And then they all ate the cook... heavily salted..Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Printable View
And then they all ate the cook... heavily salted..Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Furious masterbation?Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
40's suck
I did not have a good time in my 40's. 50's have been way better. And I've taken some lumps in my 50's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhelihiker
So the key to athletic performance is furious fapping?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhelihiker
Kids were pretty high maintenance during my 40s. They're now both in high school handling their shit on their own. Gonna cost more for college when they finish high school.. Still beats diapers, car seats, day care, summer camp, science fairs etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
At least I could still read a label without glasses on in my 40s..
https://media.giphy.com/media/yaYV8i5n1OjZe/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
Great movie--The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover--especially if you like Helen Mirren.Quote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
Sounds spicy. Where does the salt come in?
No one ate the Cook, the Thief ate the Lover. The Cook cooked the Lover beforehand, because, after all, we're not talking sushi, here.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Change that order around a little and you've got Eating Raul...Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
suggest you stop before you go blindQuote:
Originally Posted by skiballs
maybe just until you need glasses ?
Thief killed lover. Wife had the cook roast the lover and she made the thief eat him. Thief looked very nauseated so I'm guessing cook skipped the salt, to add insult to injury.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva
thats a bummer to hearQuote:
Originally Posted by Dhelihiker
20's were boss, didn't give a fuck 100 day ski seasons bike racing not a care in the world
30's more fun, growing up finally, less this less that more work, but still had a good time
40's have been great so far, dr asks "well what hurts?" depends on the day, knees, back, neck, shoulders, arms, I Can now afford anything I want as far as bikes and skis go, vacations,
the downfall is my record was 7 times in one day and now 3 times would be pushing it, like a miracle
get back on the tread mill with blu pillQuote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
I would argue that it is. To complicate matters, what is well-tolerated in terms of sugar is vastly different for someone at a healthy weight as opposed to the obese (insulin insensitive, pre- or full on Type II diabetic, high blood pressure, etc.).Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
I never said they were. The body handles proteins, carbs, sugars, and fats very differently, and how "well" each of those macronutrients is processed varies from person to person.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Its the long-term caloric balance that is the primary factor in dictating whether a person loses or gains weight. You can lose weight (and not coincidentally improve your health markers) while eating nothing but processed crap, and you can gain weight eating the strictest, cleanest diet you could design (as if anyone could possibly agree on what that even is...).
Macronutrient profile is definitely important to those concerned with body composition or athletic performance, but for the average person just looking to lose a little weight its far secondary to caloric balance. But Ludwig's stance of "ultimately it matters where those calories come from; this matters more than the number of calories ingested"; and suggesting that the dietary quantity of any single macronutrient is a greater predictor of body weight changes than caloric intake is ludicrous.
Like all misconceptions, there's an element of truth behind the opinion in your Harvard article. I'm not saying that sugar is blameless, or that folks who are already overweight or struggling with metabolic syndrome don't need to worry about sugar intake, or that the body processes all macronutrients the same. Hell, I'd agree that sodas are a huge health concern for a number of reasons: high caloric density, high sugar content, low satiety, promoting psychological sweetness cravings, the body's poor ability at intuitively "gauging" the energy content of liquids (which, by the way, makes fruit juices no better than sodas in my book), and so on.
My favorite analogy is that becoming obese is like going into debt. There are many ways to get there (overcharging your credit card, taking out a loan you can't pay back, getting behind on car payments) and some are easier and faster than others (high processed carbs and high fat are relatively easier than high protein and fiber) but at the end of the day it's a pretty simple calculus of what you're taking in against what you're putting out. Because
There is no dietary component, not processed foods, not sugar, and not fat, that causes weight gain; it's a sedentary lifestyle and destructive eating habits that lead to obesity.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
^^^^^You're de-emphasizing something pretty darn important: The quality of food we eat influences how much food we eat. Things like full-fat dairy, nuts, and whole grains are generally more filling than processed crap and refined grains. Sure, you can lose weight on a cheetos, hot pockets and beer diet, but you'll likely feel starving all day and generally feel like shit. You will suffer. Then you will give up. If you eat the same number of calories with a sensible mix of high quality ingredients you can lose/maintain weight and feel pretty good while you do it. There are a number of rigorous, long term studies concerning people consuming certain foods and weight attenuation.
Frankly I think worrying about calories is pretty darn pointless unless you are professional athlete with the time, resources and motivation to weigh everything you eat so you can get down to 7% body fat from 7.5%. For the rest of us a "portion" is a far more practical unit. The number of portions matters, but so does the type and quality. If you avoid sugar and other processed foods, cap your meat/dairy/fat/ whole grain intake, and eat as much fruit and veggies as you want, getting close to that ideal number of calories is sustainable and pretty simple.
Edit for clarity: By "simple" I mean not complicated. I don't mean it's easy. I sure as hell find it hard to be consistent, especially during stretches when I'm traveling, eating out a lot, or going to parties. Put some good pizza of chips and guac in front of me and I'm likely to take in 2000 Calories in a few minutes.
I’ve had a bad back for about 7 yrs and I’ve found using those dual, cable, crossover machines at the gym has really helped. There is an ex delta force guy named tmac who believes all your motion working out should invole more than just up, and down, but twisting, and I’ll be damed if my back is not better doing that stuff.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
totally disagree. clearly your approach must suckQuote:
Originally Posted by Dhelihiker
What I remember of my Forties seems like it was pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhelihiker
Hell ya, I felt the same way about my 20s when I was in my 30s..Quote:
Originally Posted by panchosdad
Yup, likely was in the best shape of my life in my 40's. Got lazy in my 50's and now at 60 I am trying to figure out how to get motivated again to run, swim, workout and all the other stuff I did in my 40's.Quote:
Originally Posted by panchosdad
All this discussion about “training” and no mentioning of go pros, wearing overloaded packs, or wearing ski boots on the stair climbing machine....?
WTF?! Have any of you learned anything from this forum?!
there's snacks in here?
Friend of mine used to walk barefoot in the snow to toughen his feet. He also used to do 100 mile runs in the NM desert, just for fun. Having one of Hitler's Brown Shirts as a father can mess you up.Quote:
Originally Posted by bodywhomper
i feel like i'm going to live forever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfb_I1JbofA
I'm not de-emphasizing the role of food quality in respect to dieting; I wasn't emphasizing it at all, because it was beside the point I was making.Quote:
Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds!
We began this tangent when someone made a comment about sugar = dementia
and I, out of my frustration with the demonization of any single dietary component, responded that sugar isn't the problem, obesity is. A stance I stand by.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mofro261
Your post was wholly about lifestyle and diet advice. Ironically, my advice to anyone who asks me "how to eat" is remarkably similar to yours. If you're trying to lose weight: eat mostly lean meat and high fiber vegetables and allow yourself either a small treat every day or a medium-sized treat once a week, because
Any diet that works does two things: gets you to eat fewer calories than you're burning (through restriction, guidelines, or trickery); and allows you to do that day in-day out. A diet that keeps you full longer (high protein, high fiber), doesn't invite a bunch of calorically dense foods (avoids refined carbs, sugars, and most high-fat sources), and is satisfying (is reasonably palatable and permits a few treats) fits the bill and is a great pragmatic choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontane
But make no mistake, it works because you're eating fewer calories than you're burning, not because you're avoiding some evil macronutrient or "unclean" dietary component.
I'm not de-emphasizing the role of food quality in respect to dieting; I wasn't emphasizing it at all, because it was beside the point I was making.Quote:
Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds!
We began this tangent when someone made a comment about sugar = dementia
and I, out of my frustration with the demonization of any single dietary component, responded that sugar isn't the problem, obesity is. A stance I stand by.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mofro261
But man, I'm right there with you, I can pig out on some solid pizza or Mexican food. To paraphrase Louis CK, the meal isn't over when I'm full, it's over when I hate myself. But it's no coincidence that the foods you listed (and instantly made me crave)
have little to zero sugar and are composed of somewhere between 50% and 100% fat. So take that you zealots that argue that "sugar is the devil's work".Quote:
Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds!
Your post was wholly about lifestyle and diet advice. Ironically, my advice to anyone who asks me "how to eat" is remarkably similar to yours. If you're trying to lose weight: eat mostly lean meat and high fiber vegetables and allow yourself either a small treat every day or a medium-sized treat once a week, because
Any diet that works does two things: gets you to eat fewer calories than you're burning (through restriction, guidelines, or trickery); and allows you to do that day in-day out. A diet that keeps you full longer (high protein, high fiber), doesn't invite a bunch of calorically dense foods (avoids refined carbs, sugars, and most high-fat sources), and is satisfying (is reasonably palatable and permits a few treats) fits the bill and is a great pragmatic choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontane
But make no mistake, it works because you're eating fewer calories than you're burning, not because you're avoiding some evil macronutrient or "unclean" dietary component. And you don't get fat because you let yourself eat some "fattening" food, but because you develop some destructive eating habits
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontane
so what did you clowns do this weekend to keep your perfromance up?
sit around the back yard drinking playing grab ass with the wife while the kids played in the sandbox?
or did you hit it hard keeping that blood flowing?
You spying on me?Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
https://media.giphy.com/media/YhSVi82JQiuFa/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
Furious masterbation.Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
What's perfromance? Some CO brobrah shit?Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
Rode up some hills
Attachment 291636
Then had some brew
Attachment 291637
is that like on a horse or hiking or camel toe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontane
having problems with the hoof definition
I turn 44 this September. I just took a job doing conservation/trail work running crews and spend up to 8 days straight in the field hiking and working all day while eating the bare minimum. I lost like 20 pounds in a couple of months. At this point I figure I just better keep moving, no matter how much it hurts every day to get started.
Desk jobs will really put the hurt on ya, as will heavy alcohol consumption. Keep moving I guess. I'll do one recovery day every week or two but that's all I can handle then it's back to the outside.
Bro......Bro! I'm training.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vt-Freeheel
Ten mile hike on Friday, swam 4,000 meters on Saturday. Pretty much jack shit yesterday, but was back in the pool this morning.
I haven't done enough hiking this summer. I could definitely feel those ten miles the next day! Swimming is good exercise, but it doesn't have the impact that is crucial as we age to keep up bone density.
Mofro's statement is kinda spot on when modified slightly:Quote:
Originally Posted by CS2-6
Chronic hyperglycemia = systemic inflammatory state = increased amyloid plaque formation = dementia
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...stract/2694709
"Elevated glycemia was the only cardiometabolic risk factor with constantly higher values among dementia cases up to 14 years before diagnosis."
Now, you can certainly eat a lot of sugar and not be chronically hypergylcemic, but the two tend to go hand-in-hand. Chronic hyperglycemia and the resultant systemic inflammation is also at the root of CVD and many other obesity-related diseases. Further, as Robert Lustig explains in detail in his lectures on Youtube, the end products of fructose metabolism create insulin resistance directly. Obese people tend to be insulin-resistant, but insulin resistance generally precedes obesity.
Metabolically, fructose is alcohol that doesn't get you drunk. Consumption of fructose from non-whole fruit sources is the primary driver of NAFLD:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5893377/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5372893/
https://openheart.bmj.com/content/4/2/e000631
Direct quote from Lustig, who is a PhD neuroendocrinologist and Professor emeritus at Stanford: "Fructose is a chronic, dose-dependent hepatotoxin."
One big advantage to IF is that when you do eat you can eat until you are good and full. You never get that psychological satisfaction when eating six 200-300 calories "meals" per day.Quote:
Originally Posted by CS2-6
I've been doing the 8-16 IF routine for about 3 years or so now. Maybe 4, I'm not really sure. I just eat two meals a day, basically a big bowl of cereal with almond or oat milk, berries, apple and nuts very day for breakfast/lunch and whatever the fuck I want, and a lot of it, for dinner. I'm usually starving at dinner time but the rest of the time I'm really not even hungry. I just drink coffee in the morning. At dinner time I straight up chow down.
I peaked around 245 back in about 2012, lost some of that before IF mainly from cutting drinking way back, lost some more for a while after starting IF, and have been stable at around 210 for the past couple of years. It's been easy, I don't feel deprived or anything, it's just what I do. Whether it will stave off dementia remains to be seen but so far so good.