Sorry dude, but you are 16 and don’t know what you are talking about.
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Differences in satiety or how easy it is to eat something aren’t things I concern myself with, really. These things are only a problem if you don’t have limits on your diet in the first place. 200g of carbs is 200g of carbs, you know?[/quote]
How’s that working out for you so far?
[quote]ajweins wrote:
Sorry dude, but you are 16 and don’t know what you are talking about.[/quote]
i had a feeling you’d say that lol
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Differences in satiety or how easy it is to eat something aren’t things I concern myself with, really. These things are only a problem if you don’t have limits on your diet in the first place. 200g of carbs is 200g of carbs, you know?[/quote]
How’s that working out for you so far?[/quote]
Just fine.
If I’m eating 200g of carbs per day, I eat 200g of carbs and that’s it.
It’s not hard.
[quote]deadliftgoal500 wrote:
[quote]ajweins wrote:
Sorry dude, but you are 16 and don’t know what you are talking about.[/quote]
i had a feeling you’d say that lol[/quote]
Just be happy your only 16 and you got some general nutrition figured out. I like every else think you were grossly off in what you have told us somewhere down the line, but it doesn’t change the fact that you changed your body, know how to eat good food to grow, and your young and have a lot of years to get big and strong.
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
Differences in satiety or how easy it is to eat something aren’t things I concern myself with, really. These things are only a problem if you don’t have limits on your diet in the first place. 200g of carbs is 200g of carbs, you know?[/quote]
How’s that working out for you so far?[/quote]
Just fine.
If I’m eating 200g of carbs per day, I eat 200g of carbs and that’s it.
It’s not hard.[/quote]
Respect. You must be ripped.
HCFS is no big deal unless you have gluten and/or corn intolerance(celiac’s)
[quote]deadliftgoal500 wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]deadliftgoal500 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
But the difference between equal caloric amounts of brown rice and white bread are pretty insignificant.[/quote]
True, but just about anybody I know would have no problem downing 4 slices of toast with butter and jelly for breakfast. Most would still be hungry shortly after.
How many of them could eat 2 cups of cooked brown rice? How many of them could eat 5 apples? 50 cups of spinach?
There’s a reason this guy is swearing up and down he only ate 1,500 calories when he was eating junkfood… [/quote]
Differences in satiety or how easy it is to eat something aren’t things I concern myself with, really. These things are only a problem if you don’t have limits on your diet in the first place. 200g of carbs is 200g of carbs, you know?[/quote]
Do you think a diet with 200g of carbs coming from sweets, candy, chocolate, etc would have the same effect on your body and performance as 200 grams from veggies, beans, fruit, oatmeal, brown rice, or PWO carbs, etc ?
You are not taking into account the impact those carbs have on hormones like insulin, leptin, glucagon, CCK, etc.
Quality, quantity, and timing.
The same way a metabolism is built, it can also be dismantled or disassembled through lack of exercise and shitty nutrition. [/quote]
exactly, my old diet was at least 80-90% carbs, now it’s 30%. unless your an olympic athlete or bodybuilders(pro), that’ll get you fat!(i’m not trying to sound like a carb phobe!)
1500 calories of shit to 3000 calories of nutritious foods=fat loss
3000 calories of nutritious foods to 1500 calories of shit=fat gain!
[/quote]
How old are you? Just curious.[/quote]
16
and please don’t be like
“you’re 16, your young and don’t know what your taking about”
[/quote]
I was just wondering if you had been exposed to any basic physics or biology beyond the picture books most high schools teach with yet. Apparently I was right and you have not. Start here:
I’m sorry dude, but your claims that you know EXACTLY what you were eating every day for the past ~3 years are even less believable now that we know your age.
JTrinsey, that’s some excellently subtle ad hominem you have going on there towards Vic. Let me remind you that the idea that one can eat as much of something as they want is what gets people fat in the first place. Compliance is an issue, but allowing your clients to avoid learning self control by relying on a list of “yes foods” and “no foods” sets them up for regression and yo-yo dieting.
Speaking of compliance, in my experience, those without mental hangups over food do quite well with portion control as long as there is a way for them to still feel full and satiated, which can easily be accomplished by switching to less calorie dense alternatives and higher fiber intakes. What do you think is going to work better for the client who just wants to have an ice cream bar after dinner? “NO ICE CREAM BARS EVER” or having a 100 calorie reduced sugar/fat ice cream bar as an alternative to a high calorie desert?
Now, you can go on and on about how the dariy/gluten/whatever in that replacement food is somehow toxic to 100% of the population, but then you’ve derailed your argument (made on the basis of compliance, which I just refuted) and gone back to the previously paleo phyisobabble that has been deconstructed once already in this thread.
[quote]deadliftgoal500 wrote:
[quote]ajweins wrote:
Sorry dude, but you are 16 and don’t know what you are talking about.[/quote]
i had a feeling you’d say that lol[/quote]
I have a feeling you were really eating a lot more shit than you say, then you cleaned it up a bit and hit puberty, and lost weight.
It’s amazing what a few androgens will do for your physique.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
JTrinsey, that’s some excellently subtle ad hominem you have going on there towards Vic.[/quote]
No ad hom intended. As you said, thermodynamics is the overriding law. If somebody has the discipline to set an appropriate diet, and stick to eat, they are going to either have the physique they desire, or be on their way there. Do you agree?
P.S. I have no reason to doubt Vic, he’s an anonymous dude on the internet to me. I’ll take him at his word.
Depends on the client. For a very overweight person who lives on Pepsi, pizza, and popcorn, the 100-calorie “snack pack” would be good. For a male who’s at 14% trying to get down below 10%, “NO ICE CREAM BARS EVER” would be my recommendation. It’s like telling an alcoholic to switch from Jagerbombs to light beer. Yeah, it’s a step in the right direction, but not a permanent solution.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
JTrinsey, that’s some excellently subtle ad hominem you have going on there towards Vic.[/quote]
No ad hom intended. As you said, thermodynamics is the overriding law. If somebody has the discipline to set an appropriate diet, and stick to eat, they are going to either have the physique they desire, or be on their way there. Do you agree?
P.S. I have no reason to doubt Vic, he’s an anonymous dude on the internet to me. I’ll take him at his word.
Depends on the client. For a very overweight person who lives on Pepsi, pizza, and popcorn, the 100-calorie “snack pack” would be good. For a male who’s at 14% trying to get down below 10%, “NO ICE CREAM BARS EVER” would be my recommendation. It’s like telling an alcoholic to switch from Jagerbombs to light beer. Yeah, it’s a step in the right direction, but not a permanent solution.
[/quote]
I’ve found that those who manage to maintain 14% and desire to get below 10% usually don’t have serious issues with compliance. Those are the people who are already in control of their food intake.
[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:
New study out of Princeton. Highlights:
Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
HFCS compared to regular sugar “…caused abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in triglycerides.”
“Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn’t true.”
“When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they’re becoming obese – every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don’t see this; they don’t all gain extra weight.”
[/quote]
It seems to me there are two possible causes:
-
Because fructose is very substantially sweeter than sucrose, the rats may be motivated to consume more of it.
-
Fructose is metabolically different than glucose, and a given amount of HFCS yields a somewhat higher ratio of fructose to glucose than does sucrose (which gives exactly a 50/50 split on hydrolysis.)
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
I’ve found that those who manage to maintain 14% and desire to get below 10% usually don’t have serious issues with compliance. Those are the people who are already in control of their food intake.[/quote]
Interesting. Then why do you think so many struggle to cross that boundary?
In my experience, I see a lot of people who do an awesome job to lose that initial “fat weight” where they go from chubby or downright fat to “carrying a little more fat then they’d like” or “slight muffintop,” but many of them seem to have a real struggle to really get legitimately lean. It’s an interesting problem.
Where do you think that you fall on that continuum?
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
I’ve found that those who manage to maintain 14% and desire to get below 10% usually don’t have serious issues with compliance. Those are the people who are already in control of their food intake.[/quote]
Interesting. Then why do you think so many struggle to cross that boundary?
In my experience, I see a lot of people who do an awesome job to lose that initial “fat weight” where they go from chubby or downright fat to “carrying a little more fat then they’d like” or “slight muffintop,” but many of them seem to have a real struggle to really get legitimately lean. It’s an interesting problem.
Where do you think that you fall on that continuum?
[/quote]
I think most people struggle to go from “fairly lean” (which can be achieved through basic lifestyle-oriented interventions) to “very lean” because it’s a more difficult process, requires a greater deal of overall restriction, and most people who don’t get “very lean” just don’t want to go to the lengths necessary to achieve that.
I know in the past, I have given up on diets because they were too restrictive or because my strength (my main priority, always) was taking too great a hit. It wasn’t that I got derailed by eating too much food, I gave up because it just wasn’t worth the suffering to me at the time.
Interestingly enough, the diets I have been on where I was most able to maintain compliance were the most flexible in terms of the types of foods I was allowed to eat. I am currently dieting using some ideas that are fairly out of the bodybuilding mainstream and am getting stronger, losing 2-3 lbs per week, and eating kid’s cereal, milk, sammiches, raisin bread, etc on a regular basis.
That’s pretty cool. Lyle’s program, right?
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
That’s pretty cool. Lyle’s program, right?[/quote]
It’s not UD 2.0 or pure RFL, but something he talks about sometimes on his forums.
Diet days are BRUTAL but only being about 36 hours from a refeed at any given point makes it much easier to stick with.
I’m going to test drive it for a few more weeks and then maybe make a thread about it.