I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[robblok]

18 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

One other point about your comment that "epidemiology research is the weakest of all research", Willett points out:

 

"...Nutritional epidemiology is far from being a perfect science, but with a thorough understanding of the discipline, valuable insights on diet and health outcomes can be obtained from free-living populations. ..."  "...When incorporated into a interdisciplinary approach, nutritional epidemiological studies can play an indispensable role. ..."

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4288279/

Far from perfect.. can be obtained...  yea right. He already admits it himself.  If you see that as proof then you and I can't debate. Besides already proven that Lustig is a fraud as he ignores the fact that in Australia sugar and fructose consumption went down but obesity went up. He completely ignores that (cherry picking in studies is bad science). Either all your studies show the same or you explain why its not the same. Ignoring something is bad science. 

 

I am talking here about Lustig, not saying these studies can never have any value. But if you do bad science like him then yes its not valid.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_paradox

[robblok]

@FracturedRabbit

@WaveHunter

 

You guys go on about processed food if you look in the topics here i made a post about an interesting study about processed and unprocessed foods. It shows that processed foods are far worse and make people eat more and even gain more weight then should be expected by calories alone.

 

However it does NOT say that is because of carbs or sugars. Just processed food and we all know that processed foods are bad we are all in agreement there. Its just that some of you seem to want to blame everything on carbs sugars whatever without making any distinctions or caveats. Then you got Lustig who got the science wrong lying about just about everything no sugar in the Japanese diet and even maintaining that opinion in debate when proven wrong. You guys have seen my graph of sugar consumption in Japan. Extremist make the debate totally pointless and make me put my feet in the sand and fight as hard as I can. 

 

https://anabolicminds.com/articles/heavily-processed-foods-cause-overeating-and-weight-gain-study-finds-40517/

 

Here low carb lovers there is use for carbs and that is why I am against extremists. There is more research about whole grains against diabetice too.  That is why unlike you guys I don't fear carbs. Just the processed ones and get annoyed when people demonize a complete food-group. 

 

https://anabolicminds.com/articles/whole-grain-can-contribute-to-health-by-changing-intestinal-serotonin-production-40411/

 

[WaveHunter]

13 minutes ago, robblok said:

I am talking about Lustig, and yes I do know his work and in the debate he could not come up with any human studies at normal dosages. So the guy is an alarmist.  He lost the debate mate. Just follow it. 

Like I said before, I don’t want to discuss Lustig vs Aragon anymore.  It’s pointless.  I’m more interested in the message, not the messenger. It really boils down to whether or not you believe in a hormonal basis for metabolic health or you don’t.

[FracturedRabbit]

[mention=152667]FracturedRabbit[/mention]
[mention=292799]WaveHunter[/mention]
 
You guys go on about processed food if you look in the topics here i made a post about an interesting study about processed and unprocessed foods. It shows that processed foods are far worse and make people eat more and even gain more weight then should be expected by calories alone.
 
However it does NOT say that is because of carbs or sugars. Just processed food and we all know that processed foods are bad we are all in agreement there. Its just that some of you seem to want to blame everything on carbs sugars whatever without making any distinctions or caveats. Then you got Lustig who got the science wrong lying about just about everything no sugar in the Japanese diet and even maintaining that opinion in debate when proven wrong. You guys have seen my graph of sugar consumption in Japan. Extremist make the debate totally pointless and make me put my feet in the sand and fight as hard as I can. 
 
https://anabolicminds.com/articles/heavily-processed-foods-cause-overeating-and-weight-gain-study-finds-40517/
 
Here low carb lovers there is use for carbs and that is why I am against extremists. There is more research about whole grains against diabetice too.  That is why unlike you guys I don't fear carbs. Just the processed ones and get annoyed when people demonize a complete food-group. 
 
https://anabolicminds.com/articles/whole-grain-can-contribute-to-health-by-changing-intestinal-serotonin-production-40411/
 

As one of the “you guys”, I would like to point out that there was no mention of carbs or sugar in the video I shared about incretins. Indeed it supports your assertion that processed foods are the real culprit.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[FracturedRabbit]

However, if you are metabolically damaged to the point you have type 2 diabetes, then you are now carbohydrate intolerant and need to restrict carbs to manage the disease.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[WaveHunter]

3 minutes ago, FracturedRabbit said:

However, if you are metabolically damaged to the point you have type 2 diabetes, then you are now carbohydrate intolerant and need to restrict carbs to manage the disease.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

That’s true but the more important question is whether carbs/sugar can cause you to become metabolically damaged.  If you believe in the carbohydrate-insulin model then the answer is yes.  Processed foods have the type of carbs/sugar that  that will disrupt incretin response, as lab-based biological studies clearly show; those types of carbs and sugar may therefore be damaging to metabolic health in the long run...if the carbohydrate-insulin model is true.

[VincentRJ]

6 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

 

 

And then you can read Ludwig's response to Guyenet here: Ludwig Responds to Whole Health Source Article.

 

It's actually a fascinating exchange between these two well respected authorities. 

 

There are a lot of holes in the CIM model for sure.  I won't deny that, but for me, it's just a more compelling argument, even though a lot more research needs to still be done and is being done.

 

Of course, everyone should decide for themselves AFTER becoming knowledgable of BOTH sides of the coin, and these two guys do a good job of presenting unvarnished facts.

From the article:
 

"Moreover, Guyenet ignores many experimental models of obesity notably lacking hyperphagia (above normal calorie intake), or in which overeating occurs secondary to increasing adiposity, such as defects in melanocortin signaling [Asai]. With regard to diet-induced obesity, rodents fed high versus low glycemic index (GI) starch showed the following sequence of events: first, hyperinsulinemia; second, anabolic changes in adipose tissue; third, greater adiposity; fourth, lower energy expenditure; and only then, fifth, increased energy intake. With food restriction to prevent excessive weight gain, the high GI-fed animals still develop excessive adiposity (and associated increased CVD risk factors) — findings that defy the conventional Calories In, Calories Out model [Kabir, Kabir, Lerer-Metzger, Pawlak, Pawlak]."

 

The problem with these complexities, as described above, is that they provide an excuse for overweight or obese people to reject the 'Calories in/Calories out' concept, which is really fundamental Physics, and search instead for special diets, which are usually expensive.

 

The fact remains, if a person eats less of the same type of food and continues doing the same activities, he must either lose weight or his metabolism must process the same food more efficiently, gaining more calories or energy from the same type of food.

 

However, I can appreciate that eating less can make one more lethargic. The body could have a natural response to maintain its fat reserves, which could result in a person becoming less physically active due to their lack of will power to overcome their lethargy.

 

A fundamental and necessary part of the scientific methodology of controlled experimentation, is that one should change just one variable at a time, whilst keeping the other variables the same, such as same activities, same lifestyle, same environment and temperature, and so on.

 

One can't instruct rats to maintain the same amount of physical activity. ????
 

[cooked]

2 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

That’s true but the more important question is whether carbs/sugar can cause you to become metabolically damaged.  If you believe in the carbohydrate-insulin model then the answer is yes.  Processed foods have the type of carbs/sugar that  that will disrupt incretin response, as lab-based biological studies clearly show; those types of carbs and sugar may therefore be damaging to metabolic health in the long run...if the carbohydrate-insulin model is true.

There is more convincing evidence for what seems to be a lot more than a hypothesis, even if much has been withheld for many years. 

All carbs are harmful, some more than others, but cutting down on them makes a huge difference for most people, myself included.

[robblok]

22 minutes ago, FracturedRabbit said:

As one of the “you guys”, I would like to point out that there was no mention of carbs or sugar in the video I shared about incretins. Indeed it supports your assertion that processed foods are the real culprit.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Not my assertion the assertion of a study I read. I just happen to agree with the fact that processed not processed is a far more important part of a diet then low carb vs high carb. IMHO (feel free to debate that). Once processed foods are kicked out it all does not matter much anymore diet wise if you eat a balanced diet. (for weight gain) you got other medical reasons.

 

The reason I mention you is that you have a low carb view, I was not going on about the video but in general. 

[robblok]

30 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Like I said before, I don’t want to discuss Lustig vs Aragon anymore.  It’s pointless.  I’m more interested in the message, not the messenger. It really boils down to whether or not you believe in a hormonal basis for metabolic health or you don’t.

No it boils down to a liar who has proven to work unscientific. I understand you don't want to debate him anymore as even a smart guy like you can't defend a losing battle. 

 

I certainly believe there is more to things than calories in calories out that is why i posted about processed foods. Insulin plays a roll as do other hormones, however unlike you I don't see it as black and white.

 

For instance IMHO once you stop eating processed foods there is not much to win anymore to kick out carbs (see for instance report on whole grains being good against diabetice). I also don't worry about normal amounts of sugar (not taking them myself but would not worry about it, my reason is that they are empty calories). 

 

IMHO your overstating the importance of sugar and carbs on the hormonal basis after processed food is eliminated. Research has shown a huge improvement once processed food is removed, I doubt you have to go any further after that by removing carbs and sugar. Once processed foods are gone I think a normal balanced diet would suffice. A balanced diet can include carbs and sugar and people wont suffer metabolic problems. (just remember there was almost no obesity before the introduction of processed foods and people did eat sugar and carbs back then)

[robblok]

33 minutes ago, FracturedRabbit said:

However, if you are metabolically damaged to the point you have type 2 diabetes, then you are now carbohydrate intolerant and need to restrict carbs to manage the disease.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

100% in agreement. You seen my post on low carb and diabetes.

[robblok]

23 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

That’s true but the more important question is whether carbs/sugar can cause you to become metabolically damaged.  If you believe in the carbohydrate-insulin model then the answer is yes.  Processed foods have the type of carbs/sugar that  that will disrupt incretin response, as lab-based biological studies clearly show; those types of carbs and sugar may therefore be damaging to metabolic health in the long run...if the carbohydrate-insulin model is true.

Yes processed food can do that... carbs sure if you eat too many of the processed kind.. sugar too if you eat far more then the 10% of the calories. I just disagree about the levels needed and the need for total abstinence of those things. Whole grains have been proven to be good against diabetice and guess what whole grains are carbs. 

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Far from perfect.. can be obtained...  yea right. He already admits it himself.  If you see that as proof then you and I can't debate. Besides already proven that Lustig is a fraud as he ignores the fact that in Australia sugar and fructose consumption went down but obesity went up. He completely ignores that (cherry picking in studies is bad science). Either all your studies show the same or you explain why its not the same. Ignoring something is bad science. 

 

I am talking here about Lustig, not saying these studies can never have any value. But if you do bad science like him then yes its not valid.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_paradox

You keep harping on about how epidemiology studies like Brand-Miller's Australian Paradox prove that those advocating that sugar causes metabolic damage are frauds, yet you also state that you believe that epidemiology studies are the weakest type of studies.  To me that's a real paradox LOL.  

 

I agree with you that epidemiology studies are by no means conclusive.  Scientist usually regard them as interdisciplinary tools for research, not as proof of anything!  Only lab-based biochemical and physiological studies can provide "proof".

 

Only the public, and those wishing to effect public opinion use epidemiology studies as proof, and since it is very easy to intentionally manipulate such data and findings, that's often what happens!  And that's exactly what seems to have happened with the Australian Paradox study!

 

Anybody familiar with that study know that, at best,  it is highly contested.  What's more, it's common knowledge that the Australian Beverage Council (advocating on behalf of producers of sugared drinks) was at work behind the scenes in promoting and defending this study!  The study has been under attack since day one for poor data analysis and deliberate manipulation (i.e.: excluding imported sugar from data analysis).  Even Brand-Miller, the author of the study has admitted the original paradox study was flawed (which is a very generous way of putting it!).

 

Every argument you make is based on epidemiology studies, which, at best, are only intended to be interdisciplinary tools for research, not conclusive proof of anything.  Only lab-based biochemical & physiological research studies provide proof, and these are the kind of studies that make me believe in the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model. 

 

Why do you completely ignore lab-based biological studies which are the hallmark of Ludwig's work, and which also support Lustig's view.  I don't get it!

 

[robblok]

10 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Here is Gerbosi talking to Cummins on the same subject. Is this basic reason processed food is bad for us?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Quite interesting video basically saying what I have been saying all the time. Its not low carb vs high carb but processed vs not processed and that once processed foods are removed things will be good. There are healthy carbs and bad ones no need to remove carbs completely (unless for other health reasons).

 

Matches quite well with the study i quoted on processed foods how people eat more of them and how weight loss is even higher then just the difference in calories once they are cut out.

 

Does explain a lot of the hype about low carb too. Because if you go low carb you automatically cut out processed food. Then you get more results as just the caloric difference and suddenly its magic and the best. However if the same person had just cut out processed foods and kept eating healthy carbs the result would have been the same. (after adjustment and reversing any damage that is there already).

 

Who knows these guys might be right and if proven right the whole low carb is best is discredited as its not about low carb vs high carb but processed vs unprocessed but was incorrectly identified by many researchers as what was the cause.

 

Anyway these guys echo my opinion but just like other researchers its still not 100% proven. We will see what the future brings and what is true and what is not true. 

 

As I said this echoes my thinking BUT is just as valid as other idea's not more valid because I agree with it. Its just one other possible explanation. There still is no scientific consensus so while I agree here I won't say they are right as others must confirm these findings and prove them too.

 

'That is the whole problem I might like something but just having some scientist saying something is not yet proof. Its proof if many other scientist confirm it. It certainly sounds plausible and I hope they are right as it means I am right. 

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

You keep harping on about how epidemiology studies like Brand-Miller's Australian Paradox prove that those advocating that sugar causes metabolic damage are frauds, yet you also state that you believe that epidemiology studies are the weakest type of studies.  To me that's a real paradox LOL.  

 

I agree with you that epidemiology studies are by no means conclusive.  Scientist usually regard them as interdisciplinary tools for research, not as proof of anything!  Only lab-based biochemical and physiological studies can provide "proof".

 

Only the public, and those wishing to effect public opinion use epidemiology studies as proof, and since it is very easy to intentionally manipulate such data and findings, that's often what happens!  And that's exactly what seems to have happened with the Australian Paradox study!

 

Anybody familiar with that study know that, at best,  it is highly contested.  What's more, it's common knowledge that the Australian Beverage Council (producers of sugared drinks) was at work behind the scenes in promoting and defending this study!  The study has been under attack since day one for poor data analysis and deliberate manipulation (i.e.: excluding imported sugar from data analysis).  Even Brand-Miller, the author of the study has admitted the original paradox study was flawed!

 

Every argument you make is based on epidemiology studies, which, at best, are only intended to be interdisciplinary tools for research, not conclusive proof of anything.  Only lab-based biochemical & physiological research studies provide proof, and these are the kind of studies that make me believe in the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model. 

 

Why do you completely ignore lab-based biological studies which are the hallmark of Ludwig's work, and which also support Lustig's view.  I don't get it!

 

No you don't understand what I said, I said epidemiology studies are the weakest there are. I don't use the outcome of this study to prove his a fraud. I use the fact that he totally ignores the study gives no explanation of it as a fact proving he is a fraud. I see this study as as valid as the other counter studies (not real valid).

 

I think Alan Aragon did a good job at discrediting the epidemiology studies by Lustig (not Ludwig). Pointing out what was wrong with them. Combine this with this study and it basically shows they are not credible.

 

Then when asked about lab studies, Lustig could not come up with any ones of them. So why is it that Lustig could not come up with any of Ludwig his studies..... if they proved his point I am sure he would have mentioned them in the debate. He did not. Again, i trust Alan Aragon and Lustig their debate. No need for us to do that again as both of them are smarter then we are and know the studies better. The whole fact that Lustig did not bring any of them up says enough.

 

 

[WaveHunter]

57 minutes ago, robblok said:

No you don't understand what I said, I said epidemiology studies are the weakest there are. I don't use the outcome of this study to prove his a fraud. I use the fact that he totally ignores the study gives no explanation of it as a fact proving he is a fraud. I see this study as as valid as the other counter studies (not real valid).

 

I think Alan Aragon did a good job at discrediting the epidemiology studies by Lustig (not Ludwig). Pointing out what was wrong with them. Combine this with this study and it basically shows they are not credible.

 

Then when asked about lab studies, Lustig could not come up with any ones of them. So why is it that Lustig could not come up with any of Ludwig his studies..... if they proved his point I am sure he would have mentioned them in the debate. He did not. Again, i trust Alan Aragon and Lustig their debate. No need for us to do that again as both of them are smarter then we are and know the studies better. The whole fact that Lustig did not bring any of them up says enough.

 

 

My view:

Again, I do not care about these damn people...Aragon, Lustig, Ludwig, etc...!  I care only about the underlying science of nutrition, and lab-based biochemical and physiological studies present a strong case for certain types of carbohydrates to have extremely disruptive effects on metabolic health.

 

Perhaps we're actually saying the same thing but have gotten all caught up in this ridiculous pissing match about Lustig vs Aragon.  I don't like Aragon; you don't like Lustig.  Let's leave it at that.

 

You say there are "good" carbs and "bad" ones.  I agree.  I'm not saying you should banish all carbs or sugars.  I'm saying the ones that we were not evolutionarily accustomed to (i.e.: high fructose corn syrup in processed foods) will lead to metabolic dysfunction eventually if they are a regular part of our diet.  

 

What I am saying is that the highly refined carbohydrates, especially sugars like HFCS, that are a staple of the processed food industry, cause massive disruption in incretin response, and also in insulin response (and many other hormonal balances) that is atypical of evolutionary type of carbs.  Lab-based biochemical and physiological studies have proven that.  The significance of this is that the body reacts in a hormonal way to the foods we eat and will result in hormonal imbalance if the wrong type of foods are eaten. 

 

There is a lot of compelling Lab-based biochemical and physiological research that suggests things like Obesity, Diabetes 2, even neurological disease like Parkinson's and Alzheimers can be explained by this metabolic hormonal imbalance.  Granted, there is not yet definitive proof of any of this, but there is compelling evidence that this might be true.  It is, at the very least worthy, of serious consideration.

 

Regarding the Australian Paradox study, this is a perfect example of why I never really have much interest in looking at epidemiology studies.  They are only tools to be used by scientists to validate or direct lab-based studies, not conclusive proof of anything.

 

There is very strong evidence that the Australian Paradox was flawed at best, even according to its' own author, and at worst was used NOT as a research tool but as conclusive proof all in itself. 

 

Epidemiology studies are NOT supposed to be used that way!  Only lab-based biochemical and physiological studies can provide proof.  Yet, the way it was used was to sway public opinion about sugar by the Australian Beverage Council.  That's my humble personal opinion, but more importantly, it's why I only look at lab-based biochemical and physiological studies to form my own personal opinions.

[robblok]

26 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

My view:

Again, I do not care about these damn people...Aragon, Lustig, Ludwig, etc...!  I care only about the underlying science of nutrition, and lab-based biochemical and physiological studies present a strong case for certain types of carbohydrates to have extremely disruptive effects on metabolic health.

 

Perhaps we're actually saying the same thing but have gotten all caught up in this ridiculous pissing match about Lustig vs Aragon.  I don't like Aragon; you don't like Lustig.  Let's leave it at that.

 

You say there are "good" carbs and "bad" ones.  I agree.  I'm not saying you should banish all carbs or sugars.  I'm saying the ones that we were not evolutionarily accustomed to (i.e.: high fructose corn syrup in processed foods) will lead to metabolic dysfunction eventually if they are a regular part of our diet.  

 

What I am saying is that the highly refined carbohydrates, especially sugars like HFCS, that are a staple of the processed food industry, cause massive disruption in incretin response, and also in insulin response (and many other hormonal balances) that is atypical of evolutionary type of carbs.  Lab-based biochemical and physiological studies have proven that.  The significance of this is that the body reacts in a hormonal way to the foods we eat and will result in hormonal imbalance if the wrong type of foods are eaten. 

 

There is a lot of compelling Lab-based biochemical and physiological research that suggests things like Obesity, Diabetes 2, even neurological disease like Parkinson's and Alzheimers can be explained by this metabolic hormonal imbalance.  Granted, there is not yet definitive proof of any of this, but there is compelling evidence that this might be true.  It is, at the very least worthy, of serious consideration.

 

Regarding the Australian Paradox study, this is a perfect example of why I never really have much interest in looking at epidemiology studies.  They are only tools to be used by scientists to validate or direct lab-based studies, not conclusive proof of anything.

 

There is very strong evidence that the Australian Paradox was flawed at best, even according to its' own author, and at worst was used NOT as a research tool but as conclusive proof all in itself. 

 

Epidemiology studies are NOT supposed to be used that way!  Only lab-based biochemical and physiological studies can provide proof.  Yet, the way it was used was to sway public opinion about sugar by the Australian Beverage Council.  That's my humble personal opinion, but more importantly, it's why I only look at lab-based biochemical and physiological studies to form my own personal opinions.

I think we are basically saying the same thing, with one thing to add its all dose dependent.  A bit of HFCS won't cause much problems in an otherwise healthy diet.. much of it will do exactly as you say.

 

I read too that the study was flawed did not read it at first but so were the studies by Lustig. So the whole point is that these studies are open to interpretation. 

 

The problem is for instance now that that other video that was shown here does not make a case against HFCS it just makes a case for the food industry destroying foods by processing and making them than far worse then unprocessed and does not single out just HFCS. I have more faith for instance in that study. I don't believe in just 1 devil and that is what i dont like about Lustig. 

 

Again its all based on dosage based on what other crap you eat. Its too easy to blame just one thing. You have to connect things and put them in a context its bad if.. not its bad period. My opinion of course nothing more nothing less.

 

And if Aragon did what you said he did then as a human being he is despicable but i still like his nutrition research. But no more then others I don't care much about the messenger but more about the message and I just believe more in unprocessed vs processed instead of just 1 thing to blame sugar or carbs ect. 

 

I really believe that cutting out most processed foods will solve almost everything and after that its just a matter of preference what you eat if its balanced. 

 

Been upping my carbs a bit recently as it seems my metabolic rate is increasing. with upping a bit I mean adding more nut musli to my diet again. (like 50 grams). Just could not sustain anymore at the levels i ate (i mean total caloric amount). I got too hungry. I am quite lean really think the peptides are helping a bit. 

 

As for exercise in a bottle almost through the first bottle and wont buy again. I will however buy cardarine again if I ever go higher in test or an other compound. Not for fat burn but for better lipid profile. What i have read from users who have posted their blood values while on this is a nice improvement that offsets for instance the bad effects of anavar (should one use it or other steroids that do bad things for the blood lipid values).

 

I found that cardarine and stanabolic don't give the extra cardio endurance or maybe they did a bit and I did not notice. But nothing really noticeable or maybe its this and not the peptides. 

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

I think we are basically saying the same thing, with one thing to add its all dose dependent.  A bit of HFCS won't cause much problems in an otherwise healthy diet.. much of it will do exactly as you say.

 

I read too that the study was flawed did not read it at first but so were the studies by Lustig. So the whole point is that these studies are open to interpretation. 

 

The problem is for instance now that that other video that was shown here does not make a case against HFCS it just makes a case for the food industry destroying foods by processing and making them than far worse then unprocessed and does not single out just HFCS. I have more faith for instance in that study. I don't believe in just 1 devil and that is what i dont like about Lustig. 

 

Again its all based on dosage based on what other crap you eat. Its too easy to blame just one thing. You have to connect things and put them in a context its bad if.. not its bad period. My opinion of course nothing more nothing less.

 

And if Aragon did what you said he did then as a human being he is despicable but i still like his nutrition research. But no more then others I don't care much about the messenger but more about the message and I just believe more in unprocessed vs processed instead of just 1 thing to blame sugar or carbs ect. 

 

I really believe that cutting out most processed foods will solve almost everything and after that its just a matter of preference what you eat if its balanced. 

 

Been upping my carbs a bit recently as it seems my metabolic rate is increasing. with upping a bit I mean adding more nut musli to my diet again. (like 50 grams). Just could not sustain anymore at the levels i ate (i mean total caloric amount). I got too hungry. I am quite lean really think the peptides are helping a bit. 

 

As for exercise in a bottle almost through the first bottle and wont buy again. I will however buy cardarine again if I ever go higher in test or an other compound. Not for fat burn but for better lipid profile. What i have read from users who have posted their blood values while on this is a nice improvement that offsets for instance the bad effects of anavar (should one use it or other steroids that do bad things for the blood lipid values).

 

I found that cardarine and stanabolic don't give the extra cardio endurance or maybe they did a bit and I did not notice. But nothing really noticeable or maybe its this and not the peptides. 

Yeah, I agree it's all about dosage...for sure.  "sola dosis facit venenum", The Dose Makes The Poison.  Thats credited to Paracelsus who expressed the classic toxicology maxim "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison."

 

The thing is...in processed foods it becomes difficult to really know how much of the "bad" carbs are in most products.  Even people who read food labels are deceived, and that deception is intentional on the part of the processed food industry. 

 

They're not stupid.  They increasingly avoid using the term "high fructose corn syrup", and play with government loopholes  so that sugar does not show up on food labels.  For instance, in the USA, the FDA has refused to add an "Added Sugars" line (in grams) within the "Sugars" section on nutrition facts labels. Instead, added sugars are only mentioned in the ingredient list -- and only in decreasing weight order, not by percentage of calories. 
 

