safely reduce body fat

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

You're nuts. Good luck.

Likewise.

Just before you go point out all the people who are fat from carbs, fat and protein versus all the people who are fat from eating mostly fat and protein?

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

Got you, rules of physiology only matter when you are not overweight. Thanks for clearing that up.

Tell someone fat that the key to you losing weight is ASP or the key is limiting carbs. Now which advice might work?

MaceFace

Bruno26 wrote: »

Tell someone fat that the key to you losing weight is ASP or the key is limiting carbs. Now which advice might work?

Erhh neither!

Bruno26

MaceFace wrote: »

Erhh neither!

Clueless

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

Clueless

Pot, Kettle.

Bruno26

So there are no overweight groups of people anywhere ever who lived mostly on fat and protein and limited carbs.

There are millions of overweight people who eat carbs, fat and protein who often try to control their weight through calorie restriction. Invariably they fail.



So what makes people fat?

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

So there are no overweight groups of people anywhere ever who lived mostly on fat and protein and limited carbs.

There are millions of overweight people who eat carbs, fat and protein who often try to control their weight through calorie restriction. Invariably they fail.

So what makes people fat?

Name a modern day culture who has a HFLC diet out of interest? Not particular individuals who are actively trying to improve there general weight/ well being, simply a culture who do this to show that this one variable can be isolated to be the definitive evidence to your claims.

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

Name a modern day culture who has a HFLC diet out of interest? Not particular individuals who are actively trying to improve there general weight/ well being, simply a culture who do this to show that this one variable can be isolated to be the definitive evidence to your claims.

Here you go.

http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/all-meat-diets/

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

Here you go.

http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/all-meat-diets/

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

I mentioned Inuits before but glad you brought them up

http://www.circumpolarhealthjournal.net/index.php/ijch/article/viewFile/17802/20285

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

I mentioned Inuits before but glad you brought them up

http://www.circumpolarhealthjournal.net/index.php/ijch/article/viewFile/17802/20285

Not relevant. Data from 2004. This does not apply.

However it does point out the effects of drastic changes to the Inuit diet.

Traditional v modern Inuit Diet is very different.

Read p 42 of this.

http://www.uqar.ca/files/boreas/inuitway_e.pdf

Unfortunately very few if any at all groups of people eating mostly fat and protein anymore as processed carbs are everywhere since the 1960s and 1970s.

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

Not relevant. Data from 2004. This does not apply.

However it does point out the effects of drastic changes to the Inuit diet.

Traditional v modern Inuit Diet is very different.

Read p 42 of this.

http://www.uqar.ca/files/boreas/inuitway_e.pdf

Unfortunately very few if any at all groups of people eating mostly fat and protein anymore as processed carbs are everywhere since the 1960s and 1970s.

So data from 2004 not relevant yet the basis of your theories is "traditional diets" and anecdotal evidence (see your post here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91520235&postcount=213) is.

You use the Masai and Inuits to support your claims yet they aren't relevant given that they don't actually adhere to your parameters as a modern day example.

You ask people to name groups who have gotten fat from HFLC diets yet you can't actually name a group that adhere's to it.

I am going to leave you with one bit of wisdom that seems to have eluded you, correlation does not equal causation. This fact may actually save you thousand's if you ever learn it.

Your back tracking and ignorance of facts has wore me down. I'm out

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

So data from 2004 not relevant yet the basis of your theories is "traditional diets" and anecdotal evidence (see your post here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91520235&postcount=213) is.

You use the Masai and Inuits to support your claims yet they aren't relevant given that they don't actually adhere to your parameters as a modern day example.

You ask people to name groups who have gotten fat from HFLC diets yet you can't actually name a group that adhere's to it.

I am going to leave you with one bit of wisdom that seems to have eluded you, correlation does not equal causation. This fact may actually save you thousand's if you ever learn it.

Your back tracking and ignorance of facts has wore me down. I'm out

Oh dear!

No it's not relevant. Read again very carefully this time.

The point I'm making but is lost on you is that any group of people who have ever eaten mostly fat and protein have never been overweight.


When processed carbs introduced evidence shows they gained weight.

Absence of carbs in these groups results in no overweight or obese people.

There is no evidence of any group of people living on fat and protein that got fat ever throughout history.

There's correlation and causation for you.

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

Oh dear!

No it's not relevant. Read again very carefully this time.

The point I'm making but is lost on you is that any group of people who have ever eaten mostly fat and protein have never been overweight.


When processed carbs introduced evidence shows they gained weight.

Absence of carbs in these groups results in no overweight or obese people.

There is no evidence of any group of people living on fat and protein that got fat ever throughout history.

There's correlation and causation for you.

Just when I'm out they pull me back in

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16901372

http://www.dawn-centre.ie/index.php?page=Page&op=show&id=90

Obesity is nothing new it's been around a hell of alot longer than processed carbs

My point was less labour instenive food sources, improved transport, more sedentary lifestyles etc are all influencing factors which make your point mute because you refuse to take them into consideration.

You could easily replace locomotion with processed carbs in your theory and come to the same conclusion regarding their impact on diet.

Essien

I know a fella who's skinny and doesn't eat meat. Therefore meat makes people fat.

Because fuck logic.

Bruno26

Essien wrote: »

I know a fella who's skinny and doesn't eat meat. Therefore meat makes people fat.

Because fuck logic.

Carbohydrate tolerant like many people who never get fat more than likely.

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

Just when I'm out they pull me back in

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16901372

http://www.dawn-centre.ie/index.php?page=Page&op=show&id=90

Obesity is nothing new it's been around a hell of alot longer than processed carbs

My point was less labour instenive food sources, improved transport, more sedentary lifestyles etc are all influencing factors which make your point mute because you refuse to take them into consideration.
c
You could easily replace locomotion with processed carbs in your theory and come to the same conclusion regarding their impact on diet.

You keep proving my point. Thanks. The first grains were farmed about 12,000 years ago in Egypt. They exhibited the first signs of poor health and weight problems. Common factor again - grains are a high carbohydrate food source. Conclusion - introduction of carbs led to health and weight issues.

Essien

10 year old data is redundant.

12000 year old data is fine though.

This has been a master class in trolling, you couldn't make it up.

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

You keep proving my point. Thanks. The first grains were farmed about 12,000 years ago in Egypt. They exhibited the first signs of poor health and weight problems. Common factor again - grains are a high carbohydrate food source. Conclusion - introduction of carbs led to health and weight issues.

Except the link I put up first was in reference to Europe (Greece) where processed carbs were introduced much later despite the fact that obesity was already a major problem in Greece reported 300-400 years prior to the introduction of grains such as rye and wheat.

Also Neolithic figureans had been found around Europe prior to Classical expansion depicting swollen belly's and large buttocks

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=W8VRCTE88DkC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=neolithic+figurines+%2B+swollen+belly&source=bl&ots=XlMlTSpCyi&sig=FsvhB32AP6mLyfjIx1iCVXDTu2c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oLncU6_bAuqS7AaY6oH4BQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=neolithic%20figurines%20%2B%20swollen%20belly&f=false

Your point just proves you only see what you wanna see so there is no point in me making a logical argument.

I applaud your trolling it had me hooked for quite some time but like all great things it must come to an end.

MaceFace

Folks, there is no reasoning with this guy. It's black and white to him - eat carbs and you get fat. Don't and you lose weight.

Feel free to have a 12 egg omelet for breakfast, hell, another for snack, a 3 lb steak for lunch, 10 whole roast chickens for dinner. If you fancy a snack after that, have a couple of kilos of salmon. Dessert - a kilo of cream.

And don't worry, you will lose weight!!!

And the best thing of all is that all those scientists and doctors are keeping this secret because they are in cahoots with the big food producers who have us hooked on those evil carbs.

Sometimes there is just no reasoning.

Bruno26

MaceFace wrote: »

Folks, there is no reasoning with this guy. It's black and white to him - eat carbs and you get fat. Don't and you lose weight.

Feel free to have a 12 egg omelet for breakfast, hell, another for snack, a 3 lb steak for lunch, 10 whole roast chickens for dinner. If you fancy a snack after that, have a couple of kilos of salmon. Dessert - a kilo of cream.

And don't worry, you will lose weight!!!

And the best thing of all is that all those scientists and doctors are keeping this secret because they are in cahoots with the big food producers who have us hooked on those evil carbs.

Sometimes there is just no reasoning.

All lost on you also.

Physically impossible for the average overweight person to eat that. Ridiculous scenario.

Google appestat, fat, satiation and you might begin to understand where I'm coming from.

Bruno26

Essien wrote: »

10 year old data is redundant.

12000 year old data is fine though.

This has been a master class in trolling, you couldn't make it up.

Clueless.

Data taken in 2004 when diet changed drastically to include carbs. Are you taking the p**s or are you just unable to process what I'm saying.

ecoli

ecoli wrote: »

Name a modern day culture who has a HFLC diet out of interest? Not particular individuals who are actively trying to improve there general weight/ well being, simply a culture who do this to show that this one variable can be isolated to be the definitive evidence to your claims.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Here you go.

http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/all-meat-diets/

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

ecoli wrote: »

I mentioned Inuits before but glad you brought them up

http://www.circumpolarhealthjournal.net/index.php/ijch/article/viewFile/17802/20285

Bruno26 wrote: »

Not relevant. Data from 2004. This does not apply.

ladies and gentlemen, I give you; Bruno logic

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

Except the link I put up first was in reference to Europe (Greece) where processed carbs were introduced much later despite the fact that obesity was already a major problem in Greece reported 300-400 years prior to the introduction of grains such as rye and wheat

Simple reason for that. They ate a lot of honey and possibly lots of fruit. High in sugar = too many carbs. They got fat.

