Grandfather loses half his body weight with these 5 little tricks.
95 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43393613]Stop assuming that because Im saying a simple calorie deficiency is not the right way to lose weight, that for some reason I'm implying that a calorie deficit isnt weight loss.[/QUOTE]
Fix your wording then, because your wording of "it doesn't only take calories to gain weight." Is just wrong. There's no assumptions to be made on my part here, that phrasing, is flat out incorrect.
[editline]2nd January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43393685]Yeah, resistant joint training is very good.
using weights to lift can be dangerous though you have a good chance to fuck up your wrists long term unless you are using proper weighted gear.[/QUOTE]
If you perform your lifts incorrectly, sure. There's no such proof that weightlifting, when done correctly (this does not mean you need wraps, belts, or any such thing), will permanently harm you. Powerlifters and bodybuilders who push their body's past their limits get injured often because that's the game they play. But your average bloke, working within his range, doing proper form isn't going to hurt himself doing things correctly.
Either way, being disrespectful about the goals someone else has (building muscle or getting stronger) doesn't help anything. You don't have to agree or like weightlifting, but there's no purpose in being rude about it.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43393613]Stop assuming that because Im saying a simple calorie deficiency is not the right way to lose weight, that for some reason I'm implying that a calorie deficit isnt weight loss.[/QUOTE]
How can it not be the right way if it's the only way though, you literally cannot lose weight on anything that isn't a caloric deficit.
[QUOTE=NorthernGate;43393701]Fix your wording then, because your wording of "it doesn't only take calories to gain weight." Is just wrong. There's no assumptions to be made on my part here, that phrasing, is flat out incorrect.[/QUOTE]
The amount of energy a food product has doesn't mean shit if it has unhealthy fats and oils that cause the potential energy to flush itself along your digestive tract in a couple hours. This is why someone who eats lots of clean healthy food will gain weight faster than someone who eats nothing but, say, twinkies with the same caloric intake.
[editline]2nd January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Heigou;43393772]How can it not be the right way if it's the only way though, you literally cannot lose weight on anything that isn't a caloric deficit.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying its not the right way because people usually want to lose weight for health reasons, and losing weight just by simply eating less and not changing the rate at which you burn energy is even more unhealthy.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43393780]The amount of energy a food product has doesn't mean shit if it has unhealthy fats and oils that cause the potential energy to flush itself along your digestive tract in a couple hours. This is why someone who eats lots of clean healthy food will gain weight faster than someone who eats nothing but, say, twinkies with the same caloric intake.
[editline]2nd January 2014[/editline]
I'm saying its not the right way because people usually want to lose weight for health reasons, and losing weight just by simply eating less and not changing the rate at which you burn energy is even more unhealthy.[/QUOTE]
Simple laws of thermodynamics, how do you think you lose weight? You eat less than you burn energy, it's not unhealthy, it's how you lose weight, the only way actually, you can't lose energy if you eat more energy than you burn, are you dense.
[QUOTE=NorthernGate;43393701]Fix your wording then, because your wording of "it doesn't only take calories to gain weight." Is just wrong. There's no assumptions to be made on my part here, that phrasing, is flat out incorrect.
[editline]2nd January 2014[/editline]
If you perform your lifts incorrectly, sure. There's no such proof that weightlifting, when done correctly (this does not mean you need wraps, belts, or any such thing), will permanently harm you. Powerlifters and bodybuilders who push their body's past their limits get injured often because that's the game they play. But your average bloke, working within his range, doing proper form isn't going to hurt himself doing things correctly.
Either way, being disrespectful about the goals someone else has (building muscle or getting stronger) doesn't help anything. You don't have to agree or like weightlifting, but there's no purpose in being rude about it.[/QUOTE]
I never said that people who want more muscle mass are inferior, nor have i been disrespectful about it. I pointed out the reason why most people lift weights and that is being rude? I guess Americans are more sensitive when it comes to observations!
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43393780]The amount of energy a food product has doesn't mean shit if it has unhealthy fats and oils that cause the potential energy to flush itself along your digestive tract in a couple hours. This is why someone who eats lots of clean healthy food will gain weight faster than someone who eats nothing but, say, twinkies with the same caloric intake.[/QUOTE]
That's not correct. Weight Lost = Caloric Expenditure - Calories Absorbed.
What I'm hearing from you is that you think unhealthy foods have the chance to not get absorbed into calories. Correct me if I'm wrong. But if that's what you're saying, it's not correct either. Macronutrients will get processed, unless you eat enough to vomit it all out.
[editline]2nd January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43393869]I never said that people who want more muscle mass are inferior, nor have i been disrespectful about it. I pointed out the reason why most people lift weights and that is being rude? I guess Americans are more sensitive when it comes to observations![/QUOTE]
The tone you use, and the words you use convey negativity on the subject. Implying you're superior to them or your goals are because what they do is futile or not as 'healthy' as what you do. Maybe I misread it, but you're not making a strong case by generalizing me based on the country I live in.
Wonder what his wife thinks about the weight loss :quagmire:
[QUOTE=Heigou;43393864]Simple laws of thermodynamics, how do you think you lose weight? You eat less than you burn energy, it's not unhealthy, it's how you lose weight, the only way actually, you can't lose energy if you eat more energy than you burn, are you dense.[/QUOTE]
I never neglected the fact fuck you only care about arguments don't you?
Your argument is that losing weight by eating nothing but twinkies would be A-OK. except you would die from malnutrition because you need more than just fat and sugar and protein to be healthy.
My argument is "no eating only twinkies to lose weight will fuck you up."
You retort by saying "yeah but strictly speaking to lose weight"
which is pretty much just saying "i agree but i dont want to admit it so im going to continue running circles with you"
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43391027]Here are my two little tips for losing weight:
Eat Less
Workout More
Weightloss magazines HATE me![/QUOTE]
5X5 Fork putdowns
5x5 Plate pushaways
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43393948]I never neglected the fact fuck you only care about arguments don't you?
[B]Your argument is that losing weight by eating nothing but twinkies would be A-OK. except you would die from malnutrition because you need more than just fat and sugar and protein to be healthy.[/B]
My argument is "no eating only twinkies to lose weight will fuck you up."
You retort by saying "yeah but strictly speaking to lose weight"
which is pretty much just saying "i agree but i dont want to admit it so im going to continue running circles with you"[/QUOTE]
except no, he didn't, he stressed how unhealthy this would be, just that it's possible to lose weight through calorie loss
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43393948]I never neglected the fact fuck you only care about arguments don't you?
Your argument is that losing weight by eating nothing but twinkies would be A-OK. except you would die from malnutrition because you need more than just fat and sugar and protein to be healthy.
My argument is "no eating only twinkies to lose weight will fuck you up."
You retort by saying "yeah but strictly speaking to lose weight"
which is pretty much just saying "i agree but i dont want to admit it so im going to continue running circles with you"[/QUOTE]
Alright then, you can eat healthy foods at a caloric deficit and lose weight, are you happy? You've still been saying that you can't lose weight on a caloric deficit which is retarded.
[QUOTE=NorthernGate;43393877]That's not correct. Weight Lost = Caloric Expenditure - Calories Absorbed.
What I'm hearing from you is that you think unhealthy foods have the chance to not get absorbed into calories. Correct me if I'm wrong. But if that's what you're saying, it's not correct either. Macronutrients will get processed, unless you eat enough to vomit it all out.
[editline]2nd January 2014[/editline]
The tone you use, and the words you use convey negativity on the subject. Implying you're superior to them or your goals are because what they do is futile or not as 'healthy' as what you do. Maybe I misread it, but you're not making a strong case by generalizing me based on the country I live in.[/QUOTE]
Sorry if you read posts in an arrogant tone but I really meant no offense.
Most unhealthy foods travel through your digestive system too quickly to have all its' potential energy utilized. This is speaking from personal experience and quite literally a lifetime of trial and error.
[editline]2nd January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Heigou;43393970]Alright then, you can eat healthy foods at a caloric deficit and lose weight, are you happy? You've still been saying that you can't lose weight on a caloric deficit which is retarded.[/QUOTE]
I don't care about if its possible i know its possible. you need more than calories to live and to keep your body functioning properly. Yeah you still lose weight either way, but its a good way to die early. Ive said several damn times in this thread that what you're implying i believe is making an ass out of yourself because thats [b]not[/b] what i believe. The argument stemmed from if it matters to eat clean when you are losing weight. And nothing you can say or do will change the fact that [b]yes, it matters if you eat clean when you are losing weight if you don't want to be an energlyl-ess husk that may as well be dead[/b]
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43394058]Sorry if you read posts in an arrogant tone but I really meant no offense.
Most unhealthy foods travel through your digestive system too quickly to have all its' potential energy utilized. This is speaking from personal experience and quite literally a lifetime of trial and error.
