The Classic Off-Topic forum is a place where games or platforms discussions are taboo. Here, you can talk about just about anything outside of games, just make sure to stay classy and follow the rules.
Forum Rules:
- Follow the Terms of Use and read the FAQ.
- Keep your discussions friendly and respectful of others.
- Keep the discussions work friendly. More details in the FAQ (For something more laid back go to Off Topic: After Hours
- Game and platform discussions NOT allowed (For that go to the Primary Games Board or System Wars.
- Do NOT post or bump extremely abusive discussions.
- Hate speech not permitted.
Fat news anchor rages at email
- Oct 4, 2012 10:20 pm GMTBMD004 wrote:I understand exactly what you are saying. I just know you're wrong.Nibroc420 wrote:Once you've given money to an organization, corporation, or government. You do not have that money any more. Do you not understand that?
[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
If your "cure" for obesity is to consume less calories than you use during the day, you are going to lose weight, but the bulk of it will come from lean muscle, not fat. Not quite as easy as it sounds.
[/QUOTE]
The "cure" is simple.
Your body burns ~2000 calories per day.
If you consume ~5000 calories per day, just eating, and choose not to exercise, you're going to have an excess of ~3000 calories.
1 pound of body fat is roughly 3500 calories.Remember that thread where a guy was complaining because his girlfriend was gaining 5-10lbs a week and had been for 2 years?
Lets call it 7lbs/week (an easy middle of 5-10)
His girlfriend would've had to eat approximately an additional 3500 calories per day(more if she's walking around), to keep that weight gain going.You'll really only notice a loss in lean muscle if you're not giving your body the nutrients it needs (working out, while on a "no protein diet" for example, causes the muscles to break-down, but they cannot repair due to lack of nutrients.) or if you just stop working out.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 4, 2012 10:47 pm GMT
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]
[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
If your "cure" for obesity is to consume less calories than you use during the day, you are going to lose weight, but the bulk of it will come from lean muscle, not fat. Not quite as easy as it sounds.
[/QUOTE]
The "cure" is simple.
Your body burns ~2000 calories per day.
If you consume ~5000 calories per day, just eating, and choose not to exercise, you're going to have an excess of ~3000 calories.
1 pound of body fat is roughly 3500 calories.Remember that thread where a guy was complaining because his girlfriend was gaining 5-10lbs a week and had been for 2 years?
Lets call it 7lbs/week (an easy middle of 5-10)
His girlfriend would've had to eat approximately an additional 3500 calories per day(more if she's walking around), to keep that weight gain going.You'll really only notice a loss in lean muscle if you're not giving your body the nutrients it needs (working out, while on a "no protein diet" for example, causes the muscles to break-down, but they cannot repair due to lack of nutrients.) or if you just stop working out.
[/QUOTE]
I was speaking of weight LOSS, not weight gain. You're right about gaining weight, but it is not a chemistry equation with equilibriums and reactions that can travel both ways, gaining weight like that will result in fat gains, but losing weight by ONLY cutting calories will result in lean tissue loss. Look at yo-yo diets if you need an example.
The body is not going to sustain lean muscle that is unused, or not used often. Let's say a football player (easy example because many imagine them muscle bound hulks) goes into the offseason and does not undergo resistance training or as much strenuous exercise as they would while in-season. Their lean muscle mass (along with lean tissue) will decrease, EVEN if they keep a similar diet containing the correct portions of protein, carbs, and fat. Muscle requires ~4 calories a day to sustain, while fat requires ~2, the body is going to scrap the higher maintenance tissue over the lower maintenance tissue. Thus, lean muscle will go first. I have experienced this same "phenomenon" the past 6 summers.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 4, 2012 10:56 pm GMTBMD004 wrote:I understand exactly what you are saying. I just know you're wrong.Nibroc420 wrote:Once you've given money to an organization, corporation, or government. You do not have that money any more. Do you not understand that?[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]
[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
If your "cure" for obesity is to consume less calories than you use during the day, you are going to lose weight, but the bulk of it will come from lean muscle, not fat. Not quite as easy as it sounds.
[/QUOTE]
The "cure" is simple.
Your body burns ~2000 calories per day.
If you consume ~5000 calories per day, just eating, and choose not to exercise, you're going to have an excess of ~3000 calories.
1 pound of body fat is roughly 3500 calories.Remember that thread where a guy was complaining because his girlfriend was gaining 5-10lbs a week and had been for 2 years?
Lets call it 7lbs/week (an easy middle of 5-10)
His girlfriend would've had to eat approximately an additional 3500 calories per day(more if she's walking around), to keep that weight gain going.You'll really only notice a loss in lean muscle if you're not giving your body the nutrients it needs (working out, while on a "no protein diet" for example, causes the muscles to break-down, but they cannot repair due to lack of nutrients.) or if you just stop working out.
[/QUOTE]
I was speaking of weight LOSS, not weight gain. You're right about gaining weight, but it is not a chemistry equation with equilibriums and reactions that can travel both ways, gaining weight like that will result in fat gains, but losing weight by ONLY cutting calories will result in lean tissue loss. Look at yo-yo diets if you need an example.
The body is not going to sustain lean muscle that is unused, or not used often. Let's say a football player (easy example because many imagine them muscle bound hulks) goes into the offseason and does not undergo resistance training or as much strenuous exercise as they would while in-season. Their lean muscle mass (along with lean tissue) will decrease, EVEN if they keep a similar diet containing the correct portions of protein, carbs, and fat. Muscle requires ~4 calories a day to sustain, while fat requires ~2, the body is going to scrap the higher maintenance tissue over the lower maintenance tissue. Thus, lean muscle will go first. I have experienced this same "phenomenon" the past 6 summers.
[/QUOTE] If you eat right, and exercise, you can burn fat without burning muscle. However you're right, the body is not going to sustain lean muscle that isn't being used.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 4, 2012 11:01 pm GMTIf you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. That phrase applies more than once here.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 4, 2012 11:07 pm GMT
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]
If you eat right, and exercise, you can burn fat without burning muscle. However you're right, the body is not going to sustain lean muscle that isn't being used.[/QUOTE]
That's true and I haven't said that is not true.
My post is in response to those who are making it out to a simple equation of calories in- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 4, 2012 11:15 pm GMT
Edit: GS is not letting my post more than a sentence.. What?
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 4, 2012 11:16 pm GMTBMD004 wrote:I understand exactly what you are saying. I just know you're wrong.Nibroc420 wrote:Once you've given money to an organization, corporation, or government. You do not have that money any more. Do you not understand that?[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]
If you eat right, and exercise, you can burn fat without burning muscle. However you're right, the body is not going to sustain lean muscle that isn't being used.[/QUOTE]
That's true and I haven't said that is not true.
My post is in response to those who are making it out to a simple equation of calories in
[/QUOTE] Well obviously if someone starves them-self they're going to get tiny, fat and muscle wise. Though i was initially responding to this... [QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]If your "cure" for obesity is to consume less calories than you use during the day, you are going to lose weight, but the bulk of it will come from lean muscle, not fat.[/QUOTE] Which is not exactly true. The only sure fire way to lose weight is to burn more than you intake. To use the same number of calories that you eat, i mean exactly the same amount, you're going to stay the same weight. Likewise, eating more calories than you burn, is going to result in an excess of calories, aka weight gain.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 4, 2012 11:24 pm GMT
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]
That's true and I haven't said that is not true.
My post is in response to those who are making it out to a simple equation of calories in
[/QUOTE] Well obviously if someone starves them-self they're going to get tiny, fat and muscle wise. Though i was initially responding to this... [QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]If your "cure" for obesity is to consume less calories than you use during the day, you are going to lose weight, but the bulk of it will come from lean muscle, not fat.[/QUOTE] Which is not exactly true. The only sure fire way to lose weight is to burn more than you intake. To use the same number of calories that you eat, i mean exactly the same amount, you're going to stay the same weight. Likewise, eating more calories than you burn, is going to result in an excess of calories, aka weight gain.[/QUOTE]
Lower body mass does not mean you have a better ratio of bodyfat to lean muscle. Anarexic people have a higher percentage of fat than people realize, because they starve themselves, their lean mass is much less than someone who is the same size but exercises, thus anarexic people's overall fat% is decently high.
Consuming the same # of calories you are "burning" (burning is only in quotation marks because we don't burn calories), may mean your overall body weight will be the same, but your body composition will change. If you are active and exercising, your lean mass will increase, if you are sedentary your body fat will increase. The body is not as simple as people think.
My original statement (calories in versus calories out) was based on people saying reducing diets (while sedentary) will mean they will lose weight and be healthier, and I am showing where that is not the case, and they are oversimplifying it.
Edit: it still won't let me copy and paste my response, dumb GS..
Here it is typed up:
That's true and I haven't said that is not true.
My post is in response to those who are making it out to a simple equation of calories in < calories expelled. My point was, while this is true much of the time, the results are not necessarily better than before, much of the time it just results in reduced lean muscle mass, which means people are just as overfat as before, just less "overweight". Not negating the problem. On top of that I was hoping people would open their eyes and understand food secruity and macronutrient dense foods are a huge contributing factor of this problem and soon to be future burden.
Edit: Finally...
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 4, 2012 11:33 pm GMTBMD004 wrote:I understand exactly what you are saying. I just know you're wrong.Nibroc420 wrote:Once you've given money to an organization, corporation, or government. You do not have that money any more. Do you not understand that?[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"] Well obviously if someone starves them-self they're going to get tiny, fat and muscle wise. Though i was initially responding to this... [QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]If your "cure" for obesity is to consume less calories than you use during the day, you are going to lose weight, but the bulk of it will come from lean muscle, not fat.[/QUOTE] Which is not exactly true. The only sure fire way to lose weight is to burn more than you intake. To use the same number of calories that you eat, i mean exactly the same amount, you're going to stay the same weight. Likewise, eating more calories than you burn, is going to result in an excess of calories, aka weight gain.[/QUOTE]
First let me try to finish my previous post:
That's true and I haven't said that is not true.
My post was in response to those who are making it out to a simple equation of calories in
Lower body mass does not mean you have a better ratio of bodyfat to lean muscle. Anarexic people have a higher percentage of fat than people realize, because they starve themselves, their lean mass is much less than someone who is the same size but exercises, thus anarexic people's overall fat% is decently high.
Consuming the same # of calories you are "burning" (burning is only in quotation marks because we don't burn calories), may mean your overall body weight will be the same, but your body composition will change. If you are active and exercising, your lean mass will increase, if you are sedentary your body fat will increase. The body is not as simple as people think.
My original statement (calories in versus calories out) was based on people saying reducing diets (while sedentary) will mean they will lose weight and be healthier, and I am showing where that is not the case, and they are oversimplifying it.
[/QUOTE] Perhaps I've missed a post or two, but i dont recall anyone suggesting "Fat news anchor" goes anorexic. I've seen "maybe she should try drinking more water instead of soda" type suggestions, which are entirely helpful and cutting down on sugar wouldn't cause loss of muscle..- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 4, 2012 11:47 pm GMT
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Perhaps I've missed a post or two, but i dont recall anyone suggesting "Fat news anchor" goes anorexic. I've seen "maybe she should try drinking more water instead of soda" type suggestions, which are entirely helpful and cutting down on sugar wouldn't cause loss of muscle..[/QUOTE]
The anarexic part was in response to you saying that if someone starves themselves, they are going to be tiny.
Sure drinking more water instead of soda is fine, but the point I am trying to get across that no one is understanding, is that if your only "intervention" for obesity is to decrease caloric intake, the results are not going to be straight fat loss (which much of the population seems to believe).
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 4, 2012 11:53 pm GMTBMD004 wrote:I understand exactly what you are saying. I just know you're wrong.Nibroc420 wrote:Once you've given money to an organization, corporation, or government. You do not have that money any more. Do you not understand that?[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Perhaps I've missed a post or two, but i dont recall anyone suggesting "Fat news anchor" goes anorexic. I've seen "maybe she should try drinking more water instead of soda" type suggestions, which are entirely helpful and cutting down on sugar wouldn't cause loss of muscle..[/QUOTE]
The anarexic part was in response to you saying that if someone starves themselves, they are going to be tiny.
Sure drinking more water instead of soda is fine, but the point I am trying to get across that no one is understanding, is that if your only "intervention" for obesity is to decrease caloric intake, the results are not going to be straight fat loss (which much of the population seems to believe).
[/QUOTE] Depends on how many calories before/after and how many your body requires daily. Basically, you're right, sometimes.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 4, 2012 11:56 pm GMT
[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdJ2jHii6Y0&feature=plcp
-Fat news anchor lady reads email on TV that someone sent her telling her to lose weight because she's setting a bad example for the community
[/QUOTE] obesity is a complex issue. it's not an issue of just putting the doughnut down and hitting the gym. there are physical and psychological reasons why people weigh as much as they do. if losing weight was so easy there wouldn't a team of scientist and psychologist dealing with this issue. like drugs , food can literally be an addiction for some people. sugar releases the same brain neurons that cocaine releases. instead of throwing insults try doing some research on the issue of obesity before making such blanket statements.
-She posts it on her FB and gets WK'ed
-Starts spouting typical fat person denial stuff, "I'm more than a number on a scale", "you dont know me!"
-Claims to be a victim of a bully and compares herself to others who have issues such as acne or disabilities.
-Below video are FB comments with tons of people WK'ing
Makes me rage. Obesity is 100% a personal choice she should not be comparing herself to others who have issues they can't control.- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 4, 2012 11:59 pm GMTBMD004 wrote:I understand exactly what you are saying. I just know you're wrong.Nibroc420 wrote:Once you've given money to an organization, corporation, or government. You do not have that money any more. Do you not understand that?[QUOTE="helwa1988"] sugar releases the same brain neurons that cocaine releases. [/QUOTE] Rofl Oversimplification FTL.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 5, 2012 12:10 am GMT
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Perhaps I've missed a post or two, but i dont recall anyone suggesting "Fat news anchor" goes anorexic. I've seen "maybe she should try drinking more water instead of soda" type suggestions, which are entirely helpful and cutting down on sugar wouldn't cause loss of muscle..[/QUOTE]
The anarexic part was in response to you saying that if someone starves themselves, they are going to be tiny.
Sure drinking more water instead of soda is fine, but the point I am trying to get across that no one is understanding, is that if your only "intervention" for obesity is to decrease caloric intake, the results are not going to be straight fat loss (which much of the population seems to believe).
[/QUOTE] Depends on how many calories before/after and how many your body requires daily. Basically, you're right, sometimes.[/QUOTE]
No. What I said is true. read up: http://www.jappl.org/content/102/2/634.short or search through your own favorite database.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 5, 2012 12:15 am GMT[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="helwa1988"] sugar releases the same brain neurons that cocaine releases. [/QUOTE] Rofl Oversimplification FTL.[/QUOTE] explain how?
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 5, 2012 1:50 am GMTAll my family members are chubby..... okay, they are fat. But I have normal body weight for my height. I am not fat at all. So telling that "its been on the family" is really an excuse. Or maybe I am an adapted child? o.0
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Nibroc is the guy who sent the email
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 5, 2012 4:34 am GMT
10/10 thread
Quality stuff.
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 5, 2012 4:59 am GMT*Free mrpraline from his UNJUST banning*[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]
If you eat right, and exercise, you can burn fat without burning muscle. However you're right, the body is not going to sustain lean muscle that isn't being used.[/QUOTE]
That's true and I haven't said that is not true.
[/QUOTE] it is
My post is in response to those who are making it out to a simple equation of calories in- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
- Oct 5, 2012 5:44 am GMT"DAH, I MAKE INSPIRATIONING MESSAGE? DAH DAH."
- Please wait. Quick reply will be available shortly.
