Thread: Question for actual lifters
04-02-2018, 03:00 AM
-
#1
Question for actual lifters
How exactly do our bodies ration out our protein intake? Is most of it saved for night time when our body repairs the muscle fibers, or does it utilize it equally throughout the day?
Also, what's the broscience behind eating right after you work out?
Also, what's the broscience behind eating right after you work out?
04-02-2018, 03:04 AM
-
#2
- Hornlesscow
- UR FRENLY NABERHOOD AFGAN
-
- Hornlesscow
- UR FRENLY NABERHOOD AFGAN
- Join Date: Jul 2013
- Posts: 1,591
- Rep Power: 6795
-
-
is it weird to drink breastmilk if ur a fully grown man
"Biggest fear in life is holding babies. Their so fragile, if you drop them you can ruin their entire life.
When a baby is looking at me and no one else is, I like to make sad faces to get the baby to cry and no one knows why it's crying. If they are young enough they will mimic other peoples emotions so if you act sad they will get sad." -captiontom
04-02-2018, 03:10 AM
-
#3
04-02-2018, 03:11 AM
-
#4
- StrayanBrah
- Registered User
-
- StrayanBrah
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jul 2014
- Age: 34
- Posts: 2,314
- Rep Power: 4253
-
-
Lol, just lol @ thinking that 'lifters' would be the best people to ask.
BRB Gotta have protein shake within 30 minutes after lifting or miss anabolic window.
BRB Gotta break down the muscle fibers to build them back up again.
BRB other rubbish
BRB BRB
BRB Gotta have protein shake within 30 minutes after lifting or miss anabolic window.
BRB Gotta break down the muscle fibers to build them back up again.
BRB other rubbish
BRB BRB
6'7" crew checking in
04-02-2018, 03:12 AM
-
#5
- Aristotelian
- Positive Mental Attitude
-
- Aristotelian
- Positive Mental Attitude
- Join Date: Jun 2017
- Posts: 12,849
- Rep Power: 263689
-
-
If you are actually interested in this, OP, check out this article:
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/arti...970-018-0215-1
If you're too lazy to click, here's the Abstract (hopefully Alan doesn't mind reproducing it here):
Abstract-from the paper linked above
"Controversy exists about the maximum amount of protein that can be utilized for lean tissue-building purposes in a single meal for those involved in regimented resistance training. It has been proposed that muscle protein synthesis is maximized in young adults with an intake of ~ 20–25 g of a high-quality protein; anything above this amount is believed to be oxidized for energy or transaminated to form urea and other organic acids. However, these findings are specific to the provision of fast-digesting proteins without the addition of other macronutrients. Consumption of slower-acting protein sources, particularly when consumed in combination with other macronutrients, would delay absorption and thus conceivably enhance the utilization of the constituent amino acids. The purpose of this paper was twofold: 1) to objectively review the literature in an effort to determine an upper anabolic threshold for per-meal protein intake; 2) draw relevant conclusions based on the current data so as to elucidate guidelines for per-meal daily protein distribution to optimize lean tissue accretion. Both acute and long-term studies on the topic were evaluated and their findings placed into context with respect to per-meal utilization of protein and the associated implications to distribution of protein feedings across the course of a day. The preponderance of data indicate that while consumption of higher protein doses (> 20 g) results in greater AA oxidation, this is not the fate for all the additional ingested AAs as some are utilized for tissue-building purposes. Based on the current evidence, we conclude that to maximize anabolism one should consume protein at a target intake of 0.4 g/kg/meal across a minimum of four meals in order to reach a minimum of 1.6 g/kg/day. Using the upper daily intake of 2.2 g/kg/day reported in the literature spread out over the same four meals would necessitate a maximum of 0.55 g/kg/meal."
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/arti...970-018-0215-1
If you're too lazy to click, here's the Abstract (hopefully Alan doesn't mind reproducing it here):
Abstract-from the paper linked above
"Controversy exists about the maximum amount of protein that can be utilized for lean tissue-building purposes in a single meal for those involved in regimented resistance training. It has been proposed that muscle protein synthesis is maximized in young adults with an intake of ~ 20–25 g of a high-quality protein; anything above this amount is believed to be oxidized for energy or transaminated to form urea and other organic acids. However, these findings are specific to the provision of fast-digesting proteins without the addition of other macronutrients. Consumption of slower-acting protein sources, particularly when consumed in combination with other macronutrients, would delay absorption and thus conceivably enhance the utilization of the constituent amino acids. The purpose of this paper was twofold: 1) to objectively review the literature in an effort to determine an upper anabolic threshold for per-meal protein intake; 2) draw relevant conclusions based on the current data so as to elucidate guidelines for per-meal daily protein distribution to optimize lean tissue accretion. Both acute and long-term studies on the topic were evaluated and their findings placed into context with respect to per-meal utilization of protein and the associated implications to distribution of protein feedings across the course of a day. The preponderance of data indicate that while consumption of higher protein doses (> 20 g) results in greater AA oxidation, this is not the fate for all the additional ingested AAs as some are utilized for tissue-building purposes. Based on the current evidence, we conclude that to maximize anabolism one should consume protein at a target intake of 0.4 g/kg/meal across a minimum of four meals in order to reach a minimum of 1.6 g/kg/day. Using the upper daily intake of 2.2 g/kg/day reported in the literature spread out over the same four meals would necessitate a maximum of 0.55 g/kg/meal."
04-02-2018, 03:15 AM
-
#6
- Joseph1990
- Keto shill
-
- Joseph1990
- Keto shill
- Join Date: Nov 2010
- Location: Canada
- Posts: 18,531
- Rep Power: 75714
-
-
IIRC it's got something to do with maintaining nitrogen balance via overall diet across a 48 hour span. So long as your protein intake is optimal within a 48-72 hour window you're pretty much fine assuming the rest of your micro/macro nutrient needs are also met optimally.
eg. if 100g protein/day is optimal. 50g protein monday, 175g protein tuesday, 75g protein wed, you're all good, the body can compensate fairly well.
Been a long time since I really thought about it.
eg. if 100g protein/day is optimal. 50g protein monday, 175g protein tuesday, 75g protein wed, you're all good, the body can compensate fairly well.
Been a long time since I really thought about it.
Control group crew membership revoked 7/5/2022 1:50pm PST not proud.
Inb4 honorable FDA/CDC/NIH/WHO representatives
J.L.C,
NextPound,
mgftp,
SillieBazzillie.
04-02-2018, 03:27 AM
-
#7
Originally Posted By Aristotelian⏩
Too lazy to read the study but does it investigate how much a difference there is between maximum and say average anabolism? Because if not "maximize anabolism" doesn't really tell us that much. For example, people seem to get great results on intermittent fasting even though they're not maximizing anabolism by eating 4 different meals. So how big is the difference really?"Controversy exists about the maximum amount of protein that can be utilized for lean tissue-building purposes in a single meal for those involved in regimented resistance training. It has been proposed that muscle protein synthesis is maximized in young adults with an intake of ~ 20–25 g of a high-quality protein; anything above this amount is believed to be oxidized for energy or transaminated to form urea and other organic acids. However, these findings are specific to the provision of fast-digesting proteins without the addition of other macronutrients. Consumption of slower-acting protein sources, particularly when consumed in combination with other macronutrients, would delay absorption and thus conceivably enhance the utilization of the constituent amino acids. The purpose of this paper was twofold: 1) to objectively review the literature in an effort to determine an upper anabolic threshold for per-meal protein intake; 2) draw relevant conclusions based on the current data so as to elucidate guidelines for per-meal daily protein distribution to optimize lean tissue accretion. Both acute and long-term studies on the topic were evaluated and their findings placed into context with respect to per-meal utilization of protein and the associated implications to distribution of protein feedings across the course of a day. The preponderance of data indicate that while consumption of higher protein doses (> 20 g) results in greater AA oxidation, this is not the fate for all the additional ingested AAs as some are utilized for tissue-building purposes. Based on the current evidence, we conclude that to maximize anabolism one should consume protein at a target intake of 0.4 g/kg/meal across a minimum of four meals in order to reach a minimum of 1.6 g/kg/day. Using the upper daily intake of 2.2 g/kg/day reported in the literature spread out over the same four meals would necessitate a maximum of 0.55 g/kg/meal."
