ain't mammary or butt, that's blubber.

 

What?

[AccuTron]

Yes, that was harsh in it's way.  Probably should've been saved for a database of unwanted observations.  I was a blubbery youngster, so it felt vetted as it were.  And it's all personal taste anyway.

[J. D. Stembal]

Step into a crossfit gym and take a gander at the women there. Many of them have a whole lot of curves and can lift more than most men (in lower body exercises, at least).

 

I'll record a video when I go back to the gym (still recovering from a foot injury) and post it here via Youtube. I can think of at least seven ladies 40 or under that can lift more than me and look absolutely fantastic. A couple of them are mothers.

 

I was confused about why you brought up definitions. Body fat is a continuum from low to high, and lean muscle mass is also a factor, the more you have the healthier you are.

[J. D. Stembal]

Fitness and health are different, sometimes not overlapping, concepts.

 

The definitions are important because someone fit may have low body fat, but lots of lean muscle mass as well. Women of course tend to have a lot higher body fat percentage than men, which is appropriate for fertility. I think a lot of people are talking about "thinness" to mean someone with underdeveloped musculature, and little of the appropriate fat stores. I would not picture someone doing crossfit when discussing thin women. They would fall into the curvy camp, for the most part.

 

Fitness and health are one and the same, actually. You cannot have one without the other, at least not for very long. That's one of the myths that I am attempting to dispel here.

 

I'm following the definition implied in the linked article. Thin simply means not fat. I can empathize with why Accutron would want to use different definitions such as curvy and blubbery (I don't see the difference between the two), as these words don't sound as mean as fat. Essentially, there is tone policing happening here.

Taylor Swift may have the perfect body type according to the article, and it's really is nice, but for health and longevity's sake, I would go for a woman with a lot more meat on her frame, meaning muscle.

[Mister Mister]

Taylor Swift may have the perfect body type according to the article, and it's really is nice, but for health and longevity's sake, I would go for a woman with a lot more meat on her frame, meaning muscle.

 

There is no perfect body type.  You have just proven that by expressing a particular preference for muscle.  Different body types would survive better in different environments, which might explain people's preference for those genetically similar to them.

 

But you also seem to have gotten upset and indignant when others of us in this thread have suggested that there are different preferences in women's body types among men.  Why is this such an issue for you?  I mean I agree that feminist "fat acceptance", a la Naomi Wolff's "The Beauty Myth", is ridiculous, relativist, man-shaming nonsense, but on the other end you have supermodels who are not a representation of real women, and Roosh V saying that men should never date women who are more than 140 lbs.  It seems like a false dichotomy to me.

[J. D. Stembal]

There is no perfect body type.  You have just proven that by expressing a particular preference for muscle.  Different body types would survive better in different environments, which might explain people's preference for those genetically similar to them.

 

But you also seem to have gotten upset and indignant when others of us in this thread have suggested that there are different preferences in women's body types among men.  Why is this such an issue for you?  I mean I agree that feminist "fat acceptance", a la Naomi Wolff's "The Beauty Myth", is ridiculous, relativist, man-shaming nonsense, but on the other end you have supermodels who are not a representation of real women, and Roosh V saying that men should never date women who are more than 140 lbs.  It seems like a false dichotomy to me.

 

The article suggested that Taylor Swift manifests the ideal body mass index. Perhaps they polled straight men to determine this, I only skimmed the article.

 

How do I seem upset?

 

Fat is unhealthy and will be avoided by any K-selected man. Muscles are healthy and are attractive to a K-selected men. Bust and butt excepted, of course, but I already pointed that out a few times.

[J. D. Stembal]

Is this person healthy? http://www.mensfitness.com/sites/mensfitness.com/files/d6/13428.jpg

 

Is urinary incontinence a sign of health? https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=UKzq1upNIgU

 

That woman doesn't do crossfit.

 

Most women can get through a workout in the gym without getting the floor wet. It may be nerves or sexual arousal that causes this phenomenon, but I've never seen it outside of a bedroom.

[st434u]

The world is full of athletic, young, fit people who suddenly die of a heart attack (and not even during workouts) or get cancer and die soon thereafter. I'm sure the rates are lower than for the general population, but there is a big difference between saying that there is a correlation between fitness and health, and saying that the only way to be healthy is to be fit, and vice-versa.

 

Or just take steroid heads who hit the gym every day. Are they healthy?

[MagnumPI]

The world is full of athletic, young, fit people who suddenly die of a heart attack (and not even during workouts) or get cancer and die soon thereafter. I'm sure the rates are lower than for the general population, but there is a big difference between saying that there is a correlation between fitness and health, and saying that the only way to be healthy is to be fit, and vice-versa.

 

Or just take steroid heads who hit the gym every day. Are they healthy?

I can't speak for JD but my argument would be that juicing beyond the natural capabilities of your own body is neither fit nor healthy. Strong, muscular perhaps. But meth can make you stronger, too. And momentarily more muscular if like every single one becomes active.

 

Same for the heart attacks. They're probably malnourished or over exert. Nutrient replacement is about as important as anything else regarding exercise and often goes overlooked.

[J. D. Stembal]

The world is full of athletic, young, fit people who suddenly die of a heart attack (and not even during workouts) or get cancer and die soon thereafter. I'm sure the rates are lower than for the general population, but there is a big difference between saying that there is a correlation between fitness and health, and saying that the only way to be healthy is to be fit, and vice-versa.

 

Or just take steroid heads who hit the gym every day. Are they healthy?

 

This is a fallacy. Cancer is a symptom of metabolic disorder. You cannot be healthy and get cancer.

 

That woman doesn't do crossfit.

But is she fit? Or only crossfit=fit=health?

Most women can get through a workout in the gym without getting the floor wet. It may be nerves or sexual arousal that causes this phenomenon, but I've never seen it outside of a bedroom.

It's called pelvic floor dysfunction. It's not healthy. But, all these people are fit, so how can they not be healthy? According to you, they are one and the same. I think it's pretty clear they're not.

 

 

Pointing at one female outlier who obviously uses anabolic steroids and is a bodybuilder to suggest that women who do crossift-like exercise are not healthy is a shady tactic to pull on a philosophy forum.

 

I would like you to demonstrate how a person maintains health without fitness before continuing to make assertions in this thread. Thanks so much!

[st434u]

This is a fallacy. Cancer is a symptom of metabolic disorder. You cannot be healthy and get cancer.

 

What about Andy Whitfield? He played Spartacus in the first season of the TV Series Spartacus: Blood and Sand. He was 37. By the next year he had to stop production due to cancer treatment. The cancer went into remission, but then about 6 months later it resurfaced and by the age of 39 he passed away.

 

Here's a few pictures of him from the series (the scars and stuff were part of the character, not his real body):

 

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm166103296/nm1813878

 

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm332959488/nm1813878

 

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm182880512/nm1813878

 

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm199657728/nm1813878

[J. D. Stembal]

What about Andy Whitfield? He played Spartacus in the first season of the TV Series Spartacus: Blood and Sand. He was 37. By the next year he had to stop production due to cancer treatment. The cancer went into remission, but then about 6 months later it resurfaced and by the age of 39 he passed away.

 

Here's a few pictures of him from the series (the scars and stuff were part of the character, not his real body):

 

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm166103296/nm1813878

 

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm332959488/nm1813878

 

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm182880512/nm1813878

 

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm199657728/nm1813878

 

What about him?

[brucethecollie]

You can't be healthy without being fit.  Though, you can be relatively healthy.  Perfectly healthy is something I've never witnessed...

 

You can be unhealthy and fit.

 

You can be fit and get cancer because fit doesn't mean health, though it is a crucial component for it.  

 

Health is essentially homeostasis and there are so many processes in the body through which we can lose our balance and while we can appear and feel perfectly healthy, we can be just unhealthy enough to get cancer and other diseases-since stress, genes, environment, all play a part.

 

It's probably why I know of a few pretty healthy fat people.  They are fat but they must have other things going for them like great genes, healthy diet, exercise, and maybe they know how to manage stress really well.

[J. D. Stembal]

I guess you've forgotten. My assertion was: health and fitness are separate concepts, that sometimes do not overlap.

 

Your assertion was: health and fitness are ONE AND THE SAME.

 

I provided evidence of my point, which contradicts your point. (ie, people can be fit and not healthy)

 

The bodybuilder and the crossfit people were two separate examples that prove my point and disprove yours. Neither one says anything about the other. Nothing shady about it. Making accusations about my "tactics" is in fact shady. Especially given the above clear line of logic.

 

I'm done here. Thanks so much!

 

I don't understand the relevance of your assertion. What are you trying to argue?

 

I actually wrote that you can't have health without fitness, at least not for very long. Please go back and read my reply.

 

You presented a picture of a female bodybuilder, without any contextual information about her. Just by looking at her body, I can determine that she clearly uses anabolic steroids. There is no way that amount of muscle growth is possible naturally on a woman.

 

Why are you using this as an example of fitness? It's obscene! It would be like injecting a man in the penis with growth hormone until his schlong is three feet long and calling him virile.

 

Do you know what routine steroid injections do to a woman? Do you mind showing me where you found the picture?

 

I threw my two cents in about the urination issue. It doesn't sound like a big problem to me and I've never slipped in a wet spot at the gym, even with all the young, virile ladies afoot. Chalk it up to nerves or sexual arousal from the elevated natural testosterone produced by the female's adrenals through regular exercise. Some women urinate/ejaculate when they orgasm. Is that a health problem?

 

I dated a woman who went to crossfit three times a week for over a year, and she had an exceedingly high sex drive. She raped me when I started refusing sex.

It's probably why I know of a few pretty healthy fat people.  They are fat but they must have other things going for them like great genes, healthy diet, exercise, and maybe they know how to manage stress really well.

 

I would think that you of all people would acknowledge the strong correlation between obesity and diabetes.

 

For practical purposes, inherited genetics are nearly meaningless if a person's diet is high in inflammatory vegetable oils, grains, and sugars. A healthy person would never become fat in the first place unless we're talking about tribal Inuit natives storing up calories for the winter months. Normal people from modern civilization don't do this. They get fat from years of eating processed industrial ag garbage. I know because I did it, and I'm never going back.

[brucethecollie]

Yes, there is a strong correlation between obesity and diabetes, absolutely.  Those with diabetes who are thin are still not eating healthy-at least not in my findings, they just aren't getting fat.  I think we haven't defined what we mean when we say "healthy" and "fit", which might be helpful since for example, I can refer to myself as "pretty healthy" because I'm referring to myself as someone with a non-functioning organ, who relies on medication to live, and yet, through healthy eating and exercise, medication, and management of health, I manage to feel pretty good most of the time and doctors say I'm "very healthy" for someone with a terrible illness.  

 

When I refer to someone who is fat (say, overweight) who may be "pretty healthy", I should elaborate.  Some people, through genetics, are said by doctors such as Dr. Weil to have screwed up fat cells in their body.  They exercise, eat healthy, can be 60 years old and have no signs of heart disease, high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome, thyroid imbalances, and no other issues.  Doctors have been recognizing that they have fat cells that are always hungry.  These can be created by previous generations that didn't eat well and environmental factors that change processes in the body.  These people are not the norm.  The norm is that even just being a little overweight impacts health very negatively.  But, generally speaking these people may be called healthy by themselves and their physicians. 

 

Indeed, unhealthy fats, sugars, and for many people, grains (even unrefined) are going to bring most anyone down eventually.  In the US, people who are african american, hispanic, and native american are all going to be much more vulnerable than the caucasians.  Eating a diet espoused by the ADA in the 90's led me to gain weight as a child whereas most kids, even those who ate junk food, didn't gain weight or have cholesterol or high blood pressure show up until much later in adulthood.  Some are still doing fine.  And doctors call them healthy even though I eat much better (as you do, it sounds) and exercise every day.  

 

I've read that long, long ago, people would go through times where they wouldn't be able to exercise due to periods of snowstorms and such.  Then they would have a few seasons of full activity hunting saber toothed tigers or what have you.  During these sometimes very long periods of inactivity, supposedly they would eat fewer calories but they wouldn't ever gain any weight.  If this is true, it would point to people's bodies being able to maintain health with periods of inactivity as long as the diet was good and the activity was resumed right after each cycle of inactivity.  I've been wanting to read more about this, does anyone know any good sources?

 

Anyway, healthy depends on how we are defining it, I think.  We could define it based on medical markers or on how someone personally feels everyday or both.  And some days I think that if we are alive then there is certainly more health than not at the moment.  But that sounds more like a healthy attitude than body lol.

 

For those reaching for near perfect health, (feeling awesome, looking awesome, and medical markers in perfect shape) I would say that you would have to eat like few others. You would have to tweak to your metabolic type as well.  Tweak diet and exercise and manage stress until body isn't overweight.  Shun federal govt (and thus dietitian and nutritionist) advice.  Mercola.com is great for seeking absolute wellness in every area of health.  People say the dietary advice on Mercola is unobtainable but that's only the feeling we get in a world that has turned far away from real food.  It's very hard in this modern world but it can be done.  If I hadn't branched out from the norm 10 years ago I'd be dead today, for sure.

 

Gonna shut up now, to everyone's good health!

[J. D. Stembal]

When I refer to someone who is fat (say, overweight) who may be "pretty healthy", I should elaborate.  Some people, through genetics, are said by doctors such as Dr. Weil to have screwed up fat cells in their body.  They exercise, eat healthy, can be 60 years old and have no signs of heart disease, high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome, thyroid imbalances, and no other issues.  Doctors have been recognizing that they have fat cells that are always hungry.  These can be created by previous generations that didn't eat well and environmental factors that change processes in the body.  These people are not the norm.  The norm is that even just being a little overweight impacts health very negatively.  But, generally speaking these people may be called healthy by themselves and their physicians.

 

Unhealthy gut flora are the likely culprit. Did you read Brain Maker? Genetic determinism, in the large majority, is a myth. Genetics and family history may predispose a patient to obesity or another illness, but at the end of the day, a person only gets obese, has a coronary blockage, or falls ill to cancer due to sub-optimal nutrition and health.

 

It would be nice if we could get a Health & Wellness subforum, but my efforts so far have been unsuccessful.

 

 

In the US, people who are african american, hispanic, and native american are all going to be much more vulnerable than the caucasians. 

 

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what you mean or why this would be. Everyone has a similar level of access to this information. I beat many over the head with it and they still go on living unhealthy lifestyles because they have an emotional attachment to obesity and sloth, much like the ethical vegans in this community.

 

 

I've read that long, long ago, people would go through times where they wouldn't be able to exercise due to periods of snowstorms and such.  Then they would have a few seasons of full activity hunting saber toothed tigers or what have you.  During these sometimes very long periods of inactivity, supposedly they would eat fewer calories but they wouldn't ever gain any weight.  If this is true, it would point to people's bodies being able to maintain health with periods of inactivity as long as the diet was good and the activity was resumed right after each cycle of inactivity.  I've been wanting to read more about this, does anyone know any good sources?

 

With a healthy metabolism, it does not matter how active you are in the moment. They body partitions fuel for the cells and mitochondria as needed.

 

What do you define as exercise, and what do you do daily? I have followed a ketogenic diet for over a year, and I have no problems performing physical work on an empty stomach. Some days I don't eat much of anything. Saturday, I'm going to start a week long fast to celebrate the change in season.

 

This is where you and I differ, but I am extremely insulin sensitive, meaning that if I eat 2.5 kilograms of bananas my body wants to go do something with the resulting glucose that is being processed by the liver and sent to my skeletal muscles. Nutritional behavior drives activity levels, and then there's a feedback loop in the other direction. If you have just completed a savage workout during the day, chances are that the body will want copious amounts of energy later.

 

We need to stop looking at health as calories in/calories out, and begin to see the body as a living system of organisms and organic molecules working together in concert.

 

Check out Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories or Why We Get Fat if you have not already. These books have a permanent place in my home library.

 

Anyway, healthy depends on how we are defining it, I think.  We could define it based on medical markers or on how someone personally feels everyday or both.  And some days I think that if we are alive then there is certainly more health than not at the moment.  But that sounds more like a healthy attitude than body lol.

 

For those reaching for near perfect health, (feeling awesome, looking awesome, and medical markers in perfect shape) I would say that you would have to eat like few others. You would have to tweak to your metabolic type as well.  Tweak diet and exercise and manage stress until body isn't overweight.  Shun federal govt (and thus dietitian and nutritionist) advice.  Mercola.com is great for seeking absolute wellness in every area of health.  People say the dietary advice on Mercola is unobtainable but that's only the feeling we get in a world that has turned far away from real food.  It's very hard in this modern world but it can be done.  If I hadn't branched out from the norm 10 years ago I'd be dead today, for sure.

 

I am so glad that you are not deceased! You seem like a great mother and role model for your children. I would love to chat with you some day soon.

 

I wake up every day pain and stress free, excited to meet the world. I don't need a medical professional to tell me what to do to obtain health.

 

I am so confident in what I'm doing that I don't have health insurance. If it were possible to get coverage only for accidents and injuries while not paying into Obamacare largess, I would do it. Living in Colorado, I am far more likely to fracture a bone or lacerate myself on a sharp rock than develop any metabolic diseases.

 

I am the picture of perfect health. How's that for a healthy attitude?