Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program
Hans Huber
to work, family, and other assorted bullshit excuses. Anyhow, I
gained about 40lbs. while I was off and have focused my main goal as
being to lose bodyfat while preserving the mediocre of lean mass I
have left. I still have too much fat to lose, about another twenty
pounds, before I can make any other fitness goal a priority. I really
don't like how I look with the bodyfat on me at all. My routine is
basic: two full body weight workouts a week (Squats, chins, benches,
etc.), and four cardio sessions a week (thirty minutes of jogging or
some shorter sessions of jogging mixed with sprinting). So far I've
been burning fat fast and easily, about two pounds per week.
The problem I'm having now is that my cardio progression to burn more
calories is starting to interfere with my full body weight workout.
Basically, my legs are getting so much work from the jogging and
running at this point, that squatting is just overkill and I'm too
sore for it. Having been a former weight trainer, I feel very funny
not squatting. I almost see no point in a weight routine without
heavy core lifts like squats.
With this in mind, should I go easier on the cardio so I don't have
the problems with squatting, or should I drop the squats temporarily
until I lose the bulk of the bodyfat, and then return to a more
traditional bodybuilding routine? In the past I've been fairly lean,
so I've never had to do much but weight train, so this problem with
the cardio is very new to me. Thank you for any suggestions.
Hans
Bully
> I've recently begun training again after about a five year layoff, due
> to work, family, and other assorted bullshit excuses. Anyhow, I
> gained about 40lbs. while I was off and have focused my main goal as
> being to lose bodyfat while preserving the mediocre of lean mass I
> have left. I still have too much fat to lose, about another twenty
> pounds, before I can make any other fitness goal a priority. I really
> don't like how I look with the bodyfat on me at all. My routine is
> basic: two full body weight workouts a week (Squats, chins, benches,
> etc.), and four cardio sessions a week (thirty minutes of jogging or
> some shorter sessions of jogging mixed with sprinting). So far I've
> been burning fat fast and easily, about two pounds per week.
>
> The problem I'm having now is that my cardio progression to burn more
> calories is starting to interfere with my full body weight workout.
> Basically, my legs are getting so much work from the jogging and
> running at this point, that squatting is just overkill and I'm too
> sore for it.
What is making your legs sore, squatting or running? :)!
> Having been a former weight trainer, I feel very funny
> not squatting. I almost see no point in a weight routine without
> heavy core lifts like squats.
>
> With this in mind, should I go easier on the cardio so I don't have
> the problems with squatting
Why not try cycling or rowing?
> or should I drop the squats temporarily
No :( !
> until I lose the bulk of the bodyfat, and then return to a more
> traditional bodybuilding routine? In the past I've been fairly lean,
> so I've never had to do much but weight train, so this problem with
> the cardio is very new to me. Thank you for any suggestions.
>
> Hans
--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
Edna Pearl
news:q00jo2dvqj0hh7t4g...@4ax.com...
> I've recently begun training again after about a five year layoff, due
> to work, family, and other assorted bullshit excuses. Anyhow, I
> gained about 40lbs. while I was off and have focused my main goal as
> being to lose bodyfat while preserving the mediocre of lean mass I
> have left.
If that's your goal, then that's the key. (I assume you mean something to
the effect of "the mediocre [amount] of lean mass I have left.")
> I still have too much fat to lose, about another twenty
> pounds, before I can make any other fitness goal a priority. I really
> don't like how I look with the bodyfat on me at all. My routine is
> basic: two full body weight workouts a week (Squats, chins, benches,
> etc.), and four cardio sessions a week (thirty minutes of jogging or
> some shorter sessions of jogging mixed with sprinting). So far I've
> been burning fat fast and easily, about two pounds per week.
>
> The problem I'm having now is that my cardio progression to burn more
> calories is starting to interfere with my full body weight workout.
Yeah, that can happen.
> Basically, my legs are getting so much work from the jogging and
> running at this point, that squatting is just overkill and I'm too
> sore for it. Having been a former weight trainer, I feel very funny
> not squatting. I almost see no point in a weight routine without
> heavy core lifts like squats.
>
> With this in mind, should I go easier on the cardio so I don't have
> the problems with squatting, or should I drop the squats temporarily
> until I lose the bulk of the bodyfat, and then return to a more
> traditional bodybuilding routine? In the past I've been fairly lean,
> so I've never had to do much but weight train, so this problem with
> the cardio is very new to me. Thank you for any suggestions.
If your goal is *still* to preserve (and build?) muscle mass, as you say
above, then I'd say you should back off on the cardio *for now* and keep
lifting until you reach some desired target in your strength-training.
Like, you can set a weight target, a desired percentage of body fat, a time
frame, whatever.
Then change it up as necessary. Like, you may decide you're happy with
where you are on strength-training at some point, and you want to just burn
the crap out of calories for a while with cardio, even if that means you
might burn some muscle in the process.
You seem to be going through much the same process as I have been, as Adrzej
and I have been discussing somewhere down in the thread entitled
"Critique/help - i really need some help... (long post)" -- a thread started
by Steven C. I got fat, started training from a really poor level of
fitness, and focussed on weight-training and a balanced diet for six weeks.
That seemed like a good amount of time, and I was starting to get bored, so
I cut back my weight-training to twice a week and started doing HIIT and
eating more protein. It sounds like you started from a poor level of
fitness with a lot of cardio and now you're starting to fret about your
squat strength, so maybe it's just time for a change in routine to focus on
weight training -- kind of the reverse order of what I've been doing. Read
Steven C's thread and see if you get anything out of Andrzej's posts -- I
did.
Honestly, in the situation where we are, where there's still a lot of fat to
be lost, we'll make progress as long as we're working out, IMHO. My two
cents: Listen to your body and let it tell you what it wants/needs to work
on next, then do that and stick with it for a set amount of time or until a
set target is reached, then change it up, and it'll all work out. Then when
you get closer to where you want to be, the fine-tuning can get interesting.
But what do I know?
I have a new motto: "Just act like a jock, and the rest will follow."
FWIW. :-)
ep
Curt
> I've recently begun training again after about a five year layoff, due
> to work, family, and other assorted bullshit excuses. Anyhow, I
> gained about 40lbs. while I was off and have focused my main goal as
> being to lose bodyfat while preserving the mediocre of lean mass I
> have left.
Congratulations on returning to the gym.
> I still have too much fat to lose, about another twenty pounds,
> before I can make any other fitness goal a priority. I really
> don't like how I look with the bodyfat on me at all. My routine is
> basic: two full body weight workouts a week (Squats, chins, benches,
> etc.), and four cardio sessions a week (thirty minutes of jogging or
> some shorter sessions of jogging mixed with sprinting). So far I've
> been burning fat fast and easily, about two pounds per week.
Cool.
> The problem I'm having now is that my cardio progression to burn more
> calories is starting to interfere with my full body weight workout.
> Basically, my legs are getting so much work from the jogging and
> running at this point, that squatting is just overkill and I'm too
> sore for it. Having been a former weight trainer, I feel very funny
> not squatting. I almost see no point in a weight routine without
> heavy core lifts like squats.
If you don't want to squat then don't squat. My focus is leg press
currently. But I'm hitting them three times per week.
Last workout was 6 wheels on leg press x 19 reps.
Bench was 125 x 9 reps.
DB pullover with 50 pounds for 11 reps.
Pulldowns with 120 pounds for 12 reps.
And 40 crunches.
> With this in mind, should I go easier on the cardio so I don't have
> the problems with squatting, or should I drop the squats temporarily
> until I lose the bulk of the bodyfat, and then return to a more
> traditional bodybuilding routine? In the past I've been fairly lean,
> so I've never had to do much but weight train, so this problem with
> the cardio is very new to me. Thank you for any suggestions.
You say your cardio is a concern? You wonder if you should "go easier
on the cardio," so your squatting is easier?
Hell, I'm doing very little cardio at all, but losing fat. Basically no
cardio, no squats, and I've lost an easy ten pounds.
I'm consuming 1500-cal per day diet currently of:
Breakfast - 1 bagel, 1 ounce light cream, 4 dried prunes, 1/2 cup o.j.
Lunch - Sandwich of bread, light mayo, sweet pickle relish, 4 ounces of
sliced turkey
Afternoon Snack - yogurt, a banana, OR a Nature Valley bar
Dinner - Healthy Choice blackened chicken OR Lean Cuisine glazed
chicken, bread, noncaloric beverage
Evening Snack - same as afternoon
And taking two Animal Cuts packs a day.
Totals 1500 calories or less
> Hans
Best of luck with your fitness program, Hans.
--
Curt
Proctologically Violated┊
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"Curt" <curt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166677291....@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Proctologically Violated┊
Now, I myself don't know the answer, but if I may, I'd like to speculate,
and if I'm correct, it's only because I've stood on the asses of giants,
like jmw.
I think the answer is timing.
Previously, the subject of timing of nutrients came up, in the building of
muscle tissue.
The ever-asstute and perspicassious jmw pointed out that if you eat before,
during, AND after a workout session, you will in fact gain more muscle than
if you eat, well, less often.
Who'da thunk?
So, based on His Asstuteness, ahm thinkin thusly:
CONVERSELY, to lose fat, it might be better to then *not* eat before, or
during, or after a workout session.
Wow.... the conceptual symmetry is just asstounding.
To sum up:
To build muscle: eat all the fukntime.
To lose fat: don't eat a fukn thing.
I think mfw needs a "JMW Award", for truly great and worthy concepts.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"Hans Huber" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q00jo2dvqj0hh7t4g...@4ax.com...
Curt
> Curt, you forgot to mention the Abs Diet.
(slaps forehead)
D'OH! So glad you mentioned that obvious oversight on my part, PV.
Gracias. I'll correct that now. To wit:
I'm sure some might say The Abs Diet smacks of hucksterism, but I see
it as an
entertaining style of writing. References to pop culture in Archie
Bunker, enthusiasm-building visual imagery in "fat furnaces" and, yes,
a BUY NOW! TODAY! directive in "you'll lose up to 12 pounds of
fat--from your belly first!" But the information is rock solid.
And I know I'm a cheerleader for this book and, yes, therefore biased,
so check out
what Publishers Weekly has to say:
Eat everything. Concentrate on whole grains. Drink milk. Balance
protein with carbohydrates. Avoid processed sugars. Do some exercise.
The idea that a diet book making such proposals comes as a pleasant
surprise shows just how far afield we've gone in the search for new
ways to be fit. The only thing new about this diet by the
editor-in-chief of Men's Health is its name, and this, one can presume,
is because nowadays, a book simply called "Sensible Eating" wouldn't
sell. The book's title is indeed misleading; only the final chapter
deals solely with abs. The rest is full of rational recommendations for
a realistic diet plan: eat more and smaller meals; have oatmeal in the
morning for a nourishing breakfast; don't starve yourself; drink plenty
of water; and stay away from sodas and foods that contain high-fructose
corn syrup. Whether readers will, in the end, walk away with abs of
steel is not really the point. They'll control their weight in a
healthy way, without counting calories, cutting out whole food groups
or supporting the beef futures market. Best of all, this book tells
readers why it works: increase your body's metabolism, gain some muscle
and fat burns away. The authors make this seem like a fresh and very
attainable ideal.
/quote from
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579549985/104-4021844-4537547?v=glance&n=283155
aka http://tinyurl.com/pmykv
The Amazon link or TinyURL link will take you to Amazon's Abs Diet page
which, along with book specifics, offers 146 customer reviews not all
of which are especially glowing, which possibly serves to offset my
bias in favor of the book.
I was first introduced to the book courtesy of Amazing Abs,
a just-less-than-magazine-size book from Men's Health and the good
people at Rodale Inc.
Amazing Abs has much the same info as The Abs Diet but with a lot more
pictures. The cover screams "LOSE YOUR GUT! Exclusive! Abs Diet
Excerpt" and has a pic of a guy displaying a cover model six-pack.
I liked the humor and no-nonsense approach used in that book. Diet and
exercise plans, visually appealing with tons of pics of male and female
models demonstrating correct exercise performance. Amazing Abs is a
collection of bits and pieces of other Rodale books edited together in
a truly artful way, imo. Informative, attractive, accessible.
Enjoying that book piqued my interest in The Abs Diet. Fwiw, it's a New
York Times bestseller. It's written in an engaging manner,
straightforward, intelligent, and, yes, again, with humor. Early in the
book, the message "Changing the Way You Think About the Word Diet" is
offered as a headline. The book does just that. The writers say it
better than I ever could:
"For years - or maybe for all your life - you've probably had one
notion about what dieting needs to be. Restrict your foods, eat like a
supermodel, sweat on the treadmill, and you'll lose fat. In reality,
those could be the very reasons why you couldn't lose weight. It's why
you gained back what you lost. It's the reason why your steamboat
metabolism may have geared down to that of an anchored barge. It's why
you don't see much progress when you try new weight-loss programs. And
it's why the only real recipe many diet plans offer is a recipe for
pecan-encrusted failure."
That's some visual imagery. I like it. A lot. Yeah, it could probably
be boiled down to five or ten pages of text, but for ten bucks, this
book and its philosophy, imo, can't be beat.
And, yes, David Zinczenko (with Ted Spiker) has a good bit of P.T.
Barnum or carnival barker in him, but, imo, this book is not for
suckers*. Zinczenko's enthusiasm leaps from the page. Good information,
visually appealing, right price, and a motivational writing style all
equal a book I'm glad I purchased. Ymmv. ;o)
I also picked up The Abs Diet Eat Right Every Time Guide which includes
789 of what the authors call the best on-the-go food choices. It's
offered as a complete supermarket survival guide and contains 60
six-minute meals for a six-pack.
> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Ahhh, much better. And did I mention the cover!? INTERNATIONAL ORANGE!
