gamer food.

srsly tho, just run 30min every day, it will burn the fat rapidly, even fast walking does it.

check edit.

i think i just misclicked reply with imsg for the first time in my life

yes you did.

if it's full of air, you might want to change your diet, or use supplements like vegetable coal.

It would be easier if you told us what you normally eat and drink. Do you drink soft drinks for example? Do you eat chips, peanuts and stuff like that?

Also if you loose to much weight and become skinny he4rt3ss will dislike you.

Sorry but this is wrong, your body will adapt to LISS exercise (low intensity) in 5-7 days. The only true way to lose weight fast is HIIT in combination with weight training. Since this is the most physically demanding and will simultaneously boost your metabolism. You will burn more calories from doing it, after doing it with TEE (thermal effect of exercise) and will continually burn more by boosting your metabolism.

I'd be happy to help if you want pm me.

you're here to help me, not nsx0r !!!


when i do cardio i switch from typical 1 jump/ second pace to much faster [at least 3 jumps/sec, but i didnt measure it]

however i dont do it as you should when doing hiit, as its not regularly, and i dont hold to to certain time values.

it was either that or 'just fart"

The pm me part was directed at you :p

Whilst skipping is fairly good exercise it won't be sufficient intensity to qualify as truly HIIT in order to be effective. You would need to mix it up, the best thing I would recommend for anyone that doesn't go to a gym is simply sprints. There are so many variations and outdoor exercises you can do that are more than sufficient, here is what I have planned for my sprints after the gym today:

On a rugby pitch:
1)50m 70% intensity jog back x5 warmup
2)Width of the pitch, 25 pressups sprint opposite side and back. x10 25s rest
3) Still running the width of the field your choice of 20 mountain climbers on all fours, or or 30 standing squats. Then run accross and back. 10 reps total again
4)15 leg raises, 15 crunches, 15 toe touch 40m sprint x10 40s rest
5) 100m sprint, walk back x5
6) Sprint end of pitch and back (200m) 1m rest. x3-5

All of that won't take more than 30-40 minutes and will break the 1000calorie mark from exercise alone. Add in the TEE over the next 36-48h (which is how long your metabolism will stay high after such intensity) and it will be pushing 2500-3000 calories burnt.

Doing LIIS exercise like a 1h run will hit maybe 500-800 calories depending how hard you push. But after that you will only burn up to 300-500 more since your metabolism hasn't been stressed.

If you have access to a gym then the possibilities are endless.

Side note. Bloated stomach (I would need photos/detailed food diary/detailed exercise background to fully assess the symtpoms) could be a sign of food intolerance. It also could be a sign of incorrect sit-up technique that is not activating the lower abs enough and stressing the upper abs, causing a protruding effect.

Also fruit is high in fructose and causes the stomach to bloat. Try cutting it out.

now that is top advice!
some coaches would make you pay for this,

thanks zsx
forever top UK lift

And what would you suggest for people to get in a bit of shape, who can't run because of joints (can't work out with weights as well for that matter if they don't want to make things worse), also can't swim?

callanetics

Wheelchair interval training.

Can't tell if serious.

If you have access to a gym you could use the elliptical (crosstrainer), arm bike, normal bike, even rowing machine? It depends how serious joint issues are. Generally if you cant swim you can't do much, since it is non-impact and used widely for rehab and people with joint problems so I wouldn't understand atm why you couldn't swim

If I go into normal business mode I can't suggest anything without a letter from your GP and a medical background.

But I would need to know more about the problems if I was going to suggest any bodyweight exercises like lunges/burpees etc which would look like your only options.

I never joke around with illness because it's prolly disgusting and unsighty.

I can't swim because I can't swim - no place nearby to do so even if I could.

Not THAT serious yet (got RSI as well, hurray), but doc said that I shouldn't run (on regular basis) if I don't want it to worsen.
Maybe plain old biking then?

No I didn't know if you were just trying to test me, it was the swimming thing that threw me since swimming is actually the best thing to do with joint problems.

You can do anything that is low impact. Unless you have been specifically told by the doctor not to do weights then I would highly recommend building up a strength base to help ease the joints. I myself have a bad very bad knee due to rugby and have eased it by strengthening the legs. This helps compensate for the poor joint. Resistance machines you find in gyms were originally created for rehab purposes such as yours so I would go for that with some advise.

Generally to get in shape yea any low impact cardio exercise would be great. You can easily up the intensity on these aswell if you wanna hit the fitness side harder.

30s 80%+ max heart rate
30s-1m rest, depending on fitness

This is an example of a very simple interval training you could do on the bike, crosstrainer, rower.

Pm me if you want.

Cycling is much easier on joints than running.
Ride on asphalt or paved road.
Make sure to keep your cadence high enough. 70+ should be enough to begin with but aim at something higher if you can. Higher cadence puts less strain on your knees.
Set your bike correctly. Saddle's height is most important for knees. You should be able to just touch the pedal in furthest position with your heel. When you put your feet in normal position on the pedal there should be always a bent on your knee.
Wrong frame size and handlebar's position can harm your back, elbows etc.

While I agree wholly with what you are saying, the BMX rider in me is screaming "YOUR FEET NEED TO TOUCH THE GROUND AND KNEES BENT WHEN SITTING ON THE SADDLE!!!!! SADDLE AT THE VERY BOTTOM!! ALWAYS!"

I apologise. =)

You should quit nymph

You say fruit makes your stomach bloat, but many vegans live solely on a fruit based diet, exceeding 3000 calories and are more ripped than people who restrict their calories.

Also H.I.T might be good for fat loss (Well, not might it is) but for overall health, everyone should aim to exercise for at least 30 minutes a day with a heart rate of over 120 for optimal cardiovascular health. Combined with a strength training program.

I should have qualified it with "can cause" my fault for not re-reading. I'm not suggesting fruit is bad or fruit will bloat you; however, it has been seen to do so in some cases so cutting down on it can help in such cases.

And yes, regular exercise daily no matter what is always beneficial and should be attempted.

Oh yeah I'm not a vegan, I forgot to mention :d but people in general should eat more veg and fruit.

is it true that after working out you should load up on protein for most efficient muscle gain? (like, max 30 mins post-workout?) Cos i hardly ever feel like eating afterwards.... :\

That's one of the main reasons why protein shakes are used. They are more readily digestible, are often packed with other minerals to help recovery, and much easier to just drink that having to force yourself to eat something.

Generally you should wait around 30-40mins after working out before you have your post-workout shake/meal, if that makes it any easier for you.

you need to start some cardio.

you can do it by keep jumping for like 10-15mn, or go for a run outside. You need to find an exercice that will make you sweat quite a lot.

deadlifts and squats twice a week

I`m your man I guess, I lost 20kg in the last 14 months, quit smoking after 10 years and stopped excessive video gaming. Well it all was related but I did it without sport the first 10 months. I simply changed my eating behaviour radically. ask right away.

edit: I`ll try to use my ms paint skills to give proof

edit 2: took longer than I would like to admit but here you go

ill come to you when i will be trying to quit smoking :b

Always at your service.

yellow looks good on ins

Holy shit, your weight loss also caused a change in sexual orientation?

He's smiling more with Ins

The one that got away.

I think it caused Ins' sex change.

Is that Sasha Grey?

Looking good lol

You looked better fat and gay than normal and straight.

hahahaha :P

www.bodybuilding.com

deadlift, situps, no wheats


stop smoking and you're half way

i hear when you stop smoking you gain weight?

If you are able to stop smoking, you can do anything

true statement!

when you stop smoking you need to organiza the free time you gain, and most ppl go for food

Silencep is fat afaik you can ask him bro

and also: I WANT SLOWER METABOLISM

i actually need not fat anymore guys :b

hahaaha

Look into HIIT and Tabata training routines. Replace strength training exercises (weight lifting) with conditioning exercises (sprints, shuffle, jump rope, burpees, jumping jacks, etc.). 30 - 45 minute workouts every day and until you absolutely cannot continue. That belly will be gone in a month or two, if you don't cheat yourself.

Edit: Actually reading the other posts, looks like zsx has you covered.

i feel good under zsx wings :-)

Listen to zsx, lift weights. Whatever you do, don't start running/jogging long distance.

long distance no, that just increases cortisol and works against testosterone. HIIT is king to lose the last bit of fat, infact i think its the only way to get rid of it, bar using serious drugs.

Yeah, you might end up like this guy.

anyway even with hard practice you'll never be as muscular as heartless, basically it's a waste of time

hitsu is fat

:-)

bloated belly uh isnt it just fat around the organs instead of fat just under the skin.
its called Visceral fat google it. i have the same problem but cant seem to get it away.

doing cardio and weightlifting. i run 2-3 times a week low intensity 6 km in 40 mins, but i read in the comments its no good?

so what schedule should i use? for cardio..

do plyometrics. sprints, vertical jumps, broad jumps, agility training/changing direction like football players use. focus on speed. mix in some bodybuilding and powerlifting, and you're good. calories and diet is difficult though, people have really varied metabolisms. www.ironaddicts.com is a really good place to get good/real advice.

If you had enough Visceral fat for it to cause to show you would be dead, the whole point about Visceral fat is that it is around the organs and that makes it particularly dangerous. You can have these anorexic looking guys/girls who think "hey I'm fine I'm skinny" mentality and live off shit junkfood are in fact in more danger than fat people because they have super high levels of visceral fat that can cause all sorts of problems.

Bloated belly is usually just what it looks like at the end of the day, fat. Unless you have a digestion disorder like IBS (irritable bowel syndrome) which in fact is quite common. This can cause the lower abdomen to appear bloated.

1. do not eat 2hrs before cardio-training
2. do not eat 2hrs after cardio-training
3. cardio-training @ 45-60mins

DO NOT FUCKING EAT U FAT ASSHOLE !!!!!!!! its not about metabolism

diet is way more important than exercise, if you want a lean and healthy body. you can even get away without doing any, but of course it's recommended to do some regularly.

eat simple, get your macro and micronutrients from a plant-based diet, fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, etc. your calorie intake should be close to 80% carbs 10% protein 10% fat, most of your calories will be from fruits. you don't "exercise to burn fat", you eat carbs to fuel your workouts, eat as much as you feel like and your lifestyle requires. avoid meat and dairy, all processed foods, table salt/sugar. avoid all supplements and crap people want to sell you that you don't need.

for exercise I recommend calisthenics. which means only using your own body as resistance. you can do it virtually anywhere, anytime, don't need expensive equipment. doesn't isolate any one muscle group, gives you well balanced and proportioned muscles and strengthens tissues. you control the intensity, depending on your goals and shape. hardest exercises can get you to sweat after 5-10 minutes. technique is very important, let your muscles work, don't use momentum. for example doing 15 proper pushups may very well be more useful than rushing 50.

some raw vegan bodybuilders here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucHEVNX2c9o
do your own research, don't believe me.
one good source of information would be Douglas Graham on youtube, author of the 80/10/10 diet, he's 60 in top shape, has been raw vegan for 40 years.

vegan ://////////////////

. your calorie intake should be close to 80% carbs 10% protein 10% fat, most of your calories will be from fruits

I didn't wanna post but that advice is just so wrong. Dunno how people get that idea to eat so unhealthy ...

I'm just sharing useful information, that I've been researching and experiencing for years. If you tell me that eating fruits is unhealthy, with no arguments of course, I ignore it or feel sorry for you.
You get your essential micronutrients from plants, and your carbs from fruits that fuel your energy. You only need a small amount of protein and fat intake for your body to utilize.

But hey I don't blame you, we're being conditioned from childhood, conditioned what to do, what to eat, what to think.

Educate yourself.
Peace

PS: so unhealthy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLUr6umbEm0

Is there any professional athlete that actually uses that diet? It sounds really weird that you should eat very low amounts of protein while trying to build muscles.

Yea there are plenty, google. It's actually normal amounts, we are just used to the industry's propaganda. Our perception of how things are supposed to be is really skewed. Even mother's milk contains 'low' amounts compared to meat, yet it's used to grow in size rapidly at early stages of life.
Excess amounts of meat will cause a lot of problems and make you acidic, so your body has to take calcium phosphate from your bones - phosphate to balance out the acidity, and you pee out the calcium.
This amongst many other health observations has been proven by a study that's started in '83, read the book The China Study.

um, this pretty much confirms that the book is a fallacy, no?

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

I don't know, why would a random blog confirm that a book is a fallacy?
Have you read that all, or are you just linking me?
I skimmed through, I don't have time to read it right now, but I have my doubts about the legitimacy of the contents. Just like I would be skeptical when reading anything for the first time.
Maybe she makes valid points, maybe The China Study isn't perfect, but I don't think it's about one book, you have to see the big picture. I research a topic for a very long time before I'm ready to draw conclusions and form my own opinion.
The study makes sense to me, and it corresponds with my observations about diet and health, including close relatives, which may not be scientific at all. I'm quite intuitive when it comes to that.

At the end of the day, what matters is whether or not the diet works.
Just talk to people who have been eating plant-based for many years, or try it yourself, maybe it'll be convincing enough.
Seems logical and natural to me, which intuition has only been growing stronger in me since I started reading about the psychedelic plant Ayahuasca(Dimethyltryptamine). We are connected to and dependent upon nature, we don't control it no matter how much we want to.

Seems logical and natural to me, which intuition has only been growing stronger in me since I started reading about the psychedelic plant Ayahuasca(Dimethyltryptamine). We are connected to and dependent upon nature, we don't control it no matter how much we want to.

ya blew it

Because that random blog actually makes really solid points about the made conclusions and lack of analytical sophistication in the book. You can read through couple of them to get the idea, they are not interconnected. How can it make sense to you when it's shown to be unreliable.

Apparently there was an little open-letter exchange between the book's author and the blogger afterwards.

The Campbell's answer: http://tynan.com/chinastudyresponse
also longer answer to the critique: http://www.tcolincampbell.org/fileadmin/Prese...itique.pdf

And the bloggers answer to the first one: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/16/the-china-st...-campbell/

I've had 2 vegan flatmates that "chose" it because of their religion and the thing I noticed was them eating whole day and me feeling hungry from their food, nutrients aside. If you look at human history then not eating meat sounds very unnatural to me.

Edit:

I didn't get the plant part. You do or do not understand how psychedelic drugs work in your brain?

Maybe it does, but it's still a random blog compared to a 20-year study.
I'm not going to read all that, I just don't care that much about this one specific book. I skimmed through the reply and he says:
"As we said in our book, no one needs to accept at face value what I say. Rather, as we said in the book, "Try it" and the results will be what they are. So far, the reports of positive benefits have been nothing less than overwhelming. "
Which I agree with.

This blog seems to be overanalyzing everything, she admits herself to being fascinated by numbers. I did look around her website just a little bit. And what I found was basically, paraphrasing: "you'll be deficient in this and this and this if you don't eat meat". It sounds all very neat and scientific, but how am I supposed to verify that data - regardless of her intentions.
I don't buy it, just because she puts graphs and numbers in there.
You know what I find more convincing?

Douglas Graham 60 y/o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIgcTKkaDKk
Lou Corona 60 y/o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9OvcCgSCOU
74 y/o woman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LOAoyX_Rbg
98 y/o Dr. Ellsworth Wareham http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX58PyQwrcI
List could go on all day. Where are the deficiencies that will kill me?

What do you mean you felt hungry from their food, how long have you tried it? You realize that it needs time, and your body needs time to adjust, right? For dozens of reasons. You may even feel sick at first because of detoxing. But yea it works differently from an avg. diet, you may not get that 'satisfied' feeling followed by having to go rest for digestion or even nap, but instead you're at peak performance and energy all the time. You just need to get more carbs, undereating is one of the common mistakes.

As for 'human history', well, yea maybe they ate meat, doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. Take a look outside, two hundred something thousand years, and we are so far from civilized. War, disease, destruction, famine, suffering, eco-genocide. Just because you do something for a long time, doesn't make it any good. That's why you go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate things in your life. Except people don't have the time or inclination for that anymore, they're too busy being a slave to one of the corporations, without knowing how meaningless their work is, because they lack perspective.
Moreover, we have dozens of biological features which indicate being herbivores. These are to do with saliva enzymes, stomach acid levels, intestinal length, etc. Here are a few: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7e_Ye6Yu6I

It doesn't take 20 years of analysis to prove that something that is based on inherently wrong "process of analysis". She uses the same stats as the book and points out how the conclusions are unsatisfactory. Again, you could read couple points, not all, but I see that you trust your intuition and do not bother reading critique towards what you believe. This makes all your claims rather biased.

***

Also, you can find thousands of people who are at the same age, healthy and happy and surprise-surprise not vegan. You won't die, that is obvious, but the point is that the way you preach how meat is bad is unfounded.

***

Well, it was one day per week so I can see where your adjusting comments comes from. But my question is, how much do you eat per day to get all the necessary nutrients?

***

But do these people need to do it in the count of meat? If you look at studies you see results supporting both arguments (from meat being bad for your heart to meat eaters getting more protein, zinc, potassium, and B vitamins) and none of them are profound enough to choose an extreme. It's obviously a case of balance.

You post some bullshit video that compares humans to carnivores, but we are OMNIVORES. Have you ever met the concept of evolution? If we were herbivores at some point then the useful traits will of course remain, but human evolved into a omnivore for it being useful for the species. Evolving as an omnivore does not mean that you have to take over carnivore characteristics because they were never part of the original gene pool. There are claims that human brain could not evolve into this size by using raw vegan diet.

Also, since you bring up some random Youtube video I'll cite yahoo answers for the convenience:

Are humans actually made to be herbivores carnivores or omnivores?

Humans or any other species are not "made to be" anything, because none of us were made. Humans have evolved the capacity to adapt to varying conditions, so we can survive consuming a variety of fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, fungi, algae, meats, and eggs. A minority can also consume the milk of other species.

Lots of people get confused about this, and there are two things you need to consider. Firstly, the word omnivore is an adjective which describes general relationships. It is not a strict definition. Secondly, biological relationships are rarely clear cut and well defined, the edges are usually fuzzy and there is often crossover from one category to the next. Humans as omnivores is one such example, since we can survive without animal products and omnivory by definition includes animal products. Hence we are omnivores because we can consume animal products and not die as a result (in many cases) but we can also exist without them. Hence we are omnivores but not what zoologists call obligate omnivores, ie those which MUST consume foods from both animal and non-animal sources.

So comparing our intestines or teeth to other species is irrelevant. All you need to consider is whether humans can survive and function on the various food sources available. There are many good arguments in favour of vegetarianism, but humans as natural herbivores is not one of them. The evidence just doesn't support it.


or another one



Are humans omnivores or herbivores? show me proof?

1. Dental structure. Our teeth evolved to eat both meat and plant matter.

2. Digestion. We are able to both tolerate and fully extract nutrients from most plant and animal sources. Exceptions include cellulose and chitin.

3. Primate Studies. Other primates, our closest living relatives, are also omnivores. This list includes Chimpanzees, Orangutans, and Gorillas.

4. Nutrients. Strict vegans must carefully watch the source of their food in order to ensure complete nutrition. In the modern world this is relatively easy, however prior to the neolithic, when we were primarily hunter-gatherers, it would have been vital to gather nutrition from whatever source was available, animal or vegetable.

5. Archaeological Evidence. Evidence from our earliest ancestors indicates that we have always consumed meat. This evidence includes bone evidence in proto-hominid fossil sites and coprolites.

***

Even tho the sources of these are sketchy, the points that these posts make are intriguing and have profound logic to them.

Now I'm just wondering if you are going to bring in the ethical card next or not.

First of all, the diet of meat-eaters will vary hugely, of course you might live long and stay relatively healthy. But it's not necessary optimal, and I think it's a risk factor.
Let me give you an analogy:
I started Quake four years ago. I was playing on a bad 60hz LCD, I just didn't know better. Later I read about 120hz screens, ended up buying one and the difference in performance and level of gameplay was massive. But up until that point, I had no idea how limiting my low frame rates and high input lag were. Similarly, you're likely to grow up eating an avg. diet, and you never question it, just doesn't occur to you. You have to try it yourself to see what kind of well-being and performance you're capable of.

Yahoo answers? Come on now.
And quoting from the other one: "Meat and cooked foods were needed to provide the necessary calorie boost to feed a growing brain."
Give me a break.

About the omnivore thing, you're missing the point, and focus on semantics. Point being, we're well-prepared to gather and digest plant food properly, and ill-prepared in the same regard for meat.

And I haven't even touched on the environmental consequences of the livestock yet. You can look for some stats on the internet about the number of animals slaughtered every year, the large amount of crops needed to feed them, to produce a small amount of food in comparison. Crops that could feed billions of people starving instead.

I'm not going to bring in the ethical card, or any card for that matter. In fact I've heard about studies done on plants which showed their sensitivity to pain. Although I'm not sure what to make of it, and I don't think it's comparable to the pain we see when we hurt something we perceive as a sentient being.
It'd seem logical that plants convert sunlight, water and soil for us to feed upon them, and that's their only purpose. Or, it could be that we cannot exist without killing, and that's the nature of life.

Anyway like I said, just sharing information and experience, trying to help people. So if you're just here to win an argument to feed your ego or whatever, I won't bother.

hehe who uses yahoo to make a point, lol.

srsly tho ur on the verge of getting mad with the ego talk. ur diet is no better than any regular diet. if u wanna stick to it nobodies stopping u ;>

If you read the replies then they were just common knowledge worded better than I was willing to put time into to reproduce/or worded better than I could at that moment. They don't make any insane claims but just used the necessary wording/logic to get the point across.

Yes, I understood that the sourcing was shit, and I pointed it out, but it was more of a matter of convenience.

This shows how superficially you read my replies. Did you actually read any of those yahoo answers or look into the methods used in the larger brain article? You can point out what is logically wrong in them, but you wont because you wont read anything that is inconsistent with your "intuition". Your own links present the same level of validity.

On the omnivore thing, if you read the replies you would understand that I was focusing on the logic behind it. You give some video that "oh look, we have differences from carnivores", but ignores completely the differences we have from herbivores, the differences that help us process meat and fails to understand where and why do these differences come from.

And this is another "oh please" article, right? http://www.livescience.com/19770-meat-eating-humans-weaning.html

I'll say again. I don't disagree with the notion that you can live without meat, I disagree with saying that we are not suited for it or it's bad. About the environmental footstep you are probably right tho, but the effect of pesticides, destroying forests for additional land (as they are doing in South America for soy), fertilizers and the problem of distribution still seem relevant.

***

But I'm still genially interested in what does your weekly diet looks like. What and how often do you eat and what do you look like as a result?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAoTsaTXxb4

=)))

As for 'human history', well, yea maybe they ate meat, doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. Take a look outside, two hundred something thousand years, and we are so far from civilized. War, disease, destruction, famine, suffering, eco-genocide.

I'm fucking convinced! No more meat.

C'mon that's just utter lies! Meat protein won't make you acidic, proteins are dipolar ions for gods sake!

Right... so educate yourself how fructose is metabolised and you will have the knowledge why fruits are not that good after all.

This is the kind of information you want to disregard, hitsu.

heh easy :b

as im not going to be next mr universum, i dont really care about my diet. and tbh cant afford one :-)

i just did count the amount of calories i eat everyday. did eat like this for 20 years now, and im fine, so my menu has all my body needs :-)

poor and fat

fat doesnt make you fat. red meat increases test for ex.

complex carbs are great, sure, but 80% is total bullshit. if you want some muscle, aswell as beeing taken seriously, stick to like 40/40/20 carbs/proteins/fat.

meat is always healthy. dairy is personal (can cause bloat) and grains are personal aswell.

fruits are fast carbs, sugars basicly. yes theyre healthy but not eating a fuckton of it, no. if it were up to me and i had to eat fruit, do it in the morning or right after a workout when your body can use a boost, but at no other time. ever. :P

lifting weights > calisthenics unless ur a prisoner.

the effort isnt worth the result, seeing as most people get great results without an extreme diet.


tldr, do whatever you want, but know that this whole plant based diet shit is just a way for someone to cash in on clueless folks 99% of the time. just learn about allround diet and weightlifting+hiit and ur good to go.

(ps, there are no bodybuilders in that video, just people who are slightly lower bodyfat than the average population (america excluded, they would look rediculously fit in the USA))

You're terribly ill-informed. Next time at least _try_ using some arguments, to back up your claims as to just how wrong I am and how right you are.

I could sit here all day, dissecting and disproving all the ridiculous things you said. But I'm not going to do that, you seem like the ignorant type who'd repeat the same over and over. Refer to my other posts.

As for cashing in on people, hm... Last time I checked meat was one of the most expensive items. Plus all the supplements you take, plus health insurance, that you don't need if you eat living food, because you just don't get sick. Where are the vegan commercials and propaganda? Yea, there will always be a few scammers trying to make easy money., but that dwarfs in comparison to the food industry. Eat more meat, cheese, milk and eggs! It's good for you.
Cashing in on clueless folks all right.

You probably also think that guys on steroids are how muscles supposed to look like. But there's much more to real body strength, than simply the size of muscles. You should master
moving your own body first, before trying to get a large but mostly useless biceps just to look good.

ill informed. ok.

you keep doing what you are doing and ill do the same.

chickens pretty good tho.

living food

Are you implying that animals are undead or that plants are immortal? What's going on in there?

he would probably find ways to argue people shouldnt eat lab grown meat in the near future...

I'm fine with that. What really annoys me is the childishness behind statements like:

I could sit here all day, dissecting and disproving all the ridiculous things you said. But I'm not going to do that

Yeah, I could cure cancer, but I'm not going to. If you don't want to bother with proof don't bother with claims.

Living food as in fresh fruits and vegetables, also some sprouts, which are rich in enzymes, as opposed to cooked foods. You know very well what I meant, but you just have to chime in with a cynical comment, to feel better about yourself, while you contribute absolutely nothing relevant to the discussion. I know your kind.

As for claims and proof, like I said refer to my other posts. Information is readily available from long-time vegans who have been in peak health on their diet.
There's nothing childish about what I said. It's true, and I've already posted more than enough information to get people started.
Why should I bother with someone so ignorant that he thinks fat doesn't get stored in your body? Talk about ridiculous claims.

No, I actually had no clue what you meant by "living food".

" I could sit here all day, dissecting and disproving all the ridiculous things you said. But I'm not going to do that, you seem like the ignorant type who'd repeat the same over and over. Refer to my other posts."

lmao, you're literally just repeating the same thing over and over in all of your other posts. vegans are the most delusional motherfuckers on the planet, so obsessed with the moral arguments about eating meat that they'd rather lie to themselves and suffer than face the facts of what humans truly need to thrive.

try reading "the vegetarian myth", written by lierre keith, a former hardcore vegan feminist that actually explores the topic with a scientific/realist eye, focusing on how fucked up modern agriculture is whether it's vegetable matter or livestock.

Moral arguments? There are a lot of them who couldn't care less about animals, they just do it for selfish health reasons.
Suffer how? Actually, they usually thrive AFTER switching diet, as opposed to being overweight/sick/fatigued on an unhealthy diet.

You are retarded.

and how the hell im supposed to gain muscles if theres almost no protein in my diet?

I know it sounds strange, but you gain muscles by putting them to heavy usage, not by sitting in the kitchen eating.
It's absolutely sufficient amounts of protein and fat. Like I said our perception of what's normal is terribly skewed.

Quick example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKX-gNv0AwU
(TED Talks are quite nice, some interesting stuff from time to time.)
But yea, I could show thousands of examples. You can build muscle just fine, in fact the quality of your food may allow you to build higher quality muscles.

ok, time to stop your vegan propaganda, someone could belive you


vegan diet is shit and not sufficent enough for a humans to live, because it lacks B12 vitamin. thats why all soy products have added b12.

There is no propaganda, I don't have anything to sell to you, unlike the meat and dairy industry.
If vegan diet is not sufficient enough for humans to live, how come there are hundreds of thousands of vegans worldwide doing just fine? Many of those have been on the diet for decades.
You know how you sound like?
"You don't need more than 30 fps because the human eye can't see more!!!" Hurr durr.

A little clue for you about B12.
It's a soil bacteria, and there are two main reasons for deficiencies:
- too little cobalt in soil
- cleaning/washing produce too much(mainly due to fear of pesticides etc. obviously not a concern if you grow organic)
Also, livestock are usually supplemented with B12, which is no different than us being supplemented.
Your body's B12 supplies are enough for 3 years or more, because of very low daily excretion. So if you change diet it's probably a good idea to do a bloodwork after say a year, to be sure.

Anyway I stopped posting in this thread, it's not really worth it.
And don't get me wrong, I didn't expect any reaction different from this. People are very sensitive about their food, it's a touchy subject, and there's a lot of misinformation or plain lack of knowledge going on. Just like with most topics...

they live because their products are soaked in b12. do you even read bro?

It's actually amusing how he talks about misinformation yet preaches the gospel according to Lacceh. Don't really listen to anyone who can contradict themselves multiple times.

Anyway its pointless to even contribute because it seems if you post anything that isn't pro-vegan it's immediately labelled 'misinformed.'

80% carbs... my god you have just slaughtered the liver not to mention pancreas. Please do not recommend diet that is wrong at its foundation. And you say: "do your research [...]" I think you should do some serious research, starting with biochemistry textbook.

Do that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_E6p-dpkDo

swimming.
Or choose any other sport, which you like, where you have perhaps some buddies, so the motivation is higher to reach your goals. Good luck ;)

i lost 20kg by not eating so much. have fun :)

eat less and move more it is really that simple. Eat better food as opposed to junk, take your dog for a walk every now and then, people try to over complicate everything when the basics of being healthy is staring at them in plain view.

Make it a lifestyle and not a phase.

Good luck

follow the QWOP nutritional program

learn to accept yourself the way you are.

If you're around 80kg and around 1.80m then nothing is wrong m8... just be happy the way you are and stay around that weight.

learn to accept yourself the way you are.

Yes to a point but what if you're severely overweight and unfit? The increased risk of heart disease, cancer, strokes amongst other things is amplified significantly than if you were at a lower weight and more active.

I know you didn't mean it in that way but I really hate that slogan which is often labelled by obese people.

well if you're seriously overweight and unfit then you're not 80kg and 1.80m.

So my if kinda handles that part of your question doesn't it?

Also I never heard it to label an obese person.... but perhaps that's because I'm not familliar with those people in general ;) (I know there are these horrible reality like tv-programs... but I never watched them)

80kg with 50% bodyfat is very different from 80kg with 10%. Weight doesn't mean that much.

right........ I've had a bit of biology.... but I'm fairly sure that a small jabba the hut is non existent.

its not possible to have 50pc fat with 1.80 :-)

Its obviously an exaggeration. Lets say 30% just for you.

im going to pick up girls on my flat tummy :-)

like fucking Ryan Gosling :D

Ah yes without a flat tummy you are a very different person than with a flat tummy..... my bad..... They will run to you as if you're in an axe commercial when you have a flat tummy.... I hope you can handle it.

I'm not sarcastic often.... but when I am.... damn man I'm good at it :p

EXACTLY MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN

:-)

Don't understand why your hating on someone who's trying to better themselves

I don't understand how you can read the above as if I have any hate towards him.

I don't necessarily mean your hating on him but just that attitude is wrong, even though you have good intentions. It's the kinda shit you spew to some fat chick when she's balling her eyes out about being fat and ugly. Or going into a Weight Watchers meeting and saying "You're all perfect the way you are, go home and be happy."

If people want to change you should support that, cheer them on, and do what you can to help. I'm more than willing to help people that actually want to change and better themselves.

It was mainly your sarcastic comment I was referring too anyway, even if it was kinda humorous. It just reinforces the same bullshit I talked about before, almost mocking him for wanting to lose weight. Abs are great who wouldn't want them? I'd take my rock-hard abs over a flabby stomach any day.

if he said he was 120kg and 1.70m I'd give feedback on how to actually improve towards a better, healthier, body weight.

But seeing how his weight / height are in a good relationship already... and he claims that he already has a decent amount of muscles.... it's much more likely that his body "just isn't build to have a 6pack"....

The thing is...
For almost everyone it actually is unhealthy to have a sixpack. So I would advise against it (ofcourse there are exceptions).

Going into "extremes" (aka going on some idiotic diet or going to the gym more then 3 times a week etc) to obtain a certain kind of body is in general unhealthy and should be done through careful planning. It's much better to just keep a certain weight and be happy about it.

Height/weight relationship is relatively meaningless, basically your talking about BMI which is only ever used to demonstrate extremes usually. At my peak I was 1.80 110kg which puts me at around 36 BMI and clinically obese. I clearly was not obese.

It is possible to be actually fairly fat at 80kg 1.80. Regardless of this fact I will agree that for some people it is more difficult to get a 6pack than others, but this is generally down to having a slower metabolism and greater tendency to deposit fat on the lower abdomen. But the idea that having a 6pack is generally unhealthy is very distorted, look at virtually ANY sportsmen who are in their peak physical condition. There is a reason why they have it.

Now I will agree that wanting a 6pack for vanity's sake often drives people to extremes in terms of diet. This is why advising them to do it the correct way, by eating healthy and training the right way, will help them achieve it and make it sustainable. Ultimately he could have a 6pack and still be 80kg, its not about weight at the end of the day its about fat.

Well there are a some "and's" in my post.... (health and weight and muscular)

That professional athletes often have a sixpack is because they want to reduce the amount of fat so that they can minimize the force needed for them to do something.
However they have a team around them which closely monitors the overall health. They have this because in general it's unhealthy to do sport at those levels.
Ofcourse when you have such a team there is no danger in "going to far" as they will measure your progression etc. but for "normal people" it is dangerous to reduce fat to such a level that you can see the 6pack.

This is especially the case for people who, as you pointed out, have a greater tendency to deposit fat on the lower abdomen. But in general to "see the 6pack" you need to get your fat percentage below 5pc. And without the proper care that's dangerous.

In most people you can start to see abs around the 12% bf mark, in some cases even higher. Sub-5% bodyfat is clinically dangerous yes and only necessary in bodybuilding competitions. Any bf above 8% is healthy and achievable with a normal diet.

I don't know where you have this preconception that either sport or having abs means you are living an unhealthy lifestyle. Professional sport is regimented and extremely healthy and it's almost ironic when to believe being in sport is unhealthy since it epitomizes the highest levels of health and fitness. Not every sport is healthy but heck I wouldn't call Ronaldo, Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps, or Andy Murray unhealthy would you? And they all have abs.

Having abs is generally a sign that you train and eat well, taking care of your body. I have a 6 pack and I eat plenty and train hard. I would say I am healthier than most people on here.

I think that from that list Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt are fairly close to being in danger (if they wouldn't have a team around them).

I don't think that any "normal level" of sport is unhealthy but once you aim to become the best and start to alter a lot of things in order to get there... it's possible to go to far and end up in pretty bad shape in the long run.
Similar with this 6pack idea..... if you take it a bit too far you'll be screwed. (for some people you don't even have to take it too far to be screwed)

whats it like beeing in the fat acceptance movement Weird? :x

the only people i would advocate 15%+ bodyfat for are women. but men are fine with anything down to ~8%.

I actually somewhat dislike 'fat people' as imo it shows that they have no self control.
But I think it's rediculous that anyone would want to train to have a 6pack. You should just work out to remain healthy.... not work out to get yourself into a possible dangerous situation.

there is no dangerous situation. its not like we live in a third world country and have a bad year so we need bodyfat to survive.

fat has a lot more functions then just storing some energy m8.
It also helps to absorb vitamines, regulate body heat, protect organs and seems to be related to the reproductive system (I don't know exactly how/why as I'm not a doctor ;p).

Anyway the 8% you mention = somewhat dangerous.
around 14 - 17 is being fit (read healthy) and 18 - 22 is normal.
Most athletes have around 12 - 13%.... and they have a medical team with them which checks their health regularly.

im just gonna go stop convincing you. enjoy ur 20% bf :D

why would you assume that?

seeing as you advocate higher bodyfat % than what the rest of the world is accustomed to, which is unique aside from the fat acceptance folks.

anyway if u wanna keep this going, gimme a source of your claims ;)

why don't you give me a source that sais that 8% is completely fine?
And by that I don't mean a source that sais that "below 8% things become critical / dangerous / etc.".
It's not as though on 8% you're fine and on 7.9% you're suddenly on the brink of death (that is more around 3% for most men).

In the literature I read (aka that I remember) in general 13 - 18 is advised (aka most healthy).

Last time that I checked (I did work out more frequently and drink less at that time ;p) I was around 14%... I guess nowadays I'm nearer to 17%.

Wikipedia is a good source for you then?

If we live in a society where obesity levels are astronomical and the average is overweight, then you would notice 18% bodyfat is nothing to be proud of.

If you want to cite your source properly you would notice athletes have between 6-13%, don't just pick and choose which parts of information you want to disregard.



As you can see 14-15% bf in this photo shows little definition but still kinda athletic. On a bigger guy 14-15% bf will even have a slight stomach. Whilst your supposed 20% bf looks fat as fuck. You think 20% is normal or acceptable? Then sure stick with that.

I've never heard anyone say having a 6pack is unhealthy is just absurd to me.

As for the functions you mention:
1) there is an essential bodyfat range you need to survive; even if you drop below that its possible to live as bodybuilders show - but its not sustainable and its incredible low and barely achieveable even with the most ruthless diets/training. Reaching sub-6% bodyfat requires so much determination that virtually nobody can achieve it.

2) It helps protects your organs - True, however how often are you getting thrown about that you need a mountain of fat to ensure your kidney doesnt explode? Professional rugby players often have 6-packs and they get hit harder than you ever will. A professional international rugby match as the same trauma on the body as a car crash according to medical experts. Don't see many damaged organs because of sub-12% bf there... (And yes many do have that range of bf, at Leeds we used to get tested for bf and a number of people were lower; and guess what anyone that was over 15-16% generally had to step their game up)

3) Reproductive system (HI WIKIPEDIA) - Well logic would suggest that bf would affect this insomuch that if its quite high, you wont have sex you fat fuck. But seriously, I do know that for maturing girls who have extensive training/diets it can affect their menstural cycles - see gymnastics girls. For men I'm not so sure - a quick journal search punched up some results such as: "former college athletes had a significantly lower lifetime occurrence of breast cancer and cancers of the reproductive system, and a lower lifetime occurrence of benign tumours of these tissues, compared with the non-athletes" also too much bodyfat in men can interfere with sperm production.

4) Fat helps absorb vitamins??????? Here I believe you suffer from a lack of understanding. I assume you are referring to fat-soluble vitamins. Since fat isn't part of our digestion system where vitamins/minerals are absorbed. Fat-soluble vitamins actually refers to the essential vitamins stored within animal fats, aka fat-soluble, and are not lost when cooking; as opposed to water-soluble. These, after digestion, are then stored in the body - both the liver and fat tissues.

5) Regulate bodyheat - Not heard of the hypothalamus? Sweating and bodyhair have a role in regulating heat, not fat.

There is a reason why we have an "essential" level of fat which is required to sustain. Anything more than this is "excess" and therefore expendable.

Overall, you have a clear lack of understanding on the subject and it's evident from this that both a lack of understanding and ignoance cannot be made up by googling. I don't know where your hard stance on this matter has come from, my limited psychology understanding would suggest you are in denial or are trying to convince yourself it is a bad thing because maybe you don't have the willpower to achieve it? Either way that is irrellevant and you are trying to debate a subject you have little or no knowledge on with someone who has been in professional sport for 10 years, been a nutrition/gym addict for 10 years, who's profession is in fitness, who has multiple professional bodybuilding friends, has a girlfriend who has an MA in Human Nutrition, and someone who just knows more than you.

Sorry Wikipedia you lose again.

I don't have any hard stance on the subject.
I'm just pointing out that in general it's unhealthy to have low body fat (say around 10%) as it has functions.
If, as you say, I've been wrongfully informed about these things then I would say that probably most books on biology/anatomy/metabolism/physiology are wrong. As I've followed some courses on them and skipped through a few of those books (most were a bit old (around the early 80's) though I must admit (my dad was a neurologist so theres a lot of biological-literature in the house)).

And ofcourse I have heard of the hypothalamus. But well if you like wikipedia and don't believe fat has a function in heat control then read up on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoregulation .

The whole point of the hypothalamus is to sustain an equilibrium of nutrients and hormones etc in the body. How can you expect to sustain that without any "buffered resources" (fat)?


I know that a lot of people who are in bodybuilding try to fool themselves into thinking that what they are doing is healthy..... but really it's not.
They think that they put in a lot of effort in order to get healthy... and then they start think that if they put in more effort they get healthier! Which is not the case.
There is some optimum (for a regular living style) which is in general believed to be between 14 and 18%.

Of course fat will be used in reference to bodyheat, but it all rides back to the point that it is by no means necessary beyond the essential level of fat needed to survive. My point around fat was to clarify it is secondary in the bodyheat process, either being used by the metabolism to generate heat by burning it or just generally being there as an insulator.

The use of fat in the bodyheat regulation is an extremely slow process and in most cases the aforementioned mechanisms will be used since they are fast-acting and will respond accordingly.

You keep going on about how fat has useful functions and I do not deny this, but you just seem to ignore why there is an ESSENTIAL level of fat. Above this it is EXCESS. If the essential level was 10% I would say yes, don't go below 10%, but the fact is its not.

ANY bodybuilder will tell you what they are doing it unhealthy, I won't deny it nor will they. They are pushing the boundaries of what is humanly possible. But you don't need a bodybuilder to have abs or look good. At the end of the day anybody who trains for vanity purposes can be classified as a 'bodybuilder.' If your training for vanity purposes you generally won't want/need to go sub-10% anyway. I have never heard 10% or even 8% bf being unhealthy, not in any of your so called biological/physiology books you mention. Remember I had to study these for my qualifications and my gf for her Masters. Just do a quick google and you will see nobody shares your opinion.

"5) Regulate bodyheat - Not heard of the hypothalamus? Sweating and bodyhair have a role in regulating heat, not fat. "

You don't say:
"My point around fat was to clarify it is secondary in the bodyheat process, either being used by the metabolism to generate heat by burning it or just generally being there as an insulator. "

It is a major player in body heat regulation... that it takes time to function doesn't matter. Your body needs some fat to keep all equilibria in the accaptable ranges (heat / nutrients / etc).

And yes you can argue that it can still do so on 5%... heck even on 1% your body can probably still do this.... But the risk that you take by doing so increases the lower you go. And the more closely you must monitor it yourself.

If on 0% you continuously eat exactly what your body uses there is no problem.... but get bitten by some bug and you die.

If on 8% you go out to town some day and get back drunk as hell... fall down the stairs and break a leg... chances are you will get shitloads of problems added on that because of complications as your body has too little energy to restore itself.

So it's a risk you take.... (you're pretty much argueing what an acceptable risk is... while I'm saying that you shouldn't take any real risk)

I like debating but your arguments are kinda illogical. It is no harder for your body to regulate heat on 8% than 12% realistically. I'm not condoning going below this range in any case.

If your main argument is bodyheat to start with then ok... If then your using falling down the stairs on when drunk then I don't really know what to say. That 4% bodyfat is going to save your life? No. If your drunk anyway your body is already losing a lot of heat as it is so the decreased surface area from less bodyfat might be a blessing in diguise? Dude this is retarded.

Your talking about a negligible risk as opposed to any life-threatening health risks. Falling down the stairs whether your 8% or 20% is fucking bad for you.

I don't only argue it from the point of body heat.
look at it like this:
1) you have a irregular addition of resources (food/drink).
(which is slightly regular due to internal digestion processes but let's ignore that a bit as it doesn't have any major influence in the story)

2) You have a limited amount of stored resources (fat).

3) you are currently in some (somewhat optimal) equilibrium with everything in your body (being heat / nutrients / specific blood cells / hormones / neurotransmitters etc. etc.).

Then if something happens (you walk into an airconditioned room or you break a leg or you go to exersise). Your body will have to do some work to either change the equilibrium at some parts or alter it in others.
For instance
1 sweating is to try and keep the body heat equal.
2 Increasing white blood cells is to restore the body.
3 Increasing blood flow to increase the metabolism (not entirely factually correct btw but it's just an example).

This work is done through converting the stored energy (which either is fat or what you just ate) into the corresponding cells / body functions (increased heartrate blabla). But you need to have all of the needed resources in your body when they are needed....
You can either eat them just before you need them... or you can have them stored.

So either you have some fat and your body does all of this shit on autopilot... or you need to actively monitor it.

Now on which % the border lies from your body doing it all on autopilot and actively monitoring it is a bit vague (and it might be around 5 to 8%) but if something unexpected happens (falling down the stairs while having way too much alcohol :D) your body will have to do a lot of work.

I won't encourage people to start to actively monitor what they eat, when they eat blablabla in order to have a 6pack.
And I believe that the level needed to have a 6pack can (in quite a few cases) be dangerous towards other bodily functions.

I understand your points I just feel your taking it way out of proportion.

Your main point here is that your body will rely on fat stores to undertake heat regulation.

To start with if you walk into a cold room etc etc.. a slight few % in bf will not affect body temperature regulation. Most regulation is external in any case since these slight differences will not affect core temperature.

Your central point here is that your body will then have to rely on fat stores to use energy, so what if it doesnt have any? Well to start with if you have 8% you have plenty of fat. Secondly, lets take exercise as an example, if you do steady state running at a reasonable pace, it will take around 20 minutes before your body even starts to use fat storages since they are the last port of call. You then consider how little energy it takes to manipulate your bodyheat, fat is not needed in this process beyond insulation. If your talking about walking the north pole I would agree.

Your body will do all of this on autopilot since that is how it is programmed to do.

"And I believe that the level needed to have a 6pack can (in quite a few cases) be dangerous towards other bodily functions."

In danger of reigniting this same old debate I won't ask what you think these are and I'm happy to agree to disagree. But let me just say out of everyone I have known who has a 6pack, none of them have any symptoms of impaired bodily functions, myself included.

my main point isn't body heat......
It's just that you need some level of fat to maintain the needed equilibria in your body for what it's doing.

If you want to argue if the needed fat% is 8% or 10% or 5% then I can't really argue on that. I just know that according to stuff I read 8% is very much towards the danger zone and 14-18% is well within the save zone.

But you can't really disagree on fat not having the functions I described. And I would still never encourage anyone to get a 6pack as it limits you in other places (aka you need to watch your diet and exersise menu in order to keep it).

I'm not disagreeing, it's just warped logic than having a 6-pack is dangerous. My point is that beyond the essential level of fat needed, 2-5%, then anything else fat is merely excess energy.

Having an effective training and diet regime is required for a 6-pack yes, but that's just commitment to the cause. Of course 14-18% is 'safe' but then you could argue moving towards 18% leads you to other problems, it could infer if your diet is inappropriate then you could have risks of heart disease etc...

I understand your points I just mean to show you there is nothing unhealthy about it.

Strange because earlier on you were disagreeing.......
I don't remember ever changing my view.

And yes moving towards higher fat % is also dangerous. I actually already stated that all the way at the top of our discussion (although without a % but with an example of height / weight / muscles).
We can restart our whole debate and argue if it's at 18%, 20%, 25%, 30% etc ;p. but it would be kinda useless.


But what I really don't get.... is how you can say that "it's perfectly fine to get to low fat percentages" while you don't say that you must also have a diet which fits with it. And that a diet combined with low fat% actually has risks involved with it. Risks that increase as the fat% decreases.

Maybe you think that it's impossible to get a 6pack on a diet of fast food. But it's not... it's just insanely unhealthy and hard to pull off. This is why I don't advise people to try to obtain it....
It is also why I have no desire at all to obtain it. I actually never had the desire.... I grew up as a skinny nerd so I'm fine with having a healthy body which allows me to be completely free in my actions.

Sigh it's almost like you pick and choose what you want to read.

I've never disagreed with fat having uses, that's where there is an essential level of fat. I disagree with your statement that having a 6-pack is unhealthy.

I don't understand where you have this idea that I don't understand a diet is necessary? As I told you before, getting a 6-pack is more about the training you undertake as opposed to the diet that accompanies it. Yes having a good, healthy diet will aid your cause and would be advisable in whatever path you choose for fitness; its not entirely "6-pack dependent." And in that case why would a diet combined with low fat% present anymore risks? I don't get how this works?

I'm losing fat and eating more because my training is right and I have built a metabolism that can handle it. I went on holiday and ate/drank what I want and lose weight because of this. You don't need a regimented diet that fits low% of bodyfat. If a person wants to be healthy or have a 6pack I will always recommend eating a healthy diet.

You have now twisted the argument, of course it is unhealthy to achieve a 6-pack on a fast food diet; its fucking unhealthy to live on a fast food diet however you live, 6-pack or not.

That's good for you being a skinny nerd. I'm happy eating whatever I want too, but I train fucking hard and understand how to train and what to eat. That's why I have a 6-pack and look like this, and you don't.

first of all I grew up as a skinny nerd... nowadays I'm not. I'm not worlds most fit person but I'm in good shape compared to most.

second of all yes I pick and choose what I read (as do you).

"And in that case why would a diet combined with low fat% present anymore risks? I don't get how this works?"
I already explained how it works. But I can simplify it even more for you

The fat is a kind of buffer which your body can get resources from.

The diet needs to constantly replenish this buffer.

The smaller the buffer -> the better the diet must be.

Fail the diet -> buffer runs out -> sickness / death.

Ok in your last few posts you have reaffirmed you have little idea on how the body actually works.

You completely ignore the fact there is an essential level of fat it seems, and beyond this fat is stored as excess energy nothing else.

Fat-soluble vitamins are stored in the liver primarily, and also in your fat but again you have an essential level of fat to take care of that.

A buffer that runs out if you fail your diet? Sure if you are at 1% but to even get to 8% requires a hell of a lot of dedication, its kinda hard to suddenly 'fail.' Fat is primarily an energy store for when you have exhausted the other means of energy.

You have not stated, and there is no reason, why having low bf is dangerous if achieved in a healthy manner.

right so let's take your train of thought and extend it slightly.

Assume that the "essential level of fat" is 4%. So on 4.1% fat you're fine.... on 3.9% the body can't handle things anymore and you get sick.

Then would you say that "aiming for" a level of fat of 4.1% due to training and watching your diet. Is as save as aiming for say 14%?

And what would happen if you altered your diet without understanding the concequences?


I already gave reasons as to why having low bf is dangerous... you're just not reading them or you're disagreeing with them.

If your body needs 4% to fulfill all the functions necessary then yes it would be fine. That's like saying if you need to pay $100 for a steak and you have $101 you can buy it...

Nobody except bodybuilders aim for that level, and aforementioned they are pushing boundaries of human possibility. They train for the day, even the HOUR of their event. That's why Jay Cutler collapsed off-stage after Mr Olympia.

If your body needs 4% essential fat, then .1% is excess fat. 4% is not sustainable and I have never tried to argue to go for that.

What you fail to acknowledge is there is a big fucking difference between 4% and 8% even 10-12%, which you say is still 'unhealthy.' End of the day the whole debate began when you said having a 6-pack is generally unhealthy, that's a big leap from arguing that 4% is unhealthy.

Staying lean and fit is a sign of dedication, commitment, and hard-work. If your happy looking like you do that's fine. But you CANNOT argue it is unhealthy to look like me for example. It's mindblowing to say the least that you even think that. My heart/lung capacity is far above yours I can guarantee, whilst I rarely ever get ill, have no conditions, I'm perfectly fit and healthy as my lifestyle would lead me to be.

ok say that you're on 4.1% fat (and theres nothing at all wrong with that....).
You wake up some hot summer day and discover that you're out of stuff to drink. (omg unexpected thing!)

You walk outside... and within seconds you start to sweat like crazy as you have no fat to isolate your body from the heat.
After a sleep on such a day you've already lost quite some water from your body so within minutes you pass out... within several hours you're dead.

Wouldn't it be more save if you have 10% and even more save on 15?


And this is "just 1 example" of what can go wrong (it can also NOT have to do with heat but with other things). And yes it can also go wrong on 8% and it can also even go wrong on 16 and 25 and 35%.... but it's much less likely to happen on 14 - 18% than on the other ranges.

Ofcourse you can debate to which point this matters....

But the thing is that the closer towards 0% bf the faster this will happen.

Now you're saying "I never had any problem because I take good care of myself". But that is extremely different from "Hey guys just come join me on low % bf it's fine and theres no risk".

You take things to extreme and are arguing points far away from your original claim. I went to Dubai with 8-9% bodyfat in the summer, was out and about without stuff to drink stupidly in 40C heat. Oh damn, am I alive? Yes I am. You already stated yourself in reference to Kevz hydration and bodyfat are not the same thing, why are you using it as an argument?

I have never once claimed that if you get low bf in an unmanageable fashion its fine, that's a different problem not caused by having low bf but by exercising too much without eating enough. Again a completely different argument to 'having a 6-pack is unhealthy.'

Anyhow you are using these ludicrous examples of extreme scenarios rather than how you feel on a day-to-day basis. It's like saying your more likely to get hurt walking the street if you don't wear a helmet. Yea sure if someone drops a brick on your head but otherwise you just look like a dick for the 99.999999% of the time.

if you can't understand the difference between my example in the post above and my reply to Kevz then I seriously doubt your authority on this field.
Even though you've "been in professional sport for 10 years, been a nutrition/gym addict for 10 years, who's profession is in fitness" it's so clear that you never studied the subject (if you can't understand the difference between the posts).

That you take the right procautions in many cases doesn't mean that what you're advising can be dangerous. Ask your girlfriend...

are u just trolling now? :p

either way, id trust zsx over anyone else in this topic, seeing as he has the most knowledge of health and fitness by far around here.

no I'm not trolling his reply was wrong and lame.

Of course I understand it but your ideas are developed on wrongly founded basis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1244044/

A journal I found. It states people with higher metabolic rates are much better adept at controlling their body temperature.

It also states people with higher levels of fats will have higher core temperatures in the heat.

Both points disregard your hypothesis that low bf will make it harder for the body to regulate heat.

Anyhow, since you have no coherent argument beyond stating 'My advice for you to get a 6-pack is dangerous' I'm done with debating this. You argue against my knowledge with no facts of your own, beyond opinion.

http://gapsa.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/201...-Sheet.pdf

Another sample from a journal. You will notice how the 10% or less, down to 8% bf, is considered excellent/fit. Whilst 10.5-14% is merely good/healthy. If you then continue to read down you will see that it mentions the risks of achieving this via EXTREME measures, nothing that I condone and all of which are self-explanatory. If you achieve this via good training and maintaining a normal/healthy diet there are no risks. It also notes lower bf is attributed to greater athletic ability, sub-8% has little added benefit but I'm not challenging anyone to get this. You can have abs at 12-14% at the end of the day, so for you to even suggest it is dangerous/unhealthy is ludicrous. Please feel free to add your own medical journals to backup your case that having a 6-pack is unhealthy. To even suggest my expertise in my field is lacking is actually quite rude and I don't even know why I gave you time of day.

To tell me that I am contradicting myself ("You already stated yourself in reference to Kevz hydration and bodyfat are not the same thing, why are you using it as an argument?") while anyone can see that the posts are miles apart is also quite rude.
I just reply in a similar fashion pointing out that if you really believe in your own comment that you're an idiot. It's nice that you don't actually believe it.......... but it makes me question as to why you bring it up.

This will be my last comment because you have gone completely off topic. You chastise kevz about linking bf and hydration when you know nothing bodybuilding. Bodybuilders dehydrate for the stage event to bring maximum vascularity and re-hydrate immediately offstage. Whilst hydration will not increase bf, it will increase the appearance of bf due to this. Plus the intensity these guys actually put in to get on stage and the effort they have on stage in the hot lights whilst being massively dehydrated shows you no they are not miles apart.

Yet since you still have no coherent argument for your case like I said its over.

the post of kevz is wrong in every line of text he wrote in it...... Isn't it usefull for himself that I set him straight?

I know enough about the human anatomy and bodily functions to see that he doesn't. So I'm nice enough to take time and write a post to help him get a clue.
As I've tried with you... but you don't want to read my argument. Which I find somewhat frustrating.

You just keep repeating that "a person doesn't need more than x% fat it's all excess energy stored" while I say that fat has uses (which you agree on after I explained them to you) and that the less you have the better you must watch your diet and that this does bring up complications without proper care (which you completely go berzerk on for some reason).
That you know how to take care of your body doesn't mean you can advise people to just reduce fat towards levels which are close to becomming dangerous for your health.
As your own link even sais about fat% "Low (Increased Health Risk)
<8".

It doesn't mean that on 8.1% you're fine and on 7.9% you're risking a lot of things... it's all gradual... so on 6% you have a really high risk of health issues while on 10% you have a more acceptable risk of health issues.

I've already corrected you on

"Actually you would need a lot of hydration in order to have such a low % of bf."

Once again your linking the two here, since if they were not linked it would not matter how hydrated you were; but Kevz was right in what he said even if he didn't put it across correctly. They stay that bf for one day then begin to put bf back on because its not sustainable; whilst hydrating massively after being dehydrated also.

You correct Kevz on his own condition? You are the one here being obnoxious.

"First of all you get cold easy / have hot flashes etc. because your hypothalamus is out of whack. Not because your body actually heats up / gets cold."

Raynaud's phenomenon? The body will react to external temperature changes drastically and has a strong hormonal component underlying it.

"You just keep repeating that "a person doesn't need more than x% fat it's all excess energy stored" while I say that fat has uses (which you agree on after I explained them to you)"

I already understood the uses of fat, thanks Dr. Weird, but I didn't realize you were going to use the most bizarre situations to try and justify its uses.

I refer you to Heyward and Wagner 2004 and Vella and Kravitz 2007:

"The two types of fat in the body are: essential fat and nonessential fat, or storage fat. Essential fat is needed for normal physiological and biological functioning... essential fat is approximately 3% of total body weight for men"

"Nonessential fat has three main functions:

1. As an insulator to retain body heat.

2. As an energy substrate during rest and exercise.

3. As padding against trauma."

There is a reason why it is labelled essential and non-essential, an extra 5% non-essential fat is MORE than enough to handle all of the above characteristics properly.

Plus the fact you work under the assumption the body stores all necessary vitamins/minerals etc for later use, which it doesn't, and that it turns to fat as an energy store first, which it doesn't, and that it uses so much of it to do all it's basic instinctual tasks, which it doesn't. You have given no concrete evidence or situational and real examples that somebody with abs will die or be at more risk than someone who is fat. Citing someone with 4.1% bf will die at 4% then goes out in the heat whilst being dehydrated is not an example. Again you are using examples far and away from your original claim.

"that the less you have the better you must watch your diet and that this does bring up complications without proper care"

I just find this frustrating since anyone has to 'look after their diet.' And without 'proper care' what does this even mean? I advise anyone, 6-pack or not, on their diet and attempt to educate them. That is why you need a sufficient diet to make lifestyle changes and consequently lose weight in a sustainable fashion. It is illustrating the common misconception for people trying to achieve a great body. I get mad here because you don't understand training enough and how this interacts with diet. My whole point is that you can eat what you want as long as you train right.

Your point about It doesn't mean that on '8.1% you're fine and on 7.9% you're risking a lot of things' is valid but the 8% threshold is quoted as that because it is SAFE. Below 6% dodgy things will start happening if you are not careful. You even try to disregard medical journals, this is fucking hilarious. Taking a computer example, if I buy a processor that has the ability to be overclocked to 5ghz. If you overclock it to 4ghz its going to be stable and safe, say 8% bf, it can reach 5ghz but its not recommended since you wont need that much but if you want to force it to prove you can sure but you might face complications. (3-5% bf)

I'm going to end on the point of which you started.

"The thing is...
For almost everyone it actually is unhealthy to have a sixpack. So I would advise against it (ofcourse there are exceptions)."

Every time I read this I actually laugh out loud. Not only have you ignored this claim since the time you stared but to actually believe it you have some understanding issues. I refer you back to the MEDICAL JOURNAL. 10%=< BF is classed as extremely healthy, do you not understand this? Extremely healthy, which in turn is better than good/average; hence you don't have an acceptable level of health issues because that would not be extremely healthy. You can have abs on 14%=< which is classed as good/average. Hence, lower bf = more abs = more healthy UP TO the point of 8-10% ALL THINGS ASSUMING, you do it in a sustainable and manageable fashion adhering to a good sensible training regime and sufficient diet.

Ow boy he actually comes with a somewhat sane / build up reply.

"I've already corrected you on ..... They stay that bf for one day then begin to put bf back on because its not sustainable; whilst hydrating massively after being dehydrated also."

First of all you haven't corrected me on anything except on where vitamines are stored (I checked it etc... and I guess I interpretted the textbook wrong when I read it).

Secondly, you need a lot of hydration because fat tissue has less water stored in them then lean tissue. Therefor if you dehydrate yourself (remove extracellular fluids) your body will start to get into a new equilibrium (which takes a while I forgot the details but it was something like several hours up to a day or 2 or smth...) to get there water gets drawn from all other cells. As the intracellular fluids will be used to "fill the gap" in the extracellular fluids. This will effectively increase the fat mass of your body (as less water will be drawn from them and more will be from lean tissue because fat cells obtain less water than lean muscles).

Now professional body builders ofcourse don't want this so they only very shortly reduce extracellular fluids and then quickly replenish that before the body has time to get fluids from the muscles/fat cells.

Also the fat is calculated from total body weight which drastically changes when you significantly reduce extracellular fluids and therefore your fat% rises.
In both cases you need a well hydrated body to measure a low fat%.


"Raynaud's phenomenon? The body will react to external temperature changes drastically and has a strong hormonal component underlying it."
I'm not arguing that at all. Reread my post. I'm arguing the cause and effect. The release of hormones isn't the solution to fixing the body temperature it's a tool used to notify bodily functions that they should work to increase/decrease temperature.
You can have tons of problems with maintaining the correct body heat... you can not be able to make the hormones, you can have dysfunctional bodily functions, the hormones might not be 'read right' by the organs, and in this case I guess (don't know it) that the body over compensates by releasing too much of the hormones, and there are many other possibilities which can lead to problems.


"an extra 5% non-essential fat is MORE than enough to handle all of the above characteristics properly. "
Afaik it's not. But I *might* be wrong. (ofcourse I doubt that because I always assume that what I read / heard / saw is in basic correct)

Next to that you're foccussing on the wrong things in my post. They are examples to make you think on how the body works.
The point is that it is a gradual system. But you don't want to understand that I guess... and you just go on and on and on bitching about a certain %.
The lower it goes the more you must actively manage it because otherwise it becomes a problem.
Afaik around 14 - 18% you don't have any negative health issues and you don't need to watch out for normal changes.

btw I don't know why I'm taking the time to reply to you either....
It's clear that you think that actively monitoring your body means that you're living healthy.....
But in general you're living healthy when you don't have to actively monitor your body.

You won't want to believe me though as you put in all this effort to get to a point where you can only "stay healthy" when you exercise like mad and eat like crazy.
If others want to also do that it's fine with me.... but they should be aware that when they alter their diet that they can get sick.

Thats how debating Weird always goes, as soon as you pin him down on some silly statement he made he switches the subject without addressing what you say. Enjoy your Merry-Go-Round
: D

bodyfat compared to hormones, dont do a whole lot when it comes to regulating body temperature. i can tell you this with first hand experience, having sub optimal hormone levels myself i get cold easily, and get hot flashes easily when its warm/hot outside. having been between 10 and 25% bodyfat aswell, there has not been any notable difference in insulation and the feeling of beeing warmer when fat, or colder when lean.

the fact that you use irrelevant numbers as 0% 1% 5% is just... pointless. not even bodybuilders go under 4-5%, and they only stay there for gameday and rehydrate directly after. (yes, it is unhealthy to be a top tier bodybuilder)

people with god tier genes have 8% bf with little effort, i guess those god tier genes arent so god tier afterall if we follow your logic.

im strongly thinking you have grown up taking in health and fitness data wrong, or you are so far gone the excuses you make to justify not beeing able to get a 6pack, have become a reality to you.

srsly, take advice from people who are educated and stop it with the nonsensical misplaced commentary in this thread.

rofl you're not making sense.

First of all you get cold easy / have hot flashes etc. because your hypothalamus is out of whack. Not because your body actually heats up / gets cold.
It's just that your mind seems to sometimes think: "Wow my internal temperature is dropping" (because it gets missread) which then leads to some extreme reaction.... and after a few minutes the right values get read and your mind realizes that the internal temperature is fine and the extreme reaction gets killed.

Secondly that body builders go below 4% fat for a day and then rehydrate after is like WTF? Body fat and the hydration of your body are very different things. Actually you would need a lot of hydration in order to have such a low % of bf.

srsly, take advice from people who are educated and stop it with the nonsensical misplaced commentary in this thread.

yeah, getting a blue ish tint in my limbs when beeing outside for a casual amount of time in the winter just means my hypothalamus is out of whack, but my body is perfectly fine, im getting confused here ;_;
point im making is that hormones matter in keeping a steady body temp, having low hormone levels means the body isnt beeing controlled properly and so temp regulation is off. having 8% bodyfat wont suddenly make your limbs freeze into popsicles compared to 20%, it would be a minor difference at best.

anyway, hormones are the core component, and your precious bodyfat is of a small secondary degree important. beeing between 8% and 20% bodyfat, is healthy, but the lower the better up to that ~8% point;

more bodyfat also means more testosterone aromatisation to oestrogen, again, the optimal test:estrogen ratio is achieved at the lower bodyfat percentages. and yeah test is important for a male, its a core hormone that keeps us healthy.

anyway, just dont blow things up so much, you might worry people for no reason :P

hormones only regulate the amounts.
If a hormone is released that wants to convert fat into energy (sugars) and there isn't any fat.... it doesn't do anything.

So the deal is:
1) "Omfg theres something wrong with the body temperature"
2) release hormones
3) hormones tell the organs "OMFG THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE BODY TEMPERATURE".
4) the organs try to fix it by altering body functions.

If the body function includes higher energy levels then fat has to be burned to get energy... if theres no fat.... the body can't fix the problem -> you die (actually you first start to burn muscles.... before that happens but the shock is bigger if I just say die :D).

8% is thousands upon thousands of calories to be used though... not to mention the body can consume muscle too last i checked :o

ehm I already said the body can consume muscles... it's in my post?

and how much 8% is in calories is very dependant on the total amount that the 8% is... but like I said, fat has a LOT more functions than "just store energy".

Yes, your threshold is off though.

could be but according to the literature that I've read and courses that I followed I'm not.

to clarify a bit before you whine and bitch....

If you want to have 8% bf and still be healthy you need to seriously watch your diet and always make sure that you have enough nutrients (and in the correct amounts of each) such that your body doesn't suffer from it.
This can be done if you know a shitload on the subject..... but I'm not gonna go on some public forum and encourage people to take such a risk.

Wrong again. I sit around 9-10% bf and I'm eating more than I ever have. If you train the appropriate way you can eat whatever you like more or less. I eat extremely clean yes. But I'm eating 3.5-4k calories daily. If I wanted I could put aside 10-20% of my meals as 'cheat' meals and have ANYTHING I wanted but I don't have the urge.

Many bodybuilders, and mainstream view, is that to get that level you do 3hours+ cardio and eat nothing. Whilst some do this, it it extremely unhealthy and destroys your metabolism. That's why if you do it right or are not a bodybuilder and focus more on boosting your metabolism as opposed to destroying it, then nothing is unhealthy about the process.

Ehmmm?
What are you arguing there?
You do know that watching your diet doesn't just mean eat less right?
I don't see any point which you're disagreeing with in this post... (other than if you assume that watching ones diet means eating less)

My point is I'm eating more, which means I don't need to monitor my nutrients closely since I'm clearly eating more than a normal person, who then should have to monitor it more closely.

Generally when people talk about low bodyfat they refer to eating less, which I am countering. So if I'm not having to watch my nutrients and I'm eating more? why did you bother even posting about watching your diet???

"This can be done if you know a shitload on the subject..... but I'm not gonna go on some public forum and encourage people to take such a risk."

My post clearly defies this, since I'm not monitoring what I eat - I just eat when I'm hungry.

Edit: In any case fat people with bad diets are more likely to be malnourished then people who train hard and know shit about diet. If you have the commitment to get low bf you will understand your body and your diet.

"My point is I'm eating more, which means I don't need to monitor my nutrients closely since I'm clearly eating more than a normal person....."
Complete bullshit.
The amount of stuff you eat must just be corresponding only to the amount of resources your body needs.
You clearly work out more than others so you eat more.

But you can only have that 9-10% bf because you know what you should eat. Which means you're watching your diet.
You even said: "If I wanted I could put aside 10-20% of my meals as 'cheat' meals and have ANYTHING I wanted". That is really closely monitoring what you're eating man.
I don't care about my diet at all.... I just eat whatever I like at whatever time I think is fun.... and then I exersise a bit more or less accordingly such that I maintain a healthy body.

"I don't care about my diet at all.... I just eat whatever I like at whatever time I think is fun.... and then I exersise a bit more or less accordingly such that I maintain a healthy body."

Then you are equally susceptible to having a lack of nutrients as I am. The fact is because I understand diet I know I am getting my adequate macro/micro needs. Understanding diet does not equal watching diet. I used to watch it via logs, however I don't anymore. See the difference?

And no it's not complete bullshit, you think someone that doesn't understand diet and eats mostly nutrient free processed foods, yet feels fulfilled is getting sufficient vitamins etc? As opposed to someone like me that knows what they are eating will fulfill those needs without actually planning.

No I'm not equally susceptible... because in the long run (fat is a long run thing as you pointed out earlier) all the right nutrients will be obtained from all of the (fairly random) foods that I eat.
These nutrients will be stored in my body for an extended period of time in my (around) 16% fat. (as a general point, there are prolly some things which you must eat/drink daily etc. to be healthy)

The fact that you're healthy is (possibly) largly due to your understanding of your diet.

Now I'm not saying that you can eat any 1 thing for an extended period of time.... But heck if I want a few days of fast food it's fine as long as in the days after I eat some fruit / bread / etc.

If you decide to go on an all fruit diet for an extended period you might become seriously ill..... I might lose a few kg and that's about it.
Now you can argue that (because you know a lot about diets) this doesn't hold for you.
But try to tell it to hitsu if he ever gets talked into becomming a veggie and suddenly has no energy at all begins to eat more and more ending up like some baloon.... or ofcourse just degenerating his body as his food can't sustain the body anymore.

im trying to gain weight for months now, i eat almost everything and i even tried to lift, lift did actually made me a little fat but just in my arms and chest, i still looks skinny overall :(

count calories. most ppl who think they eat correctly are just doing it wrong. build a solid diet and stick to it for a few months. do starting strength with it aswell (read the book, but IGNORE the diet stuff). you will get results unless you have a physical condition of some sorts.

to add to this, i was a stick in teenage years, never really ate alot or had an appetite, but i did eventually gain weight by breaking through the barrier by eating 3000+ calories a day. it seemed to have awoken my body. sure its far too much and i gained quite a bit of fat, but it seemed to kickstart things into motion by getting used to eating ALOT of calories, now i dont have any problems eating.

tldr, EAT(healthily) untill you see change and then tweak the calories to be just slightly above what you need, say ~200 calories/day.

i eat almost everything, from eggs and cheese to meat and chicken stuff, today i ate two breads and a bottle of coke lol ( tried everything, from different diets to calculating my metabolism etc... ).

i am a kind of tall and every few months and find out that i didn't gain weight but just got a little bit taller, people kept telling me that once i stop getting tall i will start getting fat but i don't believe them, i got fat once in the past but became skinny just after that

You could have higher metabolism than usual, possibly below average testosterone, and beeing tall already makes it difficult to see changes at a decent rate (yes, beeing short is a benefit in this case)

BUT, all that aside, try 4000 calories a day for a week or 2, step on the scale twice a week, monitor changes. Even if its difficult to gain weight, its not impossible unless you have a condition :)

If things still dont change, see a doc and get a full hormone panel done.

(ps, eggs and chicken are kinda low in calories, but great sources of protein)

right now im just eating anything and everything at anytime per day, don't know if a specific diet will work but i tried one once and didn't really work, but thx for the help !

I have the same goals/problem. #1 tip is have more regular meals. Eat every three hours. Eat peanut butter out of the jar, and have a glass of milk with every meal. Count your calories, I bet you'll realize you're actually eating much less than you think. Its really hard to re-program your brain to eat differently, I think that's why people struggle with weightloss, not just because they "like food", but because its really easy to fall back into habits.

http://articles.elitefts.com/training-article...it-happen/
http://articles.elitefts.com/nutrition/kentuc...-calories/

Fats have the most calories and usually raise your testosterone so don't be afraid of them.

edit: oh yeah, and make sure you lift a few times a week and incorporate some kind of cardio and/or plyometrics

go visit a doctor. it may be thyroid problem.

one girl i know has it, and shes skinny as hell, and anemic

Anemia comes from blood loss, sir. Shouldn't have to explain why...

ow god.


quickly, google anemia and read about it.

I would need to see a food diary to assess whether you were eating enough, in 90% of cases this is the problem.

On top of that I would then need to see your training diary to check everything there.

What hitsu mentioned is a possibility, but an extremely small one since you would have other symptoms aswell.

tl;dr people generally eat a shit tonne less than they think they do.

What hitsu said. You probably are healthy, since there are different body types, different genes, different things that may cause the effects that you have. Why do you try to gain weight anyway?

cause im skinny and tall, i want to gain some weight, i weight like 60 Kg only, its too low for an almsot 180 cm guy

Your BMI Is: 18.52

18.5 - 25: normal weight

less than 18.5: underweight

BMI is not flawless but just as a reference you are not dangerously low weight. It wouldn't hurt if you gained some weight though.

im more than 180 cm now, started a diet some days ago and seems to work, kinda, i just eat too much and it worked lol, will do it till i get in a good shape and will start lifting too, does lifting at 60 kg is good ? ( broken english i know )

yes, just dont use too much weight on exercises. be realistic, you'll get strong in time.

this this this, good form > taking on too heavy weights. else itl just mean injuries and itl take longer to reach goals, aswell as plateau's due to bad technique.

and please lift while eating a surpluss sofiene, u dont wanna turn it all into fat :D

start doing push ups, dips, pull ups at home until you feel you've built yourself up to a decently strong level then attend a local gym to progress even further.

i already did that and i think i am ready to go to gym but will not do it till october/november, since i want to get some weight before going to gym.

paleo diet + intermittent fasting (to me it came naturally to have a 14hour fasting window, which I think is because of the paleo diet. Some people do it on a high carb diet but it's more difficult as you feel hungry as fuck)
For exercise, big5 workout twice a week. So hard that you'll vomit afterwards. Throw in a sprint session once a week. No need to get fancy here.

Haha at "go vegan" piece of advice.

6 meals a day is a myth. More here.

eating 6 meals is not about metabolism, but not stuffing yourself with food :-)

If you eat satiating food (animal fat and protein) to go along with veggies, 2-3 meals a day is more than enough. This is mainly because you keep your insulin in check and you do not store calories but burn them, therefore there's less need to replenish energy from food.

Secondly, it's an unnatural feeling to on one hand be stuffing yourself with food and on the other feeling hungry relatively soon after a meal. It's prevalent in Western diet and the cause is also excess insulin which inhibits leptin (the hormon that sends information to your brain from your stomach that you've had enough food)

Here's this viewpoint presented in an accesible way for someone who is getting introduced to nutrition -> LINK

If anything it will cause you to eat more as you're never fully feeling satisfied as opposed to eating 3 big sized portions. Self-control and will power ultimately determines how much weight you're going to lose.

i actually eat less with every day, cause my stomatch is shrinking

You honestly think paleo is healthy? High fat low carb, please. Just another fad diet like atkins. Something with that much meat and so few greens isn't healthy. The majority of your diet should be made up of as many veg and fruit as you can afford. I only eat meat because it's a cheap source of protein nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD8e4Mg3NFU

That's a good documentary which I think everyone should see.

Low carb isn't synonymous with few greens. Try eating 100 grams worth of carbs in the form of veggies (excluding starches of course) and then we'll talk.

The evidence that largely began with Ancel Keys' work on the supposed link between CVD and dietary fat is simply bogus. The internet is full of articles debunking that. Then there's the cholesterol-phobia that's been going on for about 25 years now in the Western world and despite that CVD and metabolic syndrome in general is increasingly present. There's a lot more to the way we've been eating for the last 50 years and how our health is deteriorating than a simple correlation.

Then there's the evolutionary argument - we've evolved to store about 300 grams of glucose (or 1200 calories) in our liver and muscles but the capacity of storing energy in the form of saturated animal fat (the thing that's supposed to block our arteries and stuff) is virtually infinite (If you think of a lean person as one with 15% body fat and weight of 80 kg, he still has 12kg of fat which is 108 000 calories. Now think of people who have 30 or 40 kg of fat on themselves. The saturated fat-CVD hipothesis essentially implies that if someone were ever to tap into that stored energy, they'd be running predominantly on animal fat and would get a heart attack after some time. If you think we've evolved to have a ticking time bomb like that, I think there's a fellow Brit named Charles Darwin who's turning in his grave now.

I will make a point and watch that documentary in free time instead of playing QL in the evening. What I want from you is to just read this article.

I can also post my bloodwork results for all they're worth (I've been on the paleo diet since January and pretty dilligent with it). My diet consisted of 5-7 eggs with bacon a day (fried in coconut oil which is pure saturated fat) with a decent bowl of veggies soaked in extra virgin olive oil and the second meal was meat (chicken or fattier kinds like ribs or beef) with broccoli or cauliflower again with a decent bowl of veggies soaked in extra virgin olive oil.

Four months into the diet I've also added coffee blended with 50g of grass-fed Kerrygold butter and 100g of coconut milk, which is even more evil saturated fat added to the mix.

I've also been supplementing with omega3s (fish oil) because, although I've gone to some length to ensure that the meat I buy is straight from the farmer, hopefully grass-fed and not mass-produced (which almost everyone in the paleo crowd admits is of much inferior quality) and eggs are free-range, I can never be sure of the omega3/omea6 profile.

After 8 months of eating this way I've had my bloodwork done just for curiosity and to calm my mother down a bit.

Total cholesterol mmol/l 6,04
Cholesterol HDL mmol/l 1,77
Cholesterol LDL mmol/l 4,11
Triglicerides mmol/l 0,78

What you see is Total cholesterol slightly elevated (5.1 is the mainstream alert point), although research shows that TC in the range of 5.1-6.2 is associated with lowest all-cause mortality.

Now, off to the more relevant measures - LINK

My HDL/TC ratio is 0.29, while anything above 0.24 is considered desirable.

And the best predictor of CVD - Triglicerides/HDL - anything below 2 is good - I've scored 0.44, which is laughably good.

I haven't done my bloodwork before going paleo so I can't compare the trends unfortunately.

I've also lost weight effortlessly (I gave up cardio when switching to paleo and didn't move my butt for the first three months and in that time went from 94 kg to 83, which perhaps isn't crazy-impressive but considering no exercise and a diet which to me is delicious and didn't demand eating things I hate, which is often the case when people try to lose body fat, I consider the weight loss a huge success.

all of this is great, but the same gets achieved with a common healthy diet :D

losing weight is no proof of anything, just eat fewer calories than needed, done. weight is beeing shedded.

me, ive tried very low carb diets, and all that jazz. just makes me feel drowsy. i prefer 40% of my diet to be complex carbs, makes me feel the most fit.

im not disproving your success, im just saying going out of your way with these offbeat diets is... unnecessary.
if anything, going 30/30/30 would probably work fine, aswell as 50/35/15. just dont try to be special with a 10/30/60 diet (or even more extreme; ketogenic diet, 0/30/70 or smth), those make me feel like a corpse. my brain needs carbs to function, aswell as my muscles in the gym :>

for intermittend fasting, im still unsure about the function of that. ppl say it makes the body more efficient working with the food. perhaps smt to do with bloodsugar beeing low for most of the day, but then the flipside, it would be higher than normal in the few hours you need to stuff 2500 calories, right? idunno what to think about that yet.

FYI you're just regurgitating the same old bullshit that everyone believes is common sense instead of actually reading what he is saying, or doing any sort of research for yourself. What people believe to be a common healthy diet is causing increasing obesity rates all across the world. Plus, you keep focusing on ratios which is pretty much the baseline of what paleo/lchf focuses on; a well-formulated lchf diet will address the actual quality of foods that you're taking in, limiting what is proven to cause a variety of problems in MOST PEOPLE.

Also, if you felt drowsy when you tried LCHF you probably 1) didn't eat enough fat 2) give your body enough time to adapt 3) didn't supplement sodium/potassium/magnesium, something you absolutely must do since your kidneys won't retain that shit like when you eat a ton of carbs. Try actually reading up on this kind of shit and making up your own mind instead of throwing out speculative bullshit macro figures.

I like how he his reply was respectful skepticism and your reply is OMG YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

nice reading comprehension if you think i was insulting him and not specifically what he was saying (these things are not equivalent unless you're dumb, and you ARE dumb if you think so).

"FYI you're just regurgitating the same old bullshit" is certainly dismissive/hostile. I think you'll find if you try and engage people with some civility the quality of discussion will increase significantly.

It certainly was dismissive, which I feel is the appropriate response to the plainly obvious fact that he didn't actually read any of what glenon posted: "all of this is great, but the same gets achieved with a common healthy diet :D

losing weight is no proof of anything, just eat fewer calories than needed, done. weight is beeing shedded."

^None of this is respectful skepticism, it's regurgitating the same old bullshit in lieu of actually reading and thinking..

Fair enough, I feel a shitstorm brewing if kevz returns to this thread XD

nah, no shitstorm. but tbh, theres no point in argueing with someone that quotes 'calories in, calories out' as 'the same old bullshit without reading and thinking'.

its really not that complicated.

wether or not certain diets are truely healthy or not, thats a bit more difficult to work out. there beeing so much research these days proving eachother wrong and whatnot.
i dont think a vegan diet is the end of the world, but i am slightly sceptic about a fat heavy diet. it seems like alot of effort without any practical benefit to me.

'calories in, calories out' IS the same old bullshit. it completely ignores the roles/impacts of insulin, and how production of insulin and a huge variety of other hormones is impacted quite specifically by the types of food we put into our body. these hormones can dramatically change whether we gain or lose weight no matter how many or few calories we actually ingest.

claiming it's really not that complicated is stupid, since if it really wasn't that complicated then we'd have simple nutritional guidelines that would work for EVERYONE, with the exception of those that have actual legit glandular issues. do we? can you actually define what a "normal healthy diet" is without resorting to macros? if it's just common sense then why aren't we all healthy?

you really dont get it do you lol. anyone maintaining a healthy diet will also have a healthy bloodsugar level, theres no reason for it to spike or maintain at high levels when eating sweet potatoes, brocolli and grilled chicken. it spikes when you down a supersized bucket of coca cola and eat refined garbage. complex carbs > simple carbs always, but this goes for ALL diets. gaining or losing weight can be done by modifying the amount of calories you eat and it will be in a healthy fashion with balanced macros. it works like this for everyone except those with specific illnesses, and im gonna go ahead here and assume that you are defending a specific diet that is catered to EVERYONE, not just those with problematic thyroids or other issues.

asking why we arent all healthy is just.... fuck me. its not like everyone on this planet has the discipline to be healthy, heck, some people are just too plain dumb to understand what theyre doing. and theres a plethora of other reasons why people do things the way they do, why things happen the way they happen.

you are going wayyyyyyyyyy off course trying to prove something that isnt there in the first place, and asking rediculous questions only your supposed god can answer, yeah i know what time it is.

but keep stuffing your face in whatever way you like, if your not counting calories ur gonna end up fat no matter what.

sweet potatoes, broccoli, and grilled chicken is the fucking paleo diet lol

"all of this is great, but the same gets achieved with a common healthy diet :D" damn, it looks like paleo IS the common healthy diet

well i guess that means we understand eachother, gg :>

ive tried :P

@beef
the story of a normal balanced diet causing worldwide obesity, ive seen zero evidence of that, anywhere. this is also the first time i hear of it. nobody is gonna get fat when following a balanced diet from resource rich foods (ie, not processed junk). that aside, its calories in calories out no matter what diet, basic physics last time i checked.

what i am wondering though, is the psychology behind people like beefheart. this crazy firm belief these radical diets are worth trying, and are even far superior (yeah thats the tone u people set) to any basic healthy diet. is it cause of beeing against killing of animals? did mommy and daddy stuff u with garbage when growing up and now you believe beeing a vegetarian/vegan is the only way to stay fit? well whatever it is, im no psychologist :>

bout that keto diet, yeah ive tried it for weeks, it was difficult getting it right, and even when i did manage to get all the calories in, i maintained that drowsy feel you get when you take anti depressants for the first time. that and the diet got boring real fast.

i believe in moderation beeing key. this goes for everything in life tbh. if were talking diets and working out, then yeah i advocate balance and doing whats long proven. complex carbs, red/white meats, moderate amount of fats (see pic, even if its old its relevant).
heavy compound lifts and hiit. it works.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm141jJZGM1qgh9aoo1_1280.png

You still haven't read any of what glenon posted, lol. Also, up your reading comprehension please, I didn't say "a normal balanced diet" is causing worldwide obesity, I said what people BELIEVE is a common healthy diet is causing the obesity. If you don't believe that, then you're living in a fucking cave.

Also, you're throwing a ton of words into my mouth throughout your post. Veganism? What the fuck are you going on about? You're legit stupid and can't comprehend any of what anyone in this thread is saying.

Moderation being key is just another poor argument that commits the fallacy of assuming the middle option MUST be the superior option, simply because it doesn't lean to an extreme. That's not a real reason for eating a particular way, and there's no scientific evidence that shows anything remotely close to supporting your idea.

Get at me when you read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes to start with.

sorry bud, i just dont think you understand a whole lot about diet/weight/working out.

all those books, documentaries, texts, all point to fat people becoming fat due to eating simple carbs, and due to eating more calories than their bodies need. we live in a stressy world and not everyone can handle it. but whatever the reasoning its irrelevant. if one eats green veggies, complex carbs, aswell as red meats, white meats, and other healthy protein sources, the majority of people will be healthy.

i just dont understand the point ur trying to make. nor do i get gienon's, all he says is common knowledge studies are wrong, we all carry fat therefor fat isnt a problem. i know cholesterol and fats are important as its one of the keys to getting optimal testosterone levels, furthermore he has no evidence that its his diet that caused his weightloss. what i see is that hes eating less calories than he needs and thus has lost the weight, and hes happy about it. what im saying is, you can get the same goal by eating sweet potatoes or rice with those leafy veggies, and also be happy about it.

calories in calories out IS legit, as long as your diet is in check.

anyway, falling asleep here after all this typing ;_;

Calories in; calories out, is the simplest form to explain weight loss without complicating it. However, this is often misconstrued by the general public and sadly by many fitness 'experts'. They therefore condone on this logic to exercise a lot whilst not eating a lot. Not a recipe for fat loss sadly.

99% of the population, however, do not understand the role of hormones in fat loss/muscle building so its difficult to explain fat loss in any other sense. Again, we must differentiate between fat loss and weight loss. Looking at the scales is no-no if you ONLY care about fat.

It is possible, since I have done it myself, to lose fat whilst being in a calorie surplus. So what I'm saying is that I'm putting weight on whilst losing fat. That totally defies the calories in vs calories out logic. However, this is done with careful manipulation of my hormones and careful dietary planning. Just google 'body recomp' for a basic understanding.

Paleo is a good philospohy and I abide by much of what it believes in. The keto diet has been a staple in the bodybuilding world for some time and has many of the principles of the Paleo diet. Unfortunately, sticking to the letter would not help me but the principles are good. Ultimately, if you understand your food then a 'healthy diet' combined with effective training is sufficient. Defining a healthy diet in most peoples eyes is a difficult task however.

hm yes, body recomp looks like carb cycling simply put. its next on my list to give a try once i find myself back in to the gym. seems like paleo on off days (with calorie deficit), and adding more carbs on work out days (calorie surplus), i can kinda see how that could be effective.

The point is what people commonly view as healthy (above all: avoid fat) is wrong. Our miscommunication is that we disagree on what is commonly viewed as healthy, because what you're suggesting is commonly regarded as healthy is far beyond what most people think of as healthy, and that is the main problem.

And I assure you, I know more about diet/weight/working out than you ever will, unless you make an effort to educate yourself. I worked a manual labor job for 7 years and always had like 20-30 extra pounds, despite eating relatively healthy and working harder in one week than most people on this board will work in their entire life. I cut out the carbs (and replace those calories with fat) while recovering from a major back injury and I lost 20lb of fat while doing MUCH less exercise. It's a lot more complicated than calories in, calories out, and people much smarter than you or I will attest to that fact. If you want to start learning some real shit instead of just repeating the same ol' mantra I suggest you read the book I mentioned above, and continue with blogs like http://eatingacademy.com/.

I'm currently eating about 3000-3200 calories in 10 hours every day. If I were eating that with a low-fat high-carb diet and not exercising, I'd be getting fatter by the second. 5k cardio twice a day wouldn't probably help (I know because I've had weeks of doing just that).

No need to send anyone off to read a book. Here Taubes makes his case in a more accesible way - LINK

By definition the Paleo will help you lose weight, but it is also not an optimal dietary option for athletes or advanced trainers trying to achieve optimal body composition.

This is the fitness industry however, fad's and new techniques will always appear more appealing than basic science. This is why crossfit is so popular. It is basically glorified circuit training. Sure it's going to help you lose weight if you don't do much exercise. You join a highly motivated group who are going to push you to intensity levels you have never been to, and continually. But would I recommend it to an athlete? No chance.

I don't think you're right on the first point. Unless by paleo in this sentence you mean low-carb. There are top-notch athletes who abide by the ancestral diet, e.g. the Lakers or Novak Djokovic. I'm pretty sure they don't go through their days with 50g of carbs or less but it's still paleo.

Remember I'm talking about 'optimal', I didn't say it was not applicable or ineffective in any case. Like I said before, I'm a big advocate of Paleo principles and follow many myself, for example I have always believed if there was anything in our diet we should increase it would be fat intake; whilst I try to cut out as much processed foods as possible.

I see you threw out some names so just to be obnoxious let me do the same. People who eat 'normal' diets: The fastest man in the world; the strongest man in the world; Cristiano Ronaldo; Messi; Jonah Lomu; The Rock; Cooller; Zsx. You get my point.

In any case, I believe the Lakers have only been doing it for just over a month? Let's see how it goes; whilst Djokovic has celiac disease which forces him to adopt such a diet. This leads me onto my core point. There is no "one size fits all" diet, you need to individualize it. For 20-30% of the population that have a minor intolerance to gluten/dairy then adopting a Paelo-esque diet or at least restricting the intake of these products would indeed be beneficial. Many of these would be athletes and in such cases doing so of course could help. However, if you don't have such a condition then having a more 'normal' diet can be more effective. It is easier and more effective to create a anabolic environment for muscle growth with the effective use of carbohydrates for example.

Let me take an example from my experience. Pre-season rugby camp we were subjected to multiple training sessions daily, 1/2 gym session with 2/3 fitness/conditioning sessions. We were being fed 8-12k calories daily to sustain on this rigorous programme, overlooked by our dietitian who monitored our intake. I wouldn't want to imagine how you would consume 8-12k calories on a Paleo diet.

Well, I think we largely agree but the confusion arises when you use the term Paleo to mean low-carb or low-calorie (I probably sometimes do it as well because it is very often the case by sheer correlation but conceptually these aren't the same). Starches, fruit and natural sweeteners are sources of carbohydrates and no paleo guy will tell you that they aren't acceptable on such a diet.

So we see eye to eye in thinking that for athletes it is optimal to eat more carbs to refill glycogen after physical exertion. No argument from me on this point. I think you'll also agree (or at least will not oppose) the idea that you'd be better off sticking to paleo carbs as opposed to grains (because of anti-nutrients and their impact on systemic inflammation) or sweets (for many reasons).

As regards the Lakers, they've been eating this way as a team for the entire previous season (Kobe and Nash started earlier if I remember correctly), which amusingly coincides with the most disappointing season in years ;) I didn't know about Djokovic having celiac. This obviously means he had to drop gluten but still probably eats a fair amount of carbs.

I don't see much use in arguing about terminology. What I'd like to know is your opinion on this protocol (overview of the theory and the training in practice). Of course if you have the will and time. The whole lecture is a nice watch but I've time-stamped it to where he starts talking about the training. Thanks in advance.

I'm going to start with a disclaimer, I have watched most of it and believe I have an understanding of it but might change my opinion when I analyse it more.

Nothing he says in his theory is revolutionary. The technique he refers to has been around for a long time often used as a plateau buster, he is merely applying the science of muscle growth to a potential ancestral survival situation.

Let me start by explaining, simply, the process of muscle growth. I'm guessing most people have a simple understanding of muscle growth. Well strength/growth is the bodies way of adapting to a stress placed upon it. The way you maintain growth and strength is to continually increase the intensity of this stress by increasing the workload. This way the body has to continually adapt and will continue to grow. When you do an exercise, you generate strength during the eccentric phase (Pushing/pulling the weight) and this is where you will build power/strength. The negative phase of the exercise is where you build your muscle by tearing the muscle fibers, so controlling the weight down.

The 'theory' refers to time under tension. This is actually the basis of potentially the most popular training technique used in the bodybuilding world today, and one that I have used for the past 2 years, rest-pause. The common technique of rest-pause is best epitomized in DC training. So if you are interested in what he has to say then check this out.

Basically the technique aims to put the muscle under maximum tension for the greatest time, whilst working to failure. Basically the points this theory aims to get. It incorporates a slower rhythm, controlling the weight on the negative phase, whilst introducing a slow negative to failure and isometric hold at the end of the set.

Whilst the points in the theory have relevance to training, as shown in DC training, I don't agree with how he believes it has evolved. It is purely science. If you train to failure, increase time under tension, and increase the stress the muscle has to endure each session, your muscle will grow because that's how the body responds.

lots of fitness experts here, also Jamerio posting his training clips!!

Try falling down stairs, it usually helps with "balloon like tummy" problems.

ur so funny i died twice

check your posture.
hyperlordosis causes the belly to stick out more.

eat more than you need = gain weight
eat less than you need =lose weight

))

once you go fat, there's no turning back

Get AIDS, that will help you lose some weight.

Btw if you wanna lose weight and like to kill yourself, here's a little fitness/conditioning tool I learnt from rugby and do occasionally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xippuujHPZ8

Technique's a little wrong but you get the idea.

Try do 20s on 40s off and see how many you get.

(BTW Linkin does these so ask him how it feels)

Zsx this kind of cardio is not good, unless if you are doing something for condition. By sprinting you dont lose only fat, but you lose muscle mass aswell. If you do sprint like that, even if you sprint like a madman and if you wont eat healthy then this kind of practice wont help you at all. Some people sprint a lot, but because of sprint or a lot of cardio (sprint included) then hunger is even worse. You will eat a lot and you wont do anyting good for yourself. Food is everything. Practice itself is 5-15% of everything. Im at gmy since 2008, had a personal trainer till 2010. Nowdays Im leading groups in our gym and helping / giving advices to new comers.

ITT: Professional Nutritionists.

Just remember to be patient and always give any routines/plans that you follow enough time to see if they work (minimum 5 weeks imo) before you start changing things.

In the end it all depends on you, how far you can push yourself as any routine will be challenging.

Also take a progress picture and monitor your weight regularly. When you start seeing results, it will motivate you to do even better and will give you self belief that you can achieve your goals/targets.

Good luck!

thanks for the cheering part :-)

dont worry, since i started to workout i feel better, sleep better etc etc. thats enough of motivation for me :-)

While there may be a few people in this thread that are qualified to give you advice on fitness and nutrition, my guess is that the vast majority are not (including me). Assuming that to be true, I'd recommend you talk to your doctor, as well as consider meeting with a personal trainer.

I'm a relatively fit guy (work out 3-4 times each week, "healthy" diet, no smoking, etc.) and always have been. However, I started weekly personal training classes a few months ago with my fiancee and my eyes have been opened as to how much I didn't know about exercise, fitness, nutrition, and a healthy lifestyle. I've lost weight, gained muscle and toning, and generally feel much better as a direct result of the training.

Best of luck to you, and if you're in the Ann Arbor area (longshot), IM me and I'll hook you up with my trainer.

P.S. Terrible website for trainer, but excellent training :P

Eat less. Poop more.

if i eat less i wont have resources to poop :<

Thats actually true even if you were sarcastic. With eating less your stomach is getting shorter. After a while with eating more you will poop after a meal or few meals. Especially people who poop once in two days or more.

http://www.stronghealthtips.com/muscle

Heartless has his own page with lots of great advice. Invaluable.

rofl

/cringe

What the fuck

What do I do realistically to stop shitting in this color?

less coffee

Such an underrated post.

take some pills to help you evacuate the air through... well you know it

Starving is the best way to lose weight. I had 85kg in 2007 before gym. I was starving 2weeks and I lost 12kg. I ate 2-3 times a day one bite of fruits. Starving is not good in any way, but if you think you can do it this way then try, but I do not recommend it to anyone. If you are at gym or if you do any kind of practice then practice itself wont help you. 85% of everything is healthy food. Just eat less. From one meal you eat daily make 5meals per day or per 2 days. If you wont feel well after that then stop it and eat more, but healthy. By eating "healthly" you wont lose a lot or lets say any weight, unless if you do so some time then in long term you might lose some. By statistic I made myself at our gym there are 10-15% people who actually lost weight in long termn of eating healthly.

here my tips for u fat peopel-
1. stop eating garbages (shit like mcdonalds and sugar treats)
2. lift weights
3. workout 3 days a week (or more if u got the motivations)
4. drink 5 pints of water a day
5. eat fruit
6. if you really want to eat some mcdonalds or sumi just smoke some weed and then eat fruit if u the type to get munchies