Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: The True Adonis on September 03, 2008, 12:28:10 AM
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=222371.0;attach=260324;image)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=222371.0;attach=270999;image)
-
Just don`t ask him what he drinks!
HAHAHA
-
All lighting.
-
Great build. Looks like some gyno too.
-
Haha, no gyno, just a little fat. Will hopefully be gone in a few weeks.
-
Haha, no gyno, just a little fat. Will hopefully be gone in a few weeks.
translation:
surgery is planned on friday.
j/k.
keep it up, you look great!
-
translation:
surgery is planned on friday.
j/k.
keep it up, you look great!
Thanks!
Haha, it looks a little bit like it, but there ain't no hard tissue, just flab. If I'm lucky, it will go away with the diet.
And thanks also TA for putting me on the main board. :-[
I'm afraid I won't recover. ;D
-
What are the principles?
-
What are the principles?
eat shit all day, put up fancy wine bottles in your apartment and post stupid old pictures.
oh yeah and deadlifting 225x112 every day in under 3 minutes.
-
these photos look weird, I don't think they are real, who has a blank white background to take photos against in there home, also look at the coloring, very susupicous
-
What are the principles?
I posted my diet method and TA said it pretty much sums up his principles. So I guess we could call them the "Adonis Principles" (if TA approves), since he quite obviously talked about them before me. This is my current method:
Basic Principles:
- A minimum daily protein intake (1g/lb bodyweight is sufficient for everyone),
- a variety of food good enough for proper nutrient intake (e.g. USRDA which can easily be met),
- a deficiency of calories which leads to 1-3 lbs of weight loss per week,
- hard weight training at least 3 times a week.
Factors of minimal, no, or even negative influence are:
- the ratio of macro nutrients other than defined by the rules above,
- abandonment of alcohol,
- intake of "supplements",
- proper spacing of meals during the day,
- cardio training.
I agree that saying "I eat whatever I want" doesn't quite sum it up, but I guess he says it mainly to distinguish his method from the classical bodybuilder diet. ;D
-
these photos look weird, I don't think they are real, who has a blank white background to take photos against in there home, also look at the coloring, very susupicous
No need for suspicion, all my pics are doctored:
- I use a crappy snapshot camera, which does a lot of doctoring itself,
- I adjust colors (because of the crappy camera),
- I cut out the background, because I prefer anonymity,
- I remove prominent features (moles) for the same reason.
I would never lie about that, but I would also not release an undoctored pic on the internet.
-
I posted my diet method and TA said it pretty much sums up his principles. So I guess we could call them the "Adonis Principles" (if TA approves), since he quite obviously talked about them before me. This is my current method:
Basic Principles:
- A minimum daily protein intake (1g/lb bodyweight is sufficient for everyone),
- a variety of food good enough for proper nutrient intake (e.g. USRDA which can easily be met),
- a deficiency of calories which leads to 1-3 lbs of weight loss per week,
- hard weight training at least 3 times a week.
Factors of minimal, no, or even negative influence are:
- the ratio of macro nutrients other than defined by the rules above,
- abandonment of alcohol,
- intake of "supplements",
- proper spacing of meals during the day,
- cardio training.
I agree that saying "I eat whatever I want" doesn't quite sum it up, but I guess he says it mainly to distinguish his method from the classical bodybuilder diet. ;D
Different individuals react differently to different macronutrient intake...that's a fact.
-
I posted my diet method and TA said it pretty much sums up his principles. So I guess we could call them the "Adonis Principles" (if TA approves), since he quite obviously talked about them before me. This is my current method:
Basic Principles:
- A minimum daily protein intake (1g/lb bodyweight is sufficient for everyone),
- a variety of food good enough for proper nutrient intake (e.g. USRDA which can easily be met),
- a deficiency of calories which leads to 1-3 lbs of weight loss per week,
- hard weight training at least 3 times a week.
Factors of minimal, no, or even negative influence are:
- the ratio of macro nutrients other than defined by the rules above,
- abandonment of alcohol,
- intake of "supplements",
- proper spacing of meals during the day,
- cardio training.
I agree that saying "I eat whatever I want" doesn't quite sum it up, but I guess he says it mainly to distinguish his method from the classical bodybuilder diet. ;D
That's all fine and dandy but from a scientific standpoint false. It assumes the human partaking in this diet isn't a variable - i.e. a constant and that all people are the same.
I'm a consumer of alcohol myself and from my perspective it has a definitive negative impact, although I still drink due to social requirements - the positives outweigh the negatives.
An important but often overlooked factor in weight gain or loss -- in addition to the kinds of foods that are ingested -- is meal frequency. A number of studies on the subject have determined that eating more frequent, smaller meals or “snacks” during the day tends to lower total serum cholesterol levels, improve glucose tolerance, and mute weight gain. Tests conducted on groups participating in this eating approach, often termed “grazing vs. gorging”, show that spreading caloric intake throughout the day instead of compressing it into two or three meals has positive effects on general health as well as on achieving and maintaining ideal weight.
Some foods have low nutritional value, and if consumed on a regular basis will contribute to the decline of human health. This has been demonstrated by various epidemiological studies that have determined that foods such as processed and fast foods are linked to diabetes and various heart problems.
The energy humans get from food is limited by the efficiency of digestion and the efficiency of utilization. The efficiency of digestion is largely dependent on the type of food being eaten. Poorly chewed seeds are poorly digested. Refined sugars and fats are absorbed almost completely. Chewing does not compensate for the calorie content of a food that is eaten; even celery, which is primarily indigestible cellulose, contains enough sugars to easily compensate for the cost of chewing it.
-
Different individuals react differently to different macronutrient intake...that's a fact.
That's possible of course, I can only go from my experience.
-
That's possible of course, I can only go from my experience.
Possible? No, it's a FACT.
It's a fact I breath air, and it's a fact I have a ever so slightly different digestive system to you.
-
eat shit all day, put up fancy wine bottles in your apartment and post stupid old pictures.
oh yeah and deadlifting 225x112 every day in under 3 minutes.
so negative. are you jealous or something?
-
That's all fine and dandy but from a scientific standpoint false. It assumes the human partaking in this diet isn't a variable - i.e. a constant and that all people are the same.
I'm a consumer of alcohol myself and from my perspective it has a definitive negative impact, although I still drink due to social requirements - the positives outweigh the negatives.
Yes of course. I can only say that I tried a lot of different methods and this one is by far the best. I have tried with or without alcohol, low-carb, no-carb, no fat, etc. I either see no difference or the current method working even better.
-
so negative. are you jealous or something?
What do you have against me?
You always post when i post against TA.
I'm not negative, i'm just sick of his Bullshit.
I don't know why you are so concerned with me not liking TA's lies.
-
Possible? No, it's a FACT.
It's a fact I breath air, and it's a fact I have a ever so slightly different digestive system to you.
That's a fact of course. I must admit that I don't have a very scientific approach anymore. Following the principles seems to be enough for me, so why should I deprive myself of all the foods I like?
-
TA is full of it.... all lies with nothing to back up anything he says....
JUST LIES!!!
-
Cardio is overrated.
Natural bodybuilder Jrod said he does 10 sessions of cardio over a 16 week period for the Team Universe.
Working out, food consumption and the daily grind of life should be enough to burn the pounds away.
-
That's a fact of course. I must admit that I don't have a very scientific approach anymore. Following the principles seems to be enough for me, so why should I deprive myself of all the foods I like?
I'm totally against depriving yourself of the foods you like. That's when all this training shit starts to get queer and obsessive.
The assertion that a calorie == calorie is false.
I eat what I want - generally speaking, but I don't over do it. Simple self control and will power, it doesn't require me to think about it, it's just done, none of these fallacious and pretentious "principles" required...
The amount of false facts spewed by TA is a joke.
-
I'm totally against depriving yourself of the foods you like. That's when all this training shit starts to get queer and obsessive.
I agree.
The assertion that a calorie == calorie is false.
My list clearly shows that this is not one of the rules. There are rules to macro nutrient composition, just not as strict as in a classical bodybuilding diet.
I eat what I want - generally speaking, but I don't over do it. Simple self control and will power, it doesn't require me to think about it, it's just done, none of these fallacious and pretentious "principles" required...
That is not in confilct with and is in fact easily applied to my list of rules. I just like clear, exact definitions. That's why I came up with my list.
-
My list clearly shows that this is not one of the rules. There are rules to macro nutrient composition, just not as strict as in a classical bodybuilding diet.
So you're saying anyone saying otherwise is incorrect?
-
What do you have against me?
You always post when i post against TA.
I'm not negative, i'm just sick of his Bullshit.
I don't know why you are so concerned with me not liking TA's lies.
Broadstreetbollockbasher just likes to rub people up the wrong way.
I take everything he says with a pinch of salt
and a wank
-
All drugs..
-
Broadstreetbollockbasher just likes to rub people up the wrong way.
I take everything he says with a pinch of salt
and a wank
don't forget a juggle of the testicles.
-
Never!
Shave 'em for extra sensitivity!
-
Wavelength's Secret is...................... ........................ ..
WIENERSCHNITZEL....
-
What do you have against me?
You always post when i post against TA.
I'm not negative, i'm just sick of his Bullshit.
I don't know why you are so concerned with me not liking TA's lies.
It's nothing against you. It's the way you go about arguing with him. You're like a kid screaming curses in a playground. You seem intelligent enough, offer a tangible counter argument. If it presents a better mousetrap than enlighten us. Adam isn't above given credit where it's due but you have to have something to argue with.
-
So you're saying anyone saying otherwise is incorrect?
I just meant the rules as in my list (which I follow), not rules as in universal laws. I can only know that it works for me and people who also claim to follow these rules.
-
I just meant the rules as in my list (which I follow), not rules as in universal laws. I can only know that it works for me and people who also claim to follow these rules.
Fair enough. Do you feel that Wienerschnitzel dramatically increases protein sythesis?
-
I actually think his principles were quite sound for the most part.
It is his delivery that gets people all worked up.
8)
-
All drugs..
Haha, obviously lifetime natty.
Not that I think it matters, I just want to make clear that I can say nothing about how the diet method would work for a juicer.
-
Fair enough. Do you feel that Wienerschnitzel dramatically increases protein sythesis?
Jaahh, jaahh, Wiener Schnitzel is faaahntaaaaaaaahstic! ;D
-
I actually think his principles were quite sound for the most part.
It is his delivery that gets people all worked up.
8)
Yep. He presents them as fact and will entertain no varying view.
Thing is... The Principals evolve, no? First it was eat anything, anything at all, as long as there's a cal debt. That went on for quite awhile and was accompanied by claims of ice cream for dinner, pics of junk food purchases, etc. Then he said ok to a minimum protein requirement, I think it was .5g/lb. Then he endorsed the RDA in all things, not just protein. Now protein is up to 1g/lb, there's fruit in the picture, and nutritional quality has become the main focus. As soon as he takes healthy vs unhealthy fats and insulin/glucagon response into account, he'll have a healthy and highly effective diet. Add some antioxidant consideration and there won't be much missing. Coincidentally, it will also be what most of us have been advocating for quite some time now.
I like TA. He can stir the pot like no other, but I think he let his enjoyment of pot stirring blind him to his responsibility not to post stuff that gullible kids are going to go out and do. Ok, it's not like he told them a shotgun blast to the skull was a great way to lose weight, but he put them on the wrong path (ice cream for dinner ::)) so I feel compelled to disagree with him on this point.
-
Yep. He presents them as fact and will entertain no varying view.
Thing is... The Principals evolve, no? First it was eat anything, anything at all, as long as there's a cal debt. That went on for quite awhile and was accompanied by claims of ice cream for dinner, pics of junk food purchases, etc. Then he said ok to a minimum protein requirement, I think it was .5g/lb. Then he endorsed the RDA in all things, not just protein. Now protein is up to 1g/lb, there's fruit in the picture, and nutritional quality has become the main focus. As soon as he takes healthy vs unhealthy fats and insulin/glucagon response into account, he'll have a healthy and highly effective diet. Add some antioxidant consideration and there won't be much missing. Coincidentally, it will also be what most of us have been advocating for quite some time now.
I like TA. He can stir the pot like no other, but I think he let his enjoyment of pot stirring blind him to his responsibility not to post stuff that gullible kids are going to go out and do. Ok, it's not like he told them a shotgun blast to the skull was a great way to lose weight, but he put them on the wrong path (ice cream for dinner ::)) so I feel compelled to disagree with him on this point.
I concur.
Once i figured out why he does the things he does, i started to just sit back and laugh.
He brings new life to this place.
8)
-
Yep. He presents them as fact and will entertain no varying view.
Thing is... The Principals evolve, no? First it was eat anything, anything at all, as long as there's a cal debt. That went on for quite awhile and was accompanied by claims of ice cream for dinner, pics of junk food purchases, etc. Then he said ok to a minimum protein requirement, I think it was .5g/lb. Then he endorsed the RDA in all things, not just protein. Now protein is up to 1g/lb, there's fruit in the picture, and nutritional quality has become the main focus. As soon as he takes healthy vs unhealthy fats and insulin/glucagon response into account, he'll have a healthy and highly effective diet. Add some antioxidant consideration and there won't be much missing. Coincidentally, it will also be what most of us have been advocating for quite some time now.
I like TA. He can stir the pot like no other, but I think he let his enjoyment of pot stirring blind him to his responsibility not to post stuff that gullible kids are going to go out and do. Ok, it's not like he told them a shotgun blast to the skull was a great way to lose weight, but he put them on the wrong path (ice cream for dinner ::)) so I feel compelled to disagree with him on this point.
1. I have eaten fruit my whole life and enjoy fruit. I crave it. I cook with it. Most bodybuilder are scared to consume it. I have ALWAYS eaten it. I eat whatever I want, Whether I cook it, get it from a restaurant, fast food, or packaged.
2. RDA is a good guidline to ensure that you are healthy. You can easily meet them by enjoying ALL and Any foods that are your favorite. French Fries, Kobe Steak Whatever.
3. Your typical bodybuilder diet is devoid of almost all nutrients and falls way short due to the limitation of foods. It is a POOR approach from a health standpoint and you will see that you will be deficient in A LOT of areas. I will track your diet for you just to show you how poorly YOU really eat, even though you think "clean" eating is healthy.
4. What is wrong with Ice Cream for dinner?
-
1. I have eaten fruit my whole life and enjoy fruit. I crave it. I cook with it. Most bodybuilder are scared to consume it. I have ALWAYS eaten it. I eat whatever I want, Whether I cook it, get it from a restaurant, fast food, or packaged.
2. RDA is a good guidline to ensure that you are healthy. You can easily meet them by enjoying ALL and Any foods that are your favorite. French Fries, Kobe Steak Whatever.
3. Your typical bodybuilder diet is devoid of almost all nutrients and falls way short due to the limitation of foods. It is a POOR approach from a health standpoint and you will see that you will be deficient in A LOT of areas. I will track your diet for you just to show you how poorly YOU really eat, even though you think "clean" eating is healthy.
4. What is wrong with Ice Cream for dinner?
1. As fruit lovers go, you're right up there TA. ;D I agree. 2-3 pieces of fruit is good for you and suits a bodybuilder. I generally stay away from juices however.
2. Watch those saturated and trans fats. I love a good steak and eat red meat about 4 times a week, and will eat fries occasionally, but all things in moderation. Daily fries is not a good practice.
3. Agree that extreme bodybuilding diets, as opposed to healthy and balanced diets, are a poor choice. No one should advocate the sacrifice of health for bodybuilding progress since health maintenance is a prerequisite for bodybuilding development imo. See point #2.
4. I'd much prefer a slow release protein, a meat of some sort, to maintain aminos through the night. That's the usual argument for casein over whey for catabolism prevention. If ice cream is eaten near enough to bedtime, the insulin response will blunt your body's natural GH release. Ice cream is fatty, calorically dense. Most people would not experience the same level of satiety from 400 cals of ice cream as they would from 400 cals of salmon steak and asparagus. If you insist on some dodgy fats for flavor's sake, I'll allow a small dollop of Hollandaise on the side.
Glad to see you're advocating the importance of nutrition, not only calories. I think your diet needs further refinement but you're on the right track.
-
all painkillers and whey.
-
1. As fruit lovers go, you're right up there TA. ;D I agree. 2-3 pieces of fruit is good for you and suits a bodybuilder. I generally stay away from juices however.
2. Watch those saturated and trans fats. I love a good steak and eat red meat about 4 times a week, and will eat fries occasionally, but all things in moderation. Daily fries is not a good practice.
3. Agree that extreme bodybuilding diets, as opposed to healthy and balanced diets, are a poor choice. No one should advocate the sacrifice of health for bodybuilding progress since health maintenance is a prerequisite for bodybuilding development imo. See point #2.
4. I'd much prefer a slow release protein, a meat of some sort, to maintain aminos through the night. That's the usual argument for casein over whey for catabolism prevention. If ice cream is eaten near enough to bedtime, the insulin response will blunt your body's natural GH release. Ice cream is fatty, calorically dense. Most people would not experience the same level of satiety from 400 cals of ice cream as they would from 400 cals of salmon steak and asparagus. If you insist on some dodgy fats for flavor's sake, I'll allow a small dollop of Hollandaise on the side.
2. Fast food places don`t use oil with Trans Fats anymore.
4. Not that it matters, but Ice Cream is super low in the GI department. Ice Cream is also slowly released due to fat content and the fact that it is made of Cream/Milk. Some even have Peanut Butter in them! As I said though, the GI DOES NOT MATTER when eating in a caloric deficit. For instance, my total Glycemic Load was lower when I compared it to "Leafy Bugs" diet. Of course his diet for the particular day I tracked, he was eating rice cakes with the only other carbs coming from Oatmeal and Brocolli. His diet was also lacking A lot nutrient wise. Again though the GI DOES NOT MATTER. Your satiety argument is purely opinionated and nothing more. The most satiable thing could be a calorie free diet soda for someone due to carbonation. Its REALLY an Opinion factor at that point. I do not feel hungry at all EVER.
-
2. Fast food places don`t use oil with Trans Fats anymore.
4. Not that it matters, but Ice Cream is super low in the GI department. Ice Cream is also slowly released due to fat content and the fact that it is made of Cream/Milk. Some even have Peanut Butter in them! As I said though, the GI DOES NOT MATTER when eating in a caloric deficit. For instance, my total Glycemic Load was lower when I compared it to "Leafy Bugs" diet. Of course his diet for the particular day I tracked, he was eating rice cakes with the only other carbs coming from Oatmeal and Brocolli. His diet was also lacking A lot nutrient wise. Again though the GI DOES NOT MATTER. Your satiety argument is purely opinionated and nothing more. The most satiable thing could be a calorie free diet soda for someone due to carbonation. Its REALLY an Opinion factor at that point. I do not feel hungry at all EVER.
whats next graham crackers pre workout....
-
2. If we accept that trans fats are out, sat fats and oxidised fats are still a health concern. From a bodybuilding perspective, fries are bad news. Potato carbs + lots of fat, negligible protein. These are calories which could be better consumed.
4. To be honest, I'm not sure I believe that adding fat to sugar will lower the GL enough to impact how the calories are metabolised. On the contrary, I'd suggest that sugar + fat will yield a sufficient insulin response to roll a lot of the fats over to storage (hence the famous phrase applied to junk food, "it goes straight to my waist"). I'm referring to the actual sugar sucrose which they add in copious quantities to ice cream (unless you're eating low carb ice cream), not the lactose.
I strongly disagree that GI doesn't matter in a cal debt. I suggest that if I ate all of my non protein cals in sugar in a single sitting, my diet would yield fat maintenance and muscle loss. Moreover, high GI choices create repeated insulin spikes, temporarily halting fat loss and leading to a blood sugar rollercoaster, which brings us to satiety.
While some people are able to eat little and never be bothered by it, those with high bodyfat levels obviously struggle. The two main reasons I can see for hunger are not having a sufficient volume of food in the gut and having low blood sugar. Low GI choices eaten in moderation will yield a moderate and stable blood sugar level, and calorically sparse foods (as opposed to highly processed foods like McDonalds, ice cream, candy, etc) will give plenty of food volume. Ever sit down and eat 400 cals of canned tuna? That's a lot of tuna and I'm stuffed! But I could consume 400 calories of ice cream no problem, and another and another 400, and I'd probably feel hungry again 45 minutes later. I agree that it is all down to the individual however. Some of us just prefer more food volume and stable blood sugar levels while dieting from foods which are, incidentally, more nutritionally beneficial than ice cream.
I respect your passion TA, but I've got to hit the sack. I'll check back in tomorrow dude.
-
TA knows his stuff, unlike alot of 'gurus' TA puts his teachings into everyday life, thats why he looks fantastic...Good job old Freind ...
-
He is not flexing in the first pic.
-
I strongly disagree that GI doesn't matter in a cal debt. I suggest that if I ate all of my non protein cals in sugar in a single sitting, my diet would yield fat maintenance and muscle loss. Moreover, high GI choices create repeated insulin spikes, temporarily halting fat loss and leading to a blood sugar rollercoaster, which brings us to satiety.
The reason you strongly disagree is because it is a fact that GI does alter things...
-
The reason you strongly disagree is because it is a fact that GI does alter things...
Makes no sense in a deficit.
-
Makes no sense in a deficit.
Considering it alters insulin levels among other molecular differences... it does...
-
Considering it alters insulin levels among other molecular differences... it does...
A caloric deficit using the principles I have laid out will always result in a low Glycemic Load, no matter with what foods you choose to fulfill the requirements as I have laid out.
With that Said:
The Skinny on the Glycemic Index
Although developed to help people with diabetes manage their food intake, the glycemic index has taken on new meaning as a weight loss strategy. In fact, several diet books tout the glycemic index as a foolproof way of identifying foods that raise blood sugar and insulin levels and therefore, can lead to weight gain.
But despite the hype, experts in nutrition and public health see very little practical use for the glycemic index and even the American Diabetes Association does not recommend this system for the prevention or treatment of diabetes. This is because of the many factors that affect the digestion of carbohydrates in the body. In fact, there is no clear evidence that avoiding foods high on the index is even beneficial.
The following describes what the glycemic index is and why the public health community does not recommend it in designing an eating plan.
The Glycemic Index and Its Limitations
Originally developed in 1981 as a laboratory tool to measure the rate at which carbohydrates are metabolized, the glycemic index is now being used by some as a measure of the degree to which a specific food raises a person's blood sugar, which in turn affects insulin levels in the body. GI is calculated by measuring the effect of 50 grams of carbohydrates from various foods against a "standard" response from 50 grams of glucose. The higher the number, the greater the food's effect on blood sugar.
The reason for all the interest in the index is because it supports the theory of "net carbs," which has facilitated the creation of the low-carb food industry and the launch of thousands of "low-carb" products. The theory is that high-GI foods cause a spike in the glucose level that prompts the body to release a flood of insulin. In turn, insulin drops blood sugar levels so that the person feels hungry again quickly and eats more. In contrast, low-GI foods are said to be digested more slowly and to release glucose more gradually.
But while many popular diet books make it sound as if the glycemic index is an accepted theory, in truth, there are very real problems with this system. First and foremost is the fact that the glycemic index deals with single foods eaten alone, not meals where foods are combined.
At the same time, this system does not take into account the serving size of commonly eaten foods or the fact that there can be major differences even when comparing foods of the same type, such as a relatively green banana compared with a ripe one. Another major limitation of the glycemic index is that it doesn't take into account the many factors that can alter the digestion and absorption of carbohydrates. These factors include the amount of fiber, fat and protein in the food, how refined the ingredients are, whether the food was cooked, and what other foods are eaten at the same time.
Along with these limitations, there is no clear-cut evidence in the scientific literature that associates low-GI foods as either promoting satiety or reducing hunger. Moreover, nutritionists state that eliminating all foods that are high on the glycemic index is unhealthy, since many of these carbohydrates are rich in vitamins and minerals, phytochemicals, antioxidants and dietary fiber that have been associated with a lower risk for certain cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke, among other medical conditions. What is even more troubling is that many foods that have a low GI score, such as chocolate bars, are known to be high in fat and calories, while foods such as carrots with a high GI score are not.
The Implications for People with Diabetes
Because the glycemic index was developed to measure how fast blood sugar rises after a person eats foods containing carbohydrates, it is important to note that the premier organization focusing on the prevention and treatment of diabetes -- the American Diabetes Association -- does not recommend the use of this system. In its January 2002 nutrition recommendations, ADA stated that the available studies where glycemic index was controlled "do not provide convincing evidence of a benefit."1 In addition, ADA's statement said that the research examining the index is very limited and involves only a small number of study groups. Therefore, ADA concluded, "the data reveal no clear trend in outcome benefits." Rather, the ADA along with all the leading nutrition and public health groups recommend that for optimal health as well as weight loss, people should consume a diet that includes a variety of carbohydrate-containing foods, and especially fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products. Moreover, nutrition authorities are unanimous in stating that for weight loss, calories count, not the glycemic index. Although it may sound old-fashioned, the simple fact is that the key to successful weight loss is a combination of a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity -- nothing more.
* Alliance for Aging Research
* American Association of Diabetes Educators
* American Council on Science and Health
* American Institute for Cancer Research
* American Obesity Association
* Harvard Medical School
* MedStar Research Institute
* National Consumers League
* National Women's Health Resource Center
* Nutritional Sciences Program at the University of Washington
* Pennington Biomedical Research Center
* Shape Up America!
* Society for Women's Health Research
* University of California at Davis Department of Nutrition
* UCLA Center for Human Nutrition
* Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center
-
He is not flexing in the first pic.
I am actually, but I agree that the two pics are not suited well for a comparison (different angle, different lighting, etc.).
I didn't take them to demonstrate the effects of my particular diet method. They were just for my self-motivational pic thread.
-
4. What is wrong with Ice Cream for dinner?
What's right with it?