cerad
New member
So now you are saying that fish eat grass? But no fruits of course.
WSJ Article Says You Can Be Obese at a Normal Weight. Shocked?
- Thread starter LoseWeightNYC
- Start date
clever_plant
New member
O...K...
LooseWeightNYC... since we are now in the "I'm actually" zone where we argument from authority to make ourself seem more powerful and well.. right.. then I am, in fact, a doctor. My specialty is psychiatry so I qualify my statements with stuff like "I believe" and "as far as I remember" but... I still have the basic education that every doctor of medicine gets before going into a specialty.
And dude... you are so wrong that it ... I mean.. I really should allow myself to get dragged in like this but this is just so provoking.
Carbohydrates are not evil, they are not bad monsters that kill you.
First of all they are needed to make the body run in any efficient manner (no, going into ketosis isn't an efficient manner) And while the long term (5 years+) studies of atkins like diets aren't in yet, weight loss wise the 1 year ones are done and show that yes, the first 6 months its all good and after a year you have lost the same amount of fat as on any ordinary old boring calorie restriction diet.
Get all you need from grass fed meats? so... lets just entertain this notion for a while, I can come up with a pretty long list of micronutrients that aren't there in grass fed meat. I mean unless you can somehow force feed fish and vegetables with grass.. but I'm unsure as to how you'd make plants eat grass...
Insulin doesn't prevent the body's cells access to blood glucose, it actually makes it go into the cells from the bloodstream. If you mean "unavailable to muscle cells" or "unavailable to brain cells" then you are somewhat correct in the braincell part but... dude... you are obviously somewhat ill informed when it comes to how the body works. Also, as far as I remember protein can be made into glucose which will raise the blood sugar level which will recruit an insulin response.. so.. are proteins then evil too and we are in fact ONLY to eat fat?
Oh and as a sidenote the body doesn't actually crap out surplus proteins it turns it into glucose or fat depending on body needs. Generally we don't crap out surplus tings, we pee them out (hence kidney damage from ketosis in diabetes patients, and not intestine damage)
There are just so many factual things wrong with your posts that I have... I mean.. I want to say that I'm counter posting you to protect people from your bad advice.. but it also just pisses me off since.. it is quackery at its worst.
Rgrgrgrgr!! arrgghhghg
and such
best regards
-Me
LooseWeightNYC... since we are now in the "I'm actually" zone where we argument from authority to make ourself seem more powerful and well.. right.. then I am, in fact, a doctor. My specialty is psychiatry so I qualify my statements with stuff like "I believe" and "as far as I remember" but... I still have the basic education that every doctor of medicine gets before going into a specialty.
And dude... you are so wrong that it ... I mean.. I really should allow myself to get dragged in like this but this is just so provoking.
Carbohydrates are not evil, they are not bad monsters that kill you.
First of all they are needed to make the body run in any efficient manner (no, going into ketosis isn't an efficient manner) And while the long term (5 years+) studies of atkins like diets aren't in yet, weight loss wise the 1 year ones are done and show that yes, the first 6 months its all good and after a year you have lost the same amount of fat as on any ordinary old boring calorie restriction diet.
Get all you need from grass fed meats? so... lets just entertain this notion for a while, I can come up with a pretty long list of micronutrients that aren't there in grass fed meat. I mean unless you can somehow force feed fish and vegetables with grass.. but I'm unsure as to how you'd make plants eat grass...
Insulin doesn't prevent the body's cells access to blood glucose, it actually makes it go into the cells from the bloodstream. If you mean "unavailable to muscle cells" or "unavailable to brain cells" then you are somewhat correct in the braincell part but... dude... you are obviously somewhat ill informed when it comes to how the body works. Also, as far as I remember protein can be made into glucose which will raise the blood sugar level which will recruit an insulin response.. so.. are proteins then evil too and we are in fact ONLY to eat fat?
Oh and as a sidenote the body doesn't actually crap out surplus proteins it turns it into glucose or fat depending on body needs. Generally we don't crap out surplus tings, we pee them out (hence kidney damage from ketosis in diabetes patients, and not intestine damage)
There are just so many factual things wrong with your posts that I have... I mean.. I want to say that I'm counter posting you to protect people from your bad advice.. but it also just pisses me off since.. it is quackery at its worst.
Rgrgrgrgr!! arrgghhghg
and such
best regards
-Me
Why is it that you think you can speak authoritatively on the subject. I've witnessed you spew misinformation in a number of threads now, which is very unfortunate given the fact that there are unknowing members here simply trying to learn and succeed. The last thing they need is someone who likes the idea of being right more than the idea of learning and listening.
Impossible to store excess fat in the body without eating carb?
What you're suggesting is categorically false.
You're suggesting that if diet is void of carbs, energy conservation goes out the window. Put differently, we'll be able to eat endless amounts of calories without ever adding an ounce of fat, just as long as we avoid carbs.
Might you be interested in checking out acylation stimulation protein? Or are you too scared of being wrong?
You seem to be afraid of insulin, no? Care to comment on protein's role in raising insulin?
Most people are interested in dieting around here. That means a calorie deficit. Nobody is going to be packing on enough muscle while shortchanged in energy to impact metabolic rate appreciably.
That's unless you subscribe to the often-toted myth of each pound of muscle burning 50 additional calories per day. Which I'd understand given your grasp of other inane myths that plague this industry.
How does eating more fat and protein cause you to move more?
You do realize that the thermic effect associated with carbs is actually higher than the thermic effect associated with fats, right?
And even if your argument made sense... you're still talking about very minuscule numbers.
See above. Especially pay attention to the parts about protein in relation to insulin levels and acylation stimulation protein.
LoseWeightNYC
New member
@clever_plant The point is that the doctors are generally wrong on this particular subject, which is why people are still generally incapable of losing weight and keeping it off. Yes, low carb diets have been around forever, but because of false claims about the danger associated with eating a lot of fat, very few people actually try them for any long term period.
And yes, ketosis is a more efficient way for the body to operate. Ketoacidosis and ketosis are not the same thing at all. You're talking about a 10 fold difference in ketone body levels. But by acknowledging that excess ketone bodies can in fact be excreted by the body as waste, you are further proving that calories in and calories out are highly interrelated.
You're wrong about the micronutrient issue. I've referenced a specific study multiple times in this thread now that totally disproves that statement.
@Steve Sorry bud I didn't even realize that you had replied to this thread, I see why you didn't feel the need to refute on both posts at the same time.
That said, it actually still is impossible to store excess fat without carbohydrates in the diet. This is for a couple of reasons, but the most important is insulin, and of course there is extensive research on diabetics prior to insulin treatments who were utterly incapable of storing fat and as a result became emaciated and died. Also, you need the alpha glycerol phosphate molecule from carboydrates in order to bind fatty acids into triglycerides in the fat tissue. You can create a small quantity of alpha glycerol phosphate from protein through the process of glyceroneogenesis but again this is highly inefficient and will not happen in large quantities.
Energy conservation does not go out the window, it is still first the law of thermodynamics, but you're ignoring the fact that calories in and calories out are highly interdependent. In order to manipulate calories in for weight loss, you have to somehow ensure that calories out remains constant. This is impossible to do. On the flip side, if you're not eating carbohydrates and you somehow force feed yourself a very large amount of protein and fat (which is very hard to do since you won't be hungry), your body will up the calories out to compensate, either through waste, extra energy usage, more heat energy burned, etc.
You conveniently cut out the second half of the sentence about exercise where I said something to the effect of "or far more importantly muscular insulin sensitivity." I don't know how much additional energy excess muscle tissue burns, but to say that it doesn't burn any more at all is sort of hard to buy, especially if you are going to calculate basal metabolic rate based on lean body mass. I don't think it's that crazy to think that it might burn 50 calories more over the course of a day, which is actually quite a small number considering how large a pound of muscle is and how difficult it is to gain a pound of muscle, but I'd be open to research disproving that.
And yes, ketosis is a more efficient way for the body to operate. Ketoacidosis and ketosis are not the same thing at all. You're talking about a 10 fold difference in ketone body levels. But by acknowledging that excess ketone bodies can in fact be excreted by the body as waste, you are further proving that calories in and calories out are highly interrelated.
You're wrong about the micronutrient issue. I've referenced a specific study multiple times in this thread now that totally disproves that statement.
@Steve Sorry bud I didn't even realize that you had replied to this thread, I see why you didn't feel the need to refute on both posts at the same time.
That said, it actually still is impossible to store excess fat without carbohydrates in the diet. This is for a couple of reasons, but the most important is insulin, and of course there is extensive research on diabetics prior to insulin treatments who were utterly incapable of storing fat and as a result became emaciated and died. Also, you need the alpha glycerol phosphate molecule from carboydrates in order to bind fatty acids into triglycerides in the fat tissue. You can create a small quantity of alpha glycerol phosphate from protein through the process of glyceroneogenesis but again this is highly inefficient and will not happen in large quantities.
Energy conservation does not go out the window, it is still first the law of thermodynamics, but you're ignoring the fact that calories in and calories out are highly interdependent. In order to manipulate calories in for weight loss, you have to somehow ensure that calories out remains constant. This is impossible to do. On the flip side, if you're not eating carbohydrates and you somehow force feed yourself a very large amount of protein and fat (which is very hard to do since you won't be hungry), your body will up the calories out to compensate, either through waste, extra energy usage, more heat energy burned, etc.
You conveniently cut out the second half of the sentence about exercise where I said something to the effect of "or far more importantly muscular insulin sensitivity." I don't know how much additional energy excess muscle tissue burns, but to say that it doesn't burn any more at all is sort of hard to buy, especially if you are going to calculate basal metabolic rate based on lean body mass. I don't think it's that crazy to think that it might burn 50 calories more over the course of a day, which is actually quite a small number considering how large a pound of muscle is and how difficult it is to gain a pound of muscle, but I'd be open to research disproving that.
Jericho
New member
So people shouldn't listen to their doctors when it comes to weight loss cause most of them are wrong..but you..you are right.
Ok, That's the thing I want to really stick you on. Who are you as an expert over a doctor? I want to know where you got your training? Was it all self taught? Did you go to medical school? You come off like an expert when the reality is you are not. You claim to be a specialist just because you con enough people to pay you to do things. I guess hookers are sex specialist then. You both have alot in common.
So people shouldn't listen to their doctors when it comes to weight loss.
Notice my tone has changed some? Mainly cause you are telling people advice that is harmful and incorrect. I still want to know WHY you are here. I don't buy that you are trying to help people here.
clever_plant
New member
Oh.. one point at a time then.
Doctors are generally wrong.. well.. ok.. since that irrefutable fact has been put on the table I guess I might as well stop saying anything no? I mean.. you have proven that I'm usually wrong anyways so why bother posting
I counter with... the point is that people from NYC who have botiques and charge by the pound, they are all wrong, allways.. see. now you're wrong too...
Soooo... I eat tooons of carbs.. like.. 45-50% of my daily food intake calorie wise is carbs... I'm loosing fat like there is no tomorrow.. what gives?
Besides there STILL aren't any long term studies of the health and efficacy of low carb diets, 2 year ones are starting to show up.. they show that basically the Mediterranean one, the Atkins one and the low carb one all work (go read a real journal like NEJM to find that study) but we don't have any 5+ year studies.. not even cohort ones...
Could you please define efficient for me? in my plane of existence it means something like more work for less money or.... more results for less work.. not.. more work for the same results... and no, ketosis isn't as efficient as carb fueled brainwork since there are extra steps involved... you can consult any dictionary for the meaning of "efficient" if you need clarification.
Yes, excess ketones can be peed out... thereby completely fucking up your kidneys... so? thats what I said..? I mean... huh?
No, your study shows that grass fed beef is HEALTHY... and fine.. I'll concede that.. it still doesn't have all the micronutrients that the body needs to function... you can't study that... there is no research needed.. it is simply a matter of beef not having every single micronutrient you need.. it is impossible... do you want a list?
You still, btw, haven't backed down from your failed opinions that we crap out excess proteins, how insulin works etc... you simply ignore it when people disprove you and then you make up new shit...
I really really really.. like.. man.. go read actual peer reviewed journals.. learn stuff.. if you mean to help people and not just take them for their money then really.. go learn. and actually help people instead of feeding them he-how manure.
Doctors are generally wrong.. well.. ok.. since that irrefutable fact has been put on the table I guess I might as well stop saying anything no? I mean.. you have proven that I'm usually wrong anyways so why bother posting
I counter with... the point is that people from NYC who have botiques and charge by the pound, they are all wrong, allways.. see. now you're wrong too...Soooo... I eat tooons of carbs.. like.. 45-50% of my daily food intake calorie wise is carbs... I'm loosing fat like there is no tomorrow.. what gives?
Besides there STILL aren't any long term studies of the health and efficacy of low carb diets, 2 year ones are starting to show up.. they show that basically the Mediterranean one, the Atkins one and the low carb one all work (go read a real journal like NEJM to find that study) but we don't have any 5+ year studies.. not even cohort ones...
Could you please define efficient for me? in my plane of existence it means something like more work for less money or.... more results for less work.. not.. more work for the same results... and no, ketosis isn't as efficient as carb fueled brainwork since there are extra steps involved... you can consult any dictionary for the meaning of "efficient" if you need clarification.
Yes, excess ketones can be peed out... thereby completely fucking up your kidneys... so? thats what I said..? I mean... huh?
No, your study shows that grass fed beef is HEALTHY... and fine.. I'll concede that.. it still doesn't have all the micronutrients that the body needs to function... you can't study that... there is no research needed.. it is simply a matter of beef not having every single micronutrient you need.. it is impossible... do you want a list?
You still, btw, haven't backed down from your failed opinions that we crap out excess proteins, how insulin works etc... you simply ignore it when people disprove you and then you make up new shit...
I really really really.. like.. man.. go read actual peer reviewed journals.. learn stuff.. if you mean to help people and not just take them for their money then really.. go learn. and actually help people instead of feeding them he-how manure.
How about you speak to the points I raised? It can't be that hard. Start with ASP as I brought up twice now.
With regards to the energy expenditure per pound of muscle, again... the reading comprehension bit is making it very hard for me to have a discussion with you. I never said
As you specifically put it.
I said you'd probably buy into the whole 50 cals per pound myth given your inability to navigate away from the other common myths plaguing the industry.
50 cals per pound?
I find it hard to imagine that you could actually believe that each pound of muscle burns 50 calories per day.
I'll use myself as an example. And it doesn't matter if you're a woman or a man. Muscle is muscle with the same physiological and metabolic properties.
When I started this journey, I was 170ish pounds. I am now approximately 205. That's 35 lbs gain. If you saw my pics, I'm lean.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say 15 lbs of that was fat. That's 20 lbs of muscle I've put on.
With 50 kcal/lb, I should be burning 1000 more calories per day.
Hint: I'm not. Not even close.
I've worked with a bunch of people and anyone who realizes appreciable hypertrophy doesn't automatically get to eat thousands of calories more per day with out facing the consequences of fat gain.
Do you see the problem here?
Actual research puts the number at 5.89kcal/lb/day.
With regards to the energy expenditure per pound of muscle, again... the reading comprehension bit is making it very hard for me to have a discussion with you. I never said
As you specifically put it.
I said you'd probably buy into the whole 50 cals per pound myth given your inability to navigate away from the other common myths plaguing the industry.
50 cals per pound?
I find it hard to imagine that you could actually believe that each pound of muscle burns 50 calories per day.
I'll use myself as an example. And it doesn't matter if you're a woman or a man. Muscle is muscle with the same physiological and metabolic properties.
When I started this journey, I was 170ish pounds. I am now approximately 205. That's 35 lbs gain. If you saw my pics, I'm lean.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say 15 lbs of that was fat. That's 20 lbs of muscle I've put on.
With 50 kcal/lb, I should be burning 1000 more calories per day.
Hint: I'm not. Not even close.
I've worked with a bunch of people and anyone who realizes appreciable hypertrophy doesn't automatically get to eat thousands of calories more per day with out facing the consequences of fat gain.
Do you see the problem here?
Actual research puts the number at 5.89kcal/lb/day.
Last edited:
LoseWeightNYC
New member
@clever_plant I didn't say doctors are wrong about everything, just about this particular subject. It's quite fascinating to follow the field of thought and see how they got to be so completely wrong, but Taubes did a great job of doing that in his book and I can't do it justice trying to shorten it.
As far as micronutrients go, the burden of proof is on you my friend to find me an instance of anyone who ate all grass fed meats and had any kind of nutrition deficiency, because I have already cited Vihjalmur Stefansson as someone who did it.
For someone who's a doctor, you seem to be ignoring the clinical difference between ketosis and ketoacidocis, despite it being a 10x difference in ketone bodies in the urine.
@Steve I'm going to let you win on the muscle tissue thing because I don't know that much about how much energy muscle tissue uses, so let's just assume that you're right on that. As far as the person putting on major muscle and now being able to eat 1000 calories more a day, again, carbs cause weight gain, not calories in, calories out.
I don't know what acylation stimulation protein is or how it may or may not related to weight gain, I tried to google it but there wasn't much that came up. I'd be happy to learn what it is, but the fact remains that you cannot store excess fat without alpha glycerol phosphate.
As far as micronutrients go, the burden of proof is on you my friend to find me an instance of anyone who ate all grass fed meats and had any kind of nutrition deficiency, because I have already cited Vihjalmur Stefansson as someone who did it.
For someone who's a doctor, you seem to be ignoring the clinical difference between ketosis and ketoacidocis, despite it being a 10x difference in ketone bodies in the urine.
@Steve I'm going to let you win on the muscle tissue thing because I don't know that much about how much energy muscle tissue uses, so let's just assume that you're right on that. As far as the person putting on major muscle and now being able to eat 1000 calories more a day, again, carbs cause weight gain, not calories in, calories out.
I don't know what acylation stimulation protein is or how it may or may not related to weight gain, I tried to google it but there wasn't much that came up. I'd be happy to learn what it is, but the fact remains that you cannot store excess fat without alpha glycerol phosphate.
clever_plant
New member
So are we back to you just ignoring all the things that I point out is wrong with your points (pun most definitely intended, I dearly love puns)
Your first blurb about doctors... I mean... I have no idea what to reply to that besides that you obviously didn't get the joke I made by making an equally ridiculous claim. All I can say then is that I did not start the argument from authority and please, do not lend any weight to me being a doctor, or hey.. believe I'm not a doctor. You opened the door to arguments from authority with the "weight loss expert making big bucks" thing. Doctor or not, you can choose to believe whichever, my arguments are based on current science, yours are based on a mixture of well... apparently 30's science and just randomly pulling stuff out your ass. Yeah.. I slip into the ad hoc thing now and then, I can't help it, apologies.
And no... you really have no idea how the burden of proof thing works do you? It is generally accepted that you can't live on beef alone, you have yourself claimed several times how this is under appreciated and how eeeeverybody is wrong etc, so you are the one making the claim... you go prove that all micronutrients are there in beef, every one of the around 80 essential micronutrients, that sure as hell isn't proven in your last millenia and around 70 years old lackluster study. And I mean.. come ON.. it hasn't been replicated, it isn't peer reviewed.. it wasn't published anywhere respectable.. it is.. basically worthless... I also read in journal of alternative and complementary medicine that riku touch therapy really cures cancer... lets drop all the conservative boring doctors advice!
As a side note please don't refer to me as friend in the condescending way, it is a pretty pathetic way of trying to make yourself look superior.
I never said there was no difference I simply said that ketosis isn't the most efficient way for the body to run
Then in a SEPERATE statement I said that we don't CRAP out surplus things, we pee them out. In that second seperate statment I used diabetes patients and the surplus ketones they pee out as an example to illustrate that they didn't defecate surplus ketones out, they urinate them out.
Now, you still haven't adressed all the things you are being contested on, you claim that we crap out surplus things, you claim that insulin makes clukose unavailable to the body cells, you claim that carbs cause fat yet.. i'm loosing fat (i know anekdote but still...), you are still claiming aparently that ketosis is more efficient than burning carbs. Would you please adress those points? or are you just going to make more stuff up to push the books you support and.. idunno... sell stuff in your botique?
Your first blurb about doctors... I mean... I have no idea what to reply to that besides that you obviously didn't get the joke I made by making an equally ridiculous claim. All I can say then is that I did not start the argument from authority and please, do not lend any weight to me being a doctor, or hey.. believe I'm not a doctor. You opened the door to arguments from authority with the "weight loss expert making big bucks" thing. Doctor or not, you can choose to believe whichever, my arguments are based on current science, yours are based on a mixture of well... apparently 30's science and just randomly pulling stuff out your ass. Yeah.. I slip into the ad hoc thing now and then, I can't help it, apologies.
And no... you really have no idea how the burden of proof thing works do you? It is generally accepted that you can't live on beef alone, you have yourself claimed several times how this is under appreciated and how eeeeverybody is wrong etc, so you are the one making the claim... you go prove that all micronutrients are there in beef, every one of the around 80 essential micronutrients, that sure as hell isn't proven in your last millenia and around 70 years old lackluster study. And I mean.. come ON.. it hasn't been replicated, it isn't peer reviewed.. it wasn't published anywhere respectable.. it is.. basically worthless... I also read in journal of alternative and complementary medicine that riku touch therapy really cures cancer... lets drop all the conservative boring doctors advice!
As a side note please don't refer to me as friend in the condescending way, it is a pretty pathetic way of trying to make yourself look superior.
I never said there was no difference I simply said that ketosis isn't the most efficient way for the body to run
Then in a SEPERATE statement I said that we don't CRAP out surplus things, we pee them out. In that second seperate statment I used diabetes patients and the surplus ketones they pee out as an example to illustrate that they didn't defecate surplus ketones out, they urinate them out.
Now, you still haven't adressed all the things you are being contested on, you claim that we crap out surplus things, you claim that insulin makes clukose unavailable to the body cells, you claim that carbs cause fat yet.. i'm loosing fat (i know anekdote but still...), you are still claiming aparently that ketosis is more efficient than burning carbs. Would you please adress those points? or are you just going to make more stuff up to push the books you support and.. idunno... sell stuff in your botique?
As far as I can tell, this isn't about winning or losing. I don't care if I'm wrong. That's the point you're missing. If you presented something that made me question my beliefs or current level of understanding, I'd be very grateful to you.
So far that's not what you've done. Rather, you've expressed:
i) confusion pertaining to topics you're a supposed expert in
ii) what I suspect to be a cult-like following to Taubes
iii) an ego that's grand enough to disallow you from objectively reading posts because it's too concerned with being not wrong
Shift goalposts much? This was your original commentary:
To that I responded with a suggestion for researching acylation stimulation protein. Because you lack basic knowledge in research methodology is not my problem. I assume if it's not a reference in Taubes book you don't know about it.
Let me help you:
Now you're shifting goals posts by bringing up alpha glycerol phosphate. If that's the game you want to play, just say so up front. Then I won't waste my time responding to you.
LoseWeightNYC
New member
@clever_plant Now you're just sounding bitter. If you are losing weight doing what you're doing, then what do you care if I am claiming that there is a faster and safer way of doing it?
Maybe you hate the food that you are eating; I mean, I have never liked vegetables at all (no surprise since our taste buds never evolved to like them), it wouldn't be that much of a shocker to me if you told me that you didn't like eating the stuff that you were eating. Maybe you're hungry all of the time; this is very common for someone dieting, so I can see how it would offend you that someone is coming along claiming that you can lose weight without ever being hungry. Maybe it's that I'm saying that I can help you lose the weight at a faster rate; this combined with the misery associated with your current regimen could be a major pain point for you. I suppose it could also be that you think that what I'm saying is dangerous, but then you would just be wrong.
Putting on fat is a hormonal thing; when bears fatten for hibernating in the winter, it's not because they overeat, although they may overeat, but bears on restricted diets will still put on the same amount of weight over this time period despite not eating more. Humans have a similar annual hormone cycle, although it is obviously far less exaggerated. Of course, this weight gain is driven, in fact, by insulin. When fed a restricted diet, bears put on body fat despite not increasing their calorie consumption.
Likewise, it is very common to see morbidly obese mothers bringing their emaciated children to the hospital in 3rd world countries. Do you really think that these mothers are overeating despite their children's malnutrition? Of course not, it's the hormones, and more importantly, the insulin.
Insulin is the only hormone that promotes fat storage. Just about every other hormone promotes fat depletion, which is why women tend to gain weight after menopause (decreased production of estrogen/progesterone).
@Jericho Dude test my blood, and I can give you a couple hundred other subjects to test as well. We don't have any vitamin deficiencies. The levels of these vitamins are low, but not zero. Of course, the body doesn't need very much to maintain adequate levels of these vitamins as long as there are no carbs depleted them in the first place.
Maybe you hate the food that you are eating; I mean, I have never liked vegetables at all (no surprise since our taste buds never evolved to like them), it wouldn't be that much of a shocker to me if you told me that you didn't like eating the stuff that you were eating. Maybe you're hungry all of the time; this is very common for someone dieting, so I can see how it would offend you that someone is coming along claiming that you can lose weight without ever being hungry. Maybe it's that I'm saying that I can help you lose the weight at a faster rate; this combined with the misery associated with your current regimen could be a major pain point for you. I suppose it could also be that you think that what I'm saying is dangerous, but then you would just be wrong.
Putting on fat is a hormonal thing; when bears fatten for hibernating in the winter, it's not because they overeat, although they may overeat, but bears on restricted diets will still put on the same amount of weight over this time period despite not eating more. Humans have a similar annual hormone cycle, although it is obviously far less exaggerated. Of course, this weight gain is driven, in fact, by insulin. When fed a restricted diet, bears put on body fat despite not increasing their calorie consumption.
Likewise, it is very common to see morbidly obese mothers bringing their emaciated children to the hospital in 3rd world countries. Do you really think that these mothers are overeating despite their children's malnutrition? Of course not, it's the hormones, and more importantly, the insulin.
Insulin is the only hormone that promotes fat storage. Just about every other hormone promotes fat depletion, which is why women tend to gain weight after menopause (decreased production of estrogen/progesterone).
@Jericho Dude test my blood, and I can give you a couple hundred other subjects to test as well. We don't have any vitamin deficiencies. The levels of these vitamins are low, but not zero. Of course, the body doesn't need very much to maintain adequate levels of these vitamins as long as there are no carbs depleted them in the first place.
Because you're holding yourself out there as an authority on the subject which calls on a higher level of scrutiny.
Jericho
New member
Dude, I think you are wrong. But yeah, why NOT put up your blood test. Prove us wrong.
But do you think they would put 0 if there was even .1 in there. They did it with the other ones..
BTW: We argue the 'faster and safer' cause your way isn't proven. In fact, it's been disproven. The science doesn't fit. But your arguement against that is 'they have it wrong' even though they are the experts..you aren't.
You are great for exercise..cause I'm getting tired running into your false wall.
But do you think they would put 0 if there was even .1 in there. They did it with the other ones..
BTW: We argue the 'faster and safer' cause your way isn't proven. In fact, it's been disproven. The science doesn't fit. But your arguement against that is 'they have it wrong' even though they are the experts..you aren't.
You are great for exercise..cause I'm getting tired running into your false wall.
KaraCooks
New member
This is amusing and entertaining. You guys are all beating me to anything I might say, which rocks. And watching Mr. NYC avoid the questions and talk circles around things is livening up a rather dull Wednesday.
Gotta love "experts" who refuse to answer direct questions placed to them.
Gotta love "experts" who refuse to answer direct questions placed to them.
Jericho
New member
Ok you state that you can get all your nutrient needs with grass fed beef. You didn't say part of a diet..just the beef.
Ok, I showed you the link to see the USDA values. There is 0 Vitimin C. You said that it's barely there (again, doesn't match the fact that they print all values). Ok let's assume that. You then said your levels are fine by your declaring your blood levels are fine.
The North American Dietary Reference Intake recommends 90 milligrams per day. Ok, so how much of that beef do you have to eat a day for those 'small' amounts to add up to enough each day?
It doesn't matter how grand you make the bridge when the foundation is erroded away.
PS: give the credit to Steve and Clever, They are the ones throwing the best stuff against him. I'm just trying to pin down.
Ok, I showed you the link to see the USDA values. There is 0 Vitimin C. You said that it's barely there (again, doesn't match the fact that they print all values). Ok let's assume that. You then said your levels are fine by your declaring your blood levels are fine.
The North American Dietary Reference Intake recommends 90 milligrams per day. Ok, so how much of that beef do you have to eat a day for those 'small' amounts to add up to enough each day?
It doesn't matter how grand you make the bridge when the foundation is erroded away.
PS: give the credit to Steve and Clever, They are the ones throwing the best stuff against him. I'm just trying to pin down.
Last edited:
clever_plant
New member
Did you just pull the psycho analyzing tool internet troll move? well.. you are ofcourse right. Actually I am a fat sad geek sitting in my basement wishing I had a glorious life being all slim and bacon eating! I mean... really... I just hate the world so much... and... buuhuu.. and such... insert more whining if needed.
I counter argue you on a bunch of points, point out things that you are avoiding replying too.. and you... call me a sad bitter person and psychoanalyze me? lol
well.. I'm sure you're an expert on psychology and hey.. psychiatry too... and... it is after all a fact that carbohydrates are the one cause of depression and cancer (you never did get back to men on the cancer thing?) so.. what do I know
Actually I love veggies, and after reading Peter Singers excellent arguments for animal liberation I made it a project to eat as little meat as possible, and at least keep to eating meat that I have partaken in killing myself to make sure that it is meat from an animal that have lived a good life when I do eat it, and to not support factory farming, but I think that is a whole other debate and one where I'll be standing pretty alone in most groups of people
And.. since you asked.. actually I feel wonderful on my current eating regimen... I feel lighter, I have more energy, I have better sex and I can get more work done in the same day True... the first week I felt hungry, or thought I did but now I honestly don't, I just feel really good about myself (thank you for asking)
I'm not gonna try and psychoanalyze you back, firstly I'm not a follower of freud and psychoanalysis in general, I'm more of a cognitive behavioral therapy sort of fan. Secondly because well... analyzing people over the internet really makes you look stupid in my eyes.
You still havent, by the way, answered me or addressed the following points:
You claimed insulin prevents body cells access to the energy
You claimed we crap out surplus stuff from the body
You claimed that carbohydrates cause cancer
You claimed carbohydrates cause depression
You claimed carbohydrates cause diabetes
You claimed that all essential micronutrients are available from grass fed beef
You claimed that ketosis (yes I'm aware that it isn't the diabetic dangerous sort) is more efficient than burning carbs
Would you be as kind as to address those points please? or rather, the arguments that multiple people have presented against those claims.
Oh and.. dude... read my words... I'm not a bitter person I am much too happy and self ironic and cynical and such to be bitter about pretty much anything. (well ok, scarlet johanssen makes me bitter sometimes.... but that is a general boy thing I believe)
I counter argue you on a bunch of points, point out things that you are avoiding replying too.. and you... call me a sad bitter person and psychoanalyze me? lol
well.. I'm sure you're an expert on psychology and hey.. psychiatry too... and... it is after all a fact that carbohydrates are the one cause of depression and cancer (you never did get back to men on the cancer thing?) so.. what do I know
Actually I love veggies, and after reading Peter Singers excellent arguments for animal liberation I made it a project to eat as little meat as possible, and at least keep to eating meat that I have partaken in killing myself to make sure that it is meat from an animal that have lived a good life when I do eat it, and to not support factory farming, but I think that is a whole other debate and one where I'll be standing pretty alone in most groups of people
And.. since you asked.. actually I feel wonderful on my current eating regimen... I feel lighter, I have more energy, I have better sex and I can get more work done in the same day
True... the first week I felt hungry, or thought I did but now I honestly don't, I just feel really good about myself (thank you for asking)I'm not gonna try and psychoanalyze you back, firstly I'm not a follower of freud and psychoanalysis in general, I'm more of a cognitive behavioral therapy sort of fan. Secondly because well... analyzing people over the internet really makes you look stupid in my eyes.
You still havent, by the way, answered me or addressed the following points:
You claimed insulin prevents body cells access to the energy
You claimed we crap out surplus stuff from the body
You claimed that carbohydrates cause cancer
You claimed carbohydrates cause depression
You claimed carbohydrates cause diabetes
You claimed that all essential micronutrients are available from grass fed beef
You claimed that ketosis (yes I'm aware that it isn't the diabetic dangerous sort) is more efficient than burning carbs
Would you be as kind as to address those points please? or rather, the arguments that multiple people have presented against those claims.
Oh and.. dude... read my words... I'm not a bitter person
I am much too happy and self ironic and cynical and such to be bitter about pretty much anything. (well ok, scarlet johanssen makes me bitter sometimes.... but that is a general boy thing I believe)I agree. The most exciting part of my day has been refreshing this thread.