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

ladies and gentlemen, I give you; Bruno logic

It's not relevant because they don't eat hflc anymore. There are probably no people left who live mostly on fat and protein but when there was there is lots if evidence that they never got fat. Limited sugar no grains = never got fat.

Read more carefully.

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

It's not relevant because they don't eat hflc anymore. There are probably no people left who live mostly on fat and protein but when there was there is lots if evidence that they never got fat. Limited sugar no grains = never got fat.

Read more carefully.

Thats why I highlighted modern day in bold the question that was originally asked.

Great advice for all

So I will ask again:

Name a modern day culture who has a HFLC diet out of interest? Not particular individuals who are actively trying to improve there general weight/ well being, simply a culture who do this to show that this one variable can be isolated to be the definitive evidence to your claims.

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

Thats why I highlighted modern day in bold the question that was originally asked.

Great advice for all

You've tried hard. Still no evidence though of a group of fat people who lived mostly on fat and protein.

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

Thats why I highlighted modern day in bold the question that was originally asked.

Great advice for all

So I will ask again:

To clarify again. This way of eating is near non-existent any more due to the influx of processed carbohydrates everywhere.

We can only go on past evidence of traditional diets. When we do there is no evidence of weight issues.

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

You've tried hard. Still no evidence though of a group of fat people who lived mostly on fat and protein.

You have no evidence otherwise either.

I could name x,y and z introduced in the last 50 years and say they cause weight gain, doen't make it true by simple correlation (especially when you ignore how the human body works)

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

You have no evidence otherwise either.

I could name x,y and z introduced in the last 50 years and say they cause weight gain, doen't make it true by simple correlation (especially when you ignore how the human body works)

You could and it would be correct because anything introduced in last 50 years is processed crap so most likely this would show a contribution to weight gain.

SeaDaily

Bruno26 wrote: »

You could and it would be correct because anything introduced in last 50 years is processed crap so most likely this would show a contribution to weight gain.

This is such total nonsense it actually hurts to read.

Bruno26

SeaDaily wrote: »

This is such total nonsense it actually hurts to read.

If it's nonsense list all the new foods introduced in last 50 years that don't contribute to weight gain?

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

You could and it would be correct because anything introduced in last 50 years is processed crap so most likely this would show a contribution to weight gain.

Okay we are starting to get into logic 101 here

Take x = carbs

if

x + y + z = weight gain
y and z do not equal 0 (based on your validation previous)

therefore x does not equal weight gain on its own so blaming weight gain on one factor when there are numerous influential factors is just plain stupid

(still following or will I start over with pictures?)

Essien

MaceFace wrote: »

Feel free to have a 12 egg omelet for breakfast, hell, another for snack, a 3 lb steak for lunch, 10 whole roast chickens for dinner. If you fancy a snack after that, have a couple of kilos of salmon. Dessert - a kilo of cream.

Most days I just stick a live pig and a gallon of cream into a barrel and blend it up. Am I doing it right?

And yes Bruno, I'm very much taking the pi$s

Mr.Fun

Different weight loss plans work for different people period.

MaceFace

Essien wrote: »

Most days I just stick a live pig and a gallon of cream into a barrel and blend it up. Am I doing it right?

And yes Bruno, I'm very much taking the pi$s

LOL

No. See, your not the average over right person. That's who Bruno is taking about.

Bruno26

Essien wrote: »

Most days I just stick a live pig and a gallon of cream into a barrel and blend it up. Am I doing it right?

And yes Bruno, I'm very much taking the pi$s

Obviously . If you eat a substantial amount of carbs and struggle with weight. You decide to lose weight.
I see it as you have two options. Restrict calories and continue to eat a bit of everything or limit carbs and never count calories.

Answer the following: Which is the best option to lose the weight? Which is easier? Which is more sustainable ? Which is better for overall health?

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

Okay we are starting to get into logic 101 here

Take x = carbs

if

x + y + z = weight gain
y and z do not equal 0 (based on your validation previous)

therefore x does not equal weight gain on its own so blaming weight gain on one factor when there are numerous influential factors is just plain stupid

(still following or will I start over with pictures?)

Y + Z = weight loss or no weight gain! You stay slim / lean for life .

Bruno26

Mr.Fun wrote: »

Different weight loss plans work for different people period.

Indeed but which is best as an overall approach?

