Weight Loss Thread

Denamian said:

Nowhere does it say that is the only way to lose weight. So it can be generally accurate, but not really apply to you. As Faux said it is aimed mostly at sedentary lardasses, not those that are already physically fit like you.

Click to expand...

Thank you, that is exactly what I am saying. The statement is accurate for him, but the benefit is essentially intangible because he is already healthy and fit. So there is no need to apply those dietary restrictions to himself if he doesn't want to. Small changes like that may be incredibly important to metabolically unhealthy people to make weight loss possible.

Denamian said:

So first off, I claim no expertise here. My interest is in reducing the levels of faggotry in this thread.

The statement in question is this, correct?

Click to expand...

no Lol, as I've said I am not responding to Dr Fungus or any statements made by Dr Fungus, where Faux has got that from is beyond me - after all I've pasted his own words enough times surely?

Denamian said:

Well, seems like my attempt at reducing the levels of faggotry has backfired spectacularly. Would you consider than an accurate statement Ossoi ?

I'm not willing to put in any further effort here.

Click to expand...

Well seeing as you attempted to address claims of someone else, despite having the relevant claims copy/pasted into paint and posted multiple times - then yeah

Really now we can summarise and hopefully end with this:

If a claim is not applicable to everyone, the claim is not accurate - true or false?

I just went to the toilet, and my bottle of toilet cleaner states:

"10x better than bleach"

Now, if underneath that claim it says

* tested vs a leading supermarket brand

And someone comes along and says: "well actually, we tested it vs other brands and it only performed 5x better compared to some bleaches, and worse than others".

Then the claim is not accurate


If a claim is not applicable to everyone, the claim is not accurate - true or false?

It's not that it's not applicable, it's that it has negligible impact in your case. that's not the same thing.

Sterling said:

It's not that it's not applicable, it's that it has negligible impact in your case. that's not the same thing.

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, I've literally pasted everything in what I thought was an easy to follow format,, and you still get it wrong

Faux claimed his statements are not applicable to me, but the statement is still accurate.

Let's try again:

If a claim is not applicable to everyone, the claim is not accurate - true or false?

Not sure why you feel the need to be an obstinate retard and feel obligated to cherry pick 1 line out of the entire sequence of posts. As an active person your insulin spikes don't last long enough to matter and you get a benefit from the energy you gain from carbs. That doesn't mean that you're using fat reserves during the insulin spikes. Fat dude sitting on a couch has longer lasting insulin spikes so should limit his carb intake to make weight loss easier.

Sterling said:

Not sure why you feel the need to be an obstinate retard and feel obligated to cherry pick 1 line out of the entire sequence of posts. .

Click to expand...

Wat? I've literally pasted multiple of their statements, claims and responses into my paint images, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from?

If a claim is not applicable to everyone, the claim is not accurate - true or false?

true or false, that's the only answer I require

Ossoi, you want a concession? I chose the wrong phrase in "does not apply to you". You've turned that into a stupid semantic argument that only you care about. You want something different that conveys better what every single post of mine has tried to describe, which has been understood by the other posters who have chimed in on this? Change "does not apply to you" into "is not tangibly useful to you".

Your body spikes insulin higher when consuming refined carbohydrates and sugar versus if you ate foods with less refined carbohydrates and sugar. Higher insulin has a downregulation on fat burning to the point that it seems to not occur until some period of time after insulin has normalized. Unless you can show actual metabolic evidence that your body continues to burn fat in the presence of high insulin (good luck with that), I'm going to justifiably assume your body acts in accordance with the current insulin-lipolysis model and that the two previous sentences apply to you (i.e The statement is accurate for you). You are not mobilizing fatty acids to use as energy until some time after your insulin has normalized, just like the rest of us.

You can eat 200-400g of carbs per day and lose fat because you are healthy and active. That additional spike in your insulin from eating 200-400 vs 20-50g of carbs is easily handled by an insulin sensitive system that converts glucose to energy to meet the high demand of your metabolism and quickly shuttles excess glucose out of your bloodstream, which allows your insulin to return to normal quickly. The same excess carbohydrates in an insulin resistant system cannot be removed as quickly due to ineffective insulin and lower metabolic demands. Insulin stays high longer because of stagnant blood sugar levels and with insulin elevated, fat mobilization is effectively shut off. Peer reviewed scientific studies support this model.

The statement is accurate for you, but it is not useful, because active healthy people without metabolic disorders (like you) don't have a problem in handling spikes in blood glucose. Your body is not doing something special to allow you to pound carbs and still cut fat. It just clears the glucose quickly and efficiently so it can get back to accessing fat stores as necessary when your insulin returns to normal. The statement is accurate and significantly more useful to people with metabolic disorders that prevent normal regulation of blood glucose.

Again, the statement is accurate, but not useful to you. I said "it doesn't apply to you" meaning there would be no impetus to "apply" that dietary advice to yourself. I didn't mean your insulin profile wouldn't change and offer ever so slightly better fat burning potential, it means that the difference would probably be so negligible that you wouldn't even be able to tell it did anything.

Its a qualitative statement about metabolic response to refined carbs and sugars and the role insulin plays in burning fat. Its not quantitative like your toilet cleaner analogy.

This is the equivalent of some doctor saying "Hey everybody, sticking a blade through your skin is bad for you" and some other guy yelling "What about my appendectomy? Your statement is not accurate for me."

I have no interest in such a stupid discussion.

Ossoi, you want a concession? I chose the wrong phrase in "does not apply to you". You've turned that into a stupid semantic argument that only you care about. You want something different that conveys better what every single post of mine has tried to describe, which has been understood by the other posters who have chimed in on this? Change "does not apply to you" into "is not tangibly useful to you".

Click to expand...

It's irrelevant how you phrase the exception to the rule, my point is the same. If there is an exception to the rule, then the rule is not accurate:

"You can't burn fat when you constantly spike your insulin"
"Constantly spiking your insulin levels all day is going to lead to insulin resistance and obesity
"I don't believe you are burning any fat at all when your insulin is high"
"you are not burning fat in an appreciable way when your insulin is elevated"

That is all I wanted - an admission/concession that the above statements are not accurate because they don't apply to all people.

You're the one that has dragged this out and keeps dragging it out. And you're still doing it by continuing to argue that the above statements are accurate

Unless you can show actual metabolic evidence that your body continues to burn fat in the presence of high insulin (good luck with that),

Click to expand...

Neither one of us knows what is actually happening inside my body, and I actually addressed that already by saying I only track macros and calories. I don't care whether my body is burning fat at 415pm or 415am, it's irrelevant. The only thing that matters on a cut is whether my weight is coming down week by week and I'm preserving/gaining as much muscle as possible.

You're the one that has continually tried to apply the rule to me via statements such as "Your results don't represent actual evidence that you are burning fat during insulin induced lipolysis inhibition as opposed to the very large amount of time in the rest of the day and night that your insulin is at basal levels"

Right, the very large amount of time when I've told you that my only non carb meal is breakfast, and after that there are 4 carb shakes and 2 carb meals that I'm eating?

This is probably the most weaselly way that you're trying to win the argument.

We both agree that the end result of my diet is that I lost fat and gained/preserved muscle, right?

So if the end result is that I lost fat, can you not see how ridiculous it is to claim that "FOR X HOURS PER DAY YOU ARE NOT BURNING FAT"

It's the literal equivalent of losing a basketball game and arguing "but I was leading for 5 minutes in the second quarter, and 2 minutes in the third quarter!"

The statement is accurate for you, but it is not useful....Again, the statement is accurate, but not useful to you.

Click to expand...

If the statement is not useful to me, then it cannot be an accurate statement

This is the equivalent of some doctor saying "Hey everybody, sticking a blade through your skin is bad for you" and some other guy yelling "What about my appendectomy? Your statement is not accurate for me."

Click to expand...

Ok buddy, probably should have thought this one through a bit more.

You are really comparing advice to not randomly cut yourself to receiving a surgical procedure from a trained doctor?

Why not just address the analogy I already made?

The claim: 10 x better than bleach

The reality: Only 5 x stronger than some bleach brands.

Ergo, the claim is not accurate.

The manufacturer saying "well we weren't talking about those other bleach brands" or "it's not useful to compare our product against those other brands" does not validate their statement.

Another example:

"Pet snakes are dangerous and must be handled with care"

My pet snake is only 30cm long and non venomous, it's not dangerous.

"The advice isn't useful / relevant / applicable to you"

Ok, so your initial statement wasn't accurate then?

"no it was accurate!"



If a claim is not applicable /useful/relevant to everyone, the claim is not accurate - true or false?

true or false, that's the only answer I require

Faux true or false

If you don't want to drag it out further then answer the question

You guys should each get a micro sampling cathether installed, do your respective programs, compare data and get this settled once and for all. Then go have a gay sex orgy and make up like foh bros. I’ll volunteer to knock you all out for the precedure, possibly with liposoluble drugs to level the playing field. Sheesh.

Izo said:

You guys should each get a micro sampling cathether installed, do your respective programs, compare data and get this settled once and for all. Then go have a gay sex orgy and make up like foh bros. I’ll volunteer to knock you all out for the precedure, possibly with liposoluble drugs to level the playing field. Sheesh.

Click to expand...

That gif is irrelevant to the Lebron James of weight burning, have you not seen the pictures he’s posted?

Izo said:

You guys should each get a micro sampling cathether installed, do your respective programs, compare data and get this settled once and for all. Then go have a gay sex orgy and make up like foh bros. I’ll volunteer to knock you all out for the precedure, possibly with liposoluble drugs to level the playing field. Sheesh.