~*BAM*~!!! -=BIFF!!!=- *%POW!!!%*
--
Curt
Edna Pearl
>Proctologically Violated┊ wrote:
>> Curt, you forgot to mention the Abs Diet.
>(slaps forehead)
>D'OH! So glad you mentioned that obvious oversight on my part, PV.
I actually ordered the book on theory that it was probably the latest
compilation of general information about good nutritition, and on the
assumption that I would be spared the usual diet-writing advice to the
effect that I should put more vigor into my housecleaning and play with my
children more! (I don't have children. Maybe I'm supposed to rent them so
I can play with them.)
The book just arrived this morning. I look forward to reading it. I find
reading stuff about health and fitness motivating. That's why I hang out in
this god-forsaken hellhole excuse for a newsgroup. That, and the laughs.
ep
Hans Huber
<edna_...@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>"Hans Huber" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:q00jo2dvqj0hh7t4g...@4ax.com...
>> I've recently begun training again after about a five year layoff, due
>> to work, family, and other assorted bullshit excuses. Anyhow, I
>> gained about 40lbs. while I was off and have focused my main goal as
>> being to lose bodyfat while preserving the mediocre of lean mass I
>> have left.
>
>If that's your goal, then that's the key. (I assume you mean something to
>the effect of "the mediocre [amount] of lean mass I have left.")
Yeah, that's what I meant. It's so meager I couldn't even muster the
word amount into the sentence.
<snip>
>> With this in mind, should I go easier on the cardio so I don't have
>> the problems with squatting, or should I drop the squats temporarily
>> until I lose the bulk of the bodyfat, and then return to a more
>> traditional bodybuilding routine? In the past I've been fairly lean,
>> so I've never had to do much but weight train, so this problem with
>> the cardio is very new to me. Thank you for any suggestions.
>
>If your goal is *still* to preserve (and build?)
Definitely not build. I know my calorie expenditure is too high for
that, but I do want to prevent as much muscle _loss_ as possible. I
understand that some is inevitable, and I'll probably gain it back
quickly once I'm done with the fat loss phase.
> muscle mass, as you say
>above, then I'd say you should back off on the cardio *for now* and keep
>lifting until you reach some desired target in your strength-training.
>Like, you can set a weight target, a desired percentage of body fat, a time
>frame, whatever.
I actually think I'm going to do the opposite, but just in the way
that you are saying. I think I just need to bite the bullet and stick
with _something_ until a goal is met. Like I said at the latter end
of my post, I've never had to diet or do a fat loss program before so
I guess I'm just eager to start a traditional bodybuilding routine.
The problem is that I can't stand the jelly roll around my stomach or
how puffy my face has gotten. It just disgusts me.
>Then change it up as necessary. Like, you may decide you're happy with
>where you are on strength-training at some point, and you want to just burn
>the crap out of calories for a while with cardio, even if that means you
>might burn some muscle in the process.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I think I might do both: stick with my
current method for another month, go to a more traditional
bodybuilding routine for about 2 months, then go and do a final fat
loss phase. Perhaps this is more ideal than trying to accomplish two
goals at once.
>You seem to be going through much the same process as I have been, as Adrzej
>and I have been discussing somewhere down in the thread entitled
>"Critique/help - i really need some help... (long post)" -- a thread started
>by Steven C. I got fat, started training from a really poor level of
>fitness, and focussed on weight-training and a balanced diet for six weeks.
>That seemed like a good amount of time, and I was starting to get bored, so
>I cut back my weight-training to twice a week and started doing HIIT and
>eating more protein.
Which is basically what I'm doing now.
>It sounds like you started from a poor level of
>fitness with a lot of cardio and now you're starting to fret about your
>squat strength, so maybe it's just time for a change in routine to focus on
>weight training -- kind of the reverse order of what I've been doing.
>
>Read
>Steven C's thread and see if you get anything out of Andrzej's posts -- I
>did.
Will do, thanks.
>Honestly, in the situation where we are, where there's still a lot of fat to
>be lost, we'll make progress as long as we're working out, IMHO. My two
>cents: Listen to your body and let it tell you what it wants/needs to work
>on next, then do that and stick with it for a set amount of time or until a
>set target is reached, then change it up, and it'll all work out. Then when
>you get closer to where you want to be, the fine-tuning can get interesting.
>But what do I know?
Well, more than me.
>I have a new motto: "Just act like a jock, and the rest will follow."
>FWIW. :-)
This actually is a very good point. I think a lot of people overlook
this. I think people sometimes get too overinvovled in the specifics
of a routine or program, and forget the main point: stay active and
workout hard. Thanks for the input; you've got my head pointed in the
right direction. The idea of changing gears instead of trying to get
a progam to suit two objectives is much more rational.
Curt
[...]
re The Abs Diet
> I actually ordered the book on theory that it was probably the latest
> compilation of general information about good nutritition, and on the
> assumption that I would be spared the usual diet-writing advice to the
> effect that I should put more vigor into my housecleaning and play with my
> children more!
I'd be interested in reading what you think about it, of course. As
much as I've acted as a cheerleader, it'd be nice to get an unbiased
opinion.
> (I don't have children. Maybe I'm supposed to rent them so
> I can play with them.)
No kids, but five nephews and a niece provide ample "play with my
children more!" opportunities.
> The book just arrived this morning. I look forward to reading it. I find
> reading stuff about health and fitness motivating.
Ditto.
> That's why I hang out in this god-forsaken hellhole excuse for a newsgroup.
Me, I'm here for the warm camaraderie and mutual respect.
> That, and the laughs.
Laughs? I hadn't noticed.
> ep
--
Curt
Edna Pearl
>>If your goal is *still* to preserve (and build?)
>
> Definitely not build. I know my calorie expenditure is too high for
> that,
Maybe. Not necessarily. It depends :-) Don't buy the myth that you need
a calorie surplus to build muscle. Sure, if you are really burning into the
cardio while depriving yourself of calories in your diet, you can't build,
and that's probably where you are, but I do want to mention that lifting can
build muscle on a mild calorie deficit, especially if you've got some fat.
> but I do want to prevent as much muscle _loss_ as possible. I
> understand that some is inevitable, and I'll probably gain it back
> quickly once I'm done with the fat loss phase.
Yup. You've got a plan, below, and that plan will rebuild muscle.
> The problem is that I can't stand the jelly roll around my stomach or
> how puffy my face has gotten. It just disgusts me.
I can relate! Remember that muscle itself burns calories, though, even when
you're just sitting around on your butt.
> Yeah, I know what you mean. I think I might do both: stick with my
> current method for another month, go to a more traditional
> bodybuilding routine for about 2 months, then go and do a final fat
> loss phase.
I think that sounds grand.
> Perhaps this is more ideal than trying to accomplish two
> goals at once.
As somebody else has pointed out in this thread, it *is* possible to
accomplish both goals at the same time, especially for a beginner, and
especially for a beginner with some fat. But you seem to have clarified
your goals to your own satisfaction, so go for it.
>>I have a new motto: "Just act like a jock, and the rest will follow."
>>FWIW. :-)
>
> This actually is a very good point. I think a lot of people overlook
> this. I think people sometimes get too overinvovled in the specifics
> of a routine or program, and forget the main point: stay active and
> workout hard.
But learning and playing with ideas about the specifics can be kinda fun and
motivating, especially when the month-after-month grind of trying to be a
jock :-) gets boring.
>Thanks for the input;
My pleasure.
> you've got my head pointed in the
> right direction.
Hey, don't blame me! You pointed yourself, as far as I can see (and that's
as it should be).
> The idea of changing gears instead of trying to get
> a progam to suit two objectives is much more rational.
Rational, schmational. Enjoy.
ep
JMW
> "Hans Huber" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>If your goal is *still* to preserve (and build?)
> >
> > Definitely not build. I know my calorie expenditure is too high for
> > that,
>
> Maybe. Not necessarily. It depends :-) Don't buy the myth that you need
> a calorie surplus to build muscle. Sure, if you are really burning into the
> cardio while depriving yourself of calories in your diet, you can't build,
> and that's probably where you are, but I do want to mention that lifting can
> build muscle on a mild calorie deficit, especially if you've got some fat.
You will build very little, if any, muscle on a hypocaloric diet. You
may get stronger, but that is largely a function of neuromuscular
patterning, not muscular hypertrophy. You may also have more visible
muscle as a result of fat loss. However, the actual increase in
muscular cross-sectional area will be negligible.
That said, most folks who are "kinda fat" will do a lot more for their
physical appearance by trying to lose fat from around existing muscle
than they will trying to build muscle under a blanket of fat that
remains the same. Unless, of course, you're shooting for the "Big
Bubba" look.
Bully
> "Hans Huber" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:lgvlo25qjd5m2cm7h...@4ax.com...
>>> If your goal is *still* to preserve (and build?)
>>
>> Definitely not build. I know my calorie expenditure is too high for
>> that,
>
> Maybe. Not necessarily. It depends :-) Don't buy the myth that
> you need a calorie surplus to build muscle. Sure, if you are really
> burning into the cardio while depriving yourself of calories in your
> diet, you can't build, and that's probably where you are, but I do
> want to mention that lifting can build muscle on a mild calorie
> deficit, especially if you've got some fat.
Do you have any hard evidence to support this? I've gained strength in the
past when dieting but that shouldn't be confused with building muscle.
>
>> but I do want to prevent as much muscle _loss_ as possible. I
>> understand that some is inevitable, and I'll probably gain it back
>> quickly once I'm done with the fat loss phase.
>
> Yup. You've got a plan, below, and that plan will rebuild muscle.
>
>> The problem is that I can't stand the jelly roll around my stomach or
>> how puffy my face has gotten. It just disgusts me.
>
> I can relate! Remember that muscle itself burns calories, though,
> even when you're just sitting around on your butt.
Yeah, but don't rely on it to do ALL the hard work or you will just remain a
lard arse.
[...]
Andrzej Rosa
> Edna Pearl wrote:
>> "Hans Huber" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:lgvlo25qjd5m2cm7h...@4ax.com...
>>>> If your goal is *still* to preserve (and build?)
>>>
>>> Definitely not build. I know my calorie expenditure is too high for
>>> that,
>>
>> Maybe. Not necessarily. It depends :-) Don't buy the myth that
>> you need a calorie surplus to build muscle. Sure, if you are really
>> burning into the cardio while depriving yourself of calories in your
>> diet, you can't build, and that's probably where you are, but I do
>> want to mention that lifting can build muscle on a mild calorie
>> deficit, especially if you've got some fat.
>
> Do you have any hard evidence to support this? I've gained strength in the
> past when dieting but that shouldn't be confused with building muscle.
OK. Break a leg, get fat due to lack of exercise, take the plaster off
and see what a shade of your former leg you have, start walking and
lose fat and rebuild your leg at the same time.
I tried to make it into a science, but somehow nobody wanted to get their
legs broken just to prove a point.
>> I can relate! Remember that muscle itself burns calories, though,
>> even when you're just sitting around on your butt.
>
> Yeah, but don't rely on it to do ALL the hard work or you will just remain a
> lard arse.
Well, actually I seem to remember that inactive muscle burns more or
less the same amount of calories as fat. Maintaining muscles burns
calories, carrying them around does the same. Treated this way, they
are sort of a good looking weight vest, which obviously helps in staying
slim, but only when you move around in it. Weight vests do not help
much while lying on one's back.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Andrzej Rosa
> Edna Pearl wrote:
>> "Hans Huber" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>If your goal is *still* to preserve (and build?)
>> >
>> > Definitely not build. I know my calorie expenditure is too high for
>> > that,
>>
>> Maybe. Not necessarily. It depends :-) Don't buy the myth that you need
>> a calorie surplus to build muscle. Sure, if you are really burning into the
>> cardio while depriving yourself of calories in your diet, you can't build,
>> and that's probably where you are, but I do want to mention that lifting can
>> build muscle on a mild calorie deficit, especially if you've got some fat.
>
> You will build very little, if any, muscle on a hypocaloric diet. You
> may get stronger, but that is largely a function of neuromuscular
> patterning, not muscular hypertrophy. You may also have more visible
> muscle as a result of fat loss. However, the actual increase in
> muscular cross-sectional area will be negligible.
All of that is based on silent assumption that one is already a
"trained subject" who does stimulate muscle hypertrophy to a reasonable
extent. In such a situation, what you described makes sense. For an
untrained or detrained people, it doesn't apply.
> That said, most folks who are "kinda fat" will do a lot more for their
> physical appearance by trying to lose fat from around existing muscle
> than they will trying to build muscle under a blanket of fat that
> remains the same. Unless, of course, you're shooting for the "Big
> Bubba" look.
Well, why not eat at maintenance? Your body weight will stay the same,
but your muscles will grow under diminishing blanket of fat. I did
just that, and it definitely worked (as it should for a "kinda fat"
untrained subject).
Let's remember several facts. One will build muscles while on
hypercaloric diet even without weight training. One is able to lose
fat on hypercaloric diet under special conditions (mainly
supercompensation). One is able to get fat on hypocaloric diet under
special conditions (chronic overtraining).
Oh, something I happen to believe but can't prove: One will build
muscles faster while staying fat as opposed to staying cut or ripped.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Edna Pearl
news:emgpj0$o6q$1...@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Dnia 2006-12-22 Bully napisał(a):
>> Edna Pearl wrote:
>>> "Hans Huber" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:lgvlo25qjd5m2cm7h...@4ax.com...
>>>>> If your goal is *still* to preserve (and build?)
>>>>
>>>> Definitely not build. I know my calorie expenditure is too high for
>>>> that,
>>>
>>> Maybe. Not necessarily. It depends :-) Don't buy the myth that
>>> you need a calorie surplus to build muscle. Sure, if you are really
>>> burning into the cardio while depriving yourself of calories in your
>>> diet, you can't build, and that's probably where you are, but I do
>>> want to mention that lifting can build muscle on a mild calorie
>>> deficit, especially if you've got some fat.
>>
>> Do you have any hard evidence to support this? I've gained strength in
>> the
>> past when dieting but that shouldn't be confused with building muscle.
>
> OK. Break a leg, get fat due to lack of exercise, take the plaster off
> and see what a shade of your former leg you have, start walking and
> lose fat and rebuild your leg at the same time.
>
> I tried to make it into a science, but somehow nobody wanted to get their
> legs broken just to prove a point.
I'll go for Andrzej's answer on this one -- and in his other post on the
thread. :-) If you have any science to the contrary, I'd be glad to read
it.
Isn't it common sense? Can't some of the caloric deficit from *intake* be
offset by recruiting from body fat (and muscle)? I mean, you can build
muscle on your arms even while you're losing mass somewhere else, and that
can happen while you have a caloric (intake) deficit.
ep
(Oh god, have I crossed the line over to The Dark Side -- arguing with
people at mfw? No, I'm just discussing and asking questions. Right?
Right?)
Edna Pearl
> Edna Pearl wrote:
> [...]
>
> re The Abs Diet
>
>> I actually ordered the book on theory that it was probably the latest
>> compilation of general information about good nutritition, and on the
>> assumption that I would be spared the usual diet-writing advice to the
>> effect that I should put more vigor into my housecleaning and play with
>> my
>> children more!
>
> I'd be interested in reading what you think about it, of course. As
> much as I've acted as a cheerleader, it'd be nice to get an unbiased
> opinion.
I read a third of it last night. It's a fun read. As I expected, and you
have at least hinted, the whole "abs" focus is a total gimmick, and the use
of that gimmick weakens the book overall, but who really cares? Like, when
he discusses the research showing correlations between visceral fat and
various health problems, he apparently commits the fallacy of "post/cum hoc
ergo propter hoc" over and over and over and over again, but since the
bottom line is "get that fat off your body before it kills you," who really
cares? He doesn't appear to actually understand ketogenic dieting, but
since the bottom line is "don't do it," who really cares?
Looking at the "power foods" "cheat sheet" and the exercise section, I
expect that a typical person would successfully lose fat and build muscle
with this approach, and could comfortably and beneficially rely on its
basic, idiot-proof principles for the rest of their healthy life. Any
intelligent person could then build on these principles, fine-tune their
understanding, and learn how to tweak these principles around to maximize
results and enjoyment, of course.
And I think it's a must-read for anybody who thinks calorie-counting is the
way to lose weight. Traditional dieters feel really threatened by the
concept reflected in the author's equations:
MORE FOOD = MORE MUSCLE = LESS FLAB
LESS FOOD = LESS MUSCLE = MORE FLAB
but I'm just about ready to have them printed them on a t-shirt. It's about
time somebody just came out and SAID this, backing it up with summaries of
the appropriate research in a popular-market book like this one. The rest
of the book explains that more *good* food (including *good* fat) is the
key, plus exercise, etc., etc., but the basic premise of these equations is
just unassailable, AFAIC, and I'm sick to death of hearing and reading the
near-universal beliefs to contrary among traditional,
calories-in/calories-out dieters.
I feel the same way about the author's statements:
"Exercise is important, but the calories you burn off during exercise are
not important." (YES!!!!!)
"Most diets, in fact, are not long-term fat-loss plans but long-term
muscle-loss plans." (WHAT YOU SAID!!!!)
(Obviously, I'm getting emotional, and I can see why you're such a
cheerleader for the book.)
The stuff about glycogen load and "good" fats are good, readable summaries
that includes some summaries of research I didn't know about. I expect to
learn more as I read on.
And the little side bars explaining high blood pressure, diabetes, etc., are
nice, too.
The "shopping" list had some surprises. Do they actually make a "margarine"
that has no trans-fats? (I think I'll stick with cooking with olive oil and
using flax-seed oil as a butter-spread/topping replacement.) And why in the
name of all that's holy is "Carnation Instant Breakfast" on the shopping
list? Perhaps they have changed the ingredients since the last time I
looked at a box of or tasted that swill?
Sorry to go on and on. You asked.
ep
Andrzej Rosa
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:emgpj0$o6q$1...@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> Dnia 2006-12-22 Bully napisał(a):
>>> Edna Pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Maybe. Not necessarily. It depends :-) Don't buy the myth that
>>>> you need a calorie surplus to build muscle. Sure, if you are really
>>>> burning into the cardio while depriving yourself of calories in your
>>>> diet, you can't build, and that's probably where you are, but I do
>>>> want to mention that lifting can build muscle on a mild calorie
>>>> deficit, especially if you've got some fat.
>>>
>>> Do you have any hard evidence to support this? I've gained strength in
>>> the past when dieting but that shouldn't be confused with building muscle.
>>
>> OK. Break a leg, get fat due to lack of exercise, take the plaster off
>> and see what a shade of your former leg you have, start walking and
>> lose fat and rebuild your leg at the same time.
>>
>> I tried to make it into a science, but somehow nobody wanted to get their
>> legs broken just to prove a point.
>
> I'll go for Andrzej's answer on this one -- and in his other post on the
> thread. :-) If you have any science to the contrary, I'd be glad to read
> it.
>
> Isn't it common sense?
But do you have any hard data supporting common sense?
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
JMW
> Dnia 2006-12-21 JMW napisa³(a):
> > Edna Pearl wrote:
> >> "Hans Huber" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>If your goal is *still* to preserve (and build?)
> >> >
> >> > Definitely not build. I know my calorie expenditure is too high for
> >> > that,
> >>
> >> Maybe. Not necessarily. It depends :-) Don't buy the myth that you need
> >> a calorie surplus to build muscle. Sure, if you are really burning into the
> >> cardio while depriving yourself of calories in your diet, you can't build,
> >> and that's probably where you are, but I do want to mention that lifting can
> >> build muscle on a mild calorie deficit, especially if you've got some fat.
> >
> > You will build very little, if any, muscle on a hypocaloric diet. You
> > may get stronger, but that is largely a function of neuromuscular
> > patterning, not muscular hypertrophy. You may also have more visible
> > muscle as a result of fat loss. However, the actual increase in
> > muscular cross-sectional area will be negligible.
>
> All of that is based on silent assumption that one is already a
> "trained subject" who does stimulate muscle hypertrophy to a reasonable
> extent. In such a situation, what you described makes sense. For an
> untrained or detrained people, it doesn't apply.
It applies more than you think it does.
> > That said, most folks who are "kinda fat" will do a lot more for their
> > physical appearance by trying to lose fat from around existing muscle
> > than they will trying to build muscle under a blanket of fat that
> > remains the same. Unless, of course, you're shooting for the "Big
> > Bubba" look.
>
> Well, why not eat at maintenance? Your body weight will stay the same,
> but your muscles will grow under diminishing blanket of fat. I did
> just that, and it definitely worked (as it should for a "kinda fat"
> untrained subject).
How does a fat person know what "maintenance" is? And do you think
that muscle will grow fast enough to supplant substantial fat loss?
Most people think, "I'm getting much stronger, so my muscles must be
growing!" Most newbie strength gains are from neuromuscular training,
not myofibrillar hypertrophy. Do you have before-and-after MRIs that
show differently?
> Let's remember several facts. One will build muscles while on
> hypercaloric diet even without weight training.
It's difficult to "remember" a fact that has not been established.
There will always be muscle protein turnover, so yes, there will be
some muscle protein synthesis, but until you show me a definitive study
which establishes muscle protein synthesis that exceeds muscle protein
breakdown on a hypocaloric diet *without* resistance training, that's
not a "fact." It's you blowing smoke again.
Are you bucking for the Barry Sullivan Award?
> One is able to lose
> fat on hypercaloric diet under special conditions (mainly
> supercompensation). One is able to get fat on hypocaloric diet under
> special conditions (chronic overtraining).
>
> Oh, something I happen to believe but can't prove: One will build
> muscles faster while staying fat as opposed to staying cut or ripped.
That's about the only thing you've written that *is* fairly well
established.
JMW
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:emgpj0$o6q$1...@inews.gazeta.pl...
> >> Edna Pearl wrote:
> >>> "Hans Huber" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:lgvlo25qjd5m2cm7h...@4ax.com...
> >>>>> If your goal is *still* to preserve (and build?)
> >>>>
> >>>> Definitely not build. I know my calorie expenditure is too high for
> >>>> that,
> >>>
> >>> Maybe. Not necessarily. It depends :-) Don't buy the myth that
> >>> you need a calorie surplus to build muscle. Sure, if you are really
> >>> burning into the cardio while depriving yourself of calories in your
> >>> diet, you can't build, and that's probably where you are, but I do
> >>> want to mention that lifting can build muscle on a mild calorie
> >>> deficit, especially if you've got some fat.
> >>
> >> Do you have any hard evidence to support this? I've gained strength in
> >> the
> >> past when dieting but that shouldn't be confused with building muscle.
> >
> > OK. Break a leg, get fat due to lack of exercise, take the plaster off
> > and see what a shade of your former leg you have, start walking and
> > lose fat and rebuild your leg at the same time.
> >
> > I tried to make it into a science, but somehow nobody wanted to get their
> > legs broken just to prove a point.
>
> I'll go for Andrzej's answer on this one -- and in his other post on the
> thread. :-) If you have any science to the contrary, I'd be glad to read
> it.
No, you won't. You listen to people with folksy wisdom who say funny
stuff.
> Isn't it common sense? Can't some of the caloric deficit from *intake* be
> offset by recruiting from body fat (and muscle)? I mean, you can build
> muscle on your arms even while you're losing mass somewhere else, and that
> can happen while you have a caloric (intake) deficit.
What evidence have you of that assertiion? Insufficient energy intake
requires the body to seek energy from endogenous sources. Fat stored
in adipocytes will supply some of that. But your body hedges its bets
and doesn't just seek energy from fat stores. It also increases muscle
protein breakdown, thereby releasing free amino acids which can be
deaminated (mostly in the liver) and the resulting carbon skeletons
converted to glucose or ketone bodies for energy. When that muscle
protein breakdown exceeds muscle protein synthesis, you get negative
muscle protein balance. That means smaller muscles, not bigger ones.
If you want the "science" on that one, I won't offer up any current
studies because those facts are quite well established. Try cracking
open just about any anatomy and physiology text.
> (Oh god, have I crossed the line over to The Dark Side -- arguing with
> people at mfw? No, I'm just discussing and asking questions. Right?
> Right?)
Perhaps you're just under the spell of Darth Protologically
Addicted©® and Andrzej Fett.
Edna Pearl
news:1166821729.6...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Edna Pearl wrote:
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:emgpj0$o6q$1...@inews.gazeta.pl...
>No, you won't.
Now *that's* funny!
ep
The Queen of Cans and Jars
> No, you won't. You listen to people with folksy wisdom who say funny
> stuff.
That's because she doesn't want to do any of the hard work. She only
wants to do stuff that agrees with what she already believes.
Andrzej Rosa
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> > Edna Pearl wrote:
>> >> Maybe. Not necessarily. It depends :-) Don't buy the myth that you need
>> >> a calorie surplus to build muscle. Sure, if you are really burning into the
>> >> cardio while depriving yourself of calories in your diet, you can't build,
>> >> and that's probably where you are, but I do want to mention that lifting can
>> >> build muscle on a mild calorie deficit, especially if you've got some fat.
>> >
>> > You will build very little, if any, muscle on a hypocaloric diet. You
>> > may get stronger, but that is largely a function of neuromuscular
>> > patterning, not muscular hypertrophy. You may also have more visible
>> > muscle as a result of fat loss. However, the actual increase in
>> > muscular cross-sectional area will be negligible.
>>
>> All of that is based on silent assumption that one is already a
>> "trained subject" who does stimulate muscle hypertrophy to a reasonable
>> extent. In such a situation, what you described makes sense. For an
>> untrained or detrained people, it doesn't apply.
>
> It applies more than you think it does.
And how do you know what I think?
>> > That said, most folks who are "kinda fat" will do a lot more for their
>> > physical appearance by trying to lose fat from around existing muscle
>> > than they will trying to build muscle under a blanket of fat that
>> > remains the same. Unless, of course, you're shooting for the "Big
>> > Bubba" look.
>>
>> Well, why not eat at maintenance? Your body weight will stay the same,
>> but your muscles will grow under diminishing blanket of fat. I did
>> just that, and it definitely worked (as it should for a "kinda fat"
>> untrained subject).
>
> How does a fat person know what "maintenance" is?
By checking body weight once in a while?
> And do you think
> that muscle will grow fast enough to supplant substantial fat loss?
It depends how much is substantial. For me a kilo per month is quite
enough, thank you. Reasonable expectation for a non starving beginner.
> Most people think, "I'm getting much stronger, so my muscles must be
> growing!"
And they are. Once they started strength training, their hypertrophy
kicks in immediately.
> Most newbie strength gains are from neuromuscular training,
> not myofibrillar hypertrophy. Do you have before-and-after MRIs that
> show differently?
No, but I agree with the above, so no problem, I think.
>> Let's remember several facts. One will build muscles while on
>> hypercaloric diet even without weight training.
>
> It's difficult to "remember" a fact that has not been established.
It was studied. Once I gave a link with references. People were
overeating and 1/3 of body mass gains were LBM. I googled it for David.
Please, don't make me google for it once again. I'll rather pretend
that I'm lying. ;-)
> There will always be muscle protein turnover, so yes, there will be
> some muscle protein synthesis, but until you show me a definitive study
> which establishes muscle protein synthesis that exceeds muscle protein
> breakdown on a hypocaloric diet *without* resistance training, that's
> not a "fact." It's you blowing smoke again.
>
> Are you bucking for the Barry Sullivan Award?
I think that you didn't read what I wrote this time around. Please do,
before you award me.
>> One is able to lose
>> fat on hypercaloric diet under special conditions (mainly
>> supercompensation). One is able to get fat on hypocaloric diet under
>> special conditions (chronic overtraining).
>>
>> Oh, something I happen to believe but can't prove: One will build
>> muscles faster while staying fat as opposed to staying cut or ripped.
>
> That's about the only thing you've written that *is* fairly well
> established.
Good to know.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Andrzej Rosa
> Edna Pearl wrote:
>> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:emgpj0$o6q$1...@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> >>
>> >> Do you have any hard evidence to support this? I've gained strength in
>> >> the
>> >> past when dieting but that shouldn't be confused with building muscle.
>> >
>> > OK. Break a leg, get fat due to lack of exercise, take the plaster off
>> > and see what a shade of your former leg you have, start walking and
>> > lose fat and rebuild your leg at the same time.
>> >
>> > I tried to make it into a science, but somehow nobody wanted to get their
>> > legs broken just to prove a point.
>>
>> I'll go for Andrzej's answer on this one -- and in his other post on the
>> thread. :-) If you have any science to the contrary, I'd be glad to read
>> it.
>
> No, you won't. You listen to people with folksy wisdom who say funny
> stuff.
JMW, it's not folksy wisdom. It's using the simplest model that works,
not the most complicated that doesn't work anyway. And this approach
is a cornerstone of scientific method.
>> Isn't it common sense? Can't some of the caloric deficit from *intake* be
>> offset by recruiting from body fat (and muscle)? I mean, you can build
>> muscle on your arms even while you're losing mass somewhere else, and that
>> can happen while you have a caloric (intake) deficit.
>
> What evidence have you of that assertiion? Insufficient energy intake
> requires the body to seek energy from endogenous sources. Fat stored
> in adipocytes will supply some of that. But your body hedges its bets
> and doesn't just seek energy from fat stores. It also increases muscle
> protein breakdown, thereby releasing free amino acids which can be
> deaminated (mostly in the liver) and the resulting carbon skeletons
> converted to glucose or ketone bodies for energy. When that muscle
> protein breakdown exceeds muscle protein synthesis, you get negative
> muscle protein balance. That means smaller muscles, not bigger ones.
You wrote a very good guide to complicating things beyond necessity,
and how one can get lost among unimportant details.
> If you want the "science" on that one, I won't offer up any current
> studies because those facts are quite well established. Try cracking
> open just about any anatomy and physiology text.
Why should she? She knows that body is able to build and break down
tissue somehow. How exactly this happens is not important in this case.
>> (Oh god, have I crossed the line over to The Dark Side -- arguing with
>> people at mfw? No, I'm just discussing and asking questions. Right?
>> Right?)
>
> Perhaps you're just under the spell of Darth Protologically
> AddictedŠŽ and Andrzej Fett.
Andrzej Fett? What is Fett?
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Edna Pearl
news:1hqr32g.ma8v0m1hvwdwoN%dhr...@ohatzhapu.bet...
Oh gawd.
I guess it's a good thing I'm about to leave town for the holidays, since
the kooks have started piling on me, here. I'll be out of here by Monday
and won't be back for a couple of weeks. Have fun.
ep
The Queen of Cans and Jars
> "The Queen of Cans and Jars" <dhr...@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote in message
> news:1hqr32g.ma8v0m1hvwdwoN%dhr...@ohatzhapu.bet...
> > JMW <jmwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> No, you won't. You listen to people with folksy wisdom who say funny
> >> stuff.
> >
> > That's because she doesn't want to do any of the hard work. She only
> > wants to do stuff that agrees with what she already believes.
>
> Oh gawd.
What's the matter? Afraid to face yourself or something?
ed
> I've recently begun training again after about a five year layoff, due
> The problem I'm having now is that my cardio progression to burn more
> calories is starting to interfere with my full body weight workout.
> Basically, my legs are getting so much work from the jogging and
> running at this point, that squatting is just overkill and I'm too
> sore for it.
> With this in mind, should I go easier on the cardio so I don't have
> the problems with squatting, or should I drop the squats temporarily
> traditional bodybuilding routine?
if you're getting sore from jogging 30 minutes a few times a week, i
would suggest you just gut it out. you're body will adapt soon enough,
you won't be sore after your runs, and you'll be in better shape. ;D
<snip>
JMW
>Dnia 2006-12-22 JMW napisał(a):
>> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>> Dnia 2006-12-21 JMW napisał(a):
>>> > Edna Pearl wrote:
>>> >> Maybe. Not necessarily. It depends :-) Don't buy the myth that you need
>>> >> a calorie surplus to build muscle. Sure, if you are really burning into the
>>> >> cardio while depriving yourself of calories in your diet, you can't build,
>>> >> and that's probably where you are, but I do want to mention that lifting can
>>> >> build muscle on a mild calorie deficit, especially if you've got some fat.
>>> >
>>> > You will build very little, if any, muscle on a hypocaloric diet. You
>>> > may get stronger, but that is largely a function of neuromuscular
>>> > patterning, not muscular hypertrophy. You may also have more visible
>>> > muscle as a result of fat loss. However, the actual increase in
>>> > muscular cross-sectional area will be negligible.
>>>
>>> All of that is based on silent assumption that one is already a
>>> "trained subject" who does stimulate muscle hypertrophy to a reasonable
>>> extent. In such a situation, what you described makes sense. For an
>>> untrained or detrained people, it doesn't apply.
>>
>> It applies more than you think it does.
>
>And how do you know what I think?
Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote. You wrote, "[I]t doesn't
apply." Do you see it up quoted up there? Normally, that means you
think "application = 0" Yes? Therefore, "application > 0" would be,
"It applies more than you think it does."
Am I going too fast for you, Andrzej?
>>> > That said, most folks who are "kinda fat" will do a lot more for their
>>> > physical appearance by trying to lose fat from around existing muscle
>>> > than they will trying to build muscle under a blanket of fat that
>>> > remains the same. Unless, of course, you're shooting for the "Big
>>> > Bubba" look.
>>>
>>> Well, why not eat at maintenance? Your body weight will stay the same,
>>> but your muscles will grow under diminishing blanket of fat. I did
>>> just that, and it definitely worked (as it should for a "kinda fat"
>>> untrained subject).
>>
>> How does a fat person know what "maintenance" is?
>
>By checking body weight once in a while?
200 pounds at 22%BF and at 12%BF is still 200 pounds, yes? And what
if someone's goal is to acheive as much strength (strength=
myofibrillar hypertropy + neuromuscular patterning) as possible, as
soon as possible, without regard to fat? And what if someone wants to
look as good (muscular definition = myofibrillar hypertrophy - body
fat) as possible, as soon as possible? What if they don't wish to
plod along in a fashion that is "quite enough" for you, with modest
muscle gain and modest fat loss at the same time?
Anyone who creates a subject header of "Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss
Program" is probably interested in aesthetics as opposed to raw
strength. Enhancing fat loss while maintaining muscle mass, or at
least minimizing muscle loss, is the greatest concern. Aesthetically
speaking, it's amazing how good modest muscle mass can look if you
dump a lot of fat.
>> And do you think
>> that muscle will grow fast enough to supplant substantial fat loss?
>
>It depends how much is substantial. For me a kilo per month is quite
>enough, thank you. Reasonable expectation for a non starving beginner.
A beginner who apparently thinks he knows everything and believes he
is in a position to instruct everyone else. Odd, that.
>> Most people think, "I'm getting much stronger, so my muscles must be
>> growing!"
>
>And they are. Once they started strength training, their hypertrophy
>kicks in immediately.
>
>> Most newbie strength gains are from neuromuscular training,
>> not myofibrillar hypertrophy. Do you have before-and-after MRIs that
>> show differently?
>
>No, but I agree with the above, so no problem, I think.
You just wrote "hypertrophy kicks in immediately." Maybe a little,
but not much. Being self-impressed with the muscle pump you get
immediately after lifting should not be confused with long-term
muscular hypertrophy.
>>> Let's remember several facts. One will build muscles while on
>>> hypercaloric diet even without weight training.
>>
>> It's difficult to "remember" a fact that has not been established.
>
>It was studied. Once I gave a link with references. People were
>overeating and 1/3 of body mass gains were LBM. I googled it for David.
>
>Please, don't make me google for it once again. I'll rather pretend
>that I'm lying. ;-)
That was my fault. I only scanned your sentence and thought you wrote
"hypocaloric," not "hypercaloric."
>> There will always be muscle protein turnover, so yes, there will be
>> some muscle protein synthesis, but until you show me a definitive study
>> which establishes muscle protein synthesis that exceeds muscle protein
>> breakdown on a hypocaloric diet *without* resistance training, that's
>> not a "fact." It's you blowing smoke again.
>>
>> Are you bucking for the Barry Sullivan Award?
>
>I think that you didn't read what I wrote this time around. Please do,
>before you award me.
See above.
>>> One is able to lose
>>> fat on hypercaloric diet under special conditions (mainly
>>> supercompensation).
Glycogen supercompensation is fleeting, just like muscle pump. If you
happen to be preparing for a bodybuilding contest or extended
exercise, it's great, but it is not muscle protein synthesis. And it
usually won't occur with any hypocaloric diet; it generally requires a
cyclical ketogenic diet (alternating keto/carb-up), and IIRC, you
don't like that type of diet.
>>> One is able to get fat on hypocaloric diet under
>>> special conditions (chronic overtraining).
"Fat"? I don't think so. Skinny-fat from excessive muscle protein
breakdown, maybe.
>>> Oh, something I happen to believe but can't prove: One will build
>>> muscles faster while staying fat as opposed to staying cut or ripped.
>>
>> That's about the only thing you've written that *is* fairly well
>> established.
>
>Good to know.
Glad to be of service.
JMW
>Dnia 2006-12-22 JMW napisał(a):
>> Edna Pearl wrote:
>>> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:emgpj0$o6q$1...@inews.gazeta.pl...
>>> > Dnia 2006-12-22 Bully napisał(a):
>>> >>
>>> >> Do you have any hard evidence to support this? I've gained strength in
>>> >> the
>>> >> past when dieting but that shouldn't be confused with building muscle.
>>> >
>>> > OK. Break a leg, get fat due to lack of exercise, take the plaster off
>>> > and see what a shade of your former leg you have, start walking and
>>> > lose fat and rebuild your leg at the same time.
>>> >
>>> > I tried to make it into a science, but somehow nobody wanted to get their
>>> > legs broken just to prove a point.
>>>
>>> I'll go for Andrzej's answer on this one -- and in his other post on the
>>> thread. :-) If you have any science to the contrary, I'd be glad to read
>>> it.
>>
>> No, you won't. You listen to people with folksy wisdom who say funny
>> stuff.
>
>JMW, it's not folksy wisdom.
Nearly everything you cite comes from bodybuilding.com.
>It's using the simplest model that works,
>not the most complicated that doesn't work anyway.
You are, by your own admission, a beginner. You really don't know
what works.
>And this approach
>is a cornerstone of scientific method.
More research and better methods often yield better results.
>>> Isn't it common sense? Can't some of the caloric deficit from *intake* be
>>> offset by recruiting from body fat (and muscle)? I mean, you can build
>>> muscle on your arms even while you're losing mass somewhere else, and that
>>> can happen while you have a caloric (intake) deficit.
>>
>> What evidence have you of that assertiion? Insufficient energy intake
>> requires the body to seek energy from endogenous sources. Fat stored
>> in adipocytes will supply some of that. But your body hedges its bets
>> and doesn't just seek energy from fat stores. It also increases muscle
>> protein breakdown, thereby releasing free amino acids which can be
>> deaminated (mostly in the liver) and the resulting carbon skeletons
>> converted to glucose or ketone bodies for energy. When that muscle
>> protein breakdown exceeds muscle protein synthesis, you get negative
>> muscle protein balance. That means smaller muscles, not bigger ones.
>
>You wrote a very good guide to complicating things beyond necessity,
>and how one can get lost among unimportant details.
You define "unimportant" by your standards. Some folks may have
higher standards.
>> If you want the "science" on that one, I won't offer up any current
>> studies because those facts are quite well established. Try cracking
>> open just about any anatomy and physiology text.
>
>Why should she? She knows that body is able to build and break down
>tissue somehow. How exactly this happens is not important in this case.
So lipolysis (fat breakdown) and muscle protein breakdown are the
same, and it doesn't matter what your body uses for fuel? You're a
fairly good sophist, Andrzej, but you're really starting to stretch.
>>> (Oh god, have I crossed the line over to The Dark Side -- arguing with
>>> people at mfw? No, I'm just discussing and asking questions. Right?
>>> Right?)
>>
>> Perhaps you're just under the spell of Darth Protologically
>> AddictedŠŽ and Andrzej Fett.
>
>Andrzej Fett? What is Fett?
Maybe I should have written "Rosa Fett," but I thought that would be
too obvious. If you still don't get it, never mind.
JMW
>But her "proposal" is a harder kind of work than the alternative.
>Whether it would "work" is another matter.
>
>Suppose there are two identical twins. One of them has more fat as
>well as very massive leg muscles developed through resistance
>training, targeting specifically the legs. The second twin has a pair
>of sticks.
>
>Now both go on a calorie and protein restricted diet ...
Why would the twin with stick legs go on a calorie-restricted diet?
That defies reason.
JMW
>JMW <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>investigator.
>
>OTOH, his "why" has to do with the answer to my question. As you know,
>only rich societies can really afford the luxury of science.
I realize that you're being rather opaque about where you're going,
but your thought experiment isn't directly relevant to the issue. Try
this one:
Identical twins, *both* with massive legs and somewhat overfat. (More
consistent with identical genes, anyway, yes?) Both commence an
identical progressive resistance training protocol. One maintains
his/her usual free-feeding diet; the other commences a calorie- and
protein-restricted diet. Who will gain/maintain more muscle? Who
will lose more fat?
Curt
[...]
re The Abs Diet
> I read a third of it last night. It's a fun read. As I expected, and you
(Absolutely. :o))
> The stuff about glycogen load and "good" fats are good, readable summaries
> that includes some summaries of research I didn't know about. I expect to
> learn more as I read on.
>
> And the little side bars explaining high blood pressure, diabetes, etc., are
> nice, too.
>
> The "shopping" list had some surprises. Do they actually make a "margarine"
> that has no trans-fats?
Was that rhetorical? Regardless (and of course), I Googled! And, yes,
apparently so to the trans-fat-free margarine:
http://www.fleischmanns.com/nutrition/transfat_facts.jsp
http://www.purdue.edu/hr/WorkLife/trans_fat.htm
> (I think I'll stick with cooking with olive oil and
> using flax-seed oil as a butter-spread/topping replacement.) And why in the
> name of all that's holy is "Carnation Instant Breakfast" on the shopping
> list? Perhaps they have changed the ingredients since the last time I
> looked at a box of or tasted that swill?
>
> Sorry to go on and on.
No apology necessary.
> You asked.
I did. And thanks for the reply.
> ep
--
Curt
Proctologically Violated┊
"Edna Pearl" <edna_...@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
news:XoVih.2975$3v6...@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
Excellent post.
Finish the book, OK? :)
But just so's I'm clear on your gist:
You say
> MORE FOOD = MORE MUSCLE = LESS FLAB
> LESS FOOD = LESS MUSCLE = MORE FLAB
is true. I sort of disagree, but think I understand the bigger point.
But let's assume this is strictly true.
Are you saying
cals in - cals out = weight gain/loss/stability
is false? Irrelevant? Other?
My take:
Your equations may have relevance and bearing, but they cannot contradict
the energy equation itself.
Sort of like thermodynamic vs. kinetic control of chemical reactions, if you
ever came across these. Quite analogous.
The Q is then:
How do you, and this book, "explain" weight loss, if not by cal in/cal out
"dieting"?
Relative contributions of exercise/food:
People who walk 8 hrs/day, or labor equivalently, burn a whopping 2500
cals/day, equivalent to running a marathon. And possibly quite a bit more.
Cutting back 10% on food intake (more difficult than you might imagine, long
term), is about 250 cals/day.
More realistic exercise amounts to an expenditure of 200-600 cals/day,
approx the amount of a mild jog of 20-60 mins.
Clearly, exercise *can* be a significant, if not overwhelming, part of the
energy equation.
But here's the real ticket:
It means *nothing* if one's appetite *keeps up or *exceeds* the demands of
the energy expenditure.
It is documented that some forms of exercise spike appetite so that even
more food is consumed, for net weight gain!
So *how* one goes about the whole calorie thing is as important as the
energy equation itself.
And I subscribe to the school that resistance ex/wt lifting is likely as or
more effective than trad'l aerobics, for many people, for very sound
reasons.
Altho aerobics is still an important component, altho I myself try to
minimize this component.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
>
Proctologically Violated┊
-- "Curt" <curt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166840363.1...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Actually, Curt, he did *your* job!
Compensation is proly due. :)
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
>
>> ep
>
> --
> Curt
>
>
David
"The Queen of Cans and Jars" <dhr...@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote in message
news:1hqr32g.ma8v0m1hvwdwoN%dhr...@ohatzhapu.bet...
I see Miss BitchyAss is back
Curt
[...]
re The Abs Diet
> <snip> I wouldn't read such a book even if I'm paid
> a hefty sum of money for that.
Hmmm.
> Are you certain the author has solid knowledge on
> these matters?
I'm sure there's more than one way to find out. Naturally, reading the
frigging book, irrespective of any sum paid, would be a good first
step. Ymmv.
--
Curt
Curt
[...]
re The Abs Diet
> How do you, and this book, "explain" weight loss, if
> not by cal in/cal out "dieting"?
(rolls eyes)
Come on, PV.
~*Magic.*~
Duh.
> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
--
Curt
Proctologically Violated┊
"Edna Pearl" <edna_...@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
news:1oUih.7360$n57....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:emgpj0$o6q$1...@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> Dnia 2006-12-22 Bully napisał(a):
>>> Edna Pearl wrote:
>>>> "Hans Huber" <nos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:lgvlo25qjd5m2cm7h...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> If your goal is *still* to preserve (and build?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Definitely not build. I know my calorie expenditure is too high for
>>>>> that,
>>>>
>>>> Maybe. Not necessarily. It depends :-) Don't buy the myth that
>>>> you need a calorie surplus to build muscle. Sure, if you are really
>>>> burning into the cardio while depriving yourself of calories in your
>>>> diet, you can't build, and that's probably where you are, but I do
>>>> want to mention that lifting can build muscle on a mild calorie
>>>> deficit, especially if you've got some fat.
>>>
>>> Do you have any hard evidence to support this? I've gained strength in
>>> the
>>> past when dieting but that shouldn't be confused with building muscle.
>>
>> OK. Break a leg, get fat due to lack of exercise, take the plaster off
>> and see what a shade of your former leg you have, start walking and
>> lose fat and rebuild your leg at the same time.
>>
>> I tried to make it into a science, but somehow nobody wanted to get their
>> legs broken just to prove a point.
>
> I'll go for Andrzej's answer on this one -- and in his other post on the
> thread. :-) If you have any science to the contrary, I'd be glad to read
> it.
>
> Isn't it common sense? Can't some of the caloric deficit from *intake* be
> offset by recruiting from body fat (and muscle)? I mean, you can build
> muscle on your arms even while you're losing mass somewhere else, and that
> can happen while you have a caloric (intake) deficit.
You are absolutely correct. Marathon runners are a perfect example. You
could likely come up with others--rock climbers, for example, opposite of
marathoners.
It's not a stable, or likely healthy, metabolic equilibrium, but it occurs
adaptively.
>
> ep
> (Oh god, have I crossed the line over to The Dark Side -- arguing with
> people at mfw? No, I'm just discussing and asking questions. Right?
> Right?)
See, when you ax questions at all off the beaten path, you force jmw to
think.
jmw cannot think, he can only cite, and incite.
And fuck up other people's trains of thought, to try and confuse others.
Typical sociopath.
It's also funny to see a butt-ugly dweeb like jmw talk about "aesthetics".
He occasionally has a point, but it's usually old news.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
JMW
>issue, which was the following -
>
>EP> "Can't some of the caloric deficit from *intake* be offset by
>EP> recruiting from body fat (and muscle)?
>EP> I mean, you can build muscle on your arms even while you're losing
>EP> mass somewhere else, and that can happen while you have a caloric
>EP> (intake) deficit."
>
>I take the second sentence here as a question (scientific
>question). So, theoretically, could one play some sort of a
>recomposition game? I already acknowledged that whether this is a
>sensible thing to do (given all the other available choices) is
>another matter.
It's a fair point, but looking at it in isolation misses the big
picture. And the real crux of the issue, in your paragraph above, is
simply: How much "choice" is really "available"?
Let's start from the assumption that First Law of Thermodynamics
applies: internal energy = energy in - energy out. The big problem
with newbies is their assumption that internal energy is expressed
totally as fat. As you well know, it's not.
Newbies assume that if you reduce the energy in, the excess energy out
will come totally from body fat. Your body doesn't give you that
choice. Yes, much will come from fat, particularly after the
depletion of glycogen stores, but a substantial amount will come from
catabolism of lean body mass. Therein lies the problem.
Andrzej Rosa
> Andrzej Rosa <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2006-12-22 JMW napisał(a):
>>>
>>> How does a fat person know what "maintenance" is?
>>
>>By checking body weight once in a while?
>
> 200 pounds at 22%BF and at 12%BF is still 200 pounds, yes?
Yes, it is still 200 pounds. And the difference between the two is
only 16 pounds of muscle mass instead of fat.
> And what
> if someone's goal is to acheive as much strength (strength=
> myofibrillar hypertropy + neuromuscular patterning) as possible, as
> soon as possible, without regard to fat? And what if someone wants to
> look as good (muscular definition = myofibrillar hypertrophy - body
> fat) as possible, as soon as possible? What if they don't wish to
> plod along in a fashion that is "quite enough" for you, with modest
> muscle gain and modest fat loss at the same time?
>
> Anyone who creates a subject header of "Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss
> Program" is probably interested in aesthetics as opposed to raw
> strength. Enhancing fat loss while maintaining muscle mass, or at
> least minimizing muscle loss, is the greatest concern. Aesthetically
> speaking, it's amazing how good modest muscle mass can look if you
> dump a lot of fat.
All of that doesn't change the fact, that requirement of surplus
calories for building muscle is just a rule of thumb, not a law of
nature.
>>> And do you think
>>> that muscle will grow fast enough to supplant substantial fat loss?
>>
>>It depends how much is substantial. For me a kilo per month is quite
>>enough, thank you. Reasonable expectation for a non starving beginner.
>
> A beginner who apparently thinks he knows everything and believes he
> is in a position to instruct everyone else. Odd, that.
I was a beginner several times during last decade. I wrote about it,
and you know it. Anyway, how long you reckon it takes to understand
a new branch of knowledge? Normally people say that it takes about a
year.
>>> Most people think, "I'm getting much stronger, so my muscles must be
>>> growing!"
>>
>>And they are. Once they started strength training, their hypertrophy
>>kicks in immediately.
>>
>>> Most newbie strength gains are from neuromuscular training,
>>> not myofibrillar hypertrophy. Do you have before-and-after MRIs that
>>> show differently?
>>
>>No, but I agree with the above, so no problem, I think.
>
> You just wrote "hypertrophy kicks in immediately." Maybe a little,
> but not much. Being self-impressed with the muscle pump you get
> immediately after lifting should not be confused with long-term
> muscular hypertrophy.
Still, it starts immediately. Not much, sure, but hypertrophy in
general is "not much". It takes time.
>>>> Let's remember several facts. One will build muscles while on
>>>> hypercaloric diet even without weight training.
>>>
>>> It's difficult to "remember" a fact that has not been established.
>>
>>It was studied. Once I gave a link with references. People were
>>overeating and 1/3 of body mass gains were LBM. I googled it for David.
>>
>>Please, don't make me google for it once again. I'll rather pretend
>>that I'm lying. ;-)
>
> That was my fault. I only scanned your sentence and thought you wrote
> "hypocaloric," not "hypercaloric."
I didn't expect that you'll admit to making a mistake. You prove me
wrong, and this time I'm truly glad that you did.
>>>> One is able to lose
>>>> fat on hypercaloric diet under special conditions (mainly
>>>> supercompensation).
>
> Glycogen supercompensation is fleeting, just like muscle pump. If you
> happen to be preparing for a bodybuilding contest or extended
> exercise, it's great, but it is not muscle protein synthesis. And it
> usually won't occur with any hypocaloric diet; it generally requires a
> cyclical ketogenic diet (alternating keto/carb-up), and IIRC, you
> don't like that type of diet.
I more or less agree with the above (including statement that I "don't
like" cyclical keto/carb-up approach), but it wasn't exactly my point.
One is sometimes able to lose fat by eating more, if one did a lot of
hard training on mild calorie restriction before. Basically one is
changing a hormonal response from the one verging on catabolic
overtraining to "normal". Food is anabolic, and under special
conditions just eating more fixes things to the point when your
hormones start working correctly. It's a bit like taking juice,
because your endogenous hormonal levels change.
Well, Arthur Jones did that stuff all the time.
>>>> One is able to get fat on hypocaloric diet under
>>>> special conditions (chronic overtraining).
>
> "Fat"? I don't think so. Skinny-fat from excessive muscle protein
> breakdown, maybe.
Depending how far into overtraining one went. But if you don't believe
that chronic overtraining can fuck up our hormones to this point, no
problem. Every guy who stopped training, lost body mass and gained fat
at the same time proves my point. It's possible to gain fat while
losing body weight.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Andrzej Rosa
> Andrzej Rosa <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2006-12-22 JMW napisał(a):
>>> Edna Pearl wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > OK. Break a leg, get fat due to lack of exercise, take the plaster off
>>>> > and see what a shade of your former leg you have, start walking and
>>>> > lose fat and rebuild your leg at the same time.
>>>> >
>>>> > I tried to make it into a science, but somehow nobody wanted to get their
>>>> > legs broken just to prove a point.
>>>>
>>>> I'll go for Andrzej's answer on this one -- and in his other post on the
>>>> thread. :-) If you have any science to the contrary, I'd be glad to read
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> No, you won't. You listen to people with folksy wisdom who say funny
>>> stuff.
>>
>>JMW, it's not folksy wisdom.
>
> Nearly everything you cite comes from bodybuilding.com.
What? I went through a strongman section on this site and some
exercise illustrations, but that's it.
>>It's using the simplest model that works,
>>not the most complicated that doesn't work anyway.
>
> You are, by your own admission, a beginner. You really don't know
> what works.
This time around I train for two years. I did train for three years
over a decade ago, and later for more than a year. I was a beginner
three times already.
>>And this approach
>>is a cornerstone of scientific method.
>
> More research and better methods often yield better results.
"Use the simplest model that works" approach often yields better results
too.
>>>> Isn't it common sense? Can't some of the caloric deficit from *intake* be
>>>> offset by recruiting from body fat (and muscle)? I mean, you can build
>>>> muscle on your arms even while you're losing mass somewhere else, and that
>>>> can happen while you have a caloric (intake) deficit.
>>>
>>> What evidence have you of that assertiion? Insufficient energy intake
>>> requires the body to seek energy from endogenous sources. Fat stored
>>> in adipocytes will supply some of that. But your body hedges its bets
>>> and doesn't just seek energy from fat stores. It also increases muscle
>>> protein breakdown, thereby releasing free amino acids which can be
>>> deaminated (mostly in the liver) and the resulting carbon skeletons
>>> converted to glucose or ketone bodies for energy. When that muscle
>>> protein breakdown exceeds muscle protein synthesis, you get negative
>>> muscle protein balance. That means smaller muscles, not bigger ones.
