some people have better metabolism than others. my ex AS can eat w/e she wants and she doesn't gain jack squat. now if i quit working out and eat crap i gain weight, but if i change my diet and not exercise i still lose the weight and it's noticeable within 2 weeks. my brother on the other hand is fat, but he also eats crap nonstop. he has no discipline, and yet he wonders why he can't lose weight
When you are 21 sure you can eat mcdonalds every meal. Try that at 35. By your theory two people could eat the same food and workout the same every day and one could be 100 pounds heavier. There is absolutely zero medical evidence that this is the case. Otherwise, as I said, you'd put people on the biggest loser and see them only lose a moderate amount of weight
The problem with your arguments is you are using extremes and professional / future professional athletes. Average people aren't like that.
You ignore the part where I emphasize that regular exercise cures all. Which is interesting, because I've only written it in about 8 different places now.
Get on an exercise bike and ride as hard as you can for an hour. Check how many calories you've burned. Then check what the calorie content of three McDonald meals is. It is much, much harder to burn calories than to reduce your intake.
but we are talking about me and i am neither. I am just an average person in the middle. I really don't think my genetics are making it impossible for me to have a six pack.
Bill is no one to be scared of unless you witnessed him in total meltdown mode following the 2010 LSU loss. That was scary.
Let me assure you that I will do none of the above, and, indeed, would rather get kicked square in the [penis] than perform any of the above-listed action items. I wouldn't get on an exercise bike for an extended period of time just like I wouldn't go for a 5 mile run (and I can run 5 miles I just don't choose to because it sucks and accomplishes nothing). And I would never think in terms of calories burned vs. calories coming in because I try to save the synapses for ponderings that aren't laughably retarded. Distance running reduces muscle mass and decreases testosterone. Weight training increases testosterone and increases muscle mass.* What does muscle do? It burns both fat and calories. Around the clock. How many calories and grams of fat does muscle burn? I have no idea. Why do I have no idea? Becaue I would rather get kicked in the [penis] than think about nutritional content of what I eat. What I know is that I workout, I pay no mind to a proper diet, and I have the same physique that I had in college (but with a stronger lower body because I never worked legs in college (which was dumb...my bootey does work for me these days)). *It also gets your heart beating faster -- which is cardio -- if you do dynamic exercises or just do your exercises with conviction. Males that run and don't lift weights are wasting their time -- or, at the very least, not making efficient use of their time -- and needlessly putting a pounding on their knees.** They would be better served with weight/resistance training. **I'd rather have my knees fully functional for many years because I play tennis.
My point exactly. So Mayweather evidently eats a bad diet. He definitely has genetics on his side in a fa rsuperior way than any on this board. Now, how many hours a week do you think he works out? Diet is important. It is a hell of a lot more important than 5%. That is just the way it is.
I don't care what your training program is. I am trying to impress upon you the difference between reducing intake and increasing the amount burned off. If you dont't want to acknowledge basic physiology I'll just say you are wrong and leave it at that.
What I am trying to impress upon you is that for people with a given metabolism who exercise regularly, intake is *irrelevant*. What I am further trying to impress upon you is that I am one of those people and that I am not some freakish outlier. There are lots and lots of us. If you don't want to acknowledge that what I am saying is 100% true and that my* weight and physical appearance will remain the same no matter the intake, then I'll just assure you that you're wrong and leave it at that. *and countless others all across these our United States and every other country on this planet earth
You have a better than average ability to control your intake. It there is a breaking point you luckily ate not exceeding. Congratulations. You are still wrong if you are advising anyone that diet only is a 5% factor.
So you acknowledge that genetics and exercise can render a diet wholly irrelevant. And you think this supports your point? Basically you made my argument, and then appended it with your conclusion. Is that what you intended to do? Had you maybe gone full retard before writing the above?
You keep saying that it's a greater than 5% factor. You can type it out ten more times, but all you're doing is making a conclusion. You could at the very least provide some reasoning. Tell me why it is more than 5% when I'm telling you i can vary my calorie intake 500% and it will result in 0% physical manifestation. You acknowledge the existence of this 0% change in physical manifestation and then still conclude that it is greater than 5%. Did a 5th grader steal your laptop? I can contact the local authorities if need be.