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

Y + Z = weight loss or no weight gain! You stay slim / lean for life .

Bruno26

[quote="ecoli

Lazy .

There is one factor in weight gain- too many carbs.

Essien

Bruno26 wrote: »

Answer the following: Which is the best option to lose the weight? Which is easier? Which is more sustainable ? Which is better for overall health?

I lost more fat in less time while eating 150+ carbs per day. So for me, carbs win that round. Though I'd guess more intense training might have helped.

I wouldn't say one is easier than the other, they both have pros and cons. I have less to think about with higher fat since it regulates appetite much better, but the food was nicer and much more varied on higher carb.

Sustainability, pros and cons again, for pretty much the same reasons as the last question.

Overall health, I've no idea, can't see I feel much different in either case.

Obviously you'll refuse to take all this on board though.

Bruno26

Essien wrote: »

I lost more fat in less time while eating 150+ carbs per day. So for me, carbs win that round. Though I'd guess more intense training might have helped.

I wouldn't say one is easier than the other, they both have pros and cons. I have less to think about with higher fat since it regulates appetite much better, but the food was nicer and much more varied on higher carb.

Sustainability, pros and cons again, for pretty much the same reasons as the last question.

Overall health, I've no idea, can't see I feel much different in either case.

Obviously you'll refuse to take all this on board though.

Very good - I accept all of that. Just wanted your opinion. What suits one person won't suit another.

I'd disagree about the food being nicer on high carb (if you're referring to grains) though. I use lots of spices when cooking to make the food tasty.

SeaDaily

Bruno26 wrote: »

There is one factor in weight gain- too many carbs.

No, just no. You are so wrong it hurts. Are you suggesting that if you ate no carbs at all per day and ate 2000 calories worth of protein and 2000 calories worth of fat you would lose weight? Obviously the answer is you don't really believe this and so the "one factor" in weight gain is blatantly not carbs, it is how many calories you consume per day.

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

Very good - I accept all of that. Just wanted your opinion. What suits one person won't suit another.

I'd disagree about the food being nicer on high carb (if you're referring to grains) though. I use lots of spices when cooking to make the food tasty.

Do these count towards your overall daily carb intake? or are they not relavent???

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

Do these count towards your overall daily carb intake? or do this not count???

Not worth counting. Miniscule amounts of carbs in spices unless your using hundreds of grams which you wouldn't be using daily.

Bruno26

SeaDaily wrote: »

No, just no. You are so wrong it hurts. Are you suggesting that if you ate no carbs at all per day and ate 2000 calories worth of protein and 2000 calories worth of fat you would lose weight? Obviously the answer is you don't really believe this and so the "one factor" in weight gain is blatantly not carbs, it is how many calories you consume per day.

I'm talking about fat loss.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying except more fat and less protein.

I've gone from 22% bf to 14 % bf doing something similar.


A calorie is not a calorie as we've been told for so long.

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

Not worth counting. Miniscule amounts of carbs in spices unless your using hundreds of grams which you wouldn't be using daily.

6g of carbs per table spoon of garlic powder here or 4g of carbs per tablespoon of chill powder there add in with the carbs in grass fed meat or eggs, cheese, cream and suddenly you are at close to half your daily intake if you are on keto diet without even realising it.

(Not that I am saying this is a bad thing but atleast it can make you realise that your magic figures of 50/100/150g are well out)

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

6g of carbs per table spoon of garlic powder here or 4g of carbs per tablespoon of chill powder there add in with the carbs in grass fed meat or eggs, cheese, cream and suddenly you are at close to half your daily intake if you are on keto diet without even realising it.

(Not that I am saying this is a bad thing but atleast it can make you realise that your magic figures of 50/100/150g are well out)

Yes I get that. However that would be some amount of spice to be eating with a steak!

Mist days use nutmeg and cinnamon but just a few sprinkles!

I suppose if you want to stay within the magic figures don't use tablespoons of spices with each meal!

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yes I get that. However that would be some amount of spice to be eating with a steak!

Mist days use nutmeg and cinnamon but just a few sprinkles!

I suppose if you want to stay within the magic figures don't use tablespoons of spices with each meal!

Not if you can eat as much fat and protein as you want, sure I'll be having atleast two or 3 big juicy steaks for dinner and lunch (and maybe a small one with a stick of butter as a snack in between)

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

Not if you can eat as much fat and protein as you want, sure I'll be having atleast two or 3 big juicy steaks for dinner and lunch (and maybe a small one with a stick of butter as a snack in between)

I've never eaten more than two steaks in a day. Lots of butter and veg with the steak.

You can eat as much fat as you want not as much protein as you want though.

The idea is eat as much fat and protein as you want. Try it- you'll soon be satiated and satisfied.