BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > Articles on the Main Site
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Unread 07-31-2009, 02:32 PM
kurth kurth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 122
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
You only technically need one lung or kidney...and the appendix has gotta be worth half a pound....just saying.
damn. I already had my appendix out.

I wonder if any enduro types have ever given away a lung or kidney, under the guise of being a good person but instead they were only thinking how losing that kidney might shave a few seconds off...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 07-31-2009, 02:36 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

The lungs are too important, I have wondered why some of the more crazed climbers don't have organs or ribs taken out. Every gram counts.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 07-31-2009, 02:37 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
I just made an addition to it since someone tried to sneak a positive comment into another article's comment section.

I deleted it and will delete any and all comments (positive or negative) on this piece when people try to do the same. Nothing is getting through.
I also made some mionr technical changes (in terms of vocabulary) to make it more correct in terms of the physics. None of the concepts changed, just some of the words (e.g. energy stores changing vs. body mass).
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 07-31-2009, 03:50 PM
Weib Weib is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 815
Default

Quote:
The supposed 500 calorie deficit you’re creating is really only 200 calories because your SPA/NEAT has adjusted itself.
I don't get this part - you create 500 cals deficit via exercise or intending to create total?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 07-31-2009, 03:54 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

YOu're eating 2500 because that is your pre-starting to exercise maintnance. YOu want to create a 500 cal/day deficit so you add 500 cal/day of activity. Now your body reduces your activity outside of the gym by 300 cal/day.

You think you're creating a 500 cal/day deficit, you're eating 2500 and burning 500?

Except that your actual caloric burn has dropped by 300 and the 2500 is no longer accurate. So the net deficit is only 200 calories (you're eating 2500 and burning 2700, 2500 +500 for exercise - 300 for NEAT/SPA = 2700).
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Unread 07-31-2009, 04:02 PM
Weib Weib is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 815
Default

oh okay.
I think you can pair up with bodymedia and pimp their stuff with this article...
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Unread 07-31-2009, 10:01 PM
Stormbringer Stormbringer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: East Coast of North Carolina
Posts: 182
Default

I've been reading the articles on the main page for around 9 months now (how long I've been interested in and reading about nutrition). Well, I was inspired to become a forum member (after lurking for also 9 months and reading the hell out of it) because of this article.

I just wanted to say how great that was to read, Lyle. Both sides (the retardedly simple vs. the deniers) of the energy balance crowd piss me off too. The only reason I pretty much knew about the stuff in your article is just because of reading your other articles (and two of your books) haha. Otherwise, this would be pretty new to me.

It's amazing how this information exists, but how people would prefer to spend $19.99 on a book about how eating nothing but cabbage soup is 'the way to lose weight' or whatever other crap is out there. It's mind boggling.

Anyway, great article Lyle. I already pimp your articles and books to some people who ask me about nutrition, and this particular article is going to be my main ho from now on. It's a perfect primer for anyone who wants a TRUE, perfectly written overview on what the calories you eat or the energy you burn really means for your fat loss or gains. Putting that into a concise article, Lyle, is no small thing to do. The internets is full of articles that kinda try, but are either laughably simplistic, wrong, or just not completely accurate.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Unread 07-31-2009, 10:57 PM
toiletmoose toiletmoose is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 254
Default

Possibly of relevance. Lyle, you stated in the topic of 'energy in', that there are variances in absorption efficiencies of various nutrients.

With reference to the statement, "carbs can be as low as 80% depending on fiber content."

When you say carbs, are you including fibre, which digests at a much lower efficiency (if at all)? Or are you referring to the fact that fibre content prevents the digestion of a portion of the starches, etc in the carb source, similiar to what it would do to protein as to described later in the article?

Finally, If possible, what would you say is the delta between say oatmeal vs glucose powder.

I'm thinking that if someone bases their diet largely on a single source, its possible that it could account for some funny things. (Think psixcr on the mean forum and his oatmeal)

Last edited by toiletmoose : 07-31-2009 at 11:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Unread 07-31-2009, 11:07 PM
banderbe banderbe is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toiletmoose View Post
(Think psixcr on the mean forum and his oatmeal)
Man I gotta get over there more often..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Unread 08-02-2009, 01:55 AM
tayjeremy tayjeremy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 542
Default

resistant starches is an interesting topic for me personally because i used to avoid beans like the plague. "too many carbs".

Then when i do eat beans i go "hmmm resistant starches... so how much more beans can i eat"...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.