2011 Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

[SPX]

I dont see how that is possible. If you eat at a caloric deficit, you will lose weight.

Well I don't see why some people can get fat on 2K cals a day while others stay quite lean, but bodies are different. Researchers still aren't totally sure about weight gain and fat gain. Yes, we know the basics, but there are a lot of details that are still being worked out.

You should watch that show Heavy on Netflix. These monstrously large peeps go to a special facility where they're put on like 1,600 calorie a day diets and spend vast amounts of their day exercising. Most lose weight every week. But on some weeks they actually end up gaining a couple of pounds. Can you explain that? I can't. They're in a controlled environment where everything is regulated for them, and yet, sometimes their bodies act contrary to science. There are stranger things in the world.

[SPX]

Basically. I think cardio is key. When I am dieting my results suck when I am not sticking to my cardio. I think AM cardio is the best too fwiw.

More bro-science. Why is cardio key when studies have shown that you burn more calories weight training than doing cardio and that this caloric burn continues for hours past the exercise session, just as it does with cardio?

[poopoo333]

More bro-science. Why is cardio key when studies have shown that you burn more calories weight training than doing cardio and that this caloric burn continues for hours past the exercise session, just as it does with cardio?

I said "I think" and I related it to myself. I know what works for me. And can you show me that study? All I do is lift weights, and when I lift + diet with no cardio, my results aren't as good as when I do cardio.

[MMA_scientist]

More bro-science. Why is cardio key when studies have shown that you burn more calories weight training than doing cardio and that this caloric burn continues for hours past the exercise session, just as it does with cardio?

I don't think there is any study that would say you burn more in 30 minutes of lifting than 30 mins of running. It may have longer lasting effects and has the added benefit of adding to your body mass... but I don't think there is any dispute that if you want to lose fat, cardio is the fastest way to do that. Maybe HIIT or doing some P90X or cross fit type thing that is cardio and strength... that would burn more.

[SPX]

Fine, here is my value meal: water, apples and yogurt. The whole thing is 130 cals. I just subbed the apples for the fries and the yogurt for the burger and the water for the coke.

Well a medium fry (which is what normally comes with a value mean) is pretty close to a cheeseburger in calories. You're being retarded.

[poopoo333]

I am pretty sure the "study" you are talking about is talking about how having more muscle = more calories burned at rest. Just for the record...somebody going on a diet isn't going to put on enough muscle in 4 months or however long they want to diet to actually have the benefit of burning that much more calories than cardio would.

[poopoo333]

I don't think there is any study that would say you burn more in 30 minutes of lifting than 30 mins of running. It may have longer lasting effects and has the added benefit of adding to your body mass... but I don't think there is any dispute that if you want to lose fat, cardio is the fastest way to do that with a proper diet

Just had to add that in there

[Mr. IWS]

Can you explain that?

Aliens

[MMA_scientist]

Well a medium fry (which is what normally comes with a value mean) is pretty close to a cheeseburger in calories. You're being retarded.

Sorry. My point was that you "could" east 2000 calories in 1 value meal. Or close to it.

[MMA_scientist]

Just had to add that in there

right, diet is by far the biggest factor. I mean, you run for 30 mins you might burn 400 cals. It would be a lot easier to just not have the fries.

[poopoo333]

right, diet is by far the biggest factor. I mean, you run for 30 mins you might burn 400 cals. It would be a lot easier to just not have the fries.

Yeah I just wanted to add that in before X replied with some weird claim

[SPX]

I said "I think" and I related it to myself. I know what works for me. And can you show me that study? All I do is lift weights, and when I lift + diet with no cardio, my results aren't as good as when I do cardio.

I don't think there is any study that would say you burn more in 30 minutes of lifting than 30 mins of running. It may have longer lasting effects and has the added benefit of adding to your body mass... but I don't think there is any dispute that if you want to lose fat, cardio is the fastest way to do that. Maybe HIIT or doing some P90X or cross fit type thing that is cardio and strength... that would burn more.

I'd have to try to track it down. I read about it in an article on bb.com, I think. It was a little while back but that's definitely what the shit said.

With that said, I'm semi-trolling. I have no doubt that such a study is out there, but I also know that there are so many contradictory studies that you have to take the shit with a grain of salt.

[SPX]

I am pretty sure the "study" you are talking about is talking about how having more muscle = more calories burned at rest. Just for the record...somebody going on a diet isn't going to put on enough muscle in 4 months or however long they want to diet to actually have the benefit of burning that much more calories than cardio would.

No, that's not what it said.

[Mr. IWS]

Well I don't see why some people can get fat on 2K cals a day while others stay quite lean, but bodies are different. Researchers still aren't totally sure about weight gain and fat gain. Yes, we know the basics, but there are a lot of details that are still being worked out.

You should watch that show Heavy on Netflix. These monstrously large peeps go to a special facility where they're put on like 1,600 calorie a day diets and spend vast amounts of their day exercising. Most lose weight every week. But on some weeks they actually end up gaining a couple of pounds. Can you explain that? I can't. They're in a controlled environment where everything is regulated for them, and yet, sometimes their bodies act contrary to science. There are stranger things in the world.

Im just not buying it. (not calling you a liar, so chill ) If your BMR is 2000, you only eat 1500, you have to lose weight.

After a month, you re-adjust your bmr to account for the previous months loss, and its now 1925, you eat 1425, you have to lose weight.

rinse and repeat.

[MMA_scientist]

I know some ripped up body builder types that do no cardio. Doing cardio is basically like eating less, it doesn't really change your composition that much IME. It has its own benefits of course, but I really don't think you could tell the difference on the outside between a guy that ate 2500 calories and did 500 calories worth of cardio and a guy that just ate 2000 calories. The cardio guy might have slightly more toned calves or something.