Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: migizi on September 06, 2006, 11:42:07 AM

Title: question for Chick
Post by: migizi on September 06, 2006, 11:42:07 AM
Hey Bob, how many pros do you know that do the Cyclical Ketosis Diet (CKD)? and what are your thoughts of this way of eating to lose weight?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 06, 2006, 09:01:40 PM
I don't know of any...but I'm not familiar with it either, never heard of it.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 06, 2006, 09:03:36 PM
What a stupid way to diet and suffer.

Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: TheGoldenPrince on September 06, 2006, 09:11:23 PM
What sort of diet do you consume Chick for your mass? High protein, high carbs, low fat? What sort of calories, nd how does this change from offseason to contest prep? Thnks.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 06, 2006, 09:15:11 PM
What sort of diet do you consume Chick for your mass? High protein, high carbs, low fat? What sort of calories, nd how does this change from offseason to contest prep? Thnks.
hahaha. He just eats more of what he dieted on with a few cheats.

You people kill me.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Anal Iceman Lubeth on September 06, 2006, 09:16:39 PM
bobbbbb

Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 06, 2006, 09:19:34 PM
I've never used any particular program for mass...we always trained to gain muscle, and kept a 85% clean diet. I've never believed that gaining 50 lbs. of fat was a benefit in the long run...just more dieting, and more fat to lose.

I try and stay reletively lean in the off season, I  increase my protein intake and meals per day as I get closer to the show, and decrease carbs according to where my physique is at...
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 06, 2006, 09:21:51 PM
I've never used any particular program for mass...we always trained to gain muscle, and kept a 85% clean diet. I've never believed that gaining 50 lbs. of fat was a benefit in the long run...just more dieting, and more fat to lose.

I try and stay reletively lean in the off season, I  increase my protein intake and meals per day as I get closer to the show, and decrease carbs according to where my physique is at...
Do you up the dose though?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Anal Iceman Lubeth on September 06, 2006, 09:22:38 PM
bob, what's your weekly cycle like?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 06, 2006, 09:25:04 PM
bob, what's your weekly cycle like?

Well, it's a stationary...I believe the newest LifeCycle. I start at 30 min./ day and increase the time every week 5 minutes, until 45 minutes...then I split it into 2 sessions of 30 minutes and repeat the same process... ;D
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 06, 2006, 09:27:28 PM
Well, it's a stationary...I believe the newest LifeCycle. I start at 30 min./ day and increase the time every week 5 minutes, until 45 minutes...then I split it into 2 sessions of 30 minutes and repeat the same process... ;D

If you MUST do cardio, distance yourself about a mile and half away from MCdonalds. That way you get your cardio and get a good postworkout meal in.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Anal Iceman Lubeth on September 06, 2006, 09:28:17 PM
Well, it's a stationary...I believe the newest LifeCycle. I start at 30 min./ day and increase the time every week 5 minutes, until 45 minutes...then I split it into 2 sessions of 30 minutes and repeat the same process... ;D

Bob, do you ever watch maury while you pedal?

Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: onlyme on September 06, 2006, 09:30:18 PM
I don't know of any...but I'm not familiar with it either, never heard of it.

Chick I PMed you.  Call me.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: 1stkeepitreal on September 06, 2006, 09:31:42 PM
real funny Chicko find yourself an original joke already.

Maybe a better response would be I will talk about anything, diet, training, posing ect but do not ask me about my anabolic use.

-keep it real-
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Miss Karen on September 06, 2006, 09:32:05 PM
When will these Fools learn that what you take has nothing to do with them getting better.Stop and think why wouldn't Bob or Jay for that matter just ask Ronnie what he takes and do the same because it doesn't work for them.Fucksticks.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: 1stkeepitreal on September 06, 2006, 09:42:43 PM
When will these Fools learn that what you take has nothing to do with them getting better.Stop and think why wouldn't Bob or Jay for that matter just ask Ronnie what he takes and do the same because it doesn't work for them.Fucksticks.


I do not care what Chicko or Ronnie or anybody else uses.  matter of fact use as much damn stuff as you want! Just keep it real.

Pros should not mislead the young folks to believe that you wake up in the morning sit on a bike for a hour eat your wheaties go to the gym and then look like a pro bodybuilder headed to the Mr O.

Drugs are a part of plain and simple.

-keep it real-

Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Anal Iceman Lubeth on September 06, 2006, 09:46:18 PM

I do not care what Chicko or Ronnie or anybody else uses.  matter of fact use as much damn stuff as you want! Just keep it real.

Pros should not mislead the young folks to believe that you wake up in the morning sit on a bike for a hour eat your wheaties go to the gym and then look like a pro bodybuilder headed to the Mr O.

Drugs are a part of plain and simple.

-keep it real-



The most popular guy at the olympia
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: HRDCOR on September 06, 2006, 09:48:04 PM
Therwe is a bottom line to any diet (no matter how it is worded) and fat loss !!

Calories in vs Calories out period !!
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: 240 is Back on September 06, 2006, 09:48:54 PM
Therwe is a bottom line to any diet (no matter how it is worded) and fat loss !!

Calories in vs Calories out period !!

So if I eat 1,700 calories a day of potatoes and steak

OR

I eat 1,700 calories a day of McD and chips...

it's the same????
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Jezebelle on September 06, 2006, 09:52:22 PM
So if I eat 1,700 calories a day of potatoes and steak

OR

I eat 1,700 calories a day of McD and chips...

it's the same????

Yep.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: amoney86 on September 06, 2006, 09:54:27 PM
So if I eat 1,700 calories a day of potatoes and steak

OR

I eat 1,700 calories a day of McD and chips...

it's the same????
A big differnce is with the later you will get those 1,700 calories in fewer meals and more meals through out the day speeds up the metabolism.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: HRDCOR on September 06, 2006, 09:54:59 PM
Throreticly ,yes , although the first option is of a better source of nutrients and lower GI thus greating a better enviroment with in the body to utilise fat for energy !!

Cleaner fuel burns better !!!

But your fiber count would be low thus slowing the metabolic rate and your thermogenic state !!
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Bindare_Dundat on September 06, 2006, 10:05:16 PM
Yep.

Yeah, ok. Your missing an important part.

A healthy looking body and an actual healthy body are two different things. You can't compare eating Mc Donalds to eating fresh clean food ever, it's not even open to debate.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: HRDCOR on September 06, 2006, 10:12:41 PM
Plus 1700 hundred caLS IS TO LOW for a guy usally , my experiance has been nothing below 2200 cals per day for a guy (lean mass considering)you would be better off doing more work and eating more to achive adiqute nutrient intake !!
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Jezebelle on September 06, 2006, 10:18:13 PM
Yeah, ok. Your missing an important part.

A healthy looking body and an actual healthy body are two different things. You can't compare eating Mc Donalds to eating fresh clean food ever, it's not even open to debate.

How do I look?  ;)
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Bindare_Dundat on September 06, 2006, 10:19:04 PM
How do I look?  ;)

Like Iggy Pop from the front.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: El_Spiko on September 06, 2006, 10:19:23 PM
Plus 1700 hundred caLS IS TO LOW for a guy usally , my experiance has been nothing below 2200 cals per day for a guy (lean mass considering)you would be better off doing more work and eating more to achive adiqute nutrient intake !!
Word.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Jezebelle on September 06, 2006, 10:24:58 PM
You can`t argue with results.

You don`t need a high amount of protein, a certain amount of carbs or a specific amount of "good" fat.

It is all lies that you people believe. When are you going to learn?

Furthermore, you don`t need to even use the GI index when you are burning everything you are taking in. If you aren`t burning everything you are taking in, guess what, you are getting fat or are not losing weight.

Eat Wendys. Burger King or Chick Fil A.  You will feel better,look better and perform way better in the gym and outside of it.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: OneMoreRep on September 06, 2006, 10:27:46 PM
I don't know of any...but I'm not familiar with it either, never heard of it.

Well, how bout that!?!
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Bast000 on September 06, 2006, 10:34:46 PM
So if I eat 1,700 calories a day of potatoes and steak

OR

I eat 1,700 calories a day of McD and chips...

it's the same????

I think so.  Try it.  As long as your in a caloric defecit you will lose fat.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Bindare_Dundat on September 06, 2006, 10:37:45 PM


Eat Wendys. Burger King or Chick Fil A.  You will feel better,look better and perform way better in the gym and outside of it.

You'll look awsome having a heart attack waiting in line at a Jack in the Box.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Bast000 on September 06, 2006, 10:38:35 PM
haha She eats under 2000 calories a day, I'm sure she is healthier than you.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Bindare_Dundat on September 06, 2006, 10:41:36 PM
I'm sure she is healthier than you.

Ok, Dr. "I like to piss on my hands" Bast.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: rs3000 on September 06, 2006, 10:56:25 PM
You can`t argue with results.

You don`t need a high amount of protein, a certain amount of carbs or a specific amount of "good" fat.

It is all lies that you people believe. When are you going to learn?

Furthermore, you don`t need to even use the GI index when you are burning everything you are taking in. If you aren`t burning everything you are taking in, guess what, you are getting fat or are not losing weight.

Eat Wendys. Burger King or Chick Fil A.  You will feel better,look better and perform way better in the gym and outside of it.

Jezzebelle,

I think most would agree you will lose fat if you weightlift and eat less calories.

I think most other people's concerns would be other health issues associated with eating these foods (cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes).

So if you could explain or link to articles that would explain why these aren't an issue as long as you keep your calories in check, then more people would accept it.

Regards,
RS3000
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Jezebelle on September 06, 2006, 11:36:54 PM
Jezzebelle,

I think most would agree you will lose fat if you weightlift and eat less calories.

I think most other people's concerns would be other health issues associated with eating these foods (cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes).

So if you could explain or link to articles that would explain why these aren't an issue as long as you keep your calories in check, then more people would accept it.

Regards,
RS3000

For your information, Cholesterol only occurs in animal products.
A Big Mac has cheese and small meat patties.
Less Cholesterol than what you Protein worshippers eat when you cook all your huge protein meals.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Jezebelle on September 06, 2006, 11:49:53 PM
Furthermore you people cook chicken breast after chicken breast and eat that.

Guess what. One BIG MAC has WAY less Cholesterol than a small chicken breast.

Big Macs are healthy.  You people believe a bunch of lies.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: 240 is Back on September 06, 2006, 11:50:09 PM
rats who eat next to nothing live way longer than rats who eat a ton of healthy food and carry some weight.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Jezebelle on September 06, 2006, 11:52:46 PM
rats who eat next to nothing live way longer than rats who eat a ton of healthy food and carry some weight.

Again Rob,

It has to do with overall calorie consumption.

Eat anything you want in low calories. Watch and see what happens. You will be extremely lean,healthy,strong and muscular.

You see,

You are missing the issue and confusing.  If the rats ate high calories in Chicken Breasts versus a low calorie diet of Big Mac, obviously the low cal rats live longer.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Jezebelle on September 06, 2006, 11:54:30 PM
Cholesterol 80 mg 27% For Big Mac

Cholesterol 119 mg 40%  4.9 oz chicken breast
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 06, 2006, 11:55:54 PM
Its too easy Rob.

You could look your best eating everything you love if you just give our methods a try.

Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: rs3000 on September 06, 2006, 11:57:39 PM
Cholesterol 80 mg 27% For Big Mac

Cholesterol 119 mg 40%  4.9 oz chicken breast

Good info!

How about blood sugar levels?

Thanks,
RS3000
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: smaul on September 06, 2006, 11:59:45 PM
Its too easy Rob.

You could look your best eating everything you love if you just give our methods a try.


Come on TA, give us the complete rundown on your methods.  I've been catching bits here and there but the bits I do seem to catch seem like nonsense.  Maybe I'm getting them out of context!  :D
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 12:02:23 AM
Good info!

How about blood sugar levels?

Thanks,
RS3000

Eating a Big Mac would not even register on a Glucometer due to the higher fat content.

Would not even issue a significant response.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 12:04:41 AM
Come on TA, give us the complete rundown on your methods.  I've been catching bits here and there but the bits I do seem to catch seem like nonsense.  Maybe I'm getting them out of context!  :D

Check the Myth board.  I will be posting things here and there from various posts. The Thread is pinned.

I am also currently writing this all out in text format.  It will be huge and I will provide everyone with it soon.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 12:07:20 AM
This is a very good article RS3000.

August 16, 2006
The anti Supersize Me movie from the horse's mouth.
Since there were so many comments and questions about the anti Supersize Me movie that MD and were interviewed for and that I posted about last week, I asked the filmmaker, Tom Naughton, if he would write up a brief of what he is trying to do with the movie. He agreed. Here is his overview of his film and his own weight loss efforts.

Well, it's interesting to see how emotional people can become when you mention the word "McDonald's." For my next film I may tackle something less controversial, such as the Iraq war or school prayer.
Several posters asked what direction this film will take. Like "Super Size Me," my film will be a humorous documentary. Spurlock's film was definitely amusing and well-constructed. Unfortunately, I believe he gave the audience a lot of misleading information along with the laughs. I plan to give my audience good information along with the laughs. I believe some of the laughs will be Super-Sized.
This film will NOT portray McDonald's food as health food. It isn't. (I also ate at other fast-food restaurants during my month-long diet, but mostly McDonald's.) But because of changes in the American lifestyle, people are going to eat at fast-food restaurants, like it or not. So part of my goal in this movie is to show how a person can eat fast food without getting fat and suffering other health consequences.
I haven't made final decisions on exactly which scenes to include, but I can certainly describe the highlights, in no particular order:
1. My diet history. I tried vegetarianism, Fit for Life, Pritikin -- all colossal failures. But I've had success with The Zone, Protein Power, Atkins -- all low-carb diets to some degree.
2. My fast-food diet plan: based on my diet history, I aimed for about 2000 calories and reasonably low carbs (about 100 per day, as it turns out ... not really low, but hardly high.)
3. Spurlock Nonsense. If he followed his own self-proclaimed "rules," he could not have consumed 5,000 calories per day; I've done the math. He won't release his food log, despite numerous requests from journalists, and I'm convinced it's because that log would reveal him as a fraud. If you've seen the movie, you'll recall that between weeks three and four, he actually lost a pound, then managed to gain tremendously in the final week. His food log would likely show that he stuffed himself mercilessly to ensure that his final weight gain would be impressive. He wanted the audience to believe that there's something especially fattening about fast food, as opposed to any other sugary/starchy food. As someone who once got fat on Grape Nuts and whole-grain pasta, I disagree.4. How fat are we, anyway? There is, as Dr. Eric Oliver from the University of Chicago explains, no real obesity "epidemic." Since 1970, Americans have become an average of 9 pounds heavier -- we've also become an average of 9 years older. During this same timespan, the CDC lowered the definition of "overweight," and bingo, 50 million Americans became overweight or obese overnight. Do we have a problem? Definitely ... just look at the increase in Type II diabetes. But it's not an epidemic. You can't catch obesity or diabetes from the guy next to you. Government agencies exaggerate (and flat-out lie at times) because it helps them get bigger funding.
5. It's not being fat that kills you, it's the behaviors that make you fat. Many "fat" people are quite healthy. As Dr. Eades can tell you, thin people become diabetic and die of heart attacks, too. Before my fast-food diet, my doctor said my cholesterol profile was very good, my triglycerides (70) were excellent, he complimented my strength and muscle tone, and was pleased to hear that I walk at least 15 miles per week in the hills near my home -- but at a BMI of 31, I'm "obese" and automatically deemed unhealthy.
6. More Spurlock Nonsense. I was particularly annoyed by Spurlock's obvious belief that people consume fast food because they're addicted, ignorant, or both. For someone who declared himself addicted, he somehow managed to quit the stuff cold-turkey and go back to his girlfriend's wacky vegan diet without much effort. After eating at McDonald's every day for a month, I didn't set foot in the place for three weeks. If this is an addiction, it's sure easy to break.
The idea that people consume fast food because they're ignorant is nothing more than class snobbery wearing a mask of concern. Contrary to what many people think, poor people are not ignorant about the nutritional quality of fast food. (Professor Oliver looked into that very topic, among others.) There is, however, much more social pressure to be thin among the upper classes; poor people are more likely to have an attitude of "I'm fat, and I don't care." And if you happen to value immediate pleasure more than long-term health, that's your choice.
I've conducted street interviews with dozens of people about fast food, and guess what? Every single one of them knows McDonald's is selling fattening food. (And most of them eat it anyway.) Many of them could guess the calorie count of a Quarter Pounder, large fries and large Coke within 200 calories. Those who couldn't usually guessed high, not low.
7. The saturated fat / cholesterol / heart disease myth. This is the subject that led me to Dr. Eades. If ignorance is a driving force behind our health problems, it's ignorance that's been promoted by the USDA and other federal agencies that harp on us to cut the fat and eat more grains. Thanks to them, women will buy a Weight Watchers "Smart Ones" dinner -- only one gram of fat!! -- and think it's a good choice, despite the 40 or 50 carbohydrates. Before I knew better, I used to get pancakes for breakfast at McDonald's and skip the butter -- only two grams of fat in pancakes!! The USDA would've approved.
8. The Lowfat Religion. Brought to you largely by the McGovern committee, which cheerfully ignored the testimony it didn't like and swallowed the advice of the low-fat advocates. McGovern was on the Pritikin diet at the time -- but couldn't stay on it. (Being a true politician, he nonetheless told the rest of us to do what he says, not what he does.) Dr. Eades, Dr. Mary Dan Eades, and others will explain how the low-fat, high-carb diet is ineffective at best and dangerous at worst.
9. The Food Police. Once the Lowfat Religion took hold, the evangelists soon followed: groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest -- almost always identified in news stories as a "consumer advocacy group." A more accurate description would be "a vegetarian activist group posing as scientists." Their self-righteousness would be annoying even if their advice had merit, but it doesn't: They have played a large role in pushing natural animal fats out of the diet. They declared trans fats to be safe and harassed McDonald's and other fast-food restaurants into switching to trans fats from beef tallow and palm oil. (Now, of course, they're suing restaurants for using trans fats.)
10. Exercise. One of the reasons I was impressed with Dr. Eades' books is that he doesn't offer any pie-in-the-sky (or sausage-in-the-sky) promises that you can eat like a maniac, sit on your butt all day, and still lose weight; in fact, he states specifically that to lose weight, you must create a deficit between calories burned and calories consumed. That deficit is largely missing from American society today. We have engineered effort out of our lives. At my local mall, I see people drive around for 15 minutes until they can score a parking spot near the door. In addition to misinformed food choices, that's why we're getting fatter.
11. My results. When my doctor saw that I had consumed an average of 120 grams of fat per day (49 saturated), he told me I'd been on a "widow-maker" diet. He said, "Well, let's see what kind of damage you've done here." Then he measured the results: I lost 12 pounds. My body-fat percentage dropped four points. Triglyerides stood at 83. Blood pressure stayed the same. Cholesterol, a slight dip from 230 to 220, although my HDL had gone down to 48 from 60 -- but even the doctor admitted that could be because I had given up my evening glass of red wine during the diet. When he reviewed all the results, he said, "I don't think I like what you're proving here."12. My next diet. Because the saturated fat / cholesterol issue is so controversial, I spent another month on a no-starch, no-sugar diet that was essentially a saturated-fat pigout: lots of double-cheeseburgers without buns, polish sausages, bacon, eggs, butter, cheese, cream, marbled steaks, coconut oil, etc. The results? My total cholesterol dropped to 209, my HDL went back up to 64, LDL dropped to 130, and my triglycerides dropped to 75. I also lost a couple of pounds, despite the high calorie content, and my body fat dropped another point.
Those are the highlights. I realize my descriptions don't sound funny, but trust me; in addition to my background in journalism, I've been a standup comic for over a decade, and there will be plenty of laughs in this film.
I know some of you reading this will be disappointed that I'm not out to beat up on McDonald's, but in my view, their popularity is a result of our food choices, not the cause of them. Like Dr. Eades (and we didn't discuss this previously), I don't believe individual freedom and corporate responsibility are in opposition. McDonald's doesn't have any more of a "corporate responsibility" to sell me health food than Ben & Jerry's does. If McDonald's wants to spend their own money on ads that encourage me to eat starch and sugar, that doesn't bother me -- I can say no (and usually do). But when groups like CSPI want to use the tax code to force me to pay more for cheeseburgers so they can use the money to tell me to eat more whole grains, that definitely bothers me.
Ultimately, I'm responsible for making choices about my own health and my children's health. I hope this film will give a few people the tools to make better choices of their own.
Tom Naughton
www.TomNaughton.com
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: rs3000 on September 07, 2006, 12:07:39 AM
Eating a Big Mac would not even register on a Glucometer due to the higher fat content.

Would not even issue a significant response.

I meant in general to the True Adonis Diet. People trying it will eat more refined carbs as opposed to whole grains. Maybe they'll eat a lot of sugar.

Thanks,
RS3000
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: 240 is Back on September 07, 2006, 12:08:56 AM
Man, I am listening.

Every time I eat healthy, I gorge myself with boiled rice and boiled steak, and I get the flu after 2 days.  Like clockwork.  I haven't been sick in 5 years except each time I restrict carbs.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: rs3000 on September 07, 2006, 12:10:39 AM
This is a very good article RS3000.

August 16, 2006
The anti Supersize Me movie from the horse's mouth.
Since there were so many comments and questions about the anti Supersize Me movie that MD and were interviewed for and that I posted about last week, I asked the filmmaker, Tom Naughton, if he would write up a brief of what he is trying to do with the movie. He agreed. Here is his overview of his film and his own weight loss efforts.



Thanks Adonis.

I actually read this in the another post where you put it up. It provides great info.

He seems to be more of a low-carb advocate than you. He ate a lot of meat but did not seem to talk about eating sweets and breads in moderation. Unless I missed it  ???

But still, shows a good argument that we should not be afraid of fast food. :D

Thanks,
RS3000
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 12:11:41 AM
Man, I am listening.

Every time I eat healthy, I gorge myself with boiled rice and boiled steak, and I get the flu after 2 days.  Like clockwork.  I haven't been sick in 5 years except each time I restrict carbs.

Don`t gorge yourself with that crap.

Burger King does the cooking for you and you know what you are eating,how much you are eating and theres no clean-up.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 12:16:35 AM
I also want you to forget what you have been told to and lied about that you need to take extra protein in and that you need to worry about it.

Don`t!

Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Bast000 on September 07, 2006, 12:21:40 AM
240, this is the best tool for dieting:  www.calorieking.com

just search all the foods you want to eat, add up all the calories and keep your diet at the right amount.

(the searchbox is ontop of text on the bottom, poor web design, haha)
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 12:27:24 AM
Woman loses 33lbs on McDonald's diet

A US woman claims to have lost 33 pounds by eating nothing but McDonald's for 90 days.

Merab Morgan, of Henderson, North Carolina, began her diet because she found the Super Size Me film insulting.

In the documentary, film maker Morgan Spurlock put on 25lbs after eating excusively at McDonald's for just one month.

Ms Morgan, 35, memorised the calories in almost every menu item, and limits herself to 1,400 calories a day, reports the Detroit Free Press.

"It's kind of like the poor man's diet," said Morgan, who has tried Weight Watchers and Atkins but failed because of the time and money those plans required.

Her goal is to lose 40 to 60 pounds. By Day 67, she had lost 33.

Nothing at McDonald's is off limits, although she's only eaten french fries twice - you're better off eating two cheeseburgers, she says.

Nutritionist Barry Popkin says eating only at McDonald's isn't healthy, and he worries Morgan will need more vitamins, minerals, fibre and dairy.

But he admitted: "She's created, for her lifestyle, a very smart diet. The moral of the story for every person is, you've got to work out a plan that fits your lifestyle."

Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 12:29:14 AM
Henderson Woman Swears By McDonalds Diet
Woman Claims To Have Lost 30 Pounds In 68 Days

POSTED: 1:31 pm EDT June 29, 2005
UPDATED: 2:50 pm EDT June 29, 2005

HENDERSON, N.C. -- Morgan Spurlock created the documentary, "Super Size Me," about how he lived off nothing but McDonald's food for a month. He gained 25 pounds and his health deteriorated, but a Henderson woman did the same thing for more than two months and lost weight.



Merab Morgan said she has the recipe for diet success. For 68 days, she ate three meals a day at McDonald's and she says she lost 30 pounds.
 

For 68 days straight, Merab Morgan ate three meals a day at McDonalds. She has the receipts and video to prove it. Morgan has an active job, painting new homes more than an hour away from her Henderson home.

"You get in the car and everything is rush, rush, rush," she said.

Morgan said she tried other diets, lost weight and gained it back.

"I've been struggling with weight pretty much after I had my second child," she said.

With the help of the McDonald's Web site, Morgan tallied calories.

"I just stayed anywhere between 1,200 and 1,400 calories a day," she said.

Even with fried fish sandwiches and chicken nuggets, she lost 30 pounds. However, registered dietician Rose Langley at Rex Hospital said calories are not the only way to measure a diet.

"If it's low enough in calories, Yeah, you can lose weight, but is fast food the healthiest option always? No," she said.

Langley said she likes the newer choices appearing on fast food menus.

"A lot of fruit has been added. Salads have been out there, but they've made them a whole lot more interesting, a lot more colorful," she said.

Morgan makes healthier choices, mixed with a few fat-filled favorites. She said that is why the diet works for her. She said she is not finished with her McDonald's diet. She has a 90-day goal, which ends July 11. After that, she plans on cooking more at home and eating more vegetables from her garden.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: 240 is Back on September 07, 2006, 12:33:32 AM
thanks guys. i gotta be at the baby doctor in about 5 hours so i'm gonna go to sleep, but shit yes, i am intrigued and appreciate it.  later!
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 05:30:30 AM
Your welcome.

When you get back, I will teach you how to get ripped.

I may have you Cycle your fast food restaraunts.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: swilkins1984 on September 07, 2006, 05:59:40 AM
So if I eat 1,700 calories a day of potatoes and steak

OR

I eat 1,700 calories a day of McD and chips...

Not quite...you still musct factor in the effects of essential fats vs. saturated fats (Heart disease) and low glycemic carb vs. low which affect insulin output.  Insulin negatively affects fat burning

it's the same????
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 06:20:21 AM


Reread the articles I posted and am going to post.

The GI index is useless in a caloric defecit because all calories consumed that day are burned as well as fat stores.  Day in Day out.  The GI is only useful if you are overeating.

Essential and Saturated will not matter at all.  With my diet, you will ensure that you are getting plenty of the good fat and the other fats for optimum energy and muscle building/recovery.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: migizi on September 07, 2006, 06:39:45 AM
The CKD is 5 days high pro/high fat with a weekend carb up....I never done it...but sounds like its working on forum at bb.com.


I've lost about 15 lbs in over a month doing 2600-2800 cals for 2 days 1 day of 4,000 1 day of 1900-2200 cals and 2 of 2600-2800 and 1 cheat day....I'm doing 30 minute cardio during morning and night and do my liftin at lunch hour...I still have ways to go...I'm at 31% bf and at 352....trust me ingesting 368 grams protein sucked, and cost me $$.

I think that's real cool bob you always seem to answer questions,,,,awesome!!  

Good luck on the marriage Bob too, I've been married for 6 years....and have 3 kids.   some man to man advice....hmmm...expect to be a priest after the baby is born....you're not going to be getting any from her for however long she breastfeeds (well if she does) + 6 months on top of that....expect it to be even longer for th e other baby(ies) ...I'm expecting 2 years nothing after baby #3.....Sams Club, Costco def for diapers, formula, wipes...don't pick up the kid and shake em after eating you're going to get spit up on you....expect to have the daddy stain on your shoulders, neck and chest....put a wipe or extra diaper over the boy when changing or your going to get a golden shower....there's nothing girly about carrying a diaper bag....cheat meals at chuck e cheese's.   Also make sure you clean the milk that gets trapped in baby neck folds it can be real stinky.  if it's a boy,,dont' get "the" operation for the boy...just think of it...no anesthesia in that region!!?  it's an outdated practice....just because we had doesn't mean they have to have it....
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 06:42:59 AM
The CKD is 5 days high pro/high fat with a weekend carb up....I never done it...but sounds like its working on forum at bb.com.


I've lost about 15 lbs in over a month doing 2600-2800 cals for 2 days 1 day of 4,000 1 day of 1900-2200 cals and 2 of 2600-2800 and 1 cheat day....I'm doing 30 minute cardio during morning and night and do my liftin at lunch hour...I still have ways to go...I'm at 31% bf and at 352....trust me ingesting 368 grams protein sucked, and cost me $$.

I think that's real cool bob you always seem to answer questions,,,,awesome!!  

Good luck on the marriage Bob too, I've been married for 6 years....and have 3 kids.   some man to man advice....hmmm...expect to be a priest after the baby is born....you're not going to be getting any from her for however long she breastfeeds (well if she does) + 6 months on top of that....expect it to be even longer for th e other baby(ies) ...I'm expecting 2 years nothing after baby #3.....Sams Club, Costco def for diapers, formula, wipes...don't pick up the kid and shake em after eating you're going to get spit up on you....expect to have the daddy stain on your shoulders, neck and chest....put a wipe or extra diaper over the boy when changing or your going to get a golden shower....there's nothing girly about carrying a diaper bag....cheat meals at chuck e cheese's.   Also make sure you clean the milk that gets trapped in baby neck folds it can be real stinky.  if it's a boy,,dont' get "the" operation for the boy...just think of it...no anesthesia in that region!!?  it's an outdated practice....just because we had doesn't mean they have to have it....

Try my approach. I can garauntee Optimal fat loss and strength results eating anything you want.  Don`t make yourself miserable. There is no reason.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: LASTREP72 on September 07, 2006, 06:50:16 AM
Therwe is a bottom line to any diet (no matter how it is worded) and fat loss !!

Calories in vs Calories out period !!
Even when you are getting most of those calories from protein?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: migizi on September 07, 2006, 06:55:08 AM
Try my approach. I can garauntee Optimal fat loss and strength results eating anything you want.  Don`t make yourself miserable. There is no reason.

what's your approach?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 06:59:26 AM
what's your approach?

Check out the myth board. PM me and I will help you with your questions.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: El_Spiko on September 07, 2006, 07:10:16 AM
Check out the myth board. PM me and I will help you with your questions.
His approach is pizza, ice cream and potato chips. He's an ecto with a great metabolism and he makes sure to keep his calories in a deficit. But he seems to think he has come across the one true way, the most efficient and effective approach to cutting up and gaining muscle. Of course, he won't rebut any criticism or contradiction to his "way".
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 07, 2006, 08:51:59 AM
1700 calories may be 1700 calories, no matter what you eat...but it's what those calories are made up of, that matters.

Anyone thinking you could simply ingest 7000 calories of pure shit, and get into contest shape is kidding themselves...

Actually, we had that experiment a few years back...it was called the high fat diet from Dr. Mario DePasquale, that the WBF guys used...basically, the same thing.

I think the results speak volumes for what it did.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 08:56:33 AM
1700 calories may be 1700 calories, no matter what you eat...but it's what those calories are made up of, that matters.

Anyone thinking you could simply ingest 7000 calories of pure shit, and get into contest shape is kidding themselves...

Actually, we had that experiment a few years back...it was called the high fat diet from Dr. Mario DePasquale, that the WBF guys used...basically, the same thing.

I think the results speak volumes for what it did.

Hey Genius,
You are going to try and discount the LAW of Thermodynamics?
If you are taking in 1700 calories of ANYTHING and you have enough muscle, it will ALL be used,burned  no matter if it is from Chicken Breasts or Sugar Cookies.

hahahahahahhha  Plus it takes such a LOW LOW LOW amount of protein to gain muscle and sustain it. hahhahahahahahahah
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: jaejonna on September 07, 2006, 08:58:18 AM
Chick at 15 looked better than Adonis does now... hahahahah
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 09:04:07 AM
Chick at 15 looked better than Adonis does now... hahahahah

Nope.

Not telling when he started using steroids either.

Watch him try and discount a scientific LAW.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: jaejonna on September 07, 2006, 09:05:29 AM
Nope.

Not telling when he started using steroids either.

Watch him try and discount a scientific LAW.
I think your thermodynamic law doesnt factor in protien synthesis and muscle generation...all chemical stuff that you over look
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Mars on September 07, 2006, 09:06:57 AM
The Adonis principles can no longer be ignored.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 09:11:49 AM
I think your thermodynamic law doesnt factor in protien synthesis and muscle generation...all chemical stuff that you over look

Protein synthesis and muscle Generation is BUILT on Thermodynamics.

Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 07, 2006, 09:14:51 AM
Hey Genius,
You are going to try and discount the LAW of Thermodynamics?
If you are taking in 1700 calories of ANYTHING and you have enough muscle, it will ALL be used,burned  no matter if it is from Chicken Breasts or Sugar Cookies.

hahahahahahhha  Plus it takes such a LOW LOW LOW amount of protein to gain muscle and sustain it. hahhahahahahahahah

Then why do you look like my balls?

Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Original Sin on September 07, 2006, 09:25:31 AM
Then why do you look like my balls?



 ;D ;D
OUCH
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Bast000 on September 07, 2006, 09:30:40 AM
Chick is just upset that no one acknowledges his Master's win.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: doozejooze on September 07, 2006, 09:31:44 AM
Your principles are about as unsound as they come, not to mention all that proinflammatory saturated fat that is rife in the junk food as well as the deficient antioxidant content that those foods are missing. The only reason you are maintaing any muscle whatsoever is localized growth hormone. This too shall pass as the denatured amino acids you are ingesting will eventually fail to replenish myo-stores. I think True Adonis should re-name his diet "I'm stealing organ protein to maintain my bicep roundness in an attempt to demonstrate my willpower." That is all this really is -your assertion that your willpower is above the average Get-biggers. If most people ate at those places on a regular basis they would not be able to control portion sizes.   D
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 09:33:17 AM
Then why do you look like my balls?



You are an idiot.

Go off the Steroids.

I challenge you.

I will look way better than you.   You won`t do it because you can`t.

Steroids own you and that is what makes up your identity.

You haven`t been natural in over 20 years.  That must suck to know that all of your gains are only because of a chemical and that they will ALL disappear like your friend Tom Prince`s did.

Good luck.
hahhah
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 09:34:39 AM
Your principles are about as unsound as they come, not to mention all that proinflammatory saturated fat that is rife in the junk food as well as the deficient antioxidant content that those foods are missing. The only reason you are maintaing any muscle whatsoever is localized growth hormone. This too shall pass as the denatured amino acids you are ingesting will eventually fail to replenish myo-stores. I think True Adonis should re-name his diet "I'm stealing organ protein to maintain my bicep roundness in an attempt to demonstrate my willpower." That is all this really is -your assertion that your willpower is above the average Get-biggers. If most people ate at those places on a regular basis they would not be able to control portion sizes.   D

I will think about you and smile when I am leaner and bigger as the weeks go by.

What then will you say?

hahahahahah

Your dime-store analysis is wrong. 
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Mars on September 07, 2006, 09:34:57 AM
Yessssssssss look what happend to mike morris.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: doozejooze on September 07, 2006, 09:40:20 AM
I think you made an admirable transformation and my analysis is correct. Although I believe you do have the Will to argue your misassertions till the cows come home or go to the slaughterhouse to get made into hamburgers. The fact is calories in versus calories out will determine mass loss or gain but will also result in more stubborn bodyfat and a fallow, willowy muscle tone that must be reinvigorated with antioxidants and myo-buffers that allow for maximum rejuvination. The fact that you are stubborn works for your outlandish claims. Oh yeah one more point- the hormones and chemicals used to treat the meats and Ice Creams you are eating is turning you into a Jezebelle as we speak, so if you start asking for directions more and buy "Steal Magnolias" we will know your diet must be avoided.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 07, 2006, 09:44:57 AM
Chick at 15 looked better than Adonis does now... hahahahah

I'll take your challenge, as per Jaejonna's post...

You couldn't touch me at 15.....that was in 1981..no drugs, no dieting, no cardio, no supplements no high tech equipment...just training and eating H.S. lunches.

Feel free to post your best pic...we'll let the people here decide.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 09:49:29 AM
I'll take your challenge, as per Jaejonna's post...

You couldn't touch me at 15.....that was in 1981..no drugs, no dieting, no cardio, no supplements no high tech equipment...just training and eating H.S. lunches.

Feel free to post your best pic...we'll let the people here decide.

We have no idea when you started your drug use.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: nycbull on September 07, 2006, 09:50:58 AM
I'll take your challenge, as per Jaejonna's post...

You couldn't touch me at 15.....that was in 1981..no drugs, no dieting, no cardio, no supplements no high tech equipment...just training and eating H.S. lunches.

Feel free to post your best pic...we'll let the people here decide.

were you hard in that picture?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 09:51:18 AM
I'll take your challenge, as per Jaejonna's post...

You couldn't touch me at 15.....that was in 1981..no drugs, no dieting, no cardio, no supplements no high tech equipment...just training and eating H.S. lunches.

Feel free to post your best pic...we'll let the people here decide.

I easily beat that now.

What a joke. You aren`t even that lean.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: gatrainer on September 07, 2006, 09:52:31 AM
were you hard in that picture?

would that make your lotion session go faster?? :)
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 07, 2006, 09:53:42 AM
heres another one, champ....still waiting for your pics.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: nycbull on September 07, 2006, 09:55:53 AM
would that make your lotion session go faster?? :)

No not really, cant say Chick does if for me, or any chick in that case, but rumor has it he is well endowed and I guess the rumour is true. Good for him. Are you guys jealous?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: gatrainer on September 07, 2006, 09:57:16 AM
heres another one, champ....still waiting for your pics.
give him a second Chic....he's busy doing some pushups now and trying to find the best shadows in his room so the pic looks just right
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 09:57:29 AM
heres another one, champ....still waiting for your pics.

Wait for the Mr. Getbig. hahahahahah

Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: gatrainer on September 07, 2006, 09:58:12 AM
Are you guys jealous?
What....that you like d*ck?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 09:59:15 AM
At least Chick just PROVED MY DIET CORRECT!

He said he got in that condition and size at 15 by just eating school lunches!!!!!!

Thanks Chick for Validating everything I have posted.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Mars on September 07, 2006, 10:00:35 AM
Looking huge Adam.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: gatrainer on September 07, 2006, 10:01:15 AM
Wait for the Mr. Getbig. hahahahahah


hahaha...nice shadows Adanus....Chic dusted you....go eat some more Big Macs.  You need to tighten up though...seriously!
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 10:02:06 AM
I just LOVE that CHICK admitted that all he ate was HIGH SCHOOL LUNCHES to get in good shape.

Proves me correct.   Chick is a good dude afterall.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 07, 2006, 10:04:53 AM
Yeah, the metabolism of a 15 year old is quite different than the metabolism of someone in their 20's or 30's for that matter....

Use your head.

BTW...is that the best you got??

Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: OneMoreRep on September 07, 2006, 10:06:53 AM
Wait for the Mr. Getbig. hahahahahah



Let's see how it would look if we added a little "Arvilla" dust.

Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 10:07:48 AM
Yeah, the metabolism of a 15 year old is quite different than the metabolism of someone in their 20's or 30's for that matter....

Use your head.

BTW...is that the best you got??


hahhahahah You don`t see many 15 year olds eating school lunches and looking decent with muscle.

Obviously the school lunches were key if you were natural.

You could eat the same school lunches now and still be as lean and as big as you were at the Masters Bob.

Thanks again though for showing that I am correct and that you cannot ARGUE with a SCIENTIFIC LAW, The LAW of Thermodynamics.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: alexxx on September 07, 2006, 10:08:54 AM
Chick if you made such great progress at such an early stage why did it take you 20 years to turn pro? Also I am guessing you got into that shape with the weight set you father bough you for chrismas, 115 pound barbell? Don't you think that basic free weight movements work better than machines?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: nycbull on September 07, 2006, 10:10:16 AM
What....that you like d*ck?

wow thats weird, I thought the question was clear, sorry, I will try to simplify my grammer in the future. Here it is again...Are you guys jealous that Chick has bigger muscle and a bigger weiner than most of you?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 10:13:55 AM
Chick if you made such great progress at such an early stage why did it take you 20 years to turn pro? Also I am guessing you got into that shape with the weight set you father bough you for chrismas, 115 pound barbell? Don't you think that basic free weight movements work better than machines?

Not one thing works better than another Alexxx.  Plus you cannot make such a broad statement to encompass everyone regarding machines and free weights.

My insertion points for muscle might be ideal for machines to get full contraction while yours may be suited for barbell.

In the end just do everything.  But one will NEVER be better than the other.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: alexxx on September 07, 2006, 10:16:00 AM
Not one thing works better than another Alexxx.  Plus you cannot make such a broad statement to encompass everyone regarding machines and free weights.

My insertion points for muscle might be ideal for machines to get full contraction while yours may be suited for barbell.

In the end just do everything.  But one will NEVER be better than the other.

You tell that to all the great champions that forged their physiques out of raw iron! Reeves, Grimek, Arnold, Sergio, Nubret, Lee Haney, Samir Banout, Dorian Yates, Ronnie Coleman and on.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: jaejonna on September 07, 2006, 10:17:00 AM

My insertion points for muscle might be ideal for machines to get full contraction while yours may be suited for barbell.


hahaha gayer than using 'machine' exercises hahahah
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 07, 2006, 10:22:55 AM
Chick if you made such great progress at such an early stage why did it take you 20 years to turn pro? Also I am guessing you got into that shape with the weight set you father bough you for chrismas, 115 pound barbell? Don't you think that basic free weight movements work better than machines?

It didn't...It took 13 years. ;D

I rocketed up to the top of the National scene...stayed there for a few years, and then started fucking around with my program because I was placing in the top 5, but wasn't winning.

The other problem was that the competition was a lot deeper back then...there was no superheavys to split the Heavies in two...we were all bunched in one class...much tougher.

The more I deviated from my original (simpler) routine...the worse I got.

Ironically...this is the same situation King has been going through, that were trying to break him out of...many times in BB..the K.I.S.S. methoed is the best one.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: jaejonna on September 07, 2006, 10:24:36 AM
K I S S means Keep it simple stupid.....

But in the Adonis Principles it means Keep It Super Size  !!!
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: alexxx on September 07, 2006, 10:27:29 AM
It didn't...It took 13 years. ;D

I rocketed up to the top of the National scene...stayed there for a few years, and then started fucking around with my program because I was placing in the top 5, but wasn't winning.

The other problem was that the competition was a lot deeper back then...there was no superheavys to split the Heavies in two...we were all bunched in one class...much tougher.

The more I deviated from my original (simpler) routine...the worse I got.

Ironically...this is the same situation King has been going through, that were trying to break him out of...many times in BB..the K.I.S.S. methoed is the best one.

So why not go back to the original routine that got you the wins as a teenager instead of training like a woman? and using extra stuff..
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: one1234 on September 07, 2006, 10:29:05 AM
Chickster,


What was your weight training program like(not in detail) when you were conditioning your muscles(not burning fat or bulking)...was it high reps..high weights..small period?

thanks
one
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Bast000 on September 07, 2006, 10:29:37 AM
Who is stronger in the offseason, Chick or Adonis?   Serious question.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Jezebelle on September 07, 2006, 10:31:35 AM
At least Chick just PROVED MY DIET CORRECT!

He said he got in that condition and size at 15 by just eating school lunches!!!!!!

Thanks Chick for Validating everything I have posted.

That's funny, because Bast & I were just talking about how you can get big off of cafeteria food :P yesterday...
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 10:35:09 AM
Who is stronger in the offseason, Chick or Adonis?   Serious question.

I am pretty sure I have him beat in a lot of lifts.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: jaejonna on September 07, 2006, 10:36:04 AM
I am pretty sure I have him beat in a lot of lifts.
::)
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 10:38:23 AM
::)

Easily the Deadlift and Deep Leg Press.

Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Bast000 on September 07, 2006, 10:41:29 AM
Yup, I doubt Chick has ever deadlifted 600lbs.    I think Adonis has stronger arms too.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Jujoshu on September 07, 2006, 12:05:41 PM
The whole argument is foolish. Why someone thinks they've made a "scientific" breakthru by discovering that eating below your caloric maintenance needs causes you to lose weight is beyond me. People for years have known this. In fact, Mike Mentzer said he could get anyone to lose weight by having them eat a diet of pure sugar. Now, the real question to ask is would it be healthy? Obviously not. The simple truths of the matter are natural foods such as whole grains, vegetables etc. are better for the human body than krispy kremes, big macs, snickers or whatever processed junk you can come up with. Studies have shown that vegetables and greens have cancer fighting properties. What studies have ever shown that eating a doughnut and drinking a cup of coffee help prevent disease? But don't take the medical community's word for it. If people are still in need of proof do a little experiment. Eat total junk for a certain length of time and then go get blood work done. You may be surprised to find out that people can look the model of health but in fact be extremely unhealthy. Just look at many of the pros today with kidney probs. etc.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: The True Adonis on September 07, 2006, 12:08:35 PM
The whole argument is foolish. Why someone thinks they've made a "scientific" breakthru by discovering that eating below your caloric maintenance needs causes you to lose weight is beyond me. People for years have known this. In fact, Mike Mentzer said he could get anyone to lose weight by having them eat a diet of pure sugar. Now, the real question to ask is would it be healthy? Obviously not. The simple truths of the matter are natural foods such as whole grains, vegetables etc. are better for the human body than krispy kremes, big macs, snickers or whatever processed junk you can come up with. Studies have shown that vegetables and greens have cancer fighting properties. What studies have ever shown that eating a doughnut and drinking a cup of coffee help prevent disease? But don't take the medical community's word for it. If people are still in need of proof do a little experiment. Eat total junk for a certain length of time and then go get blood work done. You may be surprised to find out that people can look the model of health but in fact be extremely unhealthy. Just look at many of the pros today with kidney probs. etc.

August 16, 2006
The anti Supersize Me movie from the horse's mouth.
Since there were so many comments and questions about the anti Supersize Me movie that MD and were interviewed for and that I posted about last week, I asked the filmmaker, Tom Naughton, if he would write up a brief of what he is trying to do with the movie. He agreed. Here is his overview of his film and his own weight loss efforts.

Well, it's interesting to see how emotional people can become when you mention the word "McDonald's." For my next film I may tackle something less controversial, such as the Iraq war or school prayer.
Several posters asked what direction this film will take. Like "Super Size Me," my film will be a humorous documentary. Spurlock's film was definitely amusing and well-constructed. Unfortunately, I believe he gave the audience a lot of misleading information along with the laughs. I plan to give my audience good information along with the laughs. I believe some of the laughs will be Super-Sized.
This film will NOT portray McDonald's food as health food. It isn't. (I also ate at other fast-food restaurants during my month-long diet, but mostly McDonald's.) But because of changes in the American lifestyle, people are going to eat at fast-food restaurants, like it or not. So part of my goal in this movie is to show how a person can eat fast food without getting fat and suffering other health consequences.
I haven't made final decisions on exactly which scenes to include, but I can certainly describe the highlights, in no particular order:
1. My diet history. I tried vegetarianism, Fit for Life, Pritikin -- all colossal failures. But I've had success with The Zone, Protein Power, Atkins -- all low-carb diets to some degree.
2. My fast-food diet plan: based on my diet history, I aimed for about 2000 calories and reasonably low carbs (about 100 per day, as it turns out ... not really low, but hardly high.)
3. Spurlock Nonsense. If he followed his own self-proclaimed "rules," he could not have consumed 5,000 calories per day; I've done the math. He won't release his food log, despite numerous requests from journalists, and I'm convinced it's because that log would reveal him as a fraud. If you've seen the movie, you'll recall that between weeks three and four, he actually lost a pound, then managed to gain tremendously in the final week. His food log would likely show that he stuffed himself mercilessly to ensure that his final weight gain would be impressive. He wanted the audience to believe that there's something especially fattening about fast food, as opposed to any other sugary/starchy food. As someone who once got fat on Grape Nuts and whole-grain pasta, I disagree.4. How fat are we, anyway? There is, as Dr. Eric Oliver from the University of Chicago explains, no real obesity "epidemic." Since 1970, Americans have become an average of 9 pounds heavier -- we've also become an average of 9 years older. During this same timespan, the CDC lowered the definition of "overweight," and bingo, 50 million Americans became overweight or obese overnight. Do we have a problem? Definitely ... just look at the increase in Type II diabetes. But it's not an epidemic. You can't catch obesity or diabetes from the guy next to you. Government agencies exaggerate (and flat-out lie at times) because it helps them get bigger funding.
5. It's not being fat that kills you, it's the behaviors that make you fat. Many "fat" people are quite healthy. As Dr. Eades can tell you, thin people become diabetic and die of heart attacks, too. Before my fast-food diet, my doctor said my cholesterol profile was very good, my triglycerides (70) were excellent, he complimented my strength and muscle tone, and was pleased to hear that I walk at least 15 miles per week in the hills near my home -- but at a BMI of 31, I'm "obese" and automatically deemed unhealthy.
6. More Spurlock Nonsense. I was particularly annoyed by Spurlock's obvious belief that people consume fast food because they're addicted, ignorant, or both. For someone who declared himself addicted, he somehow managed to quit the stuff cold-turkey and go back to his girlfriend's wacky vegan diet without much effort. After eating at McDonald's every day for a month, I didn't set foot in the place for three weeks. If this is an addiction, it's sure easy to break.
The idea that people consume fast food because they're ignorant is nothing more than class snobbery wearing a mask of concern. Contrary to what many people think, poor people are not ignorant about the nutritional quality of fast food. (Professor Oliver looked into that very topic, among others.) There is, however, much more social pressure to be thin among the upper classes; poor people are more likely to have an attitude of "I'm fat, and I don't care." And if you happen to value immediate pleasure more than long-term health, that's your choice.
I've conducted street interviews with dozens of people about fast food, and guess what? Every single one of them knows McDonald's is selling fattening food. (And most of them eat it anyway.) Many of them could guess the calorie count of a Quarter Pounder, large fries and large Coke within 200 calories. Those who couldn't usually guessed high, not low.
7. The saturated fat / cholesterol / heart disease myth. This is the subject that led me to Dr. Eades. If ignorance is a driving force behind our health problems, it's ignorance that's been promoted by the USDA and other federal agencies that harp on us to cut the fat and eat more grains. Thanks to them, women will buy a Weight Watchers "Smart Ones" dinner -- only one gram of fat!! -- and think it's a good choice, despite the 40 or 50 carbohydrates. Before I knew better, I used to get pancakes for breakfast at McDonald's and skip the butter -- only two grams of fat in pancakes!! The USDA would've approved.
8. The Lowfat Religion. Brought to you largely by the McGovern committee, which cheerfully ignored the testimony it didn't like and swallowed the advice of the low-fat advocates. McGovern was on the Pritikin diet at the time -- but couldn't stay on it. (Being a true politician, he nonetheless told the rest of us to do what he says, not what he does.) Dr. Eades, Dr. Mary Dan Eades, and others will explain how the low-fat, high-carb diet is ineffective at best and dangerous at worst.9. The Food Police. Once the Lowfat Religion took hold, the evangelists soon followed: groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest -- almost always identified in news stories as a "consumer advocacy group." A more accurate description would be "a vegetarian activist group posing as scientists." Their self-righteousness would be annoying even if their advice had merit, but it doesn't: They have played a large role in pushing natural animal fats out of the diet. They declared trans fats to be safe and harassed McDonald's and other fast-food restaurants into switching to trans fats from beef tallow and palm oil. (Now, of course, they're suing restaurants for using trans fats.)
10. Exercise. One of the reasons I was impressed with Dr. Eades' books is that he doesn't offer any pie-in-the-sky (or sausage-in-the-sky) promises that you can eat like a maniac, sit on your butt all day, and still lose weight; in fact, he states specifically that to lose weight, you must create a deficit between calories burned and calories consumed. That deficit is largely missing from American society today. We have engineered effort out of our lives. At my local mall, I see people drive around for 15 minutes until they can score a parking spot near the door. In addition to misinformed food choices, that's why we're getting fatter.
11. My results. When my doctor saw that I had consumed an average of 120 grams of fat per day (49 saturated), he told me I'd been on a "widow-maker" diet. He said, "Well, let's see what kind of damage you've done here." Then he measured the results: I lost 12 pounds. My body-fat percentage dropped four points. Triglyerides stood at 83. Blood pressure stayed the same. Cholesterol, a slight dip from 230 to 220, although my HDL had gone down to 48 from 60 -- but even the doctor admitted that could be because I had given up my evening glass of red wine during the diet. When he reviewed all the results, he said, "I don't think I like what you're proving here."12. My next diet. Because the saturated fat / cholesterol issue is so controversial, I spent another month on a no-starch, no-sugar diet that was essentially a saturated-fat pigout: lots of double-cheeseburgers without buns, polish sausages, bacon, eggs, butter, cheese, cream, marbled steaks, coconut oil, etc. The results? My total cholesterol dropped to 209, my HDL went back up to 64, LDL dropped to 130, and my triglycerides dropped to 75. I also lost a couple of pounds, despite the high calorie content, and my body fat dropped another point.
Those are the highlights. I realize my descriptions don't sound funny, but trust me; in addition to my background in journalism, I've been a standup comic for over a decade, and there will be plenty of laughs in this film.
I know some of you reading this will be disappointed that I'm not out to beat up on McDonald's, but in my view, their popularity is a result of our food choices, not the cause of them. Like Dr. Eades (and we didn't discuss this previously), I don't believe individual freedom and corporate responsibility are in opposition. McDonald's doesn't have any more of a "corporate responsibility" to sell me health food than Ben & Jerry's does. If McDonald's wants to spend their own money on ads that encourage me to eat starch and sugar, that doesn't bother me -- I can say no (and usually do). But when groups like CSPI want to use the tax code to force me to pay more for cheeseburgers so they can use the money to tell me to eat more whole grains, that definitely bothers me.
Ultimately, I'm responsible for making choices about my own health and my children's health. I hope this film will give a few people the tools to make better choices of their own.
Tom Naughtonwww.TomNaughton.com
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Original Sin on September 07, 2006, 12:14:03 PM
My God, 95% of the board doesn't even believe your Girlfriend isn't something you just made up.
What makes you think anybody will take anything you say seriously?

Your posts are getting longer and are about as exciting and Mr Basile's.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: migizi on September 07, 2006, 12:19:12 PM
hope you read my marriage/daddy advice chick aside from arguing on here...seems it happens way to much...like when I was writing with Milos about his mid workout drink I don't think he ever read my other stuff...but thanks again for getting in here
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Bast000 on September 07, 2006, 12:31:31 PM
My God, 95% of the board doesn't even believe your Girlfriend isn't something you just made up.

You need to take an English course.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: HRDCOR on September 07, 2006, 03:35:52 PM
Back to the topic, eaten fast food and staying in calorie defict will most certantly enabel the individual to loose weight , although due to poor nutrient supply how that weight loss is detemined could be a factor , especialy if the indivdual is activly exercising, weight loss would most likely come from a combanation of lean mass loss (which also aquates to fluid loss) and some body fat loss, the down side of this being once calories are increased at some piont (which envably happens) the individual has less "Active tissue" on their frame , which promotes a metabolic down turn and lower thermogenisis properties , thus enabling the body to revert into "storage mode far more effectivly before the individaul first started the dieting phase , and the result of this is a even greater storage of body fat than previous , its called "Yo Yo" dieting.

If a dieter persists long ehough with a self imposed famine the body begins to break down muscle tissue for fuel.When protein is broken down , it releases nitrogen.Your body will quickly wash away the nitrogen by releasing water from tissue cells , causing a imediate reduction in water weight and a noticeable drop on the scale , however , water and muscle loss is nothing to celebrate!1. the water weight will be quickly regaained as soon as you have something to drink , and the missing muscle can wreak havoc on your metabolism for a good long time !!

Hardcor Bsc Hn
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Alex23 on September 07, 2006, 04:21:24 PM
If you MUST do cardio, distance yourself about a mile and half away from MCdonalds. That way you get your cardio and get a good postworkout meal in.

meltdown
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Bindare_Dundat on September 07, 2006, 05:44:00 PM
Easily the Deadlift and Deep Leg Press.



More like the Deep Anal Plunge.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: HRDCOR on September 07, 2006, 08:44:26 PM
Quote
P.S. Congrats on the new wife and baby, and remember, its never to early start slipping growth hormone into the little one's formula.               


Dude the Congrats is good , but the rest , uncalled for , never diss a new father and mothers child !!

Doesnt sound or look good !!
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 07, 2006, 08:54:00 PM
Bob,


Looking back, do you think you're professional career would have been more distinguished if you had given in to Jim Manion's sexual advances in '93 instead of waiting until 2000?


 





P.S. Congrats on the new wife and baby, and remember, its never to early start slipping growth hormone into the little one's formula.

Did you think that was funny?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: HRDCOR on September 07, 2006, 09:00:11 PM
Nah it wasnt Chic , I think grundle is a little bit mentaly challenged or imature as any one with brains knows you dont except sexual advances from men and one never dissis proud new parents pride and joy and best lifes acheivement to date !!!

Shit as a father I even feel like apoligising for him !!

But I wont !!
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 07, 2006, 09:00:33 PM
Bob,


Looking back, do you think you're professional career would have been more distinguished if you had given in to Jim Manion's sexual advances in '93 instead of waiting until 2000?


...and still more.

Bud, you really need to come to grips...your issues with your sexuality are becoming quite obvious to everyone.

 





P.S. Congrats on the new wife and baby, and remember, its never to early start slipping growth hormone into the little one's formula.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: HRDCOR on September 07, 2006, 09:04:43 PM
Quote
30% funny
20% satisfaction of highlighting your blatant insecurities about the fact that you never did shit as pro
25% addressing the questionable fitness of a man who injests and injects myriad drugs to be a father
25% attempt to have you finally illuminate us on the nature of your relationship with Jim Manion                                   


Sorry Grundle IOO% F@#KED UP

and there is no percentages left to say anything more !!
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Anal Iceman Lubeth on September 07, 2006, 09:06:49 PM
Chic won't deny that he's been bisexual in the past.  Unelss he wants the story posted, of course
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 07, 2006, 09:08:29 PM
Coming from someone named "Anal Iceman"...LOLOL.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: HRDCOR on September 07, 2006, 09:10:12 PM
Quote
Chic won't deny that he's been bisexual in the past.  Unelss he wants the story posted, of course  
 
 
                                


BIsexual ? does this mean or is it a term which is in referance to " paying for a hooker " :D :-\??
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Anal Iceman Lubeth on September 07, 2006, 09:13:03 PM
Coming from someone named "Anal Iceman"...LOLOL.

So are you denying that you've ever had a homosexual experience?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Anal Iceman Lubeth on September 07, 2006, 09:17:46 PM
So are you denying that you've ever had a homosexual experience?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Original Sin on September 07, 2006, 09:18:41 PM
So are you denying that you've ever had a homosexual experience?

Fishing for some night time reading material?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Anal Iceman Lubeth on September 07, 2006, 09:20:15 PM
Fishing for some night time reading material?

fishing for a denial so i can post the info
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 07, 2006, 09:23:16 PM
Post away, fool...I've got nothing to hide.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Anal Iceman Lubeth on September 07, 2006, 09:25:52 PM
Post away, fool...I've got nothing to hide.
you have nothing to hide, or you've never engaged in sexual acts with other men?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: HRDCOR on September 07, 2006, 09:26:08 PM
Quote
Uh Marc? I was under the impression that english was still the preferred language in the land down under.  If not, as you clearly have access to the internet, you should have no problem looking up the term.  Here in America, it means that Bob may or may not have enjoyed holding another man's hog during his illustrious career in professional steroid thong dancing                              


Actualy Grundle we speak a totaly different language down here it is called the "Language of Marc" it is actualy studied in Unvirsities all over the Down unders !! :D

But in all honesty you shouldnt have gone there with Chic and his beautifull ladies new born , a little bit of respect goes a long way !!

Homosexual referances to a hetrosexual are water of a ducks back in reality  , shit how do you think I get on every time I go to the states with my last name being Rainbow , which is a old celtic name coming from Rein-Bue (which I have tatooed on my forearms in referances to my children), I even onced tried to get into a gay club called Rainbow for free in the states just to see if they would let me in , I told them my dad owned the club and that he said they had to give me free drinks , the door man didnt wear it and I was refused entry !! damm homo !! :D
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 07, 2006, 09:27:59 PM
you have nothing to hide, or you've never engaged in sexual acts with other men?


both...
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: TheGoldenPrince on September 07, 2006, 10:20:05 PM
Chick, since a smaller waist can project the illusion of greatersize and lend better taper, does this effectually mean that Vince Goodrum would win the USA with his Audrey Hpburn waist? ;D
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Miss Karen on September 07, 2006, 10:26:44 PM
Chick seems a decent person and calls it most of the time,would not think he is into gay shit.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 07, 2006, 10:33:22 PM
lolol..thanks Miss Karen.

I had a friend of mine who was gay, he used to refer to me as "the most heterosexual man in America"...
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Original Sin on September 07, 2006, 10:35:23 PM
lolol..thanks Miss Karen.

I had a friend of mine who was gay, he used to refer to me as "the most heterosexual man in America"...

translation = Player

That's okay by me though, busy Friday night?  ;D
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Wombat on September 07, 2006, 10:35:34 PM
adonis posts alot of pictures of his left side but just how many right side pictures has he taken and deleted on his camera??If your gonna post so many pictures, why not post a full on front double bicep?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Bast000 on September 07, 2006, 10:36:54 PM
adonis posts alot of pictures of his left side but just how many right side pictures has he taken and deleted on his camera??If your gonna post so many pictures, why not post a full on front double bicep?

he has, why don't you post one?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Chick on September 07, 2006, 10:39:46 PM
translation = Player

That's okay by me though, busy Friday night?  ;D


My "player" days ended some time ago...I'll be playing the role of husband and father now....
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Original Sin on September 07, 2006, 10:43:20 PM
My "player" days ended some time ago...I'll be playing the role of husband and father now....

I got shot down on Getbig, is it possible to sink any lower  ;D




You two have a name(s) pcked out yet?
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: Wombat on September 07, 2006, 11:08:33 PM
he has, why don't you post one?

lets see it then...
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: 240 is Back on September 07, 2006, 11:44:01 PM
You two have a name(s) pcked out yet?

You know what would be a good name for a boy?







Rusty.
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: 1stkeepitreal on September 08, 2006, 02:33:14 AM
Having never seen or heard of  Mr Chicko being in a gay position or movie i will say he is not gay.

 However he has surely been witness to male gay activity on more than one occassion. Be in it a jacuzzi or a large party room one guy pulling another guys weenie has always been found amusing.  Many pro BB's come on here and say they have nothing to hide...ok no problem.  But remember nothing is as it really seems.

-keep it real-
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: 1stkeepitreal on September 08, 2006, 08:23:43 AM
if you are not going to allow anybody to respond in this thread delete the whole damn thing.

I simply said its not cool to be deleting posts and thats gets killed along with about a half dozen other responses. Give me a f'kin break already. 

I agian repeat: you put yourself on the hotplate.....take the heat or get the hell out of the kitchen.

Enough with the deleting already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-keep it real-
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: HRDCOR on September 08, 2006, 08:32:37 PM
If a Mum is called Mum and a Dad is called Dad why dont we call our Son,s Son ??
Title: Re: question for Chick
Post by: TheGoldenPrince on September 09, 2006, 01:29:54 AM
If a Mum is called Mum and a Dad is called Dad why dont we call our Son,s Son ??

Exactly.