• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

No fatties allowed...how does the Navy reduce the displacement tonnage of its sailors?

Gatordev said:
My wife has had a huge success with GLP-1s, coupled with the adoption of a regular fitness schedule. She has the metabolism of a tree sloth, so fitness alone wasn't going to do it.
Click to expand...
Weight loss is difficult for women in a general sense.

The caloric requirements for most women are way lower than people realize, around 1400-1600 calories a day to sustain with a moderate exercise program. So after a decade of slow-bleed weight gain, it becomes very difficult with current American portion sizes and general food culture for women to drop lbs. They can end up eating their daily allowance of calories in a single meal. The lack of testosterone to fuel muscle growth and athletic performance also means exercise is less efficient than it is for men. Meaning, most men can quite easily drop 500-1000 calories under their daily allowance through diet and exercise where it becomes really hard for women to stay capped at a net 1000-1200 calories a day, a mere 200-500 calorie deficit.

Fast forward 3 months and the guy has lost 15-20 lbs while the woman has lost like 5-10. This can be demoralizing.

It doesn't help that most diet and fitness exercise advice geared for women is just a copy and paste what it is for men, which means that a lot of diet advice is recommending an absurd amount of protein.
 
Last edited:
Spekkio said:
Weight loss is difficult for women in a general sense.

The caloric requirements for most women are way lower than people realize, around 1400-1600 calories a day to sustain with a moderate exercise program. So after a decade of slow-bleed weight gain, it becomes very difficult with current American portion sizes and general food culture for women to drop lbs. They can end up eating their daily allowance of calories in a single meal. The lack of testosterone to fuel muscle growth and athletic performance also means exercise is less efficient than it is for men. Meaning, most men can quite easily drop 500-1000 calories under their daily allowance through diet and exercise where it becomes really hard for women to stay capped at a net 1000-1200 calories a day, a mere 200-500 calorie deficit.

Fast forward 3 months and the guy has lost 15-20 lbs while the woman has lost like 5-10. This can be demoralizing.

It doesn't help that most diet and fitness exercise advice geared for women is just a copy and paste what it is for men, which means that a lot of diet advice is recommending an absurd amount of protein.
Click to expand...

@Spekkio i recommend you check out @unf**kyourdiet on IG. She would have a field day with all your generalizations in this quote. And then she would bench press you.
 
PhrogLoop said:
@Spekkio i recommend you check out @unf**kyourdiet on IG. She would have a field day with all your generalizations in this quote. And then she would bench press you.
Click to expand...
Social media influencers and people who follow them are a big part of the problem.

According to her LinkedIn, she's an English major with a background in marketing until she bought / started her fitness company in 2019 (it's not entirely clear which). While she was a part time personal trainer for years, the only certification you need for this in Charlottesville, VA is CPR. There are no formal schools or professional certifications related to healthcare or nutrition listed on her LinkedIn.

But hey, she sells the persona and says things that people like to hear, so I guess that makes her legit, right?

I think I'll pass.
 
Last edited:
PhrogLoop said:
@Spekkio i recommend you check out @unf**kyourdiet on IG. She would have a field day with all your generalizations in this quote. And then she would bench press you.
Click to expand...
Genuinely curious what's wrong with it. At the end of the day, it's still calories in vs. calories out. The GLP drugs don't change that, they just suppress the desire for calories in by and large, no?
 
Peekskill1941 said:
At the end of the day, it's still calories in vs. calories out.
Click to expand...
Ideally, we solve this problem by nipping it in the bud. Reinforce healthy habits early and often and make it insanely easy for people to get access to good healthy food and fitness resources. Even ideally-er, we would do this before anyone even steps foot onto a training command so we wouldn't have this problem.
 
elariosa95 said:
Ideally, we solve this problem by nipping it in the bud. Reinforce healthy habits early and often and make it insanely easy for people to get access to good healthy food and fitness resources. Even ideally-er, we would do this before anyone even steps foot onto a training command so we wouldn't have this problem.
Click to expand...
I don't see that in conflict with what I wrote.
 
Peekskill1941 said:
Genuinely curious what's wrong with it. At the end of the day, it's still calories in vs. calories out. The GLP drugs don't change that, they just suppress the desire for calories in by and large, no?
Click to expand...
No it’s not, I wish it was. I mean, the physics definitely places bounds on what can happen, but within those bounds your brain and gut have their hands on the tiller of both calorie-in and calorie-out in a huge, huge way. Also, what your body does with a calorie coming over the transom varies.

I used to argue with my wife about this, but I've come around.

When you talk to people on the GLP1s, they'll tell you that it changes your relationship with food. I can get up in the morning, with an empty stomach, and just not be all that super-excited about a kickass breakfast anymore. Bowl of oatmeal will be fine. Same for going out to dinner, or stopping by for some beers. It is not just the stomach being full. You hear people talk about "quieting the food noise" all the time. There's some kind of effect there.

At the same time is the competing effect. I've taken some absolutely world class naps after hikes or bike rides as my body decides maybe I need to lower the BMR a bit.
 
taxi1 said:
No it’s not, I wish it was. I mean, the physics definitely places bounds on what can happen, but within those bounds your brain and gut have their hands on the tiller of both calorie-in and calorie-out in a huge, huge way. Also, what your body does with a calorie coming over the transom varies.

I used to argue with my wife about this, but I've come around.

When you talk to people on the GLP1s, they'll tell you that it changes your relationship with food. I can get up in the morning, with an empty stomach, and just not be all that super-excited about a kickass breakfast anymore. Bowl of oatmeal will be fine. Same for going out to dinner, or stopping by for some beers. It is not just the stomach being full. You hear people talk about "quieting the food noise" all the time. There's some kind of effect there.

At the same time is the competing effect. I've taken some absolutely world class naps after hikes or bike rides as my body decides maybe I need to lower the BMR a bit.
Click to expand...
I'm not here to argue that different people have different relationships with food and calories. I am sure there are mental aspects to it that are remarkably similar to addictions. I can imagine that GLP-1s help with some of what you're discussing.

However, you'll also never convince me that weight is nothing other than calories in vs. calories out. At the end of the day, Newton's physics and laws of energy hold. Our bodies are literally like internal combustion engines. You take in fuel and use it. The body metabolizes it as energy and it combusts it and you're literally breathing out the carbon dioxide of "spent" calories (i.e.: energy is never created nor destroyed just transferred to various forms). If you take in more than you use, you gain weight (and yes I realize that people have different BMRs, but that's just on the usage/requirements/"calories out" side of the equation). If you use more than you take in, you lose weight (yes yes I understand some foods hold onto water more than others, etc., but water is calorie neutral and evens out over time).
 
Peekskill1941 said:
Our bodies are literally like internal combustion engines.
Click to expand...
No, because our bodies are also in charge of deciding how to store or throw over the side the excess calories ingested, or responding to the deficit. And the rate at which those calories accumulate or go into deficit hugely impacts what is done with those calories too. Also, the form of the calories. You pour sugar or diesel fuel into your lawn mower engine, and it will be less efficient than the same caloric amount of gas, even though all give the same reading on the bomb calorimeter. Same with different foods.

I 100% guarantee you that I could take a set of identical twins, give them the same average calorie intake over a month but vary their type and time-varying rate of calories given for each (e.g., steady for one, feast-famine other), and they'd weigh differently at the end.
 
Also there's been more than a few relationships impacted by GLP1 sucking the life out of a woman's sex drive. It's a thing.
 
taxi1 said:
No, because our bodies are also in charge of deciding how to store or throw over the side the excess calories ingested, or responding to the deficit. And the rate at which those calories accumulate or go into deficit hugely impacts what is done with those calories too. Also, the form of the calories. You pour sugar or diesel fuel into your lawn mower engine, and it will be less efficient than the same caloric amount of gas, even though all give the same reading on the bomb calorimeter. Same with different foods.

I 100% guarantee you that I could take a set of identical twins, give them the same average calorie intake over a month but vary their type and time-varying rate of calories given for each (e.g., steady for one, feast-famine other), and they'd weigh differently at the end.
Click to expand...

The research has been trending away from caloric timing as being a factor. Psychologically it can be a big deal--different meal times, for example, can make you feel more or less hungry, which affects weight loss. Physically, though, calories in equals calories out, with very little variation that's not explained by total body weight, body comp, and activity. It is physics. A muscle cell needs X energy to stay alive, a fat call needs Y, a brain cell needs z, etc. If you weigh 200 pounds, the energy it takes to run a mile is literally a physics equation. Does a person have a slow metabolism, or are they just short with not that much muscle mass? It's all extremely complex, which is why people pull on different levers, but you can't defeat the laws of thermodynamics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top