Weight Loss Thread

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Gravel

Gravel

Mr. Poopybutthole
40,377
133,841
Dashel_sl said:
Short answer: Yes. The end result is you eat under maintenance with "good" food.
Click to expand...
The video I posted yesterday (nutrition pyramid thing) is 6 parts. I don't remember if he mentioned it in any of the others, but I got around to watching the last part and he mentions that the whole idea of "good foods" and "bad foods" is strange. How do you define what a good food is? There aren't really any foods that are actively harmful to you (not including alcohol). There are foods, like twinkies, that are devoid of micronutrients. But they still contain calories and macronutrients. So as long as you're able to balance them in your diet they shouldn't be considered bad. You could say that there are better choices, but at that point you have to start defining what foods are "best." And you can't do that, because there is no one food that provides you everything you need. You need variety.

He also points out that a LOT of bodybuilders get it into their head that they need to eat "clean" and therefore end up with what a lot of people would deem a healthy diet (chicken, veggies, oats, etc) but it's comprised of maybe 10 items day in and day out and they're missing out on a lot of nutrients the body needs.
 
Denaut

Denaut

Trump's Staff
2,739
1,279
arkktheseaotter_sl said:
He just started that video saying eat less exercise more CAN'T BE DONE...

WHAT

THE

FUCK

Don't start with this fucking dumb insulin shit.

You can find a totally different point of view in someone like Layne Norton who should appease all the internet proponents of "DO YOU EVEN LIFT BRO" because he practices what he preaches. Oh he also has a PhD.
Click to expand...
I get that you are wrong and you can't face it, moving straight to ad-hominem. The science is there now, if you want to actually learn something pick up the book and read it.

You are completely, totally, and utterly wrong. The obesity epidemic is a symptom of the underlying metabolic disease caused by a poor diet that over-insulates the population. You can't stop a group of hungry people from eating anymore than you can't stop a group of teenagers from having sex by telling them not to. That isn't the way humans work, period.
 
A

arkktheseaotter_sl

shitlord
406
0
Denaut_sl said:
I get that you are wrong and you can't face it, moving straight to ad-hominem. The science is there now, if you want to actually learn something pick up the book and read it.

You are completely, totally, and utterly wrong. The obesity epidemic is a symptom of the underlying metabolic disease caused by a poor diet that over-insulates the population. You can't stop a group of hungry people from eating anymore than you can't stop a group of teenagers from having sex by telling them not to. That isn't the way humans work, period.
Click to expand...
Are you out of your mind?
 
Denaut

Denaut

Trump's Staff
2,739
1,279
Elurin_sl said:
I got around to watching the last part and he mentions that the whole idea of "good foods" and "bad foods" is strange. How do you define what a good food is? There aren't really any foods that are actively harmful to you (not including alcohol). There are foods, like twinkies, that are devoid of micronutrients. But they still contain calories and macronutrients.
Click to expand...
Ok, so here is the problem. We can define bad foods as ones that cause sickness or disease, and good foods as ones that help you thrive. So, a deathcap would be a bad food (it will kill you) and say some spinach would be a good food because it contains things that help you thrive.

Now, you defined a twinky a something that doesn't actively harm you when in fact it contains ample fructose (devoid of fiber) with is a hepatotoxin, and like all poisons is dose-dependent. Twinkies are not just innocuous, they are actively bad for you, they are a chronic poison that can cause (dose-dependent) non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
 
A

arkktheseaotter_sl

shitlord
406
0
Denaut_sl said:
No, I actually read and educate myself.
Click to expand...
rrr_img_38209.jpg


How did he get ripped eating so many carbs?

Or him:

rrr_img_38210.jpg


The funniest part of both of them is if we assume Froning especially is a drug user there's a very good chance that he actually injects himself with insulin.
 
A

arkktheseaotter_sl

shitlord
406
0
Celestein_sl said:
wtf did I just read?

There is nothing subjective about that, at all. If you are trying to lower X, and you have a positive feedback loop that modifies X up, then it is significantly more difficult to lower X compared to a neutral or negative feedback loop state. You cannot argue this.

The lifestyle a person chooses is subjective, mostly based on them weighing their love of ice-cream vs wanting to be healthy. But any attempt to eat healthier involves a change of lifestyle for most people, so their current lifestyle is only relevant in-so-far as it modifies their ability to change away from it...because that's what they're trying to do, change it. So if you're changing your lifestyle regardless, why change to an unoptimal one?

I don't want to get into a pissing match ark, but that was some dumb shit. It's not silly, it's one of the most important factors in societal health today.
Click to expand...
How is it silly? How is eating keto with 1800 calories a day and eating 40/40/30 with 1800 calories a day any different? It depends on the individual person. They are both healthier than someone overeating. How is eating carbs UNOPTIMAL? What if someone boxes, should they go paleo?

It depends on the person, the one size fits all stance of paleo is one of the reason it sucks.
 
Denaut

Denaut

Trump's Staff
2,739
1,279
arkktheseaotter_sl said:
You can't answer that question? How does someone get ripped on a high carb diet? How is it physiologically possible?
Click to expand...
Are you really trying to address a issue about populations by pointing out individual exceptions? I assume you think the average penis is 12 inches long and you are going to prove that by posting some photos of porn stars.

Now, do I actually have to write a treatise on genetic diversity in biological populations on an internet discussion forum or are you capable of Googling it yourself?
 
Gravel

Gravel

Mr. Poopybutthole
40,377
133,841
Denaut_sl said:
Now, you defined a twinky a something that doesn't actively harm you when in fact it contains ample fructose (devoid of fiber) with is a hepatotoxin, and like all poisons is dose-dependent. Twinkies are not just innocuous, they are actively bad for you, they are a chronic poison that can cause (dose-dependent) non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
Click to expand...
If you're talking dose dependent, everything is a poison. Assuming your diet is completely on point - you have the exact amount of every single micronutrient you need - and you eat a single twinkie. Just the one. The calories in that twinkie put you at exactly your TDEE. Are you saying that the twinkie is harming you now? Your body is capable of digesting it and using those carbs as energy. It doesn't need the fiber. Could you have eaten something with fiber and it been a better choice? Sure.

Everything is dose dependent (water toxicity for example). I'm just wondering how do you decide what is a "good" food versus what is "bad."
 
Denaut

Denaut

Trump's Staff
2,739
1,279
arkktheseaotter_sl said:
How is it silly? How is eating keto with 1800 calories a day and eating 40/40/30 with 1800 calories a day any different? It depends on the individual person. They are both healthier than someone overeating. How is eating carbs UNOPTIMAL? What if someone boxes, should they go paleo?

It depends on the person, the one size fits all stance of paleo is one of the reason it sucks.
Click to expand...
Umm... 40/40/30 isn't a high carb diet, what planet do you live on?
 
Denaut

Denaut

Trump's Staff
2,739
1,279
Elurin_sl said:
If you're talking dose dependent, everything is a poison. Assuming your diet is completely on point - you have the exact amount of every single micronutrient you need - and you eat a single twinkie. Just the one. The calories in that twinkie put you at exactly your TDEE. Are you saying that the twinkie is harming you now? Your body is capable of digesting it and using those carbs as energy. It doesn't need the fiber. Could you have eaten something with fiber and it been a better choice? Sure.

Everything is dose dependent. I'm just wondering how do you decide what is a "good" food versus what is "bad."
Click to expand...
Well, yes, if you are going to quibble semantics. You can eat x% of a deathcap and it won't kill you (probably not a good idea to test it). The average same level of exposure to fructose appears to be about 80 grams a week, or about 2 cans of soda. This is quite a bit lower than what most Americans eat. This isn't a well studied and well known level however. The point is that the safe exposure for fructose is rather low.
 
A

arkktheseaotter_sl

shitlord
406
0
Denaut_sl said:
Are you really trying to address a issue about populations by pointing out individual exceptions? I assume you think the average penis is 12 inches long and you are going to prove that by posting some photos of porn stars.

Now, do I actually have to write a treatise on genetic diversity in biological populations on an internet discussion forum or are you capable of Googling it yourself?
Click to expand...
Would it make you feel better if I posted photos of people I actually know who eat high carbs and are lean? Sorry but that's creepy to me. Because someone is lean and doesn't eat the way your butt buddy Lustig recommends doesn't mean that they are genetic freak, it just means that he's wrong.

How did anyone ever have a six pack before he dropped this knowledge bomb on the world?

Your only answer as to how someone can be ripped and eat a high carb diet is because of genetics? Gyms are filled with people who are in shape and always have been, 10, 20, 30 years ago they were. How did they ever achieve this without Lustig and the INSULIN IS BAD movement. Every professional and recreational boxer, swimmer, runner, gym rat is a genetic marvel? Maybe it's just because they don't over eat...

He wrote a book, he has an agenda. I could sell igloos to some of you Eskimos, jesus christ.
 
Dashel

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,836
2,939
Elurin_sl said:
The video I posted yesterday (nutrition pyramid thing) is 6 parts. I don't remember if he mentioned it in any of the others, but I got around to watching the last part and he mentions that the whole idea of "good foods" and "bad foods" is strange. How do you define what a good food is? There aren't really any foods that are actively harmful to you (not including alcohol). There are foods, like twinkies, that are devoid of micronutrients. But they still contain calories and macronutrients. So as long as you're able to balance them in your diet they shouldn't be considered bad. You could say that there are better choices, but at that point you have to start defining what foods are "best." And you can't do that, because there is no one food that provides you everything you need. You need variety.

