Author Topic: im fat im fat oh god im fat  (Read 11233 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline H4rdn3ssKill3r

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 107
  • Infamy: 46
  • cRPG Player
  • Crummy Wizard
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: naaaaaaaaaah
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #75 on: December 26, 2013, 06:57:24 pm »
-1
Holy shit.
You actually fucking think Poophammer is serious?
No.
oh please xant.
this is now not even to do with poophammers autism anymore.
if they did think it wasn't serious, they still gave advice that was serious.
f8uasdlöadk blablablababa lbalba
^ Analogy of discussions on forums.

Offline LordBerenger

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1492
  • Infamy: 859
  • cRPG Player
  • Jesus is the savior of Earth
    • View Profile
    • .........
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #76 on: December 26, 2013, 07:21:27 pm »
+3
This is now the official Torben vs Xant & No Rules handicap fight.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Xant

  • Finnish Pony
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1552
  • Infamy: 803
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #77 on: December 26, 2013, 07:52:52 pm »
0
Agree with this

If you don't have regular meals your body will wonder if you will even get another meal anytime soon and go into starvation mode. You will slow your metabolism so that you burn fewer calories during the day

No.
http://forum.melee.org/general-off-topic/im-fat-im-fat-oh-god-im-fat/msg923542/#msg923542

oh please xant.
this is now not even to do with poophammers autism anymore.
if they did think it wasn't serious, they still gave advice that was serious.

The retards, maybe. Anyone remotely intelligent is talking in general, not to or for Poophammer.
Meaning lies as much
in the mind of the reader
as in the Haiku.

Offline H4rdn3ssKill3r

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 107
  • Infamy: 46
  • cRPG Player
  • Crummy Wizard
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: naaaaaaaaaah
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #78 on: December 26, 2013, 08:39:51 pm »
0
Exactly.
And that's what I was addressing.
This is generally a "I need to lose weight." Well it was at the start, I dunno what everyone is spewing at the moment. As I said again, I don't care if it doesn't burn muscle. I care more of the fact that starving yourself fucks up your metabolism, which by the way, nobody has addressed in any way and you keep bringing up the point that "IT DOESN'T BURN MUSCLE THUS YOU SHOULD DO IT!!". No. I'll say it again, in nice big bold text so you can all understand. I don't care if it doesn't burn muscle. Standing in your ass all day doesn't burn any muscle either. Starving yourself is what 13 year old teenagers think is healthy. It makes you feel shit and it fucks up your metabolism.
I bet you the soldiers that did the experiment got their weight almost instantly because of the fact that they fucked up the metabolism so badly that the body NEEDED to make sure all the food it did get was 100% digested and used up. Your body doesn't know when the experiment ends, so it keeps going on this cycle of using up everything in the food.

Also if you really want to talk science, then lets talk science.
Your body absolutely hates burning up fat. It's way too much work for the energy it gives out. Wanna know why fat people suffering from hypothermia dies just as fast if not faster compared to a skinny guy? Because yes, they could burn up fat and get energy, but it takes way too much in the first place to begin the decomposition of fat into actual glucose chains that are usable.
It's why your body goes from Carbs > Protein + Fat when it's starving.
Fat itself is way too much of a slow process to acquire the energy needed to sustain the body.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 08:43:58 pm by H4rdn3ssKill3r »
f8uasdlöadk blablablababa lbalba
^ Analogy of discussions on forums.

Offline Xant

  • Finnish Pony
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1552
  • Infamy: 803
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #79 on: December 26, 2013, 09:01:58 pm »
0
Because, again, eating one meal a day isn't "starving yourself." It takes 48 hours to enter starvation mode.
Meaning lies as much
in the mind of the reader
as in the Haiku.

Offline Grumbs

  • طالبان
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1170
  • Infamy: 617
  • cRPG Player Sir White Rook A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #80 on: December 26, 2013, 11:03:28 pm »
0
Weight loss needs to be practical. If you go for 1 meal a day and you're a fatty you will have shit tonnes of snacks before and after the meal. When you do have the meal you will end up consuming more calories than regular meals spaced out because you will be so hungry

Having a weight loss routine makes it easier too, it just becomes natural to live healthily because everything is planned out for a set time

BTW water is awesome. You shouldn't really drink any calories at all. Get used to drinking only water and you will get to like it

We might disagree but I think science is on the side of regular meals, but even if not the other benefits make it worth having regular meals imo (less temptation to snack, routine etc)
If you have ranged troubles use this:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Offline Xant

