119 réponses à ce sujet

[TheBestClass]

Wow, Borschtbeet kinda seems like a pretentious, self absorbed douche who thinks he's better than anyone whos ****** doesn't come out as clear as the bottled water they just drank.

[deadshame]

This thread is full of lulz. Mostly because of Borschtbeet's ****tery. Keep up the good work fellow forum posters.

Edit: To try to stay true to the actual topic, I loved when the Krogan on Feros was yelling at the VI and said "i'll turn your virtual ass in actual dust." Gets me every time.  Now brb, gonna go eat my double double from In N' Out.

Modifié par deadshame, 24 janvier 2010 - 04:51 .

[Blackout62]

Oh, I can't stop reading this. Now all I want a really good salad with a lot of organic greens and a really strong vinaigrette.

Also look. The thread is "What's that you're drinking?" but talk has been entirely about food.

Irony is funny.

Modifié par Blackout62, 24 janvier 2010 - 04:51 .

[jidnis]

I prefer:

Alize Rose mixed with some inexpensive champagne. Good for those nights when you realize that the only person on the planet that means anything to you doesn't love you



-Bon Apetite!

[Borschtbeet]

rabidhanar wrote...

You yourself claimed that these things were carbohydrates, you also said that simple sugars were a thing to shun, I was just informing you of the importance of them.
(Quote) "I think you're convincing simple sugars with complex carbohydrates."

You said that to me about my statement about simple sugars, if you really don't know the major differences between the 2 than I question your competence on the subject. Yes simple sugars are needed in cell devision and in almost all life processes. Glucose is a simple sugar, what did you think plants used for energy continously, starch?

Ok, there is one simple fact you seem to not understand.  Sugars are carbohydrates.  It is impossible to avoid simple sugars since they're found in almost all foods completely but most people, especially those with fat or protein metabolic types should do what they can to limit it's consumption.  We don't really need many carbs in our diet due to our liver's ability to convert fat into glucose through gluconeogenesis.  Carbs are just a preferred energy source but having a carb/sugar rich diet without the fats/fibers and proteins which help slow down the breaking down of energy causes these sugars to just get stored as fats, thus eliminating the usefulness they play while promoting diabetes.
Excess sugar consumption is also what is promoting obesity.  Simple sugars do not promote satiety as they lack fiber, fats, and other nutrients that help tell your brain that you're full.  When you speak of simple sugars you can't speak of fruits, milk, and other natural sources.  Those are a lot more than just sugar and it's those other nutrients which make your body tolerate the sugars in them a lot better.

[TheBestClass]

*Yawn* no wonder that fat girl didn't want to go out with you.

[Borschtbeet]

TheBestclass wrote...

Wow, Borschtbeet kinda seems like a pretentious, self absorbed douche who thinks he's better than anyone whos ****** doesn't come out as clear as the bottled water they just drank.

You have no idea.  Truly, I look down on all of those slobs who have no self control and have to eat toxic, processed crap that makes them sick and unhealthy in order to feel "happy" about themselves.
Nothing I can't stand more than a lack of self-control.

BOO HOO!  You want to eat healthier and lose weight but you can't eat vegetables because they don't taste good!

WAAAAAHHHH!
Seriously, I hear people talk this way all the time and they can all just drop dead.

Modifié par Borschtbeet, 24 janvier 2010 - 04:56 .

[jidnis]

Borschtbeet wrote...

rabidhanar wrote...

You yourself claimed that these things were carbohydrates, you also said that simple sugars were a thing to shun, I was just informing you of the importance of them.
(Quote) "I think you're convincing simple sugars with complex carbohydrates."

You said that to me about my statement about simple sugars, if you really don't know the major differences between the 2 than I question your competence on the subject. Yes simple sugars are needed in cell devision and in almost all life processes. Glucose is a simple sugar, what did you think plants used for energy continously, starch?

Ok, there is one simple fact you seem to not understand.  Sugars are carbohydrates.  It is impossible to avoid simple sugars since they're found in almost all foods completely but most people, especially those with fat or protein metabolic types should do what they can to limit it's consumption.  We don't really need many carbs in our diet due to our liver's ability to convert fat into glucose through gluconeogenesis.  Carbs are just a preferred energy source but having a carb/sugar rich diet without the fats/fibers and proteins which help slow down the breaking down of energy causes these sugars to just get stored as fats, thus eliminating the usefulness they play while promoting diabetes.
Excess sugar consumption is also what is promoting obesity.  Simple sugars do not promote satiety as they lack fiber, fats, and other nutrients that help tell your brain that you're full.  When you speak of simple sugars you can't speak of fruits, milk, and other natural sources.  Those are a lot more than just sugar and it's those other nutrients which make your body tolerate the sugars in them a lot better.

Low carbohydrate consumption is still very controversial.

As will everything, the key is balance and portion control.  The most successful diet strategies aren't about making certain restrictions and telling yourself you "can't" have something - it's about having less of those things you already want and crave.

Denial and restriction typically leads to binge inducing behavior.

[Borschtbeet]

jidnis wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

rabidhanar wrote...

You yourself claimed that these things were carbohydrates, you also said that simple sugars were a thing to shun, I was just informing you of the importance of them.
(Quote) "I think you're convincing simple sugars with complex carbohydrates."

You said that to me about my statement about simple sugars, if you really don't know the major differences between the 2 than I question your competence on the subject. Yes simple sugars are needed in cell devision and in almost all life processes. Glucose is a simple sugar, what did you think plants used for energy continously, starch?

Ok, there is one simple fact you seem to not understand.  Sugars are carbohydrates.  It is impossible to avoid simple sugars since they're found in almost all foods completely but most people, especially those with fat or protein metabolic types should do what they can to limit it's consumption.  We don't really need many carbs in our diet due to our liver's ability to convert fat into glucose through gluconeogenesis.  Carbs are just a preferred energy source but having a carb/sugar rich diet without the fats/fibers and proteins which help slow down the breaking down of energy causes these sugars to just get stored as fats, thus eliminating the usefulness they play while promoting diabetes.
Excess sugar consumption is also what is promoting obesity.  Simple sugars do not promote satiety as they lack fiber, fats, and other nutrients that help tell your brain that you're full.  When you speak of simple sugars you can't speak of fruits, milk, and other natural sources.  Those are a lot more than just sugar and it's those other nutrients which make your body tolerate the sugars in them a lot better.

Low carbohydrate consumption is still very controversial.

As will everything, the key is balance and portion control.  The most successful diet strategies aren't about making certain restrictions and telling yourself you "can't" have something - it's about having less of those things you already want and crave.

Denial and restriction typically leads to binge inducing behavior.

Saying "balance and portion control" is too vague.  Caloric and nutritional needs vary from person to person based largely on genetics.
Calorie cutting is not an ideal way to lose weight.
When you cut your calories, your metabolism drops as well.  This is a survival function as our body will think that there is a famine coming and will reduce our daily caloric expenditure as a means of survival.
You'll lose weight at first but as soon as you go back to your old diet, your weight will skyrocket back up.

If people are serious about losing weight, they need to find a diet and lifestyle they're willing to follow for the rest of their lives.

It's not like.  "Oh I'll eat only 1250 calories of Taco Bell for 2 months and then be cured so I can go back on my regular diet of fast food, and corn syrup sodas."

The human body just doesn't work that way.

[rabidhanar]

Alright, sigh, here we go, scientifically, yes you are correct you need all that other stuff for your body to work, however most of the processes as you and I have both said regard sugars as the number one energy choice, without much sugar, yes you can survive. However, some of these items are worth nothing to sugar in the body, lets say someone like you, who does not obtain much sugar without your own choice, becomes low on your reserve of sugar. Low-blood sugar, something that occurs to most people can be a devestating condition that can actually heavily cripple the rate of survival of that individual. The slowing rate of the brain due to this sugar lose can lead to impairment of senses, loss of survival instincts, and even death at an eventual time. Your brain can only use sugars to function, no other carbon based substance can affect it positively. Your amount of proteins or body fats cannot help the brain, loss of brain function means loss of life, end of story.



Now regards to fats on the human body, yes being overweight can lead to physical problems, however the human body creates fats for a reason. Fat in and of itself is not bad, it affects the body but it has a purpose. Energy storage is important to you just as well as to me. A person who is overweight can have physical disabilities, yes and diabetes is a problem but being fat can also increase your chance of survival in times of need. If a fatter person and a person more like you, if I can believe what you are saying, both experience a famine for an extended period of time, chances are that the fatter person would survive longer if you both had sufficiant water. in our world, yes they are worse off but in a survival period of limited food, fatter people have a higher chance of survival. They might not be very attractive to you, but you never know when their way of life could be better than yours in regards to survival.

[rabidhanar]

I personally would rather view things from a survival standpoint rather than a health viewpoint, what helps you today might harm you tomorrow and vice versa. If god forbid, your way of life was found to have detremental effects on your body in the future, im sure you would be shocked. However, if a fat person found out that their way of life might have kept them alive, well good for them. Now im tired and it is very late where I am so goodnight.

[Borschtbeet]

rabidhanar wrote...

Alright, sigh, here we go, scientifically, yes you are correct you need all that other stuff for your body to work, however most of the processes as you and I have both said regard sugars as the number one energy choice, without much sugar, yes you can survive. However, some of these items are worth nothing to sugar in the body, lets say someone like you, who does not obtain much sugar without your own choice, becomes low on your reserve of sugar. Low-blood sugar, something that occurs to most people can be a devestating condition that can actually heavily cripple the rate of survival of that individual. The slowing rate of the brain due to this sugar lose can lead to impairment of senses, loss of survival instincts, and even death at an eventual time. Your brain can only use sugars to function, no other carbon based substance can affect it positively. Your amount of proteins or body fats cannot help the brain, loss of brain function means loss of life, end of story.

Now regards to fats on the human body, yes being overweight can lead to physical problems, however the human body creates fats for a reason. Fat in and of itself is not bad, it affects the body but it has a purpose. Energy storage is important to you just as well as to me. A person who is overweight can have physical disabilities, yes and diabetes is a problem but being fat can also increase your chance of survival in times of need. If a fatter person and a person more like you, if I can believe what you are saying, both experience a famine for an extended period of time, chances are that the fatter person would survive longer if you both had sufficiant water. in our world, yes they are worse off but in a survival period of limited food, fatter people have a higher chance of survival. They might not be very attractive to you, but you never know when their way of life could be better than yours in regards to survival.

Actually, I do eat a lot of carbohydrates as I have a carb based metabolic type.
Difference between me and the fat, slovenly hordes in the USA is that my body actually makes use of the sugars I consume since I don't eat them in a refined, processed form.  Only how they are found in nature.
Eating simple sugars will just store them as fat as I have said before.
I appreciate the biology lesson on fats although I don't ever remember disputing the fact that fats are important.

Couple issues with your post though.  Your body does not "create" fat.  It is a resevoir of energy which also helps with hormone absorbtion, vitamin and mineral absorbtion, providing shape to our body, amongst many functions.

Fat is not bad, but having too much fat means a greater blood/lipid density and thus a greater chance at cardiovascular related health problems like heart attacks and strokes.  Excess fat also increases estrogen absorbtion thus increasing the chance of breast cancer.
Please, don't try to justify fat people.  They're a disgrace to both themselves and others.
Lastly, your post doesn't seem to make any distinctions on the many various kinds of fats.  Would you say trans fat is as healthy as fish oil?
We can't just look at all fats as the same.

Modifié par Borschtbeet, 24 janvier 2010 - 05:27 .

[MrBiggens]

lol i dont get why every1 is hating on the guy living a healthy lifestyle... srsly. i laugh at people who make excuses and twist things so it fits them instead of changing, as borch said. doing a fat chick is a fetish, and thats just something i dont have in me.



though im not as extreme as borch is, i do 90% of the time eat non processed foods/organic foods. though i rarely go out with some friends n eat some pizza or burger here and there. but srsly dudes, be mad and angry all you want, the man speaks the truth.

[jidnis]

Borschtbeet wrote...

jidnis wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

rabidhanar wrote...

You yourself claimed that these things were carbohydrates, you also said that simple sugars were a thing to shun, I was just informing you of the importance of them.
(Quote) "I think you're convincing simple sugars with complex carbohydrates."

You said that to me about my statement about simple sugars, if you really don't know the major differences between the 2 than I question your competence on the subject. Yes simple sugars are needed in cell devision and in almost all life processes. Glucose is a simple sugar, what did you think plants used for energy continously, starch?

Ok, there is one simple fact you seem to not understand.  Sugars are carbohydrates.  It is impossible to avoid simple sugars since they're found in almost all foods completely but most people, especially those with fat or protein metabolic types should do what they can to limit it's consumption.  We don't really need many carbs in our diet due to our liver's ability to convert fat into glucose through gluconeogenesis.  Carbs are just a preferred energy source but having a carb/sugar rich diet without the fats/fibers and proteins which help slow down the breaking down of energy causes these sugars to just get stored as fats, thus eliminating the usefulness they play while promoting diabetes.
Excess sugar consumption is also what is promoting obesity.  Simple sugars do not promote satiety as they lack fiber, fats, and other nutrients that help tell your brain that you're full.  When you speak of simple sugars you can't speak of fruits, milk, and other natural sources.  Those are a lot more than just sugar and it's those other nutrients which make your body tolerate the sugars in them a lot better.

Low carbohydrate consumption is still very controversial.

As will everything, the key is balance and portion control.  The most successful diet strategies aren't about making certain restrictions and telling yourself you "can't" have something - it's about having less of those things you already want and crave.

Denial and restriction typically leads to binge inducing behavior.

Saying "balance and portion control" is too vague.  Caloric and nutritional needs vary from person to person based largely on genetics.
Calorie cutting is not an ideal way to lose weight.
When you cut your calories, your metabolism drops as well.  This is a survival function as our body will think that there is a famine coming and will reduce our daily caloric expenditure as a means of survival.
You'll lose weight at first but as soon as you go back to your old diet, your weight will skyrocket back up.

If people are serious about losing weight, they need to find a diet and lifestyle they're willing to follow for the rest of their lives.

It's not like.  "Oh I'll eat only 1250 calories of Taco Bell for 2 months and then be cured so I can go back on my regular diet of fast food, and corn syrup sodas."

The human body just doesn't work that way.

It is most definately a life style choice - and half the trick is cutting calories but not so much that you enter "starvation mode". 

Yo are ignoring two important factors:

1) Psychology - your conscious perception of how much you are eating absolutely affects how much your body thinks it is eating.  This can be done through things like tricking your mind that you are receiving a "fuller" portion.  By using comparatively smaller plates, or consuming low calorie / high density foods (for instance, broccoli).

2) Excersize - elevates your metabolism throughout the whole day

Having the odd burrito from taco bell will not ruin you - you just make cuts in other areas to compensate.  Your thinking transforms into a choice: "would I like a burrito from taco bell, and have less for dinner, or would I rather have much more of something better for me".  Eventually you will find the psychological shift to desire healthier choices comes on its own.

The instant you tell yourself you cannot have something, you will want it - and that is the seeds of failure, and that is why most specialized diets do no work for most people

[casedawgz]

To quote Vincent Vega: "Bacon tastes good. Porkchops taste good."

[jidnis]

casedawgz wrote...

To quote Vincent Vega: "Bacon tastes good. Porkchops taste good."

/concur

<--- big BLT fan here

[Borschtbeet]

jidnis wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

jidnis wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

rabidhanar wrote...

You yourself claimed that these things were carbohydrates, you also said that simple sugars were a thing to shun, I was just informing you of the importance of them.
(Quote) "I think you're convincing simple sugars with complex carbohydrates."

You said that to me about my statement about simple sugars, if you really don't know the major differences between the 2 than I question your competence on the subject. Yes simple sugars are needed in cell devision and in almost all life processes. Glucose is a simple sugar, what did you think plants used for energy continously, starch?

Ok, there is one simple fact you seem to not understand.  Sugars are carbohydrates.  It is impossible to avoid simple sugars since they're found in almost all foods completely but most people, especially those with fat or protein metabolic types should do what they can to limit it's consumption.  We don't really need many carbs in our diet due to our liver's ability to convert fat into glucose through gluconeogenesis.  Carbs are just a preferred energy source but having a carb/sugar rich diet without the fats/fibers and proteins which help slow down the breaking down of energy causes these sugars to just get stored as fats, thus eliminating the usefulness they play while promoting diabetes.
Excess sugar consumption is also what is promoting obesity.  Simple sugars do not promote satiety as they lack fiber, fats, and other nutrients that help tell your brain that you're full.  When you speak of simple sugars you can't speak of fruits, milk, and other natural sources.  Those are a lot more than just sugar and it's those other nutrients which make your body tolerate the sugars in them a lot better.

Low carbohydrate consumption is still very controversial.

As will everything, the key is balance and portion control.  The most successful diet strategies aren't about making certain restrictions and telling yourself you "can't" have something - it's about having less of those things you already want and crave.

Denial and restriction typically leads to binge inducing behavior.

Saying "balance and portion control" is too vague.  Caloric and nutritional needs vary from person to person based largely on genetics.
Calorie cutting is not an ideal way to lose weight.
When you cut your calories, your metabolism drops as well.  This is a survival function as our body will think that there is a famine coming and will reduce our daily caloric expenditure as a means of survival.
You'll lose weight at first but as soon as you go back to your old diet, your weight will skyrocket back up.

If people are serious about losing weight, they need to find a diet and lifestyle they're willing to follow for the rest of their lives.

It's not like.  "Oh I'll eat only 1250 calories of Taco Bell for 2 months and then be cured so I can go back on my regular diet of fast food, and corn syrup sodas."

The human body just doesn't work that way.

It is most definately a life style choice - and half the trick is cutting calories but not so much that you enter "starvation mode". 

Yo are ignoring two important factors:

1) Psychology - your conscious perception of how much you are eating absolutely affects how much your body thinks it is eating.  This can be done through things like tricking your mind that you are receiving a "fuller" portion.  By using comparatively smaller plates, or consuming low calorie / high density foods (for instance, broccoli).

2) Excersize - elevates your metabolism throughout the whole day

Having the odd burrito from taco bell will not ruin you - you just make cuts in other areas to compensate.  Your thinking transforms into a choice: "would I like a burrito from taco bell, and have less for dinner, or would I rather have much more of something better for me".  Eventually you will find the psychological shift to desire healthier choices comes on its own.

The instant you tell yourself you cannot have something, you will want it - and that is the seeds of failure, and that is why most specialized diets do no work for most people

If you're hungry, you should eat.  Fearing food is stupid.  I eat over 3600 calories a day and I have a 4 percent body fat.  It's all about metabolism and I never neglected the importance of exercise.  That goes without mentioning.

A healthy lifestyle is not about eating less it's about eating better.  It's foods like medium chain fatty acids found in foods like avacados and coconuts as well as complex carbohydrates that raise your metabolism because those are the energy sources your body prefers to use, rather than store.
If you replace all of the cheap processed crap with good, wholesome food, and combine it with regular exercise that puts an emphasis on anaerobics, you will lose weight.

It's not about trying to fool yourself that you're not really hungry.  If you feel hungry, it means you should eat and you should continue eating until you're full.  Just make sure the food you eat is the food your body can make the mose use out of.

Modifié par Borschtbeet, 24 janvier 2010 - 05:41 .

[Borschtbeet]

casedawgz wrote...

To quote Vincent Vega: "Bacon tastes good. Porkchops taste good."

Did you see what happened to John Travolta's weight after Pulp Fiction?

I rest my case.

[Hero_Shep]

Borschtbeet wrote...

casedawgz wrote...

To quote Vincent Vega: "Bacon tastes good. Porkchops taste good."

Did you see what happened to John Travolta's weight after Pulp Fiction?

I rest my case.

So? I like bacon as much as I like roasted beets, or fried green peepers ( best of both worlds IMO healthy, and with bacon level flavor!)
I think the one thing people are ignoring is exercise, although both go hand in hand with "diet".
Borchbeet? I don't think it would kill you to have a cheeseburger once in a blue moon. But If the words cheese, and burger side by side give you an ulcer I have a wicked turkey burger topped with mixed baby greens recipe I'd love to share.
BTW ! Favorite lines/ dialoge is from the refund guy 

[Shlecko]

Epic thread is epic. To chime in on the original topic, my favorite line comes after you shoot a "monkey" on the data module recovery mission.



Wrex: "Nice shot!"

Garrus: "I guess the little guy had it coming, eh Commander?"

[Blackout62]

Borschtbeet wrote...

casedawgz wrote...

To quote Vincent Vega: "Bacon tastes good. Porkchops taste good."

Did you see what happened to John Travolta's weight after Pulp Fiction?

I rest my case.

Point to Borschtbeet.

[SmilingMirror]

Borschtbeet wrote...

Mr. Gerbz wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

Mr. Gerbz wrote...

Borschtbeet wrote...

LOL! I must've missed the Ramen comment.
The way I interpreted the Mass Effect universe, humanity has achieved a near utopian society. The planet is united, people live to 150 years and disease has been abolished...

Yet people still eat Ramen noodles...HAHA!

...So what you're basically saying is that only poor people eat ramen noodles?

No, but why eat crap if you can afford real food?

That it's crap is your opinion.

I have my Bachelors in sports nutrition.  Not to brag, but I think that gives my opinion some validity.  A noodle from a refined carbohydrate, flavored with a "seasoning" that has hydrogenated fat, excessive salt, and MSG doesn't strike me as being a health food.

I have never eaten ramen with MSG, and there are far worse things in other foods that are passed off as harmless because they are natural. That said, a bunch of noodles for dinner isn't exactly super health food.

[asaiasai]

Hey Ramen noodles are not crap food, they remind me of my childhood as a after school snack, nothing like Ramen noodles to bring back fond memories of being a child and having no cares in the world. I do suppose if in order to pay your college tuition all you could afford to eat was Ramen i would be willing to give it to you. I am 43 years old and i still eat Ramen noodles occasionally and not because it is all i can afford, but to bring me back to a more innocent and safer time.



The trouble is the cheaper varieties suck so i guess if you had to eat store brand ramen which do suck as opposed to Odles of Noodles brand then you might come by your opinion honestly. Hmm think ill go nuke some right now as a matter of fact.



Asai

[phlying]

rabidhanar wrote...

My life style is fine, thank you for asking, its just that they don't see the point in monitoring every little amount of food you eat. Eating at McDonald's or having some cake is fine every once in a while, you just can't eat it all the time. I am overweight not because of body fat, 13.5% of my body mass, but because of muscle mass and my height. ( im short, only 4.7 feet tall)

Your basis is so paranoid of eating unhealthily that it seems like a hassle. I have some questions for you, Have you ever ate a cheeseburger? Have you ever had cake or any other desert?

Eating unhealthily is fine every once in a while and I bet at least once in your life you have had to eat unhealthily (college for me, ouch)

You do know that there are much healthier alternatives to 86% ground beef and procesed, enriched white buns, and Maricle Whip right?

And you are aware, are you not, that those healthier alternatives are just as yummie if you properly spice your food (and, no, I don't mean adding half a bottle of salt)?

Eating healthy does not mean eating food that tastes like grass. As a matter of fact, some of the most delicious food is homegrown and not wrapped in plastic from a shelf at Wal-Mart. I mean, have you ever had a strawberry before? Or had a home made apple pie? People don't get fat by eating home cooked meals or going to a sit-down restaurant every once in a while, they get fat by munching out at McDonalds three times a day, five days a week and sitting on their butts all day at home and at work.

I don't know why everyone has been giving Borschtbeet so much crap. He's absolutely right about the pointlessnes of calorie cutting.  It is also known fact that Ramen noodles are about some of the most unhealthy things someone can ingest. They're ridiculously high in starch and carbohydrates which equate to basically sugar. Since the average American doesn't even get 30 minutes physical activity a day, all that sugar turns into fat. This is probably why so many college freshmen gain 15-20 pounds their first semester. All that ramen and all that time studying is generally a losing situation if one is trying to stay healthy.

Oh, and here's a fun fact for you: Eating fruits and veggies and canned beans is usually about the same price pound for pound as buying several of those crate thingies of Ramen at the grocery store. Well, maybe not oranges anymore...Poor Florida

[Mariah5]

1) Ramen is good.



2) What does this have to do with the topic?