cure for the fattys

Dragan · 26-01-2009 05:02PM

javaboy wrote: »

+1. He is on the right track though. He just needs to add in the minute detail of how many calories a person burns.

Indeed, how much you piss, puke, ****, menstrate or the fluid volume of your freshly shot load has **** all to do with it.

I actually get the feeling this guy learned his stuff from a Pro Ana site, or at least that is the type of message he is spreading.

The_Minister · 26-01-2009 05:03PM

Dragan wrote: »

It has nothing to do with how much you excrete.

You excrete CO2 as well as ****e.

Dragan · 26-01-2009 05:09PM

The_Minister wrote: »

You excrete CO2 as well as ****e.

Indeed you do, the person who posted was talking about bodily fluid or semi solid mass excretions, not gasses.

Hence neither was I.

The_Minister · 26-01-2009 05:11PM

Dragan wrote: »

Indeed you do, the person who posted was talking about bodily fluid or semi solid mass excretions, not gasses.

Hence neither was I.

I just wanted to make sure that you knew that we breathed most of it out, and didn't think that we were some kind of fusion-powered machines, burning calories with nearly no waste.:D

K'NEDZ · 26-01-2009 05:11PM

Dragan wrote: »

Indeed, how much you piss, puke, ****, menstrate or the fluid volume of your freshly shot load has **** all to do with it.

I actually get the feeling this guy learned his stuff from a Pro Ana site, or at least that is the type of message he is spreading.

I don't know what Pro Ana is, I'm afraid. How can you contest the very simple logic of what I am saying?

Imagine, for example, a pound of butter sitting in a frying pan with a moderate heat underneath it. It melts gradually, and forms liquid, and some mass is lost.

If you don't add any more butter or add less butter than is evaporating (being excreted) you will eventually have none left.

If you add butter at the same rate it evaporates, you will maintain 1lb of butter in the pan.

If you add more butter than is evaporating, the pan will start filling up with butter.

Q.E.D.

The_Minister · 26-01-2009 05:13PM

Actually, after a while you will be left with a mess of burned and congealed residue, since not all the butter can evaporate.

We'll call that stretch-marks.

K'NEDZ · 26-01-2009 05:24PM

The_Minister wrote: »

Actually, after a while you will be left with a mess of burned and congealed residue, since not all the butter can evaporate.

We'll call that stretch-marks.

Well this is analogous to waste matter. I am talking about the nice bit of fresh butter in the centre of the pan. If you turn off the heat, and neither add, nor subtract from the butter, then nothing will happen, apart from the butter rotting.

If butter is turning into sh*t and being replaced with fresh butter, then the rate of replacement will dictate whether the mass of fresh butter increases or decreases.

Replacing more mass than has turned to sh*t will cause an overall mass increase. It's so obvious I can't believe how anyone can question it.

Dragan · 26-01-2009 05:28PM

K'NEDZ wrote: »

Well this is analogous to waste matter. I am talking about the nice bit of fresh butter in the centre of the pan. If you turn off the heat, and neither add, nor subtract from the butter, then nothing will happen, apart from the butter rotting.

If butter is turning into sh*t and being replaced with fresh butter, then the rate of replacement will dictate whether the mass of fresh butter increases or decreases.

Replacing more mass than has turned to sh*t will cause an overall mass increase. It's so obvious I can't believe how anyone can question it.

Nope. You are wrong, and the last time you posted a similar analogy, in a similar thread, under a different user name and i called you on it.....guess what? You were wrong then as well.

All you need to do is go off and read a very small amount, you know, try to actually learn about the subject as opposed to going with your misplaced assumptions.

Also, Evaporate and Excrete are two VERY different things and hold very little relation to each other in this argument, hence, you analogy is rubbish.

Smellyirishman · 26-01-2009 05:28PM

So if I just eat my ****, drink my piss and slurp my menstrual goodie bag (in an ideal world) I'll remain the same weight forever? Then if I want to gain weight I just find a fat person and eat their ****, then balance is restored to the world.

Q.E.D

Wibbs · 26-01-2009 05:34PM

AFAIR the virus and another one(epstien barr??) while increasing the amount of fat cells also increased appetite. Appetite is the thing IMHO. Another study showed a possible gene involved with women who pack on a lot of weight after pregnancy. The amount of heavier mothers who had this gene was much higher than the "fat virus". It seemed to control appetite and was switched on(naturally) during pregnancy, but didn't switch off afterward.

Dragan's first post is a blinder. Yes one person may have more fat cells than another, but it's how they are used is the thing. I've got muscle cells too(I swear), but because I'm not pounding iron in the gym and eating more, they stay weedy compared to someone who is. I know a fella that used to be skinnier than me. Much skinnier. His "genetic" baseline was skinny, yet after 4 odd years, eating better and serious work he looks like a russian security man. Well not quite:D but skinny he aint.

Yes there are genetic limits to how far you can go. Chances are damn high that without swallowing anabolics like smarties I'm never gonna be huge in the muscle dept., but I could be a lot bigger than I am. Same with someone who is overweight. They may not end up as skinny as some, but they would be a lot skinnier and healthier. The fact is my skeleton and a fat guys skeleton are damn close. I had a mate at 18 that could have borrowed my shirt or jacket, now 20 years later, no hope.

I'm skinny and all my family are skinny and its down to appetite more than any thing else. We eat sod all. I would challenge any overweight person to eat exactly what I do for a year and if the weight doesn't come off I'll eat my hat(if I had one).

Metabolism is another one. Al things being equal fat people have a higher metabolic rate than skinny. They burn hotter by virtue of their size.

Yes there are people who are obese and that's one thing and has many factors involved, but there are people who are just soft and pudgy and that's down to less extreme reasons. They eat crap, they eat more of it and they move less. Oh yes it's easy to stay like that, but it's no more a virus than my aunt sally.

My answer to all the reasons why people are fat? I'm quite sure this virus was doing the rounds 60 years ago, yet fatties were rare. Hell 20 years ago fatties were rarer. I look back at my school photgraphs and the guy in my year that was "the fatso" doesn't look particularly fat at all. I'll beleive in genes, viruses and whatever else you care to mention when it can be shown our recent ancestors were not exposed to same. What they weren't exposed to was more food and less exercise.

K'NEDZ · 26-01-2009 05:47PM

Dragan wrote: »

Nope. You are wrong, and the last time you posted a similar analogy, in a similar thread, under a different user name and i called you on it.....guess what? You were wrong then as well.

Afraid you've got me mistaken, I don't know you. But you can't just say, you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong. I am not wrong. I am so right it is blindingly obvious.

Let's try another analogy. Imagine you put a litre of petrol in your car. When you drive your car that petrol is consumed and waste products are relased through the exhaust.

There is a direct correlation between the petrol and the waste produced. This does not mean there is a 1:1 correlation. I.e. I am not saying that one litre of petrol = 1 kilogram of exhaust fumes, but that the amount of waste produced will remain in proportion to the amount of petrol put in the car.

If more exhaust fumes are released than is normal for 1 litre of petrol, there is something wrong with the car. Likewise, if a less than normal amount is produced. A car cannot store its waste produce, but a human does, in the form of horrible fat.

carlybabe1 · 26-01-2009 05:55PM

Sleipnir wrote: »

That sounds like a load of hooey to me. A virus that whisks around your body making all the fat cells multiply?

Fat doesn't have cells so it can't multiply on it's own.

Fat does have cells, all types of fat are composed of cells

Dragan · 26-01-2009 05:57PM

K'NEDZ wrote: »

Afraid you've got me mistaken, I don't know you. But you can't just say, you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong. I am not wrong. I am so right it is blindingly obvious.

Let's try another analogy. Imagine you put a litre of petrol in your car. When you drive your car that petrol is consumed and waste products are relased through the exhaust.

There is a direct correlation between the petrol and the waste produced. This does not mean there is a 1:1 correlation. I.e. I am not saying that one litre of petrol = 1 kilogram of exhaust fumes, but that the amount of waste produced will remain in proportion to the amount of petrol put in the car.

If more exhaust fumes are released than is normal for 1 litre of petrol, there is something wrong with the car. Likewise, if a less than normal amount is produced. A car cannot store its waste produce, but a human does, in the form of horrible fat.

*grins* Nope, still wrong. Harsh, right?

Look, how much fat you store depends on two things.

How much you eat, versus how much you move and make your body work.

If you eat 5000 calories worth of food, and you only use 3500 calories of food, the excess will be stored in the body. It will NOT be shat, spat or bled out.

Also, fat is NOT a waste product. To say it is , is completely false. Fat is a highly calories dense food stuff that has many, many uses within the body. Your body is designed to store any available energy in the event of a cut off in food supply. The human body often has far better built in systems to survive than the human conciousness.

Your anology would work if you said that the car would store any unused petrol in a seperate tank within the car, to be dipped into in the case of the main tank running dry. This extra reserve would continue to build and build, making the car heavier, and slower and even less fuel efficent. As long as the main tank never ran empty while the car was driving, it would continue to store the excess fuel at the journeys end in the reserve tank.

Cars do not have this excess fuel storing system, and humans do not "store" their waste products to any massive degree and once again, fat is not a "waste" product.

All these are reasons why you, and you analogies, are wrong.

ScumLord · 26-01-2009 05:58PM

K'NEDZ wrote: »

Afraid you've got me mistaken, I don't know you. But you can't just say, you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong. I am not wrong. I am so right it is blindingly obvious.

I don't think you can count the food that you've just eaten as part of your overall weight. It's only passing through and taking most of it's weight with it regardless.

Dudess · 26-01-2009 05:59PM

First this:

Degsy wrote: »

Yes i've heard of it,i dont know anybody who ever got it though,a typical example of modern scaremongering to sell suncare products.

Then K'NEDZ discrediting the entire scientific/medical communities by claiming weightloss is achieved through excretion and not calorie-burning.

My god, such geniuses that they can actually contradict science/medicine and believe they're right...

ScumLord · 26-01-2009 06:00PM

Dudess wrote: »

My god, such geniuses that they can actually contradict science/medicine and believe they're right...

Well if the pope can do it I don't see why the rest of us can't.

carlybabe1 · 26-01-2009 06:08PM

Dragan wrote: »

Now i am not a scientist, nor a dietician nor a doctor, but something about this smells like total bull****.

I have some very simple facts about how the human body works that should call into question the findings of this study and the aims of the people behind it.

1) You can't get fat without calories. Sounds harsh, but it's true.

Actually, you can. If you eat food that has no calories but does have carbohydrates, your body converts carbohydrates into fats

To store fat, you need to ingest more calories than you actually use. To store a lot of fat you need to do this over a long period of time, everyday.

While this is true for most people who are thin, not the case always. For example, if you diet severely (cut your meals down radically) you will lose weight rapidly, but only for about the first week, then your body panicks and will store every morsel of fat that you consume, which results in people ending up heavier when they fall off the diet wagon.

Dragan · 26-01-2009 06:08PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Well if the pope can do it I don't see why the rest of us can't.

A lack of pointy hatage?

javaboy · 26-01-2009 06:12PM

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Actually, you can. If you eat food that has no calories but does have carbohydrates, your body converts carbohydrates into fats

Carbohydrates have calories. Lots of them.

I think a lot of people don't actually know what a calorie is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

K'NEDZ · 26-01-2009 06:14PM

Dragan wrote: »

*grins* Nope, still wrong. Harsh, right?

Look, how much fat you store depends on two things.

How much you eat, versus how much you move and make your body work.

If you eat 5000 calories worth of food, and you only use 3500 calories of food, the excess will be stored in the body. It will NOT be shat, spat or bled out.

Also, fat is NOT a waste product. To say it is , is completely false. Fat is a highly calories dense food stuff that has many, many uses within the body. Your body is designed to store any available energy in the event of a cut off in food supply. The human body often has far better built in systems to survive than the human conciousness.

Your anology would work if you said that the car would store any unused petrol in a seperate tank within the car, to be dipped into in the case of the main tank running dry. This extra reserve would continue to build and build, making the car heavier, and slower and even less fuel efficent. As long as the main tank never ran empty while the car was driving, it would continue to store the excess fuel at the journeys end in the reserve tank.

Cars do not have this excess fuel storing system, and humans do not "store" their waste products to any massive degree and once again, fat is not a "waste" product.

All these are reasons why you, and you analogies, are wrong.

So much nitpicking...! Look, what I am talking about is a general principle, not an individually customised weight loss program.

What I saying is that there is a ratio of mass consumed to mass excreted. That ratio is different from person to person, just like an old lady's car that is only ever used to tootle down to church and back does not consume as much fuel as a young boyracer's.

If your ratio stays steady then you will maintain your current weight. If it becomes askew, then you will either gain or lose weight.

Monitor this, and if you notice yourself eating more and sh*tting less, then maybe add some fruit to your diet, or take some mild laxatives, otherwise you will gain weight.

K'NEDZ · 26-01-2009 06:16PM

Dudess wrote: »

First this:

Then K'NEDZ discrediting the entire scientific/medical communities by claiming weightloss is achieved through excretion and not calorie-burning.

My god, such geniuses that they can actually contradict science/medicine and believe they're right...

I'm not saying that. I am saying that weight gain is caused by eating more than the body needs, as everyone knows. I am just pointing out a handy way of keeping an eye on things.

Dragan · 26-01-2009 06:16PM

Actually, you can. If you eat food that has no calories but does have carbohydrates, your body converts carbohydrates into fats

I said calories, not fats. Your body will break down the carbohydrates into glycogen, whatever isn't used will be stored as fat.

Once again, the key word that i used was "calories".

While this is true for most people who are thin, not the case always. For example, if you diet severely (cut your meals down radically) you will lose weight rapidly, but only for about the first week, then your body panicks and will store every morsel of fat that you consume, which results in people ending up heavier when they fall off the diet wagon.

If you cut your food down to that level, where you body has a starvation reaction, yes it will hang on to anything it can. The body will slow down various jobs and your metabolic rate will drop. Once again, you will store the calories because your body is not using them because it has dropped to essential activities only and is storing the rest as it fears a lack of a long term food source.

I don't see how either point you made implies that i was wrong?

Dragan · 26-01-2009 06:21PM

K'NEDZ wrote: »

So much nitpicking...! Look, what I am talking about is a general principle, not an individually customised weight loss program.

Neither am i, i am talking about basic principles of human physiology which extend from one person to the next.

What I saying is that there is a ratio of mass consumed to mass excreted. That ratio is different from person to person, just like an old lady's car that is only ever used to tootle down to church and back does not consume as much fuel as a young boyracer's.

Mass has nothing got to do with. Different foods will have different masses and different macronutrient make ups.

If your ratio stays steady then you will maintain your current weight. If it becomes askew, then you will either gain or lose weight.

Agreed. But only after the removal of all the incorrect terms and analogies that you have been using to this point.

Monitor this, and if you notice yourself eating more and sh*tting less, then maybe add some fruit to your diet, or take some mild laxatives, otherwise you will gain weight.

Nope, if you find yourself eating more and ****ting less, chances are your food does not have enough fibre in it. Depending entirely on the type of food that you eat, and what it contains, and how calorie dense it is, and how much you move....you may gain weight.

K'NEDZ · 26-01-2009 06:28PM

Dragan wrote: »

Nope, if you find yourself eating more and ****ting less ... you may gain weight.

And we come full circle, back to what I said in the first place.

Dragan · 26-01-2009 06:30PM

K'NEDZ wrote: »

And we come full circle, back to what I said in the first place.

After you completely ignore several sentences that i wrote between the two you quoted?

That's ridiculous mate, and a sure indicator of how secure you feel on the subject.

K'NEDZ · 26-01-2009 06:35PM

Dragan wrote: »

After you completely ignore several sentences that i wrote between the two you quoted?

That's ridiculous mate, and a sure indicator of how secure you feel on the subject.

I consumed your post, and politely and privately excreted the useless bits.

Terry · 26-01-2009 06:41PM

K'NEDZ wrote: »

I consumed your post, and politely and privately excreted the useless bits.

And then you were banned.
Full circle. Yay.

Diabhal Beag · 26-01-2009 06:44PM

If I was fat I would just eat till I killed myself

Nehaxak · 26-01-2009 07:16PM

Dudess wrote: »

First this:

Then K'NEDZ discrediting the entire scientific/medical communities by claiming weightloss is achieved through excretion and not calorie-burning.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you and agreeing with what K'Nedz said but from my own experience there is some thruth to it. I caught amoebic dysentery while working in Africa about ten years ago now (wow, that long ago !) and lost 3 stone in weight in 2 days. Yup really, that much weight. The doctor in the tropical medical centre in Dun Laoghaire was shocked when I came back and done the post medical, but I was delighted. I'd lost just over 3.5 stone in total by the time I came back.

Gummy Panda · 26-01-2009 07:23PM

Nehaxak wrote: »

Not that I'm disagreeing with you and agreeing with what K'Nedz said but from my own experience there is some thruth to it. I caught amoebic dysentery while working in Africa about ten years ago now (wow, that long ago !) and lost 3 stone in weight in 2 days. Yup really, that much weight. The doctor in the tropical medical centre in Dun Laoghaire was shocked when I came back and done the post medical, but I was delighted. I'd lost just over 3.5 stone in total by the time I came back.

Was that not alot of retained water?

You generally lose a huge amount of fluids if you have the sh1ts. Also that is an insane amount of weigh loss

cure for the fattys

Comments