>meme
Anon, not everybody has a consistent metabolism. Some people are slow while others are fast. What helps balance it out is basic exercise that can help boost your metabolism and energy consumption.
There's plenty of research on this. Any difference in "metabolic rate" disappears once you stop using self-report measures. People are good at lying to themselves.
While true, obese people tend to have slow metabolism due to high fats and low muscles. The issue with obesity is that its easily fix by basic routine of exercising that helps with the metabolic issues. Even if you have trouble to gain muscles, exercising can still make you gain it regardless of your metabolic rates.
>While true, obese people tend to have slow metabolism due to high fats and low muscles.
The point is that fat blobs don't mean "Oh, I burn fewer calories than normal because I'm a lazy piece of shit and because I have way less muscle mass than expected (muscles burn lots of calories even at rest.)" They take it to mean "No matter how much I eat - I'll be fat because 'set-points' or whatever. My body violates conservation of energy so it's not my fault I'm 500lbs."
Just keeping your heart pumping blood and keeping your temperature up will burn most of your calories. Unless you're cold-blooded and you're a vampire - you aren't getting to or maintaining a BMI of well over 40 without inhaling greasy and sugary shit all day in massive quantities. There are genuinely people who have serious genetic metabolic issues - those people are incredibly rare and they require constant medical supervision because they're constantly in danger of dying.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>There are genuinely people who have serious genetic metabolic issues
Do not conflate ''genetic'' with ''hereditary''. Some of these fat fricks live such an unhealthy life that it alters their genes.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Do not conflate ''genetic'' with ''hereditary''.
> There are genuinely people who have serious genetic metabolic issues
Some metabolic issues are caused by their life style habits. If you're fat, your metabolism gets lowered as the body begins to store more fat and the muscles don't need the energy. There is also issies regarding body structures too. For example, if you're a endomorph, you will have a slow metabolic rates and you will gain weight more easily l.
[...]
Just because you have slow metabolism doesn't mean you can't lose weight. If you don't eat anything, your body will start to use up fat as emergy regardless of their metabolic rates.
[...]
Anon, some people just have a hard time metabolizing their shit. Fat people specifically(either by genetics or self cause) have a slow metabolic rates due to their bodies storing that many energy and using very little of it. As long as they exercise and do a little bit of diet, they can return to normal in matter of months. The changes can be dependent on how their body functions in general.
>Some metabolic issues are caused by their life style habits.
I wasn't talking about mostly self-inflicted issues like diabetes or metabolic syndrome - I was talking about shit like Prader-Willi.
11 months ago
Anonymous
> There are genuinely people who have serious genetic metabolic issues
Some metabolic issues are caused by their life style habits. If you're fat, your metabolism gets lowered as the body begins to store more fat and the muscles don't need the energy. There is also issies regarding body structures too. For example, if you're a endomorph, you will have a slow metabolic rates and you will gain weight more easily l.
Remember that lost ship where all the survivors were thin except the ones with "slow metabolisms?" Ya I don't remember that ever happening either...
Just because you have slow metabolism doesn't mean you can't lose weight. If you don't eat anything, your body will start to use up fat as emergy regardless of their metabolic rates.
>this car won't drive because the engine is broken >Nooo! It can't drive because the RPM says zero, as a result of the engine being broken!
That's you, that's what you sound like.
Anon, some people just have a hard time metabolizing their shit. Fat people specifically(either by genetics or self cause) have a slow metabolic rates due to their bodies storing that many energy and using very little of it. As long as they exercise and do a little bit of diet, they can return to normal in matter of months. The changes can be dependent on how their body functions in general.
11 months ago
Anonymous
if your metabolism is 100 calories per day slower than someone else's that's a 52kg gain over 10 years.
you homies know frickall about how weight loss/gain works.
t. PrepHole
11 months ago
Anonymous
46kg and you are a complete moron who missed the point of my post.
t. giga/fit/
11 months ago
Anonymous
100*365*10=365,000
/7000 = 52.1kg
and no i didn't miss the point of your post. two olympic fricking athletes eating the exact same diet and doing hard workouts twice a week but with a relatively "minor" difference in metabolism on the order of 100 calories per day would end up with vastly different weights over the course of their lives. "slow metabolism" is actually relevant when considering why some people are fat and others aren't.
dumb c**t.
imagine two relatively petite women who are 5'0 and finish college weighing 120lbs with a BMI of 23. the first woman eats a perfect diet and maintains her college body for 20 years. the second woman behaves in the exact same way as the first woman but has a metabolism which is 100 calories slower per day - after 20 years the second woman would weigh 350lbs and have a BMI of 68.8.
the second woman eating the exact same diet and doing the exact same exercise ends up supermorbidly obese.
>"b-b-b-but people should follow individualised routines that..."
yeah and people do which is why in real life the second woman notices she's getting fat and changes up her diet, but for various other reasons it's not as simple as putting a car into reverse so although further gains are to an extent forestalled she never gets back to where she started.
you are simply fricking wrong. and badly wrong. you are wrong in a basic and fundamental way because you are utterly ignorant of this topic and everything you think you know about it comes from fricking PrepHole and plebbit.
real life is not as simple as this example which should be obvious from the fricking premise (two people who are exactly the same and do exactly the same thing for 20 years...) but you get the point.
or do you? who knows what your monkey brain is capable of understanding.
there's no need to reply to this post.
11 months ago
Anonymous
addendum: the difference between a 5th percentile metabolism and a 95th percentile metabolism is ~600kcal per day, so this effect can actually be very significant for a handful of people. most people of course are average but it's simply a fact that we know of heaps of things that make people genetically predisposed to obesity.
slow metabolism is one, ADHD is another because you can't control your impulse to eat and sweet food gives you the dopamine that your brain is deficient in; lower IQ makes you more likely to be fat and IQ sure as frick isn't something you get to choose. and there are socioeconomic factors as well.
approaching obesity as an individual, personal failing when it affects the fricking majority of society is moronic. humans are not uncontrollable stomachs on legs. humans are not perfect but they are also not irredeemable - i would contend that there's nothing wrong with the human spirit but even if you want to be a teenager about it and insist that there is, so fricking what? who can make straight what god has made crooked? you have to work with what you've got, and there ARE things that we can do to lower obesity rates. it's just that they're all boring things like encouraging people to ride a bike to work (and restructuring our cities so that it's possible).
this refusal to accept obesity as a health problem and insistence on treating it like it's a fricking medieval sin is wrongheaded and self-defeating. go and preach the gospel of the antifat but it doesn't work, and it never has. the reason people preach it is the inverse of what you think - they do it to make themselves look good. if being fat is a vice then being thin is a virtue, and so of course the cruellest evangelists are also the people least interested in actually fixing the problem because if nobody's fat then nobody's thin, like the good old days before 9/11.
it's transparent and repugnant, but not surprising. and even still it's not beyond redemption.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>he difference between a 5th percentile metabolism and a 95th percentile metabolism is ~600kcal per day
even for the 5th percentile the deviation from the median is about half that, so you're being a bit cheeky there: comparisons like that are made comparing to the average, not the other end of the spectrum. and again: if you can except a 180lbs guy to not eat as much as a 200lbs guy (or another 180lbs guy who has a slightly more strenuous job) - you can expect someone with a slightly lower metabolic rate to not eat as much as someone with a slightly higher one. >most people of course are average
duh. >metabolism is one, ADHD is another
my sympathies for your shit genetics: but you're not a benchmark for the rest of humanity. we don't give people dietary advice based off olympic athletes - why should we give it based on someone like that.
>approaching obesity as an individual, personal failing when it affects the fricking majority of society is moronic
think globally, act locally. it's a cliche but it works. if you care about your health - it's on you to take care of it. going on and on about how having a reasonable BMI is such an impossible standard to achieve and how everyone who manages it can only do it due to being inherently "gifted" is such a toxic and ass-backwards thing to do. and you know it. explanations should be separate from justifications.
>so fricking what?
obesity leads to misery, if you care so much about "human spirit" (btw, omfg how old are you? bringing the fricking human spirit into simple dieting advice) then you should be for curbing it - just like you should be for curbing crime, drug abuse, etc. - all things that are far more socially induced than obesity and we still except people to try and refrain from them. > 9/11
what the frick are you on about? you know what, for a moment there i took you seriously: my mistake. go have another deep fried snickers and tell yourself that nothing in life is your fault or under your control.
11 months ago
Anonymous
hahaha the human spirit and 9/11 got me too. i think he’s severely autistic. he’s grandstanding on weirdly specific technicalities.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>obese, adhd, ranting about "cruellest evangelists," can't grasp the concept of self-regulation or edge cases, "if you speak out against something, you're obviously secretly in favour of it"...
probably got self-diagnosed ptsd and uses the term "neuro-typical" at least twice a day.
off-topic blog; but once i made a simple pun and got 5 character-limit posts about how puns are the mark of bullies and sociopaths, and how any tinge of lightheartedness (or god forbid, outright humor) is a conspiracy against actual intellectual discourse on PrepHole or something. even got coordinates on another continent with an invitation for a to-the-death knife-fight at dawn. the topic was fricking chili recipes.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>/7000 = 52.1kg
it's 7750calories to a kg of fat, you could argue that weight gain/loss is never pure fat - but that leaves you open to wildly varying estimates. in which case citing an exact figure is pointless - which i was poking fun at.
>imagine two relatively petite women
your whole point boils down to: >"different people can't consume the exact same amount of food and have the exact same activity levels and get the exact same result"
duh, no shit moron. >"b-b-b-but people should follow individualised routines that..."
yeah, people being expected to eat as much as THEY need not someone else is such a weird and outlandish "cope." whatever moron. >but for various other reasons it's not as simple
yeah it is. 90% of the people i see everyday are a relatively normal weight into middle age, can't be that hard. it's been that way in most of the world most of the time even after industrialization stabilized food supplies.
look, i get what you're trying to say - there've been times that i've been chubby due to various factors such as stress, lack of sleep, whatever. i understand how and why people get fat in a creeping way. but if you had actually read my post instead of just smugly insulting me and pretending like you're the only one who knows how to count calories like it's some arcane knowledge: you would have maybe noticed that i was merely pointing out that "muh metabolism" is not a valid excuse or root cause for most peoples obesity. it's a scapegoat that is used to justify self-destructive behaviour. i even pointed out when that is not the case and when metabolism is actually to blame.
>fricking PrepHole
half reading someone post, calling them a moron and then posting two tl;dr posts when getting the same response in kind is peak PrepHole behaviour - you're not so above the rest of us plebs, it seems.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>he difference between a 5th percentile metabolism and a 95th percentile metabolism is ~600kcal per day
even for the 5th percentile the deviation from the median is about half that, so you're being a bit cheeky there: comparisons like that are made comparing to the average, not the other end of the spectrum. and again: if you can except a 180lbs guy to not eat as much as a 200lbs guy (or another 180lbs guy who has a slightly more strenuous job) - you can expect someone with a slightly lower metabolic rate to not eat as much as someone with a slightly higher one. >most people of course are average
duh. >metabolism is one, ADHD is another
my sympathies for your shit genetics: but you're not a benchmark for the rest of humanity. we don't give people dietary advice based off olympic athletes - why should we give it based on someone like that.
>approaching obesity as an individual, personal failing when it affects the fricking majority of society is moronic
think globally, act locally. it's a cliche but it works. if you care about your health - it's on you to take care of it. going on and on about how having a reasonable BMI is such an impossible standard to achieve and how everyone who manages it can only do it due to being inherently "gifted" is such a toxic and ass-backwards thing to do. and you know it. explanations should be separate from justifications.
>so fricking what?
obesity leads to misery, if you care so much about "human spirit" (btw, omfg how old are you? bringing the fricking human spirit into simple dieting advice) then you should be for curbing it - just like you should be for curbing crime, drug abuse, etc. - all things that are far more socially induced than obesity and we still except people to try and refrain from them. > 9/11
what the frick are you on about? you know what, for a moment there i took you seriously: my mistake. go have another deep fried snickers and tell yourself that nothing in life is your fault or under your control.
that's a very long way of saying i'm right but you don't like how i said it.
kthxbai moron, i accept your concession.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>if you're losing an argument just play "lol, i don't care. thanx bye" card.
nice try, but the whole "i typed less than you, therefore i care less, therefore i win" card is unplayable after you drop 2 tl;dr posts out of the blue. shit clearly got to you.
you're utterly wrong on the idea that for any appreciable portion of the population differences in metabolic rate are, in any way shape or form, significant or an obstacle to maintaining a healthy weight. when controlled for age, lean body mass and activity levels - metabolic rates vary by less than 5% in the vast majority of cases. that's in the literature and i personally know because i've estimated caloric intake and expected weight loss for dozens of people using very rudimentary formulas: i was right to within even less than that every time. in fact it's scary how accurately a bit of basic math can predict behaviour of a complex system like the human body. well, perhaps not too surprising since human bodies are pretty optimized and it all boils down to basic thermodynamics.
and guess what: if you notice you're constantly gaining weight: you can just - idk - eat slightly less. shocker. nobody is shoving your recommended caloric intake into your face and you certainly don't get to a BMI of 40 by eating 2500kcal/day (or whatever the recommendation for your gender and age is.)
me saying "well, obviously not everyone has EXACTLY the same genetics and body and lifestyle" is not a gotcha - any non-moron would infer that. in fact my first post (the one that triggered you) was me stating just that. i pointed that out to you and you naturally went "aaahhhh, so you concede!" which is a special kind of thick.
i didn't even bother pointing out that in your imaginary scenario - the woman with the 100kcal lower dietary needs would only gain weight until the extra weight balanced her metabolic rate. which would occur at about 3kg not 50kg. i thought that was obvious, but perhaps not to someone as dumb as you.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>you're utterly wrong on the idea that for any appreciable portion of the population differences in metabolic rate are, in any way shape or form, significant or an obstacle to maintaining a healthy weight.
sure, so long as you try.
some people don't try. and while you can characterize "not trying" as a failure if you want, let's revise what was actually posted: >you aren't getting to or maintaining a BMI of well over 40 without inhaling greasy and sugary shit all day in massive quantities.
this is a lie.
you can easily get to a BMI of well over 40 eating a not-obscene diet if you
1. are unlucky
and
2. don't bother doing anything about it when you notice you're gaining weight
over a period of 10 or 20 years you can put on lots of weight eating not-obscenely if you're particularly unlucky and disinterested.
you're just a liar. you were wrong because you were ignorant and now you're strawmanning some shit that nobody cares about as if by addressing self-admitted tangents you're kicking goals.
christ dude, if i knew you were this stupid i wouldn't have bothered effortposting.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>BMI over 40 >eating not-obscenely
eating whole meals? no, no fricking way unless you count inhaling a whole pot roast with a couple of rotisserie chicken on the side as "non-obscene"
11 months ago
Anonymous
a 152cm woman who weighs 100kg has a BMI of 43 and a TDEE of 2000 calories a day. if they have a 5th percentile metabolism they would have a TDEE of 1700 calories a day.
so yes, a person who in all likelihood eats less than fricking you do could definitely achieve a BMI over 40.
you fricking god damn moron. you could have done all of this fricking maths yourself but you don't because you're so fricking stupid and lazy and complacent with your nice self-confirming worldview.
fricking c**t moron.
>sure, so long as you try.
aha! you concede! seriously: that was my main point - looking like a slob is usually the result of acting like a slob. this whole time you're trying to break it down into this sociological, metaphysical bullshit - ie. you're arguing from the general to the particular. that or you bring out extreme outliers - ie. you're arguing from the exceptions. bad form (and pathetic) from someone who so readily calls other moronic.
>this is a lie.
okay, a simple contention. let's see. >a BMI of well over 40 eating a not-obscene diet if you >1. are unlucky
which i pointed out in my very first post. so why the frick did you even start an argument if that's your point? the thing i was drawing attention to was that the percentage of obese people who are truly fricked by genetics or factors completely outside their control is minuscule. it is not the norm. very, very far from it. arguing edge cases as the default is arguing in bad faith and you know it. the fact that i stated that before you even replied makes you doubly moronic.
>2. don't bother doing anything about it when you notice you're gaining weight
okay, that is a psychological issue - not a metabolic one. but, crucially (for the 4th time:) THAT WAS MY FRICKING POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE. what the frick is wrong with you? are you one of those morons that can't take a point unless it is worded exactly the way you would word it? that's a major warning sing for autism.
AGAIN: what i take umbrage with is when fatties again and again try to push their psychological issues and shortcomings under the rug of "but it's way harder/impossible for me, specifically, to maintain a reasonable weight." no. it's not. at least in 99.9999% of cases it's not. in something like 10% of cases it's about 5% or less harder. that's nothing, especially since weight gain is self-regulating unless you: >inhale greasy and sugary shit all day in massive quantities.
>which i pointed out in my very first post.
no you didn't. you implied that a "slow metabolism" could only possibly be materially significant in the case of like 1 in 100,000 genetic disorders and that's simply wrong. you implied that people would have to shovel down junk food and grease 24/7 to ever end up morbidly obese and that's also wrong.
>what i take umbrage with is when fatties again and again try to push their psychological issues and shortcomings under the rug of "but it's way harder/impossible for me, specifically, to maintain a reasonable weight."
i don't care. that's not what you said. you said something else and what you actually said was simply wrong.
furthermore, your implication that weight loss is easy and people are just making excuses is also wrong. weight loss is very hard. how do we know this? well, the only objective way of measuring the difficulty of a task is to look at how many people try and fail. right? that's a reasonable way of measuring difficulty. if most people who try to do something fail to do it, it must be pretty hard. and wouldn't you know it, you have a better chance of surviving a gunshot wound than you do of losing a significant amount of weight and keeping it off. people don't need excuses about why losing weight is hard for them, specifically. losing weight is just straight up hard, by any reasonable definition of the word.
and that is what you're actually angry about.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>sure, so long as you try.
aha! you concede! seriously: that was my main point - looking like a slob is usually the result of acting like a slob. this whole time you're trying to break it down into this sociological, metaphysical bullshit - ie. you're arguing from the general to the particular. that or you bring out extreme outliers - ie. you're arguing from the exceptions. bad form (and pathetic) from someone who so readily calls other moronic.
>this is a lie.
okay, a simple contention. let's see. >a BMI of well over 40 eating a not-obscene diet if you >1. are unlucky
which i pointed out in my very first post. so why the frick did you even start an argument if that's your point? the thing i was drawing attention to was that the percentage of obese people who are truly fricked by genetics or factors completely outside their control is minuscule. it is not the norm. very, very far from it. arguing edge cases as the default is arguing in bad faith and you know it. the fact that i stated that before you even replied makes you doubly moronic.
>2. don't bother doing anything about it when you notice you're gaining weight
okay, that is a psychological issue - not a metabolic one. but, crucially (for the 4th time:) THAT WAS MY FRICKING POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE. what the frick is wrong with you? are you one of those morons that can't take a point unless it is worded exactly the way you would word it? that's a major warning sing for autism.
AGAIN: what i take umbrage with is when fatties again and again try to push their psychological issues and shortcomings under the rug of "but it's way harder/impossible for me, specifically, to maintain a reasonable weight." no. it's not. at least in 99.9999% of cases it's not. in something like 10% of cases it's about 5% or less harder. that's nothing, especially since weight gain is self-regulating unless you: >inhale greasy and sugary shit all day in massive quantities.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>BMI of well over 40 >not-obscene diet
burger moment.
>Age slows your metabolism
Only past 60, there is no effect between ages 20 to 60.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/surprising-findings-about-metabolism-and-age-202110082613
Carbohydrates and sugar. There is an epidemic of insulin resistance going on now. Constant blood sugar spikes -> creates insulin -> body resists insulin -> energy stored as fat -> once blood sugar goes down you get hungry again -> more carbs -> body resists insulin and so the cycle continues. People need to reduce their carb and sugar intake and stop eating so much processesed food. Eat more whole foods, leafy greens and non-starch vegetables, and more meat and eggs (keto diet)
Here is the thing, though. The main issue is that people are not balancing their sugar/carb intakes with exercising. Insulin resistance and energy(fats) are reduced by general exercising. So even if you eat alot of sugar/carbs, having a exercise routine can help prevent things like insulin resistance because exercising can boost metabolism and energy consumption. Muscles also help in reducing fat/insulin resistance too. The issue with these people is that they barely do exercise to balance out their habits.
