Poll: Would being "skinny fat" be better to you than being grossly overweight?
- Thread starter alphaX
- Start date
Frances
New member
I think a lot of people would say yes because as Steve said, many would be a little more able to do the things they love. Plus if you want to get married or have a family one day maybe being "skinny fat" would mean that that actually happens...where as "grossly overweight" might mean your goal slips through your hands.
I'm working on skinny skinny right now myself. I don't care for the idea of ever being bulked up and highly muscular.
My current plan is to strip everything away down to about 160 pounds and then worry about transitioning to resistance to add muscle back on to a desired level. So far so good and about 30 pounds to go.
I would have to say I would expect it to be far easier to make the transition to putting some muscle on than it was to be grossly overweight, which I indeed was, than it was to strip all that fat off.
The weight comes off fast when you are that far up there, at first, but it's a long difficult road where you still have to look at a fat person in the mirror every day along the way.
I am definitely weaker than I used to be, I've stripped off a lot of muscle with cardio. However, I wouldn't trade my running endurance and general fitness level that I have now for being grossly overweight again for a million dollars.
When I think about it I have to say I find this poll and that term offensive to be honest. I've worked at it for almost a year to get where I am now, and I would probably be considered "skinny fat" by some of you, I find the term itself kind of derogatory and demotivating for anyone that is going through the process. People should perhaps think a bit about what they say and how it marginalizes other peoples efforts, particularly in a place where motivation and information is supposed to be the point.
When I read that term I read it as, here's another title for you to remind you why you are still not good enough.
EDIT: You know the more I've thought about it since I posted the more I feel that not only is the question insulting and damaging, but that it is just generally a very stupid question to begin with. Are you asking if I would rather go back to being at a massive risk for diabetes, heart disease, lacking in any fitness, just because I am at a level where I don't look like an underwear model when I have my clothes off? Are you asking if appearance is so all out important that I would rather risk my health or life and feel I am better off than being not up to par in a pair of swimming trunks? Stupid question.
My current plan is to strip everything away down to about 160 pounds and then worry about transitioning to resistance to add muscle back on to a desired level. So far so good and about 30 pounds to go.
I would have to say I would expect it to be far easier to make the transition to putting some muscle on than it was to be grossly overweight, which I indeed was, than it was to strip all that fat off.
The weight comes off fast when you are that far up there, at first, but it's a long difficult road where you still have to look at a fat person in the mirror every day along the way.
I am definitely weaker than I used to be, I've stripped off a lot of muscle with cardio. However, I wouldn't trade my running endurance and general fitness level that I have now for being grossly overweight again for a million dollars.
When I think about it I have to say I find this poll and that term offensive to be honest. I've worked at it for almost a year to get where I am now, and I would probably be considered "skinny fat" by some of you, I find the term itself kind of derogatory and demotivating for anyone that is going through the process. People should perhaps think a bit about what they say and how it marginalizes other peoples efforts, particularly in a place where motivation and information is supposed to be the point.
When I read that term I read it as, here's another title for you to remind you why you are still not good enough.
EDIT: You know the more I've thought about it since I posted the more I feel that not only is the question insulting and damaging, but that it is just generally a very stupid question to begin with. Are you asking if I would rather go back to being at a massive risk for diabetes, heart disease, lacking in any fitness, just because I am at a level where I don't look like an underwear model when I have my clothes off? Are you asking if appearance is so all out important that I would rather risk my health or life and feel I am better off than being not up to par in a pair of swimming trunks? Stupid question.
Last edited: