Jump to content
Can't remember your login details? Read more... ×


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Serf

About mudg3

  • Rank
  • Birthday 11/01/1990

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    If you want it PM me.
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Brisbane QLD
  1. mudg3

    BF4 + BF3 Q

    They are really heavy and way to arcade. Its a shame that they've done this but they also ruined the attack chopper too.
  2. mudg3

    BRIS: BBQ meat

    hes on facebook 24/7 stalking Overclockers and posts on OCAU as well.
  3. mudg3

    Google Nexus 5

    I'll wait for updates then before thinking about it. I want a 1/2 decent camera and the N4 fails badly when it comes to pictures.
  4. mudg3

    Google Nexus 5

    I wish google would learn to care about their camera's, Camera is shit on my nexus 4 and it seems terrible on this too.
  5. mudg3

    And What Are You Listening To?

    dat backing track.
  6. mudg3


    Yep. I had my most success with a GO-MAD diet (gallon of milk a day), and the least success with Atkins, because I hate the taste of red meat. This is a joke right? You didn't do GO-MAD to lose weight did you?
  7. mudg3


    No, not a word. I don't need to. The longest point and second longest post in this thread respectively are someones explanation of the mechanics of something you called simple, and your response to their explanation. You've made my point for me. It's not as simple as your ego needs it to be. If you read anything even what @~thehung posted you'll see he posted about 80 words and then proceeded to link to studies to reinforce his opinion which I then proceeded to attempt to refute. What does my ego have to do with anything? You've posted nothing on substance in this entire thread. All you are doing is making yourself look silly.
  8. mudg3


    Lel your pretty smart m8 , sum sick bait there. You clearly didn't read anything because I come back to the same point over and over balanced diet and required amount of calories needed to stay at current mass, less if you want to lose weight, more if you want to gain weight. This is coming from the guy who said Soylent which requires "clean drinking water" thought it would have some effect on world hunger. How many 3rd world countries do you know have huge amounts of clean drinking water? They made it easy by making something called the the food pyramid. You remember that from Primary school? That's the basis for a healthy balanced diet. Super simple stuff. @MS I'll add you on steam and talk to you tonight or when ever you want You listed eating " 900-1200cal" a day and at your body weight that's fucked up. My girlfriend cutting at 55kgs eats that to lose weight. But I'll talk to you in private about it.
  9. mudg3


    I read read what I wrote a few times and I still think I sound pretty reasonable except when I talked about saving starving people. Its true they have stuck a bunch of people in labs and they have identified genes that can effect weight lose and weight gains but once again if only effects sub 1% of the general population and the carlic difference in their diets still wasn't massive. I'm not cycling nor am I taking any amphetamines but I'm fully aware of the effects of many PEDS positive and negative and seen the effects. I'm also aware of the Anorectic effects that amphetamine's has though you'd be better of doing ephedrine (if you can get it) though because you wont end up hanging off the walls. I'm not going to lie not everyone has it easy. Some people’s bodies are, in fact, demonstrably more resistant to weight loss (or gain) than others. Not that they can’t lose (or gain) weight but it comes off or on more slowly. More accurately, their bodies fight back a little harder then everyone elses these individuals brains perceive changes in caloric intake which determines how their brains react to those changes. Some people’s bodies simply increase metabolic rate more quickly (or drop it more quickly) in response to increased or decreased calories. You can see similar variations in terms of what’s lost during dieting; given the same diet and exercise program, some people will lose a lot more muscle than another. So there is no doubt that there are individual differences and efficiencies between people, I'd be crazy to ignore that but the difference is not huge. But that doesn't change the fundamental rules of thermodynamics which apply to everybody and everything. Given 100 calories, the most you can store is 100 calories. Sure, one person may only store 75, while another stores all 100, but 100 is still the maximum. It’s a physiological impossibility to store more than you actually ate because you can’t make something out of nothing. You can’t store 500 calories if you only ate 300. Metabolic rate does vary, and technically there could be large variance. However, statistically speaking it is unlikely the variance would apply to many people.The majority of the population exists in a range of 200-300kcal from each other and do not possess hugely different metabolic rates. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15534426 Those are your words not mine I don't have a hate for fat people at all. I do wonder why the 160kg lady at work though complains about how hard it is to lose weight but consumes close to 3500 calories or more at work alone. Key words there being "a lot" you can exercise more and not get fitter if you have no idea what you are doing or you are not excising correctly. Even if you are grossly overweight or just someone that does nothing If you are out there "exercising a lot more and doing it correctly" You are going to be having a positive effect on your body whether that be cardio vascular health or utilizing just parts of your body that you normally wouldn't Its not how it works I know you've linked to to a great study which I totally agree with but I cannot see where said study said that. If these people were eating less then their total daily requirement to keep said amount of mass then they would no longer be able to maintain that mass your body would be forced to eat away at said mass to continue to function resulting in weight lose. So when a 130kg individual, who probably has a maintenance intake of 4000+ calories, says that they gained weight on 1400 calories I have to be cautious of how true that is. Either they are that 1 in 100,000 person with a metabolic rate below 1400 at that body weight or they aren't being accurate in how much food they are eating or how many calories they are burning each day. As I've already stated they are probably just bad at estimating their caloric intake and expenditure. We've known this for years now and it was reinforced with this study. I'm not sure what point you are trying to get across linking to this. Of course it makes a difference. You cant just eat potato gems and expect to be able to function healthily. We know that different macro nutrients are handled a little bit differently from one another so it’s not simply calories but if you have a balanced deit with the required macros and you hit that deficit you are going to lose weight. I don't disagree with it. Their conclusion says all you need to know. We know different food groups can have different effects on metabolism but once again that's why its recommend to have a balanced diet Those gains of 1.5lbs per year could also be related with an decrease in RMR when people get older, RMR decreases slightly. Some of this decrease is simply an effect of losing lean body mass but some of it probably represents a general slowing down of bodily functions once again if you are eating over that caloric need you are going to gain weight as your RMR goes down as you age so does your need for energy. Someone with a low relative metabolic rate which can accompany other problems like regulating hunger and appetite) is going to be predisposed to obesity if they are given a typical calorie dense high energy diet available to most people in the developed world. As well, given the same type of fat loss diet, they aren't going to lose as quickly. Either they will have to cut calories more, do more activity (i.e. exercise), or simply accept a slower rate of weight/fat loss. I'm aware of the thermic effect of food and I know different nutrients have different individual TEF’s Protein has the highest, to the tune of 20-30%. Meaning that of the total protein calories you eat, 20-30% is lost in processing. Carbohydrate stored as glycogen requires about 5-6% of the total calories. Carbohydrate converted to fat uses up ~20% of the total calories as TEF. Most fats have a tiny TEF because they can be stored as fat in fat cells with minimal processing If you consume 3000 calories per day of a relatively ‘normal’ mixed diet, you can assume that your TEF is about 300 calories per day or so. You also generally find that, with the exception of extreme diets (such as all protein), shuffling macro nutrients has a pretty minimal overall impact on metabolic rate via TEF. You really cant blame specific food groups for weight issues you can blame eating over eating over your total daily requirements for that. I agree with that people do react differently to different things but overall the difference between us is negligible when you think about it in food terms. If the difference in metabolic rate is for most people is 200-300 calories then that's just a single pop tart In some severe cases it can be up to 600 calories difference and for some of us that's an entire meal. But regardless of that the rules still apply. Some of us are more efficient then others but once again the difference not big enough that one cant change their eating habits enough to fix that. If they are putting in the time and effort to fix their diet and their exercise regime and not seeing results then something in that equation is wrong.
  10. mudg3


    You can’t beat thermodynamics anymore than anything else in the universe. You are not different. You can’t gain body mass unless your energy intake exceeds your energy output because you can’t make something out of nothing (muscle or fat). And you can’t lose body mass unless your energy intake is less than your energy output. These are rules that every system in the universe has to follow, including the human body. If this was the case Nich we would have stuck these special snowflakes in a lab and studied them so we don't have to eat as much to maintain our mass shit think of all the starving people we could have saved by now if that was the case also I'd love not to eat 3000 calories a day to gain weight but that's a 500 calorie surplus over my current TDE with my training and living My guess? Most people suck at counting calories. just a realization that 99.9% of the time people "can't lose weight" - it's because they're eating more than they think they are. Also talking about Soylent. Its a glorified jenny Craig shake made by hacker news with a bunch of multivitamins crushed up into it. Shit the creator intentionally induced overdoses of potassium and magnesium gave himself cardiac arrhythmia , suffered from burning sensations and suffered from sever joint pain. I think its a cool idea but its nothing cutting edge or special. And for those thinking about its applications in the 3rd world. Plumpy'nut already exists and its ridiculously cheap compared to Soylent in its current form and it does not require clean drinking water to eat as it comes in a paste like bar form. Its also fucking tasty.
  11. mudg3


    Where did I say that?
  12. mudg3


    I honestly think that's an excuse man I can totally understand that eating fresh food can be more expensive but really only if you eat a lot of red meats. Fruit and veggies are pretty cheap as are the other necessity. How do they price gouge healthy options & how often do you "have" to eat out? Some people do have freakish body but its not even 1% of the population that has thyroid issues and when they do the effects to BMR are not huge from papers I've read its like 200-500 calories. Some people can most definitely have weight issues due to certain medications they take and other health issue but these are generally life threatening. Whats your weight? Whats your routine when you go the gym? Are you sure its 1500-1700 calories a day? Are you weighing food or just guessing? Off the shelf fat burners are just marketed crap for the most part the most active ingredient here in Australia now that most things are banned is caffeine. You'd be better off just doing a stack instead of buying that crap. What do you mean by blood work going to shit? Shes right if you are actually eating 1500-1700 calories a day its a bit on the low side for a male of your size if I remember what you looked like when I met you those 2 times. You dont need to ignore food to be healthy. You just need to understand it and how your body processes said food.Its not the markets fault they've responded to a want from their customers. I dont want to be rude but I hear that exact speech all the time. "Im just to busy" or "I'm a special snow flake" yet some how these same people manage to sit on their computers all night or manage to find that hard time to be doing other crap. Health is just not a priority for most people until its too late. If you want to take it to PM thats cool too.
  13. mudg3


    Yep you are totally right. I'd say that education is the biggest factor by far. I was out having lunch with an old work friend just yesterday and the topic of health and fitness came up in conversation. He mentioned that he was overweight and wanted to change it but didn't know where to start he knew he was eating the wrong foods but with 3 kids under 5 he just thought it would be too hard. I pretty much asked him " Do you want to see your kids get married and have their own kids?" he said "of course I do" and I promptly replied "well what are you doing about it?" As of today I've got him keeping a food dairy for the next few weeks with what he eats and the calories said food contains and the time that hes eating. Once we've got that we can establish whats wrong and just change it. We can figure out his TDE and BMR easily and just subtract 500 calories from his maintenance and we have weight lose. To visualize that 500 calories its 2 subway cookies. Imagine eating 2 less subways cookies a day and leading a healthy life with 2 hour of dedicated exercise a week. My room mate is down from 145kgs to 85 in 16months just by doing some simple math. Its not hard it just requires a little effort.
  14. mudg3


    You are implying thats hard. If it were easy, we wouldn't be in the middle of an obesity crisis. I think that it's a worthwhile concept. The execution is still under evaluation. You cannot be serious. We are in the middle of an obesity crisis because More food is prepared away from home. The overall cost of food has gone down. Energy-dense foods and drinks are more available and cheap. Portion sizes have dramatically increased. The use of cars has increased. Marketing of energy-dense foods and drinks has increased. The number of two-income families has increased. This means more money to spend on food both people are tired and cant be bothered making a healthy choice The role of physical education in the school curriculum has reduced. Education is the biggest factor armed with a little bit of knowledge on how the body works is all you need to keep an eye on your diet. For most people it just comes down to routine and being inherently lazy. To say its hard to manage your diet is laughable and to use it as an excuse is even funnier. Lets blame everything else except for the person putting the food in their mouths.
  15. mudg3


    Yep just add water which you'd hope they have plenty of.