On May 25 2010 08:26 omg.deus wrote: The probem I have isn't that I'm not eating enough protein, but that I am burning it too quickly. I have that stereotypical asian metabolism and all I do at work is climb up and down a ladder. It's the most annoying thing in the world to force yourself to eat b/c ur scared of losing weight.
Eat more, eat better, eat at the right times. Lots of meat, peanut butter, milk, whole eggs. you should be taking in 3000-3200 calories a day. Guarentee you will put on lots of weight quickly.
On May 25 2010 08:23 Sashimi wrote: Like many people said, it is your diet not workout... Asian diets cannot be used for body building, it does not provide enough calories and protein per meal. Unless you eat galbi and bulgogi every meal, 6 times a day then it is a whole different story.
For you to gain muscle, eat every 3 hours(full meals)that's roughly how long it takes for the food to be emptied from your stomach into the small intestine. You want to keep your body in an anabolic state, the moment you stomach is empty, your body will go into catabolic state and start breaking down shit to fuel itself.
You don't need those whey proteins, they are just waste of money. I have used them for years. They don't do enough compared to full proper meals. It is a big investment and takes a lot of preparation and commitment. GL.
Yeah its hard to put on muscle when you eat rice and veggies every meal lol.
But whey protein is important, there have been countless placebo studies on it. It is the fastest absorbed form of protein and should be taken within 30 minutes of working out.
On May 25 2010 08:26 omg.deus wrote: The probem I have isn't that I'm not eating enough protein, but that I am burning it too quickly. I have that stereotypical asian metabolism and all I do at work is climb up and down a ladder. It's the most annoying thing in the world to force yourself to eat b/c ur scared of losing weight.
PURE BS, there is no way you are eating enough. You will gain weight if you eat enough. How many times do you eat a day? What do you eat each meal? A bow of rice, little kimchi and some meat? If that's what you eat, no wonder you can't gain weight and build muscle.
Watch this video and if you can eat like this, you will gain weight. Stop with your excuses and eat, if you can't afford to eat like this then there's nothing I can help you.
And don't argue with me with steroids and shit, I am strictly talking about EATING!
On May 25 2010 08:26 omg.deus wrote: The probem I have isn't that I'm not eating enough protein, but that I am burning it too quickly. I have that stereotypical asian metabolism and all I do at work is climb up and down a ladder. It's the most annoying thing in the world to force yourself to eat b/c ur scared of losing weight.
Eat more, eat better, eat at the right times. Lots of meat, peanut butter, milk, whole eggs. you should be taking in 3000-3200 calories a day. Guarentee you will put on lots of weight quickly.
On May 25 2010 08:23 Sashimi wrote: Like many people said, it is your diet not workout... Asian diets cannot be used for body building, it does not provide enough calories and protein per meal. Unless you eat galbi and bulgogi every meal, 6 times a day then it is a whole different story.
For you to gain muscle, eat every 3 hours(full meals)that's roughly how long it takes for the food to be emptied from your stomach into the small intestine. You want to keep your body in an anabolic state, the moment you stomach is empty, your body will go into catabolic state and start breaking down shit to fuel itself.
You don't need those whey proteins, they are just waste of money. I have used them for years. They don't do enough compared to full proper meals. It is a big investment and takes a lot of preparation and commitment. GL.
Yeah its hard to put on muscle when you eat rice and veggies every meal lol.
But whey protein is important, there have been countless placebo studies on it. It is the fastest absorbed form of protein and should be taken within 30 minutes of working out.
honestly I think your weight seems fine or even on the high end. im sure you have enough muscle if anything you might weight too much
to give you an idea, i am 6'1 170lbs. eshlow who is a strength gymnastics badass, like super badass, is taller than you and weighs less.
all these people giving u advice of eating more aren't really giving u good advice in regards to your pursuits. if your only goal was to put on more muscle it would be good advice. but that doesn't seem to be your goal right?
i work a regular full time job so I can't eat every couple hours... I eat 4-5 eggwhites in the morning with some toast and eat about 4-5 sandwiches during the work day. At night I load up on some kind of protein...chicken.fish...pork...steak....w/e....i'm eating as much as i can but you burn a lot when your sweating all day and running around.
yeah I know i kind of weigh a lot but I think the real reason I can't do a straight legged is will power...I can't put in that much effort for something that I don't really want that badly
edit: yeah, i'm not really looking to gain any weight...just maintain my weight...but I have to eat a crapload just to do that...it's just that i titled this blog really bad...im really bad at organizing my thoughts and such but people ahve just talked about weight gaining and stuff
Anyone cares that eating a lot shortens your life span? Or that you will look like trash when you are 45 and stop working out for a few months?
I really have nothing against people that work out a lot, I do too. Just wondering how does something like eating a lot more than an average person will really benefit you? You will gain mass, that's true, but you are slowly killing yourself while at it. It has nothing to do with "eating healthy" really.
On May 25 2010 08:47 omg.deus wrote: i work a regular full time job so I can't eat every couple hours... I eat 4-5 eggwhites in the morning with some toast and eat about 4-5 sandwiches during the work day. At night I load up on some kind of protein...chicken.fish...pork...steak....w/e....i'm eating as much as i can but you burn a lot when your sweating all day and running around.
See, you are not eating enough times.... just pack 3 large sandwiches with lots meat in them and eat them during work. It takes like 2min or less to eat a sandwich. Stop with the excuses and start eating. There is NO way for anyone to help you if you keep using work as an excuses. Unless you can triple the amount you eat each meal( 3 times a day) then you might have a chance. But I doubt you can eat triple the amount in one setting.
On May 25 2010 08:50 condoriano wrote: Anyone cares that eating a lot shortens your life span? Or that you will look like trash when you are 45 and stop working out for a few months?
I really have nothing against people that work out a lot, I do too. Just wondering how does something like eating a lot more than an average person will really benefit you? You will gain mass, that's true, but you are slowly killing yourself while at it. It has nothing to do with "eating healthy" really.
On May 25 2010 08:50 condoriano wrote: Anyone cares that eating a lot shortens your life span? Or that you will look like trash when you are 45 and stop working out for a few months?
I really have nothing against people that work out a lot, I do too. Just wondering how does something like eating a lot more than an average person will really benefit you? You will gain mass, that's true, but you are slowly killing yourself while at it. It has nothing to do with "eating healthy" really.
How can say that eating a lot in general shortens your life span? If you have a high metabolism, you have to eat more calories than someone with a slow metabolism. In general, men have higher metabolism than women, just as people who work out usually have a higher matbolism than people who don't work out. If your goal is to gain weight, you need to consume more calories than you burn every day, and if you want to lose weight: consume less calories. While it's true that too much of anything is harmful to your body, not all types of food are harmful (duh). Being overweight on the other hand will generally reduce your lifespan, as it puts you at much higher risk for aquiring corony heart disease etc.
Eating a lot of fast food is bad for you. Eating varied, healthy food though, is not. However, as long as you maintain a healthy weight and get the nutrition you need, you're fine. When you're 45 and stop working out, you'll have to adjust to the changes in your metabolic rate by being more conscious about what you eat. If OP or anyone else who works out regularly eat a lot because their metabolic rate is higher than before they started working out, then they should eat more. OP even says that he has to "eat a crapload" just to do that, so just why exactly shouldn't he?
It will be impossible to have this taught in biology class because it contradicts official calorie requirement theory, which is a complete bs to many scientists.
I personally believe this (and it's a fact that vegetarians live longer on average).
On May 25 2010 09:22 iMarshall wrote: [When you're 45 and stop working out, you'll have to adjust to the changes in your metabolic rate by being more conscious about what you eat.
It doesn't work like that. If you worked out a lot and became huge there's no way you will look healthy after 45 if you stop exercising. You will add pounds of fat around your body and a lot of your lean muscle will become fat. The skin will sag a lot more than it would normally. You will probably end up with high blood pressure and heart problems.
I personally believe this (and it's a fact that vegetarians live longer on average).
i didn't read your links but you say that vegetarians live longer...which I believe...but it could have nothing to do with them not eating meat. A vegetarian would be more likely to live a healthy lifestyle overrall and therefore live longer. A vegetarian who is concerned about being healthy probably wouldn't smoke, do drugs, drink excessively and also be proactive in being healthy by exercising regularly, getting enough sleep...etc..
doesn't surprise me at all that vegetarians live longer on average
I personally believe this (and it's a fact that vegetarians live longer on average).
i didn't read your links but you say that vegetarians live longer...which I believe...but it could have nothing to do with them not eating meat. A vegetarian would be more likely to live a healthy lifestyle overrall and therefore live longer. A vegetarian who is concerned about being healthy probably wouldn't smoke, do drugs, drink excessively and also be proactive in being healthy by exercising regularly, getting enough sleep...etc..
doesn't surprise me at all that vegetarians live longer on average
I agree with you too.
This could turn into a huge debate about vegetarians hehe, probably don't need that here. I always wanted to gain some extra weight myself but I would go as far as eating 3k+ calories a day, that would be pretty hard on my body. I just work out hoping to slowly add muscle.
It will be impossible to have this taught in biology class because it contradicts official calorie requirement theory, which is a complete bs to many scientists.
I personally believe this (and it's a fact that vegetarians live longer on average).
On May 25 2010 09:22 iMarshall wrote: [When you're 45 and stop working out, you'll have to adjust to the changes in your metabolic rate by being more conscious about what you eat.
It doesn't work like that. If you worked out a lot and became huge there's no way you will look healthy after 45 if you stop exercising. You will add pounds of fat around your body and a lot of your lean muscle will become fat. The skin will sag a lot more than it would normally. You will probably end up with high blood pressure and heart problems.
First of all, in the second article you posted they clearly state that
While such studies based on epidemiological data establish correlation, not causation, the weight of these findings among human populations in addition to laboratory proof that CR extends the lifespan of other mammals tends to favor the hypothesis that CR will also extend human lifespan.
so you have to remember that they haven't really proven anything yet. In the first article they also state that it wouldn't be effective for all people - actually quite the contrary for people with a low body fat percentage.
Of course, if you're huge and suddenly stop exercising, a lot of the lean muscle will become fat, that's why Arnold looks so bad now I'm talking about people in general, and how they need to be more aware of how their bodies work. And I don't see how you can call something as widely studied as calorie requirements bs. You post two vague, non-conclusive studies and say that this is truth, while everything we think about calorie reqs. is false. Sorry man, but before I read about this in the New England Journal of Medicine, I won't read to much into it. I also believe what my med. school professors are teaching us instead of this, so I don't really care about what's taught in biology or not. You may believe what you want, and that's fine by me
Also, about vegetarians living longer, as omg.deus said, they're more likely to have a healthy lifestyle, so that's also something you have to consider. Vegetarians usually need nutritional supplements if they don't have a well-planned diet, though, something that should tell you that it's not really natural. Vegetarians usually don't get enough iron, proteins, calcium etc, pretty important stuff for the body tbh.
Interesting, how would you perform such a study on humans directly? All they can use is evidence that mammals live longer in general when they receive less calories and that vegetarians (or whoever else eats moderately) live longer in general. You can't just test 1000 subjects randomly, to begin with this experiment would take ~80-90 years lol. All you can play with is raw data from other sources. This is science too, you know?
On May 25 2010 10:42 condoriano wrote: Interesting, how would you perform such a study on humans directly? All they can use is evidence that mammals live longer in general when they receive less calories and that vegetarians (or whoever else eats moderately) live longer in general. You can't just test 1000 subjects randomly, to begin with this experiment would take ~80-90 years lol. All you can play with is raw data from other sources. This is science too, you know?
Yes real studies would have to take place. They would probably have to take a while and require a lot of work. That is how studies usually work. Playing around with raw data can lead to a lot of false conclusions and a lot of correlation vs causation and isn't exactly "scientific"
I can eat 4k calories a day because i work out and have the metabolism to support it. If i do the same when i'm older and my metabolism is slower and if i stopped working out, obviously that would have negative effects on my health but unrelated to what i did in my ounger years.. What i would do is a) keep exercising and b) adjust my intake to my metabolic rate. I don't see any logic or conclusive studies as to how eating a lot and becoming more muscular now will take years off my life later.
On May 25 2010 10:42 condoriano wrote: Interesting, how would you perform such a study on humans directly? All they can use is evidence that mammals live longer in general when they receive less calories and that vegetarians (or whoever else eats moderately) live longer in general. You can't just test 1000 subjects randomly, to begin with this experiment would take ~80-90 years lol. All you can play with is raw data from other sources. This is science too, you know?
Of course it's science, and I agree with the fact that it's hard to do a study that would only take a year or two, when you would need to study a lot of people for decades to get any very hard evidence. The thing is that I've been reading a lot about this now since we started discussing it, and all of the articles I've read about this (and their sources) are just so inconclusive.
The discussion did start with talking about the quantity of food you should eat while exercising regularly. My point is that even though there may be several benefits of eating less calories (in terms of longevity, the body still needs calories. A lot of the studies I read also dealt with people with different diseases going on low calorie-diets, most times ending badly. This is especially true for children, who can often experience lacking growth due to huge calorie- and fat restrictions. Now if you want to build more muscle, you have to eat more. While I may have misunderstood your point with regards to this, I'm still sure that you can't expect to maintain big muscle growth while doing calorie restrictions and not eating any proteins. You also haven't adressed what you define as "eating less", other than restricting your calories. If you wanted to get as many calories from broccoli as is found in 100g of snickers, you'd have to eat 1,7kg (for 509 kcal), which I would define as a huge meal, at least in volume. It's all about what you eat, and how many calories your body needs.
EPT
I'm talking about people in general, and how they need to be more aware of how their bodies work. And I don't see how you can call something as widely studied as calorie requirements bs. You post two vague, non-conclusive studies and say that this is truth, while everything we think about calorie reqs. is false. Sorry man, but before I read about this in the New England Journal of Medicine, I won't read to much into it. I also believe what my med. school professors are teaching us instead of this, so I don't really care about what's taught in biology or not. You may believe what you want, and that's fine by me
