The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

Itís no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
Contrast Training for Size
By: Lee Boyce
An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong
By: Jordan Syatt
What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

Facebook Join Facebook Group       Twitter Follow on Twitter       rss Subscribe via RSS
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 58 of 58
  1. #51
    Banned Slim Schaedle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by xMeat_Headx
    I wasn't talking about ketosis. Glucose is used for everything, true, which is why the body would ADAPT to high levels of glucose(that put it out of homeostasis) by metabolizing, using, and storing it faster and more efficiently. Part of that has to do with insulin sensitivity, but my point is if those individuals the article refers to as 'sugarburners' and 'hardgainers' ate less simple sugars and more fats, they would have much better results. I don't by into the excess protein crap to be honest, if you're lifting heavy you're body will be holding onto all the protein it can.
    I didn't think you were taking ketosis into consideration which is why I pointed out that assumption in my previous post. My whole point is refering specifically to your exact words regarding 'sugarburners," which was "hence you're a sugarburner if you eat too much sugar." Also, "You're a sugar burner if you eat too much sugar! Fix your diet." Now unless you are refering too, recommending, or thinking about ketosis, (which you just admitted you were not) then these two points don't mean much in regards to the discussion, because, as we have agreed upon, the body utilizes carbs/glucose/sugar/take your pick unless they are absent in the diet to a certain degree.
    Quote Originally Posted by xMeat_Headx
    Anyone can make excuses, but do what you want.
    I'm not here to get into a pissing contest, but I hardly need to use excuses to avoid proving or disproving points or topics that I am educated on. doing so in this instance will not benefit myself, so at this point I do not intend on putting forth the effort.
    Last edited by Slim Schaedle; 01-06-2006 at 03:47 PM.

  2. #52
    Banned Slim Schaedle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by xMeat_Headx
    You know that any kind of carb you eat will be transformed into a sugar after consumption right?
    I'm really going to sound like a smart arse on this one but....actually, cellulose (yes, it is a polysaccharide) won't.
    Quote Originally Posted by xMeat_Headx
    You know that any kind of carb you eat will be transformed into a sugar after consumption right? Humans THRIVE on sugars(and carbs in general), its a matter of moderation and eating the correct amounts of other nutrients in comparison.

    Since pretty much everyone agrees with evolution these days, let me throw this out there too - until roughly 5 million years ago our ancestors ate almost NOTHING but fruit and vegetation.... carbs. I'm not saying that's healthy for humans now, but you don't have to be terrified of sugar either.
    You really aren't getting the points he is making (or mine)
    Last edited by Slim Schaedle; 01-06-2006 at 03:35 PM.

  3. #53
    Banned Slim Schaedle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by xMeat_Headx
    The only parts of the article I agree with are the obvious ones... such as frequent overconsumption of sugar raises insulin sensitivity, not a good thing. Notions such as 'sugarburner' are ridiculous.
    You just used half of the article (including the part discussing gluconeogenesis a result of excess protein consumption) in attempts to explain yourself in defense when I questioned you, and now you claim there is only one worthy concept noted in the article?? (see below)


    Quote Originally Posted by xMeat_Headx
    "I suspect hard gainers on high protein have insulin levels that are soaring and they are becoming insulin resistant (many body builders do). Excess protein intake is almost as sure a prescription for insulin resistance as excess carbohydrate intake.

    As these individuals become insulin resistant, they become sugar burners. They cease to burn fat and end up carrying too much body fat (a large percentage of people in the gym do).

    When they cease to be able to access their fat, their cells must have sugar. Where does it come from between meals and during sleep? From muscle and bone, the largest sources of protein in the body."

    Insulin sensitivity... that MIGHT have something to do with it...

    If you eat anything in excess for a long period of time, your body will adapt to it and get better at metabolizing it and getting rid of it. That's pretty obvious, don't you think?

    Ok for the "you're a sugarburner if you eat too much sugar" comment, the excess protein(which shouldn't exist in any significant amount in a good diet) causes a release of insulin(although not much) and is converted to sugar, which releases insulin as well. If individuals in that state cut down on excess sugar and protein consumption, they wouldn't be so insulin resistant... hence you're a sugarburner if you eat too much sugar.
    Last edited by Slim Schaedle; 01-06-2006 at 03:47 PM.

  4. #54
    Senior Member Meat_Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Slim Schaedle
    I didn't think you were taking ketosis into consideration which is why I pointed out that assumption in my previous post. My whole point is refering specifically to your exact words regarding 'sugarburners," which was "hence you're a sugarburner if you eat too much sugar." Also, "You're a sugar burner if you eat too much sugar! Fix your diet." Now unless you are refering too, recommending, or thinking about ketosis, (which you just admitted you were not) then these two points don't mean much in regards to the discussion, because, as we have agreed upon, the body utilizes carbs/glucose/sugar/take your pick unless they are absent in the diet to a certain degree.
    Don't say they don't mean much in regards to the discussion unless you address this:

    "Glucose is used for everything, true, which is why the body would ADAPT to high levels of glucose(that put it out of homeostasis) by metabolizing, using, and storing it faster and more efficiently. Part of that has to do with insulin sensitivity, but my point is if those individuals the article refers to as 'sugarburners' and 'hardgainers' ate less simple sugars and more fats, they would have much better results. I don't buy into the excess protein crap to be honest, if you're lifting heavy you're body will be holding onto all the protein it can."

    I'm not here to get into a pissing contest, but I hardly need to use excuses to avoid proving or disproving points or tpics that I am educated on. doing so in this instance will not benefit myself, so at this point I do not intend on putting forth the effort.
    Fair enough, that's why I deleted that part of my post.
    Last edited by Meat_Head; 01-06-2006 at 03:45 PM.
    Squat...Eat...Sleep...Grow...Repeat

  5. #55
    Senior Member Meat_Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Slim Schaedle
    My whole point is refering specifically to your exact words regarding 'sugarburners," which was "hence you're a sugarburner if you eat too much sugar." Also, "[B]You're a sugar burner if you eat too much sugar! Fix your diet."
    There's no such thing as a sugarburner. I was using that term because its how the article referred to a group of people who as I explained are eating too much sugar and/or aren't lifting with enough frequency or intensity.
    Squat...Eat...Sleep...Grow...Repeat

  6. #56
    Banned Slim Schaedle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    1,722
    You really still don't get it. Any attempt to explain myself further would be repeating my previous posts, or spelling things out like you are in 3rd grade.

    I'm not even calling into question your use of the word sugarburner, so you don't need to explain it.

    (and yes, there are such things as sugarburners...they are called people. Although the use and context and even the choice of the word in the article and in any of these posts is a little skewed)

    So much discussion over only two little things that I questioned. I sometimes regret being a picky SOB, lol

    Just give up now b/c you are not going to win this one
    Last edited by Slim Schaedle; 01-07-2006 at 02:06 PM.

  7. #57
    Senior Member Meat_Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Slim Schaedle
    You really still don't get it. Any attempt to explain myself further would be repeating my previous posts, or spelling things out like you are in 3rd grade.
    Bull****, you have yet to explain exactly why what I said is wrong. If its so obvious, why can't you state it clearly?

    I'm not even calling into question your use of the word sugarburner, so you don't need to explain it.
    Sure...

    You - "My whole point is refering specifically to your exact words regarding 'sugarburners," which was "hence you're a sugarburner if you eat too much sugar." Also, "You're a sugar burner if you eat too much sugar! Fix your diet.""

    All humans are 'sugarburners', if you define it as needing carbs. There ARE differences in the amounts individuals burn, from lifestyle choices and reasons they can't control. When I referred to 'sugarburners' I meant people who frequently overconsume sugar, alot of people... including people who think they're 'hardgainers' and stuff junk down their throats all day. Those people are 'sugarburners' in that sense who wouldn't be that way if they consumed less sugar and exercised properly.

    (and yes, there are such things as sugarburners...they are called people. Although the use and context and even the choice of the word in the article and in any of these posts is a little skewed)
    You're repeating what I said..

    "Since pretty much everyone agrees with evolution these days, let me throw this out there too - until roughly 5 million years ago our ancestors ate almost NOTHING but fruit and vegetation.... carbs. I'm not saying that's healthy for humans now, but you don't have to be terrified of sugar either."

    "Humans THRIVE on sugars(and carbs in general), its a matter of moderation and eating the correct amounts of other nutrients in comparison."

    Wait, what exactly is your position, and how is it different from mine?

    So much discussion over only two little points that I made (that I am right on) I sometimes regret being a picky SOB, lol

    Just give up now b/c you are not going to win this one
    Win what? This isn't a contest, and if it were you can't win without an arguement.
    Last edited by Meat_Head; 01-07-2006 at 12:44 PM.
    Squat...Eat...Sleep...Grow...Repeat

  8. #58
    Banned Slim Schaedle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    1,722
    Quote Originally Posted by xMeat_Headx
    All humans are 'sugarburners', if you define it as needing carbs. There ARE differences in the amounts individuals burn, from lifestyle choices and reasons they can't control. When I referred to 'sugarburners' I meant people who frequently overconsume sugar, alot of people... including people who think they're 'hardgainers' and stuff junk down their throats all day. Those people are 'sugarburners' in that sense who wouldn't be that way if they consumed less sugar and exercised properly..
    This was what I was looking for because you are finally explaining your comments in more detail rather than making vague comments such as as the ones I called into question. Many posters do this and when I see something that it not explained clearly and borders on being false or partly fase, I call it out and wait for them to explain themselves clearly.

    I never was questioning your use of the word "sugarburner," just the context in which you were using it.
    Quote Originally Posted by xMeat_Headx
    Wait, what exactly is your position, and how is it different from mine?
    I never took a postion, I am mearly calling out two little sentences that you posted in hopes that you would explain it and due to my pickiness, which I admitted to in a previous post.

    Like I said in post #30, there is a great lack of reading comprehension throughout this thread.

    There are other inaccuracies spread around this thread, but I think I am done.
    Last edited by Slim Schaedle; 01-07-2006 at 02:12 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •