"Doing the best with what she's got" doesn't necessarily mean struggling to look like Avril Lavigne or Beyonce. And for men, it doesn't mean spending every last moment struggling to extract every last red cent out of his environment.

There comes a point --and the earlier in life, the better-- where the way to bring more beauty in your life isn't to hang out with more beautiful people, but to see the attraction from people that you hadn't studied as carefully in earlier days, when you were thinking hierarchically. Kids like candy canes and other intense sugar, but when you grow up you realize that carrots are sweet, too.

(Mmmmm? A Tag... It's a diving thing.... and thanks for asking.)

There's a phenomenon found by Robert B. Parker that I note with surprise: the thin and flabby girl. Apparently, you can be 100 pounds and have cellulite, and/or the skin can just hang on your bones. I dunno if that's due to inactivity, but I suspect it is. It saddens me to see a teen in that position.

It also saddens me to see excuses trotted out for seriously overweight people. Hey, if you're too heavy, guess what? You're at greater risk for diabetes and cancer, your body will quit on you earlier in life, you're more likely to be injured in a car or motorcycle accident and you're a better target for robbery. Say Hello to the thug for me, and don't pretend you're a prize.

And don't be mad if I notice Danica Patrick or Anna Kournikova. It's not their wiggle - they don't - but blatantly obvious fitness I admire.

Who says maintaining low body fat is always about appearance? I'm shooting for 3,000 miles on my bike this year (keeping fingers crossed that no disc problems pop up with my back again) and ten pounds of useless body fat is ten pounds I don't want to carry around with me all those miles.

If I didn't shower or shave, it would probably be a sign of incipient mental illness.

If I wore frayed or torn clothes to work, people would wonder what was wrong with me.

So how can it be OK to become a fat slob?

Boy oh boy... I just spent a weekend at my mom's house, and the mother of her other set of grandkids came over. This girl is drop-dead GORGEOUS, and yet has the most severe case of body dysmorphic disorder I have ever personally witnessed. She has said repeatedly that when her mother dies, she is going to burn all photographs of herself from birth onwards. She has had thousands and thousands of dollars of plastic surgery done to make "improvements" that I have never been able to notice until my mom told me about them. She appears to hate the way she looks because she is not a human Barbie doll. As an outside observer, I cannot FATHOM what she sees as "wrong" with herself, since as I say, the woman is one of the most beautiful women I have ever known. That's the thing about BDD, it is completely irrational.

I think books designed to help palliate irrational fears about body type variations are a good thing, at least I HOPE they do some good. Somehow I think they do no good whatsoever for people like my cousin-in-law can only be helped by therapy and perhaps medication.

I think Orbach's framing fat as a feminist issue is fine to a point. I suspect she deeply wants to help women feel comfortable in their own bodies. But what she ends up doing is, as Radwaste said, helping overweight people make excuses for inactivity and overeating, while allowing them to fail to address the very real reasons they use food as a comfort in the first place. It's enabling them to use yet another rationalization for not doing the (very hard) work of getting healthy.

Weight also has to do with genetics. I have a 300+ pound male friend who rides has been riding his bike to work (20 miles roundtrip) for years, and is still his size. All his siblings are similarly sized, even those who do not exercise. I myself am fat, despite eating less and exercising more than I did the rest of my life when I was normal weight. All the doctors tell me all my levels are "normal," and no one has an explanation about why I've been gaining 20 pounds a year. It's frustrating because when the ball is in their court ("You should lose wight") it's MY problem, but when I lay out what I eat and what I do and how I'm frustrated they have no answer. Unless and until you've gained a lot of weight, it's too easy to think of fat people as lazy and not trying hard enough. I, too, always used to think fat people had to DO something to be fat; but that isn't always true. I did NOTHING to be normal weight, and I DO a whole lot now but I'm still fat.

Monica, I've heard of different medical disorders that cause unexplained weight gain. I would not let this go. You need to find a doctor who believes you when you say how many calories you take in each day.

As for me, I know I just eat too much. The "Diets Don't Work" book sounds good, but I already know that diets don't work. Does this book offer advice on how to control one's food cravings/obsessions?

"I think Orbach's framing fat as a feminist issue is fine to a point." MelissaG

The problem in doing this lies in making this a gender us vs. them issue. It will never be solved in this way because that simply polarizes everything and importantly demonizes men for being biologically hardwired to prefer a more fertile feminine form and to be far more visual in interest. It also demonizes a woman who responds to that. Regardless of the way intended this is the outcome. We already have enough issues in the way the genders deal with their own different drives to start with what is more a health issue.

Seems like a healthy human is a better feminist than an unhealthy one... or is that crazy talk?

Most of the stuff in america today is sweeted with high fructose corn syrup.

When digested HFCS causes the body to develop a resistance to leptin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin#Satiety:_appetite_control

if you were to eat a twinkie sweetened with sugar you'd probably only eat one, sweetened with HFCS you might eat a whole box with out thinking about it

"I, too, always used to think fat people had to DO something to be fat; but that isn't always true. I did NOTHING to be normal weight, and I DO a whole lot now but I'm still fat."

I'll be rude here, and call, "BS!"

You cannot gain weight unless you take in more calories than you expend. Period.

Look. You can be "doing a lot" and have that activity camouflage poor eating habits. It's not that you're not doing your best; sometimes, "best" does NOT mean you are doing the right things.

Success in dieting plans always, and I mean always, include two things: objective assessment about what you are doing, and a change in basic habits. That's what Weight Watchers tries to do for you. Even people with gastric bypass surgery fail to keep weight off if they keep the same company around the BBQ buffet. And there is no magic to be had.

Of course, it's ridiculous how big an emphasis on food there is today. In the '50s, teens spent their money on music. Now, it's food! No wonder they waddle to class.

I think you can be more successful, Monica, and I dearly hope that you are. I don't want to read about a struggle with diabetes or something on here later. Win!

Our bodies USED to be much more productive, and that's what an athletic lifestyle is all about. We were designed to move, not sit on couches eating fried crap all day. Exercise is natural and, believe it or not, is not only done for appearances. Some women enjoy being athletic. This doesn't make us anti-woman.

I swear, overweight women will come up with any justification to avoid taking responsibility for their health and self-esteem issues.

Gotta call BS on the HFCS fad recently. It's the same calories as sugar and the damn-near-identical chemical make-up. It tends to be in things that are crap for you, so has gotten a bad rap. It does not make you fat.

We tend to eat like we think we're still going out to plow all day, and we're not, and that's a problem. We're sedentary. An hour in the gym is hard pressed to make up for an entire day of activity.

What does make you fat is really simple. Taking in more than you put out. There are medical conditions that lower your metabolism, meaning you burn less. If you don't take in less to make up for that, you gain. There are medicines that can up your appetite or again lower your base metabolism. Once again, eating less and exercising can fix it. It's a matter of figuring out what the less is. You can get fat on whole grains-cows do. You can get fat on fat and protein-bears do. It's the amount, period.

Is everyone capable of being stick thin? No. Genetics plays a part in your general body type, but does not make you fat. Can you be thin and out of shape? Hell yeah.

So while we do need to accept a wide range of body types, fat is not-at least almost never- one given by god. It's one given by you.

Interestingly, people on the high-normal low-overweight part of the BMI scale have better longevity. Their bodies have some resource when fighting disease, but not so much fat they're risking heart attacks etc. The super-thin as healthy ideal is basically coming from a few harvard eggheads, and of course the fashion industry.

And yes, Amy, fat and protein tend to make you feel saited. Once one has addressed the emotional eating-buttloads-of-food-hungry-or-not, eating fat at every meal is good for you.

White flour carbs and sugar pack a lot of calories for very little nutritional punch and are digested quickly, leaving you hungry more quickly. That's true. Makes you more likely to eat more than you need.

OK, I'm going to jump in here because I think a lot of people are mis-charcterizing the book Fat Is a Feminist Issue, and I'm certain that none of you (aside from possibly Amy) have probably read it.

First of all, it was intended both as a way to help women get out of the compulsive eating cycle, and as a way to help women achieve their "natural" weight. (Meaning, healthy weight.) I do credit this book with the beginning of my recovery from eating disorders, along with Diets Don't Work and several others. I know y'all love to play Bash The Feminists, but it was a valuable book for me to read, and at the time there was nothing else out there like it.

Secondly, while I'm all for doing the best with what one has, I'm *gasp, again!* in agreement with Crid who said
"Doing the best with what she's got" doesn't necessarily mean struggling to look like Avril Lavigne or Beyonce. And for men, it doesn't mean spending every last moment struggling to extract every last red cent out of his environment.

I've known a few people who are obsessed with attaining physical "perfection" and I can't imagine how they'd ever be able to sustain a relationship being as self-absorbed as they are. *Life* sometimes has to take precedence over looks.

Oh, and I also heartily recommend Taubes' book. IMO he's spot on, and it's very well researched.

Two points:

1) The fashion industry and media have inserted themselves into this - studies have shown that most men are attracted to more curvaceous women than the types presented as ideal by the fashion industry. In other words, men find the average female figure more attractive than women are led to believe.

So many not-really-obese women torture themselves over those last few pounds - an achievement that is largely lost on the presumed target audience (hetero men). At this point intra-female competition can become the dominant dynamic.

2) Totally agree with you about favoring proteins and fats over carbs.

Carbs are energy, period. Most of us are no longer walking long distances - or even climbing stairs. We don't need the energy.

I also limit carbs to breakfast, and I make sure each meal contains protein. Combined with moderate exercise, this has resulted in fat loss - that is, healthy weight loss.

3) I also agree with the psychological/physical hunger thing. I don't deny myself any food. This keeps me feeling in control, and prevents bingeing or self-pity.

I used to eat up any treats that were around - as if I'd never see them again. Now I easily skip dessert in the cafeteria and can make a chocolate bar last 2 weeks.

Food has meaning. Festive food is supposed to be special - and rare. I eat cake on Shabbat - if you eat cake everyday, how do you know when a meal is special?

Mmm, some black and latino women need to cover up :) NO one needs to see flab overhanging your pants. But yeah, my husband likes me better after 3 kids, I am 5 ft 10 and went from a sz4 or 6 to oh, when not pregnant, about an 8 or sometimes 10. Less skeletal, more curves.

Olive oil is great, I drizzle it on beans.

Thanks Amy, I think I will buy that book. I was taken in by the diet industry 4 years ago. I spent hundreds of dollars at LA Weight Loss (now out of business - HAH) and gained back everything. Now even my kids are getting fat, so there are some seriously bad habits in our house.

"...it's not only important but essential as a woman to be as attractive as possible..."

Untrue in lots of cases. It depends what your objective is, and where you start off appearance-wise, i.e. what you look like without any makeup, in casual jeans & tees, ponytail.

If your priority is to land a pro athlete or a movie star or to win American Idol, then maximize looks. The competition is so intense, that every tiny increase in hotness matters.

If you want a normal, nice, decent-looking guy whose company you will enjoy both in and out of bed and you are starting off with at least a 5 or even a 4, then you're all set. A 2 who has the opportunity to work up to a 4 should take it, but a 5 may not find it worthwhile to expend the effort necessary to become an 7.

You can quibble about the precise numbers (3 vs 4 vs 5) but the general gist is that it is not always best to pursue a strategy of maximizing looks. For many women looks are an end in and of themselves, regardless of what men think or want. But for those of us who view looks as a means to an end, there is no reason to do more work than necessary to achieve the end desired.

Amy,

To a point. I grew up in an appearance obsessed family where I was taught that my looks were the only thing that mattered, more important than my grades or abilities. When I didn't meet their exacting standards, I felt worthless. So I beat myself up, starved, binged, didn't take care of myself or bother to try to look nice because I was worthless anyway...lather, rinse, repeat. It was being able to step back from my appearance as a measure of self-worth for a while and get in touch with other strengths and abilities that let me out of eating disorder/self-hatred hell. By letting go of the impossible appearance standards I'd held myself to, I was able to realize that I could be attractive without having to be a beauty queen. One good thing about having gone through this process is that I'm not as freaked out about aging as some women I know who have always been able to bank on their looks. I do my best to look good for my age, but I'm not going to get locked into that pathetic 60-trying-to-look-20 thing.

Amy,

1) I am not American.

2) My guy does find me hot, and I find him hot. We express these findings to each other in words and actions--lots of action--regularly.

Don't get me wrong, I maintain good hygiene and a healthy physique. It's just that I already have the things I want: great guy, great sex life, great friends, great job... Why should I spend time and money on makeup, hair care and clothes I don't want, need or enjoy? What will it get me that I don't already have?

Also, I never said that looks don't matter. In fact, I clearly acknowledged that they did. Unlike you, I merely believe their importance varies with circumstance and personal priorities. Maximizing them is not always an optimal strategy when considering other factors, such as time, money, and comfort.

A homeless man spotted a well dressed young woman coming out of a Porsche at the Macy's parking lot.

He approached her and said, "Miss, I have not eaten last three days." She looked at him with envy and said, "Oh, I just admire your will power!"

"You cannot gain weight unless you take in more calories than you expend. Period."

Gawd, if only people would believe that. Every pound on your body is there because you put something in your mouth. There are no third party magic gnomes putting muscle and bone and fat on you while you sleep.

A friend recently complained he needs to lose weight. He does. I told him the first step is throw out every bit of food he owns. All of it. Then go shopping and only buy food you could dig from the ground, pluck from a tree, or kill with a knife. Nothing in a box. Nothing in a can. (Frozen fruits and vegetables are okay, assuming nothing added.)

Next step is throw out your television. In the evenings, every other night go for a walk, and later make it a jog, then a run when you are up to it. Lift weights on the other nights. If you hate those activities, find something similar that you enjoy. (It is important to like the activity, otherwise you will likely not stay with it or really exert yourself.)

Exercise for at least an hour. If you are not tired and sweaty after you exercise, you did not exercise. Sorry folks, fitness is not found in your house after buying a $20 piece of junk that supposedly helps you do "crunches" or some other stupid pseudo-workout.

Do that, and you will weigh over the course of a year. In two years, you may be able to fit back into your high school clothes.

Losing weight is simple, but that doesn't mean it is easy.

Oh, and it is sooo true that the fashion industry has no clue what straight men define as hot. Those twiggy things in the glossy fashion mags and on the catwalks are gross. If you want to know what straight guys want, buy a Maxim. You will note that the gals therein have curves, but they are also in shape. Proportion is everything. So the five foot gymnast and the six foot volleyball player can both be drop-dead hot.

"Oh, and it is sooo true that the fashion industry has no clue what straight men define as hot. Those twiggy things in the glossy fashion mags and on the catwalks are gross. "

When will men understand that those twigy things arent ment for them? It's not for your enjoyment and women dont want to become those twiggy things for you.

When a man says you're pretty that's sweet. When a homo or a girl says it that's like having George Clooney ask for your hand in marriage and finding the cure for cancer at the same time.

I love it when women or homos compliment me on my makeup, or how I dress, or my shoes.

See I already know I got the straight men in the bag, but they're too easy. They're not the challenge. Women and homos are the challange. That's why we have those glossy mags with twiggy things. They are for the feminine eye.

"You cannot gain weight unless you take in more calories than you expend. Period."

That and hypothyroidism will make you look like Jabba the Hutt in short order.

If you're working out and counting calories and still packing on the fat, get thee to an endocrinologist, stat.

I don't understand why everyone thinks the reason fashion models are stick-thin is to try to attract men, or why people think men find these women attractive. Models are not, and men do not. Fashion models are skinny to showcase the clothes. They are not skinny because designers (mostly female or gay) are thinking "ooh, straight men will LOVE this!" They don't give a rat's ass what straight men like. They want to showcase their clothes by putting them on a woman who is basically a walking hanger.

Along the same lines, I don't know a single straight man on the planet who looks at a high-fashion model (average weight and height: 5'10", 115 pounds) and thinks that is the ideal female body type. I don't know how this myth that "straight men want stick-thin models" is getting perpetuated, but lots of women keep thinking that and it shows a total lack of understanding of men.

