by Vitaliy M. » Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:51 am
by Burchey » Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:13 am
by radson » Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:19 am
by Ze » Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:47 pm
Vitaliy M. wrote:With a bit more research I got to say you got it right if goal is pure WEIGHT loss. I had different goals with my weight loss. Since I was active my goals included muscle gain/weight loss. When you are trying to help your muscles recover you have to eat more often. But since I was still trying to lose weight (mostly fat) I ate less calories than my body requires to maintain weight.
by MoapaPk » Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:29 pm
by tylert27 » Thu May 16, 2013 8:09 pm
by Ze » Wed May 22, 2013 4:29 am
tylert27 wrote:While most oils are bad, I think its good to have fish oils. They tend to have a lot of Omega 3 which is great for your skin and really isn't detrimental to your weight. Also, skipping meals is never a good idea. If you skip a meal, your body will start training itself to take on more of the calories that it digests. You will actually gain more weight by taking only a couple of meals. If you want to lose weight you should have 5 or 6 very small meals.
by Marmaduke » Wed May 22, 2013 6:35 am
Ze wrote:tylert27 wrote:While most oils are bad, I think its good to have fish oils. They tend to have a lot of Omega 3 which is great for your skin and really isn't detrimental to your weight. Also, skipping meals is never a good idea. If you skip a meal, your body will start training itself to take on more of the calories that it digests. You will actually gain more weight by taking only a couple of meals. If you want to lose weight you should have 5 or 6 very small meals.
You're just wrong, sorry.
by geagleiam » Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:49 pm
by Ze » Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:11 pm
Marmaduke wrote:Ze wrote:tylert27 wrote:While most oils are bad, I think its good to have fish oils. They tend to have a lot of Omega 3 which is great for your skin and really isn't detrimental to your weight. Also, skipping meals is never a good idea. If you skip a meal, your body will start training itself to take on more of the calories that it digests. You will actually gain more weight by taking only a couple of meals. If you want to lose weight you should have 5 or 6 very small meals.
You're just wrong, sorry.
Curious of what part? The first of his post is correct. The latter is more likely based on individual metabolism.
http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/ ... fish-oil1/
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/omega-3 ... se-fat.htm
by Ben Beckerich » Sun Jun 09, 2013 8:31 pm
by WyomingSummits » Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:19 pm
Ben Beckerich wrote:Reading through this thread in one go, I think it's a perfect shining example of how futile a debate this topic really is. Almost every single post is a refutation of the previous post, and there are as many arguments as posters...
For all the research on the topic, we don't seem to have a fucking clue how this shit works. The only constant seems to be - eat less, exercise more. Believe anything else you want, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.
by southerntele » Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:19 am
by Ze » Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:49 am
Ben Beckerich wrote:Reading through this thread in one go, I think it's a perfect shining example of how futile a debate this topic really is. Almost every single post is a refutation of the previous post, and there are as many arguments as posters...
For all the research on the topic, we don't seem to have a fucking clue how this shit works. The only constant seems to be - eat less, exercise more. Believe anything else you want, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.
WyomingSummits wrote: Yeah, what most fail to realize is that there are a myriad of differences from one person to the next. Med conditions, natural metabolism, genetics, exercise history over the period of one's life....they all add up. If it were as simple as calories in vs calories out, every fricken person in 3rd world countries would be a sack of bones. However, there are dozens of impoverished countries with people on extreme low calorie diets and are working manual labor jobs, yet they have a 30-40% obesity rate. The calorie vs output argument has a honeycomb's worth full of holes. The problem is that it's easier to prove what doesn't work than what does work!
by Chris Simpson » Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:13 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests