• Wosret
    3.4k
    The "health" industry is anything but healthy, and completely full of nonsense and bullshit designed to steal your money, with lies and empty promises. The major lie, that draws people, and makes billions is that you can look like a fitness model if you just eat a certain way, and do a certain amount of exercises. It's all a lie. All of the fitness models are on performance enhancing drugs. How do you really get a six pack? Emaciate yourself, starve yourself and waste away to under 10% body fat to even begin to see a vague outline, and sit at around 3-5% to be really shredded. You don't have to work out at all. The problem is that remaining at that level of body fat isn't possible without a cocktail of performance enhancing drugs, and hormone replacements. Body fat plans important rules in hormone production and sensitivity. It is commonly said that men can get down to 3% without a problem, but according to actual trails, men can't go below 8% without developing hormonal troubles, and no natural person can have a fat free mass index of higher than 25, and that number is reserved for people have have worked their entire lives, and didn't achieve in a few months, or even a decade.

    The problem with starving yourself, is that you'll be weak as shit, feel awful, and muscle will eventually deteriorate. You cannot put on muscle mass without putting on fat too. No one can eat 6000 calories of chicken a day, and not just get fat as hell. So, you can maintain a low body fat, but not without just being scrawny.

    That is just the major lying part of it, all of those models are just on drugs, and often delusionally believe their own bullshit. Thinking that sure, the drugs give them an edge, but it's really because they work hard and eat right! Only most of the health advice given are just based on myth and legend, and scientifically counter factual. You don't need shitloads of protein, it won't do anything but wreck your insides. Even the most intense athlete might need 60g a day, but most people do fine on 30. Any more than what is required just causes inflammation, and heart disease. Spacing your meals out to fifteen a day or whatever does absolutely nothing. Your metabolism doesn't change all that much, and does drop if you don't eat, but only about like three days, and not before it first elevates. The metabolism rises based on how big of a meal you ate, so that eating all fifteen meals in one go a day, or eating them spaced out, won't have any effect on your metabolism, over all.

    There are no magic cheats. You want to lose weight, starve. It's the only way. Starving isn't even bad for you, until you get underweight. Starving mice increased their live expectancy by a third. Moral of the story, giving animals the opportunity, and they'll always eat too much. We're all gluttons, what we'd consider starving is what healthy eating looks like.

    You want to build muscle? Well, first things first, how big is your bone structure? You have small wrists? You're to be disappointed -- but more importantly, you will probably gain a good twenty pounds of muscle the first year that you start being really active, but that's just because you're in abysmal shape, after you can move around alright without fainting, don't expect to add much more in a short time. You might be able to get 20 more lbs in ten more years.

    Appearances can be deceiving, and when it comes to the "health" industry, they most certainly are. People buy their garbage, and listen to their shit, because they believe that they're revealing their secrets to how they got looking that way. They won't, and they don't.

    Drug testing in sports is a joke too, and if you aren't on performance enhancing drugs then you're in the minority.

    They're so bad for you too, ravaging your insides, and they don't even make you as able as you may look. They increase muscle mass, burn fat, give you energy, and all that, but don't improve connective tissue strength, or tendon strength, making injuries way more likely. They fuck up your hormones, and heart, and if you're one of the Hollywood junkies on the expensive stuff, you might even get mad human disease, yup, just like the cows.

    (second) Moral of the story, capitalism reigns supreme. Everyone wants your money, and will do or say just about anything to get it. Fines, and lawsuits for false advertising, and misleading bullshit are a joke compared to the possible payouts from naivety, and stupidity.

    Just thought I'd rant about my disillusionment with the "health" industry, and also mention how I hate evil capitalism, and corporatism.
  • BC
    13.2k
    I totally agree that capitalism fouls it up. I appreciate what you've said about 'fitness', diet, performance enhancing drugs, and so on.

    If you look at classical sculpture, figurative (literal) paintings drawings, and the earliest photography, you see quite a few individuals who have nicely defined large muscle groups--6 packs, sinuous thighs, large biceps, thick neck, and so on. What you also see is that there is a 'ceiling' on the definition--the "articulate bulginess" displayed. The men of earlier times did not have performance enhancing drugs, and they weren't working out at Gold's Gym, either. They probably developed their muscles from work. There's a limit on the results they would get.

    So, there is Gold's gym these days. You can thank Bernard McFadden 1868-1955 for the present situation. He boosted the idea of maximum masculine development. I'm not quite sure when steroids were discovered, much less used licitly or illicitly for enhancement, but it was in the 20th century.

    Here are several pictures of men who, according to the notes, represented ideal men at different times: Roman era (after earlier classical Greek period, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th century

    There is a distinct difference between the classic body builder type which Arnold Schwarzenegger represents and the other figures. I don't know whether A.S. used muscle exaggerating steroids or not -- but you are quite right, it is obvious that thousands of men are using them, and getting exaggerated results. It has become de regueur to be more than buffed, one needs to be downright chiseled to satisfy stylistic standards. Contemporary porn is saturated with photos of men who have maxed out muscle building for its own sake. They are very slim,fatless always, with extremely defined figures. It isn't unattractive, the same way nicely done chemical blond hair or breast enhancement isn't unattractive: It's aesthetics over nature. Its physical narcissism, or OCD, or some other variety of lunacy -- I mean, you have to be pretty obsessed to get and maintain these results. If you get fat, even somewhat, all the muscles will be softened and covered up.

    Steroids and methamphetamine seem like a great pairing. The latter aids in the pursuit of whatever obsession get's you off, and the former produces more results.

    u5spz2qml1okf9aa.jpg
    o5bymzrqnw30kcxo.jpg
    m7nkchd1gzz4kop4.jpg
    g4n7wgf7oto0k717.gif
    o7i04rv0kvvox5s3.jpg
    Attachment
    Hoyningen-Huene, Horst Torso, 1931 (16K)
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    The performance enhancing drugs hit the gym scene in the 1950s (and is readily available at pretty much any gym, for pretty cheap, less than $150 a month for roids), the fat free mass index, where it is determined that naturals can't exceed 25 was established most by looking at the pre 50s world class body builders. Don't get me wrong, that's a shitload of muscle, but they were still genetic freaks that worked their whole lives. The most important thing in my view is form. Most people from the past that worked really hard their whole lives were still probably not much to look at, and the physical geniuses that performed their tasks with good form still surely stood out, and working their whole lives would certain become muscular. Nothing like a roided up Arny though. The pictures besides Arny look to be at about 15% body fat, maybe a little less, which is reasonable. They'd be considered fat by todays standards though.

    Surely also, it has been discovered in the past that you can spend short periods at low body fat without losing much muscle mass, but they still look flat and scrawny unless they got a good pump on before posing for that painting.

    It's also really difficult to tell how big someone actually is until you're standing next to them. Puffing your lats out, and your chest up really does make you look a lot bigger.
  • BC
    13.2k
    So here's one more. I think this demonstrates the extreme better than A. S. 8cp56yrrljo954uc.jpg

    At least, if he needs a blood test or an IV, it won't be hard to find a vein.
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    Yes, but it's also very important to point out that one doesn't have to be huge to be on steroids, that is the biggest misconception. In bodybuilding their is size, and aesthetics. The fitness models just want to look good, but you simple can't be 5% body body with full looking muscles without being on drugs. They just take a lot less of it than the huge guys, but they're still on it.

    If you're 5% body fat, and didn't just work out five second ago, and don't look like you just walked out of a concentration camp, then you're on something.
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    A few other things, carbs don't make you fat. You'll lose more weight on a carb free diet than a fat free diet, but that's because you'll just harvest more muscle to make a sugar substitute to run your brain, and it won't work as well either, and your cognitive function, and athleticism will drop.

    Sweeteners and sugar substitutes will make you fatter than refined sugar will. Repeated animals testing demonstrates it. The sweeteners, because they're so low on calories stimulate the appetite, but don't satiate it. They also make you release insulin even though it isn't really sugar, and because your body is trying to get calories out of it, it changes your intestinal flora to favor bacteria that is better at extracting calories from what you're digesting.
  • BC
    13.2k
    I'm decidedly over weight and need to lose at least 25 pounds, preferably 45.

    I'm following a diet that is low on carbohydrates (not free of), with as few simple starches as possible--white potatoes, white bread, white rice, sugar (cookies, etc.). Instead, more complex carbohydrates--yams, whole grain. Along with that, lots of fruits and vegetables (which supply sugar and much else) not too much limitation on fat.

    This is the third month and I've lost 10 pounds, so far. I'm not doing this for looks -- I'm way beyond the age of making a difference whether I look svelte or not. I hope to lose 25-45 pounds during the rest of the year.

    It makes sense to me that refined starch and sugars make people hungry -- you eat the cake, the white bread, get the insulin reaction, and soon you feel "hungry" again -- you're definitely not short on calories, but you feel like it. So you eat more. Round and round it goes, until one is too fat.

    Fat in the diet produces satiety, and doesn't trigger the hunger/sugar/insulin/hunger merry go round. What the fat is doing to my previously low levels of cholesterol, we'll see in a couple of weeks.
  • BC
    13.2k
    Fitness isn't having the body that fashion decrees. Fitness is having a body capable of doing what you need to get done without feeling exhausted. At 70, my fitness goals are to be able to carry out everyday activities like cleaning, gardening, laundry, biking on errands and for pleasure, and a few other things like cleaning out the eaves troughs on the roof two or three times a year. Maintaining gaining some strength, maintaining balance and flexibility, enough stamina to go on a 20 mile ride, walk and stand for several hours--that level of fitness for maybe 10 to 20 more years, then the grave.

    These goals are a lot different than what I worked toward 30 years ago. Then it was jogging for an hour and a half, swimming a half mile, biking 50-100 miles on a day. I met and maintained those goes for some time, but then Injuries, weight, arthritis, and time...
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    I wouldn't do a low carb diet, it really isn't good for you. Carbs are plenty satiating, just avoid the combination of fat and carbs, that's what will get you. Always eat them separately.

    I've never been in fantastic shape, I'm the healthiest in the family now though! I would really like to lose ten more lbs myself, but it's damn hard to do. I'm 165 lbs, 5'10. I'd like to say that I'm around 15% body fat, but it's really hard to calculate, and we're usually fatter than we think we are. My top four abs are visible in the right light, lol.

    My bone structure is small though, I have small wrists and ankles. Though years of yoga has given me fairly strong connective tissue and tendons. I work with a guy with arms twice my size that isn't stronger than me, particularly in grip strength. I can carry my body weight up a ladder, though I've never stepped foot in a gym.

    I do care more about looks than health. I really thought that you needed to do tons of particular exercises to make those muscles bigger... I didn't know until recently that that was bullshit, that as big as they are is probably as big as they'll get.

    As for losing fat, I think that intermittent fasting works best for me. In order to burn fat, you have to be in a calorie deficit, it doesn't really matter at all what you eat in this regard, as long as it's less than you require to maintain body weight. I think that the best method is to eat at night, so that your muscles can use the calories to repair over night, and exercise and exert yourself on an empty stomach, so that your body is forced to use fat as fuel.

    I believe this method to work best for targeting only fat loss, while minimizing muscle lose, but really all that maters is eating less calories than you require.
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    Should also say to eat yogurt. Worry about your gut flora, which is directly linked to weight management, cognitive function, stress resilience, and the production of serotonin. Having good gut flora makes you happier, and smarter, and makes it easier to maintain a healthy weight. So eat probiotic foods. I'm a vegan so I can't eat yogurt, but fermented vegetables, like sauerkraut, or sour dough bread works too.
  • BC
    13.2k
    Whatever works.