What do men actually like? Victoria's Secret models. Slender, NOT anorexic, but with boobs, and airbrushed within an inch of their lives. Luckily for us real gals, men also like just about any woman who takes care of herself and is willing to sleep with them.

Magazines seem to think that bones covered with skin is sexy. Personally, I think a woman who is a size 8, and firm, is a lot better looking than an emaciated, bony size 4 or 6. I've never met a man who likes women who look more fragile than a Limoge figurine.

PSA of the day: Women need to lift. Like REALLY lift, for 45-60 minutes 4 or 5 times/week. You won't turn into a man, trust me.

1. You can actually eat carbs after your work out and you'll burn them right off b/c your body uses them to rebuild the muscle tissue you shredded during the workout. If you want pizza, pump iron first and it'll benefit you. Blot the extra grease, though.

2. You continue to burn calories after you lift - your metabolism is super revved.

3. Muscle burns more calories than fat. Even when you're sitting on your ass.

Being strong and lean is hot. It is also rather bad ass.

A few tips: Plan your meals for the week on Sunday. It's a pain but on Wednesday night you'll thank me. It helps to have your grocer's circular on hand so you can work out meals with stuff that's on sale. Clean your fruits/veggies right away and put them into baggies. You have no excuse to not bring them to work in the AM. Graze on grapes, veggies with hummus, high protein yogurt (I love Chobani), etc. You won't get starving so you'll be less likely to binge and you'll also keep your metabolism up.

Thanks Gog for bringing up the hypothyroidism aspect. While it certainly isn't a reason for the nationwide obesity epidemic, there are a lot of individuals who are walking around with undiagnosed hypothyroidism, which can cause weight gain and a host of other unpleasant symptoms (hair loss, joint problems, circulatory problems, extremely dry skin, etc.). According to my endocrinologist, approximately 10% of women between the ages of 30 and 50 have borderline or full-blown hypothyroidism. Most primary care physicians don't do bloodwork which includes a full thyroid panel (T3, T4, and free T4) or that tests for the antibodies of Hashimoto's Disease (an autoimmune disorder which attacks and eventually "kills" the thyroid gland).

Most people, after a certain age, will start packing on an extra 5 pounds per year if they don't adjust their eating and exercise habits. Monica's reported 20-pound-per-year gain with no commensurate increase in caloric intake/decrease in activity level indicates that a trip to an endocrinologist is warranted. Only after that does she need to listen to Radwaste, MarkD, or Spartee when they tell her that her weight gain is because she's not working hard enough or lying to herself.

Not trying to pick a fight here, but I know from personal experience that you can gain weight even while decreasing your food intake and maintaining your activity level. At 32, I could easily lose 2 pounds a week by eating 1600 calories a day and working out 3X per week. 11 years and one diagnosis of Hashimoto's later, and I would be looking at a 15-pound-a-year weight gain with that same routine.

And Gretchen is right - weight training is a very good thing for women.

You're exactly right, Ms. Ghandi-- age does make a HUGE difference in the amount of calories our bodies use!

Using myself as an example... when I was 22 and powerlifting, I used to take in 2500 to 3000 calories per day, just to maintain my weight as a slender (though buff) size 4, weight 125 lbs. Now I am 40, more sedentary though I do walk for an hour per day, and trying to lose 15 lbs to get back to that 125 lbs. and to lower my cholesterol. For this, I need to eat only about 1300 calories per day. That's a HUGE difference in calorie needs, based solely on age and activity level.

Turns out that after the first week or two, that 1300 calories per day is not so hard to do, once I learned how to eat. Small portions, spaced regularly throughout the day, and high fiber foods, so one feels full. I'm drinking extra fiber (citrus Metamucil) per doctor's orders, so that helps my sweet cravings AND those feelings of emptiness (different from hunger-- your body can feel less than full while still not *really* being hungry).

Amy -

Actually, male sexuality is visually driven so EVERY woman needs to do the best she can with what she has (within reason, of course).

While this is true to a point, I think you're missing a couple of important points. Beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder and said visual preferences can easily be overridden by other factors.

