mynameisuntz Member

Alright, everyone, no more talk about unicorns and sparkles. Let's go back to being adults.

But, they're wrong... Unless, maybe, you're insulin resistant.

If your caloric maintenance is 2,000 calories and you eat 400g of pure sugar, which equates to 1,600 calories, you would not gain weight. Do you agree or disagree with that?

I've seen that typo more times than you'd believe.

I understand. I just don't think freerange here understands how this process works. He makes the claim, he provides the evidence. Every hypothesis has a null hypothesis; if your hypothesis goes against the null (where the IV has no effect on the DV), then YOU are the one who has to prove it. You don't ask the people…

I have not seen them. Either way, I would not throw stones at them if they are legitimate. If it turns out that research finds a low carb diet is easiest to adhere to, why would I have a problem with it? I don't have a problem with a low carb diet; I have a problem with someone telling me it's THE best for fat loss, even…

I am saying that if someone makes the claim that NO ONE can lose fat on a high carb intake, then you only need one person to disprove it. NO ONE = zero people. One person =/= NO ONE. Except he has been confronted time and time again and stuck to his original message. When you confronted me, I clarified, and as far as I can…

Breaking my balls over here, man. Breaking. My. Balls. It makes so much sense! But I'm going to need to see some empirical evidence that feudal drug lords have any role in life span. Human, clinical trials only, please.

I'm sorry, I can start using anecdotal and personal evidence if you want! Everyone, regardless of size, should eat 2,200 calories to lose weight, with ~180 - 200g protein, 200g carbs (give or take 100, depending on the day and mood, but averaging 200), and 50-100g fat (same rationale as carbs). EVERYONE. Goodness I would…

Geez, man, you even copied my signature?! Can't we have SOME sort of public distinction between us? I mean, I like all your posts because we agree on most everything that I've read of your stuff, but I'm starting to read your posts and tell myself, "wow I really don't remember writing this...AWW HIM AGAIN! I'VE BEEN HAD!"

Yep, now look at the wealth of information that DISPROVES his opinion. Want me to find a single study that shows you can lose fat with a high carb intake? Technically that's all I need to show the OP is wrong. One single case where someone lost fat with a high carb intake. It's my opinion that gravity is false. I also…

[/quote] Let's take bets on how many children in Africa that would feed...! I don't know whether to laugh or cry :P slash :[

I think she sees it now :D Tell that to the Okinawans. Dietary staples: white rice and starchy vegetables. Their carb intake, depending on time period and season, has been estimated to fluctuate between 60 - 90% of their calories. Guess what? They are the longest-living people on earth with the lowest rates of disability…

And his opinion is wrong. He clearly states that a "high carb intake will keep you fat!!" That is false. That is scientifically and 100% false. Had he said, "why a high carb intake will keep SOME people fat" or "high carbs hinder fat loss for some people," then that would be a different thing. But he is talking in broad,…

Of course there are study limitations, as all studies have limitations, but it's still relevant to our discussion and should be considered when looking at varying protein intakes. I don't know about "significantly different metabolic effects," though. If anything their caloric output via TEA (thermic effect of activity)…

He never explained what "excessive amounts of carbs" implies. He never mentioned a caloric surplus. Is 300g carbs high? 200g carbs? 100g carbs? 400g carbs? Because eating 400g carbs = 1,600 calories = a caloric deficit for most people here, which inherently means you will NOT keep fat, but you will lose it. I out-nerded…

Actually it's the opposite. Protein is MORE critical when losing fat as a caloric deficit puts you at a higher risk of muscle catabolism. Protein's muscle-sparing effects are thus more important while cutting. If anything, MORE than 1g per pound LBM is safer for cutting. Whereas 1g per pound LBM in most cases is the max…

Because I think the OP is doing a disservice by perpetuating carb-phobia. I am refuting that nonsense. If I can convince even one person to not buy into the OP's irrational claims, then I succeeded. Considering the friend requests and mail I've gotten about this thread, I've done everything I can. So I'm pleased with the…

Correct you don't NEED it, but research has shown that the amount I suggested will retain lean body mass better than the amount you are suggesting - ESPECIALLY when coupled with resistance training. It all depends on your goals. For pure fat loss or pure muscle gain (depending on caloric deficit vs. caloric surplus): 1g…

PRECISELY why I despise threads like this one. All it does is perpetuate the fear-mongering that the health industry thrives on. That's why I promote the simplest diet plan, because in most cases, that is the one that will succeed the longest. Research proves that as restrictions tend to go hand-in-hand with dropout rates.…

I don't know. I don't read every single post. Then I'll make it perfectly clear: the food options which paleo emphasizes are not radical or irrational. They are unbelievably healthy. Period. The food options which paleo discourages, however, is radical and irrational. I'm not a fan of restriction, and as such I don't draw…

Um, no. Who the heck would say that a diet in those foods is radical? The paleo diet, for the reasons which it chooses those foods, is radical and irrational. That's what I was highlighting. But I guess me clearing that up for people who couldn't understand that (you) is me running from previous statements. Laugh.

Oh my gosh, man. SERIOUSLY. The food source regarding GLUCOSE is irrelevant. The food source regarding POLYUNSATURATED FAT is irrelevant. The food source regarding ISOLEUCINE is irrelevant. The food source regarding CALORIES is NOT irrelevant. *When regarding body composition - which is what this thread is about.* The fact…

SOME of the glucose may act differently due to the fiber content, but not all. SOME of the glucose from broccoli will act exactly the same as that from ice cream. They will be released in the blood stream as free glucose and eventually be converted to ATP for cell fuel, or stored as glycogen. This is the fate of free…

I thought it was implied, but apparently not. Why do you think I just elaborated more on it? Because you weren't understanding. And that's fine, but you're drawing me out to be someone who is purposely misconstruing or purposely changing the topic to avoid admitting being wrong or something? The fact is I just talk a…

The GLUCOSE is not better because it comes from broccoli; the broccoli is simply better because of the MICRONUTRIENTS. Goodness, man, it's clear you lack even the most basic understanding of nutrition. I'm trying hard to break it down for you but you simply aren't getting it. Here's glucose: Whether it comes from broccoli…

I don't understand it. Do they think our body sees food sources or something? Like the body knows broccoli was just eaten? No. It sees molecules. It sees metabolized molecules. That's what it sees. From a molecular classification standpoint, glucose IS glucose. Regardless of the food source. And guess what? Your body sees…

You're grasping for straws here. Correct - a diet rich in lean meats, veggies, nuts, seeds, fruits, and berries is not extreme. Though, in the western world today, you could argue it is considering the average diet isn't too great. That's not what I'm arguing. And if someone ate that way because they preferred it, I would…

Taubes loves to cherry-pick data. It's just disgusting, quite frankly. Like I said: I can go find a study that attains the results of, "weight training increases muscle mass while at a caloric surplus" and cherry-pick a few lines from it or a few results from it to convince you that weight training creates muscle atrophy.…

How is me saying "glucose is glucose" equate to me saying "a calorie is a calorie"? What? Glucose IS glucose. It is defined by its molecular structure - and THAT is what the body sees. Every glucose on this planet has the same molecular structure. Period. Thus the glucose from broccoli is interpreted exactly the same as…