View Single Post
Old February 5 2013, 02:27 PM   #83
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

Venardhi wrote: View Post
Under your theory, people without fat on them cannot gain muscle. There is some truth to that, but not in the way you think....
You've misrepresented what I think.

Fat barely plays into it, except as an additional energy source if necessary.
This is what I've been saying! A concern for accuracy forced a concession that fat-burning could occasionally play a minor role in weight lost.

You don't have reality on your side in this.
How embarrassing for you, since you only disagree with a caricature of my position.

Deckerd wrote: View Post

I can't really improve on this comment.
Really embarrassing for you: This post is semiliterate, vacuous and petty.

Pingfah wrote: View Post
This just sounds like an excuse for laziness, 791 calories is plenty to lose in an hours exercise. If you do that 5 times a week you've just wiped off two full days of calorie intake in a sensible diet.

If that's not enough to make a difference then you very possibly could be eating far too much, and not eating healthy food...This just sounds like an excuse for laziness, 791 calories is plenty to lose in an hours exercise. If you do that 5 times a week you've just wiped off two full days of calorie intake in a sensible diet.
Thank you Venardhi, thanks to your sowing confusion, we're right back to laying all of it, every ounce, to character flaws, such as laziness and lack of willpower, a la Pingfah and Deckerd. An hour of vigorous rowing on a machine is not a simple matter. That is a demanding workout. Also, lots of people don't have a rowing machine, or a boat, or a gym membership, for monetary reasons. Nor does the exercise time merely include the full hour on the rowing machine in the hypothetical example. It includes any travel time etc. too. Also, the notion that a day's increase of calories can somehow be balanced by exercise on previous or subsequent days is really peculiar.

The numbers don't add up. Exercise as a weight loss method is just impractical, requiring more than an hour's simple exercise. If anyone had troubled to look, I deliberately picked a high-value exercise. Most hour's exercise burn much less.

Retu wrote:
If they were eating sensibly, they probably wouldn't be fat in the first place, would they?
Not that simple, which is the real point to be grasped. Intense hunger is probably the number one cause of overeating, not overeating the inevitable result of moral weakness. Making up reasons to despise people doesn't really help someone in daily life.

Venardhi wrote: View Post
...In short: as long as you're balanced in your approach to your overall diet, eating things like a basket of fries a couple times a week alone really wont have that much impact on your overall caloric intake and, in turn, your weight.
The wrong thinking is the insistence on exercise for weight loss, as compensation for that side of fries. Where did "basket" come from? Trying to imply gluttony without actually saying it obviously?

Infern0 wrote: View Post
If you want to be "in shape" you are better served eating nutritionally quality foods as without adequate lean protein combined with lifting weights you will not have enough muscle on your body to be aesthetic and will become the dreaded "skinny-fat"
At last, a post that honestly connects exercise with esthetics!
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline   Reply With Quote