[editline]2nd January 2014[/editline]
I don't care about if its possible i know its possible. you need more than calories to live and to keep your body functioning properly. Yeah you still lose weight either way, but its a good way to die early. Ive said several damn times in this thread that what you're implying i believe is making an ass out of yourself because thats [b]not[/b] what i believe. The argument stemmed from if it matters to eat clean when you are losing weight. And nothing you can say or do will change the fact that [b]yes, it matters if you eat clean when you are losing weight if you don't want to be an energlyl-ess husk that may as well be dead[/b][/QUOTE]
You're being dumb
If your body NEEDS 2000 calories a day to survive at it's current weight, you can eat 1500 calories every day healthily and change how much it needs. Yes doing this with junk food is bad. No it is not going to kill you in a matter of weeks.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43394058]Sorry if you read posts in an arrogant tone but I really meant no offense.
[U]Most unhealthy foods travel through your digestive system too quickly to have all its' potential energy utilized. This is speaking from personal experience and quite literally a lifetime of trial and error.[/U]
[editline]2nd January 2014[/editline]
I don't care about if its possible i know its possible. you need more than calories to live and to keep your body functioning properly. Yeah you still lose weight either way, but its a good way to die early. Ive said several damn times in this thread that what you're implying i believe is making an ass out of yourself because thats [B]not[/B] what i believe. The argument stemmed from if it matters to eat clean when you are losing weight. And nothing you can say or do will change the fact that [B]yes, it matters if you eat clean when you are losing weight if you don't want to be an energlyl-ess husk that may as well be dead[/B][/QUOTE]
That isn't a thing, your body doesn't cherrypick what it wants from food. It's going to digest what is in it, nutritional studies done on food doesn't lie.
[quote]The speed of digestion is determined by a variety of factors including which other nutrients are consumed with the carbohydrate, how the food is prepared, individual differences in metabolism, and the chemistry of the carbohydrate.[/quote]
Furthermore, eating at a calorie deficit will induce weigh loss. You could eat chocolate cake, but as long as you're below your calories expedited you'll lose weight, the difference between getting proper nutritional needs is however different.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43394137]You're being dumb
If your body NEEDS 2000 calories a day to survive at it's current weight, you can eat 1500 calories every day healthily and change how much it needs. Yes doing this with junk food is bad. No it is not going to kill you in a matter of weeks.[/QUOTE]
where the fuck did i say it will kill you in a matter of weeks wtf im really astounded as to where you get that out of my posts jesus christ get out of here.
this argument is taking up the thread so continue in PMs if you want to throw any more words in my mouth
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43394177]where the fuck did i say it will kill you in a matter of weeks wtf im really astounded as to where you get that out of my posts jesus christ get out of here.
this argument is taking up the thread so continue in PMs if you want to throw any more words in my mouth[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] Yeah you still lose weight either way, but its a good way to die early[/QUOTE]
[editline]2nd January 2014[/editline]
don't make exagerative claims and then forget you did
[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;43394171]That isn't a thing, your body doesn't cherrypick what it wants from food. It's going to digest what is in it, nutritional studies done on food doesn't lie.[/QUOTE]
Well maybe my reasoning behind it is extremely flawed due to not being a dietitian, but I can guarantee that eating cleaner food is dramatically more efficient for weight gain than it is with unhealthy, greasy foods. This comes from personal experience, and recommendations from dietitians.
[editline]2nd January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43394196][editline]2nd January 2014[/editline]
don't make exagerative claims and then forget you did[/QUOTE]
die early =/= you will be dead in a couple of weeks
If you dont give yourself the nutrients you need, YOU WILL DIE OF MALNUTRITIONAL CAUSES, which is an early death because it wouldn't be to age related causes.
Not saying you will die in weeks you're frankly daft if get "die in weeks" out of "early death" jesus christ.
You're blindly posting for the sake of an argument so just PM INSTEAD PLEASE
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43394254]Well maybe my reasoning behind it is extremely flawed due to not being a dietitian, but I can guarantee that [U]eating cleaner food is dramatically more efficient for weight gain [/U]than it is with unhealthy, greasy foods. This comes from personal experience, and recommendations from dietitians.
[/QUOTE]
Elaborate, there is no difference if the food is 'healthier', calories in are calories in when gaining or losing. If I'm bulking I don't give a shit about what it is as long as it meets my macros and I'm eating enough of that food to be on a caloric surplus. It just happens that foods that have good ratios for that are things such as Chicken, compared to what I believe you're saying fast food, which you could bulk off easily as well if you calculate what is in it. Its not about eating 'healthy', its about being informed of what you are eating and meeting the needs of what you're doing. You may not have the same desires/requirements as me as you may not lift/be the same height/weight etc. Obviously there is bad things in food you want to avoid, however with the ban of trans fat in the States its not a real big concern for me atleast, keep your cholesterol in check, eat enough protein get your vitamin, minerals and amino acids for your body to function optimally.
[QUOTE=Heigou;43393198]You NEED a caloric deficiency to lose weight, hearty diet does not matter.
[editline]2nd January 2014[/editline]
Simple laws of thermodynamics, how can you lose something if you're taking more than you lose.[/QUOTE]
The body is more complex than that which is why a low carb diet, like the guy in the article used, works in the first place. Hormones are a thing.
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;43394752]The body is more complex than that which is why a low carb diet, like the guy in the article used, works in the first place. Hormones are a thing.[/QUOTE]
Keto diets have no conclusive evidence of being better.
[url]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/5/1055.long[/url]
[url]http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html[/url]
"Any claimed benefit of ketogenic diets that would work for everyone is mostly mediated by the higher protein content in comparison to regular diets. One may also eat a low fat, high carb, high protein diet and benefit from it"
[url]http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/3/586.abstract[/url]
[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;43394830]Keto diets have no conclusive evidence of being better.
[url]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/5/1055.long[/url]
[url]http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html[/url]
"Any claimed benefit of ketogenic diets that would work for everyone is mostly mediated by the higher protein content in comparison to regular diets. One may also eat a low fat, high carb, high protein diet and benefit from it"
[url]http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/3/586.abstract[/url][/QUOTE]
Well I came out of this learning something new, so thanks for that.
As for your request for elaboration, I've stated before this is just going from years of my familys' trial and error (as CF patients require so much more to maintain weight, and an ungodly amount of nutrition). There are more than just nutrients and calories with food as well. for instance, you have to take in to consideration bacteria cultures in dairy products (a lot of which affect your body in positive ways!). I'm not saying im correct and you are wrong, Im just saying what has worked for me, as well as my siblings who require more calories and minerals than i have proper analogies.
[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;43394830]Keto diets have no conclusive evidence of being better.
[URL]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/5/1055.long[/URL]
[URL]http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
Where did I say they would be better? Those studies does not disprove what I said, if anything they strengthen my argument. I said low-carb diets [B]work[/B] even though it seemingly violates a view of attributing weight loss only to an extremely simplified rule of thermodynamics, not that they're necessarily better than losing weight through caloric deficiency.
Also I could not find this quote in the links you provided, [QUOTE]Any claimed benefit of ketogenic diets that would work for everyone is mostly mediated by the higher protein content in comparison to regular diets. One may also eat a low fat, high carb, high protein diet and benefit from it[/QUOTE]not sure where you got it from or if perhaps I am not being perceptive enough but it is a huge assumption to make, and a false one at that, based only on the fact that the Atkins diet (high protein, high fat, low carbs) is the more popular one in the United States.
In Scandinavia the LCHF diet generally involves eating an equal or [I]less [/I]amount of protein, with the primary focus being to increase your fat intake by for example more and heavier sauces, greater use of butter and cream, picking the fattier pieces of meat etc, and yet a great deal of people are losing weight with this method, which clearly disproves that claim.
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;43395567]Where did I say they would be better? Those studies does not disprove what I said, if anything they strengthen my argument. I said low-carb diets [B]work[/B] even though it seemingly violates a view of attributing weight loss only to an extremely simplified rule of thermodynamics, not that they're necessarily better than losing weight through caloric deficiency.
Also I could not find this quote in the links you provided, not sure where you got it from or if perhaps I am not being perceptive enough but it is a huge assumption to make, and a false one at that, based only on the fact that the Atkins diet (high protein, high fat, low carbs) is the more popular one in the United States.
In Scandinavia the LCHF diet generally involves eating an equal or [I]less [/I]amount of protein, with the primary focus being to increase your fat intake by for example more and heavier sauces, greater use of butter and cream, picking the fattier pieces of meat etc, and yet a great deal of people are losing weight with this method, which clearly disproves that claim.[/QUOTE]
I apologize and misinterpreted your reasoning for his weight loss solely due to the fact he was on a Ketosis diet. As for the second statement, the premises for a Keto diet is the release of Ketones which build up when the body wants to break down fats and fatty acids as fuel when it is not getting enough sugar or carbs. When tested in the control group the researchers did NOT find ketones in 40% of the subjects following that diet. (2nd Paragraph, line 1-4) There is no difference between the Scandinavian version of this and Atkins one, you're still restricting access to carbs to attempt to initiate a Ketosis within the body, the ratio of Protein to Fat is something the user should decide upon depending on what their body needs for their lifestyle. The attributed success for these Ketosis diets is due to decreased hunger (obvious due to increased intakes of Fats and Proteins), diet induced thermogenesis or through the simple reduction of calories.
[quote]two subjects in the high-carbohydrate group withdrew from the trial due to extreme hunger.[/quote]
[quote]Both diets were equally effective at reducing body weight (−6%, P < 0.05) and fat mass (−9 to −11%, P < 0.05); however, subjects consuming the high-protein diet reported more satisfaction and less hunger in mo 1 of the trial.[/quote]
[quote]During the 6-wk feeding trial, all food and beverages were provided to participants, who remained sedentary. Hot lunches were prepared and served to participants Monday through Friday at the test site. Breakfast, dinner, and weekend meals were prepared and packaged for participants to take home. After the 6-wk trial, participants were instructed to continue following their diet plan (KLC or NLC) on their own for 4 wk.[/quote]
[URL]http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/3/586.abstract[/URL]
[quote]I have two primary issues with most of the studies that have been done, one of which I referred to above. That is the issue of caloric self-reporting. The grand majority of studies done to date have allowed people to self-report their food intake and this introduces a staggering number of issues.[/quote]
[URL]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/5/1055.long[/URL]
In the end it boils down to the person who is following to have enough willpower. The Keto diet is more filling and therefore people are less likely to eat more to sate themselves, there is also the issue of people counting their own calories and meeting their macros (most people really REALLY can't do this). The ketosis diet as a result has the appearance of being more successful but not always for the reason it advocates.
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;43395567]Where did I say they would be better? Those studies does not disprove what I said, if anything they strengthen my argument. I said low-carb diets [B]work[/B] even though it seemingly violates a view of attributing weight loss only to an extremely simplified rule of thermodynamics, not that they're necessarily better than losing weight through caloric deficiency.
Also I could not find this quote in the links you provided, not sure where you got it from or if perhaps I am not being perceptive enough but it is a huge assumption to make, and a false one at that, based only on the fact that the Atkins diet (high protein, high fat, low carbs) is the more popular one in the United States.
In Scandinavia the LCHF diet generally involves eating an equal or [I]less [/I]amount of protein, with the primary focus being to increase your fat intake by for example more and heavier sauces, greater use of butter and cream, picking the fattier pieces of meat etc, and yet a great deal of people are losing weight with this method, which clearly disproves that claim.[/QUOTE]
Uhhhhhh, low-carb diets works for the same reason that any other diet works, you're eating at a caloric deficit.
Stuff like Ketogenic or Paleo diets are simply preference, as much as hormones are a thing, it's really negligible unless you've got some EXTREME hormone problems or imbalance and if that's your problem, looking at your caloric intake is the least of your worries.
One diet may work for you better but at the end of the week, if you've burned 3500 calories, you'll have yourself roughly a pound worth of weight loss regardless of if you went on a low-carb diet or an all twinkie diet.
I wish I could lose weight so easily, every time I try something knocks me back. I probably need to see a doctor to get those problems out of the way before I can actually get anywhere safely..
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43391027]Here are my two little tips for losing weight:
Eat Less
Workout More
Weightloss magazines HATE me![/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;k3SH74QmaSk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3SH74QmaSk[/video]
I don't know about that calorie stuff, but
If I exercise everyday I can eat whatever I want, as much as I want and still lose weight. It makes me doubt that you have to eat less calories than you burn, because i eat a lot, especially junk food. Maybe thats just me. I hate going on diets, and they never help or work for me.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;43391281]Holy shit. He looks no older than 30 in that picture[/QUOTE]
Well has a pregnant teenage daughter so it depends on when he had her and how old the daughter is. It's possible he is no older than 30 :P
Went from 230 to 160 in a years time. My trick? More water and lots of walking. 20 minute bus or 40 minute walk?
I also started 2 physically demanding jobs, overnight stocking and dishroom fun. The weeks where I still drink pop though have the most fluctuations in weight!
a solid weightloss tip for anyone is to entirely and totally cut out soda/pop from their diets.
I dropped 20 lbs from doing that alone.
I dropped another 20 from cutting back on the amount of food I ate by about 30%.
Adding in walking and working I dropped another 20.
I struggled with my weight since I was 8 and now I'm in my mid 20's losing weight is actually easy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.