Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What the hell are you talking about now? The only weight you should ever be trying to lose is fat. No matter what you do there will be some muscle and strength loss as well.

Amaya wrote:What the hell are you talking about now? The only weight you should ever be trying to lose is fat. No matter what you do there will be some muscle and strength loss as well.

And again, the power lifter shines through.

So you're honestly advocating intentionally losing muscle mass by doing a blanket reduction in calories instead of reducing carbs and possibly increasing protein intake to minimize the loss of strength and muscle?

Amaya wrote:So you're honestly advocating intentionally losing muscle mass by doing a blanket reduction in calories instead of reducing carbs and possibly increasing protein intake to minimize the loss of strength and muscle?

Your ability to imagine entire paragraphs that don't exist in other peoples posts is astounding.

Amaya wrote:So you're honestly advocating intentionally losing muscle mass by doing a blanket reduction in calories instead of reducing carbs and possibly increasing protein intake to minimize the loss of strength and muscle?

Depends on what your goal is, but sure.

Yeah, sure. I only drink soda once in a while, usually when I'm eating out, and I don't think I would mind too much if I had to pay a lil' bit more, if it benefits my state in some way.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Amaya wrote:So you're honestly advocating intentionally losing muscle mass by doing a blanket reduction in calories instead of reducing carbs and possibly increasing protein intake to minimize the loss of strength and muscle?

Your ability to imagine entire paragraphs that don't exist in other peoples posts is astounding.

Shuma, you've already shown that you no business in this discussion. If you can't see how I reached the above query you have some form of reading deficiency.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:So you're honestly advocating intentionally losing muscle mass by doing a blanket reduction in calories instead of reducing carbs and possibly increasing protein intake to minimize the loss of strength and muscle?

Depends on what your goal is, but sure.

Why would you ever recommend that?

Shuma, you've already shown that you no business in this discussion.

Because I asked that you stop posting flame bait and instead post something substantive? Which you then did and then immediately went back to flamebait? Sure.

If you can't see how I reached the above query you have some form of reading deficiency.

I can see the steps, but it's a staircase that leads nowhere. You've been equivocating for four pages and dogma didn't say that, regardless of how much you want to go down that path.

Amaya wrote:
Why would you ever recommend that?

If you were, say, 5'9 250 and you wanted to loose both muscle and fat in order to purchase clothes that weren't custom made.

Or, perhaps you don't earn much money, and you want maintain a consistent body image in order to purchase affordable work clothes.

There is an argument that a junk food tax is disproportionate and taxes the poor the heaviest (no pun intended). In the UK our most recent budget has brought in a tax on hot food, nicknamed the pasty tax, and this has caused outrage as commentators have asked our privately educated government when they last ate a pasty. This they proceeded to lie about claimed to have bought one from a shop that didn't exist at the time they claimed to have bought it.

Something must be done about the increasing levels of obesity, if this were brought in then it should be accompanied by tax breaks or even subsidies for healthy alternatives, and much greater education and research. There is currently a lot of research being done into Ghrelin and Leptin, the hormones that regulate the feelings of hunger and being full. Hopefully they can go on to discover ways of dealing with such issues that don't involve elective surgery (in an era of MRSA and other nasties) for those with serious health risks from their size.

I spent some time in Hong Kong a couple of years ago, and their ax system is one of 0% on most things, but luxury items are taxed at 50%. I never saw a single fat person in all my time there. Although this cannot be taken as a tax issue in isolation, as there are countless other factors involved.

So even though 99% of the population does not have excess muscle mass and really can't afford to lose any, you'd argue against cutting calories via carb reduction based solely the experiences of a statistical outlier.

Amaya wrote:So even though 99% of the population does not have excess muscle mass and really can't afford to lose any, you'd argue against cutting calories via carb reduction based solely the experiences of a statistical outlier.

Seriously, stop putting words in other peoples mouths. That's not what he said.

Amaya wrote:So even though 99% of the population does not have excess muscle mass and really can't afford to lose any, you'd argue against cutting calories via carb reduction based solely the experiences of a statistical outlier.

Nope, not what I said.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:What the hell are you talking about now? The only weight you should ever be trying to lose is fat. No matter what you do there will be some muscle and strength loss as well.

And again, the power lifter shines through.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:So you're honestly advocating intentionally losing muscle mass by doing a blanket reduction in calories instead of reducing carbs and possibly increasing protein intake to minimize the loss of strength and muscle?

Depends on what your goal is, but sure.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:So even though 99% of the population does not have excess muscle mass and really can't afford to lose any, you'd argue against cutting calories via carb reduction based solely the experiences of a statistical outlier.

Nope, not what I said.

Funny you, criticized cutting carbs to lose weight on what basis exactly?

You also claim that simply cutting calories is an effective weight loss method. It doesn't matter if you cut calories and you still eat garbage. You actually have to clean up your diet and change your lifestyle to maintain the weight loss.


Saying that only weight you should be trying to lose is fat is applicable to 99% of the population.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Yeah, sure. I only drink soda once in a while, usually when I'm eating out, and I don't think I would mind too much if I had to pay a lil' bit more, if it benefits my state in some way.

I've got some good news for you...

I have no idea what's going on in this thread...

There's a junk food tax in the UK and i don't particularly mind...
Admittedly i also wouldn't mind cheaper junk food either so go figure...

Dogma and I are off topic debating the merits of different weight loss strategies. I do agree with him in the example he's given to an extent. Even if a powerlifter cuts from 250-300 down to 200 with minimizing muscle loss, he'll still have significantly larger legs and glutes than the say the average jean is cut for. Wearing a larger waist size because your legs can't fit in a smaller pair of jeans is annoying.

Amaya wrote:
Saying that only weight you should be trying to lose is fat is applicable to 99% of the population.

Not really, lots of people were athletes in high school.

dogma wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Saying that only weight you should be trying to lose is fat is applicable to 99% of the population.

Not really, lots of people were athletes in high school.

Anecdotal, but at the high school I graduated from (WCHS, San Antonio) out of 3000 students there were maybe 20 actually big enough to cut down the way you describe. There's certainly a place for it, I just don't think it's applicable for the average person.

Playing Devils advocate, I can see what Dogma is saying, my back and shoulders are massive thanks to all the years of yomping about, Its not unreasonable to think someone would want a reduction all over.

Not everyone wants to be beefcake do they?

I am 5'9 and 180lbs on the nose at the moment, im pretty muscular, but my knees get a little sore on distance runs now im older, so I wouldn't mind dropping to 170lbs to get speedier, and if that entailed dropping 6-7lbs or fat and 3lbs of muscle I wouldn't be remotely concerned about it.

As he said, I think its different goals for each person, but not everyone wants to be fething huge. Think about a distance runner or something? Or someone who wants to lose a weight class for boxing, but is already lean? You have to take the weight from somewhere, and if most of your fats already gone anyway, whats left?!

mattyrm wrote:
I am 5'9 and 180lbs on the nose at the moment, im pretty muscular, but my knees get a little sore on distance runs now im older...

You're British me!

feth off I'm not THAT much older than you.

mattyrm wrote:feth off I'm not THAT much older than you.

Like the song I hum about TBone when delicately scratching his neck and chest.
"You're older than dirt. Older than dirt. dirt dirt dirt older than dirt. When sand stone was just sand you were older than dirt. dirt dirt dirt older than dirt..."

You're right as well concerning certain sports Matty. 180 isn't terribly big at 5'9", but there's some fitness models/natural body builders around that size that are pretty bulky, so I can understand that.

I just have a hard time getting my head around actually wanting to lose muscle as well, I mean for someone like Mariusz I could understand that, but he's well 270 with a six pack.