04-02-2018, 03:29 AM
-
#8
- Lpenny
- Overhead Press Brah
-
- Lpenny
- Overhead Press Brah
- Join Date: Oct 2008
- Location: Austin, Texas, United States
- Posts: 19,420
- Rep Power: 55336
-
-
50% goes to fart production
PRs:
Squat: 630 (sleeves)
Deadlift: 735 (straps)
Strict OHP: 330
Log Clean & Press: 360
Gave stickyashell hope and now he's back in strength sports crew
04-02-2018, 03:37 AM
-
#9
- Aristotelian
- Positive Mental Attitude
-
- Aristotelian
- Positive Mental Attitude
- Join Date: Jun 2017
- Posts: 12,849
- Rep Power: 263689
-
-
Originally Posted By Slurgie⏩
The upper threshold for per-meal protein intake is not scientifically known. On 'maximum', I don't think it is possible to define a 'maximum' that would be useful for the wider population.Too lazy to read the study but does it investigate how much a difference there is between maximum and say average anabolism? Because if not "maximize anabolism" doesn't really tell us that much. For example, people seem to get great results on intermittent fasting even though they're not maximizing anabolism by eating 4 different meals. So how big is the difference really?
My question to you is, why not simply follow the guideline represented in this paper, published roughly 1 month ago? From the conclusion of that paper (since you're too lazy to read it):
"This reinforces the practical need to individualize dietary programming, and remain open to exceeding estimated averages. It is therefore a relatively simple and elegant solution to consume protein at a target intake of 0.4 g/kg/meal across a minimum of four meals in order to reach a minimum of 1.6 g/kg/day – if indeed the primary goal is to build muscle. Using the upper CI daily intake of 2.2 g/kg/day over the same four meals would necessitate a maximum of 0.55 g/kg/meal. This tactic would apply what is currently known to maximize acute anabolic responses as well as chronic anabolic adaptations. While research shows that consumption of higher protein doses (> 20 g) results in greater AA oxidation [40], evidence indicates that this is not the fate for all the additional ingested AAs as some are utilized for tissue-building purposes."
04-02-2018, 03:40 AM
-
#10
- Brozart
- dunno
-
- Brozart
- dunno
- Join Date: Apr 2007
- Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Posts: 27,524
- Rep Power: 313692
-
-
Originally Posted By Aristotelian⏩
so ur sayin that i don't even need to lift i can just eat a lot of protein"This reinforces the practical need to individualize dietary programming, and remain open to exceeding estimated averages. It is therefore a relatively simple and elegant solution to consume protein at a target intake of 0.4 g/kg/meal across a minimum of four meals in order to reach a minimum of 1.6 g/kg/day – if indeed the primary goal is to build muscle. Using the upper CI daily intake of 2.2 g/kg/day over the same four meals would necessitate a maximum of 0.55 g/kg/meal. This tactic would apply what is currently known to maximize acute anabolic responses as well as chronic anabolic adaptations. While research shows that consumption of higher protein doses (> 20 g) results in greater AA oxidation [40], evidence indicates that this is not the fate for all the additional ingested AAs as some are utilized for tissue-building purposes."
fukn Brozart
I'm a hugger
04-02-2018, 03:57 AM
-
#11
Originally Posted By Aristotelian⏩
There are many reasons why I wouldn't blindly follow whatever the paper says. One reason is I've had good results eating 1 meal a day. Another reason is I didn't check the source to see if it's peer reviewed. Another reason is a lot of "research" done on protein/nutrition is paid for by companies with an interest in pushing products. Even if these all weren't valid reasons, there's still the issue of what the sizable difference in gains are between maximum anabolism and everything below that.The upper threshold for per-meal protein intake is not scientifically known. On 'maximum', I don't think it is possible to define a 'maximum' that would be useful for the wider population.
My question to you is, why not simply follow the guideline represented in this paper, published roughly 1 month ago? From the conclusion of that paper (since you're too lazy to read it):
My question to you is, why not simply follow the guideline represented in this paper, published roughly 1 month ago? From the conclusion of that paper (since you're too lazy to read it):
04-02-2018, 04:02 AM
-
#12
- Aristotelian
- Positive Mental Attitude
-
- Aristotelian
- Positive Mental Attitude
- Join Date: Jun 2017
- Posts: 12,849
- Rep Power: 263689
-
-
Originally Posted By Slurgie⏩
I specifically referred you to a paper where one of the two authors is: (i) a moderator of this forum; and (ii) known for trashing BCAA supplementation. If the underlined section (and I'm done spoonfeeding you now) is what you consider 'blindly following' something, then you really need to do alotof reading on this. And, given that you're too lazy to read, good luck on your journey.There are many reasons why I wouldn't blindly follow whatever the paper says. One reason is I've had good results eating 1 meal a day. Another reason is I didn't check the source to see if it's peer reviewed. Another reason is a lot of "research" done on protein/nutrition is paid for by companies with an interest in pushing products.
04-02-2018, 04:04 AM
-
#13
- BobLoblawBrah
- Real talk, peace.
-
- BobLoblawBrah
- Real talk, peace.
- Join Date: May 2015
- Posts: 2,947
- Rep Power: 10420
-
-
Just eating as much as you can every day no matter whether youre cutting or bulking. If youre natty and not a pro you have are retarded if you choose to forgo.
04-02-2018, 04:07 AM
-
#14
Originally Posted By Aristotelian⏩
Are you seriously citing that as a reason for why I should believe the study?I specifically referred you to a paper where one of the two authors is: (i) a moderator of this forum
Originally Posted By Aristotelian⏩
Refer to previous statement.(ii) known for trashing BCAA supplementation.
Originally Posted By Aristotelian⏩
You didn't really spoon feed anyone anything, for all I know you also just read the abstract like I did. Also, I believe the question you asked me was why I shouldn't "simply follow the guideline presented in the paper" which is to say: why shouldn't you simply follow the conclusion of a research paper because it's a research paper.If the underlined section (and I'm done spoonfeeding you now) is what you consider 'blindly following' something, then you really need to do alotof reading on this. And, given that you're too lazy to read, good luck on your journey.
04-02-2018, 04:25 AM
-
#15
Originally Posted By Aristotelian⏩
Appreciate you posting this bro. Miscers won't read it thought and don't appreciate the effortThe upper threshold for per-meal protein intake is not scientifically known. On 'maximum', I don't think it is possible to define a 'maximum' that would be useful for the wider population.
My question to you is, why not simply follow the guideline represented in this paper, published roughly 1 month ago? From the conclusion of that paper (since you're too lazy to read it):
"This reinforces the practical need to individualize dietary programming, and remain open to exceeding estimated averages. It is therefore a relatively simple and elegant solution to consume protein at a target intake of 0.4 g/kg/meal across a minimum of four meals in order to reach a minimum of 1.6 g/kg/day – if indeed the primary goal is to build muscle. Using the upper CI daily intake of 2.2 g/kg/day over the same four meals would necessitate a maximum of 0.55 g/kg/meal. This tactic would apply what is currently known to maximize acute anabolic responses as well as chronic anabolic adaptations. While research shows that consumption of higher protein doses (> 20 g) results in greater AA oxidation [40], evidence indicates that this is not the fate for all the additional ingested AAs as some are utilized for tissue-building purposes."
My question to you is, why not simply follow the guideline represented in this paper, published roughly 1 month ago? From the conclusion of that paper (since you're too lazy to read it):
"This reinforces the practical need to individualize dietary programming, and remain open to exceeding estimated averages. It is therefore a relatively simple and elegant solution to consume protein at a target intake of 0.4 g/kg/meal across a minimum of four meals in order to reach a minimum of 1.6 g/kg/day – if indeed the primary goal is to build muscle. Using the upper CI daily intake of 2.2 g/kg/day over the same four meals would necessitate a maximum of 0.55 g/kg/meal. This tactic would apply what is currently known to maximize acute anabolic responses as well as chronic anabolic adaptations. While research shows that consumption of higher protein doses (> 20 g) results in greater AA oxidation [40], evidence indicates that this is not the fate for all the additional ingested AAs as some are utilized for tissue-building purposes."
OP for example has already come to his own conclusions so any evidence to the contrary is just going to be dismissed for any number of ridiculous reasons
Training log: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=165829701
04-02-2018, 04:30 AM
-
#16
- likeawashboard
- Registered User
-
- likeawashboard
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2011
- Age: 35
- Posts: 8,005
- Rep Power: 18646
-
-
Originally Posted By Slurgie⏩
Lol @ having an opinion on a paper when you are too lazy to even read it, let along comprehend it.Are you seriously citing that as a reason for why I should believe the study?
Refer to previous statement.
You didn't really spoon feed anyone anything, for all I know you also just read the abstract like I did. Also, I believe the question you asked me was why I shouldn't "simply follow the guideline presented in the paper" which is to say: why shouldn't you simply follow the conclusion of a research paper because it's a research paper.
Refer to previous statement.
You didn't really spoon feed anyone anything, for all I know you also just read the abstract like I did. Also, I believe the question you asked me was why I shouldn't "simply follow the guideline presented in the paper" which is to say: why shouldn't you simply follow the conclusion of a research paper because it's a research paper.
04-02-2018, 04:38 AM
-
#17
- Anorexilla
- -----Autist-----
-
- Anorexilla
- -----Autist-----
- Join Date: Jul 2014
- Location: Denmark
- Posts: 10,740
- Rep Power: 68551
-
-
yes
I have always wanted to become a tampon. My dream is to be inserted into a woman's chamber of love and absorb her lady juices.
My gyno surgery video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td12mDeyVH8
04-02-2018, 04:45 AM
-
#18
Originally Posted By likeawashboard⏩
Before you read a research paper you read the abstract to see if it's worth reading the full study. Listed in the abstract is the conclusion. They concluded eating a minimum of 4 meals a day at a protein intake of 0.4 g/kg/meal was required to reach "maximum anabolism" which tells us absolutely nothing. I probed Aristotelian on what "maximum anabolism" was since he purported to have read the study but he didn't know the answer, and instead just asked me why I shouldn't simply follow whatever the conclusion says. Things just went downhill from there, because I'm pretty sure he didn't read the full study either.Lol @ having an opinion on a paper when you are too lazy to even read it, let along comprehend it.
Ayyyylmao
04-02-2018, 05:03 AM
-
#19
Originally Posted By Slurgie⏩
Why don't you just tell us what your anecdote based conclusions are so we don't waste our time providing you with actual factsBefore you read a research paper you read the abstract to see if it's worth reading the full study. Listed in the abstract is the conclusion. They concluded eating a minimum of 4 meals a day at a protein intake of 0.4 g/kg/meal was required to reach "maximum anabolism" which tells us absolutely nothing. I probed Aristotelian on what "maximum anabolism" was since he purported to have read the study but he didn't know the answer, and instead just asked me why I shouldn't simply follow whatever the conclusion says. Things just went downhill from there, because I'm pretty sure he didn't read the full study either.
Ayyyylmao
Ayyyylmao
Training log: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=165829701
04-02-2018, 05:05 AM
-
#20
Originally Posted By arn710⏩
I haven't formed a conclusion genius, that's why I asked the question.Why don't you just tell us what your anecdote based conclusions are so we don't waste our time providing you with actual facts
04-02-2018, 05:21 AM
-
#21
Originally Posted By Slurgie⏩
You were graciously provided with a study conducted by two of the most respected sports nutritionists in the world. You immediately dismissed it without even reading it citing:I haven't formed a conclusion genius, that's why I asked the question.
Originally Posted By Slurgie⏩
I have no idea what you're expecting at this point but I'm sure you'll find a way to discount it without even reading or understanding based on your already cemented conclusionOne reason is I've had good results eating 1 meal a day.
Closed minded and ignorant is no way to go through life
Training log: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=165829701
04-02-2018, 05:25 AM
-
#22
- likeawashboard
- Registered User
-
- likeawashboard
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2011
- Age: 35
- Posts: 8,005
- Rep Power: 18646
-
-
Originally Posted By Slurgie⏩
How does that conclusion indicate to you that the full paper is not worth reading? They literally spell out what their findings were. You know what the word maximum means right? And you know what the word anabolism means(?) - it means the upper threshold for muscle protein synthesis (building muscle) - in this case following the ingestion of protein as per gram of bw - to meet the minimum of 1.6g/kg per day for minimising nitrogen losses over 24 hours.Before you read a research paper you read the abstract to see if it's worth reading the full study. Listed in the abstract is the conclusion. They concluded eating a minimum of 4 meals a day at a protein intake of 0.4 g/kg/meal was required to reach "maximum anabolism" which tells us absolutely nothing. I probed Aristotelian on what "maximum anabolism" was since he purported to have read the study but he didn't know the answer, and instead just asked me why I shouldn't simply follow whatever the conclusion says. Things just went downhill from there, because I'm pretty sure he didn't read the full study either.
Ayyyylmao
Ayyyylmao
The paper looks at the optimal doses of protein per meal for strictly anabolism post feeding and compares it with research on daily protein intake for optimal MPS.
This is the problem with most people who cite sources - not just relating to nutrition - but economics, history, etc. etc. They read the abstract without actually reading the full paper, which explains everything. You can't determine its validity until you actually read how they drew their conclusions.
