Weight Loss with Twinkie Diet

Diet and Nutrition
41

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
I found out at the doc though that my blood pressure and lipid levels were through the roof so there is that. I spent more time at the salad bar and brown bagged more often and was excellent at a follow up a couple months later FWIW.[/quote]

This has a HUGE genetic component though. While you may notice an issue, someone else may not at all. It does help for everyone to be more knowledgeable of their current state of health though.

For instance, I noticed some sleep apnea at near 290lbs. I know some people who experience it without even hitting 220. Your body isn’t the same as everyone elses.

That guy I mentioned before has sleep apnea. He says he currently weighs about 270lbs but he is only about 5’7".

We also discussed how many people we’ve seen who used to play football who used to be in shape but are now literally morbidly obese.

The story is the same with nearly all of them…they only worked out because of football…so when that stopped and they kept eating the same, everything changed.[/quote]

Yep. Cals in, cals out. [/quote]

Nope. People simplifying human physiology to equate it to a simple machine are extremely misguided. If you think of metabolism as calories in, calories out you are missing nearly the entire concept of metabolism.
[/quote]

Was waiting for someone like you to pop in here. Some of the garbage being spewed in here is mind-boggling.

42

Yeah, never mind. Fruits and veggies shrink muscles, beef and cheese are horrible sources of protein, grains have never, ever assisted athletes of all stripes in reaching goals and calorie restricted diets are totally ineffective. A well balanced diet adjusted for caloric needs coupled with a training regimen is worse than soy and actually causes cancer and heart disease.

43

Post timing seems off… Modok on delay? Will read the response when I can give it time.

44

[quote]MODOK wrote:

The entire concept is flawed. People are looking at this from the wrong point of view, and then when something goes wrong with their diet they cannot fix it. As I stated before, your body is not a simple machine but rather one of the most complicated things in the entire universe. It has either developed or been created to withstand every possible scenario of food shortage and surplus to ensure its survival. It is not difficult to make someone gain copious amounts of weight on a “maintenance” calorie level,[/quote]

If they are gaining COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF WEIGHT then they are NOT eating “maintenance level calories”. I do believe most of us understand the metabolism is not a static entity.

Uh, dude, most of the people gaining weight are not doing so because they are eating less than “maintenance”. It isn’t “maintenance” if you aren’t MAINTAINING your weight.

I mean, dude, really? You are speaking as if the rest of the room is retarded.

If someone’s metabolism slows down, it takes less calories to maintain their weight…therefore, having them eat the same without acknowledging this wouldf of course lead to weight gain.

You are making a mistake by calling this MAINTENANCE. It isn’t. Why continue to call it such?

Further, a person actively in the gym or on a football field every day or 5-6 days week and gaining muscle mass will not likely be experiencing a slowed metabolic rate without some sort of metabolic disorder.

45

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:
So if im understanding the point of this thread correctly…[/quote]

Apparently you aren’t. We just discussed people who play sports who get away with eating less than desirable foods yet maintaining awesome physiques and discussing this relations to GENETICS, activity level, and even age.

46

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Newtonian physics are conserved- calories in = calories out (the new slower metabolic rate) + calories stored due to hormonal environment. This is the point I’m trying to make. [/quote]

So, wait… if the body adopts a new, slower metabolic rate how can their previous caloric intake, which was at a level maintaining a comparatively elevated metabolism, still be considered “maintenance” despite the slowdown?

Isn’t it like saying if I was a big guy on a 5,000kcal maintenance diet who dieted a ton of weight off to a body weight plateau at 2,500kcal, that by boosting my diet to 3,000kcal I could claim to gain weight despite eating “below maintenance”?

It seems like in the example you give the definition of “maintenance” doesn’t adjust alongside the fluctuations in metabolic rate.

47

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
I found out at the doc though that my blood pressure and lipid levels were through the roof so there is that. I spent more time at the salad bar and brown bagged more often and was excellent at a follow up a couple months later FWIW.[/quote]

This has a HUGE genetic component though. While you may notice an issue, someone else may not at all. It does help for everyone to be more knowledgeable of their current state of health though.

For instance, I noticed some sleep apnea at near 290lbs. I know some people who experience it without even hitting 220. Your body isn’t the same as everyone elses.

That guy I mentioned before has sleep apnea. He says he currently weighs about 270lbs but he is only about 5’7".

We also discussed how many people we’ve seen who used to play football who used to be in shape but are now literally morbidly obese.

The story is the same with nearly all of them…they only worked out because of football…so when that stopped and they kept eating the same, everything changed.[/quote]

Yep. Cals in, cals out. [/quote]

Nope. People simplifying human physiology to equate it to a simple machine are extremely misguided. If you think of metabolism as calories in, calories out you are missing nearly the entire concept of metabolism.
[/quote]

I think this must be where the confusion is. This was a discussion of GAINING MUSCLE. Not some discussion of what happens when a sedentary person eats badly.

48

Also, I just fucking discussed the football player who is almost obese because he doesn’t train but eats the same as when he did and had abs.

Who here is in the dark about your metabolism being affected not only by how you eat but what you do with your body?

Bringing up some example of a sedentary person who gets fat and loses muscle and experiences a slowed metabolism doesn’t have much to do with this discussion.

49

[quote]MODOK wrote:

You aren’t understanding my point. The point is, there really isn’t a true “maintenance” calorie level because it is entirely dependent upon what the body’s hormonal environment is (which is caused by the type of food thats consumed). So a calorie level of say 1500 of cinnamon buns and soda may cause an individual to gain weight due to the environment it causes internally, while a diet of 3500 calories of good, quality food and correct macronutrient levels may cause the same individual to not gain a single pound because the metabolic hormones are operating correctly due to the food’s influence on them. [/quote]

We are not discussing a sedentary person here. yes, a sedentary person eating crap and not exercising will end up with a slowed metabolism. No one has argued against that.

[quote]
I was not speaking of a mass-gaining diet really. I was just responding to the title of the thread- “Weight Loss with a Twinkie Diet”. Of course carbohydrates play a large role in gaining muscle mass. I was speaking in general to the general population’s assertion that calories in = calories out. This is not the case in physiology.

I’m certainly not saying anything that contradicts you. I’m trying to get these younger guys and newbies to understand that there is much more to it than x and y, so they will be able to make their diets work better for them.[/quote]

I know this…but look at the post of one of those same guys beneath yours. He DID think you were saying something different because of the way you came in the thread.

50

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
I found out at the doc though that my blood pressure and lipid levels were through the roof so there is that. I spent more time at the salad bar and brown bagged more often and was excellent at a follow up a couple months later FWIW.[/quote]

This has a HUGE genetic component though. While you may notice an issue, someone else may not at all. It does help for everyone to be more knowledgeable of their current state of health though.

For instance, I noticed some sleep apnea at near 290lbs. I know some people who experience it without even hitting 220. Your body isn’t the same as everyone elses.

That guy I mentioned before has sleep apnea. He says he currently weighs about 270lbs but he is only about 5’7".

We also discussed how many people we’ve seen who used to play football who used to be in shape but are now literally morbidly obese.

The story is the same with nearly all of them…they only worked out because of football…so when that stopped and they kept eating the same, everything changed.[/quote]

Yep. Cals in, cals out. [/quote]

Nope. People simplifying human physiology to equate it to a simple machine are extremely misguided. If you think of metabolism as calories in, calories out you are missing nearly the entire concept of metabolism.
[/quote]

Was waiting for someone like you to pop in here. Some of the garbage being spewed in here is mind-boggling.
[/quote]

Garbage like what specifically?

51

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Newtonian physics are conserved- calories in = calories out (the new slower metabolic rate) + calories stored due to hormonal environment. This is the point I’m trying to make. [/quote]

So, wait… if the body adopts a new, slower metabolic rate how can their previous caloric intake, which was at a level maintaining a comparatively elevated metabolism, still be considered “maintenance” despite the slowdown?

Isn’t it like saying if I was a big guy on a 5,000kcal maintenance diet who dieted a ton of weight off to a body weight plateau at 2,500kcal, that by boosting my diet to 3,000kcal I could claim to gain weight despite eating “below maintenance”?

It seems like in the example you give the definition of “maintenance” doesn’t adjust alongside the fluctuations in metabolic rate.[/quote]

Read my response. Maintenance is dependent upon WHAT you are eating. A person can have many different “maintenance” calorie levels ( meaning gaining zero bodyweight) depending on his hormonal environment (a function of the type and quantity of food).
[/quote]

I think we need to clear this up here…because when most people speak of maintenance calories, it is understood that they mean the calories needed to MAINTAIN THE BODY WEIGHT.

I mean, I know for a fact my “metabolism” is different now than when I was 150lbs. That doesn’t mean I am eating “above maintenance” calories now if I am losing weight on what would have maintained my weight years ago.

52

Didnt that guy eat 1800 cals of twinkies or something? So thats a lot of high glycemic carbs why did he lose weight if his body was in this terrible hormonal state.

Why do so mnay people do just fine with high carbs if they are so evil?

I know plenty of non athletes that dont lift and arent that active that are not overweight and eat plenty of crap carbs. Sure they are ripped and cut but they certainly arent piling on weight and fat.

53

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Didnt that guy eat 1800 cals of twinkies or something? So thats a lot of high glycemic carbs why did he lose weight if his body was in this terrible hormonal state.

Why do so mnay people do just fine with high carbs if they are so evil?

I know plenty of non athletes that dont lift and arent that active that are not overweight and eat plenty of crap carbs. Sure they are ripped and cut but they certainly arent piling on weight and fat.[/quote]

Exactly…because along with the human body being a very complex machine…comes the realization that we are not all the same.

54

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Read my response. Maintenance is dependent upon WHAT you are eating. A person can have many different “maintenance” calorie levels ( meaning gaining zero bodyweight) depending on his hormonal environment (a function of the type and quantity of food).[/quote]

Word. That’s what I figured, I was just confused by the way you seemed to be referring to “maintenance” as a static concept… I wasn’t aware that there were a lot of people here who don’t get that one’s maintenance level changes over time (I don’t mean that as sarcastically as it might come across in text), which is why I was scratching my head.

55

…and audiogarden…you spent so much time making that picture…please let me know what was “garbage” in this thread that you wanted to speak against.

56

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:
So if im understanding the point of this thread correctly…[/quote]

Apparently you aren’t. We just discussed people who play sports who get away with eating less than desirable foods yet maintaining awesome physiques and discussing this relations to GENETICS, activity level, and even age. [/quote]

Wait, pretty sure i got it this time, let me know if im getting warmer…

57

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…and audiogarden…you spent so much time making that picture…please let me know what was “garbage” in this thread that you wanted to speak against.[/quote]

I actually just pulled the pics from the old meme thread, i dont got time to make that shit.

The garbage i speak of is the grossly over-simplified equation youre using to justify everyone eating mcdonalds. And the topic of the thread had nothing to do with athletic physical specimens eating twinkies, it was an overweight college teacher. Really dont think we should be applying the results - in any capacity - to the metabolic makeup and activity levels of elite athletes.

I want to stress that im not sitting here saying “no you’re wrong.” i just hate to see something like this so oversimplified, which is why i was interested to see what insight MODOK would have to share with us (i specifically had him in mind when i was hoping that someone would pop in here and comment)

On the subject of the picture, all your talk of burgers from McDonald’s was making me nostalgic and so i HAD to revisit the old meme thread for good times sake.

58

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:

The garbage i speak of is the grossly over-simplified equation youre using to justify everyone eating mcdonalds.[/quote]

Please quote where I wrote everyone should eat at Mc Donald’s.

[quote]

And the topic of the thread had nothing to do with athletic physical specimens eating twinkies, it was an overweight college teacher. Really dont think we should be applying the results - in any capacity - to the metabolic makeup and activity levels of elite athletes. [/quote]

Gee, if athletes can eat crap and look great, then obviously there is more to body comp than just what specific foods you are eating or where you bought them from. That is the point being made. Are you saying you disagree with this?

[quote]

I want to stress that im not sitting here saying “no you’re wrong.” i just hate to see something like this so oversimplified, which is why i was interested to see what insight MODOK would have to share with us (i specifically had him in mind when i was hoping that someone would pop in here and comment)

On the subject of the picture, all your talk of burgers from McDonald’s was making me nostalgic and so i HAD to revisit the old meme thread for good times sake. [/quote]

Oversimplified? He agreed with me. Your comprehension seems off…and grabbing “memes” that do nothing but show the progress I’ve made over the last few months with these same takes on food present isn’t helping your attempt at making fun of someone.

59

EDIT: What I typed was already covered… shoulda read everything first lol

60

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:

The garbage i speak of is the grossly over-simplified equation youre using to justify everyone eating mcdonalds.[/quote]

Please quote where I wrote everyone should eat at Mc Donald’s.

[quote]

And the topic of the thread had nothing to do with athletic physical specimens eating twinkies, it was an overweight college teacher. Really dont think we should be applying the results - in any capacity - to the metabolic makeup and activity levels of elite athletes. [/quote]

Gee, if athletes can eat crap and look great, then obviously there is more to body comp than just what specific foods you are eating or where you bought them from. That is the point being made. Are you saying you disagree with this?

[quote]

I want to stress that im not sitting here saying “no you’re wrong.” i just hate to see something like this so oversimplified, which is why i was interested to see what insight MODOK would have to share with us (i specifically had him in mind when i was hoping that someone would pop in here and comment)

On the subject of the picture, all your talk of burgers from McDonald’s was making me nostalgic and so i HAD to revisit the old meme thread for good times sake. [/quote]

Oversimplified? He agreed with me. Your comprehension seems off…and grabbing “memes” that do nothing but show the progress I’ve made over the last few months with these same takes on food present isn’t helping your attempt at making fun of someone.[/quote]

I never claimed MODOK didnt agree with you. I said i was interested in him coming in here and shedding some light on the nitty gritty details that affect metabolism and can allow stuff like this to be possible. The last thing anyone should get form this thread is “oh its that simple!”

Sorry you didnt enjoy my choice of pictures. I really thought they were pretty amusing combined with the “cheeseburgers cheeseburgers cheeseburgers” theme you had going here.

Its just that its been a while since ive seen you really pushing the burgers diet, i miss the good ol’ days.