Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Intermittent Fasting


Jackofalltrades

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Jackofalltrades said:

Watch Fat Head if you want an entertaining look at how wrong you are. 

You and your conformation bias provide all the entertainment I can handle. :)

You know, you don't have to believe it for it still to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jeremy Igo said:

You and your conformation bias provide all the entertainment I can handle. :)

You know, you don't have to believe it for it still to be true.

I know won't do any research because you're too arrogant to admit you're wrong. Fine by me, at least you wear it proudly. 

I'm a little surprised that someone with your intellect can't or won't see beyond the indoctrination and look to fact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jackofalltrades said:

I know won't do any research because you're too arrogant to admit you're wrong. Fine by me, at least you wear it proudly. 

I'm a little surprised that someone with your intellect can't or won't see beyond the indoctrination and look to fact. 

To be fair, you are arguing that a calorie is not a unit of energy. ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calorie )

 

When your argument is a non starter because it doesn't even get the definition of the subject right, well, it isn't good news. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lemme help y'all.

Quote

Because 3,500 calories equals about 1 pound (0.45 kilogram) of fat, you need to burn 3,500 calories more than you take in to lose 1 pound. So, in general, if you cut 500 calories from your typical diet each day, you'd lose about 1 pound a week (500 calories x 7 days = 3,500 calories).

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/calories/art-20048065

One pound a week may not seem like much, but that's 52 pounds a year. You can't lose weight without losing something- a change in diet, more exercise, something has to change. Nothing too drastic, just a conscience effort to change one thing.

I cut back on soda- I drank nothing but Coke Zero, Diet Pepsi, etc, but now I have one in the morning and one with dinner. 6-10 bottles of water though the day. But, even as I type this, it's Friday night and I'm chugging Evan Williams and Coke Zero like it's my job. Give and take. Do what you can.

I don't eat breakfast, except for weekends. I would eat a pack of orange peanut butter crackers. 220 calories. But, those little pecan twirl things are 100 calories each, so I can have 2 of those and cut back.

Lunch is now a spinach salad- giant bag of spinach from Sams, tub of feta, those little bags of Perdue grilled chicken from HT or Food Lion, no fat greek dressing. I found these little bags of dried cranberries and walnuts, or cherries and pecans, and buy 15 at a time. A big ass salad- 300 calories.

Supper- I eat normally. And I cook heavy and tasty. Shrimp and grits should involve butter and heavy cream. Eat me. But, I grill when I can, as opposed to frying.

As warm weather approaches, that 1 pound a week will change to 2-5 pounds a week. I hope. I work and sweat, a lot of which is outside ( Go lay down by your outside AC unit for 30 minutes)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2017 at 3:38 PM, Jeremy Igo said:

Our body stores up fat for when times get tough. You burn it when you fast for sure. Having enough fat to last a year is a very new phenomenon evolutionary speaking. Humans now have that luxury. 

However, as primates (frujivores in particular), our anatomy is made to eat mainly plants. At least 90%. Our bodies get into problems the more processed foods and animal based foods we eat. Fat builds up, and sure fasting would be a way to deplete it quickly. 

Why do you think humans are a cholesterol storing machine while Lions for example don't store it. Because we went for hundreds of thousands of years not having much in our diet. Now we have all we want, and we also have all the cardiovascular disease to go with it. 

All of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom forage on plants all day long. \They don't get obese. They don't get heart disease. They don't get cancer. 

Also, CICO is definitely not a myth. Anyone that says that is looking to sell people who are fed up with eating less a few books. Any doctor or nutritionist that says that I would stop listening to instantly. Zero credibility. 

In short, look at the natural state of our closest relatives. Do what they do if you are actually interested in what our bodies are designed for through evolution. 

Problem is humans sit on their asses all day and don't burn off the fat they store. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jeremy Igo said:

To be fair, you are arguing that a calorie is not a unit of energy. ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calorie )

 

When your argument is a non starter because it doesn't even get the definition of the subject right, well, it isn't good news. 

 

 

I'm arguing that not all calories are the same and as such are not subject to the paradigm that caloric restriction is the basis of weight loss. Everything in us is regulated by hormones, except weight? No. Insulin is the key and you can increase your overall caloric intake and lose weight, it's been done over and over. 

I eat 4 fried eggs in butter and a half pound of bacon regularly, yet I'm losing weight. Fasting only speeds up that process because we do not need to eat nearly as often as we do. We have become slaves to our brain's reward center. I just fasted for 72 hours and felt great, even went to the gym both days. 

You stick to studies funded by the likes of Coca Cola, I'll do what I know, firsthand, works and is completely safe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Squirrel said:

Problem is humans sit on their asses all day and don't burn off the fat they store. 

 

I lost 125 lbs mainly sitting on my ass. I just started going to the gym a little over a week ago. If you regulate proper insulin levels the weight will come off regardless of physical activity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This is why it's probably going to be hard to trade down. This draft is fairly light on top tier talent but pretty deep in talent of that next tier down. I don't think there's going to be a lot of teams clamoring to move up and numerous teams might be entertaining moving down. Not a good market to trade down if that's the case. 
    • And if they can't find a reasonable trade down (I think we would need a 2nd rounder this year bare minimum to make any trade down worth it). I would definitely expect Dan to trade UP for an EDGE or LB in the top half of R2. Just makes too much sense. We also have a plethora of mid round picks to use as ammo. 
    • I don't mean to make this a mock draft thread particularly,  but every time I do a mock I have been investigating the talent that goes off the board between picks 8 and our low 2nd rounder pick 57. There is a gargantuan amount of talent still left on the board in the top half of the 2nd round every time I do one. Losing our original 2nd round pick to the Bears as the last pick of the Bryce trade stings badly .  I'm particularly looking at elite players like Carson Schwesinger (LB), Luther Burden (WR), Matthew Golden (WR), Maxwell Hairston (CB) , Nick Scourton , Landon Jackson, Donavan Ezeraku (all DEs/OLBs) . The sweet spot in this draft really feels like pick 15 to 40 - ish. This is why the Bears should be making bank with this draft. I don't know how realistic a trade down is from 8, but if we could pick up any teams higher 2nd rounder and still grab their 1st? We'd be cooking with gas man.  Say for example we get Tet McMillan at pick 8, if you wait all the way to 57 you stand the chance of not getting any impact pass rushers in this draft. And I don't think this team can afford that.  I'd personally love for them to take a break from drafting wrs in R1 or R2 (i think we've taken one in the top 2 rounds in the majority of the past few years), and stick to repairing the nfls worse defense in history (in terms of total points against iirc, or was it yards? Also included my most recent mock as an example . Don't put too much into the  late round selections lol  
×
×
  • Create New...