"Don't bother exercising or dieting, it's mainly genetics as to why you are fat"

This is the only valid argument based on genetics.

Watch the video dummy. It argues against meme crash diets and in favor of long term, lifestyle changes. Exactly what we say on Veeky Forums

I hate this show. So full of bullshit.

About this episode, there is irrefutable proof that you can modify your body to the way you would like it to appear through diet and exercise alone.

I loathe this smug looking nu-male.

>it's mainly genetics as to why you are fat
Why is it that everyone (except for in raaaaaaaaaaare cases) lose weight and gain muscle when they work out and eat right? Do we virtually all have the genetics for that to be the case? I guess we do, so that you, genetics.

...

Did you not even watch the episode? It literally says "rapidly losing a lot of weight makes it harder to stay thin in the long run" in the first minute. Basically, crash diets where you eat nothing but kale and drink cayenne water to lose a fuck ton of weight are bad, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE ACTIVELY TELL EVERYONE. The show goes on to explain that slow, controlled dieting is best for living a long and healthy life where you will look good. Holy shit you fucking mongoloids will believe anything somebody tells you.

>diet and exercise
>lose weight
>stop dieting and exercise
>gain weight
>wtf this shit doesn't work

"That means you would to keep exercising and dieting at this extreme rate to just maintain the weight loss "
Amazing logic, so maintenance is somehow at a heavy deficit.

It's nice to know that I've lost 15 pounds in the last two months thanks to my genetics, not from my diet and exercise.

This

Not really since PSMF is an extreme fucking diet and if you have the willpower to do it, there's literally no way to lose more pure fat as a natty (water fasting is barely faster at general weight loss but you lose a lot more muscle mass despite what the fasting shills claim).

...

I hate this modern Plebbit-style worship of "science!", which is actually cherry-picking scientific studies that support their liberal/SJW beliefs. Yes the scientific method in general is cool (but such a broad term to really quantify) but when people say yeah it's "SCIENCE!!!" that's what they mean.

"80% of the contestants we studied regained the weight"
>fat fucks that have no idea how diets work went back to their shit lifestyle after the tv show ended

Yeah but then he throws in mostly genetics

>the human body can genetically break the law of thermodynamics and store more energy than it receives

Why isn't this a big thing already? It means fatties can be used as human power generators that create much more energy than they need resources, meaning the world's energy consumption will be forever satisfied at minimal pollution and cost, compared to the current energy sources! Fatasses will FINALLY be useful for something!

and yet they argue "muh genetics" in the end. fuck adam, fuck college humor, fuck this show, fuck this doctor. fuck (((them all)))

>losing weight extremely fast is bad for you
this is true
>its not just about willpower.
Kinda true, you can't will the fat away :p
>most of the weight difference between people can be explained through genetics

I guess, if you were to study two people from birth to say, 30, making sure they eat and exercise the exact same, they will probably end up weighing different amounts regardless

>implying drinking all that regularily would make you that fat
See, genetics.

Yeah that's what I was referring to when I made this thread. It wasn't actually too bad until they started talking about genetics

>Why is it that everyone (except for in raaaaaaaaaaare cases) lose weight and gain muscle when they work out and eat right?
Roids. I'm serious.

>regularily

Part of having fit genetics is that you also have the desire to workout.

It's like being gay, if you have the "dress flamboyantly" gene that same gene makes you gay

You're the retard, in fact a double retard for jumping the gun and calling someone wrong without doing due diligence. If you're a fitness novice, know your place, but if you have to be a brainless Wikipedia-reading mouthbreather that can't tell their face from their asshole and never has seen ab vascularity of themselves in their lives. I suggest you at very least read the fucking source listed before looking like a complete high-and-mighty fool. It is from research into severely obese people with type 2 diabetes, Lyle McDonald said that PSMF is not intended for casual fatloss but for athletes that want to get into the sub-single digit bf%.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant but only thing worse than a moron is a smug moron.

>Scientific consesus is that it's genetics
who said that? The confederation of dunces?

I keked

Indeed. Water fasting not only can, but WILL cause rapid muscle wasting. Normally, body needs only a few amino acids from food, the rest is synthesized in appropriate amounts from various compounds. However, during water fasting, you don't eat essential protein needed for a massive amounts of reactions, such as synthesis and repair of body tissues. You also don't eat other food, which would at least allow the non-essentials to be formed. This leads to massive breakdown of all available muscle tissue, in order to get the necessary protein for functioning and energy from both the adipose tissue and catabolized protein.

Water fasting is probably the most retarded form of "dieting". Unless you really want to get to that dere Auschwitz mode.

Dude "body science" or whatever is the most basic, simple shit ever. If you want to lose fat, you need a consistent, yet small caloric deficit (100-200 calories, just enough so you're body knows what's happening), and have that consist primarily of carbohydrates you're cutting out. And then you add an exercise regimen that is both easy with for you to do it 4-6 times a week but also hard enough to where you're heart rate is up. Do that consistently for 6 months, and you're fine.

I haven't watched the video (he looks like ass too much and I fucking hate YT vids), but I'm guessing "extreme" is the kind of shit they make TV shows out of, where people are followed for months/a year by some hardass trainer and "miraculously" drop 100kg or more.
Reason it doesn't work is because they don't have said hardass trainer after the show's over. Typically, they not only get back to their original weight but get even fatter.

>muh thermodynamics!

The human body isn't a car, the way the human body works is a complex as fuck system of hormones. Second only to the brain, the endocrine system is the most fleeting system for science, encrinology as a science admits that we don't even grasp 50% of the complexities of the system. These are doctors, and as learned men they say we're still very far away from understanding precisely how fatloss and fatgain works. Things like growth hormone, testosterone, estrogen, thyroid hormones (T3/T4), cortisol, etc. play an enormous role in determining how your body deals with calories.

While I love to shit on fatties too, in general if you eat less calories and exercise more you will lose weight over X amount of time, but let us not give these fat apologists ammo by using wildly incorrect terminology. Okay?

this

>extreme diets dont work

no shit? Are you guys literally retarded? We all know that being extreme and eating 500 calories a day isn't going to work in the long term

But muh thermodyamics is true. While people might misjudge the calories they need at maintenance and don't lose weight as a result doesn't make this false

Also, anybody notice how the doctor says something along the lines of 'unfortunately a slim body isn't achievable to most of us' at the end?
I thought they only intended to debunk extreme diets.

Science is the new religion for uneducated people.
Being a traditionalist is the counter-culture.

You seem to employ magical thinking, not realizing hormones work within frameworks of physics and they won't create muscle mass, or fat, out of nothing. Not to mention, your huge gaps in knowledge - the answer to your questions lie in the books. "50%", you got me there to smile.

Also, the doc knows he is lying by omission. He understands full-well that crash diets aren't effective, and even says so. On the surface it seems honest, but it is disingenuous to not clarify to people who don't know how to draw conclusions from research (most of the public he knows he is reaching). The doc just lets the host imply irrelevant conclusions from his research.
What a slob. Money does talk, I guess.

I hate this fuck with his rooster haircut. Most punchable face behind the Blahino

False, it is moronic to use a term from physics that applies to engines to speak about the human body. It is an ignorant oversimplification and anyone that knows about medicine will immediately write you off as someone who says "smart sounding terms" to win an argument but doesn't understand what they mean.

If you grab 10,000 people all at different ages, level of health and fitness, sexes, some on their periods, some with freaky low bodyfat, others superobese and feed them random sources of calories (carbohydrates, proteins, transfats, saturated fats, alcohol, pure sugar, very high sodium) and at random levels of activity... they are all at a 3500 a day deficit all of them would not lose exactly a pound of weight every day, and certainly wouldn't lose pure fat the same way.

Sure most would lose "some" weight, but they'd not lose weight in the exact same way, therefore the "laws of thermodynamics" would not apply to the human body. Which would apply to say a spring or internal combustion engine, which would handle energy input and output consistently every time.

Just say "eat less, move more" not using that term smugly that doesn't apply to human beings. Don't use scientific terms if you don't understand them.

Sweet lord. I would like a citation of a high-quality paper that done an experiment like your idea.
I'll humor you one last time, since I can see you have potential, but hinge on completely erroneous conclusions:
1. Random sources of calories, including high sodium
This would make the experiment without meaning. High sodium intake causes increased water retention. That would falsify the weight loss results. Just by feeding everyone a random diet, with varying amounts of sodium, among other things, we would not be able to get consistent data. Same with random amounts of exercise - what exactly such a study would show? That random conditions lead to random results? You completely don't understand the scientific method.
However, if we put them all at the same caloric deficit and diet, they would all start losing weight - the more they weigh, the bigger difference.

I thought the biggest loser kinda debunked itself after the winners returned to whale mode.

>they are all at a 3500
Wrong. They will lose the same weight if they are at the same deficit. But it is imposible to mesure it, because of all the biological aspects of the body, you cant have 100% knowledge of thier basal metabolic rate.
We are a thermic engine, but a very complex one, laws of thermodinamics still apply to us.

You make a lot of assumptions which make your post meaningless. First you assume that the weight lost is not pure fat, but also includes water and muscle. That's not the object of interest, and anyone on a reasonable deficit will maintain muscle mass to a reasonable degree. Water isn't even worth addressing. Second, you assume that our methods for measurement are prefect, but in reality it's just an estimation. We don't breathe or piss or shit out a significant number of calories, so we can say everything ingested is used. Because of this, we can treat the body as an engine, but to do so would require constant monitoring of output which is not reasonable. Still, calories eaten don't disappear, and if a person generates 3500 calories of heat and lost 100% fat, then we can treat weight loss as quantifiable.

Not him, but you US nerds are stupid as fuck.

If calories in/out was all there is to it, we'd all bulk on gasoline and coal.

We don't because we know we cannot digest this. Well, some can digest it partially. Most can't at all.

It's the same with food.

It literally does not matter how many calories you eat (and if you idiots knew how calories are measured, you'd laugh and bite your own as sbecause you were so stupid. Hint: It has to do with mouse turds). I repeat: It literally does not matter how many calories you eat .

HOWEVER, what your body does with the calories you eat - that matters. Can he metabolize 90%? 30% 50% Can he make sugars and fat out of iceberg salad (some people can, actually)? THAT is what matters. You can eat 10,000 calories a day, but with chronic diarrhea, you will still lose weight.

THAT is reality. And it's individually different for everyone.

And he's also right, Thermodynamics don't apply to the complicated system of failsafes and redudancies we have in our bodies.

engines just like the human body run at different efficiencies. Calories out doesnt just mean exercise it means shitting them out as well.

Calories in calories out IS TRUE and always will be. But you have to find the efficiency of your body to digest different calories IE protein carbs fat.

>start video, prepared to rage
>actually reasonable opinion about extreme weightloss supported by the limited evidence that is available
huh, seems like this is not that retarded after a-
>expert: "also, weight is caused by muh genetics"
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

It must be hard to have the attention span of a five year old. Had you watched the video till the end, you would have noticed that he says that weight is mostly determined by genetics, and that therefore becoming thin is not a realistic or achievable goal for all of us.

Indeed this.

The calories in food is labeled on the package or available online you stupid fuck. Nobody considers indigestible matter in the food because it's intended for nutrition not combustion.

Think whatever you want about that other poster's arguments, but he is correct in saying that muh thermodynamics is an oversimplification, and that repeating it over and over makes us look stupid. The problem with it is that it comes with the hidden assumption that BMR is only determined by your height and weight, even though extremely fast weight loss can bring a person's BMR significantly below the average for their height and weight.

Your entire post relies on the false assumption that there is a significant difference between individuals in how many calories from their food they can metabolize. Hint: there isn't, unless they have some disease. The calories on the package are calculated by summing the calories in macros that you can actually metabolize, so coal, petrol, and uranium would all be labelled as containing 0 calories, even though they technically contain a ton of energy.

>Genetics

Right. Maybe it's got something to do with half of the western world not being able to afford decent quality food. Or maybe because people are just lazy and don't seek out good food or make good meals. Or people are poorly educated in a world that offers them things they should say no to.

From my experience though, for the most part, laziness and convenience (which is the same thing)

>not being able to afford decent quality food
You can lose weight on McDonalds, faggot. These people aren't getting obese on chicken breast. It's cake and extra large extra high calorie coffees.

I've seen a lot of people with punchable faces, but this is the first one with a punchable haircut.

You're a fucking idiot, please stop continuing this retarded argument.

Thermodynamics absolutely do apply to the human body. Obviously it's more complicated than an engine, (calories in/calories out has always been an extreme simplification of the process), but that doesn't make it any less applicable.

>You can eat 10,000 calories a day, but with chronic diarrhea, you will still lose weight.
No fucking kidding. Chronic diarrhea contributes to the calories you expel. Barring outside factors (i.e. diseases), people generally metabolize food at similar rates. You will never find two normal people and observe one of them losing weight by eating 1,000 calories and another losing weight by eating 10,000.

I think it's because many people hold the belief that you need to exercise or go on a strict diet to lose weight, which isn't true.

>of course you can loose weight
>but as soon as you get back to your regular diet you´ll gain it back
That is a sign of overeating, if you don´t overeat, you don´t gain weight.
One of the most important parts of getting in shape is changing your eating habbits permanently.

You can lose weight at McDonald's, you'd just need to eat less than you'd want to eat there. Faggot.

Yes, you don't need to go in a strict diet to lose weight either.

To lose weight either way takes self control. When you're eating shit that keeps you feeling hungry and aren't considering our aren't educated enough on how much to eat then you'll do it wrong.

Fucking genetics. Are you seriously trying to sell the case that the human race has changed genetically so much over the past 40 years that we're all just going to end up fat? Go visit the rest of the world and see that the fat people are where there is an intent to make the population feel wealthy, everyone gets more of everything but you don't get that shit for free. You either pay more or you reduce the quality. Guess what, you feel wealthy because you don't have to pay too much for shit tier produce.

I hate "extreme diets". Weight loss is about changing your lifestyle.

But you don't have to continue a diet forever to keep the weight off. If you eat 1500 kcal a day and do no exercise, your body will over time gravitate to the body of someone whose maintenance is 1500 a day. You don't want to be a skelly, so you stop shortly beforehand when you're just slim, and start eating 2000 a day.

Also, how much of the "metabolism slowing" is down to muscular atrophy? I'd guess a lot, metabolism is mostly a meme.

>Also, how much of the "metabolism slowing" is down to muscular atrophy? I'd guess a lot, metabolism is mostly a meme.
Not much, considering metabolic decrease due to muscular atrophy is a meme, plus they exercised heavily during the weight loss. The metabolic slowdown was pretty significant too, not just something like ~50 kcal/day.

...

damn dude, no need to kill the poor guy

What if someone does extreme low calorie weight loss and then wills themselves to maintain a healthy nutritious diet without going back to previous eating habits? Has anyone done this?

I wish someone would nuke the US. Like. The whole thing.

Because people look for affirmation that they are fine and people will straight up lie to give them that affirmation for clicks (or votes).

>beginning of time to 1950: humans are all relatively the same weight
>1950 - 2017: Americans with a high-calorie diet and sedentary lifestyle suddenly become obese.
>implying that Americans genetically "evolved" into fat-asses over a mere 70-year period
>implying the cause wasn't sodie-pop

Really activates those fructose-burning metabolic pathways.

>HFCS
I only drink shit like that when doing excessive endurance sports and need that energy ASAP.

Who the fuck actually enjoys watching this show? Is being lectured by this douche for a half hour really entertaining?

>Scientific consesus
science isn't about consensus, but thats another argument

Slow diet is less about metabolic down regulation and more about forming healthy eating and fitness habits. You can loose weight faster than you can form good habits.

God this has got to be the most reddit show out there. From the smug "I told you so" and "Haha I'm epic and really really smart guys" expression, to the faggot hair cut, this show caters to all those mouth breathers in class who would try to convince his classmates he was smart by spewing out what he heard on his "I Fucking Love Science!" Facebook page. Everyone on the show is just a strawman to make him sound smart, with the "You can't handle how real he is" attitude.

Pic very much related

As a former fatty who sorted myself out I guess I'm a one of a kind genetic marvel. Someone get ripleys believe it or not on the phone.

Oh wow crash dieting does not work.

>watching impractical jokers
>commercials for this faggots show come on during every break

Fuck this douche bag. Dressing like a dork and spitting out dumb hot takes is a terrible show idea and will get him off the air soon enough

His study was more about crash dieting than about gradual dieting and exercise. If you lose the weight over a long period of time your metabolism will keep up. His main point was that your metabolism slows down when you crash diet so you'll rebound hard.

>sample size of 14

My brain is so fucking big

People regain weight because they get back to old habits. This is
>scientists suggest builders are only strong because their muscle mass
level statement.

Even people with hasimotos disease can lose weight. People are lazy and full of shit.

You're a fuckin idiot m8

>genetics of people suddenly changed when the 1970 health guidelines came out and everyone went low fat high carb

my almond sense is tingling

>Calories out doesnt just mean exercise it means shitting them out as well.

He thinks you shit out your calories

You breathe them out you fucking moron.

...

You can't, you literally CANNOT run at a caloric deficit and gain or maintain weight.

People's bodies DO operate at different metabolic rates, and people DO receive more or less calories when ingesting food, but that's not because some people have a bad metabolism, that's because some people have a MORE EFFICIENT metabolism.

That's right the people who get a larger % of calories out of food actually have the good metabolism, and the people who can't properly digest their food and stay thinner are the ones with a "bad metabolism"

There is NO such thing as losing or maintaining weight on a caloric deficit, it's physically impossible.

water

tbf it does say "extreme diets". if you've ever tried cutting on super low calories

This guy adam is a moron POS garbage.
He ruins everything with misinformation and is not in touch with reality.

what's with these genetics spreading so rampantly?

Genetics is correct, whether you're athletic or beautiful or not is 100% genetic. Everyone can lose weight, but you're most likely just going to end up a slightly smaller tub of shit than the tub of shit you were before, with an underdeveloped low T pheno and maxillary recession. Might as well be fat Tbh Tbh

Stronk genes

those are some strange looking biggots.

Agree with all you said except
>Bad metabolism vs good
Bad and good are arbitrary
up until the last 100 years holding on to more calories was good.
Today with all the heart attacks I'd call it bad
Lastly since no one has said this
Yes there is a huge difference between a 20 year old male athelete and a 50 year old obese woman past menopause.
BUT
If either individual eats below maintenance calories they WILL lose weight