Clothing sizes vs. inches vs. weight - makes NO sense

[Jeanamarie]

I've been thinking the fashion industry has been playing this sizing trick on us for a while now. Last Christmas, I bought size 6 jeans, and though I used to be a 5 back in 1982, I know I'm broader in the hips and fuller in the tummy than would be truly comparable. I've been out shopping recently, and for the record, I just grab both 6's and 8's, just to save the walk back to the rack. Plus it seems to also depend on whether it's active wear, lingerie, business attire, or casual. I just have to remind myself to skip the Missy's dept. cuz they always have stuff that attracts me, but that a woman my age should probably AVOID!!

[cqlalady]

I am joining mid-discussion here,so I may not be relevant....but while I agree that the scales do not matter as much as size, I don't think the scale is obsolete. I think my body could be maximum muscle (which it isn't!) but there will come a point that at 5'6" and 175 lbs I cannot get smaller--I simply have too much mass. I have heard stories of 200 lb women wearing a ten, but realistically, if a person is thirty or forty pounds overweight for her height, there will be a point at which she can get no smaller or not get into smaller clothes, right? I really feel that I need to bite the bullet and take off ten more pounds....but it's hard to eat less when working out and working a lot. Agghh......

[BlessedMama]

Donna, I would tend to disagree--there is a huge difference between 10 lbs. of muscle and 10 lbs. of fat! What if by continuing to fuel your body well while working out, your body reshapes, "trades fat for muscle", so to speak, and is slimmer because muscle is more dense and not as big as fat? I believe that is why I only lost 30 lbs. after losing 8 sizes and over 150 inches! It makes no "sense" to our brains because I feel we have been so brainwashed into thinking scales are so important.

There are definitely times you may need to watch your weight (I know some, taking certain medications need to keep an eye on things) but that is a whole different animal than going by the scales to tell you if your are healthy. If you are stalling, perhaps you need to eat MORE nutrient dense foods and good fats, vs. less. When we went on GAPS last year, I cut out grains and starches but upped my fats tremendously--and went on to lose 20 or so pounds AND with T-Tapp, reshaped as well!

I know I've gained some weight, I'm a little fluffy, but I give myself grace as I'm going through some fluctuations. I refuse to let a flat belly, certain weight or even size define me!

Sorry to be so passionate, but I see so many women up their cardio and overtrain and/or cut their calories, sabotaging their metabolism. You may "lose 10 lbs." and win the battle, but in the long haul, you may lose the war if you send your body into a crisis. Remember--I sent myself into an adrenal crash, meaning I needed 3 naps a day to survive--for ME to survive. Not my household. Just me. I did it by eating less, doing too much T-Tapp and not listening to the warning signs--of which slowing and stalling inch loss is a huge one.

Trust me, you don't lose any inches or pounds when you need 3 naps a day!

JMHO from experience!

HUGS!

[BlessedMama]

Here's a great blogpost with a pic:

http://keepingitcleanorg.blogspot.co...le-vs-fat.html

[ayj67]

Donna, I also agree that lbs and sizes are two different things, and someone can be in size 6 with 160 lbs. Today, I am 135 lbs, 5'2'', wearing a pair of size 4 jeans (bought 6-7 years ago).

You think you need to drop 10 lbs, but I think you did to drop some exercise and stress. The stalling means your body is hanging on to some security blanket (or inflammation, or water weight), keep thinking you have another 10 lbs to drop is not going to help. Relax and know that you have the best physique and health you have for your age, do less workout, relief some stress. If have that constant mental stress going on all the time (for example: I must write 200 pages a day or I must do 15 mins of T-Tapp as hard as my body can handle.) These two things might just be the boulders than is blocking your fat loss journey. Your stress level is so high that I feel stressed out from reading your life.

[Miss Understood]

Donna-Marie. I think I follow your line of reasoning. You're saying that IF your 175 pounds was as much muscle as you're likely to carry, and you are still larger than you like, then the rest must be fat that needs to go. I think that is possible. I am 5'6" and just hit 160. I am not sure how much more fat I can convert to muscle. I have a little to lose in the inner thigh, and some waist and abdominal fat. Probably. "the girls" can be a little smaller, too. I think even with building a bit more muscle I probably still need to lose at least ten pounds. I'll see how the inch loss progresses and go from there. Trisch is right about not trying to go hungry, though. I eat no bread or grains, minimal fruit or sugar, and lots of non-starchy vegetables, meats, fish, and a lot of natural fats from olive oil, avocado, coconut and butter etc. I lose a pound a week. It used to be two but I have slowed, probably due to gaining muscle from T-Tapp. I never go hungry and I enjoy what I eat.

[ayj67]

Instead of thinking converting fat to muscle, just concentrate on gaining balanced muscles. Balanced muscles will help you avoid injuries and accidents. The bigger muscle will burn more sugar and will burn the fat when you are doing aerobic exercise.

When we say aerobic exercise, we mean when we exercise, we can still breath. When you are winded, grasping for air, you are in anaerobic zone, you are burning sugar and not fat. So, if you do your workout as hard as you can and are grasping for air, you are just creating inflammation (that will result in more water retention) and burning sugar (makes you hungry) while the fat is not budging.

You can ask weight lifter and people who does the hard core cardio before doing the the gentle T-Tapp. They were cardio healthy but chubby at the same time. Slow down and work less hard, see if your fat starts melting away again.

[BlessedMama]

Kay, I am 5' 4 1/2" and was "stuck" at 160 for awhile. I'd have to look at my charts to see how long I vacillated back and forth. (Dh is asleep or I'd go get them out of our room right now!)

Donna, I would agree with ayj--you've had a huge thing on your plate--to write this curriculum. Although you LOVE it (and I know you do!), it's still a stress. Kind of like I LOVE being a T-Tapp trainer, but I had a clinic last Saturday, class Tuesday and a private 3 on 1 session yesterday--today was supposed to be practicing just part of HTF and I knew my body needed a day off. As I head into certifications, I'm happy and excited, but it's still a stress. So is working on my website when PayPal's buttons won't work! Anyhoo, point is, backing off workouts, taking another day off or lightening up might be the ticket. I have found over and over that truly, less is more--especially the closer I got to goal!

[just7]

Are we really "trading" fat for muscle? Are we actually building denser muscles which are then feeding off the fat?

I use the scale to determine that yes---I am still FAT! But I can see 10+ inches drop and gain a pound or two.

I remember reading about someone, somewhere, who was working out hours a day and was losing but when they had to go to the doctor for something, they found out that they were losing muscle tone rather than losing fat.

I appreciate the things that have been shared about good, nutrient dense foods---really fueling our body and I really appreciate how T-Tapp---Less IS More---can really help us achieve better health.

(Just some thoughts)

[Jeanamarie]

I agree Trish, the volume/mass of fat vs muscle is almost 5/1. I volunteer for the wellness dept. events that my employer (health provider) participates in; and we bring with us two items to display and offer people to pick up and compare: a plastic ? 5 lb lump of fat and a rubber (muscle shaped) example of 5 lb of muscle. The fat is nearly 5 times the size!! Tricky bodies have we!