[quote]Professor X wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I would like to see a study which also took into account the quality of the food being given to those monkeys. Sure, cut their intake by 20-30% or whatever, then feed 1 group total crap, and other healthy nutritious food considered typical for a wild monkey.
My point is this, I don’t think this shit is figured out so easily as the study would claim. I have personally known people who have lived very long with all sorts of variables. I know a guy who is 84 and has smoked for over 60 years consistently, and the biggest hot-headed Type A personality you have EVER seen. He is either breathing or yelling, not much else, but can fix anything mechanical or electrical easily. Guys who lived on nothing but pasta and alcohol (wine, grappa, or something similar) and not been plagued by any disease. My grandmother passed when she was 96 and was perfectly fine, she was killed in a car crash. I don’t think it’s as simple as calorie restriction. If you think about it, those who eat natural wholesome food in excess are probably ONLY bodybuilders because of their desire for lots of muscle mass. Nothing wrong with that, but average people and even basic athletes don’t overly consume good food in excess. It is also hard to each massive amounts of natural food as it is very filling. Sometimes I think fiber is nature’s best filler, just can’t pig out on fruits, veggies, beans, nuts, with protein’s ability to stimulates CCK creating satiety. It’s mainly the garbage crap that is calorie dense and the cause of useless weight gain.
Besides with 2/3 of the US population being obese, I don’t think alot of people are willing to jump on the band wagon with calorie restriction just yet.
Good post. There is a huge difference between eating a lot of food to gain more lean body mass and simply stuffing yourself with no regard at all for your physical shape or health.
You simply can’t put a 250lbs bodybuilder on the same level as some 250lbs sedentary person who thinks KFC is a great place to eat every single day.
Considering most of medical science seems to completely ignore the bodybuilder type aside from making gross incorrect generalizations (like 1lbs of muscle only burning 6 calories extra in all cases), I seriously doubt we will be getting any substantial studies done on eat lots of food that won’t hand you diabetes on a platter.[/quote]
I remember back in college, my running back coach was former Heisman Trophy winner Charles White. One hell of a good coach and great guy, who was in phenominal shape following his NFL career. He was RIPPED, I mean veins in the abs, thighs, and Christmas tree shredded back. He had his bodyfat tested hydrostatically and it was something like 3%. He weighed something around 190ish yet was considered obese according to the BMI index. He was also notorious for chasing us running backs down from behind and yelling at you while trying to strip the ball. This is a clear example of how medical science is not precise.
On a side note, when I was balling in college, I dropped to around 235 and had my daily caloric expenditure calculated at 4200 cals a day. Looking back, I thought it was too high, but with 4 workouts and 5 practices a week, it makes sense. I was not eating that much food, I just could not get that much food down, especially since I have a tendency to not want to eat following exercise. But I didn’t lose bodyweight. I personally suspect that each person has a certain “comfort” level with holding weight. I can hold 235 without much trouble with eating to hold it. I think I eat little while holding this kind of weight. You have others who fight and struggle to get past the 200 lb mark. I have seen bodybuilders at my gym who don’t eat very much yet both look and weigh more than what their diet would reflect. Each person is individual in their ability to gain and hold weight.