Click to expand...

The irony is, both Faux and Burnem Wizfyre admit that their physiques are nowhere near mine, and that they have very different goals

But that doesn't stop them a) claiming their methods and knowledge is superior and b) claiming to know better than me what's happening inside my body

Multiple things can be true at the same time. Not using fat stores during insulin spikes being less meaningful to people that are physically fit so carbs can be a fine source of energy for those people. That doesn't mean fat dude with a family history of the beetus should be eating a bunch of carbs. So both ends are not absolute. You complain about blanket statements, but inferring that carbs are just generically good for people is just as bad as saying that they're generically bad for people. It all just depends on what you need in your specific situation. That all being said people saying that they can be low activity in a fairly aggressive calorie deficit and not lose lean mass are also full of shit. In fact even with reasonably physical activity you're likely to have SOME lean mass loss if you're in a deficit. Noob gains in early resistance training and PEDs aside.

Lanx said:

no way, then i'd have to buy all that white ppl food

Click to expand...

Portion control is a thing, dude. Small meals/snacks throughout the day and a moderate 800-1000 calorie dinner at a more normal time. Math it out. Desired goal weight * 10 total calories daily. Do some stretching and a few minutes of cardio a couple times a week. Watch the magic happen.

Sterling said:

, but inferring that carbs are just generically good for people is just as bad as saying that they're generically bad for people. .

Click to expand...

Literally never said that, stopped reading your post there as I've said the exact opposite multiple times

So if you're trying to be a voice of reason, you've failed

Like, I'm literally amazed that you could interpret me wanting them to acknowledge that the exceptions to the rule disprove the rule invalidate all conditions where the rule applies. If the rule was 100% invalid then there wouldn't be any "exceptions".

Ossoi said:

The irony is, both Faux and Burnem Wizfyre admit that their physiques are nowhere near mine, and that they have very different goals

But that doesn't stop them a) claiming their methods and knowledge is superior and b) claiming to know better than me what's happening inside my body

Click to expand...

Like, I'm literally amazed that you could interpret me wanting them to acknowledge that the exceptions to the rule disprove the rule invalidate all conditions where the rule applies. If the rule was 100% invalid then there wouldn't be any "exceptions".

Click to expand...

I have never once claimed that I know better than you or that you should change your methods. I have vocally stated the opposite that I thought you would have NO NEED to cut refined carbs and sugar out of your diet. Nor do I know what is happening in your body. I am assuming your hormone response conforms to the currently accepted insulin model.

This conversation started when you tagged me and asked me my thoughts on a statement made by Dr Fung that reducing refined carbohydrates reduced insulin response which facilitated fat loss. I said I had no problem with it since it seems to be in accordance with peer reviewed research on how different foods affect insulin and how insulin regulates lipolysis. It is an entry level qualitative statement about hormone mediated access to stored fat. There is enough evidence and peer reviewed study that we can assume it to be true as a general statement.

Is it possible that you are an exception to that rule? Sure. Is it reasonable to assume because you are fit and healthy and eat 200-400g of carbs, that your hormone response is not in accordance with that very general statement. That your insulin doesn't rise to a higher level in the presence of an increase in refined carbs and sugar and that insulin in your body doesn't inhibit lipolysis? I don't think so. Even if you are an exception, it doesn't matter. Its a useless tangential discussion because you don't have a problem handling your desired carb intake.

So in the general, theoretical sense, the statement is true. But in practical application, i made a value judgment that the statement is not useful to you, because I assumed from your diet, your results, and your posts that the "cost" of reducing refined carbs and sugar in your diet would not be worth the "benefit", because you are in such a good place already, any resultant change in your insulin profile would be fucking irrelevant.

If you are eating 200-400g of carbs and your activity level and health has you at 99% access to stored fat energy, and you are told "we understand hormones respond a certain way to different foods so if you cut that carb intake down by half, you could increase your access to stored fat" but that change would only be 0.1%, would you do that? My answer would be no, and I assumed your answer would be no. Some ultra hardcore people may say yes, thats for them to decide. Your diet is perfectly fine and I have said repeatedly that I saw no reason for you or other metabolically active and healthy people to consider cutting carbs out.

I have said again repeatedly that metabolically unhealthy people with insulin resistance problems and a lower activity level could probably see a much greater benefit from reducing refined carbs and sugar. Maybe they cut their carb intake in half and their fat access goes from 10% to 40% Thats a significant change for them and if I were in that situation, it would make a lot of sense to me to make that change.

Now we are in what I consider a silly argument in which I said:

A statement can be true, but not useful.

And you said, if a statement is not useful for me, it is not true for me. (pardon me if I am miscontruing your statement), and I am therefore contradicting myself.

I think its a silly argument, because we both agree that you're doing just fine in reaching you're goals.