"paying For It" By Chester Brown - Tales From Norwood Cemetery

[jd_uk]

1) Lots of athletes do the Atkins diet, or simply low-carb. That's a moot point. Yes there are athletes doing high carb, and there are athletes doing low carb.

2) The mass of your food is completely irrelevant. You're comparing 1 gram of butter to 1 gram of sugar, but that's nonsense. The butter is more filling and thus you will eat fewer grams of butter, and thus fewer total calories, which is proven by studies.

A chicken breast isn't necessarily better than a burger patty (excluding the bread), in spite of that being the conventional wisdom from twenty years ago. The chicken breast is lower in fat, and will lead to a much sharper insulin spike.

Your body consumes calories, not mass.

3) The ultimate fad diet is the one from the period 1960-2005 that you're promoting: the low-fat diet. It's a diet that has failed countless clinical trials. The fad is dead. But this is the fad diet that has destroyed the most lives.

Congratulations on your progress though. I'm glad it's working out for you.

I'm sorry but I think you're confused on this. You seem to be have read so much about the science that you're possibly overcomplicating it. The 'diet' which I am mentioning is no fad. It is common sense. It's not 'no fat'...it's not even necessarily 'low' fat. It is just balanced based on the activity level undertaken.

I've trained guys before and I find it infuriating to see them overcomplicate something which is really pretty simple. If you eat a relatively high protein diet with low GI carbs and 'good' fats while watching your calorie intake and training intensely for the body type that you desire then you will likely get close to achieving that body type. I don't believe in fasting unless it is an occasional thing. Rather, smallish, regular meals if you are training regularly. I'm sure you will be able to surprise me with some googled names of athletes who have done an atkins diet -anything can be found on the internet. But I know for sure that most genuine athletes eat in the manner which I've stated. You're going to struggle to train at anywhere near 100% when fasting or when in ketosis. You need carbohydrates for that..you just have to balance it with your training. Of course, a fighter might lower or even cut carbs just before a weigh in but that is just short term and for a purpose.

Fatty foods contain more calories per gram. Someone who wants to lose weight needs to be aware of that. It is 100% relevant. If you want to get scientific then do you really think that everything you wrote in point 2 is correct? I don't need any studies to tell me that it takes a while for the hormones to get to your brain telling you that you're full OR that most people will just override that and eat what is on their plate. That juicy/fatty burger can be gone in minutes and mean plenty of extra exercise to burn off. If someone has a lean chicken breast then they have less to burn off...however they got all that nutitional protein to repair their muscles. I'm sorry but I'm just trying to help you on this rather than debate it. If you want an athlete's body type then you will do well to eat like an athlete and train like an athlete.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I'm sorry but I think you're confused on this. You seem to be have read so much about the science that you're possibly overcomplicating it. The 'diet' which I am mentioning is no fad. It is common sense. It's not 'no fat'...it's not even necessarily 'low' fat. It is just balanced based on the activity level undertaken.

I've trained guys before and I find it infuriating to see them overcomplicate something which is really pretty simple. If you eat a relatively high protein diet with low GI carbs and 'good' fats then while watching your calorie intake and training intensely for the body type that you desire then you will likely get close to achieving that body type. I don't believe in fasting unless it is an occasional thing. Rather, smallish, regular meals if you are training regularly. I'm sure you will be able to surprise me with some googled names of athletes who have done an atkins diet -anything can be found on the internet. But I know for sure that most genuine athletes eat in the manner which I've stated. You're going to struggle to train at anywhere near 100% when fasting or when in ketosis. You need carbohydrates for that..you just have to balance it with your training. Of course, a fighter might lower or even cut carbs just before a weigh in but that is just short term and for a purpose.

Fatty foods contain more calories per gram. Someone who wants to lose weight needs to be aware of that. It is 100% relevant. If you want to get scientific then do you really think that everything you wrote in point 2 is correct? I don't need any studies to tell me that it takes a while for the hormones to get to your brain telling you that you're full OR that most people will just override that and eat what is on their plate. That juicy/fatty burger can be gone in minutes and mean plenty of extra exercise to burn off. If someone has a lean chicken bresst then they have less to burn off...however they got all that nutitional protein to repair their muscles. I'm sorry but I'm just trying to help you on this rather than debate it. If you want an athlete's body type then you will do well to eat like an athlete and train like an athlete.

The level of knowledge you have now is more or less what was conventional, elite wisdom in the early 2000s.

I don't need to google the names of athletes doing ketosis. It's well-known: tons of elite athletes use low-carb diets. Though personally I don't necessarily advocate low-carb. I don't think it matters that much.

Everything you're writing now, I would have written myself three or four years ago. It reflected the elite knowledge from the early 2000s, and I did go on a bodybuilding binge at that time where I read up a lot of the same outdated sources that are informing you.

A lot of it has been debunked. In particular what you're writing about the mass of food is completely incorrect. Notice that it is impossible to fill up with water. Try and binge on water for a few hours -- you will be hungry at your next meal time. That's because water has no calories and you can't fool the digestive system, at least not with water. Some pharmaceuticals might work. For the record I drink a ton of water during my fasts, and it has zero impact on hunger.

Grassfed, hormone-free, probiotic-free steak is good for you. It's better for you than chicken breast. Proteins should be eaten with fats, as carbohydrates should be eaten with fibre (and/or maybe vinegar). Within nature, fructose virtually always comes with dietary fibre, and protein virtually always comes with fats.

Here you go, a nearly perfect meal:

Marinated, healthy steak with herbs and spices; a cruciferous vegetable (brussel sprout), spinach with garlic and olive oil. See: I'm not advocating "Atkins", that's not an Atkins-compliant meal. The steak marinade included lemon juice and red wine.

The meal above can be improved by embedding pine nuts into the brussel sprouts, or almond flakes into the spinach.

 

[jd_uk]

The level of knowledge you have now is more or less what was conventional, elite wisdom in the early 2000s.

I don't need to google the names of athletes doing ketosis. It's well-known: tons of elite athletes use low-carb diets. Though personally I don't necessarily advocate low-carb. I don't think it matters that much.

Everything you're writing now, I would have written myself three or four years ago. It reflected the elite knowledge from the early 2000s, and I did go on a bodybuilding binge at that time where I read up a lot of the same outdated sources that are informing you.

A lot of it has been debunked. In particular what you're writing about the mass of food is completely incorrect. Notice that it is impossible to fill up with water. Try and binge on water for a few hours -- you will be hungry at your next meal time. That's because water has no calories and you can't fool the digestive system, at least not with water. Some pharmaceuticals might work. For the record I drink a ton of water during my fasts, and it has zero impact on hunger.

Grassfed, hormone-free, probiotic-free steak is good for you. It's better for you than chicken breast. Proteins should be eaten with fats, as carbohydrates should be eaten with fibre (and/or maybe vinegar). Within nature, fructose virtually always comes with dietary fibre, and protein virtually always comes with fats.

Here you go, a nearly perfect meal:

Marinated, healthy steak with herbs and spices; a cruciferous vegetable (brussel sprout), spinach with garlic and olive oil. See: I'm not advocating "Atkins", that's not an Atkins-compliant meal. The steak marinade included lemon juice and red wine.

The meal above can be improved by embedding pine nuts into the brussel sprouts, or almond flakes into the spinach.

I've not got time to reply properly as it's so late here but I really think you are selling yourself short on this.

I just quickly googled 'top athletes low carbs' because I personally know many very good athletes and don't know any who do eat any different to how I say. The first result I get on google is this:

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Taekwond...id=293107674146717_351305428326941#f3e24065a4

I haven't even read it all (lack of time again), but I get the jist of it straight away.

None of this is complicated to me. It is all 100% common sense. The trouble with what you are writing is that it largely comes from internet articles and books from people whose purpose was to make money. There should be hardly any books about dieting because it is so damn simple. Perhaps there can be specialist diet books for people with specific needs...those with celiac disease or diabetes..but for the average person...it is damn simple. These intermmitent fasts, atkins diets...just bin them. Use common sense.

When you are back fit after your operation and able to train, do yourself a favour and download the diet and training plan of a fighter...someone like Georges St Pierre. Obviously you wont be able to train as much as a pro and therefore you will need to moderate the calories but train 5-6 days per week (no, not weights every day) and you will soon be in far better shape than the average guy. Yes...that simple. No shortcuts, no bullsh*t. Eat a sensible diet, put in the hours and you get results.

On a side note..that meal looks delicious, yes. And I love red wine... occasionally.

 

[pjhair]

Keep in mind that South Asians are a broad group, and I think as a whole are technically caucasian. Certainly they share the same language group, "Indo-European languages", and I recognize the alphabet sometimes in yoga class.

