Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: pellius on November 06, 2015, 01:51:03 AM
-
Study shows that there is no significant difference between how much of these foods the fatties eat versus the non fatties. The difference is the amount that is eaten. Regardless of the type of food people eat the main, if not sole, reason people are fat is that they eat too much.
Who would have thought?
BTW, I never really understood the concept of "junk food". I mean, food consists of just three macro nutrients. I do see how any of them in and of itself is "junk". Even the much maligned saturated fat is earning it's due place in a man's diet. You can just consume too much or too little.
Maybe food high in chemicals might be deemed "junk" but chemicals aren't really food. I guess maybe they should be called polluted food.
Polluted foods with chemicals or bacteria I would concede would be bad for you.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/20151105/junk-food-not-to-blame-for-americas-obesity-epidemic-study
-
Junk food is normally just used to describe high calorific dense foods anyway
Pizza is loaded with cals if you eat a large one. ;D
-
im one of the more ripped guys on here
and I like a pizza
-
Hasn't TA been trying to tell people this here for many years? (Similar at least)?
Think I'll celebrate this news with a couple KFC 5-dollar fill-ups today!
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/animaljam/images/7/77/KFC_bucket.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140320030002)
-
im one of the more ripped guys on here
and I like a pizza
moderation is the key
-
moderation is the key
indeed
ive gone from super size 14" pizza
to a more reasonable 10" pizza
the difference is visible
-
im one of the more ripped guys on here
and I like a pizza
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m85e8mw00m1rqfhi2o1_250.gif)
-
Hasn't TA been trying to tell people this here for many years? (Similar at least)?
Think I'll celebrate this news with a couple KFC 5-dollar fill-ups today!
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/animaljam/images/7/77/KFC_bucket.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140320030002)
Just make sure you do the appropriate amount of reverse lunges and upright rows.
If there is one person I'd like to have a home made meal from it would be TA. We would argue religion and politics over his various specialties. I would also finally have the pleasure and honor to meet the lovely Jeezebelle in person.
-
in before "a calorie is a calorie" ;D
-
Portion Control is not something the fat want to hear about. They want a diet that allows you to eat as much as you want.
-
Portion Control is not something the fat want to hear about. They want a diet that allows you to eat as much as you want.
I can give them a diet which allows them to do that and lose weight at the same time.
-
BTW, I never really understood the concept of "junk food". I mean, food consists of just three macro nutrients. I do see how any of them in and of itself is "junk".
I'll take that bait. Calorie density and nutrient sparsity. As in: 200 calories of veggies is healthier than 200 calories of sugar.
And by all means lets not neglect the fourth macro - alcohol.
-
I'll take that bait. Calorie density and nutrient sparsity. As in: 200 calories of veggies is healthier than 200 calories of sugar.
And by all means lets not neglect the fourth macro - alcohol.
And if you believe the IIFMM brigade your body uses them exactly the same. ::)
-
Thanks but
I can give them a diet which allows them to do that and lose weight at the same time.
Quit pimping your celery crop on the G&O, Geoff.
-
I'll take that bait. Calorie density and nutrient sparsity. As in: 200 calories of veggies is healthier than 200 calories of sugar.
And by all means lets not neglect the fourth macro - alcohol.
Again it's the amount. You need sugar. All carbs are converted to sugar (glucose). Just don't ingest too much.
-
People are too sedentary compared to years ago
-
People are too sedentary compared to years ago
Portions were smaller too.
-
I'm one of the bigger more ripped guys here {And humble}
and I have junk food a couple times a week.
-
I'm one of the bigger more ripped guys here {And humble}
and I have junk food a couple times a week.
I'm full of tren and peptides so am eating very 'relaxed' at the moment and am not obese. I don't think we can he compared to the average citizen considering we train and (many) take gear
-
I'm full of tren and peptides so am eating very 'relaxed' at the moment and am not obese. I don't think we can he compared to the average citizen considering we train and (many) take gear
Very true...you can cheat more.
...but hello night sweats!
-
I can give them a diet which allows them to do that and lose weight at the same time.
TA's cardboard and vodka diet has already been given.
-
Study shows that there is no significant difference between how much of these foods the fatties eat versus the non fatties. The difference is the amount that is eaten. Regardless of the type of food people eat the main, if not sole, reason people are fat is that they eat too much.
Who would have thought?
BTW, I never really understood the concept of "junk food". I mean, food consists of just three macro nutrients. I do see how any of them in and of itself is "junk". Even the much maligned saturated fat is earning it's due place in a man's diet. You can just consume too much or too little.
Maybe food high in chemicals might be deemed "junk" but chemicals aren't really food. I guess maybe they should be called polluted food.
Polluted foods with chemicals or bacteria I would concede would be bad for you.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/20151105/junk-food-not-to-blame-for-americas-obesity-epidemic-study
The concept of junk food is pretty obvious. People always hear what they want to hear. ::) Virtually everything after the second paragraph in the article you posted warns not to interpret this study as an endorsement of junk food.
-
Portion Control is not something the fat want to hear about. They want a diet that allows you to eat as much as you want.
Shit, so do I. I'd love to have genetics or a pill with practically no side effects that allowed me to eat whatever I wanted. I'd like the fatties to have it too so they don't cost me so much in medical costs.
-
The concept of junk food is pretty obvious. People always hear what they want to hear. ::) Virtually everything after the second paragraph in the article you posted warns not to interpret this study as an endorsement of junk food.
Another poorly designed and poorly interpreted "study". Not even a real experiment, but a review of some prior survey findings. It's absolutley clear that cutting out the slop will cause you to lose weight.
A calorie is a calorie is to some extent besides the point. Life is psychology. A calorie doesn't feel like a calorie. If you can eat fewer calories more easily by cutting out the densely packed calories of slop, then you lose weight and it doesn't feel as depriving.
-
Sugar is the main USA obesity problem. That and XXXXL portions of food.
-
Too much Sugar is the main USA obesity problem. That and XXXXL portions of food.
fixed
-
Study shows that there is no significant difference between how much of these foods the fatties eat versus the non fatties. The difference is the amount that is eaten. Regardless of the type of food people eat the main, if not sole, reason people are fat is that they eat too much.
Who would have thought?
BTW, I never really understood the concept of "junk food". I mean, food consists of just three macro nutrients. I do see how any of them in and of itself is "junk". Even the much maligned saturated fat is earning it's due place in a man's diet. You can just consume too much or too little.
Maybe food high in chemicals might be deemed "junk" but chemicals aren't really food. I guess maybe they should be called polluted food.
Polluted foods with chemicals or bacteria I would concede would be bad for you.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/20151105/junk-food-not-to-blame-for-americas-obesity-epidemic-study
So, it takes a study to tell us that gluttony is bad? Gee, and how much did this cost?
-
Another poorly designed and poorly interpreted "study". Not even a real experiment, but a review of some prior survey findings. It's absolutley clear that cutting out the slop will cause you to lose weight.
A calorie is a calorie is to some extent besides the point. Life is psychology. A calorie doesn't feel like a calorie. If you can eat fewer calories more easily by cutting out the densely packed calories of slop, then you lose weight and it doesn't feel as depriving.
Exactly. It's like saying someone who makes $12/hr should have the same lifestyle as someone who makes $60/hour- all they have to do is work 5x as many hours. The dollar may be fungible, but none of the other factors are. People don't eat by the calorie.
On top of that, this study classifies junk food as soda, fast food and candy only. So, fried chicken and cheeseburgers made at your own house wouldn't count. Crap study.
-
I'll take that bait. Calorie density and nutrient sparsity. As in: 200 calories of veggies is healthier than 200 calories of sugar.
And by all means lets not neglect the fourth macro - alcohol.
(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/ogdwuv.gif)
-
Looks like I picked the wrong thread to quit sniffing glue.
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view7/4583837/airplane-sniffing-glue-o.gif)