Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum ยป why isnt everyone doing intermittent fasting?
  1. Results 241 to 270 of 277
  2. Page 9 of 10
  3. First
  5. 7
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  10. Last

Thread: why isnt everyone doing intermittent fasting?

post 1573056771 02-06-2019, 07:28 PM
-
#241
  1. TheJediBrah
  2. One with the Force
  1. TheJediBrah
  2. One with the Force
  3. Join Date: Dec 2012
  4. Posts: 15,289
  5. Rep Power: 25168
Originally Posted By iifymbro⏩
most people don't need many cals. Here's a 6'3 210lb guy at 16% bf. Sedentary (which lets be real tea most people are these days).... 2.5k cal maintenance.

That's an estimate. Outliers can have very different requirements.

Implying that a tool of this kind is scientifically accurate information for someone's caloric requirements is wrong
post 1573073451 02-07-2019, 02:05 AM
-
#242
  1. Mrpb
  2. Gaintaining
  1. Mrpb
  2. Gaintaining
  3. Join Date: May 2012
  4. Location: Netherlands
  5. Posts: 30,734
  6. Rep Power: 158971
Originally Posted By AWillis⏩
did you really just link a website that sells meal plans and training plans as evidence?
If you read the whole article you may notice that it references several peer reviewed scientific studies that debunk everything Fung claims.
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
read "weight loss" instead of "fat loss" and stopped right there
Same for fat loss. No significant difference in fat loss between high carb/low fat vs. high fat/low carb:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27385608
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
why isnt everyone doing intermittent fasting?
The health benefits in humans are only shown in studies where participants ate in caloric deficit. If you remove the caloric deficit component the health benefits disappear.

Besides that, IF has been shown to reduce testosterone and 24h muscle protein synthesis. 24h muscle protein synthesis is important for muscle growth (obviously).
post 1573074481 02-07-2019, 03:10 AM
-
#243
  1. 3maj
  2. No avi phaggot
  1. 3maj
  2. No avi phaggot
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 2,745
  5. Rep Power: 12889
Originally Posted By sandaltan⏩
itsproventhat eating less doesnt work if your goal is to preserve muscle and burn fat.
Shut the fuk up, moron.
post 1573075941 02-07-2019, 03:57 AM
-
#244
  1. hercules666
  2. Registered User
  1. hercules666
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2018
  4. Posts: 377
  5. Rep Power: 752
The only good thing about IF was the mental focus when I was fasted

Other than that I eventually developed bulimia due to it, would not recommend/10
Originally Posted By Mrpb⏩
If you read the whole article you may notice that it references several peer reviewed scientific studies that debunk everything Fung claims.



Same for fat loss. No significant difference in fat loss between high carb/low fat vs. high fat/low carb:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27385608



The health benefits in humans are only shown in studies where participants ate in caloric deficit. If you remove the caloric deficit component the health benefits disappear.

Besides that, IF has been shown to reduce testosterone and 24h muscle protein synthesis. 24h muscle protein synthesis is important for muscle growth (obviously).
Amen
post 1573076801 02-07-2019, 04:36 AM
-
#245
  1. iifymbro
  2. Registered User
  1. iifymbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2015
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 37
  6. Posts: 21,395
  7. Rep Power: 112562
Originally Posted By TheJediBrah⏩
That's an estimate. Outliers can have very different requirements.

Implying that a tool of this kind is scientifically accurate information for someone's caloric requirements is wrong
vast majority fall close within the estimates. Humans aren't that different metabolically.
**MFC**
**Barbara Palvin is my 10/10 crew**
post 1573076901 02-07-2019, 04:41 AM
-
#246
  1. crunchfit
  2. Bodybuilding.com
  1. crunchfit
  2. Bodybuilding.com
  3. Join Date: Jul 2007
  4. Posts: 11,941
  5. Rep Power: 10797
Again, I lack in depth knowledge of nutrition and metabolism but I wonder sometimes do people even know what a calorie is. A calorie is just a measurement of energy. You could use joules if you wanted. Do people even know the basis of measuring the energy in food? It's not a reflection of how humans metabolise nutrients, it's is based on how much energy is released when you set a your food on fire... Saying someone consumes / needs 2,000 calories is such an oversimplification.


A metre is a measure of distance. If I moved 2,000 metres, it only tells you so much. Did I walk? Did I run? Did I skip? Did I go up hill? Did I go downhill? Was my movement efficient? Inefficient? Etc. etc. "2,000 metres" provides limited information just like "2,000 calories" does - there's variation within those values.
post 1573077781 02-07-2019, 05:22 AM
-
#247
  1. 3maj
  2. No avi phaggot
  1. 3maj
  2. No avi phaggot
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 2,745
  5. Rep Power: 12889
Originally Posted By crunchfit⏩
Again, I lack in depth knowledge of nutrition and metabolism but I wonder sometimes do people even know what a calorie is. A calorie is just a measurement of energy. You could use joules if you wanted. Do people even know the basis of measuring the energy in food? It's not a reflection of how humans metabolise nutrients, it's is based on how much energy is released when you set a your food on fire... Saying someone consumes / needs 2,000 calories is such an oversimplification.


A metre is a measure of distance. If I moved 2,000 metres, it only tells you so much. Did I walk? Did I run? Did I skip? Did I go up hill? Did I go downhill? Was my movement efficient? Inefficient? Etc. etc. "2,000 metres" provides limited information just like "2,000 calories" does - there's variation within those values.
If you realise that you lack the background to debate this, then why do you try? A calorie is indeed a unit of energy. Many places do use joules. First law of thermodynamics should shed some light why energy in food is *the* most important factor in this equation. Saying that someone needs 2000cal is NOT an oversimplification, on the contrary, you are arguing that other factors are much more important than the total energy in vs total energy out.
post 1573077951 02-07-2019, 05:27 AM
-
#248
  1. crunchfit
  2. Bodybuilding.com
  1. crunchfit
  2. Bodybuilding.com
  3. Join Date: Jul 2007
  4. Posts: 11,941
  5. Rep Power: 10797
Originally Posted By 3maj⏩
If you realise that you lack the background to debate this, then why do you try? A calorie is indeed a unit of energy. Many places do use joules. First law of thermodynamics should shed some light why energy in food is *the* most important factor in this equation. Saying that someone needs 2000cal is NOT an oversimplification, on the contrary, you are arguing that other factors are much more important than the total energy in vs total energy out.
Who in this thread does have the relevant background? Besides I didn't write that my background wasn't relevant, I wrote this: "I lack in depth knowledge of nutrition and metabolism". I'm not Layne Norton or Alan Aragon.

It is an oversimplification. It just reflects the energy in protein, carbohydrates, etc. How they are metabolised and how different individuals metabolise them varies.
post 1573078231 02-07-2019, 05:35 AM
-
#249
  1. 3maj
  2. No avi phaggot
  1. 3maj
  2. No avi phaggot
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 2,745
  5. Rep Power: 12889
Originally Posted By crunchfit⏩
It is an oversimplification. It just reflects the energy in protein, carbohydrates, etc. How they are metabolised and how different individuals metabolise them varies.
It is not an oversimplification. Indeed, the variances, while present, have repeatedly shown to be *much* less significant than the charlatans would like you to believe, in order to buy into the latest fad.
post 1573078341 02-07-2019, 05:37 AM
-
#250
  1. Frank Drebin
  2. Cutting
  1. Frank Drebin
  2. Cutting
  3. Join Date: Jul 2007
  4. Location: Canada
  5. Posts: 24,590
  6. Rep Power: 86323
Originally Posted By crunchfit⏩
Again, I lack in depth knowledge of nutrition and metabolism but I wonder sometimes do people even know what a calorie is. A calorie is just a measurement of energy. You could use joules if you wanted. Do people even know the basis of measuring the energy in food? It's not a reflection of how humans metabolise nutrients, it's is based on how much energy is released when you set a your food on fire... Saying someone consumes / needs 2,000 calories is such an oversimplification.


