HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > The Lounge
The Lounge "...Where the parking lot of the Igloo meets the concourse of the Nassau County Coliseum and the bathroom line of the Skyreach..." - Wickedbsfan

HF Boards' Healthy Body Transformation Thread - Part 5

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2013, 06:49 AM
  #251
Everlasting
Registered User
 
Everlasting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somwhere in time
Country: Sweden
Posts: 4,213
vCash: 807
Since i cannot edit due to my infractions, i must make a dubbel post, sorry. That recomendation is for pregnant womens too So it should 100% safe (for health reasons) for everbody to eat that more 4-5 times per week.

Everlasting is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 06:58 AM
  #252
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everlasting View Post
Since i cannot edit due to my infractions, i must make a dubbel post, sorry. That recomendation is for pregnant womens too So it should 100% safe (for health reasons) for everbody to eat that more 4-5 times per week.
It also applies to men etc it is from the EPA website. Canned tuna has some of the highest levels, again eat it 4-5 times a week if you want, but I certainly won't.

This list applies to fish caught and sold commercially. For information about fish you catch yourself, check for advisories in your state.

LEAST MERCURY
Enjoy these fish:
Anchovies
Butterfish
Catfish
Clam
Crab (Domestic)
Crawfish/Crayfish
Croaker (Atlantic)
Flounder*
Haddock (Atlantic)*
Hake
Herring
Mackerel (N. Atlantic, Chub)
Mullet
Oyster
Perch (Ocean)
Plaice
Pollock
Salmon (Canned)**
Salmon (Fresh)**
Sardine
Scallop*
Shad (American)
Shrimp*
Sole (Pacific)
Squid (Calamari)
Tilapia
Trout (Freshwater)
Whitefish
Whiting

MODERATE MERCURY
Eat six servings or less per month:
Bass (Striped, Black)
Carp
Cod (Alaskan)*
Croaker (White Pacific)
Halibut (Atlantic)*
Halibut (Pacific)
Jacksmelt
(Silverside)
Lobster
Mahi Mahi
Monkfish*
Perch (Freshwater)
Sablefish
Skate*
Snapper*
Tuna (Canned
chunk light)
Tuna (Skipjack)*

Weakfish (Sea Trout)

HIGH MERCURY
Eat three servings or less per month:
Bluefish
Grouper*
Mackerel (Spanish, Gulf)
Sea Bass (Chilean)*
Tuna (Canned Albacore)
Tuna (Yellowfin)*

HIGHEST MERCURY

Avoid eating:
Mackerel (King)
Marlin*
Orange Roughy*
Shark*
Swordfish*
Tilefish*
Tuna (Bigeye, Ahi)*

beowulf is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 06:59 AM
  #253
darko
Registered User
 
darko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Country: Australia
Posts: 30,027
vCash: 500
I eat tuna 4-5 times a week.

darko is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 07:15 AM
  #254
SixthSens
Global Moderator
RIP Kev
 
SixthSens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,072
vCash: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dayvan Cowboy View Post
I take a Mass Gainer right after the gym (True-Mass) but if not Promisil is the brand of protein I keep going back to, even if it is expensive.
It is expensive, but it's given me the best results.

SixthSens is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 07:41 AM
  #255
Everlasting
Registered User
 
Everlasting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somwhere in time
Country: Sweden
Posts: 4,213
vCash: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulf View Post
I don't see how canned tuna from Sweden can be any different then canned tuna in North America or anywhere else in the world. Tuna has mercury from being in the ocean and we all get our tuna from the same oceans.

Hey if you want to eat more power to you but don't be surprised when you get signs of mercury poisoning!
I dont know where they got their information from but this is what they say.
  • "Fish is healthy
    Fish is healthy food - rich in vitamins and minerals. Oily fish such as herring, salmon and mackerel contain long-chain omega 3 fatty acids that most people need to eat more of. So it's good to eat fish often, like three times a week.
    *
    Because there may be environmental contaminants in some fish species, many unnecessarily cautious fish. Most fish can eat as much as you want to, for example, farmed salmon, fish balls, pollock, mackerel, herring, canned foods and canned tuna. It's just some freshwater fish and fatty Baltic fish, such as herring, which you should not eat too often. This applies in particular children and women of childbearing age, pregnant and nursing. Read more advice on fish under the left." (Google Translate)

Maybe it has to do with where the tuna comes from.

Everlasting is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 07:59 AM
  #256
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everlasting View Post
I dont know where they got their information from but this is what they say.
  • "Fish is healthy
    Fish is healthy food - rich in vitamins and minerals. Oily fish such as herring, salmon and mackerel contain long-chain omega 3 fatty acids that most people need to eat more of. So it's good to eat fish often, like three times a week.
    *
    Because there may be environmental contaminants in some fish species, many unnecessarily cautious fish. Most fish can eat as much as you want to, for example, farmed salmon, fish balls, pollock, mackerel, herring, canned foods and canned tuna. It's just some freshwater fish and fatty Baltic fish, such as herring, which you should not eat too often. This applies in particular children and women of childbearing age, pregnant and nursing. Read more advice on fish under the left." (Google Translate)

Maybe it has to do with where the tuna comes from.
The information I posted above is from the EPA in the US.

This is from the health Canada website

Quote:
What is the consumption advice?

Canadians are advised to limit consumption of fresh/frozen tuna, shark, swordfish, escolar, marlin, and orange roughy. In general, you can eat up to 150 g per week of these fish species combined. However, women who are or may become pregnant and breastfeeding mothers can eat up to 150 g per month. Young children between 5 and 11 years of age can eat up to 125 g per month. Very young children between 1 and 4 years of age should eat no more than 75 g per month of these fish species.

Separate advice is applicable only to canned albacore (white) tuna. This advice does not apply to light tuna. Women who are or may become pregnant and breastfeeding mothers may consume up to 300 g (four Food Guide servings) a week of albacore tuna. This is equivalent to about two 170-g cans of albacore tuna per week. Children between the ages of 5 and 11 years of age may consume 150 g (two servings or about one 170-g can per week) and children 1 to 4 years of age may eat 75 g (one serving or about of a 170-g can per week). Note that there are approximately 120 grams of tuna meat in a 170-g can of tuna after the liquid is drained.
Again if you want to eat canned tuna 4-5 times a week, go for it. I figure I can vary my diet enough to not have to worry about getting to much mercury. As much as I like canned tuna, I prefer fresh fish anyways.

beowulf is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 08:02 AM
  #257
Everlasting
Registered User
 
Everlasting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somwhere in time
Country: Sweden
Posts: 4,213
vCash: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulf View Post
The information I posted above is from the EPA in the US.

This is from the health Canada website

Again if you want to eat canned tuna 4-5 times a week, go for it. I figure I can vary my diet enough to not have to worry about getting to much mercury. As much as I like canned tuna, I prefer fresh fish anyways.
Id say it has to do with where the fish comes from. The tuna you buy probobly comes from more affected areas. But here in Sweden, our tuna have less mercury in them.

Everlasting is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 08:14 AM
  #258
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
I think the whole tuna thing is dependent also on which country and what your countries scientists consider acceptable or what they consider a portion.

Looked deeping into the health canada site and found this

Quote:
No advice has been given on canned albacore tuna consumption for the population in general. Should people in this group be concerned about the amounts of canned albacore tuna that they eat?

Some people who are actively trying to increase the amount of protein in their diet find canned tuna to be a convenient and inexpensive source of protein. If you have been choosing canned albacore tuna as your main protein source, you might consider reducing the amount of canned albacore (white) tuna that you consume. An adult member of the "population in general" could eat up to 10 Food Guide servings per week (six 170-g cans) of canned albacore tuna (as long as they were not eating any of the predatory fish listed in the Health Canada advice). The best approach, however, is to choose a variety of different protein sources throughout the week. Consistent with Canada's Food Guide, Health Canada encourages Canadians to eat a variety of foods from different sources.
So it would seem that six cans that contain 120g of tuna, as long as not Albacore, can be consumed a week as long as you don't also add it other fish on the list that are known to contain higher mercury content.

Also interesting

Quote:
Why are there recommendations for canned albacore tuna but not others types of canned tuna?

All canned tuna, including albacore, is typically below the Canadian standard of 0.5 ppm total mercury. However, some people eat canned tuna as frequently as every day. If frequent consumers of canned tuna regularly choose canned albacore (white) tuna, their exposure to mercury could reach unacceptably high levels. The same concerns do not exist for canned "light" tuna because it contains less mercury than canned albacore tuna. Various species can be labelled as "light" tuna including skipjack, yellowfin, and tongol.

Why is the consumption advice for fresh/frozen tuna different from that for canned tuna?

Tuna that are used in canned products are typically younger and smaller fish and therefore tend to contain significantly less mercury than the larger tuna fish that are sold as fresh and frozen products.

beowulf is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 08:16 AM
  #259
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulf View Post
I'm talking about small over eating a number of huge meals when you are trying to lose weight. Eating until you are full and not beyond like to many people do. There is a huge issue with portion control in Western culture, in the US in particular. Food is plentiful when compared to many parts of the world and if you go a many restaurants in the US, for example, the size of the portions that they serve are huge.
If you learn to count your calories (keeping an eye out for serving size especially, devious ********) then it's not really an issue. On days where I know I am headed out, I fast beforehand or eat nothing else. Hunger, most of the time, is out of boredom and habit. For dieters who are used to 3,000 + a day, cutting back aggressively is going to take some discipline. On a zero carb diet, it's pretty hard to eat an excessive amount of calories, so you're almost always in a nice deficit.

I'm not saying you are doing this, but anyone advocating feel-good measures over the actual science (counting the calories versus your expenditure) is pretty much an idiot. Nutritional information is so universal now that there's really no excuse.

XX is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 08:21 AM
  #260
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
If you learn to count your calories (keeping an eye out for serving size especially, devious ********) then it's not really an issue. On days where I know I am headed out, I fast beforehand or eat nothing else. Hunger, most of the time, is out of boredom and habit. For dieters who are used to 3,000 + a day, cutting back aggressively is going to take some discipline. On a zero carb diet, it's pretty hard to eat an excessive amount of calories, so you're almost always in a nice deficit.

I'm not saying you are doing this, but anyone advocating feel-good measures over the actual science (counting the calories versus your expenditure) is pretty much an idiot. Nutritional information is so universal now that there's really no excuse.
I live a more paleo type lifestyle. Counting calories is also annoying as hell but I do it in general terms. I also do a full day+ fast once a week. So for example say I am done with supper at 7pm tonight, the earliest I would eat again is 7pm tomorrow but often I would not eat until the next breakfast so about 530am on Wednesday.

Easiest way to cut back on calories to to cut out them damn processed foods and make your own meals. It's really not that hard but people seem to be afraid of cooking and I don't get it. Cooking your own meals gives you control of what goes into it etc.

beowulf is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 08:30 AM
  #261
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Have to agree with XX on this one. All that matters is calories.

Processed foods have really nothing to do with 'excess calories.' Try making a chicken pot pie from scratch and see if you save any calories than the one you can buy frozen in the store.

Now, this is not to say cutting out eating processed foods is not a good approach. But this will not do anything substantive to whatever goals you are looking for.

And honestly, wtf is with this 'paleo' garbage. Just because some hunter gathers didn't know how to properly nutrition themselves and didnt have access to stable food supplies doesn't mean this 'diet' is more natural or some ****.

Like I said before. Get your daily calories. If you are eating once a day, then you probably aren't getting your calories.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 08:43 AM
  #262
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Have to agree with XX on this one. All that matters is calories.

Processed foods have really nothing to do with 'excess calories.' Try making a chicken pot pie from scratch and see if you save any calories than the one you can buy frozen in the store.

Now, this is not to say cutting out eating processed foods is not a good approach. But this will not do anything substantive to whatever goals you are looking for.

And honestly, wtf is with this 'paleo' garbage. Just because some hunter gathers didn't know how to properly nutrition themselves and didnt have access to stable food supplies doesn't mean this 'diet' is more natural or some ****.

Like I said before. Get your daily calories. If you are eating once a day, then you probably aren't getting your calories.
Calories is not the be all and end all of eating. I can easily make a much healthier pot pie at home that will have significantly less calories, less salt etc. Processed food is garbage food and has lots to do with your overall health. Eating food that contains additives, second rate ingredients, etc is way worse then making food on your own.

"Paleo garbage"? Do you even know what it is? It's not about it being more natural, it is about what our bodies are still built to consume more effectively. A paleo diet involved eating meats from healthy sources, tons of vegetables and a smaller amount of fruit. Depending on how hard core you are it also means eating less grains or for some people no grains at all. It is also shown especially if you fast, to burn ketone which is better to lose weight etc. then people who have diets high in carbs and sugar which is burned first by the body.

Quote:
It seems counterintuitive, but skipping meals helps you feel more energized, recover better from exercise, blast fat, and retain lean muscle mass, and even protects your body from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and cognitive decline which is why NASA is interested in looking at fasting to improve the cognitive functioning of pilots and unmanned-aerial-vehicle operators.

How does skipping meals provide these types of benefits? Because we were once hunters and gatherers who sometimes went days between meals, our bodies were designed to survive in times of feast and famine. Most Americans now live off a constant drip of processed food, which keeps blood sugars elevated and immune systems depressed.
Fasting has also been shown to be very beneficial for humans. http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/...sting-20121116

beowulf is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 08:56 AM
  #263
Orr123
Registered User
 
Orr123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Have to agree with XX on this one. All that matters is calories.

Processed foods have really nothing to do with 'excess calories.' Try making a chicken pot pie from scratch and see if you save any calories than the one you can buy frozen in the store.

Now, this is not to say cutting out eating processed foods is not a good approach. But this will not do anything substantive to whatever goals you are looking for.

And honestly, wtf is with this 'paleo' garbage. Just because some hunter gathers didn't know how to properly nutrition themselves and didnt have access to stable food supplies doesn't mean this 'diet' is more natural or some ****.

Like I said before. Get your daily calories. If you are eating once a day, then you probably aren't getting your calories.
I have to agree with you, for the most part.

The biggest issue with processed foods isn't the calories, but the sugars used to preserve the foods. Oh and excess salt. Which is more so just terrible for your heart. (and like said above, you could make a healthier version, pretty easily - less salt, no sugars and probably slightly less calories and way better tasting!)

That said, if you take in less calories than you burn, you will lose weight. If you want to maintain, eat appropriately. Plus, if you want to "count" calories, you really only have to do so for a short amount of time, before you know what generally things are.

I know some health nuts, and they do these crazy things and crazy diets, and every time I lose weight, they always ask me how I did it. And I just say, eat in moderation and exercise. And people are some how shocked by that. And they can't believe I have crappy foods amongst my "diet" plan. Heck, if I want pizza one night, I'll have it.

(and yeah it seems odd that I have to put every time I lose weight, but its always been after a baby, I have had too many of those! So I gain with pregnancy, and then I'm always back in great shape in no-time).


Last edited by Orr123: 01-07-2013 at 09:02 AM.
Orr123 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 10:42 AM
  #264
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orr123 View Post

I know some health nuts, and they do these crazy things and crazy diets, and every time I lose weight, they always ask me how I did it. And I just say, eat in moderation and exercise. And people are some how shocked by that. And they can't believe I have crappy foods amongst my "diet" plan. Heck, if I want pizza one night, I'll have it.
The core principle behind losing weight is pure science and mathematics. You will not pack on 20 lbs of muscle eating 1,000 calories a day, nor will you burn your 100lb fat stores while eating 3,000 a day. That's the core idea behind body weight and there's no escaping it. No amount of "non-processed" or "healthy" food dancing will get you around the truth of the matter. I don't care if you eat the cleanest 3,000 cals to ever grace this earth. If you expend 2,000 a day and eat that much long enough, you will gain weight in a hurry. This is how we survived millions of years; by not giving a **** what we looked like. Humans were more worried about starving to death and surviving the winter than they were vanity. That should be obvious to anyone with a highschool level understanding of biology, but it's often overlooked.

The diets I have done in the past have been all over the spectrum. All of the good ones have the core principle in mind. If a book or website starts you off with "the key is eating clean!" then they are likely peddling ********. The key is watching your intake compared to your expenditure. One diet I've done is called a protein sparing modified fast. It's basically an extreme form of keto and something used to cut rapidly. It involves a scarily (to the layman) low calorie target and a highly restrictive food list. Best results ever. If you expend somewhere around 3,000 a day, and consume ~500-750, you are dropping a half pound a day. Note that is fat, which will also result in water being released.

Conventional wisdom says drop 2lbs a week, at most. Note that there is never any medical literature cited when this is mentioned. That's because it doesn't exist. It's one of those broscience guidelines that keep getting passed down through the years that have no merit to them. Is 2lbs a week a realistic goal for someone relatively lean? Someone who is 400lbs? Female? Male? There is literally so much **** out there that it's no wonder this country is fat, buys supplements by the truckloads and looks to Dr. Oz for diet advice. It doesn't help that research is often twisted and interpreted in ways that the data doesn't support, and then these studies become canonical in the world of broscience. It's not like the government is doing any better. Look at the food pyramid for a moment and how staggeringly stupid it is, or the daily recommended intake.

I don't blame you guys if you have questions, but the key to mastering yourself and this becoming less complicated is to have an open but critical mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulf View Post

"Paleo garbage"? Do you even know what it is? It's not about it being more natural, it is about what our bodies are still built to consume more effectively. A paleo diet involved eating meats from healthy sources, tons of vegetables and a smaller amount of fruit. Depending on how hard core you are it also means eating less grains or for some people no grains at all. It is also shown especially if you fast, to burn ketone which is better to lose weight etc. then people who have diets high in carbs and sugar which is burned first by the body.
The Paleo diet is a re-branding of keto for people who want to feel special. Nothing more. It makes a lot of iffy claims about food sources without any real science.

XX is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:00 AM
  #265
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulf View Post
Calories is not the be all and end all of eating.
But it is! It is simple science man. Energy in, energy out. Simple.

Quote:
I can easily make a much healthier pot pie at home that will have significantly less calories, less salt etc. Processed food is garbage food and has lots to do with your overall health. Eating food that contains additives, second rate ingredients, etc is way worse then making food on your own.
You cannot make a pot pie that is significantly less calories, it is simply impossible. The same ingredients are needed, gravy, pastry, chicken, peas, carrots, ect. These ingredients that make this dish all have the same calories in them. Now, there may be ways to reduce it, but not significantly; unless you want to make it much smaller or cut out everything in the gravy and pastry.

Quote:
"Paleo garbage"? Do you even know what it is? It's not about it being more natural, it is about what our bodies are still built to consume more effectively. A paleo diet involved eating meats from healthy sources, tons of vegetables and a smaller amount of fruit. Depending on how hard core you are it also means eating less grains or for some people no grains at all. It is also shown especially if you fast, to burn ketone which is better to lose weight etc. then people who have diets high in carbs and sugar which is burned first by the body.
Our bodies are an organism. An organism needs energy to survive and effectively function. When you deprive your body of calories, of course it will burn fat! NO ****. What that article seems to fallaciously suggest is that by fasting, you are cutting out carbs. This is not true, you are cutting out everything. You don't have to eat carbs if you don't want to, and you don't need to fast to do so.

It depends on what you are trying to do. If you are a fatass, and trying to cut weight. Then yes, skip meals, lower your calories, it's going to work.

If you actually want to improve your body, you are going to need constant calories, you are gonna want 150 g of protein, and you are going to want to definitely eat after your workout.

Do you need to eat before your workout? No, and you shouldn't eat less than 2 hours before either. However, if you want any kind of muscle growth and fat reduction you better damn well ingest some protein after your workout.

Like I said above, if you want to lose weight, go ahead skip meals and eat 'healthy' and keep your calories low.

If you want to actually look good and improve your body, skipping crucial meals and not watching your macros and calories is a recipe for disaster. You will get NO results.

-----------

About the calories thing. It's not even that hard. Here is what I did:

Sit down for 4 or 5 hours on a calorie measure website. First figure out what your daily calorie base is (should be somewhere from 2400-2700 calories for average sized male). Then start planning your meals. Break each meal down by component and see how many calories are in it. Now make a meal schedule, eating the same dinner twice a week, with 3 different meals per week, with a cheat day. Make sure your macros are in the right ratio. Roughly, fat should be at least 2/5 of your protein, carbs and protein should be about even, depending on how much protein and calories you want to ingest.

Stick to that schedule and don't modify how you make it for a whole month. If you did your calculations right, this takes NO excess information or calorie watching. After a month you can do it all over again to switch it up.

Boom, done. Easy peazy.


Last edited by guest1467: 01-07-2013 at 11:07 AM.
guest1467 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:03 AM
  #266
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
The core principle behind losing weight is pure science and mathematics. You will not pack on 20 lbs of muscle eating 1,000 calories a day, nor will you burn your 100lb fat stores while eating 3,000 a day. That's the core idea behind body weight and there's no escaping it. No amount of "non-processed" or "healthy" food dancing will get you around the truth of the matter. I don't care if you eat the cleanest 3,000 cals to ever grace this earth. If you expend 2,000 a day and eat that much long enough, you will gain weight in a hurry. This is how we survived millions of years; by not giving a **** what we looked like. Humans were more worried about starving to death and surviving the winter than they were vanity. That should be obvious to anyone with a highschool level understanding of biology, but it's often overlooked.

The diets I have done in the past have been all over the spectrum. All of the good ones have the core principle in mind. If a book or website starts you off with "the key is eating clean!" then they are likely peddling ********. The key is watching your intake compared to your expenditure. One diet I've done is called a protein sparing modified fast. It's basically an extreme form of keto and something used to cut rapidly. It involves a scarily (to the layman) low calorie target and a highly restrictive food list. Best results ever. If you expend somewhere around 3,000 a day, and consume ~500-750, you are dropping a half pound a day. Note that is fat, which will also result in water being released.

Conventional wisdom says drop 2lbs a week, at most. Note that there is never any medical literature cited when this is mentioned. That's because it doesn't exist. It's one of those broscience guidelines that keep getting passed down through the years that have no merit to them. Is 2lbs a week a realistic goal for someone relatively lean? Someone who is 400lbs? Female? Male? There is literally so much **** out there that it's no wonder this country is fat, buys supplements by the truckloads and looks to Dr. Oz for diet advice. It doesn't help that research is often twisted and interpreted in ways that the data doesn't support, and then these studies become canonical in the world of broscience. It's not like the government is doing any better. Look at the food pyramid for a moment and how staggeringly stupid it is, or the daily recommended intake.

I don't blame you guys if you have questions, but the key to mastering yourself and this becoming less complicated is to have an open but critical mind.



The Paleo diet is a re-branding of keto for people who want to feel special. Nothing more. It makes a lot of iffy claims about food sources without any real science.
There is more to life then calories and eating a calorie negative diet to lose weight. People who only worry about packing on muscle and losing weight are likely not all that healthy if they are doing at the expense of vitamins etc. So yes eating healthy and eating non-processed food is as important as eating a proper amount of calories for you.

And no the paleo diet is not a re-branding of keto for people who want to feel special. The original use of the keto diet was to try and help control epilepsy in children and is not based on the same ideas. The Paleo diet is based on the idea of eating closer to what out ancestors did and has shown to help prevent many diseases of affluence such as diabetes, certain cancers, obesity etc. Also their is plenty of "real science" as you call it, showing that the paleo diet is very beneficial. Unlike some here, I do research before I try anything and I actually speak to my doctor and other experts, your unwillingness to do a little research does not change that fact.

beowulf is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:12 AM
  #267
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
I spent two whole weeks researching diets and how to improve muscle and reduce fat. It's not like I am just pulling this out of my ass.

You are using a fallacious argument, it is called false dilemma.

One can watch their calories (most important aspect - bar none), and 'eat healthy.'

I will post my diet when I get home later and you can tell me just how 'unhealthy' it is.

guest1467 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:23 AM
  #268
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
But it is! It is simple science man. Energy in, energy out. Simple.
If that is all you worry about then you are not all the healthy. Yes you have to keep your calories in check but you also have to take into account things like salt, fat, vitamins, etc. Just because you are eating the right amount of calories does not mean those are proper calories.

Quote:
You cannot make a pot pie that is significantly less calories, it is simply impossible. The same ingredients are needed, gravy, pastry, chicken, peas, carrots, ect. These ingredients that make this dish all have the same calories in them. Now, there may be ways to reduce it, but not significantly; unless you want to make it much smaller or cut out everything in the gravy and pastry.
You must know nothing about cooking then. I can easy make a pot pie that has a lot less calories then one bought in a store that is mass produced. Mine will have fresher ingredients, no preservatives and I can control how much fat and salt is being put in.

There are MANY ways to make a pastry and gravy and those are the two items in that particular dish that have the most calories. If you don't realize that then there is no hope for you.


Quote:
Our bodies are an organism. An organism needs energy to survive and effectively function. When you deprive your body of calories, of course it will burn fat! NO ****. What that article seems to fallaciously suggest is that by fasting, you are cutting out carbs. This is not true, you are cutting out everything. You don't have to eat carbs if you don't want to, and you don't need to fast to do so.
It does not suggest that at all and are you blind to all the other benefits of fasting that are listed in short form in the article? Heck before I started fasting I did a lot of research and spoke with my doctor and was surprised to learn she also fasts. She is extremely healthy and runs a number of marathons and does a few triathlons every year. You make it sound all a person is doing is fasting...it is fasting in conjunction with a proper diet and proper calories the rest of the time.

One of many studies that has been done was on a bunch of monks over the years that fast every Friday as part of the Catholic Religion. It has been shown that they have little to no diabetes, cancer, etc and lived longer lives.

Quote:
It depends on what you are trying to do. If you are a fatass, and trying to cut weight. Then yes, skip meals, lower your calories, it's going to work.
Yes it will and it will also improve your overall health, help you have more stamina, a better brain, lower your chance of diabetes, cancer, etc.

Quote:
If you actually want to improve your body, you are going to need constant calories, you are gonna want 150 g of protein, and you are going to want to definitely eat after your workout.

Do you need to eat before your workout? No, and you shouldn't eat less than 2 hours before either. However, if you want any kind of muscle growth and fat reduction you better damn well ingest some protein after your workout.

Like I said above, if you want to lose weight, go ahead skip meals and eat 'healthy' and keep your calories low.

If you want to actually look good and improve your body, skipping crucial meals and not watching your macros and calories is a recipe for disaster. You will get NO results.
This makes you sound exactly like the average muscle bound lunk head at the gym who thinks he knows everything about everything and knows little to nothing. Who cares about having an improved body, which I assume you mean some sort of magazine image of a dude with huge useless muscles, when you are ultimately unhealthy? I rather have a healthy overall body that includes more then the physical appearance.

Wow amazing how some people are so superficial and cannot see past the "cover of the book" so to speak. I am willing to bet I know a TON of people that don't have cut bodies or ripped abs who are WAY healthier then people that spend their time "lifting" and pounding back protein shakes.


Quote:
About the calories thing. It's not even that hard. Here is what I did:

Sit down for 4 or 5 hours on a calorie measure website. First figure out what your daily calorie base is (should be somewhere from 2400-2700 calories for average sized male). Then start planning your meals. Break each meal down by component and see how many calories are in it. Now make a meal schedule, eating the same dinner twice a week, with 3 different meals per week, with a cheat day.

Stick to that schedule and don't modify how you make it for a whole month. If you did your calculations right, this takes NO excess information or calorie watching. After a month you can do it all over again to switch it up.

Boom, done. Easy peazy.
Talk about a boring life. Thanks but I prefer not to follow a meal schedule and prefer to eat the proper amount of calories, nutrients, vitamins, etc while eating a number different meals each week.

beowulf is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:27 AM
  #269
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
I spent two whole weeks researching diets and how to improve muscle and reduce fat. It's not like I am just pulling this out of my ass.

You are using a fallacious argument, it is called false dilemma.

One can watch their calories (most important aspect - bar none), and 'eat healthy.'

I will post my diet when I get home later and you can tell me just how 'unhealthy' it is.
Wow two weeks. I spend months, I did research in medical journals, I spoke to doctors and dietitians.

You seem to think eating any type of calorie is fine as long as at the end of the day you reach your goal amount of calories. I am saying eat the proper amount of calories for your needs but eat them from proper sources. That is a big difference. I don't follow a diet I live a proper healthy lifestyle. This also includes getting enough sleep, exercising properly, reducing stress, among other things.

beowulf is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:37 AM
  #270
XX
... Waiting
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 48th State
Country: United States
Posts: 27,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulf View Post
The original use of the keto diet was to try and help control epilepsy in children and is not based on the same ideas.
So you're saying keto is based on practical application, rather than some intangible idea or stab in the dark based off of spurious claims? I'll take that as a point for keto.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulf View Post
The Paleo diet is based on the idea of eating closer to what out ancestors did and has shown to help prevent many diseases of affluence such as diabetes, certain cancers, obesity etc.
You know what else has shown that? Simply being at a healthy weight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulf View Post
Also their is plenty of "real science" as you call it, showing that the paleo diet is very beneficial. Unlike some here, I do research before I try anything and I actually speak to my doctor and other experts, your unwillingness to do a little research does not change that fact.
No, there isn't a whole lot of 'real science' behind it. It's a whole lot of branding and conjecture. "We didn't eat these foods before, now we have cancer and disease, therefore they are to blame." Nearly all of the measurable benefits the paleo diet gives can be attributed to simply making better choices, eating whole food, and generally avoiding things like refined sugar. Does that sound familiar? It should, because it's the basis for keto. You are, quite literally, the vegan to the vegetarian. Somehow, you think this is special. You even parroted the "diseases of affluence" line. I hate to break it to you, but that affluence and those foods that we didn't have before allowed us to become 7 billion strong.

It's like bananas and all manner of other domesticated products are totally cool and don't undermine the founding principles of the diet at all. We're serious!

We do a lot of things different from our ancestors. Pointing to this as if it's some sort of miracle or the definitive slant on 'being healthy' is laughable. Grains, dairy and all the restricted foods listed are not the sole cause of modern health problems. Of note is that we actually live long enough to see these problems manifest, thanks to the abundant food your diet shames. To pretend that there is some sort of consensus or that the diet is based on universally accepted beliefs is also disingenuous. I'll take your appeal to authority as a sign you aren't ready to admit that. The Paleo diet has some nice ideas regarding what foods are good for us and what might be considered bad, but beyond that it doesn't bring much to the table.

XX is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 11:49 AM
  #271
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
So you're saying keto is based on practical application, rather than some intangible idea or stab in the dark based off of spurious claims? I'll take that as a point for keto.



You know what else has shown that? Simply being at a healthy weight.



No, there isn't a whole lot of 'real science' behind it. It's a whole lot of branding and conjecture. "We didn't eat these foods before, now we have cancer and disease, therefore they are to blame." Nearly all of the measurable benefits the paleo diet gives can be attributed to simply making better choices, eating whole food, and generally avoiding things like refined sugar. Does that sound familiar? It should, because it's the basis for keto. You are, quite literally, the vegan to the vegetarian. Somehow, you think this is special. You even parroted the "diseases of affluence" line. I hate to break it to you, but that affluence and those foods that we didn't have before allowed us to become 7 billion strong.

It's like bananas and all manner of other domesticated products are totally cool and don't undermine the founding principles of the diet at all. We're serious!

We do a lot of things different from our ancestors. Pointing to this as if it's some sort of miracle or the definitive slant on 'being healthy' is laughable. Grains, dairy and all the restricted foods listed are not the sole cause of modern health problems. Of note is that we actually live long enough to see these problems manifest, thanks to the abundant food your diet shames. To pretend that there is some sort of consensus or that the diet is based on universally accepted beliefs is also disingenuous. I'll take your appeal to authority as a sign you aren't ready to admit that. The Paleo diet has some nice ideas regarding what foods are good for us and what might be considered bad, but beyond that it doesn't bring much to the table.

Whatever....not going to debate with someone that has no scientific proof to show anything he is saying. You make assumption and state points as fact without looking beyond your own beliefs. Hmmmm could the fact medicine has advanced immensely have to do with our improved life span? Could the increase in diabetes, obesity have to do with the growing love of sugary foods and lack of exercise? The same can be said for the increase of some cancers. Is eating a Paleolithic diet mainstream? No and never said it was. Does it have scientific backing? Yes and the amount of journal articles etc that show the various benefits are growing. I am not advocating that everyone try it and their are also different levels as I do eat carbs from time to time and don't completely cut them out. A person should do what works for them to get to the results and lifestyle that they have in mind.

Worrying just about the amount of calories you take in, no matter then source, is going to leave you less healthy then someone that takes in the same calories but makes sure they are coming from healthy sources. This means a little processed food as possible for example. Going on yo-yo diets like so many North Americans do is about the worst thing a person can do.

beowulf is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 12:05 PM
  #272
SixthSens
Global Moderator
RIP Kev
 
SixthSens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,072
vCash: 605
I hope Rivalus can develop a less-sweet version of Clean Gainer.

SixthSens is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 12:30 PM
  #273
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulf View Post
If that is all you worry about then you are not all the healthy. Yes you have to keep your calories in check but you also have to take into account things like salt, fat, vitamins, etc. Just because you are eating the right amount of calories does not mean those are proper calories.
Where did I say calories were everything to all aspects of a diet. I said when specifically talking about wieght loss or muscle gain, yes! Calories are everything.

Watching calories and macros is 100% crucially important to any diet.

We have these wonderful things called multivitamins. You know, if you get a little short on your micros, whoops, you have insurance for that.

Quote:
You must know nothing about cooking then. I can easy make a pot pie that has a lot less calories then one bought in a store that is mass produced. Mine will have fresher ingredients, no preservatives and I can control how much fat and salt is being put in.

There are MANY ways to make a pastry and gravy and those are the two items in that particular dish that have the most calories. If you don't realize that then there is no hope for you.
Just a little heads up. There is relatively NO difference in nutritional value between fresh and frozen peas and carrots. In fact, what is funny about it; frozen vegetables can even have MORE nutritional value than fresh vegetables. Buying local produce in the summer is the better way to go, but frozen vegetables off-season (especially compared to imported) is actually better for you.

Preservatives are rarely as bad as people think they are. In fact, many preservatives are from natural sources.

Newsflash, you can control how much fat and salt is in processed foods by LOOKING AT THE NUTRITIONAL VALUE. And if the salt is a little high, intake less salt throughout the rest of the day.

I also want to state for the record that I don't even eat processed food. But this is truly laughable.

Quote:
It does not suggest that at all and are you blind to all the other benefits of fasting that are listed in short form in the article? Heck before I started fasting I did a lot of research and spoke with my doctor and was surprised to learn she also fasts. She is extremely healthy and runs a number of marathons and does a few triathlons every year. You make it sound all a person is doing is fasting...it is fasting in conjunction with a proper diet and proper calories the rest of the time.

One of many studies that has been done was on a bunch of monks over the years that fast every Friday as part of the Catholic Religion. It has been shown that they have little to no diabetes, cancer, etc and lived longer lives.
As XX has pointed out, this is a weak and short-sighted argument.

Quote:
Yes it will and it will also improve your overall health, help you have more stamina, a better brain, lower your chance of diabetes, cancer, etc.
So can thousands of other things.

Quote:
This makes you sound exactly like the average muscle bound lunk head at the gym who thinks he knows everything about everything and knows little to nothing. Who cares about having an improved body, which I assume you mean some sort of magazine image of a dude with huge useless muscles, when you are ultimately unhealthy? I rather have a healthy overall body that includes more then the physical appearance.

Wow amazing how some people are so superficial and cannot see past the "cover of the book" so to speak. I am willing to bet I know a TON of people that don't have cut bodies or ripped abs who are WAY healthier then people that spend their time "lifting" and pounding back protein shakes.
Looking better = more confidence. More confidence leads to countless opportunities in life that wouldn't be there. Simple psychology.

You mistake me for some 'bro.' And look, you used false dilemma again.

Quote:
Talk about a boring life. Thanks but I prefer not to follow a meal schedule and prefer to eat the proper amount of calories, nutrients, vitamins, etc while eating a number different meals each week.
I actually have a fantastic life by my standards. I am an honours student at a top university in the country. I am independently financially secure. I travel 3-4 months of the year to foreign countries. I may have a piss poor family and upbringing, but not everything is perfect in life. Life requires sacrifices that make your long-term life better, nutrition is one of those sacrifices.

Anyways, here is my diet for this month:

Monday:

Fruit Shake with protein mix
Cheese and Toast

Chocolate Milk after workout

T-Bone Steak
Baked Potato
Salad

Tuesday:

Bacon and Eggs
Toast

Chocolate Milk

Shrimp Pasta
Salad

Wednesday:

Shake
Cheese and Toast

Chocolate Milk

Baked/Grilled Fish
Black Beans
Toast

Thurs:

Bacon and Eggs
Toast

Chocolate Milk

Shrimp Pasta
Salad

Friday:

Shake
Toast and Cheese

Chocolate Milk

Porterhouse Steak
Baked Potato
Salad

Sat:

Sausages and Eggs
Toast

Shake

Fish
Beans
Toast

Sunday:

Whatever the hell I want.

The horror, right?

guest1467 is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 01:14 PM
  #274
The Dayvan Cowboy
Registered Genius
 
The Dayvan Cowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,679
vCash: 500
Buddah is right. The difference in "health" being debated here is completely negligible. It isn't like the difference between varieties of pot pies is the same as comparing McDonalds to a homemade salad.

The Dayvan Cowboy is offline  
Old
01-07-2013, 01:28 PM
  #275
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,055
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Where did I say calories were everything to all aspects of a diet. I said when specifically talking about wieght loss or muscle gain, yes! Calories are everything.

Watching calories and macros is 100% crucially important to any diet.

We have these wonderful things called multivitamins. You know, if you get a little short on your micros, whoops, you have insurance for that.



Just a little heads up. There is relatively NO difference in nutritional value between fresh and frozen peas and carrots. In fact, what is funny about it; frozen vegetables can even have MORE nutritional value than fresh vegetables. Buying local produce in the summer is the better way to go, but frozen vegetables off-season (especially compared to imported) is actually better for you.

Preservatives are rarely as bad as people think they are. In fact, many preservatives are from natural sources.

Newsflash, you can control how much fat and salt is in processed foods by LOOKING AT THE NUTRITIONAL VALUE. And if the salt is a little high, intake less salt throughout the rest of the day.

I also want to state for the record that I don't even eat processed food. But this is truly laughable.



As XX has pointed out, this is a weak and short-sighted argument.



So can thousands of other things.



Looking better = more confidence. More confidence leads to countless opportunities in life that wouldn't be there. Simple psychology.

You mistake me for some 'bro.' And look, you used false dilemma again.



I actually have a fantastic life by my standards. I am an honours student at a top university in the country. I am independently financially secure. I travel 3-4 months of the year to foreign countries. I may have a piss poor family and upbringing, but not everything is perfect in life. Life requires sacrifices that make your long-term life better, nutrition is one of those sacrifices.

Anyways, here is my diet for this month:

Monday:

Fruit Shake with protein mix
Cheese and Toast

Chocolate Milk after workout

T-Bone Steak
Baked Potato
Salad

Tuesday:

Bacon and Eggs
Toast

Chocolate Milk

Shrimp Pasta
Salad

Wednesday:

Shake
Cheese and Toast

Chocolate Milk

Baked/Grilled Fish
Black Beans
Toast

Thurs:

Bacon and Eggs
Toast

Chocolate Milk

Shrimp Pasta
Salad

Friday:

Shake
Toast and Cheese

Chocolate Milk

Porterhouse Steak
Baked Potato
Salad

Sat:

Sausages and Eggs
Toast

Shake

Fish
Beans
Toast

Sunday:

Whatever the hell I want.

The horror, right?
I see now why so many people, especially on the political board, think you are an egotistical know it all that actually knows very little. I also pity you if you need to "look better" to have more confidence.

beowulf is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:19 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.