A Rational Approach to Exercise

Miscellaneous General
61

“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.

62

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Exercising sure seems like an expanded hole. So does spilling ketones.

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.

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.

63

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.

64

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.

65

“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.

66

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.

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.

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.

How about a weight lifting workout? If this is true, do you advise clients not to exercise?

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?

Of course energy balance still ‘applies,’ but this does not make the efficiency of the process irrelevant. 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.

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.

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. Now they’re eating enough, leading to increases in muscle mass.

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!”

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, misrepresent your position, act superior, and make up names for those who disagree with me. This wouldn’t make me right. 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. Why is this more pleasant than eating a steak? I certainly would not like to eat a 12 pack of donuts. As I’ve mentioned, eating sugar or refined grains causes headaches and dizziness for me. As for your last quote, you’ve already agreed that avoiding carbs lowers the appetite. Another word for appetite is ‘how much you want to eat.’ So, if the appetite is lowered sufficiently, you certainly can eat all you want and lose weight. It won’t be magic, but you’ll notice that you’re losing weight without any displeasure, which will seem magical if your whole life dieting has been torture and hasn’t yielded any success.

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.

Well, I’m certainly not going to lift the same weights if I feel sick as I do when I feel well. Do you?

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.

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. Surely you’re aware that there was more trauma in the paleolithic age, and less antibiotics, than now, right? 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.

67

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.

68

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.

69

“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?

70

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?

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.

71

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.

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.

72

… 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

73

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.

Well, guess who brought it up here…A third fallacy would be to claim that low-carb requires a violation of the laws of physics in order to work. Yes, I know you didn’t say that. Guess what I didn’t say.

Calories per gram of macro nutrients do not change. How you body utilizes them changes.

Yes, and my point was that the latter is what matters, rock-bottom.

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.

Well, now we’re in a bind. I’ve lost weight overall while getting stronger and appearing bigger. I can’t lose weight unless I’m in a caloric deficit, and I can’t gain muscle unless I have a caloric surplus. Discuss among yourselves.

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?

I wasn’t making any point re: MSG, simply claiming that there are complications, and that in addition to delivering calories, foods also can affect the metabolism. I don’t know why “people like me” need to explain anything. Is it because I’ve successfully lost weight, or is in my capacity as a math researcher, a high school teacher, a dormmaster, or a paramedic? Is it because of my political beliefs? What is it about me that makes me the type of person who has an obligation to explain studies about weight loss?

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.

Well, I’m sorry to disappoint. The few articles I’ve written on weight loss have been pretty moderate and haven’t made any magical claims. I have claimed that there is more protein in meat than in plant foods, that controlling your blood sugar can help with mood and stabilizing energy, and controlling hunger. I’ve speculated in articles about the impact on school students of starting the day with huge amounts of sugar. I’ve commented about seeing students not sitting still in class, then crashing in 2 hours. I’ve speculated that a diet of meats and vegetables delivers more of certain vitamins and might be healthier than one rich in refined sugars and grains. I do think we should try to find ways to make diets more palatable and pleasurable, so that people will be better able to stick to them in our crazy world, and so that they can see it as a lifestyle, not something to be endured.

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.

Well, not exactly all. I also like being able to eat this way for philosophical and romantic reasons.

No, it CAN help with appetite. Eating fiber, which is a carb, can also help lower your appetite and make you feel full.

Low carb diets do not restrict fiber.

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.

Please quote one of these magical claims from me.

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.

I doubt you’d hear anyone in the paleo world refer to design. Most paleo works embrace evolution. The belief is that the body evolved to process what was available - i.e. those for whom what was available worked best would have a breeding advantage.

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?

So for any fixed quantity, compare the ease of getting it from soda to the ease of getting it from fruit. Certainly liquids cannot fill you up the way solid food can. Certainly low blood sugar encourages you to eat, and blood sugar falls after eating a ton of sugar and getting an insulin response. You’re familiar with the correlation between insulin sensitivity, eventual DM2, and obesity. As to why is HFCS worse than sucrose (and a reminder of what board we’re on) the issue seems to be economic. It is much cheaper to make soda with HFCS than with sucrose. That means more cheeseburgers at a lower price at McDonald’s, and it means more soda consumption.

74

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.

75

Arthur Jones on so-called “scientific” studies: http://www.arthurjonesexercise.com/First_Half/31.PDF

76

Studies can’t measure stuff like muscle maturity and definition…

Also, the leg extension is not a mass or strength building exercise :stuck_out_tongue:

77

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?

78

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

79

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?

80

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.