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.
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.
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.
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 
“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.
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?
Like gasoline.
“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.
“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.
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.