working out

[Guest iamabe]

 

 

handy!

[Guest Rabid]

 

Spot on.

[Guest theSun]

his feet are ON FIER

[Guest soundbwoy]

I highly recommend that you ignore what soundbwoy is saying. I skimmed through his posts and there are some veeeeery bad pieces of advice in there. And most of it is plain wrong.

 

You mean you are trying to connect the fact that I dislike The Campfire Headphase with my workout/nutrition strategy yes?

 

I've been working out for several years now, and have been researching for as long. What about you? Which parts are "plain wrong" and why? I don't blame you for finding things like fasting hard to swallow, the media and nutritionists have been telling you otherwise for a long long time now, something as wild as fasting is bound to cause a controversy, but it's science and therefore right. The notions that your metabolism slows down in a matter of hours, that fat is evil and that diets need be any more complicated than a maintained calorie deficit are finally starting to be dispelled. Wake up!

[Siegecow]

And your sources?

 

i'd be a little more interested to see proof of WHY you believe all this nonsense. I can find lots of sources on why skipping breakfast is bad, or how fasting adversely effects metabolism.

[Guest Rabid]

I highly recommend that you ignore what soundbwoy is saying. I skimmed through his posts and there are some veeeeery bad pieces of advice in there. And most of it is plain wrong.

 

You mean you are trying to connect the fact that I dislike The Campfire Headphase with my workout/nutrition strategy yes?

Lol what the hell?

 

I've been working out for several years now, and have been researching for as long. What about you? Which parts are "plain wrong" and why? I don't blame you for finding things like fasting hard to swallow, the media and nutritionists have been telling you otherwise for a long long time now, something as wild as fasting is bound to cause a controversy, but it's science and therefore right. The notions that your metabolism slows down in a matter of hours, that fat is evil and that diets need be any more complicated than a maintained calorie deficit are finally starting to be dispelled. Wake up!

From what I recall you said something like it doesn't matter what/when you eat, muscle doesn't increase metabolism, and equally retarded things. Can't really be assed to read your wall of text tho

[Guest Blanket Fort Collapse]

brown rice and black beans are really healthy for you

 

you should eat a snack approximately 4 hours to keep your metabolism burning shit and not going into storage mode

 

a calorie deficient is extremely important but below a certain amount can put you into storage mode. If you keep your small intake's coming in often it can balance that out and keep your metabolism up? right?

 

there definitely is some truth that the portion sizes and how often you eat matter's just as much if not more than what you eat in losing weight right?

 

but obviously eating healthy has shit loads of benefits and can make the process much more effective in a lot of ways

[Guest soundbwoy]

From what I recall you said something like it doesn't matter what/when you eat, muscle doesn't increase metabolism, and equally retarded things. Can't really be assed to read your wall of text tho

 

In terms of weight loss, no, it does not matter when you eat. At all. All that matters in this instance is calories in vs. calories out. There is no disadvantage whatsoever in eating before sleeping in terms of weight loss, nor is there any adverse effect whatsoever on skipping breakfast. When you consume your calories is irrelevant. You think God designed Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner?

 

I never said muscle doesn't increase metabolism. However, the figure all these bullshit nutritioninsts go for is the 100 calories figure which is nonsense and disproved over and over again. That is a simple mistake that equates lean mass with muscle (lean mass is anything that is not fat, which includes water, organs etc.) The metabolic gain you receive from more muscle is TRULY INSIGNIFICANT.

 

And your sources?

 

i'd be a little more interested to see proof of WHY you believe all this nonsense. I can find lots of sources on why skipping breakfast is bad, or how fasting adversely effects metabolism.

 

You post your sources and I'll post mine. I've got class in a bit so I'll post later with all the scientific abstracts to back up what I'm saying. But I fear all your "sources" will be shitty sponsored "health" websites from so-called nutritionists who are overweight themselves.

And answer my points specifically (!) I'm advocating 16-24hr intermittent fasting not concentration camps. You've been BRAINWASHED fam.

[Guest Blanket Fort Collapse]

"1. Eat Breakfast

 

A healthy breakfast is important. Breakfast fuels your body and mind allowing you to be productive. If you skip breakfast your body goes into starvation mode, conserving energy and burning as few calories as possible. This is a survival response for the times when food is less plenitful. Early nomadic man could go days without food and the body developed a way to store fat and break it down slowly.

 

2. Eat Small Meals More Frequently

 

Eat four to six small meals (or healthy snacks) a day. Your body burns calories digesting food, some foods like celery have "negative calories" because they take more calories to digest than they contain. Small meals will keep you satiated, stop hunger signals and overeating. Your body won't go into starvation mode when you eat frequent meals and will burn more calories."

 

 

 

how does that not make sense?

[Guest soundbwoy]

brown rice and black beans are really healthy for you

 

I love Brown rice. That said it is just a shit load of carbs with little nutritional value, so while it's better than white rice in terms of fibre etc. it's not exactly an avocado.

 

you should eat a snack approximately 4 hours to keep your metabolism burning shit and not going into storage mode

 

Simply not true. Your metabolism actually raises slightly during an extended fast. Humans wouldn't be here today if our bodies started failing us if we didn't go hunting every 30 minutes. If you eat every four hours you are constantly in a fed state, and will therefore not be using your body's fat stores as efficiently. Bodybuilders HAVE got ripped using this approach but that is simply down to Calories in vs. Calories out. You don't need to fast, but you certainly, certainly, certainly have no need to constantly eat during the day. I can murk this one quickly:

The Meal Frequency Fallacy

 

IF challenges the ubiquitous fitness rule that in order to stay lean, muscular, and healthy, one must eat small, protein-containing meals every two to three hours. I bring this up because to understand why IF works, we need to understand why the ‘eat every two to three hours’ maxim does not work.

 

Food costs the body energy to process with different foods costing the body different amounts of energy. This cost, known as the thermic effect of food, or TEF, negates roughly 10% of the calories of a mixed diet. That means in order for the body to process and utilize 2,000 calories across a given day, it will burn about 200 calories.

 

Researchers exploring the topic of meal frequency discovered that the consumption of a given meal raises the body’s metabolic rate for a short period of time. Part of the research community then wondered if human subjects could raise their total daily caloric burn by eating more frequently.

 

In the tight confines of theory, this sounds swell, but alas, the body’s physiological processes are working along a much lengthier timeline than such theorizing accounts for. What’s missing here is the fact that a given meal’s thermic effect is directly proportional to the size of said meal. In layspeak, a bigger meal merits a bigger thermic effect.

 

For example, if someone on a 1500 calorie-a-day diet eats three meals, that person will burn 50 calories at each meal for a total of 150 calories burned per day. Now, presume the same person eats six smaller meals for a total of 1500 calories. Each of these meals will burn 25 calories. 25 calories over six meals? 150 calories. Exactly the same as the three meals a day group.

 

At the end of the day, no measurable difference in fat loss can be had through manipulation of meal frequency.

 

Such evidence has done nothing to change the minds of the fitness gurus who cling desperately to decades-old, unsubstantiated hypothesizing. It makes sense: when you’re trying to make a buck as a fitness guru, you can’t exactly contradict yourself and your $99 e-product and still remain credible.

 

It recent years, this bogus reasoning seems to have taken on a life of its own. One of the more creative interpretations of the high meal frequency rule is premised on some armchair theorizing into the negative consequences of a low meal frequency. The argument goes like this: in absence of frequent feedings, the body turns to amino acids for fuel and burns off lean body mass, causing a supposed down-regulation of the metabolism, dubbed ‘starvation mode.’

 

This starvation mode has been blamed for the downfall of Lehman Brothers in 2008, giving you an idea as to my thoughts regarding its credibility.

 

Let’s be clear: this reasoning carries with it zero scientific support. Presuming adequate protein, long-term research shows no loss in lean body mass even under strict fasting conditions, so long as calories are kept at a maintenance level. In fact, studies investigating fasting or intermittent fasting show a slight increase in metabolic rate. This probably stems from the additional catecholamine release that accompanies an upregulation of norepinephrine in the brain.

