Adarq.org
Performance Area => Article & Video Discussion => Topic started by: hennas87 on July 01, 2011, 10:20:12 am
-
http://www.yourefatbecauseyourestupid.com/LosingWeight.htm
I love the rant, it reminds me of the man show's "stop eating so much" diet
-
http://www.yourefatbecauseyourestupid.com/Default.htm
By the way, I love this picture:
(http://www.yourefatbecauseyourestupid.com/Images/HealthyFood.jpg)
-
Rants aren't good in any scientific category of study because they close the mind, and hinder rational processes. This is some terrible health advice, and won't work in the long term.
"If you consume less calories than you require every day, your body will pull the extra calories it needs from the stored fat on your body. Conversely, if you consume more calories than you need, your body stores those calories as fat. It really is that simple."
-Not it's not. Unfortunately eating less only works in the short term, and makes you fatter in the long term, unless eating less was arrived at by switching calories to whole foods entirely.
" A salad with lettuce, tomato, bell peppers, avacado, mushrooms, and topped with a grilled chicken breast is high in protein, fiber, and vitamins."
-That's a good meal if you want to lose weight, I won't deny that. But in the long term, it will have consequences on your metabolism, starting with less thyroid hormone, less T4 to T3 conversion. How many people out there are fat from eating clean foods? The only way I could get really fat eating 100% whole foods is if I ate a lot of fat and carbs with every single meal. I'd feel sick though very shortly.
"You may still be eating too much. Little snacks throughout the day can add up. Make sure you're not sabatoging yourself by eating high calorie snacks in between meals because you're hungry. If you need a snack, have something like celery with a little peanut butter, or an apple or other fruit."
-Again, starvation works in the short term, because of an adrenaline high. THe body will quickly become insensitive to adrenaline and start to feel terrible. Check out 180degreehealth.blogspot.com, Matt Stone has worked with a lot of people who have followed simple health advice like this, only to get fatter and less healthy.
Since I don't believe in the efficacy of ranting, I won't rant. But I will say the 2nd half of the article is better. Sticking with it is good advice, although somewhat obvious. Sticking with a low calorie diet though, is badd mainstream advice that should not be followed.
I know the author has good intentions, but this type of advice has truly destroyed many people's health. If you're weight lifting and training for VJ, the last thing you want to do is eat less. It's how I made no gains for like 2 years, and overtrained the whole time
-
Rants aren't good in any scientific category of study because they close the mind, and hinder rational processes. This is some terrible health advice, and won't work in the long term.
"If you consume less calories than you require every day, your body will pull the extra calories it needs from the stored fat on your body. Conversely, if you consume more calories than you need, your body stores those calories as fat. It really is that simple."
-Not it's not. Unfortunately eating less only works in the short term, and makes you fatter in the long term, unless eating less was arrived at by switching calories to whole foods entirely.
" A salad with lettuce, tomato, bell peppers, avacado, mushrooms, and topped with a grilled chicken breast is high in protein, fiber, and vitamins."
-That's a good meal if you want to lose weight, I won't deny that. But in the long term, it will have consequences on your metabolism, starting with less thyroid hormone, less T4 to T3 conversion. How many people out there are fat from eating clean foods? The only way I could get really fat eating 100% whole foods is if I ate a lot of fat and carbs with every single meal. I'd feel sick though very shortly.
"You may still be eating too much. Little snacks throughout the day can add up. Make sure you're not sabatoging yourself by eating high calorie snacks in between meals because you're hungry. If you need a snack, have something like celery with a little peanut butter, or an apple or other fruit."
-Again, starvation works in the short term, because of an adrenaline high. THe body will quickly become insensitive to adrenaline and start to feel terrible. Check out 180degreehealth.blogspot.com, Matt Stone has worked with a lot of people who have followed simple health advice like this, only to get fatter and less healthy.
Since I don't believe in the efficacy of ranting, I won't rant. But I will say the 2nd half of the article is better. Sticking with it is good advice, although somewhat obvious. Sticking with a low calorie diet though, is badd mainstream advice that should not be followed.
I know the author has good intentions, but this type of advice has truly destroyed many people's health. If you're weight lifting and training for VJ, the last thing you want to do is eat less. It's how I made no gains for like 2 years, and overtrained the whole time
(http://www.schulbilder.org/konzentrationslager-buchenwald-t7251.jpg)
so they got fat from starvation?
(http://rage-quit.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Laughing.png)
-
People get fat in the long term from low calorie diets once exposed to food. These people probably have crushed metabolisms and may experience the same phenomenon once exposed to unlimited amounts of food. People with unhealthy metabolisms do not gain massive amounts of fat if exposed to unlimited amounts of food. This is what all the overfeeding studies have shown
Jimmy Moore of livin la vida low carb is a great example. Lost like hundred pounds form low carb dieting, gained 60 back after 2 years.
Bodybuilders are another great example. [http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html[/http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]
Some science: http://www.cswd.org/docs/ltdietstudy.html
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! funny thread.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! funny thread.
Yeah!
(http://rage-quit.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Laughing.png)
-
People get fat in the long term from low calorie diets once exposed to food. These people probably have crushed metabolisms and may experience the same phenomenon once exposed to unlimited amounts of food. People with unhealthy metabolisms do not gain massive amounts of fat if exposed to unlimited amounts of food. This is what all the overfeeding studies have shown
Jimmy Moore of livin la vida low carb is a great example. Lost like hundred pounds form low carb dieting, gained 60 back after 2 years.
Bodybuilders are another great example. [http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html[/http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]
Some science: http://www.cswd.org/docs/ltdietstudy.html
You're over complicating things. Weight loss and maintenance of weight loss is a matter of motivation vs discipline. Motivation = a short fiery emotion that makes you want to do something. Discipline = ability to stick to something, and not chicken out. Americans satisfy themselves everyday ASAP, so how do you expect them to maintain a diet if they can't avoid satisfying themselves. If you have discipline you will keep the weight off, if you don't, you don't deserve to keep the weight off.
I don't get the metabolism stuff. Of course you will gain weight if you start eating more food than normal. I think it's common sense. People aren't fit in America because they're undisciplined, and stupid.
That's just what I think.
-
People get fat in the long term from low calorie diets once exposed to food. These people probably have crushed metabolisms and may experience the same phenomenon once exposed to unlimited amounts of food. People with unhealthy metabolisms do not gain massive amounts of fat if exposed to unlimited amounts of food. This is what all the overfeeding studies have shown
Jimmy Moore of livin la vida low carb is a great example. Lost like hundred pounds form low carb dieting, gained 60 back after 2 years.
