# Its not calores to loose fat!! its BACTERIA!!



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

another sensational statement from daily mail ... cut a long story short its not the calories we consume that helps us loose weight its the healthy bacterias we have in our gut. bad bacterias in gut = no weight loss even if in a deficit

Calorie counting doesn't help, bacteria in your gut makes you fat | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

Excellent. away on my summer cut. Macros for diet are: 40% Alcohol, 40% Chocolate and 20% Cheese. Single digit BF% in no time. #ShredzBrah

Yet again, an outstanding pile of sh*t article from the Daily Mail. This nonsense is laughable. :lol:


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

Damn. Looks like I better delete about a 1000 of my posts before I look like an idiot..


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Kloob said:


> Excellent. away on my summer cut. Macros for diet are: 40% Alcohol, 40% Chocolate and 20% Cheese. Single digit BF% in no time. #ShredzBrah
> 
> Yet again, an outstanding pile of sh*t article from the Daily Mail. This nonsense is laughable. :lol:


Nonsense? The article is the summation of research.Healthy gut Flora, is a prerequisite for optimal health.Its protects against disease.Again, the typical Western diet again shows its potential to harm.


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

essexboy said:


> Nonsense? The article is the summation of research.Healthy gut Flora, is a prerequisite for optimal health.Its protects against disease.Again, the typical Western diet again shows its potential to harm.


Yes. Nonsense. Although there may be facts in there. The message and the way it is portrayed are what is nonsense. And if you disagree, I lead you to the opening statement: "Everything you think you know about diets is WRONG: Counting calories is a total waste of time." Not to mention it follows up with "it's bacteria in your gut that make you fat."


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Kloob said:


> Yes. Nonsense. Although there may be facts in there. The message and the way it is portrayed are what is nonsense. And if you disagree, I lead you to the opening statement: "Everything you think you know about diets is WRONG: Counting calories is a total waste of time." Not to mention it follows up with "it's bacteria in your gut that make you fat."


Nonsense, because you say sk just dismiss the research, because it falls outside of how you choose to view the world.Obviously, its going to be portrayed in a sensationalist manner, its in a newspaper.However, The scientist mentioned, has been interviewed several times, on the radio and his conclusions, warrant attention.That is if you actually choose to view them with a rational mind.


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

essexboy said:


> Nonsense, because you say sk just dismiss the research, because it falls outside of how you choose to view the world.Obviously, its going to be portrayed in a sensationalist manner, its in a newspaper.However, The scientist mentioned, has been interviewed several times, on the radio and his conclusions, warrant attention.That is if you actually choose to view them with a rational mind.


As stated, I have no doubt some of this is factual and good information. However, a lot of this article is nonsense.

rational? I do not believe that claiming a diet where you consume a calorific deficit is a 'waste of time' is rational. nor do I believe stating 'calorie controlled diets don't work' to be rational. There is plenty about the article that is not rational.

I could go on about this article but I do not feel its necessary. you have your views and I have mine. However, if viewing this article with your 'rational mind' leads you to feel that a lot of it is not nonsense; then I urge you to read it again.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Read this:

Publications Authored by Linda Aronsson


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Jalex said:


> Damn. Looks like I better delete about a 1000 of my posts before I look like an idiot..


You already made a start apparently


----------



## empzb (Jan 8, 2006)

Get some food poisoning bacteria and you'll certainly lose weight.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Can differences in gut bacteria have the potential to change how individuals respond to a given diet? Yes.

Does this mean that calorie restriction doesn't work in reducing body fat? No. And the fact that the article suggests otherwise is frankly irresponsible from a public health perspective.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

essexboy said:


> Nonsense, because you say sk just dismiss the research, because it falls outside of how you choose to view the world.Obviously, its going to be portrayed in a sensationalist manner, its in a newspaper.However, The scientist mentioned, has been interviewed several times, on the radio and his conclusions, warrant attention.That is if you actually choose to view them with a rational mind.


You've made it clear the last few months you do not understand research.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Jalex said:


> Damn. *Looks like I better delete about a 1000 of my posts *before I look like an idiot..


You have already been caught doing that.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

BrahmaBull said:


> You already made a start apparently


Dude who the fukc are you posting random chit in every thread. 240 posts in a few weeks and I can't see one helpful/informative/knowledgable post.

Go back to misc brah.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> You have already been caught doing that.


Was literally expecting this when I refrshed the page. I would of put my savings on it lmao


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Jalex said:


> Dude who the fukc are you posting random chit in every thread. 240 posts in a few weeks and I can't see one helpful/informative/knowledgable post.
> 
> Go back to misc brah.


U mad brah

seems you've taken an unhealthy interest in me but I'm taken sorry


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Jalex said:


> Dude who the fukc are you posting random chit in every thread. 240 posts in a few weeks and I can't see one helpful/informative/knowledgable post.
> 
> Go back to misc brah.


If you want any help pulling yourself out of obscurity PM me I can help you.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

@Jalex just accept you deleted the thread because you were made to look a cvnt and move on haha

Making it look like the mods did it was a b1tch move.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> If you want any help pulling yourself out of obscurity PM me I can help you.


Nah, kind of enjoying the lime light.

As some convincing journalist ****er once said, "no such thing as bad publicity, apart from no publicity"


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

BrahmaBull said:


> @Jalex just accept you deleted the thread because you were made to look a cvnt and move on haha
> 
> Making it look like the mods did it was a b1tch move.


Double post about me, because I didn't reply/ignored your first one. I think the words "u mad brah, seems you've taken an unhealthy interest in me, but I'm taken sorry " are appropriate


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Jalex said:


> Double post about me, because I didn't reply/ignored your first one. I think the words "u mad brah, seems you've taken an unhealthy interest in me, but I'm taken sorry " are appropriate


I haven't viewed your profile or posting history. All I know you as is the guy who tried to start an "all about me" thread and deleted it because he couldn't hack the backlash but still pretends he likes the lime light.

Try again, try hard.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Jalex said:


> Nah, kind of enjoying the lime light.
> 
> As some convincing journalist ****er once said, "no such thing as bad publicity, *apart from no publicity*"


You added the last bit, that was never part of the original quote.


----------



## nitricdave (Dec 12, 2014)

I read of a case of somebody who had a transplant of gut bacteria ( through a tube ) up the brown star.. Anyway the donor was obese and the recipient ended up obese also ( it is claimed without a massive change of food eating habits ). Cant find it now but it seemed genuine.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

BrahmaBull said:


> I haven't viewed your profile or posting history. All I know you as is the guy who tried to start an "all about me" thread and deleted it because he couldn't hack the backlash but still pretends he likes the lime light.
> 
> Try again, try hard.


You're the one that seems mad bro. It's all you've been posting about all day. Why don't you lurk a few months and then come back and post.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> You added the last bit, that was never part of the original quote.


Bah knew I should of googled it first :lol:


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Jalex said:


> You're the one that seems mad bro. It's all you've been posting about all day. Why don't you lurk a few months and then come back and post.


I'm not mad, it's actually pretty funny. In a sad, pathetic, feel bad for you kinda way.


----------



## Dan94 (Dec 29, 2013)

How the hell do they get away with posting such sh1t constantly


----------



## Shreddedbeef (Nov 6, 2014)

Im quitting my diet and taking 3 probiotic tablets a day ill be ripped in 3 weeks, thanks daily mail  :thumb:


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

BrahmaBull said:


> @Jalex just accept you deleted the thread because you were made to look a cvnt and move on haha
> 
> Making it look like the mods did it was a b1tch move.


Are you one of those boring Trolls?

Why not post something of use, instead of daft comments?

@Verno


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

latblaster said:


> Are you one of those boring Trolls?
> 
> Why not post something of use, instead of daft comments?
> 
> @Verno


Yeah

@Verno


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

latblaster said:


> Are you one of those boring Trolls?
> 
> Why not post something of use, instead of daft comments?
> 
> @Verno


Wtf you jabbering on about


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Jalex said:


> Nah, kind of enjoying the lime light.
> 
> As some convincing journalist ****er once said, "no such thing as bad publicity, apart from no publicity"


You seem to have created the bastard child of the phrases "any publicity is good publicity" and "the only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about" :lol:


----------



## Goranchero (Mar 26, 2015)

Cheese, alcohol and chocolate CAN help. I would not dismiss this article entirely, or the research. Weight loss goes far beyond calories and gut flora plays a big role, but it is definitively just a piece of the puzzle and not the key element. No matter what your gut flora condition may be, a caloric surplus will not lead to weight loss, but neither does cutting calories guarantee weight loss. Human metabolism is very flexible and a complete bitch at times.

Instead of arguing, be kind to your bifidobacteria, grab a slice of aged cheddar, a glass or two of syrah and some Belgian dark chocs and enjoy the evening.


----------



## Verno (Apr 18, 2008)

latblaster said:


> Are you one of those boring Trolls?
> 
> Why not post something of use, instead of daft comments?
> 
> @Verno


Mate if you expect too much you will be disappointed @BrahmaBull your trying too hard mate


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

Verno said:


> Mate if you expect too much you will be disappointed @BrahmaBull your trying too hard mate


Yeah

@latblaster


----------



## Verno (Apr 18, 2008)

FelonE said:


> Yeah
> 
> @latblaster


Lol your a Cnut Paul :lol:


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

I don't have the time to explain why much of the article (which is a sensationalised version of his work) holds alot of truth.

If you want to understand more about the importance of Gut Flora, then read my previous post, or look at Dats excellent threads.

Why do you think that Yogurt is so good for us?

List of Good Bacteria in Yogurt | LIVESTRONG.COM

Ok, the Daily Fail does print alot of trash & messes around with the truth in order to sell more copy - but many of their articles have a basis in truth.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

Goranchero said:


> Cheese, alcohol and chocolate CAN help. I would not dismiss this article entirely, or the research. Weight loss goes far beyond calories and gut flora plays a big role, but it is definitively just a piece of the puzzle and not the key element. No matter what your gut flora condition may be, a caloric surplus will not lead to weight loss, but neither does cutting calories guarantee weight loss. Human metabolism is very flexible and a complete bitch at times.
> 
> Instead of arguing, be kind to your bifidobacteria, grab a slice of aged cheddar, a glass or two of syrah and some Belgian dark chocs and enjoy the evening.


Wow. So much stupid.

If you are in a calorie deficit, it is impossible to not lose weight.

"Actually calories in calories out IS the correct explanation for ALL humans at ALL points in history. To suggest otherwise is to suggest the laws of physics doesn't or didn't apply."


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

TommyBananas said:


> You've made it clear the last few months you do not understand research.


I view any research with scepticsm and caution.Much "research" is done to prove an hypothesis that may prove advantageous to those with financial interests.Would you care to expand on that view, or are you

just going to make unfounded statements with no factual content, simply because you cant make rational counter arguments?


----------



## JohhnyC (Mar 16, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Wow. So much stupid.
> 
> If you are in a calorie deficit, it is impossible to not lose weight.
> 
> "Actually calories in calories out IS the correct explanation for ALL humans at ALL points in history. To suggest otherwise is to suggest the laws of physics doesn't or didn't apply."


^^^

Exactly this. Its not exactly surprising when you look at photos of concentration camp or labour camp survivors that they had little calories in and worked hard. Wasn't because of some bacteria in food.

The main message is often lost in new research


----------



## Acidreflux (Mar 3, 2015)

If it's in the paper it must be true because they only put the truth in newspapers if it was lies people simply wouldn't buy them!


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

essexboy said:


> I view any research with scepticsm and caution.Much "research" is done to prove an hypothesis that may prove advantageous to those with financial interests.Would you care to expand on that view, or are you
> 
> just going to make unfounded statements with no factual content, simply because you cant make rational counter arguments?


I will expand by repeating, you don't understand research, you've made it very clear in all your other posts about sugar and so on.


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

nice one... bacteria and chips for tea!


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

JohhnyC said:


> ^^^
> 
> Exactly this. Its not exactly surprising when you look at photos of concentration camp or labour camp survivors that they had little calories in and worked hard. Wasn't because of some bacteria in food.
> 
> The main message is often lost in new research


People are always looking for excuses why they are fat, that is why. Science, history, common sense shows us why people are fat/not fat.

Surplus of calories over prolonged period of time = fat.

Deficit of calories over a prolonged period of time = weight loss, continously if remaining in a deficit.


----------



## Wheyman (Sep 6, 2011)

inulin made me lose weight fact


----------



## JohhnyC (Mar 16, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> People are always looking for excuses why they are fat, that is why. Science, history, common sense shows us why people are fat/not fat.
> 
> Surplus of calories over prolonged period of time = fat.
> 
> Deficit of calories over a prolonged period of time = weight loss, continously if remaining in a deficit.


I agree with Tommy,

I get fat because I eat too much and move too little. Its no-ones fault but mine. I'm sure there are secondary effects (like the insulin mentioned above) no question but the primary cause is often ignored. Education is good but there is no need to do a degree in Nutritional science before you start. The basic equation is sound. Eat less, exercise more, avoid the crisps, chips, cakes etc. People have to accept responsibility for their own behavior

I have a friend who blames her weight on just about everything, hormonal problems, medication, age. Maybe these do alter the bodies ability to increase fat production but the reality is she eats too much and has a thousand excuses for not going to the gym or exercises.

I even suggest she takes stairs every day instead of lift, walks instead of drives. No, knee problems :yawn:

End of the day, you want to lose weight, you can, you just don't want to badly enough. I count myself in this

I always think that being a BB (which I am not) is much harder than losing weight as there is a lot more to do than simply stop eating.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

Wheyman said:


> inulin made me lose weight fact


Inulin?

Is that some sort of OTC insulin:lol:


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

TommyBananas said:


> People are always looking for excuses why they are fat, that is why. Science, history, common sense shows us why people are fat/not fat.
> 
> Surplus of calories over prolonged period of time = fat.
> 
> Deficit of calories over a prolonged period of time = weight loss, continously if remaining in a deficit.


I don't think blaming fat for being fat is the modern way of thinking any more, for the last two decades we have gone with this, and now we have more obesity and a type 2 diabetes epidemic on our doorstep, just don't go eating too much, the issue to me is simple carbs/ sugars, there is only one hormone that stores to fat and that is insulin, this is only triggered by carbs, fats can actually help if used correctly, by lowering the glycaemic level of the meal, I have not read this report but imagine it has some good information but has been grabbed by the media and certain points have been over stated to give some kind of wow factor.

To me if we could lower the mucus we all carry and detox naturally we would find weight management easier, and also lower inflammation and thus aid our immune system, but I think this report is probably aimed at the general public, I would imagine most all on here have already tidied their diets up significantly.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

freddee said:


> I don't think blaming fat for being fat is the modern way of thinking any more, for the last two decades we have gone with this, and now we have more obesity and a type 2 diabetes epidemic on our doorstep, just don't go eating too much, the issue to me is simple carbs/ sugars, there is only one hormone that stores to fat and that is insulin, this is only triggered by carbs, fats can actually help if used correctly, by lowering the glycaemic level of the meal, I have not read this report but imagine it has some good information but has been grabbed by the media and certain points have been over stated to give some kind of wow factor.
> 
> To me if we could lower the mucus we all carry and detox naturally we would find weight management easier, and also lower inflammation and thus aid our immune system, but I think this report is probably aimed at the general public, I would imagine most all on here have already tidied their diets up significantly.


Sugar does not cause diabetes. Insulin doesn't cause people to be fat. GI index is irrelevant.

This report on the news is terrible, your post also makes no sense.


----------



## Goranchero (Mar 26, 2015)

Jalex said:


> Inulin?
> 
> Is that some sort of OTC insulin:lol:


Inulins are fermentable oligosacharides of fructose. Very good type of fiber. Chicory is packed with it, you can also get it as a supplement.


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

TommyBananas said:


> Sugar does not cause diabetes. Insulin doesn't cause people to be fat. GI index is irrelevant.
> 
> This report on the news is terrible, your post also makes no sense.


Really, that's your opinion, thanks for that, insulin is there to regulate blood sugar levels, when it is spike it comes in and takes that sugar and stores it in fat cells, if you are going to keep eating simple carbs you will desensitise yourself to insulin giving you type 2 diabetes, over a long period of time, the over production of food in modern times has made the obesity and is partly responsible for the type 2 diabetes, that is my opinion, well backed up but just my opinion...


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

freddee said:


> Really, that's your opinion, thanks for that, insulin is there to regulate blood sugar levels, when it is spike it comes in and takes that sugar and stores it in fat cells, if you are going to keep eating simple carbs you will desensitise yourself to insulin giving you type 2 diabetes, over a long period of time, the over production of food in modern times has made the obesity and is partly responsible for the type 2 diabetes, that is my opinion, well backed up but just my opinion...


That is not my opinion, that is a fact.

People get diabetes because they're overweight, not because they eat sugar. Every diabetes website themselves say that.

You don't understand insulin, you don't understand diabetes, you don't understand any of this, yet insist on giving your opinion and then telling me scientific fact is an opinion.

Tell me oh great one how simple carbs can make you store fat in a calorie deficit, I'd love to be enlightened. After-all you've said spiking insulin makes you store fat (which is *impossible*) in a deficit.

Funny how bodybuilders havee double standards though, say insulin is the enemy yet inject it so they can get jacked, you're braindead.


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

TommyBananas said:


> That is not my opinion, that is a fact.
> 
> People get diabetes because they're overweight, not because they eat sugar. Every diabetes website themselves say that.
> 
> ...


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

freddee said:


> Your just offensive I have seen posts by you insulting people before who don't quite think like you, we no longer need to debate?! further, on any subject...


Not suprised that you have response to what I said, because you're talking about someething you don't understand, so why bother in the first place?


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> That is not my opinion, that is a fact.
> 
> People get diabetes because they're overweight, not because they eat sugar. Every diabetes website themselves say that.
> 
> ...


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

What problem have you got with debating?! insulting people that don't agree with your way of thinking, I have seen this in other posts by you, calm down, and don't bother any further garble fool...


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

Jalex said:


> View attachment 171604


I just can't get my head around the potatoes on this forum.


----------



## Fbmmofo (Feb 10, 2015)

Daily fail does my head in. I'm sure gut bacteria do play a part in weight lose but it will come under the "everyone's different" disclaimer. People ( women) read this **** and then start sprouting on I can't eat sugar/ gluten/ dairy/ fruit ( wines ok) for so and so reason. As someone said above a lot of people are just looking for excuses to fail.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

freddee said:


> What problem have you got with debating?! insulting people that don't agree with your way of thinking, I have seen this in other posts by you, calm down, and don't bother any further garble fool...


I try and debate, but as we've just seen now from two replies from you, you can't debate because you don't understand the topic - you spout a paragraph of nonsense - I respond and you're lost for words.

So, here is an idea - instead of spouting nonsense, try doing research from peer-reviewed data and from the people at the top of the nutrition game in the bodybuilding world alright? Here is a few good reads for you to start:

The bitter truth about fructose alarmism. | Alan Aragon's Blog

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319


----------



## SickCurrent (Sep 19, 2005)

freddee said:


> What problem have you got with debating?! insulting people that don't agree with your way of thinking, I have seen this in other posts by you, calm down, and don't bother any further garble fool...


^^^This

Gotta laugh when fatties start proclaiming themselves as diet guru's fckn lolz


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> I just can't get my head around the potatoes on this forum.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

SickCurrent said:


> ^^^This
> 
> Gotta laugh when fatties start proclaiming themselves as diet guru's fckn lolz


I'd take offense, but you've shown this forum how you're a constant troll with nothing better to do. Just because you don't understand basic nutritional principles don't blame me.

Funny how I got to my leanest as seen on the first page of my log eating like a moron with tonnes of sugar and "simple carbs" - though, right? Could that be... because...science works? Who'd have thought.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

I'm not going to give my stance on 'IIFYM' v 'Bro' - or any other approach for that matter, having said that, I've been through them all at one stage.

But the phrase 'actions speaker louder than words' comes to mind in this case - or maybe it should be 'physiques speak louder than words' for this purpose.

It's funny how many people speak with such conviction these days, everyone's a guru. You probably wouldn't take money-making advice from a tramp, so taking diet advice from someone who has never seen anything other than 'average' conditioning at best (when they actively are pursuing body composition as a goal too) would probably be false economy.

Having an opinion is great, speaking with conviction is embarassing unless you can back it up 110% with the 'the pudding', because that's where the proof is right? 95% of these die-hard convictionists I see on here, can't do that - or even come close. :lol:

@banzi


----------



## SickCurrent (Sep 19, 2005)

TommyBananas said:


> I'd take offense, but you've shown this forum how you're a constant troll with nothing better to do. Just because you don't understand basic nutritional principles don't blame me.
> 
> Funny how I got to my leanest as seen on the first page of my log eating like a moron with tonnes of sugar and "simple carbs" - though, right? Could that be... because...science works? Who'd have thought.


You're clearly deluded if you think your anything near lean son...


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> I'm not going to give my stance on 'IIFYM' v 'Bro' - or any other approach for that matter, having said that, I've been through them all at one stage.
> 
> But the phrase 'actions speaker louder than words' comes to mind in this case - or maybe it should be 'physiques speak louder than words' for this purpose.
> 
> ...


Such a stupid way to look at things.

Alan Aragon and Lyle McDonald do not have the physiques of bodybuilders, or shredded to the bone etc.

Yet, I'd listen to them over anyone on this forum - know why? It's their job to study peer-reviewed data. They put it into practice with their clients, as does Marc Lobliner, etc.

What is embarassing is; is the fact you think you have to have a physique of a bodybuilder, or a shredded fitness model to understand basic things.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

SickCurrent said:


> You're clearly deluded if you think your anything near lean son...


I am not lean, I said I was - as seen on the first page of my log - you're one of the weirdest humans on this forum, go play with traffic, better yet, go practice some more retarded angle and lighting photos.


----------



## SickCurrent (Sep 19, 2005)

sonof2eus said:


> I'm not going to give my stance on 'IIFYM' v 'Bro' - or any other approach for that matter, having said that, I've been through them all at one stage.
> 
> But the phrase 'actions speaker louder than words' comes to mind in this case - or maybe it should be 'physiques speak louder than words' for this purpose.
> 
> ...


Repped


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Sugar does not cause diabetes.


 :lol:


----------



## SickCurrent (Sep 19, 2005)

TommyBananas said:


> I am not lean, I said I was - as seen on the first page of my log - you're one of the weirdest humans on this forum, go play with traffic, better yet, go practice some more retarded angle and lighting photos.


Rustled you jimmes much fatboy? :lol:


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

It's funny how neither of you can debate further on the subject though; instead - all you do is throw out stupid comments hehehe.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> Such a stupid way to look at things.
> 
> Alan Aragon and Lyle McDonald do not have the physiques of bodybuilders, or shredded to the bone etc.
> 
> ...


Don't make my mistake Tommy, flee now, exit the browser and come back when the potatoes have dispersed!


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

TommyBananas said:


> I just can't get my head around the potatoes on this forum.


are you implying that white potatoes should be avoided? is this because they are simple carbs and will lead to insulin spikes and weight gain?


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Such a stupid way to look at things.
> 
> Alan Aragon and Lyle McDonald do not have the physiques of bodybuilders, or shredded to the bone etc.
> 
> ...


"when they actively are pursuing body composition as a goal too". Learn to read.

That applies to you. You're fat, you've always been fat, you've never been lean. So what's your excuse? I guarantee you're one of those people where it's always "coming soon". I bet you sit and tell yourself that one day you'll shut all the opposition up by posting up pictures when you're shredded - and you've probably been telling yourself this for years, and it never happens.

You are literally the poster boy of the modern IIFYM guru/preacher. I'm not saying I'm for or against IIFYM, but people who speak with such conviction such as yourself, can't back it up themselves at all and just regurgitate information from others - it's laughable.

Shut up, get lean (sub 10%), then maybe someone will take you seriously. You're 'cutting' and have been for a while I believe, yet your progress is absolutely sh*t from what I've seen. :lol:


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> "when they actively are pursuing body composition as a goal too". Learn to read.
> 
> That applies to you. You're fat, you've always been fat, you've never been lean. So what's your excuse? I guarantee you're one of those people where it's always "coming soon". I bet you sit and tell yourself that one day you'll shut all the opposition up by posting up pictures when you're shredded - and you've probably been telling yourself this for years, and it never happens.
> 
> ...


I've never been lean? How can I take what you're saying seriously when that is untrue? lmao.

You do NOT understand basic principles of nutrition and until you DO, you can't debate with me.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

Bowtie.Boris said:


> :lol:


You might want to do research buddy, including DIABETES websites.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> I've never been lean? How can I take what you're saying seriously when that is untrue? lmao.
> 
> You do NOT understand basic principles of nutrition and until you DO, you can't debate with me.


I don't understand the principles of nutrition, based on what..? I've not given any stance on my take on nutrition. :lol:

I'm simply making a point about people like you, you're walking talking jokers. You've been sub 10%? Please do post up a picture, I've never seen that - i'd love it.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> I don't understand the principles of nutrition, based on what..? I've not given any stance on my take on nutrition. :lol:
> 
> I'm simply making a point about people like you, you're walking talking jokers. You've been sub 10%? Please do post up a picture, I've never seen that - i'd love it.


Go check my log, you can decide whatever % you think I was - it doesn't detract from the fact I was 139 lbs, looked decent and did it eating 200g of sugar a day, and eating like a moron.

You have given a stance on nutrition by trying to argue with me implying I'm wrong.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

a.notherguy said:


> are you implying that white potatoes should be avoided? is this because they are simple carbs and will lead to insulin spikes and weight gain?


das it mane


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> It's funny how neither of you can debate further on the subject though; instead - all you do is throw out stupid comments hehehe.


You keep telling people the source of cals has no effect on body composition, yet you avoid the question as to why you make the food choices you make as opposed to just eating refined sugar.

You have run away from this every time I posted it


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> You might want to do research buddy, including DIABETES websites.


Have you got a link to Youtube video I could watch?


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Go check my log, you can decide whatever % you think I was - it doesn't detract from the fact I was 139 lbs, looked decent and did it eating 200g of sugar a day, and eating like a moron.
> 
> You have given a stance on nutrition by trying to argue with me implying I'm wrong.


139 lbs? Dayum


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Go check my log, you can decide whatever % you think I was - it doesn't detract from the fact I was 139 lbs, looked decent and did it eating 200g of sugar a day, and eating like a moron.
> 
> You have given a stance on nutrition by trying to argue with me implying I'm wrong.


LOL, you're full of assumptions. You're also terrible at arguing - don't take disagreements as a personal attack.. I appreciate you're probably plagued with a degree of insecurity, hence your need to try and force your opinions on others, but have a little maturity and learn to take a step back.

I've look at your journal before, you've always been fat from what I've seen. I'll take another look incase I missed anything.


----------



## SickCurrent (Sep 19, 2005)

sonof2eus said:


> "when they actively are pursuing body composition as a goal too". Learn to read.
> 
> That applies to you. You're fat, you've always been fat, you've never been lean. So what's your excuse? I guarantee you're one of those people where it's always "coming soon". I bet you sit and tell yourself that one day you'll shut all the opposition up by posting up pictures when you're shredded - and you've probably been telling yourself this for years, and it never happens.
> 
> ...


^^^This


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> You keep telling people the source of cals has no effect on body composition, yet you avoid the question as to why you make the food choices you make as opposed to just eating refined sugar.
> 
> You have run away from this every time I posted it


No, I haven't - just your strawman take of this is retarded.

Weight loss is STILL determined by calories in vs calories out - that is NOT an opinion, that is a FACT.

We make the food choices we make, becausee sciencce shows us that below a certain number of protein, we mimize muscle loss. Below a certain level of fat, our body doesn't work efficiently.

*YOU* are the only one who says we claim or say people should just eat one macronutrient or something stupid.

The source of CARBS has no effect on bodycomposition if all other goals are met, protein, fat - as I've ALWAYS stated. You are just a little smarter than the dummies here so they think you're winning an argument by being a snake with your replies - but they don't even understand the topic.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> LOL, you're full of assumptions. You're also terrible at arguing - don't take disagreements as a personal attack.. I appreciate you're probably plagued with a degree of insecurity, hence your need to try and force your opinions on others, but have a little maturity and learn to take a step back.
> 
> I've look at your journal before, you've always been fat from what I've seen. I'll take another look incase I missed anything.


Well as I said, your replies show you know nothing based off 'taking a look at my log' - if you think I was fat at 139 lbs, then it just further proves my point. You're an idiot.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Just took a look, the 139lbs pic.. :lol: :lol:

You're 139lbs and you're still not lean.. You can barely see your abs at all in a shot which is obviously taken to be flattering. Stop speaking with such conviction, you think you looked "decent" when you had the muscle mass of a 12 year old boy and were still skinnyfat.

You 'know' so much about nutrition, you're active in applying it - yet your results completely oppose what you preach.. seems legit.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Silvaback (Jul 31, 2013)

How or why is this even debatable. It's 2015 ffs.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> No, I haven't - just your strawman take of this is retarded.
> 
> *Weight loss is STILL determined by calories in vs calories out - that is NOT an opinion, that is a FACT.*
> 
> ...


OK, cut out all fats and carbs from your diet and just eat lean protein see how that pans out, you will get Rabbit Starvation, regrdless of how many calories you take in.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Just took a look, the 139lbs pic.. :lol: :lol:
> 
> You're 139lbs and you're still not lean.. You can barely see your abs at all in a shot which is obviously taken to be flattering. Stop speaking with such conviction, you think you looked "decent" when you had the muscle mass of a 12 year old boy and were still skinnyfat.
> 
> ...


Hilarious, lol still not lean - Its obvious you have a personal vendetta here, but whatever - it wouldn't matter if I was 30% bodyfat, what I'm saying is still true.

Those pictures are from 2012/2013 - my results are not based off what I preach, as I had no interest in being lean so what is your point? You still haven't managed to come up with any form of useful debate.

Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald - neither of them are strong, look like bodybuilders - yet smarter than You, I and anyone on this forum at these subjects, so what now? Professional bodybuilders USE the information from these people, because as I said - science, bitch.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> OK, cut out all fats and carbs from your diet and just eat lean protein see how that pans out, you will get Rabbit Starvation, regrdless of how many calories you take in.


No-one would do this. Calories in vs calories out is the law of thermodynamics, not the opinion of thermodynamics.

