Impressive or not, the question is how intense the cravings and urges would be relative to the cravings and urges inherent in getting to a weight under the healthy range.
Think of a heroin addict.
As compared to what?
You were the one asking for a comparison.
By the way this is the first time you’ve said anything about his wanting to go below a healthy weight.
Yes, and I still am. A heroin addict as compared to what?
Where did you get that from?
After a 35 pound weight loss that brings someone into the normal weight range they don’t have “cravings”, they have normal hunger.
Voluntarily starving yourself into single digit body fat is not only unlikely, the cravings are immense. In fact, they’re usually not resistible, which is why starving yourself like that is virtually impossible for the average person.
I can tell you exactly what the difference feels like and there is never a day where I suffer unresistable immense cravings.
I lost a considerable amount of weight (80lb) a number of years ago and have kept it off for 10 years now. The reasons for the weight loss were multiple but in no small way they were part of a circumstance enforced “mid life crisis”. It took a year or so to lose the weight and another couple of years of steady and hard work to get down to 6 or 7 percent body fat. I kept it off for a few more years and have now settled on 10 percent body fat. Two reasons for that: I no longer have the time or the desire to spend 3 hours a day in the gym, or long days and many miles on my bike, and, I achieved what I set out to do and figured out a bunch of stuff in the process. Best part of it is that I’ve only gained 5-8lb back and my weight has been steady ever since because I also learned to eat better and I continue to exercise to maintain a healthy physical and mental state.
So what’s the difference between 7 and (in my case) 10 percent…? 25-50 percent less time working out (as compared to my high point) and continuing to maintain a healthy balanced diet that allows for occassional indulgences. That’s it. It doesn’t have to feel like a brutal regime you force on yourself. In due time it becomes your new normal and any cravings or indulgences are easily satisfied or overcome.
They will vary considerably. But you’re now asking about getting to under a healthy weight, which is very difficult to do. I’ve never been there but I know people who’ve competed in bodybuilding competitions who have to get to those body fat percentages; they’re always hungry and tired. It’s very difficult to maintain and most only do so for a short time while right around the competition. Getting to that point takes a few months so they’re grumpy and difficult to be around.
But none of this has anything to do with getting your body fat down to the point where your abs show. It’s like comparing someone who drives 10 MPH faster than the speed limit with a Formula 1 driver. They’re both going faster than the average driver, but beyond that the comparison falls apart.
All the way from working out to heroin? this seems derailed completely.
A mid-life crisis does not have to be a bad thing, it can be a wake up call.
Wait until he achieves his goal of six pack abs and see if he goes into a maintenance mode of training. Men can get in unbelievable shape and still be very healthy. Did I say still be? Seems the wrong phrase, just let him work out.
brazil84 I’m getting the impression that you’re digging for a hazard in all this. The bottom line is that your relative losing weight, getting in shape, and setting goals are all to the good even if they are the result of a “mid-life crisis” and may well grant him a healthy and vigorous old age. The goal he is setting - six pack abs - is reasonable for a man of his age.
That’s not so, but to avoid getting distracted, let’s agree for the sake of discussion that my motivations are questionable; that I’m a busybody; etc.
That does seem to be the consensus in the thread.
What I’m confused about is where you got the idea that it was unreasonable or unhealthy for a guy in his mid-40’s to have a six pack? I assure you that if you go to any race (running, biking, triathlon, etc) you’ll see dozens or hundreds of men (and women) who fit that criteria. Perhaps it’s simply the circles I hang out in where I see these people all the time. But I’m interested in where the perception comes from.
It isn’t EASY for a man or a woman in middle age to have defined abs - especially one that hasn’t always been healthy. Most of us have to fight against our history (we have to lose weight before we can find our abs), we have to fight against a decades long habit of TV and junk food. We have to fight against our aging bodies - knees that don’t want to hold up to running, backs that ache. In the case of women, we often have to fight a baby pooch. And in some cases, all those various fights are going to leave us being unsuccessful. We’d have to take unhealthy actions to reach those goals - not necessarily physically unhealthy (though running on bad knees isn’t the brightest idea), but we might have to sacrifice too much family time. Or not be able to work the overtime we need to keep us financially stable. It might mean an unhealthy level of obsession over food - not, again, physically unhealthy - but where its psychologically reached the point where it interferes with other things in your life, like relationships, or being able to enjoy life.
So possible: yes. Physically healthy: yes. The right thing to pursue: Not necessarily.
But you don’t make that last decision for someone else unless you are pulling them aside to say “hey, you know…six marathons this summer…that was awesome. But seven and I think Diane might kick you out of the house - being gone those weekends was really hard on her with the kids.” Or “I really admire your dedication to your health, but you need to be here by 8am, stay until 5, and you cannot take a two hour lunch to hit the gym. It isn’t fair to the rest of the team.”
I think we’ve all come to that conclusion some time ago. What’s left to discuss then?
I agree with everything you said. But the OP was asking if it was physically healthy, comparing having a visible six-pack to anorexia, and I’m wondering where that idea came from.
My idea is that it MIGHT BE unreasonable or unhealthy for a guy in his mid-40s to have a six pack.
And I would be happy to tell you where I got it, except that it will almost certainly be misconstrued as my taking the position that it IS unhealthy or unsafe.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s safe and healthy to be that thin. (I imagine this sentence will be misconstrued as a claim that running, biking, and triathlon are unhealthy :rolleyes:)
I’m not sure . . . but if all you have is snark and personal attacks, please take them somewhere else.
Same question, where did you get that idea?
I hope we’re beyond that in this thread. I find the idea pretty fascinating and if you don’t mind I’d like to explore it.
The point is that most observers would look at these athletes and think they look healthy. They are not thin so much as they are lean. How would you measure healthy?
I’ve provided an answer and example from personal experience. Exactly the information you were looking for. Others have as well. Your replies consist of admissions that your inquiry is based on less than altruistic motives, to say nothing of it being short on facts.
…So why so thin skinned?