Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Random health and exercise thoughts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Random health and exercise thoughts - Page 345

post #5161 of 57460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prada_Ferragamo View Post
I have been taking Animal MStak. Not sure if it's psychological or the actual supplement, but I have definitely been gaining a bit of strength. Dumbbell rowed 125s for 4 sets of 5 reps each today.

Does that 125 include the bar
I started rowing 135, when i was 15
post #5162 of 57460
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post
totally agree i think most people wouldnt get 50g if they tried to get it all from fresh fruit. that's like 1.6 kg of strawberries vs 2, 3 cokes
Yes, the real culprit is almost certainly sucrose and HFCS.
Quote:
anyways i feel like a lot of major news media is driven by alarmist reports whether that's the nuclear meltdown in japan or the latest health scare based on some shitty epidemiological study or some study done on rats feeding several hundred times what proportionately humans would eat i remember what friend who's in a nutrition program telling me that even fish oil could be bad for you and cause prostrate cancer and linked some news article. i did research on the article and it was a study feeding rats several hundred miligrams of epa a day. i did the calculations and for my proportionately larger body mass i'd have to be eating several jars of fish oil pills a day to get the same result
This bothers me as well. The vulnerability of the average American is taken great advantage of. As a society, we need to learn how to question the validity of the recommendations that are made to us concerning something so valuable as our health. I feel the problem lies within the fact that contrary and dissenting opinion is, all too often, suppressed and disregarded and labeled as quackery. A lot of this has to do with the politics behind it all, which is a whole other mess. Without the presence of an opposing viewpoint, we will usually just blindly follow the dogma and consider it to be an indisputable truth, because that's all we've been told.
Quote:
just sick of this alarmist crap blaming obesity on like one small thing. its like people are actively looking to blame some magic substance that disregards all laws of thermodynamics that somehow make people fat through voodoo
Well, don't forget Occam's razor. The principle holds in nutrition and chronic disease just as it does in every science. Don't reject a simple hypothesis until you have no choice. We've been told that there is no simple solution, or one underlying causal factor to obesity in America, but has anyone really ever been able to prove this? It very well may surprise us how simplistic it all truly is. Personally, I'm not 100% sure yet, but I will say that, from what I've studied, it seems to be a lot simpler than we've previously led ourselves to believe.
post #5163 of 57460
post #5164 of 57460
i think the simplest cause of obesity would be overconsumption of calories and lack of exercise. anything else requires extraordinary explanations
post #5165 of 57460
Quote:
Originally Posted by sofaking9000 View Post
Rotflmao
post #5166 of 57460
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post
i think the simplest cause of obesity would be overconsumption of calories and lack of exercise. anything else requires extraordinary explanations
Well that statement would certainly make the directors of the NIH happy, however it still fails to explain why it is that we overeat and why we become inactive. What you've stated is most likely not the cause, but rather the effect of what is truly making us fat. It is not that we get fat by overconsumption and sloth, but that we over-consume and never exercise because we are getting fat. And what controls fat regulation? Hormones (and enzymes). So the answer lies within what central hormone is driving the fat into fat tissue in the first place, causing this undue corpulence, and almost assuredly, the answer is insulin. Then you examine what causes such uncommonly high levels of insulin secretion, and you find that it is the carbohydrate in the diet, particularly the refined and processed sugars. (Yes, protein will secrete insulin, but it also raises glucagon, insulin's antagonist, concurrently.) So how do you stop this hyper-activated insulin secretion? Cut out the carbs, particularly sugars and starches. It may not be the answer people want to hear--that they have to eliminate a whole macronutrient to lose weight--but the fact of the matter is that these carbohydrates are literally fattening. If you don't want to be fat, you don't eat them, plain and simple.
post #5167 of 57460
Quote:
Originally Posted by sofaking9000 View Post
Does that 125 include the bar
I started rowing 135, when i was 15

About positive he's talking about 1 arm dumbbell rows with a 125lb dumbbell. Which is pretty beastly.
post #5168 of 57460
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm84321 View Post
Well that statement would certainly make the directors of the NIH happy, however it still fails to explain why it is that we overeat and why we become inactive. What you've stated is most likely not the cause, but rather the effect of what is truly making us fat. It is not that we get fat by overconsumption and sloth, but that we over-consume and never exercise because we are getting fat. And what controls fat regulation? Hormones (and enzymes). So the answer lies within what central hormone is driving the fat into fat tissue in the first place, causing this undue corpulence, and almost assuredly, the answer is insulin. Then you examine what causes such uncommonly high levels of insulin secretion, and you find that it is the carbohydrate in the diet, particularly the refined and processed sugars. (Yes, protein will secrete insulin, but it also raises glucagon, insulin's antagonist, concurrently.) So how do you stop this hyper-activated insulin secretion? Cut out the carbs, particularly sugars and starches. It may not be the answer people want to hear--that they have to eliminate a whole macronutrient to lose weight--but the fact of the matter is that these carbohydrates are literally fattening. If you don't want to be fat, you don't eat them, plain and simple.
food with more compact calories (eg hohos and twinkies and soda and boxed foods with tons of calories?) that werent available many years ago? more people with more sedentary lifestyles? sorry but i dont buy this gary taube stuff. its like how half lies sound more compelling than full blown lies again you're losing sight of the fact that insulin isn't the only way the body can store fat. you can eat 5000 calories of olive oil a day and get fat
post #5169 of 57460
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post
food with more compact calories (eg hohos and twinkies and soda and boxed foods with tons of calories?) that werent available many years ago? more people with more sedentary lifestyles? sorry but i dont buy this gary taube stuff. its like how half lies sound more compelling than full blown lies again you're losing sight of the fact that insulin isn't the only way the body can store fat. you can eat 5000 calories of olive oil a day and get fat
Again, you're ignoring what's causing fat accumulation. Sure, you could try to eat 5000 calories of olive oil a day--you'll probably end up with more problems than weight gain in doing so--but as a more reasonable example, there have been numerous studies showing participants who ate an ad libitum low-carbohydrate diet, sometimes exceeding 5 thousand calories of meat and eggs a day, all while not gaining a pound of weight. Were they consuming more than their daily maintenance calories? Yes. But they were keeping carbohydrate low to non-existant, thus keeping insulin levels low. So, what happens with all the excess calories if they are not stored as fat? Futile cycling, most likely. This is taken from the blog of Michael R. Eades, MD: I’ve had a number of patients and countless letters from readers who have had the same experience. They consume a ton of fat, but don’t gain weight…or even, as with the guy you described, lose a little. Mostly the letters we get are from people who complain that they are following our diet to the letter, yet not losing weight. When we investigate, we find that in virtually every case these people are consuming huge numbers of calories as primarily fat. We always ask them if it doesn’t strike them as strange that they’re eating as much as they are, yet not gaining. In order to lose weight, one must create a caloric deficit. This can be done in a number of ways. People can burn more calories by increasing exercise; they can eat fewer calories; or they can increase their metabolic rate. Or they can do any combination of the above. Most people going on a low-carb diet decrease their caloric intake. A low-carb diet is satiating, so most people eat much less than they think they are eating even though the foods they’re consuming are pretty high in fat. Some people, however, can eat a whole lot on a low-carb diet, and, can in fact, eat so much that they don’t create the caloric deficit and don’t lose weight. But the interesting thing is that they don’t gain weight either. They pretty much stay the same. They are eating huge numbers of calories and not gaining, so where do the calories go? First, I don’t think they go out in the bowel. If they did, people would have cosmic pizza grease stools whenever they ate a lot of fat over a period of time, and they don’t. And a number of studies have shown that increasing fat in the diet doesn’t increase fat in the stool. Eating a very-low-carbohydrate diet ensures that insulin levels stay low. Unless insulin levels are up, it’s almost impossible to store fat in the fat cells. With high insulin levels fat travels into the fat cell; with low insulin levels fat travels out. So, it’s pretty safe to say that the fat isn’t stored. So what happens to it? The body requires about 200 grams of glucose per day to function properly. About 70 grams of this glucose can be replaced by ketone bodies, leaving around 130 grams that the body has to come up with, which it does by converting protein to glucose and by using some of the glycerol backbone of the triglyceride molecule (the form in which fat is stored) for glucose. If one eats carbs, the carbs are absorbed as glucose and it doesn’t take much energy for the body to come up with its 200 gram requirement; if, however, one isn’t eating any carbohydrates, the body has to spend energy to convert the protein and trigylceride to glucose. That’s one reason that the caloric requirements go up on a low-carb diet. The other reason is that the body increases futile cycling. What are futile cycles? Futile cycles are what give us our body temperature of 98.6 degrees. Futile cycles are just what the name implies: a cycle that requires energy yet accomplishes nothing. It operates much like you would if you took rocks from one pile and piled them in another, then took them from that pile and piled them back where they were to start with. A lot of work would have been expended with no net end result. The body has many systems that can cycle this way, and all of them require energy. Look up the malate-aspartate shuttle; that’s one that often cycles futilely. Another way the body dumps calories is through the inner mitochondrial membrane. This gets a little complicated, but I’ll try to simplify it as much as possible. The body doesn’t use fat or glucose directly as fuel. These substances can be thought of as crude oil. You can’t burn crude oil in your car, but you can burn gasoline. The crude oil is converted via the refining process into the gasoline you can burn. It’s the same with fat, protein and glucose–they must be converted into the ‘gasoline’ for the body, which is a substance called adenosine triphosphate (ATP). How does this conversion take place? That’s the complicated part. ATP is made from adenosine diphosphate (ADP) in an enzymatic structure called ATP synthase, which is a sort of turbine-like structure that is driven by the electromotive force created by the osmotic and electrical difference between the two sides of the inner mitochondrial membrane. One one side of the membrane are many more protons than on the other side. The turbine-like ATP synthase spans the membrane, and as the protons rush through from the high proton side to the low proton side (much like water rushing through a turbine in a dam from the high-water side to the low-water side) the turbine converts ADP to ATP. The energy required to get the protons heavily concentrated on one side so that they will rush through the turbine comes from the food we eat. Food is ultimately broken down to high-energy electrons. These electrons are released into a series of complex molecules along the inner mitochondrial membrane. Each complex passes the electrons to the next in line (much like a bucket brigade), and at each pass along the way, the electrons give off energy. This energy is used to pump protons across the membrane to create the membrane electromotive force that drives the turbines. The electrons are handed off from one complex to the other until at the end of the chain they are attached to oxygen to form water. (If one of these electrons being passed along the chain of complexes somehow escapes before it reaches the end, it becomes a free radical. This is where most free radicals come from.) There are two parts to the whole process. The process of converting ADP to ATP is called phosphorylation and the process of the electrons ultimately attaching to oxygen is called oxidation. The combined process is called oxidative phosphorylation. It is referred to as ‘uncoupling’ when, for whatever reason, the oxidation process doesn’t lead to the phosphorylation process. Anything that causes this uncoupling is called an ‘uncoupling agent.’ You can see that the whole process requires some means of regulation. If not, then the electromotive force (called the protonmotive force, since it’s an unequal concentration of protons causing the force) can build up to too great a level. If one overconsumes food and doesn’t need the ATP, then the protonmotive force would build up and not be discharged through the turbines because the body doesn’t need the ATP. The body has accounted for this problem with pores through the inner mitochondrial membrane where protons can drift through as the concentration builds too high and by proteins called uncoupling proteins that actually pump the protons back across. So we expend food energy to pump protons one way, then more energy to pump them back. One of the things that happens on a high fat diet is that the body makes more uncoupling proteins. So, with carbs low and fat high, the body compensates, not by ditching fat in the stool, but by increasing futile cycling and by increasing the numbers of uncoupling proteins and even increasing the porosity of the inner mitochondrial membrane so that the protons that required energy to be moved across the membrane are then moved back. So, ultimately, just like the rocks in my example above, the protons are taken from one pile and moved to another then moved back to the original pile, requiring a lot of energy expenditure with nothing really accomplished. This is probably all as clear as mud, but it is what happens to the excess calories on a low-carb, high-fat diet. Also, be aware that on a diet that restricts carbohydrates, you are often unable to consume more calories than you actually need. Don't you find that it is rather hard to stuff yourself on 5 thousand calories of meat and eggs a day, as opposed to how effortlessly you can with french fries and potato chips? So, low carbohydrate diets are, in a way, low calorie diets in disguise. Your insulin levels are low, your cells are burning adequate energy (not storing it in fat cells), you feel good, and you usually don't have the desire to overeat what is more than absolutely necessary for normal metabolic processes.
post #5170 of 57460
I think all you guys are overthinking "eating" way too much.
post #5171 of 57460
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrchariybrown View Post
I think all you guys are overthinking "eating" way too much.
I don't think it's over-thinking. We're just simply providing explanations for our own personal opinions on the issue.
post #5172 of 57460
Yeah, but this whole eating thing becomes almost overwhelming when people write thousands of words about it and then someone writes their own multi-thousand-word response to that and so forth. Discussion is important, but some people split hairs when it comes to nutrition. And while the person trying to lean out to single-digit body fat while carrying a respectable load of muscle will need to pay attention to smaller details, the average person can probably achieve their body comp goals by following some common sense steps:

- Eat real food; eat little or no processed food

- Get regular physical activity
post #5173 of 57460
Quote:
Originally Posted by sofaking9000 View Post
Does that 125 include the bar
I started rowing 135, when i was 15

If you include the bar with him, them he means 125kg's.

And if you were properly rowing 135 and 15 it was in bitch sets with shitty form, or you were fat. Provided we are talking about a real row. I'm guessing we are not.
post #5174 of 57460
I knew kids who could row that much or more at 15... Mind you, they were strength training since they were like 12, lucky genetically, and were serious athletes. Not sheltered kids who weren't allowed to play sports.
post #5175 of 57460
Quote:
Originally Posted by APK View Post
You'd probably be about as well off drinking purple drink as you would drinking a pretend health food like fruit juice.

The really important question is overlooked - WHAT ABOUT THE NUTRIENTS IN PURPLE DRANK???!

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)




And PF dumbbell rows 125, the reason being that he most certainly is not a pussy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Random health and exercise thoughts