Bodybuilders are another great example. [http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html[/http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]
Some science: http://www.cswd.org/docs/ltdietstudy.html
You're over complicating things. Weight loss and maintenance of weight loss is a matter of motivation vs discipline. Motivation = a short fiery emotion that makes you want to do something. Discipline = ability to stick to something, and not chicken out. Americans satisfy themselves everyday ASAP, so how do you expect them to maintain a diet if they can't avoid satisfying themselves. If you have discipline you will keep the weight off, if you don't, you don't deserve to keep the weight off.
I don't get the metabolism stuff. Of course you will gain weight if you start eating more food than normal. I think it's common sense. People aren't fit in America because they're undisciplined, and stupid.
That's just what I think.
are you insinuating that most Americans are dumb and/or out of shape?
-
People get fat in the long term from low calorie diets once exposed to food. These people probably have crushed metabolisms and may experience the same phenomenon once exposed to unlimited amounts of food. People with unhealthy metabolisms do not gain massive amounts of fat if exposed to unlimited amounts of food. This is what all the overfeeding studies have shown
Jimmy Moore of livin la vida low carb is a great example. Lost like hundred pounds form low carb dieting, gained 60 back after 2 years.
Bodybuilders are another great example. [http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html[/http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]
Some science: http://www.cswd.org/docs/ltdietstudy.html
You're over complicating things. Weight loss and maintenance of weight loss is a matter of motivation vs discipline. Motivation = a short fiery emotion that makes you want to do something. Discipline = ability to stick to something, and not chicken out. Americans satisfy themselves everyday ASAP, so how do you expect them to maintain a diet if they can't avoid satisfying themselves. If you have discipline you will keep the weight off, if you don't, you don't deserve to keep the weight off.
I don't get the metabolism stuff. Of course you will gain weight if you start eating more food than normal. I think it's common sense. People aren't fit in America because they're undisciplined, and stupid.
That's just what I think.
are you insinuating that most Americans are dumb and/or out of shape?
You might be on to something here.
-
People get fat in the long term from low calorie diets once exposed to food. These people probably have crushed metabolisms and may experience the same phenomenon once exposed to unlimited amounts of food. People with unhealthy metabolisms do not gain massive amounts of fat if exposed to unlimited amounts of food. This is what all the overfeeding studies have shown
Jimmy Moore of livin la vida low carb is a great example. Lost like hundred pounds form low carb dieting, gained 60 back after 2 years.
Bodybuilders are another great example. [http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html[/http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]
Some science: http://www.cswd.org/docs/ltdietstudy.html
You're over complicating things. Weight loss and maintenance of weight loss is a matter of motivation vs discipline. Motivation = a short fiery emotion that makes you want to do something. Discipline = ability to stick to something, and not chicken out. Americans satisfy themselves everyday ASAP, so how do you expect them to maintain a diet if they can't avoid satisfying themselves. If you have discipline you will keep the weight off, if you don't, you don't deserve to keep the weight off.
I don't get the metabolism stuff. Of course you will gain weight if you start eating more food than normal. I think it's common sense. People aren't fit in America because they're undisciplined, and stupid.
That's just what I think.
are you insinuating that most Americans are dumb and/or out of shape?
kind of ;D. I gotta make it clear first I am American though. I don't know how to prove it on a forum, but oh well. If you took randomly picked Americans off the street and asked them questions about nutrition, and tested their "fitness" a large portion would probably fail. I'm not saying most would fail, but probably a large percentage.
-
I'm not saying most would fail, but probably a large percentage.
Fail.
Just kidding, but it does sound a bit weird :P
-
It is very complicated. Simple people in the fitness industry believe in the simplicity of exercise more eat less. What I'm arguing is that it's terrible advice, which it is, since it fails to produce long term health or long term weight loss, simplest reason being stress. Discipline is irrelevant, it's about where to direct that discipline. Try getting people to lose weight with this bullshit then get back to me
Edit: There are plenty of people with discipline who get fat because they over-rationalize what to eat instead of listening to their body. Bodybuiders, and low carb dieters are the best example. Perhaps take a look at the links I sent, or remain stupid like the Americans you accuse of being.
-
It is very complicated. Simple people in the fitness industry believe in the simplicity of exercise more eat less. What I'm arguing is that it's terrible advice, which it is, since it fails to produce long term health or long term weight loss, simplest reason being stress. Discipline is irrelevant, it's about where to direct that discipline. Try getting people to lose weight with this bullshit then get back to me
Edit: There are plenty of people with discipline who get fat because they over-rationalize what to eat instead of listening to their body. Bodybuiders, and low carb dieters are the best example. Perhaps take a look at the links I sent, or remain stupid like the Americans you accuse of being.
so how can people then lose weight?
-
People get fat in the long term from low calorie diets once exposed to food. These people probably have crushed metabolisms and may experience the same phenomenon once exposed to unlimited amounts of food. People with unhealthy metabolisms do not gain massive amounts of fat if exposed to unlimited amounts of food. This is what all the overfeeding studies have shown
Jimmy Moore of livin la vida low carb is a great example. Lost like hundred pounds form low carb dieting, gained 60 back after 2 years.
Bodybuilders are another great example. [http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html[/http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]
Some science: http://www.cswd.org/docs/ltdietstudy.html
You're over complicating things. Weight loss and maintenance of weight loss is a matter of motivation vs discipline. Motivation = a short fiery emotion that makes you want to do something. Discipline = ability to stick to something, and not chicken out. Americans satisfy themselves everyday ASAP, so how do you expect them to maintain a diet if they can't avoid satisfying themselves. If you have discipline you will keep the weight off, if you don't, you don't deserve to keep the weight off.
I don't get the metabolism stuff. Of course you will gain weight if you start eating more food than normal. I think it's common sense. People aren't fit in America because they're undisciplined, and stupid.
That's just what I think.
are you insinuating that most Americans are dumb and/or out of shape?
kind of ;D. I gotta make it clear first I am American though. I don't know how to prove it on a forum, but oh well. If you took randomly picked Americans off the street and asked them questions about nutrition, and tested their "fitness" a large portion would probably fail. I'm not saying most would fail, but probably a large percentage.
(http://i3.ytimg.com/i/6NhhPieVBOS13g_m4c6DNQ/1.jpg?v=86974e)
lulz, dont talk shit about Americans faggot, we dominate you.
-
Did that one dude just say you get fat from not eating? How does your body make the fat?
Your metabolism slowing down is the biggest myth in dieting. If it slowed down because you don't eat a lot, why wouldn't it speed up when you ate too much?
Calories In-Calories out. That's the only factor in terms of weight gain/loss (sure, for muscle gains and fat loss it's more complicated than that, but you cannot gain weight if you burn more calories than you put it, and you can't lose weight if you eat more than you burn).
-
People get fat in the long term from low calorie diets once exposed to food. These people probably have crushed metabolisms and may experience the same phenomenon once exposed to unlimited amounts of food. People with unhealthy metabolisms do not gain massive amounts of fat if exposed to unlimited amounts of food. This is what all the overfeeding studies have shown
Jimmy Moore of livin la vida low carb is a great example. Lost like hundred pounds form low carb dieting, gained 60 back after 2 years.
Bodybuilders are another great example. [http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html[/http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/04/self-destructive-nature-of-willpower.html]
Some science: http://www.cswd.org/docs/ltdietstudy.html
You're over complicating things. Weight loss and maintenance of weight loss is a matter of motivation vs discipline. Motivation = a short fiery emotion that makes you want to do something. Discipline = ability to stick to something, and not chicken out. Americans satisfy themselves everyday ASAP, so how do you expect them to maintain a diet if they can't avoid satisfying themselves. If you have discipline you will keep the weight off, if you don't, you don't deserve to keep the weight off.
I don't get the metabolism stuff. Of course you will gain weight if you start eating more food than normal. I think it's common sense. People aren't fit in America because they're undisciplined, and stupid.
That's just what I think.
are you insinuating that most Americans are dumb and/or out of shape?
kind of ;D. I gotta make it clear first I am American though. I don't know how to prove it on a forum, but oh well. If you took randomly picked Americans off the street and asked them questions about nutrition, and tested their "fitness" a large portion would probably fail. I'm not saying most would fail, but probably a large percentage.
(http://i3.ytimg.com/i/6NhhPieVBOS13g_m4c6DNQ/1.jpg?v=86974e)
lulz, dont talk shit about Americans faggot, we dominate you.
Dude, calm down. You can be asian and live in America. I'm not attacking anybody.
-
It is very complicated. Simple people in the fitness industry believe in the simplicity of exercise more eat less. What I'm arguing is that it's terrible advice, which it is, since it fails to produce long term health or long term weight loss, simplest reason being stress. Discipline is irrelevant, it's about where to direct that discipline. Try getting people to lose weight with this bullshit then get back to me
Edit: There are plenty of people with discipline who get fat because they over-rationalize what to eat instead of listening to their body. Bodybuiders, and low carb dieters are the best example. Perhaps take a look at the links I sent, or remain stupid like the Americans you accuse of being.
so how can people then lose weight?
I have no idea how to multi quote, but I will also address the guy on page 2, who said "did that one dude just say you can get fat from not eating?" or something along those lines.
Yes. Cortisol can RELOCATE fat into the abdominal area. It can take stored glucose reserves, or burn muscle to make glucose, and store that as fat, in the midsection.
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/stresscortisol.html
I've seen it happen to myself.
Gary Taubes mentioned people on true starvation diets looking emaciated, but fat. Stop eating for 50 days, will you have a 6 pack? Only if you're black. (slight joke there). Clearly in the starvation picture on page 1 of this thread they're not fat looking. It really depends on your genetics, some people will look a little fat in the lower abdomen.
Ok so how do you keep weight off in the long term.
Well this is the advice i'd give to people. Eat clean, and eat till you're satisfied, but it must be automatic and subconscious (haha). Clean = complex carbs, not much bread, no refined starches, organic fruit veggies, humanely raised meats/eggs, raw dairy, and maybe some supplements, and cycle the diet.
Now I never said you wouldn't burn fat eating less and exercising more, I said you wouldn't in the LONG term. The reason most people fail on low calorie diets in the long term is because when they overfeed, they stuff themselves with fat and sugar, which is the best way to store a lot of fat and gain weight and become insulin resistant. if people overfed only on carbs, or say 70-80%, they could slowly restore their metabolism while keeping the fat off. So yes it can work, but chances are you'll splurge on really bad things, despite how much willpower you think you have, cuz your body is smarter than you.
Yin and yang, need to be balanced, everyone knows this. You can call it homeostasis if you will. A low carb diet/fasting/eating less/exercising are all yang. Carbohydrates and sugar, sleeping, loungin, are yin. Having both is great. Take cheat meals for instance, they are restoring the metabolism, and preventing the shut down that occurs from long term low cal dieting, and restoring yin. But they're not necessary if you listen to your body and learn to just eat a lot when the body asks for it, and not think about food naturally when occupied.
Puttin an emphasis on carbohydrates can be a good idea for athletes. A really great way to overtrain is going on a low carb diet while exercising. Great way to kill your HPA axis. Not eating too much fat with the carbs is also a good idea. When you're nice and carb loaded, and have restored a lot of yin, expend it, and just eat fats, or fast intermittently. So it's al about balance. Anything and everything can work as long as it is not depleting the body. Exercisin more and eating less are depleting and unsustainable
-
Did that one dude just say you get fat from not eating? How does your body make the fat?
Your metabolism slowing down is the biggest myth in dieting. If it slowed down because you don't eat a lot, why wouldn't it speed up when you ate too much?
Calories In-Calories out. That's the only factor in terms of weight gain/loss (sure, for muscle gains and fat loss it's more complicated than that, but you cannot gain weight if you burn more calories than you put it, and you can't lose weight if you eat more than you burn).
Hormones are a lot more important. You cannot gain weight if calories in less than calories out, but you can gain FAT in the wrong places, visceral fat especially.
-
You disqualified yourself by mentioning Gary Taubes!
goodbye!
-
You disqualified yourself by mentioning Gary Taubes!
goodbye!
I don't know a lot about nutritional things. But I had thought about buying his book someday out of interest for the topic. You seem to think it is a bad resource. Can you tell me why and maybe offer an alternative to get into this topic?
-
You disqualified yourself by mentioning Gary Taubes!
goodbye!
I don't know a lot about nutritional things. But I had thought about buying his book someday out of interest for the topic. You seem to think it is a bad resource. Can you tell me why and maybe offer an alternative to get into this topic?
Taubes is a cherrypicker and said bullshit like "you can't get fat on a low carb diet, not even on 8000kcal if you eat pure fat and protein". He's one of those INSULINZ IZ DA EV1L people :wowthatwasnutswtf:
You can't go wrong with these:
a guide to flexible dieting (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/a-guide-to-flexible-dieting)
applied sports nutrition for mixed sports (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/applied-sports-nutrition-for-mixed-sports)
and basically every article (on nutrition) on http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/articles (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/articles) - you can get all the information you need out of these articles :highfive:
-
DamienZ, you like to keep it simple.
