On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
I don't have an account to actually access these journals, but simply glancing at the abstract it does appear that at least aerobic exercise results vary greatly based on genetics. I don't know enough about medicine or biology to really argue on the topic however.
First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know.
Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject.
Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?)
And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%.
This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there.
I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics.
Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting.
And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
I never caught the disease of obesity. I caught the disease of personal responsibility, most likely from my parents. It's even worse, I assure you. I force myself to work and suffer every day instead of just being a lazy slob, making excuses for myself, and getting free shit from the government. When will society help those of us who suffer from the disease of personal responsibility?
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
I don't have an account to actually access these journals, but simply glancing at the abstract it does appear that at least aerobic exercise results vary greatly based on genetics. I don't know enough about medicine or biology to really argue on the topic however.
First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know.
Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject.
Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain.
On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?)
And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%.
This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there.
I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics.
Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting.
And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
In my experience, those immune from gaining weight are not immune from diabetes and friends.
A disease is an abnormal condition that affects the body of an organism. It is often construed as a medical condition associated with specific symptoms and signs.[1] It may be caused by factors originally from an external source, such as infectious disease, or it may be caused by internal dysfunctions, such as autoimmune diseases. In humans, "disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person. In this broader sense, it sometimes includes injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts and for other purposes these may be considered distinguishable categories. Diseases usually affect people not only physically, but also emotionally, as contracting and living with many diseases can alter one's perspective on life, and their personality.
Good grief wtf is wrong with people and being so ready to pass judgement? Growing up, I don't think we could have been more healthy or responsible with our eating habits, yet my parents were slightly obese and my mother acquired diabetes. This isn't exclusive to poor families, or fast food junkies... there are serious issued with nutrition in the US. Monoculture and processed foods with artificial preservatives are the alternative to a Big Mac and you want to blame the consumer? Just wow.
On June 21 2013 06:48 zdfgucker wrote: I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Odds are 99.999% you're fat because you eat too much. Complain about being fat and refuse to change and you can be pretty damn sure I won't keep back my opinion about your lazy ass.
All that's required is willpower. I, too, could be eating junk food all day. But I don't. And it's not my genetics stopping me.
It's hard when nearly every single food company actively encourages you to eat junk food (and by junk food I include pasta, flour, sugar etc). Add the fact that science still believe that fat is more dangerous than carbs and it's almost impossible to make the "right" choice. In sweden for example the government put a "healthy label" on food we're supposed to eat to be healthy and not gain weight, yet some of this healthy labeled food contains more sugar than soda!
You jumped onto the anti-carb train. Carbs are good. It's just that protein is more filling. Honestly, everyone should read what this guy is writing: http://www.leangains.com
The only thing that people (who go low-carb ) do right is increasing the amount of protein they eat. That doesn't make carbs bad, it just means you had bad eating habits before.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
I don't have an account to actually access these journals, but simply glancing at the abstract it does appear that at least aerobic exercise results vary greatly based on genetics. I don't know enough about medicine or biology to really argue on the topic however.
First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know.
Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject.
Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain.
On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?)
And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%.
This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there.
I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics.
Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting.
And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
In my experience, those immune from gaining weight are not immune from diabetes and friends.
Yeah lol, I have slowed down a lot. And my mom fed me good healthy food nearly every night. The baconators were fun but usually it was a shit ton of homecooked well balanced goodness. I love my momma!
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
I'm curious where overweight people are being discriminated against in the workforce? Not trying to be condescending, I've honestly never heard of this being a thing.
My father, and some of his friends don't hire obesity people, not because they can't do the job but because they will probably cost x2 to x3 more in insurance, and they won't get as much work done since most of them are just lazy so they won't take the initiative to figure something out. I have friends like this, and in reality it's just laziness that is a 'disease'
And now that it's officially a "disease", employers looking to hire someone will shy away from obese people because they are now "protected". Any obese employee who becomes disgruntled can file against the employer for discrimination against their obesity, when it more likely simply because they weren't a good employee. Knowing this, employers can pre-emptively just not hire them in the first place.
Sounds like a way to shift the focus off of the food industry. So me and my ex-wife would eat one meal a day in the States (not even fast food), then return to Italy and eat three times a day- and pasta (often the only meal we would eat per day in the States) would just be the first course for dinner... and we LOST WEIGHT in Italy. Were we just diseased in America then?
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
Everyone can control their obesity. It's simply a matter of caloric intake.
Physically: Hypothyroidism can be treated with hormone treatment. Cushing's Syndrome requires use of steroids for treatment. Both of those cause obesity, and in order to not gain weight with these conditions, you feel like you are constantly starving.
Psychologically: Depression may cause people to eat more. A rather common side-effect of antidepressants, anti-psychotics, and a few others drugs used to treat psychological conditions is weight gain. There is such a thing as eating disorders as well.
These are all valid medical considerations, and can be treated.
Anorexia can be treated by eating more. Bulimia can be treated by not puking. Obesity can be treated by not being a lazy gluttonous fatass. The condescension towards people with psychological problems causing them to gain weight as opposed to losing weight is the massive bias people have in favor of skinny people over fat people.
Anorexia and bulimia are specific mental disorders. People do not get diagnosed with anorexia just because they are underweight. The goal of treatment is in fact to get them to "eat more" (or rather, have healthy eating habits).
If this supposed disease were gluttony, you might have a point. That way it would be clear that the primary symptom is eating too much, and the goal of treatment would be to reduce food consumption.
The bias here actually seems to be in favour of obese people. With anorexia there is no need to dance around the issue. We all acknowledge that the goal of treatment is to have them eat more. Yet with obesity to even mention that they need to eat less causes people to be offended and make indignant posts like yours.
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
Everyone can control their obesity. It's simply a matter of caloric intake.
That's an incredibly simple way of viewing obesity. I have personal experience with losing weight (not much, like 25 pounds) and I can tell you that counting calories is a really bad method. What I did was cut out carbs and add natural fats (yes ,even saturated, NO it's not dangerous), and I was suddenly able to eat whenever I was hungry and stop eating when I was full. I didn't count a single carb, yet I was able to rapidly lose 25 pounds and I've stayed that way (fit!) for over 2 years now.
You really need to look at what you're putting in your belly. If I eat a regular dinner with protein and fat, and then add a desert filled with sugar and flour - I'm getting hungry again almost immediately afterwards, whereas if I skipped out on the desert and ate the exact same dinner portion I'd be stuffed until lunch next day.
So what I'm trying to say is that the amount of calories you can eat before you feel stuffed or full greatly depends on WHAT you eat, in terms of macro nutritients and quality of food.
I'd suggest anyone who's overweight to visit Mark's Daily Apple to learn by far the easiest way to lose weight and stay that way: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/
Simple, but accurate.
Someone can avoid any changes in the types of food they eat and still lose weight just by counting calories (and consequently eating less). Avoiding high calorie low nutrition food like carbohydrates can help meet goals but at the core of it reduction in total calories is what counts.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
I don't have an account to actually access these journals, but simply glancing at the abstract it does appear that at least aerobic exercise results vary greatly based on genetics. I don't know enough about medicine or biology to really argue on the topic however.
First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know.
Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject.
Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain.
On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?)
And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%.
This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there.
I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics.
Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting.
And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
On June 21 2013 07:30 nukeazerg wrote: Biology is not physics. Boys get lean with more muscle during puberty and girls get 50% fatter. This does not mean the girls ate more.
Biology, like all things, is subject to the laws physics. Are you just trolling or do you really think your "big bones" are the Higgs Boson and mass just appears on your body? Where the fuck do you think fat cones from?
Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
On June 21 2013 07:30 nukeazerg wrote: Biology is not physics. Boys get lean with more muscle during puberty and girls get 50% fatter. This does not mean the girls ate more.
Biology, like all things, is subject to the laws physics. Are you just trolling or do you really think your "big bones" are the Higgs Boson and mass just appears on your body? Where the fuck do you think fat cones from?
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
I don't have an account to actually access these journals, but simply glancing at the abstract it does appear that at least aerobic exercise results vary greatly based on genetics. I don't know enough about medicine or biology to really argue on the topic however.
First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know.
Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject.
Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain.
On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?)
And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%.
This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there.
I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics.
Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting.
And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract.
Would "not extracting calories from the food" qualify as a black hole? A partially efficient metabolism is perfectly plausible.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/znna1MW.jpg)
