Steroids, Working Out, Weight Loss

[Private_slim]

Now we're getting some real advice here!

Seems like the whole "other than steroids supplements" point is overlooked though.
So I will repeat myself, Arginine

Some basic stuff:

http://www.life-enhancement.com/article_template.asp?id=643[/url]"]One week of arginine
supplementation increased peak
oxygen volume by 8% and
exercise capacity by 12%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arginine
http://altmedicine.about.com/cs/herbsvitaminsad/a/Arginine.htm
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/arginine.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/l-arginine/NS_patient-arginine

Now be aware that it might fuck with your stomach acids if you take to much, and if you have herpes it might make you break more often.
It mainly helps by making nitrous oxide and freeing your blood-flow or something, and it lowers your blood pressure.
Also help on erectile dysfunction since it frees up your vessels.

Now I can't exactly vouch for it myself, since I haven't even tried it. But it comes highly recommended.

 

[DepricatedZero]

I stopped on my way home and picked up some fruits, veggies, yogurt to snack on for the next couple week. Hopefully switching to those as snacks will help. Also picked up a water filter so that my tap water is tolerable.

I'm willing to put in the work to drop it, and have been. Just hoping from all the miracle weight loss crap I hear about that something might truly exist.

I'll continue on the track I have been, and look at grabbing a bike in the next few weeks. Perhaps bike to the gym, do my resistance training, and bike back. It's a good mile and a half.

Case, thanks for the truly good and thoughtful advice.

Looking over arganine the side effects don't look bad. I'm fine at dealing with nausea - it was a consistent side effect with Chantix when I took that. From what I can tell it's already in a bit of stuff and there doesn't appear to be anything against it. Anyone know of any dangerous side-effects?

 

[No1Mensan]

Weight loss is simple, look at the first law of thermodynamics, to lose weight you have expend more calories than you consume. I'd suggest using http://www.fitday.com to monitor your diet, and aim for somewhere around 1500 calories. For exercise, run, swim cycle, walk, go up and down the stairs 100 times a day if you have to.

I'm very anti-steroids, I'd advise you to stay away from them because they fill your body with artificial testosterone and inhibit your own testosterone production, you can cycle out of them if you know how, but many people end up with heart problems and poor health in later life.

 

[Krpi]

To lose weight:
1. Most important thing is to consume less calories than you spend, weight is lost in the kitchen.
2. Lift heavy things. It requires a ton of energy and ups energy consumption outside training. Not looking weaker than your mother is also a plus.
3. Sprint, run hills, do interval training, do exercises complexes and circuits, anything that makes heart-attack a genuine concern. Either after a workout or as a separate session.
4. Do cardio. This'll be just extra energy spent on something. Jog, swim, whatever.

Also, please tell us what your "resistance" training consists of. I'm feeling you aren't exactly going in the right direction. A list of exercises will do nicely, I don't need to hear about the amount of weight you're pushing.

As for steroids... hey, they work. It's just that there isn't really anyone on these boards that needs them, not very likely at least. Train right and eat right, do that for 10 years and then contemplate on steroid use.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Weight loss is simple, look at the first law of thermodynamics, to lose weight you have expend more calories than you consume. I'd suggest using http://www.fitday.com to monitor your diet, and aim for somewhere around 1500 calories. For exercise, run, swim cycle, walk, go up and down the stairs 100 times a day if you have to.

I'm very anti-steroids, I'd advise you to stay away from them because they fill your body with artificial testosterone and inhibit your own testosterone production, you can cycle out of them if you know how, but many people end up with heart problems and poor health in later life.

1500 Calories? He hasn't told you anything to calculate his basal metabolic rate so I'm not sure how you came up with an arbitrary number like that. If you guessed to low, the reduction in calories would actually decrease lipid metabolism while increasing lipid stores...

The body has three types of energy stores; fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. It's not quite as simple as consuming less than you expend because the body's physiological response plays a huge role in determining how energy is stored and which source is used.

If 1500 is too low, it could put his body into a catabolic state where muscle is a more preferred source of energy. Reducing muscle mass is also the best way to reduce your resting metabolism which hurts your ability to process calories in the first place...

 

[JustBusiness17]

Also, please tell us what your "resistance" training consists of. I'm feeling you aren't exactly going in the right direction. A list of exercises will do nicely, I don't need to hear about the amount of weight you're pushing.

Rep-range and cadence pattern as well. For mass building, I always found a 4-6 rep range worked best. Especially with compound exercises. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone unless they know how to warm up to lift that kind of weight and use excellent form thoughout... As for cadence, I would lift as fast as possible while releasing on a 2 second down cycle and a short pause at transitions.

It's not very aerobic, but it's good for bulking up.

 

[borrofburi]

Weight loss is simple, look at the first law of thermodynamics, to lose weight you have expend more calories than you consume.

To lose weight:
1. Most important thing is to consume less calories than you spend, weight is lost in the kitchen.

No. Not all calories are equal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

 

[No1Mensan]

No. Not all calories are equal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

The body has three types of energy stores; fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. It's not quite as simple as consuming less than you expend because the body's physiological response plays a huge role in determining how energy is stored and which source is used.

