"Don't bother exercising or dieting, it's mai

>>42130457
Lack of effort makes you fat.

>Why can't fatties take responsibility for their weight?
Takes effort.

>>42130457
this_is_where_i_keep_all_my_genetics.jpg

>>42130457
Scientific consesus is that it's genetics. Who cares what a bunch of mentally ill, virginal losers on 4chan think?

The key point you're missing from the video is that it debunks "extreme" diets/programs like the biggest loser not all diet/exercise

File: 1494945732269.png (316KB, 540x365px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 540x365px

since it seems no one watched the video, it's parroting what everyone on /fit/ says. diet and exercise can't be seen as a quick fix that you can stop once you get where you want. you make a lifestyle change to maintain it.
just lose weight at a slower, but manageable rate and keep up that healthy lifestyle.

>>42130457
Man, i kind of liked that show,
how dumb do you have to be to think genetics explain why there are fat people when there were almost no fat people around 50 years ago, what a fat-pandering retard.

Makes me sad thinking about people giving up when they see this shit.

>>42130457
More retarded body acceptance bullshit.

What constitutes an "extreme" diet? I've lost 10kg (22lbs in shit measuring systems) in about a month. Does that constitute "extreme" dieting?

I could have kept my weight if I wanted to, thing is, I'm on a steroid bulk now.

Genetics is just a fucking cop-out lame ass excuse.

Yeah, if you do an extreme weightloss program, and then stop and eat like you did before obviosuly you will regain all your weight. This is why people should rather do moderate excercise and stay on it than try to kill themselves and then give it up. Problem is, fatties don't realize this and instead spouts that "diets never work", "muh genetics", etc etc.

>>42130457
They lack the genes of self-improvement

File: dl09rDa.png (351KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 500x334px

>>42130553
>>42130635
This is the only valid argument based on genetics.

>>42130609
Watch the video dummy. It argues against meme crash diets and in favor of long term, lifestyle changes. Exactly what we say on /fit/

>>42130457
I hate this show. So full of bullshit.

About this episode, there is irrefutable proof that you can modify your body to the way you would like it to appear through diet and exercise alone.

>>42130457
I loathe this smug looking nu-male.

>it's mainly genetics as to why you are fat
Why is it that everyone (except for in raaaaaaaaaaare cases) lose weight and gain muscle when they work out and eat right? Do we virtually all have the genetics for that to be the case? I guess we do, so that you, genetics.

>>42130712
>>42130711

Did you not even watch the episode? It literally says "rapidly losing a lot of weight makes it harder to stay thin in the long run" in the first minute. Basically, crash diets where you eat nothing but kale and drink cayenne water to lose a fuck ton of weight are bad, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE ACTIVELY TELL EVERYONE. The show goes on to explain that slow, controlled dieting is best for living a long and healthy life where you will look good. Holy shit you fucking mongoloids will believe anything somebody tells you.

>diet and exercise
>lose weight
>stop dieting and exercise
>gain weight
>wtf this shit doesn't work

>>42130457
"That means you would to keep exercising and dieting at this extreme rate to just maintain the weight loss "
Amazing logic, so maintenance is somehow at a heavy deficit.

It's nice to know that I've lost 15 pounds in the last two months thanks to my genetics, not from my diet and exercise.

>>42130606
This

>>42130757
Not really since PSMF is an extreme fucking diet and if you have the willpower to do it, there's literally no way to lose more pure fat as a natty (water fasting is barely faster at general weight loss but you lose a lot more muscle mass despite what the fasting shills claim).

File: Massive Retard.png (12KB, 1728x120px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 1728x120px

>>42130818

I hate this modern Plebbit-style worship of "science!", which is actually cherry-picking scientific studies that support their liberal/SJW beliefs. Yes the scientific method in general is cool (but such a broad term to really quantify) but when people say yeah it's "SCIENCE!!!" that's what they mean.

"80% of the contestants we studied regained the weight"
>fat fucks that have no idea how diets work went back to their shit lifestyle after the tv show ended

>>42130711
Yeah but then he throws in mostly genetics

>>42130457
>the human body can genetically break the law of thermodynamics and store more energy than it receives

Why isn't this a big thing already? It means fatties can be used as human power generators that create much more energy than they need resources, meaning the world's energy consumption will be forever satisfied at minimal pollution and cost, compared to the current energy sources! Fatasses will FINALLY be useful for something!

File: .gif (4KB, 452x523px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 452x523px

>>42130711
and yet they argue "muh genetics" in the end. fuck adam, fuck college humor, fuck this show, fuck this doctor. fuck (((them all)))

>losing weight extremely fast is bad for you
this is true
>its not just about willpower.
Kinda true, you can't will the fat away :p
>most of the weight difference between people can be explained through genetics

I guess, if you were to study two people from birth to say, 30, making sure they eat and exercise the exact same, they will probably end up weighing different amounts regardless

>>42130688
>implying drinking all that regularily would make you that fat
See, genetics.

>>42130877
Yeah that's what I was referring to when I made this thread. It wasn't actually too bad until they started talking about genetics

>>42130744
>Why is it that everyone (except for in raaaaaaaaaaare cases) lose weight and gain muscle when they work out and eat right?
Roids. I'm serious.

>>42130924
>regularily

>>42130744
Part of having fit genetics is that you also have the desire to workout.

It's like being gay, if you have the "dress flamboyantly" gene that same gene makes you gay

>>42130850
You're the retard, in fact a double retard for jumping the gun and calling someone wrong without doing due diligence. If you're a fitness novice, know your place, but if you have to be a brainless Wikipedia-reading mouthbreather that can't tell their face from their asshole and never has seen ab vascularity of themselves in their lives. I suggest you at very least read the fucking source listed before looking like a complete high-and-mighty fool. It is from research into severely obese people with type 2 diabetes, Lyle McDonald said that PSMF is not intended for casual fatloss but for athletes that want to get into the sub-single digit bf%.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant but only thing worse than a moron is a smug moron.

>>42130571
>Scientific consesus is that it's genetics
who said that? The confederation of dunces?

>>42130571

I keked

>>42130818
Indeed. Water fasting not only can, but WILL cause rapid muscle wasting. Normally, body needs only a few amino acids from food, the rest is synthesized in appropriate amounts from various compounds. However, during water fasting, you don't eat essential protein needed for a massive amounts of reactions, such as synthesis and repair of body tissues. You also don't eat other food, which would at least allow the non-essentials to be formed. This leads to massive breakdown of all available muscle tissue, in order to get the necessary protein for functioning and energy from both the adipose tissue and catabolized protein.

Water fasting is probably the most retarded form of "dieting". Unless you really want to get to that dere Auschwitz mode.

>>42130457
Dude "body science" or whatever is the most basic, simple shit ever. If you want to lose fat, you need a consistent, yet small caloric deficit (100-200 calories, just enough so you're body knows what's happening), and have that consist primarily of carbohydrates you're cutting out. And then you add an exercise regimen that is both easy with for you to do it 4-6 times a week but also hard enough to where you're heart rate is up. Do that consistently for 6 months, and you're fine.

>>42130610
I haven't watched the video (he looks like ass too much and I fucking hate YT vids), but I'm guessing "extreme" is the kind of shit they make TV shows out of, where people are followed for months/a year by some hardass trainer and "miraculously" drop 100kg or more.
Reason it doesn't work is because they don't have said hardass trainer after the show's over. Typically, they not only get back to their original weight but get even fatter.

>>42130896
>muh thermodynamics!

The human body isn't a car, the way the human body works is a complex as fuck system of hormones. Second only to the brain, the endocrine system is the most fleeting system for science, encrinology as a science admits that we don't even grasp 50% of the complexities of the system. These are doctors, and as learned men they say we're still very far away from understanding precisely how fatloss and fatgain works. Things like growth hormone, testosterone, estrogen, thyroid hormones (T3/T4), cortisol, etc. play an enormous role in determining how your body deals with calories.

While I love to shit on fatties too, in general if you eat less calories and exercise more you will lose weight over X amount of time, but let us not give these fat apologists ammo by using wildly incorrect terminology. Okay?

>>42130597
this

>extreme diets dont work

no shit? Are you guys literally retarded? We all know that being extreme and eating 500 calories a day isn't going to work in the long term

>>42131247
But muh thermodyamics is true. While people might misjudge the calories they need at maintenance and don't lose weight as a result doesn't make this false

Also, anybody notice how the doctor says something along the lines of 'unfortunately a slim body isn't achievable to most of us' at the end?
I thought they only intended to debunk extreme diets.

>>42130865
Science is the new religion for uneducated people.
Being a traditionalist is the counter-culture.

>>42131247
You seem to employ magical thinking, not realizing hormones work within frameworks of physics and they won't create muscle mass, or fat, out of nothing. Not to mention, your huge gaps in knowledge - the answer to your questions lie in the books. "50%", you got me there to smile.

>>42131410
Also, the doc knows he is lying by omission. He understands full-well that crash diets aren't effective, and even says so. On the surface it seems honest, but it is disingenuous to not clarify to people who don't know how to draw conclusions from research (most of the public he knows he is reaching). The doc just lets the host imply irrelevant conclusions from his research.
What a slob. Money does talk, I guess.

I hate this fuck with his rooster haircut. Most punchable face behind the Blahino

>>42131321
False, it is moronic to use a term from physics that applies to engines to speak about the human body. It is an ignorant oversimplification and anyone that knows about medicine will immediately write you off as someone who says "smart sounding terms" to win an argument but doesn't understand what they mean.

If you grab 10,000 people all at different ages, level of health and fitness, sexes, some on their periods, some with freaky low bodyfat, others superobese and feed them random sources of calories (carbohydrates, proteins, transfats, saturated fats, alcohol, pure sugar, very high sodium) and at random levels of activity... they are all at a 3500 a day deficit all of them would not lose exactly a pound of weight every day, and certainly wouldn't lose pure fat the same way.

Sure most would lose "some" weight, but they'd not lose weight in the exact same way, therefore the "laws of thermodynamics" would not apply to the human body. Which would apply to say a spring or internal combustion engine, which would handle energy input and output consistently every time.

Just say "eat less, move more" not using that term smugly that doesn't apply to human beings. Don't use scientific terms if you don't understand them.

>>42131469
Sweet lord. I would like a citation of a high-quality paper that done an experiment like your idea.
I'll humor you one last time, since I can see you have potential, but hinge on completely erroneous conclusions:
1. Random sources of calories, including high sodium
This would make the experiment without meaning. High sodium intake causes increased water retention. That would falsify the weight loss results. Just by feeding everyone a random diet, with varying amounts of sodium, among other things, we would not be able to get consistent data. Same with random amounts of exercise - what exactly such a study would show? That random conditions lead to random results? You completely don't understand the scientific method.
However, if we put them all at the same caloric deficit and diet, they would all start losing weight - the more they weigh, the bigger difference.

>>42130597
I thought the biggest loser kinda debunked itself after the winners returned to whale mode.

>>42131469
>they are all at a 3500
Wrong. They will lose the same weight if they are at the same deficit. But it is imposible to mesure it, because of all the biological aspects of the body, you cant have 100% knowledge of thier basal metabolic rate.
We are a thermic engine, but a very complex one, laws of thermodinamics still apply to us.

>>42131469
You make a lot of assumptions which make your post meaningless. First you assume that the weight lost is not pure fat, but also includes water and muscle. That's not the object of interest, and anyone on a reasonable deficit will maintain muscle mass to a reasonable degree. Water isn't even worth addressing. Second, you assume that our methods for measurement are prefect, but in reality it's just an estimation. We don't breathe or piss or shit out a significant number of calories, so we can say everything ingested is used. Because of this, we can treat the body as an engine, but to do so would require constant monitoring of output which is not reasonable. Still, calories eaten don't disappear, and if a person generates 3500 calories of heat and lost 100% fat, then we can treat weight loss as quantifiable.

>>42131634
>>42131660
>>42131576
Not him, but you US nerds are stupid as fuck.

If calories in/out was all there is to it, we'd all bulk on gasoline and coal.

We don't because we know we cannot digest this. Well, some can digest it partially. Most can't at all.

It's the same with food.

It literally does not matter how many calories you eat (and if you idiots knew how calories are measured, you'd laugh and bite your own as sbecause you were so stupid. Hint: It has to do with mouse turds). I repeat: It literally does not matter how many calories you eat .

HOWEVER, what your body does with the calories you eat - that matters. Can he metabolize 90%? 30% 50% Can he make sugars and fat out of iceberg salad (some people can, actually)? THAT is what matters. You can eat 10,000 calories a day, but with chronic diarrhea, you will still lose weight.

THAT is reality. And it's individually different for everyone.

And he's also right, Thermodynamics don't apply to the complicated system of failsafes and redudancies we have in our bodies.

>>42131469
engines just like the human body run at different efficiencies. Calories out doesnt just mean exercise it means shitting them out as well.

Calories in calories out IS TRUE and always will be. But you have to find the efficiency of your body to digest different calories IE protein carbs fat.

File: 555.png (154KB, 1024x1762px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1024x1762px

>>42130457
>start video, prepared to rage
>actually reasonable opinion about extreme weightloss supported by the limited evidence that is available
huh, seems like this is not that retarded after a-
>expert: "also, weight is caused by muh genetics"
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>42130597
>>42131272
>>42130606
>>42130780
It must be hard to have the attention span of a five year old. Had you watched the video till the end, you would have noticed that he says that weight is mostly determined by genetics, and that therefore becoming thin is not a realistic or achievable goal for all of us.

File: 1417726094084.jpg (30KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x640px

>>42130597
Indeed this.

>>42131728
The calories in food is labeled on the package or available online you stupid fuck. Nobody considers indigestible matter in the food because it's intended for nutrition not combustion.

>>42131425
>>42130896
Think whatever you want about that other poster's arguments, but he is correct in saying that muh thermodynamics is an oversimplification, and that repeating it over and over makes us look stupid. The problem with it is that it comes with the hidden assumption that BMR is only determined by your height and weight, even though extremely fast weight loss can bring a person's BMR significantly below the average for their height and weight.

>>42131728
Your entire post relies on the false assumption that there is a significant difference between individuals in how many calories from their food they can metabolize. Hint: there isn't, unless they have some disease. The calories on the package are calculated by summing the calories in macros that you can actually metabolize, so coal, petrol, and uranium would all be labelled as containing 0 calories, even though they technically contain a ton of energy.

>Genetics

Right. Maybe it's got something to do with half of the western world not being able to afford decent quality food. Or maybe because people are just lazy and don't seek out good food or make good meals. Or people are poorly educated in a world that offers them things they should say no to.

From my experience though, for the most part, laziness and convenience (which is the same thing)

>>42132776
>not being able to afford decent quality food
You can lose weight on McDonalds, faggot. These people aren't getting obese on chicken breast. It's cake and extra large extra high calorie coffees.

I've seen a lot of people with punchable faces, but this is the first one with a punchable haircut.

>>42131728
You're a fucking idiot, please stop continuing this retarded argument.

Thermodynamics absolutely do apply to the human body. Obviously it's more complicated than an engine, (calories in/calories out has always been an extreme simplification of the process), but that doesn't make it any less applicable.

>You can eat 10,000 calories a day, but with chronic diarrhea, you will still lose weight.
No fucking kidding. Chronic diarrhea contributes to the calories you expel. Barring outside factors (i.e. diseases), people generally metabolize food at similar rates. You will never find two normal people and observe one of them losing weight by eating 1,000 calories and another losing weight by eating 10,000.

>>42132776
I think it's because many people hold the belief that you need to exercise or go on a strict diet to lose weight, which isn't true.

File: 1497595123715.jpg (223KB, 1536x1536px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1536x1536px

>>42130457
>of course you can loose weight
>but as soon as you get back to your regular diet you´ll gain it back
That is a sign of overeating, if you don´t overeat, you don´t gain weight.
One of the most important parts of getting in shape is changing your eating habbits permanently.

>>42132852
>>42133169

You can lose weight at McDonald's, you'd just need to eat less than you'd want to eat there. Faggot.

Yes, you don't need to go in a strict diet to lose weight either.

To lose weight either way takes self control. When you're eating shit that keeps you feeling hungry and aren't considering our aren't educated enough on how much to eat then you'll do it wrong.

Fucking genetics. Are you seriously trying to sell the case that the human race has changed genetically so much over the past 40 years that we're all just going to end up fat? Go visit the rest of the world and see that the fat people are where there is an intent to make the population feel wealthy, everyone gets more of everything but you don't get that shit for free. You either pay more or you reduce the quality. Guess what, you feel wealthy because you don't have to pay too much for shit tier produce.

>>42130457
I hate "extreme diets". Weight loss is about changing your lifestyle.

But you don't have to continue a diet forever to keep the weight off. If you eat 1500 kcal a day and do no exercise, your body will over time gravitate to the body of someone whose maintenance is 1500 a day. You don't want to be a skelly, so you stop shortly beforehand when you're just slim, and start eating 2000 a day.

Also, how much of the "metabolism slowing" is down to muscular atrophy? I'd guess a lot, metabolism is mostly a meme.

File: file.png (41KB, 860x124px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 860x124px

>>42133554
>Also, how much of the "metabolism slowing" is down to muscular atrophy? I'd guess a lot, metabolism is mostly a meme.
Not much, considering metabolic decrease due to muscular atrophy is a meme, plus they exercised heavily during the weight loss. The metabolic slowdown was pretty significant too, not just something like ~50 kcal/day.

File: 1499810932664.jpg (301KB, 921x741px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 921x741px

>>42133554

>>42131090
damn dude, no need to kill the poor guy

>>42130606
What if someone does extreme low calorie weight loss and then wills themselves to maintain a healthy nutritious diet without going back to previous eating habits? Has anyone done this?

I wish someone would nuke the US. Like. The whole thing.

>>42130457
Because people look for affirmation that they are fine and people will straight up lie to give them that affirmation for clicks (or votes).

File: biggulphuge.jpg (98KB, 233x301px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 233x301px

>>42130457
>beginning of time to 1950: humans are all relatively the same weight
>1950 - 2017: Americans with a high-calorie diet and sedentary lifestyle suddenly become obese.
>implying that Americans genetically "evolved" into fat-asses over a mere 70-year period
>implying the cause wasn't sodie-pop

Really activates those fructose-burning metabolic pathways.

>>42135118
>HFCS
I only drink shit like that when doing excessive endurance sports and need that energy ASAP.

>>42130457
Who the fuck actually enjoys watching this show? Is being lectured by this douche for a half hour really entertaining?

>>42130571
>Scientific consesus
science isn't about consensus, but thats another argument

Slow diet is less about metabolic down regulation and more about forming healthy eating and fitness habits. You can loose weight faster than you can form good habits.

File: mouthbreather.png (124KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 680x680px

>>42130457
God this has got to be the most reddit show out there. From the smug "I told you so" and "Haha I'm epic and really really smart guys" expression, to the faggot hair cut, this show caters to all those mouth breathers in class who would try to convince his classmates he was smart by spewing out what he heard on his "I Fucking Love Science!" Facebook page. Everyone on the show is just a strawman to make him sound smart, with the "You can't handle how real he is" attitude.

Pic very much related

>>42130457
As a former fatty who sorted myself out I guess I'm a one of a kind genetic marvel. Someone get ripleys believe it or not on the phone.

>>42130457

Oh wow crash dieting does not work.

>watching impractical jokers
>commercials for this faggots show come on during every break

Fuck this douche bag. Dressing like a dork and spitting out dumb hot takes is a terrible show idea and will get him off the air soon enough

His study was more about crash dieting than about gradual dieting and exercise. If you lose the weight over a long period of time your metabolism will keep up. His main point was that your metabolism slows down when you crash diet so you'll rebound hard.

