2200 calories a day
Replies
-
Some people have different stomachs.
Its not about liking food..
ohhhh i like food. this and that. No.
Its: how big is your stomach?? Its a real issue.
You think appetite is the default for everyone? think again. Some people have small stomach.
sometimes its easier to drink a gallon of milk than it is to eat a bunch almonds that get stuck in your teeth and peanut butter that gets stuck in your throat.
Ever bite being a chore. Not everyone is a hungry cow and its insensitive to act like I'm some skinny bean pole and be all shocked i can't eat.
Guess what. Im not like you.0 -
Most of my days are where I don't feel that 2200 calories are enough.0
-
Some people have different stomachs.
Its not about liking food..
ohhhh i like food. this and that. No.
Its: how big is your stomach?? Its a real issue.
You think appetite is the default for everyone? think again. Some people have small stomach.
sometimes its easier to drink a gallon of milk than it is to eat a bunch almonds that get stuck in your teeth and peanut butter that gets stuck in your throat.
Ever bite being a chore. Not everyone is a hungry cow and its insensitive to act like I'm some skinny bean pole and be all shocked i can't eat.
Guess what. Im not like you.
Wow, knickers twisted much? There are plenty of ways to eat 2200 calories with out consuming a large volume of food, several of which had been suggested by other posters. I was talking to the OP, and given that the OP has troll written all over his post in general, I felt no real need to be overly diplomatic with my response.
Also, anatomically, your stomach isn't smaller than mine. The difference in appetite is the result of chemical responses, not having a smaller stomach. And no, I'm not like you, which is exactly why I don't, and will never get or understand having this problem. I do however understand hypocrisy, so thanks for the laugh.0 -
Some people have different stomachs.
Its not about liking food..
ohhhh i like food. this and that. No.
Its: how big is your stomach?? Its a real issue.
You think appetite is the default for everyone? think again. Some people have small stomach.
sometimes its easier to drink a gallon of milk than it is to eat a bunch almonds that get stuck in your teeth and peanut butter that gets stuck in your throat.
Ever bite being a chore. Not everyone is a hungry cow and its insensitive to act like I'm some skinny bean pole and be all shocked i can't eat.
Guess what. Im not like you.
You're pleasant calling people cows.
OP, you're also a dumbazz (as you called another poster)
You aren't going to listen to reason so im not going to try.
But I bet you're going to end up malnourished0 -
Stawp it Rahn!
This seems like a legit thread (minus the part where OP said he was in highschool, nobody in HS has those triceps and a 2011 join date)
I am going to give this a shot when and if I hit a plateau. I will do shakes but will spoon in some Benefiber. I need to find some better tasting whey because my Walgreens stuff isn't very good with water. I will continue to eat stuff like broccoli though since I like it and its filling and it good for you. For now I am losing at a good clip with no protein supplements at all.0 -
Some people have different stomachs.
Its not about liking food..
ohhhh i like food. this and that. No.
Its: how big is your stomach?? Its a real issue.
You think appetite is the default for everyone? think again. Some people have small stomach.
sometimes its easier to drink a gallon of milk than it is to eat a bunch almonds that get stuck in your teeth and peanut butter that gets stuck in your throat.
Ever bite being a chore. Not everyone is a hungry cow and its insensitive to act like I'm some skinny bean pole and be all shocked i can't eat.
Guess what. Im not like you.
Wow, knickers twisted much? There are plenty of ways to eat 2200 calories with out consuming a large volume of food, several of which had been suggested by other posters. I was talking to the OP, and given that the OP has troll written all over his post in general, I felt no real need to be overly diplomatic with my response.
Also, anatomically, your stomach isn't smaller than mine. The difference in appetite is the result of chemical responses, not having a smaller stomach. And no, I'm not like you, which is exactly why I don't, and will never get or understand having this problem. I do however understand hypocrisy, so thanks for the laugh.