  • Finnish Pony
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1552
  • Infamy: 803
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #81 on: December 26, 2013, 11:51:00 pm »
-1
Weight loss needs to be practical. If you go for 1 meal a day and you're a fatty you will have shit tonnes of snacks before and after the meal. When you do have the meal you will end up consuming more calories than regular meals spaced out because you will be so hungry

Having a weight loss routine makes it easier too, it just becomes natural to live healthily because everything is planned out for a set time

BTW water is awesome. You shouldn't really drink any calories at all. Get used to drinking only water and you will get to like it

We might disagree but I think science is on the side of regular meals, but even if not the other benefits make it worth having regular meals imo (less temptation to snack, routine etc)
The 1 meal a day diet is the most practical for anyone, fatty or not. You won't end up buying the no-nos from a store and then feel guilty and stop dieting because you cheated, because you can eat the foods you crave any time you want. You won't snack after the meal because you've just eaten: you eat it in the evening, 7-10 hours after waking up. And no, you won't end up consuming more calories in a single meal than several spaced out meals. That is pretty much impossible. You can eat two pizzas and still be about 500-1000 calories from daily recommended calories, which means you could eat a third one without gaining any weight. Whereas when you eat several meals, none of them really satisfy you, and you end up feeling half-hungry and unsatisfied the whole day, making it more likely that you'll overeat and/or resort to snacks.

It doesn't matter what you "think." Show the science if it's on the side of regular meals. So far, all the science that has been shown has definitely not been on the side of regular meals.

And speaking of practicality, eating once is a lot more practical than having to plan for several meals, that all have to have certain foods/can't have certain foods.
Meaning lies as much
in the mind of the reader
as in the Haiku.

Offline Lemon

  • Strategus Councillor
  • **
  • Renown: 517
  • Infamy: 190
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: The Lemon Company
  • Game nicks: #Free Lemon 2012
  • IRC nick: Lemon
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #82 on: December 27, 2013, 02:29:42 am »
-2
muscle + fat = bear, and who wouldn't want to be a bear
Are you encouraging panos' eating habits?
Lemon Luther King JR, has a dream, where all trolls are treated with fairness and equality. Lemon's want to be able to vote, and ride in the front of the bus, and drink from the same fountain that we do. Please right this inequality

Offline Umbra

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1299
  • Infamy: 162
  • cRPG Player Sir White Rook A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Krems, Freak Army of Gnjus
  • Game nicks: Umbra
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #83 on: December 27, 2013, 02:36:50 am »
0
Sources, in no particular order:


tl:dr
Some of the research said there were no significant changes in weight between methods if the caloric intake was maintained, however it mentioned cardiovascular disease risk factors and negative change in hematologic variables in a 1 meal per day diet.
Some of the research on obese subjects showed positive weight loss in increased meal frequency.
Some of the research said that there was positive changes in weight loss on a more frequent meal diet, mostly done on women and children.
Some of the research found there was no corelation between metabolism "speed" and meal frequency.
Most of the research found that increased meal frequency is beneficial for regulation of insulin, lipid and colesterol levels.
Most of the research concluded that the results were influenced too much by caloric intake missreporting by the subjects.
Most of the research cited a multitude of other factors that could influence the results.
Most of the research concluded that eating more meals was highly recommended for non-insulin dependant diabetes patients.
Most of the research said that more research was needed.


My conclusion: If you are a healthy subject, eating more frequently or eating 1 meal a day will not matter in terms of weight loss if the caloric intake is the same, however eating more meals per day prevents cardiovascular diseases, maintains leves or essential fats, insulin and colesterol levels. On non-healthy (obese) women and children, studies found that eating more meals a day is beneficial to weightloss, but i would take this information with a grain of salt because: missreporting, outside factors.

tl:dr of the tl:dr - Eating 1 meal, or a lot, is the same in terms of weightloss if the caloric intake is the same. However, eating more frequently is healthier than eating 1 meal a day. On obese subjects the weight loss benefits of meal frequency are still debated.


P.S. if someone can find me meal frequency research on male obese subjects, that would be great for more insight


P.P.S. can anyone explain what this means:
(click to show/hide)

Thanks guys, now im interested in food research, ill keep you posted if i find more stuff relevant to this thread lol. Holy shit its 3 am
« Last Edit: December 27, 2013, 03:08:56 am by Umbra »
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Rumblood

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1199
  • Infamy: 420
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: GrannPappy
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #84 on: December 27, 2013, 03:01:58 am »
-1


P.P.S. can anyone explain what this means:
(click to show/hide)

It means on 1 meal a day you have higher blood sugar. You don't produce more insulin, and the insulin you produce isn't any better at handling that extra sugar. As you may know, that easily leads to diabetes and almost certainly will given a long enough duration.
"I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday" – Abraham Lincoln

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline KaMiKaZe_JoE

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 904
  • Infamy: 117
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Cavalieres
  • Game nicks: KaMiKaZe _______
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #85 on: December 27, 2013, 03:13:38 am »
0
Sources:

(click to show/hide)

I've been skimming the thread and am disappointed that it took 6 fucking pages for somebody to actually cite evidence, but and at the same time go at it like dicks over a vagina. Please don't just make shit up jesus this might be the internet but by god my jimmies are rustled when people make shit up regardless of context.

On a related note: My Intro to Biology professor, way back in Freshman year, described metabolism as fluctuating, not as fixed. Your daily caloric needs will adjust to fit your life style, eventually, to a certain point. Thus, if you regularly eat 2000 calories and do not exercise, your daily caloric requirement is going to be about 2000 calories. Go on a 1500 calorie diet, and you'll lose weight. Your metabolism, however, will eventually adjust to your new 1500 calorie diet.

Exercise adds a twist to this, demanding even more calories of you ontop of your 1500 calorie diet. That's one of the reasons why you should do it.

(Weight lifting, by the way, burns calories and is metabolically demanding even after the weightlifting event itself is over. It is a very effective way of asking your body to use more calories. It's also fun. And it makes you strong and healthy and maybe even gay. See "The New Rules of Lifting" by Lou Schuler and Alwyn Cosgrove; See 4chan's /fit/ness board, the sticky of which, as has been mentioned, actually cites sources. http://liamrosen.com/fitness.html#part4)

This WeightWatcher article--of all things--discusses the topic of fluctuating metabolism's implications for weight loss. http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501. I didn't get my info originally from there, but looked it up just now because I'm way too lazy to actually use my school's database to find sources myself. And yet I typed all this up? Christ I'm falling into the same trap that some of the above posters did. Oh well, anyway, I'm piggybacking off of the WeightWatchers author's citations, lol.

Eat your protein, too! http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1007137#t=articleDiscussion

And do research before you talk shit,nerd scum!
"I don't think I'd want to meet anyone from cRPG. Sorry no offense lol" -TG

Offline Xant

  • Finnish Pony
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1552
  • Infamy: 803
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #86 on: December 27, 2013, 10:54:59 am »
-2
Sources, in no particular order:


tl:dr
Some of the research said there were no significant changes in weight between methods if the caloric intake was maintained, however it mentioned cardiovascular disease risk factors and negative change in hematologic variables in a 1 meal per day diet.
Some of the research on obese subjects showed positive weight loss in increased meal frequency.
Some of the research said that there was positive changes in weight loss on a more frequent meal diet, mostly done on women and children.
Some of the research found there was no corelation between metabolism "speed" and meal frequency.
Most of the research found that increased meal frequency is beneficial for regulation of insulin, lipid and colesterol levels.
Most of the research concluded that the results were influenced too much by caloric intake missreporting by the subjects.
Most of the research cited a multitude of other factors that could influence the results.
Most of the research concluded that eating more meals was highly recommended for non-insulin dependant diabetes patients.
Most of the research said that more research was needed.


My conclusion: If you are a healthy subject, eating more frequently or eating 1 meal a day will not matter in terms of weight loss if the caloric intake is the same, however eating more meals per day prevents cardiovascular diseases, maintains leves or essential fats, insulin and colesterol levels. On non-healthy (obese) women and children, studies found that eating more meals a day is beneficial to weightloss, but i would take this information with a grain of salt because: missreporting, outside factors.

tl:dr of the tl:dr - Eating 1 meal, or a lot, is the same in terms of weightloss if the caloric intake is the same. However, eating more frequently is healthier than eating 1 meal a day. On obese subjects the weight loss benefits of meal frequency are still debated.


P.S. if someone can find me meal frequency research on male obese subjects, that would be great for more insight


P.P.S. can anyone explain what this means:
(click to show/hide)

Thanks guys, now im interested in food research, ill keep you posted if i find more stuff relevant to this thread lol. Holy shit its 3 am

"Results:Subjects who completed the study maintained their body weight within 2 kg of their initial weight throughout the 6-mo period. There were no significant effects of meal frequency on heart rate, body temperature, or most of the blood variables measured. However, when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol.

Conclusions:Normal-weight subjects are able to comply with a 1 meal/d diet. When meal frequency is decreased without a reduction in overall calorie intake, modest changes occur in body composition, some cardiovascular disease risk factors, and hematologic variables. Diurnal variations may affect outcomes."


"A team of cardiologists in the UAE found that people observing Ramadan, the Islamic fast, enjoy a positive effect on their lipid profile, which means there is a reduction of cholesterol in the blood.[11] Also adherence to Eastern Orthodox fasting periods contributes to an improvement in the blood lipid profile, including a decrease in total and LDL cholesterol, and a decrease in the LDL to HDL cholesterol ratio. These results suggest a possible positive impact on the obesity levels of individuals who adhere to these fasting periods"

"There is no biological reason for eating three meals a day," says Yale University history professor Paul Freedman, editor of Food: The History of Taste (University of California Press, 2007).

The three-meals model is also being fought by the food industry.

"The food industry wants you to buy more food," thus it urges us to eat as much and as often as possible. It's an easy sell, "because Americans have always liked snacks."

“The effects of differences in meal frequency on body weight, body composition, and energy expenditure were studied in mildly food-restricted male rats. Two groups were fed approximately 80% of usual food intake (as periodically determined in a group of ad libitum fed controls) for 131 days. One group received all of its food in 2 meals/day and the other received all of its food in 10-12 meals/day. The two groups did not differ in food intake, body weight, body composition, food efficiency (carcass energy gain per amount of food eaten), or energy expenditure at any time during the study. Both food-restricted groups had a lower food intake, body weight gain, and energy expenditure than a group of ad libitum-fed controls. In conclusion, these results suggest that amount of food eaten, but not the pattern with which it is ingested, has a major influence on energy balance during mild food restriction.“

Meal frequency and energy balance.
Br J Nutr. 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
“More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.”

Thermogenesis in humans after varying meal time frequency
Wolfram G, Kirchgessner M, Miller HL, Hollomey S.
To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.

Intermittent fasting may function as a form of nutritional hormesis.[10]
Alternate-day fasting may encourage fat oxidation.[11]
Alternate-day fasting may reduce body weight, LDL, and triglyceride levels to the same degree regardless of maintenance of low fat or high fat diet on the feeding day.[12]

A 2007 review of alternate day fasting in said "the findings in animals suggest that ADF may effectively modulate several risk factors, thereby preventing chronic disease, and that ADF may modulate disease risk to an extent similar to that of CR. More research is required to establish definitively the consequences of ADF."[9]

---



As you can see, it has both "benefits" and "cons", and the cons aren't a problem for normal individuals. On the other hand, 1-meal a day eaters had significant reductions in fat mass compared to the frequent eaters. Therefore, it's better for people wanting to lose weight.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=120853941
« Last Edit: December 27, 2013, 11:25:19 am by Xant »
Meaning lies as much
in the mind of the reader
as in the Haiku.

Offline Umbra

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1299
  • Infamy: 162
  • cRPG Player Sir White Rook A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Krems, Freak Army of Gnjus
  • Game nicks: Umbra
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #87 on: December 27, 2013, 12:22:04 pm »
+3
(click to show/hide)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Torben

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 2011
  • Infamy: 352
  • cRPG Player Sir White Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • still prepare to get sexed
    • View Profile
  • Faction: by my overly nerfed heavy lance.
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #88 on: December 27, 2013, 11:49:19 pm »
+3
quality posts,  nice. 

Umbra,  happy to see your willingness to learn.  this is for you:
what systemic complications might our obese man have,  that would be negatively effected by the consequences of the the 1meal/day diet? 
what are these consequences in the first place
hint:
(click to show/hide)
feel free to pm me if you prefer.

translation:
(click to show/hide)

interesting tidbit: 
(click to show/hide)
Yes, I know from whence I came! Discontented as a flame, Upon myself I live and glow. All I grasp like lightning flashes, All I leave behind is ashes
Flame I am - that much I know!

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Xant

  • Finnish Pony
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1552
  • Infamy: 803
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: im fat im fat oh god im fat
« Reply #89 on: December 27, 2013, 11:52:41 pm »
0
It's funny how Torben gives out the homework when he's clueless himself.
Meaning lies as much
in the mind of the reader
as in the Haiku.