If she's happy, why bother her? Lay off.

If she's not hot enough for you because you seem to want someone who looks like a superhero, then go get someone who looks like a superhero.

If it's a matter of wanting to share a hobby with someone, be with someone who likes that hobby.

What Nicole said--and I'm really surprised Amy didn't say it first.

LW's an ass. Nicole nailed it.

" I just think that if she did -- even a little -- she'd look like a superhero and feel better." No -- YOU'D feel better. Stop the BS.

Not sure what LW thinks he's trying to do here. It's as if he's trying to "perfect" his girlfriend somehow. I wonder how much his girlfriend appreciates his attempts at modification.

I could understand his effort if the poor girl were terribly ill and exercise stood a good chance of healing her, but that doesn't sound like the case here. He ought to be a little more grateful for what he has.

It's simple RPM. He can't see beyond his mirror.

LW sounds a lot like the guy from that LA Times piece that Amy linked to a few weeks ago. He thinks he is an athletic specimen and that he deserves to be with a beyond average woman. I guess he figures if you can't attract one, maybe you can build one. I wonder if this guy is short and bald too. And Helen is right, this has nothing to do with her it's all about him and what he wants; the "status" that comes from having a hot female on his arm. She is nothing but an object.

Geez. I bet what he hasn't said is that she's thin, but weak. I've seen a lot of this at the mall - the thin, yet flabby girl.

Lotsa guys can't stand a frail anything - pal, girl, movie character.

Mine used to kickbox. Heh.

They also write that many sports that people consider exercise -- including tennis, skiing, and (sorry!) martial arts -- have some fitness benefits but would better be considered play.

One tiny bone to pick ...

I do jiu jitsu -- well, BJJ. And THAT sh*t is exercise with a capital E, especially if he competes (if he does it every day, he probably does). The diverse conditioning that a lot of schools incorporate, the drilling, plus just plain sparring (especially against people of various sizes) fulfills all the requirements of exercise listed above. Anyway, I assume he means BJJ, based on the proselytizing tone of his letter. :)

That said, as much as I LOVE to preach the gospel (as all BJJ folks do), if your girlfriend isn't physically active, is she passionate about other things? Crafting, art, music, writing? Or is it perhaps the problem that she just sits around Netflixing/watching the Bachelor all the time? Do you just want her to have *something* that fulfills her besides Gilmore Girls re-runs?

If she does have non-physical hobbies and that's not enough for you, maybe find someone else. A lot of my male teammates are like you, LW, and want to be with super-fit women. God, if I had a penny for all the "super fit chick" exercise videos these dudes post on Facebook, I'd be rich.

I agree. I had a BF do this to me when I was 25 - he was a competitive runner and Nordic skier, and insisted that I try running, weight training, etc. At that age, I didn't have enough self-knowledge or confidence to stand up and say, "NO THANK YOU, and if you can't love me in spite of that, then I guess it's over," so I did try - and it was humiliating and painful (both physically and emotionally), as I've never in my life enjoyed the gym atmosphere. It only made me feel like I wasn't good enough in his eyes and furthered my insecurities at that time.

To answer the LW's question, if he wants to truly "encourage" his GF, I'd suggest doing what my BF pre-Nordic guy did: tell her, "you are SO perfect already; if you worked out on top of it, damn - you'd look like a Victoria's Secret model" (I know, but that's what was hot to us at that time). That didn't make me start working out, but I'll tell you what - it DID make me feel loved, sexy, appreciated, etc. and helped me trust that he loved me even if I didn't work out.

PS - joke's on all of us, I guess, since now at the age of 40 I've found a workout that I actually truly enjoy, but that's why I do it. I enjoy it; it has exactly zero to do with anyone else's choices/workout life/influence. Like LW, I too feel down and endorphin-less when I don't do my routine, but I survived just fine without it for 40 years.

LW, you should just be glad that your girlfriend is naturally thin. So many women get fat as they get older, it's a wonder they don't all end up dying alone because their guys run away.

I used to know a woman who still looked like a supermodel even after three kids. I had been a total cycle nut, rode mega miles for fitness and strength.
She went out and bought a new Greg Lemond racing bike, just so we could ride together. I was stunned! We only went out a few times, though.

Where it backfired on her was that she now had to get new bikes for her three kids.

The Eades' recommendations for diet and exercise aren't taking off because they lack positive examples. Sure, some people have lost weight, but the people with the best physiques in the world aren't following this advice. Fred Hahn himself looks "good" (certainly better than most of the population), but he pales in comparison with other fitness experts.

I have rarely seen an interview with a model or athlete or anyone with a Mt. Olympus physique who advocates low-carb and slow burn.

I have rarely seen an interview with a model or athlete or anyone with a Mt. Olympus physique who advocates low-carb and slow burn.

Thats becuase they work out 10 to 14 hours a day most days.

They also cant recommend anything less than a 3500 calorie a day diet

Hell, in high school alone I swam nearly 7 hours 6 days a week. That didnt include weight and resistance band training or running.

I hear that Lujlp. Back in high school I could eat a large pizza all on my own and still be hungry. Thankfully I slowed down the food when I slowed down the workout. Though only having $5/day for food in college 'helped'. One of our coaches back in the day was Olympic level in her youth. No one could believe it was her in the photos. She was this skinny little thing. But by the time we met her she was 300+ lbs. She kept eating the same after she stopped working out.

Most of us don't have the time to workout like that.

She kept eating the same after she stopped working out

I did for about a month, took me the long and a couple of times throwing up to realize I could eat like that anymore, also had to eat more slow burn protein as opposed to carbs.

I gained about 50 lbs in the 4 months after I stopped swimming competitively.

But I was 6'3" and just over 120 lbs when I stopped

I work for a professional sports franchise, and these guys are not doing anything close to 10-14 hours. Neither are celebs training to play superheroes. (Henry Cavill worked out 2.5 hours per day to play Superman.) Fitness models and VS models work out like two.

Nonetheless, I see where you're going with this, but that is NOT making a case for low carb. You're making a case for "calories in, calories out" (which is all I have been convinced of to date).

Think of the hottest bodies you know in real life, at your gym, at the pool, within your social circle. Those people likely are not doing low carb per the Eades (the Paleo trend is in rapid decline) and probably are not doing slow burn.

Is slow burn better than nothing? Yeah. It possibly is something he can get the girlfriend to do, but I'd be shocked because it's intensely boring, and I think that's the biggest reason people don't exercise. Is it optimal for attaining what most of our society thinks of as a slamming body? It appears not, hence my independent-of-the-LW observation that it is not "taking off." If I'm an out of shape person who doesn't know where to start, I'm going to pick the regimen (or a variant) used by someone who looks the way I want to look. There are many fitness experts who look better than Fred Hahn, and no, they are not working out 10 hours a day.

IP there is a difference between LOOKing good and being good.

In high school I looked like I was starving but I was consistently one of the twenty five top swimmers in the state with better times than many college swimmers.

I looked much better once I stopped competing and was healthier too.

If all you are looking to do with exercise is look good and regulate your weight, I'd recommend swimming or biking, eat lightly 2 hour before working out, and eat a few ounces of meat after with a couple of vitamin C pills.

Other than that all most really need to do is cut refined sugars and eat about as much carbs as you do meat

IP, the case for low carbs doesn't conflict with calories in/calories out. Low carb gives most people satiation at low calories. If you are burning enough calories it really doesn't matter. Your body will balance just fine eating what tastes good. But when you mostly ride a desk all day you need to minimize calories in. Most of us don't want to spend our lives hungry. High sugar and starch foods spike insulin which in turn causes hunger spikes. Interestingly fake sugar has the same insulin response and can increase hunger hence leading to weight gain from overeating other things. You get the same problems from disturbed sleep cycles and high stress. Which is why nurses and people in high stress jobs tend to inflate like balloons.

I won't comment on the best way to exercise. Not my area of expertise. But I do know getting two hours a day of exercise out of most people just isn't happening unless it's part of their job. Quite frankly getting two hours a week is better than most. Of course then you can't complain when you don't have that slammin body.

"Two hours" is a counterclaim to Luj's specific claim about 10-14. The people whose bodies are the pinnacle of desirability are working out two hours a day, if that. You and I can work out significantly less and still look great. (Unless you're playing something like water polo, you are burning only 400-600 calories an hour, which isn't major in terms of what you can eat. These professionals still have to control their food intake.) It probably won't be through slow burn. As I said in my original, standalone argument, it's not taking off because it lacks aspirational spokespeople.

"IP, the case for low carbs doesn't conflict with calories in/calories out. Low carb gives most people satiation at low calories. If you are burning enough calories it really doesn't matter."

Low-carb experts like the Eades and Gary Taubes are quick to say that low-carb eating is NOT about incidental calorie restriction. "A calorie is not a calorie, low carb eaters consume way more calories, it's about the way the body stores and burns fat," etc. I agree with YOU that it can incidentally restrict calories, but so can eating only foods that begin with J. Any time you're on a "diet plan" that forces to you to prep meals at home from fresh ingredients--and that cuts out any category of food you normally would eat--you probably will lose weight.

As for being satiated, you can get the same thing from brown rice, oatmeal, and a lot of other foods. When people are put on reducing diets in Hollywood (people training to take their shirt off AND people simply trying to not look like Mark Hamill did a year before TFA was filmed), those diets include fruit, grains, sweet potatoes and many other things you can't eat on low-carb plans. People whose job it is to stay thin aren't doing extreme low-carb, even though they've certainly had the opportunity to try them.

Real-life people with great bodies mostly aren't doing it either. Which is why the movement is dying.

If I want to get fit and you show me a photo of someone who is following a regimen to a T and still looks barely better than me, why would I sign on?

BTW, if you like artificial sweeteners but are avoiding them due to health concerns, then I'd urge you to do further reading on skeptic and science blogs, because the scary studies are being challenged and debunked. The Eades themselves use Splenda.

Luj, you're on a tangent IMO, albeit an interesting one. 6'3" and 120 lbs is so skinny I can barely even picture it on a real-life human male. There wouldn't be much muscle, and that's not an expected outcome for an endurance swimmer.

I mean, this is 6'3" and 135 pounds: http://www.capovalleybasketball.com/uploads/3/4/7/1/34715253/9901782_orig.jpg?136

You were thinner than that?

If you're saying someone can be fit but not look desirable, I agree. If you're saying someone can be performant but not healthy, I agree. There's still an undeniable connection between fitness training and a good-looking body.

Back to my original statement: When people are looking for fitness plans, they start with examples from people whose bodies they admire. This is why Gal Gadot and Chris Pratt are in fitness mags and get posted on refrigerators or stuck in fitspo memes. Even if you're going to do a watered-down version, you want something with demonstrated results.

I won't fight you on that IP. I'm not a no carb advocate like Amy. I certainly eat rice and sweet potatoes. But at least for me there is an issue with unbalanced calories. I can feel the difference when I eat only sugar or starch or protein. If I advocate anything it is a balance insulin response. A mix of sugar, starch, fat, and protein that will minimize insulin spikes and troughs so hunger doesn't become an issue and cause overeating.

I don't know that what I said about artificial sugars was that alarmist. All of the cancer studies I've seen were bogus. But from what I've read and what I've seen people who are not diabetic who drink no calorie but artificially sweetened colas end up getting fat because they eat too much elsewhere. When they stop with the cola they lose weight even though the cola has no calories. If you mix some sugar with some artificial sweetener you don't have all the same problems. There is some sugar for the body to work on. When you go diabetic and are insulin insensitive the issue goes away. Though, at that point you just need to control your blood sugar manually because you've broken the automated system.

I've also experienced a similar issue with low quality proteins. When the meat is poor people often mix in sugar to cover it up. The worst time I had with weight gain was when I worked for Baker Huges. The facility was in the middle of nowhere. There was only one restaurant you could get to in the time allotted for lunch, a cheese-steak place. So most of us ate at the company cafeteria. Management had decided that since everyone ate there it had to be affordable to all employees. So a meal couldn't cost more than $2.50. Sounds great. Except the only way to get the costs down was to use very low quality ingredients. I was constantly hungry and snacking whenever I ate there. I gained 20 lbs over 3 years no matter what I did. I've only recently started to work those pounds back off.