125 calories in a banana. You're eating 24 bananas a day? each with 17grams of sugar. That's 400 grams of sugar!
What Really Causes Heart Disease?
- Thread starter Instrumentalist
- Start date
125 calories in a banana. You're eating 24 bananas a day? each with 17grams of sugar. That's 400 grams of sugar!
So your idea of scientific evidence is one guy suddenly dropping his calorie intake for ten weeks? No shit he lost weight. You fuckers are dense. News flash: It was a temporary affect. Just like when fat Betty goes on her not eat shit diet and loses a quick 15 pounds, then gets stuck and gains it all back WHILE EATING THE SAME EXACT SHIT SHE ATE TO LOSE THE WEIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
At a certain point, your body will come out of shock and reach homeostasis, and adjust to it's new found lack of quality calories, and adjust accordingly. Redistributing those shit calories back to fat stores when it realizes it's not going to starve to death. Let him live on the twinkie diet and watch his testosterone and muscle mass drop significantly, thus making it harder for him to keep healthy BF levels. My mom hardly eats anything, yet she's fat... In fact I know multiple people and have trained multiple people that hardly ate any calories at all due to busy work loads and high stress... I would literally have them write down everything they ate for a week and I assure you that it was far below their "maintenance" calorie level, as I calculated that shit out.. yet THEY WERE FAT. I would UP THEIR CALORIES and their FAT INTAKE mixed with the proper MACROS at the PROPER TIMES and watch as they LOST FAT, TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
For fucks sake, you guys can't genuinely believe the body functions in such a straight forward simple manner? A calorie is a fucking unit of measure. That unit of measure, depending on it's FUNCTION in the body will then affect other functions in the body that all affect weight and fat loss, and it takes more than ten weeks for the full effects to be seen. Simple sugars cause insulin spikes, which in turn, cause you to store fat and promote inflammation. Eat fucking twinkies for a year and your body will become so desensitized to the insulin spikes that it's damn near impossible for it to metabolize fats in the normal manner.
You guys have no fucking clue what you're blabbing about. Now, I'm going to attempt to leave this thread one more time.
At a certain point, your body will come out of shock and reach homeostasis, and adjust to it's new found lack of quality calories, and adjust accordingly. Redistributing those shit calories back to fat stores when it realizes it's not going to starve to death. Let him live on the twinkie diet and watch his testosterone and muscle mass drop significantly, thus making it harder for him to keep healthy BF levels. My mom hardly eats anything, yet she's fat... In fact I know multiple people and have trained multiple people that hardly ate any calories at all due to busy work loads and high stress... I would literally have them write down everything they ate for a week and I assure you that it was far below their "maintenance" calorie level, as I calculated that shit out.. yet THEY WERE FAT. I would UP THEIR CALORIES and their FAT INTAKE mixed with the proper MACROS at the PROPER TIMES and watch as they LOST FAT, TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
For fucks sake, you guys can't genuinely believe the body functions in such a straight forward simple manner? A calorie is a fucking unit of measure. That unit of measure, depending on it's FUNCTION in the body will then affect other functions in the body that all affect weight and fat loss, and it takes more than ten weeks for the full effects to be seen. Simple sugars cause insulin spikes, which in turn, cause you to store fat and promote inflammation. Eat fucking twinkies for a year and your body will become so desensitized to the insulin spikes that it's damn near impossible for it to metabolize fats in the normal manner.
You guys have no fucking clue what you're blabbing about. Now, I'm going to attempt to leave this thread one more time.
No, they very much adhered to the law of thermodynamics. The body processes things in different ways for different people. One unit of energy isn't processed the same by me or you, yet it is still the same unit of energy, and still has the same scientific value. So, indeed, a calorie is a calorie, yet it is used differently by different "systems". Is it clicking yet?
First law of thermodynamics: Heat and work are forms of energy transfer. Energy is invariably conserved but the internal energy of a closed system changes as heat and work are transferred in or out of it. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.
^^ I actually have no fucking clue what that means or how it pertains, but looks good to me.
First law of thermodynamics: Heat and work are forms of energy transfer. Energy is invariably conserved but the internal energy of a closed system changes as heat and work are transferred in or out of it. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind are impossible.
^^ I actually have no fucking clue what that means or how it pertains, but looks good to me.
That's because everybody has a natural weight determined by genetics whether that be fat or skinny. Your body will fight to maintain that weight no matter what you do. Some people are just constantly fighting a never-ending uphill battle with their weight.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPsKpnu0-X4]Why Are Thin People Not Fat (Full BBC Documentary) - YouTube[/ame]
^^ Agreed, that certainly plays a role. That still supports that fat loss does not equal being in a calorie deficit. Lot's of things come into play, stress levels, hormone levels, genetics.. That's my point all those things are influenced by, and influence your metabolism and how efficiently it uses calories. So, in the context of a nutritional/fat loss/WF flaming fag debate.. a cal is not a cal. As a scientific measurement, yes, it is.