If you go back far enough on my fitness tracker diary, you can see there are days where all I did was eat a container of nutella for the day (which packs over 2k calories) but it wasn't easy. I mean you're talking to a guy who has tried every fad diet there is. And I finally realized the best is just lift, eat Nutella, and drink milk + fish oil + multi. Everything else is bs. But the point is it was hard.
furthermore it has been reported in the New York Times amongst other places that studies show that stomachs to shrink in a controlled study so you are 100% wrong about that.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
4 left, seriously can't wait until my 12 week cut is over and I prove all the haters wrong.
What haters?0 -
Some people have different stomachs.
Its not about liking food..
ohhhh i like food. this and that. No.
Its: how big is your stomach?? Its a real issue.
You think appetite is the default for everyone? think again. Some people have small stomach.
sometimes its easier to drink a gallon of milk than it is to eat a bunch almonds that get stuck in your teeth and peanut butter that gets stuck in your throat.
Ever bite being a chore. Not everyone is a hungry cow and its insensitive to act like I'm some skinny bean pole and be all shocked i can't eat.
Guess what. Im not like you.
Wow, knickers twisted much? There are plenty of ways to eat 2200 calories with out consuming a large volume of food, several of which had been suggested by other posters. I was talking to the OP, and given that the OP has troll written all over his post in general, I felt no real need to be overly diplomatic with my response.
Also, anatomically, your stomach isn't smaller than mine. The difference in appetite is the result of chemical responses, not having a smaller stomach. And no, I'm not like you, which is exactly why I don't, and will never get or understand having this problem. I do however understand hypocrisy, so thanks for the laugh.
If you go back far enough on my fitness tracker diary, you can see there are days where all I did was eat a container of nutella for the day (which packs over 2k calories) but it wasn't easy. I mean you're talking to a guy who has tried every fad diet there is. And I finally realized the best is just lift, eat Nutella, and drink milk + fish oil + multi. Everything else is bs. But the point is it was hard.
furthermore it has been reported in the New York Times amongst other places that studies show that stomachs to shrink in a controlled study so you are 100% wrong about that.
Um no, people who were already obese and/or regularly over consumed/binged to the point that their stomachs had stretched beyond normal capacity showed a shrinking effect when placed on a calorie restrictive diet, i.e. their stomach returned back to normal capacity. As I am not, nor have I ever been obese, and as I am not a binge eater these studies in no way apply to me, so no, your stomach is still not going to be significantly smaller than mine and can not be blamed for the difference in appetite.
The OP is claiming to be a highschool age male who is probably still growing and is actively working to try to and put on muscle. The average recommended intake for a SEDENTARY male in this age range is 2200. If he is genuinely unable to manage 2200 calories a day then he is:
a. Not eating enough calorie dense food, as has already been suggested
b. Has a metabolic or digestive issue which needs to be addressed by a doctor
c. Has an eating disorder which also needs to be addressed by a doctor0 -
Some people have different stomachs.
Its not about liking food..
ohhhh i like food. this and that. No.
Its: how big is your stomach?? Its a real issue.
You think appetite is the default for everyone? think again. Some people have small stomach.
sometimes its easier to drink a gallon of milk than it is to eat a bunch almonds that get stuck in your teeth and peanut butter that gets stuck in your throat.
Ever bite being a chore. Not everyone is a hungry cow and its insensitive to act like I'm some skinny bean pole and be all shocked i can't eat.
Guess what. Im not like you.
Wow, knickers twisted much? There are plenty of ways to eat 2200 calories with out consuming a large volume of food, several of which had been suggested by other posters. I was talking to the OP, and given that the OP has troll written all over his post in general, I felt no real need to be overly diplomatic with my response.
Also, anatomically, your stomach isn't smaller than mine. The difference in appetite is the result of chemical responses, not having a smaller stomach. And no, I'm not like you, which is exactly why I don't, and will never get or understand having this problem. I do however understand hypocrisy, so thanks for the laugh.
If you go back far enough on my fitness tracker diary, you can see there are days where all I did was eat a container of nutella for the day (which packs over 2k calories) but it wasn't easy. I mean you're talking to a guy who has tried every fad diet there is. And I finally realized the best is just lift, eat Nutella, and drink milk + fish oil + multi. Everything else is bs. But the point is it was hard.
furthermore it has been reported in the New York Times amongst other places that studies show that stomachs to shrink in a controlled study so you are 100% wrong about that.
WTH? If I only ate Nutella, milk and fish oil that would be intolerable (but then again I actually hate Nutella). What ever happened to eating real food and a variety of it? Adequate nutrition demands variety and any fad diet that only contains 2-3 different types of foods is going to lack that.
Not sure why all the emphasis on stomach size since that's only one factor in hunger and calorie intact. Just ask all those gastric bypass folks who gained the weight back.
Uh, what was the original question?0 -
Eating is not only about the macros and the cals......
The different micronutrients in a varied diet are important. And 480g protein / day.... probably not healthy longterm. Your liver and kidneys would probably go into overdrive.
If you want more cals in less food, do some research on healthy fat sources....nuts, olive oil, seeds, avocado etc. A hand full of nuts has about 200cals, lots of micronutrients, healthy fats and protein. And certainly tastes better than a protein shake.
I agree!0 -
Thanks for adding to this thread!0
-
4 left, seriously can't wait until my 12 week cut is over and I prove all the haters wrong.
Ah, so you are cutting. How do you do when you go back to a bulk?
Sometimes the high protein diet, moderate fat and low carb diet can kill your appetite. I've been there when doing short PSMF diets. But I've only done those for 2 to 3 week runs.0 -
Some people have different stomachs.
Its not about liking food..
ohhhh i like food. this and that. No.
Its: how big is your stomach?? Its a real issue.
You think appetite is the default for everyone? think again. Some people have small stomach.
sometimes its easier to drink a gallon of milk than it is to eat a bunch almonds that get stuck in your teeth and peanut butter that gets stuck in your throat.
Ever bite being a chore. Not everyone is a hungry cow and its insensitive to act like I'm some skinny bean pole and be all shocked i can't eat.
Guess what. Im not like you.
Wow, knickers twisted much? There are plenty of ways to eat 2200 calories with out consuming a large volume of food, several of which had been suggested by other posters. I was talking to the OP, and given that the OP has troll written all over his post in general, I felt no real need to be overly diplomatic with my response.
Also, anatomically, your stomach isn't smaller than mine. The difference in appetite is the result of chemical responses, not having a smaller stomach. And no, I'm not like you, which is exactly why I don't, and will never get or understand having this problem. I do however understand hypocrisy, so thanks for the laugh.
If you go back far enough on my fitness tracker diary, you can see there are days where all I did was eat a container of nutella for the day (which packs over 2k calories) but it wasn't easy. I mean you're talking to a guy who has tried every fad diet there is. And I finally realized the best is just lift, eat Nutella, and drink milk + fish oil + multi. Everything else is bs. But the point is it was hard.
furthermore it has been reported in the New York Times amongst other places that studies show that stomachs to shrink in a controlled study so you are 100% wrong about that.
Um no, people who were already obese and/or regularly over consumed/binged to the point that their stomachs had stretched beyond normal capacity showed a shrinking effect when placed on a calorie restrictive diet, i.e. their stomach returned back to normal capacity. As I am not, nor have I ever been obese, and as I am not a binge eater these studies in no way apply to me, so no, your stomach is still not going to be significantly smaller than mine and can not be blamed for the difference in appetite.
The OP is claiming to be a highschool age male who is probably still growing and is actively working to try to and put on muscle. The average recommended intake for a SEDENTARY male in this age range is 2200. If he is genuinely unable to manage 2200 calories a day then he is:
a. Not eating enough calorie dense food, as has already been suggested
b. Has a metabolic or digestive issue which needs to be addressed by a doctor
c. Has an eating disorder which also needs to be addressed by a doctor
Im sorry but again, you are completely wrong.
As I have said before, stomach size does change, you said it doesn't.
I showed you research that the stomach does change and now you say that only fat peoples' stomach change.
First of all, do you even comprehend how hard it is to measure such a thing? Do you understand the stomach is such a complicated construct that it would be nearly impossible to measure minor differences anyway? Its not even possible to prove or disprove what we are talking about yet you speak as though its a foregone conclusion or long-disproven myth.
If studies show fat peoples stomach expand then return to normal, the same could be said that my stomach is small by default and I have appetite issues by default. The more I force myself to eat, the easier it becomes to eat, and my belly physically becomes larger and stays that way as long as I keep eating well. If I starve myself for a few weeks I get skinny, lose 20 lbs and I am suffering just trying to eat more than 1 major meal a day.
Also how else would one explain the phenomenon of competitive eaters who deliberately train their internals to intake exponentially more than the average person?
You just read trendy articles and thats it don't you?
Use some logic and sound reasoning and you can see through this. Thank you for your time.0 -
Some people have different stomachs.
Its not about liking food..
ohhhh i like food. this and that. No.
Its: how big is your stomach?? Its a real issue.
You think appetite is the default for everyone? think again. Some people have small stomach.
sometimes its easier to drink a gallon of milk than it is to eat a bunch almonds that get stuck in your teeth and peanut butter that gets stuck in your throat.
Ever bite being a chore. Not everyone is a hungry cow and its insensitive to act like I'm some skinny bean pole and be all shocked i can't eat.
Guess what. Im not like you.
Wow, knickers twisted much? There are plenty of ways to eat 2200 calories with out consuming a large volume of food, several of which had been suggested by other posters. I was talking to the OP, and given that the OP has troll written all over his post in general, I felt no real need to be overly diplomatic with my response.
Also, anatomically, your stomach isn't smaller than mine. The difference in appetite is the result of chemical responses, not having a smaller stomach. And no, I'm not like you, which is exactly why I don't, and will never get or understand having this problem. I do however understand hypocrisy, so thanks for the laugh.
If you go back far enough on my fitness tracker diary, you can see there are days where all I did was eat a container of nutella for the day (which packs over 2k calories) but it wasn't easy. I mean you're talking to a guy who has tried every fad diet there is. And I finally realized the best is just lift, eat Nutella, and drink milk + fish oil + multi. Everything else is bs. But the point is it was hard.
furthermore it has been reported in the New York Times amongst other places that studies show that stomachs to shrink in a controlled study so you are 100% wrong about that.
Um no, people who were already obese and/or regularly over consumed/binged to the point that their stomachs had stretched beyond normal capacity showed a shrinking effect when placed on a calorie restrictive diet, i.e. their stomach returned back to normal capacity. As I am not, nor have I ever been obese, and as I am not a binge eater these studies in no way apply to me, so no, your stomach is still not going to be significantly smaller than mine and can not be blamed for the difference in appetite.
The OP is claiming to be a highschool age male who is probably still growing and is actively working to try to and put on muscle. The average recommended intake for a SEDENTARY male in this age range is 2200. If he is genuinely unable to manage 2200 calories a day then he is:
a. Not eating enough calorie dense food, as has already been suggested
b. Has a metabolic or digestive issue which needs to be addressed by a doctor
c. Has an eating disorder which also needs to be addressed by a doctor
Im sorry but again, you are completely wrong.
As I have said before, stomach size does change, you said it doesn't.
I showed you research that the stomach does change and now you say that only fat peoples' stomach change.
Well then the same could be said that my stomach is small by default and I have appetite issues by default. The more I force myself to eat, the easier it becomes to eat, and my belly physically becomes larger and stays that way as long as I keep eating well. If I starve myself for a few weeks I get skinny, lose 20 lbs and I am suffering just trying to eat more than 1 major meal a day.
Also how else would one explain the phenomenon of competitive eaters who train their internals to intake exponentially more than the average person?
You just read trendy articles and thats it don't you?
Use some logic and sound reasoning and you can see through this. Thank you for your time.
Sure, I taught Functional Morphology at UCLA for 3 years and have a graduate degree in ecology and evolutionary biology, but I don't know squat about primary research...
All your examples are of stomachs stretching past normal capacity and shrinking back down. There is NO primary reserach showing that for a normal individual eating under normal conditions an "unusually" small stomach can contribute to smaller appetite. Smaller appetite is the result of chemical and hormonal influences, not the anatomical size of your stomach.
You keep resorting to personal attacks, I'll keep making logical counterpoints.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Some people have different stomachs.
Its not about liking food..
ohhhh i like food. this and that. No.
Its: how big is your stomach?? Its a real issue.
You think appetite is the default for everyone? think again. Some people have small stomach.
sometimes its easier to drink a gallon of milk than it is to eat a bunch almonds that get stuck in your teeth and peanut butter that gets stuck in your throat.
Ever bite being a chore. Not everyone is a hungry cow and its insensitive to act like I'm some skinny bean pole and be all shocked i can't eat.
Guess what. Im not like you.
Wow, knickers twisted much? There are plenty of ways to eat 2200 calories with out consuming a large volume of food, several of which had been suggested by other posters. I was talking to the OP, and given that the OP has troll written all over his post in general, I felt no real need to be overly diplomatic with my response.
Also, anatomically, your stomach isn't smaller than mine. The difference in appetite is the result of chemical responses, not having a smaller stomach. And no, I'm not like you, which is exactly why I don't, and will never get or understand having this problem. I do however understand hypocrisy, so thanks for the laugh.
If you go back far enough on my fitness tracker diary, you can see there are days where all I did was eat a container of nutella for the day (which packs over 2k calories) but it wasn't easy. I mean you're talking to a guy who has tried every fad diet there is. And I finally realized the best is just lift, eat Nutella, and drink milk + fish oil + multi. Everything else is bs. But the point is it was hard.
furthermore it has been reported in the New York Times amongst other places that studies show that stomachs to shrink in a controlled study so you are 100% wrong about that.
Um no, people who were already obese and/or regularly over consumed/binged to the point that their stomachs had stretched beyond normal capacity showed a shrinking effect when placed on a calorie restrictive diet, i.e. their stomach returned back to normal capacity. As I am not, nor have I ever been obese, and as I am not a binge eater these studies in no way apply to me, so no, your stomach is still not going to be significantly smaller than mine and can not be blamed for the difference in appetite.
The OP is claiming to be a highschool age male who is probably still growing and is actively working to try to and put on muscle. The average recommended intake for a SEDENTARY male in this age range is 2200. If he is genuinely unable to manage 2200 calories a day then he is:
a. Not eating enough calorie dense food, as has already been suggested
b. Has a metabolic or digestive issue which needs to be addressed by a doctor
c. Has an eating disorder which also needs to be addressed by a doctor
Im sorry but again, you are completely wrong.
As I have said before, stomach size does change, you said it doesn't.
I showed you research that the stomach does change and now you say that only fat peoples' stomach change.
Well then the same could be said that my stomach is small by default and I have appetite issues by default. The more I force myself to eat, the easier it becomes to eat, and my belly physically becomes larger and stays that way as long as I keep eating well. If I starve myself for a few weeks I get skinny, lose 20 lbs and I am suffering just trying to eat more than 1 major meal a day.
Also how else would one explain the phenomenon of competitive eaters who train their internals to intake exponentially more than the average person?
You just read trendy articles and thats it don't you?
Use some logic and sound reasoning and you can see through this. Thank you for your time.
Sure, I taught Functional Morphology at UCLA for 3 years and have a graduate degree in ecology and evolutionary biology, but I don't know squat about primary research...
All your examples are of stomachs stretching past normal capacity and shrinking back down. There is NO primary reserach showing that for a normal individual eating under normal conditions an "unusually" small stomach can contribute to smaller appetite. Smaller appetite is the result of chemical and hormonal influences, not the anatomical size of your stomach.
You keep resorting to personal attacks, I'll keep making logical counterpoints.
And you have no research proving its not both.0 -
And you have no research proving its not both.
Because proving a negative..... but yea.
Also,As a general rule, signals arising in the periphery that influence food intake and energy expenditure can be partitioned into two broad categories (Fig. 1) (1, 2, 3). One comprises the signals generated during meals that cause satiation (i.e. feelings of fullness that contribute to the decision to stop eating) and/or satiety (i.e. prolongation of the interval until hunger or a drive to eat reappears). The prototypical satiation signal is the duodenal peptide cholecystokinin (CCK), which is secreted in response to dietary lipid or protein and which activates receptors on local sensory nerves in the duodenum, sending a message to the brain via the vagus nerve that contributes to satiation. The second category includes hormones such as insulin and leptin that are secreted in proportion to the amount of fat in the body.
Here's the link to the full publication:
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2008-1630
TLDR: Feelings of being full at the end of the meal are controlled by specific chemicals released from the digestive system that signal the brain to stop. It's called a negative feedback loop and its the basic system of control for maintaining homestasis in the body.
Finally the ability of the stomach to expand capacity due to increased appetite =/= an expanded stomach capacity CAUSES increased appetite.0 -
So I'm trying to hit 2200 calories a day. But I'm getting tired of eating so much, I would rather just quickly chug a meal. Can I just drink 16 protein shakes? According to my calculations that would be about 2200. It would be 16 fat/ 48 carbs/ 480 protein. Would all that protein get me super ripped. (Which is my goal) How healthy is this? Advice? Thx
I feel you man. I'm eating 4,230 calories a day right now and it's hard. Non fat greek yogurt is pretty high in protein. It's easier for me to eat than chicken since you don't have to chew. I usually put a spoon in my mouth, and then drink some water to break it up and swallow easier.0 -
It would be 16 fat/ 48 carbs/ 480 protein. Would all that protein get me super ripped. (Which is my goal) How healthy is this? Advice? Thx
My concern is the fat is too low. Having a low fat to protein ratio can be toxic. Also fat intake that low will mess with your hormones and testosterone production. I'd readjust the fat intake to be about 0.4 to 0.5 times body weight in lbs.0 -
And you have no research proving its not both.
Because proving a negative..... but yea.
Also,As a general rule, signals arising in the periphery that influence food intake and energy expenditure can be partitioned into two broad categories (Fig. 1) (1, 2, 3). One comprises the signals generated during meals that cause satiation (i.e. feelings of fullness that contribute to the decision to stop eating) and/or satiety (i.e. prolongation of the interval until hunger or a drive to eat reappears). The prototypical satiation signal is the duodenal peptide cholecystokinin (CCK), which is secreted in response to dietary lipid or protein and which activates receptors on local sensory nerves in the duodenum, sending a message to the brain via the vagus nerve that contributes to satiation. The second category includes hormones such as insulin and leptin that are secreted in proportion to the amount of fat in the body.
Here's the link to the full publication:
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2008-1630
TLDR: Feelings of being full at the end of the meal are controlled by specific chemicals released from the digestive system that signal the brain to stop. It's called a negative feedback loop and its the basic system of control for maintaining homestasis in the body.
Finally the ability of the stomach to expand capacity due to increased appetite =/= an expanded stomach capacity CAUSES increased appetite.
Proving a negative? What? I don't follow your logic.
What I was saying is that research on such a complex topic is not conclusive one way or the other. Meaning we know satiation signals occur, but we don't know the complete range of factors sending those signals nor can we count out the idea of size/capacity influencing that chemistry.
Even in the article you yourself posted there are numerous references to the unknown elements:Conclusions: Although progress on effective medical therapies for obesity has been relatively slow in coming, advances in understanding the central regulation of food intake may ultimately be turned into useful treatment options.
orSatiation signals: summary of general principles
Satiation appears to be a complex phenomenon, mediated by a number of GI peptides. Although it is clear that the different satiation factors respond to specific nutrient stimuli (e.g. CCK to protein and fat, GLP-1 to carbohydrate and fat, PYY primarily to fat, and so on), it has not been proven that mixed meals of differing macronutrient content elicit the release of distinct cocktails of GI hormones. However, given the wide range of specific factors that seem to mediate satiation, it is logical to presume that this process is subject to highly refined regulation. Especially important is the modulation of the action of satiation by factors such as leptin and insulin that are responsive to body adiposity. This interaction is the critical site of endocrine regulation of eating and energy homeostasis.
What about the long term effects of body fat and how they affect the system?
And you completely ignored the phenomenon of competitive eaters and the fact their stomachs have.
I mean you read something like this and your logic just seems ridiculous and stubborn in the face of logic. Like you have some set rules and every person on earth is part of that average plane of laws:
Explain this:The regular guy went first, and stopped after seven dogs (no buns, for purposes of the study) because he thought he’d be sick if he ate another. Using fluoroscopy, an x-ray that gives a real-time view of what’s going on inside the body, the doctors saw what you’d expect: His stomach was indeed full of hot dogs and hadn’t stretched much from its original size (see picture at left).
Then they looked at the competitive eater. First, they noticed that his empty stomach showed virtually no peristalsis, the normal squeezing motion that helps the stomach break down food. He started eating hot dogs and his stomach got bigger and bigger. Ten minutes in, he’d eaten 36 dogs. He said he didn’t feel full, but the researchers told him they’d seen enough.
speedeater_art_200v_20080702161545.jpg
Stomach of a champion eater, after eating 36 hot dogs in 10 minutes. (Image courtesy Marc Levine)
“His stomach now appeared as a massively distended, foodfilled sac occupying most of the upper abdomen, with little or no gastric peristalsis,” they wrote in their paper. Levine said the stomach was like no healthy stomach he’d seen in his 30-year career. He compared it to a “giant balloon that looks like it has no limit.” The eater’s previously flat belly swelled out as if he were pregnant.
The champion told the doctors he had “spent several years training for the sport, forcing himself to consume larger and larger amounts of food despite the sensation of fullness.” He said he never felt full anymore. They figured the training had somehow given the guy’s stomach this ability to expand indefinitely.
Wall street Journal article: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/07/03/inside-the-belly-of-competitive-eating/
Again, thank you for your time but what I said about stomach size was not false. Sometimes science doesn't have the conclusion or hasn't gotten around to properly conceptualizing certain topics as can be seen by the massive difference in knowledge from just a decade ago.
Your science broke when you thought its possible to know everything. You would have sounded smarter if you admitted there are some things we don't yet have fully figured out.0 -
I
this thread 
0 -
You just need to learn to eat more than just chicken broccoli and brown rice. Don't get me wrong the old bro science stuff works. But, for most people that stuff is over. Learn to eat other things and make them work in your diet. Instead of eating all day, try just eating 3 or 4 larger meals. You may like it better.0
-
So what did your bros over at bodybuilding.com say about this new plan of yours?0
-
can't believe this is real
moving on0 -
I this thread
I know right, it's semester exams here so I have lots of down time watching students scribbling on paper.0 -
I this thread
I know right, it's semester exams here so I have lots of down time watching students scribbling on paper.
I don't know how comfortable I feel with you teaching our nations youth after getting a feel for your critical thinking abilities.
I have my doubts as far as your qualifications are concerned for sure.0 -
THIS was the comment you made that I corrected:You think appetite is the default for everyone? think again. Some people have small stomach.
This statement is patently false. Appetite is not the same for everyone, but the idea that the size of your stomach is why some people eat more than others when comparing within a NORMAL population is an old wives tale.
Competative eaters aren't able to eat more because they were "born" with a bigger stomach than a normal person.
Overweight people didn't eat more and gain their weight because the were "born" with a bigger stomach that caused them to consume more calories.
Skinny people don't "fill up" and stop eating sooner because they were "born" with stomachs that are smaller than other people.Proving a negative? What? I don't follow your logic.
I can't provide you with any published papers that disprove the existence of mermaids either. A lack of published papers disproving your "smaller stomach = smaller appetite/larger stomach = larger appetite" hypothesis does not count as evidence for your hypothesis being correct.What I was saying is that research on such a complex topic is not conclusive one way or the other. Meaning we know satiation signals occur, but we don't know the complete range of factors sending those signals nor can we count out the idea of size/capacity influencing that chemistry.
Even in the article you yourself posted there are numerous references to the unknown elements
And yet not ONE of the range of factors listed had anything to do with stomach size, I wonder why that is? After all it would be relatively simple and easy to conduct experiment. Take a sample size from within the normal population, measure stomach size, measure appetite, plot the data. Why is no one doing this groudbreaking research?The regular guy went first, and stopped after seven dogs (no buns, for purposes of the study) because he thought he’d be sick if he ate another. Using fluoroscopy, an x-ray that gives a real-time view of what’s going on inside the body, the doctors saw what you’d expect: His stomach was indeed full of hot dogs and hadn’t stretched much from its original size (see picture at left).
Then they looked at the competitive eater. First, they noticed that his empty stomach showed virtually no peristalsis, the normal squeezing motion that helps the stomach break down food. He started eating hot dogs and his stomach got bigger and bigger. Ten minutes in, he’d eaten 36 dogs. He said he didn’t feel full, but the researchers told him they’d seen enough.
speedeater_art_200v_20080702161545.jpg
Stomach of a champion eater, after eating 36 hot dogs in 10 minutes. (Image courtesy Marc Levine)
“His stomach now appeared as a massively distended, foodfilled sac occupying most of the upper abdomen, with little or no gastric peristalsis,” they wrote in their paper. Levine said the stomach was like no healthy stomach he’d seen in his 30-year career. He compared it to a “giant balloon that looks like it has no limit.” The eater’s previously flat belly swelled out as if he were pregnant.
The champion told the doctors he had “spent several years training for the sport, forcing himself to consume larger and larger amounts of food despite the sensation of fullness.” He said he never felt full anymore. They figured the training had somehow given the guy’s stomach this ability to expand indefinitely.
A competative eater has trained to ignore the signals of satiaty that they recieve. You can train your stomach to expand that way too. The regular person stops eating, not because their stomach CAN'T expand further but because the chemical signals being recieved are telling them to stop, but again not based on the actual size of the stomach.Again, thank you for your time but what I said about stomach size was not false. Sometimes science doesn't have the conclusion or hasn't gotten around to properly conceptualizing certain topics as can be seen by the massive difference in knowledge from just a decade ago.
Your science broke when you thought its possible to know everything. You would have sounded smarter if you admitted there are some things we don't yet have fully figured out.
There are plenty of topics where I am more than happy to admit science does not yet fully understand what is happening, and certainly there are many things about the control and regulation of appetite that are not yet fully understood. I don't need to know everything there is to know on this topic however, to be able to conclusively say that your difficulty with consuming 2000K in any form other than nutella is NOT due to your having a "small stomach".0 -
I this thread
I know right, it's semester exams here so I have lots of down time watching students scribbling on paper.
I don't know how comfortable I feel with you teaching our nations youth after getting a feel for your critical thinking abilities.
I have my doubts as far as your qualifications are concerned for sure.
Because resorting to personal attacks is the sign of a REAL critical thinker.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions