General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

I don't think I feel any better than when I was eating hot wings and french fries all the time. It feels good to hear my wife say she can see and feel a difference, but I don't think that's what people mean when they give that line?

Thoughts?

This is what I was talking about earlier. Yeah I still eat bread and drink milk, but the real change in me was the get off my assness. I eat more protein than anything else, but it didn't give me a bunch more energy. Doing things instead of sitting around isn't 'more energy', it's just doing something instead of nothing. I think a lot of people change two things (diet and activity level), and then draw conclusions that aren't really supported. Does one have more energy when working out compared to sitting on a couch, or does it just seem that way because hey, you're getting dressed to go to the gym to workout?



BTW, keep the wings, lose the fries IMO. Once a week or so isn't going to kill you, and they are chicken (protein) after all.

if there are measurable changes in your body composition, why would it be just a line?

are you feeling hungry? do you still eat every 4 hours or so? what and how much vegetables are you eating a ton of?

and you could try some intermittent fasting and see how your body responds now (hunger as well as lucidity) to see if you've transitioned to burning fat or are still burning sugar.

I'm calling it a line because me having a slimmer stomach makes me "feel good" in terms of accomplishing something but not necessarily "feel good" in terms of some other internal feeling or emotional boost. I guess the sentence in and of itself is ambiguous enough that it could be taken many different ways (feeling of touch, feeling of accomplishment, feeling self esteem, feeling of having more energy, feeling like I could outrun a horde of zombies now without losing my breath, or more). Perhaps I was just putting too much weight into one aspect of "feeling great." I did enough weight training and exercising as a youth and young adult being very involved in sports to know how long it takes to get real results, and I wasn't necessarily expecting any sort of mystical new feeling in the 5th week of a new exercise initiative, but it did strike me as kind of funny when I remember hearing people say this or seeing it on tv commercials or similar. It seems like it's constantly used as an excuse/motivator to tell people to get off their ass and work out.

Most of the veggies I'm eating (in order of quantity) are lettuce, green and red peppers, cucumbers, carrots, spinach, broccoli, cauliflower

intermittent fasting is definitely something i want to try at some point. The lean gains site seems awesome, but I'm going to stick with nowhereman's advice for a while that IF might be a bit FPS for me at this point just getting back into being more active.

This is what I was talking about earlier. Yeah I still eat bread and drink milk, but the real change in me was the get off my assness. I eat more protein than anything else, but it didn't give me a bunch more energy. Doing things instead of sitting around isn't 'more energy', it's just doing something instead of nothing. I think a lot of people change two things (diet and activity level), and then draw conclusions that aren't really supported. Does one have more energy when working out compared to sitting on a couch, or does it just seem that way because hey, you're getting dressed to go to the gym to workout?



BTW, keep the wings, lose the fries IMO. Once a week or so isn't going to kill you, and they are chicken (protein) after all.

Well said. The higher cognitive function link that Rob posted definitely has my interest piqued on that. I think I can use that as another motivator for myself to stick with it.

As for the hot wings, I love them breaded and fried ... protein but a lot of other crap in it too especially since a lot of wing sauce is loaded with butter.

intermittent fasting is definitely something i want to try at some point. The lean gains site seems awesome, but I'm going to stick with nowhereman's advice for a while that IF might be a bit FPS for me at this point just getting back into being more active.

Something like skipping dinner once a week can be a super easy start. Although tbh I haven't researched any of this IM fasting stuff and am just doing the skip dinner thing because some people said it was good (increased insulin sensitivity/avoids protein uptake down regulation/etc, kinda makes sense). I also have way more energy, feel more awake and can do bigger workouts on that meal skip night which is pretty interesting as I expect most people would think you'd be sluggish/weak when skipping a meal... I suspect on a high carb diet that may be true. Anyways that's all the potentially misinformed anecdotal drivel I can eject for today.

Edit: Oh and weirdly I don't really get hungry on these nights (especially if I'm drinking a decent amount of water), even the next morning I don't wake up starving for food... just kind of feels normal which I didn't expect.

I had no idea intermittent fasting was a thing. I've been skipping meals for years just because I wasn't hungry, or got busy/distracted and forgot to eat. I'm on the cutting edge (of ignorance).

I think WOT nailed it with the cognitive dissonance concept. People turn diets and food lifestyle into a near religion and it starts to look like one of those psycho preachers who takes people to the jungle to drink kool-aide.

Intermittent fasting is good for your health. There is a great book on it by Brad Pilon called 'Eat Stop Eat' which talks about it quite a lot. It's not a difficult read and only about 70 pages but has over 40 references

http://uranus.ckt.net/~gochiefs/Eat%20Stop%20Eat.pdf

Does one have more energy when working out compared to sitting on a couch, or does it just seem that way because hey, you're getting dressed to go to the gym to workout?

are you saying exercise is a figment of people's imaginations? working out doesn't build and tone muscles? running everyday doesn't build cardiovascular fitness to run faster and longer?

what exactly is the argument here? i'm totally confused.

I did enough weight training and exercising as a youth and young adult being very involved in sports to know how long it takes to get real results, and I wasn't necessarily expecting any sort of mystical new feeling in the 5th week of a new exercise initiative, but it did strike me as kind of funny when I remember hearing people say this or seeing it on tv commercials or similar. It seems like it's constantly used as an excuse/motivator to tell people to get off their ass and work out.

Most of the veggies I'm eating (in order of quantity) are lettuce, green and red peppers, cucumbers, carrots, spinach, broccoli, cauliflower

as mentioned previously, i was running 6 days a week, but i plateaued at a fairly slow pace still after months. it takes a long time to build a good base to get to racing speeds. so i didn't think it was worth it and decided to spend my time on poker instead. just a cost/benefit analysis. nothing wrong with that.

but i was def a much stronger runner at the end than before. resting heart rate went down, legs were rock hard, etc.. so i still fail to see what cognitive dissonance has to do with the situation. maybe i'm just dense.

and your body is getting healthier (weight loss + metabolic changes that decrease risk for a host of potential problems) on diet changes even if you don't feel any profound changes. even in the absence of exercise. is there some objection to the clinical studies presented in this thread? if so, please point out the flaws so i can understand.

http://www.dietdoctor.com/weight-loss-time-to-stop-denying-the-science

but i think n0whereman would have put me in my place if there were some glaring errors in the methodology or conclusions of these studies.

and the veggies look fine. the majority is just water anyway. i was just wondering whether you were loading up on the bulky stuff to feel full. but if you're worried of being hungry, just eat more fat.

http://www.dietdoctor.com/weight-loss-time-to-stop-denying-the-science

but i think n0whereman would have put me in my place if there were some glaring errors in the methodology or conclusions of these studies.

I'd like to believe that he doesn't have the time to read and assess those studies. I'd also like to think you don't have the time to either. If you did, you'd quickly realize that most of the results aren't really applicable to you (and most of the posters in this forum for that matter) and some of the methods are just hilarious.

I never feel great after a sick, hard work out. I feel like shit. I feel like my muscles are exploding and I feel like dying. All I want to do is get those steps to the car, to take a shower and eat like a bull.

People that 'feel great' after a work-out, are not training hard enough. Depends what you consider 'after a workout' tho

I feel sleepy after a workout. But I've got something wrong with me where my blood pressure hugely drops (very occasionally pass out) as soon as I cease exercise that involves compression/tension in my back for moderate amounts of time (rowing, wrestling, etc). Doctors haven't been able to figure out why.

i just realized i do agree with you guys. but i have to go evolutionary perspective to explain.

let me define what i think health is not.

health isn't bench pressing your body weight
health isn't running 100m sprints

if you put the world's strongest man and the world's fastest man out in the wild, they'll still be too slow to run away from predators or too weak to fight with predators.

since improving either of these markers gives us no real survival advantage, evolution wouldn't have selected for it.

so doing these things "for health" wouldn't make sense for us.

what we are good at, however, is running for distance.

we are bipedal (unique in animal kingdom)
we are hairless and sweat to cool our bodies (unique in animal kingdom)

you don't want to be bipedal if you want speed; you want to be close to the ground.

you don't need a a water-cooling system if you just want to run short distances, panting will suffice.

and if we're running animals, health isn't carrying excess body weight. it offsets our balance and costs too much energy.

...

but that's all i got for now. i got sidetracked reading about bipedalism.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_running_man_revisited/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipedalism#Advantages

I'd like to believe that he doesn't have the time to read and assess those studies. I'd also like to think you don't have the time to either. If you did, you'd quickly realize that most of the results aren't really applicable to you (and most of the posters in this forum for that matter) and some of the methods are just hilarious.

yes, because women and fat people are not normal human beings. point noted.

why are you following this thread btw?

yes, because women and fat people are not normal human beings. point noted.

why are you following this thread btw?

I'll wait till you read the methods...

I have interests in both nutrition and humor.