Weight Loss with Twinkie Diet

Nutrition
61

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
It is not difficult to make someone gain copious amounts of weight on a “maintenance” calorie level,[/quote]

If they are gaining COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF WEIGHT then they are NOT eating “maintenance level calories”. [/quote]

isnt the definition of maintenance level calories: The amount of calories required to MAINTAIN your current weight??? How would you be gaining copious amounts of weight while eating just enough calories to MAINTAIN your current weight.

does not compute. [/quote]

Yes, but what MODOK is saying is that, we are oversimplifying the whole “calorie in=calorie out” equation.

I didn’t understand half of what he said, but if I have it half right, the hormonal effects of food has more to do with weight loss/weight gain than just the calorie count.

To oversimplify it, eating carbs on the higher end of the Glycemic Index would cause the body to release more insulin and would be more helpful for muscle building than consuming food on the lower end of the GI.

So, you can’t specify the exact amount of calories needed to maintain a person’s weight without considering the TYPE of foods, because of the different responses our bodies have to different types of foods.

62

I do not think Modok was talking about maintenance calories changing depending on muscle/weight which I think no one is arguing against. What he is saying is that someone take Prof.X for example may need 3500 calories to maintain weight but, may actually gain weight on lower calories due to the hormonal issues shit food (overprocessed) can cause.

63

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
So, you can’t specify the exact amount of calories needed to maintain a person’s weight without considering the TYPE of foods, because of the different responses our bodies have to different types of foods.[/quote]

thats all well and good but if you’re gaining weight then you ARE NOT eating MAINTENANCE level calories. very simple.

64

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
So, you can’t specify the exact amount of calories needed to maintain a person’s weight without considering the TYPE of foods, because of the different responses our bodies have to different types of foods.[/quote]

thats all well and good but if you’re gaining weight then you ARE NOT eating MAINTENANCE level calories. very simple.[/quote]

Well does that not prove that it is not as simple as calories in/calories out?

65

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
I do not think Modok was talking about maintenance calories changing depending on muscle/weight which I think no one is arguing against. What he is saying is that someone take Prof.X for example may need 3500 calories to maintain weight but, may actually gain weight on lower calories due to the hormonal issues shit food (overprocessed) can cause.[/quote]

Without some disorder present, someone who works out regularly will not see some drastic shift in calories needed because of eating high glycemic carbs. That is the point I was making from the beginning…the point that MODOK missed before jumping into the thread.

Sedentary people of course screw their metabolisms up with shit food…BUT THAT AGAIN IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. Their activity levels and innate genetics present the largest factor, NOT just what they ate specifically that day.

66

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
So, you can’t specify the exact amount of calories needed to maintain a person’s weight without considering the TYPE of foods, because of the different responses our bodies have to different types of foods.[/quote]

thats all well and good but if you’re gaining weight then you ARE NOT eating MAINTENANCE level calories. very simple.[/quote]

Well does that not prove that it is not as simple as calories in/calories out?[/quote]

I dont agree with the thinking that its as simple as “calories in vs calories out”

All I said was that if you’re gaining weight or losing weight you’re not eating at maintenance level.

67

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
So, you can’t specify the exact amount of calories needed to maintain a person’s weight without considering the TYPE of foods, because of the different responses our bodies have to different types of foods.[/quote]

thats all well and good but if you’re gaining weight then you ARE NOT eating MAINTENANCE level calories. very simple.[/quote]

Well does that not prove that it is not as simple as calories in/calories out?[/quote]

No, because again we were discussing someone who actually works out. You won’t be gaining much muscle as a newb eating calories LESS THAN MAINTENANCE unless significant fat is being lost or someone is simply learning how to lift to start with.

68

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:

The garbage i speak of is the grossly over-simplified equation youre using to justify everyone eating mcdonalds.[/quote]

Please quote where I wrote everyone should eat at Mc Donald’s.

[quote]

And the topic of the thread had nothing to do with athletic physical specimens eating twinkies, it was an overweight college teacher. Really dont think we should be applying the results - in any capacity - to the metabolic makeup and activity levels of elite athletes. [/quote]

Gee, if athletes can eat crap and look great, then obviously there is more to body comp than just what specific foods you are eating or where you bought them from. That is the point being made. Are you saying you disagree with this?

[quote]

I want to stress that im not sitting here saying “no you’re wrong.” i just hate to see something like this so oversimplified, which is why i was interested to see what insight MODOK would have to share with us (i specifically had him in mind when i was hoping that someone would pop in here and comment)

On the subject of the picture, all your talk of burgers from McDonald’s was making me nostalgic and so i HAD to revisit the old meme thread for good times sake. [/quote]

Oversimplified? He agreed with me. Your comprehension seems off…and grabbing “memes” that do nothing but show the progress I’ve made over the last few months with these same takes on food present isn’t helping your attempt at making fun of someone.[/quote]

I never claimed MODOK didnt agree with you. I said i was interested in him coming in here and shedding some light on the nitty gritty details that affect metabolism and can allow stuff like this to be possible. The last thing anyone should get form this thread is “oh its that simple!”

Sorry you didnt enjoy my choice of pictures. I really thought they were pretty amusing combined with the “cheeseburgers cheeseburgers cheeseburgers” theme you had going here.

Its just that its been a while since ive seen you really pushing the burgers diet, i miss the good ol’ days. [/quote]

But…you aren’t funny…and the posts weren’t witty…and grabbing pics from several months back is pretty lazy and unoriginal.

Thanks for your contribution.

69

Also, my diet over the last few months would usually cause me to lose more muscle. My eating habits changed that. No one is denying that the foods you eat have an effect on body comp. We are talking about someone who works out and the discussion went into athletes who look great but eat like crap. They are the reason you can’t make some claim that simply eating a certain way means you will be out of shape and look like shit.

What you do with that food is often even more important.

70

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:

The garbage i speak of is the grossly over-simplified equation youre using to justify everyone eating mcdonalds.[/quote]

Please quote where I wrote everyone should eat at Mc Donald’s.

[quote]

And the topic of the thread had nothing to do with athletic physical specimens eating twinkies, it was an overweight college teacher. Really dont think we should be applying the results - in any capacity - to the metabolic makeup and activity levels of elite athletes. [/quote]

Gee, if athletes can eat crap and look great, then obviously there is more to body comp than just what specific foods you are eating or where you bought them from. That is the point being made. Are you saying you disagree with this?

[quote]

I want to stress that im not sitting here saying “no you’re wrong.” i just hate to see something like this so oversimplified, which is why i was interested to see what insight MODOK would have to share with us (i specifically had him in mind when i was hoping that someone would pop in here and comment)

On the subject of the picture, all your talk of burgers from McDonald’s was making me nostalgic and so i HAD to revisit the old meme thread for good times sake. [/quote]

Oversimplified? He agreed with me. Your comprehension seems off…and grabbing “memes” that do nothing but show the progress I’ve made over the last few months with these same takes on food present isn’t helping your attempt at making fun of someone.[/quote]

I never claimed MODOK didnt agree with you. I said i was interested in him coming in here and shedding some light on the nitty gritty details that affect metabolism and can allow stuff like this to be possible. The last thing anyone should get form this thread is “oh its that simple!”

Sorry you didnt enjoy my choice of pictures. I really thought they were pretty amusing combined with the “cheeseburgers cheeseburgers cheeseburgers” theme you had going here.

Its just that its been a while since ive seen you really pushing the burgers diet, i miss the good ol’ days. [/quote]

But…you aren’t funny…and the posts weren’t witty…and grabbing pics from several months back is pretty lazy and unoriginal.

Thanks for your contribution.[/quote]

Eh, I got a kick out of it. All that matters.

71

Has this thread already been derailed, am I even on the same train?!

Here I’ll help:

Healthy Well-Balanced Calories In = Calories Out via Active Lifetyle and/or Daily Fitness Training

Is this wrong? Is this oversimplification?

Who knows… however, the concept of K.I.S.S. has been around for sometime and well continue to be with us for time to come. Many, well most, individuals on this planet operate and think like this as they simply don’t have the time, care, ability, and/or want to look into the details, the minutia, of many subjects affecting their lives and in this particular case the nuances and intricacy of nutrition, physiology, and biological metabolic mechanisms.

72

I do love learning which is why i love this site. many members that are pretty damn experience and well educated as well as free information and interaction with some cutting edge articles and authors.

73

[quote]MODOK wrote:
A large part of the reason that athletes and weight trainers have a reduced effect from eating simple sugars and other “bad” foods is the body up-regulates the hormones in question in response to exercise. We all know the studies where insulin sensitivity is greatly increased in the hours after training.

Its the basis for our PWO nutrition protocols. But just because we have that in our favor and may be a bit immune from the effects that I mentioned due to our hard training doesn’t mean we can’t learn a lot about our body, what is going on physiologically, and what might potentially go wrong at some point. The only bad knowledge is no knowledge.[/quote]

I do believe that was the point of spending so much time describing the running back who used to be in great shape but now looks like he never lifted a day in his life.

Exercise is a MASSIVE factor. It is why you have 300lbs college linemen who may actually be able to see a hint of abs who quit playing ball and now weigh 450lbs and sleep with an oxygen mask.

Yeah, calories are pretty damn important in themselves for the guy in the process of building muscle. That act of building is not to be taken lightly. It causes a body to function way differently than one that is sedentary and actively losing muscle.

Yes, learn more about your body. I am doing that now. It is why I just had most of my carbs this morning after my morning workout and probably won’t have my next big meal until later tonight. The last few months told me my body responds WAY differently when I do that instead of eating more carbs all day long. I can essentially eat pretty freely as long as I pay attention to that.

But you start with the basics. You don’t bypass those.

74

[quote]MODOK wrote:
A large part of the reason that athletes and weight trainers have a reduced effect from eating simple sugars and other “bad” foods is the body up-regulates the hormones in question in response to exercise. We all know the studies where insulin sensitivity is greatly increased in the hours after training.[/quote]

Well said; perfectly describes why I am able to function and maintain my strength, endurance, and figure even with the shit I sometimes have no choice but to eat while out in the field. My duty and hard training (three to four times a day) definitely enables me to get away with it. But when I able to and/or when back home on leave I am definitely treating my body nice.

Concur; just wanted you to know that my previous post was not aimed at you MODOK but to those who “boohoo” simplification of intricate/complex topics to get an important idea/point across. Not everyone is a rocket scientist! Even the most complicated concepts can be broken down to the basics and many times better communicated in simpler terms.

Ahhhh, nice X; had to be said. So we are back to:

Calories In = Calories Out

Which by the way doesn’t mean that: | Eating Crap = Looking/Feeling Like Crap | doesn’t merit serious contemplation… of course it does.

75

[quote]Ricochet wrote:

Ahhhh, nice. So we are back to calories in = calories out.[/quote]

We are, because no matter what anyone says, it would be a huge fucking waste of time for the newb looking to get big arms to think he will get them by eating LESS calories than he needs to gain weight but thinking his “ratios” will cause magic muscle gain alone.

I know for a fact I ate fewer calories than “ideal” many times these last few months…and I also know what kept me from losing muscle in spite of it was drowning my body in leucine and casein all day long.

The issue here is NOT that anyone thinks the human body is simple…but gaining some fucking weight sure is and doesn’t require the freaking calculus tutoring.

You don’t act advanced when you can barely fucking walk. Me paying more attention to timing and carbs is way different than myself at 150lbs doing exactly the same before I even found what built that muscle first.

76

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau: I agree with the KISS thing… now that I’m back to my roots, I realize how dumb I was when I thought I was so smart![/quote] - Live From the Blood and Chalk LiveSpill

Eat Eat Eat Eat Eat