Weight Loss Thread

Burnem Wizfyre said:

I don’t starve myself, I get hungry about as often as I eat, if I’m doing 24 hour fast then I get hungry around meal time. If it’s 48 hours then I get hungry around 48 hours in, my body doesn’t starve it has all the fuel it needs. I promise you, you spend more of your time hungrier than me while I’m starving.

Click to expand...

Bro, I've posted two logs of me eating 3000+ calories during a cut and finishing the day with Dominoes chicken wings, Pizza and cookies. And you think I'm hungry?

Your claim: ""You can’t burn fat when you constantly spike your insulin, when you only spike your insulin once you spend longer time in fat burning mode. You switch from burning food you eat to burning your fat stores. Your body increases its metabolism to give you more energy when you fast for prolonged periods, your stuck on a calorie in calorie out mentality when the body doesn’t work that way."

So, are you willing to edit the above claim to include the conditions where it is possible to "burn fat whilst spiking insulin"? And thus concede your claim was bullshit?

Burnem Wizfyre said:

C) Sorry but constantly spiking your insulin levels all day is going to lead to insulin resistance, obesity and diabetes.

Click to expand...

Are you also going to retract this statement? (Which was addressed directly at/to me)

Ossoi said:

Reminder:

Your claim: ""You can’t burn fat when you constantly spike your insulin, when you only spike your insulin once you spend longer time in fat burning mode. You switch from burning food you eat to burning your fat stores. Your body increases its metabolism to give you more energy when you fast for prolonged periods, your stuck on a calorie in calorie out mentality when the body doesn’t work that way."

So, are you willing to edit the above claim to include the conditions where it is possible to "burn fat whilst spiking insulin"? And thus concede your claim was bullshit?

Click to expand...

No because that’s science, your insulin levels have to fall before you can burn fat.


Even made it a UK study for a extra touch of fuck you.

It's 2pm, I'm legit actually gonna go for a fasted walk of approx 30-45 minutes because my sous vide is going to take a while to heat up enough to warm my already cooked chicken breast, I don't have any more food in the fridge and I need to go grocery shopping and it's too cold for me to use my garden gym, lol

Actual KEK

Burnem Wizfyre said:

No because that’s science, your insulin levels have to fall before you can burn fat.

Drop in both insulin and leptin needed for fat burning to occur - Diabetes

Researchers have found that metabolism moves from using glucose to burning fat when there is a drop in both insulin and leptin levels. The study has been led by Gerald I. Shulma, professor of medicine, cellular and molecular physiology, and physiological chemistry at Yale University. The...

www.diabetes.co.uk

Click to expand...

Explain the following, then






144-400g carbs a day

1939-3600 calories a day

78.6kg -> 74.5kg

Ossoi said:

Explain the following, then

View attachment 339781

View attachment 339782


144-400g carbs a day

1939-3600 calories a day

78.6kg -> 74.5kg

Click to expand...

Give times for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and the snacks. Insulin levels usually fall after 2-3 hours enough to allow for burning fat. So if you eat at 6 am, snacked 9am ate at 12pm then again at 6 pm, depending on the meal you may or may not have been capable on burning fat until noon. Based on your pictures there is absolutely no chance of you having insulin resistance which causes your body to produce more insulin because your cells are resistant to it which allows your levels to drop faster. Now let’s say continuing from that example you eat lunch at noon and then not eat again until 6pm. You will have had 2-4 hours of fat burning between lunch and dinner. If you then don’t eat until 6 am again then you will have had between 9 and 10 hours of fat burning all combined with what’s clearly a fair to moderate workout routine it’s really simple to explain.

Burnem Wizfyre said:

. Based on your pictures there is absolutely no chance of you having insulin resistance

Click to expand...

(The deleted stuff was too hokey-pokey to even consider addressing rofl)

The Claims

""You can’t burn fat when you constantly spike your insulin, when you only spike your insulin once you spend longer time in fat burning mode. You switch from burning food you eat to burning your fat stores. Your body increases its metabolism to give you more energy when you fast for prolonged periods, your stuck on a calorie in calorie out mentality when the body doesn’t work that way."

"C) Sorry but constantly spiking your insulin levels all day is going to lead to insulin resistance, obesity and diabetes."

The Conditionals

"Do me a favor, burn and gain that muscle without exercising and eating like that and come back and tell me how that works out for you."

"Based on your pictures there is absolutely no chance of you having insulin resistance"


Are you retracting your claims or not? Because to me it sounds like are conceding it is possible to burn fat whilst spiking insulin - provided the "exercising" and "insulin resistance" levels are optimal.

Besides, just because I'm autistic enough to weigh myself daily at the same time every day for the last 4.5 years, doesn't mean I'm autistic enough to track meal times.

Legitimately, I do not have that information.