If you looked like this guy you would not have done well with women:

I agree with you. If I looked like the guy above, I would probably not have done well with women. But not because this guy is a lot darker than me. It's because of his facial structure. I have known guys with similar skin color as the guy above that were pretty successful with Caucasian women. In my experience, dark skin is not really a disadvantage when it comes to white women. But when it comes to women of some other ethnicity, for example Indian women, it's a massive disadvantage.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I've not got time to reply properly as it's so late here but I really think you are selling yourself short here.

I just quickly googled 'top athletes low carbs' because I personally know many very good athletes and don't know any who do eat any different to how I say. The first result I get on google is this:

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Taekwond...id=293107674146717_351305428326941#f3e24065a4

I haven't even read it all (lack of time again), but I get the jist of it straight away.

None of this is complicated to me. It is all 100% common sense. The trouble with what you are writing is that it largely comes from internet articles and books from people whose purpose was to make money. There should be hardly any books about dieting because it is so damn simple. Perhaps there can be specialist diet books for people with specific needs...those with celiac disease or diabetes..but for the average person...it is damn simple. These intermmitent fasts, atkins diets...just bin them. Use common sense.

When you are back fit after your operation and able to train, do yourself a favour and download the diet and training plan of a fighter...someone like Georges St Pierre. Obviously you wont be able to train as much as a pro and therefore you will need to moderate the calories but train 5-6 days per week (no, not weights every day) and you will soon be in far better shape than the average guy. Yes...that simple. No shortcuts, no bullsh*t. Eat a sensible diet, put in the hours and you get results.

If it were 100% common sense, you wouldn't be making so many incorrect statements. For example, you've said that fat is more fattening than carbs because it has 9 calories per 4 grams. That's an incorrect statement. Is it incorrect due to non-trivial science, or because you lack common sense? I think you're generally a smart guy, so I'm going to go with the fact that it's non-trivial science. It turns out that the mass of food hardly matters. What matters is the hormonal response to food. What you really should be comparing is 0.45 grams of fat to 1.00 gram of carbs, because that's how the body responds to food, approximately.

There are lots of people who put in the hours, eat sensible diets, and get bad results. In and of itself that is not enough. You have to train smart and eat smart. For example, the contestants on the biggest loser eat exactly the diet you recommend, and they have a 93% failure rate. You cannot and should not tell people it's simple. Most who follow conventional advice fail.

Elite athletes are not a great example. Do you understand why that's a flawed selection function?

Regardless, you are clearly doing decently. You are doing high-intensity training so you've kept up with some of the developments of the past twenty years, just not some of the developments in nutrition. Here's a report from the Academy of nutrition and dietetics. Their comments are that saturated fat is not unhealthy, cholesterol is not unhealthy, and salt is not unhealthy. They are admitting that the advice of the past forty years is in error:
•http://www.eatrightpro.org/resource...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[jd_uk]

If it were 100% common sense, you wouldn't be making so many incorrect statements. For example, you've said that fat is more fattening than carbs because it has 9 calories per 4 grams. That's an incorrect statement. Is it incorrect due to non-trivial science, or because you lack common sense? I think you're generally a smart guy, so I'm going to go with the fact that it's non-trivial science. It turns out that the mass of food hardly matters. What matters is the hormonal response to food. What you really should be comparing is 0.45 grams of fat to 1.00 gram of carbs, because that's how the body responds to food, approximately.

There are lots of people who put in the hours, eat sensible diets, and get bad results. In and of itself that is not enough. You have to train smart and eat smart. For example, the contestants on the biggest loser eat exactly the diet you recommend, and they have a 93% failure rate. You cannot and should not tell people it's simple. Most who follow conventional advice fail.

Elite athletes are not a great example. Do you understand why that's a flawed selection function?

Regardless, you are clearly doing decently. You are doing high-intensity training so you've kept up with some of the developments of the past twenty years, just not some of the developments in nutrition. Here's a report from the Academy of nutrition and dietetics. Their comments are that saturated fat is not unhealthy, cholesterol is not unhealthy, and salt is not unhealthy. They are admitting that the advice of the past forty years is in error:
•http://www.eatrightpro.org/resource...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Very quickly... I haven't made any incorrect statements. The 9 cals per gram is relevant because calories are relevant. You want to lose weight and you need to less calories than you burn off..that simple. All the time I see people eat too many calories to get in good shape because they don't think about what is in it. Yes hormonal response is important..as I've said, minimise the low GI carbs.