>>42130457
>sample size of 14

My brain is so fucking big

>>42130850
People regain weight because they get back to old habits. This is
>scientists suggest builders are only strong because their muscle mass
level statement.

>>42130457
Even people with hasimotos disease can lose weight. People are lazy and full of shit.

>>42131469
You're a fuckin idiot m8

>>42130457
>genetics of people suddenly changed when the 1970 health guidelines came out and everyone went low fat high carb

my almond sense is tingling

File: 1482413618291.jpg (19KB, 403x395px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 403x395px

>>42131919
>Calories out doesnt just mean exercise it means shitting them out as well.

He thinks you shit out your calories

You breathe them out you fucking moron.

File: respiration-equation2.jpg (50KB, 550x233px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 550x233px

>>42131919
>>42137983

>>42131469
You can't, you literally CANNOT run at a caloric deficit and gain or maintain weight.

People's bodies DO operate at different metabolic rates, and people DO receive more or less calories when ingesting food, but that's not because some people have a bad metabolism, that's because some people have a MORE EFFICIENT metabolism.

That's right the people who get a larger % of calories out of food actually have the good metabolism, and the people who can't properly digest their food and stay thinner are the ones with a "bad metabolism"

There is NO such thing as losing or maintaining weight on a caloric deficit, it's physically impossible.

>>42138016
water

>>42130457
tbf it does say "extreme diets". if you've ever tried cutting on super low calories <1000 then you'd know that what this guy is saying is true. The best way to diet without severely ruining your matabolism is a slow and steady cut

>>42130457
This guy adam is a moron POS garbage.
He ruins everything with misinformation and is not in touch with reality.

File: genetics.gif (450KB, 497x288px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 497x288px

what's with these genetics spreading so rampantly?

File: w8kidl.gif (2MB, 491x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 491x270px

>>42130457
Genetics is correct, whether you're athletic or beautiful or not is 100% genetic. Everyone can lose weight, but you're most likely just going to end up a slightly smaller tub of shit than the tub of shit you were before, with an underdeveloped low T pheno and maxillary recession. Might as well be fat Tbh Tbh

File: 1494743706125.jpg (196KB, 750x999px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 750x999px

>>42138642
Stronk genes

>>42138659
those are some strange looking biggots.

>>42138016
Agree with all you said except
>Bad metabolism vs good
Bad and good are arbitrary
up until the last 100 years holding on to more calories was good.
Today with all the heart attacks I'd call it bad
Lastly since no one has said this
Yes there is a huge difference between a 20 year old male athelete and a 50 year old obese woman past menopause.
BUT
If either individual eats below maintenance calories they WILL lose weight

File: fas.jpg (19KB, 245x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 245x300px

genetics is correct, cause literally everything we do is based on our foundations. how do you react to outside stimuli? it's entirely a product of your genetics.
Do you have the intelligence to understand how to live healthily? genetics
Do you have empathy enough to care how others perceive you, the environmental impact of your body, and so on? genetics
Do you have the chemistry that makes staying light easy? genetics.
sure, nurture is a factor, but how you respond to nurture is entirely dependent on your genetics.

>>42138840
Why not just reduce it all the way to physics if you're going to be this fucking reductionist

>>42139364
cause I don't know enough about physics to make an equally cheeky post, faggot. and people tend to forget the reality that individuals are genuinely different, and it's not less valid just because it''s rooted in something other than fast and slow metabolisms.

>>42139393
Solid point then

>>42130877
A lot of it is gut flora more than genetics.
http://www.nature.com/ajgsup/journal/v1/n1/full/ajgsup20125a.html

File: diets dont work.png (705KB, 1061x660px) Image search: [Google]

705KB, 1061x660px

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

I CANT KEEP THIS UP!!!! NOBODY CAN SURVIVE ON JUST 2000 CALORIES!!

>>42140401
>chart doesn't start at 0

>>42137275
14 of the most extreme cases too

Really does fire the wires

>>42140401

#1
>Extremely skewed graph that starts at 0 -2000 and goes to 1000 -1500 when the measurements are between 0-1500 thus literally doubling the visual representation of the metrics

#2
>Weight loss is not given in the metric therefore difficult to gauge the effect of weight loss on BMR

#3
>"Metabolic Rate" can be assumed BMR; BMR lowers with weight and muscle mass. No duh losing weight lowers the amount of calories needed to MAINTAIN A LARDASS. This is not TDEE, and expenditure over BMR tends to be 25-50% over TDEE pending on activity level thus making true expenditure 2250-2500.

It must be nice lying to people to make them feel better.

>>42140927

0 -1500 and goes to 1000 - 1500 and when the measurements are between 1500-3000 I mean

>>42140927
even Bill Nye lied to the fatties. It's easier to convince them to buy compliments than give advice for free.

>>42140927
The study they were basing it on was the Biggest Loser one where fatties BMR stayed at their "skinny" weight BMR despite gaining weight back

>>42135654
I don't watch the show, but it must be pretty entertaining when he "debunks" a topic you're not personally invested in, or when he confirms your opinion.

>>42140927
>#1
To be fair, it seems to be common practice for graphs not to start at zero, because it lets you read the differences from the graph more accurately if you don't just compare the heights of the columns but actually look at the numbers. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the default way the software they used to visualize the data showed the graph, GNUplot, excel, and libreoffice calc does the same.
>#3
They had lower BMRs than expected for their weight, so it's not just the result of the natural decrease in BMR as you lose weight.

>>42130597
This

Read the sticky and you'll realize this is actually in agreement with that.

"Extreme" diets are ridiculous, but lowering your caloric to an realistic level and exercising can keep most people in good health and shape.

>>42130457
Extreme diets actually work.
You lose weight. And no, unless you used some retarded drugs or have some crazy as fuck genetic thing, your metabolism won't be fucked.

You see, your metabolism will be that of a person of the same size, just a bit slower becuase you're eating slightly less.

If they ate normally and kept even slightly active and occasionally skipped a meal. They could have maintained easily. They will for the rest of their lives have a larger amount of fat cells, and greater levels of hunger then average and normal(fairly healthy sized not modern normal)sized people. They'll even have to pay the piper when it comes to the damage that being heavy and inactive for so long has done to their body.

But they'll have an easier time putting on muscle though, because they had to have a ton of muscle to move their fat asses around.

>>42142736
I'm getting really tired of all the people in this thread saying he's right about fast weight loss. Who gives a shit if 75% of the information in the video is correct? It's the other 25% that matters, because it's blatant misinformation. What use is there in warning people about the dangers of extreme weight loss, when they discourage people at the end from even trying to lose weight? The video is ultimately more harmful than good for this reason.

>>42138670
Noice

>>42142766
>And no, unless you used some retarded drugs or have some crazy as fuck genetic thing, your metabolism won't be fucked.
Read the fucking study.
>But they'll have an easier time putting on muscle though, because they had to have a ton of muscle to move their fat asses around.
Stupid broscience, you should be ashamed for posting this.

>>42142910
There is no fucking study that confirms fucking metabolism damage from crash dieting.
None.
Want to know why they get fat again? Because they don't eat like normal people and their NEAT went through the fucking floor after the program was over.
That's the case in all fucking diets where the person ate in a special way and did special workouts in their normally inactive life then STOPPED because they reached whatever goal they wanted.

And yeah, fat people have a lot of muscle mass under their fat. How else can an obese person move around like a normal person.
Ever seen a former fat ass person who now weight lifts/bodybuilds calves? Fuckers almost always have tank calves.

>>42142966
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27136388
Here's the study, their RMR decrease persisted, so it's not just that they stopped exercising after the show. The fact that they regained their weight is pretty much irrelevant anyway, the point is that they would have a harder time maintaining their healthy weight than a normal person of the same weight.
>And yeah, fat people have a lot of muscle mass under their fat. How else can an obese person move around like a normal person.
Their weight is distributed in the most efficient way possible, so being 40 kilos overweight isn't as exhausting as carrying a 40 kilo backpack, plus fat people do have a lot of trouble carrying their bulk around, so it's not like a 120 kilo person can move around just as easily as a 70 kilo person and therefore has proportionally more muscle. And even if they had significantly more muscle, they would have most of it in their legs, because the load on their arms for example isn't affected much by their body weight, while the load on their legs is. But even if they had significantly more muscle that is reasonably distributed on their body, it still wouldn't apply in cases of extreme weight loss, because extreme weight loss causes more muscle loss. Add to that the fact that it gets harder to put on muscle the more lean mass you have, and you can see why fat people aren't any better at putting on muscle.
>calves
It's always the calves that get brought up when talking about fat people. The whole idea that fat people have big calves may just be one big example of confirmation bias, but even if they actually do have bigger calves, it may just be that single muscle. You never see people talking about how this former fat dude has huge biceps/traps/pecs because he was fat for a reason.

reminder that fat people live longer than the average person

reminder than those who live to really long ages are skinny women who never lift

File: 1494975975199.jpg (359KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 800x800px

>>42130924
>regularily

>>42143246
Holy shit.
So..they burn 50-100 calories less then a similarly sized person?
Holy shit!
Call me when you can show me a study where they can't burn 500-1500 calories because of metabolic damage.

And yes..stupid. That's correct. But it's not because of magical metabolic damage. It's because they don't know how to eat, they are ALWAYS going to be far more hungry, and have those things in them that pushes them towards fat assery and they don't make the necessary life changes needed to combat that and maintain their new weight loss.
This is a fucking direct consequence of their life choices and something they are just going to have to deal with.

Stop giving those poor bastards excuses. You're only enabling them in their bad behaviors.

As for muscle. You're a fucking retard.
More weight even if it's over the whole body is still more fucking weight. 300 extra pounds doesn't become 20 pounds because it's evenly distributed.
Nor does the extra muscle mass not exist because they don't have massive guns and pecs from simply being obese.

File: Screenshot_654.png (659KB, 951x483px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 951x483px

really makes me think

>>42131728
>extreme edge cases make nutrition not real
>being this reddit

>>42137983
Who is this chick pls... This looks like a scene of the adult variety.

>>42130457
CH pushes the swj agenda in all it's videos. CH is fucking dead.

>>42130571

lock a fat person in your basement, feed him broccolis and chicken breast only for 8 weeks and then put that fucking scientific CONSESUS up your ass

>>42143513
janice griffith according to google

>>42143374
((()))

>>42130597
>Go to thread with inflammatory opening
>Look at the first couple comments
>Almost all bait, one reasonable
>Agree with the reasonable comment
>Leave

I barely spend more that 10 minute on 4chan at a time because that is how I now view almost every thread. 4chan is like the wierdest roleplay site I've ever seen.

>>42138655
What do those number represent or is that a meme gif?

>>42130457
>genetics

WHY DO THEY ALWAYS DO THIS

DO THEY ACTUALLY THINK THAT JUST THROWING THAT WORD AROUND EXPLAINS ANYTHING

goddamn these people piss me off

File: 1346423014029.png (134KB, 900x891px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 900x891px

>>42144996
did you even watch the bullshit? It's Adam saying "yeah everyone on the biggest loser regained their weight"

"BUT WHY"

"Because their BMR lowered and their weight loss slowed!"

"THEN I'LL JUST WORK OUT FOREVER"

"Actually, genetics!"


What they actually said:

>People on the biggest loser regained the weight because they did not maintain a healthy diet.
>Here's a misleading infographic about BMR, claiming 2000 is much lower when it is the average human diet
>Also we're not going to mention that we're specifically talking about weight loss and not just maintaining your body weight
>Eat cake fatass, blame your genetics (aka maybe 100 calorie difference in BMR)

ITT: People who go on all day about how genetics affects your ability to build muscles says genetics doesn't affect your ability to lose weight

>>42147658
Unless you have some sort of genetic mutation that prevents either of those things from happening, the only difference you will see is at-most 250 calories of BMR difference, easily side stepped by either eating more or less.

>>42147658
t. retard who didn't watch the video