Weight Loss Thread

Denamian said:

Nowhere does it say that is the only way to lose weight. So it can be generally accurate, but not really apply to you. As Faux said it is aimed mostly at sedentary lardasses, not those that are already physically fit like you.

Click to expand...

Thank you, that is exactly what I am saying. The statement is accurate for him, but the benefit is essentially intangible because he is already healthy and fit. So there is no need to apply those dietary restrictions to himself if he doesn't want to. Small changes like that may be incredibly important to metabolically unhealthy people to make weight loss possible.

It's not that it's not applicable, it's that it has negligible impact in your case. that's not the same thing.

Not sure why you feel the need to be an obstinate retard and feel obligated to cherry pick 1 line out of the entire sequence of posts. As an active person your insulin spikes don't last long enough to matter and you get a benefit from the energy you gain from carbs. That doesn't mean that you're using fat reserves during the insulin spikes. Fat dude sitting on a couch has longer lasting insulin spikes so should limit his carb intake to make weight loss easier.

Ossoi, you want a concession? I chose the wrong phrase in "does not apply to you". You've turned that into a stupid semantic argument that only you care about. You want something different that conveys better what every single post of mine has tried to describe, which has been understood by the other posters who have chimed in on this? Change "does not apply to you" into "is not tangibly useful to you".

Your body spikes insulin higher when consuming refined carbohydrates and sugar versus if you ate foods with less refined carbohydrates and sugar. Higher insulin has a downregulation on fat burning to the point that it seems to not occur until some period of time after insulin has normalized. Unless you can show actual metabolic evidence that your body continues to burn fat in the presence of high insulin (good luck with that), I'm going to justifiably assume your body acts in accordance with the current insulin-lipolysis model and that the two previous sentences apply to you (i.e The statement is accurate for you). You are not mobilizing fatty acids to use as energy until some time after your insulin has normalized, just like the rest of us.

You can eat 200-400g of carbs per day and lose fat because you are healthy and active. That additional spike in your insulin from eating 200-400 vs 20-50g of carbs is easily handled by an insulin sensitive system that converts glucose to energy to meet the high demand of your metabolism and quickly shuttles excess glucose out of your bloodstream, which allows your insulin to return to normal quickly. The same excess carbohydrates in an insulin resistant system cannot be removed as quickly due to ineffective insulin and lower metabolic demands. Insulin stays high longer because of stagnant blood sugar levels and with insulin elevated, fat mobilization is effectively shut off. Peer reviewed scientific studies support this model.

The statement is accurate for you, but it is not useful, because active healthy people without metabolic disorders (like you) don't have a problem in handling spikes in blood glucose. Your body is not doing something special to allow you to pound carbs and still cut fat. It just clears the glucose quickly and efficiently so it can get back to accessing fat stores as necessary when your insulin returns to normal. The statement is accurate and significantly more useful to people with metabolic disorders that prevent normal regulation of blood glucose.

Again, the statement is accurate, but not useful to you. I said "it doesn't apply to you" meaning there would be no impetus to "apply" that dietary advice to yourself. I didn't mean your insulin profile wouldn't change and offer ever so slightly better fat burning potential, it means that the difference would probably be so negligible that you wouldn't even be able to tell it did anything.

Its a qualitative statement about metabolic response to refined carbs and sugars and the role insulin plays in burning fat. Its not quantitative like your toilet cleaner analogy.

This is the equivalent of some doctor saying "Hey everybody, sticking a blade through your skin is bad for you" and some other guy yelling "What about my appendectomy? Your statement is not accurate for me."

I have no interest in such a stupid discussion.

You guys should each get a micro sampling cathether installed, do your respective programs, compare data and get this settled once and for all. Then go have a gay sex orgy and make up like foh bros. I’ll volunteer to knock you all out for the precedure, possibly with liposoluble drugs to level the playing field. Sheesh.

Izo said:

You guys should each get a micro sampling cathether installed, do your respective programs, compare data and get this settled once and for all. Then go have a gay sex orgy and make up like foh bros. I’ll volunteer to knock you all out for the precedure, possibly with liposoluble drugs to level the playing field. Sheesh.

Click to expand...

That gif is irrelevant to the Lebron James of weight burning, have you not seen the pictures he’s posted?

Multiple things can be true at the same time. Not using fat stores during insulin spikes being less meaningful to people that are physically fit so carbs can be a fine source of energy for those people. That doesn't mean fat dude with a family history of the beetus should be eating a bunch of carbs. So both ends are not absolute. You complain about blanket statements, but inferring that carbs are just generically good for people is just as bad as saying that they're generically bad for people. It all just depends on what you need in your specific situation. That all being said people saying that they can be low activity in a fairly aggressive calorie deficit and not lose lean mass are also full of shit. In fact even with reasonably physical activity you're likely to have SOME lean mass loss if you're in a deficit. Noob gains in early resistance training and PEDs aside.

Lanx said:

no way, then i'd have to buy all that white ppl food

Click to expand...

Portion control is a thing, dude. Small meals/snacks throughout the day and a moderate 800-1000 calorie dinner at a more normal time. Math it out. Desired goal weight * 10 total calories daily. Do some stretching and a few minutes of cardio a couple times a week. Watch the magic happen.

Ossoi said:

The irony is, both Faux and Burnem Wizfyre admit that their physiques are nowhere near mine, and that they have very different goals

But that doesn't stop them a) claiming their methods and knowledge is superior and b) claiming to know better than me what's happening inside my body

Click to expand...

Like, I'm literally amazed that you could interpret me wanting them to acknowledge that the exceptions to the rule disprove the rule invalidate all conditions where the rule applies. If the rule was 100% invalid then there wouldn't be any "exceptions".

Click to expand...

I have never once claimed that I know better than you or that you should change your methods. I have vocally stated the opposite that I thought you would have NO NEED to cut refined carbs and sugar out of your diet. Nor do I know what is happening in your body. I am assuming your hormone response conforms to the currently accepted insulin model.

This conversation started when you tagged me and asked me my thoughts on a statement made by Dr Fung that reducing refined carbohydrates reduced insulin response which facilitated fat loss. I said I had no problem with it since it seems to be in accordance with peer reviewed research on how different foods affect insulin and how insulin regulates lipolysis. It is an entry level qualitative statement about hormone mediated access to stored fat. There is enough evidence and peer reviewed study that we can assume it to be true as a general statement.

Is it possible that you are an exception to that rule? Sure. Is it reasonable to assume because you are fit and healthy and eat 200-400g of carbs, that your hormone response is not in accordance with that very general statement. That your insulin doesn't rise to a higher level in the presence of an increase in refined carbs and sugar and that insulin in your body doesn't inhibit lipolysis? I don't think so. Even if you are an exception, it doesn't matter. Its a useless tangential discussion because you don't have a problem handling your desired carb intake.

So in the general, theoretical sense, the statement is true. But in practical application, i made a value judgment that the statement is not useful to you, because I assumed from your diet, your results, and your posts that the "cost" of reducing refined carbs and sugar in your diet would not be worth the "benefit", because you are in such a good place already, any resultant change in your insulin profile would be fucking irrelevant.

If you are eating 200-400g of carbs and your activity level and health has you at 99% access to stored fat energy, and you are told "we understand hormones respond a certain way to different foods so if you cut that carb intake down by half, you could increase your access to stored fat" but that change would only be 0.1%, would you do that? My answer would be no, and I assumed your answer would be no. Some ultra hardcore people may say yes, thats for them to decide. Your diet is perfectly fine and I have said repeatedly that I saw no reason for you or other metabolically active and healthy people to consider cutting carbs out.

I have said again repeatedly that metabolically unhealthy people with insulin resistance problems and a lower activity level could probably see a much greater benefit from reducing refined carbs and sugar. Maybe they cut their carb intake in half and their fat access goes from 10% to 40% Thats a significant change for them and if I were in that situation, it would make a lot of sense to me to make that change.

Now we are in what I consider a silly argument in which I said:

A statement can be true, but not useful.

And you said, if a statement is not useful for me, it is not true for me. (pardon me if I am miscontruing your statement), and I am therefore contradicting myself.

I think its a silly argument, because we both agree that you're doing just fine in reaching you're goals.