DStyles
Vegan
I'm 'bout it 'bout
But next week Ill be joining the gym so 
Wish I heard about that 2 weeks ago:thefck:
Best way to get rid of stomach?
- Thread starter Ze Pequeno
- Start date
I'm 'bout it 'bout
But next week Ill be joining the gym so Wish I heard about that 2 weeks ago:thefck:
DStyles
Vegan
My lunch 
Suffer the pain now. Come summer when everyone is 
, you'll be 
, you'll be 
TheArchitect
All Star
I've been eating those as well....very good substitute for all the junk I used to eat constantly...
TheArchitect
All Star
How much would be considered too much?...
Interesting question. I'm not going to throw out a blanket response of 30% or more in fat calories is bad. If you really want to lose weight and I tell you to eat 1200 calories a day (too low for most people), you could take in a "high in fat calories" food, but as long as you didn't eat more than 1200 calories, you would still lose weight. For example, you can six 200 calorie hot dogs (that's like 80 to 90% in fat calories) or you could eat 20 slices of white bread at 60 calories each slice in one day. Both are not a balanced diet, but you would lose weight either way.
On point
@TheArchitect you do need good sources of fat in your diet for the record. It serves a function as on of two requires macronutrients and typically helps you feel fuller. Translation don't go on a no-fat direction.
Adam3000
-
Bro science all throughout this thread
**Goes back to lunch that includes Doritos Dynamitas Chile Limon**
**Throws away bottle of mexican Coke and Skittles wrapper I ate last night**
**Drinks 63g of pure sugar (dextrose) after every workout**
**Looks in the mirror and sees reasonably defined six pack**
There are elements of truth to most of the stuff posted in here, but they are not absolutes and hidden behind a lot of the advice here is a causation vs. correlation issue. And don't hit me with the "everybody is different" line. I'm not special. I'm not superhuman. I control my portions and my calorie intake. I generally eat healthy because it is satiating and psychologically fulfilling, not because I have to.
I also understand there is the issue of the thermic effect of food which proves that the types of calories ingested actually do matter, but all of this can be taken into account when calculating your macro goals. Furthermore, the thermic difference between 250g of slow digesting carbs and a combination of 175g of slow digesting carbs plus 75g of sugar is so small it is irrelevant. The same difference between fat and carbs is larger, but still small enough that it should be like #10 on your list of things to worry about.
**Goes back to lunch that includes Doritos Dynamitas Chile Limon**
**Throws away bottle of mexican Coke and Skittles wrapper I ate last night**
**Drinks 63g of pure sugar (dextrose) after every workout**
**Looks in the mirror and sees reasonably defined six pack**
There are elements of truth to most of the stuff posted in here, but they are not absolutes and hidden behind a lot of the advice here is a causation vs. correlation issue. And don't hit me with the "everybody is different" line. I'm not special. I'm not superhuman. I control my portions and my calorie intake. I generally eat healthy because it is satiating and psychologically fulfilling, not because I have to.
I also understand there is the issue of the thermic effect of food which proves that the types of calories ingested actually do matter, but all of this can be taken into account when calculating your macro goals. Furthermore, the thermic difference between 250g of slow digesting carbs and a combination of 175g of slow digesting carbs plus 75g of sugar is so small it is irrelevant. The same difference between fat and carbs is larger, but still small enough that it should be like #10 on your list of things to worry about.
There definitely isn't one way to do it but presenting a IIFYM approach in the way you are talking is problematic as well.
Adam3000
-
They are mostly correlation problems though, not causation problems. That was my main point, but I glossed over it for dramatic effect
Plus, by now we are just
I disagree but so be it.They are mostly correlation problems though, not causation problems. That was my main point, but I glossed over it for dramatic effect
Plus, by now we are just
awkwardblackgirl
Shakara
I really want to neg this post.
Adam3000
-
How about instead of negging me you just make me look like an idiot instead by posting well controlled, peer reviewed studies that prove me wrong?
@The ADD I want you to join this discussion too because I know you read a lot about this type of shyt and I want you to drop some knowledge. Don't want to start an internet fight here, I want to legitimately expand all of our knowledge bases even if it comes at my expense
Spoiler alert though, for every study you find there will be an equal number of studies that say something different. For instance, here is the first one I pulled up in a quick google search:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/4/850S.full
A very complex article that cites dozens of studies and examines the roles of fat and carbohydrates from numerous angles. Admittedly a tough read with seemingly conflicting results throughout that support both the anti-sugar crowd and the IIFYM crowd. All the data piled together comes to this conclusion though: (understand that the word "energy" here refers to calories)
I added the numbers to the bolded points above to make it easier to address them:
1) This is basically the definition of the IIFYM approach, which I do not consider a diet but rather a lifestyle and by its very nature the easiest nutritional approach to stick to and therefore the one that makes the most sense to recommend to the average person who is willing to actually pay attention to their macros. To someone who would not want to macro count, I would unquestionably recommend more of a keto-style diet (not extremely strict though) which is what you and The ADD seem to prefer. I agree it is a great way to lose bodyfat and weight, my point is that it is not essential.