You are an idiot.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> No, I haven't - just your strawman take of this is retarded.
> 
> Weight loss is STILL determined by calories in vs calories out - that is NOT an opinion, that is a FACT.
> 
> ...


so why do you eat rice and other complex carbs, you could just eat sugary carbs all day, surely better than boring rice.

Try again.


----------



## Silvaback (Jul 31, 2013)

banzi said:


> so why do you eat rice and other complex carbs, you could just eat sugary carbs all day, surely better than boring rice.
> 
> Try again.


Fibre dumbass.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> so why do you eat rice and other complex carbs, you could just eat sugary carbs all day, surely better than boring rice.
> 
> Try again.


Because rice has a better macronutrient composition than Haribo. I just drank 56g of sugar in a can of monster, because it fits my daily goals.

You are once again arguing something you don't understand. I can't HIT my macros if I just ate sugary carbs all day, because my calories would be used up unevenly.

OH, and that other thing I've always mentioned "micronutrients"?


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

Silvaback said:


> How or why is this even debatable. It's 2015 ffs.


Ignorance and uneducated, an unfortunate mix!


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> No-one would do this. Calories in vs calories out is the law of thermodynamics, not the opinion of thermodynamics.
> 
> You are an idiot.


It shows you that the laws dont work in that case.

Stop being silly, you could eat 10,000 cals of lean protein and still wouldnt gain weight, in fact you would die as the body cannot absorb the nurtrients.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Hilarious, lol still not lean - Its obvious you have a personal vendetta here, but whatever - it wouldn't matter if I was 30% bodyfat, what I'm saying is still true.
> 
> Those pictures are from 2012/2013 - my results are not based off what I preach, as I had no interest in being lean so what is your point? You still haven't managed to come up with any form of useful debate.
> 
> Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald - neither of them are strong, look like bodybuilders - yet smarter than You, I and anyone on this forum at these subjects, so what now? Professional bodybuilders USE the information from these people, because as I said - science, bitch.


Lolz, the life of a parrot.

Okay, so just answer me this, why do you look like sh*t? You've never looked good, your peak physique was 139lbs.. :lol: I'm not saying your principles are right or wrong. But why do you look like sh*t?

You know everything you need to know to get optimum results, you're actively pursuing body composition as a goal and evidently have been for some time, but you look like sh*t.

Why? Please do enlighten me. What's your excuse? It seems you have all of the knowledge you need.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> *Because rice has a better macronutrient composition than Haribo*. I just drank 56g of sugar in a can of monster, because it fits my daily goals.
> 
> You are once again arguing something you don't understand. I can't HIT my macros if I just ate sugary carbs all day, because my calories would be used up unevenly.
> 
> OH, and that other thing I've always mentioned "micronutrients"?


and what does the better marcro nutrient content matter, ceratinly doesnt effect body composition according to you.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> It shows you that the laws dont work in that case.
> 
> Stop being silly, you could eat 10,000 cals of lean protein and still wouldnt gain weight, in fact you would die as the body cannot absorb the nurtrients.


Then you should research the law of thermodynamics.

I'll leave it to Avi Bitterman, as he said it best.

"Actually calories in calories out IS the correct explanation for ALL humans at ALL points in history. To suggest otherwise is to suggest the laws of physics doesn't or didn't apply."

Avi Bitterman


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Hilarious, lol still not lean - Its obvious you have a personal vendetta here, but whatever - it wouldn't matter if I was 30% bodyfat, what I'm saying is still true.
> 
> Those pictures are from 2012/2013 - my results are not based off what I preach, as I had no interest in being lean so what is your point? You still haven't managed to come up with any form of useful debate.
> 
> Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald - neither of them are strong, look like bodybuilders - yet smarter than You, I and anyone on this forum at these subjects, so what now? Professional bodybuilders USE the information from these people, because as I said - science, bitch.


Alan looks decent tbf


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> and what does the better marcro nutrient content matter, ceratinly doesnt effect body composition according to you.


Because rice has protein, fiber - sugar doesn't have protein in it - so therefor the content matters or I wouldn't hit my macros.

Calorie In VS Calorie Out - Andrew Morgan

Written by Andy Morgan and shared by lots of top elite lifters and coaches this past week 

Perhaps this will make you understand, well I know you already do you just want a lively discussion on the forum for fun; but maybe if you read it you'll learn anyways.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Silvaback said:


> Fibre dumbass.


So fibrous carbs are better?

Thank you, now tell Tommy, he keeps saying the carbs source doesnt matter not me.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

BrahmaBull said:


> Alan looks decent tbf


Well yeah, he looks decent but hes not diced or anything. They aren't 'bodybuilders' as the way people would describe here.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> So fibrous carbs are better?
> 
> Thank you, now tell Tommy, he keeps saying the carbs source doesnt matter not me.


Silvaback and I share the same opinion - you're removing context to try win an argument with the potato army of UKM lol.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Lolz, the life of a parrot.
> 
> Okay, so just answer me this, why do you look like sh*t? You've never looked good, your peak physique was 139lbs.. :lol: I'm not saying your principles are right or wrong. But why do you look like sh*t?
> 
> ...


So if someone starts lifting and becomes so knowledgeable in his first 6 months of lifting that he is in the top 1% on nutrition, human physiology, bio-mechanics, training principles, AAS - he should be disregarded because of his physique.

Is he meant to magically wake up from 160lbs 15%bf to 220lbs 7% bf because he is knowledgeable?

Or should we ignore him until he has had 5+ years of lifting and drug use and built an amazing physique (even though his advice will be no different to when he was a soaking wet scrub - knowledge is knowledge and fact is fact).


----------



## Prince Adam (Mar 17, 2012)




----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> Then you should research the law of thermodynamics.
> 
> I'll leave it to Avi Bitterman, as he said it best.
> 
> ...


I dont need to read something that I know is wrong, its you who needs to work out why eating 1000s of cals of lean protein doesnt stop you dying.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> I dont need to read something that I know is wrong, its you who needs to work out why eating 1000s of cals of lean protein doesnt stop you dying.


Eating 1000's of lean protein would not provide you with the macronutrients and micronutrients our body needs for surivival.

Strawman.

But yeah, read the quote, and article and then suck it up oldman.

I'm glad you think scientific fact is wrong though, very intelligent, lol.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> Silvaback and I share the same opinion - you're removing context to try win an argument with the potato army of UKM lol.


Its odd that the potato army are the only ones who dont resemble potatoes.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Jalex said:


> So if someone starts lifting and becomes so knowledgeable in his first 6 months of lifting that he is in the top 1% on nutrition, human physiology, bio-mechanics, training principles, AAS - he should be disregarded because of his physique.
> 
> Is he meant to magically wake up from 160lbs 15%bf to 220lbs 7% bf because he is knowledgeable?


Tommy has been training 6 months? No..

With all his knowledge, he should be attaining the most optimum/best results possible in the given time - he certainly hasn't done that. His results are sh*t..


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Tommy has been training 6 months? No..
> 
> With all his knowledge, he should be attaining the most optimum/best results possible in the given time - he certainly hasn't done that. His results are sh*t..


Could you tell me what optimal results and best results are that I am aiming for?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> Eating 1000's of lean protein would not provide you with the macronutrients and micronutrients our body needs for surivival.
> 
> Strawman.
> 
> ...


Can you find me an example of macro and micro nutrients having anything to do with the law of thermodynamics?


----------



## Silvaback (Jul 31, 2013)

banzi said:


> So fibrous carbs are better?
> 
> Thank you, now tell Tommy, he keeps saying the carbs source doesnt matter not me.


The carb source doesn't matter, he's right.

I eat "some" fibrous carbs for digestion reasons, other than that it's refined foods all round.

I'm not fat either so put that card back in your pocket


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Tommy has been training 6 months? No..
> 
> With all his knowledge, he should be attaining the most optimum/best results possible in the given time - he certainly hasn't done that. His results are sh*t..


Regardless of Tommy's results, having knowledge and applying it to yourself are two different things.

He could easily give the most optimal knowledge to someone, but be lazy himself and not follow it despite knowing it's optimal (which is not the case, but perhaps there's a chance you will understand my point).


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> Can you find me an example of macro and micro nutrients having anything to do with the law of thermodynamics?


It doesn't.

But if you eat 10k calories of anything, you'll gain weight if your maintenance is less.

If you eat 800 calories of anything, you'll lose weight if your maintenance is more.

t h e r m o d y n a m i c s - you are not smarter than science, banzi, you're just a delusional man


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

Off to play GTA5, and phook some people up.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> It doesn't.
> 
> But if you eat 10k calories of anything, you'll gain weight if your maintenance is less.
> 
> ...


It doesnt??????? lol, why use it as an explanation for rabbit starvation then?

And eating 10,000 cals of lean protein only will not allow you to gain weight, even you know that, stop writing it down


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

You'll lose WEIGHT in a deficit. WEIGHT. You lost a lot of WEIGHT before Tommy, but you still had a lot more FAT to lose and absolutely no LEAN mass to speak of - and you were 139lbs..

But nutrient intake has 0 effect on body composition.. (Lean Mass v Fat) etc. :lol:

Still haven't answered my question Tommy, why do you look like sh*t with all this knowledge when you're actively trying to apply it?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Silvaback said:


> The carb source doesn't matter, he's right.
> 
> I eat "some" fibrous carbs for digestion reasons, other than that it's refined foods all round.
> 
> I'm not fat either so put that card back in your pocket


post a photo of you at 5% bf


----------



## SickCurrent (Sep 19, 2005)

TommyBananas said:


> Off to play GTA5, and phook some people up.


Try this one then K


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Jalex said:


> Regardless of Tommy's results, having knowledge and applying it to yourself are two different things.
> 
> He could easily give the most optimal knowledge to someone, but be lazy himself and not follow it despite knowing it's optimal (which is not the case, but perhaps there's a chance you will understand my point).


I totallly appreciate that, I've never once debated that. Read my posts and you'll see that.

But Tommy would seem to be actively applying it, and his results don't correlate to his hypothesis. I'm simply asking why. He can't seem to answer that.. :lol:


----------



## Silvaback (Jul 31, 2013)

banzi said:


> post a photo of you at 5% bf


Lmao because anyone over 5% is fat.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Silvaback said:


> Lmao because anyone over 5% is fat.


Post a photo of you sub-10%?


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> I totallly appreciate that, I've never once debated that. Read my posts and you'll see that.
> 
> But Tommy would seem to be actively applying it, and his results don't correlate to his hypothesis. I'm simply asking why. He can't seem to answer that.. :lol:


Indeed - but is that not a different question/topic altogether?

Rather that question the "hypothesis" (which, for the record, Tommy is 100% correct about - science is science and thermodynamics are fact that applies to every human being). Your point/argument/question should be why, *in your opinion*, Tommy is not seeing "optimal results" - this has nothing to do proving that factual advice/evidence is not correct.

p.s. just to point out, I follow Tommy's log and he's making good progress from what I see (or perhaps thats the andadrol :thumb: )


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

banzi said:


> Its odd that the potato army are the only ones who dont resemble potatoes.


they bloody do!


----------



## Silvaback (Jul 31, 2013)

sonof2eus said:


> Post a photo of you sub-10%?












No 10% but I am in a surplus soo... :lol:


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Jalex said:


> Indeed - but is that not a different question/topic altogether?
> 
> Rather that question the "hypothesis" (which, for the record, Tommy is 100% correct about - science is science and thermodynamics are fact that applies to every human being). Your point/argument/question should be why, *in your opinion*, Tommy is not seeing "optimal results" - this has nothing to do proving that factual advice/evidence is not correct.
> 
> p.s. just to point out, I follow Tommy's log and he's making good progress.


My issue is Tommy speaking with such conviction, when in reality, he's just an overweight parrot with a degree of insecurity which results in him needing to try and create a sense of self-worth by seeking the approval of others.

Whether Banzi is right or wrong, his evidence backs up his hypothesis. Whether tommy is right or wrong, his evidence does not back up his hypothesis.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but when people speak with such conviction - you better be able to back it up. Tommy can't. He's fat, he'll always be fat, period.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Silvaback said:


> No 10% but I am in a surplus soo... :lol:


That's not sub-10%. I didn't say it had to be recent, I just said sub-10%. Lol.


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

sonof2eus said:


> My issue is Tommy speaking with such conviction, when in reality, he's just an overweight parrot with a degree of insecurity which results in him needing to try and create a sense of self-worth by seeking the approval of others.
> 
> Whether Banzi is right or wrong, his evidence backs up his hypothesis. Whether tommy is right or wrong, his evidence backs up his hypothesis.
> 
> Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but when people speak with such conviction - you better be able to back it up. Tommy can't. He's fat, he'll always be fat, period.


?


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Kloob said:


> ?


Evidently a typo, which I've correct as you quoted me. Herp derp.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> My issue is Tommy speaking with such conviction, when in reality, he's just an overweight parrot with a degree of insecurity which results in him needing to try and create a sense of self-worth by seeking the approval of others.
> 
> Whether *Banzi is* right or *wrong*, his evidence backs up his hypothesis. Whether tommy is right or wrong, his evidence does not back up his hypothesis.
> 
> Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but when people speak with such conviction - you better be able to back it up. Tommy can't. He's fat, he'll always be fat, period.


 :lol:


----------



## Silvaback (Jul 31, 2013)

sonof2eus said:


> That's not sub-10%. I didn't say it had to be recent, I just said sub-10%. Lol.


After I've prepped I'll post a new one just for you sweetie.. And I'll be doing it through flexible dieting but I'm sure you know Soo much more than my coach LMFBO!


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

sonof2eus said:


> Evidently a typo, which I've correct as you quoted me. Herp derp.


I'm impartial here and both sides have good points; that and I cant be hooped getting dragged into an internet forum argument.

Banzi is in great shape, no doubt about that; and what he speaks is true. However, Tommy also speaks truth and although he may not be in the condition that Banzi is in; the studies etc. (that I've seen) he posts still back up his point considerably.

Surely there comes a point in this ongoing discussion where both parties need to understand each others point or just agree to disagree.


----------



## Silvaback (Jul 31, 2013)

Tommy hasn't done anywhere near the amount of gear Banzi has either. Probably worth a mention..


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

I love how not once have I given my stance on nutrition, yet everyone has presumed I'm disagreeing with the principles of IIFYM.

There's a lot of idiots on this forum. :lol:

I simply want to know why Tommy is fat? He speaks with such conviction, has all the knowledge he requires, yet can't attain a decent physique. I'm baffled.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Silvaback said:


> Tommy hasn't done anywhere near the amount of gear Banzi has either. Probably worth a mention..


I'd bet my paycheck that Banzi had a better physique WITHOUT peds to Tommy's physique WITH peds. Lolz.


----------



## Silvaback (Jul 31, 2013)

sonof2eus said:


> I'd bet my paycheck that Banzi had a better physique WITHOUT peds to Tommy's physique WITH peds. Lolz.


With his 50 year old balls, doubt it.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

sonof2eus said:


> That's not sub-10%. I didn't say it had to be recent, I just said sub-10%. Lol.


Have you got any pics?

I'd take his advice based on his condition but maybe you will blow me out the water much more


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Silvaback said:


> With his 50 year old balls, doubt it.


Tommy will still look like sh*t at 50, probably even worse than he does now. Fattys gonna fat.



BrahmaBull said:


> Have you got any pics?
> 
> I'd take his advice based on his condition but maybe you will blow me out the water much more


My advice? What advice? Oh look, another idiot who reads posts as they want to, not for what they actually say..

Please do tell me where I gave any advice on nutrition or my stance? :lol:


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

sonof2eus said:


> Tommy will still look like sh*t at 50, probably even worse than he does now. Fattys gonna fat.
> 
> My advice? What advice? Oh look, another idiot who reads posts as they want to, not for what they actually say..
> 
> Please do tell me where I gave any advice on nutrition or my stance?


Where did I mention your advice. I asked for your pics.

Try harder troll.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

Silvaback said:


> Tommy hasn't done anywhere near the amount of gear Banzi has either. Probably worth a mention..


Or length of training. few years vs 30.

Makes a hella difference


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> I'd bet my paycheck that Banzi had a better physique WITHOUT peds to Tommy's physique WITH peds. Lolz.


 @banzi

Think you should delete this second account before mods suss you out :lol:


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

BrahmaBull said:


> Where did I mention your advice. I asked for your pics.
> 
> Try harder troll.


Where are your pictures? 'Team Bring It' :lol:


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

sonof2eus said:


> Where are your pictures? 'Team Bring It'


I'm not knocking people's condition and I openly look like chit haha

You must look pretty good tho the way your speaking about people in here..


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Although you just said you'd take his advice based on his condition, so to you, you'd take the advice based on someones results.

Well Banzi looks far superior to him, so maybe you should take Banzi's advice?

Tommy looks like a fat tub of lard, so you probably shouldn't take his advice.

Or do you just take the advice of people when it lines up with what you want to hear? :lol:

Sheep..


----------



## Fbmmofo (Feb 10, 2015)

Does Tommy not train for powerlifting? Not saying it's an excuse to be fat but certainly no need to be sub 10% ( unless your at elite levels in a weight class).

For what it's worth, for me I'd prefer evidence of previous clients getting in the shape I wanted. What the coach looked like would be down the list of priorities.


----------



## Fbmmofo (Feb 10, 2015)

Does Tommy not train for powerlifting? Not saying it's an excuse to be fat but certainly no need to be sub 10% ( unless your at elite levels in a weight class).

For what it's worth, for me I'd prefer evidence of previous clients getting in the shape I wanted. What the coach looked like would be down the list of priorities.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

BrahmaBull said:


> I'm not knocking people's condition and I openly look like chit haha
> 
> You must look pretty good tho the way your speaking about people in here..


Who's to say that..? A fat person can tell if another person is fat, a poor man can call another man poor.. :lol: (inb4 you then make ANOTHER assumption based on this post.)


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

sonof2eus said:


> Although you just said you'd take his advice based on his condition, so to you, you'd take the advice based on someones results.
> 
> Well Banzi looks far superior to him, so maybe you should take Banzi's advice?
> 
> ...


When are we going to hear your own opinions rather than trying to be some smart cvnt.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

BrahmaBull said:


> When are we going to hear your own opinions rather than trying to be some smart cvnt.


Do you care for my opinion? If so, why?


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

sonof2eus said:


> Do you care for my opinion? If so, why?


Yes I do, you might have something amazing to bring to all this rather than just stirring your wooden spoon


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

sonof2eus said:


> Although you just said you'd take his advice based on his condition, so to you, you'd take the advice based on someones results.
> 
> Well Banzi looks far superior to him, so maybe you should take Banzi's advice?
> 
> ...


Out of interest, what are your views on the nutritional arguments within this thread?

you've been quick enough to shoot everyone apart from Banzi in this without saying very much. But I suppose it must be hard to talk with Banzi's d*ck in your mouth :lol:


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)




----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

sonof2eus said:


> Who's to say that..? A fat person can tell if another person is fat, a poor man can call another man poor..  (inb4 you then make ANOTHER assumption based on this post.)


And a fat person can have a wide knowledge on cutting?


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Kloob said:


> Out of interest, what are your views on the notional argument within this thread?
> 
> you've been quick enough to shoot everyone apart from Banzi in this without saying very much. But I suppose it must be hard to talk with Banzi's d*ck in your mouth


Not to mention having the exact same take you round in circles posting style


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Kloob said:


> Out of interest, what are your views on the notional argument within this thread?
> 
> you've been quick enough to shoot everyone apart from Banzi in this without saying very much. But I suppose it must be hard to talk with Banzi's d*ck in your mouth :lol:


Simply because Banzi can back his opinion/methodology up.

Tommy is fat, yet knows it all. Jalex knows it all, yet none of us have seen him (oh, he fits perfectly into what I described earlier, the 'one day I'll post pictures and shut them up' crew.)

That's not me giving a stance on dieting, nutrition or science. That's me backing up my point that if you're going to speak with conviction, have results to back it up.

Banzi does. Tommy doesn't.

This doesn't just apply to fitness, this is life. Too many self-proclaimed experts with no results. Fitness, business, relationships, whatever. People need to learn to drop conviction. Have an opinion, a methodology you follow and by all means share it with others - but don't treat it as final.

Science proves nothing, ever. Science gives evidence to SUGGEST what is 'true'. Fact. We live in a world of contradiction, what's "correct" today will be proven "incorrect" in the future in some form.

This is my point. Simples.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Simply because Banzi can back his opinion/methodology up.
> 
> Tommy is fat, yet knows it all. Jalex knows it all, yet none of us have seen him (oh, he fits perfectly into what I described earlier, the 'one day I'll post pictures and shut them up' crew.)
> 
> ...


banzis anecdote proves nothing ever in that case too.

I'll take science which iss producing results based off the evidence we have over anecdote tho, thanks for the useless debatee though, your points are retarded, lol.

Funny how you're so quick to defend anecdote, yet you have that opinion above of science, LOL.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> banzis anecdote proves nothing ever in that case too.
> 
> I'll take science which iss producing results based off the evidence we have over anecdote tho, thanks for the useless debatee though, your points are retarded, lol.


Why are you fat? You still haven't answered that.

You have all the information you need, you've had enough time to apply this already to achieve a greater result, you're actively applying it apparently, yet the results don't match the hypothesis.

Why? Do you have an eating disorder? Can you not adhere to a diet? Why are you fat Tommy, why?


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> banzis anecdote proves nothing ever in that case too.
> 
> I'll take science which iss producing results based off the evidence we have over anecdote tho, thanks for the useless debatee though, your points are retarded, lol.


Your debating with someone who doesn't even have his own opinion. Not exactly sure what his motivation in here is lol


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Why are you fat? You still haven't answered that.
> 
> You have all the information you need, you've had enough time to apply this already to achieve a greater result, you're actively applying it apparently, yet the results don't match the hypothesis.
> 
> Why? Do you have an eating disorder? Can you not adhere to a diet? Why are you fat Tommy, why?


Why am I fat? Because I'm not entirely interested in being lean, and if you saw my log, you'd have seen that, but instead you're on a one track weird crusade, because you're a strange individual. I can tell you're not in shape either from your posts too, obvious.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

BrahmaBull said:


> Your debating with someone who doesn't even have his own opinion. Not exactly sure what his motivation in here is lol


d1ck in mouth syndrome tbh


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Simply because Banzi can back his opinion/methodology up.
> 
> Tommy is fat, yet knows it all. *Jalex knows it all, yet none of us have seen him (oh, he fits perfectly into what I described earlier, the 'one day I'll post pictures and shut them up' crew*.)
> 
> ...


I do not know it all, just more than some.

Damn, should I feel weird about lots of guys basically demanding pictures of my body...? Tbh, feels quite good - no **** ofc.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Why am I fat? Because I'm not entirely interested in being lean, and if you saw my log, you'd have seen that, but instead you're on a one track weird crusade, because you're a strange individual. I can tell you're not in shape either from your posts too, obvious.


Can you? :lol: You really are deluded - and fat. A bit of a loser as a whole, I'd say.


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

sonof2eus said:


> Simply because Banzi can back his opinion/methodology up.
> 
> Tommy is fat, yet knows it all. Jalex knows it all, yet none of us have seen him (oh, he fits perfectly into what I described earlier, the 'one day I'll post pictures and shut them up' crew.)
> 
> ...


I agree with your point in a lot of ways.

However, you have been very quick to shoot down Tommy, Jalex etc in this thread and their views on nutrition because they are not in the condition that Banzi is in. You have dismissed their opinions and points. You may not have given your opinion or stance on dieting, nutrition and science but you have dismissed there's and claim them to be know it alls and gurus. And we have not seen a picture of you. So as per your point of 'Tommy giving advice when he's fat,' in the same breath; why should you be allowed to dismiss anyone's opinion when you could be a fat jabba the hut mofo or a 50KG little boy?

Knowledge and applying it are two different things. People have knowledge and do not apply it every single day in every walk of life. There are thousands of examples of this. and yes, I agree that people need to back it up. But that back up does not necessarily need to come from applying that knowledge yourself. Yes, Banzi has a wealth of knowledge and should be listened to and respected because he is in great shape. However, if Tommy is posting evidence in the form of peer reviewed studies to back up a point then this should also be respected as it holds weight.

I agree with your opinion a lot, but at the same time I feel you need to be slightly open minded in some aspects.

Oh, and Science proves plenty. It gives evidence to suggest what is true, yes. And things will change as we go through time and technologies advance etc. That is true. But there are still plenty of facts proven by science that will always be true.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Can you? :lol: You really are deluded - and fat. A bit of a loser as a whole, I'd say.


You have a two month old account, with a clear agenda. I'm not worried what you think lol.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

"I can tell you're not in shape just from your posts."

:lol: That is brilliant. To be able to make such an idiotic comment, just goes to show what a uneducated, idiotic individual you are Tommy. That LITERALLY sums you up. :lol: :lol:

Go and binge on some BBQ food, fatty.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> "I can tell you're not in shape just from your posts."
> 
> :lol: That is brilliant. To be able to make such an idiotic comment, just goes to show what a uneducated, idiotic individual you are Tommy. That LITERALLY sums you up. :lol: :lol:
> 
> Go and binge on some BBQ food, fatty.


Well, you've been asked to provide pictures, you haven't.. care to prove us wrong or? Not that it matterss to me, I couldn't care any less what you look like - still doesn't make a difference that I'm right about the stuff I've posted, lol.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Well, you've been asked to provide pictures, you haven't.. care to prove us wrong or? Not that it matterss to me, I couldn't care any less what you look like - still doesn't make a difference that *I'm right *about the stuff I've posted, lol.


So much conviction.

You're still fat. A know it all with no results. Oh, what is wrong with society these days. 

I think you should change your name to 'TommyBanoffee'. Boing, Boing. :bounce:


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Silvaback said:


> Tommy hasn't done anywhere near the amount of gear Banzi has either. Probably worth a mention..


a blast for me is 450mgs

I dont take a lot of gear, I even competed at the NABBA Britain on 750mgs test and nothing else.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> So much conviction.
> 
> You're still fat. A know it all with no results. Oh, what is wrong with society these days.
> 
> I think you should change your name to 'TommyBanoffee'. Boing, Boing. :bounce:


All you've done is personally insult me, and not been able to try and debate my points or prove me wrong (you can't) so anyone with even half a brain cell will read your posts and realise you're full of sh1t.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

sonof2eus said:


> So much conviction.
> 
> You're still fat. A know it all with no results. Oh, what is wrong with society these days.
> 
> I think you should change your name to 'TommyBanoffee'. Boing, Boing. :bounce:


Nearly as bad as faceless keyboard warriors


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Maybe one day there will be bodybuilding competition called 'Mr Conviction', and all the know it alls get a chance to step up on stage and convince the judges how good 'they could look' - when they fix their eating disorders, or start applying their advice, or whatever there reason is for having all the answers, yet absolutely no results.

Until then, bodybuilding will be judged on how you look. I think Banzi wins in this thread.

Trololololol.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> A blast for me is 2g of coke and a bunch of hookers. I even competed in a 4 hours orgy on 40mg cialis and nothing else.


Sounds about right.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Jalex said:


> Sounds about right.


Sounds like a blast to me


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> All you've done is personally insult me, and not been able to try and debate my points or prove me wrong (you can't) so anyone with even half a brain cell will read your posts and realise you're full of sh1t.


I've never said I disagree with the scientific argument you're making. So why would I be trying to disprove it.

I'm simply asking why your physique is so awful, yet you're actively applying your knowledge. Whether you're chasing a shredded physique or not, you're actively cutting, and from what I've seen - your results have been f*cking sub-par to say the least. :lol:


----------



## TheScam (Apr 30, 2013)

sonof2eus said:


> So much conviction.
> 
> You're still fat. A know it all with no results. Oh, what is wrong with society these days.
> 
> I think you should change your name to 'TommyBanoffee'. Boing, Boing. :bounce:


It's easy for someone who wont post a picture to call someone else fat though. Clearly trolling, and you call Tommy a loser?


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Maybe one day there will be bodybuilding competition called 'Mr Conviction', and all the know it alls get a chance to step up on stage and convince the judges how good 'they could look' - when they fix their eating disorders, or start applying their advice, or whatever there reason is for having all the answers, yet absolutely no results.
> 
> Until then, bodybuilding will be judged on how you look. I think Banzi wins in this thread.
> 
> Trololololol.


I'm not a bodybuilder. Neither is Alan Aragon or Lyle McDonald..

But I tell you who is:

Layne Norton - he's in better shape than banzi, you, me, and is more accomplished in bbing and pling than any of us. He follows the same methods I do, peace.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> I've never said I disagree with the scientific argument you're making. So why would I be trying to disprove it.
> 
> I'm simply asking why your physique is so awful, yet you're actively applying your knowledge. Whether you're chasing a shredded physique or not, you're actively cutting, and from what I've seen - your results have been f*cking sub-par to say the least.  :lol:


My results don't matter - what I'm saying in this thread matters to the discussion, just because you don't like me doesn't make what I'm saying untrue.


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

sonof2eus said:


> I've never said I disagree with the scientific argument you're making. So why would I be trying to disprove it.
> 
> I'm simply asking why your physique is so awful, yet you're actively applying your knowledge. Whether you're chasing a shredded physique or not, you're actively cutting, and from what I've seen - your results have been f*cking sub-par to say the least. :lol:


As stated in my last post. If you're going to slate peoples physiques then please post a picture of your own progress and physique.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Scammell29 said:


> It's easy for someone who wont post a picture to call someone else fat though. Clearly trolling, and you call Tommy a loser?


Wat? I could be 50% bodyfat, I could be 5% bodyfat... That makes no difference to Tommy's composition - and Tommy is fat. :lol:


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Wat? I could be 50% bodyfat, I could be 5% bodyfat... That makes no difference to Tommy's composition - and Tommy is fat. :lol:


So you've stated a few things:

You don't disagree with what I'm saying - but you will just personally attack me anyway? lmao.

You're such a weird guy, man.


----------



## Silvaback (Jul 31, 2013)

banzi said:


> a blast for me is 450mgs
> 
> I dont take a lot of gear, I even competed at the NABBA Britain on 750mgs test and nothing else.


I'm talking about over the years

You don't need to tell me your dosage, you randomly pm'd it me a while a go.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> I'm not a bodybuilder. Neither is Alan Aragon or Lyle McDonald..
> 
> But I tell you who is:
> 
> *Layne Norton - he's in better shape than banzi, you, me,* and is more accomplished in bbing and pling than any of us. He follows the same methods I do, peace.