I didn't watch the video, and I know that people are different genetically, but genetics cannot explain changes like this :
Different efficacy based on how the body interacts with it. For instance with methamphetamine, smoking it leads to 92% bioavailability, but taking it up the ass is 99%.
Okay let me ask you a similar question, there's a new mushroom found and initial tests show it doesn't have any toxins so it looks like it's safe to eat like many other mushrooms. How can you prove this "new" mushroom is entirely safe to eat? Now absolutely prove it's entirely safe. How will you do it?
Whatever you come up with it'll prove either:
- you can never absolutely prove a new food is safe except if you'd force fed it to 50,000 people for 100 years and check their well being constantly.
- you can do various tests and conclude with a fair confidence it's safe (which can be done for GMO foods also and makes your initial argument moot)
because 3000 calories aint all that much. Assuming an average amount of sport, its right around your daily intake.
That nonsense about 2000 is for an average person. That includes 80 year old grannies that should be long gone and all kinds of anorexic women. Even conservative nutrition fags with their garbage "calculators" will postulate that a young male that "sits all day" needs about 2700 calories.
Anyone who lifts weights semi seriously is probably closer to 4000. Professional athletes, like swimmers for example, take in as much as 10000 calories a day.
And sugar can easily be stored as fat. Pick up a book about metabolism if you really want to know whats going on. But make it a book that is used by medicine professionals, not one of those new age fringe science crapshots.
anyone can write books. show me a single paper of that guy published in a top tier peer reviewed science magazine and well talk.
The human body is a very complex machine that depends upon the fact that every tiny little screw does its job perfectly. If one of those things goes "wrong", you dont have a fat person. You have a terminally ill one, that might or might not be saved by modern medicine.
Sugars and fats are split up by enzymes and oxidized inside the cell. Thats a very big word that just means "reacts with oxygen". Oxygen is transported by red blood cells from the lungs to the cell. Oxygen happens to be one of the most reactive substances in the universe.
Its the same process that happens to iron. Iron reacts with oxygen to a substance called ferrous oxide, better known as rust. You remember how you can only prevent iron from forming rust by applying protective layers? Oxides are an energetically favourable state for the two molecules involved. It happens, and no "fatty malfunction" cell can prevent it from happening.
It sounds funny to you, but what this means in this context is that the chemical energy stored in the carb is equal for every human, independent of genetics. The amount of energy released by oxidation is always the same.
In laymans terms: You can not create energy out of nothing. Neither can you suppress the "creation" of energy that results from a process.
Another implication of the first law of thermodynamics is that the amount of energy needed is equal to the amount of heat radiated away from the body plus the amount of work done. This does, in fact, mean, that you can not just postulate that there are easy gainers and hard gainers. The only way to manipulate someones energy efficiency is to mess with his gastrointestinal tract. Thats where nutrients are absorbed.
Btw, a 5 minute video of laughing children is the opposite of scientific evidence.
I lift weights seriously 3-4 days a week. Heavy compounds, etc. If I ate 4000 kcals a day I would be putting on a shit ton of weight.
Hey bro, you're wrong.
All cancer and heart disease is caused by grass pollen (srs).
Wouldn't fucking surprise me. Fucking hay fever.
Probably. Doesnt mean that youd get fat though. As ive already stated, there are many professional athletes that consume 2-3 times as much.
I didn't watch the video, and I know that people are different genetically, but genetics cannot explain changes like this :
To a point, I agree with you, but what most people don't realize is that your genetics, and those of your ancestors, change as a result of the food you eat over time. (GMO anyone?)
So, yes, it is diet as a direct causation, but genetics play an indirect role over the long term in that they adjust to the shit food we put in our bodies, making the problem a compounding one. This would explain the graph.
My belief is that, over time, a lineage of people lose their insulin sensitivity due to it being spiked every few hours with every corn syrup filled coke, latte, and simple carb heavy meal they ingest. Basically, they are burning out their thyroid while losing their insulin sensitivity. Which will make it pretty damn difficult to lose fat regardless of how much of a calorie "deficit" you are in. This much is pretty obvious. The idea that it then becomes a genetic disposition is much less so, and nothing that I can prove, or will try to.. but seems just as obvious to me. I've seen evidence to support this, such as the spike in diabetes and a few other indicators, but nothing conclusive.
I know you were being sarcastic.. but actually, if you follow a low carb diet (like he prolly does, maybe not.. not sure) it helps to eat shit carbs to spike insulin, and prime your insulin sensitivity say once a week or two. "Priming" the pump so to speak. Some people believe in this, some don't. I do, but it doesn't necessarily have to be shit carbs, it's just that it also just so happens to be a great time to splurge and relieve some of that craving for crap foods that you get. Two birds with one stone.
either way, that dude is bad ass.