Seriously.......take a Physiologly class!
I did take several courses and I passed with flying colors. Lemme know when you start yours. I'll help you with your homework.
Seriously.......take a Physiologly class!
Physiology II and PY 290 here!I did take several courses and I passed with flying colors. Lemme know when you start yours. I'll help you with your homework.
Actually, your body is in a constant state of tissue regeneration. It needs protein to do this and it can't synthesize protein from carbs or fats. If it doesn't get enough protein, it harvests it from muscle tissue.
And I'm dead serious about the water weight thing. I didn't say it's ALL water weight. But the dramatic initial weight loss is because it's supplemented by large amounts of excess fluid loss. Heck, I can lose 5 lbs. in 24 hrs. Just gimme 2 pots of coffee and about 40 mins. on the treadmill.
Ok guys ! My thread ! Either keep it on topic and be civil or I will close this thread .
Allen
Not quite. No one, and I mean NO ONE, that actually took a Physiology class would be less-than-eductated enough to say low calorie diet leads to protein catabolism, nor your initial post that weight loss would be 20-30 pounds of water.
That is the way of a shyster. Please do not back-peddle on hindsight.
Look man, you posted it, and you were wrong.
Facts are facts. Deal with your embarrassment like a man already.
Natural Hygiene.
Google it.
Has EXACLY what to do with human metabolism?
Oh wait?
New SOAP will now make us lose weight?
CRAP!!!
Thanks for the laugh Lollie.
Typical Keltin. Does a superficial perusal of another's post, draws an absurd inference, than follows with the sarcastic ad hominem (thought you might like that, K).
And you, how exactly, joined the REAL conversation and added to the scientific knowledge? You did what? Your high-fives have done nothing more than relegated you to the ranks of the curious. I’m ok with you wanting to be there.
But please, come back and lets talk about the Krebs cycle and how food is metabolized for fuel…..in real terms. Thanks.
Dude. Let's dial it down a notch or ten.
You post that I should be embarassed.
You accuse me of ad hominem attacks but have referred to my posts and other's as ridiculous, stupid, etc. WTF?
What is your issue that you need to be "right" to the exclusion of others?
Regarding the Krebs cycle, I'm sure you have a Google article at the ready and not properly cited to show how right you think you are.
Seriously. Are you taking issue with this:
Actually, your body is in a constant state of tissue regeneration. It needs protein to do this and it can't synthesize protein from carbs or fats. If it doesn't get enough protein, it harvests it from muscle tissue.
C'mon, K. You're not showing how smart you might be. You're showing something much worse.
I wasn't wrong about anything I was talking about.Look, you were wrong and PG was wrong. Just admit to it and move on already.
I wasn't wrong about anything I was talking about.
Hold on chief - your body is in a constant state of tissue maintenance.
Big difference.
Just a “tad” bit of protein is all you need for normal maintenance. As I said earlier.
The body’s inclination to catabolize protein (lean muscle tissue) is very slim, and YOU are wrong to suggest it happens frequently outside of the starvation pattern. Fact.
Hell, you don’t even see the error in your argument. You suggest that if the body has no protein to work with to repair muscle, it catabolizes lean muscle tissue to repair lean muscle tissue. WTF. No protein to repair muscle, so you tear down muscle to rebuild muscles??? Sam, seriously, the idea of perpetual ANYTHING has long since been disproved.
Look, you were wrong and PG was wrong. Just admit to it and move on already.
I based my statement on experience, and the experience of others.You said having two starches was a "bad" thing.
That's not true.
You can not make general and sweeping remarks like that. You have to account for total diet, total caloric intake, total caloric expenditure, activity level, exercise plan, etc, etc, etc.
It's simply wrong to say two carbs are bad. Utterly wrong and propogates misinformation.
Again with the "you're wrong" thing.
Did you even read the links in PG's post? From your responses, the answer is "no." The articles were about diet and how to avoid mixing alkalines with acids in any given meal. Your condescending response about natural hygiene being equivalent to using soap for weight loss was, again, a simplistic, incorrect and wild inference drawn from what appears to be a reasonable post.
Regarding your most recent post, you again draw an incorrect and wild inference from my post. Muscle tissue isn't the only organ in the body that is constantly regenerating. Bone, skin, muscle (others) are all constantly redeveloping. We need protein to fortify these processes. Google it, like you've Googled the Krebs cycle.
And please. Stop offering your ludicrous and unfounded interpretations of others' posts to buttress your "argument." And btw, FF ain't about winning an argument. We're about enlightenment, or at the very least, sharing points of view.
I based my statement on experience, and the experience of others.
That doesn't make me wrong.
It makes you want to prove it wrong.
I'm hungry and have a hankering for some Kellogg's corn flakes![]()
Like I said, take a class or at least Google before you expose your "less-than" on this matter.
Your vocabulary is good......your understanding is not so in this ring. Sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid
I will say this. I figured you had a Google article at the ready. Instead, it was a Wiki. In that sense, you finally got me.
Still, you need to give this "prove other folks to be wrong" thing a rest. You just can't do it when folks know about that of which they speak. And besides, why is it so important to prove someone else to be wrong? Why can't you just post information for folks to digest on their own?
To be fair, I'm guilty of that too, but I don't typically refer to others' posts as ridiculous, stupid, or otherwise. Again, FF, for me, is about enlightenment, whether by opinion, or information. And it's NEVER about winning a debate, argument or whatever you want to call it. Sometimes it does involve snarkiness, but most of us realize it's all in good fun.
So Keltin, I concede nothing to you. I thank you for the information you have posted, but would thank you again not to draw incorrect and far-fetched inferences from my (or others') posts. If there's room for interpretation, ask me (or them) first.
That was fun. So you're done? Ok then.
But, if you'd like scans or pics of my physiology and biology text books proving you to be utterly wrong, I can scan them or snap pics.
Bad information is my problem. I don't like to see crap spread that Snopes would squash. Sorry.
Have a good one Sam.
Yes, by all means, provide scans of your text books to prove me wrong. And btw, make sure it addresses what I posted. Not what you think I posted. Lord knows they're not even remotely close to the same thing.
And you have a good one, too, K.
You're on.
But let's agree on what you're wrong about:
1. Losing 20-30 pounds of water weight
2. Easy and daily lean muscle catabolization
Those are my two big points against you. Do you want to adjust or retract.....or perhaps use hind-sight to modify?
You can over eat on protein and leafy veggies. When calories in exceed calories burned, you gain weight. Period. Saying protein in is the answer is bogus. Cats are designed to metabolize protein primarily and have little tolerance to carbs (treat it as fiber) yet they get fat. Basic rule, Calories In > Calories out = weight gain. Reverse that for weight loss. Protein has 4 cals per gram and fat has 9 grams. This simply means you can eat more than 2x protein as compared to fat for the same caloric intake.
Not at all. Only one organ in your body requires pure glucose for energy, and that is your brain. All other organs and tissue can run on other forms of energy. Fat deposits (lipids) are converted to glycerol (which your brain can't use) for energy, which is fine for most of the body, but the brain needs glucose. Only protein can be broken down to glucose. However, if your diet contains even a modicum of carbs, it will be used to fuel the brain first (with glucose).
Further, before excess energy is stored as lipids, you first refill your glycogen stores, and glycogen can be converted to glucose. So in 99% of most active people, there is no reason to burn lean muscle tissue for glucose unless you are absolutely starving yourself for days on end (or athletically pushing the envelope 2k or more calories beyond your stores).
If you DO burn protein as a fuel source, a side affect is the production of ammonia. So unless your sweat smells like cat pee, you aren't burning protein in any measurable degree.
You only need substantial protein intake to BUILD NEW MUSCLE. If you take in plenty of calories from carbs and fats such that glucose is available for the brain, you don't NEED protein. Your muscle tissue will be fine and simply sit there. It won't get any bigger, but it certainly won't shrink either.
In a nut shell, protein is used to build new muscle IF the muscle has been challenged and suffered trauma (workout and micro tears). Other than that, it gets converted to glycogen, and then to glycerol. If you're sedentary, you need very little protein. If you workout a bit, then you need a very modest amount of protein for muscle repair.
20 to 30 pounds in water weight? You can't be serious.
That is utterly ridiculous. The most you can hope for is 2-3 pounds, and those are seen in the first few days of a new diet. This is why so many people believe a new diet is working….you drop 2-3 pounds immediately from water weight. From there, you have to dip into your lipid stores to see weight loss.