You're perhaps being deliberately argumentative when suggesting that it's not right to compare what an average person can achieve to what a top athlete can achieve. No, obviously you aren't going to reach the level that they can..genetics, time and funding. In some cases, unfortunately, even steroids. What you can do is look at the things which they do and ask questions about why they do them. You simply will not reach your physical potential if you can't train properly...you will not train properly if your body doesn't have quality carbs. Why discredit the link which I posted? It took me about 5 seconds to find it and it backs up everything that I am saying.

I'll tell you why people on 'the biggest loser' fail after the show. They fail because the whole thing is one big purge. They are suddenly exercising til they drop, eating a diet they never did before and while they love the weight loss, they hate the training. Physically, at the end of the show they are not so fat. Mentally, they are still fat. Here's the number one secret to maintaining an athletic body...love being athletic. Love your training...do the physical things which you enjoy. If you don't you will slack and evebtuall you will fail. For me, that is boxing, learning and attempting new and crazy calisthenic lifts and routines, sprinting, a bit of weight training but not too much. You have to mix it up and set goals. Trust me, I ain't acheiving anywhere near as much athletically doing an atkins diet...and I would certainly hate every second of it! I repeat, I'm trying to help you here..if you don't want my advice then fine but I'm telling you straight that these diet books for the most part belong in the bin. You're clearly a very intelligent guy, but the most intelligent guys often don't have great physiques. Yours isn't bad at all..but you could have a very good physique if you adapted your diet and lifestyle in my opinion (when you are back to fitness). In a nutshell it means no cutting corners on your training...more time being active (even if it is high intensity) and less time sitting down. To do that you will need to eat in a more balanced way than any atkins diet allows.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Very quickly... I haven't made any incorrect statements. The 9 cals per gram is relevant because calories are relevant. You want to lose weight and you need to less calories than you burn off..that simple.

Nope. I have explained this multiple times. Weight of food doesn't matter. It has no impact on satiety. 1 gram of butter compares to 2.25 grams of sugar, not 1 gram of sugar. And neither of them compare to 1 kg of water or to a deep breath of air.

I'll tell you why people on 'the biggest loser' fail after the show. They fail because the whole thing is one big purge. They are suddenly exercising til they drop, eating a diet they never did before and while they love the weight loss, they hate the training. Physically, at the end of the show they are not so fat. Mentally, they are still fat. Here's the number one secret to maintaining an athletic body...love being athletic.

There's literally no science there. Just platitudes. You sound like Rhonda Byrne.

If you want to understand why the people on the biggest loser fail, you have to look at the specifics of their exercise regimen, and their nutritional regimen, and their sleeping patterns. Not "attitude". Again: eating patterns, sleeping patterns, exercise patterns, genetics, not "attitude".

Maybe instead of blaming them for their failure, you should look at their 93% failure rate and conclude that the advice they're being given is sh*t?

People who get lap bands are even lazier than contestants on the biggest loser. They have inferior attitudes: they are going on the diet with no exercise intended. They start off with the same genetics: standard american diet makes them morbidly obese. They eat the same number of calories, but they eat more of what you call "bad fats", they eat more of what you call "high-GI carbs", they do *less* exercise ... and they have better results. This is measured using hormones, weight, etc. Their attitude is actually inferior, they're taking the easiest option. And they have better results.

This thread has now gone off-topic so I will not discuss the issue with you here further. You are welcome to post in the intermittent fasting thread or start a nutrition for general health thread.

 

[samantha3333]

Lol I'm deluded to have my opinion and preference? This guy is c.r.a.z.y.

Apparently having had sex with (only) 15 women off tinder means you know more about pussies than someone with a pussy.

 

[samantha3333]

Samantha, you think Keanu Reeves is hot?

Keanu Reeves in Point Break 91. Delicious. He's not on the top of my list tho. Why?

 

[samantha3333]

Just your opinion indeed.

"A must"

How delusional can you be.

I've had sex with 15 different women (off Tinder) and I'm skinny with no muscles at all.

So no, they're not a must.

That's just your opinion.

And no, women don't all go after the same attractive guys on Tinder, read zircon's anecdote again. They go for men with who are the most genetically compatible with (that usually means the hottest within their types).

Women are not fit to give dating advice, you're too blinded by your own condition znd prejudices.

By the way, nobody asked your opinion. Keep it to yourself.

 

[winnyblues]

By the way, nobody asked your opinion. Keep it to yourself.

Yup

 

[winnyblues]

Btw fred its a damn shame the dislike button has changed to 1 hour per dislike because youd be on 1000 by now

 

[samantha3333]

"Preference" lol.

You know that if your dream guy comes along and he has no muscles, your so-called preference will go out the window.

Only 15 women (in 6 months)? You have no idea how hard dating is as a man.

But I already made it clear my dream guy has muscles. Read.

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by broadcasting your number. If your intention is to prove that you're a lady expert and a sex God, I'm adraid you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

"Preference" lol.

You know that if your dream guy comes along and he has no muscles, your so-called preference will go out the window.

Only 15 women (in 6 months)? You have no idea how hard dating is for a man.

Reminder: never listen to what women say, watch what they do. Apparently, some guys still don't get that.

To be honest Fred I'm skeptical you're as skinny as you say you are. If we are to listen to you are in the 5th percentile of men for shoulder width, etc. And I do think women or at least fewer would not have sex with you if they really thought you were weak and meek.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Arguing with her is actually a huge insult for your intelligence. But as I already said, it's funny to watch. Totally rekt, as someone would say. Your flawless logic must be lethal for many women.

I'm pretty chill right now. I'm discussing things with Samantha, debating, hopefully she does not see it as arguing. Sometimes I get into "fights" with people here and it can be really draining. I see the conversation with Samantha mostly as a journey forward rather than a war of attrition.

In real life, and I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, winning an argument depends more on your looks and social status than whether or not you have anything substantial to say, or how you say it. You must have seen this countless times, where a beautiful woman makes a truly mundane statement, and everybody else ponders and discusses it in detail.

But it's not just beauty but also social status that matters. If the Dalai Lama says that we should get out of bed in the morning and get into bed at night, people will post that as a meme on Facebook. When it comes to real-life discussion, with most people, you will never be argue that the following statement is trivial:

I think most people will read that and a tear will come to their eye. They'll feel like they understand more about life all of a sudden. That is because the Dalai Lama has social status. In practice, his words carry great weight in spite of being value-less, because we assess the value of words based on the person saying them.

An obvious way in which message board debates are artificial is that nobody gets interrupted before they're finished. Out here, in this space, we all get to finish saying what we want to say if we want to.

***********

But in general people like discussing things with me. I do better in discussions though. Arguments and heated debate don't work as well. I contribute reason, general knowledge, and empathy, often, but I do not have the "alpha male" ability to dominate a discussion that is highly useful in real-life discussions.

 

[Exodus2011]

Unfortunately, that's true. Only my colleagues and my boss take me seriously, since they appreaciate my skills and my dedication.

Outside of work, however, people don't take me seriously and mock me relentlessly, simply for the fact that I'm ugly and bald. Even when I'm right or my logic is correct, my appearance actually proves me wrong. This is painfully real in my country, where the majority of people are shallow, hypocritical pricks and where appearance is more important than almost anything. Women are the worst: if you're good-looking, you're always correct, and when they're wrong, they can't possibily be wrong and you are oppressing them. Cue white knights coming and accusing you of molesting them.

*refer to page before and winnyblues liking samantha's posts*

 

[DoctorHouse]

Keanu Reeves in Point Break 91. Delicious. He's not on the top of my list tho. Why?

I have been told I was his doppelgänger.

 

[Dante92]

*refer to page before and winnyblues liking samantha's posts*

Any resemblance to real events and/or real persons and users, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

 

[samantha3333]

I have been told I was his doppelgänger.

Then you must be hot. Get off this forum

 

[swingline747]

Unfortunately, that's true. Only my colleagues and my boss take me seriously, since they appreaciate my skills and my dedication.

Outside of work, however, people don't take me seriously and mock me relentlessly, simply for the fact that I'm ugly and bald. Even when I'm right or my logic is correct, my appearance actually proves me wrong. This is painfully real in my country, where the majority of people are shallow, hypocritical pricks and where appearance is more important than almost anything. Women are the worst: if you're good-looking, you're always correct, and when they're wrong, they can't possibily be wrong and you are oppressing them. Cue white knights coming and accusing you of molesting them.

Read "The Little Prince"