Once Again, Scientific Evidence Supports Bulletproof/paleo/high-Fat

15681011

Comments

  • Dave Aprey needs to make me a moderator. I would have closed this shit show on page one.


    Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all Time; become Eternity; and [thus] shalt thou know God. Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all,—all arts, all sciences, the way of every life.  – Corpus Hermeticum XI “The Mind of Hermes”

  • This thread is dead to me now.


    CICO rules, because the laws of the physical universe rules. Your body is a system, and that system either gains energy (calories), or loses it. And that energy can occur in the form of energy or mass. This is the strictest and truest definition of CICO.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence


    Yes, MLS. Eating the right foods and focusing on health/inflammation/hormones is in most cases more effective than trying to blindly calculate CI - CO (practically impossible to do). But that does not trump the laws of physics.


    The end.




  • Nah, it's not violating many if any guidelines yet so I don't have any reason to, MLS is noticeably trying very hard not to resort to insults which is good, it's like therapy for polite human interaction. As soon as you censor too much without warrant it looks culty and religious haha.




     


    I understand that the primary purpose of the BPF is to be an outlet for the rantings and ravings of certain kinds of health lunatics.. However, it seems that an even more polite engaging discussion could take place if their was a little bit more policing around here. 

    Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all Time; become Eternity; and [thus] shalt thou know God. Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all,—all arts, all sciences, the way of every life.  – Corpus Hermeticum XI “The Mind of Hermes”

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Every study I have seen has muscle loss on low carb, plus every client I have encountered has had lean tissue losses in their body scans during low carb, In my anecdotal account I also lost large amounts of lean mass during low carb, when I stopped low carb people thought I started using steroids because I grew so fast. I was talking to a girl the other day that lost 8lbs of muscle on keto. Every post "whole 30 challenge" body scan analysis I have seen showed lean tissue loss.




     


    Thanks for sharing this info. However, even if there is muscle loss, we have seen from the study I shared with you in the last thread that while there may have been muscle loss, the body composition improved for the better (i.e., more fat was lost than muscle). Correct?

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    I understand that the primary purpose of the BPF is to be an outlet for the rantings and ravings of certain kinds of health lunatics.. However, it seems that an even more polite engaging discussion could take place if their was a little bit more policing around here. 




     


    Do you consider me a health lunatic? I'm also curious if you're mostly complaining about my posts.


    The only two kinds of posts in my opinion that should be reported are straight-up insults, and more importantly, ones that use diversion and distraction to veer off topic and get away from the original point. The original point I think should go on the Bulletproof Diet page, because people need to know that there is now a review that's been published from an organization saying that calorie-counting has been shown to be an ineffective form of weight loss. I do believe that often, even the moderators tend to shift and allow the discussion to shift in unwarranted directions just because they disagree. 

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    This thread is dead to me now.


    CICO rules, because the laws of the physical universe rules. Your body is a system, and that system either gains energy (calories), or loses it. And that energy can occur in the form of energy or mass. This is the strictest and truest definition of CICO.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence


    Yes, MLS. Eating the right foods and focusing on health/inflammation/hormones is in most cases more effective than trying to blindly calculate CI - CO (practically impossible to do). But that does not trump the laws of physics.


    The end.




     


    Thanks for acknowledging the benefit of focusing on the right things, instead of CICO. This is the main point I wanted to make, and indeed, what the document I shared had concluded. Calorie-counting is not effective for weight loss.


    You had mentioned way back in the thread that you could "poop out" calories you didn't absorb. This would imply that calories left unextracted were being left out and not processed (though you'd consumed a USDA-agreed-upon amount of calories in the food). Therefore, the CICO model will not have worked. Also, bacteria can extract calories in different amounts from different kinds of foods depending on their species, health, and abundance. This fluctuates heavily, so calories absorbed is very hard to determine (not calories consumed). CICO relies on calories consumed, not those absorbed. Then there's the whole metabolism thing that changes. If the model sequenced the human biome, acknowledged each individual's biome with a handy app, and also determined each individual's metabolic markers as they were digesting the food, then it might start to become accurate. Until then, I will follow the procedure which you say is the most effective.

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    I am complaining because I'm on a forum for a community that has a certain basis of understanding. Releasing toxins from fat and the ability to bind toxins is not something that I should have to explain. Sparefilms is simply trolling me by requiring me to qualify that. It's not like we're on a Reddit stream for our favorite coffee, and I just brought this up out of nowhere. At some point, this just gets annoying, and almost like scientific bullying. 




    If you would actually read my follow up post to John Brisson's excellent response you would discover that I have cogent reasons for asking for details on what you said. You seem to be using your own odd personal definition of trolling, asking for clarification or disagreeing with you is not trolling. Correcting statements that are not accurate is also not trolling. You're posting on a public forum, plenty of people are going to respond and not all will agree with you.


     


    Not only that, you'll also find that humans are incredibly complex organisms, so people who are deeply interested in tinkering with humans and figuring out how they work tend to use specific statements rather than generic ones (aflatoxin B1 rather than just "toxins", detailing protocols for specific toxins rather than just saying go "detox", etc). Again, asking for details about a statement you made is not trolling. If the answer is as trivial as you say then typing out the answer or Copy/Pasting a link to the information shouldn't be that difficult.


     


    Take the time to actually read what people say rather than constantly attempting to infer their "true" motivations over the internet in order to slap a label on them. There's not some sinister plot or secret insidious meaning behind everything other forum users post just because they may not agree with you or they ask for more specific details on something you said. I for one would hope that a community of my intellectual peers would challenge my statements if they think them incorrect, that's part of why we sign up for this forum instead of others.

  • Bull of HeavenBull of Heaven ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016


    Do you consider me a health lunatic? I'm also curious if you're mostly complaining about my posts.


    The only two kinds of posts in my opinion that should be reported are straight-up insults, and more importantly, ones that use diversion and distraction to veer off topic and get away from the original point. The original point I think should go on the Bulletproof Diet page, because people need to know that there is now a review that's been published from an organization saying that calorie-counting has been shown to be an ineffective form of weight loss. I do believe that often, even the moderators tend to shift and allow the discussion to shift in unwarranted directions just because they disagree. 




     


    I consider myself and all the regular posters to be under the health lunatic category. I'm not complaining about your posts I was just suggesting that some of the off topic discussion in this threads is ridiculous and its generally the culture of these forums to be that way. I usually like that..."moderators tend to shift"...i don't see/feel the prescence of any moderators, but then again you can edit posts with out the edit by line.........


    Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all Time; become Eternity; and [thus] shalt thou know God. Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all,—all arts, all sciences, the way of every life.  – Corpus Hermeticum XI “The Mind of Hermes”

  • CallenCallen
    edited July 2016


    Every Creationist ever. Young Earthers. Flat Earthers. Holocaust Deniers. Donald Trump. People selling Amygdalin/Laetrile/Vitamin B-17 as a cancer cure. People who talk about structured water. Every single psychic who has ever been tested. People who claim to be able to talk to your dead loved ones. People who claim to channel the Pleiadians. Anyone offering subprime mortgages and telling you "it'll be fine, payments are easy to keep up with". The "Health Ranger". Credit card companies. Conservapedia.com. Breathanarians. That Nigerian Prince. Crystal healers. Penis enlargement supplement companies. Instagram models. The guys running the Kickstarter for that water bottle that claims to fill up from water in the air. The guys running the Kickstarter for the personal rebreather thing. People claiming to have invented products that they just rebranded and sold at a markup. Bork Bork Ur Doin Me A Frighten pictures, those dogs don't really say those things!


     


     





    Really interesting that you would call Trump a liar but not Hilary.


     


    As someone who's a moderate, c'mon, man.


  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016


    Really interesting that you would call Trump a liar but not Hilary.


     


    As someone who's a moderate, c'mon, man.




    Because it is trivial to show Trump lying on the internet for personal gain, and difficult to show Hillary Clinton lying on the internet for personal gain. I only listed those who I can definitively show to be lying on the internet for personal gain, as per the OP's request for information. Hilldog is a bit more subtle than Drumpf, and uses less social media and more face-to-face deals.


  • CallenCallen
    edited July 2016


    Because it is trivial to show Trump lying on the internet for personal gain, and difficult to show Hillary Clinton lying on the internet for personal gain. I only listed those who I can definitively show to be lying on the internet for personal gain, as per the OP's request for information. Hilldog is a bit more subtle than Drumpf, and uses less social media and more face-to-face deals.




    Uh-huh.


     


    NOm3_f-maxage-0.gif


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    If you would actually read my follow up post to John Brisson's excellent response you would discover that I have cogent reasons for asking for details on what you said. You seem to be using your own odd personal definition of trolling, asking for clarification or disagreeing with you is not trolling. Correcting statements that are not accurate is also not trolling. You're posting on a public forum, plenty of people are going to respond and not all will agree with you.


     


    Not only that, you'll also find that humans are incredibly complex organisms, so people who are deeply interested in tinkering with humans and figuring out how they work tend to use specific statements rather than generic ones (aflatoxin B1 rather than just "toxins", detailing protocols for specific toxins rather than just saying go "detox", etc). Again, asking for details about a statement you made is not trolling. If the answer is as trivial as you say then typing out the answer or Copy/Pasting a link to the information shouldn't be that difficult.


     


    Take the time to actually read what people say rather than constantly attempting to infer their "true" motivations over the internet in order to slap a label on them. There's not some sinister plot or secret insidious meaning behind everything other forum users post just because they may not agree with you or they ask for more specific details on something you said. I for one would hope that a community of my intellectual peers would challenge my statements if they think them incorrect, that's part of why we sign up for this forum instead of others.




     


    Let me ask you something: How many times have you read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky? You employ diversionary tactics with extreme aplomb.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Because it is trivial to show Trump lying on the internet for personal gain, and difficult to show Hillary Clinton lying on the internet for personal gain. I only listed those who I can definitively show to be lying on the internet for personal gain, as per the OP's request for information. Hilldog is a bit more subtle than Drumpf, and uses less social media and more face-to-face deals.




    Again, didn't ask you for that information. I was talking to drummingaleiro at the time I believe. Someone else.

  • Uh-huh.
     
    NOm3_f-maxage-0.gif


    HA!!! Exactly.

    Both are...disappointing.
  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016


    Let me ask you something: How many times have you read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky? You employ diversionary tactics with extreme aplomb.




    Never heard of it. You conveniently ignored everything I said, why's that?


     


     




    Again, didn't ask you for that information. I was talking to drummingaleiro at the time I believe. Someone else.




    Your reply was to Skeletor. It's on Page 1 of the thread. Which is on a public forum.


     


    I'm a helpful guy. I do my part to keep the public informed, so I provided a list of answers to your request pro bono.


     


     




    Both are...disappointing.




    Yep. Drumpf is just dumb enough to lie constantly in front of cameras and on Facebook and Twitter. He's dumb and hateful and she's is sneaky and scheming. Kinda why I'm not voting for either of them. Shhh, don't tell anyone, I want the others in the thread to continue thinking they are psychic and somehow know my political stances.


Sign In or Register to comment.