>>
>>You wrote a very good guide to complicating things beyond necessity,
>>and how one can get lost among unimportant details.
>
> You define "unimportant" by your standards. Some folks may have
> higher standards.
You don't get it. All what you have written boils down to the fact,
that faced with calorie restriction a body will bread down tissue to
cover the deficit. It's obvious. It doesn't explain anything of
importance here. It's not necessary to complicate a model with
ketones, myofibriles and adipocytes. It's not science.
>>> If you want the "science" on that one, I won't offer up any current
>>> studies because those facts are quite well established. Try cracking
>>> open just about any anatomy and physiology text.
>>
>>Why should she? She knows that body is able to build and break down
>>tissue somehow. How exactly this happens is not important in this case.
>
> So lipolysis (fat breakdown) and muscle protein breakdown are the
> same, and it doesn't matter what your body uses for fuel? You're a
> fairly good sophist, Andrzej, but you're really starting to stretch.
Of course it does matter what is primarily used. What is not
important, is how exactly it is done. You're a fairly good sophist,
JMW, but you're really starting to stretch.
[...]
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Andrzej Rosa
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:21:57 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
><bak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2006-12-22 JMW napisa?(a):
>>> Perhaps you're just under the spell of Darth Protologically
>>
>>Andrzej Fett? What is Fett?
>
> both bad guys in the Star Wars movies. I guess he is saying you speak
> science fiction.
Thanks. I read more books than I watch movies, and when I watch them I
tend to forget them easily.
Anyway, why "Rosa Fett" is supposed to be easier?
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Proctologically Violated┊
.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie, all
d'numbuhs
"Shute" <Sh...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:85lpo253vc6plsj92...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:21:57 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2006-12-22 JMW napisa?(a):
>>> Perhaps you're just under the spell of Darth Protologically
>>> AddictedSZ and Andrzej Fett.
>>
>>Andrzej Fett? What is Fett?
>
> He is comparing you to Bobba Fett and PV to Darth Vader. They are
> both bad guys in the Star Wars movies. I guess he is saying you speak
> science fiction.
Does this mean he's also calling my dick a sword?
My, my, I'm flattered, but golly, jmw's capacity for hyperbole is mighty,
indeed.
Unless, of course, it indeed felt that big. I told him it was only 9.5",
but maybe it felt like a g-d sword....
Sorry, jm....
Curt
[...]
> Couldn't I just read some spam off my "junk" email folder? :-)
You could.
My only thought was that, hey, fwiw, I'm disappointed that you'd slam
(perhaps an unfair characterization of what you've offered) a book
without having actually read the book.
> > DZ wrote:
re The Abs Diet
> >> <snip> I wouldn't read such a book even if I'm paid
> >> a hefty sum of money for that.
Regardless, spam as entertainment is a humorous thought. :o)
I'll have to check my spam folder...
Oh, that's not very funny. Poor Muhammed Al-hakim, a merchant in Dubai,
in the U.A.E. has been diagnosed with Esophageal cancer. Though he is
very rich, he apparently was never generous. Instead, he states, he was
always hostile to people and only focused on his business as that was
the only thing he cared for. But now he regrets all this as he says he
now knows that there is more to life than just wanting to have or make
all the money
in the world.
Geez. This is so sad. Man, DZ, thanks for bringing my spam folder to my
attention. What a sad, sad story.
Although I don't have time to help him distribute his millions -
despite his generous offer to set aside 30% for my time and service and
expenses - I did click on "Invite Muhammed to Gmail" after I read his
story. Maybe that wil bring a smile to his day.
--
Curt
Proctologically Violated┊
"JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:g47po2lapbpthuag1...@4ax.com...
And, of course, John "The Plagiarist" Williams gets it wrong but once again,
in his one-ups-manship desperation.
This one is classic, tho.
The First Law relates internal energy specifically to *heat* and *work*
(usually mechanical, but not always), NOT to a simple substraction of energy
in and energy out.
jmw's circle-jerk buddeez, or anyone else, can post this to sci.physics, to
see just how cosmic a sophist The Plagiarist is.
There is, actually, a lot of choice, and no real ""problem"", if you
understand the *real* issues, and not some coccamammy mis-statement of the
First Law of Thermo.
If you do A, the body will respond in kind.
If you do B, the body will respond in another kind.
Etc.
Few things correspond to the "jmw-concentric" theory of the universe.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
>
Edna Pearl
message news:ct0jh.2569$ZA2....@newsfe08.lga...
> But just so's I'm clear on your gist:
>
> You say
>
>> MORE FOOD = MORE MUSCLE = LESS FLAB
>> LESS FOOD = LESS MUSCLE = MORE FLAB
>
> is true. I sort of disagree, but think I understand the bigger point.
> But let's assume this is strictly true.
> Are you saying
>
> cals in - cals out = weight gain/loss/stability
>
> is false? Irrelevant? Other?
Other. You can't explain a macro event, such as muscle-building or fat
loss, at any single micro level, such as calories in/calories out. The body
is a big, complex macro-organism, not a simple machine. There are all sorts
of synergies, syntheses, etc., going.
The fact that existing muscle mass uses more calories just to stay put than,
say, fat does is a significant variable in the macro equation relevant to
the human body's calorie-use.
Another factor is the fact that it the human body needs more calories to
break down protein than it does, say, simple carbs.
You can estimate how much muscle mass you have, estimate how many calories
each muscle burns per unit of time to maintain itself, then estimate how
many calories you consume and how much of that was protein, and then come up
with some estimate of how much will be stored as fat. But it's all just an
estimate. Then you can change your estimate some more based on hormone
variations. But it's still just an estimate.
Nobody can explain (yet) how or why a lot of macro stuff happens. That's
why scientists do long-term studies of macro behaviors. A scientist isn't
going to purport to predict (or deduce) macro events from a micro level.
(Unless he's stupid or crazy, I guess. A stupid or crazy scientist could
deduce the moon is made of green cheese, if s/he wanted to, I guess.)
For example, I was just reading a summary of a long-term study that said
that they fed one study group a diet that emphasized a particular kind of
fat for a while, and fed another group a diet with the same number of
calories but less of the particular fats being studied, and another group
something else, etc. Then they weighed everybody a few years later and
found that a group on one diet weight significantly less than another group,
controlling for all known variables.
Now, they wouldn't have needed to do that study if you could *predict* what
was going to happen based on some simple law of thermodynamics or on any
given combination of known micro-level variable. In fact, nobody can even
*explain* ad hoc why it happened that way on the micro or macro level. Yet.
So we come up with some theories, both micro-level and macro-level, and
somebody tests those, too. And all the scientists still have something to
do because they haven't figured it all out. Yet. Bless 'em.
ep
(Sorry, but I'm not going to spend much time on this. I'm trying to finish
a project for work so I can get out of town for a couple of weeks. Y'all
have a happy.)
Edna Pearl
news:10...@3111214514.896618378.28027.8210.948...
> Edna Pearl <edna_...@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>> <snip> who really cares?
>
> I do.
>
>> <snip> who really cares?
>
> I do.
>
>> <snip> who really cares?
>
> I do
Jeez, that's kinda sad. <sniff> Maybe you need a hobby, so you won't have
to spend so much psychic energy on "really caring" what some magazine editor
says in a popular diet book that you refuse to read in the first place. I
like needlepoint, personally. Cats are relaxing, too.
ep
JMW
>"Proctologically Violated┊" <entropic...@optonline2.718.net> wrote in
>message news:ct0jh.2569$ZA2....@newsfe08.lga...
>> But just so's I'm clear on your gist:
>>
>> You say
>>
>>> MORE FOOD = MORE MUSCLE = LESS FLAB
>>> LESS FOOD = LESS MUSCLE = MORE FLAB
>>
>> is true. I sort of disagree, but think I understand the bigger point.
>> But let's assume this is strictly true.
>> Are you saying
>>
>> cals in - cals out = weight gain/loss/stability
>>
>> is false? Irrelevant? Other?
>
>Other. You can't explain a macro event, such as muscle-building or fat
>loss, at any single micro level, such as calories in/calories out. The body
>is a big, complex macro-organism, not a simple machine. There are all sorts
>of synergies, syntheses, etc., going.
No shit. The First Law of Thermodynamics still applies. What you are
failing to perceive is that the "energy out" includes all sorts of
metabolic processes, not just conscious movement. And some of the
"energy in" may be stored energy in food that is not fully digested,
and thus, its energy value is not fully realized. But blathering
about "synergies, syntheses, etc." doesn't change any of that.
Curt
[...]
> But blathering about <snip> doesn't change any of that.
This is why, John Williams, from my perspective, you're much more a
nuisance than a boon. If you say something then it's A-OK, but if
someone else says something it's blathering.
Hypocrite.
And in the spirit of David Cohen's recent plea: "But, even if that is
true, it doesn't answer my question." To wit:
Have you ever explained the contradiction in your use of the term
conduit as a pejorative and your own examples of conduit behavior?
Likewise enabler. You have criticized others for replying to patrons of
this newsgroup you deem troll but have no compunction in replying to
those same individuals.
You are a laughable hypocrite, John.
--
Curt
The Queen of Cans and Jars
> The Queen of Cans and Jars <dhr...@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:
> > JMW <jmwill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> No, you won't. You listen to people with folksy wisdom who say
> >> funny stuff.
> >
> > That's because she doesn't want to do any of the hard work. She
> > only wants to do stuff that agrees with what she already believes.
>
> But her "proposal" is a harder kind of work than the alternative.
> Whether it would "work" is another matter.
Oh, I'm not reading anything she's written here. She's far too silly to
take seriously.
Curt
[...]
> Oh, I'm not reading anything she's written here.
> She's far too silly to take seriously.
Talking to yourself, mica?
--
Curt
Andrzej Rosa
He ain't like that. I'm too drunk to be able to express myself clearly
(fuck! I made no spelling errors up to now!) but he got a point. I
remember that when I read him, he obviously got a point. Most probably
about some sort of statistics, or science, or whatever he does for a
living I'd rather be doing.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Proctologically Violated┊
"Curt" <curt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166897119....@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Note that John The Plagiarist Williams, despite my above correction on his
misconception of the 1st law of thermo, STILL recites it, still incorrectly.
Cuz it still *sounds* impressive.
jmw is an igneranus.
But, notice he stopped using "conversely".
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
>
> --
> Curt
>
>
Andrzej Rosa
>>> But just so's I'm clear on your gist:
>>>
>>> You say
>>>
>>>> MORE FOOD = MORE MUSCLE = LESS FLAB
>>>> LESS FOOD = LESS MUSCLE = MORE FLAB
>>>
>>> is true. I sort of disagree, but think I understand the bigger point.
>>> But let's assume this is strictly true.
>>> Are you saying
>>>
>>> cals in - cals out = weight gain/loss/stability
>>>
>>> is false? Irrelevant? Other?
>>
>>Other. You can't explain a macro event, such as muscle-building or fat
>>loss, at any single micro level, such as calories in/calories out. The body
>>is a big, complex macro-organism, not a simple machine. There are all sorts
>>of synergies, syntheses, etc., going.
>
> No shit. The First Law of Thermodynamics still applies.
I'm drunk, but I still remember some things from the time I was sober.
One of those is the fact that you have absolutely no idea about
thermodynamics.
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
JMW
Oh, you're drunk AND and asshole! I'm so happy for you.
The First Law of Thermodynamics is so simple that even Edna could
understand it. And most of the physiology I discuss is simple enough
that you could learn it if you weren't so adamant about maintaining
your simplistic ignorance.
Edna Pearl
> Dnia 2006-12-23 JMW napisał(a):
> I'm drunk, but I still remember some things from the time I was sober.
One-liners like this give me a reason to wake up in the morning.
ep
Marlin Perkins
> Does this mean he's also calling my dick a sword?
Yer ol' lady Jenny sez it ain't even a pocketknife.
Curt
-=SNIP!=-
Marlin Perkins was The Man.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19470707,00.html
Yes, the em-effin' and almighty MAN!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,934616,00.html
--
Curt
Proctologically Violated┊
Einstein: People who think shit is simple have proven they don't understand
it.
JMW: Cain't even cite the 1st law correctly, just as you mis-cite most of
your studies. So how could you possibly understand it, iffin you cain't even
cite it correctly?
PV: internal energy = energy in - energy out is, to most physicists,
nonsensical.
*change* in internal energy = dU = dQ -dW, where, iirc, the right-hand
differentials are *not* "exact", but inexact (meaning path dependent)
whereas dU is, in fact, exact, ie, a differentiable function. Q= heat, W=
work
Or some shit like that. .
Yeah, I took thermo, 3 semesters, in fact. goodgawd.....
This is, in fact, *very subtle shit* (as is most of thermo), very little
of which I remember, but I remember enough to know that not only is John The
Plagiarist Williams an effing sophistical plagiarist, he's an incompetent
one, cuz he cain't even plagiarize the material he plagiarizes in a cogent,
correct fashion, in any correct context.
And most of the physiology I discuss is simple enough
> that you could learn it if you weren't so adamant about maintaining
> your simplistic ignorance.
As if The Plagiarist understands the complicated stuff. Give me a
fuknbreak....
Andre may not be right 100% of the time, but as a scholar, gentlemen, and
productive *contributor* to mfw (and probably many other things), he is
*stratospheres* above you--even drunk.
Ditto Edna, who while making some conceptual errors (imo), does so in a
thoroughly civilized intelligent shit-free dialogue. Edna brings up
interesting points. You are pedantically, tediously dogmatic, and therfore
ultimately boring and a waste of people's time.