2) This is exactly what I refer to when I talk about causation vs. correlation. The fat vs. carb ratio effects overeating and thus leads to weight gain. The carb intake itself is not what causes the weight gain.
3) This is exactly my point about how a slow digesting carb vs a sugar is virtually insignificant in terms of fat loss, assuming a calorie deficit exists.
4) This supports you and The ADD's concern about carbs inhibiting fat loss if it was proven. But the point of mentioning this in the conclusion was simply to note that long term studies on the subject haven't been done. It is said that it "could" be the case. Physiologically speaking it seem logical on the surface, but digging deeper you have to ask yourself exactly how in the hell your body can possibly store extra fat when it is on a calorie deficit? How is it possible? If an insulin spike temporarily causes my fat burning to cease and my sugar to store as fat, your body will then have to find that energy later on (probably while sleeping) when you are in that calorie defecit. It will just burn that fat that was stored plus whatever extra it needs, still leading to a net loss. That is my counter theory. Neither seems to be proven, but the former seems to be touted as fact when it reality it is groupthink. I truly hope you can post a study that proves me wrong, I legitimately want to increase my knowledge even if proven wrong.
5) Another bit of support for my causation vs. correlation theory. Any observational study that does not account for total calorie intake is irrelevant to me. I am fully aware and accepting that people who eat a lot of sugar tend to be fatasses. Because they also tend to be inactive and they also tend to overeat. I do not blame the sugar itself, I blame their psychological and social profile.
Now, going back to my initial post that you wanted to neg, it got me curious about my sugar intake. I went through and added up my current daily meal plan on weight training days (currently skipping the weight training so my plan is slightly adjusted this week). My daily sugar intake is 133g. Judging by the groupthink and bro science that persists throughout the nutrition world, how the hell can it be explained that I am consistently dropping fat and getting shredded from day to day?
Full disclosure, I have stated many times that for the last 2 weeks I have been on an EC Stack. This has certainly been a contributing factor to my fat loss. So I'm going to rewind it back even further, to when I was 190 lbs and around 25% BF. At this point in time, I began the calorie counting approach, I hadn't even graduated to IIFYM yet. I was eating whatever the fukk I wanted, and this often included candy. Probably 4-5 days per week I finished off the night with candy. I sometimes went weeks without even hitting my calories goals so at times my progress halted, but I finally hit around 12% BF before I tried my first ever EC stack and therefore skewed my results.
The point I'm making is that I'm not giving bad advice in terms of the goal of 'getting rid of my belly' which is what this thread is about. 12% BF is getting rid of a belly. Now, if someone wants to dip below 10% BF, the body is very stingy with its fat burning and at that point a more sensible approach with low sugar intake to keep metabolism churning and take advantage of the thermic effect of food is definitely recommended. So once again, I side with you both on that.
It should also be noted that I wasn't trying to be cute when I mentioned Doritos, Mexican Coke, and Skittles in my post. I literally was eating Doritos as I typed it, and I literally ate Skittles and Coke last night. And I woke up 0.2 lbs lighter than the day before. The EC stack will skew these results though, I'm not trying to use it as proof. Just wanted to mention I wasn't just being a dikkhead when I said that.
Last edited:
I'm not going to dive to deep since I'm on my phone but:
How about instead of negging me you just make me look like an idiot instead by posting well controlled, peer reviewed studies that prove me wrong?
@The ADD I want you to join this discussion too because I know you read a lot about this type of shyt and I want you to drop some knowledge. Don't want to start an internet fight here, I want to legitimately expand all of our knowledge bases even if it comes at my expense
Spoiler alert though, for every study you find there will be an equal number of studies that say something different. For instance, here is the first one I pulled up in a quick google search:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/4/850S.full
A very complex article that cites dozens of studies and examines the roles of fat and carbohydrates from numerous angles. Admittedly a tough read with seemingly conflicting results throughout that support both the anti-sugar crowd and the IIFYM crowd. All the data piled together comes to this conclusion though: (understand that the word "energy" here refers to calories)
I added the numbers to the bolded points above to make it easier to address them:
1) This is basically the definition of the IIFYM approach, which I do not consider a diet but rather a lifestyle and by its very nature the easiest nutritional approach to stick to and therefore the one that makes the most sense to recommend to the average person who is willing to actually pay attention to their macros. To someone who would not want to macro count, I would unquestionably recommend more of a keto-style diet (not extremely strict though) which is what you and The ADD seem to prefer. I agree it is a great way to lose bodyfat and weight, my point is that it is not essential.
2) This is exactly what I refer to when I talk about causation vs. correlation. The fat vs. carb ratio effects overeating and thus leads to weight gain. The carb intake itself is not what causes the weight gain.
3) This is exactly my point about how a slow digesting carb vs a sugar is virtually insignificant in terms of fat loss, assuming a calorie deficit exists.
4) This supports you and The ADD's concern about carbs inhibiting fat loss if it was proven. But the point of mentioning this in the conclusion was simply to note that long term studies on the subject haven't been done. It is said that it "could" be the case. Physiologically speaking it seem logical on the surface, but digging deeper you have to ask yourself exactly how in the hell your body can possibly store extra fat when it is on a calorie deficit? How is it possible? If an insulin spike temporarily causes my fat burning to cease and my sugar to store as fat, your body will then have to find that energy later on (probably while sleeping) when you are in that calorie defecit. It will just burn that fat that was stored plus whatever extra it needs, still leading to a net loss. That is my counter theory. Neither seems to be proven, but the former seems to be touted as fact when it reality it is groupthink. I truly hope you can post a study that proves me wrong, I legitimately want to increase my knowledge even if proven wrong.
5) Another bit of support for my causation vs. correlation theory. Any observational study that does not account for total calorie intake is irrelevant to me. I am fully aware and accepting that people who eat a lot of sugar tend to be fatasses. Because they also tend to be inactive and they also tend to overeat. I do not blame the sugar itself, I blame their psychological and social profile.
Now, going back to my initial post that you wanted to neg, it got me curious about my sugar intake. I went through and added up my current daily meal plan on weight training days (currently skipping the weight training so my plan is slightly adjusted this week). My daily sugar intake is 133g. Judging by the groupthink and bro science that persists throughout the nutrition world, how the hell can it be explained that I am consistently dropping fat and getting shredded from day to day?
Full disclosure, I have stated many times that for the last 2 weeks I have been on an EC Stack. This has certainly been a contributing factor to my fat loss. So I'm going to rewind it back even further, to when I was 190 lbs and around 25% BF. At this point in time, I began the calorie counting approach, I hadn't even graduated to IIFYM yet. I was eating whatever the fukk I wanted, and this often included candy. Probably 4-5 days per week I finished off the night with candy. I sometimes went weeks without even hitting my calories goals so at times my progress halted, but I finally hit around 12% BF before I tried my first ever EC stack and therefore skewed my results.
The point I'm making is that I'm not giving bad advice in terms of the goal of 'getting rid of my belly' which is what this thread is about. 12% BF is getting rid of a belly. Now, if someone wants to dip below 10% BF, the body is very stingy with its fat burning and at that point a more sensible approach with low sugar intake to keep metabolism churning and take advantage of the thermic effect of food is definitely recommended. So once again, I side with you both on that.
It should also be noted that I wasn't trying to be cute when I mentioned Doritos, Mexican Coke, and Skittles in my post. I literally was eating Doritos as I typed it, and I literally ate Skittles and Coke last night. And I woke up 0.2 lbs lighter than the day before. The EC stack will skew these results though, I'm not trying to use it as proof. Just wanted to mention I wasn't just being a dikkhead when I said that.
Where I'm at right now personally is experimenting with something I think works for me personally. In saying that I'm leaning more towards not suggesting methods past being mindful what a person eats and how it impacts them. Case in point my response to the OP was "good nutrition" as opposed to keto, carb cycling etc. I'm guilty of jumping need deep into giving advice based on my beliefs at the time but I won't do so much in that way anymore.
My only beef with IIFYM is what it has turned into which is trending towards the justification of eating pop tarts, etc. The problem is that the people trumpeting this are more likely predisposed to being able to handle these foods without it impacting them at all in the short term. Some of that is based on their body design, natural and worked for.
That's my long winded way of saying that for a lot of people who are obese and trying to get started I suspect they have or are susceptible to health issues that leading them to eat certain foods isn't optimal. IIFYM doesn't really address some of the underlying issues that they may need to address.
Easily this really doesn't have much to do with this thread directly it just happened to fall in line with what I was thing at the time.
Old man rant over