Good point you brought up: discrediting someone because of something they referenced or said.
It's like throwing out a dozen eggs if one is cracked. It's like thinking somebody has nothing useful to say because they believe in God. It's just a fallacy in logic. Even if a registered dietician says, saturated fat is bad for you. I did not discredit myself at all, in fact there is no such thing as discreditation from a philosophical standpoint. I don't discredit people when they say things I don't agree with because i know it will narrow my perspective. And you seem to have a pretty narrow perspective yourself citing only lyle mcdonald.
You must review the overfeeding studies I mentioned, not Gary Taubes, since the discussion was not on him. If you wanted my opinion on his book, well that's another topic. I did not have to mention gary taubes, I could have mentioned that most people don't gain substantial amounts of weight from just eating too much. I guess I mentioned him beacuse he's a famous researcher, but I really don't agree completely with his ideas on doing low carb. And yes I already said you can get fat from a low carbohydrate diet, which is not what he said.
Lyle's website is great and I occasionally read it, but it's not focused much on overall health, it's more mainstream in the sense it caterns toward people trying to look good for vain reasons.
-
Gary Taubes is a researcher? c'mon...
Btw, you're arguing about psychological stuff and not physiological - most people that lost weight will gain at least some weight back, but this has to do with them being to stupid to realize that when you dieted and then go back to eating like before you will just become as fat as before.
-
Did that one dude just say you get fat from not eating? How does your body make the fat?
Your metabolism slowing down is the biggest myth in dieting. If it slowed down because you don't eat a lot, why wouldn't it speed up when you ate too much?
Calories In-Calories out. That's the only factor in terms of weight gain/loss (sure, for muscle gains and fat loss it's more complicated than that, but you cannot gain weight if you burn more calories than you put it, and you can't lose weight if you eat more than you burn).
Hormones are a lot more important. You cannot gain weight if calories in less than calories out, but you can gain FAT in the wrong places, visceral fat especially.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuRcmPnSTM
Let's see a picture of you shirtless (no homo), and compare it to me. I bulk with 5000 calories and have cut with big deficits (sometimes keto). Let's see who looks better. Eating "until you're satisfied" is why most of America is overweight. Your body might burn muscle for energy, but it will never burn muscle to store it as fat. That doesn't make any sense. It burns the muscle because it needs the energy now.
3000 calories of fat and sugar doesn't make you weigh more than 3000 calories of protein (not taking thermal effects into effect).
You're retarded so I'm not going to respond to anything else you said. The fact that you think fat and sugar makes you fat, and not the excess calories, shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Did that one dude just say you get fat from not eating? How does your body make the fat?
Your metabolism slowing down is the biggest myth in dieting. If it slowed down because you don't eat a lot, why wouldn't it speed up when you ate too much?
Calories In-Calories out. That's the only factor in terms of weight gain/loss (sure, for muscle gains and fat loss it's more complicated than that, but you cannot gain weight if you burn more calories than you put it, and you can't lose weight if you eat more than you burn).
Hormones are a lot more important. You cannot gain weight if calories in less than calories out, but you can gain FAT in the wrong places, visceral fat especially.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuRcmPnSTM
Let's see a picture of you shirtless (no homo), and compare it to me. I bulk with 5000 calories and have cut with big deficits (sometimes keto). Let's see who looks better. Eating "until you're satisfied" is why most of America is overweight. Your body might burn muscle for energy, but it will never burn muscle to store it as fat. That doesn't make any sense. It burns the muscle because it needs the energy now.
3000 calories of fat and sugar doesn't make you weigh more than 3000 calories of protein (not taking thermal effects into effect).
You're retarded so I'm not going to respond to anything else you said. The fact that you think fat and sugar makes you fat, and not the excess calories, shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
This!
-
Steven, Taubes has a few books. I haven't read his newest one and don't plan to...but his previous book, Good Calories Bad Calories, is really good. It's not necessarily the most reader friendly, but it serves it's purpose very well. If you're interested in general health I am happy to recommend it.
If you're looking for sport performance or body composition look elsewhere.
-
Haha. I won't respond either after this, even tho eating till satisfaction has gotten me to look the best I ever have, I'm at a healthy 9% bf I'd say, cutting never worked for my chubby indian self back in the day. Bulking and cutting is a retarded concept of broscience. I build strength and muscle while shredding fat like people who have never read a book on fitness and just follow instincts.
Pretty much every poster here is what I call an "emotional thinker." Emotional thinkers don't think actually, so it's a paradox, they react, and need to use stupid youtube videos, pictures, and gay emoticons to show their homosexual feelings, in preference to well formulated prose. Their responses usually use words like "retarded" or other degrading things because they aren't' intelligent enough to reply with a strategic response.
The rational thinker, asks WHY, and separates his emotions from his views, and most importantly, is not attached to his views. All of you are attached to your beliefs in life. If I were to insult them, you would be offended like a faggot. In fact, a great test of what type of thinker you are is happening right now. If you are offended by my words, you're an emotional bitch and failed the test. In science, this attachment to ideas and your own research hinders progress by precluding the asking of WHY. Your own experience is good JC, but it's not a thorough examination of what works, so it's fucking useless information.
I also don't care how anybody looks, internal health is far more important, information on that is not as highly sought obviously since this culture is so hedonistic and looks for short term fixes. Plenty of people "look good" but are in shitty health, like most skinny bitches on ellipticals. Higher fat mass is linked to better mortality (there is always a U curve). A real test of health by the way, would be a stress tolerance test. The more stress tolerant you are, the better your antioxidant capacity, and the greater your longevity. There are probably other things, but that's the best I can think of right now. And most of you have a low tolerance since you are emotional thinkers. If I have more stress tolerance than you, my body will dominate yours period.
Lastly, on sugar and fat, it may not make you WEIGH more than an equivalent amount of protein in calories, but we're talking about fat distribution, a far more relevant measure. Americans aren't fat because they eat till satisfaction, rather it's the sugar + PUFAs in all processed foods, + follwing your instincts. People lose weight from eating clean and not exercising and eating to satisfaction all the fucking time.
Low fat diets have helped reverse diabetes, and so have low carb. Both prevent sugar from being in the bloodstream for too long. The sugar releases insulin, insulin can store the fat as fat, as well as the excess sugar. That's pretty simple actually so I have no idea how you thought I was retarded for saying that. Oh yes I do, because you're an emotional little pussy who'd get knocked in a real fight because he's too caught up in his emoticons. Peace!
-
Lastly, on sugar and fat, it may not make you WEIGH more than an equivalent amount of protein in calories, but we're talking about fat distribution, a far more relevant measure. Americans aren't fat because they eat till satisfaction, rather it's the sugar + PUFAs in all processed foods, + follwing your instincts. People lose weight from eating clean and not exercising and eating to satisfaction all the fucking time.
Low fat diets have helped reverse diabetes, and so have low carb. Both prevent sugar from being in the bloodstream for too long. The sugar releases insulin, insulin can store the fat as fat, as well as the excess sugar. That's pretty simple actually so I have no idea how you thought I was retarded for saying that. Oh yes I do, because you're an emotional little pussy who'd get knocked in a real fight because he's too caught up in his emoticons. Peace!
I said I wouldn't respond but I have to. Post a picture of yourself Mr. 9% bodyfat.
Americans WEIGH more than people from other countries. Since you agreed that fat and sugar doesn't make you weigh more, you cannot say Americans WEIGH more because they eat fat/sugar/processed food. Americans WEIGH more because they eat too much.
How do low fat diets prevent sugar from being in the bloodstream? Fat is the one macro that doesn't convert to glucose (for the most part), unlike protein and carbs.
The "bro science" here is that you think processed food makes you fat, which has been proven false over and over again.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
Explain that one faggot. And I'm not sure where this real fight stuff is coming from. Calm down faggot. You're the one who won't post a picture of yourself on here.
-
It's a shame this thread disintegrated so quickly without any substantial debate. It had potential to be interesting.
-
It's a shame this thread disintegrated so quickly without any substantial debate. It had potential to be interesting.
There's not much to debate
-
It's a shame this thread disintegrated so quickly without any substantial debate. It had potential to be interesting.
There's not much to debate
Bullshit. Human metabolism is still extremely poorly understood even after 70 years of research.
-
It's a shame this thread disintegrated so quickly without any substantial debate. It had potential to be interesting.
There's not much to debate
Bullshit. Human metabolism is still extremely poorly understood even after 70 years of research.
Explain what is poorly understood about it. I bet you state some facts. Facts cannot be debated, so therefore, there is not much to debate. You can't debate something that is either right or wrong. There is no opinion.
-
Lastly, on sugar and fat, it may not make you WEIGH more than an equivalent amount of protein in calories, but we're talking about fat distribution, a far more relevant measure. Americans aren't fat because they eat till satisfaction, rather it's the sugar + PUFAs in all processed foods, + follwing your instincts. People lose weight from eating clean and not exercising and eating to satisfaction all the fucking time.
Low fat diets have helped reverse diabetes, and so have low carb. Both prevent sugar from being in the bloodstream for too long. The sugar releases insulin, insulin can store the fat as fat, as well as the excess sugar. That's pretty simple actually so I have no idea how you thought I was retarded for saying that. Oh yes I do, because you're an emotional little pussy who'd get knocked in a real fight because he's too caught up in his emoticons. Peace!
I said I wouldn't respond but I have to. Post a picture of yourself Mr. 9% bodyfat.
Americans WEIGH more than people from other countries. Since you agreed that fat and sugar doesn't make you weigh more, you cannot say Americans WEIGH more because they eat fat/sugar/processed food. Americans WEIGH more because they eat too much.
How do low fat diets prevent sugar from being in the bloodstream? Fat is the one macro that doesn't convert to glucose (for the most part), unlike protein and carbs.
The "bro science" here is that you think processed food makes you fat, which has been proven false over and over again.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
Explain that one faggot. And I'm not sure where this real fight stuff is coming from. Calm down faggot. You're the one who won't post a picture of yourself on here.
Since it almost seems like you would like to learn, I'll try to post real facts here. Now about a picture of my abs, I certainly have decent abs, but I'm more interested in educating and promoting my ideas, than I am in being right. So even if I had 6%bf, which I've tried to achieve for a while but then stopped, I don't think I'd do it, because the point is that my bodyfat doesn't reflect what works for the general population. A scientific study involving many participants is more likely to. I could post a picture for kicks but it's not that useful.
I take back what I said about weight and am arguing that Americans weigh more mostly because of stress, which is the real cause of eating more calories, especially t[http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/documents/StressEatingandtheRewardSystem.pdf]hose of sugar and food with higher reward.[/http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/documents/StressEatingandtheRewardSystem.pdf].
Restricting calories but not restricting stress will only temporarily fix the problem. One level above the surface, I could argue it's just excess fat and sugar, or insulin as Taubes says. The insulin theory is definitely a good one, that chronically high blood sugar is what causes metabolic syndrome. Stress, high fat diets, and high sugar diets all cause high blood sugar. Recent studies have shown that meditation and deep breathing reduce blood sugar [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18386551]here[/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18386551] and [http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/full/10.1089/acm.2010.0666]here[/http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/full/10.1089/acm.2010.0666]
Stephan Guyenet of wholehealthsource.blogspot.com has been intrigued recently by the food reward hypothesis of obesity. In this post he shows how diets with less reward can promote weight loss. The first one incldes a reference to a study on a l[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/05/food-reward-dominant-factor-in-obesity_18.html]ow fat diet not restricted in calories leading to weight loss.[/http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/05/food-reward-dominant-factor-in-obesity_18.html]
The twinkie diet may not be broscience, but it's another type, stupid science. Unintelligent science tends to study one variable, and look at things as a duality; either you lose weight or you don't, therefore you succeed and you're right, or you fail and you're wrong. Let me break down my thinking on the twinkie diet:
1. The researcher was interested in proving that calories are the only thing that mattered for weight loss, so he restricted his calories and lost weight.
2. So what the fucking shit is weight loss? Fat, muscle, parasites, bacteria, toxins, water, glycogen, snot? It's more than just fat and muscle.
3. Why didn't he study the effect of a high calorie diet on weight gain, the contrary? maybe he should have binged on twinkies to prove that excess calories = weight gain. Oh but wait, there does seem to be a way to eat excess calories and not get fat... I mean the japanese eat more than we do, ad are slimmer, and I will describe research below that will prove this and I just mentioned the low fat diet above.
4. Forget "weight loss." How about fat loss? No fuck that, how about your overall health? What were his testosterone levels/libido like? How was his mental acuity? How was his digestion? Is this something that could be continued in the long term?
5. Did he look good after he finished the diet? NO NOT REALLY SO IT FAILED.
End of discussion on my part. THe twinkie diet appeals to simple minds who view things in a duality, weight loss, or not weight loss. THere's much more important things in the body than simply weight lost on a scale.
A diet consisting of grass-fed beef, lamb, or other red meat, fruits and vegetables, dark leafy greens, seaweeds, sprouts, and other healthy foods you can think of, increase your metabolism more than a diet consisting of oreos, twinkies, donuts, english muffins, white bread, sugar, and muffins, and take out chinese. So what matters is not just calories, but the post-digestion effect here, thermic effects of not just digestion, but thermic effects of constituents in food, and how those constituents activate proteins and enzymes that burn fat or increase metabolism. I'll start slow with the research since i'm doing a bunch of other research right now, but here is a well studied way to lose weight while eating a ton of calories.
Again [http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/06/fat-balance-versus-energy-balance.html]here[/http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/06/fat-balance-versus-energy-balance.html] we see a few examples where it is possible to eat a lot and lose weight. The easiest way is a high carb low fat low protein diet. Low protein activates AMPk, which burns fat. Since you all like Lyle McDonald, her[http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/ampk-master-metabolic-regulator.html]e is his article on that. [/http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/ampk-master-metabolic-regulator.html]
Few quotes from thefirst link in above paragraph. "Subjects overfed a low-protein, high-carbohydrate diet consistently gained less weight than predicted by the increased kcaloric intake; in fact, some subjects on low protein diets lost weight despite consuming an excess of 8-10,000 kcal in a week. "
So what this proves is that it's not calories in minus calories out. The hypothesis is that macronutrient balance is regulated in the body, not just overall energy balance. The raw food diet is another great example; many have lost upwards of 100 lbs from jus eating fruit vegetables, and a small amount of nuts/seeds. It's a low protein high carb diet, but can be high in calories too. Not good for gaining muscle, possible to gain strength from stronger collagen links in joints/tendons. But bone mass will be lost most probs.
So back to Americans. Most americans aren't on the high carb low protein diet I described, but you can't argue anymore it's excess calories, because then in any situation where there is excess calories, one would gain weight. False. I think we actually need to define excess calories in terms of metabolic regulators in the body such as mTOR and AMPk. If you activate AMPk from a low carb diet or a ketogenic or low protein diet, it could be possible to lose weight while eating a lot of calories, since those calories aren't telling the body, oh shit this is a lot of calories. When you eat meat, branched chain amino acids, and a lot of acrbs and fat, your body does sense higher calories.
So two things to end this post.
1. The body is not just detecting calories. It's detecting the type of calories, and this is evidenced by activation of AMPk or mTOR, and then leptin.
2. Stress is probably the root cause of everything everyone in the fitness/nutrition industry thinks causes weight gain.
Edit: messed up links.. not fixing them
-
it's still calories in - calories out ;)
A diet consisting of grass-fed beef, lamb, or other red meat, fruits and vegetables, dark leafy greens, seaweeds, sprouts, and other healthy foods you can think of, increase your metabolism more than a diet consisting of oreos, twinkies, donuts, english muffins, white bread, sugar, and muffins, and take out chinese
If they both contain the same macronutrient ratio there will be no difference
-
It's a shame this thread disintegrated so quickly without any substantial debate. It had potential to be interesting.
There's not much to debate
Bullshit. Human metabolism is still extremely poorly understood even after 70 years of research.
Explain what is poorly understood about it. I bet you state some facts. Facts cannot be debated, so therefore, there is not much to debate. You can't debate something that is either right or wrong. There is no opinion.
Off the top of my head: gut flora and hormonal and gene expression responses.
Oh, and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
-
Explain what is poorly understood about it.
I read a lot of research (not just the abstract like it seems 99% of people do) and when you get to the discussion section they always mention that "further study is required" in some aspect. Despite knowing more about human physiology than anytime in the history of the species, it is clear that there are still gaps in our knowledge base.
Facts cannot be debated, so therefore, there is not much to debate. You can't debate something that is either right or wrong. There is no opinion.
That would assume that all research results are in harmony. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Not to mention vast amounts of research that suffer from poor research design and/or interpretation that get accepted as fact. The inherent biases by the researchers, the questions they pose, and how they interpret the results confounds the issue further. Unfortunately, things are not as black and white as they may appear.
-
That would assume that all research results are in harmony. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Not to mention vast amounts of research that suffer from poor research design and/or interpretation that get accepted as fact. The inherent biases by the researchers, the questions they pose, and how they interpret the results confounds the issue further. Unfortunately, things are not as black and white as they may appear.
If things are still open for opinion/debate, you cannot say people poorly understand something. If someone was to poorly understand something, that is implying there is one right answer.
-
That would assume that all research results are in harmony. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Not to mention vast amounts of research that suffer from poor research design and/or interpretation that get accepted as fact. The inherent biases by the researchers, the questions they pose, and how they interpret the results confounds the issue further. Unfortunately, things are not as black and white as they may appear.
If things are still open for opinion/debate, you cannot say people poorly understand something. If someone was to poorly understand something, that is implying there is one right answer.
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing your logic here. What are you trying to say? That there are no gaps in our knowledge? Or that there is only one right answer?
-
That would assume that all research results are in harmony. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Not to mention vast amounts of research that suffer from poor research design and/or interpretation that get accepted as fact. The inherent biases by the researchers, the questions they pose, and how they interpret the results confounds the issue further. Unfortunately, things are not as black and white as they may appear.
If things are still open for opinion/debate, you cannot say people poorly understand something. If someone was to poorly understand something, that is implying there is one right answer.
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing your logic here. What are you trying to say? That there are no gaps in our knowledge? Or that there is only one right answer?
There is only one right answer
-
That would assume that all research results are in harmony. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Not to mention vast amounts of research that suffer from poor research design and/or interpretation that get accepted as fact. The inherent biases by the researchers, the questions they pose, and how they interpret the results confounds the issue further. Unfortunately, things are not as black and white as they may appear.
If things are still open for opinion/debate, you cannot say people poorly understand something. If someone was to poorly understand something, that is implying there is one right answer.
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing your logic here. What are you trying to say? That there are no gaps in our knowledge? Or that there is only one right answer?
There is only one right answer
Alright, then let's assume that's true.
Do you believe that there is some research that conflicts other research? Do you believe that there is some research that the results are inconclusive? Do you believe that there is research that is presented as fact despite having flawed designs or interpretations? Do you believe there is some research that fails to demonstrate the desired outcome of the funding group, thus is never published? Do you believe there is research that is passed as fact but has not been able to be reproduced with further studies?
If your answer to any of the above questions is yes, then clearly we do not know it all yet and there is room for some debate as we do not know with 100% certainty what exactly the 'only one right answer' is.
-
That would assume that all research results are in harmony. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Not to mention vast amounts of research that suffer from poor research design and/or interpretation that get accepted as fact. The inherent biases by the researchers, the questions they pose, and how they interpret the results confounds the issue further. Unfortunately, things are not as black and white as they may appear.
If things are still open for opinion/debate, you cannot say people poorly understand something. If someone was to poorly understand something, that is implying there is one right answer.
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing your logic here. What are you trying to say? That there are no gaps in our knowledge? Or that there is only one right answer?
There is only one right answer
Alright, then let's assume that's true.
Do you believe that there is some research that conflicts other research? Do you believe that there is some research that the results are inconclusive? Do you believe that there is research that is presented as fact despite having flawed designs or interpretations? Do you believe there is some research that fails to demonstrate the desired outcome of the funding group, thus is never published? Do you believe there is research that is passed as fact but has not been able to be reproduced with further studies?
If your answer to any of the above questions is yes, then clearly we do not know it all yet and there is room for some debate as we do not know with 100% certainty what exactly the 'only one right answer' is.
If we assume it's true, there cannot be research that conflicts other research.
I for one think everything I said is true, and that there is no debate. Show me research that shows the contrary, which I don't think you can, and then we can agree that the topic can be debated, even though there is only one right answer, so it's not really a debate, as one guy is right and one guy is wrong, or both are wrong.
Now, if we look at the definition of debate as a noun/
noun
1.
a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
Debating on something factual cannot happen. That is like saying there can be a debate between someone who says the sky is blue, and another guy who says the sky is yellow.
-
Lol. Yeah this stuff is complicated not everyone will get it, and JC does not have the mental capacity to engage in intellectual debate. I'm a researcher, you're not.
Somebody mentioned gut microbes. Yes people with diabetes tend to have a different gut microbiome. Sounds crazy right? Hormones, well established. Look up CHarles Poliquins biosignature method.
How about being grounded? We do not maintain direct contact with the earth anymore and are walking around with positive charges. Very interested association between shoe sales and diabetes prevalence in this video. Crazy? Just as crazy as reducing everything to calories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OclGGH0EKhc&feature=feedf
And to really burst the calorie bubble, it can be argued that calories don't even measure energy in the body at all. Why would the amount of energy it takes to raise 1g of water 1degree or w/e it is be equivalent to metabolic processes? THe fat oyu ingest doesn't just burn off or store as fat. ATP is used to synthesize things like hormones, prostaglandins. Metabolism is so complicated that no one really gets it.
http://scottabel.blogspot.com/2011/03/calories-myth.html - this article just rapes the calories in - out notion, and this guy is a crayz bodybuilder. Look at his abs. I guess this discussion is over.
-
Also about the philosophical stuff, simple minds think there isa duality as I mentioned earlier. True false, right wrong. Well I'm confident that this is never true.
Often times both sides are right in some ways, wrong in other ways. THerefore it's foolish to believe that something in a soft science such as nutritional science is ever true. In math and physics, things can actually be proven for certain, especially math. In nutritional science it's not possible to prove anything whatsoever because it is not possible to track all the variables in metabolism in one study. We can only study a few things at a time and hope there are no confounding variables.
Therefore, the best approach for a researcher is to realize he knows nothing, and nobody else does either. FOr practicality purposes, we can assume that certain things are more likely to be true knowledge so should be given as health advice. But that's it.
-
You're missing the point. You posted a link to some guy rambling about what he thinks are facts. Since he believes they are facts, you cannot debate with him.
-
That would assume that all research results are in harmony. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Not to mention vast amounts of research that suffer from poor research design and/or interpretation that get accepted as fact. The inherent biases by the researchers, the questions they pose, and how they interpret the results confounds the issue further. Unfortunately, things are not as black and white as they may appear.
If things are still open for opinion/debate, you cannot say people poorly understand something. If someone was to poorly understand something, that is implying there is one right answer.
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing your logic here. What are you trying to say? That there are no gaps in our knowledge? Or that there is only one right answer?
There is only one right answer
Alright, then let's assume that's true.
Do you believe that there is some research that conflicts other research? Do you believe that there is some research that the results are inconclusive? Do you believe that there is research that is presented as fact despite having flawed designs or interpretations? Do you believe there is some research that fails to demonstrate the desired outcome of the funding group, thus is never published? Do you believe there is research that is passed as fact but has not been able to be reproduced with further studies?
If your answer to any of the above questions is yes, then clearly we do not know it all yet and there is room for some debate as we do not know with 100% certainty what exactly the 'only one right answer' is.
If we assume it's true, there cannot be research that conflicts other research.
I for one think everything I said is true, and that there is no debate. Show me research that shows the contrary, which I don't think you can, and then we can agree that the topic can be debated, even though there is only one right answer, so it's not really a debate, as one guy is right and one guy is wrong, or both are wrong.
Now, if we look at the definition of debate as a noun/
noun
1.
a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
Debating on something factual cannot happen. That is like saying there can be a debate between someone who says the sky is blue, and another guy who says the sky is yellow.
So by that logic...if there is any research that has come to conflicting results your whole premise is blown out of the water.
-
What I'm saying is your situation is impossible. If something is correct, there cannot be accurate research against it.
-
What I'm saying is your situation is impossible. If something is correct, there cannot be accurate research against it.
So it's possible for there to be conflicting evidence, but one is incorrect and the other is correct?
-
I don't quite understand what this argument is all about? Just that calories in vs calories out determine your WEIGHT or that they also determine bodyfat %? Because if that's the culprit, then that obviously depends on other factors such as hormones (insulin etc) as well.
Even in regard to calories, the termic effect (thermogenic if I'm not mistaken) of the food is important as well, as the body will actually burn more calories for a certain type of food than for another type to digest it, so that's important as well.
-
Here are examples of where in nutrition/fitness things can be correct and incorrect at the same time.
Sugar is fattening: can be true, can be false
It's all about calories: seems true, but other evidence falsifies
Low insulin helps you burn fat - true and false, insulin barely matters other times
Slow cardio for fat loss - true and false
Weight training is all you need to do for cardio - true and false
This pic is from this morning. I'm not insanely ripped, and I've been leaner, but I don't even try or think about calories ever, I eat until my body tells me to stop. Don't directly work out the side there either.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-17yaDzDvtMo/Th2zrPh-nNI/AAAAAAAAAOg/VbuYuWanboQ/s576/shirtless4.jpeg)
I don't work out my triceps, or masturbate excessively so I don't know why it's bigger than my right tricep
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-StlunK-zFOo/Th20nWvFiRI/AAAAAAAAAO4/Hvq0sZTLmfo/s576/shirtless6.jpeg)
Got another pic of the side. I think I'll cut for a week, and take more pics because this is fun. I know I can get leaner, my strategy would be only fruit post workout after cardio, then low carb at night. Some IF. Speaking of which, IF is another way to lose fatwhile eating morethan you burn.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8Lp4Qlixa5o/Th24nWY0U8I/AAAAAAAAAPQ/b0J-8R6oESM/s576/righside.jpeg)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-6DRVFJmZgX0/Th21BEo0JEI/AAAAAAAAAPA/nTiSy6HqYv0/s576/shirtless7.jpeg)
Tricep fat is a hormonal thing if you didn't know. Healthier your testosetrone levels are, the less fat you'll have there.
-
You masturbate using your triceps? Damn, that's something else!
-
so you have 9% bodyfat? :ninja:
-
so you have 9% bodyfat? :ninja:
I'm not sure what my exact measure is. I have some stubborn fat in the lower abs, and it's definitely my genetics, high cortisol/stress type. But just judging by pictures, I'd say 9%, maybe 10. Probably not 8. Looks are not the best measure but it's the best I can do for now. I don't know what that emoticon means.
Body fat percentage pics: http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/showthread.php?t=31392
I see people whom I have better abs than who are at 9%.
Yes I am quite certain that I masturbate with my triceps, biceps, the entire deltoid, forearms, probably every muscle fiber in my arm.
Edit: actually searching around for other pictures, I think I could be between 9-12%. I'm only 155.
-
Yes I am quite certain that I masturbate with my triceps, biceps, the entire deltoid, forearms, probably every muscle fiber in my arm.
I kind of use my brachioradialis more. That explains my lack of triceps development. Damn, I need to do a better job at recruiting my triceps.
-
What I'm saying is your situation is impossible. If something is correct, there cannot be accurate research against it.
So it's possible for there to be conflicting evidence, but one is incorrect and the other is correct?
Well, you would have to look into in more, and see how/why there was conflicting evidence.
and lol at 9% bodyfat. And yea, people who aren't fat and lift weights don't really need to watch their calories. The original article was about people who are already fat.
-
What I'm saying is your situation is impossible. If something is correct, there cannot be accurate research against it.
So it's possible for there to be conflicting evidence, but one is incorrect and the other is correct?
Well, you would have to look into in more, and see how/why there was conflicting evidence.
I absolutely agree with you. That is why I think it's possible to have a discussion about the evidence that exists...which is really the only point I was trying to make.
I don't work out my triceps, or masturbate excessively so I don't know why it's bigger than my right tricep
LMAO.... Avishek, how do you know when you've reached the 'excessively' threshold?
-
I don't work out my triceps, or masturbate excessively so I don't know why it's bigger than my right tricep
LMAO.... Avishek, how do you know when you've reached the 'excessively' threshold?
What I actually like is that he said he doesn't know why it's bigger than his right triceps, thus implying he masturbates with his left hand. Good to know!
-
Well I have not fully analyzed or cared to analyze why my left tricep is way bigger. My right delts are also way bigger than left, and I used to always masturbate with right but then I switched to even it out but didn't work. I think it's my gait too I swing my left arm more.
And now that I think about it, masturbation is almost a full body exercise, kind of like training for vertical jump, isolating does not work. Yeah I definitely contract glutes, abdominals, and even abductorslike crazy and frequently employ the valsalva maneuver, my last lady friend I banged always notified me when I stopped breathing, I don't even realize I stop breathing. It's so intense! But I don't use my brachioradialis at all actually, and i have no mass there so I'm starting to just do regular bicep lifts for that.
Excessive masturbation means you have to work really hard to come, which is probably result of addiction, it really depends on your current libido, diet and how horny you are. When I do jack off, which I try to do sparingly, as much as possible (associated with more chi and vitality from the Taoists point of view as long as you retain your seed for proper amounts, for young folk in the early 20s this means 2-3x a week max, maybe only 2), so that I barely have to try in order to really come.
In all seriousness, masturbating too hard is not good for sex. You want to be relaxed in true lovemaking and go slowly so you can last longer.
-
And I just thought of one last thing to say in terms of this debate, let's turn to logic:
If a statement is true, the contrapositive must be true, but the inverse and converse do not need to be.
More on that here: http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htm
Statement: If you have a negative calorie balance, you lose weight
Converse: If you are losing weight, you have a negative calorie balance
Inverse: If you don't have a negative calorie balance, you are not losing weight
Contrapositive: If you didn't lose weight, you did not have a negative calorie balance.
The first statement is correct probably 95% of the time. THere are caveats though which we discussed. Once you go into starvatino mode, you are screwed, once exposed to food. Metabolically your body is trying to store fat. I think it is possible to get fat eating few calories if you're stressed out enough.
Converse: This can certainly be true, but it can be false. Look up the raw food diet weight loss. I also provided a link to one blog talking about a high carb low protein diet that resulted in weight loss.
Inverse: again both false and true, if the converse is true, the inverse is true, but they both have exceptions.
Contrapositive: Not necessarily true once again.
I used to be at like 20+% as a kid eating a lot of oily indian food. I ate a high protein diet, with a lot of carbs, so I definitely did not activate AMP kinase, and also had a very stressful childhood.
I think cutting can work for most people, but others have high stress hormones in their system already all the time so it doesn't work in the long term. Sugars can alleviate stress hormones, and its been shown that a high carb low protein diet can result in fat/weight loss. Note I'm not against cutting completely, I'm against telling somebody to just eat less and exercise more because it will fail in the long term. Americans are eating foods that activate the wrong metabolic signals. Metabolism certainly si not a combustion reaction, so looking at everything in terms of calories isn't specific
-
And I just thought of one last thing to say in terms of this debate, let's turn to logic:
If a statement is true, the contrapositive must be true, but the inverse and converse do not need to be.
More on that here: http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htm
Statement: If you have a negative calorie balance, you lose weight
Converse: If you are losing weight, you have a negative calorie balance
Inverse: If you don't have a negative calorie balance, you are not losing weight
Contrapositive: If you didn't lose weight, you did not have a negative calorie balance.
I assume none of those statements are taking water/glycogen into consideration
-
Nah, should be about fat loss. And weight loss from toxins parasites but can't really measure that.