    I used to be 5'10" -- I'm a bit shorter now, and weighed around 160 pounds in 1986. I was kind of gaunt -- someone at the bar wanted to know if I had AIDS (didn't). I had been thin for quite a few years, then in 1990 (age 45) I started putting on weight, which wouldn't come off. Just wouldn't. And I got heavier, till I reached just about 225 one day. It's a lot of extra weight to haul around.

    This morning I weighed 215. I'm just about 1 pant size smaller. (with about 9 sizes to go before I would be back at size 30/30.

    If, if if if, I get down to 180 this year, the real trick will be keeping the weight off. I think I can. I'm not cutting out anything essential either in quality or quantity, so I should be able to keep this up. The thing is, sometime fairly soon after age 35, the body's metabolism starts a slow decline. My basal metabolic rate is now about a third of what it was 35 years ago, assuming that figure is valid.
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    5k
    So what is an average days food/drink intake for you Wosret?
    What do you think of the balance of a made up menu below?
    Drink a cold glass of lemon water 30 minutes before consuming any coffee, juice or food.
    For Breakfast:
    Greek Yogurt with Peanut Butter Protein added and a 1/2 of a Banana 1 8oz cup of Passion fruit tea
    Snack: Hummus with 3 pita chips
    Lunch: Half a cantaloupe with a half cup of cottage cheese 2 Ham and Havarti Dill Cheese deli rolls Tea
    Snack: 1 cup of popcorn
    Dinner: Salmon filet seared served with Wild Rice Pilaf 1 8oz Glass of Red Wine
    Snack: 1/2 cup Mango Sorbet
  • BC
    13.2k
    I eat yogurt. I like sauerkraut, but I doubt if commercial sauerkraut has anything alive in it. Also, the internal temperature of baking bread is about 200 F, so I doubt much is alive in that either. Probably take a bit of sourdough starter of every morning...

    There is some good research that suggests that gut flora controls weight. Thin rats fed bits of fat rat shit (you can do this to rats) got fat, and fat rats fed bits of thin rat shit got slimmer. That's what we want: sleek, slim, svelte rats.
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    5k
    http://www.realfarmacy.com/benefits-lemon-water/
    I have over 100 lemons on my lemon tree which is now in every state of bloom. From new buds, flowers, lil lemons, growing lemons. ripe lemons and falling lemons. I mean, I got the lemon water covered. 8-)
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    I have two coffees in the morning with soy milk.
    Then at night I have a large spinach salad with sauerkraut, no dressing. 1/3 cup of beans, and 1/3 cup of nuts, and some fruit. I try to keep it under 1500 calories, just to maintain my current weight. I could eat more if I worked harder. Been off work for the winter though. I usually do about 2 hours of exercising a day, and go for a 45 min walk.

    According to my rough calculations, your daily intake is about 1700 calories. Good healthy foods though.
  • Wosret
    3.4k


    I know that you can't cook the sauerkraut or it ruins it, but I read that the bread is supposed to count, don't know how that works. I'm going to have a garden this summer, and plan to ferment my own veggies.
  • Wosret
    3.4k


    You're 70, sounds like you're in pretty good shape to me. I take care of my dad, and he's 6'3 320 lbs, and has diabetes. He's only 55, and can't even walk for fifteen minutes. He won't listen to me about health things though, clearly he knows what he's doing, and I don't.

    People call me too thin all the time too, but I'm not that thin, I don't think. Definitely not as thin as I'd like to be. I was sickly and overweight when I was a kid, and probably have something of a complex about it now.
  • Janus
    15.5k
    A few other things, carbs don't make you fat. You'll lose more weight on a carb free diet than a fat free diet, but that's because you'll just harvest more muscle to make a sugar substitute to run your brain, and it won't work as well either, and your cognitive function, and athleticism will drop.Wosret

    What do mean "carb free diet"? An empty carb free diet (with sufficient fat intake to provide ready energy) will certainly cause you to lose weight fast, and with no downsides. A complex carb free diet would of course not be a good idea at all.

    If you must be a vegan (not a good idea at all in my view) at least make sure you get enough B12 or there will be hell to pay.
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    Well, sure, foods that are high in calories but low in nutrients are not so good for you, but you can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies, and gain weight eating the healthiest foods in the world, depending on your calorie requirements, and activity levels.

    Meat is fortified with b12, which actually comes from soil, and natural spring water, or well water. Plenty of vegan foods like soy milk are fortified with b 12 too, and aren't carcinogenic, or causes of diabetes.
  • BC
    13.2k
    Vitamin B12 is a water-soluble vitamin that is naturally present in some foods, added to others, and available as a dietary supplement and a prescription medication. Vitamin B12 exists in several forms and contains the mineral cobalt [1-4], so compounds with vitamin B12 activity are collectively called "cobalamins". Methylcobalamin and 5-deoxyadenosylcobalamin are the forms of vitamin B12 that are active in human metabolism [5].
    Vitamin B12 is required for proper red blood cell formation, neurological function, and DNA synthesis [1-5].

    Vegans are at risk for vitamin B12 deficiency, because it isn't found in plants; it is available through supplementation (breakfast food, your soy drink, etc). It doesn't come from spring water or the soil -- except that all biological activity more or less depends on soil and water -- but B12 is synthesized in the body (or the gut) of some animals--like pot roasts, chicken cacciatore, and pork chops. We don't. We can't synthesize vitamin C either, which a lot of animals do.

    Animals get vitamin B12 from the anaerobic bacteria in their guts. We can't do it that way.
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    There is loads and loads of bullshit about b12 on the intertubes, but see if you can find any cases of vegans that have actually developed b12 deficiency, especially as compared to the risks of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity linked to meat consumption.

    Also, the gut bacteria produces the b12, and the soil tends to come into contact with animal waste. It is true that soil and spring water doesn't produce b12 itself, or it doesn't come from there, but that isn't the same thing as saying that you can't get b12 from soil and spring water.
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    And we actually can and do synthesis b12, I should mention, but just too low in the colon to be absorbed by the body, but human waste is still full of b12 too. We used to use human fertilizer back in the day, and weren't super worried about sanitizing the vegetables before consumption.
  • Hanover
    12.1k
    Just thought I'd rant about my disillusionment with the "health" industry, and also mention how I hate evil capitalism, and corporatism.Wosret

    The problem with healthcare in a capitalist structure is that there are those who can't afford it. I don't know why you've invested so heavily in doctors to teach you to eat right. I go to the doctor once a year for a physical and only more if I'm really sick.

    At any rate, I'm not sure the treatment you'd receive in the US would vary greatly from what you'd get in European nations with socialized healthcare other than in how you'd be expected to pay for it. I'd think that all Western nations would rely upon the same studies and literature for their conclusions and treatments. I know some in the US go to Europe for treatments not yet approved in the US, but I don't think that's an issue that affects your position, and it actually shows how highly regulated the drug industry in the US is.

    Many of the supplements and the miracle cures are not peddled by real doctors, but are unregulated supplements that fall outside of regulation. If your point is that we should more heavily regulate the non-scientific alternative health industry, I'd agree.
  • Wosret
    3.4k


    Well, I don't have much issue with the genuine healthcare industry, and of course am using only data from the genuine medical industry to counter "health and fitness" hogwash.

    There should be more regulations, and yes, the US is often one of the last countries to approve medications, and pseudo-health products, but most of them would still be approved because most of them are fairly harmless, or not as bad as other things, or completely without any effect whatsoever. There needs to be more regulation though, which forces them to put big huge disclaimers on them that say what they really do or don't do.

    Sweeteners won't give you cancer, or melt your brain or anything, and tend to be criticized on the naturalistic fallacious account that they're artificial, when really you shouldn't bother with them because they do the opposite of the thing they're supposed to do. I'm all for free market, and all that, I just think that they need a hell of a lot more regulation for quality, and honesty. I more bemoan human nature, I suppose, than capitalism itself. The system stimulates the flourishing of half-truths and outright lies in the pursuit of capital, and enslaves, and fleeces the masses to shiny things, and empty promises, while denying them everything of value. Sure, it isn't as if the truth is completely hidden, or there's some big conspiracy, just people want to believe bullshit, and hate the truth. They want to be distracted with shiny things and lies.

    When people think about "health", and look at themselves in the mirror, they don't actually think about health in the medical sense, but how fuckable they are in the hollywood, mainstream magazine and fitness model sense. Everyone knows the truth about most things, none of it is arcane, but they are convinced that it is, and reject the obvious. It has to be overly complex, ancient secrets, or discovered by some mystic whacking it in a cave.
  • BC
    13.2k
    If you want better regulation, write to your congress unit. Or, better yet, chain yourself to his or her ankle.

    The FDA doesn't regulate supplements because congress deemed it inappropriate for qualified people to regulate all this OTC stuff.

    Not only are a lot of the claims bogus, but a lot of the stuff on the shelves doesn't contain what it claims to contain. For instance, vitamin pills may give you more, less, or none of the nutrients claimed. Some bottles are supposed to contain some ground up plant, and when they tested it there was nothing there but ground up indifferent plant matter. It is up to the manufacturer to put it there, in the quantity on the label.

    Most people do not need vitamin supplementation -- or wouldn't if they ate a more varied diet. Most of the vitamins people take are excreted in the urine or feces.

    To repeat: nobody is getting B12 from the soil or water. Cobalt (an element) has to be in the soil for the plants to take it up, and for it to then be available in the synthesis of B12 by bacteria. (Similarly, a few molecules of molybdenum are required for certain vitamin synthesis. Ditto for phosphorus, potassium, iron, calcium, etc.

    BTW, I recently learned why platinum is used in cancer chemotherapy. When DNA unwinds and rewinds itself, there are a few molecules of potassium in every DNA strand to help this process along. Platinum is taken up by rapidly dividing cells (cancerous and normal) and the platinum takes the place of the potassium and screws up the DNA so the cell dies. Great -- that kills cancer cells; not so great, it also kills any other cells that are dividing a lot, like epithelial cells.

    Platinum isn't part of the biological molecule. Oddly, molybdenum and cobalt are.
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    I'd rather just complain and not actually do anything. That's what heroes do.

    There was a very popular book called "breaking vegan" which was topping the sales charts on Amazon, but the author claiming that veganism almost killed them didn't mention how they were actually just incidently vegan, in that I guess trying to survive on 800 calories of a juice a day is technically vegan -- but being a crazy person is what almost killed her.

    There are vegans you can find that are b12 deficient, but you'll also find that they are generally malnourished, and simply have incredibly bad diets. Can't survive on potato chips, and diet coke for years it turns out. The body actually is great at storing nutrients, and stores months supplies, but not years supplies. Also, the effects of vitamin b12 deficiency are entirely reversible with some infusions, whereas the effects of some vitamin deficiencies may be more permanent. Either way, maybe one in a million vegans get the symptoms of b12 deficiency, and as I said, they're usually just malnourished in general, the b12 deficiency being the least of their problem -- and it wasn't veganism that causes it, as most of them are incidentally vegan, but just crazy people that try to live on only juice, or potato chips.
  • Hanover
    12.1k
    If God wanted us to be vegan, he'd have given us bouncy feet and floppy ears and we'd lay colorful eggs.
  • Wosret
    3.4k
    If God wanted us to be vegan, he'd have given us bouncy feet and floppy ears and we'd lay colorful eggs.Hanover

    What, you don't?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.