|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
He also says he eats 4000+ calories a day, but that exercise does not increase appetite. kkk
But the fact is he can take both of us and do a dual vertical suplex piledriver, so we should probably not poke the bear... |
My caloric intake is related to my goals. I eat 4000-5000 when trying to gain weight. This is with minimal cardiovascular activity.
When I am trying to lose weight/lean out, I eat 2500-3500 per day - with increased physical activity (scheduled cardio).
So no, that caloric spread is NOT outlandish for a guy that's 110kgs or so, and as you notice, it decreases when exercise increases. But that's goal dependent.
Again, I'll ask you - what proof do you have that calories increase when exercise increases? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Again, I'll ask you - what proof do you have that calories increase when exercise increases? |
My assumption has been this is general life knowledge.
In order for an animal to survive it must take down prey (recover calories afterwards) if it intends to expend energy in the chase. For example a cheetah only gets so many shots, if after the third try it can't kill, it starves since it burned massive amounts in the chase. Calories must be replenished, which is probably why exercising doesn't really go anywhere for most people.
People who run marathons eat MASSIVE amounts afterwards. When I did near max barbell lifting last year I'd eat 5000 some days. Made me seriously hungry! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hunger is not that same as consumption. Look at my example above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You might be superhuman, seems like most people get hungry a couple hours after physical activity? If the body had not adapted the hunger response we would be in serious trouble, and not receive a warning sign. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| You might be superhuman, seems like most people get hungry a couple hours after physical activity? If the body had not adapted the hunger response we would be in serious trouble, and not receive a warning sign. |
I'm not saying people don't get hungry after exercise. I'm talking about increasing caloric consumption because of exercise - it is not a given.
If someone is maintaining their weight at 2500 calories, and adds in activity that burns 500 calories, that now puts them in a caloric deficit. Even if they choose to eat another 500 calories, they are still at maintenance.
But again- a choice.
If I were to look at one source of unneeded calories, one that slips into the modern western diet easily, it'd be drinks. The rise of the Super Big Gulp... fark! THOSE have a swack of calories (and also tie into your notions of harmful food sources). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| If I were to look at one source of unneeded calories, one that slips into the modern western diet easily, it'd be drinks. The rise of the Super Big Gulp... fark! THOSE have a swack of calories (and also tie into your notions of harmful food sources). |
See now we are talking about something we can agree on. Soda consumption really mirrors obesity trends too, for example in the states...the Southern states chug a lot of this crap. Koreans seem smarter -- soda in moderation.
Here's one study that will really trip your brain. Two groups of rats, 1) fed normal grain-chow (rat's natural diet), 2) fed sugar-protein diet. The two groups eat this way for six weeks, and the sugar rats get slightly fatter during this time (eating amounts were left up to the rats, all you can eat). Next they starved the rats for three days, nothing but water, and this is where it gets really weird...
The rats who had been eating a normal rat-diet lost a significant amount of fat (just like you and I when we do calorie deficit). They functioned as expected. But the rats who had been eating a sugar diet lost very little fat!! Their weight mostly just sat there, but their resting metabolic rate went WAY down.
This is seen in other studies too, and I believe in humans. It tells us there is some complex biology going on. These junk food rats couldn't mobilize fat tissue when it was required, instead they went into a sort of lazy rat daze in order to hold onto the fat. 
Pg 29 chart http://jn.nutrition.org/content/98/1/25.full.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| Excellent work, analyst. |
Too long to read.
Your prior posts do not justify me reading another internet "intuitive analysis" which will no doubt contain nothing. |
My prior posts call you out on some of your BS, so I'm not surprised you'd avoid that again. Another thinly veiled dodge. At least call it what it is.
It was basically asking you to back up your claims, other than give a simple timeline and opinion/conjectures as "proof".
"Analyst" fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mix1 wrote: |
It was basically asking you to back up your claims, other than give a simple timeline and opinion/conjectures as "proof".
"Analyst" fail. |
You aren't really qualified to reproduce my work though, or grade it, so it seemed like a pointless waste of time to answer all that stuff, yet again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
Here's one study that will really trip your brain. Two groups of rats, 1) fed normal grain-chow (rat's natural diet), 2) fed sugar-protein diet. The two groups eat this way for six weeks, and the sugar rats get slightly fatter during this time (eating amounts were left up to the rats, all you can eat). Next they starved the rats for three days, nothing but water, and this is where it gets really weird...
The rats who had been eating a normal rat-diet lost a significant amount of fat (just like you and I when we do calorie deficit). They functioned as expected. But the rats who had been eating a sugar diet lost very little fat!! Their weight mostly just sat there, but their resting metabolic rate went WAY down.
This is seen in other studies too, and I believe in humans. It tells us there is some complex biology going on. These junk food rats couldn't mobilize fat tissue when it was required, instead they went into a sort of lazy rat daze in order to hold onto the fat.
Pg 29 chart http://jn.nutrition.org/content/98/1/25.full.pdf |
Diet affects metabolism. That's been known for quite some time. still not strong enough to discount the multiple factors/choice arguments you've been scoffing at. But, a step in the right direction at least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
It was basically asking you to back up your claims, other than give a simple timeline and opinion/conjectures as "proof".
"Analyst" fail. |
You aren't really qualified to reproduce my work though, or grade it, so it seemed like a pointless waste of time to answer all that stuff, yet again. |
Newsflash: anyone can post a timeline and talk some smack. That's not hard to reproduce. The study you just posted brings you up to a C- though... congrats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mix1 wrote: |
| Newsflash: anyone can post a timeline and talk some smack. That's not hard to reproduce. The study you just posted brings you up to a C- though... congrats. |
I will be graded by how correct it proves through time. Thus far A+ since it backtests, it is disproved by no observations.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
It was basically asking you to back up your claims, other than give a simple timeline and opinion/conjectures as "proof".
"Analyst" fail. |
You aren't really qualified to reproduce my work though, or grade it, so it seemed like a pointless waste of time to answer all that stuff, yet again. |
Wow
And you wonder why people are not getting on board with you here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
Wow
And you wonder why people are not getting on board with you here. |
LOL, so true. I'm kinda a dick. Admit that. Although to me it's really just being super blunt and to the point so as not to waste time, like Koreans. People who hire me never allow me in public relations/communications roles, which is wise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stain
Joined: 08 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
Wow
And you wonder why people are not getting on board with you here. |
LOL, so true. I'm kinda a dick. Admit that. Although to me it's really just being super blunt and to the point so as not to waste time, like Koreans. People who hire me never allow me in public relations/communications roles, which is wise. |
Super blunt about what? Appearances? The funny bit was about "so as not to waste time". So much time is wasted here that doesn't have to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stain wrote: |
| Super blunt about what? The funny bit was about "so as not to waste time". So much time is wasted here that doesn't have to be. |
Riiight, because people have it all figured out? Perhaps there is nothing to discuss? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