A good many people here are stratospheres above you in knowledge,
understanding.
As are almost all people, when it comes to character.
Problem is, John The Plagiarist, you can only bully and flim-flam people who
haven't been formally schooled in certain subjects.
To others, even if they've forgotten the details, the more you go on, the
more you reveal your UseNet hustle.
If you shut the fuck up, quit while you were ahead, you wouldn't tip your
ignerint hand so regularly.
Let's see, so far you've revealed ignerints of the law, of your own
vocabulary, an absolute inability to retrieve or cite even *relevant*
studies, more inability to interpret them, a total inability to be honest,
now an *absolute ignerints of physics*, or of even how to apply its basic
principles, you cain't do elementary calculations (else I'd be blowing you
tonite or New Years Eve on Times Square), and ekc ekc ekc.
I luvit: to gain muscle, eat before, during, *and* after a workout--and
with creatine.
Gee, now DAT just about covers *all* the fuknbases now, dudnit?
You plagiarizing fraud.
And, I don't really give a fuck whether you ig me or not. The *others*
should know what a ignerint-assed fraud you are.
As will Wayne County, soon enough.
Enjoy yer holidays--by yerself, no doubt.
Proctologically Violated┊
"Shute" <Sh...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0tqro2lp2mq36a3r0...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:38:44 -0500, "Proctologically Violated┊"
> <entropic...@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>
>>Problem is, John The Plagiarist, you can only bully and flim-flam people
>>who
>>haven't been formally schooled in certain subjects.
>>To others, even if they've forgotten the details, the more you go on, the
>>more you reveal your UseNet hustle.
>>If you shut the fuck up, quit while you were ahead, you wouldn't tip your
>>ignerint hand so regularly.
>
> It amazes me that he has been carrying on like that for ten years.
> And people actually go for the pile of shit that comes from his mouth.
> I can only gather that his supporters must be afraid to stand up to
> him.
>
>>I luvit: to gain muscle, eat before, during, *and* after a workout--and
>>with creatine.
>>Gee, now DAT just about covers *all* the fuknbases now, dudnit?
>
> Everyone knows you build muscle when you workout. : )
Think about the miserable poetry of it all:
A muthafucka who mis-quotes the 1st law of thermo, mis-applies,
mis-understands it, AND THEN has the fukn character-disordered *chutzpuh* to
pass judgment on others regarding his perception of *their* understanding.
It's incredible.... It's actually artful, in its own perverse way.
Helloooooowwww, Wayne County.....
Yeah, this is Mr. P.V.--yeah, I've had sumpn shoved waaaay up there, but
dat's besides the pernt.... Are you aware of the
psychopath/*embarrassment* you have representing your County.... Are you
really aware........
JMW
wrote:>>>Dnia 2006-12-23 JMW napisa³(a):
>>>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_...@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic...@optonline2.718.net>
Forgot "change." BFD.
> This is, in fact, *very subtle shit* (as is most of thermo), very little
>of which I remember ...
You're a phony. Nothing to remember. You lie about your degrees,
your licensure, your competence, and about anything else you can
imagine. When challenged, you issue quirky insults in your
pseudo-New-York-City accent, but you never answer the question.
You, quite simply, are a pathological liar.
>> And most of the physiology I discuss is simple enough
>> that you could learn it if you weren't so adamant about maintaining
>> your simplistic ignorance.
>
>As if The Plagiarist understands the complicated stuff. Give me a
>fuknbreak....
>
>Andre may not be right 100% of the time, but as a scholar, gentlemen, and
>productive *contributor* to mfw (and probably many other things), he is
>*stratospheres* above you--even drunk.
I argue with Andrzej. So what? You, however, are a pathological
liar, and it seems likely that you are mentally ill. Arguing with you
would be utterly senseless. The people in sci.med.nutrition have long
recognized you as a phony, so you came to MFW to see if you could pull
the wool over the eyes of the folks here. With a few of the newbies,
it appears to have succeeded. But that won't last for long.
>Ditto Edna, who while making some conceptual errors (imo), does so in a
>thoroughly civilized intelligent shit-free dialogue. Edna brings up
>interesting points. You are pedantically, tediously dogmatic, and therfore
>ultimately boring and a waste of people's time.
>A good many people here are stratospheres above you in knowledge,
>understanding.
>As are almost all people, when it comes to character.
>
>Problem is, John The Plagiarist, you can only bully and flim-flam people who
>haven't been formally schooled in certain subjects.
Please designate the universities that awarded you degrees in the
subjects in which you claim to be "formally schooled."
<insert Kristofer Hogg's quirky insults>
<no response to request for information>
>To others, even if they've forgotten the details, the more you go on, the
>more you reveal your UseNet hustle.
>If you shut the fuck up, quit while you were ahead, you wouldn't tip your
>ignerint hand so regularly.
>
>Let's see, so far you've revealed ignerints of the law, of your own
>vocabulary, an absolute inability to retrieve or cite even *relevant*
>studies, more inability to interpret them,
You are deluded as to the law.
Your writing easily reveals your ignorance of the English language and
proper usage.
You cover your ignorance of anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry by
making vague references to biochemical terms and switching the subject
to high-school physics formulas. You couldn't interpret medical and
scientific studies if your life depended on it.
Yeah, I guess that about covers it.
Oh, wait ... did I mention that you're a pathological liar?
>And, I don't really give a fuck whether you ig me or not. The *others*
>should know what a ignerint-assed fraud you are.
>As will Wayne County, soon enough.
>Enjoy yer holidays--by yerself, no doubt.
We're having a great time.
JMW
>On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:38:44 -0500, "Proctologically Violated┊"
><entropic...@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>
>>Problem is, John The Plagiarist, you can only bully and flim-flam people who
>>haven't been formally schooled in certain subjects.
>>To others, even if they've forgotten the details, the more you go on, the
>>more you reveal your UseNet hustle.
>>If you shut the fuck up, quit while you were ahead, you wouldn't tip your
>>ignerint hand so regularly.
>
>It amazes me that he has been carrying on like that for ten years.
>And people actually go for the pile of shit that comes from his mouth.
>I can only gather that his supporters must be afraid to stand up to
>him.
Keep on sucking up to Hogg, Shute. Your credibility will be judged
accordingly.
Proctologically Violated┊
"JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:77sro257l6hbhit8f...@4ax.com...
That's funny. YOU brought up, gratuitously and incorrectly, the 1st law of
thermo.
I introduced no high school formulas, simply the thermodynamic definition of
the 1st law, which you apparently don't understand, and likely never will.
You blew smoke, got caught, now yer wriggling like the little bitch that you
are.
And you don't argue w/ Andre, you insult him when he disagrees. And
everyone else.
Degree'd or not, I got it right, you are embarrasingly wrong. Which means
you cain't even use Wikipedia correctly.
You dismissed your error as omitting "change" in internal energy. No, that
was just the beginning of your error.
You cannot even understand your errors.
I cite the facts, YOU revert to the name calling, the degrees, etc.
Let's talk about the 1st law of thermo. Let's talk about why your citation
of it was nonsensical.
How do you reconcile your incorrect simpleton rendition, with what the law
*really* sez, really means, as I posted it?
What is significant about the differentials dQ and dW?
Why is the law fundamentally important, but of little use in an "open
thermodynamic system" such as the human body?
Why is your use of it patently irrelevant?
Who is the fraud, John Williams, The Plagiarist?
Who makes the constant errors? Who mis-cites laws of physics, doesn't know
the vocabulary?
Who is the one who is taken to task, and ducks?
You. It's right here, in black and white.
I cite the law correctly, and all of a sudden it's "high school"?
Well then how come you got it wrong, used it incorrectly?
All of a sudden I got no degrees? So what?
One doesn't need degrees to demonstrate fraud.
Your fraud is transparent, every time you post.
>
> Yeah, I guess that about covers it.
>
It does.
> Oh, wait ... did I mention that you're a pathological liar?
You did. It's irrelevant. As is my writing, N'Yawk accent (which my
shennanigans don't reflect, btw), ekc.
I don't mis-quote articles, cite irrelevant studies, mis-quote basic laws
of physics, mis-use the vocabulary of my own profession.
You do.
It's documented, at length, at this point.
You can protest for the newbies, but not even your circle-jerk buddeez can
help you here.
How come you never acknowledged your "conversely" faux pas??
The creatine?? The diet timing stupidness?
Now the 1st law of thermo...
It *is* a little embarrassing, idnit?
Of course, it's shameful that Charles didn't catch it, but he's forgiven....
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
>
JMW
wrote:
>How come you never acknowledged your "conversely" faux pas??
>The creatine?? The diet timing stupidness?
I've not acknowledged being wrong on those things because I wasn't.
And I'm smart enough not to get involved in a circular argument with a
troll.
JMW
>Edna Pearl <edna_...@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>> "DZ" wrote:
>>> Edna Pearl <edna_...@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>>> <snip> who really cares?
>>>
>>> I do.
>>>
>>>> <snip> who really cares?
>>>
>>> I do.
>>>
>>>> <snip> who really cares?
>>>
>>> I do
>>
>> Jeez, that's kinda sad. <sniff> Maybe you need a hobby, so you won't have
>> to spend so much psychic energy on "really caring" what some magazine editor
>> says in a popular diet book that you refuse to read in the first place.
>
>for my hobbies - so I can't call them hobbies any more.
>
>What's sad is that you would keep reading a book that is, by your own
>admission, incompetent and peddly -
Maybe she should get her wisdom from Protologically Addicted┊.
JMW
>Curt <curt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> Couldn't I just read some spam off my "junk" email folder? :-)
>>
>> You could.
>>
>> My only thought was that, hey, fwiw, I'm disappointed that you'd slam
>> (perhaps an unfair characterization of what you've offered) a book
>> without having actually read the book.
>
>I didn't slam the book. Edna did! -
>
>EP> he apparently commits the fallacy of "post/cum hoc ergo propter
>EP> hoc" over and over and over and over again
>EP>
>EP> the whole "abs" focus is a total gimmick
>EP>
>EP> He doesn't appear to actually understand ketogenic dieting
>
>If you agree with her, then it begs the question - why do you guys
>keep promoting what you think is incompetent spam?
>
>I admit that a thought had crossed my mind in the past that you've
>been posting recommendations for "The abs diet" here just to piss off
>JMW etc.
Piss me off? Heavens, no! I consider "The Abs Diet" to be a comic
device like "Richard Simmons's Deal-a-Meal"!
Proctologically Violated┊
"JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:513so2hfskrah38sk...@4ax.com...
No, you're wiley enough to not embarrass yourself further, to escape (so you
think), to convict the innocent/free the guilty cuz of whatever skill you
have flim-flamming undeducated juries.
For example, when you think you have the upper hand, you are implacable,
kicking the other guy when you think he's down.
For example, in holocaust business, you responded w/ bullshit cites, that I
will likely show to be bullshit.
When you get caught there, you will disappear.
When you get caught, all of a sudden you cain't be bothered, shit is beneath
you, the other person is a moron.
You brought up the first law, I showed your idiocy, offered to discuss it,
all of a sudden it's circular.
I showed you you don't know basic vocabulary, you disappear.
You could never defend your creatine/protein timing bullshit, you
disappeared again.
And came back w/ eating 24/7 as the key to building muscle.
Run, John Williams Run. See John Wiliams The Incompetent Plagiarist run.
Curt
> Curt wrote:
> > DZ wrote:
> >> Couldn't I just read some spam off my "junk" email folder? :-)
> >
> > You could.
> >
> > My only thought was that, hey, fwiw, I'm disappointed that you'd slam
> > (perhaps an unfair characterization of what you've offered) a book
> > without having actually read the book.
>
> I didn't slam the book.
You also didn't read the book.
> Edna did! -
>
> EP> he apparently commits the fallacy of "post/cum hoc ergo propter
> EP> hoc" over and over and over and over again
> EP>
> EP> the whole "abs" focus is a total gimmick
> EP>
> EP> He doesn't appear to actually understand ketogenic dieting
Her opinions seemed balanced to me and, hey, personal opinion is just
that. It's her fitness program and I'm certainly not going to question
her. Likewise, it's your right to read (or, hey, refuse to read)
whatever you'd like.
> If you agree with her, then it begs the question - why do you guys
> keep promoting what you think is incompetent spam?
For one, I enjoy the book. I think it's swell.
> I admit that a thought had crossed my mind in the past that you've
> been posting recommendations for "The abs diet" here just to piss off
> JMW etc.
I doubt JMW needs any assistance in being pissed off. He's one of
those. Absolutely.
--
Curt
Proctologically Violated┊
"JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:g55so25stj7ktmomm...@4ax.com...
Keep posting, John The FuknIdiot Williams, keep posting.
Here's the story behind "comic devices" such as Deal-a-Meal.
Simmons, who I personally believe to be legit, took the American Dietetics
Association's "Exchange System", which is still in use by dietitians today,
commercialized it, made it successful, and pissed the ADA off so much that
they were considering suing him, according to the inside buzz. They might
even have, altho if so, we'd likely have heard about it.
Btw, in the RD (registered dietitian) certification exam, every dietitian
must be fluent in this exchange system.
Yeah, I know, I'm a fraud, ekc ekc, but I took the exam anyway, and
fuknPassed!! go figger.....
Actually, I didn't pass by much, but wtf.... I cain't cook, either. Which
is why I have to stay married....
Whatever, Simmons' Deal-a-Meal is perhaps the ONLY legitimate diet
plan/system that has *ever* been promoted commercially--short of Curt's Ab
Diet book, of course. :)
imo, of course.
Mostly due to the fact that every diet book/product I have ever seen is
fraudulent, with a few exceptions, such as Ornish, Weil, cupla others. Dr
Oz?Roizen makes some sense as well, altho his middle-of-the-road stance on
fitness is counterproductive, imo.
Oh yeah, and the Ab Diet book.. :)
And, your overall comprehension is so poor, you obviously can't make Curt's
very valid distinction, that yeah, the title is a come-on, but maybe the
info is good, anyway.
Shit, you cain't even cite relevant articles for your own agendas!
HTF do you function in the Wayne County DAs office? Man, their jails must
be fukn EMPTY w/ you on board, jack.
Or, your paralegal research must be causing a lot legal black eyes, as well.
I wonder who in your office would interested in following these mfw
manifestations of your incompetence?
Anyway, so Deal-a-Meal, despite its comic name, IS the real nutritional
deal--at least along the lines of traditional nutrition, food groups, ekc
ekc..
Simmons is constrained by the industry he has to work in, but I think he
does an admirable job.
Once again John Williams, The Mis-Informed Incompetent Plagiarist, you get
it wrong.
Keep posting.
JMW
wrote:
>
>
>
>"JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
>news:513so2hfskrah38sk...@4ax.com...
>> "Proctologically Addicted©®" <entropic...@optonline2.718.net>
>> wrote:
>>>How come you never acknowledged your "conversely" faux pas??
>>>The creatine?? The diet timing stupidness?
>>
>> I've not acknowledged being wrong on those things because I wasn't.
>> And I'm smart enough not to get involved in a circular argument with a
>> troll.
>
>No, you're wiley enough to not embarrass yourself further ...
No, you've never shown any of it to be wrong. You just blather on.
No proof. No authoritative support. Just your say-so.
Blah, blah, blah: the stock-in-trade of the pathological liar.
Edna Pearl
> Her opinions seemed balanced to me and, hey, personal opinion is just
> that. It's her fitness program and I'm certainly not going to question
> her.
Back up -- What's my fitness program? Not the Abs Diet. I just read the
book! (Is that so *wrong*?)
ep
Proctologically Violated┊
"JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:298so2dh71q68hbud...@4ax.com...
Lessee:
You made the idiotic ass-ertion that internal energy = energy in - energy
out, and proclaimed this to be the 1st law of thermo.
I said that the 1st law of thermo states that dU = dQ - dW, with commentary
on the nature of the differentials, and that this has *nothing* to do with
energy balance in the body, aside from the fact that the 1st law does in
fact govern the Universe.
Your response?
Btw, in each of those threads, you were shown to be wrong *in detail*. very
regular here knows it, including your circle-jerk buddeez--which is why they
are quiet.
It's just very convenenient for you do deny it.
Anyone interested, for starters, can google "Conversely" and proctologically
violated, and jmw.
If that was me, John Williams The Illiterit, I'da never posted again, at
least not on this ng.
But you have no shame.
But, back to the 1st law:
Your response?
Curt
> "Curt" wrote
Let me top-post (kindasorta) by way of clarifying or breaking apart
what I've written in order to reduce any possible confusion
(hopefully).
> > Her opinions
So far as The Abs Diet is concerned.
> > seemed balanced to me
You seemed neither dazzled nor disgusted, imo.
> > and, hey, personal opinion is just that.
Again, re The Abs Diet. It's an opinion. Not something that's going to
make or break my own opinion about the book or the author's philosophy.
> > It's her fitness program
Whatever your fitness program might be.
> > and I'm certainly not going to question her.
And I'm not. Much.
(But, yeah, what IS your fitness program? Uh, I read ahead.)
> Back up --
Okay, but not by much. My apartment is very small.
> What's my fitness program?
I don't know.
> Not the Abs Diet.
Okay.
> I just read the book!
Cool.
> (Is that so *wrong*?)
Not at all.
> ep
--
Curt
JMW
wrote:
Here is the New York State Professions Verification web page:
http://www.op.nysed.gov/opsearches.htm
Please show us your name on the list under Certified
Dietitian/Nutritionist, Kristofer Hogg.
Please don't let it be just another lie!
Edna Pearl
> Edna Pearl wrote:
>> "Curt" wrote
>
> Let me top-post (kindasorta) by way of clarifying or breaking apart
> what I've written in order to reduce any possible confusion
> (hopefully).
>
>> > Her opinions
>
> So far as The Abs Diet is concerned.
>
>> > seemed balanced to me
>
> You seemed neither dazzled nor disgusted, imo.
What a fair and balanced summary, Curt.
>> > and, hey, personal opinion is just that.
>
> Again, re The Abs Diet. It's an opinion. Not something that's going to
> make or break my own opinion about the book or the author's philosophy.
>
>
>> > It's her fitness program
>
> Whatever your fitness program might be.
>
>> > and I'm certainly not going to question her.
>
> And I'm not. Much.
>
> (But, yeah, what IS your fitness program? Uh, I read ahead.)
>
>> Back up --
>
> Okay, but not by much. My apartment is very small.
>
>> What's my fitness program?
>
> I don't know.
>
>> Not the Abs Diet.
>
> Okay.
>
>> I just read the book!
>
> Cool.
>
>> (Is that so *wrong*?)
>
> Not at all.
Well, now that we have that straight . . . . good night.
ep
Proctologically Violated┊
"JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:n69so2dhvnb9fnb08...@4ax.com...
Maybe it is a lie, maybe it isn't.
But let's get back to YOUR point, but another mis-stated ass-ertion of
yours, that Richard Simmon's Deal-a-Meal is comical.
You said it was comical, I said it was, uh, borrowed straight from the ADA's
own exchange system in nutrition, thereby making it legitimate.
My credential or lack thereof is not an issue.
Your ignerints is.
Please respond the issue at hand, and refrain from ducking, dodging, and
futile allegations--which, btw, are bordering on libel (as much as libel can
exist on UseNet), which Wayne Country might be interested in as well.
Indirectly, your actions make them liable as well.
You DO understand the diff between liable and libel, don't you?
Well, given your take on Conversely, mebbe you don't.
But I can guarowntee you Wayne County knows and greatly appreciates the
diff. I think 2007 is going to be a very interesting year John I shoulda
kept my mouth shut Williams.
'Course, a moniker like Proctologically Violated isn't going to help in a
libel suit, but I'm sure John Williams is pretty much persona non grata in
his own office.
Damn, Xmas must be lonely, eh Williams?
Anyway, back to Simmons' Deal-a-Meal. Why is it comical, when it came
straight from the ADA???
Proctologically Violated┊
HoloBarre???? :)
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"Curt" <curt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166943464.4...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Curt
[...]
> <snip> You just blather on. <snip>
Right. Blather again.
ZZZZZZZZ!
How exciting, John Williams. Thank you for your contribution to this
newsgroup.
Hmm. And, hey, speaking of dodging or ducking questions:
Have you ever explained the contradiction in your use of the term
conduit as a pejorative and your own examples of conduit behavior?
Likewise enabler. You have criticized others for replying to patrons of
this newsgroup and yet have no compunction in replying to those same
individuals. How can you do that without calling yourself a hypocrite?
--
Curt
JMW
wrote:
>"JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic...@optonline2.718.net>
>> wrote:
>>>> "Proctologically Addicted©®" <entropic...@optonline2.718.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>How come you never acknowledged your "conversely" faux pas??
>>>>>The creatine?? The diet timing stupidness?
>>>>
>>>> I've not acknowledged being wrong on those things because I wasn't.
>>>> And I'm smart enough not to get involved in a circular argument with a
>>>> troll.
>>>
>>>No, you're wiley enough to not embarrass yourself further ...
>>
>> No, you've never shown any of it to be wrong. You just blather on.
>>
>> No proof. No authoritative support. Just your say-so.
>>
>> Blah, blah, blah: the stock-in-trade of the pathological liar.
>
>Lessee:
>
>You made the idiotic ass-ertion that internal energy = energy in - energy
>out, and proclaimed this to be the 1st law of thermo.
>I said that the 1st law of thermo states that dU = dQ - dW, with commentary
>on the nature of the differentials, and that this has *nothing* to do with
>energy balance in the body, aside from the fact that the 1st law does in
>fact govern the Universe.
>
>Your response?
<sigh>
"The first law of thermodynamics is satisfied in living (open) systems
by properly accounting for the mass excreted and the heat radiated and
exported in high entropy molecules."
Fine EJ, Feinman RD. Thermodynamics of weight loss diets. Nutr Metab
(Lond). 2004 Dec 8;1(1):15.
You seem to be terribly confused, Kristofer Hogg. The authors of the
foregoing article are professors in the Department of Biochemistry at
SUNY Downstate Medical Center, just down the road from you. Perhaps
you could go see them, and they could straighten you out.
Poor Mr. Hogg!
Andrzej Rosa
>>>>> But just so's I'm clear on your gist:
>>>>>
>>>>> You say
>>>>>
>>>>>> MORE FOOD = MORE MUSCLE = LESS FLAB
>>>>>> LESS FOOD = LESS MUSCLE = MORE FLAB
>>>>>
>>>>> is true. I sort of disagree, but think I understand the bigger point.
>>>>> But let's assume this is strictly true.
>>>>> Are you saying
>>>>>
>>>>> cals in - cals out = weight gain/loss/stability
>>>>>
>>>>> is false? Irrelevant? Other?
>>>>
>>>>Other. You can't explain a macro event, such as muscle-building or fat
>>>>loss, at any single micro level, such as calories in/calories out. The body
>>>>is a big, complex macro-organism, not a simple machine. There are all sorts
>>>>of synergies, syntheses, etc., going.
>>>
>>> No shit. The First Law of Thermodynamics still applies.
>>
>>I'm drunk, but I still remember some things from the time I was sober.
>>One of those is the fact that you have absolutely no idea about
>>thermodynamics.
>
> Oh, you're drunk AND and asshole! I'm so happy for you.
You, of all people, are accusing me of being mean? Are you sure that
you do not tolerate it?
> The First Law of Thermodynamics is so simple that even Edna could
> understand it.
Yes, you are right. Edna could understand it fine.
> And most of the physiology I discuss is simple enough
> that you could learn it if you weren't so adamant about maintaining
> your simplistic ignorance.
Why, if it's too simple, let's complicate it even more. You say simply
deamination, but it's way too simple. Let's get into details of
deamination. I did some deaminations, nitrations, nucleophilic and
electrophilic substitutions in my time so I could easily pretend that
all those details actually matter, so why not?
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
Bully
[...]
>
> Please show us your name on the list under Certified
> Dietitian/Nutritionist, Kristofer Hogg.
Look how his parents spelt his name! That explains a lot...
--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
Charles
<entropic...@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>
>"JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
>news:77sro257l6hbhit8f...@4ax.com...
>> "Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic...@optonline2.718.net>
>> wrote:
>>>"JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>>> Andrzej Rosa <bak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>Dnia 2006-12-23 JMW napisa³(a):
>>>>>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_...@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh, wait ... did I mention that you're a pathological liar?
>
>You did. It's irrelevant. As is my writing, N'Yawk accent (which my
>shennanigans don't reflect, btw), ekc.
> I don't mis-quote articles, cite irrelevant studies, mis-quote basic laws
>of physics, mis-use the vocabulary of my own profession.
>You do.
>It's documented, at length, at this point.
>You can protest for the newbies, but not even your circle-jerk buddeez can
>help you here.
>How come you never acknowledged your "conversely" faux pas??
>The creatine?? The diet timing stupidness?
>Now the 1st law of thermo...
>It *is* a little embarrassing, idnit?
>Of course, it's shameful that Charles didn't catch it, but he's forgiven....
You don't need any help from me PV, you're running rings round the
silly bugger. He is hoist by his own petard again!
HAGC! ;o)
Charles
Take no notice of the big bullies Edna darling. You read and write
what you like and tell them to go roger themselves.
Have a great Christmas my dear - I intend to! ;o)
AWilliamson
wrote:
> (thirty minutes of jogging or
>some shorter sessions of jogging mixed with sprinting).
I've had good success keeping weight off for 21 years, jogging 4
miles, 4 times a week, intermixed with 1/2 weights 3 times a week.
Amy
email:willi...@shaklee.net
Nature and Science in Harmony
http://www.shaklee.net/williamson/
ATP*
"Bully" <bul...@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
news:4v6sqoF...@mid.individual.net...
> JMW wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> Please show us your name on the list under Certified
>> Dietitian/Nutritionist, Kristofer Hogg.
>
> Look how his parents spelt his name! That explains a lot...
I wonder if he has a sister named Ima...
Proctologically Violated┊
"JMW" <jmwil...@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:uhbso21g0cq8lvfmv...@4ax.com...
Poor John Williams The Inept Plagiarist.
You found a cite that says the 1st law of thermo applies in biology.
Very good, as the the 1st law applies to the whole goddamm universe--which I
mentioned earlier.
You mis quoted it, mis-applied it.
And????
So now, you have AGAIN did yer little abbystract/citey thing, and have shown
*absolutely nothing*.
Btw, what are high entropy molecules? How do you think *their* energy is
calculated?
To quote the 1st law at all in diet situation is ridiculous. You could
also say quantum mechanics applies, as well as relativity.
Or string theory.
Proctologically Violated┊
"Charles" <j...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:n5hso2duqlmt09e2j...@4ax.com...
Williams was in rare form today. He incorrectly cites a law that defacto
applies to the whole universe, and attempts to edumacate someone in fat loss
mis-using it.
He scoffs at Simmons' Deal-a-Meal, not knowing a fukn thing about Simmons
(and his effort in phys ed in schools, etc), the ADA, the exchange system,
what Deal-a-Meal really does, etc.
I admittedly would have given it a different name, but shit, Simmons is also
a good bidnissman, and, perhaps for the first time in Health, Nutrition,
Fitness history, was able to laugh all the way to the bank without risking
going to hell.
And if you notice, he does what he does to apparently squash interesting
conversation among others, w/ the put-downs, etc.
Hello, Wayne County?? Do you routinely hire assholes??
Indeed, HAGC!
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
>
> HAGC! ;o)
>