My ideal is women who are a little shorter than I am. I loathe large breasts - this is a huge one for me. I like a firm, yet ample behind and really prefer women who have enough meat on their bones that I'm not afraid I might break them - I prefer a little extra over not enough. If makeup must be worn, it should be very minimal. I find women who take forever getting ready to go somewhere absolutely maddening, unless we are going somewhere that's very formal.

The mother of my children has huge tits. She's near enough my height to make the difference negligible. She's obsessive about the fucking makeup. But she's also as smart as I am, if not moreso. She's as literate as I am. She has the same dark sense of humor I do - neither of us has ever found something the other finds funny offensive. And she is possibly more of a "just fucking shoot 'em" kind of person than I am.

All those factors outweighed the physical factors that are really quite important to me. So our lives intertwined for more than eight years and I am pretty much devastated by the notion of life without her in it.

Although it occurs to me as I'm writing this, that I have never been big on equating love/companionship with sexuality. That while I am fine with monogomy, it is by no means a requisite. My love for someone in my life is just not threatened by them having sex with someone else. And ultimately, while other factors have generally come into play when I've sought casual sex partners, I do tend to focus more on my physical ideal than intellectual ideals.

"You're exactly right, Ms. Ghandi-- age does make a HUGE difference in the amount of calories our bodies use! "

So true and it's funny how sudden the change can be. I'm in my mid fities and it happened like overnight. But you are right, Melissa, about how the small dietary changes you mention do work.

Amy, factory chickens are not real chicken. I have to eat the breast meat with some kind of oil or sauce just to get it to keep from sticking in my gullet.

"What do men actually like? Victoria's Secret models."

I disagree. To the timeless question "Ginger or Mary Ann?", the answer is always Mary Ann.

If weight were a genetic determinant, logically speaking you would see similar proportions of overweight population around the world or at least within distinct specific genetic groupings...but you don't.

You see the overweight in the U.S. more than anywhere else and entirely out of proportion to ANY possible genetic disorder. Yes there is a genetic disorder that prevents weight loss...but it is vanishingly rare, one in a million sort of thing or nearly (That gives about 300 Americans an excuse *L*)

Bottom line is that our habits & our diet are neither one conducive to healthy living.

When sitting in front of the t.v. and reaching for a snack are you reaching for:

A. Chips
B. Reduced fat or 0 trans fat chips
C. Blackberries (the berry, not the electronic device)

If you answered A is the bag:

A. Half as full as when you started?
B. 3/4 full
C. You can't tell because you ate only the 3-6 chip serving size

If you answered A or B...you're overdoing it DRAMATICALLY, if you answered C...yeah right, who are you kidding, who eats SIX potato chips?!

----------------------------

If you answered B to the first question, do you eat:

A. Only the serving size...but several times per day
B. The whole bag, because its healthier than the nonreduced alternative!
C. Only the serving size as a snack after a meal.

If you answered A, you're doing yourself no favors. If you answered B, well if you're a guy chances are you can't see your penis when you're standing up. If you answered C, you're in line with the general idea of a snack, and probably ok.

Now, if you answered C to the very first question, well there are no caveats, fruit is good for you without question, eat slowly, take your time, go for a walk, hop on a bicycle, jump in the pool for a swim, something a few times a week, chances are you're healthy as can reasonably be expected.

Final point...I'll lay 10 to 1 odds that at least 3 out of 4 persons reading the above questions lied to themselves or had to rationalize their behavior at LEAST once.

Momof3 and others:

Yeah you can not gain weight if you do not consume more that you burn. But HFCS is not just exactly like sugars. Biochemically at least one enzyme connected to fructose metabolism is also important for converting free fatty acids to tryglycerides. More fructose in your system, more rapid conversion of FFA to stored fat.

Amy -

With the caveat that I do to an extent disconnect the sexual component from relationships, my point is that in seeking a partner, my physical preferences take a back seat to my intellectual preferences. At the same time, when I'm with a partner who prefers monogamy, my only sexual outlet is with that partner.

Robert -

Put a bag of doritos in front of me and while it may make it through more than on sitting, it isn't going to get through two. I am not very good at moderation with foods that I really like. But I can still see my pecker while standing and while it gets bigger, flaccid, it's rather small.

My secret; I don't keep the foods I have that problem with around. I get that bag of doritos once in a while. I pick up the package of cookies I like on occasion. I have a strict policy of never, ever touching the treats I get for the kids - something that takes a lot of control.

And while I am capable of lying to myself and rationalizations, I try to be very aware of it. With food, I have never been one for rationalizations, any more than I have been for substance abuse. I never held any illusions about my drinking and drugging when I was big on both. I suspect that this has a lot to do with why I don't have serious problems with food and getting high.

Rationalization and denial are kind of key to developing serious problems.

Clare: "Fashion models are skinny to showcase the clothes. They are not skinny because designers (mostly female or gay) are thinking "ooh, straight men will LOVE this!" They don't give a rat's ass what straight men like."

Exactly! This should be obvious from the fact that normal men generally show little to no interest in watching fashion shows.

"men also like just about any woman who takes care of herself"

Ah, you cut right to the heart of the issue: It is really about *looking after yourself*. Not even so much "trying to look a certain" way etc. If you truly want to look after yourself and care about (and for) yourself, the rest will be able to follow from that. Living healthy and making a nice body for yourself, indicates you care about yourself. A woman who stuffs her face and bloats up is actively *damaging herself*, and apart from being a sign of possible psychological issues, there's just nothing attractive about somebody who damages themselves - especially not to a man subconsciously looking for someone to have his babies and raise his children. No, for that you want somebody *healthy* and *fit* who takes care of herself, *for* herself. If you damage yourself, that is not something you're supposed to "learn to be comfortable with", it's an indication of a problem to be dealt with.

Monica: "Unless and until you've gained a lot of weight, it's too easy to think of fat people as lazy and not trying hard enough"

It does sound like you are *trying*, but you are probably still doing something wrong. Nutrition is actually quite complex, don't think in simplistic terms like "counting calories", that will get you nowhere, there is *far* more to nutrition than that ... even carbs/fats/proteins is too simplistic, there are many different types of all of the above, and different ratios of different types of things can have different effects etc. - approach it like a scholar studying a subject in-depth or scientist working hard on a project. Somewhere in your diet you're quite possibly still taking in too much of something or another. Try different things - cut out this or that. Healthy eating is something you have to be highly scrutinizing and disciplined about, almost all the time - people might not realise that e.g. even one glass of Coke a day can totally mess you about. Cut out sugar virtually entirely. True healthiness is really a complete lifestyle. Exercise hard an hour a day at least three days a week. Note that when you exercise, your appetite goes up.

Monica: "Unless and until you've gained a lot of weight, it's too easy to think of fat people as lazy and not trying hard enough"

Oh yeah, NB, also start looking at who you hang out with, and pay close attention to what they eat (and drink). In social settings we tend to feel more strongly inclined to eat what others eat, and for some reason junkier food and drink are usually considered more socially acceptable. I now occasionally get mocked for being 'the healthy guy' because I'm physically active and eat right (e.g. eating piles of fruit when everyone else is drinking and smoking and eating junk), but I love it, I'm in better shape than I've ever been and 'never felt better'.

Robert: "If weight were a genetic determinant, logically speaking you would see similar proportions of overweight population around the world or at least within distinct specific genetic groupings...but you don't."

Moreover, if obesity were primarily genetic, it wouldn't be the case that this problem has arisen so dramatically rapidly in only the last one or two generations of people.

One thing about losing weight is that there *is no such thing* as "a little" or "only one" ... if you find yourself saying things like "I'll just have this one bag of potato chips" (or rich desert, or soft drink, or chocolate, or whatever) any more frequently than five times a year, you are doing something wrong. There is no "only" - even a single desert serving or bag of chips is *huge*.

I've found that the less I eat junk food, the less I desire it - your body adapts; feed it junk and it'll ask for junk, feed it healthy food and after a while it'll tend to ask for healthy food more often than not.

Vicky's secret models are typically sz 4 or smaller. And tall. Not exactly robust.

For a twist on the old "show me your friends and I'll show you your future" bit, I make a point of watching what my fat friends eat and drink, and making sure I don't do like they do. It's an easy visual for why they are that way. I went for a girl's weekend in new orleans last summer with a hefty pal o mine. She cleaned every plate she got, and outdrank me 2 to 1. I'd eat maybe half my meal. The food was disappointing this trip, which helped me in that. Be a food snob. If it's not super to you, why eat it?

I weightlifted in college too, and could pretty much eat as I pleased as a result, and was super-toned and small as a result. I may buy a bowflex or something in an attempt to be able to lift at home. I HATE running, just will not do it.

momof3: You're right about the VS models, but: They have hips. And behinds. And...you get the idea. They're not built like clothes hangers. I'm not knocking the human clothes hangers; they make clothing look wonderful. But they're part of an industry subset in which Heidi Klum was considered to be "too hippy" to succeed. (That's how she ended up with Victoria's Secret, en route to becoming a one-woman conglomerate. Seal appears to like the hips.)

In addition to thyroid problems, insulin resistance can be a problem for some women. Polycystic ovarian syndrome, for example, can really screw with your body chemistry. This doesn't mean you can't lose weight, but it does mean that you might need to go on anti-diabetes drugs to do so and/or reduce your carbs down to the bone.

This isn't to say that every overweight person has some sort of condition, but there are enough out there that are poorly understood enough that I'd advise anyone who's having serious trouble losing weight despite seeming to be disciplined to at least visit an endocrinologist.

I'll add to all of this that, IMHO, a size 16 chick who takes great care with makeup, hair and clothing and is delightful to be around will not infrequently have an edge over a size 4 who looks skanky and has an unpleasant personality. I'm not saying that Brad Pitt is going to dump Angelina Jolie for a size 16 woman, but Brad Pitt doesn't seem all that interesting in person.

"Vicky's secret models are typically sz 4 or smaller. And tall. Not exactly robust."

That's my point. They're slim, but curvy (actual curvy, not "fat" curvy), with some muscle tone. Men like that.

I think you'd be shocked if you saw some in person. Their boobs you're celebrating are maybe sz b's, for the most part. Not well endowed. They wouldn't appear too have hips to anyone normal. But yeah, they're better than the high-fashion models.

The Goddess wrote:
Actually, male sexuality is visually driven so EVERY woman needs to do the best she can with what she has (within reason, of course). Your thinking, Lisa, is typical of that of many American women, and probably infused by feminism, and the mistaken notion that looks don't matter or shouldn't matter. Whatever kind of guy you have, he'd better find you hot or he's likely to find somebody else.
- - - - - - - - -
... this from the woman whose blog regularly features long posts about men's desire for mutual respect, loyalty and commitment in relationships.

Physical attractiveness is probably as important to modern women as it is to men.

Look again at the comments in some of your "men's rights/women with bad priorities/divorce law is screwy" posts: many, many men want someone they can be devoted to. Loyalty and trust are a big part of men's relationships - with each other, and with women.

Sure I thought my wife was hot when we met. Now I have a mini pot belly, and her boobs are pendulous. But I love her more than ever - and sex is an instrument to express a deeper connection, rather than a "you're hot" hormonal experience.

I don't think I'm different from most men.

Amy, that's one hell of a harsh world view. In my world, people are more than commodities, and relationships aren't just about purchasing the "best" product one can afford.

"I think you'd be shocked if you saw some in person. Their boobs you're celebrating are maybe sz b's, for the most part. Not well endowed. They wouldn't appear too have hips to anyone normal. But yeah, they're better than the high-fashion models."

Where on earth am I 'celebrating' their boobs? I have way bigger jugs than any of them, and as a personal trainer it's basically a job requirement to keep my body fat down. I know real women (even the models) don't actually look like the women in the catalog, which is why I said they were airbrushed earlier. You are coming across as sounding bitter that men find those images in the catalog attractive. Suck it up and deal with it.

It's a realistic world view.
- - - - - - -
Perhaps in your community, your highly secularized/materialistic time and place.

But not everywhere - not even everywhere in the West.

Nope - the studies are about a very narrow definition of object sexual ranking/arousal.

Which is not determinate of lived sexuality, which is - or can be - a much richer experience.

objective, not object.