04-02-2018, 05:27 AM
-
#23
Originally Posted By arn710⏩
You quoted a reply to a question that has nothing to do with dismissing the study. And btw I never dismissed the study.You were graciously provided with a study conducted by two of the most respected sports nutritionists in the world. You immediately dismissed it without even reading it citing:
I have no idea what you're expecting at this point but I'm sure you'll find a way to discount it without even reading or understanding based on your already cemented conclusion
Closed minded and ignorant is no way to go through life
I have no idea what you're expecting at this point but I'm sure you'll find a way to discount it without even reading or understanding based on your already cemented conclusion
Closed minded and ignorant is no way to go through life
Don't paraphrase me if you don't know how to read properly.
04-02-2018, 05:30 AM
-
#24
- likeawashboard
- Registered User
-
- likeawashboard
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2011
- Age: 35
- Posts: 8,005
- Rep Power: 18646
-
-
Also read this OP if you want to learn about eating post workout.
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/arti...1550-2783-10-5
You wanted a scientific reason as to how you should go about rationing your protein intake, but then dismissed it with your own anecdotal evidence. Not sure what you are looking for here.
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/arti...1550-2783-10-5
You wanted a scientific reason as to how you should go about rationing your protein intake, but then dismissed it with your own anecdotal evidence. Not sure what you are looking for here.
04-02-2018, 05:31 AM
-
#25
04-02-2018, 05:48 AM
-
#26
Originally Posted By likeawashboard⏩
Never dismissed the study dude, learn to read. I simply inquired what comparison the study made if any between its findings and intake that wasn't optimal. If that isn't addressed then it gives me no reason to switch my entire eating schedule/diet. I can find the answer in a different study and perhaps make comparisons given the data needed is in this study but that's a lot of work for a dude who simply asked for opinions on the misc.How does that conclusion indicate to you that the full paper is not worth reading? They literally spell out what their findings were. You know what the word maximum means right? And you know what the word anabolism means(?) - it means the upper threshold for muscle protein synthesis (building muscle) - in this case following the ingestion of protein as per gram of bw - to meet the minimum of 1.6g/kg per day for minimising nitrogen losses over 24 hours.
The paper looks at the optimal doses of protein per meal for strictly anabolism post feeding and compares it with research on daily protein intake for optimal MPS.
This is the problem with most people who cite sources - not just relating to nutrition - but economics, history, etc. etc. They read the abstract without actually reading the full paper, which explains everything. You can't determine its validity until you actually read how they drew their conclusions.
The paper looks at the optimal doses of protein per meal for strictly anabolism post feeding and compares it with research on daily protein intake for optimal MPS.
This is the problem with most people who cite sources - not just relating to nutrition - but economics, history, etc. etc. They read the abstract without actually reading the full paper, which explains everything. You can't determine its validity until you actually read how they drew their conclusions.
04-02-2018, 05:48 AM
-
#27
Originally Posted By Slurgie⏩
Sentence immediately before the one I posted previouslyYou quoted a reply to a question that has nothing to do with dismissing the study.
Originally Posted By Slurgie⏩
Would you like me to continue beating you down or do you want to admit you're closed minded and ignorant?There are many reasons why I wouldn't blindly follow whatever the paper says.
Training log: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=165829701
04-02-2018, 05:55 AM
-
#28
Originally Posted By arn710⏩
Calm down old man. The only thing you're beating down is my IQ. If you actually had any knowledge on the topic at hand you'd simply address my question w/ grace rather than virtue signal and REEEESentence immediately before the one I posted previously
Would you like me to continue beating you down or do you want to admit you're closed minded and ignorant?
Would you like me to continue beating you down or do you want to admit you're closed minded and ignorant?
04-02-2018, 06:02 AM
-
#29
Originally Posted By Slurgie⏩
What more knowledge could I give you that hasn't already been provided? You've already been provided an adequate study and we've been over your childlike reaction to thatCalm down old man. The only thing you're beating down is my IQ. If you actually had any knowledge on the topic at hand you'd simply address my question w/ grace rather than virtue signal and REEEE
Originally Posted By Slurgie⏩
Its at least refreshing to see that you're admittedly lazy and looking for anecdotal reports that confirm your preconceived conclusionbut that's a lot of work for a dude who simply asked for opinions on the misc.
What virtues am I signalling? How am I REEEing? Are you just using political buzz phrases without actually understanding their meaning?
Training log: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=165829701
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts