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.
I'm not saying people should randomly start eating less, often times it makes no sense. If you play rugby and work out to get that mass - there's no other way for you besides eating 4k calories a day. I doubt that bodybuilders care much about their life span shortening by 10-20 years. What surprises me is that you don't think it's harder on your body compared to someone who eats twice as little. Every time you digest food you waste energy too. Your liver, your heart, your kidneys - everything's involved and isn't meant to last forever. If you process 2x the amount of food through your digestive system than why would it last just as long as if you didn't. And I'm sure it isn't all lean meat and veggies that you eat.
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.
Yeah I am not a vegetarian myself, I drink and I eat a lot of garbage food like most people do. I've just always thought that this concept had some merit. I do agree that you need all that calorie intake if you want to be muscular and have that buff body. Most people are willing to take this risk (especially with somewhat inconclusive evidence). People do steroids, how can this even compare.
Few things might change though, just like it turned out that excessive carbohydrates will lead to obesity while not that long ago higher carb intake was recommended as a part of a diet to lose weight
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.
Yeah I am not a vegetarian myself, I drink and I eat a lot of garbage food like most people do. I've just always thought that this concept had some merit. I do agree that you need all that calorie intake if you want to be muscular and have that buff body. Most people are willing to take this risk (especially with somewhat inconclusive evidence). People do steroids, how can this even compare.
Few things might change though, just like it turned out that excessive carbohydrates will lead to obesity while not that long ago higher carb intake was recommended as a part of a diet to lose weight
Sure, people do a lot of stupid things (like taking anabolic steroids for muscle growth when they don't need it per se). And yeah, it might have some merit, but the most important thing is just leading a healthy life. A healthy, fit body is naturally superior to the body of an obese person who only eats McDonalds, as well as someone who's a little underweight who just sits at his computer all day. What I'm saying is that you should calculate the number of calories according to your metabolic rate, and adjust your calorie intake accordingly. What's important is consuming less "bad calories". For example, if you were to live on just one happy meal every day, and otherwise drink coca-cola for a daily total of your required calories, you'd still have a horribly diet. If people (me included) would eat only healthy foods and exchange their consumption of coke with water and vegetables, they would naturally be healthier, even though they'd still consume the same number of calories. So it's more about "which" calories you eat, than if that number is a little over or under your daily requirements. Over time it should balance itself out, and if you want to gain/lose weight, you'll have to adjust your diet accordingly.
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.
Edit: okay, my bad, I didn't realize that quite a few people actually think that muscle can turn into fat, sorry for calling you a troll.
Now, back to the point: You gain fat simply when you eat above your maintenance level! Arnold looks fat because he lost all his muscle, not because his muscle turned into fat! Say he had a body fat of 8% while weighing 250 lbs. Now, say you weight 150 lbs and you have 11% body fat. I don't want to do the math but Arnold still has more fat then you, and when he stops working out and loses his muscle, all that's left is fat! So its not like his muscle magically turned into fat, you can't do that.
On May 25 2010 12:04 DallasTx wrote: Edit: okay, my bad, I didn't realize that quite a few people actually think that muscle can turn into fat, sorry for calling you a troll.
Now, back to the point: You gain fat simply when you eat above your maintenance level! Arnold looks fat because he lost all his muscle, not because his muscle turned into fat! Say he had a body fat of 8% while weighing 250 lbs. Now, say you weight 150 lbs and you have 11% body fat. I don't want to do the math but Arnold still has more fat then you, and when he stops working out and loses his muscle, all that's left is fat! So its not like his muscle magically turned into fat, you can't do that.
Nice edit, I was about to QQ
Way to jump the gun, as if someone uses "muscle turns into fat" literally. You lose muscle mass and gain fat, thus the expression.
Btw with your metabolism slowing down you would have to eat almost nothing. Try doing that after ~20 years of >3000 calories a day diet. You won't just lose weight either, your body will look like a huge stretched sack.
On May 25 2010 12:04 DallasTx wrote: Edit: okay, my bad, I didn't realize that quite a few people actually think that muscle can turn into fat, sorry for calling you a troll.
Now, back to the point: You gain fat simply when you eat above your maintenance level! Arnold looks fat because he lost all his muscle, not because his muscle turned into fat! Say he had a body fat of 8% while weighing 250 lbs. Now, say you weight 150 lbs and you have 11% body fat. I don't want to do the math but Arnold still has more fat then you, and when he stops working out and loses his muscle, all that's left is fat! So its not like his muscle magically turned into fat, you can't do that.
Nice edit, I was about to QQ
Way to jump the gun, as if someone uses "muscle turns into fat" literally. You lose muscle mass and gain fat, thus the expression.
Some people think its the other way around....
-------------------
Also for the OP...
Planche is definitely doable. But you MUST be willing to put in the hard work and time.
Here is someone considerably heavier than most of us doing a planche (probably in excess of 200 lbs):
Yes, as I rewrote my original sentence (before posting it) a couple of times, it came out wrong. And you are correct DallasTx, muscles does not transform into fat as they are two different types of tissue. What happens when you stop exercising though, is that you experience muscle atrophy (a decrease in muscle mass). The reduction in muscle mass and increase in fat (not only fat percentage) is what makes Arnold look bad. In any case your statement is correct, sir
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.
I'm not saying people should randomly start eating less, often times it makes no sense. If you play rugby and work out to get that mass - there's no other way for you besides eating 4k calories a day. I doubt that bodybuilders care much about their life span shortening by 10-20 years. What surprises me is that you don't think it's harder on your body compared to someone who eats twice as little. Every time you digest food you waste energy too. Your liver, your heart, your kidneys - everything's involved and isn't meant to last forever. If you process 2x the amount of food through your digestive system than why would it last just as long as if you didn't. And I'm sure it isn't all lean meat and veggies that you eat.
So you think that if i burn 4000 calories a day and eat 4000 calories a day compared to someone who burns 2000 and eats 2000 he will live longer than me?
EPT