"Now let’s say continuing from that example you eat lunch at noon and then not eat again until 6pm"

Because, (as should be obvious) I have zero belief that fasting is necessary for body composition. Even on MFP I'm not fussy about making sure that breakfast/lunch/dinner is logged accordingly. The only thing that matters is the calories and the macros.

What I can say is, I was off work during this period. I was training twice a day for 5 consecutive days and then taking two days off. I did this for December. Then January I switched to a "regular" program.

I tried going to my fitbit logs to see what times I was training but it takes way too long to scroll that far back.

From memory, I'm fairly sure I would have ate breakfast, waited an hour for digestion, gone the gym. Gym would include carbs in my peri-workout drink and post workout, then carbs after training, likewise for the second session.

There is zero chance that I was "fasting" for any significant amount of time, not whilst training twice a day and eating 2000-3600 calories

I was probably in the gym for first session by 11am-12pm, and then for the second session 7pm or 8pm or maybe even 9pm

As the attached gif shows, during December I actually GAINED weight yet look visibly leaner. All whilst eating 200-400g of carbs, 2000-3600 calories etc

Ossoi said:

This is literally peak stupidity, I mean Jesus Christ are you serious right now?

"when YOU lose weight without exercising that is what happens because you work pretty hard on accumulating extra muscle mass and that extra muscle mass is not magically supported by anything except increased calorie intake and exercise to specifically maintain it."

What are you actually trying to say here? That I am somehow able to burn fat, gain muscle whilst INCREASING my calories? And you're here literally rabidly preaching AGAINST me, who somehow has figured out how to:

a) burn fat
b) gain muscle
c) INCREASE CALORIES

"When a normal person tries to lose weight, they don't somehow magically lose all of their muscle while burning fat stores. This is some weird bodybuilder myth that you perpetuate with no basis. They might not retain all of their accumulated muscle mass from lugging around excess weight"

Do they lose muscle or not?

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ. I can't believe I have to continually spell things out for you like this.

You = someone who is actively exercising most days of the week and/or actively building muscle mass.
Normal person = someone who exercises casually, maybe 2 times a week, and is not actively working on building muscle mass.

That is the difference. Your increase in calories is going to build and maintain muscle mass. It would be stored as fat in someone not following a similar exercise regimen.

Also, and let me state the absolute obvious so that you stop acting retarded about it, YOU could be substituted for anyone with a similar diet and exercise regimen that is already has low body fat. I only use YOU because I am literally typing at YOU.

Oh, and yes, when normal people lose weight, their muscle loss is minimal.

Ossoi said:

(The deleted stuff was too hokey-pokey to even consider addressing rofl)

The Claims

""You can’t burn fat when you constantly spike your insulin, when you only spike your insulin once you spend longer time in fat burning mode. You switch from burning food you eat to burning your fat stores. Your body increases its metabolism to give you more energy when you fast for prolonged periods, your stuck on a calorie in calorie out mentality when the body doesn’t work that way."

"C) Sorry but constantly spiking your insulin levels all day is going to lead to insulin resistance, obesity and diabetes."

The Conditionals

"Do me a favor, burn and gain that muscle without exercising and eating like that and come back and tell me how that works out for you."

"Based on your pictures there is absolutely no chance of you having insulin resistance"


Are you retracting your claims or not? Because to me it sounds like are conceding it is possible to burn fat whilst spiking insulin - provided the "exercising" and "insulin resistance" levels are optimal.

Besides, just because I'm autistic enough to weigh myself daily at the same time every day for the last 4.5 years, doesn't mean I'm autistic enough to track meal times.

Legitimately, I do not have that information.

"Now let’s say continuing from that example you eat lunch at noon and then not eat again until 6pm"

Because, (as should be obvious) I have zero belief that fasting is necessary for body composition. Even on MFP I'm not fussy about making sure that breakfast/lunch/dinner is logged accordingly. The only thing that matters is the calories and the macros.

What I can say is, I was off work during this period. I was training twice a day for 5 consecutive days and then taking two days off. I did this for December. Then January I switched to a "regular" program.

I tried going to my fitbit logs to see what times I was training but it takes way too long to scroll that far back.

From memory, I'm fairly sure I would have ate breakfast, waited an hour for digestion, gone the gym. Gym would include carbs in my peri-workout drink and post workout, then carbs after training, likewise for the second session.

There is zero chance that I was "fasting" for any significant amount of time, not whilst training twice a day and eating 2000-3600 calories

As the attached gif shows, during December I actually GAINED weight yet look visibly leaner. All whilst eating 200-400g of carbs, 2000-3600 calories etc

View attachment 339786

Click to expand...

No I get it, you tracked your food because that’s what the information you know is important, what you fail to understand is timing matters as well. You claim you never “fasted for any significant amount of time. I doubt that because anything over 2-3 hours is a fast or when your insulin levels drop you are in a fasted state. Let’s assume you don’t snack after lunch, and eat at 6pm, that’s 2-3 hours of fat burning during that time and then you don’t eat until 6 am. With that timing you literally were able to burn fat half the day. You are completely stuck on how much you eat and move and completely appears to me you don’t take into account for your basal metabolic rate and your metabolism in general. 3000 calories for me and you and anyone else in the world without the exact same rate will be different.

You claim you’ve lost comparable weight to me, but have you did anything like that? Mind you without working out, type two diabetic and insulin resistant so in other words completely fucking handicapped.

LiquidDeath said:

Jesus Christ. I can't believe I have to continually spell things out for you like this.

You = someone who is actively exercising most days of the week and/or actively building muscle mass.
Normal person = someone who exercises casually, maybe 2 times a week, and is not actively working on building muscle mass.

That is the difference. Your increase in calories is going to build and maintain muscle mass. It would be stored as fat in someone not following a similar exercise regimen.

Also, and let me state the absolute obvious so that you stop acting retarded about it, YOU could be substituted for anyone with a similar diet and exercise regimen that is already has low body fat. I only use YOU because I am literally typing at YOU.

Oh, and yes, when normal people lose weight, their muscle loss is minimal.

Click to expand...

So it’s the exercise for him? So he got results by eating less and moving more?

Burnem Wizfyre said:

. Let’s assume you don’t snack after lunch, and eat at 6pm,

Click to expand...

Why we are assuming when 5-6 days of eating is posted, and I've already explained as best as I can re meal timing?

Breakfast, peri workout shake, post workout shake, lunch, peri workout shake, post workout shake, dinner (+ occasional dominoes)

This shit is legitimately getting retarded, if I said I took a 30 minute nap would you then go "aha. I told you! 30 minute fast!"

LiquidDeath said:

You = someone who is actively exercising most days of the week and/or actively building muscle mass.


That is the difference. Your increase in calories is going to build and maintain muscle mass. It would be stored as fat in someone not following a similar exercise regimen.

Click to expand...

Nope, you still don't get it

We are talking about fat loss.

Yes, my highlighted example is a 9 week period where I gained muscle and burnt fat simultaneously. But this was after 11 months of no training, meaning I got noob gains again

Most of my cuts I don't gain muscle

The fact you're referring to calorie increases despite me saying I dropped cals to 1500 shows you aren't keeping up with the discussion

Burnem Wizfyre said:

You claim you’ve lost comparable weight to me, but have you did anything like that? Mind you without working out, type two diabetic and insulin resistant so in other words completely fucking handicapped.

Click to expand...

The data for a 4.5 year period has been posted.

I've already told you that cumulatively it adds up to like 110lbs over that period

Besides, your logic of "you didn't lose as much weight as me in one go" is retarded logic

Like so what? You're arguing that you lost more weight, because you had more to lose, you didn't exercise and you are were diabetic?

I'll give you the diabetic, but by same token, I had to motivate myself to go to the gym, push myself, meal prep, hit target macros etc

This notion that "my methods are harder than yours" is nonsensical

Ossoi said:

Why we are assuming when 5-6 days of eating is posted, and I've already explained as best as I can re meal timing?

Breakfast, peri workout shake, post workout shake, lunch, peri workout shake, post workout shake, dinner (+ occasional dominoes)

This shit is legitimately getting retarded, if I said I took a 30 minute nap would you then go "aha. I told you! 30 minute fast!"

Click to expand...

Ok I’m done being polite with your retarded ass, timing matters you mental midget. No one said 30 minutes fast, I even provided the literal definition of a fasted state as 2-3 hours or however long it takes your insulin levels to drop. I assumed because you didn’t give times, so I used examples to give you an idea, a rough estimation. I like how you completely glossed over and failed to respond to the UK study that proves what I’m talking about insulin.

Burnem Wizfyre said:

With that timing you literally were able to burn fat half the day. You are completely stuck on how much you eat and move and completely appears to me you don’t take into account for your basal metabolic rate and your metabolism in general. 3000 calories for me and you and anyone else in the world without the exact same rate will be different.

Click to expand...

You're either huffing glue or spaced out on low carb magic beans that were laced with LSD

Ossoi said:

The data for a 4.5 year period has been posted.

I've already told you that cumulatively it adds up to like 110lbs over that period

Besides, your logic of "you didn't lose as much weight as me in one go" is retarded logic

Like so what? You're arguing that you lost more weight, because you had more to lose, you didn't exercise and you are were diabetic?

I'll give you the diabetic, but by same token, I had to motivate myself to go to the gym, push myself, meal prep, hit target macros etc

This notion that "my methods are harder than yours" is nonsensical

Click to expand...

If you think it isn’t harder for someone to burn fat that has type two diabetes and insulin resistance compared to you then you are a complete retard. What you do is without a doubt harder than anything I do, I’m fucking lazy, fasting is easier and more effective at losing weight than what you do though.

Ossoi said:

You're either huffing glue or spaced out on low carb magic beans that were laced with LSD

Click to expand...

You’re a complete fucking moron that doesn’t understand BMR and metabolism.