The Endomorph's Guide to Weight Loss by T-Dawg - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > TW Fitness
Reload this Page The Endomorph's Guide to Weight Loss
Page 1 of 2
Thread Tools
T-Dawg
VeteranX
Old
1 - 12-29-2013, 02:05 PM
Reply With Quote
I have spent my entire life fighting obesity and finally found what works for me.

I didn't start diet. Those are stupid and almost always result in a net weight gain after a temporary weight loss. Such yo-yo dieting is damaging to the heart muscle. Instead, it requires permanent Lifestyle changes as opposed to unsustainable ****ty foods you hate.

A couple years ago I lost a total of 80 pounds. When I started I wasn't even healthy enough to exercise. I had high blood pressure (HBP) and was diabetic. Both of those diseases have been cured by my weight loss and I have since lost another 2 inches in the waist without losing any more weight, instead replacing fat with lean muscle tissue. So here is a guide for the Endomorphs. I will add to this as time permits.

Let's first begin with metabolism. As you age, your metabolic rate decreases at approximately 2.5% per year after 25. This decrease may start sooner or later depending on genetics - family longevity - but 25 is the average. Therefore this is empirical, not absolute.

The chart below indicates that in your early 50s, you should be consuming about half the calories you consumed in your early 20s, and the reason virtually everyone gains enormous weight as they age is because they continue to consume the same or more than in their youth.



It is also important to realize that fat already stored in the body is locked in there by evolutionary remnants - in prehistoric days, humans might not eat for days, so they had to store fat for use during those lean times. In order to lose that fat, you have to find and manage your own personal glycemic index and balance.

The people who say it is only a matter of calorie intake and exertion have oversimplified a very complicated process. Furthermore, they are probably Ectomorphs who couldn't store fat if they wanted to. Don't listen to the assholes who call you a Fattie because they don't have the same body type as you, they don't ****ing understand the problem you have.

Here are the three body types:

* Ectomorphic: characterized by long and thin muscles/limbs and low fat storage; usually referred to as slim. Ectomorphs are not predisposed to store fat nor build muscle. Example: BeLial and his toothpick arms.

* Mesomorphic: characterized by medium bones, solid torso, low fat levels and a narrow waist; usually referred to as muscular. Mesomorphs are predisposed to build muscle but not store fat.

* Endomorphic: characterized by increased fat storage, a wide waist and shoulders and a large bone structure, usually referred to as fat, or chunky. Endomorphs are predisposed to storing fat.

Now let's look at nutrition. There are good calories and bad calories. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health (published as The Diet Delusion in the UK and Australia) is a 2007 book by science journalist Gary Taubes. Taubes argues that the last few decades of dietary advice promoting low-fat diets has been consistently incorrect. Taubes contends that carbohydrates, specifically refined carbohydrates like white flour, sugar, and starches, contribute to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other ailments. Taubes posits a causal link between carbohydrates and cancer, as well."



- Tapatapatapatalk
 
T-Dawg is offline
 
Last edited by T-Dawg; 12-29-2013 at 02:10 PM.
Sponsored Links
Pilky
VeteranX
Old
2 - 12-30-2013, 03:23 PM
Reply With Quote
you're not an endomorph you just ate too much


congrats on the weight loss though
 
Pilky is offline
 
|V|
VeteranX
Old
3 - 12-30-2013, 06:15 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky View Post
you're not an endomorph you just ate too much
I agree, I don't buy the 'body type' bull****... calories in, calories out
 
|V| is offline
 
Familiar
VeteranXV
Old
4 - 12-31-2013, 09:01 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by |V| View Post
I agree, I don't buy the 'body type' bull****... calories in, calories out
I think the list of "morphs" is generalizing people into three categories of different "calories out".
 
Familiar is offline
 
|V|
VeteranX
Old
5 - 12-31-2013, 11:15 PM
Reply With Quote
and I don't think that peoples' metabolism varies much (same body weight, same activity), except for extreme instances where there's an actual thyroid problem which should be treated

the calories out is activity, so if you morph into your couch all day, then yah, you're an endomorph i guess
 
|V| is offline
 
Tessien
Veteran++
Old
6 - 01-03-2014, 02:48 PM
Reply With Quote
Pretty much this ^, we all have the same meat on our bones.
 
Tessien is offline
 
Mitchdubai
Pooptruck++
Old
7 - 01-09-2014, 04:11 AM
Reply With Quote
While some of the general principles in OP are sound, that graph is bull****. It suggests at age 72 your calorie intake should be a quarter of what it is in your twenties. So that would be well under 1000 calories a day, impossible to survive on that for more than a couple of weeks.

In my opinion, and experience, as a 49 year old mesomorph / endomorph, is that as you get older, the key to weight loss/ maintenance becomes less about diet and more about exercise to keep the metabolism stimulated. Although obviously still a balance of both is needed.
 
Mitchdubai is offline
 
Mitchdubai
Pooptruck++
Old
8 - 01-09-2014, 04:17 AM
Reply With Quote
Does that decrease in metabolic rate assume consistent activity levels, or does it assume reduced activity levels that naturally occur with age (for most people). I don't believe that the same guy at age 50 if he is the same weight and as active as when he was 20, would see any significant loss in calorie burning. In fact it should go the other way as the body is aging and becoming less efficient (I.e. burning more calories than the 20 year old performing the same activity)
 
Mitchdubai is offline
 
Tryp
Veteran++
Old
9 - 03-18-2014, 02:23 AM
Reply With Quote
the whole morph scale is just a way for fat-apologists to offload guilt

They get stuck up in stupid little details like the benefits of organic foods, or good fats vs bad fats, when they should just be counting macros and eating at a deficit. Being overweight is the single most dangerous thing you can do to your body - one in four of you will die from a cardiac/obesity-related failure.

I had an acquaintance the other day try to convince me that he didn't see himself as fat because he was a endomorph and had big bones. He legitimately believes that anything under BMI 22 is anorexic and then immediately explains to me that BMI is bull****. I responded that he would be considered obese by any metric, BMI, waist circumference, or bodyfat %. This whole morph thing is a defeatist way of looking at the situation. There is no "healthy fat for my body type". You're either fat and unhealthy or not.

Count your calories and stick to it. If you cheat, you know that's why you're fat, not because of your morph characteristics.

The macro calculator I use:
IIFYM Calculator

The tracker I use:
My Fitness Pal (app)
 
Tryp is offline
 
BeLiaL
VeteranXV
Old
10 - 03-18-2014, 09:22 AM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tryp View Post
the whole morph scale is just a way for fat-apologists to offload guilt

They get stuck up in stupid little details like the benefits of organic foods, or good fats vs bad fats, when they should just be counting macros and eating at a deficit. Being overweight is the single most dangerous thing you can do to your body - one in four of you will die from a cardiac/obesity-related failure.

I had an acquaintance the other day try to convince me that he didn't see himself as fat because he was a endomorph and had big bones. He legitimately believes that anything under BMI 22 is anorexic and then immediately explains to me that BMI is bull****. I responded that he would be considered obese by any metric, BMI, waist circumference, or bodyfat %. This whole morph thing is a defeatist way of looking at the situation. There is no "healthy fat for my body type". You're either fat and unhealthy or not.

Count your calories and stick to it. If you cheat, you know that's why you're fat, not because of your morph characteristics.

The macro calculator I use:
IIFYM Calculator

The tracker I use:
My Fitness Pal (app)
well, i think there is a difference between "overweight" and super-fat

i'm not sure if there is really a lot of evidence that shows it is unhealthy to just be fat... it might be unhealthy to be sedentary, or to eat a lot of ****ty food, but i'm pretty sure the direct correlation isn't actually there

being "super-fat" or "morbidly obese", of course, does have direct links to disease and physiological dysfunction



i'm really not trying to side with your friend here, but he's right about BMI--it's only applicable at the population level... when i was 205 lbs, that put me at 30.3 BMI: obese

i was FAR from obese, just very muscular

you can say that i was an outlier, and that's somewhat true, but it just goes to show the complete ineffectiveness of measuring individuals' fat-health


anyway, i'm sure your acquaintance is a fat ****, but there really is such a thing as healthy fat (think world's strongest men).. i'm with you, though, and am sick of fat ****ers making excuse after excuse as to why they don't look good
 
BeLiaL is offline
 
Tryp
Veteran++
Old
11 - 03-20-2014, 07:13 PM
Reply With Quote
Now I'm not in any way saying that BMI is legit because, I know it isn't. It clearly doesn't take into consideration a multitude of factors, most importantly bodyfat%. I do think it is a valid-enough warning tool for overweight people with low muscle mass who obviously need to lose weight.

Regarding the effect of being fat on health, there is a direct correlation between fat % and early death from cardiac related disease. Don't ask me for a source, it's pretty common knowledge by now. Sure, you can argue that correlation not= causation, but there is definitely a direct and measurable connection between body fat, risk of stroke, risk of diabetes, risk of cardiac disease, risk of embolisms, etc and early death (it's not like saying global warming is correlated to a decrease in pirates for instance).

Anyways, I don't know what % body fat is considered optimal for health, but everything I've seen suggests the lower the better (down to about 4-6% which is essential body fat for men). Imo people above 20% shouldn't even care about anything else health-wise aside from dropping it down to a reasonable level asap in a safe way.

Of course fat is just a very small part of the whole picture of health, but imo it is one of the factors that has the biggest impact on preventing avoidable early death. Just like how it is common knowledge that quitting smoking is undisputedly good for your health, I think within a few years people will look back and realize the fat acceptance or fat apologist movement is ****ing stupid. If you had a way to reduce your risk of getting lung cancer by over 80% would you do it? Now, if you had a way to reduce your risk of dying from heart disease by 80% would you do it?

(None of this is directed at you, I'm sure you're fit Belial
 
Tryp is offline
 
Livingdeath
VeteranXV
Old
12 - 03-20-2014, 07:22 PM
Reply With Quote
THere has never been any credible science picking out ecto/endo/meso morphs from one another and is as far as i can see, is an example of bro science.

Almost all credible evidence simply points out that people are fat if they eat too many calories relative to their activity level (where activity is integrated throughout the day).

For instance one experiment attached heart rate monitors to self described ectormorphs and compared them to self described endomorphs and then put them on the same diet and exercise regime. What they found was interesting. Indeed the ectomorphs tended to lose weight quicker than the endomorphs, however this was completely consistent with the heart rate monitors. The Ectomorphs simply moved around more during the day (when not exercising) and that difference in activity correlated 1-1 with the delta in weight loss.
 
Livingdeath is offline
 
BeLiaL
VeteranXV
Old
13 - 03-20-2014, 08:14 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tryp View Post
Now I'm not in any way saying that BMI is legit because, I know it isn't. It clearly doesn't take into consideration a multitude of factors, most importantly bodyfat%. I do think it is a valid-enough warning tool for overweight people with low muscle mass who obviously need to lose weight.

Regarding the effect of being fat on health, there is a direct correlation between fat % and early death from cardiac related disease. Don't ask me for a source, it's pretty common knowledge by now. Sure, you can argue that correlation not= causation, but there is definitely a direct and measurable connection between body fat, risk of stroke, risk of diabetes, risk of cardiac disease, risk of embolisms, etc and early death (it's not like saying global warming is correlated to a decrease in pirates for instance).

Anyways, I don't know what % body fat is considered optimal for health, but everything I've seen suggests the lower the better (down to about 4-6% which is essential body fat for men). Imo people above 20% shouldn't even care about anything else health-wise aside from dropping it down to a reasonable level asap in a safe way.

Of course fat is just a very small part of the whole picture of health, but imo it is one of the factors that has the biggest impact on preventing avoidable early death. Just like how it is common knowledge that quitting smoking is undisputedly good for your health, I think within a few years people will look back and realize the fat acceptance or fat apologist movement is ****ing stupid. If you had a way to reduce your risk of getting lung cancer by over 80% would you do it? Now, if you had a way to reduce your risk of dying from heart disease by 80% would you do it?

(None of this is directed at you, I'm sure you're fit Belial
honestly I don't know what the numbers specifically say, and if I ever get some free time I'd love to research it.. the common knowledge that fat is bad MAY be incorrect from what I remember, but I admit I could be wrong. Extreme cases of overweight (30%+ bf) I'm sure have direct correlation with early death and disease, but Im not sure there is such a direct correlation for ppl with 20% bf who are also active. It may be the inactivity [combined with a certain level of fat maybe] that is the heart of the issue. Maybe "we" already know, but I would have to see the research before I accepted it as undeniable truth
 
BeLiaL is offline
 
hyung
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
14 - 03-20-2014, 08:52 PM
Reply With Quote
how about working out hard and not eating like a pig
 
hyung is offline
 
TeckMan
VeteranXV
Old
15 - 04-22-2014, 07:58 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderDawg View Post

Let's first begin with metabolism. As you age, your metabolic rate decreases at approximately 2.5% per year after 25.
not true btw

ur telling me a 25 year old male on 2k calories / day should eat 500 cals / day when he is 85?

r u ****ing dumb pls take a basic science course
 
TeckMan is offline
 
hyung
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
16 - 04-23-2014, 12:26 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by |V| View Post
and I don't think that peoples' metabolism varies much (same body weight, same activity), except for extreme instances where there's an actual thyroid problem which should be treated

the calories out is activity, so if you morph into your couch all day, then yah, you're an endomorph i guess
i used to believe that but besides meeting ppl that obviously store fat way easier than others

i have met some people that are just absolutely shredded and they hardly put effort into it

or some girls that drink and just eat kind of like pigs but they're perpetually thin as a stick

genetics plays a huge role altho hard work can still triumph
 
hyung is offline
 
BeLiaL
VeteranXV
Old
17 - 04-23-2014, 01:10 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by opsayo View Post
i used to believe that but besides meeting ppl that obviously store fat way easier than others

i have met some people that are just absolutely shredded and they hardly put effort into it

or some girls that drink and just eat kind of like pigs but they're perpetually thin as a stick

genetics plays a huge role altho hard work can still triumph
 
BeLiaL is offline
 
hyung
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
18 - 04-23-2014, 01:32 PM
Reply With Quote
 
hyung is offline
 
Rorschach
Veteran++
Contributor
Old
19 - 04-23-2014, 01:54 PM
Reply With Quote
maybe those ppl were fed better at home and in 5 years away from home cooking theyll look like total ****
 
Rorschach is offline
 
BeLiaL
VeteranXV
Old
20 - 04-23-2014, 02:50 PM
Reply With Quote
you're the only one who's still friends with high schoolers
 
BeLiaL is offline
 
Page 1 of 2
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > TW Fitness
Reload this Page The Endomorph's Guide to Weight Loss

Social Website Bullshit

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

AGENT: CCBot/2.0 (http://commoncrawl.org/faq/) / Y
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:31 AM.