I've recently noticed something about the way people view skinny and/or fit people... people that aren't fat. I've been on both sides of this coin: most of my life I've been pretty fat. By most objective standards, I'm no longer fat, but I think I had the same viewpoint as most people when I was fat. Admittedly, I used some substances (read about my usage in my near-death experience post: DUMB) to help me get down to where I am now (180 lbs, 12% body fat.. no abs :[ ), but the substances never did the work for me. I spent hours in the gym while running a slightly modified PSMF (protein sparing modified fast [that's a lot of modifications!). I ate less than 1400 Calories a day, many days between 900-1200 Calories for about four months. I lifted three times a week, and walked five miles a day three times a week. There was no shortage of ass-busting going on in my quest for a six pack (which I am still on, minus the substance and extreme dieting: it's not practical for long term success)... but I digress.
The idea is that fit people can eat whatever they'd like, and they just magically burn off the Calories, because of a "high metabolism." What they never bother to notice is the decisions that person makes with eating and activity. While the fat person goes home and says "Fuck, I'm too tired to go to the gym and work out," and then pounds down half a bag of potato chips and half a pint of ice cream. The fit person says "Fuck, I'm tired and really don't want to work out," then pounds some sort of stimulant/pre-workout and does it anyway. Then they go home and have a high protein meal, and (if they're like me) they weigh everything they eat and track it meticulously so that they don't go over their Calorie allotment for the day.
The difference in the majority of fit people and fat people is not some magical combination of genetics that give them ridiculous level NEAT (Non-exercise Associated Thermogenesis --although those people exist, and we all hate them), and it's usually not from drug/steroid usage; it's the choices they make: it's priorities.
Fat people often want to make the excuse that they don't have enough time in the day to work out; the fit person must have all the time in the world to go to the gym. If the fat person didn't have to spend eight hours a day at work, and three hours commuting every day, well they'd spend that time in the gym and be JACKED. Wrong. They talk about how little time they have to prepare meals after a long day at work. Every now and then one of them will slip up and say they "just don't feel like cooking." Most people don't feel like cooking. I almost never feel like cooking. There's time to be had, even if you have to cook in bulk (brilliant idea, btw). The irony is that the fit guy next to them at work has the exact same shift, and a similar travel schedule, but they find time! Maybe fit people also have a magical potion that gives them more than 24 hours in the day.
You have more time than you think. Examine your daily routine. Does the fat person watch TV, movies, or play video games? Probably so. Could the fat person, instead, go to the gym? Of course they could. I'd say it's about sacrifice, but today, it's hardly even about that. How many of them own tablets and laptops? Probably a high percentage... could they take that with them to the gym, and walk while watching their shows? Yes, without a doubt (To note, this is how I caught up on four seasons of Breaking Bad, and several hours of Dexter and Walking Dead).
Unless you're one of less than 1.5% of the country, you're not fat because you're genetically impaired: You're fat because you're lazy. Getting fit isn't easy, and it doesn't happen overnight (I've personally gone from 225 lbs to as low as 169 lbs, and I STILL haven't gotten a six pack), but anyone can do it. Being fit is about being willing to make yourself uncomfortable, and pushing yourself through those moments when you feel like curling up with some junk food and watching a movie. It's about priorities; it's about sacrifice. If you're not willing to give up something in order to have good health, and an image that you can be proud of, then quit your bitching and continue to be fat. If you're happy being fat, awesome! If you're unhappy being fat, quit stuffing your face all day. Eat less, and move more: you'll lose weight, I promise. Most of you are too ugly to ever be a super model, but you can most certainly achieve a better look than obesity.
Hmm, I don't really disagree with anything you say however I think you're over estimating the role of exercise... I'm certainly no health expert but from what I remember from health class like a decade ago, if your body is processing carbohydrates for energy and never uses the fat stored on your body you, how can you use it? Isn't the key here to induce some form of fat-utilization by the body?
I mean sure, if you exercise you will burn carbohydrates and run out and then burn fat, and thus lose weight assuming the calorie burned/gained ratio allows.... So just a "proper" diet can "easily" lose weight... and I don't mean diet like Jenny Craig, I mean diet like, culturally. Hence the popularity of low carb diets as well... but it's like you said it's really all about life-style changes and discipline. I don't disagree or anything, I just think the emphasis on excercise and protein for muscle building it's own paradigm aside from simply being "healthy person"
I agree with you 100%. It takes a while and maybe even your own transformation to realize the many points you have mentioned. Very nice blog!
I just wanted to comment about your wanting of abs. Abs are like an extra to being healthy and definitely not a necessary. You have to work them out separately and also work out your back to get the abs to show.
On a personal note: Since you mention you have gone from 225lbs -> 170lbs, I have a question because I am in the process of dropping from 225lbs -> 180lbs. I was wondering how fast it takes if I eat around 1500 calories and work out every weekday (no weekends). I am at 198lbs right now and was wondering if it was possible to get to 180lbs by Thanksgiving. Or is 190lbs a more reasonable goal?
Also what was your thought process for 170-180lb end goal? Is it because it is considered healthy by doctors? Do you look fit? I wanted to lose weight to get my face skinnier as my main goal. Is there a significant difference in face from losing weight? I know face loses weight much slower than your stomach for example.
Thanks again for the blog!
Anyone can answer this by the way. Appreciate your input since I am on my to being healthy!
I'll agree that some larger people just don't want to put in the time, but by the same token, "skinny" people erroneously judge us bigger people based on our size with little regard for what we actually do.
I personally know workout-type people that hit the gym almost everyday, are ripped or are working towards getting ripped, doing their calorie counting, and their protein shakes etc... I also know average people that are able to eat 3000+ calories a day and not gain any weight whatsoever. Does that make them good or bad, or proactive or lazy? No, that's just their lifestyle that they want.
Skinny people, or people that workout cause it makes them appear better than others do the misappropriation of what fat people do (unless of course the fat person is complaining or divulging information). They don't actually know whether they're dieting and exercising, or making healthy meals, etc...
They also don't even take into account whether that person actually is pretty healthy and fit medically speaking. Believe it or not, "fat" people can actually be relatively healthy. Source.
I speak from my personal experience, but there's no way I'm alone. I have a diabetic (among other issues she has) mother who was skinny until more medical complications affected her weight. She had me and I was born at 10 lbs. and 10 ounces. I was a big baby, and that "extra" weight has never really went away.
I've been playing sports my entire life; played hockey every winter since I was four years old. Mixed soccer and baseball over the rest of my childhood and teenage years. Played on multiple teams throughout elementary and high school. I still play ball hockey three seasons of the year (usually 3-4 games per week) on top of a physical job five days a week and an occasional 3km run.
I also don't eat crazily bad, but I don't eat amazingly healthy either, and my weight has never fluctuated at all. The only time it ever did was when I did a period of a 3km route every single night, and that weight drop was most likely simply from my body being dehydrated.
I'm 5'9" and 240 lbs (pics for reference 1, 2). Medically, I have no problems, and none of my tests have ever indicated an issue (though I've never asked to be checked regarding a genetic component) and in general, I've been told my health is better than a lot of "average" people. I'm not defined in the least, and that leads to a lot of people's assumptions about my composition as well as others.
It was a nice post, and hopefully it motivates some people, but it's not always that simple.
On November 01 2012 22:46 Motiva wrote: Hmm, I don't really disagree with anything you say however I think you're over estimating the role of exercise... I'm certainly no health expert but from what I remember from health class like a decade ago, if your body is processing carbohydrates for energy and never uses the fat stored on your body you, how can you use it? Isn't the key here to induce some form of fat-utilization by the body?
I mean sure, if you exercise you will burn carbohydrates and run out and then burn fat, and thus lose weight assuming the calorie burned/gained ratio allows.... So just a "proper" diet can "easily" lose weight... and I don't mean diet like Jenny Craig, I mean diet like, culturally. Hence the popularity of low carb diets as well... but it's like you said it's really all about life-style changes and discipline. I don't disagree or anything, I just think the emphasis on excercise and protein for muscle building it's own paradigm aside from simply being "healthy person"
"Eat less, and move more: you'll lose weight, I promise."
Carbs vs fat vs protein... if you have too much of any of them, you'll be fat. If you use fewer Calories than you eat every day, you'll get fat. If you use more Calories than you eat every day, you'll lose weight. This is the basis of it. I'm only stating this because you talked about carbs for energy, etc, and it's rather irrelevant what your source of energy is. You couldn't eat enough protein to get fat, because of the high satiety of protein. Like if you're on a 2000 kcal diet, that's 500 g Protein every day, if you were to try to eat purely protein. Not only is that not cost effective, it's really hard to eat that much protein every day at a normal weight (bigger people probably can). It's just too satiating.
But, while I understand how your perspective comes about, I most certainly do not over estimate the importance (or worth) of exercise.
While the fat person goes home and says "Fuck, I'm too tired to go to the gym and work out," and then pounds down half a bag of potato chips and half a pint of ice cream. The fit person says "Fuck, I'm tired and really don't want to work out," then pounds some sort of stimulant/pre-workout and does it anyway. Then they go home and have a high protein meal, and (if they're like me) they weigh everything they eat and track it meticulously so that they don't go over their Calorie allotment for the day.
In other words, one person moves less and eats shit; one person moves more and eats well. I also had the bit about food preparation. So, just to be clear, I'm not at all overlooking the importance of diet. Diet is a much higher percentage of the work than the actual physical work is. It's very possible to eat well and lose weight, and have a healthy body weight, etc. It's not very likely to be able to out exercise an absolute shit diet (although, I imagine some of the more physically demanding jobs will allow for crappier eating). You probably won't be jacked from just eating well (since you'll never really build any of that gorgeous muscle we all want), but you won't be a fatty mcfat fat either.
also OP, My friend mentioned that if you eat less (like you are talking about) it slows down your metabolism therefore not even helping you out in the long run. As soon as you stop working out, you gain all the weight back because you slowed your metablolism. Have you encountered this problem?
On November 01 2012 22:52 needcomputer wrote: I agree with you 100%. It takes a while and maybe even your own transformation to realize the many points you have mentioned. Very nice blog!
I just wanted to comment about your wanting of abs. Abs are like an extra to being healthy and definitely not a necessary. You have to work them out separately and also work out your back to get the abs to show.
On a personal note: Since you mention you have gone from 225lbs -> 170lbs, I have a question because I am in the process of dropping from 225lbs -> 180lbs. I was wondering how fast it takes if I eat around 1500 calories and work out every weekday (no weekends). I am at 198lbs right now and was wondering if it was possible to get to 180lbs by Thanksgiving. Or is 190lbs a more reasonable goal?
Also what was your thought process for 170-180lb end goal? Is it because it is considered healthy by doctors? Do you look fit? I wanted to lose weight to get my face skinnier as my main goal. Is there a significant difference in face from losing weight? I know face loses weight much slower than your stomach for example.
Thanks again for the blog!
Anyone can answer this by the way. Appreciate your input since I am on my to being healthy!
I'm not really sure. I pounded DNP at as high as 800mg/ED before I stupidly bumped up to 1.2g and landed in the ICU for a day. Three weeks or so isn't a ton of time to drop 18 lbs. You may lose that, but probably half is going to be water weight, I think. Once you carb up, your weight will spike because you'll have replenished glycogen stores in your muscles (this is what the "depleted" look means, you've depleted glycogen stores).
Figure that to lose 18 lbs of pure fat, you'll need to burn 63,000 Calories. Then also consider that you likely won't be burning 100% fat. Muscle is 600 Calories/lb. Figuring, by Lyle McDonald's standards, that you'd need 198*15 to stay at 198 lbs, that's 2970 Calories/Day. So you'd be at 1470 deficit just from diet, and maybe a few hundred extra from exercise (so figure maybe 18-1900/day?). By those calculations (which are very rough and don't account for much, like metabolic slow down, etc) that would take 35 days. Lyle is also where I got the 600 Calories/lb of muscle measurement, but I can't find that link. Calculating Calories is linked below though.
On November 01 2012 22:59 needcomputer wrote: also OP, My friend mentioned that if you eat less (like you are talking about) it slows down your metabolism therefore not even helping you out in the long run. As soon as you stop working out, you gain all the weight back because you slowed your metablolism. Have you encountered this problem?
Metabolic rate will always slow down when you lose weight. It takes more energy to run a body that weighs 200lbs than it does to run a body that weighs 150lbs. This is irrelevant. Your maintenance Caloric levels lower as you lose weight. Your appetite may not, but this is where self-control comes in. I imagine that, eventually, your stomach will shrink and you won't be as hungry all the time. From what I know of your body's setpoint, it doesn't ever come down, but I somewhat find that hard to believe, given that people lose weight and keep it off for years. I have nothing to back up my position, and I don't think there's a whole lot of work that's been done on setpoint, so it's all mental wanking anyway. The point is that what your friend is saying is irrelevant. If you go back to eating the way you used to eat (which got you fat in the first place), then yes, you will get fat. If you continue to eat at reasonable levels, you won't. So far, I've been at 180 (give or take a few lbs) for about three months. I haven't had issues with hunger or weight gain.
On November 01 2012 22:54 divito wrote: I'll agree that some larger people just don't want to put in the time, but by the same token, "skinny" people erroneously judge us bigger people based on our size with little regard for what we actually do.
I personally know workout-type people that hit the gym almost everyday, are ripped or are working towards getting ripped, doing their calorie counting, and their protein shakes etc... I also know average people that are able to eat 3000+ calories a day and not gain any weight whatsoever. Does that make them good or bad, or proactive or lazy? No, that's just their lifestyle that they want.
Skinny people, or people that workout cause it makes them appear better than others do the misappropriation of what fat people do (unless of course the fat person is complaining or divulging information). They don't actually know whether they're dieting and exercising, or making healthy meals, etc...
They also don't even take into account whether that person actually is pretty healthy and fit medically speaking. Believe it or not, "fat" people can actually be relatively healthy. Source.
I speak from my personal experience, but there's no way I'm alone. I have a diabetic (among other issues she has) mother who was skinny until more medical complications affected her weight. She had me and I was born at 10 lbs. and 10 ounces. I was a big baby, and that "extra" weight has never really went away.
I've been playing sports my entire life; played hockey every winter since I was four years old. Mixed soccer and baseball over the rest of my childhood and teenage years. Played on multiple teams throughout elementary and high school. I still play ball hockey three seasons of the year (usually 3-4 games per week) on top of a physical job five days a week and an occasional 3km run.
I also don't eat crazily bad, but I don't eat amazingly healthy either, and my weight has never fluctuated at all. The only time it ever did was when I did a period of a 3km route every single night, and that weight drop was most likely simply from my body being dehydrated.
I'm 5'9" and 240 lbs (pics for reference 1, 2). Medically, I have no problems, and none of my tests have ever indicated an issue (though I've never asked to be checked regarding a genetic component) and in general, I've been told my health is better than a lot of "average" people. I'm not defined in the least, and that leads to a lot of people's assumptions about my composition as well as others.
It was a nice post, and hopefully it motivates some people, but it's not always that simple.
I assume your mother was DM1, not DM2, right? That's genetic, not much can be done to help that. Many cases of DM2 are almost entirely reversible with a diet and exercise regiment that promotes weight and fat loss. There are lots of reasons for this, most of which I'm not nearly qualified enough to comment on.
You look like you're about 18-20% body fat, which is not obese. You're not even really fat, you're just a bigger guy. Could you be less fat? I think both of us would agree that you could. You're obviously not trying to be less fat, but I think if you did try to be less fat, you could lose some fat. You admit to not really watching what you eat, but I imagine if you actually sat down and mapped out a 2000 Calorie diet you'd find yourself losing weight fairly quickly. It's also entirely possible that you have some genetic problem that causes you to be mildly overweight. Thyroid issues cause weight gain of something like 15-20 lbs in most people. If you stripped 20 lbs of fat off of your body, you'd be fairly lean. Your body type and size is almost exactly what I came down from: I'm also 5'9".
Either way, you're happy with your size, and that's awesome. If a fat person is happy with their size, and they're not unhealthy (or if they are and don't give a fuck), then that's awesome too. I don't particularly care if people are fat or not, but I am a bit tired of hearing the fatties complain about being fat while putting in absolutely zero effort to lose the fat. They claim they have "fat genetics," and then FB post about what kind of midnight snack to make that night, right after the one say "SO TIRED! Skipping the treadmill tonight." These are the people that I'm talking about (this was a FB post of mine, to begin with, minus the admittance of using drugs, ha).
I only mentioned carbs I suppose because that's what the standard american diet is... the govt subsidizes corn and all that you know i'm sure obviously regardless of where you're from.... So most people run off of carbs and almost never burn the fat.... I don't wanna pull random numbers out of my ass but here I go :D lol, The human body only stores so many carbs for future use at a time, like 2,000 calories, but can do something like 80x that in fat? I dunno exact numbers.. I'm referring to people with large amounts of fat stored on a primarily carb based diet. (the avg american) but yeee I'm sure you know more about this than me, don't take this as argumentation, just edification and conversation :D
I guess I really only disagree with your point that muscles are gorgeous and we all want that... I've had sufficient strength since i was 15 for anything I've ever had to do and certainly don't need to be fit to find a mate let alone have muscles... It's like you say in another post in the thread, it's all about being happy with your health/size
yada yada tis just rephrasing of my initial intent, It's not like you're saying anything that is false, It's just a double sided coin, and not being obsessed with your health when healthy is healthy. (definitely not saying people with healthy exercise routines are obsessing, perhaps hyperbolic hi5)
I suppose I just have had a lot of experience with people obsessed with their weight that exercise a lot and "pretend" to manage their diets. i.e. bulemic girlfriend years ago that would eat well all day, exercise, and then cram 200 carbs down their throat at some weak point, or insisted on eating giant American restaurant meals. When we started dating i was 170 and went to 210 in about a year. Participating in her "diet" LOL It's just a joke. On the other side of the coin I know people who simply went from fast-food and microwave popcorn/burritos to a clean paleo diet and lost all the weight without lifting a finger. I suppose It's just whatever works for you, some people want muscles or like the endorphins from exercise, some people are content and just don't want to die diabetic.
On November 01 2012 22:24 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: It's about priorities; it's about sacrifice. If you're not willing to give up something in order to have good health, and an image that you can be proud of, then quit your bitching and continue to be fat. If you're happy being fat, awesome! If you're unhappy being fat, quit stuffing your face all day. Eat less, and move more: you'll lose weight, I promise. Most of you are too ugly to ever be a super model, but you can most certainly achieve a better look than obesity.
In this only sentence, you have made an okayish blog into an awesome one! So rare to see people with this attitude these days.
I am quite fat and I know it is because I am not doing anything against it. But it is not just about being "lazy" - it's about the general approach to life. I am definitely not willing to calculate calories or to follow a diet, because I absolutely hate doing anything routnely or systematically (I also refuse to have a normal job with fixed hours for this reason). I am also not willing to do anything just for the sake of working out (because I would get bored to death). The only thing that saves me from being a big sperical blob of fat is that I love nature and exploring the outdoors and that forces me to walk/bike/paddle to get to the places I wanna be.
On November 01 2012 22:24 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: It's about priorities; it's about sacrifice. If you're not willing to give up something in order to have good health, and an image that you can be proud of, then quit your bitching and continue to be fat. If you're happy being fat, awesome! If you're unhappy being fat, quit stuffing your face all day. Eat less, and move more: you'll lose weight, I promise. Most of you are too ugly to ever be a super model, but you can most certainly achieve a better look than obesity.
In this only sentence, you have made an okayish blog into an awesome one! So rare to see people with this attitude these days.
I am quite fat and I know it is because I am not doing anything against it. But it is not just about being "lazy" - it's about the general approach to life. I am definitely not willing to calculate calories or to follow a diet, because I absolutely hate doing anything routnely or systematically (I also refuse to have a normal job with fixed hours for this reason). I am also not willing to do anything just for the sake of working out (because I would get bored to death). The only thing that saves me from being a big sperical blob of fat is that I love nature and exploring the outdoors and that forces me to walk/bike/paddle to get to the places I wanna be.
Thanks. Yeah, I think that's cool. I have plenty of fat friends that are completely satisfied being fat. I don't care... I'm certainly not here to judge people's physiques (mine isn't even that good, imo). I guess the whole point of this is to say, "do what makes you happy, but if you're unhappy, quit whining and do something about it."
On November 01 2012 23:30 Motiva wrote:
I only mentioned carbs I suppose because that's what the standard american diet is... the govt subsidizes corn and all that you know i'm sure obviously regardless of where you're from.... So most people run off of carbs and almost never burn the fat.... I don't wanna pull random numbers out of my ass but here I go :D lol, The human body only stores so many carbs for future use at a time, like 2,000 calories, but can do something like 80x that in fat? I dunno exact numbers.. I'm referring to people with large amounts of fat stored on a primarily carb based diet. (the avg american) but yeee I'm sure you know more about this than me, don't take this as argumentation, just edification and conversation :D
I guess I really only disagree with your point that muscles are gorgeous and we all want that... I've had sufficient strength since i was 15 for anything I've ever had to do and certainly don't need to be fit to find a mate let alone have muscles... It's like you say in another post in the thread, it's all about being happy with your health/size
yada yada tis just rephrasing of my initial intent, It's not like you're saying anything that is false, It's just a double sided coin, and not being obsessed with your health when healthy is healthy. (definitely not saying people with healthy exercise routines are obsessing, perhaps hyperbolic hi5)
I suppose I just have had a lot of experience with people obsessed with their weight that exercise a lot and "pretend" to manage their diets. i.e. bulemic girlfriend years ago that would eat well all day, exercise, and then cram 200 carbs down their throat at some weak point, or insisted on eating giant American restaurant meals. When we started dating i was 170 and went to 210 in about a year. Participating in her "diet" LOL It's just a joke. On the other side of the coin I know people who simply went from fast-food and microwave popcorn/burritos to a clean paleo diet and lost all the weight without lifting a finger. I suppose It's just whatever works for you, some people want muscles or like the endorphins from exercise, some people are content and just don't want to die diabetic.
Yeah, muscles aren't for everyone I guess. Some people like not having them, some people like to look like Ronnie Coleman (not my style, personally). Whatever makes you happy.
I think the amount of carbs that your muscles store is significantly lower than 2000 kcal. Fat seems to be pretty much endless though, from what I can tell (see: Half-ton people). Carbs rarely turn into fat though, but if you eat a high Calorie diet, it probably includes fat, and if you're intaking excess Calories, your body will store the fat that it takes in. Carbs have to undergo a process called Gluconeogenesis (I think that's right), which is pretty rare in humans. From what I've read, you'd have to intake like 2-3x's body weight in grams of carbs (2-3g/lb of body weight) for several days before your body started converting carbs to fat.
The thing I love about Lyle is that if there's a topic related to fitness/nutrition that you're interested in learning about, he's probably done a ton of legwork on it already. So, here's yet another link to his site.
Being fit is a discipline, and it's difficult for a lot of people. It's a choice, and I completely understand why some people choose not to become fit, as it's simply not worth their time and effort (and it's more or less a lifetime commitment if you want to stay fit forever).
Once I start interviewing candidates, people who are fit will earn themselves a big plus in my book, because it shows that they have the discipline to stay fit.
The difference in the majority of fit people and fat people is not some magical combination of genetics that give them ridiculous level NEAT (Non-exercise Associated Thermogenesis --although those people exist, and we all hate them), and it's usually not from drug/steroid usage; it's the choices they make: it's priorities.
Bullshit. The majority difference between skinny people and fat people, at least in younger populations, is mostly due to genetics. Most skinny people have low appetities, high NEATs (up to 800-1000kcal/day), and some even get less calories from foods than fat people. Most skinny people have about has hard of a time gaining weight as fat people do losing weight.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that fat people cannot lose weight if they try. I'm just saying that it's wrong to imply all people that aren't fat have worked hard at it.
also OP, My friend mentioned that if you eat less (like you are talking about) it slows down your metabolism therefore not even helping you out in the long run. As soon as you stop working out, you gain all the weight back because you slowed your metablolism. Have you encountered this problem?
Broscience. Metabolism downregulates by a maximum of about 200kcal, which is easily compensated for. The reason people gain weight back after a diet is because they go right back to their unhealthy lifestyle that they had before the weight loss.
I personally know workout-type people that hit the gym almost everyday, are ripped or are working towards getting ripped, doing their calorie counting, and their protein shakes etc... I also know average people that are able to eat 3000+ calories a day and not gain any weight whatsoever. Does that make them good or bad, or proactive or lazy? No, that's just their lifestyle that they want.
Yes, those people eating 3000+ calories a day must have high NEATs and get less calories from their food (assuming, of course, that they actually DO eat 3000+ calories/day). That doesn't mean you can't lose weight. It just means you have to work harder at it.
I'm 5'9" and 240 lbs (pics for reference 1, 2). Medically, I have no problems, and none of my tests have ever indicated an issue (though I've never asked to be checked regarding a genetic component) and in general, I've been told my health is better than a lot of "average" people. I'm not defined in the least, and that leads to a lot of people's assumptions about my composition as well as others.
It was a nice post, and hopefully it motivates some people, but it's not always that simple.
For 99.99% of people, it IS that simple. Want to lose weight? Create a caloric deficit. Trivially true by conservation of energy. If you ate 1500 kcal/day, I guarantee you you'd lose weight.
Hmm, I don't really disagree with anything you say however I think you're over estimating the role of exercise... I'm certainly no health expert but from what I remember from health class like a decade ago, if your body is processing carbohydrates for energy and never uses the fat stored on your body you, how can you use it? Isn't the key here to induce some form of fat-utilization by the body?
I mean sure, if you exercise you will burn carbohydrates and run out and then burn fat, and thus lose weight assuming the calorie burned/gained ratio allows.... So just a "proper" diet can "easily" lose weight... and I don't mean diet like Jenny Craig, I mean diet like, culturally. Hence the popularity of low carb diets as well... but it's like you said it's really all about life-style changes and discipline. I don't disagree or anything, I just think the emphasis on excercise and protein for muscle building it's own paradigm aside from simply being "healthy person"
Low-carb vs high-carb has almost no effect on weight loss. While it's true that eating a lot of carbs makes your body more likely to store fat, the thing is that if you keep calories constant and go from a low-carb to a high carb diet, you must also decrease your fat intake.
You see kids at 8 years old with a fit stomach and skinny physique and another kid at 8 years old who is obese. I'm sure these kids have vastly different work ethics right? No...
I've always been the same basic weight. I've done lots of gaming and almost no excercise to hours of excercise every day with very little food, gone from vegan diets, to lean fish diets etc depending mostly on my ethical stance and my weight has never really changed.
I always have been a guy with a bit of a beer belly but still being able to suck it in and see my ribs. And the skinny/fat guys I've known for a long time have been like that since they were kids.
On November 02 2012 00:19 Scholera wrote: I don't really agree with this at all.
You see kids at 8 years old with a fit stomach and skinny physique and another kid at 8 years old who is obese. I'm sure these kids have vastly different work ethics right? No...
I've always been the same basic weight. I've done lots of gaming and almost no excercise to hours of excercise every day with very little food, gone from vegan diets, to lean fish diets etc depending mostly on my ethical stance and my weight has never really changed.
I always have been a guy with a bit of a beer belly but still being able to suck it in and see my ribs. And the skinny/fat guys I've known for a long time have been like that since they were kids.
If it's such a simple decision based thing, why did nothing change from me playing almost only MMO to me playing almost only sports and switching to a lean vegan diet from my previous cheese based one?
skinny doesn't mean fit
you are reading this blog from the wrong side: he's saying fat people are fat (mostly) by choice, and those who stay fat shouldn't whine about it.
I liked your post very much. Getting a six pack is a pain in the ass, never had a "real" one. Mainly because of bad drinking habits and being full of water all day.
I am now in my late 20's. I am very active since I was 4 and started to play football (the real one, played with the feet, you strange Americans). I was never fat in my life. I am 6'2 and 180 lbs.
For me being active is not really about sacrifice. It is fun for me, might help that we have a shitty TV program over here, but I rather do some sports than lay on my couch.
Personally I don't like cooking on working days, it is really a bit annoying, especially if you additionally need to buy some stuff in the supermarket, washing your laundry or whatever. In these situations I always get a bit stressed about the fact that I need to invest some more time into cooking. I have the luxury that I don't need to watch calories and stuff. I can have around 3000 a day over a longer period of time without gaining weight. My normal intake is around 2500. In my highly active times where I needed to hit a weightlimit and needed to "muscle up" I had up to 5000 a day which sucked, eating was not fun anymore, eating was way heavier than doing the exercise routins.
On the weekends I like cooking, you can invite people to your place drink a bit, prepare your meal and goof around a bit before going to the club/pub whatever. You can make a small event out of it.
I agree with you that may people are just lazy. You don't even need to go to the gym. Just do your daily stuff with your bike. Hell most of us are tied to an office chair for 8-10 hours a day and many people are still to lazy to ride 15 minutes with their bikes to the next supermarket. They rather take the car. Priority seems to be to move as less as somehow possible. And then people wonder why everybody gets so fat. I try to do as much as possible of my daily stuff without my car. As already pointed out, I am tied to a chair for 9 hours a day either way, I don't feel the urge to tie myself to the seat of my car instead in my sparetime.
Overall I congratulate you on your efforts to get more active. Despite all the work, which might be annoying from time to time, at the end of the day you just feel better with sports. The weight loss in your case is an additional plus. Keep on going
On November 02 2012 00:19 Scholera wrote: I don't really agree with this at all.
You see kids at 8 years old with a fit stomach and skinny physique and another kid at 8 years old who is obese. I'm sure these kids have vastly different work ethics right? No...
I've always been the same basic weight. I've done lots of gaming and almost no excercise to hours of excercise every day with very little food, gone from vegan diets, to lean fish diets etc depending mostly on my ethical stance and my weight has never really changed.
I always have been a guy with a bit of a beer belly but still being able to suck it in and see my ribs. And the skinny/fat guys I've known for a long time have been like that since they were kids.
If it's such a simple decision based thing, why did nothing change from me playing almost only MMO to me playing almost only sports and switching to a lean vegan diet from my previous cheese based one?
skinny doesn't mean fit
you are reading this blog from the wrong side: he's saying fat people are fat (mostly) by choice, and those who stay fat shouldn't whine about it.
Skinny means fitter than being fat. To a fat person, a skinny person is fit and to only like 5% of the population who is actually fit is a skinny person viewed as unfit.
I'm saying stop being so holier than thou. Chances are, your the way you are because of the portions and diet your parents gave you in your formative years, not because you're so much better as a person.
I think the writer of this has a warped view because he used to be fat and changed.
Probably over 66% of people stay in line relative to the weight they had when they were born and 90% or so with their relative weight as a small child. And then maybe 10% were skinny and got fat because of being so super lazy or were fat and did "omg im gonna change my life and bla bla bla" got fit.
I know very lazy skinny people and hardworking fatter people.
On November 02 2012 00:19 Scholera wrote: I don't really agree with this at all.
You see kids at 8 years old with a fit stomach and skinny physique and another kid at 8 years old who is obese. I'm sure these kids have vastly different work ethics right? No...
I've always been the same basic weight. I've done lots of gaming and almost no excercise to hours of excercise every day with very little food, gone from vegan diets, to lean fish diets etc depending mostly on my ethical stance and my weight has never really changed.
I always have been a guy with a bit of a beer belly but still being able to suck it in and see my ribs. And the skinny/fat guys I've known for a long time have been like that since they were kids.
If it's such a simple decision based thing, why did nothing change from me playing almost only MMO to me playing almost only sports and switching to a lean vegan diet from my previous cheese based one?
skinny doesn't mean fit
you are reading this blog from the wrong side: he's saying fat people are fat (mostly) by choice, and those who stay fat shouldn't whine about it.
Look at first sentence of OP.
"I've recently noticed something about the way people view skinny/fit people... people that aren't fat. "
On November 02 2012 00:19 Scholera wrote: I don't really agree with this at all.
You see kids at 8 years old with a fit stomach and skinny physique and another kid at 8 years old who is obese. I'm sure these kids have vastly different work ethics right? No...
I've always been the same basic weight. I've done lots of gaming and almost no excercise to hours of excercise every day with very little food, gone from vegan diets, to lean fish diets etc depending mostly on my ethical stance and my weight has never really changed.
I always have been a guy with a bit of a beer belly but still being able to suck it in and see my ribs. And the skinny/fat guys I've known for a long time have been like that since they were kids.
If it's such a simple decision based thing, why did nothing change from me playing almost only MMO to me playing almost only sports and switching to a lean vegan diet from my previous cheese based one?
skinny doesn't mean fit
you are reading this blog from the wrong side: he's saying fat people are fat (mostly) by choice, and those who stay fat shouldn't whine about it.
Look at first sentence of OP.
"I've recently noticed something about the way people view skinny/fit people... people that aren't fat. "
yes, but continue reading... the entire blog talks about how he was fat, and what sacrifices he made to become fit, and how other fat people could achieve similar results if they have similar determinations
everything else is besides the point he's making and you are just picking bones from eggs
My general bodyfat physique has been consistent with as a small child. (16)
52%
I used to be skinny as a kid now I'm fat or vice versa (15)
48%
31 total votes
Your vote: How much has your weight changed?
(Vote): My general bodyfat physique has been consistent with as a small child. (Vote): I used to be skinny as a kid now I'm fat or vice versa
I just do disagree with the apparent message of this thread. People are born at vastly different weights and depending mostly on not their ethics but on the diet their parents gave them as an infant, stay in line with that.
I stopped growing since I was fifteen? I'm 23 now, and when I buy beer, people tell me, "I can't sell beer to a thirteen year old." I show them my ID, and sometimes they will accept it. Still same weight from all those years ago... Though, I can eat 3k calories daily and sit around doing nothing. (have done this before, though I don't like to anymore)
I'm not skinny by choice. My metabolism is just too fucking fast. It'd be awesome to not look like a 13 y.o.
As someone who went from being rolling in dough rolls to losing majority of it, I find it ever insulting whenever anyone attempts to claim that they have "tried" to lose weight. Like the OP says, the actual number of people with legitimate excuse in which they are simply UNABLE to effectively lose weight even with a proper process and method are infinitely small.
While it is certainly true that other people have an easier time on maintaining certain weight boundaries (likewise, I find it difficult to remain non-obese without profusely watching what I eat and exercising regularly), there is almost no cases in which it is simply not humanly feasible to obtain a more healthier and fit body.
On November 02 2012 00:15 APurpleCow wrote: Low-carb vs high-carb has almost no effect on weight loss. While it's true that eating a lot of carbs makes your body more likely to store fat, the thing is that if you keep calories constant and go from a low-carb to a high carb diet, you must also decrease your fat intake.
Yea, I agree, I was simply trying to illustrate the difference between a standard american diet (high fat, high carb, obviously bad) with the efficiency of some sort of ketogenic diet... The examples were semi-random based on the obvious context of popular Low-Carb diets and the "Standard" American Diet. It's not hard to never have to starve yourself, spend 15hrs/week in the gym, "eat less" or count calories if you simply had the proper diet.... I dunno just the same point of eating a less calorie dense diet instead of obsessing... yadayada
Yea, I agree, I was simply trying to illustrate the difference between a standard american diet (high fat, high carb, obviously bad) with the efficiency of some sort of ketogenic diet... The examples were semi-random based on the obvious context of popular Low-Carb diets and the "Standard" American Diet. It's not hard to never have to starve yourself, "eat less" or count calories if you simply had the proper diet let alone spend 15hrs/week in the gym.... I dunno just the same point of eating a less calorie dense diet instead of obsessing... yadayada
That's true for some, but not true for a lot. Many fat people feel a lot of hunger on a 1500-2000 kcal/day whether their diet is ketogenic or not.
The difference in the majority of fit people and fat people is not some magical combination of genetics that give them ridiculous level NEAT (Non-exercise Associated Thermogenesis --although those people exist, and we all hate them), and it's usually not from drug/steroid usage; it's the choices they make: it's priorities.
Bullshit. The majority difference between skinny people and fat people, at least in younger populations, is mostly due to genetics. Most skinny people have low appetities, high NEATs (up to 800-1000kcal/day), and some even get less calories from foods than fat people. Most skinny people have about has hard of a time gaining weight as fat people do losing weight.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that fat people cannot lose weight if they try. I'm just saying that it's wrong to imply all people that aren't fat have worked hard at it.
also OP, My friend mentioned that if you eat less (like you are talking about) it slows down your metabolism therefore not even helping you out in the long run. As soon as you stop working out, you gain all the weight back because you slowed your metablolism. Have you encountered this problem?
Broscience. Metabolism downregulates by a maximum of about 200kcal, which is easily compensated for. The reason people gain weight back after a diet is because they go right back to their unhealthy lifestyle that they had before the weight loss.
I personally know workout-type people that hit the gym almost everyday, are ripped or are working towards getting ripped, doing their calorie counting, and their protein shakes etc... I also know average people that are able to eat 3000+ calories a day and not gain any weight whatsoever. Does that make them good or bad, or proactive or lazy? No, that's just their lifestyle that they want.
Yes, those people eating 3000+ calories a day must have high NEATs and get less calories from their food (assuming, of course, that they actually DO eat 3000+ calories/day). That doesn't mean you can't lose weight. It just means you have to work harder at it.
I'm 5'9" and 240 lbs (pics for reference 1, 2). Medically, I have no problems, and none of my tests have ever indicated an issue (though I've never asked to be checked regarding a genetic component) and in general, I've been told my health is better than a lot of "average" people. I'm not defined in the least, and that leads to a lot of people's assumptions about my composition as well as others.
It was a nice post, and hopefully it motivates some people, but it's not always that simple.
For 99.99% of people, it IS that simple. Want to lose weight? Create a caloric deficit. Trivially true by conservation of energy. If you ate 1500 kcal/day, I guarantee you you'd lose weight.
Hmm, I don't really disagree with anything you say however I think you're over estimating the role of exercise... I'm certainly no health expert but from what I remember from health class like a decade ago, if your body is processing carbohydrates for energy and never uses the fat stored on your body you, how can you use it? Isn't the key here to induce some form of fat-utilization by the body?
I mean sure, if you exercise you will burn carbohydrates and run out and then burn fat, and thus lose weight assuming the calorie burned/gained ratio allows.... So just a "proper" diet can "easily" lose weight... and I don't mean diet like Jenny Craig, I mean diet like, culturally. Hence the popularity of low carb diets as well... but it's like you said it's really all about life-style changes and discipline. I don't disagree or anything, I just think the emphasis on excercise and protein for muscle building it's own paradigm aside from simply being "healthy person"
Low-carb vs high-carb has almost no effect on weight loss. While it's true that eating a lot of carbs makes your body more likely to store fat, the thing is that if you keep calories constant and go from a low-carb to a high carb diet, you must also decrease your fat intake.
I haven't implied that at all. Fat is a relative term. At ~12%, imo, I'm fat. When I say fat, I actually mean obese (as defined, which I think is like 25% BF). What I've said isn't bullshit at all. IN FACT, everything else you said is basically exactly what I said. But it seems you like to nitpick, and you want to show how much you know, so you pulled the one sentence you could find disagreement in to show how superior your knowledge is to everyone here. I actually do the same thing all the time, because I'm a narcissist and I want everyone to awe at me. The truth is though, I don't know that much. You may know more than me, couldn't care less, but nitpicking on something because you're inferring something that I haven't said is not worthwhile discussion.
On November 02 2012 00:19 Scholera wrote: I don't really agree with this at all.
You see kids at 8 years old with a fit stomach and skinny physique and another kid at 8 years old who is obese. I'm sure these kids have vastly different work ethics right? No...
I've always been the same basic weight. I've done lots of gaming and almost no excercise to hours of excercise every day with very little food, gone from vegan diets, to lean fish diets etc depending mostly on my ethical stance and my weight has never really changed.
I always have been a guy with a bit of a beer belly but still being able to suck it in and see my ribs. And the skinny/fat guys I've known for a long time have been like that since they were kids.
If it's such a simple decision based thing, why did nothing change from me playing almost only MMO to me playing almost only sports and switching to a lean vegan diet from my previous cheese based one?
skinny doesn't mean fit
you are reading this blog from the wrong side: he's saying fat people are fat (mostly) by choice, and those who stay fat shouldn't whine about it.
Skinny means fitter than being fat. To a fat person, a skinny person is fit and to only like 5% of the population who is actually fit is a skinny person viewed as unfit.
I'm saying stop being so holier than thou. Chances are, your the way you are because of the portions and diet your parents gave you in your formative years, not because you're so much better as a person.
I think the writer of this has a warped view because he used to be fat and changed.
Probably over 66% of people stay in line relative to the weight they had when they were born and 90% or so with their relative weight as a small child. And then maybe 10% were skinny and got fat because of being so super lazy or were fat and did "omg im gonna change my life and bla bla bla" got fit.
I know very lazy skinny people and hardworking fatter people.
Another person inferring things that aren't there.
Habitual causes for being fat are no reason to stay fat if you're unhappy being fat. The majority of people fall into a magical world where Calories aren't Calories, and it takes magic to lose fat. It's the reason that "SIX FAT BURNING SECRETS" sell so well. It's the reason that people on low carb forums tell a person that if they stop using one small creamer in their coffee each day that they'll begin to lose weight again, and even go as far as to suggest they use whole cream instead (as if cream doesn't contain the same sugar as milk, right? But they do it anyway).
People wishing to live in a world of magical substitutes for hard work and dedication to losing weight (which hard work can be defined in any way you'd like, changing a lifetime of bad habits is hard work, imo). They want magic bullets, and secrets. Skinny people have them, and they aren't willing to share them. If this wasn't true, all the fad diets of the world wouldn't exist. It's why the supplement industry pushes the type of advertising that they push down our throats: It's why most of these worthless supplements exist in the first place.
The basis of it is that many people do not want to accept responsibility for being fat. If your parents taught you bad eating habits, then learn new ones. There is a world of information available to us that we can use to teach ourselves about anything we desire to learn about. Most people aren't willing to go find it. Fat people lose tons of weight all the time, but fail to realize that losing weight isn't a destination goal. Once you're there, you don't get to go back to your old ways. It's a mistake a lot of people make. It's at least part of the reason the whole myth of massive metabolic slowdown is still so widely talked about when it comes to Calorie restriction.
That's the cold, hard truth. Spend a few weeks on some fitness forums, or some nutrition forums.. you'll quickly find that most of the out of shape (skinny, or fat, or skinny-fat) people fall into this zone. Most people's fatness is based on habitual problems, not genetics.
I haven't implied that at all. Fat is a relative term. At ~12%, imo, I'm fat. When I say fat, I actually mean obese (as defined, which I think is like 25% BF). What I've said isn't bullshit at all. IN FACT, everything else you said is basically exactly what I said. But it seems you like to nitpick, and you want to show how much you know, so you pulled the one sentence you could find disagreement in to show how superior your knowledge is to everyone here. I actually do the same thing all the time, because I'm a narcissist and I want everyone to awe at me. The truth is though, I don't know that much. You may know more than me, couldn't care less, but nitpicking on something because you're inferring something that I haven't said is not worthwhile discussion.
Otherwise, I agree with what you've said.
That's a really cool veiled ad hominem attack and stuff.
I think the coolest part, though, is that throughout the entire post you disagreed with nothing I said, so the entire reason you posted was to make it seem like nothing you said was wrong or misleading, as you're too narcissistic to accept that, while trying to make yourself appear above your own narcissism and superior to mine.
No, but seriously, you conflated skinny people with fit people in the first sentence of your OP, then stated that the majority difference between fit people and fat people wasn't genetics. Did you necessarily mean that skinny people are generally skinny because they worked at it? No, but it was extremely unclear and heavily implied. You could have simply stated that this was a semantic disagreement.
But yes, the reason I only disagree with statements that I, you know, disagree with is because I feel a need for TLers to be in awe of my superior knowledge. In the future, I'll pull out sentences that I agree with and argue with those in order to work on my narcissism.
Yea, I agree, I was simply trying to illustrate the difference between a standard american diet (high fat, high carb, obviously bad) with the efficiency of some sort of ketogenic diet... The examples were semi-random based on the obvious context of popular Low-Carb diets and the "Standard" American Diet. It's not hard to never have to starve yourself, "eat less" or count calories if you simply had the proper diet let alone spend 15hrs/week in the gym.... I dunno just the same point of eating a less calorie dense diet instead of obsessing... yadayada
That's true for some, but not true for a lot. Many fat people feel a lot of hunger on a 1500-2000 kcal/day whether their diet is ketogenic or not.
Yea, I mean ketogenic wass mostly just an example, and there are obviously lots of variables and they vary for each individual. If we all agree calorie restriction is the goal for weight loss, then it's just a matter of how you go about that.
I mean, I just have a hard time believing someone eats 2,000 calories worth of say...... Beef and green vegatables only for and still being hungry after the say... 2months... I mean there will be obvious cravings and psychological hunger, and a whole list of struggles during some period of transition... Obviously the example has a long list of nutritional flaws and maybe some hyperbole, but I dunno :D you tell me?
edit: maybe i'm just advocating a hard line method instead of what most people who are having a hard time will be motivationally capable of... Of course I can only speak of my own personal experience, and that of those around me.......over the last 10 years my diet and lifestyles have changed very wildly a few times, and I've seen drastic weight changes as well.
On November 02 2012 00:42 DigiGnar wrote: I stopped growing since I was fifteen? I'm 23 now, and when I buy beer, people tell me, "I can't sell beer to a thirteen year old." I show them my ID, and sometimes they will accept it. Still same weight from all those years ago... Though, I can eat 3k calories daily and sit around doing nothing. (have done this before, though I don't like to anymore)
I'm not skinny by choice. My metabolism is just too fucking fast. It'd be awesome to not look like a 13 y.o.
Yeah, that happens. My brother is a lot like this. I've worked with him, and watched what he ate for months. It's a pretty outrageous amount of food that he was eating... an amount I'd easily have gained five pounds on in a single month, yet he struggled to gain two lbs. I wonder how accurate your 3k count is, but the point stands that some people have incredibly high NEAT (which I mentioned in the OP), and you're probably one of them. Most people don't though. Most people simply underestimate what they eat. I've seen quotes on studies that people over/underestimate their intake/output by up to 50%... like they think they're eating 50% more or less than they actually are, or burning 50% more Calories than they actually are. When those people are put on strict, laboratory controlled regiments, unsurprisingly, they lose weight (and I assume would also gain weight).
I like the way that Dave Tate put it the best. If you're having difficulty gaining weight I want you to follow this diet. Every morning go to McDonald's and get 2 breakfast sandwich meals (highest Caloric totals), and ask for extra mayo on the sandwich. Ask for mayo packets as well. Eat all of them in one sitting, and add a packet of mayo to each hashbrown. For the drink, get a large soda, regular sugar, none of that diet shit.
For lunch, go to a Chinese place. The real shit with MSG in it, and eat until you feel sick.
For dinner, order a large pizza with all the toppings that you like on it. Tip the guy nicely, you'll be ordering more pizzas this week. Go to the cabinet, grab some olive oil. Dump half the bottle on the pizza, then eat the entire fucking pizza.
Snack in between meals as well. In a month, come back and tell me you can't gain weight.
That's obvious hyperbole, but the point is, if you eat enough, you'll gain weight. For some, it may take more than for others, but everyone can gain weight, just as everyone can lose weight (it WILL be harder for some, no one said it would be easy... I used fucking drugs that cause inefficient ATP creation FFS, believe me, I KNOW how hard it is to lose weight... there's a reason I went there).
On November 02 2012 00:32 Scholera wrote:
Poll: How much has your weight changed?
My general bodyfat physique has been consistent with as a small child. (16)
52%
I used to be skinny as a kid now I'm fat or vice versa (15)
48%
31 total votes
Your vote: How much has your weight changed?
(Vote): My general bodyfat physique has been consistent with as a small child. (Vote): I used to be skinny as a kid now I'm fat or vice versa
I just do disagree with the apparent message of this thread. People are born at vastly different weights and depending mostly on not their ethics but on the diet their parents gave them as an infant, stay in line with that.
I was somewhat skinny when I was like 5 years old. Got fat pretty quickly by 8-10 years old. Continued to get fat throughout school (I played BW and ate hostess cupcakes all day/night), and then lose 20 lbs with a bunch of random fad diets after high school. I got fat again when I played Halo 2 a lot, for the same reason as when I played BW. Then I did P90X, stripped away most of my fat, and all of my muscle. Then I did GFH bulking and got fat, but also packed on some respectable muscle. Now I'm back to being, what I consider, skinny fat. It's been a wild ride, but I finally have a plan to make this a lifelong thing, because I finally realized that weight loss isn't a destination goal, it's about making permanent lifestyle changes that I can live with for the rest of my life.
The difference in the majority of fit people and fat people is not some magical combination of genetics that give them ridiculous level NEAT (Non-exercise Associated Thermogenesis --although those people exist, and we all hate them), and it's usually not from drug/steroid usage; it's the choices they make: it's priorities.
Bullshit. The majority difference between skinny people and fat people, at least in younger populations, is mostly due to genetics. Most skinny people have low appetities, high NEATs (up to 800-1000kcal/day), and some even get less calories from foods than fat people. Most skinny people have about has hard of a time gaining weight as fat people do losing weight.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that fat people cannot lose weight if they try. I'm just saying that it's wrong to imply all people that aren't fat have worked hard at it.
I agree with a lot of what else you wrote but find this questionable. Your literally implying that some people burn essentially 50% more calories throughout the day than other people. I don't care how much fidgeting you do, there is no way that's accounting for that kind of difference in energy expenditure. We are talking 25 miles of biking or 8-10 miles of running here.
Skinny people that remain skinny usually do it from diet. In probably 90% of the people I have paid attention to that are naturally slim, they just don't eat as much as they think they do. I've seen skinny guys knock down 2,000 calories in one sitting and think "holy shit, this guy can eat like THAT and still be slim" only to observe that they are next to the nothing the rest of the day besides some grazing on carrots and apples. He thought he was eating a ton because of that massive lunch and constant grazing, but in reality we are talking maybe 2300-2500 calories; which is not that crazy.
Gaining weight is hard for them because they think they eat alot already and don't realize they aren't eating that much. Actually gaining weight is easy, eat 500-1000 calories more per day than you already are, as most skinny people are pretty much in maintenance anyway. There is absolutely nothing challenging about doing that. I have yet to meet someone who consumes upwards of 3,000 calories a day with minimal exercise that doesn't gain weight...it just doesn't occur.
As far as appetites go I think that's as much behavioral as anything. When I'm running 70-80mpw, I usually will be eating between 3500-4000 kcal a day. When I take a few weeks off at the end of a season I now only need 2000 kcal or so to remain at the same weight/fufill energy requirements. However, I'm used to eating almost twice as much. I literally do have a craving for food and feel like I am not eating enough. If I stop and pay very close attention I realize I'm not actually hungry, but just craving food, though the difference in extremely subtle. The takeaway here is that these two are hard to distinguish. If your parents were negligent and got you used to eating more than you need, its very easy to almost feel hungry eating a more appropriate amount of food.
Also, keep in mind that what you eat plays a big role too. It's pretty easy to knock back 1,000+ calories of Reese's and still feel ravenous, whereas if I ate 1,000 calories of carrots I would feel bloated and stuffed to the gills.
On November 02 2012 00:32 Scholera wrote:
Poll: How much has your weight changed?
My general bodyfat physique has been consistent with as a small child. (16)
52%
I used to be skinny as a kid now I'm fat or vice versa (15)
48%
31 total votes
Your vote: How much has your weight changed?
(Vote): My general bodyfat physique has been consistent with as a small child. (Vote): I used to be skinny as a kid now I'm fat or vice versa
I just do disagree with the apparent message of this thread. People are born at vastly different weights and depending mostly on not their ethics but on the diet their parents gave them as an infant, stay in line with that.
And activity their parents modeled for them, but yes, fucking negligent ass parents are a HUGE part of the problem (don't get me started on this). In the US we have 20% of children who are obese. Sickening.
However, by the time the kid is HS age or older, the fact of the matter is he is continually to stick with the shitty model his parents gave for him. There is no reason he cannot change his behavior, diet, and activity.
I'm not saying it's easy or he is being lazy; but he is definitely making a choice to stay the way he is.
I agree with a lot of what else you wrote but find this questionable. Your literally implying that some people burn essentially 50% more calories throughout the day than other people. I don't care how much fidgeting you do, there is no way that's accounting for that kind of difference in energy expenditure. We are talking 25 miles of biking or 8-10 miles of running here.
Study on 16 non-obese volunteers. Fed them +1000kcal day, range in NEAT was -100 to +690.
"NEAT proved to be the principal mediator of resistance to fat gain with overfeeding. The average increase in NEAT (336 kcal/day) accounted for two-thirds of the increase in daily energy expenditure (Table 2), and the range of change in NEAT in our volunteers was large (−98 to +692 kcal/day). However, most importantly, changes in NEAT directly predicted resistance to fat gain with overfeeding (Fig. 1C), and this predictive value was not influenced by starting weight (24)."
"The maximum increase in NEAT that we detected (692 kcal/day, volunteer 5) could be accounted for by an increase in strolling-equivalent activity (25) by about 15 min/hour during waking hours. "
The difference in the majority of fit people and fat people is not some magical combination of genetics that give them ridiculous level NEAT (Non-exercise Associated Thermogenesis --although those people exist, and we all hate them), and it's usually not from drug/steroid usage; it's the choices they make: it's priorities.
Bullshit. The majority difference between skinny people and fat people, at least in younger populations, is mostly due to genetics. Most skinny people have low appetities, high NEATs (up to 800-1000kcal/day), and some even get less calories from foods than fat people. Most skinny people have about has hard of a time gaining weight as fat people do losing weight.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that fat people cannot lose weight if they try. I'm just saying that it's wrong to imply all people that aren't fat have worked hard at it.
also OP, My friend mentioned that if you eat less (like you are talking about) it slows down your metabolism therefore not even helping you out in the long run. As soon as you stop working out, you gain all the weight back because you slowed your metablolism. Have you encountered this problem?
Broscience. Metabolism downregulates by a maximum of about 200kcal, which is easily compensated for. The reason people gain weight back after a diet is because they go right back to their unhealthy lifestyle that they had before the weight loss.
I personally know workout-type people that hit the gym almost everyday, are ripped or are working towards getting ripped, doing their calorie counting, and their protein shakes etc... I also know average people that are able to eat 3000+ calories a day and not gain any weight whatsoever. Does that make them good or bad, or proactive or lazy? No, that's just their lifestyle that they want.
Yes, those people eating 3000+ calories a day must have high NEATs and get less calories from their food (assuming, of course, that they actually DO eat 3000+ calories/day). That doesn't mean you can't lose weight. It just means you have to work harder at it.
I'm 5'9" and 240 lbs (pics for reference 1, 2). Medically, I have no problems, and none of my tests have ever indicated an issue (though I've never asked to be checked regarding a genetic component) and in general, I've been told my health is better than a lot of "average" people. I'm not defined in the least, and that leads to a lot of people's assumptions about my composition as well as others.
It was a nice post, and hopefully it motivates some people, but it's not always that simple.
For 99.99% of people, it IS that simple. Want to lose weight? Create a caloric deficit. Trivially true by conservation of energy. If you ate 1500 kcal/day, I guarantee you you'd lose weight.
Hmm, I don't really disagree with anything you say however I think you're over estimating the role of exercise... I'm certainly no health expert but from what I remember from health class like a decade ago, if your body is processing carbohydrates for energy and never uses the fat stored on your body you, how can you use it? Isn't the key here to induce some form of fat-utilization by the body?
I mean sure, if you exercise you will burn carbohydrates and run out and then burn fat, and thus lose weight assuming the calorie burned/gained ratio allows.... So just a "proper" diet can "easily" lose weight... and I don't mean diet like Jenny Craig, I mean diet like, culturally. Hence the popularity of low carb diets as well... but it's like you said it's really all about life-style changes and discipline. I don't disagree or anything, I just think the emphasis on excercise and protein for muscle building it's own paradigm aside from simply being "healthy person"
Low-carb vs high-carb has almost no effect on weight loss. While it's true that eating a lot of carbs makes your body more likely to store fat, the thing is that if you keep calories constant and go from a low-carb to a high carb diet, you must also decrease your fat intake.
I haven't implied that at all. Fat is a relative term. At ~12%, imo, I'm fat. When I say fat, I actually mean obese (as defined, which I think is like 25% BF). What I've said isn't bullshit at all. IN FACT, everything else you said is basically exactly what I said. But it seems you like to nitpick, and you want to show how much you know, so you pulled the one sentence you could find disagreement in to show how superior your knowledge is to everyone here. I actually do the same thing all the time, because I'm a narcissist and I want everyone to awe at me. The truth is though, I don't know that much. You may know more than me, couldn't care less, but nitpicking on something because you're inferring something that I haven't said is not worthwhile discussion.
Otherwise, I agree with what you've said.
Haha I like it!
Anyway, might wanna mention that it's actually really hard to make a lifestyle change with regards to the things you eat simply because of the control over those things being externalized. There are financial motivators to the equation as well, like, for example, a meal eaten at a McDonalds being vastly cheaper in time and money than buying the ingredients at a store and making it yourself. It so happens that these foods are also high in caloric count, which is something that can't be controlled either. Financially conscious people do have difficulty making lifestyle changes from eating fast food meals to eating home cooked and healthy ones. In addition, the fact that you pay the same amount of money for a Big Mac, fries, and a coke as you do for just a Big Mac and fries makes it harder for people to rationalize not getting the coke; it's a better deal despite it adding on a lot more calories. That would bring you to the annual increase in the average portion size of meals in the US, and how high it has gone up from what it was in the 70's, 80's, or 90's.
Wow, great post, which exactly expresses my opinion on this topic. It´s helpfull that you also were fat in the past so you really have the insight, which i don´t have.
Sometimes it feels like it´s same thing with playing starcraft, often you don´t feel like you have the time, but in reality you just feel to lazy.
On November 02 2012 00:19 Scholera wrote: I don't really agree with this at all.
You see kids at 8 years old with a fit stomach and skinny physique and another kid at 8 years old who is obese. I'm sure these kids have vastly different work ethics right? No... .
a lot of parents feed their kids procesed foods, fast food and other garbage from a young age
The difference in the majority of fit people and fat people is not some magical combination of genetics that give them ridiculous level NEAT (Non-exercise Associated Thermogenesis --although those people exist, and we all hate them), and it's usually not from drug/steroid usage; it's the choices they make: it's priorities.
Bullshit. The majority difference between skinny people and fat people, at least in younger populations, is mostly due to genetics. Most skinny people have low appetities, high NEATs (up to 800-1000kcal/day), and some even get less calories from foods than fat people. Most skinny people have about has hard of a time gaining weight as fat people do losing weight.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that fat people cannot lose weight if they try. I'm just saying that it's wrong to imply all people that aren't fat have worked hard at it.
also OP, My friend mentioned that if you eat less (like you are talking about) it slows down your metabolism therefore not even helping you out in the long run. As soon as you stop working out, you gain all the weight back because you slowed your metablolism. Have you encountered this problem?
Broscience. Metabolism downregulates by a maximum of about 200kcal, which is easily compensated for. The reason people gain weight back after a diet is because they go right back to their unhealthy lifestyle that they had before the weight loss.
I personally know workout-type people that hit the gym almost everyday, are ripped or are working towards getting ripped, doing their calorie counting, and their protein shakes etc... I also know average people that are able to eat 3000+ calories a day and not gain any weight whatsoever. Does that make them good or bad, or proactive or lazy? No, that's just their lifestyle that they want.
Yes, those people eating 3000+ calories a day must have high NEATs and get less calories from their food (assuming, of course, that they actually DO eat 3000+ calories/day). That doesn't mean you can't lose weight. It just means you have to work harder at it.
I'm 5'9" and 240 lbs (pics for reference 1, 2). Medically, I have no problems, and none of my tests have ever indicated an issue (though I've never asked to be checked regarding a genetic component) and in general, I've been told my health is better than a lot of "average" people. I'm not defined in the least, and that leads to a lot of people's assumptions about my composition as well as others.
It was a nice post, and hopefully it motivates some people, but it's not always that simple.
For 99.99% of people, it IS that simple. Want to lose weight? Create a caloric deficit. Trivially true by conservation of energy. If you ate 1500 kcal/day, I guarantee you you'd lose weight.
Hmm, I don't really disagree with anything you say however I think you're over estimating the role of exercise... I'm certainly no health expert but from what I remember from health class like a decade ago, if your body is processing carbohydrates for energy and never uses the fat stored on your body you, how can you use it? Isn't the key here to induce some form of fat-utilization by the body?
I mean sure, if you exercise you will burn carbohydrates and run out and then burn fat, and thus lose weight assuming the calorie burned/gained ratio allows.... So just a "proper" diet can "easily" lose weight... and I don't mean diet like Jenny Craig, I mean diet like, culturally. Hence the popularity of low carb diets as well... but it's like you said it's really all about life-style changes and discipline. I don't disagree or anything, I just think the emphasis on excercise and protein for muscle building it's own paradigm aside from simply being "healthy person"
Low-carb vs high-carb has almost no effect on weight loss. While it's true that eating a lot of carbs makes your body more likely to store fat, the thing is that if you keep calories constant and go from a low-carb to a high carb diet, you must also decrease your fat intake.
I haven't implied that at all. Fat is a relative term. At ~12%, imo, I'm fat. When I say fat, I actually mean obese (as defined, which I think is like 25% BF). What I've said isn't bullshit at all. IN FACT, everything else you said is basically exactly what I said. But it seems you like to nitpick, and you want to show how much you know, so you pulled the one sentence you could find disagreement in to show how superior your knowledge is to everyone here. I actually do the same thing all the time, because I'm a narcissist and I want everyone to awe at me. The truth is though, I don't know that much. You may know more than me, couldn't care less, but nitpicking on something because you're inferring something that I haven't said is not worthwhile discussion.
Otherwise, I agree with what you've said.
Haha I like it!
Anyway, might wanna mention that it's actually really hard to make a lifestyle change with regards to the things you eat simply because of the control over those things being externalized. There are financial motivators to the equation as well, like, for example, a meal eaten at a McDonalds being vastly cheaper in time and money than buying the ingredients at a store and making it yourself. It so happens that these foods are also high in caloric count, which is something that can't be controlled either. Financially conscious people do have difficulty making lifestyle changes from eating fast food meals to eating home cooked and healthy ones. In addition, the fact that you pay the same amount of money for a Big Mac, fries, and a coke as you do for just a Big Mac and fries makes it harder for people to rationalize not getting the coke; it's a better deal despite it adding on a lot more calories. That would bring you to the annual increase in the average portion size of meals in the US, and how high it has gone up from what it was in the 70's, 80's, or 90's.
I think this is a myth that needs to be destroyed. A single Big Mac meal is what? $5 or so? Six pounds of chicken is roughly $12 at Wal-Mart. A head of lettuce is $1.50, add in some more vegetables, and maybe you're at $5 worth of veggies. Salad dressing of your choice = $2.50 (for the off brand stuff). 2 lbs of sirloin tip is $12. Liquid egg whites are $3.88/carton (large carton), and eggs are like $1.50. So now we're at roughly $30. If you want to throw in some potatoes or something, it's a couple dollars more, let's say you find some crap you want for another $5 (a bag of shredded cheese and marinade), and then you buy a snack food for another $5. That's roughly $40, and I can eat for the entire week (this is actually my meal plan, basically, for most weeks), 3 meals a day. For $40 I get 2 2/3 days of eating at McDonald's. The difference is that I have to cook this food, and at McDonald's it's already there, and it tastes SOOOO good.
On November 02 2012 00:19 Scholera wrote: I don't really agree with this at all.
You see kids at 8 years old with a fit stomach and skinny physique and another kid at 8 years old who is obese. I'm sure these kids have vastly different work ethics right? No... .
a lot of parents feed their kids procesed foods, fast food and other garbage from a young age
Very true. I know plenty of people with kids who let their kids have McDonald's once a week or less. While I know other parents who eat out at fast food restaurants every night of the week, and the majority of their food is frozen pizza and snack cakes. Which kids are fatter? I know that my n=1 experience doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I also doubt that my experience is unique.
Was 160 in high school. 3 years later I was 270. Now I'm 190.
And I have to say that personally, what the OP said rings true. When I finally switched over to trying to lose weight I made time. I crammed in exercises regardless of how I felt. When I was fat I felt like I had been given a raw deal in life, and if I had a different X, then I could lose weight. But once I was committed, I just made it work.
I think this is a myth that needs to be destroyed. A single Big Mac meal is what? $5 or so? Six pounds of chicken is roughly $12 at Wal-Mart. A head of lettuce is $1.50, add in some more vegetables, and maybe you're at $5 worth of veggies. Salad dressing of your choice = $2.50 (for the off brand stuff). 2 lbs of sirloin tip is $12. Liquid egg whites are $3.88/carton (large carton), and eggs are like $1.50. So now we're at roughly $30. If you want to throw in some potatoes or something, it's a couple dollars more, let's say you find some crap you want for another $5 (a bag of shredded cheese and marinade), and then you buy a snack food for another $5. That's roughly $40, and I can eat for the entire week (this is actually my meal plan, basically, for most weeks), 3 meals a day. For $40 I get 2 2/3 days of eating at McDonald's. The difference is that I have to cook this food, and at McDonald's it's already there, and it tastes SOOOO good.
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money. To eat perfectly, perhaps.
Albiet your Wal-Mart Prices are alittle higher than I'd imagine, and I'd also wager a Big Mac Meal is closer to $6 though McDouble Cheeseburgers are still 99cents :D
The difference in the majority of fit people and fat people is not some magical combination of genetics that give them ridiculous level NEAT (Non-exercise Associated Thermogenesis --although those people exist, and we all hate them), and it's usually not from drug/steroid usage; it's the choices they make: it's priorities.
Bullshit. The majority difference between skinny people and fat people, at least in younger populations, is mostly due to genetics. Most skinny people have low appetities, high NEATs (up to 800-1000kcal/day), and some even get less calories from foods than fat people. Most skinny people have about has hard of a time gaining weight as fat people do losing weight.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that fat people cannot lose weight if they try. I'm just saying that it's wrong to imply all people that aren't fat have worked hard at it.
also OP, My friend mentioned that if you eat less (like you are talking about) it slows down your metabolism therefore not even helping you out in the long run. As soon as you stop working out, you gain all the weight back because you slowed your metablolism. Have you encountered this problem?
Broscience. Metabolism downregulates by a maximum of about 200kcal, which is easily compensated for. The reason people gain weight back after a diet is because they go right back to their unhealthy lifestyle that they had before the weight loss.
I personally know workout-type people that hit the gym almost everyday, are ripped or are working towards getting ripped, doing their calorie counting, and their protein shakes etc... I also know average people that are able to eat 3000+ calories a day and not gain any weight whatsoever. Does that make them good or bad, or proactive or lazy? No, that's just their lifestyle that they want.
Yes, those people eating 3000+ calories a day must have high NEATs and get less calories from their food (assuming, of course, that they actually DO eat 3000+ calories/day). That doesn't mean you can't lose weight. It just means you have to work harder at it.
I'm 5'9" and 240 lbs (pics for reference 1, 2). Medically, I have no problems, and none of my tests have ever indicated an issue (though I've never asked to be checked regarding a genetic component) and in general, I've been told my health is better than a lot of "average" people. I'm not defined in the least, and that leads to a lot of people's assumptions about my composition as well as others.
It was a nice post, and hopefully it motivates some people, but it's not always that simple.
For 99.99% of people, it IS that simple. Want to lose weight? Create a caloric deficit. Trivially true by conservation of energy. If you ate 1500 kcal/day, I guarantee you you'd lose weight.
Hmm, I don't really disagree with anything you say however I think you're over estimating the role of exercise... I'm certainly no health expert but from what I remember from health class like a decade ago, if your body is processing carbohydrates for energy and never uses the fat stored on your body you, how can you use it? Isn't the key here to induce some form of fat-utilization by the body?
I mean sure, if you exercise you will burn carbohydrates and run out and then burn fat, and thus lose weight assuming the calorie burned/gained ratio allows.... So just a "proper" diet can "easily" lose weight... and I don't mean diet like Jenny Craig, I mean diet like, culturally. Hence the popularity of low carb diets as well... but it's like you said it's really all about life-style changes and discipline. I don't disagree or anything, I just think the emphasis on excercise and protein for muscle building it's own paradigm aside from simply being "healthy person"
Low-carb vs high-carb has almost no effect on weight loss. While it's true that eating a lot of carbs makes your body more likely to store fat, the thing is that if you keep calories constant and go from a low-carb to a high carb diet, you must also decrease your fat intake.
I haven't implied that at all. Fat is a relative term. At ~12%, imo, I'm fat. When I say fat, I actually mean obese (as defined, which I think is like 25% BF). What I've said isn't bullshit at all. IN FACT, everything else you said is basically exactly what I said. But it seems you like to nitpick, and you want to show how much you know, so you pulled the one sentence you could find disagreement in to show how superior your knowledge is to everyone here. I actually do the same thing all the time, because I'm a narcissist and I want everyone to awe at me. The truth is though, I don't know that much. You may know more than me, couldn't care less, but nitpicking on something because you're inferring something that I haven't said is not worthwhile discussion.
Otherwise, I agree with what you've said.
Haha I like it!
Anyway, might wanna mention that it's actually really hard to make a lifestyle change with regards to the things you eat simply because of the control over those things being externalized. There are financial motivators to the equation as well, like, for example, a meal eaten at a McDonalds being vastly cheaper in time and money than buying the ingredients at a store and making it yourself. It so happens that these foods are also high in caloric count, which is something that can't be controlled either. Financially conscious people do have difficulty making lifestyle changes from eating fast food meals to eating home cooked and healthy ones. In addition, the fact that you pay the same amount of money for a Big Mac, fries, and a coke as you do for just a Big Mac and fries makes it harder for people to rationalize not getting the coke; it's a better deal despite it adding on a lot more calories. That would bring you to the annual increase in the average portion size of meals in the US, and how high it has gone up from what it was in the 70's, 80's, or 90's.
I think this is a myth that needs to be destroyed. A single Big Mac meal is what? $5 or so? Six pounds of chicken is roughly $12 at Wal-Mart. A head of lettuce is $1.50, add in some more vegetables, and maybe you're at $5 worth of veggies. Salad dressing of your choice = $2.50 (for the off brand stuff). 2 lbs of sirloin tip is $12. Liquid egg whites are $3.88/carton (large carton), and eggs are like $1.50. So now we're at roughly $30. If you want to throw in some potatoes or something, it's a couple dollars more, let's say you find some crap you want for another $5 (a bag of shredded cheese and marinade), and then you buy a snack food for another $5. That's roughly $40, and I can eat for the entire week (this is actually my meal plan, basically, for most weeks), 3 meals a day. For $40 I get 2 2/3 days of eating at McDonald's. The difference is that I have to cook this food, and at McDonald's it's already there, and it tastes SOOOO good.
On November 02 2012 00:19 Scholera wrote: I don't really agree with this at all.
You see kids at 8 years old with a fit stomach and skinny physique and another kid at 8 years old who is obese. I'm sure these kids have vastly different work ethics right? No... .
a lot of parents feed their kids procesed foods, fast food and other garbage from a young age
Very true. I know plenty of people with kids who let their kids have McDonald's once a week or less. While I know other parents who eat out at fast food restaurants every night of the week, and the majority of their food is frozen pizza and snack cakes. Which kids are fatter? I know that my n=1 experience doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I also doubt that my experience is unique.
Great job, now do the math for a family of 4. Also, make sure you factor in what part of the country you live in.
I think this is a myth that needs to be destroyed. A single Big Mac meal is what? $5 or so? Six pounds of chicken is roughly $12 at Wal-Mart. A head of lettuce is $1.50, add in some more vegetables, and maybe you're at $5 worth of veggies. Salad dressing of your choice = $2.50 (for the off brand stuff). 2 lbs of sirloin tip is $12. Liquid egg whites are $3.88/carton (large carton), and eggs are like $1.50. So now we're at roughly $30. If you want to throw in some potatoes or something, it's a couple dollars more, let's say you find some crap you want for another $5 (a bag of shredded cheese and marinade), and then you buy a snack food for another $5. That's roughly $40, and I can eat for the entire week (this is actually my meal plan, basically, for most weeks), 3 meals a day. For $40 I get 2 2/3 days of eating at McDonald's. The difference is that I have to cook this food, and at McDonald's it's already there, and it tastes SOOOO good.
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money. To eat perfectly, perhaps.
Albiet your Wal-Mart Prices are alittle higher than I'd imagine, and I'd also wager a Big Mac Meal is closer to $6 though McDouble Cheeseburgers are still 99cents :D
Wait what? We just established that buying your own healthy groceries is cheaper than eating out. We are talking about which method is healthier, not which method is more caloric dense. Whether something is caloric dense or not isn't what we were talking about. If anything, if our goal is to stay healthy and not get fat, then eating foods that are less caloric dense is better. Besides, how caloric dense something is has nothing to do with how full you feel after eating it.
In any case: eating out: more expensive, more caloric dense (you get fatter), unhealthy, takes less time cooking: less expensive, less caloric dense (although you certainly have caloric dense options if you need the extra calories, let's say, if you're bulking), healthy, takes some time (once you get good at cooking and establish a routine, it really doesn't take much time at all)
i eat out maybe twice a week (fri and sat with friends). i cook my own food all other times, and i don't eat the same stuff everyday. my diet might be something like:
day1 breakfast: oatmeal, eggs, banana, apple, milk lunch: chicken thighs, asparagus and mushrooms, bit of white rice dinner: fish (cod, sole, tuna, etc), broccoli, pasta or bread snacks: almonds, sunflower seeds
day2 breakfast: bagel with cheese, apple, orange juice, grapes lunch: pork chops, collard greens, brown and red rice mix dinner: beef stew (chuck roast beef, carrots, celery, onions) snacks: avocado, fruit
etc etc.
these are only some of the options. not to mention all the different ways of preparing the same type of food. cooking is fucking awesome. i can make food however i want it, as much salt as i want (usually none), no nasty greasy vegetable oil, and i feel great eating it.
edit - it's not a matter of cost. buying groceries is cheaper, period. if you're gonna be eating shit like double cheeseburgers at mcdonalds, you might as well compare that to only eating white rice. in fact, take the money you'd spend buying mcdonalds and get ground beef, cabbage, and white rice in bulk. cheaper, healthier, and fills you up just the same. the problem is that people don't want to change, or they think that eating out is cheaper.
It's not so much about to eat less, it's much more about how you eat. Eat stuff that speeds up your metabolism and avoid stuff that slows it/is junk food. Generally moving does make a difference, but it isn't impossible to lose weight by just changing your diet, since that is what is largely causing your weight.
I've been moderately overweight all my life, I played ice hockey for six years and even then, when I was excercing on a regular basis and watching my diet etc. I was still overweight, all those six years and still am. But I do realize that nowadays it's just that I don't really give shit since I'm not THAT overweight, just, a little.
For everyone going on and on about how cheap healthy food can be when prepared from home, look up what a "food desert" is. Believe it or not, when one assigns value to time, effort, and access in addition to overt cost, many folks, even here in the US find themselves unable to buy the sorts of foods needed for a balanced diet. That being said, as a former fatty turned gym rat, simply cutting out the excuses can do a world of good.
I think this is a myth that needs to be destroyed. A single Big Mac meal is what? $5 or so? Six pounds of chicken is roughly $12 at Wal-Mart. A head of lettuce is $1.50, add in some more vegetables, and maybe you're at $5 worth of veggies. Salad dressing of your choice = $2.50 (for the off brand stuff). 2 lbs of sirloin tip is $12. Liquid egg whites are $3.88/carton (large carton), and eggs are like $1.50. So now we're at roughly $30. If you want to throw in some potatoes or something, it's a couple dollars more, let's say you find some crap you want for another $5 (a bag of shredded cheese and marinade), and then you buy a snack food for another $5. That's roughly $40, and I can eat for the entire week (this is actually my meal plan, basically, for most weeks), 3 meals a day. For $40 I get 2 2/3 days of eating at McDonald's. The difference is that I have to cook this food, and at McDonald's it's already there, and it tastes SOOOO good.
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money. To eat perfectly, perhaps.
Albiet your Wal-Mart Prices are alittle higher than I'd imagine, and I'd also wager a Big Mac Meal is closer to $6 though McDouble Cheeseburgers are still 99cents :D
Wait what? We just established that buying your own healthy groceries is cheaper than eating out. We are talking about which method is healthier, not which method is more caloric dense. Whether something is caloric dense or not isn't what we were talking about. If anything, if our goal is to stay healthy and not get fat, then eating foods that are less caloric dense is better. Besides, how caloric dense something is has nothing to do with how full you feel after eating it.
In any case: eating out: more expensive, more caloric dense (you get fatter), unhealthy, takes less time cooking: less expensive, less caloric dense (although you certainly have caloric dense options if you need the extra calories, let's say, if you're bulking), healthy, takes some time (once you get good at cooking and establish a routine, it really doesn't take much time at all)
i eat out maybe twice a week (fri and sat with friends). i cook my own food all other times, and i don't eat the same stuff everyday. my diet might be something like:
day1 breakfast: oatmeal, eggs, banana, apple, milk lunch: chicken thighs, asparagus and mushrooms, bit of white rice dinner: fish (cod, sole, tuna, etc), broccoli, pasta or bread snacks: almonds, sunflower seeds
day2 breakfast: bagel with cheese, apple, orange juice, grapes lunch: pork chops, collard greens, brown and red rice mix dinner: beef stew (chuck roast beef, carrots, celery, onions) snacks: avocado, fruit
etc etc.
these are only some of the options. not to mention all the different ways of preparing the same type of food. cooking is fucking awesome. i can make food however i want it, as much salt as i want (usually none), no nasty greasy vegetable oil, and i feel great eating it.
edit - it's not a matter of cost. buying groceries is cheaper, period. if you're gonna be eating shit like double cheeseburgers at mcdonalds, you might as well compare that to only eating white rice. in fact, take the money you'd spend buying mcdonalds and get ground beef, cabbage, and white rice in bulk. cheaper, healthier, and fills you up just the same. the problem is that people don't want to change, or they think that eating out is cheaper.
I wasn't necessarily arguing that one or the other was cheaper.... Both at their cheapest are very cheap... Also just because something has been established in a thread doesn't mean it's not a myth regardless? Food Inc and several other documentaries used this line of reasoning on why people eat so unhealthily in America... Not even just Fast food, but Grocery stores as well...
I don't really think McDonalds is relevant, it's like the Hitler of Food, it's the easy to illustrate go-to example of obvious mistakes in nutrition. It's hyperbolic if anyone is actually concerned about anything we're discussing... Obviously intentional choice by lemon
So I'm not really sure if we were discussing which one is healthier since McDonalds vs Healthy Store Bought food is obvious... I was more talking about the rest of the thread about caloric restriction, and how in his example he compared a 3,000 calorie diet with a 1,500 one for the same price. (throwing random numbers up, <3)
I dunno, You keep saying "we" but I can't find your posts in this thread so forgive me if I am indeed missing something, I must admit confusion
On November 02 2012 05:17 farvacola wrote: For everyone going on and on about how cheap healthy food can be when prepared from home, look up what a "food desert" is. Believe it or not, when one assigns value to time, effort, and access in addition to overt cost, many folks, even here in the US find themselves unable to buy the sorts of foods needed for a balanced diet. That being said, as a former fatty turned gym rat, simply cutting out the excuses can do a world of good.
i looked up food desert, and the only legitimate reason for not being able to get groceries is lack of physical access. so unless you're disabled, your area has no safe public transportation, or there are simply no stores in your area, you should go out and buy groceries.
I think this is a myth that needs to be destroyed. A single Big Mac meal is what? $5 or so? Six pounds of chicken is roughly $12 at Wal-Mart. A head of lettuce is $1.50, add in some more vegetables, and maybe you're at $5 worth of veggies. Salad dressing of your choice = $2.50 (for the off brand stuff). 2 lbs of sirloin tip is $12. Liquid egg whites are $3.88/carton (large carton), and eggs are like $1.50. So now we're at roughly $30. If you want to throw in some potatoes or something, it's a couple dollars more, let's say you find some crap you want for another $5 (a bag of shredded cheese and marinade), and then you buy a snack food for another $5. That's roughly $40, and I can eat for the entire week (this is actually my meal plan, basically, for most weeks), 3 meals a day. For $40 I get 2 2/3 days of eating at McDonald's. The difference is that I have to cook this food, and at McDonald's it's already there, and it tastes SOOOO good.
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money. To eat perfectly, perhaps.
Albiet your Wal-Mart Prices are alittle higher than I'd imagine, and I'd also wager a Big Mac Meal is closer to $6 though McDouble Cheeseburgers are still 99cents :D
Wait what? We just established that buying your own healthy groceries is cheaper than eating out. We are talking about which method is healthier, not which method is more caloric dense. Whether something is caloric dense or not isn't what we were talking about. If anything, if our goal is to stay healthy and not get fat, then eating foods that are less caloric dense is better. Besides, how caloric dense something is has nothing to do with how full you feel after eating it.
In any case: eating out: more expensive, more caloric dense (you get fatter), unhealthy, takes less time cooking: less expensive, less caloric dense (although you certainly have caloric dense options if you need the extra calories, let's say, if you're bulking), healthy, takes some time (once you get good at cooking and establish a routine, it really doesn't take much time at all)
i eat out maybe twice a week (fri and sat with friends). i cook my own food all other times, and i don't eat the same stuff everyday. my diet might be something like:
day1 breakfast: oatmeal, eggs, banana, apple, milk lunch: chicken thighs, asparagus and mushrooms, bit of white rice dinner: fish (cod, sole, tuna, etc), broccoli, pasta or bread snacks: almonds, sunflower seeds
day2 breakfast: bagel with cheese, apple, orange juice, grapes lunch: pork chops, collard greens, brown and red rice mix dinner: beef stew (chuck roast beef, carrots, celery, onions) snacks: avocado, fruit
etc etc.
these are only some of the options. not to mention all the different ways of preparing the same type of food. cooking is fucking awesome. i can make food however i want it, as much salt as i want (usually none), no nasty greasy vegetable oil, and i feel great eating it.
edit - it's not a matter of cost. buying groceries is cheaper, period. if you're gonna be eating shit like double cheeseburgers at mcdonalds, you might as well compare that to only eating white rice. in fact, take the money you'd spend buying mcdonalds and get ground beef, cabbage, and white rice in bulk. cheaper, healthier, and fills you up just the same. the problem is that people don't want to change, or they think that eating out is cheaper.
I wasn't necessarily arguing that one or the other was cheaper.... Both at their cheapest are very cheap... Also just because something has been established in a thread doesn't mean it's not a myth regardless? Food Inc and several other documentaries used this line of reasoning on why people eat so unhealthily in America... Not even just Fast food, but Grocery stores as well...
I don't really think McDonalds is relevant, it's like the Hitler of Food, it's the easy to illustrate go-to example of obvious mistakes in nutrition. It's hyperbolic if anyone is actually concerned about anything we're discussing... Obviously intentional choice by lemon
So I'm not really sure if we were discussing which one is healthier since McDonalds vs Healthy Store Bought food is obvious... I was more talking about the rest of the thread about caloric restriction, and how in his example he compared a 3,000 calorie diet with a 1,500 one for the same price. (throwing random numbers up, <3)
I dunno, You keep saying "we" but I can't find your posts in this thread so forgive me if I am indeed missing something, I must admit confusion
ah, my fault about using "we." just my shitty english.
i was mostly responding to this:
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money.To eat perfectly, perhaps.
My point was that yes, eating out can get you more calories per dollar, but is that really what people should be doing? if not, then buying at the grocery store is better. and if it is, then you can buy foods at the grocery store that are also high calories per dollar.
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money.To eat perfectly, perhaps.
My point was that yes, eating out can get you more calories per dollar, but is that really what people should be doing? if not, then buying at the grocery store is better. and if it is, then you can buy foods at the grocery store that are also high calories per dollar.
Ah, no worries, we're in total agreement then Cheers~
you can make a huge ass pot of rice and beans for $5-10 depending on waht you want to use. that reheats, involves minimal effort beyond chopping your veggies. it also cooks several pounds of food for the week.
you can use dark meat instead of breasts. you can make huge pots of stew for dirt cheap with this potatoes and a few veggies. or just do the meat itself and use in salads and sandwichs.
there are plenty of people on budgets who eat good (and healthY) for cheap. most people are just lazy. you can bang out either of the above things in 4-5 hours on a sunday when you're not working.
On November 02 2012 05:31 ieatkids5 wrote: ah, my fault about using "we." just my shitty english.
i was mostly responding to this:
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money.To eat perfectly, perhaps.
My point was that yes, eating out can get you more calories per dollar, but is that really what people should be doing? if not, then buying at the grocery store is better. and if it is, then you can buy foods at the grocery store that are also high calories per dollar.
Ah, no worries, we're in total agreement then Cheers~
oh wow i just reread your post and yes, we are in agreement hahaha. i interpreted your "real myth is that..." sentence as the opposite of what it meant...
I'm gonna eat a fat greasy hamburger and some fries after this. Then I'm gonna head to the gym, throw some plates on to the bar on the squat rack. Put that bitch on my back and work out hard. So while you're sitting a table away from me watching me gorge myself with food and feeling annoyed that I'm not as overweight as you are, there are things that are happening behind the scenes that allow me to eat the way I do.
I love being fit, you don't have to starve yourself in order to lose weight. Even all you did was diet (which I used to do) you'll never actually look as good as a man with some muscle on his body. Just get to the gym, get em gains, and eat. Plus when you're lifting weights, you can eat several hundred calories above your required bodily amount just to maintain you weight. But of course if you overeat you're gonna get fat, but at that point you're basically force feeding yourself (of course it depends on your temperament with food). Going to the gym and doing compound lifts is going to make you a happy man if you love to eat.
lol tooth punching robot... it's been so long ahahahah... is fakesteve still alive nowadays?
I highly suggest this documentary:
It has been fairly accurate for me. I exercise 1 hour every day (swim) and cook my own meal and eat very healthy. My weight was 145 pounds, now I moved it to around 141 pounds and it's pretty steady now.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition. I feel I gained muscle and lost fat, but overall my weight is constant throughout the past 2 years.
You COULD change it extremely but it's very stressful.
On November 02 2012 07:19 evanthebouncy! wrote: It has been fairly accurate for me. I exercise 1 hour every day (swim) and cook my own meal and eat very healthy. My weight was 145 pounds, now I moved it to around 141 pounds and it's pretty steady now.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition. I feel I gained muscle and lost fat, but overall my weight is constant throughout the past 2 years.
You COULD change it extremely but it's very stressful.
I've been as skinny as a rail my whole life and honestly at times had trouble understanding how people become so obese. Then I realized part of what you posted. I don't hammer down cheeseburgers and bags of chips like snacks. I cook most of my own food and eat fruit or a peanut butter sandwich if I'm hungry between meals. I'm not very active but the lack of fatass foods leaves me skinny. I'm not meticulous about what I eat either. I just don't eat to eat and when I do eat it isn't garbage.
Being skinny isn't hard. You just eat properly and don't avoid normal exercise (like walking to and fro, going up the stairs etc). Some people are so lazy they want a drive to the bus stop. It doesn't really have much to do with deliberately working out tho, or going on some crazy named diet.
For me, it's hard to keep my weight up because I don't really enjoy eating that much. I typically have to force myself to eat. To me, eating is tedious, time consuming, and boring. I don't like sugary or fatty or greasy snacks, which usually just make me feel kinda sick 30 seconds after I've eaten them, since I am not used to putting that kind of stuff in my body. What often ends up happening to me is that I think 'What do I want to eat?" and run my head thru the possibilities, and realise there isn't really anything.
For me, the idea of becoming fat is totally foreign. It's a lot of work to be fat. You have to be constantly eating. In that way, it kinda seems like we have the opposite perspectives, if only because you don't view eating as a chore and I do.
On November 02 2012 07:19 evanthebouncy! wrote: It has been fairly accurate for me. I exercise 1 hour every day (swim) and cook my own meal and eat very healthy. My weight was 145 pounds, now I moved it to around 141 pounds and it's pretty steady now.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition. I feel I gained muscle and lost fat, but overall my weight is constant throughout the past 2 years.
You COULD change it extremely but it's very stressful.
141? Damn man how old are you? :D
What is surprising about 141, especially without a height context? If he is 6'2", yea thats pretty light, but if he is like 5'8" it's just a normal weight, and if he is like 5'0" he has some muscle or is a bit chunky. Weight by itself doesn't tell us much.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition.
I have no idea what this means. If people are stuck at 220, you don't think they can drop to 180?
On November 02 2012 07:01 Snuggles wrote: Great read.
I'm gonna eat a fat greasy hamburger and some fries after this. Then I'm gonna head to the gym, throw some plates on to the bar on the squat rack. Put that bitch on my back and work out hard. So while you're sitting a table away from me watching me gorge myself with food and feeling annoyed that I'm not as overweight as you are, there are things that are happening behind the scenes that allow me to eat the way I do.
I love being fit, you don't have to starve yourself in order to lose weight. Even all you did was diet (which I used to do) you'll never actually look as good as a man with some muscle on his body. Just get to the gym, get em gains, and eat. Plus when you're lifting weights, you can eat several hundred calories above your required bodily amount just to maintain you weight. But of course if you overeat you're gonna get fat, but at that point you're basically force feeding yourself (of course it depends on your temperament with food). Going to the gym and doing compound lifts is going to make you a happy man if you love to eat.
This is probably at least 25% of the reason why I run alot. So I can down a tremendous amount of food and not gain weight. I love food, and running 75+ miles per week let's me eat somewhat close to anything I want without having to give a shit.
To be honest if your goal is to eat as much as you want endurance exercise is the way to go. A super intense strength training session might burn 300-500 calories. Decent, but doesn't compare to a good run or bike where it's easy to burn in excess of 1500-2000+ calories.
Even all you did was diet (which I used to do) you'll never actually look as good as a man with some muscle on his body.
On November 02 2012 07:19 evanthebouncy! wrote: It has been fairly accurate for me. I exercise 1 hour every day (swim) and cook my own meal and eat very healthy. My weight was 145 pounds, now I moved it to around 141 pounds and it's pretty steady now.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition. I feel I gained muscle and lost fat, but overall my weight is constant throughout the past 2 years.
You COULD change it extremely but it's very stressful.
141? Damn man how old are you? :D
What is surprising about 141, especially without a height context? If he is 6'2", yea thats pretty light, but if he is like 5'8" it's just a normal weight, and if he is like 5'0" he has some muscle or is a bit chunky. Weight by itself doesn't tell us much.
141 in any context is super light for an adult male, are you kidding me?
On November 02 2012 07:19 evanthebouncy! wrote: It has been fairly accurate for me. I exercise 1 hour every day (swim) and cook my own meal and eat very healthy. My weight was 145 pounds, now I moved it to around 141 pounds and it's pretty steady now.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition. I feel I gained muscle and lost fat, but overall my weight is constant throughout the past 2 years.
You COULD change it extremely but it's very stressful.
141? Damn man how old are you? :D
What is surprising about 141, especially without a height context? If he is 6'2", yea thats pretty light, but if he is like 5'8" it's just a normal weight, and if he is like 5'0" he has some muscle or is a bit chunky. Weight by itself doesn't tell us much.
141 in any context is super light for an adult male, are you kidding me?
I guess it depends on what you mean. If you mean compared to average then sure it's light, probably 40-50 pounds lighter than the "typical person", but that's because the average person is somewhere between overweight and obese.
If we look at normal, healthy weight ranges/BMI/body fat, then 140 is right in the middle of the "normal/healthy" weight range for a guy who is 5'8". A guy who is 5'0" and 140 is classified as overweight from a BMI standpoint (BMI is kind of shitty because it doesn't handle people with solid amounts of muscle very well, but it gives a good general idea).
On November 02 2012 08:13 LuckyFool wrote: L_Master running 75 miles a week? Holy shiiiit you're a machine. I'm at like 25 which feels like a lot.
You just build to it slowly (or in my case recklessly fast) over time. When I first started running I remember a 6 mile run felt like the longest, craziest thing I had ever imagined.
Hi hi, some tips and ideas about how to get down to that six pack...
Yes in order to get the six pack you are going to want to get down to 5%-10% body fat range, and there are a couple of different ways for you to do that.
First thing is carb cycling, which I personally don't really recommend as I like to be very consistent in my diet (I'm lazy as fuck lol). The second is IF (intermittent fasting) that while it does seem like a gimmick it really does work, especially after a hard day of exercise.
Second, if you are trying to build muscle, FOR FUCK'S SAKE DON'T CUT SO MANY CALORIES. You mentioned in your post that you were doing a low protein fast, this is the WRONG way you want to go about it. Completely WRONG.
If you are working out hard at the gym a lot of days and you are not getting a protein intake so that your total calories are over 5% regualar BMR, OR you are not getting .75-1.0 grams of protein for lean body mass, you are NOT going to efficiently build muscle (yes you don't have to reach quite that level but that's optimum efficiency unless you want to bulk - ewwww).
Based on the routine you described in the first paragraph (which I don't know if you do anymore) you are actually going to be BURNING muscle with that low of a calorie intake, especially considering that you had little to NO protein.
I mean if there is one macro that I would recommend cutting out on non-workout days (this is what carb cycling is btw) it would always, always be my carbs. A lot of people recommend cycling them out completely for two weeks (to get that six pack) or more, - and there are still as many on the opposite side of the coin who argue that the decrease in glycogen really isn't worth it when you're trying to make gains.
Personally, I run a diet with around 110g of protein, (most of it is isolated whey and chicken breasts) and then brocolli for filler (usually around 5-6 cups a day). Since a lot of what I am eating is fiber I just make sure to count my protein right and I"m good to go - I find the loss of glycogen to be neglegible and I feel better anyhow - use what works for you.
Also don't really look at weight as an indicator of how you are doing, if you want to be specific about it then look at body fat percentage . You are good as you are - never give up or have bad thoughts about yourself. Work hard and make gains buddy, or lose that fat and get shredded!
I think this is a myth that needs to be destroyed. A single Big Mac meal is what? $5 or so? Six pounds of chicken is roughly $12 at Wal-Mart. A head of lettuce is $1.50, add in some more vegetables, and maybe you're at $5 worth of veggies. Salad dressing of your choice = $2.50 (for the off brand stuff). 2 lbs of sirloin tip is $12. Liquid egg whites are $3.88/carton (large carton), and eggs are like $1.50. So now we're at roughly $30. If you want to throw in some potatoes or something, it's a couple dollars more, let's say you find some crap you want for another $5 (a bag of shredded cheese and marinade), and then you buy a snack food for another $5. That's roughly $40, and I can eat for the entire week (this is actually my meal plan, basically, for most weeks), 3 meals a day. For $40 I get 2 2/3 days of eating at McDonald's. The difference is that I have to cook this food, and at McDonald's it's already there, and it tastes SOOOO good.
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money. To eat perfectly, perhaps.
Albiet your Wal-Mart Prices are alittle higher than I'd imagine, and I'd also wager a Big Mac Meal is closer to $6 though McDouble Cheeseburgers are still 99cents :D
Wait what? We just established that buying your own healthy groceries is cheaper than eating out. We are talking about which method is healthier, not which method is more caloric dense. Whether something is caloric dense or not isn't what we were talking about. If anything, if our goal is to stay healthy and not get fat, then eating foods that are less caloric dense is better. Besides, how caloric dense something is has nothing to do with how full you feel after eating it.
In any case: eating out: more expensive, more caloric dense (you get fatter), unhealthy, takes less time cooking: less expensive, less caloric dense (although you certainly have caloric dense options if you need the extra calories, let's say, if you're bulking), healthy, takes some time (once you get good at cooking and establish a routine, it really doesn't take much time at all)
i eat out maybe twice a week (fri and sat with friends). i cook my own food all other times, and i don't eat the same stuff everyday. my diet might be something like:
day1 breakfast: oatmeal, eggs, banana, apple, milk lunch: chicken thighs, asparagus and mushrooms, bit of white rice dinner: fish (cod, sole, tuna, etc), broccoli, pasta or bread snacks: almonds, sunflower seeds
day2 breakfast: bagel with cheese, apple, orange juice, grapes lunch: pork chops, collard greens, brown and red rice mix dinner: beef stew (chuck roast beef, carrots, celery, onions) snacks: avocado, fruit
etc etc.
these are only some of the options. not to mention all the different ways of preparing the same type of food. cooking is fucking awesome. i can make food however i want it, as much salt as i want (usually none), no nasty greasy vegetable oil, and i feel great eating it.
edit - it's not a matter of cost. buying groceries is cheaper, period. if you're gonna be eating shit like double cheeseburgers at mcdonalds, you might as well compare that to only eating white rice. in fact, take the money you'd spend buying mcdonalds and get ground beef, cabbage, and white rice in bulk. cheaper, healthier, and fills you up just the same. the problem is that people don't want to change, or they think that eating out is cheaper.
I wasn't necessarily arguing that one or the other was cheaper.... Both at their cheapest are very cheap... Also just because something has been established in a thread doesn't mean it's not a myth regardless? Food Inc and several other documentaries used this line of reasoning on why people eat so unhealthily in America... Not even just Fast food, but Grocery stores as well...
I don't really think McDonalds is relevant, it's like the Hitler of Food, it's the easy to illustrate go-to example of obvious mistakes in nutrition. It's hyperbolic if anyone is actually concerned about anything we're discussing... Obviously intentional choice by lemon
So I'm not really sure if we were discussing which one is healthier since McDonalds vs Healthy Store Bought food is obvious... I was more talking about the rest of the thread about caloric restriction, and how in his example he compared a 3,000 calorie diet with a 1,500 one for the same price. (throwing random numbers up, <3)
I dunno, You keep saying "we" but I can't find your posts in this thread so forgive me if I am indeed missing something, I must admit confusion
Well, we're actually discussing both. I think the original statement was that McDonald's contains high Caloric levels, and is cheap, so people buy it and become fat. It was, imo, implied that it actually costs more to eat a low Calorie, store bought food plan (a "healthy" one).
Even in terms of Caloric density, substitute a light dressing for a full fat one and use more. Or add like two tbsp of Olive Oil (240 Calories) to a salad or something. There are ways to do it for very little money.
Granted, as someone pointed out, this doesn't include the opportunity cost of cooking vs whatever else it is that people might do. Some people may come home and spend their time with their kids, or something that they find more value in, so they go for the pre-made route. To those people I say: just eat less of what you're eating... walk away from the table a bit less full than usual.
These days... saying you are working out (Gym) almost means something bad instead of something good. I can see it in people faces. -He has nothing better to do -He does it for the attention(girls) -I bet he is taking something -12 hours per week ? You could have been doing so many other things. WELL FUCK YOU
Great read op , but do not put Skinny & fit on the same sentence. Beeing skinny is equally bad to beeing fat. It is all about sacrifices and mainly.. time. The problem is people start with the wrong expectations and goals. I come from the skinny side.. i was 1.90m tall and like 70kg. But the worst & best is that my metabolism has a great time. I sweat even when i am sleeping for fucks sake.
When i first started going to the gym , i said to myself you are 20 atm there are your goals at the age of 25. You tell people it is going to take more than a couple of years and they all freak out. Problem is everyone is aiming at a certain goal and not a lifestyle. Everybody is differnet and so will be their workout routines/diet. You can't get mad if you see a person eating 7 meals a day and not get fat, in the same way you can't get mad at a person who eats half your food and packs on twice the muscle ! Everyone has strong points and weaknesses.
If i can give one advice.. it is all about Time managent : Find 2 activities in a day that are a must and plan everything else around them.
OH also. You can't force yourself into something, for exampe a diet. Let's say you are fat and you decide to eat a little bit better and ofc workout (Fit = Pain & sweat so f*** these only diet thingies). You will lose weight and be happy, but somewhere along the way this will stop. You will be troubled..then do a bit of research and BOOM you will find a diet plan , and ofc you will follow it because you already like the result of your previous sacrifices so you will naturally do more in order to achieve more. Works the same way with supplements ,new routines and everything. You can't force everything from the start.. you need to give the needs some time to appear.
On November 02 2012 09:08 kaiz0ku wrote: These days... saying you are working out (Gym) almost means something bad instead of something good. I can see it in people faces. -He has nothing better to do -He does it for the attention(girls) -I bet he is taking something -12 hours per week ? You could have been doing so many other things. WELL FUCK YOU
Hahaha, great rebuttal ;p But consider this: If you didn't feel the need to tell other people about it, don't you think you wouldn't get those kinds of answers? I consider it just a lifestyle choice if someone doesn't bother telling others about it, but if you have to tell others about it, then maybe there's some truth to the looks you're getting ;p Sometimes it comes up when scheduling with someone, but if you are scheduling with someone they probably already have an ok opinion of you and won't give you a weird look for your routine unless you say it with smugness.
On November 02 2012 09:08 kaiz0ku wrote: These days... saying you are working out (Gym) almost means something bad instead of something good. I can see it in people faces. -He has nothing better to do -He does it for the attention(girls) -I bet he is taking something -12 hours per week ? You could have been doing so many other things. WELL FUCK YOU
Hahaha, great rebuttal ;p But consider this: If you didn't feel the need to tell other people about it, don't you think you wouldn't get those kinds of answers? I consider it just a lifestyle choice if someone doesn't bother telling others about it, but if you have to tell others about it, then maybe there's some truth to the looks you're getting ;p Sometimes it comes up when scheduling with someone, but if you are scheduling with someone they probably already have an ok opinion of you and won't give you a weird look for your routine unless you say it with smugness.
Sorry sorry i didn't mean i go and tell them ofc ! But it comes up here and there.. when making plans or just plain conversations.
You meant anorexic. Not skinny. Skinny is just thin. Not grossly underweight.
Skinny tends to have a negative connotation associated with it though in my experience. Skinny to me generally implies someone who is bordering on unhealthily low weight. I personally think a better word to use for what we are trying to say is lean. To me anyway, that conjures images of people with healthy body compositions.
The other problem here is the shift in what is perceived as normal in society. In America 70% of the country is overweight, and approaching 40% are obese. Thats crazy. People are so used to seeing big people that truly normal people are being seen as odd or outliers. People that tend to fall in the 20-21 range of BMI are very often told they should eat more or that they are too skinny. Folks, that's a normal weight.
Really one has only to look at elite runners to get an idea of how absurdly far in the wrong direction we have gone. I've seen plenty of comments about top runners with people saying they "look like they are starving" or "need to eat more" or are "unhealthy". To me that's mind-blowing that we have gotten to the point where the epitome of physical aerobic conditioning is seen as unhealthy. That shows how warped our perspective has become, that we can look at some of the healthiest people on the planet and because they are so out of place with society at large see it as unhealthy.
Seriously, step back and think about that for a second. It scares me a little to be honest.
People that tend to fall in the 20-21 range of BMI are very often told they should eat more or that they are too skinny. Folks, that's a normal weight.
LOL story of my fucking life.
I think it is a big rebound from 70s-90s when so many girls were anorexic / bulimic, that people went to the other extreme where now anyone who isn't chubby isn't eating enough. People are so dumb.
People that tend to fall in the 20-21 range of BMI are very often told they should eat more or that they are too skinny. Folks, that's a normal weight.
LOL story of my fucking life.
Yep, same here now that I went from 5'8" 190 -> 145-150ish. Especially when I mention I probably will need to gradually shift 5-10 pounds lighter to be at an ideal racing weight.
It amuses me cause I really don't even look thin. I have no six pack, a hint of love handles, etc. and still get told by some people (though usually its not healthier than average college populations) that I am too skinny.
I'm not sure what alien world you live on but here in my section of Earth the only people that use skinny as an insult are the delusionally obese. No girl in my entire life has seen me take my shirt off and said "Oh garoosss you're not fat or ripped like jesus!?"
Hey man, I got nothing against that look, although I would have to say I prefer to have some more muscle mass.
Well from my first post I really meant guys who do NOTHING but diet. I don't know exactly how the science of it all works but I feel people who just diet and don't do any form of exercise, have little definition to their body. On the other hand great distance runners like you and those guys in the picture are comfortably feeding yourselves, so this leads me to think that the nutrients you're getting may be helping you maintain your muscles to a better degree. Complete broscience out of my hat though lol, the power of observation can only do so much.
And on burning calories yeah distance running is great. If you're hauling ass and doing 6 or 7 miles a day, that's a huge amount calories gone, plus you could keep going if you wanted to. You're getting in 75 miles a week, you're in a different league man, I shudder to think about what you would have to eat in order to not die haha. While weightlifting there's all that rest time, you're shredding your muscle fibers and spending calories to repair them but at a certain threshold running is just gonna out class lifting in direct calories burnt. I ran too! (TL Running Thread FTW) But doing both forms of activities burns too many calories so I gave up running... as much as I love food, the thought of eating an extra 1 - 2 meals everyday just to keep your weight is nauseating. And of course it depends on how your body takes in food.
Fuck you fat people and your problems. I get shit all the time for being skinny too. Guys tell me to eat more, girls ask how I eat so much without gaining weight, fat people telling me "it's okay for you since you're skinny". So much for exercise and maintaining a decent diet (which isn't as difficult as you'd think).
On November 02 2012 08:40 Aelonius wrote: I want to work out more to shape up, but after a few days it's just demotivating and boring to be honest.
Consistency is more important than quantity. Try just doing 1 set of crunches and 1 set of pushups (as many as you can until you feel tired) every morning when you get up. It'll probably take less than 5 minutes per day and by the end of the first month you'll start seeing and feeling results.
TBH a lot of fitness trainers or people who work out always try to push people to work out very hard, which is oftentimes just too much for those just starting out. It IS boring and quite unnecessary. It's best to just have the "something is better than nothing" mindset.
On November 02 2012 10:38 Probe1 wrote: I'm not sure what alien world you live on but here in my section of Earth the only people that use skinny as an insult are the delusionally obese. No girl in my entire life has seen me take my shirt off and said "Oh garoosss you're not fat or ripped like jesus!?"
Delusionally obese. I'm gonna steal that bit of poetic gold, thank you very much.
On November 02 2012 10:30 L_Master wrote: 12k calories a day.
Lol. You could have at least picked a reasonable number.
I'm serious... In-N-Out + Taco Bell for 8 meals...
Alright, my bad. Alot of people talk out of their ass or have no clue how many calories are actually in food, but if he was seriously eating 8 meals a day of fast food for a week then it's quite possible that got well upwards of 10k calories.
Was there a reason he ate this way rofl? I can't say I've run into anyone with that type of eating behavior.
On November 02 2012 10:38 Probe1 wrote: I'm not sure what alien world you live on but here in my section of Earth the only people that use skinny as an insult are the delusionally obese. No girl in my entire life has seen me take my shirt off and said "Oh garoosss you're not fat or ripped like jesus!?"
It's probably less used with guys, but when I hear people talk about being skinny it's almost always in the context of "he's too skinny for me" or "she is too skinny to look healthy/be attractive". When people are talking about body types that look good I usually hear things like "ripped", "toned", "lean", "shredded", "muscular", etc.
While weightlifting there's all that rest time, you're shredding your muscle fibers and spending calories to repair them but at a certain threshold running is just gonna out class lifting in direct calories burnt.
Yea, honestly if your goal is just losing weight and looking better; primarily weight lifting is the way to go. It helps much more than endurance exercise to change body composition, and until you start being able to do alot of it (which can take a while for out of shape people) weightlifting probably burns more calories, especially when you consider the boost in metabolism from it. Not to mention it's good for the confidence too. Pretty easy for a big guy to go in and throw up some decent weight squatting/benching/etc. but to go run all day and be like "finally broke 14 minutes for the mile!" doesn't do the same for the ego.
On November 02 2012 10:26 forgotten0ne wrote: Talk to Husky. I've watched that kid eat 12k calories a day for a week, with no effect. Your generalization may ring true for some, but not all.
That's actually why it's called a generalization. It falls in the middle of the bell curve. Everyone knows that there are some people on the outer ends (I can't remember proper terms off the top of my head) of the bell curve.
For reference, here is what I mean by skinny:
Whoever this guy is, he is also skinny, but he is also fat.. he's skinny-fat (This is basically where I am right now):
I think most people think of this when they say skinny though:
Here's a dude that's jacked (as well as overly bronzed- to those who are unaware, that is NOT a tan):
Here's a guy that was fat and is pretty fit now (or vice versa?) The right picture is fat to me:
So, hopefully that clears up my usage of the words, since they're all relative.
People that tend to fall in the 20-21 range of BMI are very often told they should eat more or that they are too skinny. Folks, that's a normal weight.
LOL story of my fucking life.
Yep, same here now that I went from 5'8" 190 -> 145-150ish. Especially when I mention I probably will need to gradually shift 5-10 pounds lighter to be at an ideal racing weight.
It amuses me cause I really don't even look thin. I have no six pack, a hint of love handles, etc. and still get told by some people (though usually its not healthier than average college populations) that I am too skinny.
Dude, I get this ALL the time now. What kills me is how they tell me I should eat more because I'm going to burn it off anyway, because of that magical metabolism that I have. Fuck off, seriously. I'm fairly certain that I'm bigger than the average male at 5'9", but I'm told to eat more.
That said, I'm definitely not happy enough with my physique to post pictures of myself right now. So to whoever suggested that idea: no. I'm also dealing with some back injuries that are keeping me out of the gym, and from most physical activity in general.
Running is a different joy I think. I've gone from running an exasperating 15 min/mile to an easy skip of 10 min/mile so I'm still quite a novice at running despite my improvements. But from my experience it seems that I really really enjoy that feeling you get in the middle of the run or towards the end of the run where you suddenly feel like you're flying and all the fatigue goes away (is this the Runner's high?). Then you just don't want to stop running but you have to because you've got other things to do during the day.
While in weightlifting, following the Starting Strength program, when you finish your sets in good form with good bar speed that means you can up your weight without fear, which is instant gratification. Plus once you slap on those 45 lb plates its a huge ego boost. Something like that is just not possible in running without being reckless as you've said, and it will also take more time than in weightlifting in order to up your mileage.
For me, there is just no better feeling in the world than watching that number on the bar go up. When I hit 405 DL, I was so fucking pumped.... 4 fucking plates on either side of the bar. I know a 405 isn't a huge DL, but I felt like a fucking god pulling that at 190 lbs. Or squatting 315+. I miss those days. My numbers suck now.
Your skinny and skinny fat pictures are strange to me. Neither of those are guys are skinny, unless your one of those guys walking around the gym with 18" arms and massive chest. The top guy is reasonably lean, the second guy (skinny fat) isn't even close to skinny. He's got a little muscle on him (look at arm size) and a good amount of fat. I would describe him as somewhere between "soft" and "overweight".
That guy at the bottom did a thing where he went from super ripped, to fat (added like 90lbs) and then back again in 6 months to show it could be done with the right knowledge and execution.
This is the "true" skinny to me. When you body has used up all your fat is forced to use your muscle in order to stay alive. If you look around, people are typically skinny fat. They don't exercise, and they don't have a diet, so that equals no muscle gain, and no fat loss.
On November 02 2012 12:23 Snuggles wrote: Running is a different joy I think. I've gone from running an exasperating 15 min/mile to an easy skip of 10 min/mile so I'm still quite a novice at running despite my improvements. But from my experience it seems that I really really enjoy that feeling you get in the middle of the run or towards the end of the run where you suddenly feel like you're flying and all the fatigue goes away (is this the Runner's high?). Then you just don't want to stop running but you have to because you've got other things to do during the day.
While in weightlifting, following the Starting Strength program, when you finish your sets in good form with good bar speed that means you can up your weight without fear, which is instant gratification. Plus once you slap on those 45 lb plates its a huge ego boost. Something like that is just not possible in running without being reckless as you've said, and it will also take more time than in weightlifting in order to up your mileage.
That is DEFINITELY a part of it. Runs like that are absolutely fantastic and it truly is an awesome feeling, as are other runs like a well executed tempo run.
Another part of it, that only gets better as you improve is that feeling of just plain running and moving fast. For me there is nothing like just getting out and moving fast, feeling the ground skimming away under my feet. It's just this visceral feeling; the wind on your face, the ground under your feet. I just as alive and as present as possible. Not to mention the ego trip when your cruising good and come flying past a cyclist.
Another huge aspect of running that I love too is the feeling of invincibility. I literally do not, seemingly cannot, get tired without going out and doing a significant amount of aerobic work. A 5-6 mile slow jog at like 8:00-8:30 min/mile pace is the kind of thing that leaves me refreshed and more energetic than before. It's sorta hard to explain but bottom line is you really do start getting to a point where you cannot get tired unless you go and do a bunch of running that day.
While in weightlifting, following the Starting Strength program, when you finish your sets in good form with good bar speed that means you can up your weight without fear, which is instant gratification. Plus once you slap on those 45 lb plates its a huge ego boost. Something like that is just not possible in running without being reckless as you've said, and it will also take more time than in weightlifting in order to up your mileage.
Pretty much agree with this. Before I ran I was somewhat into lifting and yea it definitely has some more instant gratification than running. In strength training when you add weight to the bar it's there. You see it. Everyone else sees it. You know you moved up. In running it's almost imperceptible improvements as you gradually get faster. It isn't noticed day to day, or week to week; but eventually you do kinda realize holy shit I'm running so much faster at an easier effort than before. But like you said its long term.
Also, holy fuck yes does it feel badass when you do get up to your first time using 45s, or first time using double 45s, or w.e. Almost makes you feel like the fucking king (at least until that guy loads up 6 45s on both sides and starts squatting ).
I think that if you need stimulants to workout then you're not worthy of the title "fit". Isn't it funny how caffeine and the like are sneaking into more and more products? Why does everyone need all this stimulating? Maybe the fact that less than 10% of total calories consumed in the US comes from fruits and vegetables has something to do with it.
On November 03 2012 05:25 Mstring wrote: I think that if you need stimulants to workout then you're not worthy of the title "fit". Isn't it funny how caffeine and the like are sneaking into more and more products? Why does everyone need all this stimulating? Maybe the fact that less than 10% of total calories consumed in the US comes from fruits and vegetables has something to do with it.
Caffeine actually has been decently studied and is shown to slightly improve results in endurance races.
Now if you need to rely on stuff like that for every workout you do...then yea there is probably an issue.
On November 03 2012 05:25 Mstring wrote: I think that if you need stimulants to workout then you're not worthy of the title "fit". Isn't it funny how caffeine and the like are sneaking into more and more products? Why does everyone need all this stimulating? Maybe the fact that less than 10% of total calories consumed in the US comes from fruits and vegetables has something to do with it.
Caffeine actually has been decently studied and is shown to slightly improve results in endurance races.
Now if you need to rely on stuff like that for every workout you do...then yea there is probably an issue.
Take a look around next time you're in public. People rely on this stuff for basic functioning not just to workout.
On November 03 2012 05:25 Mstring wrote: I think that if you need stimulants to workout then you're not worthy of the title "fit". Isn't it funny how caffeine and the like are sneaking into more and more products? Why does everyone need all this stimulating? Maybe the fact that less than 10% of total calories consumed in the US comes from fruits and vegetables has something to do with it.
Caffeine actually has been decently studied and is shown to slightly improve results in endurance races.
Now if you need to rely on stuff like that for every workout you do...then yea there is probably an issue.
Take a look around next time you're in public. People rely on this stuff for basic functioning not just to workout.
I honestly think that is more for the mental side, but I agree completely. I cannot say however, that I have talk with lots of people who use stimulant products to get through the physical part of the day. Some of this may be related to the ever increasing hours/stress levels, not to mention the fact that people get less and less physical activity on a daily basis and obviously plenty eat very poorly. Combine that all together and I think you have a recipe for why so many people need (or think they need anyway) caffeine and such to get through the day.
On November 03 2012 05:25 Mstring wrote: I think that if you need stimulants to workout then you're not worthy of the title "fit". Isn't it funny how caffeine and the like are sneaking into more and more products? Why does everyone need all this stimulating? Maybe the fact that less than 10% of total calories consumed in the US comes from fruits and vegetables has something to do with it.
Caffeine actually has been decently studied and is shown to slightly improve results in endurance races.
Now if you need to rely on stuff like that for every workout you do...then yea there is probably an issue.
Take a look around next time you're in public. People rely on this stuff for basic functioning not just to workout.
Personally, especially now that I'm working third shift, work takes its toll on my energy levels.
But I've had issues with lethargy and lack of energy pretty much my whole life. I can sleep for 14 hours and go back to sleep in 5, dead fucking tired, regardless of my diet. I've tried many, many remedies (eating changes, b12 supplements, etc), nothing really works for me. So I use a lot of stimulants. I'm sure there is a chemical reason for this, but I keep forgetting to make an appt with an endo.
On November 03 2012 22:43 Spicy_Curry wrote: Im curious, when you lose 50 lbs, what happens to all that skin? You cant just trim it off.
I lost about 40 and have no problems with excess skin. I'm not sure 40-50 pounds of stretching is really an issue. You don't add tons of skin, when you get fat you do fill up all your cells that can store fat which pushes the skin out and stretches it but the body doesn't layer on massive amounts of new skin to compensate.
Over time the skin eventually tightens back up as well.
On November 03 2012 22:43 Spicy_Curry wrote: Im curious, when you lose 50 lbs, what happens to all that skin? You cant just trim it off.
I lost about 40 and have no problems with excess skin. I'm not sure 40-50 pounds of stretching is really an issue. You don't add tons of skin, when you get fat you do fill up all your cells that can store fat which pushes the skin out and stretches it but the body doesn't layer on massive amounts of new skin to compensate.
Over time the skin eventually tightens back up as well.
Yeah, I've lost over 100 lbs, and my skin is just fine. Granted, I have a couple of stretch marks, but nothing gross or prominent. I think the main thing here is the time you give your body to adjust to the weight loss. I lost this weight over a period of about 4 years. I also have a tendency to drop/gain in large chunks, sometimes losing up to 3 lbs in a day. This meant a lot of fluctuation on a cheat day or sometimes week, where'd I'd gain 10-15lbs, and then lose it all rather quickly. My food babies also get pretty big, so my skin must be used to the differences by now.
only specific diet activities I follow are rarely drinking sugary fluids and rarely eating candy/chocolates/desserts but that is more for teeth health than weight watching
Yeah, I think that it's an insightful blog. The comparison of the fit person's day and the not fit person's day can be applied to anything, I think. Too often I hear people complain about lack of success for the reasons you mentioned, while simultaneously whining about how parallel people in their life are magically able to find this sort of success.
Yes, there are other factors involved but I'm a strong believer in meritocracy, that you make yourself who you are. I'm not a perfect person but I don't search for excuses.
Good time management, discipline, and various other habits that you force yourself to make are what carry you to success. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions but if you live your life by these principles, you'll be well off. I'll leave you with words I like to think over sometimes:Feel the pain of discipline or feel the pain of regret.
Im 5 seven and weight about 158 lbs. When I did wrestling I was about 140 lbs. Im not skinny but Im not quite a bigger guy. However high school was really big change weight wise. I was 5'3 and weighed 164 lbs and at the end of High school i was 5'7 and weighed 148 lbs.
On November 07 2012 12:32 shizaep wrote: Yeah, I think that it's an insightful blog. The comparison of the fit person's day and the not fit person's day can be applied to anything, I think. Too often I hear people complain about lack of success for the reasons you mentioned, while simultaneously whining about how parallel people in their life are magically able to find this sort of success.
Yes, there are other factors involved but I'm a strong believer in meritocracy, that you make yourself who you are. I'm not a perfect person but I don't search for excuses.
Good time management, discipline, and various other habits that you force yourself to make are what carry you to success. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions but if you live your life by these principles, you'll be well off. I'll leave you with words I like to think over sometimes:Feel the pain of discipline or feel the pain of regret.
Just for reference, eating fairly "clean," this is what it'd take to get to 2200kcal.
1 lb of chicken breast 567 kcal 3 cups of white rice 725 kcal 32 oz 2% milk 488 kcal (goes up or down depending on fat content, obviously) 2 cups of broccoli 50 kcal 10 oz of carrots 99 kcal 8 oz apple 118 kcal (This is a fairly large apple, btw, and that's excluding the core) 1 serving (8 oz) of Greek yogurt (Chobani, Vanilla) 170 kcal
That's just a pretty basic sample of how a "clean" eater might eat (except they'd almost certainly substitute brown rice, because it's a "slow carb" despite having a GI and GL value more or less identical to white rice, so it's the same fucking thing). If they did what I suggest in the parenthetical statement, they'd lower the Caloric total by about 60kcal.
My guess is that you're not actually eating that much every day. This is why weighing and logging your daily intake, at least for a little while to see what portion sizes are, is an invaluable experience.
On November 07 2012 12:32 shizaep wrote: Yeah, I think that it's an insightful blog. The comparison of the fit person's day and the not fit person's day can be applied to anything, I think. Too often I hear people complain about lack of success for the reasons you mentioned, while simultaneously whining about how parallel people in their life are magically able to find this sort of success.
Yes, there are other factors involved but I'm a strong believer in meritocracy, that you make yourself who you are. I'm not a perfect person but I don't search for excuses.
Good time management, discipline, and various other habits that you force yourself to make are what carry you to success. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions but if you live your life by these principles, you'll be well off. I'll leave you with words I like to think over sometimes:Feel the pain of discipline or feel the pain of regret.
Thanks. This is more or less what I was trying to drive at, and some people kind of nitpicked at certain points. That's probably my fault for not being as clear as I could have been, but I figure that it's obvious that diet is the major determining factor in weight gain/loss, and this wasn't meant to be some sort of guide to health and happiness. I completely agree with this being applicable to all parts of our lives.
Using myself as an example, I often get frustrated with my current employment situation (I am tier 2 tech support for an oil company, I do work with gas stations POS and credit systems), because I feel like certain skills that I have are completely underutilized by the role, and that I'm really squandering a lot of talent and intelligence that I could put to better use. (NOTE: I'm not, by any stretch, calling myself a brilliant person, so no one should take it that way). But what's holding me back is that I haven't finished my bachelor's degree. And I get so upset about this, and the lack of financial success that I've had, but it's because I haven't had the willingness to put in the work to get the degrees I want, and use those to get a job that I'd be happy with. I wanted to live the college life, on campus, and party like a mad-man for a while, but the money isn't there for that. So instead of toughing it out, what did I do? I whined about it and never went to school. Finally, after 2-3 years I'm getting back to school, and I plan to double major while working full time. It won't be easy, but if I want to be more successful in the long-term, I need to deal with the hardship and sacrifice now, so that in the future, I'll have the necessary development to be successful as I define success.
The most successful people I know, personally and through media, are absolute workaholics. I think of guys like P. Diddy, and all these stars. We look at the glamour they live in, because they're always on tv, but that shit is their work. They're ALWAYS working. The millionaires that I know never stop. They go to bed at midnight, and wake up at 5 am. They sacrifice to have what they desire out of life. It hurts certain areas of their lives (most of them are divorced, and their kids hate them), but this is the life they want. I wouldn't willingly sacrifice some of those things for any amount of money, but I define success differently than them, and that's fine. The point is, if you want something that you don't have, the only person to blame is yourself. People really need to stop looking everywhere else for something to blame for their lack of happiness, and start taking care of it themselves. There's just a complete lack of personal accountability in all areas of life right now, and, imo, that really needs to change.
I couldn't disagree with this post more. I haven't read many of the replies because they're lengthy, but the consensus is that you're right. I'm vehemently opposed to your ideas on fat people. While you have nailed a decent percentage of tubs of lard, you're not really considering a good size majority of fat people in relation to fit people. Personally, I play football. I've played football since I was 14. I'm using myself as an example simply because I've seen plenty of 'unfit' people who have meticulous workout and diet plans based on their goal whereas I've also witnessed endless (men) who are fit by social standards but have neither.
I was 6'4 235ish after forcefully gaining weight and working out in 8th grade summer, and since, 10 years later have kept my cardio and muscle mass up (with size increases in height and weight). My bones are probably twice the size of 99% of people who have posted in this blog. Every linemen I know runs at least a 5.5 in the 40 and can lift Honda Civics with their legs, yet has at least 40 pounds of fat in the chest, gut, and thigh area. They can clean more than most men weigh 50 times a day and dead lift over 400 pounds. On the other hand, I've met endless receivers and corners who have problems with long distance running/cardio and can't curl 35lb dumbbells in sets.
Without question, the latter example are extremely fit by your standards. They're skinny, and they're toned. Guess what? They have a six pack, too. However, they're not fit at all. My point is that your generalization of those fat kids who have no shape to them and sweat sitting down in comparison to random skinny guys who actually do no exercise is a scientific observation gone atrocity at best.
Also, for Breaking Bad, don't watch the first 8 episodes of the 5th season... just wait until mid-2013 to catch it all at once. Those 8 episodes are anti-climactic.
On November 07 2012 12:32 shizaep wrote: Yeah, I think that it's an insightful blog. The comparison of the fit person's day and the not fit person's day can be applied to anything, I think. Too often I hear people complain about lack of success for the reasons you mentioned, while simultaneously whining about how parallel people in their life are magically able to find this sort of success.
Yes, there are other factors involved but I'm a strong believer in meritocracy, that you make yourself who you are. I'm not a perfect person but I don't search for excuses.
Good time management, discipline, and various other habits that you force yourself to make are what carry you to success. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions but if you live your life by these principles, you'll be well off. I'll leave you with words I like to think over sometimes:Feel the pain of discipline or feel the pain of regret.
Just for reference, eating fairly "clean," this is what it'd take to get to 2200kcal.
1 lb of chicken breast 567 kcal 3 cups of white rice 725 kcal 32 oz 2% milk 488 kcal (goes up or down depending on fat content, obviously) 2 cups of broccoli 50 kcal 10 oz of carrots 99 kcal 8 oz apple 118 kcal (This is a fairly large apple, btw, and that's excluding the core) 1 serving (8 oz) of Greek yogurt (Chobani, Vanilla) 170 kcal
That's just a pretty basic sample of how a "clean" eater might eat (except they'd almost certainly substitute brown rice, because it's a "slow carb" despite having a GI and GL value more or less identical to white rice, so it's the same fucking thing). If they did what I suggest in the parenthetical statement, they'd lower the Caloric total by about 60kcal.
My guess is that you're not actually eating that much every day. This is why weighing and logging your daily intake, at least for a little while to see what portion sizes are, is an invaluable experience.
On November 07 2012 12:32 shizaep wrote: Yeah, I think that it's an insightful blog. The comparison of the fit person's day and the not fit person's day can be applied to anything, I think. Too often I hear people complain about lack of success for the reasons you mentioned, while simultaneously whining about how parallel people in their life are magically able to find this sort of success.
Yes, there are other factors involved but I'm a strong believer in meritocracy, that you make yourself who you are. I'm not a perfect person but I don't search for excuses.
Good time management, discipline, and various other habits that you force yourself to make are what carry you to success. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions but if you live your life by these principles, you'll be well off. I'll leave you with words I like to think over sometimes:Feel the pain of discipline or feel the pain of regret.
Thanks. This is more or less what I was trying to drive at, and some people kind of nitpicked at certain points. That's probably my fault for not being as clear as I could have been, but I figure that it's obvious that diet is the major determining factor in weight gain/loss, and this wasn't meant to be some sort of guide to health and happiness. I completely agree with this being applicable to all parts of our lives.
Using myself as an example, I often get frustrated with my current employment situation (I am tier 2 tech support for an oil company, I do work with gas stations POS and credit systems), because I feel like certain skills that I have are completely underutilized by the role, and that I'm really squandering a lot of talent and intelligence that I could put to better use. (NOTE: I'm not, by any stretch, calling myself a brilliant person, so no one should take it that way). But what's holding me back is that I haven't finished my bachelor's degree. And I get so upset about this, and the lack of financial success that I've had, but it's because I haven't had the willingness to put in the work to get the degrees I want, and use those to get a job that I'd be happy with. I wanted to live the college life, on campus, and party like a mad-man for a while, but the money isn't there for that. So instead of toughing it out, what did I do? I whined about it and never went to school. Finally, after 2-3 years I'm getting back to school, and I plan to double major while working full time. It won't be easy, but if I want to be more successful in the long-term, I need to deal with the hardship and sacrifice now, so that in the future, I'll have the necessary development to be successful as I define success.
The most successful people I know, personally and through media, are absolute workaholics. I think of guys like P. Diddy, and all these stars. We look at the glamour they live in, because they're always on tv, but that shit is their work. They're ALWAYS working. The millionaires that I know never stop. They go to bed at midnight, and wake up at 5 am. They sacrifice to have what they desire out of life. It hurts certain areas of their lives (most of them are divorced, and their kids hate them), but this is the life they want. I wouldn't willingly sacrifice some of those things for any amount of money, but I define success differently than them, and that's fine. The point is, if you want something that you don't have, the only person to blame is yourself. People really need to stop looking everywhere else for something to blame for their lack of happiness, and start taking care of it themselves. There's just a complete lack of personal accountability in all areas of life right now, and, imo, that really needs to change.
you aren't held back by not having a bachelor's degree. i have an associates and am doing IT consulting for infrastructure.. performing the work of network admin/engineer.. PM me if you want to talk about how to move up in the world of IT
also, thanks for the blog.. reading something like this occasionally helps me keep motivated to continue hitting the gym and eating right
On November 07 2012 22:36 Game wrote: I couldn't disagree with this post more. I haven't read many of the replies because they're lengthy, but the consensus is that you're right. I'm vehemently opposed to your ideas on fat people. While you have nailed a decent percentage of tubs of lard, you're not really considering a good size majority of fat people in relation to fit people. Personally, I play football. I've played football since I was 14. I'm using myself as an example simply because I've seen plenty of 'unfit' people who have meticulous workout and diet plans based on their goal whereas I've also witnessed endless (men) who are fit by social standards but have neither.
I was 6'4 235ish after forcefully gaining weight and working out in 8th grade summer, and since, 10 years later have kept my cardio and muscle mass up (with size increases in height and weight). My bones are probably twice the size of 99% of people who have posted in this blog. Every linemen I know runs at least a 5.5 in the 40 and can lift Honda Civics with their legs, yet has at least 40 pounds of fat in the chest, gut, and thigh area. They can clean more than most men weigh 50 times a day and dead lift over 400 pounds. On the other hand, I've met endless receivers and corners who have problems with long distance running/cardio and can't curl 35lb dumbbells in sets.
Without question, the latter example are extremely fit by your standards. They're skinny, and they're toned. Guess what? They have a six pack, too. However, they're not fit at all. My point is that your generalization of those fat kids who have no shape to them and sweat sitting down in comparison to random skinny guys who actually do no exercise is a scientific observation gone atrocity at best.
Also, for Breaking Bad, don't watch the first 8 episodes of the 5th season... just wait until mid-2013 to catch it all at once. Those 8 episodes are anti-climactic.
I'm already caught up on Breaking Bad. I caught up in like week 3 of season 5.
That said, generalizations apply to the general populace. The fat people you're describing (which would also include guys like power lifters, and strongmen competitors, who are fat, but loaded with muscle mass) are not part of that 68.2% on the bell curve. The people I'm talking about are the people that fit in the 68.2% of the bell curve.
On November 07 2012 12:32 shizaep wrote: Yeah, I think that it's an insightful blog. The comparison of the fit person's day and the not fit person's day can be applied to anything, I think. Too often I hear people complain about lack of success for the reasons you mentioned, while simultaneously whining about how parallel people in their life are magically able to find this sort of success.
Yes, there are other factors involved but I'm a strong believer in meritocracy, that you make yourself who you are. I'm not a perfect person but I don't search for excuses.
Good time management, discipline, and various other habits that you force yourself to make are what carry you to success. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions but if you live your life by these principles, you'll be well off. I'll leave you with words I like to think over sometimes:Feel the pain of discipline or feel the pain of regret.
Just for reference, eating fairly "clean," this is what it'd take to get to 2200kcal.
1 lb of chicken breast 567 kcal 3 cups of white rice 725 kcal 32 oz 2% milk 488 kcal (goes up or down depending on fat content, obviously) 2 cups of broccoli 50 kcal 10 oz of carrots 99 kcal 8 oz apple 118 kcal (This is a fairly large apple, btw, and that's excluding the core) 1 serving (8 oz) of Greek yogurt (Chobani, Vanilla) 170 kcal
That's just a pretty basic sample of how a "clean" eater might eat (except they'd almost certainly substitute brown rice, because it's a "slow carb" despite having a GI and GL value more or less identical to white rice, so it's the same fucking thing). If they did what I suggest in the parenthetical statement, they'd lower the Caloric total by about 60kcal.
My guess is that you're not actually eating that much every day. This is why weighing and logging your daily intake, at least for a little while to see what portion sizes are, is an invaluable experience.
On November 07 2012 12:32 shizaep wrote: Yeah, I think that it's an insightful blog. The comparison of the fit person's day and the not fit person's day can be applied to anything, I think. Too often I hear people complain about lack of success for the reasons you mentioned, while simultaneously whining about how parallel people in their life are magically able to find this sort of success.
Yes, there are other factors involved but I'm a strong believer in meritocracy, that you make yourself who you are. I'm not a perfect person but I don't search for excuses.
Good time management, discipline, and various other habits that you force yourself to make are what carry you to success. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions but if you live your life by these principles, you'll be well off. I'll leave you with words I like to think over sometimes:Feel the pain of discipline or feel the pain of regret.
Thanks. This is more or less what I was trying to drive at, and some people kind of nitpicked at certain points. That's probably my fault for not being as clear as I could have been, but I figure that it's obvious that diet is the major determining factor in weight gain/loss, and this wasn't meant to be some sort of guide to health and happiness. I completely agree with this being applicable to all parts of our lives.
Using myself as an example, I often get frustrated with my current employment situation (I am tier 2 tech support for an oil company, I do work with gas stations POS and credit systems), because I feel like certain skills that I have are completely underutilized by the role, and that I'm really squandering a lot of talent and intelligence that I could put to better use. (NOTE: I'm not, by any stretch, calling myself a brilliant person, so no one should take it that way). But what's holding me back is that I haven't finished my bachelor's degree. And I get so upset about this, and the lack of financial success that I've had, but it's because I haven't had the willingness to put in the work to get the degrees I want, and use those to get a job that I'd be happy with. I wanted to live the college life, on campus, and party like a mad-man for a while, but the money isn't there for that. So instead of toughing it out, what did I do? I whined about it and never went to school. Finally, after 2-3 years I'm getting back to school, and I plan to double major while working full time. It won't be easy, but if I want to be more successful in the long-term, I need to deal with the hardship and sacrifice now, so that in the future, I'll have the necessary development to be successful as I define success.
The most successful people I know, personally and through media, are absolute workaholics. I think of guys like P. Diddy, and all these stars. We look at the glamour they live in, because they're always on tv, but that shit is their work. They're ALWAYS working. The millionaires that I know never stop. They go to bed at midnight, and wake up at 5 am. They sacrifice to have what they desire out of life. It hurts certain areas of their lives (most of them are divorced, and their kids hate them), but this is the life they want. I wouldn't willingly sacrifice some of those things for any amount of money, but I define success differently than them, and that's fine. The point is, if you want something that you don't have, the only person to blame is yourself. People really need to stop looking everywhere else for something to blame for their lack of happiness, and start taking care of it themselves. There's just a complete lack of personal accountability in all areas of life right now, and, imo, that really needs to change.
you aren't held back by not having a bachelor's degree. i have an associates and am doing IT consulting for infrastructure.. performing the work of network admin/engineer.. PM me if you want to talk about how to move up in the world of IT
also, thanks for the blog.. reading something like this occasionally helps me keep motivated to continue hitting the gym and eating right
Thanks for the offer. I am, however, not interested in staying in the IT field. I'm only here because it pays well, and allows me to pay for school, and there are opportunities in this company with the right qualifications. I don't know what it's called at other places, but we call in "Continuous improvement," which may be the popular term for it... I guess it's a lot like business optimization. I'd like to get into that, at a higher level, or possibly project management. The only part of IT that I enjoy is the problem solving/critical thinking aspects of it. In most other ways, I dislike IT work. I find it painfully boring to learn about computers, etc. I just can't bring myself to give a shit. I wish I could, because it's a great line of work to get into, and it's a great skill to have regardless of profession, but I just don't have any desire to learn about this stuff.
My current school path is to get a bachelor's in English, with a business minor, then complete an MBA. I have to talk to the MBA admins at the university I'm enrolled in to see exactly how to progress with this, but what I would like to do, as far as career choice is concerned, without a bachelor's I'm going to be overlooked on a lot of things. There are some experienced, talented people that I currently work with facing the same problem. Some of them are better suited for certain roles that they get passed up on, because of the lack of a degree. That's a massive failure on the part of management for not recognizing talent, in my opinion, but (as I understand it) this is something plaguing many big corporations.
It's not that your OP is actually wrong, but it's completely without any kind of compassion, maturity or understanding most people's lives. Yes, people make all kinds of excuses, when actually it is lifestyle choices that determine how slender most people are.
On the other hand, being too focussed on looks is immature and shallow. Don't judge a person's worth by how attractive they are.
Many adult people actually do have stressful and busy lives. Many people don't have money or time to hit the gym every day. It might be hard for you to imagine this. Many people are also caught in a circle of depression which is the result of lack of exercise and not being outside enough, which then makes it harder to do regular exercise.
In life, don't be someone who looks down on the pathetic, unattractive lazy fat people. Be someone who tells the truth, but have some compassion. Be a motivator and give people some of your positive energy to go out and improve themselves.
Putting people down and blaming them will rarely help people improve themselves
On November 02 2012 07:19 evanthebouncy! wrote: It has been fairly accurate for me. I exercise 1 hour every day (swim) and cook my own meal and eat very healthy. My weight was 145 pounds, now I moved it to around 141 pounds and it's pretty steady now.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition. I feel I gained muscle and lost fat, but overall my weight is constant throughout the past 2 years.
You COULD change it extremely but it's very stressful.
141? Damn man how old are you? :D
What is surprising about 141, especially without a height context? If he is 6'2", yea thats pretty light, but if he is like 5'8" it's just a normal weight, and if he is like 5'0" he has some muscle or is a bit chunky. Weight by itself doesn't tell us much.
On November 02 2012 07:01 Snuggles wrote: Great read.
I'm gonna eat a fat greasy hamburger and some fries after this. Then I'm gonna head to the gym, throw some plates on to the bar on the squat rack. Put that bitch on my back and work out hard. So while you're sitting a table away from me watching me gorge myself with food and feeling annoyed that I'm not as overweight as you are, there are things that are happening behind the scenes that allow me to eat the way I do.
I love being fit, you don't have to starve yourself in order to lose weight. Even all you did was diet (which I used to do) you'll never actually look as good as a man with some muscle on his body. Just get to the gym, get em gains, and eat. Plus when you're lifting weights, you can eat several hundred calories above your required bodily amount just to maintain you weight. But of course if you overeat you're gonna get fat, but at that point you're basically force feeding yourself (of course it depends on your temperament with food). Going to the gym and doing compound lifts is going to make you a happy man if you love to eat.
This is probably at least 25% of the reason why I run alot. So I can down a tremendous amount of food and not gain weight. I love food, and running 75+ miles per week let's me eat somewhat close to anything I want without having to give a shit.
To be honest if your goal is to eat as much as you want endurance exercise is the way to go. A super intense strength training session might burn 300-500 calories. Decent, but doesn't compare to a good run or bike where it's easy to burn in excess of 1500-2000+ calories.
. Maybe you have a preference for one look versus the other
if you actually get a weightlifter and a runner side by side IRL then one of them is going to feel and appear a lot more powerful than the other. weightlifters dont just appear to be physically dominating huge, strong and powerful; they also feel physically dominant, strong and powerful. both men and women love this.
few people want to look like a tennis player/runner, who looks like he could be snapped in half by another man and cant even stack some boxes onto a lorry or lift a rock, and who has to cower in fear at any sign of physical intimidation because he will be flattened in any confrontation or sport that doesnt involve running away.
all the asian girls like skinny asisn pretty boys who weigh 40kg, but they sure arent impressed by their bodies when they take their tops off in bed or at the beach.
OP why dont you just work on building some fucking muscle for 2 years straight before you even think about cutting. set a target like 150kg squat/120 bench and then cut when you reach that
On November 02 2012 07:19 evanthebouncy! wrote: It has been fairly accurate for me. I exercise 1 hour every day (swim) and cook my own meal and eat very healthy. My weight was 145 pounds, now I moved it to around 141 pounds and it's pretty steady now.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition. I feel I gained muscle and lost fat, but overall my weight is constant throughout the past 2 years.
You COULD change it extremely but it's very stressful.
141? Damn man how old are you? :D
What is surprising about 141, especially without a height context? If he is 6'2", yea thats pretty light, but if he is like 5'8" it's just a normal weight, and if he is like 5'0" he has some muscle or is a bit chunky. Weight by itself doesn't tell us much.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition.
I have no idea what this means. If people are stuck at 220, you don't think they can drop to 180?
On November 02 2012 07:01 Snuggles wrote: Great read.
I'm gonna eat a fat greasy hamburger and some fries after this. Then I'm gonna head to the gym, throw some plates on to the bar on the squat rack. Put that bitch on my back and work out hard. So while you're sitting a table away from me watching me gorge myself with food and feeling annoyed that I'm not as overweight as you are, there are things that are happening behind the scenes that allow me to eat the way I do.
I love being fit, you don't have to starve yourself in order to lose weight. Even all you did was diet (which I used to do) you'll never actually look as good as a man with some muscle on his body. Just get to the gym, get em gains, and eat. Plus when you're lifting weights, you can eat several hundred calories above your required bodily amount just to maintain you weight. But of course if you overeat you're gonna get fat, but at that point you're basically force feeding yourself (of course it depends on your temperament with food). Going to the gym and doing compound lifts is going to make you a happy man if you love to eat.
This is probably at least 25% of the reason why I run alot. So I can down a tremendous amount of food and not gain weight. I love food, and running 75+ miles per week let's me eat somewhat close to anything I want without having to give a shit.
To be honest if your goal is to eat as much as you want endurance exercise is the way to go. A super intense strength training session might burn 300-500 calories. Decent, but doesn't compare to a good run or bike where it's easy to burn in excess of 1500-2000+ calories.
Even all you did was diet (which I used to do) you'll never actually look as good as a man with some muscle on his body.
. Maybe you have a preference for one look versus the other
if you actually get a weightlifter and a runner side by side IRL then one of them is going to feel and appear a lot more powerful than the other. weightlifters dont just appear to be physically dominating huge, strong and powerful; they also feel physically dominant, strong and powerful. both men and women love this.
That's very subjective, maybe in primitive times but that might not even be the case considering runners are much better hunters. Or put a skinny boss who manages a big company next to a weight lifting janitor or huge cafeteria worker and ask them who feels more powerful.
Your size and muscle mass says nothing about powe in an interaction.
I guess I fall under the category of "few people". I've never been interested in spending 20% of every day lifting weights so I can lift more weights so others can extrapolate that I must be a tough guy.
On November 02 2012 07:19 evanthebouncy! wrote: It has been fairly accurate for me. I exercise 1 hour every day (swim) and cook my own meal and eat very healthy. My weight was 145 pounds, now I moved it to around 141 pounds and it's pretty steady now.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition. I feel I gained muscle and lost fat, but overall my weight is constant throughout the past 2 years.
You COULD change it extremely but it's very stressful.
141? Damn man how old are you? :D
What is surprising about 141, especially without a height context? If he is 6'2", yea thats pretty light, but if he is like 5'8" it's just a normal weight, and if he is like 5'0" he has some muscle or is a bit chunky. Weight by itself doesn't tell us much.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition.
I have no idea what this means. If people are stuck at 220, you don't think they can drop to 180?
On November 02 2012 07:01 Snuggles wrote: Great read.
I'm gonna eat a fat greasy hamburger and some fries after this. Then I'm gonna head to the gym, throw some plates on to the bar on the squat rack. Put that bitch on my back and work out hard. So while you're sitting a table away from me watching me gorge myself with food and feeling annoyed that I'm not as overweight as you are, there are things that are happening behind the scenes that allow me to eat the way I do.
I love being fit, you don't have to starve yourself in order to lose weight. Even all you did was diet (which I used to do) you'll never actually look as good as a man with some muscle on his body. Just get to the gym, get em gains, and eat. Plus when you're lifting weights, you can eat several hundred calories above your required bodily amount just to maintain you weight. But of course if you overeat you're gonna get fat, but at that point you're basically force feeding yourself (of course it depends on your temperament with food). Going to the gym and doing compound lifts is going to make you a happy man if you love to eat.
This is probably at least 25% of the reason why I run alot. So I can down a tremendous amount of food and not gain weight. I love food, and running 75+ miles per week let's me eat somewhat close to anything I want without having to give a shit.
To be honest if your goal is to eat as much as you want endurance exercise is the way to go. A super intense strength training session might burn 300-500 calories. Decent, but doesn't compare to a good run or bike where it's easy to burn in excess of 1500-2000+ calories.
Even all you did was diet (which I used to do) you'll never actually look as good as a man with some muscle on his body.
. Maybe you have a preference for one look versus the other
if you actually get a weightlifter and a runner side by side IRL then one of them is going to feel and appear a lot more powerful than the other. weightlifters dont just appear to be physically dominating huge, strong and powerful; they also feel physically dominant, strong and powerful. both men and women love this.
few people want to look like a tennis player/runner, who looks like he could be snapped in half by another man and cant even stack some boxes onto a lorry or lift a rock, and who has to cower in fear at any sign of physical intimidation because he will be flattened in any confrontation or sport that doesnt involve running away.
all the asian girls like skinny asisn pretty boys who weigh 40kg, but they sure arent impressed by their bodies when they take their tops off in bed or at the beach.
OP why dont you just work on building some fucking muscle for 2 years straight before you even think about cutting. set a target like 150kg squat/120 bench and then cut when you reach that
Take your shirt off next to one another. Typically, the tennis player will probably have the better defined body (and definition = sexiness). If you're strong, but you have a good layer of fat over all your muscles, you just look fat.
Anyway, both groups are relatively healthy and are viewed as relatively attractive, it's not a competition. Why are you making mountains out of molehills?
On November 14 2012 02:04 Probe1 wrote: I guess I fall under the category of "few people". I've never been interested in spending 20% of every day lifting weights so I can lift more weights so others can extrapolate that I must be a tough guy.
That's cause 20% of every day is a fucking lot lol. I will say that I've been lifting 5-6 days a week for over 4 years now, and I have had my strength come into pronounced usefulness only twice, both of which are largely due to the Ohio State off campus phenomena of punk ass kids looking for a fight. Now that I live in the real world, I work out only because it makes me feel good. To each their own!
On November 13 2012 12:48 deathly rat wrote: It's not that your OP is actually wrong, but it's completely without any kind of compassion, maturity or understanding most people's lives. Yes, people make all kinds of excuses, when actually it is lifestyle choices that determine how slender most people are.
On the other hand, being too focussed on looks is immature and shallow. Don't judge a person's worth by how attractive they are.
Many adult people actually do have stressful and busy lives. Many people don't have money or time to hit the gym every day. It might be hard for you to imagine this. Many people are also caught in a circle of depression which is the result of lack of exercise and not being outside enough, which then makes it harder to do regular exercise.
In life, don't be someone who looks down on the pathetic, unattractive lazy fat people. Be someone who tells the truth, but have some compassion. Be a motivator and give people some of your positive energy to go out and improve themselves.
Putting people down and blaming them will rarely help people improve themselves
On November 13 2012 12:48 deathly rat wrote: It's not that your OP is actually wrong, but it's completely without any kind of compassion, maturity or understanding most people's lives. Yes, people make all kinds of excuses, when actually it is lifestyle choices that determine how slender most people are.
On the other hand, being too focussed on looks is immature and shallow. Don't judge a person's worth by how attractive they are.
Many adult people actually do have stressful and busy lives. Many people don't have money or time to hit the gym every day. It might be hard for you to imagine this. Many people are also caught in a circle of depression which is the result of lack of exercise and not being outside enough, which then makes it harder to do regular exercise.
In life, don't be someone who looks down on the pathetic, unattractive lazy fat people. Be someone who tells the truth, but have some compassion. Be a motivator and give people some of your positive energy to go out and improve themselves.
Putting people down and blaming them will rarely help people improve themselves
Yet on the other hand, we've had how many years of telling people to accept themselves as they are, and yadda yadda, and what we've gotten ourselves is a bunch of people that are literally eating themselves to death. I say literally because all the over eating leads to them having DMII, CVD, strokes, etc. At some point we need to be brutally honest with people, and let them know it is within their control.
Being fit isn't just about looking good. It's about being healthy as well. By and large, people are not willing to take accountability for their lives, and this is especially true when it comes to their fitness levels. I wasn't making up those examples that I gave, those are real people that I know who say those very things, then eat every meal as if it were their last.
The purpose of the post wasn't to say "work out, you fat fucks," it was to say "take accountability for your life." If you took it another way, you missed the point. You can be healthy and never lift a weight, or spend a minute on the treadmill. I used the word fit, and included physical attractiveness, because being physically attractive typically has positive psychological benefits. The point of the post is to say that it is within each individuals control to not be fat though.
For what it's worth, a particularly overweight friend of mine has started working out and dieting in the last couple of weeks, and credited my rant on FB as motivation to do so. Sometimes taking the kid-gloves off is exactly what's needed. We have plenty of people like Tyra Banks letting everyone know that it's okay to be fat, because it's totally not their fault, and they're beautiful inside, which is what counts. To some degree this is a good thing, because encouraging eating disorders to the opposite extreme is equally bad. At some point, we need to stop coddling though, and stop allowing excuses and bullshit reasons for being fat. I don't know what it's like in the UK, but over here, all we get is messages for pills and magic cures for fatness, because it's totally not our fault that we're fat. It's genetics, it's stress, it's a bunch of crap. Over here, we're bombarded every day from various media outlets with excuses for being fat. At some point, we need to stop with this, and just be honest about why we are where we are.
You don't have to work out for several hours every day, and look like a Greek god/goddess. 20-30 minutes of movement coupled with a smarter eating plan is enough to be healthy, and fairly fit. Don't worry about the semantics of the argument as much as the general purpose of the statements. It IS within a person's control to not be obese; it's nothing more than making better choices.
When I was fat, I used to look at my fit friends (substitute the word healthy, if you'd like, or skinny, or just not fat, whatever word you like more) and what they'd eat, and think "Jeez, this guy is in such great shape, he could easily afford to eat 18 boneless wings and some potato wedges... he'll burn it right off anyway!" What never dawned on me, as a fat person, was that the entire reason he wasn't as fat as me is BECAUSE he didn't eat 18 boneless wings and a side of potato wedges, and he didn't wash down his food with a full-sugar cola, and have dessert, and beer afterward. He was fit because he ate right, and worked out. I worked out too, but I ate like an asshole and got fat. I blamed it on everything but my poor eating habits. I know the mentality of a fat person, and all the excuses they make, because I've been there. I've told people "I eat hardly anything, and I gain ten pounds like it's nothing." But what did I find when I started to track the Calories? That I was consuming FAR more than I ever imagined. Now I wish someone would have just been honest with me. I wish everyone would have stopped telling me that I looked good, that I was just big boned, that it was just baby fat (when I was younger, this was often an excuse). I wish someone would have just fucking told me "stop eating so much, and move more. You'll never not be fat if you eat cupcakes and play video games all day." So if this is too mean for you, I'm sorry, but sometimes people need a wake up call, and wake up calls are hardly ever nice, because it sucks to be told you've been doing it wrong your whole life.
On November 02 2012 07:19 evanthebouncy! wrote: It has been fairly accurate for me. I exercise 1 hour every day (swim) and cook my own meal and eat very healthy. My weight was 145 pounds, now I moved it to around 141 pounds and it's pretty steady now.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition. I feel I gained muscle and lost fat, but overall my weight is constant throughout the past 2 years.
You COULD change it extremely but it's very stressful.
141? Damn man how old are you? :D
What is surprising about 141, especially without a height context? If he is 6'2", yea thats pretty light, but if he is like 5'8" it's just a normal weight, and if he is like 5'0" he has some muscle or is a bit chunky. Weight by itself doesn't tell us much.
I think in general you can't really change weight per-se, but you can change your composition.
I have no idea what this means. If people are stuck at 220, you don't think they can drop to 180?
On November 02 2012 07:01 Snuggles wrote: Great read.
I'm gonna eat a fat greasy hamburger and some fries after this. Then I'm gonna head to the gym, throw some plates on to the bar on the squat rack. Put that bitch on my back and work out hard. So while you're sitting a table away from me watching me gorge myself with food and feeling annoyed that I'm not as overweight as you are, there are things that are happening behind the scenes that allow me to eat the way I do.
I love being fit, you don't have to starve yourself in order to lose weight. Even all you did was diet (which I used to do) you'll never actually look as good as a man with some muscle on his body. Just get to the gym, get em gains, and eat. Plus when you're lifting weights, you can eat several hundred calories above your required bodily amount just to maintain you weight. But of course if you overeat you're gonna get fat, but at that point you're basically force feeding yourself (of course it depends on your temperament with food). Going to the gym and doing compound lifts is going to make you a happy man if you love to eat.
This is probably at least 25% of the reason why I run alot. So I can down a tremendous amount of food and not gain weight. I love food, and running 75+ miles per week let's me eat somewhat close to anything I want without having to give a shit.
To be honest if your goal is to eat as much as you want endurance exercise is the way to go. A super intense strength training session might burn 300-500 calories. Decent, but doesn't compare to a good run or bike where it's easy to burn in excess of 1500-2000+ calories.
Even all you did was diet (which I used to do) you'll never actually look as good as a man with some muscle on his body.
. Maybe you have a preference for one look versus the other
if you actually get a weightlifter and a runner side by side IRL then one of them is going to feel and appear a lot more powerful than the other. weightlifters dont just appear to be physically dominating huge, strong and powerful; they also feel physically dominant, strong and powerful. both men and women love this.
few people want to look like a tennis player/runner, who looks like he could be snapped in half by another man and cant even stack some boxes onto a lorry or lift a rock, and who has to cower in fear at any sign of physical intimidation because he will be flattened in any confrontation or sport that doesnt involve running away.
all the asian girls like skinny asisn pretty boys who weigh 40kg, but they sure arent impressed by their bodies when they take their tops off in bed or at the beach.
OP why dont you just work on building some fucking muscle for 2 years straight before you even think about cutting. set a target like 150kg squat/120 bench and then cut when you reach that
Done it already. I squatted 345x3, benched 265, and DL'ed 405 (lbs not kg, don't feel like doing the conversions). I ate like an asshole and got fat though, so I've been cutting for the last eight or nine months now. Right now I bench like 205, squat as high as 295, and DL like... probably 335 is my current max. Measurement-wise, I'm at 14.25" biceps, I think 12.5" forearms, 42" chest, ~25" thighs, 15.75" calves. My neck is around 16" last I checked, but that was some time ago... probably around 15.5" now. I weigh 180 lbs (give or take some water weight), at about 12.5% body fat. I want to get to about 9% body fat with slightly more muscle mass.
ic, it just blows my mind you would take weight loss drug like that when you already have the discipline to work out properly like that
theres a guy in my college class, he gives the impression that he has the self-entitled lack of accountability you mention. he seems genuinely nice but always constantly vocal about how nothing is ever his fault, including "suddenly" inexplicably putting on weight and developing diabetes
what is annoying is how sooooooooooo many people think they are exercising and eating well when really they're not. in minimum wage jobs where you are standing or walking & bending for 6-8 hours solid , by the end of the shift it feels like you're exhausted and have done enough exercise for a year. people always say "i do enough exercise at work" but really its not exercise, theyre just sadly exhausting themselves every day
On November 14 2012 16:24 FFGenerations wrote: ic, it just blows my mind you would take weight loss drug like that when you already have the discipline to work out properly like that
theres a guy in my college class, he gives the impression that he has the self-entitled lack of accountability you mention. he seems genuinely nice but always constantly vocal about how nothing is ever his fault, including "suddenly" inexplicably putting on weight and developing diabetes
what is annoying is how sooooooooooo many people think they are exercising and eating well when really they're not. in minimum wage jobs where you are standing or walking & bending for 6-8 hours solid , by the end of the shift it feels like you're exhausted and have done enough exercise for a year. people always say "i do enough exercise at work" but really its not exercise, theyre just sadly exhausting themselves every day
It isn't training but it's certainly exercise. You don't have to move record breaking weights to be healthy, but you do have to move.
EPT
(definitely not saying people with healthy exercise routines are obsessing, perhaps hyperbolic hi5)![[image loading]](http://running.competitor.com/files/2011/06/Symmonds_NickQ-USAout10-1.JPG.jpeg)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KW_sl4dWvkc/TI0-4mFUBfI/AAAAAAAABSw/5MbBvXoxZP0/s1600/krup1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/IMG_7180_-_Arbeitskopie_2.jpg/220px-IMG_7180_-_Arbeitskopie_2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://bodyfitnessgain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/David-Beckham-4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://laurietobyedison.com/discuss/images/skinny%20male%20models.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.muscle-base.com/wp-content/gallery/layne-norton-transformation-gallery/layne-norton-most-muscular.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.amanslifeus.com/120323022416-drew-manning-male-ideal-story-top.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://xb9.xanga.com/068f6b7533132266855680/b212865426.jpg)
). 
