Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program

..14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie, all
d'numbuhs

"Shute" <Shute DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:85lpo253vc6plsj92a0s03jq9djruql36r@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:21:57 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
> <bakters DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2006-12-22 JMW napisa?(a):
>>> Perhaps you're just under the spell of Darth Protologically
>>> AddictedSZ and Andrzej Fett.
>>
>>Andrzej Fett? What is Fett?
>
> He is comparing you to Bobba Fett and PV to Darth Vader. They are
> both bad guys in the Star Wars movies. I guess he is saying you speak
> science fiction.

Does this mean he's also calling my dick a sword?
My, my, I'm flattered, but golly, jmw's capacity for hyperbole is mighty,
indeed.
Unless, of course, it indeed felt that big. I told him it was only 9.5",
but maybe it felt like a g-d sword....
Sorry, jm....
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3




>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

John Williams wrote:
[...]

> But blathering about <snip> doesn't change any of that.

This is why, John Williams, from my perspective, you're much more a
nuisance than a boon. If you say something then it's A-OK, but if
someone else says something it's blathering.

Hypocrite.

And in the spirit of David Cohen's recent plea: "But, even if that is
true, it doesn't answer my question." To wit:

Have you ever explained the contradiction in your use of the term
conduit as a pejorative and your own examples of conduit behavior?
Likewise enabler. You have criticized others for replying to patrons of
this newsgroup you deem troll but have no compunction in replying to
those same individuals.

You are a laughable hypocrite, John.

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

"JMW" <jmwilliams.DeleteThis@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:g47po2lapbpthuag1pipck0cjb47f6j4vv@4ax.com...
> DZ <29927.DeleteThis@394215349.73433081.15871.12211.18043> wrote:
>>JMW <jmwilliams.DeleteThis@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>JMW <jmwilliams.DeleteThis@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>>The Queen of Cans and Jars <dhrravr.DeleteThis@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:
>>>>>>> JMW <jmwilliams_56.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> No, you won't. You listen to people with folksy wisdom who say
>>>>>>>> funny stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's because she doesn't want to do any of the hard work. She
>>>>>>> only wants to do stuff that agrees with what she already believes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But her "proposal" is a harder kind of work than the alternative.
>>>>>>Whether it would "work" is another matter. Suppose there are two
>>>>>>identical twins. One of them has more fat as well as very massive
>>>>>>leg muscles developed through resistance training, targeting
>>>>>>specifically the legs. The second twin has a pair of sticks. Now
>>>>>>both go on a calorie and protein restricted diet ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would the twin with stick legs go on a calorie-restricted diet?
>>>>> That defies reason.
>>>>
>>>>They are paid money by some Ivory Tower egghead principal
>>>>investigator.
>>>>
>>>>OTOH, his "why" has to do with the answer to my question. As you know,
>>>>only rich societies can really afford the luxury of science.
>>>
>>> I realize that you're being rather opaque about where you're going,
>>> but your thought experiment isn't directly relevant to the issue. Try
>>> this one:
>>>
>>> Identical twins, *both* with massive legs and somewhat overfat. (More
>>> consistent with identical genes, anyway, yes?) Both commence an
>>> identical progressive resistance training protocol. One maintains
>>> his/her usual free-feeding diet; the other commences a calorie- and
>>> protein-restricted diet. Who will gain/maintain more muscle? Who
>>> will lose more fat?
>>
>>I'm not being opaque, and my experiment is directly relevant to the
>>issue, which was the following -
>>
>>EP> "Can't some of the caloric deficit from *intake* be offset by
>>EP> recruiting from body fat (and muscle)?
>>EP> I mean, you can build muscle on your arms even while you're losing
>>EP> mass somewhere else, and that can happen while you have a caloric
>>EP> (intake) deficit."
>>
>>I take the second sentence here as a question (scientific
>>question). So, theoretically, could one play some sort of a
>>recomposition game? I already acknowledged that whether this is a
>>sensible thing to do (given all the other available choices) is
>>another matter.
>
> It's a fair point, but looking at it in isolation misses the big
> picture. And the real crux of the issue, in your paragraph above, is
> simply: How much "choice" is really "available"?
>
> Let's start from the assumption that First Law of Thermodynamics
> applies: internal energy = energy in - energy out. The big problem
> with newbies is their assumption that internal energy is expressed
> totally as fat. As you well know, it's not.

And, of course, John "The Plagiarist" Williams gets it wrong but once again,
in his one-ups-manship desperation.
This one is classic, tho.
The First Law relates internal energy specifically to *heat* and *work*
(usually mechanical, but not always), NOT to a simple substraction of energy
in and energy out.
jmw's circle-jerk buddeez, or anyone else, can post this to sci.physics, to
see just how cosmic a sophist The Plagiarist is.

There is, actually, a lot of choice, and no real ""problem"", if you
understand the *real* issues, and not some coccamammy mis-statement of the
First Law of Thermo.
If you do A, the body will respond in kind.
If you do B, the body will respond in another kind.
Etc.

Few things correspond to the "jmw-concentric" theory of the universe.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs



>
> Newbies assume that if you reduce the energy in, the excess energy out
> will come totally from body fat. Your body doesn't give you that
> choice. Yes, much will come from fat, particularly after the
> depletion of glycogen stores, but a substantial amount will come from
> catabolism of lean body mass. Therein lies the problem.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

The Queen of Pot versus Kettle wrote:
[...]

> Oh, I'm not reading anything she's written here.
> She's far too silly to take seriously.

Talking to yourself, mica?

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

"Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay RemoveThis @optonline2.718.net> wrote in
message news:ct0jh.2569$ZA2.1088@newsfe08.lga...
> But just so's I'm clear on your gist:
>
> You say
>
>> MORE FOOD = MORE MUSCLE = LESS FLAB
>> LESS FOOD = LESS MUSCLE = MORE FLAB
>
> is true. I sort of disagree, but think I understand the bigger point.
> But let's assume this is strictly true.
> Are you saying
>
> cals in - cals out = weight gain/loss/stability
>
> is false? Irrelevant? Other?

Other. You can't explain a macro event, such as muscle-building or fat
loss, at any single micro level, such as calories in/calories out. The body
is a big, complex macro-organism, not a simple machine. There are all sorts
of synergies, syntheses, etc., going.

The fact that existing muscle mass uses more calories just to stay put than,
say, fat does is a significant variable in the macro equation relevant to
the human body's calorie-use.

Another factor is the fact that it the human body needs more calories to
break down protein than it does, say, simple carbs.

You can estimate how much muscle mass you have, estimate how many calories
each muscle burns per unit of time to maintain itself, then estimate how
many calories you consume and how much of that was protein, and then come up
with some estimate of how much will be stored as fat. But it's all just an
estimate. Then you can change your estimate some more based on hormone
variations. But it's still just an estimate.

Nobody can explain (yet) how or why a lot of macro stuff happens. That's
why scientists do long-term studies of macro behaviors. A scientist isn't
going to purport to predict (or deduce) macro events from a micro level.
(Unless he's stupid or crazy, I guess. A stupid or crazy scientist could
deduce the moon is made of green cheese, if s/he wanted to, I guess.)

For example, I was just reading a summary of a long-term study that said
that they fed one study group a diet that emphasized a particular kind of
fat for a while, and fed another group a diet with the same number of
calories but less of the particular fats being studied, and another group
something else, etc. Then they weighed everybody a few years later and
found that a group on one diet weight significantly less than another group,
controlling for all known variables.

Now, they wouldn't have needed to do that study if you could *predict* what
was going to happen based on some simple law of thermodynamics or on any
given combination of known micro-level variable. In fact, nobody can even
*explain* ad hoc why it happened that way on the micro or macro level. Yet.
So we come up with some theories, both micro-level and macro-level, and
somebody tests those, too. And all the scientists still have something to
do because they haven't figured it all out. Yet. Bless 'em.

ep
(Sorry, but I'm not going to spend much time on this. I'm trying to finish
a project for work so I can get out of town for a couple of weeks. Y'all
have a happy.)
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

"DZ" <19541 DeleteThis @326012376.216558724.23513.20871.13816> wrote in message
news:10880@3111214514.896618378.28027.8210.948...
> Edna Pearl <edna_pearl DeleteThis @yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>> <snip> who really cares?
>
> I do.
>
>> <snip> who really cares?
>
> I do.
>
>> <snip> who really cares?
>
> I do

Jeez, that's kinda sad. <sniff> Maybe you need a hobby, so you won't have
to spend so much psychic energy on "really caring" what some magazine editor
says in a popular diet book that you refuse to read in the first place. I
like needlepoint, personally. Cats are relaxing, too.

ep
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> Does this mean he's also calling my dick a sword?

Yer ol' lady Jenny sez it ain't even a pocketknife.
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

Marlin Perkins wrote:

-=SNIP!=-

Marlin Perkins was The Man.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19470707,00.html

Yes, the em-effin' and almighty MAN!

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,934616,00.html

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

DZ <19038 RemoveThis @2235914289.2348825931.6739.2593.22893> wrote:

> The Queen of Cans and Jars <dhrravr RemoveThis @ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:
> > JMW <jmwilliams_56 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> No, you won't. You listen to people with folksy wisdom who say
> >> funny stuff.
> >
> > That's because she doesn't want to do any of the hard work. She
> > only wants to do stuff that agrees with what she already believes.
>
> But her "proposal" is a harder kind of work than the alternative.
> Whether it would "work" is another matter.

Oh, I'm not reading anything she's written here. She's far too silly to
take seriously.
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:emk75u$sta$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Dnia 2006-12-23 JMW napisa³(a):
> I'm drunk, but I still remember some things from the time I was sober.

One-liners like this give me a reason to wake up in the morning.

ep
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

"Curt" <curtjames.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166897119.414321.92560@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> John Williams wrote:
> [...]
>
>> But blathering about <snip> doesn't change any of that.
>
> This is why, John Williams, from my perspective, you're much more a
> nuisance than a boon. If you say something then it's A-OK, but if
> someone else says something it's blathering.
>
> Hypocrite.
>
> And in the spirit of David Cohen's recent plea: "But, even if that is
> true, it doesn't answer my question." To wit:
>
> Have you ever explained the contradiction in your use of the term
> conduit as a pejorative and your own examples of conduit behavior?
> Likewise enabler. You have criticized others for replying to patrons of
> this newsgroup you deem troll but have no compunction in replying to
> those same individuals.
>
> You are a laughable hypocrite, John.

Note that John The Plagiarist Williams, despite my above correction on his
misconception of the 1st law of thermo, STILL recites it, still incorrectly.
Cuz it still *sounds* impressive.
jmw is an igneranus.
But, notice he stopped using "conversely".
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs




>
> --
> Curt
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

DZ wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > DZ wrote:

> >> Couldn't I just read some spam off my "junk" email folder?
> >
> > You could.
> >
> > My only thought was that, hey, fwiw, I'm disappointed that you'd slam
> > (perhaps an unfair characterization of what you've offered) a book
> > without having actually read the book.
>
> I didn't slam the book.

You also didn't read the book.

> Edna did! -
>
> EP> he apparently commits the fallacy of "post/cum hoc ergo propter
> EP> hoc" over and over and over and over again
> EP>
> EP> the whole "abs" focus is a total gimmick
> EP>
> EP> He doesn't appear to actually understand ketogenic dieting

Her opinions seemed balanced to me and, hey, personal opinion is just
that. It's her fitness program and I'm certainly not going to question
her. Likewise, it's your right to read (or, hey, refuse to read)
whatever you'd like.

> If you agree with her, then it begs the question - why do you guys
> keep promoting what you think is incompetent spam?

For one, I enjoy the book. I think it's swell.

> I admit that a thought had crossed my mind in the past that you've
> been posting recommendations for "The abs diet" here just to piss off
> JMW etc.

I doubt JMW needs any assistance in being pissed off. He's one of
those. Absolutely.

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program