 

Only now in 2010 is the media (and note it’s the general and not fitness-specific media) beginning to challenge the high meal-frequency dogma. In a piece run by the New York Times, author Anahad O’Connor writes that “as long as total caloric and nutrient intake stays the same, then metabolism, at the end of the day, should stay the same as well.” The article goes on to cite a 2009 study performed by Cameron, et. al., titled “Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet” that appeared in The British Journal of Nutrition.

 

a calorie deficient is extremely important but below a certain amount can put you into storage mode. If you keep your small intake's coming in often it can balance that out and keep your metabolism up? right?

 

Wrong :D

By storage mode do you mean starvation mode? You literally have to be starving. It is very hard to recreate the conditions that would genuinely put someone into starvation mode, but despite this, the term is thrown around as if not eating a protein shake every five minutes will have your body collapse pathetically into a fat storage device.

 

there definitely is some truth that the portion sizes and how often you eat matter's just as much if not more than what you eat in losing weight right?

 

Afraid not. Both are fairly irrelevant. You could get ripped eating only McDonalds given you were in a calorie deficit and working out. Portion sizes are also irrelevant. Your metabolism will slow down on a diet, but we're talking weeks and weeks of very low calorie intake. This is why people do refeeds to bring the metabolism back up, or alternatively drop calories further. Day-in-day-out, if you are meeting your calorie requirements, no matter WHEN you eat, ie 1000 times a day or one huge meal, your metabolism WILL not change. People thought it would due to an epic fail in understanding the thermic effect of food.

 

For example, if someone on a 1500 calorie-a-day diet eats three meals, that person will burn 50 calories at each meal for a total of 150 calories burned per day. Now, presume the same person eats six smaller meals for a total of 1500 calories. Each of these meals will burn 25 calories. 25 calories over six meals? 150 calories. Exactly the same as the three meals a day group.

 

but obviously eating healthy has shit loads of benefits and can make the process much more effective in a lot of ways

Agreed 100%

[Guest soundbwoy]

"1. Eat Breakfast

 

A healthy breakfast is important. Breakfast fuels your body and mind allowing you to be productive. If you skip breakfast your body goes into starvation mode, conserving energy and burning as few calories as possible. This is a survival response for the times when food is less plenitful. Early nomadic man could go days without food and the body developed a way to store fat and break it down slowly.

 

2. Eat Small Meals More Frequently

 

Eat four to six small meals (or healthy snacks) a day. Your body burns calories digesting food, some foods like celery have "negative calories" because they take more calories to digest than they contain. Small meals will keep you satiated, stop hunger signals and overeating. Your body won't go into starvation mode when you eat frequent meals and will burn more calories."

 

 

 

how does that not make sense?

 

Like I said I want STUDIES

SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACTS

Which I will post you later. All you're posting me is the same stupid bullshit unrealistic jargon that the internet has been trying to palm off on everyone since day. I can find a million websites perpetuating the same myth. Someone says something, someone picks it up, spreads it on, next minute it's all over the internet. Starvation mode exists, yes, but it takes days on end of SUPER HIGH CALORIFIC DEFICIT. The myth that your body would go into starvation mode skipping a single meal is completely ridiculous and the only reason you believe it is because it has been regurgitated by phoney nutritionalists over the internet since day.

As for burn more calories with frequent eating nonsense, read my above post which quotes a recent study. And honestly in your own experience, do small meals really stave off hunger? Eating a parr of a lunch like a handful of nuts and an apple and some cottage cheese leaves me dying to eat again. It's precisely because we eat all the time that we've forgot what real hunger is and are all getting fat.

Anyway like I said I'll get you the breakfast study later.

I can remember off my head that there was a slight concentration benefit for children in eating breakfast, but a benefit that completely tailed off into adulthood. As for fuelling your body, what do you think all the fat on your body is for, display?