TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Workout Thread IV
Pages (299): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 [279] 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 »

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Nobody calculates their diet in that way, you complete cretin. Look at the nutritional information of any food and the calories are the first fucking number. You work out your calorific requirement (there are simple and accurate equations) and you work out the calories in the food you eat in a day. Just keep the second number lower than the first number and you can live on KFC and you will lose weight. I have done it. You really are outstandingly stupid, Karim.

oh and one more thing to fill your devoid brain.


how do you think they get that calorie number genius?

sum up (carbs*4, fats*9 and protein*4)


there you go, i spoonfed you, exactly what you're accustomed to.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Because you are claiming "consuming foods with high fat content will lead to a higher caloric surplus".

Yes.

What are you trying to argue with me here?


what is easier to do? maintain a calorie deficit with lower fat foods, or higher fat foods.


I can walk to work which is 40 km away or i can drive.

Right now you're calling me an idiot because i choose to drive and im enforcing that point by breakign things down for you.


the laws of parsimony apply here

Christ on a bike, you really are an idiot Karim. You have zero credibility left and your knowledge on this topic is seriously lacking. You also oversimplify everything.

quote:

Originally posted by Miss Pie You didn't answer my question. I want to know if you were attempting to insult me.

Well you've surely been working out for a couple of years now, and you're often talking about your core workout, but you can still only do 80 seconds of plank?

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit what is easier to do? maintain a calorie deficit with lower fat foods, or higher fat foods.

They're exactly as easy, provided you can read the nutritional information of the food you're about to eat.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit If you knew how to read, all i am saying is that fats contain more calories then carbs and proteins. If you eat less fats you will consume less calories.

The problem with this argument is that it erroneously assumes that you will consume the same number of grams of food either way.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The problem with this argument is that it erroneously assumes that you will consume the same number of grams of food either way.

Apparently he's quite used to eating half a kilo of lard for breakfast, like everyone else. Go figure

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Well you've surely been working out for a couple of years now, and you're often talking about your core workout, but you can still only do 80 seconds of plank?

Well I really only started doing planks this past year. We have a home gym now, all free weights, etc., whereas before I was using machines for most everything.

I also stopped working out for a good half year or better and never really got back into the same groove I had going (I used to go to the gym every other day for a solid 8 months, now I'm only working out 2-3 times a week).

So yeah, I probably would be stronger had I not fallen off the wagon and had been using free weights the whole time. But eh, I'm getting there.

I'm not at all trying to boast here, but after a month of doing core exercise 2-3 times a week, my plank time went up from about 60 seconds to at least three minutes. Before that I'd been totally neglecting my core. So I'm just surprised that someone like you who's always talking up the importance of a strong core, well... doesn't have a strong core.

Welp, sorry to disappoint you. I don't think it means I have a weak core just because I'm not doing 3 minutes. My sister is a personal trainer and she said a 2 minute goal is fine enough. I just hate planks so I don't push myself as hard as I could. Most exercises I do engage my core, so I know it's strong.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The problem with this argument is that it erroneously assumes that you will consume the same number of grams of food either way.

its all relative then i suppose

my point through all of this, probably it was missed several times as this argument ensues, is that fatty foods are more caloric dense relative to non fatty foods (obviously relating to the same mass portions)

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit my point through all of this, probably it was missed several times as this argument ensues, is that fatty foods are more caloric dense relative to non fatty foods (obviously relating to the same mass portions)

No, this is pathetic backtracking. Everyone already knows that because it's utterly obvious, and nobody missed it, especially when you retreated timidly back to its undisputable simplicity. We're arguing with you because you made a series of stupid and illogical claims while attempting to put that central simple fact into the context of weight-loss strategies.

And spare me the limp-wristed insults. There's no hiding from what you wrote in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J They're exactly as easy, provided you can read the nutritional information of the food you're about to eat.

well let me put it to you this way.


As someone who is trying to consume 10,000 calories a day, or 1500 calories a day for a diet, they will start to depend on the density metric.


its important to know that fats carry more calories then proteins and carbs.

none of what i said is incorrect. When i make comparisons i assume we are talking about the same metric, in this case mass. you assume differently. Its not my fault that you can't make analogies with a common denominator.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Christ on a bike, you really are an idiot Karim. You have zero credibility left and your knowledge on this topic is seriously lacking. You also oversimplify everything.

Am i ? please elaborate. What have I said wrong in this discussion.. Please enlighten me. Now if you misunderstood something i've said, i'll be happy to elaborate. Or is this another one of your blanket statements?


If i've said something wrong, i will admit it and take the full brunt of this collective gang rape.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit When i make comparisons i assume we are talking about the same metric, in this case mass.

That's because you're an obdurate idiot. You were determined to prove Fledz wrong in any way possible, so you abandoned your argument about cholesterol and barged into his discussion about eating eggs while on a weight-loss diet. Nobody plans a diet by caculating weight of food eaten, so your metric comparison was an utterly pointless, irrelevant and impotent attempt at disproving his argument. And after several people repeatedly pointed out your stupidity you backtracked to this unassailable and yet meaninglessly simplistic position. Now you're denying all accountability. You're a fucking coward, Karim, who's too afraid of losing face to shut up when it's good for you.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J That's because you're an obdurate idiot. You were determined to prove Fledz wrong in any way possible, so you abandoned your argument about cholesterol and barged into his discussion about eating eggs while on a weight-loss diet. Nobody plans a diet by caculating weight of food eaten, so your metric comparison was an utterly pointless, irrelevant and impotent attempt at disproving his argument. And after several people repeatedly pointed out your stupidity you backtracked to this unassailable and yet meaninglessly simplistic position. Now you're denying all accountability. You're a fucking coward, Karim, who's too afraid of losing face to shut up when it's good for you.

For the record, i never abandoned the argument on cholesterol, he never replied, so i attacked his next argument, which was clearly just as ridiculous.

people plan their diet on the caloric density of food though. If you're a lard ass and you cant stop eating, you want to eat foods that are high in mass and low in calories, so you will avoid fats so you feel satiated in the end.

On the other hand, if you're haveing a hard time putting on weight, you get full easily, you will probably stick to a calorie dense diet, which will be higher in fats. So when your satiated after consuming a regular quantity, you will actually have consumed more calories.


Doesnt this make sense? Please point out any incorrect statement i've made through this whole argument, and i'll gladly acknowledge my "stupidity" or elaborate the point if you didnt get it the first time round.

So continue on with the insults, its you who is diverging from the topic at hand now.

You Mad son!

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Apparently he's quite used to eating half a kilo of lard for breakfast, like everyone else. Go figure

and apparently cholesterol consumption doesnt effect cholesterol levels.... go figure

No, because you're simplifying things. When are you ever going to eat 500g of fat? Where? Tell me a food.
When are you going to eat 500g of carbohydrates? I could write you an entire list.

So why are you comparing fat to carbs at a 1 to 1 ratio? You shouldn't be, yet you are. Your entire argument falls flat on it's face right there.

SYSTEM-J is completely correct. You keep backtracking on everything and jumping around different retarded points just so it's hard to pin you on something. What is this, a competition for you? There is nothing that I have stated that is incorrect, where as most of what you have stated is so ridiculous that it may as well be incorrect, despite your best intentions to make sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit and apparently cholesterol consumption doesnt effect cholesterol levels.... go figure

Your body generates LDL-cholesterol (and others) primarily from saturated fats you idiot. Intake of direct cholesterol can actually minimise this conversion as your body thinks it has enough cholesterol in the body. It's of course far more complicated than that, but I'm not prepared to tutor you in high school science right now when you should have learnt this in school.

And no before you mention it, you can't use this now to go back and argue that me saying not to focus on fats contradicts what I'm saying right now. Cholesterol and obesity cannot be so easily linked. You need to focus on specific people for specific goals.
Some of the people with the highest cholesterol levels that we treat are some of the most skinniest people you will see.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Please point out any incorrect statement i've made through this whole argument, and i'll gladly acknowledge my "stupidity" or elaborate the point if you didnt get it the first time round.

I just fucking did. Do you want me to copy-paste my last post over and over while you backtrack further and change what you said? Because that's the only way this discussion is going.

quote:

So continue on with the insults, its you who is diverging from the topic at hand now.

Don't play the victim now, son. You've thrown plenty of insults in this argument, so you merely look like a little bitch who can dish it, but won't take it:

"oh and one more thing to fill your devoid brain"
"i spoonfed you, exactly what you're accustomed to."
"theres probably a good reason as to why you are on welfare.. i think ive figured it out."
"dumbass"

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz No, because you're simplifying things. When are you ever going to eat 500g of fat? Where? Tell me a food. When are you going to eat 500g of carbohydrates? I could write you an entire list.

to illustrate the point that fats contain more then double the calories of proteins and carbs, yet you say that not avoiding them isnt helpfull to reducing your caloric intake.

quote:

SYSTEM-J is completely correct. You keep backtracking on everything and jumping around different retarded points just so it's hard to pin you on something. What is this, a competition for you? There is nothing that I have stated that is incorrect, where as most of what you have stated is so ridiculous that it may as well be incorrect, despite your best intentions to make sense.

what have i stated thats incorrect? I've already pointed out 2 things that you have stated that ARE incorrect, yet you go back and start saying "ohhh but who eats 7 eggs" bullshit and ingore the whole ldl cholesterol in eggs argument which i stated.


My argument is simple and has been from day 1 and you can take it how you want.



1) cholesterol intake will effect cholesterol levels over time

2) reducing fatty food intake is helpfull in weightloss (and an easier way to create a calorie deficit and feel satiated).

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit to illustrate the point that fats contain more then double the calories of proteins and carbs, yet you say that not avoiding them isnt helpfull to reducing your caloric intake.

Where did I say this?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I just fucking did. Do you want me to copy-paste my last post over and over while you backtrack further and change what you said? Because that's the only way this discussion is going.

i thought i answered this over and over again, but it seems like your not reading what i wrote

quote:

Don't play the victim now, son. You've thrown plenty of insults in this argument, so you merely look like a little bitch who can dish it, but won't take it:

2 against one in a barrage of ad hominem attacks.. i feel like you're 2 negros with a snake trying to force it up my ass.

quote:

"oh and one more thing to fill your devoid brain" "i spoonfed you, exactly what you're accustomed to." "theres probably a good reason as to why you are on welfare.. i think ive figured it out." "dumbass"

for the record, those were all directed at you after you first started with the ad hominem attacks genius.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit 1) cholesterol intake will effect cholesterol levels over time 2) reducing fatty food intake is helpfull in weightloss (and an easier way to create a calorie deficit and feel satiated).

1) May. MAY. Positively or negatively? Should people focus on it though? No, because there are better ways to reduce cholesterol than worrying about the cholesterol levels in a food.

2) Of course it is, for fucks sake. Everybody knows that. Carbs, sugar and salt are an even better way. "Fat free" foods is the worst marketing bullshit to happen in the last 20 years because it makes people (like yourself) seem to think that cutting fat from food will make them lose all that fat, when in fact it's a lot more complicated.


I fail to see how any of this proves that egg yolks are bad for you...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.