A metre is a measure of distance. If I moved 2,000 metres, it only tells you so much. Did I walk? Did I run? Did I skip? Did I go up hill? Did I go downhill? Was my movement efficient? Inefficient? Etc. etc. "2,000 metres" provides limited information just like "2,000 calories" does - there's variation within those values.
A calorie is a unit of energy, specifically the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree C or K.

meters are a form of distance, not energy. Energy expended while moving 2000 meters is a factor of many things.
post 1573078611 02-07-2019, 05:41 AM
-
#251
  1. crunchfit
  2. Bodybuilding.com
  1. crunchfit
  2. Bodybuilding.com
  3. Join Date: Jul 2007
  4. Posts: 11,941
  5. Rep Power: 10797
Originally Posted By 3maj⏩
It is not an oversimplification. Indeed, the variances, while present, have repeatedly shown to be *much* less significant than the charlatans would like you to believe, in order to buy into the latest fad.
Originally Posted By 3maj
You are arguing that other factors are much more important than the total energy in vs total energy out.
Yeah, see I didn't say that. Work on your reading comprehension my friend. I said there is variation with within calorific values, not that other factors are more important than calorific values.


Again, 2,000cals = 2,000 calories is an oversimplification. You contradict yourself and agree with me:
Originally Posted By 3maj
It is not an oversimplification
Originally Posted By 3maj
Indeed, the variances, while present
post 1573078691 02-07-2019, 05:44 AM
-
#252
  1. crunchfit
  2. Bodybuilding.com
  1. crunchfit
  2. Bodybuilding.com
  3. Join Date: Jul 2007
  4. Posts: 11,941
  5. Rep Power: 10797
Originally Posted By Frank
A calorie is a unit of energy, specifically the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree C or K.

meters are a form of distance, not energy. Energy expended while moving 2000 meters is a factor of many things.
I literally said that in my post haha
Originally Posted By crunchfit
A calorie is just a measurement of energy.
Originally Posted By crunchfit
A metre is a measure of distance.
The fact that we're discussing a measurement of energy was the point and that one measure provides limited information
post 1573079401 02-07-2019, 06:02 AM
-
#253
  1. 3maj
  2. No avi phaggot
  1. 3maj
  2. No avi phaggot
  3. Join Date: Sep 2012
  4. Posts: 2,745
  5. Rep Power: 12889
Originally Posted By crunchfit⏩
Yeah, see I didn't say that. Work on your reading comprehension my friend. I said there is variation with within calorific values, not that other factors are more important than calorific values.


Again, 2,000cals = 2,000 calories is an oversimplification. You contradict yourself and agree with me:
No, I don't agree. 2000 cal = 2000 cal, just like 1kg = 1kg regardless of whether it's lead or feathers.

The variation is not in the amount of energy (within measurement tolerances), and metabolic/TEF variations have been shown to have little significance.
post 1573079881 02-07-2019, 06:14 AM
-
#254
  1. sooby
  2. WOATbrah of peace :)
  1. sooby
  2. WOATbrah of peace :)
  3. Join Date: Feb 2015
  4. Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  5. Posts: 43,319
  6. Rep Power: 219409
Originally Posted By LinuxJon⏩
You're missing the point.

Your actual maintenance is different depending on what makes up those calories. Spiking your insulin multiple times throughout the day is going to mean you gain weight at a lower total caloric intake than if you don't.
you're missing the point.

the point is calories in vs calories out is the main determinant in all of this, I never said insulin had absolutely zero involvement. Also there are studies that show that insulin is also a minor factor in this, as evidenced by a keto vs/ high carb diet where although they had different levels of insulin, weight loss was virtually the same and insulin only explains anywhere from 1-10% of fat loss.
positivity brah crew
dont take my posts too srs crew srs
JFL @ everything crew
lol @ tradies srs crew
BIG LOL @ sky tradies srs crew (RealAesthetic)
indian crew
living in clown world crew so screw it crew
anti-degen crew
post 1573080221 02-07-2019, 06:21 AM
-
#255
  1. sooby
  2. WOATbrah of peace :)
  1. sooby
  2. WOATbrah of peace :)
  3. Join Date: Feb 2015
  4. Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  5. Posts: 43,319
  6. Rep Power: 219409
Originally Posted By AWillis⏩
tell that to all of the millions of fat people trying to lose weight.. because they're only told it is all cals in vs cals out. who has heard of insulin and hormones regulating fat loss in the real world?
maybe because knowing the science, and actually applying the science to your every day life are two totally different things?? Go figure who would have ever thought of that!
positivity brah crew
dont take my posts too srs crew srs
JFL @ everything crew
lol @ tradies srs crew
BIG LOL @ sky tradies srs crew (RealAesthetic)
indian crew
living in clown world crew so screw it crew
anti-degen crew
post 1573080651 02-07-2019, 06:30 AM
-
#256
  1. crunchfit
  2. Bodybuilding.com
  1. crunchfit
  2. Bodybuilding.com
  3. Join Date: Jul 2007
  4. Posts: 11,941
  5. Rep Power: 10797
Originally Posted By 3maj⏩
No, I don't agree. 2000 cal = 2000 cal, just like 1kg = 1kg regardless of whether it's lead or feathers.

The variation is not in the amount of energy (within measurement tolerances), and metabolic/TEF variations have been shown to have little significance.
You are agreeing with me again. That's exactly my point. Any unit of measurement only provides certain information. A kilo of feathersisdifferent to a kilo of lead! And with regards to calories, the energy contained in carbs, proteins, fats, whatever, don't reflect how they're metabolised. Just to highlight again that you agree biological variations exist:
Originally Posted By 3maj
Indeed, the variances, while present
Again, what I said earlier: "It is an oversimplification. It just reflects the energy in protein, carbohydrates, etc. How they are metabolised and how different individuals metabolise them varies."
post 1573081381 02-07-2019, 06:48 AM
-
#257
  1. iifymbro
  2. Registered User
  1. iifymbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2015
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 37
  6. Posts: 21,395
  7. Rep Power: 112562
Originally Posted By crunchfit⏩
You are agreeing with me again. That's exactly my point. Any unit of measurement only provides certain information. A kilo of feathersisdifferent to a kilo of lead! And with regards to calories, the energy contained in carbs, proteins, fats, whatever, don't reflect how they're metabolised. Just to highlight again that you agree biological variations exist:



Again, what I said earlier: "It is an oversimplification. It just reflects the energy in protein, carbohydrates, etc. How they are metabolised and how different individuals metabolise them varies."
His point is that when it comes to losing weight those variances aren't that important, it's total energy intake that matters. Obviously protein and carbs and lipids are metabolized differently, shuttled through different pathways for assimilation, etc etc etc.

Energy is energy though.
**MFC**
**Barbara Palvin is my 10/10 crew**
post 1573081791 02-07-2019, 06:56 AM
-
#258
  1. crunchfit
  2. Bodybuilding.com
  1. crunchfit
  2. Bodybuilding.com
  3. Join Date: Jul 2007
  4. Posts: 11,941
  5. Rep Power: 10797
Originally Posted By iifymbro⏩
His point is that when it comes to losing weight those variances aren't that important, it's total energy intake that matters. Obviously protein and carbs and lipids are metabolized differently, shuttled through different pathways for assimilation, etc etc etc.

Energy is energy though
As I said myself and that guy are in agreement (with regards to the points I actually made)Again, there is variation within that total intake. Just one paper as an example - there are plenty more if someone wanted to put more effort in:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565999
fat oxidation were higher on a high-protein diet without than with carbohydrates exchanged for fat.
(full paper is free to access)
post 1573082241 02-07-2019, 07:03 AM
-
#259
  1. iifymbro
  2. Registered User
  1. iifymbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2015
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 37
  6. Posts: 21,395
  7. Rep Power: 112562
Originally Posted By crunchfit⏩
As I said myself and that guy are in agreement (with regards to the points I actually made)Again, there is variation within that total intake. Just one paper as an example - there are plenty more if someone wanted to put more effort in:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565999