He also points out that a LOT of bodybuilders get it into their head that they need to eat "clean" and therefore end up with what a lot of people would deem a healthy diet (chicken, veggies, oats, etc) but it's comprised of maybe 10 items day in and day out and they're missing out on a lot of nutrients the body needs.
Click to expand...
I understand that argument in principle but they take lack of absolute clarity for a fault. It turns into a semantics game of what is clean and how do you define that. I would say that refined sugar is actively bad. You can say you get the fructose in fruit and it's basically the same thing, but I dont buy it. Rule of thumb whole natural foods are at the least, established and "clean". The more you refine it, add to it or subtract from it (see: fat free! 0 carbs! low calorie!) the more suspect you get.

Again that's a rule of thumb. I dont disagree that you can eat a box of ice cream bars "if it fits your macros", and stay lean. I also dont discount that elite athletes like Phelps and Froning, regardless of roids or not, can eat whatever the hell they want pretty much and it will go through them like a furnace. They'll stay lean but that's an extreme example. I cant do that and neither can anyone else in this thread.
 
A

arkktheseaotter_sl

shitlord
406
0
Celestein_sl said:
Muscle gain =/= Athleticism =/= Weight loss =/= health

The ideal eating habits of all 4 of those things are different. So imposing the habits of pro weight-lifters, athletes onto people trying to lose weight, or be healthy, is frankly stupid.
Click to expand...
This is the entire point, it's individual. I wasn't arguing that a keto diet isn't faster for fat loss because it is and I've said this a million times. I was referring to lifestyle as a whole. Doing keto for anything except general fitness and dicking around with weights is NOT optimal, and it wouldn't be in almost any athletic endeavor. You can't spout your feedback loop nonsense and say keto is just flat out better because it isn't. Maybe for Joe Nerd who sits at a desk all day long, but for someone who kickboxes 5 days a week it would be a stupid idea, and that person would have no problem losing fat eating a ton of carbs.
 
Denaut

Denaut

Trump's Staff
2,739
1,279
arkktheseaotter_sl said:
Would it make you feel better if I posted photos of people I actually know who eat high carbs and are lean? Sorry but that's creepy to me. Because someone is lean and doesn't eat the way your butt buddy Lustig recommends doesn't mean that they are genetic freak, it just means that he's wrong.
Click to expand...
Look, I get that you are too lazy and/or stupid to read or watch any of his actual work and are instead creating strawmen to argue against. I know this because had you bothered to actually try and learn anything you'd know that he isn't even close to a "low-carb" guy, he is the "Anti-sugar" guy. His work is amazingly insightful. thorough, and complete. Plus there is a lot of it out there, with everything except his recent book published in medical journals.

But go on, continue being dumb.
 
A

arkktheseaotter_sl

shitlord
406
0
As much shit as I gave Dashel in the past, right now he's looking like Stephen Hawking compared to some of you dopes. If I thought he had tunnel vision then Lusting for Lustig, Mr. Denaut is wearing a damn e-collar that he stole from his dog.
 
Gravel

Gravel

Mr. Poopybutthole
40,377
133,841
arkktheseaotter_sl said:
Would it make you feel better if I posted photos of people I actually know who eat high carbs and are lean? Sorry but that's creepy to me. Because someone is lean and doesn't eat the way your butt buddy Lustig recommends doesn't mean that they are genetic freak, it just means that he's wrong.

How did anyone ever have a six pack before he dropped this knowledge bomb on the world?

Your only answer as to how someone can be ripped and eat a high carb diet is because of genetics? Gyms are filled with people who are in shape and always have been, 10, 20, 30 years ago they were. How did they ever achieve this without Lustig and the INSULIN IS BAD movement. Every professional and recreational boxer, swimmer, runner, gym rat is a genetic marvel? Maybe it's just because they don't over eat...

He wrote a book, he has an agenda. I could sell igloos to some of you Eskimos, jesus christ.
Click to expand...
My issue is that he's saying you can't not eat. But what about the millions of skinny people who eat like shit and aren't packing on the pounds? What about the fat people whodolose weight? How did they do it if they have no control over their eating habits?

He's basically written a book that says "it's not your fault." Which is exactly what people want to hear. They don't want to take responsibility for the fact that maybe they fucked up and ate too much of the wrong kinds of food. Is the food industry partly to blame? Absolutely! But the individual who chose fast food because it tastes better and is quicker bears responsibility there too.

Shit, even you people arguing for this admit that changing your diet allowed you to lose weight. Which flies in the face of that video (and I'm not reading his book to find out what else he says, so spare me).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.