Jump to content

OT: PETA's "Live Make-Out Tour"


SYRINGEBASS

Recommended Posts

  • Members

That is your prerogative. As it is my prerogative to disregard your opinion on the matter.

 

Butthurt much? :rolleyes:

 

 

And it's not just my opinion to focus on lean body mass. It's also the opinion of literally dozens of competitive lifters, personal trainers, nutritionists, and biochemists with whom I'm acquainted.

 

You don't need to feed your body fat.

 

 

 

By the way, don't forget to exercise your prerogative to take you ball when you go home...*pout*...:poke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Butthurt much?
:rolleyes:


And it's not just my opinion to focus on lean body mass. It's also the opinion of literally dozens of competitive lifters, personal trainers, nutritionists, and biochemists with whom I'm acquainted.


You don't need to feed your body fat.


By the way, don't forget to exercise your prerogative to take you ball when you go home...*pout*...:poke:



Ah, did I wound the scholar's delicate sensibility? Hate to be told that you're dead wrong about something, do ya'? Need a shoulder to :cry: on?

I don't give a {censored} who you are acquainted with. I'll take the professors who teach this stuff, and the doctors I've spent time with over you and your buddies opinions. I'm sure all of the competitive lifters you personally know actually have any idea of what they are doing. Many of them have probably shot their kidneys and liver to death thinking that only protein is necessary. I'm also sure that competitive lifters don't juice at all, either. :rolleyes:

Personal trainers? Puh-lease. That is what you want to use as your reference on how to eat to stay healthy? They're worse than the competitive weight-lifters you referenced earlier.

Completely eliminate protein or
fat
from your diet, and you will eventually die (of course, completely eliminating either is almost impossible unless you're just eating glucose tablets). Eat nothing but protein and fat? You'll live (perhaps longer than many in the US).



^^^
This is you saying that you do have to feed your body fat. Carbs aren't fat. Without carbs, good luck using all that protein to build body mass. You'll burn it all up fueling your workout, rather than repairing muscle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't give a {censored} who you are acquainted with. I'll take the professors who teach this stuff, and the doctors I've spent time with over you and your buddies opinions.


Personal trainers? Puh-lease. That is what you want to use as your reference on how to eat to stay healthy? They're worse than the competitive weight-lifters you referenced earlier.

 

You forgot the nutritionists and bio-chemists...They are the folks teaching this stuff.

 

This is you saying that you do have to feed your body fat.

 

You don't need to feed your "body fat", as in "you shouldn't include body fat in your dietary calculations"...

 

Not, "you don't need to feet fat to your body"...wow...:facepalm:

 

Carbs aren't fat. Without carbs, good luck using all that protein to build body mass. You'll burn it all up fueling your workout, rather than repairing muscle.

 

Really? Because the only place your body can store carbs for energy is in your liver. Carbs are short term energy, your body switches to "body fat", because it's a far superior energy source (more than twice as much energy)...

 

And I didn't say that no carbs was optimal (again, you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting), I merely said it was possible. You can live without carbs. You cannot live without protein or fat. It's a basic biochemical fact.

 

Ah, did I wound the scholar's delicate sensibility? Hate to be told that you're dead wrong about something, do ya'?

 

No, I dislike when people are demonstrably wrong and aggressive about it.

 

I'm not claiming I'm an expert (I'll leave that to folks who are), but this is a basic concept I'm talking about.

 

A 220 pound man with 8% body fat has vastly different dietary needs than a 220 pound man with 35% body fat. Any formula that treats those two men the same is a bad formula, no matter who came up with it.

 

 

It's a basic concept. Though it is indeed your prerogative to claim it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
It shouldn't be difficult at all, unless for some reason you're ruling out marathoners, ultra-marathoners, and pretty much any distance runner as a top athlete.
:confused:



You're absolutely right. I was thinking about strength/agility athletes, not endurance athletes when I said that.

Where would you like me to ship the cookie? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
You're absolutely right. I was thinking about strength/agility athletes, not endurance athletes when I said that.


Where would you like me to ship the cookie?
:D




Send it to the Lance Armstrong foundation. According to this article in Runner's World, he ups his intake from 60% to 70% carbs before a big event. :eek:

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-301--6686-0,00.html


Lance prolly needs it more than I do, considering all of my diabetic glory. :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Send it to the Lance Armstrong foundation. According to this article in Runner's World, he ups his intake from 60% to 70% carbs before a big event.
:eek:

Lance prolly needs it more than I do, considering all of my diabetic glory.
:thu:



Notice though, he "ups", which means that's not where he is on a day-to-day basis...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Notice though, he "ups", which means that's not where he is on a day-to-day basis...

 

 

...from 60% to 70%.

 

 

Wasn't 60% the debated number? It's definitely the number that Runner's World has been advising for quite some time. I assume since it mentioned Lance and Le Tour de France, the that carb percentage holds true in the cycling world.

 

 

And it's definitely worth re-iterating that this isn't recommended for everyone. You need to be doing some serious cardio to need that. I don't really know what the cutoff is, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You forgot the nutritionists and bio-chemists...They
are
the folks teaching this stuff.


Funny how your biochemist and nutritionist friends and my professors teaching that taught nutrition and physiology to me disagree so much on the subject.


You don't need to feed your "body fat", as in "you shouldn't include body fat in your dietary calculations"...


This goes against you saying
"A 220 pound man with 8% body fat has vastly different dietary needs than a 220 pound man with 35% body fat. Any formula that treats those two men the same is a bad formula, no matter who came up with it."


*snip*


Really? Because the only place your body can store carbs for energy is in your liver. Carbs are short term energy, your body switches to "body fat", because it's a far superior energy source (more than twice as much energy)...


And I didn't say that no carbs was optimal (again, you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting)
TRUE.
, I merely said it was possible. You can live without carbs. You cannot live without protein or fat. It's a basic biochemical fact.
TRUE, again


I understood fully what you were saying, and I am misrepresenting nothing.


No, I dislike when people are demonstrably wrong
and
aggressive about it.


Aggressive? All I said, was that I disagreed with you on the material as it was presented. Your response was the beginning of any "aggression".


*snip*


A 220 pound man with 8% body fat has vastly different dietary needs than a 220 pound man with 35% body fat. Any formula that treats those two men the same is a bad formula, no matter who came up with it.


True, because the formula doesn't account for gender, age, or height (though, the formula as I understand is intended for men). However, if you were to do a Basal Metabolic Rate for someone who is 6'4" 220 (slightly overweight) versus 5'10" 220 (which is considered obese), you are talking about a reduction of


 

 

**

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
My diet is mostly whole grain bread/pasta and foods made from scratch...except fruit preserves. I hate white bread, overly sweet stuff and such. It wasn't even a "health" decision to avoid most processed foods.

If you're going to eat lots of carbs, that's definitely the way to do it :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Too much protein is dangerous and will kill you by destroying both your kidneys and your liver. Proteins destroy the nephrons of the kidneys.

That is true to a degree. Excessive protein intake will hurt your kidneys...although that tends not to happen if you're adequately hydrated. If you drink enough water in proportion to the amount of protein you eat, then you really don't have to worry about your kidneys.

 

Incidentally, excessive sugar is FAR more damaging to your kidneys in practice. Very few people are going to eat so much protein (while drinking so little water) to run into nephrotoxicity. But a HELL of a lot of people in the US and Canada are eating enough carbs to kill their kidneys.

 

Diabetes and heart disease are the two biggest killers in the US and Canada. Obesity related to excessive calorie intake and excessive carbs is the single biggest risk factor for both of these diseases. When you study human physiology (as we had to do in 1st year of med school), you quickly realize that the "high carb diet = healthy" approach pushed by the FDA makes little sense. After over 30 years, the FDA has finally seen the light and realized their culpability in the so-called "obesity epidemic." The FDA has more blame than anyone in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That is true to a degree. Excessive protein intake will hurt your kidneys...although that tends not to happen if you're adequately hydrated. If you drink enough water in proportion to the amount of protein you eat, then you really don't have to worry about your kidneys.


Incidentally, excessive sugar is FAR more damaging to your kidneys in practice. Very few people are going to eat so much protein (while drinking so little water) to run into nephrotoxicity. But a HELL of a lot of people in the US and Canada are eating enough carbs to kill their kidneys.


Diabetes and heart disease are the two biggest killers in the US and Canada. Obesity related to excessive calorie intake and excessive carbs is the single biggest risk factor for both of these diseases. When you study human physiology (as we had to do in 1st year of med school), you quickly realize that the "high carb diet = healthy" approach pushed by the FDA makes little sense. After over 30 years, the FDA has finally seen the light and realized their culpability in the so-called "obesity epidemic." The FDA has more blame than anyone in that regard.

 

 

True, but the problem as I see it are monosaccharides, not necessarily polysaccharides. Polysaccharides are great sources of fuel for exercise. Simple sugars are bad in excess, especially when combined with a very low level of activity. North Americans also tend to have way too much fat in their diets. Together, all of these are the causes of the obesity epidemic and the high rates of heart disease and diabetes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

True, but the problem as I see it are monosaccharides, not necessarily polysaccharides. Polysaccharides are great sources of fuel for exercise. Simple sugars are bad in excess, especially when combined with a very low level of activity. North Americans also tend to have way too much fat in their diets. Together, all of these are the causes of the obesity epidemic and the high rates of heart disease and diabetes.

 

 

Would you guys shut the hell up? This thread is about one thing: girls making out :idea::p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Funny how your biochemist and nutritionist friends and my professors teaching that taught nutrition and physiology to me disagree so much on the subject.

 

Yeah, you're right, scholars never disagree.

 

Certainly nutritionists, who are, academic or not, part of a multi-billion dollar industry.

 

 

Honestly, I'd like to see the scientific writings that deal with nutrition while ignoring body fat percentage. If you have any cites, I'd definitely be interested.

 

This goes against you saying "A 220 pound man with 8% body fat has vastly different dietary needs than a 220 pound man with 35% body fat. Any formula that treats those two men the same is a bad formula, no matter who came up with it."

 

No, it doesn't, you've read the sentence incorrectly (like the fat in body v. 'body fat').

 

You don't need to include body fat in your nutritional calculations means "calculate nutritional needs off of your lean body mass"...which is what I've been saying all along.

 

I understood fully what you were saying, and I am misrepresenting nothing.

 

Really? So when you rebutted the "too much protein" idea, even though I hadn't mentioned anything of the sort, that wasn't misrepresenting? :confused:

 

Aggressive? All I said, was that I disagreed with you on the material as it was presented. Your response was the beginning of any "aggression".

 

Your post about prerogatives was totally neutral?

 

I guess I'll have to take your word for it.

 

True, because the formula doesn't account for gender, age, or height (though, the formula as I understand is intended for men). However, if you were to do a Basal Metabolic Rate for someone who is 6'4" 220 (slightly overweight) versus 5'10" 220 (which is considered obese), you are talking about a reduction of

 

And even your statements here ignore body fat percentage entirely.

 

Neither of the people stated in your example can be deemed fit/slightly overweight/obese without knowing their body fat percentage.

 

Someone who is 6'4 and 220 pounds with 8% body fat wouldn't be "slightly overweight", he's likely looking like a Greek statue. And I had a flatmate who was 5'6" and 220 pounds, and he was a varsity lifter who was probably around 10% body fat (with 19 inch biceps), again, in great shape and nowhere near obese...

 

All more examples of the importance of basing calculations off of lean body mass, not total weight, and certainly not something like BMI (which seem to be the implied source of the evaluations in your most recent examples, though I'm obviously not positive where you're getting them)

 

 

Again, I'd be quite interested to see whatever formula puts a 202 lb. lbm person and a 143 lb. lbm person within 100 kcal of each other in terms of daily needs.

 

 

 

That said, other than the formulae, we need discuss nothing other than girls kissing (and that one with the horns..)

 

 

...although, don't only bulls have horns? If so, even hotter....

 

<_>

 

>_>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Yeah, you're right, scholars never disagree.


Certainly nutritionists, who are, academic or not, part of a multi-billion dollar industry.


True enough


Honestly, I'd like to see the scientific writings that deal with nutrition while ignoring body fat percentage. If you have any cites, I'd definitely be interested.


I will say that while I do not have those texts at hand (I transferred from doing nursing about 2 years ago), but they never took into account body fat percentage. Still, I'll see what I can find.


No, it doesn't, you've read the sentence incorrectly (like the fat in body v. 'body fat').


Entirely possible


You don't need to include body fat in your nutritional calculations means
"calculate nutritional needs off of your lean body mass"
...which is what I've been saying all along.


Then I have misunderstood.


Really? So when you rebutted the "too much protein" idea, even though I hadn't mentioned anything of the sort, that wasn't misrepresenting?
:confused:

I don't think I rebutted the too much protein idea. I was the one saying that too much protein was harmful


Your post about prerogatives was totally neutral?


I guess I'll have to take your word for it.


Seriously, totally neutral. It was a statement equivalent of me saying agree to disagree. I should have just said that.



And even your statements here ignore body fat percentage entirely.


Neither of the people stated in your example can be deemed fit/slightly overweight/obese without knowing their body fat percentage.


That is true as well.


Someone who is 6'4 and 220 pounds with 8% body fat wouldn't be "slightly overweight", he's likely looking like a Greek statue. And I had a flatmate who was 5'6" and 220 pounds, and he was a varsity lifter who was probably around 10% body fat (with 19 inch biceps), again, in great shape and nowhere near obese...


Another great example is that of LaDainian Tomlinson, who is morbidly obese by BMI standards, if I recall correctly


All more examples of the importance of basing calculations off of lean body mass, not total weight, and certainly not something like BMI (which seem to be the implied source of the evaluations in your most recent examples, though I'm obviously not positive where you're getting them)


I've always known that BMI doesn't take in lean muscle and that it is flawed. However, I've never been taught anything else. I don't know if it is because the books I had were written by jackasses or because there isn't a better formula or what.


Again, I'd be quite interested to see whatever formula puts a 202 lb. lbm person and a 143 lb. lbm person within 100 kcal of each other in terms of daily needs.


You won't find a formula that does that. What I said is that a person that is 6'4" 220lbs. (where this is slightly overweight using the BMI, which we both know is bunk) and someone who is 5'10" 220lbs. (considered obese by BMI)have such a similar BMR.




That said, other than the formulae, we need discuss nothing other than girls kissing (and that one with the horns..)


Seconded


...although, don't only bulls have horns? If so, even hotter....


<_>


I dunno about that.



:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...