Wrong.

There is no getting around the energy balance, you need a Calorie deficit to lose weight period http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html. The best way to avoid Catabolism is to keep your muscles active by lifting weights.

The best guide for how many calories you need that I know of is the Cunningham equation. The next thing to do is to eat slightly less than the calories you use. If you eat too little you will have problems with slowing down metabolism and lack of energy which will hinder your progress. Most people find that cutting the carbs works better than cutting the fat, because eating fat makes you feel full for longer.

 

[JustBusiness17]

No. Not all calories are equal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

The body has three types of energy stores; fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. It's not quite as simple as consuming less than you expend because the body's physiological response plays a huge role in determining how energy is stored and which source is used.

Wrong.

There is no getting around the energy balance, you need a Calorie deficit to lose weight period http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html. The best way to avoid Catabolism is to keep your muscles active by lifting weights.

The best guide for how many calories you need that I know of is the Cunningham equation. The next thing to do is to eat slightly less than the calories you use. If you eat too little you will have problems with slowing down metabolism and lack of energy which will hinder your progress. Most people find that cutting the carbs works better than cutting the fat, because eating fat makes you feel full for longer.

Research "starvation mode". It makes sense biologically.

 

[Doc.]

the funny thing is that you should get weight all around, unless you really starve your body.

1. most of us eat more food than we really need, so naturally it's stored as fat.
2. if you stop eating "enough" and/or you work physically, your body sees that as a stress and potential threat that it must get ready to in the future (that's why aggressive short-term diets are especially useless), so once it gets the opportunity (i.e you have lost enough weight and started to eat as much as you did before), it will store more energy as fat.

what am I missing?

 

[borrofburi]

No. Not all calories are equal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

The body has three types of energy stores; fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. It's not quite as simple as consuming less than you expend because the body's physiological response plays a huge role in determining how energy is stored and which source is used.

Wrong.

There is no getting around the energy balance, you need a Calorie deficit to lose weight period http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html. The best way to avoid Catabolism is to keep your muscles active by lifting weights.

The best guide for how many calories you need that I know of is the Cunningham equation. The next thing to do is to eat slightly less than the calories you use. If you eat too little you will have problems with slowing down metabolism and lack of energy which will hinder your progress. Most people find that cutting the carbs works better than cutting the fat, because eating fat makes you feel full for longer.

So your sources are a nutritionist and a forum post? That's an... interesting counter to a medical doctor who specializes in pediatric obesity explaining his peer reviewed research.

Energy in = Energy out + Change in Body Stores

The most fundamental problem with this equation is that it assumes the body processes all energy it is given. No. The most obvious example is cellulose, which certainly contains energy, but we as humans are (mostly) unable to break it down and unable to process it. Cellulose is energy in, but it is neither energy out nor is it a change in body stores (at least, not as "energy out" is defined in that equation). Aside from the extreme example, different foods are processed in different ways, and that matters. Fructose, especially, is a molecule that is extremely likely to lead to fat.

I have never met an overweight person who has cut raw sugar (and by extension fructose) out of their diet (ok mostly out of their diet, because to remove it completely you'd have to (1) not eat fruit and that's just bad, and (2) get specialty food items for almost everything, including surprising things like spaghetti sauce, which also has sugar added). Also, human-synthesized sugar substitutes are just a bad idea.

You can argue that "energy out" includes the stuff that isn't processed because it does leave the body. Fine; and you're right, fundamentally thermodynamics must apply, but people always suggest the "energy balance" equation as the simple solution to weight problems, and even your paper fundamentally disagrees with that. The message of this equation is "if you eat it, you either burn it or you store it" which is simply not true, even your paper admits this (though not in precisely those words). Moreover, my original statement is "not all calories are equal", and the paper agrees with me.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I have never met an overweight person who has cut raw sugar (and by extension fructose) out of their diet (ok mostly out of their diet, because to remove it completely you'd have to (1) not eat fruit and that's just bad, and (2) get specialty food items for almost everything, including surprising things like spaghetti sauce, which also has sugar added).

Or you learn how to cook, which allows you to control the amount and type of sugars you ingest. Cooking your own meals when possible gives you the opportunity to eat healthier foods, prepared with better-quality ingredients, which means you don't have to disguise the flavor by adding tons of sugar, fat, and salt. The reason so many prepared foods are loaded with bad stuff is because the core ingredients are either substandard quality, or because they become crap in the process that keeps them from spoiling from when it is processed until when you eat it.

 

[No1Mensan]

So your sources are a nutritionist and a forum post? That's an... interesting counter to a medical doctor who specializes in pediatric obesity explaining his peer reviewed research.

That is nothing but appeal to Authority. You have said and done nothing to disprove that you need a Calorie deficit to lose weight. And your comment about the Cunningham equation doesn't even address the validity of it, (I'm sure you're aware of the irony of posting something in a forum to discredit something in another forum.) Until you address these points not to mention the OP's questions about losing weight and Steroids, all you're doing is making unverifiable claims.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

There is no getting around the energy balance, you need a Calorie deficit to lose weight period http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html. The best way to avoid Catabolism is to keep your muscles active by lifting weights.

The best guide for how many calories you need that I know of is the Cunningham equation. The next thing to do is to eat slightly less than the calories you use. If you eat too little you will have problems with slowing down metabolism and lack of energy which will hinder your progress. Most people find that cutting the carbs works better than cutting the fat, because eating fat makes you feel full for longer.

You sort of sound like you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and falling chin-deep into the Dunning-Kruger effect. Yes, fewer calories will help you lose weight initially, but things are MUCH more complicated than that. Instead of you just accepting that fact, and allowing people to tell you things you might not know, you're lashing out and clinging to your cartoonish viewpoint.

Not all calories are equal. That's a fact. Do you have a car? Do you ever go get gas, and notice that they sell different octanes of gas? You might think that fuel is just fuel, but different engines need different fuels.

Bodies are more complex than cars. The "fuel" needs of bodies are more complex than that of cars. You can't just cut calories and forget about it.

 

[borrofburi]

So your sources are a nutritionist and a forum post? That's an... interesting counter to a medical doctor who specializes in pediatric obesity explaining his peer reviewed research.

That is nothing but appeal to Authority. You have said and done nothing to disprove that you need a Calorie deficit to lose weight. And your comment about the Cunningham equation doesn't even address the validity of it, (I'm sure you're aware of the irony of posting something in a forum to discredit something in another forum.) Until you address these points not to mention the OP's questions about losing weight and Steroids, all you're doing is making unverifiable claims.

Because of course there wasn't a second half to that post... Also, as noted in that second half, your sources do nothing to contradict the idea that not all calories are equal.

I have never met an overweight person who has cut raw sugar (and by extension fructose) out of their diet (ok mostly out of their diet, because to remove it completely you'd have to (1) not eat fruit and that's just bad, and (2) get specialty food items for almost everything, including surprising things like spaghetti sauce, which also has sugar added).

Or you learn how to cook, which allows you to control the amount and type of sugars you ingest. Cooking your own meals when possible gives you the opportunity to eat healthier foods, prepared with better-quality ingredients, which means you don't have to disguise the flavor by adding tons of sugar, fat, and salt. The reason so many prepared foods are loaded with bad stuff is because the core ingredients are either substandard quality, or because they become crap in the process that keeps them from spoiling from when it is processed until when you eat it.

Well I *suppose* you could do that... I personally have difficulty making time to cook (aha, I don't say I don't have time, simply that other things always end up taking precedence); so I'll make pasta, but I won't make the sauce from scratch, that I buy. Also I heard something last night (from a person, not from any source with any credentials), that the preservatives don't necessarily leave our system, and that bodies decompose significantly slower these days than they did 100 years ago; I wonder if there's anything to that.

 

[No1Mensan]

The first law of thermodynamics proves that all calories are equal. A calorie is a unit of energy, energy can't be created or destroyed so 1 calorie cannot = more than 1 calorie or less than 1 calorie. Saying that there are different types of calories that are more readily available than others does not change the energy balance equation. Stop shifting the burden of proof and show how you can lose weight while on a calorie surplus by orthodox means.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The first law of thermodynamics proves that all calories are equal. A calorie is a unit of energy, energy can't be created or destroyed so 1 calorie cannot = more than 1 calorie or less than 1 calorie. Saying that there are different types of calories that are more readily available than others does not change the energy balance equation. Stop shifting the burden of proof and show how you can lose weight while on a calorie surplus by orthodox means.

This just confirms my incredibly low opinion of Mensa...

 

[No1Mensan]

The first law of thermodynamics proves that all calories are equal. A calorie is a unit of energy, energy can't be created or destroyed so 1 calorie cannot = more than 1 calorie or less than 1 calorie. Saying that there are different types of calories that are more readily available than others does not change the energy balance equation. Stop shifting the burden of proof and show how you can lose weight while on a calorie surplus by orthodox means.

This just confirms my incredibly low opinion of Mensa...

Thank you that statement proves my point too

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Thank you that statement proves my point too

You don't have a point. Not all calories are processed the same in your body, and citing thermodynamics just shows your deep ignorance of the subject. There are some things you can eat that your body can't really do anything with, some things that cause your body to maintain weight, and some things that cause your body to gain or lose weight. You could eat 15000 calories worth of pennies and as long as none of them got stuck you would lose weight in the long run. Some things you eat screw up your metabolism and make you gain weight, and an equal number of calories of something else will help you lose weight. The total amount of matter/energy doesn't change, but the incoming/outgoing ratio depends on the quality, type, and amounts of the different foods you eat.

It is more complicated than you claim, and the more you stick to the simple and wrong idea, the more... well, simple and wrong.

 

[No1Mensan]

An Ad Hominem followed by a blanket statement, you are doing well. Pennies in all likelihood won't even be digested and would go straight through and I count calories wasted as calories out. Counting calories provides a very good indication of whether or not you will lose weight, and you'll find most if not all nutritionists would suggest doing this. If you want to discuss this further do it by PM.