No he isnt, I will wager I am in far better condition year round that he is, Im 50 years old FFS he is meant to be one of the best natty bodybuilders/powerlifters in the world.

I own him on a year round basis.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> My results don't matter - what I'm saying in this thread matters to the discussion, just because you don't like me doesn't make what I'm saying untrue.


Evidently they don't matter to you, because you're "cutting" but not really getting anywhere fast. You seem to be more tied up in getting the approval of others, than actually achieving anything in life. :lol:

Insecure/10.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> No he isnt, I will wager I am in far better condition year round that he is, Im 50 years old FFS he is meant to be one of the best natty bodybuilders/powerlifters in the world.
> 
> I own him on a year round basis.


What does it matterr if you're in better condition YEAR round? He has BEEN in better condition you havee ever been in and actually achieved things in both "sports".


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Silvaback said:


> I'm talking about over the years
> 
> You don't need to tell me your dosage, you randomly pm'd it me a while a go.


I havent been taking gear all these years, I competed in the 90s and didnt use anything from 96 to 2012


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Misc must be slow today


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Evidently they don't matter to you, because you're "cutting" but not really getting anywhere fast. You seem to be more tied up in getting the approval of others, than actually achieving anything in life. :lol:
> 
> Insecure/10.


You realise all you've done is make yourself look stupid thee entire timee you've posted?

If I wanted approval of others, why would I stand up for my poiints which differ than most of the other users of this forum? So so dumb.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> So you've stated a few things:
> 
> You don't disagree with what I'm saying - but you will just personally attack me anyway? lmao.
> 
> You're such a weird guy, man.


Layne Norton can back up what he preaches. You're just another nut hugger. If anyone's riding d*cks, it's you. You have all this knowledge, go and apply and achieve something yourself.

Riding off someone else's success almost, what a sad life. :lol:

Having knowledge is one thing, applying it is another. Plenty of people can read self-help books, and plenty do. Most don't apply the knowledge, so make absolutely no progress in their own life. Yet preach to other people on what they should do. The age of neediness and insecurity.

Go and lose weight, fatboy. Stop talking, start doing.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> What does it matterr if you're in better condition YEAR round? He has BEEN in better condition you havee ever been in and actually achieved things in both "sports".


How he achieved that condition can be taken with a pinch of salt.

And you know why that is.

We have been over it before.


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

sonof2eus said:


> Layne Norton can back up what he preaches. You're just another nut hugger. If anyone's riding d*cks, it's you. You have all this knowledge, go and apply and achieve something yourself.
> 
> Riding off someone else's success almost, what a sad life. :lol:
> 
> ...


Pic or STFU


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

banzi said:


> How he achieved that condition can be taken with a pinch of salt.
> 
> And you know why that is.
> 
> We have been over it before.


Layne Norton is as natty as Simeon Panda. Lolz.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Layne Norton can back up what he preaches. You're just another nut hugger. If anyone's riding d*cks, it's you. You have all this knowledge, go and apply and achieve something yourself.
> 
> Riding off someone else's success almost, what a sad life. :lol:
> 
> ...


I can tell you with one simple sentence why your argument is so flawed.

Coaches in pretty much every walk/sport in life - are not better than the people they coach - however, they are smart and know exactly what needs to be done. As I've said, you've managed to make yourself look really stupid, lol.

Ironic that you call me a nuthugger too when you're sat in the same thread as banzi sucking his d1ck, hehe.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

As per Tommys links, I am now an expert in Quantum Mechanics


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> How he achieved that condition can be taken with a pinch of salt.
> 
> And you know why that is.
> 
> We have been over it before.


He achieved that condition the same way anyone who follows Flexible Dieting would, and this is why he has videos on contest prep, and preps his clients this way too.

As does John Moreira, and Marc Lobliner, now just because you don't want to believe that, fine. I can just say the same about the way you prep, or the way "xxx" bodybuilder preps.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)




----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> I can tell you with one simple sentence why your argument is so flawed.
> 
> Coaches in pretty much every walk/sport in life - are not better than the people they coach - however, they are smart and know exactly what needs to be done. As I've said, you've managed to make yourself look really stupid, lol.


You're actively applying it to yourself, that does not excuse you for getting sh*t result because you're some sort of self-proclaimed coach. :lol:

You dumb f*ck.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> You're actively applying it to yourself, that does not excuse you for getting sh*t result because you're some sort of self-proclaimed coach. :lol:
> 
> You dumb f*ck.


Nice reply, once again - you get destroyed with a response and personally insult me huehuehuehue.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)




----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

How do we really know banzi got stage ready eating bro foods? Bet he was living off crunchy nut and just wants to make rest of us suffer.

Same logic as we can't know how Layne etc really prep isn't it?


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:
 

> Nice reply, once again - you get destroyed with a response and personally insult me huehuehuehue.


You're still fat though, you know it, I know it. But it's okay, because you're a "coach", so actively applying your methods yet not getting the desired result then becomes okay.

:lol:


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> View attachment 171616


I'm glad I mean so much to you, to make memes from pictures from my log, and still think I'm fat in those pictures, so what isn't fat to you? Out of interest


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> *He achieved that condition the same way anyone who follows Flexible Dieting would*, and this is why he has videos on contest prep, and preps his clients this way too.
> 
> As does John Moreira, and Marc Lobliner, now just because you don't want to believe that, fine. I can just say the same about the way you prep, or the way "xxx" bodybuilder preps.


You obviously didnt get it the first time we spoke about it.

He CLAIMS he uses flexible dieting because it sells to numbnuts like yourself who cant diet hard enough to get in shape, how many more of Laynes clients look like him?

If he said it was hard to get in that shape and only a strong minded person could achieve it no one would buy it.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

banzi said:


> You obviously didnt get it the first time we spoke about it.
> 
> He CLAIMS he uses flexible dieting because it sells to numbnuts like yourself who cant diet hard enough to get in shape, how many more of Laynes clients look like him?
> 
> If he said it was hard to get in that shape and only a strong minded person could achieve it no one would buy it.


But Phil Heath told me that Celltech Hardcore was the secret to the gainz.

Why would he lie? It's not like he makes a living from it. Oh w8.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> You obviously didnt get it the first time we spoke about it.
> 
> He CLAIMS he uses flexible dieting because it sells to numbnuts like yourself who cant diet hard enough to get in shape, how many more of Laynes clients look like him?
> 
> If he said it was hard to get in that shape and only a strong minded person could achieve it no one would buy it.


Lots of Laynes, Johns and Marcs clients look as good as them, if not more diced because they are the ones competing now, their coaches don't.

He uses flexible dieting, because.. wait for it. It works.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Lots of Laynes, Johns and Marcs clients look as good as them, if not more diced because they are the ones competing now, their coaches don't.
> 
> He uses flexible dieting, because.. wait for it. It works.


Maybe the clients are also in on this great lie


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Lots of Laynes, Johns and Marcs clients look as good as them, if not more diced because they are the ones competing now, their coaches don't.
> 
> He uses flexible dieting, because.. wait for it. *It works.*


You're using flexible dieting, you're still fat, and making crap progress. Why isn't it working for you? You seem to be defying thermodynamics somehow, you're a spectacle!


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> You obviously didnt get it the first time we spoke about it.
> 
> He CLAIMS he uses flexible dieting because it sells to numbnuts like yourself who cant diet hard enough to get in shape, how many more of Laynes clients look like him?
> 
> If he said it was hard to get in that shape and only a strong minded person could achieve it no one would buy it.


Ban, by this logic (applied to anything) people would slowly realise what he is selling is not correct etc and he would be found out.

instead, IIFYM and flexible dieting is more popular than ever and producing better and better results for people, athletes etc. You know why? Because it works..


----------



## welshman (May 22, 2008)

So dude eats McDonalds for 10 days and gets fat because it killed off all the good bacteria :lol:


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Jalex said:


> Ban, by this logic (applied to anything) people would slowly realise what he is selling is not correct etc and he would be found out.
> 
> instead, *I**IFYM and flexible dieting is more popular than ever and producing better and better results for people*, athletes etc. You know why? Because it works..


Why is TommyBannoffee an exception to this? :lol: :laugh:


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> You're using flexible dieting, you're still fat, and making crap progress. Why isn't it working for you? You seem to be defying thermodynamics somehow, you're a spectacle!


It does work for me.

I got leaner when I reduced my calorie intake.

I got fatter when I increased my calorie intake to a 1,000 surplus.

You already said you don't disagree with me; so you know it works - but you're just replying because you don't like me, lmao. So what exactly are you trying to argue? As I said, for thee third time, all you're doing is making yourself look stupid.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> Lots of Laynes, Johns and Marcs clients look as good as them, if not more diced because they are the ones competing now, their coaches don't.
> 
> He uses flexible dieting, because.. wait for it. *It works.*


But not for you.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> It does work for me.
> 
> I got leaner when I reduced my calorie intake.
> 
> ...


I'd be careful going out the house tonight with this fella around


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Jalex said:


> Ban, by this logic (applied to anything) people would slowly realise what he is selling is not correct etc and he would be found out.
> 
> instead, *IIFYM and flexible dieting is more popular than ever *and producing better and better results for people, athletes etc. You know why? Because it works..


Its because generation nothingness like having an App on their phones.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> But not for you.


Well it does, I lose bodyfat when I eat less, I gain bodyfat when I eat more. What doesn't work?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> It does work for me.
> 
> I got *less fat* when I reduced my calorie intake.
> 
> ...


fixed.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> Its because generation nothingness like having an App on their phones.


But, what if you have the lower body and you have no upper body, you got a problem building...wait a minute. You have the upper body, and you have no legs, you got a problem building your legs. You have the upper...you have the lower body and you don't have the upper body, the upper body, it is easier to build. So if you have the lower body and you don't have the upper body, it is easier to build the upper body. You have the upper body and you don't have the legs, you got a problem building the lower body... No, you don't understand. You have the upper body, but you don't have the lower body, you got a problem building downstairs. You got the up- legs on the bottom, it is easier to build on the top, so you don't have much as a problem. Yeah?


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> fixed.


Could you tell me how I got to the bodyfat I got to before if this method doesn't work? When much more of my diet was processed, refined, and sugar than it is now?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> Well it does, I lose bodyfat when I eat less, I gain bodyfat when I eat more. What doesn't work?



View attachment 171617


So, why cant you gain weight eating a diet just of lean protein even with a calorific excess?


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> View attachment 171617
> 
> 
> Now, why cant yo gain weight eating a diet just on lean protein even with a a calorific excess?


You do gain weight; but eventually will die. However; no-one would eat just lean protein - because as I said, they will die. If I ate 3500 calories of chicken a day, I'd gain weight, because I'm in a calorie surplus.

Now, stop ignoring my questions; and stop rehashing your silly, silly strawman arguements.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Jalex said:


> But, what if you have the lower body and you have no upper body, you got a problem building...wait a minute. You have the upper body, and you have no legs, you got a problem building your legs. You have the upper...you have the lower body and you don't have the upper body, the upper body, it is easier to build. So if you have the lower body and you don't have the upper body, it is easier to build the upper body. You have the upper body and you don't have the legs, you got a problem building the lower body... No, you don't understand. You have the upper body, but you don't have the lower body, you got a problem building downstairs. You got the up- legs on the bottom, it is easier to build on the top, so you don't have much as a problem. Yeah?


Great post, expected nothing more from you.

Never mind you can always delete it later.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> Great post, expected nothing more from you.
> 
> Never mind you can always delete it later.


huehuehue :lol:


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> *You do gain weight*; but eventually will die. However; no-one would eat just lean protein - because as I said, they will die. If I ate 3500 calories of chicken a day, I'd gain weight, because I'm in a calorie surplus.
> 
> Now, stop ignoring my questions; and stop rehashing your silly, silly strawman arguements.


No tommy, no you dont. Your body cannot absorb the nutrients without the presence of fats.

Go and eat 3500 cals of lean chicken breast and nothing else.

Seriously, do it for a week.,let me know how you get on.


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

banzi said:


> Its because generation nothingness like having an App on their phones.


Generation nothingness? that's a broad statement.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Could you tell me how I got to the bodyfat I got to before if this method doesn't work? When much more of my diet was processed, refined, and sugar than it is now?


A skinny guy with abs is like a fat chick with big t1ts, it isn't impressive.

You were 139lbs and still had at least another 10lbs to drop in fat before you got to a BF% which is anything more than 'meh', but you still had no mass.

lolz.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> No tommy, no you dont. Your body cannot absorb the nutrients without the presence of fats.
> 
> Go and eat 3500 cals of lean chicken breast and nothing else.
> 
> Seriously, do it for a week.,let me know how you get on.


Chicken breast has fat, to eat 3500 calories of it, you'd get fats in your diet. I've never seen chicken breast with 0g of fat.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> You do gain weight; but eventually will die. However; no-one would eat just lean protein - because as I said, they will die. If I ate 3500 calories of chicken a day, I'd gain weight, because I'm in a calorie surplus.
> 
> Now, stop ignoring my questions; and stop rehashing your silly, silly strawman arguements.


Strawman arguments??

The points Im making blow your theory wide open, its not a definition of any strawman I have seen.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

Jalex said:


> But, what if you have the lower body and you have no upper body, you got a problem building...wait a minute. You have the upper body, and you have no legs, you got a problem building your legs. You have the upper...you have the lower body and you don't have the upper body, the upper body, it is easier to build. So if you have the lower body and you don't have the upper body, it is easier to build the upper body. You have the upper body and you don't have the legs, you got a problem building the lower body... No, you don't understand. You have the upper body, but you don't have the lower body, you got a problem building downstairs. You got the up- legs on the bottom, it is easier to build on the top, so you don't have much as a problem. Yeah?


if i solve this riddle will a magic door appear and let me rescue the princess?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> Chicken breast has fat, to eat 3500 calories of it, you'd get fats in your diet. I've never seen chicken breast with 0g of fat.


Rabbit meat contains fat yet it kills you.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> A skinny guy with abs is like a fat chick with big t1ts, it isn't impressive.
> 
> You were 139lbs and still had at least another 10lbs to drop in fat before you got to a BF% which is anything more than 'meh', but you still had no mass.
> 
> lolz.


Of course I had hardly any mass, I was cutting down from never having lifted at 200+ lbs, naturally. But I was benching like 1.7x my bodyweight or something at 139 lbs, and thats probably more than you bench now 

I was clearly not fat, in my photos at 139, no wheree near fat, you're strange.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

I haven't read this stuff on rabbit starvation. How did they monitor a cal surplus?


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> Rabbit meat contains fat yet it kills you.


Did I not just say that you'd die because you don't get the things you need? You can't keep coming back to this strawman argument either, you're the one who has invented this crazy idea.

No-one is going to just eat a lean meat and nothing else, why would they? Stfu


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Of course I had hardly any mass, I was cutting down from never having lifted at 200+ lbs, naturally. But I was benching like 1.7x my bodyweight or something at 139 lbs, and thats probably more than you bench now
> 
> I was clearly not fat, in my photos at 139, no wheree near fat, you're strange.


You look to be about 12% in that photo. Is that supposed to be impressive? Again, with no mass.

Apparently you have THE best methodology, yet I know people who maintain a much lower bodyfat than that year round without counting a single macro. Herp derp.

Why are you fat?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

BrahmaBull said:


> I haven't read this stuff on rabbit starvation. How did they monitor a cal surplus?


The Inuit Paradox | DiscoverMagazine.com

You can read it yourself.

I would explain it in my own words but you seem to favour Tommys method of just posting a link.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

a.notherguy said:


> if i solve this riddle will a magic door appear and let me rescue the princess?


Better, you will get a new version of the myfitnesspal app for your phone with @banzi promoting it with a rear glute spread


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> You look to be about 12% in that photo. Is that supposed to be impressive? Again, with no mass.
> 
> Apparently you have THE best methodology, yet I know people who maintain a much lower bodyfat than that year round without counting a single macro. Herp derp.
> 
> Why are you fat?


I've already answered all of your questions that you keep rehashing. As I've said also, you said you don't disagree with me, so you're just insulting me anyway - therefor making yourself look really stupid, lol.

I know people who maintain low bodyfat year round too, they have 20" penis' deadlift 550kg (world records) and use flexible dieting and count every macro.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> The Inuit Paradox | DiscoverMagazine.com
> 
> You can read it yourself.
> 
> I would explain it in my own words but you seem to favour Tommys method of just posting a link.


Do you understand why Rabbit Starvation kills us? Because we don't get essential nutrients, nothing to do with the law of thermodynamics, so stop bringing it up.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> *Did I not just say that you'd die because you don't get the things you need?* You can't keep coming back to this strawman argument either, you're the one who has invented this crazy idea.
> 
> No-one is going to just eat a lean meat and nothing else, why would they? Stfu


But,,but ,,its doesn't matter about that, you gain weight in a calorific surplus, here, you just wrote it down



TommyBananas said:


> Well it does, I lose bodyfat when I eat less, *I gain bodyfat when I eat more*. What doesn't work?


So now are you saying there are exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics?


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> I've already answered all of your questions that you keep rehashing. As I've said also, you said you don't disagree with me, so you're just insulting me anyway - therefor making yourself look really stupid, lol.
> 
> I know people who maintain low bodyfat year round too, they have 20" penis' deadlift 550kg (world records) and use flexible dieting and count every macro.


So you're advice works, just not for yourself. As you're cutting, but not really getting anywhere.. Righto..


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> I've already answered all of your questions that you keep rehashing. As I've said also, you said you don't disagree with me, so you're just insulting me anyway - therefor making yourself look really stupid, lol.
> 
> I know people who maintain low bodyfat year round too, *they have 20" penis' deadlift 550kg (world records) a*nd use flexible dieting and count every macro.


anyone trying to lift 550kg with their penis would have a 20 inch penis.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> But,,but ,,its doesn't matter about that, you gain weight in a calorific surplus, here, you just wrote it down
> 
> So now are you saying there are exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics?


So tell me how you don't gain weight; you've not managed that one yet. If you don't gain weight due to not absorbing the food; that means you're not absorbing the calories, therefor you're not in a calorie surplus in the first place.

You'd think at the age of 50, you'd actually be smarter than you are.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

banzi said:


> The Inuit Paradox | DiscoverMagazine.com
> 
> You can read it yourself.
> 
> I would explain it in my own words but you seem to favour Tommys method of just posting a link.


Would love to know what I've posted to come to that conclusion


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> So tell me how you don't gain weight; you've not managed that one yet. If you don't gain weight due to not absorbing the food; that means you're not absorbing the calories, therefor you're not in a calorie surplus in the first place.
> 
> You'd think at the age of 50, you'd actually be smarter than you are.


You'd think after months of cutting, you'd be leaner than you are. Such is life. But at least you can regurgitate other peoples success - that must be fulfilling. :lol:


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

Jalex said:


> Better, you will get a new version of the myfitnesspal app for your phone with @banzi promoting it with a rear glute spread


 :lol:

a.notherguy runs off to study the riddle in greater detail so he can return and claim his prize


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> So you're advice works, just not for yourself. As you're cutting, but not really getting anywhere.. Righto..


I've lost bodyfat since I started cutting; could I have lost more? Yes. Why didn't I lose more? I kept going out to restuarants with friends, having BBQs and being slack in my approach. Why did I do this? Because being lean is not that important to me to stop enjoying my life with my friends or for myself.

So am I getting nowhere? No. I'm losing bodyfat. My diet will remain perfect for the next 8 weeks without any issues; due to my holiday, so what is your point?


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

sonof2eus said:


> You'd think after months of cutting, you'd be leaner than you are. Such is life. But at least you can regurgitate other peoples success - that must be fulfilling.


Strong irony as all you've done in here is suck off banzi whilst not revealing anything about yourself.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> I've lost bodyfat since I started cutting; could I have lost more? Yes. Why didn't I lose more? I kept going out to restuarants with friends, having BBQs and being slack in my approach. Why did I do this? Because being lean is not that important to me to stop enjoying my life with my friends or for myself.
> 
> So am I getting nowhere? No. I'm losing bodyfat. My diet will remain perfect for the next 8 weeks without any issues; due to my holiday, so what is your point?


One of the large arguments for 'IIFYM' is to make adhering to diet principles possible whilst still maintaing a 'normal life' - or at least that's the consesus 95% of the cult preach.

So you can't even do that. I don't think you're able to make it work for you, evidently. Try a new approach maybe.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> One of the large arguments for 'IIFYM' is to make adhering to diet principles possible whilst still maintaing a 'normal life' - or at least that's the consesus 95% of the cult preach.
> 
> So you can't even do that. I don't think you're able to make it work for you, evidently. Try a new approach maybe.


I can do that. I just chose not to. For example; why would I go to a restuarant and track my food, why would I go to a BBQ and track my food? I'm not an idiot. I didn't have a show to be ready for or make weight for a PL competition.

Shut up. Once again, I answer your questions and you shift focus to something else to try and argue with me, you're a wasteman.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

BrahmaBull said:


> Strong irony as all you've done in here is suck off banzi whilst not revealing anything about yourself.


Banzi has by far the best phyisque in this thread, who am I to say his methodology isn't working for him?

Tommy knows it all, but is fat, continues to remain fat, and will still be fat in 8 weeks time.


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

what would happen if i just ate haribo at maintainence cals. ?


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> I can do that. I just chose not to. For example; why would I go to a restuarant and track my food, why would I go to a BBQ and track my food? I'm not an idiot. I didn't have a show to be ready for or make weight for a PL competition.
> 
> Shut up. Once again, I answer your questions and you shift focus to something else to try and argue with me, you're a wasteman.


By the looks of it, you're a human wastebin. Eat less, do more, fatty.


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Lolz, the life of a parrot.
> 
> Okay, so just answer me this, why do you look like sh*t? You've never looked good, your peak physique was 139lbs.. :lol: I'm not saying your principles are right or wrong. But why do you look like sh*t?
> 
> ...


You've been on this forum for 2 months! Who the fcuk do you think you are? Telling someone they look like sh1t? Unless you have a body like Zyzz, Neroscience or Banzi's Avi, I'd shut the hell up, you vile nasty cretin!!


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

ILLBehaviour said:


> what would happen if i just ate haribo at maintainence cals. ?


You'd end up with a sh*tty looking physique like Tommy. :lol:


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Banzi has by far the best phyisque in this thread, who am I to say his methodology isn't working for him?
> 
> Tommy knows it all, but is fat, continues to remain fat, and will still be fat in 8 weeks time.


Ok, so for anyone in this thread that can read this.

I'll take some photos tomorrow morning; and again a few days before my Holiday (I think its 14th July I go away) - and then post them, only I can hold myself accountable for what happens.

I'll keep posting my myfitnesspal in my log everyday too


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Pinky said:


> You've been on this forum for 2 months! Who the fcuk do you think you are? Telling someone they look like sh1t? Unless you have a body like Zyzz, Neroscience or Banzi's Avi, I'd shut the hell up, you vile nasty cretin!!


I've read this board long before you turned up. From what I recall of your posts, you remind me of a Jeremy Kyle canditate. I'd class you as a cretin - but that's all personal opinion.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Ok, so for anyone in this thread that can read this.
> 
> I'll take some photos tomorrow morning; and again a few days before my Holiday (I think its 14th July I go away) - and then post them, only I can hold myself accountable for what happens.
> 
> I'll keep posting my myfitnesspal in my log everyday too


I look forward to it.


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> I've read this board long before you turned up. From what I recall of your posts, you remind me of a Jeremy Kyle canditate. I'd class you as a cretin - but that's all personal opinion.


So you admitting to having been here before me, indicating this this account is a new one because your old one was maybe banned? As far as im aware thats against forum rules.

Good for you tho matey, Id rather be on Jezza Kyle then Jerry Springer, Keep abusing Tommy, as thats all your good for, he'll beat you hands down in any argument.

Have a good day tool


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Pinky said:


> You've been on this forum for 2 months! Who the fcuk do you think you are? Telling someone they look like sh1t? Unless you have a body like Zyzz, Neroscience or Banzi's Avi, I'd shut the hell up, you vile nasty cretin!!


Just a quick flick through your posts and there's plenty of you referring to people as "fattys" in a derogetary manner.

Going by your Avi, you're one yourself. Maybe if you spent less time posting, and more time eating less and exercising, you'd be in a position to judge. :bounce:


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Pinky said:


> So you admitting to having been here before me, indicating this this account is a new one because your old one was maybe banned? As far as im aware thats against forum rules.
> 
> Good for you tho matey, Id rather be on Jezza Kyle then Jerry Springer, Keep abusing Tommy, as thats all your good for, he'll beat you hands down in any argument.
> 
> Have a good day tool


You and him should make babies.

I'd bet my life-savings they'd also grow up to be fat like you two. :lol:


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

@sonof2eus

Your clearly jealous of Tommy, thats why you aint got an Avi or profile pic.

Your probably like 10ton tess yourself chuck


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

sonof2eus said:


> I've read this board long before you turned up. From what I recall of your posts, you remind me of a Jeremy Kyle canditate. I'd class you as a cretin - but that's all personal opinion.


Things are becoming more clear


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> You and him should make babies.
> 
> I'd bet my life-savings they'd also grow up to be fat like you two. :lol:


Lmao, how pathetic and childish. I aint fat mate, i was, but i aint no more.

Lets see a pic of your then, 10t Tess :thumb:


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

BrahmaBull said:


> Things are becoming more clear


Im trying to think who hates tommy enough to call him childish names, who's beeb banned before. Mmmmm Give it time the real ar5ehole will seep thru, they always do haha

Give it till the end of the week, cvnt will be banned


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

People are throwing around the term fat with no regards to the medical definition btw


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Pinky said:


> Lmao, how pathetic and childish. I aint fat mate, i was, but i aint no more.
> 
> Lets see a pic of your then, 10t Tess :thumb:


Unless you've lost about 4 stone since you took you're Avi, then yes, in my humble opinion, you're fat. Pink hair and dodgy tattoos. Definitely a cretin too. :lol:


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Just a quick flick through your posts and there's plenty of you referring to people as "fattys" in a derogetary manner.
> 
> Going by your Avi, you're one yourself. Maybe if you spent less time posting, and more time eating less and exercising, you'd be in a position to judge. :bounce:


Now i know your chatting sh1t. Its called a work in progress matey, something i dont think youve even started yet.

If someone is fat then they deserve to be called fat, IMO tommy aint fat.

Clearly shows thick you are, if i post as often as you say i do, how do i have time to eat, you think cvnt!!

I bet my im thinner than you, eat less then you and exercise loads less than you.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

BrahmaBull said:


> People are throwing around the term fat with no regards to the medical definition btw


It's a bodybuilding forum, I think as a general rule it's fair to assume the medical definition isn't really relevant to the context. Pinky might check out on 'BMI' okay (I doubt it mind), however, she definitely has more fat than the dairy aisle at Tesco from what I can see.


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Unless you've lost about 4 stone since you took you're Avi, then yes, in my humble opinion, you're fat. Pink hair and dodgy tattoos. Definitely a cretin too. :lol:


So is your mom, but you dont see me judging. Jealousy is a bad thing to suffer from my dear.

4 stone, lmao, you have no idea do you. Pffffft


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Pinky said:


> Now i know your chatting sh1t. Its called a work in progress matey, something i dont think youve even started yet.
> 
> If someone is fat then they deserve to be called fat, IMO tommy aint fat.
> 
> ...


I can see all 8 of my abs, I'd be amazed if you could even see your toes.. :laugh:


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

sonof2eus said:


> I can see all 8 of my abs, I'd be amazed if you could even see your toes..


Proof.


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

why is it that all threads regarding nutrition quickly descend into chaos.


----------



## Heavyassweights (Jan 18, 2014)

in


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> I can see all 8 of my abs, I'd be amazed if you could even see your toes.. :laugh:


Pics or your BSing!!


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

sonof2eus said:


> *I can see all 8 of my abs*, I'd be amazed if you could even see your toes.. :laugh:


Let's have some proof then. Pic of these 8 alleged Abs, with your forum name showing.

Otherwise, be quiet.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

BrahmaBull said:


> Proof.


That pinky can't see her toes? Don't be harsh mate, no one wants to see her overhang posted up in public view.


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

ILLBehaviour said:


> why is it that all threads regarding nutrition quickly descend into chaos.


Because you have cvnts like sonof2eus caliing people fat who clearly are not. Think he's insecure so it tries to make people feel sh1t like he does haha


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> That pinky can't see her toes? Don't be harsh mate, no one wants to see her overhang posted up in public view.


Fk me you aint fot alot going for you have you my darling? If you think i have overhang then good jesus, your blind. OMG


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Pinky said:


> Because you have cvnts like sonof2eus caliing people fat who clearly are not. Think he's insecure so it tries to make people feel sh1t like he does haha


But in you're avi, you are fat? I apologise if it's very out of date and you've since lost a lot of weight - I just presumed that people would have Avi's relative to their current condition.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Pinky said:


> Because you have cvnts like sonof2eus caliing people fat who clearly are not. Think he's insecure so it tries to make people feel sh1t like he does haha


I think we all need to be a little kinder to him, show him some patience & understanding.

He is, afterall most probably a mummies boy of 13.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

latblaster said:


> I think we all need to be a little kinder to him, show him some patience & understanding.
> 
> He is, afterall most probably a mummies boy of 13.


How are your love handles..? Or have you finally managed to lose them?


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> But in you're avi, you are fat? I apologise if it's very out of date and you've since lost a lot of weight - I just presumed that people would have Avi's relative to their current condition.


Your just jealous mate.

Your the only one who thinks im "fat" in my avi, so tbh your opinon means to me as much as you do, fk all.

Actually you know what you can do with that opinon? Write it on a piece of paper, fold paper several times, pull your trousers down, part ones ar5e cheeks and stick it in the hole :tongue:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

TommyBananas said:


> I will* expand by repeating*, you don't understand research, you've made it very clear in all your other posts about sugar and so on.


Well you havent expanded on anything have you? You simply repeated yourself.Not quite the same thing.If your going to make such demeaning statements, try at least to find a balanced argument, instead of

defaulting to your myopic, parochial view of others.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

sonof2eus said:


> How are your love handles..? Or have you finally managed to lose them?


Never had any.


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

seems everyone is on low carbs today lol ... everyone biting at every opportunity :confused1:


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Pinky said:


> Your just jealous mate.
> 
> Your the only one who thinks im "fat" in my avi, so tbh your opinon means to me as much as you do, fk all.
> 
> Actually you know what you can do with that opinon? Write it on a piece of paper, fold paper several times, pull your trousers down, part ones ar5e cheeks and stick it in the hole :tongue:


Really? I bet if you walked onto the beach in a bikini, 95% of people would look at you and think you're fat. Not obese, but fat. Maybe I'm just the only one kind enough to tell you. Seeing as most of this forum white knight females, and your family probably aren't going to be so cruel.

Your avi hardly represents a 'slender' physique, more of a tree trunk.


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

latblaster said:


> Never had any.


Random question, do you work/live in thailand?


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

latblaster said:


> Never had any.


Well that's a lie, I remember your avi years ago, you had the physique of an hour glass.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

sonof2eus said:


> Well that's a lie, I remember your avi years ago, you had the physique of an hour glass.


Seems your memory - as is your self perception - grossly inaccurate.

Never mind.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

latblaster said:


> Seems your memory - as is your self perception - grossly inaccurate.
> 
> Never mind.


Post up a back shot then, new or old. By your own rules, I suppose it should have your forum username in it too. I have the memory of an elephant, you had and probably still have the body of one.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Big ape said:


> Random question, do you work/live in thailand?


Live, yes. Am in Blighty atm. Too bloody cold!


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

sonof2eus said:


> Post up a back shot then, new or old. By your own rules, I suppose it should have your forum username in it too. I have the memory of an elephant, you had and probably still have the body of one.


you've been called out loads of time to post a picture and still won't :lol: You are a joke.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)




----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Kloob said:


> you've been called out loads of time to post a picture and still won't  You are a joke.


Either looks like chit or can't because he's banned previously.

Or both.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

sonof2eus said:


> Post up a back shot then, new or old. By your own rules, I suppose it should have your forum username in it too. I have the memory of an elephant, you had and probably still have the body of one.


Not going to provide with yet another pic for your wank bank.

The only similarity I have with an Elephant, is my very long Penis. Would you like to see it? :wub:


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Really? I bet if you walked onto the beach in a bikini, 95% of people would look at you and think you're fat. Not obese, but fat. Maybe I'm just the only one kind enough to tell you. Seeing as most of this forum white knight females, and your family probably aren't going to be so cruel.
> 
> Your avi hardly represents a 'slender' physique, more of a tree trunk.


Oh my your so kind :wub:


----------



## Alanricksnape (Apr 5, 2013)

latblaster said:


> Not going to provide with yet another pic for your wank bank.
> 
> The only similarity I have with an Elephant, is my very long Penis. Would you like to see it? :wub:


repped for pen1s


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

latblaster said:


> Live, yes. Am in Blighty atm. Too bloody cold!


Australia? what u do for work?


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

latblaster said:


> Not going to provide with yet another pic for your wank bank.
> 
> The only similarity I have with an Elephant, is my very long Penis. Would you like to see it? :wub:


Still hitting girls?  Mr Hourglass.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

sonof2eus said:


> Still hitting girls?  Mr Hourglass.


Careful with the questions..... :nono:


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Pinky said:


> Oh my your so kind :wub:


The world needs a little honesty. People might love a sugar-coating (especially you) to help them sift through their mediocre lives, but sometimes a little 'negativity' (or truth in this case) can be used as a means to drive personal success.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

latblaster said:


> Careful with the questions..... :nono:


Why's that? I speak the truth, you've hit a girl before, I just asked if that's still a past time of yours?


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

sonof2eus said:


> Why's that? I speak the truth, you've hit a girl before, I just asked if that's still a past time of yours?


We all enjoy banter on here, like to trade insults as well.

But making accusations of this sort are wrong. Pack it in.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Why's that? I speak the truth, you've hit a girl before, I just asked if that's still a past time of yours?


----------



## Haunted_Sausage (Jan 2, 2015)

When fat is broken down it is exhaled as CO2 (84%) almost all the rest is excreted as water


----------



## Verno (Apr 18, 2008)

sonof2eus said:


> Post up a back shot then, new or old. By your own rules, I suppose it should have your forum username in it too. I have the memory of an elephant, you had and probably still have the body of one.


From the last pic I saw of you I'm surprised you can see your crayons let alone a monitor as your helmet was always on sideways!


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> The world needs a little honesty. People might love a sugar-coating (especially you) to help them sift through their mediocre lives, but sometimes a little 'negativity' (or truth in this case) can be used as a means to drive personal success.


ROLMFAO, i was being sarcastic you tw4t!!


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Pinky said:


> ROLMFAO, i was being sarcastic you tw4t!!


Children often don't understand sarcasm.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

latblaster said:


> We all enjoy banter on here, like to trade insults as well.
> 
> But making accusations of this sort are wrong. Pack it in.


Throwing stones in glass houses & all that.

Oh and going back to Pinky, you're a size 14/16.. lol. Size 6/8 is in shape and 10 is average. 14/16 is big. 'Big Bones'. :lol:

Definitely not in better shape than me. :tongue:


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)




----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

latblaster said:


> Children often don't understand sarcasm.


I think this person, is a well known person on this forum, they are saying what the feel behind a fake profile, because people know who they really are, and are scared to say this sorta stuff using their real profile.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Throwing stones in glass houses & all that.
> 
> Oh and going back to Pinky, you're a size 14/16.. lol. Size 6/8 is in shape and 10 is average. 14/16 is big. 'Big Bones'. :lol:
> 
> Definitely not in better shape than me. :tongue:


Banzi's evil alter-ego?


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

Verno said:


> From the last pic I saw of you I'm surprised you can see your crayons let alone a monitor as your helmet was always on sideways!


sideways helmet , sounds ****ing painful.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Pinky said:


> ROLMFAO, i was being sarcastic you tw4t!!


I'm well aware of that, my point still stands. You're fat, there's no two ways about it - but that's not to say one day you can't change that. But a size 14/16 is fat, that's not me being nasty, that's just the truth - like it or not.

Maybe use it as energy to work harder in the gym (which you evidently need to do), or comfort yourself with another donut (I wouldn't reccomend this.)

Cruel to be kind sometimes, people.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Pinky said:


> I think this person, is a well known person on this forum, they are saying what the feel behind a fake profile, because people know who they really are, and are scared to say this sorta stuff using their real profile.


Less conspiracy's, more cardio.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

latblaster said:


> Children often don't understand sarcasm.


And men don't hit girls, but you have before - and no that's not a joke, or an 'accusation'. You admitted it yourself.

You sad little man, grow a pair, hitting girls isn't big nor is it clever. It's weak and pathetic, like your hourglass physique.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

this thread got me like


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> I'm well aware of that, my point still stands. You're fat, there's no two ways about it - but that's not to say one day you can't change that. But a size 14/16 is fat, that's not me being nasty, that's just the truth - like it or not.
> 
> Maybe use it as energy to work harder in the gym (which you evidently need to do), or comfort yourself with another donut (I wouldn't reccomend this.)
> 
> Cruel to be kind sometimes, people.


I aint a 14/16 anymore cvnt features. im a 14, thank you very much. You wouldnt say no anyway.

Plus i dont take advice off someone who cant back their sh1t up, i also have a very good coach thank you. I dont like donuts, im more of a apple danish sort of person 

Ok i get it, you think im fat, whats your point??


----------



## Verno (Apr 18, 2008)

sonof2eus said:


> And men don't hit girls, but you have before - and no that's not a joke, or an 'accusation'. You admitted it yourself.
> 
> You sad little man, grow a pair, hitting girls isn't big nor is it clever. It's weak and pathetic, like your hourglass physique.


And your hiding behind a second profile throwing accusations around is what exactly? Your a joke lol!


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

ILLBehaviour said:


> what would happen if i just ate haribo at maintainence cals. ?


You would look like tommy bananas.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Pinky said:


> I aint a 14/16 anymore cvnt features. im a 14, thank you very much. You wouldnt say no anyway.
> 
> Plus i dont take advice off someone who cant back their sh1t up, i also have a very good coach thank you. I dont like donuts, im more of a apple danish sort of person
> 
> Ok i get it, you think im fat, whats your point??


Say no? I wouldn't touch you with a bargepole. :lol: You might not say no to anything, but some people have standards they adhere to.

@latblaster I notice you've deleted all your old posts, running away from the past are we? That why you moved abroad?


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

sonof2eus said:


> And men don't hit girls, but you have before - and no that's not a joke, or an 'accusation'. You admitted it yourself.
> 
> You sad little man, grow a pair, hitting girls isn't big nor is it clever. It's weak and pathetic, like your hourglass physique.


You really are boring. Most trolls are entertaining & clever. You are neither.

Don't know where the strange accusations are coming from. Are you a little deluded, or just mentally challenged?


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

banzi said:


> You would look like tommy bananas.


but i wouldnt put on any fat eating at maintainence would I ?


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Say no? I wouldn't touch you with a bargepole. :lol: You might not say no to anything, but some people have standards they adhere to.
> 
> @latblaster I notice you've deleted all your old posts, running away from the past are we? That why you moved abroad?


Pitty your mom didnt have those standards. You should have dribbled down her left leg


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

latblaster said:


> You really are boring. Most trolls are entertaining & clever. You are neither.
> 
> Don't know where the strange accusations are coming from. Are you a little deluded, or just mentally challenged?


Playing the stupid card.. LOL. Why did you delete all your old posts?

You're a woman beater, you know it and I know it, that's all that matters. Sad sad man.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Pinky said:


> Pitty your mom didnt have those standards. You should have dribbled down her left leg


I suppose it dribbles down both your legs, seeing as there's no gap between them, being a fat size 14 and all that. :lol: Will keep an eye out for your nasty pink hair at bodypower, might add a little green to it if you're lucky. :thumbup1:


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> I suppose it dribbles down both your legs, seeing as there's no gap between them, being a fat size 14 and all that. :lol: Will keep an eye out for your nasty pink hair at bodypower, might add a little green to it if you're lucky. :thumbup1:


You want to be careful someone doesnt add a bit of blood to your mouth


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

ILLBehaviour said:


> but i wouldnt put on any fat eating at maintainence would I ?


Correct.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

sonof2eus said:


> Playing the stupid card.. LOL. Why did you delete all your old posts?
> 
> You're a woman beater, you know it and I know it, that's all that matters. Sad sad man.


Rubbish.


----------



## Verno (Apr 18, 2008)

Pinky said:


> Pitty your mom didnt have those standards. You should have dribbled down her left leg


I'm Betting it was a lucky shot..... Doubt the fella would have wanted to get near his mum........however I'm sure his dad had a very "special" place for him


----------



## Alanricksnape (Apr 5, 2013)

Pinky said:


> I think this person, is a well known person on this forum, they are saying what the feel behind a fake profile, because people know who they really are, and are scared to say this sorta stuff using their real profile.


Inb4 The L Man


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Jalex said:


> @banzi
> 
> Think you should delete this second account before mods suss you out :lol:


I dont need dummy accounts to post my true feelings.

I thought you knew me.


----------



## GingerStrength (May 14, 2015)

Daft that !!


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Pinky said:


> You want to be careful someone doesnt add a bit of blood to your mouth


 @latblaster will add some to yours if you aren't careful, wouldn't be the first time he's done it to a 'lady'. :lol:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Ok this is getting a tad personnel now, if you cannot post with out insulting others then I suggest you leave the forum, this is to all that are slinging insults around as if they are still in the school yard....

Grow up or fukc off its that simple


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

ILLBehaviour said:


> but i wouldnt put on any fat eating at maintainence would I ?


your body composition would be a mess.


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

Jalex said:


> Correct.


but i would lose muscle ?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Pscarb said:


> Ok this is getting a tad personnel now, if you cannot post with out insulting others then I suggest you leave the forum, this is to all that are slinging insults around as if they are still in the school yard....
> 
> Grow up or fukc off its that simple


Agreed, lets have fun but keep the personal stuff out of it.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

ILLBehaviour said:


> but i would lose muscle ?


if you dont eat protein how would you make/retain muscle?


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

banzi said:


> Agreed, lets have fun but keep the personal stuff out of it.


Agreed.

Now can we all agree that @banzi doesn't know what he's talking about yet has the best physique in this thread? (With the exception of Paul, I'm not going to compare these two for fear of my own life.)


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

banzi said:


> if you dont eat protein how would you make/retain muscle?


i thought calories are calories right ? cals in vs. cals out ?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

ILLBehaviour said:


> i thought calories are calories right ? cals in vs. cals out ?


so tommy says


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

ILLBehaviour said:


> i thought calories are calories right ? cals in vs. cals out ?


I hope you're not an IIFYM cult member, because you're proving Banzi's argument right here.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> I dont need dummy accounts to post my true feelings.
> 
> I thought you knew me.


It seems I actually know you better than I know myself.

Half the time I know the exact wording of your post when I get a notification, worrying... :lol:


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

banzi said:


> so tommy says


Tommy says calories in vs out determines WEIGHT loss. That may be correct.

But as his results have shown, it resulted in poor composition. (Low bodyweight, no lean mass and more fat than desirable.)

If you care about the scale, maybe it's fine. If you care about the mirror, maybe you need to accept that your body is far more complex than 'Cals in v Cals Out'. :lol:


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

banzi said:


> so tommy says


i really felt like i learned a lot from this thread.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> So tell me how you don't gain weight; you've not managed that one yet. If you don't gain weight due to not absorbing the food; that means you're not absorbing the calories, therefor you're not in a calorie surplus in the first place.
> 
> You'd think at the age of 50, you'd actually be smarter than you are.


Its calories in as in your gob, who said anything about absorbing cals?

Can you point me to the section of the law of thermodynamics that deals with the absorption of calories?

Do you want to go down the road of how many calories are in your poop?

No one absorbs all the calories they take in.

Poop has calories, where do they come from?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Jalex said:


> It seems I actually know you better than I know myself.
> 
> Half the time I know the exact wording of your post when I get a notification, worrying... :lol:


Maybe Im your dummy account?


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

banzi said:


> Its calories in as in your gob, who said anything about absorbing cals?
> 
> Can you point me to the section of the law of thermodynamics that deals with the absorption of calories?
> 
> ...


Does eating poop come under 'bro', or 'flexible dieting'?

:rolleye:


----------



## Verno (Apr 18, 2008)

banzi said:


> Its calories in as in your gob, who said anything about absorbing cals?
> 
> Can you point me to the section of the law of thermodynamics that deals with the absorption of calories?
> 
> ...


I fcukin knew it! Banzi's into scat!!


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> Maybe Im your dummy account?


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

while i agree that flexible dieting can certainly get you lean i dont think you can get stage ready eating pop tarts and fried chicken

i remember hearing somewhere before that if it were possible to get stage ripped eating mars bars and burger king then why the fvck is phil heath eating oats and chicken breasts? im sure hed opt for some better tasting food if both yielded the same end result

IIFYM is great for the average joe and you can get in fantastic shape following flexible dieting but when things start getting serious so must your diet


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> Its calories in as in your gob, who said anything about absorbing cals?
> 
> Can you point me to the section of the law of thermodynamics that deals with the absorption of calories?
> 
> ...


Of course the law of thermodynamics deals with the ABSORPTION of calories.

I see how you've tried REALLY hard here to come up with some sort of response, lol.

Keep editing your posts hehe. You cannot DEFY the the LAW of thermodynamics, and it applies to us, mate.

The post you quoted, of mine, is all that needs to be said.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

swole troll said:


> while i agree that flexible dieting can certainly get you lean i dont think you can get stage ready eating pop tarts and fried chicken
> 
> i remember hearing somewhere before that if it were possible to get stage ripped eating mars bars and burger king then why the fvck is phil heath eating oats and chicken breasts? im sure hed opt for some better tasting food if both yielded the same end result
> 
> IIFYM is great for the average joe and you can get in fantastic shape following flexible dieting but when things start getting serious so must your diet


How can you hit your macros eating only poptarts and fried chicken? You don't know what flexible dieting is based off the post you just made.


----------



## vetran (Oct 17, 2009)

bump


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> *Of course the law of thermodynamics deals with the ABSORPTION of calories.*
> 
> I see how you've tried REALLY hard here to come up with some sort of response, lol.
> 
> ...


link?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> How can you hit your macros eating only poptarts and fried chicken? You don't know what flexible dieting is based off the post you just made.


Depends on what your target macros are doesnt it?


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> How can you hit your macros eating only poptarts and fried chicken? You don't know what flexible dieting is based off the post you just made.


May I ask a question, I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with this, just curious to hear your opinion.

If two people are preparing for competition, their macros are say 250P/250C/60F

Person A uses a 'bro diet' to hit the macros.

Person B uses just isolate whey protein, cain sugar & olive oil to hit the macros.

They both hit the macros to a T each day (forget satiation).

Do you believe they will see the exact same changes in body composition, say after, 16 weeks?


----------



## Armitage Shanks (Jul 7, 2014)

Some post are rude, over the top and hurt full. But I would never let it get to me. This is not real life.

Judging by the way he is typing... Going by his avi on his other account he does have a good body!


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> How can you hit your macros eating only poptarts and fried chicken? You don't know what flexible dieting is based off the post you just made.


im pretty sure you could divy up the pop tarts to get carbohydrates up to your daily allowance and then what remaining protein and fat you had left given that pop tarts are predominantly carbohydrate

you could fill in with fried chicken as its mainly fats and protein, besides i wasnt suggesting that is all someone ate i was saying that those kinds of foods should be eliminated from ones diet during prep or even just for those looking to get peeled but not compete

again if IIFYM is so highly effective then why are the mr O competitors stuck in the past still eating grits and tilapia?

i wasnt disagreeing with you that you cant lose fat by eating what you please providing macros are hit, in fact ive ran IIFYM successfully myself by eating smart and just allowing the odd occasional treat using it for social events.

i just dont believe that you can get stage ready running such a diet

however for the vast majority of people just wanting to get pretty lean then its a great concept


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> May I ask a question, I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with this, just curious to hear your opinion.
> 
> If two people are preparing for competition, their macros are say 250P/250C/60F
> 
> ...


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> May I ask a question, I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with this, just curious to hear your opinion.
> 
> If two people are preparing for competition, their macros are say 250P/250C/60F
> 
> ...


In terms of fat loss, the results would be the same, yes. And no, I will not do it, because its clearly not good for your 'health' nor is it good for satiation as you pointed out and no, no one would do this and no, this isn't what flexible dieting is.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

swole troll said:


> im pretty sure you could divy up the pop tarts to get carbohydrates up to your daily allowance and then what remaining protein and fat you had left given that pop tarts are predominantly carbohydrate
> 
> you could fill in with fried chicken as its mainly fats and protein, besides i wasnt suggesting that is all someone ate i was saying that those kinds of foods should be eliminated from ones diet during prep or even just for those looking to get peeled but not compete
> 
> ...


Jay Cutler, Mike Mentzer and Dorian Yates both ate "junk" upto the Olympia while prepping. This is documented.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> In terms of fat loss, the results would be the same, yes. And no, I will not do it, because its clearly not good for your 'health' nor is it good for satiation as you pointed out and no, no one would do this and no, this isn't what flexible dieting is.


You think your body processes simple sugar the same way it deals with complex carbs and fibrous carbs?

What about body composition?

Come on mate, you are nearly there, just say it you can feel liberated, you get so close on so many occasions then fold, man up and bite the bullet.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> Depends on what your target macros are doesnt it?


The foods during prep to step on stage would be too high calorie to hit your macros, which is what he was describing, stepping on stage.

The Energy Balance Equation | BodyRecomposition

Theres your link - Note: "The equation is perfectly valid and humans are as subject to the laws of thermodynamics as anything else in the universe. Physics is not just a good idea, kids, it's the law.

Most claims that the energy balance equation is invalid are due to people simply not knowing what they are talking about. The equation is valid, it has to be, what's invalid are people's assumptions about how things should work."

This is basically you, the end sentence.

If you want to use your silly thing of what goes in your gob = law of thermodynamics, what if I was to put food in my mouth and spit it out, obviously it won't be absorbed. Stop with the sily arguments I know you enjoy it, but just accept it man.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> In terms of fat loss, the results would be the same, yes. And no, I will not do it, because its clearly not good for your 'health' nor is it good for satiation as you pointed out and no, no one would do this and no, this isn't what flexible dieting is.


Lol I wasn't going to ask you to do it, fear not.

Okay, let's throw in another factor. Person B, suffers from a degree of lactose intolerance (bloating/gas) after consuming whey.

Person A has no digestion or intolerance to any of the foods he consumes.

Do you believe the same result will occur?

Also I said composition, so not just fat loss. Do you believe their composition changes will be exactly the same? (Fat loss and lean mass retention - assuming other factors such as drugs, training etc are equal.)


----------



## Waffle (May 12, 2015)

Well that was massively entertaining. Got a little personal at times..

Would like to see a pic of the mystery poster who feels the need to put down fat people at every given opportunity!


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> May I ask a question, I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with this, just curious to hear your opinion.
> 
> If two people are preparing for competition, their macros are say 250P/250C/60F
> 
> ...


man it's people like you fkin retards who don't understand flexible dieting.

Flexible dieting does not advocate eating not nutrient dense food or NOT hitting your micronutrients. It is about incorporating more everyday food into a bodybuilding diet. No one is saying eat "isolate whey protein, cain sugar & olive oil to hit the macros."

What flexible dieting is saying is that if one guy eats chicken rice and veg to get 250P/250C/60F and one guy eats 80% chicken rice and veg and 20% whatever food source but STILL hits 250P/250C/60F, there will be *NO *adverse change in results.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Waffle said:


> Well that was massively entertaining. Got a little personal at times..
> 
> Would like to see a pic of the mystery poster who feels the need to put down fat people at every given opportunity!


another fatty joins the fray.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> what about body composition?
> 
> Come on mate, you are nearly there, just say it you can feel liberated, you get so close on so many occasions then fold, man up and bite the bullet.


If macronutrients are met, of course body composition would be the same - which is pretty much exactly what I've just said.

Do you think our body for composition purposes can tell the difference between 20g of protein from a bigmac and 20g of protein from a chicken breast?

As I said, for COMPOSITION purposes, the macronutrient is the same source irrelevant. If you think otherwise, you need help.


----------



## Waffle (May 12, 2015)

banzi said:


> another fatty joins the fray.


I am far from fat old man!


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Lol I wasn't going to ask you to do it, fear not.
> 
> Okay, let's throw in another factor. Person B, suffers from a degree of lactose intolerance (bloating/gas) after consuming whey.
> 
> ...


What would bloating and gas have to do with macronutrient absorption and their bodycomposition (other than being bloated, which is not body composition).


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Jalex said:


> man it's people like you fkin retards who don't understand flexible dieting.
> 
> Flexible dieting does not advocate eating not nutrient dense food or NOT hitting your micronutrients. It is about incorporating more everyday food into a bodybuilding diet. No one is saying eat "isolate whey protein, cain sugar & olive oil to hit the macros."
> 
> What flexible dieting is saying is that if one guy eats chicken rice and veg to get 250P/250C/60F and one guy eats 80% chicken rice and veg and 20% whatever food source but STILL hits 250P/250C/60F, *there will be adverse change in results*.


Lol, yes I agree with you, although I dont think thats what you meant to write.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Jalex said:


> man it's people like you fkin retards who don't understand flexible dieting.
> 
> Flexible dieting does not advocate eating not nutrient dense food or NOT hitting your micronutrients. It is about incorporating more everyday food into a bodybuilding diet. No one is saying eat "isolate whey protein, cain sugar & olive oil to hit the macros."
> 
> What flexible dieting is saying is that if one guy eats chicken rice and veg to get 250P/250C/60F and one guy eats 80% chicken rice and veg and 20% whatever food source but STILL hits 250P/250C/60F, there will be adverse change in results.


LOL, I never said that was the typical IIFYM, I asked a question in context.. You really need to learn to read properly and put things in context. The question had a purpose, Tommy answered in relation to the question. Silly boy.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> What would bloating and gas have to do with macronutrient absorption and their bodycomposition (other than being bloated, which is not body composition).


Well bloating and gas is obviously as a result of poor digestion in some form, its not anomalous, it happens for a reason.

So are you saying that how your body digests/reacts to certain foods is absolutely irrelevant in macronturient uptake?


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> Lol, yes I agree with you, although I dont think thats what you meant to write.


Opps, misread (twice) - yes i didn't meant to write that :lol: .

Flexible dieting is not about eating junk non stop.

It is about hitting macros, hitting all your micronutrients (vitamins/fibre etc) and enjoying the finer foods in life rather than "bro foods". That is the laymans term of IIFYM and flexible dieting.

Regardless if body composition would be the same eating sugar oil and powder, which it would, but for the purposes of all the arguments UKM has about this topic - *no one is advising that you should eat this type of diet* so why is it even being raised and spewed all the time as a pathetic counter-argument to flexible dieting.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Well bloating and gas is obviously as a result of poor digestion in some form, its not anomalous, it happens for a reason.
> 
> So are you saying that how your body digests/reacts to certain foods is absolutely irrelevant in macronturient uptake?


Why are you talking about some form of intolerances? Why are the goalposts constantly moving? Its like me saying if chicken breast made me throw up, would my composition be the same.

Why would we compare if person a vs person b onee was perfectly fine and the other had stomach cramps if eating a dildo. It makes zero sense to do this.


----------



## RocoElBurn (May 31, 2010)

Dickheads ...I'm glad these reports come out and talk of dadbod etc... as now I'm mid thirties I'll be in better shape than most 20 year olds, and their girlfriends and mums can lie all they like, but us trained guys will be reaping the benefits! ;0)


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Jalex said:


> It is.
> 
> Flexible dieting is not about eating junk non stop.
> 
> ...


You're arguing with yourself. No one is saying that's what they believe IIFYM. The answer they're after is what you first said, "body composition would be the same." I asked Tommy that to see if that was his answer. It was an extreme example because that was the clearest way to cut it. Herp derp. Don't get so caught up and defensive all the time.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

RocoElBurn said:


> Dickheads ...I'm glad these reports come out and talk of dadbod etc... as now I'm mid thirties I'll be in better shape than most 20 year olds, and their girlfriends and mums can lie all they like, but us trained guys will be reaping the benefits! ;0)


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> Why are you talking about some form of intolerances? Why are the goalposts constantly moving? Its like me saying if chicken breast made me throw up, would my composition be the same.
> 
> Why would we compare if person a vs person b onee was perfectly fine and the other had stomach cramps if eating a dildo. It makes zero sense to do this.


LOL. Because this is real world application, and food intolerances exist - much wider than you'd think. So is it relevant or not? What's your opinion on that? I'm not talkin about people throwing up, let's assume in this application the food enters through the mouth and in due course after digestion exists via the anus.

Does this affect macro-nutrient uptake? (Which will in turn affect body composition.)


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> You're arguing with yourself. No one is saying that's what they believe IIFYM. The answer they're after is what you first said, "body composition would be the same." I asked Tommy that to see if that was his answer. It was an extreme example because that was the clearest way to cut it. Herp derp. *Don't get so caught up and defensive all the time*.


Says the person calling people fat and accusing men of hitting women.

At first it was funny, now it's **** ing me off. Why hasn't someone banned this phaggot yet?

@Pscarb @Mingster


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Jalex said:


> Says the person calling people fat and accusing men of hitting women.
> 
> At first it was funny, now it's **** ing me off. Why hasn't someone banned this phaggot yet?
> 
> @Pscarb @Mingster


Which is why I'm partaking in a civilised debate and you're still throwing around insults..? Maybe you should try posting something constructive, instead of jumping on the bandwagon and throwing insults everytime someone doesn't agree with your opinion.

Grow up.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> LOL. Because this is real world application, and food intolerances exist - much wider than you'd think. So is it relevant or not? What's your opinion on that? I'm not talkin about people throwing up, let's assume in this application the food enters through the mouth and in due course after digestion exists via the anus.
> 
> Does this affect macro-nutrient uptake? (Which will in turn affect body composition.)


This isn't real world application, this is you being a little cúnt.

If a food tolerance existed, the real world application would be to avoid it whether or not it effected digestion; because it'd be uncomfortable for the person eating it.

But you know how this benefits my argument? Because of Flexible Dieting, food intolerances don't matter, as they get the same results eating another food that they can tolerate instead.

Off to do cardio, see you in 8 weeks, if you're not banned by then - be sure to check my log though!


----------



## Waffle (May 12, 2015)

Yeah it ****ed me off a bit aswell. No need for it, i want to see a pic of him as hes so fast to put everyone else down.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Which is why I'm partaking in a *civilised debate* and *you're still throwing around insults*..? Maybe you should try posting something constructive, instead of jumping on the bandwagon and throwing insults everytime someone doesn't agree with your opinion.
> 
> *Grow up*.


Personally attacking Bananas, then latblaster, then pinky. I love trolls (in fact, 80% of the time I am one myself), but only intelligent ones, not brainless keyboard warriors.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

TommyBananas said:


> This isn't real world application, this is you being a little cúnt.
> 
> If a food tolerance existed, the real world application would be to avoid it whether or not it effected digestion; because it'd be uncomfortable for the person eating it.
> 
> ...


LOL, touchy? You know you're wrong.

I bet after a full day of eating, you can distend your stomach by quite a large amount - unproportional to food volume. Most people can. That's not normal/healthy/optimal digestion.

I can't distend mine any more in the evening proportionally than I can in the morning, why? Because the food I eat sits 100% with my digestive system, which means that there's no issue in the digestion of the food.

So if digestion DOES make a difference, and I know from personal experience that most people can distend the stomach an abnormal amount (whether they realize that's abnormal or not), then that would suggest that the foods you eat, irrespectful of macro-nutrient composition on their own, DO affect the end result.

Don't be mad, it's okay to be wrong. :whistling:


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Jalex said:


> Personally attacking Bananas, then latblaster, then pinky. *I love trolls* (in fact, 80% of the time *I am one myself*), *but only intelligent ones*, not brainless keyboard warriors.


Does that mean you hate yourself? :confused1:

Seeing as Tommy has run away from the debate because he knows he's wrong, and you're his sidekick - why don't you comment on the points I've just made above. Do something constructive, rather than posting trash all the time..


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Does that mean you hate yourself? :confused1:
> 
> Seeing as Tommy has run away from the debate because he knows he's wrong, and you're his sidekick - why don't you comment on the points I've just made above. Do something constructive, rather than posting trash all the time..


At times yeah, I can be a real ****  .

Oh, I think you'll find I'm batman and @TommyBananas is robin.

You have not made points, just talking ****. Peace.


----------



## TheScam (Apr 30, 2013)

sonof2eus said:


> You'd think after months of cutting, you'd be leaner than you are. Such is life. But at least you can regurgitate other peoples success - that must be fulfilling. :lol:


Says the guy who never finished a log


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Jalex said:


> At times yeah, I can be a real ****  .
> 
> Oh, I think you'll find I'm batman and @TommyBananas is robin.
> 
> You have not made points, just talking ****. Peace.


Lolz. Retreating too, because you're wrong. Or you can't find a study to answer the question..

@banzi we win.


----------



## TheScam (Apr 30, 2013)

sonof2eus said:


> LOL, touchy? You know you're wrong.
> 
> I bet after a full day of eating, you can distend your stomach by quite a large amount - unproportional to food volume. Most people can. That's not normal/healthy/optimal digestion.
> 
> ...


Is this actually true?


----------



## Armitage Shanks (Jul 7, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> Lolz. Retreating too, because you're wrong. Or you can't find a study to answer the question..
> 
> @banzi we win.


Per chance, do you have a degree in physics?


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Scammell29 said:


> Is this actually true?


I used to follow 'IIFYM'. I cut out essentially all processed foods, grains, dairys blah blah.

I used to get extreme bloating. Now I get 0. I virtually cannot distend my stomach at all. All of my friends who follow a 'traditional' diet (containing all of the sh*t I cut out) can distend their stomach a lot.

The distension is clearly as a result of poor digestion. It's not food volume, as I could eat 2-3x the volume of food I do now, than what I used to, and have much less distension.

If anyone thinks that poor digestion has no effect on macronutrient uptake, I'd say that makes you deluded. The body is an incredibly complex organism. These uneducated IIFYM Cult members seem to think that digestion and body composition is black and white (and unsuprisingly they have shoddy physiques).

I'd bet Tommy and all his gang suffer from the distension I'm talking about, whether they'll admit it or not - so clearly in real world application, it's not just 'Macros'. It's how you digest those macros too. 

But there's no reason professional bodybuilders eat the way they do.. it's all for show, right?


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Armitage Shanks said:


> Per chance, do you have a degree in physics?


No I don't, what makes you ask that?


----------



## Armitage Shanks (Jul 7, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> No I don't, what makes you ask that?


Sorry! But you remind me of someone. Never mind, my mistake.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Oh, and things like acne, hair loss, skin condition, thyroid, hormones etc etc (everything in effect) are affected by diet and particular food choices, not just macronutrients.

But the body is black and white, right? :lol:


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

Armitage Shanks said:


> Sorry! But you remind me of someone. Never mind, my mistake.


Albert Einstein, because of my genius-like mind? :lol: Kidding. Sort of.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

sonof2eus said:


> Oh, and things like acne, hair loss, skin condition, thyroid, hormones etc etc (everything in effect) are affected by diet and particular food choices, not just macronutrients.
> 
> But the body is black and white, right?


Do you know ronnie coleman?


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

BrahmaBull said:


> Do you know ronnie coleman?


Are you Ronnie Coleman...? No. So does what work best for him, work best for you..? No..

Herp derp. I'm not saying these things to try and rustle jimmies, I'm saying it because in MY EXPERIENCE, it's very true, and if more people applied it, they'd probably get better results too.

Maybe if people spoke with less conviction, were slightly more open minded and less black and white, we'd all be getting better results. Rather than everyone being 'know it alls', yet unsupringly not being able to back it up with results.

If what you're doing right now is working perfectly for you, don't let me stop you. That's my experience, and I'd bet that if plenty of people on here applied it to them, plenty would also find benefit.

But who wants benefit right? Who wants better results? Let's all just post re-gurgitated information without any personal experience because it sounds good, who cares if we actually achieve our own personal goals and tend to our own health. :lol:

Oh man.


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

BrahmaBull said:


> Do you know ronnie coleman?


If that wasn't the argument you were about to make, then my bad.. But I've seen plenty of people use that argument on here - so I felt it safe to assume that was the menial point you were about to make. :whistling:


----------



## jammie2013 (Nov 14, 2013)

banzi said:


> link?


The laws of thermodynamics applied to human physiology are never broken in that the resulting hormonal & enzymatic milieu resulting from food intake is accounted for by acknowledging it's an open system.

The "In" side doesn't change, it's the only thing we have any control over (unless you can ask your mitochondria nicely to oxidise more FA's!), the outside is an absolute crap shoot however! I'm a strong believer in concentrating on "what" you eat will sort the energy balance out (reduction on the "In" side and an increase on the "Out" side.

It's always calories in vs calories out, it's just far more complicated than "hurrrr myfitnesspal + tdee calculator"


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

sonof2eus said:


> If that wasn't the argument you were about to make, then my bad.. But I've seen plenty of people use that argument on here - so I felt it safe to assume that was the menial point you were about to make. :whistling:


Well atleast you posted something half meaningful to the thread lol.

So you've tried iifym but had bloating / intolerances issues and find you get on better with a bro diet?

How has your body comp changed since the change?


----------



## sonof2eus (Mar 20, 2015)

BrahmaBull said:


> Well atleast you posted something half meaningful to the thread lol.
> 
> So you've tried iifym but had bloating / intolerances issues and find you get on better with a bro diet?
> 
> How has your body comp changed since the change?


I wouldn't say what I do is a 'bro' diet nor it is 'IIFYM', I think they are both skewed concepts anyway.

My diet now is very particular, in terms of what I eat. There are 'bro' foods that I'd never touch still.

The result? Better fat loss, no bloating, less water retention, better skin, better energy, better performance in the gym - it goes on.

I'm not AGAINST 'IIFYM' (however people perceive that to be) or 'Bro' dieting - but I have no doubt that a LOT of people are consuming foods that there body does not digest optimally, which has a LOT of knock on effects (other than just fat/lean mass composition). So do I think food choices are important? Very. Does that mean then that macronutrients and calorie intake are irrelvant? Obviously not.

But when people (there's a LOT of them on this board) go around preaching with conviction that the body is almost black and white and that if macro nutrient and micro nutrient intake are hit that that's all that matters, that's utter bullsh*t.

And 95% of these people also just happen to have awful physiques, which never suprises me. Ironically the people who tend to preach a bro diet IME on here often have the better physiques, is that partly due to the fact that generally speaking their diet leads them to adhere to food choices that promote good digestion etc? Quite possibly.

I'm not saying calories in v calories out isn't relevant, or macronutrient balance. But to think that if you satisfy those irrespectful of food choices is all that matters, is plain dumb and naive.

But that's just my opinion. If Tommy wants to follow stupid principles and settle with his shoddy physique, that's fine. But don't preach with conviction your idiotic BS all over the board - there's a lot of naive and uneducated people on here who might be stupid enough to take it as gospel. The forums here to share ideas, discuss approaches and help each other - so at least express approaches as OPINIONS or IDEAS, not FACTS with CONVICTION (because that's simply not the case.)

Oh and I don't think that my 'argument' is exactly the same of Banzi's either (although I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on mine @banzi), so no I'm not a 'second account' or a 'Banzi nuthugger', he has the best physique in this thread and his methods are backed up by his own results - so at least he has some sort of personal credibility. :whistling:


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

sonof2eus said:


> I wouldn't say what I do is a 'bro' diet nor it is 'IIFYM', I think they are both skewed concepts anyway.
> 
> My diet now is very particular, in terms of what I eat. There are 'bro' foods that I'd never touch still.
> 
> ...


If only you posted like this to begin with. Excellent post.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

BrahmaBull said:


> If only you posted like this to begin with. Excellent post.


It's a fvcking terrible post, goal posts are so far moved now they're not even on Earth, guys a d1ck.

There are a few forum members here, Lotus being one of them who is shredded to the bone and does flexible dieting, when he told all the "bros" in the other thread few months ago theey didn't believe him, funny doe.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Guys stop the insults, if you cannot get your point across without insults then don't put it across........

There is no one way to do anything and although many on here would love to believe they are correct in everything they believe in they are sadly wrong....so play nice or don't play at all


----------



## Fbmmofo (Feb 10, 2015)

I'm ukm fat so you can take my opinion with a pinch of poptart.

What flexible dieting people don't say because it's assumed is, yes macros are the most important thing for weight lose but in the real world people have health concerns to. Most people who following flexible dieting eat micro nutrient dense food for 80% or more of the time. They are then covered for while they eat "junk".

I follow flexible dieting and have previously had issues with too much dairy. Bloating, sickness, spots. I now limit my dairy because it caused health issues. Whether I was eating "clean" or flexible dieting I wouldn't over eat dairy.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

Ohhhhhhhhh myyyyyyty it's just clicked.

IS DAT U DELHI??????


----------



## Frandeman (Mar 24, 2014)

sonof2eus said:


> I wouldn't say what I do is a 'bro' diet nor it is 'IIFYM', I think they are both skewed concepts anyway.
> 
> My diet now is very particular, in terms of what I eat. There are 'bro' foods that I'd never touch still.
> 
> ...


Can you post your diet???

I'm really curious


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Jalex said:


> Ohhhhhhhhh myyyyyyty it's just clicked.
> 
> IS DAT U DELHI??????


Someone took the hint I see


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

BrahmaBull said:


> Someone took the hint I see


So now the question is, who are you. Dehli left before you joined and the thread where good ol Ronnie was discussed was a while back now.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Jalex said:


> So now the question is, who are you. Dehli left before you joined and the thread where good ol Ronnie was discussed was a while back now.


Are we not allowed to read before joining? You inspired me


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

I despair of this forum sometimes.

Potentially - this is a very interesting discovery. The idea that our gut flora can influence the absorption of macronutrients is something that hadn't even been imagined a few years ago, yet there is some evidence emerging that this is a genuine thing.

But instead of discussing it like grown-ups, we have 28 pages of bickering over whether Tommy's bodyfat levels qualify him to discuss nutrition, the same old stawman arguments against IIFYM, and loads of playground insults.

Come on chaps - we're better than that.


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

banzi said:


> if you dont eat protein how would you make/retain muscle?


I know this isnt particularly on topic.. or that relevant but this bugs me in an odd way.

If protein is the way to make muscle.. how do steaks exsist?

Cows live on grass/hay.. a crappy carb source at best.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

andyboro said:


> I know this isnt particularly on topic.. or that relevant but this bugs me in an odd way.
> 
> If protein is the way to make muscle.. how do steaks exsist?
> 
> Cows live on grass/hay.. a crappy carb source at best.


Dunno. And why is Lamb fatty, when they too eat grass?


----------



## Goranchero (Mar 26, 2015)

Cows chew through a lot of grass, there is some protein in the plants, but microbes in the cows rumen produce amino acids as well.

Edit: also, cows actual energy source are short chain fatty acids produced by microbial fermentation of carbohydrates, not glucose from carbohydrate breakdown.


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

Goranchero said:


> Cows chew through a lot of grass, there is some protein in the plants, but microbes in the cows rumen produce amino acids as well.
> 
> Edit: also, cows actual energy source are short chain fatty acids produced by microbial fermentation of carbohydrates, not glucose from carbohydrate breakdown.


But remember, we apparently NEED 200g+ of protein to build muscle


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

andyboro said:


> But remember, we apparently NEED 200g+ of protein to build muscle


How much Protein is there in Sperm....just wondrin'?

@FelonE

@Verno


----------



## Goranchero (Mar 26, 2015)

andyboro said:


> But remember, we apparently NEED 200g+ of protein to build muscle


I prefer quality over quantity, but to each their own. I doubt there will ever be a concensus on best sources of protein and optimal protein intake. I think we should discuss politics, religion and global warming since they are much lighter subjects.


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

latblaster said:


> How much Protein is there in Sperm....just wondrin'?
> 
> @FelonE
> 
> @Verno


Dunno but it tastes nice


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Major Eyeswater said:


> I despair of this forum sometimes.
> 
> Potentially - this is a very interesting discovery. The idea that our gut flora can influence the absorption of macronutrients is something that hadn't even been imagined a few years ago, yet there is some evidence emerging that this is a genuine thing.
> 
> ...


Is why I gave up moderating on here. Was fun watching the kids play for a while but then got too frustrating, especially when people would post on a particular thread, not pay any attention to the content to the depth it deserved, trade insults and lame jokes instead, and then weeks later post a thread of their own asking for help with problems they had that they wouldn't have had if they'd paid serious attention to the details in the threads that they fooled around in. :death:

Gut microbes are very important for human health, lots of quality research over the last few years has led to a considerable and ever growing body of data suggesting it to be so. The detrimental effects to cell signalling that come from poor microbial health can significantly alter the energy balance of the host. Energy balance still rules, but skewed bacterial populations and the resulting issues alter the balance of kcals in and kcals out equation - when viewed as it should be.


----------



## Verno (Apr 18, 2008)

C



latblaster said:


> How much Protein is there in Sperm....just wondrin'?
> 
> @FelonE
> 
> @Verno


245.886 calls per ml!


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

FelonE said:


> Dunno but it tastes nice


The burning question is....

Are you a quality or a quantity kinda guy?


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

andyboro said:


> But remember, we apparently NEED 200g+ of protein to build muscle


The apes we evolved from had quite low protein needs - most of the other species of great ape are basically herbivores. Our species became much more carnivorous around 2 million years ago, and that has caused our metabolisms to treat protein much more as an energy source. Around 50% of the protein you eat in any one meal is blazed off by the liver on first-pass - so it never even gets into the bloodstream. Other apes do not metabolise protein in the same way.

Comparing us - an omnivorous ape, to a completely herbivorous cow won't really inform you of anything. Having said that, I've just Googled cattle diets, and it's fascinating - beef cattle's diets work out around half a gram of protein per kilo of bodyweight. Grass may have a low percentage protein, but they eat around 40 kilos of it a day


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

If all carbs are utilised the same why do my veins blow up in my arms within 5 minutes when I eat chocolate but not when I eat a potato?


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

Major Eyeswater said:


> The apes we evolved from had quite low protein needs - most of the other species of great ape are basically herbivores. Our species became much more carnivorous around 2 million years ago, and that has caused our metabolisms to treat protein much more as an energy source. Around 50% of the protein you eat in any one meal is blazed off by the liver on first-pass - so it never even gets into the bloodstream. Other apes do not metabolise protein in the same way.
> 
> Comparing us - an omnivorous ape, to a completely herbivorous cow won't really inform you of anything. Having said that, I've just Googled cattle diets, and it's fascinating - beef cattle's diets work out around half a gram of protein per kilo of bodyweight. Grass may have a low percentage protein, but they eat around 40 kilos of it a day


I wasnt intending it as a direct comparison, more an extreme to make a point tbh.

Sometimes peoples protein fixation verges on insane - to the point of beleiving that someone would 'be a mess' on a balanced diet around maintenance calories.


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> If all carbs are utilised the same why do my veins blow up in my arms within 5 minutes when I eat chocolate but not when I eat a potato?


What relevance does that have to body composition?


----------



## Heavyassweights (Jan 18, 2014)

banzi said:


> If all carbs are utilised the same why do my veins blow up in my arms within 5 minutes when I eat chocolate but not when I eat a potato?


Try a choc potato and report back


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

dtlv said:


> Energy balance still rules, but skewed bacterial populations and the resulting issues alter the balance of kcals in and kcals out equation - when viewed as it should be.


So many times I hear the argument "blah-blah demonstrates that energy balance isn't the answer" - when the mechanism they are talking about has a direct effect on the 'out' side of the equation.

Now we see something that may influence the 'in' side, by altering the way that macronutrients are absorbed.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> If macronutrients are met, of course body composition would be the same - which is pretty much exactly what I've just said.
> 
> Do you think our body for composition purposes can tell the difference between *20g of protein from a bigmac and 20g of protein from a chicken breast? *
> 
> As I said, for COMPOSITION purposes, the macronutrient is the same source irrelevant. If you think otherwise, you need help.


You think all grams of protein are equal?


----------



## Galaxy (Aug 1, 2011)

andyboro said:


> I know this isnt particularly on topic.. or that relevant but this bugs me in an odd way.
> 
> If protein is the way to make muscle.. how do steaks exsist?
> 
> Cows live on grass/hay.. a crappy carb source at best.


Just to point out, beef cattle aren't just feed grass but high protein solid feed.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> What relevance does that have to body composition?


Because its the body dealing with carbs in a totally different way, you have benn claiming they are all the same.

Do you think the body digests a raw stem of broccoli in the same way as a simple carb of the same calorific value?


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

andyboro said:


> The burning question is....
> 
> Are you a quality or a quantity kinda guy?


If it's high quality then less is needed


----------



## TommyBananas (Nov 23, 2014)

banzi said:


> Because its the body dealing with carbs in a totally different way, you have benn claiming they are all the same.
> 
> Do you think the body digests a raw stem of broccoli in the same way as a simple carb of the same calorific value?


It doesn't matter HOW they digest, it matters that they digest fullstop, doesn't matter how slow, or how fast - body composition is the same. I'm sorry that you don't get it.



banzi said:


> You think all grams of protein are equal?


Yes. Lyle McDonald proved this somewhere too.


----------



## TheScam (Apr 30, 2013)

BrahmaBull said:


> If only you posted like this to begin with. Excellent post.


Was gonna say if @sonof2eus had opened with this it probably wouldnt have transpired into a slanging match


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> It doesn't matter HOW they digest, it matters that they digest fullstop, *doesn't matter how slow, or how fast - body composition is the same. I'm sorry that you don't get it.*
> 
> *Yes. Lyle McDonald proved this somewhere too*.


Really, I would love to see that



As for the first bolded bit, If thats the case I ask you again why not just eat sweets instead of rice?


----------



## sauliuhas (Dec 29, 2008)

Another series of: clash of the titans


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> You are aware that if you are eating a high protein diet, the chances are 99.9% that you're getting all the amino acids, right? *Regardless if you WEREN'T the difference would be not noticeable to the human eye.*
> 
> But as we consume high P diets, it makes zero difference, and this is why you again, are talking about something you have no idea about.


Not to a lard ass they wouldn't, I notice changes to my body composition depending on the food I eat all the time.

I drop carbs, my body composition changes, I up carbs it changes again.

Why is that if whatever I eat is irrelevant as long as I hit my macros?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> "I drop carbs, my body composition changes, I up carbs it changes again."
> 
> LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL


Are you aware what body compossition actally means Tommy?

Its the ratios of fat to muscle to water (and bones but never mind that as it doesnt change), so foods affect your body composition.

Was you comment of the protein amino acid content not mattering an admittance that Lyle McDonald didnt prove they were the same?


----------



## Goranchero (Mar 26, 2015)

banzi said:


> Really, I would love to see that
> 
> View attachment 171650
> 
> ...


This just scratches the iceberg, it does not take into account ileal digestability. There is still a lot of work to be done with DIAAS research, but for me the most interesting part so far is the overwhelming superiority of whey and casein, and the differences between raw and cooked egg whites.

And for a full picture, it might be better to regard each proteinogenic amino acid as a separate macronutrient. Some non-essential amino acids might have a far greater importance than they are given credit, while some essential amino acids follow the rule that less is more.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

> ]My comment of it not mattering means' date=' when you eat a high protein diet, 99.9% of the time, you're going to get the three important amino acids.[/b']
> 
> What you said doesn't even make sense, in your previous post - of course your body composition changes when you drop carbs, you're on a lower calorie intake, lmaoooooo.
> 
> I can't argue with stupid - also another great Lyle quote, have a night evening mate, lol.


But you wrote that Lyle Mc Donald proved they were all the same???

Was that true or false?

So now you agree foods affect your body composition?

So, if they affect your body on a short term basis why do you believe they wont on a long term basis?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Goranchero said:


> This just scratches the iceberg, it does not take into account ileal digestability. There is still a lot of work to be done with DIAAS research, but for me the most interesting part so far is the overwhelming superiority of whey and casein, and the differences between raw and cooked egg whites.
> 
> And for a full picture, it might be better to regard each proteinogenic amino acid as a separate macronutrient. Some non-essential amino acids might have a far greater importance than they are given credit, while some essential amino acids follow the rule that less is more.


Nah, tommy and Lyle say they are all the same.


----------



## bail (Mar 19, 2010)

Kloob said:


> Excellent. away on my summer cut. Macros for diet are: 40% Alcohol, 40% Chocolate and 20% Cheese. Single digit BF% in no time. #ShredzBrah
> 
> Yet again, an outstanding pile of sh*t article from the Daily Mail. This nonsense is laughable. :lol:


Gotta put a yakult in there bro

For dat gd bac


----------



## Goranchero (Mar 26, 2015)

banzi said:


> Nah, tommy and Lyle say they are all the same.


I never buy anything at McDonalds, if I want a burger I go to Jozo Trova? (Yozoo the poisner), works all night every Friday and Saturday just outside the local night clubs.


----------



## Heavyassweights (Jan 18, 2014)

Goranchero said:


> I never buy anything at McDonalds, if I want a burger I go to Jozo Trova? (Yozoo the poisner), works all night every Friday and Saturday just outside the local night clubs.
> 
> View attachment 171651


not have women in your nightclubs?


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

TommyBananas said:


> McDonald's proved this somewhere too.


Yea right Tommy!!


----------



## Goranchero (Mar 26, 2015)

Heavyassweights said:


> not have women in your nightclubs?


Jozo not good enough for you?


----------



## Heavyassweights (Jan 18, 2014)

Goranchero said:


> Jozo not good enough for you?


Only eat muff after clubbing


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

@banzi & @TommyBananas. Dont you 2 ever get fed up?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> I said eating 20g of protein from a mcdonalds burger, or 20g from a chicken breast, wont make a difference
> 
> i said that 100g of carbss from rice, or 100g of carbs from haribo, wont make a difference to body composition
> 
> ...


You should point Lyle to one of your science book links, they are not *equal* as I have clearly demonstrated.

If you want to say "its doesnt matter to a degree" then thats what you should say.

After all you're the science guy.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> We love each other. I am gaming now tho, so it'll have to wait!


Do some cardio instead.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Heavyassweights said:


> Only eat muff after clubbing


is the calorific value of slim girls chuff the same as a tubby ones?


----------



## mattyhunt (Dec 12, 2013)

Got to page 10 and gave up. Why does it always get so heated over iifym vs bro!? Both options work.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

mattyhunt said:


> Got to page 10 and gave up. Why does it always get so heated over iifym vs bro!? *Both options work.*


Equally?


----------



## Pinky (Sep 3, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> We love each other. I am gaming now tho, so it'll have to wait!


Awwww bless :wub:


----------



## mattyhunt (Dec 12, 2013)

banzi said:


> Equally?


Dependent on goals I reckon. Clean eating obviously works, there is no disputing that whatsoever. IIFYM definitely works, to what degree I couldn't tell you, but 8-10% would be easily achievable based on a calorie deficit. To get on stage using IIFYM vs Clean, I personally would IIFYM to begin with and get cleaner and cleaner the closer to stage.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

mattyhunt said:


> Dependent on goals I reckon. Clean eating obviously works, there is no disputing that whatsoever. IIFYM definitely works, to what degree I couldn't tell you, but 8-10% would be easily achievable based on a calorie deficit. To get on stage using IIFYM vs Clean, *I personally would IIFYM to begin with and get cleaner and cleaner the closer to stage*.


I only get serious at 8%, I can get to 8 eating what I like.

This was eating mayonnaise /tortilla wraps with steak and chicken for around 20 days.


----------



## mattyhunt (Dec 12, 2013)

banzi said:


> I only get serious at 8%, I can get to 8 eating what I like.
> 
> This was eating mayonnaise /tortilla wraps with steak and chicken for around 20 days.
> 
> View attachment 171655


And to a lot of people that would be a goal physique. So if 8% is a goal somebody has then there is absolutely no difference in IIFYM vs Clean. The thing I see a lot on here when people discuss IIFYM is the misunderstanding of thinking you just make up your carbs with sugar/sweets/junk etc. Micros still need to be hit, you need to eat a well rounded healthy diet still but not be so concerned if you snacked on a couple biscuits at work or fancied a chocolate bar/ice cream.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

mattyhunt said:


> And to a lot of people that would be a goal physique. So if 8% is a goal somebody has then there is absolutely no difference in IIFYM vs Clean. The thing I see a lot on here when people discuss IIFYM is the misunderstanding of thinking you just make up your carbs with sugar/sweets/junk etc. Micros still need to be hit, you need to eat a well rounded healthy diet still but not be so concerned if you snacked on a couple biscuits at work or fancied a chocolate bar/ice cream.


Everyone seems to be aware of that, its just tommy seems to drift off into a world of his own where all carbs are equal and a calorie is just a calorie and the law of thermodynamics only deals with calories in and then flips it to calories absorbed when his argument hits a brick wall.


----------



## mattyhunt (Dec 12, 2013)

banzi said:


> Everyone seems to be aware of that, its just tommy seems to drift off into a world of his own where all carbs are equal and a calorie is just a calorie and the law of thermodynamics only deals with calories in and then flips it to calories absorbed when his argument hits a brick wall.


See I haven't done enough research, or even been lean enough to get into a debate about that. Leanest I've been is maybe 8/9%. From what I do know determining factor is calories in vs calories out. Once getting down to much lower body fat I think this would still be the case. Nutrient timing, carb types etc would make it more optimal but I do believe that you could achieve a ripped physique with IIFYM.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

mattyhunt said:


> Got to page 10 and gave up. Why does it always get so heated over iifym vs bro!? Both options work.


Interesting that in the 60's & 70's, bro diet was steak & eggs with low carbs. In the 80's it was low fat turkey breast, brown rice & broccoli. Nowadays there seem to be tribal groupings who insist that their version of the 'bro' diet is the one true diet and all the others are heretical unclean diets that will make you fat.

The fact that all the different & contradictory bro diets all seem to be effective is the best argument in favour of IIFYM going.


----------



## JohhnyC (Mar 16, 2015)

banzi said:


> I only get serious at 8%, I can get to 8 eating what I like.
> 
> This was eating mayonnaise /tortilla wraps with steak and chicken for around 20 days.
> 
> View attachment 171655


as a side note, have to give credit where its due, fair play to Banzi, he has done well, what age are you again Banzi?

I think the problem with a lot of these articles is that fatties will misread the article or ignore the main principles. "Oh its stomach bacteria as to why I'm fat" Use this as an excuse to go to Greggs every day, pig out and sit and watch TV.

Coming home just now there is a shop in my local shopping center that are selling these new type machines. No idea what you call them but basically you stand on it, it vibrates rapidly and it shakes your body. They show a before and after picture of someone allegedly doing it for 30mins a day and low and behold they look great in a few months.

T#tal bolox


----------



## Goranchero (Mar 26, 2015)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Interesting that in the 60's & 70's, bro diet was steak & eggs with low carbs. In the 80's it was low fat turkey breast, brown rice & broccoli. Nowadays there seem to be tribal groupings who insist that their version of the 'bro' diet is the one true diet and all the others are heretical unclean diets that will make you fat.
> 
> The fact that all the different & contradictory bro diets all seem to be effective is the best argument in favour of IIFYM going.


I see this as exact opposite. It merely goes to show that humans can thrive and prosper on completely different diets and sets of macros. Both of the diets you mentioned contain real food. There has been no, and there never will be an ideal macro ratio to fit all physical conditions and goals, but within those macros, some foods will always be superior to others, some will be conditonally superior to others, some will be universally unhealthy. Its not just carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and some trace elements, the difference between food and poison can be an isomer or epimer of exact same chemical formula.


----------



## Fbmmofo (Feb 10, 2015)

Think we finally got to a decent ending on this thread.

I've said it before on similar threads but I'll say it again.

If you just want to look good naked or with a tight t shirt on. Then eat however you like really, get a decent amount of protein in consistently and work hard in the gym. For health get some fruit and veg in, prefferably from a wide selection of things.

If you want to get on stage then you'll need to be a bit stricter and pay close attention to things like quality of food and timings because while they aren't as important as overall calorie intake and macro breakdown, they do have an impact.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

TommyBananas said:


> It's funny how neither of you *can debate further on the subject though; instead - all you do is throw out stupid comments* hehehe.


You mean exactly the way you do?


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Interesting that in the 60's & 70's, bro diet was steak & eggs with low carbs. In the 80's it was low fat turkey breast, brown rice & broccoli. Nowadays there seem to be tribal groupings who insist that their version of the 'bro' diet is the one true diet and all the others are heretical unclean diets that will make you fat.
> 
> *The fact that all the different & contradictory bro diets all seem to be effective is the best argument in favour of IIFYM going*.


Good post.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

You are what you eat

Thread.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> You are what you eat
> 
> Thread.


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

banzi said:


> You are what you eat
> 
> Thread.


If thats the case i should look like utter sh1t :lol:

Eat a bar of chocolate every night with a big bag of popchips , eat bread most days, milk & cheese most days ... hit my macros and calories .. stay at 200lbs natty with 10%ish body fat getting stronger every week. come at me bro


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Big ape said:


> If thats the case i should look like utter sh1t :lol:
> 
> Eat a bar of chocolate every night with a big bag of popchips , eat bread most days, milk & cheese most days ... hit my macros and calories .. stay at 200lbs natty with 10%ish body fat getting stronger every week. come at me bro


Pics or it didnt happen


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

of what the food @banzi


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

Big ape said:


> of what the food @banzi


No, your bf %, is what he wants to see.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

Dark sim said:


> No, your bf %, is what he wants to see.


 @Big ape has posted quite a few pics in threads like this and looks pretty good (natty) to be fair


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

Dark sim said:


> No, your bf %, is what he wants to see.


Couple pics here

this was last summer after my cut










This was before summer on a stag weekend in bournemouth fukcing about


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

Jalex said:


> @Big ape has posted quite a few pics in threads like this and looks pretty good (natty) to be fair


I've seen before, I know he isn't 10% and I said then. Banzi will say the same.

Not saying he doesn't look decent, but big difference between 15% and 10%.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Big ape said:


> Couple pics here
> 
> this was last summer after my cut
> 
> ...


Not 10 and not natty.


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

banzi said:


> Not 10 and not natty.


what 10% look like? people say get to 10% for your abs to be visable and mine are visable? not that i give a sh1t about percentages anyway as long as im happy with what i see in the mirror. i can assure u im 100% natty


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Big ape said:


> what 10% look like? people say get to 10% for your abs to be visable and mine are visable? not that i give a sh1t about percentages anyway as long as im happy with what i see in the mirror. *i can assure u im 100% natty*


why?


----------



## Prince Adam (Mar 17, 2012)

banzi said:


> I ask you again why not just eat sweets instead of rice?


Has this been answered?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Prince Adam said:


> Has this been answered?


Not properly.


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

banzi said:


> why?


was tempted to when i started training, when i was 18 and a skinny cnut .. but a mate convinced me not to and i been training natty since then im 25 now so thats 7 years of training ... probably the last 2 years ive been on my game with the nutrition and progressive overload... now my mate who convinced me not to is on about hes 30th cycle :lol:


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Big ape said:


> was tempted to when i started training, when i was 18 and a skinny cnut .. but a mate convinced me not to and i been training natty since then im 25 now so thats 7 years of training ... probably the last 2 years ive been on my game with the nutrition and progressive overload... now my mate who convinced me not to is on about hes 30th cycle :lol:


Doesnt answer the question.

You decided to stay natty because your mate told you to?

Really?

Come on whats the real reason.


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

banzi said:


> Doesnt answer the question.
> 
> You decided to stay natty because your mate told you to?
> 
> ...


not told me to... convinced me. as i was jumping into it head first without knowing anything about steroids training or nutrition ... was advised to give the latter training and nutrition the focus before i jump into a course thats what i did .. put on size that im satisfied with and never looked back.. not that i got anything against steroids but thats my choice


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Big ape said:


> not told me to... convinced me. as i was jumping into it head first without knowing anything about steroids training or nutrition ... was advised to give the latter training and nutrition the focus before i jump into a course thats what i did .. put on size that im satisfied with and never looked back.. not that i got anything against steroids but thats my choice


How tall are you?


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

banzi said:


> How tall are you?


6ft 1 / 200lbs


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

Prince Adam said:


> Has this been answered?


assuming you do not suffer any micro nutrient losses through the switch of rice to sweets and the carbs/calories are exactly the same, you would see NO difference.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Big ape said:


> 6ft 1 / 200lbs


Im prepared to give you the benefit of the double bearing in mind if you got in tip top shape you would likely weigh around 170 based on your current photos.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Jalex said:


> assuming you do not suffer any micro nutrient losses through the switch of rice to sweets and the carbs/calories are exactly the same, you would see NO difference.


OK eat rice and chicken for a month then switch to rice and Haribos, see how you look.

Saying it scientifically works and posting links doesnt cut it, you need to do it to know for sure.


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

banzi said:


> Im prepared to give you the benefit of the double bearing in mind if you got in tip top shape you would likely weigh around 170 based on your current photos.


to be fair my legs are huge though probably where majority of my weight comes from


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Big ape said:


> to be fair my legs are huge though probably where majority of my weight comes from


I wouldnt say that at all, you dont look 6'1, for 200lbs I would have said 5'9.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> OK eat rice and chicken for a month then switch to rice and Haribos, see how you look.
> 
> Saying it scientifically works and posting links doesnt cut it, you need to do it to know for sure.


But I don't want too? Not prepared to be a guniea pig to prove something that has already been proved in a controlled scientific environment (and therefore much more reliable than any trial I could run).

Also, it's not practicle. I don't ever want to limit myself to any certain foods. Variety is the spice of life.


----------



## Alanricksnape (Apr 5, 2013)

banzi said:


> OK eat rice and chicken for a month then switch to rice and Haribos, see how you look.
> 
> Saying it scientifically works and posting links doesnt cut it, you need to do it to know for sure.


If you have fulfilled your fibre and micronutrient needs from certain carb sources and therefore only need to hit your remaining carb macro target without needing to worry about fibre and micronutrients, then why could one not hit their remaining target with haribo or something similar?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Alanricksnape said:


> If you have fulfilled your fibre and micronutrient needs from certain carb sources and therefore only need to hit your remaining carb macro target without needing to worry about fibre and micronutrients, then why could one not hit their remaining target with haribo or something similar?


the scenario was switching from eating rice to eating sweets.

Any whats wrong with eating Haribo?

Nothing if you are 8 years old FFS.


----------



## Alanricksnape (Apr 5, 2013)

banzi said:


> the scenario was switching from eating rice to eating sweets.
> 
> Any whats wrong with eating Haribo?
> 
> Nothing if you are 8 years old FFS.


So you confirm there is nothing wrong with it (apart from apparently having to be no older than 8 years old to consume some sweets), so therefore you agree with the iifym approach?

Excellent. Debate over.

/thread


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> the scenario was switching from eating rice to eating sweets.
> 
> Any whats wrong with eating Haribo?
> 
> Nothing if you are 8 years old FFS.


Yes but you wouldn't be able to hit your micros/fibre like that (well you could, but im assuming you mean as a sole carb source in a diet).

Not one person has said results will be same like for like, obviously if you miss out on fibre and micros you will see adverse effects, no ones denying that.

But when you still meet those requirements, no difference between rice or haribo.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Alanricksnape said:


> So you confirm there is nothing wrong with it (apart from apparently having to be no older than 8 years old to consume some sweets), *so therefore you agree with the iifym approach?*
> 
> Excellent. Debate over.
> 
> /thread


depends on the circumstances, i have said that all along.

I dropped 17lbs in 4 weeks eating anything I liked.

Could I have done that and stepped onstage, no.


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

banzi said:


> the scenario was switching from eating rice to eating sweets.
> 
> Any whats wrong with eating Haribo?
> 
> Nothing if you are 8 years old FFS.


There is not age limit to haribo


----------



## Alanricksnape (Apr 5, 2013)

banzi said:


> depends on the circumstances, i have said that all along.
> 
> I dropped 17lbs in 4 weeks eating anything I liked.
> 
> Could I have done that and stepped onstage, no.


I agree that it depends on the circumstances. But I believe that the circumstances where flexible dieting doesn't work is where people misunderstand it. Flexible dieting is about hitting macro nutrients, micronutrients and fibre whilst remaining within, or in a surplus of, your daily calorie intake. If you work out where your macros and calories need to be, whilst fulfilling your micronutrient and fibre needs, there should be no reason why you couldn't step on stage.

The same would apply to the so called "bro" diets and why they work. It's not like they're magical foods. They all have their own calorie and macronutrient content. They are normally harder to overindulge on and normally higher in fibre and micronutrients. But if you have already fulfilled your fibre and micronutrient needs, there shouldn't be a problem with consuming other foods that would not conventionally be seen in a bodybuilder's typical diet plan, so long as they still stay strictly within their calorie allowance and do not exceed or fall short of their macronutrient goal.


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

Jalex said:


> Yes but you wouldn't be able to hit your micros/fibre like that (well you could, but im assuming you mean as a sole carb source in a diet).
> 
> Not one person has said results will be same like for like, obviously if you miss out on fibre and micros you will see adverse effects, no ones denying that.
> 
> But when you still meet those requirements, no difference between rice or haribo.


I've switched out some complex carbs and switched to simple carbs, due to bloating issues. Didn't see any difference with my bf%, but I am bulking, and on over 5000kcal.


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

This is me for the rest off the day ...



your wondering what meal 3 is right?



Thats right a footlong ... fits my macros i got some carbs left thats gonne be extra bbq sauce  had 3 servings of fruit today and 1 serving of veggies gonna have some veggies in my sub aswell


----------



## Alanricksnape (Apr 5, 2013)

Dark sim said:


> I've switched out some complex carbs and switched to simple carbs, due to bloating issues. Didn't see any difference with my bf%, but I am bulking, and on over 5000kcal.


It was the constant consumption of brown rice in most meals that made me switch over to a more flexible approach as rice seems to bloat me out so much. I started to gag each meal as I was still feeling full and bloated from the last one! :death:


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

Dark sim said:


> I've switched out some complex carbs and switched to simple carbs, due to bloating issues. Didn't see any difference with my bf%, but I am bulking, and on over 5000kcal.


There should be lots of room to fit in some nice tasty simple carbs in a 5000kcal diet. I'm jealous  .


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

Big ape said:


> This is me for the rest off the day ...
> 
> View attachment 171678
> 
> ...


damm thats making me hungry.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Alanricksnape said:


> I agree that it depends on the circumstances. But I believe that the circumstances where flexible dieting doesn't work is where people misunderstand it. Flexible dieting is about hitting macro nutrients, micronutrients and fibre whilst remaining within, or in a surplus of, your daily calorie intake. If you work out where your macros and calories need to be, whilst fulfilling your micronutrient and fibre needs, *there should be no reason why you couldn't step on stage.*
> 
> The same would apply to the so called "bro" diets and why they work. It's not like they're magical foods. They all have their own calorie and macronutrient content. They are normally harder to overindulge on and normally higher in fibre and micronutrients. But if you have already fulfilled your fibre and micronutrient needs, there shouldn't be a problem with consuming other foods that would not conventionally be seen in a bodybuilder's typical diet plan, so long as they still stay strictly within their calorie allowance and do not exceed or fall short of their macronutrient goal.


You would think so wouldnt you.

I have found it takes more than just flexible dieting and eating cack once you his a certain BF%, the body can react very differently.


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

Jalex said:


> There should be lots of room to fit in some nice tasty simple carbs in a 5000kcal diet. I'm jealous  .


Don't be jealous, it is monotonous, and costly lol.


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

Dark sim said:


> Don't be jealous, it is monotonous, and costly lol.


Bagels with jam on will ramp up on those carbs ... if your feeling naughty throw some haribo on top :lol:


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

Dark sim said:


> Don't be jealous, it is monotonous, and costly lol.


When I'm on 2000 calories and have an insane sweet tooth, it does make me jealous :lol:


----------



## Alanricksnape (Apr 5, 2013)

banzi said:


> You would think so wouldnt you.
> 
> I have found it takes more than just flexible dieting and eating cack once you his a certain BF%, the body can react very differently.


Sure, but this is something you can consider whilst dieting flexibly. If you feel that a certain food source increases fullness for longer and prevents you from looking flat for example, then use it. There may also be alternative sources where the outcome is the same or similar. This is where I believe flexible dieting seems to be misunderstood most. It's not about eating cack. They are just examples of how macronutrient needs can be hit with sources considered "less healthy". That doesn't mean that this kind of food should be or is the primary source of all of their nutrition.

In a way, your approach is more flexible than flexible dieting itself. The only difference is you're not keeping track of the numbers because you already know that it will fulfill your needs as you have the experience to do that, which clearly works very well for you. Other people won't have such experience, or indeed will simply want to keep track and be more precise with their intake.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Alanricksnape said:


> Sure, but this is something you can consider whilst dieting flexibly. If you feel that a certain food source increases fullness for longer and prevents you from looking flat for example, then use it. There may also be alternative sources where the outcome is the same or similar. This is where I believe flexible dieting seems to be misunderstood most. It's not about eating cack. They are just examples of how macronutrient needs can be hit with sources considered "less healthy". That doesn't mean that this kind of food should be or is the primary source of all of their nutrition.
> 
> In a way, your approach is more flexible than flexible dieting itself. The only difference is you're not keeping track of the numbers because you already know that it will fulfill your needs as you have the experience to do that, which clearly works very well for you. Other people won't have such experience, or indeed will simply want to keep track and be more precise with their intake.


Will you please keep you well thought out and rational responses for PMs, Im out of my comfort zone.


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

how about, we get two people of similar build to do a log each. One in Banzi's diet style and another in Tommy's IIFYM style of dieting. Similar gear use (if any) and supplementation etc. and run to the end of the year tracking progress.

After all this debate, i'd be pretty keen to see the outcome and condition etc. of each person and how the different diet styles contributed.

As I've always stuck to quite a strict diet, out of curiosity i'd happily put myself forward for Tommy's style.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Kloob said:


> how about, we get two people of similar build to do a log each. One in Banzi's diet style and another in Tommy's IIFYM style of dieting. Similar gear use (if any) and supplementation etc. and run to the end of the year tracking progress.
> 
> After all this debate, i'd be pretty keen to see the outcome and condition etc. of each person and how the different diet styles contributed.
> 
> As I've always stuck to quite a strict diet, out of curiosity i'd happily put myself forward for Tommy's style.


We could get Tommy to take part, however there is no one currently on the forum who looks as bad as him.


----------



## Alanricksnape (Apr 5, 2013)

banzi said:


> Will you please keep you well thought out and rational responses for PMs, Im out of my comfort zone.


I did PM you once and you didn't respond. Hit me right in the feels :crying:


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Alanricksnape said:


> I did PM you once and you didn't respond. Hit me right in the feels :crying:


really?

Im sorry about that mate, I must have missed it, I have had tots of PM conversations

I will have a look.


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

banzi said:


> We could get Tommy to take part, however there is no one currently on the forum who looks as bad as him.


Well, i'll happily take his corner if you find someone for yours. Then we can all put this argument to bed and move on with our lives :lol:


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

how the hell you going to know whos really doing what though , someone could easily lie about there diet or how much or how much or what gear there using ?


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

ILLBehaviour said:


> how the hell you going to know whos really doing what though , someone could easily lie about there diet or how much or how much or what gear there using ?


Its a better idea than 33 pages of arguing and link posting in a thread!

Just have to count on good old honesty :thumb:


----------



## Alanricksnape (Apr 5, 2013)

banzi said:


> really?
> 
> Im sorry about that mate, I must have missed it, I have had tots of PM conversations
> 
> I will have a look.


I don't think what I asked by PM is really as relevant now as it was then.

No worries though, if you're that busy answering Qs then can't blame you. I am surprised you have the patience.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Alanricksnape said:


> I don't think what I asked by PM is really as relevant now as it was then.
> 
> No worries though, if you're that busy answering Qs then can't blame you. I am surprised you have the patience.


PM sent :thumb:


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

Kloob said:


> Its a better idea than 33 pages of arguing and link posting in a thread!
> 
> Just have to count on good old honesty :thumb:


i agree its a good idea but going by some of the threads you see on here theres a load of ppl who aren't completely honest about there gear use or diet.


----------



## Kloob (Jun 3, 2012)

ILLBehaviour said:


> i agree its a good idea but going by some of the threads you see on here theres a load of ppl who aren't completely honest about there gear use or diet.


yeah man, I can understand that. As stated, I will happily take part. I have 0 preference here and would like to use it solely as an educational exercise and a log to keep me on the straight and narrow. find someone with similar views and we'll be grand. :beer:


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

ILLBehaviour said:


> how the hell you going to know whos really doing what though , *someone could easily lie about there diet or how much or how much or what gear there using* ?


Leave Layne Norton out of this .


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> Leave Layne Norton out of this .


What about Mike O'tren? I mean Ohern.

Best natty of all time


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

Goranchero said:


> I see this as exact opposite. It merely goes to show that humans can thrive and prosper on completely different diets and sets of macros. Both of the diets you mentioned contain real food.


But this is actually *the point *of IIFYM.

The debate always descends into this ridiculous strawman argument of "you can't bodybuild on a diet of whey, lard & polo mints." Well of course you fecking can't - nobody is trying to say that.

IIFYM's basic principle is that provided the majority of your diet is made up of whole foods and you are getting your fibre & a balanced range of micronutrients, then you can cut yourself a bit of slack & have a bit of cake or an ice-cream - because as long as your calories are controlled, the effect on body composition will be insignificant.



> There has been no, and there never will be an ideal macro ratio to fit all physical conditions and goals.
> 
> This is very true. There are also clearly some people who function well on a high-carb diet and some on low carbs.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Some people function quite well on fats.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Here's a question , you hit your protein and fat macros. Would you get same results if you filled the rest with alcohol?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

BrahmaBull said:


> Here's a question , you hit your protein and fat macros. Would you get same results if you filled the rest with alcohol?


No.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> No.


But a calorie is a calorie


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

BrahmaBull said:


> But a calorie is a calorie


No.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> No.


Glad thats been cleared up


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

By the way, if I replaced all my carbs with alcholol I'd be too drunk to train, or drive, would lose my job, and consequently have no money for food either. Hence my original 'No' :wink: .


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Oh, and whether 'a calorie is a calorie' depends very much what people mean. If you burn a food in a calorimeter to see how much heat is generated then yes, a calorie is a calorie (this is how a calorie is defined and measured). If you're thinking in terms of what happens to food when it is ingested, then it all gets rather more complicated, and I am not going to get dragged into any sort of discussion about it. This forum has had quite enough of this nonsense already!


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> Oh, and whether 'a calorie is a calorie' depends very much what people mean. If you burn a food in a calorimeter to see how much heat is generated then yes, a calorie is a calorie (this is how a calorie is defined and measured). If you're thinking in terms of what happens to food when it is ingested, then it all gets rather more complicated, and I am not going to get dragged into any sort of discussion about it. This forum has had quite enough of this nonsense already!


Apparently thats a load of BS according to this thread...


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

Major Eyeswater said:


> But this is actually *the point *of IIFYM.
> 
> The debate always descends into this ridiculous strawman argument of "you can't bodybuild on a diet of whey, lard & polo mints." Well of course you fecking can't - nobody is trying to say that.
> 
> ...


But polos are a hole food.

I'll be getting my coat


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

BrahmaBull said:


> Here's a question , you hit your protein and fat macros. Would you get same results if you filled the rest with alcohol?


No - because as well as providing calories, alcohol is a toxin. Try to get 3,000 calories from alcohol and you will probably die.

It's also a very inefficient source of calories, because around a third of the energy cannot be used to generate ATP, and gets wasted as heat.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Major Eyeswater said:


> No - because as well as providing calories, alcohol is a toxin. Try to get 3,000 calories from alcohol and you will probably die.
> 
> It's also a *very inefficient source of calories*, because around a third of the energy cannot be used to generate ATP, and gets wasted as heat.


You mean some are more efficient than others?

Tommy incoming....


----------



## Tom90 (Jan 29, 2010)

banzi said:


> You mean some are more efficient than others?
> 
> Tommy incoming....


I think I'll side with you on this one.

When comparing Haribo to a potato, the potato will have the enzymes required for it to be easily broken down and converted to glucose, whereas breaking down Haribo wouldn't be as easy. There's also other factors like insulin resistance, whether someone can actually utilise the carbohydrates, and efficiently get the glucose in to the cell.

I typically eat single ingredient foods (AKA bro foods) but use an IIFYM style template to regulate caloric intake. I'm also a fan of perimeter nutrition, with smart macronutrient manipulation you're able to lose fat without drastically cutting calories or restricting yourself from certain food groups.

If you're already at a low body fat level then IIFYM would work for you, providing that Glucose Stimulated Insulin Secretion (GSIS) isn't in a diminished state, which typically at low body fat levels it wouldn't be. I'd advocate some IIFYM principles, however I don't think a typical IIFYM approach to anyone over 15% body fat is optimal.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Tom90 said:


> I think I'll side with you on this one.
> 
> When comparing Haribo to a potato, the potato will have the enzymes required for it to be easily broken down and converted to glucose, whereas breaking down Haribo wouldn't be as easy. There's also other factors like insulin resistance, whether someone can actually utilise the carbohydrates, and efficiently get the glucose in to the cell.
> 
> ...


I have managed my entire life without ever hearing that.

now Im aware Im sure I will make da gainz.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Tom90 said:


> I think I'll side with you on this one.
> 
> When comparing Haribo to a potato, the potato will have the enzymes required for it to be easily broken down and converted to glucose, whereas breaking down Haribo wouldn't be as easy. There's also other factors like insulin resistance, whether someone can actually utilise the carbohydrates, and efficiently get the glucose in to the cell.
> 
> ...


I'm guessing you're a fan of Phil Learney? The whole foods contain enzymes to help them be digested argument is one I've only ever heard from him; have you looked into this at all? I've only ever looked briefly but I've not found any strong evidence to support the importance of this. Obviously Phil is VASTLY more successful than me, but I'm a naturally sceptical chap...


----------



## Tom90 (Jan 29, 2010)

Ultrasonic said:


> I'm guessing you're a fan of Phil Learney? The whole foods contain enzymes to help them be digested argument is one I've only ever heard from him; have you looked into this at all? I've only ever looked briefly but I've not found any strong evidence to support the importance of this. Obviously Phil is VASTLY more successful than me, but I'm a naturally sceptical chap...


Yeah I'm a fan. I've not really looked that much into it, just kinda took it on board. Although I remember once reading something about processed foods raising white blood cell levels, which the body does when it deals with toxins. That's not me trying to say that processed food should be restricted from anyone's diet, but it was just something I'd read about.

I'm not sue if this is even remotely true, or where I've got it from, but I think food's enzymes are deteriorated when cooked or processed, but I'm not sure how this effects absorption in the body. Maybe I'll look into it.

Gut health seems to be getting a lot of hype nowadays, maybe I'll come across something that ties it all together.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Tom90 said:


> When comparing Haribo to a potato, the potato will have the enzymes required for it to be easily broken down and converted to glucose, whereas breaking down Haribo wouldn't be as easy.


Going back to this point, I doubt people really have difficulty digesting sucrose in e.g. Haribo, as otherwise sweet foods presumably wouldn't do such a good job of making people fat?


----------



## Tom90 (Jan 29, 2010)

Ultrasonic said:


> Going back to this point, I doubt people really have difficulty digesting sugar in e.g. Haribo, as otherwise sweet foods presumably wouldn't do such a good job of making people fat?


See that could come full circle, maybe it's not the ingestion of sugar in itself that's making people fat. If people have really bad insulin resistance, the glucose can't get into a cell, circulates the blood for a while and eventually gets converted to triglycerides and stored as adipose tissue. But then again, how strongly could you argue that case for a fat person? There's probably a few factors that could contribute towards obesity, thyroid, ghrelin, leptin, behavioral/psychological problems.

This is too deep for a Sunday morning haha


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Tom90 said:


> Yeah I'm a fan. I've not really looked that much into it, just kinda took it on board. Although I remember once reading something about processed foods raising white blood cell levels, which the body does when it deals with toxins. That's not me trying to say that processed food should be restricted from anyone's diet, but it was just something I'd read about.
> 
> I'm not sue if this is even remotely true, or where I've got it from, but I think food's enzymes are deteriorated when cooked or processed, but I'm not sure how this effects absorption in the body. Maybe I'll look into it.
> 
> Gut health seems to be getting a lot of hype nowadays, maybe I'll come* across something that ties it all together*.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Tom90 said:


> See that could come full circle, maybe it's not the ingestion of sugar in itself that's making people fat. If people have really bad insulin resistance, the glucose can't get into a cell...


To end up with circulating glucose, the sucrose needs to have been broken down into its constituent glucose and fructose, so the required digestive enzymes have done their job by this point. What happens after that is a different huge subject as you suggest!


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> Phil is one of the worst coaches/people in the industry, wrote a book full of sh1t, and talks a load of sh1t. I don't care how successful someone is, he gets lol'd at by almost every coach that has a brain.


Yet when people say that about Layne Norton you go ape sh*t


----------



## Robbie789 (Sep 6, 2012)

TommyBananas said:


> Phil is one of the worst coaches/people in the industry, wrote a book full of sh1t, and talks a load of sh1t. I don't care how successful someone is, he gets lol'd at by almost every coach that has a brain.


Tommy Vs @Learney would be a good fight


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

TommyBananas said:


> Phil is one of the worst coaches/people in the industry, wrote a book full of sh1t, and talks a load of sh1t. I don't care how successful someone is, he gets lol'd at by almost every coach that has a brain.


can you provide references?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Why would anyone listen to this guy?

He looks clueless. :whistling:


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> He has gone potato on FB loads of times


You have gone potato on here loads of times, your point being?


----------



## Man Like What (Oct 25, 2014)

latblaster said:


> You really are boring. Most trolls are entertaining & clever. You are neither.
> 
> Don't know where the strange accusations are coming from. Are you a little deluded, or just mentally challenged?


To be fair, I remember reading old posts you made where you said you'd hit a woman before


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Man Like What said:


> To be fair, I remember reading old posts you made where you said you'd hit a woman before


Was the bacon cold?


----------



## Man Like What (Oct 25, 2014)

BrahmaBull said:


> Was the bacon cold?


One would only hope so! It's a legit excuse


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Robbie789 said:


> Tommy Vs @Learney would be a good fight


I didn't realise until you tagged him that Phil Learney used to post here. Shame he doesn't anymore, but sadly threads like this are unlikely to entice him back :sad:.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

BrahmaBull said:


> Here's a question , you hit your protein and fat macros. Would you get same results if you filled the rest with alcohol?


Alcohol, long story short, slows down your metabolism dramatically whilst it's in the body, in terms of your metabolic rate and how effectively you utilise macronutrients. So the answer to that question is a resounding no.


----------



## Tom90 (Jan 29, 2010)

Ultrasonic said:


> I didn't realise until you tagged him that Phil Learney used to post here. Shame he doesn't anymore, but sadly threads like this are unlikely to entice him back :sad:.


I remember a post a year or so again by PScarb (I think) saying that Phil would be on here for a Q&A session, but nothing came of it. He's been busy the last year with his book and various seminars, but I wish he'd make his podcasts more regular. I'm listening to Sigma Nutrition now, enjoying them so far :thumbup1:


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

Ultrasonic said:


> I'm guessing you're a fan of Phil Learney? The whole foods contain enzymes to help them be digested argument is one I've only ever heard from him; have you looked into this at all? I've only ever looked briefly but I've not found any strong evidence to support the importance of this. Obviously Phil is VASTLY more successful than me, but I'm a naturally sceptical chap...


TBH the thread title I don't even want to get into but its rubbish.

Enzymes are the things that naturally break foods down. Take them out of food it lasts longer. It's hardly anything you need evidence for just basic food science. The body doesn't need this as a necessity but it alleviates some of the challenges the gut goes through.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> Phil is one of the worst coaches/people in the industry, wrote a book full of sh1t, and talks a load of sh1t. I don't care how successful someone is, he gets lol'd at by almost every coach that has a brain.


So despite you thinking I'm one of the worst coaches in the industry you still bought my book, read it and reviewed it. You have also clearly been to my seminars too as you said I talk a load of sh1t too.

Or maybe your opinion is based on well.....nothing and about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

That makes you a prize idiot my friend so within that circle of coaches with brains perhaps you should pay a little attention 'Tommy'


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

Ultrasonic said:


> I didn't realise until you tagged him that Phil Learney used to post here. Shame he doesn't anymore, but sadly threads like this are unlikely to entice him back :sad:.


Not the thread but I love a good book review and although its short Tommy has provided me with some valuable feedback about not only my books but my seminars. Perhaps when they're not sh1t people will start coming to the seminars and buying the book.


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)




----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> Didn't buy your book; was told by some close friends of mine its terrible - could probably make my own decision on it but wouldn't waste my money on it. Your facebook page is literally potato, remember when you attacked Josef Rakich? LoLoL. Not that Josef is smart or anything; but at least he understands basic principles unlike yourself.
> 
> But you are laughed at by many of the coaches within Facebook groups, most notably for your outburst on Josef Rakich thinking you were smart, when infact you argued about his post while being wrong.


So you base your opinions largely on what your friends say and Layne? Correct? I have no idea who Josef Rakish is and I also have no idea who you are but perhaps forming your own opinion may be a start.

The head of the ISSN (International Society of Sports Nutrition) reviewed the content so will gladly take his opinion over yours and your 'close' friend.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> Theres plenty of people who market themselves to sell books and do seminars, even Gary Taubes has seminars, ffs, stop kidding yourself.


Think thats what you call a strawman. I bet you've even used that term before. I sense a little anger Tommy? You ok fella?


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> Potato.


Crack on fella. If you're saving screenshots of posts from 2014 at hand to try and state I am 'potato' you're a very special kind of person.

I will stand by what I said there and if you understood a single thing about habits, behaviours and the PFS you would realise you're actually confirming yourself as that 'special' kind of person.

I'm off to bed, tired after speaking at the UKs biggest convention all weekend. I'll put your name forward you can come have a 'voice'.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> I understand plenty, as a former obese person thanks.
> 
> I didn't 'save' a screenshot I simply googled 'Phil Learney Josef Rakich' - it's funny though you mentioned that he had a horrendeous sales pitch.
> 
> I know someone else who does, he has a book and likes to do seminars talking about things that are pseudo-science and anecdote. Hehe!


Being a former obese person......so that qualifies you in what way? I suppose you read something on pubmed once so you're now a sports scientist.

I googled it too and nothing came up....still no idea who he is.

Nice little joke you made at the end. Good. (perhaps going to one of my seminars or reading my book would entitle you to an opinion)


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> I never said it qualifies me in anyway; but you are implying that by his sales pitch he is preying on the weak - I don't think so. The flexible dieting approach he promotes was one of the things that worked succesfully and allowed me to get to my goals at the time (I didn't know who he was, when I did it, however).
> 
> I don't care if you don't know who he is, I remember you writing a huge status about it crying like a baby.
> 
> I see the pseudo science all over your Facebook, pal. Been happening for years. Anyway, you're tired, go to sleep - you've been talking all weekend.


Are you a scientist? just trying to clarify how you identify the pseudo science?

'I don't think so' means its an opinion which you're entitled to in this case. Having an opinion on my seminars and book despite never attending or reading the latter doesn't. "My mate jimmy said' sadly means you're whats known as a sheep and someone who has an inability to conclude your own opinion. Fairly evident by your history of posts btw.

I still don't know who he is despite me 'crying like a baby'. I would remember crying am sure.


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

TommyBananas said:


> Why do you keep repeating that you don't know who he is? I don't care that you don't know who he is, lol. *YOU* still wrote it.
> 
> For a start, the screenshot that I JUST posted is full of your "opinion" not backed by god damn anything. You're saying "at a point they'll be an inefficient machine and go no further" lmao - based off what you hack?


You've just avoided his points, if you want to keep preaching all this IIFYM stuff, then you need to answer points rather than drag it down to a random argument about some bloke nobody knows


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> Why do you keep repeating that you don't know who he is? I don't care that you don't know who he is, lol. *YOU* still wrote it.
> 
> For a start, the screenshot that I JUST posted is full of your "opinion" not backed by god damn anything. You're saying "at a point they'll be an inefficient machine and go no further" lmao - based off what you hack?


So you're not a scientist. Check, I am.

I know I wrote it. I remember and it has my name on it.

Do all FB posts have to be referenced? Wasn't aware of that. Luckily I referenced all of my book so if you want to grab a copy it's available here Tommy:

Products

You can then form your own opinion of it big lad.

Don't get so angry, all that capitalisation, bolding and name calling.

"Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy."

Aristotle

Referenced that for you so you don't think it's pseudo something.


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

TommyBananas said:


> He can't complain at me for having an opinion; when the screenshot I posted which are his words (which are also BS) and his opinion and anecdote, mate.
> 
> As for his points; what points are there to address of his? I make my opinion by the stuff he has posted in places I've seen it - I disagree with all the stuff he posts, people I know havee said his book sucks, what more do I need?


Well he's come here and rather than make it a debate about actual nutrition you decided to go down the more personal route, firing insults at him as a person and not about his dietry beliefs! granted, he had the first pop, but it would've been better if you made it a more scientific debate.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> He can't complain at me for having an opinion; when the screenshot I posted which are his words (which are also BS) and his opinion and anecdote, mate.


It's your opinion that it's BS but again you don't explain why therefore you have no argument. mate.



As for his points; what points are there to address of his? I make my opinion by the stuff he has posted in places I said:


> The people you know bought my book therefore they are either idiots or they value what I have said prior to the book. Alternatively you're creating another straw man to solidify your argument that my book....available above. Is infact a piece of literary sh1t and Jose Antonio the head of the ISSN is also clearly someone who has no clue what he's on about.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> You can quote Aristotle all you want buddy - you also know that anyone can be a 'scientist' you know, like the people who tell us eggs were killing us? The scientists who do studies and come to the conclusions there may be a link to so and so with correlation. Being a scientist means jack in this scenario.
> 
> I'd LOVE to see those studies (that don't exist) about peoples bodies becoming an inefficient machine and the ability to lose fat stops; please - let me see it. Show me how the law of thermodynamics stops working hueehuehue.
> 
> Have you argued with Layne, before? You mentioned Layne earlier, does he disagree with your stuff too? Merely asking out of interest for that question.


So you are arguing that science is important but then that 'anyone' can be a scientist nowadays. You're a tad contradictory fella which again seems a pretty large pattern in what you write on this forum. Lots of confirmation bias.

Perhaps you should look up metabolic adaptation. Also 'about peoples bodies becoming an inefficient machine and the ability to lose fat stops' Did I say that or did you just alter what I actually said to try and support your argument (straw man)

I haven't argued with anyone of worth in this industry. You see people of worth don't argue with each other. You may have seen that pattern.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> Well, usually when you post something, and someone asks for the evidence you should have it there to prove it, right?
> 
> As I said in my previous post:
> 
> ...


So buy my book, all the references are in there Tommy boy.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> My point wass clearly stating, anyone can be a scientist, and there is a difference between good, and bad science. Aka; Causation, correlation and the gold standard.
> 
> Layne argues with everyone in this industry, you now sayin' he is no worth in this industry? Lyle too.
> 
> ...


No no Tommy fella, your wee mind is getting confused here. Layne doesn't argue with people of worth, he argues with idiots (kind of what I'm doing here) he debates with people of worth as does Lyle. See I would debate with you but I simply don't value your opinion.

Knowing what something is and understanding it is very different.

'so if they go no further, they will lose no more fat' again YOU said that not me. I never said anything about fat you're changing it to solidify your argument.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> He argues with Lyle, all the time. Both of them have worth, both of them are smarter than you and I.
> 
> Now; back to my previous point - could you please expand on "They will go no further" then, please? Go no further in what? Cause clearly it means what I've said it meant, as you wrote it straight after a sentence about calorie restriction and weight loss.
> 
> ...


Ok so lets just hypothetically put this into a scenario Tommy. What you are saying is that thermodynamics is a constant thing. So if I put someone on an 800k/cal diet whilst on a daily basis they are expending basal 2000k/cal and through EAT, NEAT, TEF etc it amasses another 1000k/cal. The body is therefore in a 2200k/cal deficit per day. You're stating that fat loss and weight loss is linear yes? Just so everyone is clear.

They will lose tissue, fat and muscle on a daily basis continuously until both have completely disappeared. That is what you are telling us correct? Just need this point clarifying.

i could be childish and put up a picture of something that reminds me of you but I'm not like that.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> I am not stating anything is 'linear' because we all know it's not 'linear' - but we do know, the law of thermodynamics applies to humans, correct?
> 
> Now; could you please tell the starving africans that they're going to be okay because at a certain point their body will stop burning fat, tissue etc and they'll be able to survive based off Phil Learney logic.
> 
> ...


WOW again you change what I say to suit your argument Tommy. You also cherry pick a single study that infact corroborates what I am saying (thank you) but again you alter the discussion to suit your agenda.

You carry on on your little crusade my friend. If it wasn't the time it was and the fact I am wide awake I wouldn't even entertain you.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> Oh, and can you please clarify by "They will go no further" seeing as you said its not about fat/weeight loss, I can't think what it could be... oh wait..it is about what I said..


Explain Hyperphagia and homeostasis please Tommy boy. Also drop into that behavioural and habitual goal and non goal orientated behaviours please. Also as you seem to know things as you were formerly obese and explain the PFS in relation to WESTERN population not the starving populations you used to solidify your point.

WHY you think I would orientate a social media post towards a third world country I have no idea. If they have no food they are unlikely to use social media. Western population has food that is omnipresent, highly palatable and part of the process of hedonic eating behaviours. Maybe enlighten people as to your complex understanding of all that and it's relationship to the process of flexible dieting.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> But it's alright I'm sure the UK-M anecdote army will think you're right


Why are you on a forum when you disrespect the people on it so much? Ego thing so you can throw in some big words? You can tell your pals you had an 'argument' with me tomorrow on your FB groups. Even tell them you 'owned' me if you want. Get you some brownie points, least I can do.

I've already read all of Lyles books. Infact when I spoke to him last week he said he would send me his new one before it goes public. Sure you had the same convo.

YOU are still stating fat loss.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> Lyle was still waiting for the studies from Layne, I'll be waiting for 'em from you.


So now you're talking about metabolic damage????

I totally agree with what Lyle is saying. Just not what you are. You are misquoting, mis interpreting to suit your bias.

They are all in my book referenced fella.


----------



## Big Man 123 (Aug 1, 2013)

TommyBananas said:


> I'm not exactly smart


----------



## godspeed (Jun 23, 2012)

Why so much bum lick.. at the end of the day Tommy has presented a set of questions for Phill to answer and he has avoided them everytime. I aint taking sides but from what i can see a scientist and motivational speaker shouldnt be making tommy look an idiot but he cant even answer a few simple questions.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> Lol; this starteed with YOUR quote.
> 
> "THEY WILL GO NO FURTHER"
> 
> ...


Tommy, what medical diseases have I referenced?

You're right. 'You're not exactly smart'

Lyle wouldn't abuse me and didn't when I chatted to him last week and Layne had nothing to say when I spoke to him yesterday about what I do. Also Jose had no issues with the content of my book and it's references. You shouldn't either. Grab yourself a copy and dig into those references you want.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

godspeed said:


> Why so much bum lick.. at the end of the day Tommy has presented a set of questions for Phill to answer and he has avoided them everytime. I aint taking sides but from what i can see a scientist and motivational speaker shouldnt be making tommy look an idiot but he cant even answer a few simple questions.


No Tommy hasn't presented a set of questions. He is incorrectly interpreting something I said in a social media post and making assumptions based on that. I haven't avoided anything Tommy has failed to make clear what he is referring to. He is referring metabolic damage that layne talked about with metabolic adaptation. He is talking about fat loss stopping? about diseases? None of which I have talked about.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> I also want to say; I'm sure there are things I can learn from you Phil. I can always learn more, but I'd have to check the validity of anything you say, because someone who claims to be a scientist would be referencing these things straight away right now when asked. You as a scientist should be able to do that.
> 
> The gripe I have with you, is you won't back down from this non-sense you typed, and this is mainly what my opinion has been based off of, and a few other things I saw you post on Facebook.


Tommy you said this......

'Phil is one of the worst coaches/people in the industry, wrote a book full of sh1t, and talks a load of sh1t. I don't care how successful someone is, he gets lol'd at by almost every coach that has a brain.'

Therefore why on earth is my opinion so valued here? Or are you just aiming at brownie points.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

[96] La Bounty P. M., Campbell B. I., Wilson J., Galvan E., Berardi J.,

Kleiner S. M., Kreider R. B., Stout J. R., Ziegenfuss T., Spano M.,

Smith A., and Antonio J. "International Society of Sports Nutrition

Position Stand: Meal Frequency." Journal of the International Society

of Sports Nutrition 8 (2011):4. DOI:10.1186/1550-2783-8-4

147

[97] Bellisle F., McDevitt R., and Prentice A. M. "Meal Frequency and

Energy Balance." British Journal of Nutrition 77, no. 1 Suppl (April

1997):S57-S70.

[98] Verboeket-van de Venne W. P. and Westerterp K. R. "Influence of the

Feeding Frequency on Nutrient Utilization in Man: Consequences for

Energy Metabolism." European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

45(1991):161-169.

[99] Taylor M. A. and Garrow J. S. "Compared with Nibbling, Neither

Gorging Nor a Morning Fast Affect Short-Term Energy Balance in

Obese Patients in a Chamber Calorimeter." International Journal of

Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 25 (2001):519-528.

[100] Munsters M. J. and Saris W. H. "Effects of Meal Frequency on

Metabolic Profiles and Substrate Partitioning in Lean Healthy Males."

PLoS One (2012).

[101] Garrow J. S., Durrant M., Blaza S., Wilkins D., Royston P., and Sunkin

S. "The Effect of Meal Frequency and Protein Concentration on the

Composition of the Weight Lost By Obese Subjects." British Journal of

Nutrition 45, no. 1 (1981):5-15.

[102] Jenkins D. J., Ocana A., Jenkins A. L., Wolever T. M., Vuksan V.,

Katzman L., Hollands M., Greenberg G., Corey P., and Patten R.

"Metabolic Advantages of Spreading the Nutrient Load: Effects of

Increased Meal Frequency in Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes."

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55, no. 2 (Feb. 1992):461-467.

[103] Jenkins D. J. A., Wolever T. M. S., Vuksan V., Brighenti F., Cunnane

S. C., Rao A. V., Jenkins A. L., Buckley G., Patten R., Singer W., et al.

"Nibbling versus Gorging: Metabolic Advantages of Increased Meal

Frequency." New England Journal of Medicine 321 (1989):929-934.

[104] Leidy H. J. and Campbell W. W. "The Effect of Eating Frequency on

Appetite Control and Food Intake: Brief Synopsis of Controlled Feeding

Studies." Journal of Nutrition 141 (2011):154-157.

[105] Chapelot D. "The Role of Snacking in Energy Balance: A Biobehavioral

Approach." Journal of Nutrition 141 (2011):158-162.

[106] Palmer M. A., Capra S., and Baines S. K. "Association Between Eating

Frequency, Weight, and Health." Nutrition Reviews 67 (2009):379-390.

[107] Solomon T. P., Chambers E. S., Jeukendrup A. E., Toogood A. A., and

Blannin A. K. "The Effect of Feeding Frequency on Insulin and Ghrelin

Responses in Human Subjects. British Journal of Nutrition 100

(2008):810-819.

[108] Pearcey S. M. and de Castro J. M. "Food Intake and Meal Patterns of

Weight-Stable and Weight-Gaining Persons." American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition (2002).

[109] Fabry P., Hejl Z., Fodor J., Braun T., and Zvolankova K. "The

Frequency of Meals: Its Relation to Overweight,

Hypercholesterolaemia, and Decreased Glucose-Tolerance." Lancet 2,

no. 7360 (1964):614-615.

148

[110] Cruz-Jentoft A. J., Baeyens J. P., Bauer J. M., Boirie Y., Cederholm T.,

et al. "Sarcopenia: European Consensus on Definition and Diagnosis:

Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older

People." Age Ageing 39 (2010):412-423.

[111] Pennings B., Boirie Y., Senden J. M., Gijsen A. P., Kuipers H., et al.

"Whey Protein Stimulates Postprandial Muscle Protein Accretion More

Effectively Than Do C Asein and Casein Hydrolysate in Older Men."

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 93 (2011):997-1005.

[112] Nair K. S., Halliday D., and Griggs R. C. "Leucine Incorporation into

Mixed Skeletal Muscle Protein in Humans." American Journal of

Physiology 254 (1988):E208-E213.

[113] Stote K. S., Baer D. J., Spears K., Paul D. R., Harris G. K., Rumpler W.

V., Strycula P., Najjar S. S., Ferrucci L., Ingram D. K., et al. "A

Controlled Trial of Reduced Meal Frequency without Caloric Restriction

in Healthy, Normal-Weight, Middle-Aged Adults." American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition 85, no. 4 (2007):981-988.

[114] Irwin M. I. and Feeley R. M. "Frequency and Size of Meals and Serum

Lipids, Nitrogen and Mineral Retention, Fat Digestibility, and Urinary

Thiamine and Riboflavin in Young Women." American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition 20, no. 8 (1967):816-824.

[115] Speechly D. P. and Buffenstein R. "Greater Appetite Control

Associated with an Increased Frequency of Eating in Lean Males."

Appetite 33, no. 3 91999):285-297.

[116] Pavlov, I. P. Conditional Reflexes (New York: Dover Publications,

1960).

[117] Forbes G. B. "Body Fat Content Influences the Body Composition

Response to Nutrition and Exercise." Annals of the New York Academy

of Sciences 904 (2000):359-365.

[118] Wegner D. M., Schneider D. J., Carter S., and White T. "Paradoxical

Effects of Thought Suppression." Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 53 (1987):5-13.

[119] Wegner D. M., Shortt J. W., Blake A. W., and Page M. S. "The

Suppression of Exciting Thoughts." Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 58 (1990):409-418.

[120] Wegner D. M. and Zanakos S. "Chronic Thought Suppression." Journal

of Personality 62 (1994):615-640.

[121] Goris A. H. C. and Westerterp K. R. "Underreporting of Habitual Food

Explained By Undereating in Motivated Lean Women." Journal of

Nutrition 129 (1999):878-882.

[122] Eston R. G., Shephard S., Kreitzman S., Coxon A., Brodie D. A., Lamb

K. L., and Baltzopoulos V. "Effect of Very Low Calorie Diet on Body

Composition and Exercise Response in Sedentary Women." European

Journal of Applied Physiology 65 (1992):452-458.

[123] Bandini L. G., Schoeller D. A., Cyr H. N., and Dietz W. H. "Validity of

Reported Energy Intake in Obese and Nonobese Adolescents."

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 52 (1990):421-425.

149

[124] Schoeller D. A. "How Accurate Is Self-Reported Dietary Energy

Intake?" Nutrition Reviews 48 (1990):373-379.

[125] Schoeller D. A., Bandini L. G., and Dietz W. H. "Inaccuracies in Self-

Reported Intake Identified By Comparison with the Doubly Labeled

Water Method." Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 68

(1990):941-949.

[126] Voss S., Kroke A., Klipstein-Grobusch K., and Boeing H. "Is

Macronutrient Composition of Dietary Intake Data Affected By

Underreporting? Results from the EPIC-Potsdam Study." European

Journal of Clinical Nutrition 52 (1998):119-126.

[127] Hotamisligil G. S., Shargill N. S., and Spiegelman B. M. "Adipose

Expression of Tumor Necrosis Factor-?: Direct Role in Obesity-Linked

Insulin Resistance." Science 259 (1993):87-91.

[128] Feinstein R., Kanety H., Papa M. Z., Lunenfeld B., and Karasik A.

"Tumor Necrosis Factor-? Suppresses Insulin-Induced Tyrosine

Phosphorylation of Insulin Receptor and Its Substrates." Journal of

Biological Chemistry 268 (1993):26055-26058.

[129] Shoelson S. E., Lee J., and Goldfine A. B. "Inflammation and Insulin

Resistance." Journal of Clinical Investigation 116, no. 7 (July

2006):1793-1801.

[130] Kanai H., Sakamoto K., and Haeno M. "Electrical Measurement of

Fluid Distribution in Human Legs: Estimation of Extra- and Intra-

Cellular Fluid Volume." Journal of Microwave Power 18, no.

3(1983):233-243.

[131] Rosenbaum M. and Leibel R. L. "Adaptive Thermogenesis in Humans."

International Journal of Obesity 34, no. 1 (Oct. 2010):S47-S55.

DOI:10.1038/ijo.2010.184.

[132] Ray G. A. "Genetics Hypothesis of Nutrient Partitioning." Progress in

Obesity Research 7 (1996):43-48.

[133] Martinez. J. A. "Body-Weight Regulation: Causes of Obesity."

Department of Physiology and Nutrition, University of Navarra, 31008

Pamplona, Spain.

[134] Chaston T. B., Dixon J. B., and O'Brien P. E. "Changes in Fat-Free

Mass During Significant Weight Loss: A Systematic Review."

International Journal of Obesity 31, no. 5 (2007):743-750.

DOI:10.1038/sj.ijo.0803483.

[135] Hall K. D. "What is the Required Energy Deficit per Unit Weight Loss?"

International Journal of Obesity 32 (2007):573-576.

[136] Garthe I., Raastad T., Refsnes P. E., Koivisto A., and Sundgot-Borgen

J. "Effect of Two Different Weight-Loss Rates on Body Composition

and Strength and Power-Related Performance in Elite Athletes."

International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism 21

(2011):97-104.

[137] Hall K. D. "Body Fat and Fat-Free Mass Inter-Relationships: Forbes's

Theory Revisited." British Journal of Nutrition 97, no. 6 (2007):1059-

1063.

150

[138] Janssen I., Fortier A., Hudson R., and Ross R. "Effects of an Energy-

Restrictive Diet with or without Exercise on Abdominal Fat,

Intermuscular Fat, and Metabolic Risk Factors in Obese Women."

Diabetes Care 25 (2002):431-438.

[139] Janssen I. and Ross R. "Effects of Sex on the Change in Visceral,

Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue and Skeletal Muscle in Response to

Weight Loss." International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic

Disorders 23 (1999):1035-1046.

[140] Rice B., Janssen I., Hudson R., and Ross R. "Effects of Aerobic or

Resistance Exercise and/or Diet on Glucose Tolerance and Plasma

Insulin Levels in Obese Men." Diabetes Care 22 (1999):684-691.

[141] Dulloo A. G. and Jacquet J. "Adaptive Reduction in Basal Metabolic

Rate in Response to Food Deprivation in Humans: A Role for

Feedback Signals from Fat Stores." American Journal of Clinical

Nutrition 68 (1998):599-606.

[142] Maclean P. S., Bergouignan A., Cornier M. A., and Jackman M. R.

"Biology's Response to Dieting: The Impetus for Weight Regain."

Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 301 (2011):R581-

R600.

[143] MacLean P. S., Higgins J. A., Jackman M. R., Johnson G. C., Fleming-

Elder B. K., Wyatt H. R., Melanson E. L., and Hill J. O. "Peripheral

Metabolic Responses to Prolonged Weight Reduction That Promote

Rapid, Efficient Regain in Obesity-Prone Rats." Regulatory, Integrative

and Comparative Physiology 290 (2006):R1577-R1588.

[144] Levine J. A. "Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT)." Best

Practice and Research Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 16

(2002):679-702.

[145] Weigle D. S. "Contribution of Decreased Body Mass to Diminished

Thermic Effect of Exercise in Reduced-Obese Men." International

Journal of Obesity 12 (1988):567-578.

[146] Weigle D. S. and Brunzell J. D. "Assessment of Energy Expenditure in

Ambulatory Reduced-Obese Subjects By the Techniques of Weight

Stabilization and Exogenous Weight Replacement." International

Journal of Obesity 14, no. 1 Suppl (1990):69-77.

[147] Doucet E., Imbeault P., St-Pierre S., Almeras N., Mauriege P., Despres

J. P., Bouchard C., and Tremblay A. "Greater Than Predicted

Decrease in Energy Expenditure During Exercise After Body Weight

Loss in Obese Men." Clinical Science 105 (2003):89-95.

[148] Doucet E., St-Pierre S., Almeras N., Despres J. P., Bouchard C., and

Tremblay A. "Evidence for the Existence of Adaptive Thermogenesis

During Weight Loss." British Journal of Nutrition 85 (2001):715-723.

[149] Rosenbaum M., Hirsch J., Gallagher D. A., and Leibel R. L. "Long-

Term Persistence of Adaptive Thermogenesis in Subjects Who Have

Maintained a Reduced Body Weight." American Journal of Clinical

Nutrition 88 (2008):906-912.

151

[150] Ravussin E., Burnand B., Schutz Y., and Jequier E. "Energy

Expenditure Before and During Energy Restriction in Obese Patients."

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 41 (1985):753-759.

[151] Leibel R. L., Rosenbaum M., and Hirsch J. "Changes in Energy

Expenditure Resulting from Altered Body Weight." New England

Journal of Medicine 332 (1995):621-628.

[152] Asami D. K., McDonald R. B., Hagopian K., Horwitz B. A., Warman D.,

Hsiao A., Warden C., and Ramsey J. J. "Effect of Aging, Caloric

Restriction, and Uncoupling Protein 3 (UCP3) on Mitochondrial Proton

Leak in Mice." Experimental Gerontology 43 (2008):1069-1076.

[153] Bevilacqua L., Ramsey J. J., Hagopian K., Weindruch R., and Harper

M. E. "Effects of Short- and Medium-Term Calorie Restriction on

Muscle Mitochondrial Proton Leak and Reactive Oxygen Species

Production." Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 286

(2004):E852-E861.

[154] Bevilacqua L., Ramsey J. J., Hagopian K., Weindruch R., and Harper

M. E. "Long-Term Caloric Restriction Increases UCP3 Content But

Decreases Proton Leak and Reactive Oxygen Species Production in

Rat Skeletal Muscle Mitochondria." American Journal of Physiology -

Endocrinology and Metabolism 289 (2005):E429-E438.

[155] Hagopian K., Harper M. E., Ram J. J., Humble S. J., Weindruch R.,

and Ramsey J. J. "Long-Term Calorie Restriction Reduces Proton

Leak and Hydrogen Peroxide Production in Liver Mitochondria."

American Journal of Physiology - Endocrinology and Metabolism 288

(2005):E674-E684.

[156] Dugdale A. E. and Payne P. R. "Pattern of Lean and Fat Deposition in

Adults." Nature 266 (1977):349-351.

[157] Payne P. R. and Dugdale A. E. "Mechanisms for the Control of Body-

Weight." Lancet 1 (1977):583-586.

[158] Payne P. R. and Dugdale A. E. "A Model for the Prediction of Energy

Balance and Body Weight." Annals of Human Biology 4 (1977):525-

535.

[159] Kreitzman S. N. "Factors Influencing Body Composition During Very-

Low-Calorie Diets." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 56

(1992):217S-223S.

[160] Hall K. D. "Body Fat and Fat-Free Mass Interrelationships." British

Journal of Nutrition (June 2007) 97, no. 6:1059-1106.

[161] Miles C. W., Wong N. P., Rumpler W. V., and Conway J. "Effect of

Circadian Variation in Energy Expenditure, Within-Subject Variation

and Weight Reduction on Thermic Effect of Food." European Journal

of Clinical Nutrition 47 (1993):274-284.

[162] Mäestu J., Eliakim A., Jürimäe J., Valter I., and Jürimäe T. "Anabolic

and Catabolic Hormones and Energy Balance of the Male

Bodybuilders During the Preparation for the Competition." Journal of

Strength and Conditioning Research 24, no. 4 (April 2010):1074-1081.

152

[163] Rossow L. M., Fukuda D. H., Fahs C. A., Loenneke J. P., and Stout J.

R. "Natural Bodybuilding Competition Preparation and Recovery: A 12-

Month Case Study." International Journal of Sports Physiology and

Performance 8 (Feb. 2013):582-592.

[164] Hagmar M., Berglund B., Brismar K., and Hirschberg A. L. "Body

Composition and Endocrine Profile of Male Olympic Athletes Striving

for Leanness." Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine 23 (2013):197-201.

[165] Kim B. "Thyroid Hormone as a Determinant of Energy Expenditure and

the Basal Metabolic Rate." Thyroid 18 (2008)18:141-144.

[166] Fontana L., Klein S., Holloszy J. O., and Premachandra B. N. "Effect of

Long-Term Calorie Restriction with Adequate Protein and

Micronutrients on Thyroid Hormones." Journal of Clinical

Endocrinology and Metabolism 91, no. 8 (2006):3232.

[167] Witbracht M. G., Laugero K. D., Van Loan M. D., Adams S. H., and

Keim N. L. "Performance on the Iowa Gambling Task Is Related to

Magnitude of Weight Loss and Salivary Cortisol in a Diet-Induced

Weight Loss Intervention in Overweight Women." Physiology and

Behavior 106 (2012):291-297.

[168] Tomiyama A. J., Mann T., Vinas D., Hunger J. M., Dejager J., and

Taylor S. E. "Low Calorie Dieting Increases Cortisol." Psychosomatic

Medicine 72, no. 4 (May 2010):357-364.

DOI:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181d9523c.

[169] Welle S., Matthews D. E., Campbell R. G., and Nair K. S. "Stimulation

of Protein Turnover By Carbohydrate Overfeeding in Men." American

Journal of Physiology - Endocrinology and Metabolism 257, no. 3

(Sept. 1989):E413-E417.

[170] Kelley D. E., Mintun M. A., Watkins S. C., et al. "The Effect of Non-

Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus and Obesity on Glucose

Transport and Phosphorylation in Skeletal Muscle." Journal of Clinical

Investigation 97 (1996):2705-2713.

[171] Kelley D. E. "Skeletal Muscle Fat Oxidation: Timing and Flexibility Are

Everything." Journal of Clinical Investigation 115, no. 7 (July

2005):1699-1702. DOI:10.1172/JCI25758.

[172] Kelley D. E. and Mandarino L. J. "Fuel Selection in Human Skeletal

Muscle in Insulin Resistance: A Reexamination." Diabetes 49

(2000):677-683.

[173] Weir G. C. and Bonner-Wei S. "Five Stages of Evolving Beta-Cell

Dysfunction During Progression to Diabetes." Diabetes 53, no. 3 Suppl

(Dec. 2004):S16-S21. DOI:10.2337/diabetes.53.suppl_3.S16.

[174] Mari A. and Ferrannini E. "Beta-Cell Function Assessment From

Modelling of Oral Tests: An Effective Approach." Diabetes, Obesity and

Metabolism 10, no. 4 Suppl (Nov. 2008):77-87. DOI:10.1111/j.1463-

1326.2008.00946.x.

[175] Matsuda M. and DeFronzo R. A. "Insulin Sensitivity Indices Obtained

from Oral


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> Your opinion is valued here because you are a bro, just like the majority of people here (but I get along with a few people here, despite our different outlooks at things diet & training related).
> 
> My opinion of you is harsh, I didn't have to say it like that; but after the things I've seen you say, and the way you attacked Josef Rakich; it ****ed me off.
> 
> ...


There you go 'bro' some light reading for your little brain. Should find what you want in amongst that. Thats chapter 13 quotes. Chapter 10 is probably relevant too.

Wouldn't want you thinking I don't reference what I say.


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Tommy will be checking under his bed now, worrying about 'the learney man'


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

Well that escalated rapidly lol. Hope thread is still here to read later 

Phil vs Banana

#Epicsummit battle 2016


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

That was like watching two smelly kids arguing over who smells the most.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> HAHAHA. Come on. Don't fob me off with that.
> 
> Link me to the direct paper which supports your claim of "You restrict anyones calories they will lose weight but at some point you will encounter an inefficient machine and they will go no further."
> 
> ...


pot/kettle/black?


----------



## mal (Dec 31, 2009)

For instance, someone with Asperger syndrome might initiate conversations with others by

extensively relating facts related to a particular topic of interest.


----------



## Goranchero (Mar 26, 2015)

BrahmaBull said:


> Well that escalated rapidly lol. Hope thread is still here to read later
> 
> Phil vs Banana
> 
> #Epicsummit battle 2016












@mal, I think an MCT ketogenic diet might be beneficial for Asperger.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Learney said:


> TBH the thread title I don't even want to get into but its rubbish.
> 
> Enzymes are the things that naturally break foods down. Take them out of food it lasts longer. It's hardly anything you need evidence for just basic food science. The body doesn't need this as a necessity but it alleviates some of the challenges the gut goes through.


Thanks for taking the time to reply. As I hope my posts showed I have a lot of respect for you and my queries were based purely on not having seen the evidence behind your views*. A quick Google on food preservation has given me some helpful information but leaves me with two main questions if you have time to comment.

1) There are places suggesting that enzymes in food will be destroyed by relatively modest temperature rises (e.g. 150°F/65.6°C, although I can't quickly find a good source for this). If this is true it would presumably mean that enzymes in food are no longer important once food is cooked. Cooking obvisouly does denature proteins so there certainly must be grounds to believe that enzyme function could be affected.

2) Are you aware of any published studies that attempt to quantify the effect/significance of enzymes present in food on digestion/absorption?

BTW please don't take my questions to mean that I'm against largely whole/unprocessed food diets, I absolutely am not. I'm just curious about the enzyme related argument.

It would be great for this forum if you were to post here more regularly to share your experience and views. Even if people won't necessarily agree with all you say most would be very interested to hear your views and discuss them. Please don't let TommyBananas put you off.

*Given how the rest of this thread has developed I'll mention that I am a scientist (I have a PhD) but NOT in the area of nutrition or sports and exercise science.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

So...just read through last night's antics.

I deduce, a scientist who makes a living from his views/opinions etc, and therefore effects hundreds, if not thousands of people's understanding, cannot directly answer questions posed to him by a layman, which should be notoriously easy for such a person.

This reminds me of someone in particular...you guessed it, David Cameron!

Great at talking, great at backtracking on things he has said in the past and even better at speaking for hours on a topic/question but never actually answering it. This is why he appeals to the majority who are easily led/uneducated (which closely resembles another community, the bros that blindly follow ancedotal evidence or he who looks best/claims to be the smartest).

Just guess this is how the industry works and people will have to take it upon themselves to research and find out what to believe in, as clearly titles mean nothing.


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

things i learn't from this thread



TommyBananas said:


> My point wass clearly stating, *anyone can be a scientist*, and *there is a difference between good, and bad science*. Aka;


now i'm off to debunk the theory of relativity.


----------



## vlb (Oct 20, 2008)

sonof2eus said:


> Tommy is fat


not a tommy fanboi but thats bollox


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

this thread keeps on giving!


----------



## Beats (Jun 9, 2011)

BrahmaBull said:


> U mad brah
> 
> seems you've taken an unhealthy interest in me but I'm taken sorry


IF YA SMELLLLLLLLLALALALALALA .... WHAT THE ROCK........IS COOKIN


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

a.notherguy said:


> this thread keeps on giving!


Until it's eventually deleted :lol:


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

*checks who started the thread *

We should be safe


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Jalex said:


> Until it's eventually deleted :lol:


well you did not start the thread so can't delete it and deny doing it


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

Jalex said:


> Until it's eventually deleted :lol:


hopefully that will never happen and we will end up millions of pages of tommy slating anyone and everyone who even slightly disagrees with what he says


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

Pscarb said:


> well you did not start the thread so can't delete it and deny doing it


Why don't you go back and read Paul, never denied it. Just didn't outright admit it. :tongue:


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Jalex said:


> Why don't you go back and read Paul, never denied it. Just didn't outright admit it. :tongue:


i don't need to go back and read anything i know what i mean.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

Pscarb said:


> i don't need to go back and read anything i know what i mean.


Fine, but what you meant was not correct. Nice to see mods touting false information about the forum's members. Promising.


----------



## Gary29 (Aug 21, 2011)

You boys got nothing better to do at 2.30am than argue on the internet about fat loss?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Jalex said:


> Fine, but what you meant was not correct. Nice to see mods touting false information about the forum's members. Promising.


really you are giving me grief about this? i wouldn't carry it on i am prepping and have no patience, the original comment was a joke but hey if you want to start saying i am giving false information then you go ahead lets see how long you stay around


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Having read this thread, I'm still none the wiser.

I'm also rather confused about the 'potato'. What the hell does it mean??!!


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

Pscarb said:


> really you are giving me grief about this? i wouldn't carry it on i am prepping and have no patience, the original comment was a joke but hey if you want to start saying i am giving false information then you go ahead lets see how long you stay around


I'm playing, like you say you were. Chill mate, don't want to distract your attention from prep...


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

note to jalex, in an argument with a mod, even if you are right you are actually wrong.

I suggest you wind it in a touch.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> note to jalex, in an argument with a mod, even if you are right you are actually wrong.
> 
> I suggest you wind it in a touch.


See above, beat you to it


----------



## Wheyman (Sep 6, 2011)

Jalex said:


> I'm playing, like you say you were. Chill mate, don't want to distract your attention from prep...


Jalex just chillax


----------



## kuju (Sep 15, 2010)

essexboy said:


> I view any research with scepticsm and caution.*Much "research" is done to prove an hypothesis that may prove advantageous to those with financial interests.*Would you care to expand on that view, or are you
> 
> just going to make unfounded statements with no factual content, simply because you cant make rational counter arguments?


And your basis for making that comment is....what precisely?

I ask because i've either been training in..or conducting...or teaching others...scientific research for over 20 years. There's a couple of absolutely fundamental aspects of GOOD science that go against what you've said here.

1. A good scientists looks for evidence for the NULL hypothesis. If you *prove* that then your experimental hypothesis wasn't right to start with. The process of doing this inherently means gathering evidence for the experimental hypothesis - however the mindset you should have is...can I prove the null.

2. If you have people involved in the study with a vested financial interest in teh outcome then you have to admit it very blatantly. Otherwise your work gets discredited (see Andrew Wakefield for instance). No reputable scientific journal will even accept a paper for review without a statement of conflicting interests (yes they can be falsified but...eventually it will probably come out).

Generally speaking; research is independent and seeks to maintain that to avoid biases. Commercial research (ie research done by the company involved in whatever is being studied) is obviously separate from this. But that kind of research is rarely published in academic/scientific journals.

Scepticism and caution are crucial - a good scientist is ever a sceptic....but it needs to be proportional.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

what i will add to the thread and the only thing as he (Phil) does not need me to back him up but i have a decent amount of knowledge after 25yrs in this game, i have attended a few of Phil's seminars and read his book the guy certainly does know his stuff and know it at a totally different level to anyone else i personally know.

i am being prepped by Phil this year and have never been as conditioned and as heavy so he can and does put into practice what he knows......

Phil is a knowledgable guy and is an asset to the forum.....


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Pscarb said:


> what i will add to the thread and the only thing as he (Phil) does not need me to back him up but i have a decent amount of knowledge after 25yrs in this game, i have attended a few of Phil's seminars and read his book the guy certainly does know his stuff and know it at a totally different level to anyone else i personally know.
> 
> i am being prepped by Phil this year and have never been as conditioned and as heavy so he can and does put into practice what he knows......
> 
> Phil is a knowledgable guy and is an asset to the forum.....


and tommy? :whistling:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

kuju said:


> And your basis for making that comment is....what precisely?
> 
> I ask because i've either been training in..or conducting...or teaching others...scientific research for over 20 years. There's a couple of absolutely fundamental aspects of GOOD science that go against what you've said here.
> 
> ...


Pharmas conduct research and publish findings.NICE the clinical "excellence" establishment has a panel of 12 doctors.9 of those Doctors,have financial ties to Pharmas.You think their recommendations are not going to be biased?


----------



## kuju (Sep 15, 2010)

essexboy said:


> Pharmas conduct research and publish findings.NICE the clinical "excellence" establishment has a panel of 12 doctors.9 of those Doctors,have financial ties to Pharmas.You think their recommendations are not going to be biased?


I made the point that pharmas publish; however when it's in academic journals any conflict of interest has to be noted. And most scientists wouldn't accept a single organisations body of research as the definitive word on a given subject unless it was conducted in a truly transparent manner and explicitly referenced everyone else's work. Either way - pharmas do not, by any stretch of the imagination, conduct "most research"....which was the point I was contesting.

As for NICE - where are you getting your information from? I've been involved in NICE reviews (including sitting on an expert group for them) and there is most definitely not a single panel of doctors. Every guidance document is based on someone asking NICE to review evidence which, if accepted, then leads to the development of expert groups from external parties (again - conflicts of interest should be stated and are).

This is how NICE guidance is developed; you'll note the lack of a single unitary panel making final decisions. Because it wouldn't work.

http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg177/documents/osteoarthritis-update-stakeholder-lists-and-how-to-register2

So based on your original statement and your reply here; I would argue you haven't actually produced anything beyond conjecture as evidence for your assertion that "most research" exists to support a hypothesis and the people making money out of it.


----------



## kuju (Sep 15, 2010)

Just in case it's a bit tldr........

The development of NICE standard clinical guidelines involves:

? NICE

? National Collaborating Centres (NCCs)

? Guideline Development Groups (GDGs)

? the Patient and Public Involvement Programme (PPIP) at NICE

? Guideline Review Panels

? expert reviewers

? stakeholders

And the definition of "stakeholders" (before you leap on that word)

Organisations that can register as stakeholders

The following can register as stakeholders for NICE clinical guidelines:

? national patient and carer organisations that represent the interests of people whose care will

be covered by the guideline ('patient and carer stakeholders')

? local patient and carer organisations, but only if there is no relevant national organisation

? national organisations that represent the healthcare professionals who provide the services

described in the guideline ('professional stakeholders')

? companies that manufacture drugs or devices used in treatment of the condition covered by

the guideline and whose interests may be significantly affected by the guideline ('commercial

stakeholders')

? providers and commissioners of health services in England and Wales

? statutory organisations, including the Department of Health, the Welsh Assembly

Government, NHS Quality Improvement Scotland, the Healthcare Commission and the

National Patient Safety Agency

? research organisations that have carried out nationally recognised research in the area.

NICE clinical guidelines are produced for the NHS in England and Wales, so a 'national'

organisation is defined as one that represents England and/or Wales, or has a commercial

interest in England and/or Wales.

You'll note that there *are* commercial stakeholders allowed - nut they are expressly treated as commercial stakeholders and as such their submissions are treated a bit differently (and no that doesn't mean they get more weight)


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

kuju said:


> Just in case it's a bit tldr........
> 
> The development of NICE standard clinical guidelines involves:
> 
> ...


Ok mate you win.Not one single scientist, Drug company, Doctor or anyone involved in medical research has any interest other than medical advancement.No research is completed or embarked upon to finance anyone.The mere fact that Pfizer who manufacturer statins, make huge "donations" to the BHF, who co incidentally, still adhere to the lipid hypothesis, is pure coincidence and nothing more.

Im not blaming the Guys in white coats per se.However, the pharmas want results.They manipulate data and do all they can to assure the drugs they peddle reach the market.Thats my opinion.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

kuju said:


> Just in case it's a bit tldr........
> 
> The development of NICE standard clinical guidelines involves:
> 
> ...


and this is going to hinder/help my gains how?


----------



## Snake (Sep 30, 2014)

BLUE(UK) said:


> I'm also rather confused about the 'potato'. What the hell does it mean??!!


I can answer this one...

...I believe Tommy is trying to say that Learney is a starchy vegetable that was grown in the ground.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

No one in clinical practice (who is worth being there) takes a single piece of research to use as the sole basis of their recommendations. Clinical practice is a combination of all relevant research (from all kinds of researchers) pooled together and combined with established physiological understanding to form a pattern of information.

Yes some research is very misleading when viewed out of context of the entire body of research, and yes some research is conducted to try to support profit making practices rather than anything else, but no such piece of research should ever be looked at on its own.

For what it's worth also there are different types of study that carry different weight - most of the exciting studies that hit the media are pilot studies that use a very small sample size and note something interesting... but such studies (pilots) are never intended to be looked at as strong sources of evidence on their own, rather they are pieces of research that suggest need for more robust advanced studies with larger sample sizes with tighter controls and methods of measurement. Many pilot studies reveal valuable info but equally many turn out to be outliers that have seemingly promising evidence but are actually red herrings. If going by research one has to be very aware of how to weigh the evidence of one study type against another and to be able to tell the difference between hypothesis that comes from a pilot study and an established data pattern from a wider body of more robust research.


----------



## Galaxy (Aug 1, 2011)

Pscarb said:


> what i will add to the thread and the only thing as he (Phil) does not need me to back him up but i have a decent amount of knowledge after 25yrs in this game, i have attended a few of Phil's seminars and read his book the guy certainly does know his stuff and know it at a totally different level to anyone else i personally know.
> 
> i am being prepped by Phil this year and have never been as conditioned and as heavy so he can and does put into practice what he knows......
> 
> Phil is a knowledgable guy and is an asset to the forum.....


And this is the exact reason why this forum is gone $hit for the most part.

Phil leary would be an asset to this forum with his knowledge and experience but can yo ublame him and other people like him not posting here anymore when u see threads like this.

Pity


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Galaxy said:


> And this is the exact reason why this forum is gone $hit for the most part.
> 
> Phil leary would be an asset to this forum with his knowledge and experience but can yo ublame him and other people like him not posting here anymore when u see threads like this.
> 
> Pity


I dont think he likes people spelling his name wrong either.


----------



## Man Like What (Oct 25, 2014)

So did we ever find out exactly what was meant by the bolded text?

"You restrict anyones calories they will lose weight but at some point you will encounter an inefficient machine and *they will go no further*."

Interesting read though. A thorough lesson in question evasion.


----------



## Galaxy (Aug 1, 2011)

banzi said:


> I dont think he likes people spelling his name wrong either.


And a sly remark from you, not surprised one bit.

Predictive text!!


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Galaxy said:


> And a sly remark from you, not surprised one bit.
> 
> Predictive text!!


I try and remain consistent, dont want to confuse people.


----------



## Galaxy (Aug 1, 2011)

banzi said:


> I try and remain consistent, dont want to confuse people.


Can't fault you on that one lol. Ah for the most part you do talk sense.


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

kuju said:


> I made the point that pharmas publish; however when it's in academic journals any conflict of interest has to be noted. And most scientists wouldn't accept a single organisations body of research as the definitive word on a given subject unless it was conducted in a truly transparent manner and explicitly referenced everyone else's work. Either way - pharmas do not, by any stretch of the imagination, conduct "most research"....which was the point I was contesting.
> 
> As for NICE - where are you getting your information from? I've been involved in NICE reviews (including sitting on an expert group for them) and there is most definitely not a single panel of doctors. Every guidance document is based on someone asking NICE to review evidence which, if accepted, then leads to the development of expert groups from external parties (again - conflicts of interest should be stated and are).
> 
> ...


It's not worth you time arguing this on here or the tin foil hats come out.


----------



## Man Like What (Oct 25, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> Of course we didn't, well, we did - cause I said what it meant, but he denied it.
> 
> He will not be able to answer it unless he admits he was wrong.


Tommy...I don't always agree with what you say. But I did enjoy reading your 'debate' with Phil.

I don't know why he wouldn't just admit he'd made a mistake with what he'd said there. I'd have had a lot more respect then. Makes me wonder just how much of what's been said is true if suppressing even an incorrect little Facebook comment is so important.

I did like the wall of text full of references though :lol:


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

Goranchero said:


> I think an MCT ketogenic diet might be beneficial for Asperger.


This caught my eye, since I'm Aspergers & so is my son. I cannot get on with a keto diet at all, but it may be of some use to him.

The research is hardly conclusive though. From what I can gather, this was a single study with no control group - so although the kids being studied showed some improvements, there is no way of knowing how much of that improvement would have happened anyway just because they are being studied for something.

Interesting idea though - it's definitely helpful for epileptics, and a proportion of people with ASD appear to have trouble with beta-oxidation of fatty acids.


----------



## Goranchero (Mar 26, 2015)

Major Eyeswater said:


> This caught my eye, since I'm Aspergers & so is my son. I cannot get on with a keto diet at all, but it may be of some use to him.
> 
> The research is hardly conclusive though. From what I can gather, this was a single study with no control group - so although the kids being studied showed some improvements, there is no way of knowing how much of that improvement would have happened anyway just because they are being studied for something.
> 
> Interesting idea though - it's definitely helpful for epileptics, and a proportion of people with ASD appear to have trouble with beta-oxidation of fatty acids.


Coconut milk custard

250ml of cold coconut milk (I suggest Aroy-D, best brand IMO)

10g gelatine powder + 4 tablespoons of water

sweetener and flavours to taste (I use MP Vanilla sucralose most of the times)

Prepare gelatine in four tablespoons of water, throw it into the microwave for 10-15 seconds to melt, heat a bit further if neccessary, just make sure the gelatine had melted entirely

Start whipping coconut milk with a blender, while blending pour in the gelatine and continue beating the mixture for cca 5 minutes. It should reach consistency of soft whipped cream. Pour the mix into a bowl or silicon mould and throw it into the fridge to set for at least an hour. You should have an amazing dessert with slow release of MCT and absolutely no digestion issues.

Macros:

Carbs: 5g (4,5%)

Protein: 14g (12,5%)

Fats: 45g (83%)

of which MCT: 27g (48%)

Calories: ~450kCal

You can always increase protein if needed with a scoop of whey or casein.

Anyway, if you ever do keto, add enough saturated fats to your diet. Palmitic does not work well with carbs, but the human body does not work well without both palmitic and carbs. Most people who feel like crap on keto get most of their energy from polyunsaturates and monounsaturates.


----------



## godspeed (Jun 23, 2012)

Man Like What said:


> Tommy...I don't always agree with what you say. But I did enjoy reading your 'debate' with Phil.
> 
> I don't know why he wouldn't just admit he'd made a mistake with what he'd said there. I'd have had a lot more respect then. Makes me wonder just how much of what's been said is true if suppressing even an incorrect little Facebook comment is so important.
> 
> I did like the wall of text full of references though :lol:


Totally agree with this, i have read a fair amount of Phil's work and he does know a hell of a lot. Facebook is a worse nightmare for publicity because its so easy to make a statement that isn't "edited" and corrected (like a book would be) before going out to the public. Lost some respect for the fella last night, was entertaining yet painful to read!


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

Goranchero said:


> Coconut milk custard
> 
> 250ml of cold coconut milk (I suggest Aroy-D, best brand IMO)
> 
> ...


I'll be trying this at some point - thanks 

I love coconut & use it in cooking wherever I can. When I tried keto, I was mixing protein drinks with coconut milk daily, and I still couldn't get it to bloody work. Worst 4 weeks of my life.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

Galaxy said:


> And this is the exact reason why this forum is gone $hit for the most part.
> 
> Phil leary would be an asset to this forum with his knowledge and experience but can yo ublame him and other people like him not posting here anymore when u see threads like this.
> 
> Pity


Hence why I won't be responding any further. After being called a hack, being told my book and seminars are sh!t, having someone suggest I have aspergers and they still think they're entitled to A) my time and B) my response.

If he thinks I am the worst coach in the industry why on earth is he so concerned with my opinion?


----------



## Goranchero (Mar 26, 2015)

Coconut oil can be a bit harsh on indigestion if consumed in large quantities at once, works like WD40. Gelatine slows it down. For me the best fats to feel great on keto are dairy, butter, ghee and aged cheese.


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

essexboy said:


> Ok mate you win.Not one single scientist, Drug company, Doctor or anyone involved in medical research has any interest other than medical advancement.No research is completed or embarked upon to finance anyone.The mere fact that Pfizer who manufacturer statins, make huge "donations" to the BHF, who co incidentally, still adhere to the lipid hypothesis, is pure coincidence and nothing more.
> 
> Im not blaming the Guys in white coats per se.However, the pharmas want results.They manipulate data and do all they can to assure the drugs they peddle reach the market.Thats my opinion.


You mentioned statins Essex that's good enough for me, fcukin poison, but the truth is out there, but why ould anyone one lie? maybe Lipitor posting 19 billion in sales alone, no incentive to give false evidence there then, by the way, some good stuff on youtbe on this subject.


----------



## Fbmmofo (Feb 10, 2015)

I think this could have been a decent debate but certain people here need to work on there interpersonal skills. Both sides seemed to be avoiding answering, which is fine. No one can force you to but sometimes what you don't say says more than what you do.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

I started statins last September, after 2 weeks I felt like sh*t, I stopped them and within 3 days I was fine.

never again.


----------



## freddee (Mar 2, 2009)

I told the doctor to stick them up his @rse years ago, probably for the same reasons, but now I am pretty convinced it is a massive con, the evidence just doesn't add up, like I say there seems to be a lot of very clever people who absolutely slate statin drugs, and the whole cholesterol con...


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

I will leave with this.

'You restrict anyones calories they will lose weight but at some point you will encounter an inefficient machine and they will go no further'

As Tommy eluded this was entirely about fat loss and or weight loss he has concluded something to suit his argument. If I wanted to say fat loss would halt or weight loss would cease that would be 100% what i would have said.

Ok, lets throw thermodynamics to one side. Not really much to discuss on that as you reduce someones k/cals they lose weight. The lower they go they less efficient the body is at that weight loss but it will still occur.

This is down to numerous things that adjust BMR, TDEE, NEAT, EAT, TEF. Alongside this biologically the thyroid will down regulate and/or increase conversion to inactive forms. Testosterone will lower. Cortisol will rise and impact aldosterone so fluid will be managed differently (in some cases weight even in a deficit can go up but 'weight' and this is temporal as a caloric restriction will still cause a loss of weight be that from protein or fat compartments or stored glycogen.

In reference to an inefficient machine let me use 'BOB' as an example. I used him at my seminars so will carry on.

Bob is obese. Therefore according to the basic principle of metabolic regulation when he has had adequate food he will stop eating as his body will have reached adequate energy supply. As bob is obese this system is therefore an *inefficient *one.

So why is bob overweight. Bob is overweight as he cannot regulate food intake (*inefficient*) there are a multitude of reasons for this. Several of them the reward centres of the brain (*inefficient* in bobs case)

Bob also has a faulty leptin signal brought about by obesity (which is also* inefficient*) Leptin signals to the brain when energy stores are good or bad. This is there partly to prevent starvation. Metabolic rate decreases, hunger goes up, NEAT goes down (Non exercise activity thermogenesis) test goes down, thyroid goes down. This is infact an efficient thing but *inefficient* when we're talking fat or weight loss. Only efficient as a survival mechanism.

He also has insulin resistance (or a high likelihood unless he has metabolic benign obesity) therefore cells (part of the machine) are inefficient at uptaking glycogen so are once again *inefficient *. The pancreas over time becomes *inefficient * at producing insulin (part of the mechnism of T2 diabetes). The beta receptors down regulate through stages of damage (become *inefficient*) Stage 1 efficient all through to stage 4 *inefficient* to stage 5 which is no longer working (Type 1 diabetes)

Also alongside this Bob has an* inefficient* reward system. Lets just focus on the D2 receptors. These are the dopamine reward system, the one that lights up with pleasure. With obesity comes a decline in these receptors. Therefore what was once an efficient reward system is now *inefficient*. Bob now needs more of the same thing (food) to get the same response. This is much like caffeine right, you get used to it, need more for the same effect. Bob over time and as obesity snowballs he therefore only gets the intrinsic pleasurable rewards from food if he cumulatively eats more.

This in an environment which has highly palatable foods omnipresent and Bob, most likely depressed and unhappy about the inability to control food intake, the fault thyroid and low testosterone compounding this. Bob is now a plethora of *inefficiency*. He suffers from episodic binge eating, hedonic hunger etc etc. At the top of that list will be the foods that have power over Bob, the ones that will rank highly on the PFS (Power of Food scale).

Probably a large reason that a flexible approach without consideration for these specific hedonic and high power foods Bob will fail. He will fail as he has a bunch of *inefficient* systems.

Tommy Banana made one of the most fatal errors you can in research, science etc etc and he 'Assumed' he took the words in the context he best saw fit and alongside his own limited knowledge and concluded I was wrong when infact he misconstrued the context to suit his own agenda. He kept referring to the Minnesota semi starved study then used starving populations to compound his argument.

He then kept referring to someone else argument Layne and Lyles and drew a similar conclusion. The studies I shared with him look at behavioural effects, habitual eating, hedonic hunger and all of the above metabolic changes that occur to adapt to hyper, hypo and iso caloric dieting.

He wanted a single study to back up HIS agenda and interpretation of what I said. I can't produce evidence about something I have not said. I can only produce it for what I HAVE said which is what I did. he responded with 'haha I knew you'd do that' or words to that effect.

Sad to hear that some of you feel you've lost respect for me but when someone tells me that my livelihood is a bunch of lies, I'm a hack and the worst coach around I believe I'm entitled to say something.

But hey ho, can't please everyone.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

I am an efficient machine.


----------



## Galaxy (Aug 1, 2011)

Learney said:


> Hence why I won't be responding any further. After being called a hack, being told my book and seminars are sh!t, having someone suggest I have aspergers and they still think they're entitled to A) my time and B) my response.
> 
> If he thinks I am the worst coach in the industry why on earth is he so concerned with my opinion?


Because you don't preach iffym he'll have a problem with you, laughable really.

As I said just a pity, was great when you started posting again last year I think, but can understand why you wouldn't bother anymore.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

It's ok, I put up an educational post above as I figured it would help the people on the forum wanting to learn and not sit on some fence somewhere.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

The leaner you are the more efficient you become Banzi therefore dieting becomes simple and just about food. When people are obese. Food is more than just macronutrients and has intrinsic reward factors. Something the whole IIYFM and flexible crew seem to ignore in the research.

They also fail to acknowledge that their 'gods' never deal with obese people as clients.....funny that.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Learney said:


> *The leaner you are the more efficient you become Banzi therefore dieting becomes simple and just about food.* When people are obese. Food is more than just macronutrients and has intrinsic reward factors. Something the whole IIYFM and flexible crew seem to ignore in the research.


Agreed, same with anabolics, I dont advise anyone over 12% BF to use them.

They work way better when you are lean and your body is responding to training and nutrition better.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

Fbmmofo said:


> I think this could have been a decent debate but certain people here need to work on there interpersonal skills. Both sides seemed to be avoiding answering, which is fine. No one can force you to but sometimes what you don't say says more than what you do.


I wasn't going to give an answer to something I didn't say it was as simple as that.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

TommyBananas said:


> " You restrict anyones calories they will lose weight but at some point you will encounter an inefficient machine and *they will go no further.*"
> 
> they
> 
> ...


Fair enough Tommy you're entitled to be Tommy and I can't stop you being that.

'rigid dieting has been linked to eating disorders, as shown in studies' well done on finding that out. The point being....

Great chat Tommy


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

> Also, as I showed, and said before - rigid dieting has been linked to eating disorders, as shown in studies.


So what?

People seeing a slim girl in a magazine has led to eating disorders.

Whats your point?

IIFYM dieting has led to people staying fat because they cant control themselves.


----------



## Fbmmofo (Feb 10, 2015)

Learney said:


> I wasn't going to give an answer to something I didn't say it was as simple as that.


Fair enough Sir but if you'd set him straight in the first place then perhaps it wouldn't have escalated so far. Although it more than likely would have.

With regards to your long post. With the learned behaviour elements, could you not look at another way and say

By giving Bob a small amount of a food he has a problem with you are teaching him better habits? I suppose if we replaced food with drink/ drugs/ sex / gambling its not a good idea.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

banzi said:


> So what?
> 
> People seeing a slim girl in a magazine has led to eating disorders.
> 
> ...


You could probably link a pop tart to an eating disorder.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Learney said:


> You could probably link a pop tart to an eating disorder.


Anyone who eats pop tarts has a mental disorder not an eating one.


----------



## Learney (Apr 19, 2006)

Fbmmofo said:


> Fair enough Sir but if you'd set him straight in the first place then perhaps it wouldn't have escalated so far. Although it more than likely would have.
> 
> With regards to your long post. With the learned behaviour elements, could you not look at another way and say
> 
> By giving Bob a small amount of a food he has a problem with you are teaching him better habits? I suppose if we replaced food with drink/ drugs/ sex / gambling its not a good idea.


It's not as simple as that as part of the association is the quantity and also the hedonic element is brought about by the poor D2 receptors. Telling an obese person to only eat two biscuits from their favourite brand and leave it at that will have a very low success rate. Changing for foods that have less interpersonal 'power' over them allows the 'pleasure' but illicit better control and empowerment. Once they have that you can bring in the foods they had issues with.

Everyone can name an array of foods they have issues putting down even from habitual behaviours. An obese person has the reward centre to fulfil and very little reason not to eat something palatable.


----------



## Jalex (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> I am an efficient machine.




P.s not actual nudity/porn, please delete moda if not appropriate huehue.


----------



## Fbmmofo (Feb 10, 2015)

Learney said:


> It's not as simple as that as part of the association is the quantity and also the hedonic element is brought about by the poor D2 receptors. Telling an obese person to only eat two biscuits from their favourite brand and leave it at that will have a very low success rate. Changing for foods that have less interpersonal 'power' over them allows the 'pleasure' but illicit better control and empowerment. Once they have that you can bring in the foods they had issues with.
> 
> Everyone can name an array of foods they have issues putting down even from habitual behaviours. An obese person has the reward centre to fulfil and very little reason not to eat something palatable.


I understand and agree. I suppose we are taking different routes to the same place. Either way you've got to teach a fattie better habits. I guess it depends when you break that cycle.

Do more restrictive "diets" not also have a low success rate?

Just to throw a quote in for no reason other than it's appropriate.

60% of the time, it works every time.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

When will it be my turn to be efficient


----------



## Silvaback (Jul 31, 2013)

"Scientisn't" lel


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Major Eyeswater said:


> I'll be trying this at some point - thanks
> 
> I love coconut & use it in cooking wherever I can. When I tried keto, I was mixing protein drinks with coconut milk daily, and I still couldn't get it to bloody work. *Worst 4 weeks *of my life.


Like I said mate.Should have given it a bit longer.Took me 2 months.Same as you, first month is hell.(without the fire and brimstone)


----------



## kuju (Sep 15, 2010)

essexboy said:


> Ok mate you win.Not one single scientist, Drug company, Doctor or anyone involved in medical research has any interest other than medical advancement.No research is completed or embarked upon to finance anyone.The mere fact that Pfizer who manufacturer statins, make huge "donations" to the BHF, who co incidentally, still adhere to the lipid hypothesis, is pure coincidence and nothing more.
> 
> Im not blaming the Guys in white coats per se.However, the pharmas want results.They manipulate data and do all they can to assure the drugs they peddle reach the market.Thats my opinion.


*sigh*

Firstly i'm not trying to "win" anything. There is no prize here. You made a statement; I disagreed with it and asked you to offer something to support it, otherwise it was just conjecture and not particularly helpful...arguably unhelpful in fact. You haven't offered anything beyond conjecture to support it since. However - that's fine.....you are completely entitled to your viewpoint on this but when you state something as factual (ie: "most research" is purely to support financial interests), then you have to be able to back that up. Plus - this is an open forum; the whole point is to provide a platform for debate and sharing knowledge. That means you have to have contrary views represented.

That's all you and I were doing. I challenged something you said and asked you to respond to that. Which..somewhat ironically...is a key component of the scientific method and therefore science generally.

You are obviously, completely entitled to your own opinion..but not your own facts.

So rather than swing wildly to the completely opposite viewpoint as you have here; which has no bearing on anything either of us have said - how abotu you just accept the point being made.

"Most research" is a definitive term; it actually means something..l.the majority...over half at the very least. I am arguing (as in debating) that the majority of research is independently conducted and not promoted for financial gain and that there are plenty of systems in place to highlight those conflicts of interest. However I also accept that type of research does happen - and that yes...the pharmaceutical industry is cut throat and will happily push something they can make money out of regardless of it's efficacy...IF THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT. (That last point is crucial). I'm merely pointing out that type of research does not constitute the majority. To find a definite answer, one or both of us would have to review every single published paper in every field for the past 30 years or more to determine conflicts of interest. That's not going to happen is it?

On a side note - the pharmacy industry is one of the most heavily regulated in the world. A friend of mine is a graphic designer for glaxo - took him nearly a year to get permission to have a cyrillic font installed on his computer so he could do packaging for drugs destined for eastern Europe. They also invest untold millions in their own research so you can understand why they'd get cut throat about it...as wrong as that is.

In short - yes those types of studies happen; I'm simply arguing they are not the majority or even close to it...that's a misleading viewpoint that I think needed challenging given the context.


----------



## mal (Dec 31, 2009)

BLUE(UK) said:


> Having read this thread, I'm still none the wiser.
> 
> I'm also rather confused about the 'potato'. What the hell does it mean??!!


----------