Consider this; if a manufacturer wants to sweeten up a certain brand of crackers, it can either do this using 15 grams of "sugar" or, 5 grams of "malt syrup," 5 grams of "invert sugar" and 5 grams of "glucose". Some manufacturers seem to be choosing this divide and masquerade method, placing these ingredients lower down on their products' lists, making us believe that the amount of sugar in the product is smaller than it is. 

 

So, even an astute person who thinks they know how much sugar is actually in their diet is being deceived.  For those that don't even bother reading labels, and are buying purely based on taste, there again the processed food industry intentionally designs foods to taste a certain way so that they will be over-consumed, so they wind up getting massive amounts of sugar, and thinking they are eating healthy simply because the label says "low fat" 

 

It all leads to the possibility that many people cross the line between where sugar is manageable by the body, and where it starts having toxic effects on metabolic health.  I use the word "toxic" not necessarily inferring immediate death but simply to mean anything that disrupts normal metabolic hormonal balance.

 

[robblok]

1 minute ago, WaveHunter said:

Yeah, I agree it's all about dosage...for sure.  "sola dosis facit venenum", The Dose Makes The Poison.  Thats credited to Paracelsus who expressed the classic toxicology maxim "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison."

 

The thing is...in processed foods it becomes difficult to really know how much of the "bad" carbs are in most products.  Even people who read food labels are deceived, and that deception is intentional on the part of the processed food industry. 

 

They're not stupid.  They increasingly avoid using the term "high fructose corn syrup", and play with government loopholes  so that sugar does not show up on food labels.  For instance, in the USA, the FDA has refused to add an "Added Sugars" line (in grams) within the "Sugars" section on nutrition facts labels. Instead, added sugars are only mentioned in the ingredient list -- and only in decreasing weight order, not by percentage of calories. 
 

Consider this; if a manufacturer wants to sweeten up a certain brand of crackers, it can either do this using 15 grams of "sugar" or, 5 grams of "malt syrup," 5 grams of "invert sugar" and 5 grams of "glucose". Some manufacturers seem to be choosing this divide and masquerade method, placing these ingredients lower down on their products' lists, making us believe that the amount of sugar in the product is smaller than it is. 

 

So, even an astute person who thinks they know how much sugar is actually in their diet is being deceived.  For those that don't even bother reading labels are buying purely based on taste, and there again, the processed food industry intentionally designs foods to taste a certain way so that they will be over-consumed.

 

It all leads to the possibility that many people cross the line between where sugar is manageable by the body, and where it starts having toxic effects of metabolic health.  I use the word "toxic" not necessarily meaning immediate death but simply  to mean anything that disrupts normal metabolic hormonal balance.

 

Again I said sugar is manageable after you have eliminated processed foods for the most part. I agree 100% with your remark about the food producers hiding all data. Yes it is 100% intentional, however your from the USA and in Europe things are better rules are stronger there. Still far from perfect but better then in the US.

 

Anyway that why i make the point of removing most processed foods but not everyone can or wants to do that. 

[WaveHunter]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

Again I said sugar is manageable after you have eliminated processed foods for the most part. I agree 100% with your remark about the food producers hiding all data. Yes it is 100% intentional, however your from the USA and in Europe things are better rules are stronger there. Still far from perfect but better then in the US.

 

Anyway that why i make the point of removing most processed foods but not everyone can or wants to do that. 

Unfortunately, most people are not as astute about their nutritional health as you or I.  Those are the kind of people I'm talking about, which is really the mainstream population.  That's why I think this issue is such a big problem.

 

Most people can not afford to be picky about the foods they buy, and can only afford to buy as cheaply as possible.  They therefore becomes victims to the perils of bad carbs (HFCS).  

[robblok]

Just now, WaveHunter said:

Unfortunately, most people are not as astute about their nutritional health as you or I.  Those are the kind of people I'm talking about, which is really the mainstream population.  That's why I think this issue is such a big problem.

Yes but then why attack sugar as its easier and more right to just attack processed foods. Its clear that its processed foods that are the problem not so clear that its the sugar in processed foods. 

 

Far easier to just attack processed foods because like you said they hide sugar contents anyway. So even if it was sugar alone (something I don't agree with) there is no point to try to avoid it as its hidden anyway. Much easier to tell people to not eat processed foods. (over processed)

[WaveHunter]

27 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes but then why attack sugar as its easier and more right to just attack processed foods. Its clear that its processed foods that are the problem not so clear that its the sugar in processed foods. 

 

Far easier to just attack processed foods because like you said they hide sugar contents anyway. So even if it was sugar alone (something I don't agree with) there is no point to try to avoid it as its hidden anyway. Much easier to tell people to not eat processed foods. (over processed)

Because highly refined sugar is the core of processed foods.  It's what makes them so cheap to produce, and therefore to buy.  Remember, most people have no choice but to buy what is cheapest, so highly refined sugars become a significant part of their diet, whether they like it or not.

 

Combine this with the fact that people are more sedentary than in the past.  The majority of the population no longer works primarily in physical labor but sits at a desk behind a computer all day.  Kids no longer play outdoors as much as in the past, and instead play all day on their smartphones. 

 

And their eating habits are now more akin to "grazing" where an hour doesn't go by without eating something with bad carbs in it. 

 

It all combines into the "perfect storm" that has resulting in an epidemic in Obesity and Diabetes today.  Consider that Diabetes-2 was unheard of in pre-teen children a generation again, and now it's rapidly becoming an epidemic in that age-group! 

 

I may sound like an alarmist when I say all of this, but I think it's hard to deny that this is what is actually happening today.

 

As you said (and I agree), sugar in any form is nothing but empty calories, and yet, judging from lab-based biochemical and physiological studies, it is the single most disruptive food type to metabolic hormonal balance.

 

If one doesn't think that the Carbohydrate-Insulin model is valid, or at least worthy of serious consideration, that fact might not mean much, but if you do, it means everything.

 

[villagefarang]

I get that you two really get off talking about this stuff but do you really think anyone cares what you think or will listen to you telling them what they should be doing?  

 

In the past, things like the Plague or environmental changes have modified our gene pool, favoring some over others but generally people died quite young so we don't really know the longterm effects of what they ate back then.  We live longer these days and more and more people are moving to urban environments and working at sedentary jobs, which creates different health challenges.  Either people adapt or they don't but in the end it is up to them.  Promoting the latest study or findings as the ultimate truth seems foolish to me as a few years down the road there will me new studies and new findings.

 

Supplements, steroids, total avoidance of some food groups all seem unnatural to me.  It reminds me of parents trying to protect their children from all dirt and bacteria, while in the end they weaken the immune system and cause more health problems.  All things in moderation and plenty of exercise and fun seems to work quite well for me.????‍♂️????️‍♂️????‍♂️????????????????

[WaveHunter]

37 minutes ago, villagefarang said:

I get that you two really get off talking about this stuff but do you really think anyone cares what you think or will listen to you telling them what they should be doing?  

 

In the past, things like the Plague or environmental changes have modified our gene pool, favoring some over others but generally people died quite young so we don't really know the longterm effects of what they ate back then.  We live longer these days and more and more people are moving to urban environments and working at sedentary jobs, which creates different health challenges.  Either people adapt or they don't but in the end it is up to them.  Promoting the latest study or findings as the ultimate truth seems foolish to me as a few years down the road there will me new studies and new findings.

 

Supplements, steroids, total avoidance of some food groups all seem unnatural to me.  It reminds me of parents trying to protect their children from all dirt and bacteria, while in the end they weaken the immune system and cause more health problems.  All things in moderation and plenty of exercise and fun seems to work quite well for me.????‍♂️????️‍♂️????‍♂️????????????????

More people care about their metabolic health on this thread than I think you give credit for.  It's one thing to lose your health due to circumstances you have no control over.  It's quite another to lose it because you just didn't care, or didn't realize the true dangers. 

 

I don't disagree with you that "all things in moderation" is a pretty good way to live your life, but sometimes you have to take things a step further. 

 

People used to believe that smoking cigarettes (in moderation) was perfectly healthy, as bizarre as that might seem today.  It took a lot of scientific research and time to convince people otherwise, and during that time, many people died needless and horrible deaths.

 

We're at a point in time where nutritional practices are resulting in epidemic levels of obesity and diabetes-2, and many other metabolic-related disease. For the first time in history pre-teen children are being diagnosed with Diabetes-2.

 

These diseases are not necessarily beyond our control.  Science is telling us we can do something to prevent them and even reverse the conditions if we act early enough. 

 

Don't you think that exploring the underlying science deserves serious consideration?  It's not just the responsibility of scientists and doctors to be aware on our behalf.  It's also the individual's responsibility to be aware for themselves and those they care about.

 

[robblok]

18 minutes ago, villagefarang said:

I get that you two really get off talking about this stuff but do you really think anyone cares what you think or will listen to you telling them what they should be doing?  

 

In the past, things like the Plague or environmental changes have modified our gene pool, favoring some over others but generally people died quite young so we don't really know the longterm effects of what they ate back then.  We live longer these days and more and more people are moving to urban environments and working at sedentary jobs, which creates different health challenges.  Either people adapt or they don't but in the end it is up to them.  Promoting the latest study or findings as the ultimate truth seems foolish to me as a few years down the road there will me new studies and new findings.

 

Supplements, steroids, total avoidance of some food groups all seem unnatural to me.  It reminds me of parents trying to protect their children from all dirt and bacteria, while in the end they weaken the immune system and cause more health problems.  All things in moderation and plenty of exercise and fun seems to work quite well for me.????‍♂️????️‍♂️????‍♂️????????????????

I don't care what others think about this villagefarang, I make it a habit not to condemn others too much. But i like the debate. Nobody forces anyone to do anything IMHO ? Just pointing out what is healthy.

 

As for supplements and steroids to each his or her own. I am on TRT and have used steroids I would never advise people to use them. Supplements again is a thing that is really debatable I don't think its unnatural not more unnatural as eating more foods to get more protein for instance. But again books can be written about supplements and its far more tricky to see what works. I mostly keep my mouth shut about that because there is too much controverse. 

 

But really I will never tell anyone what to do I thought you knew that by now. 

[robblok]

@villagefarang

 

I wish there was this much information available when I was young. You might like moderation but back then I already went for maximum muscle and minimum fat. Had I known then what I know now things would have been different.

 

For me this topic is purely for fun and information. I like some mental sparring (debating) and wavehunter stays civil and so do I. I had no idea that it disturbed others like you. Personally if your bored by it just ignore what I write.

 

I know that for most people this is far too much information and far too extreme but people who have certain goals can benefit from the information. Moderation is nice but not for me. When I workout i workout close to my limits. I need to really feel that I am busy working out and my workouts are close to failure (not a good thing if done too much). Same with my diet I am more extreme in it then others.

 

But I would not force people to do as I do for both training and diet. I can only say that it works for me. Since my off period of four months last year I am back to what I was and better 5 months later. Its something that is important to me and that I am passionate about. I just can't go through the motions of things. For me things need to be done at a certain intensity otherwise i don't see the use.

 

You like moderation that works for you.. good for you keep at it. I like more extreme things and I experiment with stuff like peptites and supplements to get even more results. Works for me but is certainly not for people who like moderation. To each his or her own. 

[villagefarang]

In my opinion social interactions, emotional and personal responsibility, are more important than the debatable scientific data about what is happening on a cellular level.  People do not live in test tubes and most would find it difficult to isolate themselves from their social environments and cut themselves off from their social group.

 

I workout to failure, too, because it feels good afterwards.  That doesn't mean I am interested in telling others how to workout.  I am not telling you guys what to do.  I am simply sharing my opinion that you perhaps enjoy the sound of your own words much more than others do and that people generally care far less about metabolic health and the underlying science than you believe they do.  Even knowing the science doesn't mean most people have the ability or desire to change.  In my opinion of course.

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, villagefarang said:

In my opinion social interactions, emotional and personal responsibility, are more important than the debatable scientific data about what is happening on a cellular level.  People do not live in test tubes and most would find it difficult to isolate themselves from their social environments and cut themselves off from their social group.

 

I workout to failure, too, because it feels good afterwards.  That doesn't mean I am interested in telling others how to workout.  I am not telling you guys what to do.  I am simply sharing my opinion that you perhaps enjoy the sound of your own words much more than others do and that people generally care far less about metabolic health and the underlying science than you believe they do.  Even knowing the science doesn't mean most people have the ability or desire to change.  In my opinion of course.

Fair enough; everybody is entitled to their own opinion.  I appreciate the non-confrontational way you put it.  You can always block me if what I say offends you or distracts you from the rest of the thread.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, villagefarang said:

In my opinion social interactions, emotional and personal responsibility, are more important than the debatable scientific data about what is happening on a cellular level.  People do not live in test tubes and most would find it difficult to isolate themselves from their social environments and cut themselves off from their social group.

 

I workout to failure, too, because it feels good afterwards.  That doesn't mean I am interested in telling others how to workout.  I am not telling you guys what to do.  I am simply sharing my opinion that you perhaps enjoy the sound of your own words much more than others do and that people generally care far less about metabolic health and the underlying science than you believe they do.  Even knowing the science doesn't mean most people have the ability or desire to change.  In my opinion of course.

No people don't live in test tubes, however knowing what is going on your body can help you workout harder or get better results. That is why i like it and why I experiment. Your point about cutting off from social groups, I don't do that though I admit if you are really sticking to a diet it might be hard with social things. However most diets allow some leeway. 

 

I am not telling anyone how to workout or how to eat. Just debating with wavehunter about it. I made my opinion about freedom quite clear. I prefer people to do sustainable things (meaning things they can keep on doing) then the best things. That is one of my beefs with low carb its hard to do if you are social. Having said that even my diet is hard to do in a social setting. It depends on what you find important. You found your balance should keep it like that.

 

The science has taught me a lot about food and those things work through in my training. Like you i train to failure because it feels good. But there are plenty of people who never train to failure and would think you are crazy (and I think i would be totally mental).

 

I am different from you by talking about training and diet it helps me feel more accountable and keeps myself better on track. 

 

Knowing how insulin works and its effects on muscle and fat is real beneficial and can help you lose more fat and put on more muscle. Simple things like eating less carbs on non training days and putting your carbs around training sessions can lead to a leaner body and more muscle. I think that is interesting. 

 

 

 

[FracturedRabbit]

1 hour ago, villagefarang said:

In my opinion social interactions, emotional and personal responsibility, are more important than the debatable scientific data about what is happening on a cellular level.  People do not live in test tubes and most would find it difficult to isolate themselves from their social environments and cut themselves off from their social group.

 

I workout to failure, too, because it feels good afterwards.  That doesn't mean I am interested in telling others how to workout.  I am not telling you guys what to do.  I am simply sharing my opinion that you perhaps enjoy the sound of your own words much more than others do and that people generally care far less about metabolic health and the underlying science than you believe they do.  Even knowing the science doesn't mean most people have the ability or desire to change.  In my opinion of course.

"people generally care far less about metabolic health and the underlying science than you believe they do.  Even knowing the science doesn't mean most people have the ability or desire to change."

Sadly true. I know many people who are unhealthy, some are diabetic. Not one of them is interested in why they got that way, neither are they interested in changing their lifestyle to improve their health. "I don't want to stop eating what I enjoy, I want to enjoy my life", as they become inevitably sicker and less active.