Part of the reason I only see my regular gals and wait til I travel to hang with new ones. Foreign girls are more feminine and actually good looking FFS. Sick of seeing all the fat disgusting hogs in the states who think they are 10s

[QUOTE=RedRusty post_id=1578726461][img]https://media2.giphy.com/media/AVx9avUHC0i9a/giphy.gif[/ig][/QUOTE]That is an accurate depiction.. Time to let another heated "sugar is the enemy!" debate go.

I blame the internet. Why move around when everything you need is online?

Is anyone else getting 404'ed? I've written a few posts, and we all know how long-winded I am, which got bb.com rejected.

Real quick before I type a trigger word: thanks for the twinkie study. I have comments on it, but at least for 10 weeks that 40year old dude did appear to lose significant fat weight simply by reducing calories and doing everything else wrong (or wrong as I preach).

Sorry, and the other type 2 diabetic insulin response, that they ALL just magically start eating worse/more being the sole explanation for their fat weight gain. Come on. Agree to disagree at this point, but if anyone does want to keep this convo going, bb.com permitting, it's directly spoken about in the video I posted. I'd like to hear anyone whose watched that say CICO isALLthat matters after viewing it.

Apology to mstatefan, you wrote a longer response, I'd like to give you a longer one in return (did, actually, twice, forever 404'd). I'll try now, though, if I can edit in bits...

Let's be clear. Your position is there is no other factor at all, beyond I guess adequate protein and calories. Beyond that, nothing matters at all. The hormonal effect of food, insulin, glucagon, ghrelin, leptin, they are all meaningless. My position is: they simply are not meaningless and do contribute to some degree.

I guess, I just can't subscribe to that. It matters, and in my estimation, quite a lot.

ok so here's what ludwig is doing to prove a point and is exactly what i mentioned earlier that you ignored

he uses an example of a type 1 diabetic child being unable to gain weight regardless of what he eats as an example of how insulin is the primary reason for weight gain. What he oh so conveniently doesn't discuss is that the majority of people aren't type 1 diabetic, the condition is irrelevant when discussing weight gain and loss for healthy individuals because the type 1 diabetic's body is quite literally unable to utilize the calories they take in and if a type 1 diabetic was to eat 7k cals of sugar they'd go into a coma and very strong chance they die. Because again if this were the case you could completely get rid of all food related insulin spikes by not eating protein or carbs and eating strictly fats, you can even test this yourself if you are so confident in it, put your money where your mouth is and eat 10,000 cals of nothing but fat for the next month and see what happens to your body. Another thing these guys conveniently ignore is the bodies insulin response to protein, yet it has been proven so definitively that protein is the least likely macro to be stored as fat that every single anti carb zealot completely ignores the macro entirely when discussing this chit because they know it causes an insulin spike and goes against what they preach.

also to add in to your point on type 2 diabetics, let's look at jim who is in the minority of those diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and is a healthy weigh, meaning body doesn't produce enough insulin and the changes to his diet and lifestyle were not enough to improve his glucose control. Jim has been eating 4000 calories a day to maintain a weight of 180lbs. Jim is now prescribed insulin to improve his glucose levels and will be taking exogenous insulin for the next 6 weeks. He continues to eat 4000 calories and gains weight. See where i'm going with this? His body is now utilizing the 4k cals like it should have before and since he's eaten 4k cals for the past 5 years and his weight has stayed the same the whole time something seems wrong when in fact he's now normal, his body wasn't able to utilize those calories properly prior to the exogenous insulin.

Another thing to keep in mind when looking at exgoneous insulin studies is that insulin lower blood sugar (duh), if you or anyone you know has ever experienced low blood sugar the hunger you get is absolutely ravenous to the point it's scary. So you now have people being given a drug that makes their body use the calories they eat properlyANDwill increase their hunger when they begin to use because of how hard it is to dial down your exact insulin dosage. Almost all insulin prescribed now is short acting and especially for early type 2 diabetics will only be prescribed short acting insulin which means greater fluctuations in glucose levels.

It's much more complicated than insulin = fatthey absolutely do but it's a 10% difference in the grand scheme vs the other 90% being the actual cals taken in. (regarding normal healthy people)

Ok, we have no (intellectual) beef then, I don't even know what percentage I'd attribute to one vs the other, myself. That twinkie guy, although only 10 weeks, has me reevaluating some of my thoughts -- I've probably been too rigid about calories being of lesser importance than I could have.

As to the video and type 1 diabetes, I have to address this because it means you actually watched it (or at least the first part).

I saw it as an extreme example, type 1 diabetics. Yes, they're abnormal and not like normal people (even type 2 diabetics), I saw it as the point being that with them, because they can not create insulin, it shows how without that they are unable to gain weight, which is true.

I actually did do a limited self-test on myself of your proposed theory, after I'd watched Jason Witrock (who, btw, does not appear to be natural) do a 10,000kcal day challenge for a month, strictly low-carb. He didn't gain any weight. It seemed on the level, he'd film himself preparing and eating meals and beyond some fluctuation, his weight mostly stayed the same.

I didn't do that, but for 3 weeks I ate strictly low-carb keto and far more than I usually do. I didn't weigh or measure perfectly but I was absolutely eating beyond my normal levels of satiety and likely well over 3,000 calories a day (my maintenance being what you'd expect from a 180-195 lb guy who is fairly inactive beyond a hour or so in the gym 3-5/week). Personally, I didn't gain any weight. I appeared about the same in the mirror. Strength dipped up, slightly more than the slow upwards typical projectory of an intermediate-level strength trained person; beyond time off and getting back into it and making quick gains, I usually am fairly static there or very slow gains). So for me, those extra calories didn't do much

... I think, more than anything what matters, even as much or more than calories or even the foods is CONTEXT. I would never try and say calories is 90% of the equation vs 10% or anything like that. I think calories and food choices are intertwined and impossible to really measure which is more or less when the two factors work together to do everything.

To explain: calories matter but the context around them is what makes things happen. Going back to something I said here or in some other thread, I was talking about a high calorie mug cake I'd made. In the context of the meal I ate and the condition I was in: It was not a big deal. However, if some factors had been different, that high calorie, high fat treat might have been very much a contributor to fat gain.

So, if someone eats a bag of chips, and we all agree that on some level that's not so great, but everything else around it also is a major factor in terms of weight gain. That 41-year old professor ate that chit and lost weight over 10 weeks. With someone else, and for most people, that would not be the case.

btw: I do want to re-address the "shifting goalpost" arguments some people make, if it looks that way here. I don't know if I did it too much in this thread, but I have made some strong statements towards calories and their importance, either here or elsewhere. I want to straight up say, I'm purposely backing off a little and purposely making more emphasis on context and the balance of importance of calories vs what I might have said elsewhere.

So, less shifting goalpost or pretending I'd said other things, this is more me taking in things and making a personal twink to my thoughts. Want to acknowledge that, though.

added more on the diabetic stuff above and I agree whole heartedly with what you had mentioned earlier with you over eating carbs in the context that you were depleted and the actual fat gain from it =/= the cals in but that's a whole different discussion. When discussing this type of chit I think it's vital to always keep it in the context of "normal person eating day to day" with no extremes or deviations.

And I have something you might find interesting to try and read about later if you get bored (that has pretty much nothing to do with this thread), in bodybuilding during prep it's insanely common for guys to go keto towards the end of their prep, this has been the norm for the past 20-30ish years because it has been shown time and time again to be the best way to shred that last amount of fat. But there are some coaches that have swayed away from staying keto and reintroduce carbs much earlier than a couple days before (filling out the muscles a 1-3 days in advance has been the standard) because they think that the body becomes worse at utilizing carbs the longer you're eating keto. All sorts of variations of this are done (such as 2 days keto 1 carb, 1 week keto one carb, adding carbs back 3 weeks before but tapering up etc) but I think it's a fascinating idea because as a personal anecdote when I used to eat high to mid fat low to mid carb if I had a cheat day or carb up i'd never look as full the next day, where now that I'm pretty strict with staying high carbs my response to a surplus of them is drastically different.

I believe it.

I'm not a keto fanatic by any means, if I've come off as one, but I do put myself in ketosis at times and have done a keto diet for extended periods -- but I do know, ketones at least, you adapt to using them over time (often... a long time). Glucose/carbs working the same way makes sense (and, btw, they are the best source of energy for many lifters, particularly high-level athletes or bodybuilders). I also know that when I come off ketosis, sometimes with a very big cheat meal high in carbs and/or sugar, there is a profound effect on me physically. Usually knocks me out for a couple hours (not literally).

Interesting take on glycogen storage, in the muscles. I have no real insight there. I'm not a particularly big dude, just 185ish, being jacked, beyond just a few moments of flexing in the mirror, is not a big goal for me. I just lift to keep in shape, health, to keep myself mobile and such. Got such a good mirror in the entrance dinning room, though, just demands someone flex in it at least a few times daily. But, the point, I don't really spend too much time seeing how I've responded to carb loads in the past. What you said sounds like it makes sense, though.

Our bodies tend to adapt to what we expose it to in most aspects.

i think this is a pretty big factor with everything as well when there's multiple cultures and some pretty extensive research done on secluded tribes that either used to eat primarily carbs or primarily fats being introduced to modern diets and their health going to absolute chit. And i'm not anti-keto either per say i just like to argue with people, 100% agree for anything involving intensity carbs will always be king but there's a lot of elite level runners now that eat keto and swear by it

Wish I knew where I was hearing about this first to hit you with a video of some guys discussing it i thought the idea your of body becoming worse at storing carbs after periods of abstaining from them fascinating.

2.5 cups aint **** in terms.on micronutrient density or fiber intake. I just had to eat a lb of sugar snap and 8 oz broccoli to meet my fiber goal and I still needed to take a multi and already ate an apple today


Edit: only at 31 grams need to get to 38. Looks like i still need to eat a big ass romaine salad and an apple

ain't nobody got time for that and i wasn't exactly replying to you directly either way. but you sound like you work in the sugar industry. sugar is from the devil.

if you'd have kept scrolling i posted a graph for literally every point you tried to make except i agreed 10000% with you on the 3 meals a day

but

i havent had a green vegetable in months

Yes. Above maintenence = gain weight.Because they are eating above maintenence. Insulin can't change physics. Energy doesn't appear from nowhere just because you're taking insulin. Of course, hormones can change patterns of fat accumulation. But whether you put on mass gnerally is a function of energy-in/energy-out.Where it's stored and whether it's stored as fat or muscle -- absolutely. I don't see how any of this has to do with woke SJW. The First Law of Thermodynamics is real.

You know, in a way I agree with you. Hormones are very important in determining whether an extra 3.5K calories ends up as fat on your stomach, thighs, etc., or muscle on your shoulders, chest, etc. I don't deny that.

Just wanted to drop in the always plugged in, high stress, lack of sleep argument.

I think cortisol is way higher in the modern era.

Dietary choices as well but the *******s above have covered that extensively.

Since leaving my high stress job that had 4am starts in December I’ve lost 10lbs, My exercise habits and dietary habits remain the same.

Not enough people unplug and really relax it’s always go go go.

I don't think nutrition education is the issue. It's not like people think pizza and beer are good for them, they just don't care.

If anything, it's cooking classes. Good old home economics, which parents used to give informally and schools gave formally. How much do you have to spend on food this week? What should you buy? What meals to make? How do you chop onions? Should you clean the chopping board between raw meat and vegetables? Basic stuff.

Schools don't teach this anymore, and most parents don't, either. That's why my son helps with the cooking, has to do jobs for and budget his pocket money and so on.

In army recruit course, we found guys who did not know how to use an iron, lace their boots (they could tie their shoelaces, but if presented with laceless boots and laces didn't know what to do) and so on. Some had never had a full shave. Most hadn't ever combed their hair. Not many had cooked or camped out. Basic household and self-care stuff.

The principles are interesting, the practice is useful. People need the practice. There's no use knowing all about macronutrient ratios and muscular protein synthesis rates if you can't even fry an egg. If you don't know how to take care of yourself and your household then you just shrug and order pizza.

100% agree on cooking classes. I’m self taught but when I first moved out I was terrible.

I’ve had 2 flat mates out of about 20 ever who have cooked regularly and ate well. Coincidentally both were gym bros too.

What really concerns me is how young women can’t cook and eat total BS.

The Australian Dietary Recommendations are here -https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food...-serves-adults.

Here is 6 days' shopping for a 19-50yo male,
Frozen mixed vegies 1kg
Frozen winter vegies 1kg
Frozen spinach 1kg
Apples, 6
Kiwi, 6
Frozen mixed berries 1kg
Rolled oats bag 750g
Dry pasta 500g
Loaf grainy bread 700g
Eggs 12
Chicken 200g
Salmon 500g
Kidney beans, 3 tins 720
Milk 1lt
Cheese, edam 250g
Yoghurt, greek nonfat 1kg

and spread over 6 days, this would provide the required 6 serves vegies, 2 fruit, etc. It would provide 2,435kCal (for less calories, use the reduced fat dairy options, for example a cup of fullfat yoghurt vs reduced fat is like 450 vs 150kCal) and 149g protein daily. As for micronutrients, compared to the RDA it would provide,

Vitamin A 218%
Calcium 123%
Vitamin D 109%
Vitamin B-12 111%
Vitamin C 196%
Iron 164%
Vitamin B-6 140%
Mg 146%

Buy unprocessed foods, and prepare your own meals along these lines, and getting sufficient calories, protein and micronutrients is not a problem.

Everyone likes to criticise the guidelines. But again: nobody is following them, so you don't actually know if they work or not. Try following them.

As a parent, I think parents should do this. "We don't have tiiiimme!" they wail as they take the kid to violin lessons in their SUV. Yeah, ditch the violin lessons,walkto the shops and buy fruit, vegies and meat for dinner, walk back home with the kid and cook with them. Very very few kids will grow up to be concert violinists. All of them will need to cook dinner.

It's basic sht. Time and again in life, people are missing basic sht while focusing on trivial stuff. 80/20 rule and all that.

advertising works. everyone knows it's unhealthy to eat fast food and junk food. and even people who care about their health will find it hard to resist if you put them in front of a tv/computer playing food ads for hours.

you think these companies spend > 1 million on a 30 second superbowl commercial do it for fun? naw it's guaranteed to generate more than 1 million in profit, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

it's willful ignorance man, you could start watching "how to cook" videos on youtube right now and die before you watched .0001% of them. "Why learn to cook when I can pick up food that will taste better anyway?" I'm a young dude and you would not believe how older people react if somehow the conversation comes up and i mention i cook and don't eat out much

I legit have known people that don't know how to cook fcking pasta man, pasta. Forcing people to cook would definitely be beneficial but I doubt it would ever be enough to lessen how much people eat out

This weeks shopping list: the x is just how I tick it off. I’m doing okay I guess lol. This is my strict weekday food. Weekend is anything goes but try to limit poor choices.

eggs x
Lean bacon x
Bread. X

Rice cake. X
Peanut butter. X
Skim milk. X

Chicken X
Bread c
Mustard. X
Spinach. X
Jarred peppers. X
Cheese. X

Greek yoghurt berry. X
Banana. X
Pumpkin seeds. X

Lean meat x
Kumara. X
Vegetables X

Certainly. But there's a difference between the things you learn as a kid, and the things you learn as an adult. The things you learn as a kid can become habit, those you learn as an adult are much less likely to do so. There is technical knowledge, but there's actually a lot to it before you become fully skilled.

Put another way, there are four skill levels,
0 = unconscious incompetence = you don't know what to do, and don't even know that you don't know. Like the guys here presenting us with their workout plans.
1 = conscious incompetence = you still don't know what to do, but at least you know you're ignorant, and you can do things with guidance
2 = conscious competence = you know what to do, but you have to think about it and plan
3 = unconscious competence = you know what to do, and you don't even have to think about it, it's automatic

You get a +1 to your skill level if it's something you're familiar with. For example, you might only be a level 2 car driver, but that route from home to work is no problem. That's why when you drive to work you can have the radio on, but if you're driving somewhere new or reverse parallel parking or something maybe you need to turn it off. Likewise, you might only be a level 1 cook, but for those 3-4 meals you and your family like, well you can do that, you just have to think about it. I mean, if you can make roast meat and vegies, bolognese, a vegie soup of some kind and bread, people will want to come to your house for dinner.

For some people, changing from eating greasy takeout all the time would be as hard as it'd be for someone to become fully kosher. There are just so many small things involved, if you want to start now for the first time in your life you need a lot of help.

As parents, our job is to take our kids from level 0 to level 1 in a few basic life skills, like cooking and the maintenance of cooking gear (very few people know how to sharpen a knife), doing small household and car repairs, personal grooming and manners, and so on. Obviously you'd add a few depending where you are, like if you work on a farm then the kid has to learn to drive and handle firearms safely pretty early on. They don't know have to know a lot, but they should at least know they're ignorant, and should have a few things they're familiar with which can boost them to level 2 in that particular skill.

Of course there are social pressures, too. Obese people typically have obese families. If you're that obese guy trying to lose weight, it's hard to be sitting there eating your chicken salad while everyone else is chowing down on the KFC, they're going to look at you like you're a Jewish guy eating bacon-wrapped shrimp at shabbat dinner. But social pressures can be resisted if the person has the skills, and teaching the skills is up to the parents.

I don't want my kids to grow up useless. Their becoming fat is secondary to that.

Going down a bit of a different track, the pressure on kids to achieve for the sake of achievement is absolutely ridiculous. As a grade grinder brah, I grew up watching all these kids literally throw 80 hour weeks into chit they hated doing, usually either for the sake of pleasing their parents or for their hopes of getting into an Ivy League college (which was often instilled by their parents).

That whole middle class rat-race culture of parents putting teenage resume polishing ahead of being a functional adult is retarded, but people simply respond to the incentives they are given. Mickey D's is shoveling out cheap food on every corner and even skilled jobs are starting to dry up in the face of automation, so learning violin for resume padding over learning cooking does make a certain kind of messed-up sense.

Yes and no. I'm reminded of that guy who in response to the authour living a year on minimum wage jobs and saying how awful it was, took everything off his resume and lived on the street, and in a year had a car and an apartment and a considerably above minimum wage job. BUT... though it wasn't on his resume, his Harvard education would still benefit him. Especially in a country like the US where low-skill job advertisements say, "must be able to read and write English", being able to present yourself well and speak well are huge advantages.

Things like violin do broaden you as a person and help even if you never mention them to anyone. But practical skills and being able to get sht done also help. This is one reason why former servicepeople have an advantage in jobseeking - the employer expects that we'll be well-presented, will show up on time ("all personnel are to parade five minutes before the time listed"), be straightforward and honest while still being polite, and so on.

But there's something else here, too, and that's the strength of the relationship between you and your children. Spending time teaching them to cook (for example) offers something that sending them to cooking lessons wouldn't: parent-child time.

Teaching your child to cook and clean, to fix broken toilets and change tyres, to navigate through a forest and set up a camp, to balance their budget and sew on buttons and all that - the time you spend doing that with your children builds your relationship with them. As the Art of Manliness guy describes inthis article, people with good relationships with their parents and siblings tend to do better in their lives, both financially and emotionally, than people with poor family relationships.

Showing them how to sharpen a knife is time with your child, sitting in the room while someone else teaches them violin is not. And that time will be valuable to them later.

interesting points, i'm still too young so the thought of having a kid is enough to fck up my anxiety for the rest of the day

i will say i'll never let my kids get fat (at least I say that now). I'd never want my kids going down the path I have or and while insecurity with how you look runs deep in my family it will be my mission to set little john straight with how he eats

It's a beautiful thing. People are empowered and healthy. Stop fat-shaming you white male cis-gendered anorexia-enabling pig.

If you have a bad history with food, you have to be careful lest you pass your own insecurities on to your kid. Remember, kids always rebel against their parents, so that "don't eat that, you'll get fat" will go down about as well as "don't drink, and don't have sex with your girlfriend." Or they go mental into full-on eating disorder.

What's been shown to work is being an involved parent who models healthy behaviours in all aspects of life.

My goal is to lead by example and maybe inspire love of lifting into mine. If they rebel and get into bodyweight and gymnastics exercises I feel like I'd still win.