************Weight lose pros come in...HELP NEEDED!!!***********

[1cleanm6]

wow cmon guys quit it out everyone get along....everyone(markoni and bobby) just do whatever works for you and stop trying to argue. Itll never end..

However markoni veggies and fruits are carb based bro, however the sugar in fruits is ok because its natural sugars, flucose...

Anyways great news guys i have officially broken my 228 barrier which is where i was last time around....

Ate some sushi yesterday and it felt amazing omg hadnt touched it since this diet... However its ok...

Also guys one thing i really recommend which is so true is take the diet slow and steady...for those looking to lose 30 pounds or more....

Yesterday i played some one on one ball with the guys and let me tell you it was a great cardio workout...+30 mins of cardio at the gym

Guys feelings the best ive ever felt for a long time, im about 20 pounds down from nov and i swear i have more energy to do things, more motivated, more concentrated and feeling a lot more positive about things...its just a great feeling...also less lazY

I still have about 26 pounds to go til i reach my goal....

and now that im sure that one day my scale was acting up, the diet i posted really does work with cardio and such..so feel free to use it...

cheers...

[1cleanm6]

chek the sig...lol

[JOYRIIDE1113]

I wanna see pics of all the experts here. Interesting to see who we're getting advice from.

I'm friends with Grave so I can vouch that he practice what he preaches but what about everyone else?

Nothing worse than a fat personal trainer/nutritionist.

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by JOYRIIDE1113

I wanna see pics of all the experts here. Interesting to see who we're getting advice from.

I'm friends with Grave so I can vouch that he practice what he preaches but what about everyone else?

Nothing worse than a fat personal trainer/nutritionist.

I suggest reading this. Its a quote from another member on another board.

You know what, I'm really really sick of hearing "Why aren't you big and ripped if you know so much?" or "Why haven't you competed if you really know what you're talking about." People who ask these questions are not sincerely looking for an answer, but are using them rhetorically to suggest that you must not know a damn thing. They then turn into masters of philosophical fallacy when they defend their point. Since I have a minor in logic and a degree in philosophy, I read what they have to say in a different light, or logos. Yeah, it's this little thing called logic. So, to get a load off my chest, you want an answer to these questions? Really? Well here you go...

Let's start with the punch line; you're committing the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent." You are assuming that "being big and ripped" means "knowing your stuff." I'm sorry, but it does NOT then logically follow from this premise that "knowing your stuff" always means "being big and ripped." That's a fallacy. For example, consider that if it's raining THEN the ground is wet. From here, it does NOT logically follow that if the ground is wet THEN it is raining. Why? Because any other number of things could have made the ground wet. In the instant case, any other number of things could make it so that someone who "knows his stuff" is not "big and ripped." Like what, you ask?

First, perhaps the person who "knows his stuff" simply does not want to apply the knowledge to himself, for whatever reason. It's really not that hard to think of some: e.g., he thinks it's vain, unhealthy, or he wants to be attractive to the girls who go for the pale scrawny guys, etc. He knows it, but does NOT apply it. Think of a doctor highly skilled in euthanasia. Just because he isn't dead does not mean he doesn't know how to painlessly kill a patient.

Second, very often the person who "knows his stuff" is IN THE PROCESS of applying that knowledge to himself. Certainly, you don't put on 60 lbs of muscle the moment you know the principles of hypertrophy. Similarly, you don't drop to 3% body fat the moment you know how to trigger fat loss. Just because you know how to build a Troy Horse doesn't mean you've finished the one you're working on in your backyard. Surely, once you "know your stuff," and choose to apply it, you still have to do the applying, and that takes time... often A LOT of time if you're training natural.

This leads me to my next point. I seriously question the premise from which you make the logical fallacy in the first place, which is that "being big and ripped" means "knowing your stuff." And this for two main reasons:

1) Many who excel easily and naturally at bodybuilding never have to really analyze what they're doing; something true of many sports stars. These are the "easy gainers," the mesomorphs, the ones who have genes that lend to building muscle in any of a wide range of conditions, almost despite the conditions. These are they who don't have to understand how things work exactly or optimally to still have some success. On the other hand, those who are regular, those who are hard-gainers, those who are endomorphs, HAVE to take a deep look at WHY muscle grows or WHY fat is lost. That's because if they don't know how to get it just right, if they do what's working only for the genetically elite, they WILL NOT have success. They really have to examine, know, and apply "to a T" to be proficient. The result: they know more than the elite, but don't have the success of the elite, at least not until they are finally done applying their knowledge, which takes longer than for the elite. Note here that being "genetically elite" has nothing to do with knowledge.

2) The other reason "being big and ripped" does NOT always mean "knowing your stuff" is because those who are the "largest and most ripped" get to such a state because of large doses of many powerful drugs. Drugs can easily cover up for a lack of knowledge. Take for example the study showing that even low-dose testosterone administration built more muscle, without training, than naturals who were giving it their all in the gym. Any decent training or nutrition while on such drugs is more correctly thought of as just coaxing the inevitable growth along. Not surprisingly, those who know very little, and consequently grew very little as a natural, are the ones who would be most attracted to try AAS for a solution, and a solution it is, even without knowing why or how to train or eat or supplement naturally. Of course, many knowledgeable people use drugs and get "big and ripped" as well, but knowledge here is hardly required when such powerful drugs are involved. Unless you're talking about how to make the injection, that is.

So, all in all, 1) your deduction that "knowing your stuff" always means "being big and ripped" fails because it "affirms the consequent." It is not properly a “deduction” but a “fallacy.” Knowing, per se, neither entails application of that knowledge nor completion of that application. And 2) you’re committing that logical fallacy on a false premise to begin with (which means you really suck at arguing, arguing logically at any rate; fallacies are known to be very persuasive). In other words, you got it wrong because "being big and ripped" does not entail "knowing your stuff" in the first place (though I'm not saying that it precludes it!). And this because of at least two very real things in our world: the genetically elite and powerful drugs. Here, knowledge is not the force behind the work, but genes and drugs, respectively.

So, to finish, let me say that not only are YOU not "big and ripped," but you're a logical moron as well. I shouldn't believe otherwise until you're in the Olympia, right?

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by markoni

I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about, and unlike you smartasses I actually live it. So let's drop all the arguing and actually put our words to the test. Tell me what you dead/bench/and squat, tell me your 40 time, tell me your vertical, and tell me your % bodyfat. Since you guys are such experts, you should be head and shoulders above everyone. So speak up, let's hear about those real world results.

I agree. You do sound very knowledgeable.

On the other hand, members like Bobby Light and Suareezay have posted studies and research findings that contradict what you have said. You make good arguments, but post nothing to substantiate your claims. Some members may be more persuaded by research and actual data than anecdotal evidence. You should post something to back up your claims so less informed readers, such as myself, can make more informed decisions.

Also, lift totals in the big 3, 40 times, vertical, and bodyfat % sound like very good measures of diet and training knowledge.

On the other hand, naysayers might make the argument that genetics and other factors outside of one's control could play a larger role in these performance measures. For example, a young black athlete who is naturally strong, fast, and lean, but doesnt understand basic concepts like the differences between protein and carbohydrates would not be a better source of information than a less-genetically gifted, white, sport & exercise science Ph.D. What would be your response to those naysayers?

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Boosted335

However markoni veggies and fruits are carb based bro, however the sugar in fruits is ok because its natural sugars, flucose...

I think you mean fructose.

And fruits are generally composed of varying ratios of fructose:glucose.

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Markoni

I trust studies about as much as I trust politicians. For any issue under the sun I can find you studies that both support and contradict it. Scientists are paid to push products, not to find the truth. Seriously, who do you think is willing to bankroll some egghead to find the truth? People spend money to make money. They don't do it for some grand good of the human race.

If you want studies you can trust, carry them on yourself. That's what I've done. I take from experience. Why would I believe some corporate shill over my own experience?

So you dont trust science and research? Seems like its led to some pretty cool discoveries over the past few hundred years or so.

To say that all research is performed simply to fulfill someone else's corporate agenda seems a little tin-hatish, no?

Originally Posted by markoni

I'm not selling anything so I don't really feel there's a point in me taking time and effort to dig up studies and whatnot just to convince some guys on an internet forum that I'm right. What I say I say honestly and out of good faith. People can either accept it or deny it. It's their choice.

But when people make baseless claims, that leads to misinformation. If anyone could just say whatever they wanted, and no one would be able to determine fact from fiction.

Originally Posted by Markoni

Well, I don't really think that is a proper measure of how good someone's training or diet plan is. There are so many factors that play a part in all of it that it would be impossible to discern what is a result of diet/training and what is the result of numerous other variables.

then why mention it at all if its not a reliable measure?

Originally Posted by markoni

I did however say it because I know a lot of those bashing my methods are just armchair fitness experts who talk the talk but don't walk the talk. You can't bash what I say unless you've tried it, given it a chance, and have concluded that it doesn't work.

What if myself and numerous others have tried these methods and found them to be less than optimal? What if research has also found these methods to be bunk?

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Markoni

You're contradicting yourself. You're asking me to back up my claims with research, yet research has no claims to back it up. Scientists take stuff and spin it. One scientist says Eskimos are healthy, the other says they're the unhealthiest people in all of North America. Which one is right? (I'm using an actual example here).

I am not contradicting myself. Research findings are self supporting. When X is observed multiple times under controlled conditions, X is taken as true. Simply making a statement is not self supporting.

Originally Posted by markoni

You also haven't answered my question. Who bankrolls scientists and why? I'm not gullible enough to believe whatever a scientist says just because he's a scientist. What is he trying to prove? Why is he trying to prove it? And who is paying him to prove it? Those are questions you have to answer for yourself before you just believe whatever he says.

Thats funny. You seem to have selective memory when it comes to evading questions.

As for funding. It comes from a variety of sources, and of course not all research is reliable, but its not hard for some to determine which studies have been properly conducted, controlled and evaluated, and which ones havent. If a single study funded by a tobacco company or sources known to have ties to that company publishes findings contradictory to most other studies, then that study probably isnt very reliable, and wont be given any weight in the labcoat community.

On the other hand, if multiple, well-conducted, unrelated, studies on something such as, oh lets say the safety of ephedrine hcl for example, are in agreement, you can generally conclude that those findings are accurate and you could use those reference sources.

Originally Posted by markoni

You're also saying that I'm making baseless claims. What better base could I possibly have than PERSONAL EXPERIENCE? I know it because I've tried it. Isn't that what a scientist does? Takes a claim and tries it? So what differentiates me from a scientist? Is it that I'm not getting paid while he/she is? Or is it just that I don't wear a white lab coat?

You cannot on the other hand, cite as a reference source the anecdotal evidence of a single person. Your own real world 'experiment' is not conducted and repeated in a controlled environment, and any number of factors other than those under consideration could be responsible for your results. This is even more true when your 'results' are in contradiction to established research. What you basically would be saying is that, 'im special and unique and science doesnt apply to me.'

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Markoni

Wow, do you know WTF "PERSONAL EXPERIENCE" means? It's not "simply making a statement." Simply making a statement would be if I said "Blacks all have curly pubes." Have I ever even seen a black person's pubes? No. If, however, I said "My pubes aren't curly" that's not just pulling a statement out of my ass, it's OBSERVATION & EXPERIENCE.

So tell me, how is a scientist checking out my pubes in a laboratory "self-supporting" yet me checking out my own pubes is "simply making a statement"? Get off Science's nuts.

your example is so utterly irrelevant i dont even know how to address it. you have completely missed the point.

'personal experience' of a single person is an n=1 situation. the sample size is 1. regardless of what is experienced in 1 person, it is statistically insignificant. it has no bearing on anything. if the same is observed in 2 people, the statistical significance has increased, but it still does not carry much weight. if the same is observed in 100 people, then that is what is considered statistically significant. the results can be attributed to the factor under consideration. the better the study is controlled and conducted, the more telling the study is.

a single person (i.e., you) claiming that they know what works 'for them' is irrelevant. there is no control. and the placebo effect is a powerful phenomenon. in this situation, a person could attribute a certain effect with the wrong cause. a person could be convinced that taking 1 asprin per day has caused them to lose weight, when in reality it is due to a lower calorie intake due to high stress, or maybe because they started using a push mower instead of paying a landscaper, or their wive started cooking healthier food, etc.

this is why personal experience holds no weight.

Originally Posted by markoni

Who the fuck pays someone to study the effects of Ephedrine? Let me guess, some super-rich old man is laying there on his death bed and he says to his lawyer who's sitting by his side "Incorporate $20 million into my will to help find out the effects of Ephedrine. The World deserves to know. I've been blessed with so much in my life. This is my way to give back."

I mean, seriously, do you think about the bullshit you say or are you such a science geek that you can't think objectively? NO ONE funds Ephedrine research other than those who make Ephedrine and those who make rival products. It's not in their interest to find the truth. It's in their interest to drum up claims that support their interest. Seriously, do you live in the real world, or do you still leave cookies out for Santa come Christmastime?

ill have an answer for you shortly (i really will).

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by damadama

I think the moral of the story is Markoni knows everything and anyone that disagrees with him is effing retarded. Honestly, asking ppl for their lift numbers, 40' and vertical has absolutely nothing to do with how well someone knows how to train. You can certainly improve these numbers, but there were kids in highschool with higher bench/squats than I will ever physically be capable of, so these comparisons are fucking pointless. Ontop of that, I, and most other people on this forum have desk jobs, we are not athletes we just want to stay healthy.

that is essentially the gist of it.

there are people that dont even workout or follow any type of a diet that are more muscular, leaner, and stronger than I or most people will ever be.

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Markoni

I await your answer. Seems to me you're a science geek who's uncomfortable with the fact that the only line of work available to you is being a corporate shill. You're little "n=1" lessons are funny to me. You speak it like it were the gospel truth. I guess you're blind to the fact that all those criteria which you adhere to were thought up by some egghead like you.

answer comming shortly.

its interesting that we have arrived at the point in the discussion where the one losing and being called out on just about every statement resorts to irrelevant ad hominems.

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Markoni

How am I losing? Oh, you mean in this pointless internet argument? Alright, if you say so. I thought you meant that me being fitter, healthier, stronger, and better in almost every physical way was somehow "losing". You must be great on dates when you're eating dinner with a chick and bust out the calorie calculator to see how many bites of your food you're allowed. Must drive them wild with animal seduction.

you are incredible at just saying whatever sounds good to without basing anything in reality, arent you?

also, not very astute.

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Markoni

Seeing as how you're just acting stupid and avoiding my question, I'm sure it's safe to say that you're just some pre-med nerd with no real world fitness experience whatsoever. That's cool, though. Some people are ponderers, some are doers. Some people live life and base their knowledge on experience, others read studies performed by equally inexperienced eggheads and dream of not being beaten up when they go outside. To each their own.

which question are you referring to? how you are losing this argument? this is how:

you make a baseless, nonsense, made-up claim, i post evidence to counter it. you then proceed to ignore every instance of this, make up some other bullshit and throw ad hominems around.

try re-reading the threads we are posting in. that should be enough of an answer for you. although, your reading comprehension is obviously severely lacking, so that probably wouldnt help.

[UncleJesse]

speaking of completely avoiding questions though, this guy brought up multiple points that you conveniently ignored

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...3&postcount=85

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...7&postcount=50

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Markoni

Jesse,

What evidence have you provided? You've posted a bunch of bullshit studies that say nothing. I know Science is your god but that doesn't mean I accept it as naively as you do.

bullshit according to who? yourself? i was unaware you were the foremost authority on reviewing scientific studies. the entire scientific community bases their work on studies, but some clueless bro on the internet calls them bullshit. bwahahahahaha.

what other kind of evidence would you prefer? i dont subscribe to your imaginary 'whatever i say goes' theory, so thats out. anecdotal evidence is meaningless. what else is there?

Do you dispute the fact that less than 50 years ago studies came out that said smoking is actually GOOD for you? How do you reconcile that with the fact that today's studies show that it's horrible for you? The studies you posted are bullshit. They're just intellectual masturbation for the elitist set like yourself who prefer to stroke each other on the back instead of living life and experiencing for yourself.

yea, cigarettes were marketed as a being healthy for you, so what? new research comes out all the time. so what? this is irrelevant.

what qualifies the studies i posted as 'bullshit'? please elaborate.

I've asked you plenty of times, what fitness experience do YOU have? I'm not looking for bullshit studies to hide the fact that you're a skinny pre-med jerk-off who's never lifted a weight in his life. I'm looking for YOUR EXPERIENCE. What have YOU done? What are YOUR eating habits and YOUR results?

your asking for my personal anecdotal evidence? you dont get it. i could make up any numbers to make myself sound convincing. this issue is pointless.

ive made consistent progress. thats your answer.

Stop being a snobby dick and answer the questions like a man.

'answer the questions like a man'? what does that even mean?

now, for the third time, how about adressing these posts:

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...3&postcount=85

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...7&postcount=50

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Markoni

So again you pussy out and can't just tell me what YOUR fitness and diet experience is. It's a simple question.

You're posting links to your page-long essays that are riddled with rhetorical questions and wild tangents and expecting me to answer some question that you've focused on out of that whole jumbled mess. If you want me to answer a question, state it clearly. I'm not going to sit here and refute every single point you make just to make you happy when on the other end you're being a dick and refuse to answer the same question I've asked you 5 times now.

You can stroke your own dick to make yourself feel like you're winning some pointless debate on an internet forum, that's fine with me. I don't care whether I'm winning or losing shit here. I feel sorry for you if you do. I'm not an intellectual cockbag like yourself who has to flaunt myself over everyone to feel better.

I'll answer any question you can throw at me if you do it in a succinct, bullet-pointed manner. I'm not going to wade through your pointless diatribes just to find some question that you decide isn't rhetorical but rather meaningful.

If you're not the pussy you've appeared to be so far, then answer mine too:

- What is YOUR fitness experience?

- What are YOUR eating habits?

- What is YOUR body composition?

- What are YOUR results with the above?

- WTF do YOU have an obsession with John Stamos?

address the ones i posted first, then maybe ill get around to addressing yours.

i really could not care less whether or not you answer the questions. you dont have the slightest clue what youre talking about either way, and even if you do address them you will inevitably either 1. make some shit up, or 2. dance around the issue completely without answering anything. so it would really be a waste of time for both of us. but for the fourth time, here they are, and theyre not too hard to find. Im not fucking bulleting this shit.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...7&postcount=50

http://www.e90post.com/forums/newrep...eply&p=4485713

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Markoni

No.

You're arguing for Ephedrine because you lack the work ethic and determination to lose the weight the natural way. Someone who resorts to popping a pill obviously doesn't have the self-control to forget the pills and just close their damn mouth at the dinner table. Moreover, studies showing that Ephedrine is perfectly healthy are funded by Ephedrine producers. It's in their interest to spin the info in their favor.

Wasn't referring to your quote. Was referring to another poster's use of the term. Figured it's neater to address everything in one post than to make a dozen different posts at a time.

If by "data" you mean corporate-sponsored studies, I don't have any. Unlike some, I work. I don't have time to read medical journals and scientific theses all day. I actually live life instead of just reading about it in some Castro District coffee shop.

If, on the other hand, by "data" you mean first hand accounts from people that have actually used it, then yes, I have heard many accounts of people whose heart rate raced out of control and suffered dizzy spells. Neither of which symptom sounds quite healthy to me, but then again, I don't read medical journals or scientific studies. Perhaps scientists have found that a racing heart and dizziness are actually a good thing. I'll have to check with our resident medical expert, Mr.JesseKatsopolous.

Now if you'd be so kind as to cut and paste the contents of the other link you want me to answer, Stamos, I'd be more than happy to answer it as well. I can't access it as is because I'm not a member of the e90post community and it's asking me to sign in to be able to reach it. So again, I'd appreciate it if you could cut and paste that into this thread.

i still dont know whether i believe this or not

did i mention anywhere that i even use ephedrine? no, so you cant make any judgments based on the assumption that i do. and how does it have any bearing on work ethic, determination, or self control in the first place? lets use a natural bodybuilder who uses ephedrine to diet for a show as an example. he trains 3x per week, does cardio on 3 off days, and takes 1 rest day. thats a good work ethic. lets say hes been training for 5 years, building enough size naturally to compete. he has dedication. he eats a strict diet every day for months at a time in order to shed the fat. he has self control. how does the use of ephedrine take away from any of these 3 qualities? ill answer this one for you, it doesnt, it just makes the process faster and more effective. you are once again putting your weak understanding of the english language on full display.

oh

i work too. i also study, train, go out, etc. your point? this does not preclude me from citing some sort of study, article, paper, etc to back up a claim. this is how debate or argumentation works. otherwise, people could just make up whatever they wanted (like the fact that the majority of people are allergic to milk - which theyre not, people were healthier at every point in time until now - which they werent, or skipping dinner shuts down your metabolism - which it doesnt).

most side effects are experienced with ephedrA, not ephedrINE. theres a difference. even sides from ephedrine subside after a few doses. some people have better tolerances to stimulants than others.

exercise tends to increase a persons heart rate. i guess people should stop exercising.

as for the other questions.

1. why is it that can humans eat a cow's muscles that developed with the help of cow's millk, but not the milk itself? why were humans not 'meant' to drink cows milk? were we 'meant' to eat chicken eggs, or were those 'meant' to develop into baby chickens?

2. you made the claim that 'the majority of people' have milk allergies or cannot tolerate milk. what is this based on? first hand experience? youve talked to the majority of the world's population? no? how about a representational population? no? then where is the data to substantiate this? or did you just pull this out of your ass? i posted data to the contrary to back up my claim that anti-milk nutters are fucking retarded. and since anecdotal evidence is the only thing that holds any weight for you, i cannot personally think of 1 person I know or know of that cannot tolerate milk. not 1.

[nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn]

Originally Posted by UncleJesse

1. why is it that can humans eat a cow's muscles that developed with the help of cow's millk, but not the milk itself? why were humans not 'meant' to drink cows milk? were we 'meant' to eat chicken eggs, or were those 'meant' to develop into baby chickens?

Actually, there are some studies that have found that humans should not consume cow's milk. This is one of the reasons why many asian countries' (who consume hardly any, if any, cow's milk or milk products) populations are not grossly obese.

[UncleJesse]

dont just talk about random, mythical studies without posting them. thats not how this works.

milk has exactly zero to do with obesity. body composition is determined by caloric intake. noone is obese because they drink to much fucking milk.

[nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn]

Originally Posted by UncleJesse

dont just talk about random, mythical studies without posting them. thats not how this works.

milk has exactly zero to do with obesity. body composition is determined by caloric intake. noone is obese because they drink to much fucking milk.

you think I give a shit enough to find them? You go look it up if you want to.

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by ferrari355fi

you think I give a shit enough to find them? You go look it up if you want to.

i rest my case.

'durrr theres some studies that show that masturbating with your left hand makes your dick bigger'. fuck if i can be bothered to find them, though.

its fun to make shit up when you dont have back it up.

[nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn]

Originally Posted by UncleJesse

i rest my case.

'durrr theres some studies that show that masturbating with your left hand makes your dick bigger'. fuck if i can be bothered to find them, though.

its fun to make shit up when you dont have back it up.

go look it up. You'll find plenty of evidence against the consumption of cow's milk.