Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The metabolic advantage hypothesis

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Are you seriously arguing the thermic effect of food?
    If it's so obvious, then the evidence should be easy to pull out like she's asked for.

    That is all.
    "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
      If it's so obvious, then the evidence should be easy to pull out like she's asked for.

      That is all.
      You don't get it. It's actually kind of dumbfounding.
      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        You don't get it. It's actually kind of dumbfounding.
        No, I do get it. If it's something that can't be argued then it should have been proven 1,000,000 times over or more. Surely you can fine one or two studies to show her which she politely asked for if that is the case.
        "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
          No, I do get it. If it's something that can't be argued then it should have been proven 1,000,000 times over or more. Surely you can fine one or two studies to show her which she politely asked for if that is the case.
          Some things are so basic that they don't deserve to be argued. It's like arguing that the sky is blue. You need me to provide a link showing you sky color? Google it. It's a Wikipedia page for God's sake. At some point people have to learn how to tie their own shows. If you don't know a 110 calorie potato raises your metabolic rate faster than a tablespoon of butter, there's not much I can do for you because you don't know the basics.
          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

          Comment


          • #65
            I'm not asking for anything about the thermic effect of foods. I'm asking for evidence of any dieter that experienced so much appetite suppression from any kind of macro ratio that their metabolism slowed to the point that they became metabolically unable to lose weight.

            I say that appetite suppression for a dieter is an advantage. He says it is a liability because your metabolism will slow. I want to know of someone who lost their appetite so much their metabolism slowed to the point they could not lose weight. I would expect a person like that would simply get hungry and start eating again, but apparently, someone exists out there like that, and since Chaco seems so certain you can only lose weight if you are both in a calorie deficit AND hungry, perhaps there are legions of these people.
            Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
              Some things are so basic that they don't deserve to be argued. It's like arguing that the sky is blue. You need me to provide a link showing you sky color? Google it. It's a Wikipedia page for God's sake. At some point people have to learn how to tie their own shows. If you don't know a 110 calorie potato raises your metabolic rate faster than a tablespoon of butter, there's not much I can do for you because you don't know the basics.
              Hey, I didn't ask for the info, she did.

              I'm just pointing out that I don't think it's too much to ask to point her to the information she seeks.
              "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
                I'm not asking for anything about the thermic effect of foods. I'm asking for evidence of any dieter that experienced so much appetite suppression from any kind of macro ratio that their metabolism slowed to the point that they became metabolically unable to lose weight.

                I say that appetite suppression for a dieter is an advantage. He says it is a liability because your metabolism will slow. I want to know of someone who lost their appetite so much their metabolism slowed to the point they could not lose weight. I would expect a person like that would simply get hungry and start eating again, but apparently, someone exists out there like that, and since Chaco seems so certain you can only lose weight if you are both in a calorie deficit AND hungry, perhaps there are legions of these people.
                What? I simply said that if the metabolic rate increases alongside the hunger in kind then it doesn't matter. Clearly by looking at all the plateaus around here brought on by prolonged low carbohydrate dieting, paired with stores of hair loss, cold hands and feet and the chills while eating, the metabolic rate surely can drop below the hunger suppressive effects.

                And that's another strike against low carbohydrate dieting for performance and athleticism. If muscle gain is the goal, you definitely don't want a diet that suppresses appetite. You want a diet that encourages eating, particularly after a heavy workout. It's no surprise that post-workout, not only is appetite strongest but insulin sensitivity is highest. Your body is begging for carbohydrate and protein, not fat.

                I'm not sure what you want. It's like you're purposely asking for something that can't be shown to try and make a point. That's not an argument though, it's a fallacy. What we do know is that metabolic rate is inversely proportional to dietary fat intake because fat exhibits the lowest TEF by far. Therefore, anything else will generate more heat.
                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
                  Hey, I didn't ask for the info, she did.

                  I'm just pointing out that I don't think it's too much to ask to point her to the information she seeks.
                  She didn't ask that. That was the point I'm trying to make. The only person that seems to be arguing against TEF is you.
                  Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
                    I'm not asking for anything about the thermic effect of foods. I'm asking for evidence of any dieter that experienced so much appetite suppression from any kind of macro ratio that their metabolism slowed to the point that they became metabolically unable to lose weight.

                    I say that appetite suppression for a dieter is an advantage. He says it is a liability because your metabolism will slow. I want to know of someone who lost their appetite so much their metabolism slowed to the point they could not lose weight. I would expect a person like that would simply get hungry and start eating again, but apparently, someone exists out there like that, and since Chaco seems so certain you can only lose weight if you are both in a calorie deficit AND hungry, perhaps there are legions of these people.
                    Ah, so if I read this right, Choco thinks a certain macro ratio is necessary for weightloss, and yet, calories in, calories out is all that matters?

                    Contradictory much?

                    And I totally missed this post earlier. My bad. Heh.
                    "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                      She didn't ask that. That was the point I'm trying to make. The only person that seems to be arguing against TEF is you.
                      Who said I was arguing it?
                      "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Drumroll View Post
                        Ah, so if I read this right, Choco thinks a certain macro ratio is necessary for weightloss, and yet, calories in, calories out is all that matters?

                        Contradictory much?

                        And I totally missed this post earlier. My bad. Heh.
                        Even your trolling is bad.
                        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          I think calories in calories out still matters, it's just that certain foods like sugar are more thermogenic than fats, leading to a higher "calories out."

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Well apparently now he believes that it doesn't matter how hungry you are because your metabolism will just speed up to accommodate.
                            Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by max219 View Post
                              I think calories in calories out still matters, it's just that certain foods like sugar are more thermogenic than fats, leading to a higher "calories out."
                              People around here seem to only acknowledge the "CI" side but don't realize the "CO" side is variable as well.
                              Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
                              Well apparently now he believes that it doesn't matter how hungry you are because your metabolism will just speed up to accommodate.
                              What are you talking about? There is no point in talking to you right now because you only want to argue and clearly are not listening. I'll be more than happy to discuss this at a time you actually would like to have a discussion.
                              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                                People around here seem to only acknowledge the "CI" side but don't realize the "CO" side is variable as well.

                                What are you talking about? There is no point in talking to you right now because you only want to argue and clearly are not listening. I'll be more than happy to discuss this at a time you actually would like to have a discussion.
                                Why is it that when someone politely asks you to explain your position, so they might understand it better and learn, you talk in circles and/or turn things back on them trying to make them seem less than?

                                And please, answer my direct question.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X