Author Topic: FitnessBore - 2018 edition  (Read 817093 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1560 on: June 20, 2010, 08:37:45 PM »
Ive reached 10 pullups! :bow2

But then I dropped to 6 on my 2nd set and 4 on my 3rd. :lol

Congrats! Every new pull-up is a victory worth celebrating. The drop-off is totally normal, happens to me as well with deadhang pull-ups at least.
vjj

Mupepe

  • Icon
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1561 on: June 21, 2010, 10:56:48 AM »
By the way, my bench was only 100 and my weights only cost 140.  Totally worth it.  In a few months it'll pay for itself.

Eh, I'm pretty sure I had that exact model and it felt pretty meh to me, narrow and worthless for anything but bench pressing and dangerously cumbersome front squats.
maybe you're just a bigger guy but it seems way better than most equipment in gyms.  it's actually a little too wide for me.  I don't like the way I have to position my legs like I'm some girl on prom night when I'm on the bench.  And the squat rack seems a-ok to me.  been using it with 240 lbs and haven't had a problem.

Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1562 on: June 21, 2010, 03:49:35 PM »
I ran 11 miles yesterday, gonna do 4 tonight, 3 tomorrow, 2 Wednesday, and then resting until the 1/2 marathon on Saturday.
野球

Mupepe

  • Icon
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1563 on: June 21, 2010, 04:26:02 PM »
Good luck, dude!  That's really awesome and I wish I had the cardio health to pull that off :'(

:bow Mr. Gundam :bow2

Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1564 on: June 25, 2010, 12:48:22 PM »
Tomorrow is the Seattle Rock and Roll Half Marathon! I'd love to do it in 2 1/2 hours or less, but my only goal is to finish.
野球

Mupepe

  • Icon
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1565 on: June 25, 2010, 12:55:12 PM »
Good luck, dude!  Definitely let us know how you do (and how you feel!)

Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1566 on: June 25, 2010, 03:41:31 PM »
My wife and a bunch of our friends are also running it, there will be plenty of pictures, I'm sure.
野球

Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1567 on: June 25, 2010, 08:42:57 PM »
Here's a 4 minute video of the course I'll be running in the morning around 7:30 am PST.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid40280743001?bctid=97900090001
野球

Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1568 on: June 26, 2010, 10:41:59 PM »
13.1 miles in 2:20:09. My wife did it in 2:10:13. :rock

I'll post pictures tomorrow.
野球

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1569 on: June 27, 2010, 12:15:18 AM »
good job guys! Bet the beer tasted good afterward!
vjj

Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1570 on: June 27, 2010, 10:24:16 AM »



« Last Edit: June 27, 2010, 10:26:35 AM by Mr. Gundam »
野球

Fresh Prince

  • a one-eyed cat peepin' in a seafood store
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1571 on: June 27, 2010, 07:43:21 PM »
You look like a pale John Stamos
888

Mupepe

  • Icon
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1572 on: June 28, 2010, 10:23:12 AM »
a sexy john stamos!  good job, dude!

spoiler (click to show/hide)
which one is the wife? :drool
[close]

Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1573 on: June 28, 2010, 11:24:34 AM »
a sexy john stamos!  good job, dude!

spoiler (click to show/hide)
which one is the wife? :drool
[close]

Emilie is the blonde in the pink shirt and black pants.
野球

Beezy

  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1574 on: July 03, 2010, 12:49:38 AM »
I've also hit 10 chin-ups and I just learned that I can't do those day after day. I did one set a few mins ago and my forearms felt really tense.

Btw, where exactly are pullups and chinups supposed to work? With chinups I definitely feel it in my forearms more than anywhere else. They actually look a little bigger too.

Boogie

  • The Smooth Canadian
  • Icon
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1575 on: July 03, 2010, 01:01:04 AM »
I've also hit 10 chin-ups and I just learned that I can't do those day after day. I did one set a few mins ago and my forearms felt really tense.

Btw, where exactly are pullups and chinups supposed to work? With chinups I definitely feel it in my forearms more than anywhere else. They actually look a little bigger too.

Pullups, as I understand it, work all of your lats, plus some of the biceps, and I guess forearms for grip.  Chinups (ie. palms in) would work the biceps more I would think.

My pullup routine =
1 set of 6 reps with a 10lbs weight strapped around my waist.
3x5 reps of a 45lbers strapped around my waist
1x5 or 6 of a 25 lbers "              "        "   "
1 set of 6 reps without weight.
MMA

Flannel Boy

  • classic millennial sex pickle
  • Icon
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1576 on: July 03, 2010, 01:07:04 AM »
I've also hit 10 chin-ups and I just learned that I can't do those day after day. I did one set a few mins ago and my forearms felt really tense.

Btw, where exactly are pullups and chinups supposed to work? With chinups I definitely feel it in my forearms more than anywhere else. They actually look a little bigger too.

Now you'll be able to hold Gibson's wife down.

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1577 on: July 03, 2010, 01:17:42 AM »
:lol :lol :lol

Beezy

  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1578 on: July 03, 2010, 01:25:39 AM »
I don't get it. ???

I've also hit 10 chin-ups and I just learned that I can't do those day after day. I did one set a few mins ago and my forearms felt really tense.

Btw, where exactly are pullups and chinups supposed to work? With chinups I definitely feel it in my forearms more than anywhere else. They actually look a little bigger too.

Pullups, as I understand it, work all of your lats, plus some of the biceps, and I guess forearms for grip.  Chinups (ie. palms in) would work the biceps more I would think.
I see, thanks. I'm gonna start going to the gym at my school next week since there isn't much I can do at home without weights.

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1579 on: July 03, 2010, 01:48:18 AM »
He means now you'll be a more prominent member of the pack

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1580 on: July 04, 2010, 11:02:16 PM »
Now that beezy hasn't replied I feel like a racist.  :(  Malek is horrible.

Beezy

  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1581 on: July 04, 2010, 11:11:54 PM »
I still didn't get it and gave up. :(

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1582 on: July 04, 2010, 11:13:32 PM »
Quote
Matters just got worse for Mr. Gibson as tapes have been leaked of him unleashing some supercharged lingo to his baby’s mama, Oksana Grigorieva. Mel had no idea he was being taped and at the tippy-top of his alcohol soaked lungs Mel can be heard saying “You look like a f*king pig in heat and if you get raped by a pack of ni**ers it will be your fault.” Classy Mel.

http://thecount.com/2010/07/01/mel-gibson-secretly-taped-raped-by-a-pack-of-niers/


Beezy

  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1583 on: July 05, 2010, 02:23:34 AM »
Mr. Gibson didn't register as Mel Gibson in my head. Fuck you, Malek. :lol

Mupepe

  • Icon
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1584 on: July 06, 2010, 01:26:15 PM »

Planning on buying this next week for pullups, leg raises and dips and whatnot.  Matches my bench set too. 

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1585 on: July 06, 2010, 08:18:16 PM »
looks pretty useful, although I don't think you'll ever be able to kip on it. Still a great investment, i'd say.
vjj

Mupepe

  • Icon
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1586 on: July 07, 2010, 10:40:08 AM »
I'm not up to kips yet :(

but yeah, definitely not bad for a hundred bucks.  with that and my bench and 300 lbs of weights I have everything I need from the gym.

Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1587 on: July 08, 2010, 12:49:07 PM »
No more 10-11 mile runs. Did 4 this morning before it gets ridiculously hot.
野球

Olivia Wilde Homo

  • Proud Kinkshamer
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1588 on: July 25, 2010, 10:58:37 AM »
Are people still working out?

I'm down 14 pounds since moving to the paleo diet.  I'd have to say that the last time I looked like this was when I was 21 and focused most of my life around bodybuilding and that was with eating every 2 or 3 hours.  This time, I have somewhat erratic eating times due to work.  I'm still impressed and again, I much prefer this idea rather than choking down steel cut oats or egg whites.

Strength is slightly up but I've been hitting the iron hard recently.  I'm trying to work as hard as possible while the testosterone is still flowing freely.
🍆🍆

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1589 on: July 25, 2010, 08:07:22 PM »
Glad to see you're still at it!

I'm doing jack shit, right now, working out once a week on average. I have no excuses. This heatwave is just draining the life out of me. Obviously I'm not making any progress right now, and I'll have some serious soreness to deal with when I ramp it up again. Oh well.

I'm eating well though - no grains or sugar. Alcohol is the only real weak spot! I notice that even a few drinks is enough to prevent any weight loss from happening, especially when not working out.
vjj

Olivia Wilde Homo

  • Proud Kinkshamer
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1590 on: July 25, 2010, 08:56:35 PM »
I have not consumed alcohol in some time.

My diet primarily consists of Omega 3 eggs, beef, and greek yogurt.  Then the occasional handful of cherries that grow from our tree.
🍆🍆

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1591 on: July 25, 2010, 09:00:50 PM »
Try drinking heavy cream! It is the perfect convenience meal.
vjj

bagofeyes

  • blow me - I deserve it
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1592 on: July 25, 2010, 09:01:59 PM »
you and your cream

Olivia Wilde Homo

  • Proud Kinkshamer
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1593 on: July 25, 2010, 09:04:12 PM »
I wouldn't mind getting some of Cormacaroni's cream...
🍆🍆

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1594 on: July 25, 2010, 09:04:34 PM »
 :-*
vjj

bagofeyes

  • blow me - I deserve it
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1595 on: July 26, 2010, 01:04:46 AM »
i just went and found a local community gym near my apartment that's $3 for 3 hours. sweet  :spin

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1596 on: July 26, 2010, 01:58:47 AM »
I'm eating well though - no grains or sugar. Alcohol is the only real weak spot! I notice that even a few drinks is enough to prevent any weight loss from happening, especially when not working out.
It's obvious that a carbcentric low-GI diet worked very well for the Japanese.  I don't know if you're trying to imply that carbs are bad for everyone though but I'm just saying that you shouldn't assume that your body is incapable of changing to a "western" or whatever you want to call it diet.

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1597 on: July 26, 2010, 02:13:01 AM »
You can't be simultaneously 'carbcentric' and 'low-GI'.

The traditional Japanese diet is fairly solid APART from the reliance on simple carbs like rice and noodles, and being too sodium-heavy due to all the shoyu. But those are fairly big 'gotchas'. All traditional national diets are deeply flawed. Comparing them is an utter waste of time. You're just quibbling over relative levels of awfulness.

Obviously people can survive even on shitty food, golf clap for pointing that out. I'm interested in what's optimal for health and fitness.
vjj

Mupepe

  • Icon
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1598 on: July 26, 2010, 10:17:37 AM »
I'm working out with a friend so I'm trying to help him catch up to where I'm at on bench but I've making making really awesome gains there.  I'm trying to do 5 sets of 10 while he does 5 sets of 5.  We're currently at 175. 

With squats I'm at 245.  I'm finally catching back up with where I was before.  Deadlift is at 250.

Shoulder press is where I'm happy.  I'm at 155 now and my traps are getting pretty gigantic.  i'm making pretty good gains on pullup.  Right now I'm slowly converting over to a paleo diet.  but man, carbs are hard to lose especially when you're married to a hispanic so I'm doing it slowly.

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1599 on: July 26, 2010, 12:55:26 PM »
You can't be simultaneously 'carbcentric' and 'low-GI'.
Low GI in the sense that it just gets absorbed more slowly.  What matters is that they don't have nearly as much of a problem with obesity and diabetes and all that.

Obviously people can survive even on shitty food, golf clap for pointing that out. I'm interested in what's optimal for health and fitness.
They have the lowest obesity rate in the world and I think the longest lifespans.  It's obvious they have a diet that works well for them.  You can't just dismiss them as "surviving" and not being in optimal health when they are some of the healthiest people alive today.

OTOH, were hunter-gatherers even lean?  You would think that somebody living on whatever they can find wouldn't be able to eat very regularly so their metabolism would adapt by adding some extra ridges of fat.  Somebody living on an agrarian diet would probably be able to eat more regularly and therefore need less fat reserves.  Paleo dieters point to the survival of the fittest argument but does that mean survival of the leanest?

Ultimately, it's about what your eventual results are.  I personally think that a mixed diet is best, even though some people do very well on a nearly no carb diet.  It just makes no sense to point at Japan and say that they would benefit from a massive diet change though.

cubicle47b

  • Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1600 on: July 26, 2010, 03:46:40 PM »


They look pretty lean.

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1601 on: July 26, 2010, 07:37:53 PM »
You can't be simultaneously 'carbcentric' and 'low-GI'.
Low GI in the sense that it just gets absorbed more slowly.  What matters is that they don't have nearly as much of a problem with obesity and diabetes and all that.

Obviously people can survive even on shitty food, golf clap for pointing that out. I'm interested in what's optimal for health and fitness.
They have the lowest obesity rate in the world and I think the longest lifespans.  It's obvious they have a diet that works well for them.  You can't just dismiss them as "surviving" and not being in optimal health when they are some of the healthiest people alive today.

OTOH, were hunter-gatherers even lean?  You would think that somebody living on whatever they can find wouldn't be able to eat very regularly so their metabolism would adapt by adding some extra ridges of fat.  Somebody living on an agrarian diet would probably be able to eat more regularly and therefore need less fat reserves.  Paleo dieters point to the survival of the fittest argument but does that mean survival of the leanest?

Ultimately, it's about what your eventual results are.  I personally think that a mixed diet is best, even though some people do very well on a nearly no carb diet.  It just makes no sense to point at Japan and say that they would benefit from a massive diet change though.

Pfff. I'm watching the number of fatties climb visibly here, as they shovel garbage like fried noodle sandwiches down their throats. Like I said, there is much that is good about the Japanese diet (huge variety, lots of seafood) but much that is bad (far too many simple carbs, not enough protein). There are historical reasons for why they have good longevity, but that trend is over. Kids these days have a projected lifespan that is shorter than their parents, just like kids in the US. Diabetes and obesity are soaring as more people are eating a Western-type diet.

And that's not to suggest that the traditional Japanese diet is some wonderful mystical thing that can't be improved. Yeah, it's better than the utter shit people eat in the US. It's still woefully subpar though. For a start, people don't grow on it - look at how much taller 2nd gen American Japanese are than their parents, 6-8 inches on avg. All that soy leeches calcium and magnesium, hindering growth. And the sodium content, as noted, is sky-high and a major reason for the high rates of heart problems. It's widely recognized here that whenever you need to lose weight, you cut the rice - there are many time-honored mechanisms for doing this, like cutting it with flavorless seaweed products and such. Same volume, half the amount of simple carbs. People treat it like a short-term fix, sadly, but they do recognize that it works, and they recognize that the rice is the root problem.

There are a gazillion factors that play into their longevity other than diet, many of which are worth emulating. Climate, type of work, community. You'll note that folks in Okinawa have the best longevity, and they live in entirely different conditions from people on the mainland, and eat a very different diet. This is kind of academic, since basically no-one eats a traditional Japanese diet anymore anyway, at least no-one in the cities.
 
What do you mean by a mixed diet? I think I get plenty of variety. What should I be eating that I'm not eating, and in what quantities?
vjj

Boogie

  • The Smooth Canadian
  • Icon
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1602 on: July 26, 2010, 08:28:27 PM »

OTOH, were hunter-gatherers even lean?  You would think that somebody living on whatever they can find wouldn't be able to eat very regularly so their metabolism would adapt by adding some extra ridges of fat.  Somebody living on an agrarian diet would probably be able to eat more regularly and therefore need less fat reserves.  Paleo dieters point to the survival of the fittest argument but does that mean survival of the leanest?


Studies have shown that hunter-gatherers were better nourished than their early agricultural counterparts.  See: Guns, Germs, and Steel.
MMA

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1603 on: July 26, 2010, 08:37:57 PM »
We shouldn't even bother, Boogie.  I mean, he is saying that the more plentiful the food supply is, and the more regularly people eat, the less fat they should have.

A second's thought should be enough to expose that for the nonsense it is. It's just not worth the effort.
vjj

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1604 on: July 26, 2010, 08:56:25 PM »
Pfff. I'm watching the number of fatties climb visibly here, as they shovel garbage like fried noodle sandwiches down their throats. Like I said, there is much that is good about the Japanese diet (huge variety, lots of seafood) but much that is bad (far too many simple carbs, not enough protein). There are historical reasons for why they have good longevity, but that trend is over. Kids these days have a projected lifespan that is shorter than their parents, just like kids in the US. Diabetes and obesity are soaring as more people are eating a Western-type diet.

But my point is that when somebody gets most of their calories from carbs, they don't automatically develop hyperinsulimia or diabetes or have broken hunger mechanisms or anything.  Your point about the youth today eating more fast food and gradually eating bigger portion sizes doesn't have anything to do with what I am saying.  I'm making an argument about a high carb:fat ratio being fine, not necessarily that you can eat 3,000 Calories with no problem.

I guess I'd agree with you about the salt content being a big negative in their diet though.  The only reason I brought up Japan is because I remember that you live there, not because I'm a weabo who thinks they know all the secrets to the universe or anything.


Quote
What do you mean by a mixed diet? I think I get plenty of variety. What should I be eating that I'm not eating, and in what quantities?
I just mean being able to get a decent mix of both fats and carbs.

Studies have shown that hunter-gatherers were better nourished than their early agricultural counterparts.  See: Guns, Germs, and Steel.
I'd have to read it but do you mean better nourished with regards to not lacking essential proteins and fats or do you mean that their bodies were leaner?

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1605 on: July 26, 2010, 10:49:04 PM »
They don't automatically develop diabetes or cancer, no. But those are pretty fucking BAD THINGS to develop and any sane person would want to lower their chances of developing them as much as possible. If you love the taste of mashed potatoes so much that you just don't care about cancer, that's fine by me. You can smoke all your life and not get lung cancer if you're lucky but I'm not going to do it. (I admit I still drink, but that's a social thing mostly - it generally makes me happier so I figure that's a decent trade-off). The odds favor the person who doesn't smoke, doesn't drink and doesn't eat grains. And the short-term benefits to cutting out all that stuff are great enough to merit doing it anyway.

Even if you don't ultimately develop diabetes, it is a given that you will develop increased insulin sensitivity which DOES break your hunger mechanisms, and leads to a dependency on elevated blood sugar levels.

Re - hunter/gatherers. If you're not eating simple carbs, it is a FACT that you will be better nourished than people who do, unless they are eating so much that they are obese. This is inarguable, as simple carbs contain essentially zero nutrients. They thus inevitably bring down the overall percentage of nutritious food in your overall intake. And yes, they will tend to be leaner. It's very very difficult to become obese on a hunter-gatherer diet.
vjj

Beezy

  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1606 on: July 26, 2010, 11:17:21 PM »
Which common foods have simple carbs?

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1607 on: July 26, 2010, 11:42:37 PM »
Which common foods have simple carbs?

Bread, pasta, rice, potatoes.
vjj

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1608 on: July 26, 2010, 11:46:15 PM »
Just as an example of how the Japanese diet can be improved, check this out:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1407826&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_docsum

Abstract
The present paper examines the relationship of nutritional status to further life expectancy and health status in the Japanese elderly based on 3 epidemiological studies. 1. Nutrient intakes in 94 Japanese centenarians investigated between 1972 and 1973 showed a higher proportion of animal protein to total proteins than in contemporary average Japanese. 2. High intakes of milk and fats and oils had favorable effects on 10-year (1976-1986) survivorship in 422 urban residents aged 69-71. The survivors revealed a longitudinal increase in intakes of animal foods such as eggs, milk, fish and meat over the 10 years. 3. Nutrient intakes were compared, based on 24-hour dietary records, between a sample from Okinawa Prefecture where life expectancies at birth and 65 were the longest in Japan, and a sample from Akita Prefecture where the life expectancies were much shorter. Intakes of Ca, Fe, vitamins A, B1, B2, C, and the proportion of energy from proteins and fats were significantly higher in the former than in the latter. Intakes of carbohydrates and NaCl were lower.

i.e. eat less protein from tofu and shit, eat more from animals (eggs, meat, fish, milk), get more good fats as a result, and you live longer than the people around you. These folks probably weren't eating anything close to an optimal diet, but those simple changes led to increased lifespans even relative to people who were already living longer than the global average.
vjj

bagofeyes

  • blow me - I deserve it
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1609 on: July 26, 2010, 11:47:27 PM »
Which common foods have simple carbs?

Bread, pasta, rice, potatoes.

Those are complex carbs, no?

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1610 on: July 27, 2010, 12:06:08 AM »
Yes, fuck, I got that backwards, sorry.

(I always get screwed up on insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity too, no matter how many times I read it).

Add "sugar" to the list as well, btw, beezy.


vjj

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1611 on: July 27, 2010, 12:17:28 AM »
They don't automatically develop diabetes or cancer, no. But those are pretty fucking BAD THINGS to develop and any sane person would want to lower their chances of developing them as much as possible. If you love the taste of mashed potatoes so much that you just don't care about cancer, that's fine by me. You can smoke all your life and not get lung cancer if you're lucky but I'm not going to do it. (I admit I still drink, but that's a social thing mostly - it generally makes me happier so I figure that's a decent trade-off). The odds favor the person who doesn't smoke, doesn't drink and doesn't eat grains. And the short-term benefits to cutting out all that stuff are great enough to merit doing it anyway.

Even if you don't ultimately develop diabetes, it is a given that you will develop increased insulin sensitivity which DOES break your hunger mechanisms, and leads to a dependency on elevated blood sugar levels.

So what?  They are avoiding all the possible negative effects that you mentioned.  At record levels.  This is certainly not about luck, we're talking about an entire country.  It gives a good argument for how the average person can be perfectly healthy on a carbcentric diet.

Quote
Re - hunter/gatherers. If you're not eating simple carbs, it is a FACT that you will be better nourished than people who do, unless they are eating so much that they are obese. This is inarguable, as simple carbs contain essentially zero nutrients. They thus inevitably bring down the overall percentage of nutritious food in your overall intake. And yes, they will tend to be leaner. It's very very difficult to become obese on a hunter-gatherer diet.

Then don't eat simple carbs.  I mean you have to watch what you eat on any diet whether you want to focus on carbs or fats.
Just as an example of how the Japanese diet can be improved, check this out:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1407826&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_docsum

Abstract
...

i.e. eat less protein from tofu and shit, eat more from animals (eggs, meat, fish, milk), get more good fats as a result, and you live longer than the people around you. These folks probably weren't eating anything close to an optimal diet, but those simple changes led to increased lifespans even relative to people who were already living longer than the global average.

I agree, there are certain amino acids you need to get from your food and animal products would contain all of them so they are the best sources.  You could of course get them within the bounds of a vegan diet but for average people they should get get some meat and dairy in their diet.
Which common foods have simple carbs?
Bread, pasta, rice, potatoes.
Those are complex carbs, no?

It depends on the type of rice.  White rice is a simple carb and brown rice is a complex carb.  It's not that simple which one you should eat though.  There's a huge amount of variability in the actual Glycemic Index rating of different types of rice so you should look them up and go for the one with the lower GI rating.  Generally, the more gelatinous and sticky the rice the higher the GI rating.

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1612 on: July 27, 2010, 12:38:10 AM »
What? Tell the Japan Diabetes Society about this, they'd certainly be interested in trumpeting the fact that they have cured diabetes!

You obviously have a different definition than me about "perfectly healthy". Look around you, at anyone aged 50-60 and above who is eating a standard American diet. Can you honestly describe these people as "perfectly healthy"? I find it shocking how much we accept disease and poor health as a fact of life these days. We can live a relatively long life thanks to invasive medical procedures and pills for everything, but be basically useless for any physical task for much of our lives. Our cavemen ancestors would be appalled at what we've let ourselves become.

Good to see you've got the message on carbs though!

Let's not get hung up on the GI of particular types of rice. They're all bad, and they all get converted to blood glucose, causing it to spike, just at differing rates. Don't eat any of it. There are also issues with phytates, or antinutrients (i.e that prevent absorption of nutrients like calcium). Beyond the threshold of about 80 grams a day, you don't want ANYTHING in your system which is going to convert to glucose, unless you are going to use it straight away. Even then, there is never a good reason to get it from stuff which carries no additional nutrients like rice, pasta or potatoes, when there are so many better options.
vjj

Beezy

  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1613 on: July 27, 2010, 12:39:43 AM »
Yes, fuck, I got that backwards, sorry.

(I always get screwed up on insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity too, no matter how many times I read it).

Add "sugar" to the list as well, btw, beezy.



So it's complex carbs that I should be eating less of? My parents cook rice with almost every meal, but it's usually brown rice.

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1614 on: July 27, 2010, 12:42:20 AM »
Nope, as I just said - you don't want either white or brown rice to be a staple of your diet if possible.

If your parents are hooked on it, you may be screwed of course. But if you can cut down or quietly eat less of it while helping yourself to more meat and salad, I'd do that.
vjj

Beezy

  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1615 on: July 27, 2010, 12:46:20 AM »
Damn. Thanks, I'll let my mother know. She's always willing to try new things. My father is the stubborn one.

What differences do you think I should see or feel from eating it less if it was a big part of my diet for most of my life?

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1616 on: July 27, 2010, 01:43:38 AM »
Well...it kinda depends on what you replace it with! And how messed up your diet is right now. All I'm advocating with this Primal/Paleo diet stuff is that you eat the kind of stuff humans ate for hundreds of thousands of years, before the advent of agriculture. So what you should really feel is just "normal" - the way your genes program you to be, not sick from eating stuff that is toxic to you.

Generally, I just feel smoothed out, hunger-wise. I usually feel like I could easily skip a meal or two, without feeling overly full or bloated like I would if I'd just eaten a bunch of fast food, say. Also, the energy levels are more consistent throughout the day. I never feel drowsy after eating a big meal, and I never have any kind of crash (other than hangovers, booze being my kryptonite). At the beginning, I think most people tend to overeat out of some feeling that they're not getting enough without the grains. After a while, your appetite really moderates and becomes more in tune with your activity levels. The best way to describe is: having a meal has very little effect on how I feel, regarding mood, energy, whatever. I feel the same at the end as I did at the start.

It also depends on how lean you are to begin with, I think. If you have weight to lose, and you go really cold turkey AND keep a close eye on the portions, you should lose the weight at a healthy rate. (I firmly believe weight loss should be gradual, and I aim more at "body recomposition" than weight loss anyway, i.e. increase muscle mass at the same time you cut fat)
« Last Edit: July 27, 2010, 01:45:18 AM by Cormacaroni »
vjj

Beezy

  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1617 on: July 27, 2010, 02:44:59 AM »
Thanks. I don't really think I need to lose weight (5'10", 166 lbs), I just need to get in shape and eat better.

pollo

  • Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1618 on: July 27, 2010, 08:04:21 AM »
I've more or less transitioned to Salad over Rice or Wheat.

As for weight loss I'm down 25 pounds. Still no exercise yet. Started HIIT a week ago doing some intervals. Going to work in more carbs to my diet (~70gms) to get some good pre/probiotics into my system.

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: FitnessBore - 2010 edition
« Reply #1619 on: July 27, 2010, 09:41:22 AM »
25lbs is pretty crazy! You aiming to take the carbs post-workout?
vjj