The guy to the left is Tom Incledon. The other guy is Magnus.
It’s quite obvious none of you ever took an advanced nutrition metabolism or biochemistry class. Otherwise, you wouldn’t write this shit.
According to you geniuses, hyrogenated and trans fats have the same physiological effect on metabolism as omega-3 fats; a piece-of-shit white roll has the same effect as quinoa or whole-grain pasta or oatmeal; pork rinds have the same effect as salmon; crackers have the same effect as beans…
… as long as the macronutrient content of them are equal!
This is some rich shit! Fucking hysterical actually!
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
It’s quite obvious none of you ever took an advanced nutrition metabolism or biochemistry class. Otherwise, you wouldn’t write this shit.
[/quote]
hell, you shouldn’t even need an advanced nutrition class to understand that or come to that conclusion
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Herr Nominal,
Here’s another dietitian, author for this site, professor, and bodybuilder
Lonnie Lowery. He built those guns to the size of your fucking head with “full of shit” dietetic practices. [/quote]
Dietitians are still full of shit. You are, too.
You are a moron for attempting to refute my point by posting pictures of Colette Nelson.
Most dietitians are 30-something chubby or anorexically skinny broads who preach the AMA recommended low protein, high carb diet and suggest aerobics as the optimal form of exercise. To prove my point, just run a google image search and look what turns up:
I don’t see anyone there who resembles Colette.
The government does not know shit about nutrition. The mainstream medical establishment is woefully wrong about such things as optimal protein intake, cholesterol and heart disease, saturated fat, and the relative importance of lipids and carbs in the diet. They basically manage to get everything completely wrong on consistent basis. If you disagree with this then you really would be better off reading “Aerobics Anonymous” than T-Nation. This is a site where people lift weights, eat high-fat meat, vote conservative and cut carbs to lose weight.
Dietitians are women and emasculated males who vote liberal, eat lots of carbs, do aerobics, and are often vegetarians/vegans, quasi or full fledged. They don’t “cut”, they “diet”, and they don’t lose fat, they lose “weight”. Naturally, they have no concern for gaining muscle.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
It’s quite obvious none of you ever took an advanced nutrition metabolism or biochemistry class. Otherwise, you wouldn’t write this shit.
According to you geniuses, hyrogenated and trans fats have the same physiological effect on metabolism as omega-3 fats;[/quote]
Who said that trans fats fall into the same macronutrient category as 0-3’s? Certainly not anyone well versed in biochemistry. The fact is, they don’t, and that’s the cause of their differing effects on the body.
Has anyone else noticed that this guy hasn’t actually proved anything?
His argument consists of posting pictures and saying, “Your claims are ridiculous and therefore wrong”.
[quote] Brook wrote:
You wont find a bodybuilder worth his salt (pun to follow) who will eat a macdonalds before a show - due to all the sodium.
However, yes - generally speaking macro’s have a massive impact on body composition. I wasn’t aware this was even up for debate. i am aware however that you, Nominal Prospect are one of those intellectual posters who likes to cause shit - but…
I won’t be using the pre-comp dieting BB as the example, as they are really an extreme - as you should know. Apart from 2-3% BF being the goal, the water manipulation throws a hammer in the works of most foods that one would consider healthy.
Of course T3, Trenbolone and Lasix help - but that too is a different discussion.
As for general fat loss - in loss of fat primarily and not muscle. then it IS possible to eat badly with low calories to achieve some. However it would be much more effective (for the same goals) to choose a diet that restricts sugar or simple chain carbohydrates, as well as excessive amounts of (saturated) fats.
It is generally well understood (in my mind if not yours) that if one ate a macro profile of… say 10:50:40 of Pro:Cho:Fat but restricted calories to 2000kcal below maintenance - they would lose weight. It is also well understood that they would likely lose as much if not more muscle and water as they would fat.
If someone had the above macro ratio’s but reduced calories by just (the recommended) 10-15% below maintenance, they would lose weight slower - but they would STILL lose a large proportion of metabolic tissue - albeit not as much due to less catabolism from the ‘starvation’ type diet above.
Now if you look at someone who has a macro ratio of 40:40:20 or 50:10:40 (depending on their own metabolism and tolerance to carbs, etc.) but restricted 2000kcals below maintenance - i would expect to see a similar response to the first example. They would NEED to drop muscle to lower the metabolism.
If they reduced by just the 10-15% - then they would lose the vast majority bodyfat, whilst preserving their muscle. This is shown repeatedly isn’t it?
As for real world results - it is simple. Whether putting on muscle or dropping fat, one will ALWAYS get a better result when they eat cleaner (all else equal). Always.[/quote]
You’re taking this too seriously and creating arguments where none exist.
First of all, Bodybuilding needs no assistance from me to be turned into a mockery. It accomplishes that on its own. I’ll be perfectly content to argue with you on that point, should the need arise.
Aside from that, you didn’t really address the situation that I proposed.
Most of your post dealt with the effects of isocaloric diets with VARIANT macro ratio’s on body composition, something which I specifically tried to point out that my post was not about.
Yeah, I recognize that you are not likely to end up hitting the same macro ratio’s eating at McDonald’s as you would eating “clean” foods, even with calories controlled. But I was suggesting a hypothetical “what-if” scenario in my post. Furthermore, I’m aware of the sodium issue and its effect on body composition, but that could theoretically be controlled for as well. The crux of the issue remains.
For any given proportion of P/C/F, at any given caloric intake, will obtaining those nutrients from different food sources affect body composition differently? Think of it this way: is it even CAPABLE of affecting body composition differently? That’s my real question.
NP- You must be a real delightful person in real life. Modest too I bet.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
NP- You must be a real delightful person in real life. Modest too I bet. [/quote]
HAHA. This is my current favorite thread.
NP - i think you will find that i wrote a post that covers the exact point you make and explains your faults - IMO that is the end of this BS thread.
You ARE a fucking prick, there really is no point trying to engage you in conversation at all - you are just a troll with a book.
Best.
Herr Nominal,
There’s no need to show that link of images of RDs. I am one and I know quite a few of them. The women in those photos are ordinary, average people. I don’t see an anorexic or obese one in that link. But wait, I forgot; RDs should all look like Victoria’s Secret models to look like they have any credibility.
What the fuck does voting conservative have to do with anything we discuss here? If you’re gonna run around this site with that avatar, you best not be conservative either. Otherwise you’re full of shit yourself!
I’m a male and I eat a shitload of protein, jackass! And I’m FAR from liberal, fuckface! I’m not conservative either. Actually, if I had it my way, I’d have an aristocratic democracy, the form of government that we once had here a long time ago, and the government that Ancient Greece had, where democracy was created. Again, what the fuck do political views have to do with our trade, genius?
I suppose I’m an emasculated male with a bodyweight of 234# as of this day with a 500 pound deadlift and squat and 365 bench!
An intake of 350 grams of protein is low too, right?
Here’s a pic of me from 4 years ago. I’m considerably thicker now. I need new pics. When I get them, I’ll post! This is of me on my way to becoming an emasculated, full-of-shit dietitian.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Bricknyce wrote:
Herr Nominal,
Here’s another dietitian, author for this site, professor, and bodybuilder
Lonnie Lowery. He built those guns to the size of your fucking head with “full of shit” dietetic practices.
Dietitians are still full of shit. You are, too.
You are a moron for attempting to refute my point by posting pictures of Colette Nelson.
Most dietitians are 30-something chubby or anorexically skinny broads who preach the AMA recommended low protein, high carb diet and suggest aerobics as the optimal form of exercise. To prove my point, just run a google image search and look what turns up:
I don’t see anyone there who resembles Colette.
The government does not know shit about nutrition. The mainstream medical establishment is woefully wrong about such things as optimal protein intake, cholesterol and heart disease, saturated fat, and the relative importance of lipids and carbs in the diet. They basically manage to get everything completely wrong on consistent basis. If you disagree with this then you really would be better off reading “Aerobics Anonymous” than T-Nation. This is a site where people lift weights, eat high-fat meat, vote conservative and cut carbs to lose weight.
Dietitians are women and emasculated males who vote liberal, eat lots of carbs, do aerobics, and are often vegetarians/vegans, quasi or full fledged. They don’t “cut”, they “diet”, and they don’t lose fat, they lose “weight”. Naturally, they have no concern for gaining muscle.
Bricknyce wrote:
It’s quite obvious none of you ever took an advanced nutrition metabolism or biochemistry class. Otherwise, you wouldn’t write this shit.
According to you geniuses, hyrogenated and trans fats have the same physiological effect on metabolism as omega-3 fats;
Who said that trans fats fall into the same macronutrient category as 0-3’s? Certainly not anyone well versed in biochemistry. The fact is, they don’t, and that’s the cause of their differing effects on the body.
Has anyone else noticed that this guy hasn’t actually proved anything?
His argument consists of posting pictures and saying, “Your claims are ridiculous and therefore wrong”.[/quote]
Herr Nominal (I give Roman salute),
You asked who said that omega-3 fats fall into the same macronutrient category as hydrogenated fats. Well, they do. They both fall into the macronutrient category called (drum roll, please)… FATS… just as fructose and starch fall into the same category called (drum roll, please)… CARBOHYDRATES.
Heil RDs! Der sieg ist unser!
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Bricknyce wrote:
So 250 P / 150 F / 100 C from bodybuilding approved foods is going to bring about different results than 250 P / 150 F / 100 C from non bodybuilding approved foods? You think so?
Prove it, explain it, prove it, explain it[/quote]
Yes it would, depending on the source of fat and carbohydrates. With regards to carbohydrate metabolism, for example ingestion of simple carbohydrate causes an increased insulin secretion, resulting in the greater up regulation of glucokinase.
Also, a simple carbohydrate will be broken down more rapidly into glucose increasing the activity of hexokinase (which has a high K(m) for glucose). Increased lipogenesis due to activity of PFK-1 and Pyruvate kinase are both upregulated when a favored insulin/glucagon ratio is present. A complex carbohydrate, with “delayed” metabolism allows for less rapid uptake due to several of the aforementioned components.
This allows cells, with less capable system of glucose uptake to be more significant in glucose regulation (brain, liver, muscle).
lol, wow it’s rare to see a thread turn into a flame war like this without me posting in it.
Ok…where to begin? First off, Trextacy basically hit it spot-on with his first post. Apart from adequate protein (and, I would add EFAs) and heavy resistance exercise, the rest is basically just creating a caloric deficit.
Why eating “clean” generally has an advantage is that in general clean foods will tend to keep someone fuller longer than an equal caloric amount of “dirty” food. (what’s easier to overeat, apples or Oreos?)
Also, keep in mind that nobody here is advocating a “protein shake & doughnut” diet, clearly one should strive to include a wide variety of whole, unprocessed foods in their diet for the aformentioned benefits of satiety and also micronutrition.
However, the idea that one won’t achieve optimal results unless 100% of their diet is ultra squeaky clean is simply ludicrous. Besides the fact that no two people can agree on what is “clean” and what isn’t, there is simply no reason why eating 300 calories of lucky charms would make someone fatter than eating 300 calories of brown rice. (notice, I’m swapping out two foods of similar macronutritional content. i.e. a carb for a carb)
SHORT VERSION: while an “all junk food” diet is certainly not advisable, including some “junk” in ones diet on a daily basis will make no difference in your results so long as daily calorie and macro targets are achieved.
Does anyone else here simply not like things like McDonalds. Thinking about the low quality of meat and crap ingredients, I donâ??t want to eat it. Aside from health impacts and things, I just donâ??t like fast food, cheetoes, microwave dinners, donuts est. Just thinking about it makes me a little queasy.
Iâ??d much rather eat something like a meat potatoes and veggies any day.
Maybe itâ??s just me.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
However, the idea that one won’t achieve optimal results unless 100% of their diet is ultra squeaky clean is simply ludicrous. .[/quote]
perhaps this is the issue. No one is saying you need 100% “clean”. And on the other hand perhaps “you guys” aren’t saying it all has to be junk carbs and junk fat.
Lol, this movie’s good. I wonder how it ends
runs out of popcorn, gets almonds
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Herr Nominal (I give Roman salute),
You asked who said that omega-3 fats fall into the same macronutrient category as hydrogenated fats. Well, they do. They both fall into the macronutrient category called (drum roll, please)… FATS… just as fructose and starch fall into the same category called (drum roll, please)… CARBOHYDRATES.
Heil RDs! Der sieg ist unser!
[/quote]
You forgot fiber. Fiber is also a carb, so 50 grams of carbs from Mountain Dew = 50 grams carbs from broccoli right?
I’m wondering if Herr Wolf would take a liking to Nominal Prospect. Or would NP be thrown into a cattle car and hauled off because of his poor logical and analytical abilities.
brick, i know you disagree with my post on page 1, but i am more than happy to give you props for that back pic (and i never said, and don’t think, that dieticians are “full of shit” although some may not be in a position to give the most current advice to someone training, whether the goal is to add quality mass or lose fat while retaining muscle…although i’m sure there are many who can).
Thank you VERY much! I appreciate it a lot. You’d think that a fitness fanatic like myself would have loads of pics but I don’t. I need to get some new ones. That was quite some time ago. I’m thicker now.
Look, of course some RDs no next to nothing for improving performance and body composition. That’s true; but you have to think of what RDs are really trained for and where we work the MOST. Sure, some RDs work as sports nutritionists. We even have a certification for that through the American Dietetics Association, the CSSD. Most RDs work in clinical settings like nursing homes, dialysis centers, hospitals, and the like. So that’s where a lot of the education and training goes for. Some RDs pursue MS and Phd and MPH degrees. Some go on to get an MBA.
Aside from clinical settings, we also work in public relations and food-marketing firms, private practice, sports, school and insitutional foodservice, academia, writing and editing, and so on.
MOST of this doesn’t require or have really anything to do with getting jacked at all. So I don’t think it’s fair to judge us on that premise.