Oh, incidental to your comment on HST, for one Haycock doesn't sell supplements and when he did he often didn't sell them, telling people in his own articles that it was necessary to buy his brand of creatine or protein. And I guess the great Mentzer never had anything to sell, ever, right genius? You're so full of it you can't even smell what you're shoveling. Have fun with any HIT'ard converts you get.
"Can they explain why?"
Because it just doesn't burn that many calories. It likely has some psychological benefit and of course relative to general health it helps to be able to run or jog a bit without getting winded so easily.
"If we accept the calories in minus calories out equation (which isn't entirely true)" - krazy kaju
Your name is appropriate. For anyone with a shred of sense, this last statement shows how disconnected from reality you are. Because you either just over turned the last 100 years or so of physics or found some kind of spacetime portal in your stomach. Read some basic physics, genius. Mass and energy CAN NOT be created or destroyed, merely transfered. This is not negotiable nor subject to change relative to insulin levels. There is no magic GI elf that comes into being to let you wish away all that 'thermodynamics shit' when it becomes inconvenient. So what remains are two possibilities: one, you did in fact find some kind of insulin dependent spacetime portal which can warp mass and energy in and out from another universe, in which case I suggest you submit your findings to a journal for publication if they accept papers written in crayon; two, you have a dimwitted understanding of the energy balance equation.
Either way, I'm out at this point. Arguing with someone who denies basic physics keeps me from more productive pursuits, like jamming forks into my head.
xahrx: Either way, I'm out at this point.
Either way, I'm out at this point.
Could you avoid getting into it in the future?
I don't think that you are mature enough to handle the heat of such a mundane conversation.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
xharx:. Mass and energy CAN NOT be created or destroyed, merely transfered. This is not negotiable nor subject to change relative to insulin levels. There is no magic GI elf that comes into being to let you wish away all that 'thermodynamics shit' when it becomes inconvenient. So what remains are two possibilities: one, you did in fact find some kind of insulin dependent spacetime portal which can warp mass and energy in and out from another universe, in which case I suggest you submit your findings to a journal for publication if they accept papers written in crayon; two, you have a dimwitted understanding of the energy balance equation.
Sieben: xharx:. Mass and energy CAN NOT be created or destroyed, merely transfered. This is not negotiable nor subject to change relative to insulin levels. There is no magic GI elf that comes into being to let you wish away all that 'thermodynamics shit' when it becomes inconvenient. So what remains are two possibilities: one, you did in fact find some kind of insulin dependent spacetime portal which can warp mass and energy in and out from another universe, in which case I suggest you submit your findings to a journal for publication if they accept papers written in crayon; two, you have a dimwitted understanding of the energy balance equation. He isn't denying the energy balance. He's saying that if you only draw the energy balance around the organism that Ein and Eout are not only dependent on the magnitude of Ein, but the type of nutrients. So, eating carbs all day means that insulin is constantly driving nutrients into cells where it is either stored or burned. Conversely, eating fat and protein all day gives you no insulin, so a lot of the nutrients just run through your body (bigger Eout). Burning ketones is also a lot more ineffecient than burning glyocgen, and again, you pee ketones. At the very least you have to admit that just counting calories in from the nutrition facts is bull. Different foods have different bioavailability. If 52% of the protein in soy gets destroyed in my stomach, thats fewer calories "in" that I can absorb.
+1,000,000
That's how I was able to lose almost a pound a day, no exercise. Slamming back meat, butter, and cream until I was full at least twice a day.
"He isn't denying the energy balance. He's saying that if you only draw the energy balance around the organism that Ein and Eout are not only dependent on the magnitude of Ein, but the type of nutrients. So, eating carbs all day means that insulin is constantly driving nutrients into cells where it is either stored or burned. Conversely, eating fat and protein all day gives you no insulin, so a lot of the nutrients just run through your body (bigger Eout). Burning ketones is also a lot more ineffecient than burning glyocgen, and again, you pee ketones."
See above comments, macro nutrient intake does not nullify the laws of thermodynamics. The energy balance equation is dynamic, leading a lot of extremely gullible people to think that they can 'slam' meat and cream down their throats and magically lose weight while still being in a calorie surplus. If you lose weight it's because you're in a hypo caloric state, not because you magically used insulin or the lack thereof to nullify the laws of physics. There are reasons why a low carb diet is beneficial for many when it comes to losing weight, not the least of which is the typical American diet is relatively high in carbs so cutting them out leads to deficit not easily made up with protein and fat, making it easier to stay hypo caloric. So I leave it to you to decide what's happening: low carb diets lead to spacetime warps that magically shunt excess mass and energy into another dimension were a perpetually fatter version of yourself is forever dieting and not knowing why he can't lose weight; or, some people for various reasons, both physiological and psycological, find it easier to maintain a calorie deficit following a low carbohydrate diet.
"Could you avoid getting into it in the future?
I don't think that you are mature enough to handle the heat of such a mundane conversation." - I. ryan
No, I just have an extremely low tolerance for bullshit, and the fitness industry is loaded with it, it's primary form being this or that schmuck pushing this or that exercise routine and diet combination as The Solution for all people. Training begins with the trainee. As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, try using HIT methods with a CPD patient. When that person drops dead of a heart attack, what does that say about 'proper exercise'? KK's bullshit stance can be seen in his response to HST: "it's bullshit," was his response I believe. HST is anything but bullshit, it's simply a form of linear periodization that many have used to get solid results. Also note how quickly his 'criticism' of HST went into a personal attack against Bryan Haycock, the guy who developed it. The botton line is there's a literal fuckton of evidence backing Haycock's approach, but KK's response was not to deal with that, merely to insult the guy. It's typical of HIT'ards to turn such wankfests into personality battles which boil down to my guru is better than yours type of discussions.
Cutting to the chase, as I wrote before anyone who recommends one approach as the end all be all of diet and exercise is a moron. People are different and respond to different approaches to both diet and exercise in different ways. Anyone who has actually trained people knows this, and would be hesitant to recommend a 'solution' until they actually have a fucking clue what the problem is that needs to be solved.
xahrx: No, I just have an extremely low tolerance for bullshit[.]
No, I just have an extremely low tolerance for bullshit[.]
I would describe your "extremely low tolerance for bullshit" as immaturity.
xharx is basically right... I don't understand why he's fighting with everyone because all the theories mesh. Its a combination of him ignoring half of our points and reiterating the others. Whatever. If xharx is a private trainer though, I can understand his exasperation. People are do such incredible mental acrobatics to try and justify their failing lifestyles. My gym's manager tells me a new story about a failed member every time. Its always some 300lb person who refuses to cook their own food and has just smiles when you tell him how bad his diet is. Its mind numbing. Maybe xharx's mind is numb from all the bs :P
"If xharx is a private trainer though"
Not anymore. Not enough money in it.
" People are do such incredible mental acrobatics to try and justify their failing lifestyles. My gym's manager tells me a new story about a failed member every time. Its always some 300lb person who refuses to cook their own food and has just smiles when you tell him how bad his diet is. Its mind numbing. Maybe xharx's mind is numb from all the bs :P"
The 300lb guy isn't the problem, the 300lb guy who finally lost weight and got laid and now has to share his one and only true solution with the world is the problem. Anyone who says HIT is 'proper exercise' is either selling something or misinformed. Anyone who says HST, or Max OT, or whatever other acronym or system they're selling is 'proper exercise' is selling something or misinformed.
The 300lb guy and all his analogs are a problem when they insist they're 'eating right' because they're avoiding carbs and then it turns out they're downing a pount of burgers without buns for every meal. Calories in v calories out is what matters for weightloss. For a lot of people the easiest way to tackle that equation is low carb. Others can do it on a diet of twinkies, http://www.geekosystem.com/twinkie-diet/ which should make anyone with a shred of common sense rethink alarmism about HFCS. As to what's got me ticked off? It's my natural state of being. I'm not a nice person, don't have any aims to be, and would rather be right than liked. Eating a hypercaloric diet will make you gain weight even if you avoid all carbs. Eating hypo caloric will make you lose weight regardless of carb intake. Allow for some water retention. Simple enough.
xahrx: As to what's got me ticked off? It's my natural state of being. I'm not a nice person, don't have any aims to be, and would rather be right than liked.
As to what's got me ticked off? It's my natural state of being. I'm not a nice person, don't have any aims to be, and would rather be right than liked.
Being nice and being right not only aren't mutually exclusive, but are actually mutually reinforcing.
"Being nice and being right not only aren't mutually exclusive, but are actually mutually reinforcing."
I disagree. Most people want to believe what they believe and did in even deeper with their heels the more it becomes obvious they're wrong. Me, I give a damn about very little. What I don't know about I keep my mouth shut about. What I do know about I speak up about and I don't suffer BS lightly. Want a nice sample of the sheer amounts of BS surrounding this issue, frequent some of the fitness oriented boards and get yourself an assload of the broscience being thrown around. People find one abstract on pubmed that seems to say something counter intuitive and they build an entire religion around it. It's ridiculous. The level of wanking surrounding the issue of fitness is barely comprehensible. And, seeing as how people have been getting and staying in shape far longer than the actual subject has been studied, the reality is it's not all that complex. There's a few thousand people dressed in spandex screaming that their way is THE WAY, and it's nonsense.
What waist:chest ratio do you guys have? Mine is 0.81 and BMI is 18.1. I'm planning to work on getting WCR lower à la findings http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1634963/.
As someone suffering from 2 disk bulges in his lowest back, chronic shoulder subluxations from a rare developmental defect (curved bone...) , and low testosterone (as a result of pinched nerves from the disks... see low as in 325ng/dl. FVB&E are ok though) I decline to answer :) Well, actually I started using a homeopathic T cream and am getting special training to get around my shoulder deformity, so I dropped about 20lbs of fat. So currently I'm 44'' chest, 40'' w, and my BMI is 30.1 because I am 250 and 6'2. I'm at 20% bf, but not stopping till I get nice and lean.
[Edit: My bone structure is quite broad.. so my contest w is probably 34"] Eating like like a nazi, training like a gorilla, sleeping like a bear. Ask me again in a month or two :)
"What waist:chest ratio do you guys have? Mine is 0.81 and BMI is 18.1."
No idea, never cared really. Was more into power lifting when I was younger. Was never that stellar at it but I put up respectable numbers. Right now my bench is at 255 x 5 and dead is at 315 x 5, squat is at 255 x 8, not pushing that one with my knees these days. At least if I drop the weight during a dead it will just hit the floor. Workout is simple too:
Day 1: Squat, Bench, Row, all 5 x 5; Day 2: Deadlift and Clean and Press 4 x 5, Lat Pull Downs, Curls and Triceps Exensions 3 x 8.
Not so big on cardio anymore these days, I try and get on the elliptical and play racquetball, the latter pretty infrequently these days. Cardio numbs my brain something fierce, even intervals. Unless I'm playing a game it seems pointless.
Suppose a food contains plenty of energy but cannot be absorbed by the body. Surely everyone agrees that eating it wouldn't make you heavier. Calories in calories out makes perfect sense if 'in' means absorbed by the body, not sitting in the stomach. Also, what if what goes in affects what comes out?
Sure, you can eat a few twinkies and little else and lose weight. Presumably, most people who want to lose weight also want to increase their health, not end up deficient in vitamins and minerals. You complain about the guy eating burgers without buns, but he's surely doing better than the twinkie eater. As far as HFCS, the fact that eating very little food causes weight loss doesn't mean that, all else being equal, it isn't better to avoid HFCS.
The body is a complex machine. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that it deals with different chemicals in different ways. What if I eat in a certain way that makes me feel so sluggish I can't put out as many calories?
JAlanKatz:Suppose a food contains plenty of energy but cannot be absorbed by the body.
"As far as HFCS, the fact that eating very little food causes weight loss doesn't mean that, all else being equal, it isn't better to avoid HFCS."
Yes, actually, it does. HFCS has 4 calories per gram just like any other carb. It's merely a mix of sugars, sugars eaten by people in other mixes and ratios every single day without ill effect. As for food 'passing through', it's a given you have to absorb it. It's also a given that some energy is expended in that process, it's called thermic effect. Most foods are absorbed. If they weren't they then proceed to fly out your ass at light speed like olean or cause problems by hanging around in you GI system. In the end it's a meaningless point because regardless of what the food label says vs how much you absorb, if you're failing to lose weight or gaining weight, then you're eating to fucking much regardless how much of it ends up going in and coming out without being 'absorbed'. See the fine point there?
As an analogy, if I've got a bucket with a hole in it and I'm filling it with a garden hose, the objective rate at which it drains vs the objective rate of flow through the hose vs how much splashes out and how the outside temperature affects things etc., is completely unnecessary information for me to understand what the balance is between them. If the water stays level in the bucket they're the same, if it flows out faster than I can replenish it then the flow out is faster, and if it over flows then the flow in is fast than out. And those simple facts remain true regardless of the outside temperature or how much water happens to splash and not end up in the bucket and the Christ knows how many other factors that might affect things. The bottom line is there is a simple rule that lets you know the relation of flows in and out that makes all the wanking and measuring unnecessary: over flow equals too much in, dry bucket equals too little. Switch out calories for water and it's the same damn thing. Now in certain instances the outside temperature might change causing the bucket to either expand or contract letting more or less flow through the hole respectively, which does absolutely fucking nothing to change the fundamental relationship between in vs out and what over flow or dry bucket means.
Yes, actually, it does. HFCS has 4 calories per gram just like any other carb. It's merely a mix of sugars, sugars eaten by people in other mixes and ratios every single day without ill effect.
Well, gasoline cannot be absorbed, and hence has no impact on weight loss. It yet somehow remains dangerous to drink it.
As for food 'passing through', it's a given you have to absorb it. It's also a given that some energy is expended in that process, it's called thermic effect. Most foods are absorbed. If they weren't they then proceed to fly out your ass at light speed like olean or cause problems by hanging around in you GI system. In the end it's a meaningless point because regardless of what the food label says vs how much you absorb, if you're failing to lose weight or gaining weight, then you're eating to fucking much regardless how much of it ends up going in and coming out without being 'absorbed'. See the fine point there?
So far as I know, fiber does neither of those. But anyway, the question about food not being absorbed is meant merely as an extreme to show the point. More realistically, the body being a complex machine can well mean that different foods are broken down more or less completely. As you know, for instance, ketosis is a less efficient process and hence makes available to the body less than the 9 calories per gram that is contained in fat. Now, I seem to recall an experiment where rats were fed at a caloric deficit, and the experimental group was given msg. The control group lost weight, and the experimental group gained weight. On your bucket, I have no idea how you can say that changing the size of the hole that the water escapes through has no impact on what happens to the bucket. That is just silly. If the hole is larger, you can run more water into the bucket faster without it overflowing. Finally, setting that aside, what of the experience of people who drop carbs, increase calories, and lose weight? It is simply question-begging to insist, with no evidence, that in all such cases they are simply mistaken or lying.
"Well, gasoline cannot be absorbed, and hence has no impact on weight loss. It yet somehow remains dangerous to drink it."
If it weren't absorbed then it wouldn't be poisonous. There is a difference between being absorbed and being able to use it as an energy source, and I don't think the human body evolved or was designed by God, whichever you prefer, to run on 87 octane. But by all means, go on a gas only diet and post the results.
"So far as I know, fiber does neither of those."
Fermentable fiber is broken down by bacteria in your gut into fatty acids. That can actually make losing weight harder for people who are already lean and want to get leaner. Research on the subject that you can easily look up generally assigns 1.5 kCal to fiber per gram. This would be variable depending on the type of fiber. However it's a myth that it just runs through your body without contributing calories. It doesn't contribute significant calories, and has other properties, such as soluable fiber causing a slowing of stomach emptying and stopping the absorption of some calories and nutrients, that generally lead people to feel fuller and eat less and absorb fewer calories which could likely be enough to counter balance their caloric value.
"As you know, for instance, ketosis is a less efficient process and hence makes available to the body less than the 9 calories per gram that is contained in fat. Now, I seem to recall an experiment where rats were fed at a caloric deficit, and the experimental group was given msg. The control group lost weight, and the experimental group gained weight."
And the person without his head up his ass would say that either the laws of physics need to be rewritten, the rats were suffering from some pathology which severely lowered their BMR, or the researchers were assholes and likely only monitored a short time span and didn't account for water weight gain and loss, which would be real fucking stupid considering MSG was part of the test.
"On your bucket, I have no idea how you can say that changing the size of the hole that the water escapes through has no impact on what happens to the bucket. That is just silly. If the hole is larger, you can run more water into the bucket faster without it overflowing."
Yes you can. However the problem is that the factors that would allow humans to signigicantly enlarge their 'holes' are largely out of their control and determined by genetics.
"Finally, setting that aside, what of the experience of people who drop carbs, increase calories, and lose weight?"
Show me the study and likely it will rely on self reported calorie intake, which is completely unreliable. I ask again: are you going to rewrite the physics books? Please stop the wanking and pontificating bullshit. You are flat out saying the human body is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Since every fucking thing in the universe is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, the burden of proof is on you and you need more than a memory of a shitty pubmed abstract describing some poorly done research on rats. The bottom line is if someone dropped carbs but did manage to up their calorie intake regardless and still lost weight, then something had to happen to increase the amount of calories a day they burned as well, likely an increase in conscious and unconscious activity. However, the more likely explanation is they are just flat out fuck wrong about how many calories they were and are ingesting. Breaking the laws of physics is not an option, those are the only remaining possibilities. The human body is subject to those same laws and they are no more up for debate than gravity is.
Fine, you're right. It cannot be used as an energy source. Yet you're better off not drinking it. There's more to health than weight loss.
Why not say the msg lowered their BMR? Why is it impossible for any food to have any impact on the body other than its caloric content? Is the human body not a complex chemical system?
Exercising sure seems like an expanded hole. So does spilling ketones.
Actually, I 'need' nothing. All I really need is my scale and mirror, and a complete disinterest in the precise reason why I had the experiences I had. What interests me is that I previously felt hungry all the time because I was trying to cut back on eating, suffered from headaches and dizziness, and weighed far too much with far too little muscle. Now I eat steak and chicken all day (except lunch) and don't. Perhaps a person who is protein deprived and starts eating more protein builds muscle which burns calories at rest. Perhaps ketosis is a less efficient process than carbohydrate metabolism, as is well known. Perhaps the body adjusts metabolic processes and can only do that when it is properly nourished. Perhaps it has to do with a person who cannot get up a flight of stairs not getting much exercise. No one is arguing to exempt the body from thermodynamics, we're simply saying that the body doesn't take food, look at it only in terms of calories, and act like a bucket. What you eat next depends on your blood sugar, which depends on what you ate last, not just how much. How likely you are to exercise depends on how you feel. Also, 'weight loss' is short for fat loss. Eating at a caloric deficit leads to weight loss - fat or muscle? How do we control between those two factors? When you are starving, the body can perform less processes in order to hold on to body mass. I'm sure, again, that you can lose weight on twinkies - but perhaps the weight lost is muscle, sensible since you're getting no protein, and your fat levels are constant or even increasing.
"There is a difference between being absorbed and being able to use it as an energy source, "
I think the above statement is very important.
I recently learned that I have a genetic predisposition to inefficient mitochondrial methylization. Some foods that ought to be sources of energy and nutrition are not utilized properly. Instead of energy and nutrition I get allergies, inflamation, weight gain, and other physical maladies.
All of the eating the right foods, managing caloric intake, excersise, and general pursuit of a healthly lifestye was being rendered ineffective toward the desired end - optimal health.
Diet and excercise programs are like everything else - success depends on correct information. Every physical body is unique and therefore has unique requirements for what will be successful in terms of good health. Learning what unique information is important for YOU has a direct bearing on YOUR path to optimal health. For me it took most of my lifetime to find someone who was able to provide correct information that applies to my unique physical predisposition.
The other important thing to consider is that these requirements will change and are always changing. If optimal health is of concern then you have to keep on top of those changes.
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther
Ugh my gym is right next to an all you can eat buffet (gym opened first). There's a whole crowd of people around 300 lbs who go to the buffet, then to the gym, then to the buffet again. With big smiles on their faces. All the trainers are in shape and tell them they can't do that and lose weight... I don't know what people are thinking. They're going to get diabetes, lose their foot, piss blood, and have a heart attack. If they invent a pill that reverses the aging process, it will have no impact on average age of death. For every person who lives to be 500 there will be 100 who can't put down the twinkies.
"Fine, you're right. It cannot be used as an energy source. Yet you're better off not drinking it. There's more to health than weight loss."
A point I'd grant without hesitation. However, there is nothing more to weight loss than eating less than you burn. If you want to talk about health a fitness, then yeah, certain foods are clearly superior to others.
"Why not say the msg lowered their BMR? Why is it impossible for any food to have any impact on the body other than its caloric content? Is the human body not a complex chemical system?"
Show me the research that shows this effect. Even should the study you mention exist, this was not what wa sbeing measured or controlled for in that model so far as I can see.
"Exercising sure seems like an expanded hole. So does spilling ketones."
Define 'spilling ketones'. Exercise is a hole, it is a very minimal one. The calories burned during exercise aren't all that many, half a donut would wipe out the calories burned during a typical cardio workout.
"Actually, I 'need' nothing. All I really need is my scale and mirror, and a complete disinterest in the precise reason why I had the experiences I had."
Having a complete disinterest in the precise reason(s) why you had the experiences you had is exactly why you shouldn't be positing reasons as to why you had the precise experiences that you had. The fact that ketosis is less efficient is irrelevant, energy balance still applies. Upping your BMR slightly by avoiding carbs altogether isn't magic. But please explain how people how use say a protein sparing fast approach manage to lose significant amounts of weight too while keeping carbs at 100g so as to avoid ketosis? Why do they magically lose tons of weight while keeping a decent amount of muscle?
"Perhaps a person who is protein deprived and starts eating more protein builds muscle which burns calories at rest."
Why would a person spontaneously build muscle just by eating more protein? Building muscle is a specific adaptation to stress, it doesn't just happen by eating more steak. Also, all tissue burns calories at rest. Muscle burns a little more than fat because fat is a storage medium. But you're not going to turn yourself into a 'fat burning machine' just by putting on some lean mass. Your brain and kidneys probably burn more at rest than your entire muscular system.
"No one is arguing to exempt the body from thermodynamics, we're simply saying that the body doesn't take food, look at it only in terms of calories, and act like a bucket. What you eat next depends on your blood sugar, which depends on what you ate last, not just how much."
And here we go again. This is the typical bullshit that always ends coming up. To paraphrase, "We're not arguing the body is exempt from thermodynamics, we're just arguing that the body is exempt from thermo dynamics..." What eat next depends on what you shove in your pie hole, your hormones do not control your actions, they cause tendencies. Which is why affecting hormones to the extent we can is helpful in dieting for reasons other than energy expentidure. However, as far as the body is concerned with weight loss, it is merely energy in vs energy out. There is no magic insulin elf that pops into existence and forces you or anyone else to suck down a 12 pack of Krispy Kremes. i'm sure you'd like to, so would I. I'm sure the dopamine release in your brain woul feel great, it would for me to. But please tell what the hell is so hard about saying, "Cutting out carbs helps me control my appetite which helps me eat less than I burn consistently, which helps me lose weight?" Do you see how the phrasing of that is a bit more on target than the typical, "Holy cow I eat ALL I WANT now and as long as I avoid carbs, I lose weight as if my MAGIC!"
"How likely you are to exercise depends on how you feel."
I depends on your ability to get off your ass and move, or maybe I'm saying the same thing you're saying. Sounds to me like you're pandering to the couch potato brigage which has convinced itself that going for a walk is 'pushing the limit' of physical activity or something.
"Eating at a caloric deficit leads to weight loss - fat or muscle? How do we control between those two factors?"
For the most part, you don't. All weight loss will include fat and muscle as will all weight gain. Eating a low carb diet WHILE being in a calorie deficit could help favor fat loss over muscle loss, both will still be lost.
"When you are starving, the body can perform less processes in order to hold on to body mass."
Yes, but there are limits and it's ridiculous to look at people in extreme circumstances or with severe illnesses to determine the proper course of behavior for healthy people. A starving person's body will do some extraodinary things to lower it's energy requirements so as to avoid death. The body does not do those things under normal circumstances, and interestingly enough energy balance still holds because in those circumstances the body eventually 'eats' itself. Which all told means making starvation your model is kind of dumb. There are a myriad of diet approaches that have 'worked' for many people, low carb being one of them. Everyone is always hyped up to up with the special reasons why their diet is The One! The Mediterranean Diet types think olive oil and pita bread are the cure-alls for everything. The Paleo'tards think tht by eating like they (presumably) did in the paleolithic age that all problems will be solved. On the up side maybe those people will have an average lifespan of paleolithic man and die sooner so their stupidity won't spread. Low carbers think sugar is evil, even though there's plenty of sugars in fruits which ain't exactly anti health food. Different strategies work for different people when it comes to weight loss, and whatever the proximate causes of their successes are, the ultimate cause is that whatever diet they chose allowed them to eat fewer calories than they burned.
And here we go again. This is the typical bullshit that always ends coming up. To paraphrase, "We're not arguing the body is exempt from thermodynamics, we're just arguing that the body is exempt from thermo dynamics..." What eat next depends on what you shove in your pie hole, your hormones do not control your actions, they cause tendencies. Which is why affecting hormones to the extent we can is helpful in dieting for reasons other than energy expentidure. However, as far as the body is concerned with weight loss, it is merely energy in vs energy out. There is no magic insulin elf that pops into existence andforces you or anyone else to suck down a 12 pack of Krispy Kremes. i'm sure you'd like to, so would I. I'm sure the dopamine release in your brain woul feel great, it would for me to. But please tell what the hell is so hard about saying, "Cutting out carbs helps me control my appetite which helps me eat less than I burn consistently, which helps me lose weight?" Do you see how the phrasing of that is a bit more on target than the typical, "Holy cow I eat ALL I WANT now and as long as I avoid carbs, I lose weight as if my MAGIC!"
On the up side maybe those people will have an average lifespan of paleolithic man and die sooner so their stupidity won't spread.
Why do you say that? I'm past 18 years of age, and gotten healthier since eating that way. I'll probably live for quite a while longer, too.
I...find that doing lots of push-ups makes your arms bigger. Doing lots of sit-ups gives you good ab muscles. Running often makes it easier to run. Stretching makes you flexible.
Guess I'm over-simplifying. Well, I'm gonna go eat a bacon cheeseburger, then throw a car while doing the splits. Adios.
"Then why the attack on those of us who choose not to eat HFCS? On a related note, given the context of what message board we're on, even those with no interest in health or who think HFCS is healthy have a reason not to eat it, namely the government intervention there."
Because it's irrelevant and moronic to bring it up in a conversation about weight loss, and in my experience always, and I mean always, degenerates into some magical conversation about how it causes the human body to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Pretty much ever single conversation about diets on the internet ends up with some schmuck claiming his diet lets him violate those laws by eating all he wants and still losing weight, or some other schmuck claiming his genetics let him violate those laws by eating ridiculously little and never losing weight.
"How about a weight lifting workout? If this is true, do you advise clients not to exercise?"
About the same. I don't advise anyone anymore except on a friend or informal basis. I advise everyone to exercise, weights and cardio, but I let them know up front that exercise only helps weightloss minimally through calorie burn. It helps a lot psychologically, an it's great for health reasons, but the treadmill is not going to help them lose weight to any significant degree as a modification to their diet and eating habits most certainly will.
"Of course energy balance still 'applies,' but this does not make the efficiency of the process irrelevant."
The efficiency of the process is irrlevant because the difference isn't that great. You don't magically up your BMR by any significant degree while in ketosis.
"If one process yields x calories per gram, and another yields y, and x is less than y, then there's less 'in' when using the first process."
Calories per gram of macro nutrients do not change. How you body utilizes them changes.
"Well, we know that if you do the right exercises but don't eat enough protein, you won't build muscle. So maybe they had a level of stress that leads to muscle-building but weren't eating enough protein."
Possible given that situation, but they'd have to eating a serious chickenshit amount, and no matter how much they up it they won't see much in terms of gains if they're hypocaloric. They'll get a small change in body composition and find a new equillibrium and then hold steady.
"Now they're eating enough, leading to increases in muscle mass."
Eating more than enough would be more like it, your body isn't going to build muscle withou a calorie surplus unless you're on steroids or some other drug with serious partitioning effects.
"You know, I could be just successful at this style of debate as you are. I could also use caps and exclamation marks, paraphrase you in ways that are incorrect,"
You're the one who brought up the rat study showing 'weight gain' because of MSG. I'v debated with hundreds if not thousands of people who wip out this or that piece of shit pubmed abstract and think their case is made. There's a whole body of research on this subject and it's pretty clear and most of it is in the physics journals. For what's in the health journals, what people like you need to do is explain why, when diet and calories are put under strict controls in these studies as opposed to selp reporting do all these magical effects of MSG, HFCS, insulin and leptin and whatever the new evil hormone or foodstuff of the month is, why do all those effects become vanishingly small to nonexistant?
As for the CAPS, I use them because I find it easier to type my responses in Notepad and there's no italics that will transfer over to the boards. And as for my style, I had to spend weeks if not months weaning people off the bullshit they 'learned' online from people making claims such as KK. I see people sufferring every day because of the fallacies and BS they're constantly exposed to when what they need is portion control and some discipline, not a magic diet which won't deliver when they're still sucking down too many calories.
"act superior"
It's not an act. I'm sure there's something you know a lot about which I don't. You're superior in knowledge in that subject to me, I'm superior to you in this.
"But tell me - sure I can eat carbs, go around feeling hungry all day, likely be deficient in some vitamins and minerals, suffer from headaches and the like, and lose weight."
I know plenty of people who eat carbs galore, maintain a healthy weight, and have no of those issues. If low carb works for you, go with it. All I'm saying is don't assume you've found some magic holy grail that lets you get away with something. All you've done is found a set of eating habits that lets you maintain a healthier weight, and that's all.
"As for your last quote, you've already agreed that avoiding carbs lowers the appetite."
No, it CAN help with appetite. Eating fiber, which is a carb, can also help lower your appetite and make you feel full.
"So, if the appetite is lowered sufficiently, you certainly can eat all you want and lose weight."
Thank you for finally properly qualifying your statement. Because when I had to train some poor schmuck who heard a friend could eat all he wanted on a low carb diet and it turned out this particular guy couldn't, well that was kind of a let down when someone gave him the holy grail and it turned out to be a styrofoam cup full of shit.
"Well, I'm certainly not going to lift the same weights if I feel sick as I do when I feel well. Do you?"
I honestly don't get sick often enough to know. I didn't lift weights when I had a chest infection two years ago, but I still went to the gym and got on the bike or elliptical.
"How quickly you move from "there's a variety of approaches" to insults and hoping for the death of those who choose an approach you don't approve of."
The paleo approach is based on shit science and pushed by the same annoying morons who were pushing low carb when it was new and all the rage. No one really knows what paleolithic man ate, the body wasn't specifically 'designed' to digest anything in particular, jargon often used by the paleo crowd themselves. When I see a shitload of stupid people gravitate toward something, it does not make me want to sing its praises. I do not wish death on them, the lifespan comment was meant to point out that, even if they get the paleolithic diet right, there are other things common during that era that should perhaps make you think twice about emmulating it. If you really want to get that diet down, all your intake should be from hunting with the tools available to paleo man as well, and gathering from plants available to him, because his timeline for eating was dictated by his ability to gather and hunt under those conditions. Oddly enough, I don't see these paleo types emmulating that part of the paleolithic diet. They also conveniently ignore research which shows widespread plant food processing at the time.
"Surely you're aware that there was more trauma in the paleolithic age, and less antibiotics, than now, right?"
Nah, went right past me...
see above. Paleo is a fad, it's an annoying fad, it's a potentially dangerous fad for some people with health concerns, and the sooner it goes away the better in my view. We're talking weapons grade levels of stupid from a lot of these people.
"There are plenty of sugars in fruit, where they appear bound to fiber. HFCS does not exist in nature, nor does any sugar stripped of any other nutrients or fiber."
HFCS is merely ~45% fructose, ~45% glucose, and glucose polymers depending on which version you get. 'Binding' those sugars to fiber doesn't mean shit, your body will unbind them. The fact that fructose in HFCS almost always comes with glucose in almost equal amounts means that there will be appetie blunting even absent fiber. There is no evidence, that meaning zero, that these particular ratios of fructose to glusose are magically dangerous or fundamentally different than any other mix of the two, or equal amounts of sucrose or any other damn form of sugar. Sure, eating thirty pounds of it at a clip probably isn't a good idea and I'd advise against it. So what?
Giant_Joe:Why do you say that? I'm past 18 years of age, and gotten healthier since eating that way. I'll probably live for quite a while longer, too.
Hmm... at some point you need to ask for a lipid panel. I dont doubt that you are healthIER, but its always a concern for people with a lot of fat in their diets. I know most of your fat goes into ketones, but whats the other 5% doing?
Not sure what it's doing. I haven't gotten a lipid profile yet, but other people who seem to be following the same science (as to what causes heart disease, etc...) are all getting pretty good results. There are a few exceptions, but those tend to be with people who had prior complications.
I'd just be careful on that kind of diet (or any "different" diet really). The long term effects of what you're doing are unstudied. All it takes is for one little pin to be out of place in the nutritional theory for it all to unravel.
That's the thing. There's so many combinations of "what's normal" that I don't just cast doubt on odd diets, but on any kind of diet.
... It could save you a lot of problems if you get a lipid panel. I don't doubt that you have fantastic results. I haven't even bothered looking up studies of people who have been on atkins because most people on it probably aren't following it properly, but a high fat diet could easily raise triglyceride and bad cholesterol levels... You'll feel fine but it just has bad long term effects if that's whats happening to you. = a worried sieben
Yes, and my point was that the latter is what matters, rock-bottom.
I got a lipid panel after 3 years of low-carb, high-fat eating and 100 pounds lost. The doctor, having heard what I was doing, looked at the results in shock and pronounced me a perfect physical specimen. A few years later, having fallen off the wagon and eating closer to SAD, I had a lipid panel and had the typical American results. Your mileage may vary. I tend to be skeptical of claims of danger related to things we've done for long times, like eating meat or going in the sun, as compared to relatively recent innovations, like eating massive amounts of sugar.
Arthur Jones on so-called "scientific" studies: http://www.arthurjonesexercise.com/First_Half/31.PDF
Political Atheists Blog
Studies can't measure stuff like muscle maturity and definition... Also, the leg extension is not a mass or strength building exercise :P
The leg extension is a mass and strength building exercise for your quadricepetes.
In any case, all this bullshit about "show us studies" proves nothing. Arthur Jones conducted studies where he regularly produced strength gains of over 50% over a few short weeks. One such study, conducted at West Point, involved testing performed by people completely not associated with Arthur Jones. The testers didn't even know that Jones was funding and conducting the study. Some of them were even from the Cooper's Aerobics Institute. And what were the results? That High Intensity Training is superior for strength gaining and "cardiovascular" conditioning. The already strong athletes that AJ trained, increased their strength by a whopping 60%.
Now compare that to the "studies" that produce a measely 25% strength gain from high intensity training over twelve weeks (twice as long as some of Arthur's studies). Do you see the discrepancy?
What's the best kind of training for "cardio" and "aerobics?" I don't know, let's have Dr. Doug McGuff explain... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiHhc7eLpQY
So the claim is strength can regularly increase by 50% over a month? Muscles cannot distinguish between whether or not they've been previously trained by AJ, so let's see how this works. I start off squatting 100 pounds. In a month, 150. Two months: 225. Three months: 337. Four months: around 500. Five months: around 750. Six months: just over 1000. Seven months: 1500. Eight months: 2250. Ridiculous yet? How come no HIT-men have done that? How come the squat record is held by a fierce opponent of HIT?
Obviously, no. First of all, the squat is an incredibly poor measure of strength. If you want to increase your squat, then you'd be better off learning proper squat technique from a powerlifter. Secondly, if you're squatting with a measely 100 pounds, then you probably won't have the mental toughness to lift with the necessary intensity to stimulate growth (unless pushed by a HIT trainer), but if you're squatting 300 lbs, you'll probably be too close to your genetic potential to produce any meaningful strength gains, unless you have the genetics of a strength athlete. Thirdly, bodybuilders who worked under Jones regularly stated that they experienced greater growth when they were trained by him. Why? Because he pushed people harder than they ever thought possible. So does that mean that Jones's results cannot be recreated? No. What that means is that you probably won't be able to recreate 60% strength gains in six weeks, but you will be able to recreate a SIGNIFICANT strength gain in six weeks, IF you're training properly with the proper rep cadence, rep range, intensity, and volume. The thing about HIT "trainees" who don't experience significant strength gains is that they most likely are training improperly: either they're not using enough intensity, or they're training with too much volume, or their rep cadence is off, or their rep range is off. If they have everything dialed in perfectly, and they're still not producing significant gains, well then they simply do not have the necessary genetics to get strong. This is, of course, assuming that the trainee is consuming a caloric surplus necessary to build more muscle.