(full paper is free to access)
Sounds like that paper found no difference in energy expenditure when messing with carb and fat ratios on a high protein diet., so not sure what point you're trying to make with it... makes sense higher fat would lead to more fat oxidation, but if energy exp stayed the same then the body is just using whatever it's given to burn for fuel, carbs or fat it don't give af.
**MFC**
**Barbara Palvin is my 10/10 crew**
post 1573083731 02-07-2019, 07:29 AM
-
#260
  1. crunchfit
  2. Bodybuilding.com
  1. crunchfit
  2. Bodybuilding.com
  3. Join Date: Jul 2007
  4. Posts: 11,941
  5. Rep Power: 10797
Originally Posted By iifymbro⏩
Sounds like that paper found no difference in energy expenditure when messing with carb and fat ratios on a high protein diet., so not sure what point you're trying to make with it... makes sense higher fat would lead to more fat oxidation, but if energy exp stayed the same then the body is just using whatever it's given to burn for fuel, carbs or fat it don't give af.
There were differences in energy expenditure between certain diets they looked at.

Change the constituents = differences. I never got into the specific effects of different macros (because honestly I don't know)
post 1573094771 02-07-2019, 10:18 AM
-
#261
  1. sandaltan
  2. Registered User
  1. sandaltan
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Posts: 15,265
  5. Rep Power: 12438
Originally Posted By 3maj⏩
Shut the fuk up, moron.
calm down *******

deep breaths
post 1573100431 02-07-2019, 11:27 AM
-
#262
  1. RonaldMcflurry
  2. I woke up like dis
  1. RonaldMcflurry
  2. I woke up like dis
  3. Join Date: Jun 2016
  4. Posts: 14,495
  5. Rep Power: 80496
Originally Posted By AWillis⏩
fasting is a fad? it is how the human race has survived over time. when not knowing when the next meal would come humans had to feast and put weight on, and then live off the fat, fasting for days on end. see the body has evolved to live off fat before it eats lbm (goes against on no you must eat your next meal or you'll lose your gains). but now with society as we know today 50% of people are fat fkers because they need to eat every chance they get, some will say they over consume calories, others will say they over consumed highly processed sugars and their hormones (insulin mainly) are fked which leads to weight gain. sure IF might be new in the sense that it isn't mainstream but it is the best tool fat people have to lose weight since it helps fix their hormone issues. herp derp but it is all about cals in vs cals out.

it's funny how every major religion shared a period of time where people fasted, people were smarter back then so it seemed (now everyone is an expert but society is getting fatter). it is called life balance. you feast, you fast. let's see where the next 10 years brings us
Yeah motherfker, it's a goddamned fad. Ten years ago were there multiple websites and programs devoted to it? Was it trending on instagram/********? Was the Misc talkign about it? Were all of the normies getting into it and talking about it? Hell nah, and they won't be ten years from now either. Smack piss fk boy.
Nuggets of Wisdom
post 1573100821 02-07-2019, 11:32 AM
-
#263
  1. RonaldMcflurry
  2. I woke up like dis
  1. RonaldMcflurry
  2. I woke up like dis
  3. Join Date: Jun 2016
  4. Posts: 14,495
  5. Rep Power: 80496
Originally Posted By iifymbro⏩
You missed his point. Humans are evolutionary designed for periods of not eating. There's a fair bit of science on this topic you guys should read up on before talking trash, fasting has legit benefits.
Humans are also "evolutionary designed" to have fat pot bellies as reserves of energy. The evolution and caveman arguments are retarded. If we went by that dumb sht we wouldn't have to brush our teeth either.
Nuggets of Wisdom
post 1573101041 02-07-2019, 11:35 AM
-
#264
  1. iifymbro
  2. Registered User
  1. iifymbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2015
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 37
  6. Posts: 21,395
  7. Rep Power: 112562
Originally Posted By RonaldMcflurry⏩
Humans are also "evolutionary designed" to have fat pot bellies as reserves of energy. The evolution and caveman arguments are retarded. If we went by that dumb sht we wouldn't have to brush our teeth either.
except excess fat is unhealthy and fasting is healthy. Being obese is a relatively new thing for humans, we clearly aren't adapted for it despite it obviously being possible. Periods of not eating is as old a thing to humans as humanity itself, obesity isn't. Takes a ****load of energy surplus to get obese, old school humans rarely if ever had that.
**MFC**
**Barbara Palvin is my 10/10 crew**
post 1573103211 02-07-2019, 12:02 PM
-
#265
  1. RonaldMcflurry
  2. I woke up like dis
  1. RonaldMcflurry
  2. I woke up like dis
  3. Join Date: Jun 2016
  4. Posts: 14,495
  5. Rep Power: 80496
Originally Posted By iifymbro⏩
except excess fat is unhealthy and fasting is healthy. Being obese is a relatively new thing for humans, we clearly aren't adapted for it despite it obviously being possible. Periods of not eating is as old a thing to humans as humanity itself, obesity isn't. Takes a ****load of energy surplus to get obese, old school humans rarely if ever had that.
I've been fasting for years, and really my whole life I ate like that intuitively (no breakfast, no snacks, usually two big meals a day) and I never notice any difference in aesthetics or performance unless I alter how much and what I eat. I'm not saying that fasting isn't healthy, and there is definitely literature proving some health benefits, but I don't believe that it makes any difference when it comes to aesthetics.
Nuggets of Wisdom
post 1573106281 02-07-2019, 12:41 PM
-
#266
  1. FFailed
  2. Registered User
  1. FFailed
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2012
  4. Location: Illinois, United States
  5. Age: 36
  6. Posts: 5,420
  7. Rep Power: 30604
Has anyone tried an actual fast like that snake diet where they do more than just skip breakfast?
post 1573106731 02-07-2019, 12:46 PM
-
#267
  1. MichaelDuong
  2. lol wut xd
  1. MichaelDuong
  2. lol wut xd
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Posts: 6,415
  5. Rep Power: 83739
ITT 10 pages of grown men acting like a bunch of scientific nerds arguing about why one method of eating is better than the other

how about you do whatever the **** you wanna do and stop trying to sell an idea to other people. **** convincing other people X Y Z works or doesn't work.
post 1573107141 02-07-2019, 12:49 PM
-
#268
  1. iifymbro
  2. Registered User
  1. iifymbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2015
  4. Location: United States
  5. Age: 37
  6. Posts: 21,395
  7. Rep Power: 112562
Originally Posted By RonaldMcflurry⏩
I've been fasting for years, and really my whole life I ate like that intuitively (no breakfast, no snacks, usually two big meals a day) and I never notice any difference in aesthetics or performance unless I alter how much and what I eat. I'm not saying that fasting isn't healthy, and there is definitely literature proving some health benefits, but I don't believe that it makes any difference when it comes to aesthetics.
well aesthetics are just muscle mass with no excess fat mass, can do that a bunch of different way so long as proper lifting methods and adequate protein are maintained. I'm just talking about health and well being in general, fasting seems to do good chit to the human body and in other animals been shown to have a life extending effect.
**MFC**
**Barbara Palvin is my 10/10 crew**
post 1573107341 02-07-2019, 12:51 PM
-
#269
  1. LaCosaNostra90
  2. Registered User
  1. LaCosaNostra90
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Location: Alberta, Canada
  5. Posts: 15,577
  6. Rep Power: 22156
Originally Posted By MichaelDuong⏩
ITT 10 pages of grown men acting like a bunch of scientific nerds arguing about why one method of eating is better than the other

how about you do whatever the **** you wanna do and stop trying to sell an idea to other people. **** convincing other people X Y Z works or doesn't work.
This. Why not try it for a couple months, if its not for you then stop. Simple as that. Bunch of Google scientists and nutritionists up in here.
post 1573107951 02-07-2019, 12:58 PM
-
#270
  1. ayyy
  2. ~20% gay
  1. ayyy
  2. ~20% gay
  3. Join Date: Dec 2015
  4. Posts: 10,012
  5. Rep Power: 88829
Originally Posted By MichaelDuong⏩
ITT 10 pages of grown men acting like a bunch of scientific nerds arguing about why one method of eating is better than the other

how about you do whatever the **** you wanna do and stop trying to sell an idea to other people. **** convincing other people X Y Z works or doesn't work.
well where's the fun in that
Official LTC representative
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts