>arguing with gf about weightloss >she tries to argue with

>having sex with a girl who needs to lose weight

>>40805242
I swear to GOD most girls are so retarded when it comes to fitness

my gf tries to argue with me all the time about fitness related stuff

I found the best way to shut her up without making her mad is just to show her study after study debunking her points while not being confrontational ("oh well here lets look it up, oh turns out im right what a surprise")

>>40805357
Best strat right here.

>>40805242
It was worth it, she's a fucking retard who needs to stop reading broscience articles
I remember this fatass in high school telling me that calories in calories out was bullshit and my fatass thought he was right and that l was stuck being fat forever, turns out calories in calories out was not bullshit, needless to say l checked his fb after seeing this thread and he's still fat as shit

>>40805357
I've had women literally refute scientific studies before.
>"oh that may be true anon, but I found some guy online who claimed to gain 30lbs of muscle naturally while losing fat"
>b-but that isn't possible
>*show the math that you would need to eat a 3500 calorie surplus every day to gain 30lbs of muscle*
>explain that even on a 500 calorie surplus you gain fat
>"what do you mean anon? The pictures don't lie"

>>40805466
>"The pictures don't lie"
The captions certainly do though.

>>40805357
>most girls are so retarded when it comes to fitness

try everything

pics

>>40805466
>I found some guy online who claimed to gain 30lbs of muscle naturally while losing fat

Body recomp isn't a meme, but you'd have to be pretty fat to start with.

>>40805466
Here

>>40805614
Forgot to mention
>30lbs of muscle while losing fat
>in 1 month

>>40805614
Here is the article

https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/timothyf.htm

>30 minutes of working out 2 days a week
>34 lbs of muscle
>lost 3 lbs of fat
How are women so gullible?

>>40805466
scientific studies are not the word of god, and they should be approached with skepticism by default. especially so for something as complex and ill-understood as diet and exercise. not to say it isn't retarded to support your point by saying "I found some guy online who says X", but dismissing a study because it isn't consistent with your personal experience is completely legitimate.

>>40805709
Peer reviewed literature isnt gospel, sure, but if you approach such an argument with anecdotal bro science and NOT peer reviewed lit you could already be considered a lazy individual and an opponent unworthy of true argumental effort. Furthermore, refusal by the opponent to accept said peer reviewed lit cements the truth that the opponent not only lacks knowledge but is insecure and defensive about it. They would stick to their shitty guns until they fell apart and then would be reduced to ad hominems and minimalizations.

>>40805242
>you'll still gain weight if you eat shitty food
To be fair a lot of shitty food places ARE hard to gauge calories, but you are correct that calories in and calories out is the way to manage your weight.

If anyone wants to agrue the calories in/calories out I'll just show them a pic of me when I was around 280 and ~100 pounds later

>>40805681
>34 pounds of muscle
>34lbs * 2500 kcal / 28 days = 3000 calorie surplus
>3lbs of fat LOST
>supplements taken: preworkout, niacin
Kek

>>40805587
lmao this

generally speaking women are gullible as fuck and will believe anything the group believes

>>40805799
i guess we'll have to agree to disagree. conclusions drawn from studies like these can only be expected to hold in the aggregate, not necessarily at the individual level. studies like these are useful for discovering broad trends, but not universal laws that apply equally well to everyone. indeed, if you look at the raw data of many studies, you'll find outliers for whom the purported effect is not detectable or possibly reversed. you can accept the validity of a study without accepting that the results apply to you personally.

File: 1481772497854.jpg (66KB, 619x469px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 619x469px

>>40805242
Except she's kinda right, fat storage depends on the type of food you are eating
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6...

>>40805990
>implying fat makes you fat

Love this meme

>>40806008
Shit my links didn't work. Now I will back my claims with peer reviewed sources.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7598063
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20483648
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/6/737.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6755166?dopt=Abstract

Oh fuck it's not a meme after all ? Oh shit the sticky and sourceless /fit/ broscience are false fug !

>>40806027
>We overfed isoenergetic amounts (50% above energy requirements) of fat and carbohydrate (for 14 d each) to nine lean and seven obese men.
>Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate,

Literally just says overdoing on Fat vs overdoing on carbs is worse for you

>>40806054
I always figured it would be the opposite because I have horrible diarrhea the day after eating a shit ton of fat. I thought not all would be metabolized.

Interesting.

>>40805841
SHOW US THE PICS