Wrong. Insulin resistance comes from fat cells, so much so that a newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus type 2 patient can be cured if more than 40% fat is removed in the first few months after diagnosis.
Actually, insulin resistance come from excess fats than carbs. The fats in your body makes it difficult for the body to process insulin and will result in insulin resistance. If you exercise, you can reduce fats and increase blood flow, which will make it easier to absorb insulin. Insulin resistance comes down to how fats effect your ability to absorb insulin.
And how do you become fat to begin with? Because you eat and don't let your body process what you've already eaten before your next meal. It's not just about exercise and calories in and calories out. All the participants on The Biggest Loser re-gained all their weight again because they didn't change what they ate and didn't commit to fasting, intermittent fasting, or one meal day. Sugars will make you hungry constantly, whereas a diet based on fat and protein, mixed with fasting, will keep your blood sugars stable so you don't feel hungry all the time. Exercise is important because it's just a good thing for your health in any case, but it's not central in the big picture. The most important thing is to reduce how many times you eat a day, eating less sugars and don't spike insulin levels all the time.
Speaking as a former fatty BTW.
From my personal experience you don't need to commit to a low carb diet all the time, the absolute most important thing to do is fasting, whether it is going 24 hours between a meal or even 72 hours. I also walked 10-14 000 steps a day
You become fat due to your body having more shit than it needed. For example, if you eat 3,000 calories a day and you only burn 2,500, the 500 calories will be converted to extra energy. Same goes for sugar. All that unneeded energy goes towards making your fat or to maintain your muscles. Which is why muscles are important when it comes to not being fat. The most important thing when it comes is to balance out your eating habits with exercising ones. As long as you don't eat too much, then you can eat anything you want while doing basic exercising to maintain weight.
Actually, insulin resistance come from excess fats than carbs. The fats in your body makes it difficult for the body to process insulin and will result in insulin resistance. If you exercise, you can reduce fats and increase blood flow, which will make it easier to absorb insulin. Insulin resistance comes down to how fats effect your ability to absorb insulin.
>the basic routine of cardio and muscular exercise
I too lazy yo do it alone. And i have no gf or bro to do it together with. I not that fat tho, was 95 kg before Ukraine war, and was moving to 80, then get bigger up to 110 kg due to stress. now again closer to 100.
>And i have no gf or bro to do it together with. I not that fat tho, was 95 kg before Ukraine war, and was moving to 80, then get bigger up to 110 kg due to stress. now again closer to 100.
Fricking hell did we find Gerasimov on this board?
If you want advice on how to lose weight and change your lifestyle I recommend Dr sten ekberg on youtube. Stress is a known cause for weight gain because it raises cortisol levels in your body that causes you to become hungry and over eat. I've been addicted to sugars and carbs myself and the journey to low carb and healthier lifestyle doesn't happen over night. It takes months
He's a fatass alcoholic with heart failure, he's likely dead now, once you start with the abdominal ascites it's a slow awful march towards death.
Carbohydrates and sugar. There is an epidemic of insulin resistance going on now. Constant blood sugar spikes -> creates insulin -> body resists insulin -> energy stored as fat -> once blood sugar goes down you get hungry again -> more carbs -> body resists insulin and so the cycle continues. People need to reduce their carb and sugar intake and stop eating so much processesed food. Eat more whole foods, leafy greens and non-starch vegetables, and more meat and eggs (keto diet)
It's very easy to eat more calories than you need. > the basic routine of cardio and muscular exercise can keep you fit.
but that would be work wouldn't it?
You don’t aim at his bloated stomach anon, the vitals aren’t there.
You aim at his chest cavity. In between the sternum and collarbones.
In fairness he also has pretty thick breasts, but JHPs should penetrate at least 12” of 10% ordnance gelatin generally speaking, and fat has lower density (about 0.9 g/cc vs 1.04 g/cc) as well as lower shear resistance compared to gelatin, so an inch of gelatin is worth more than an inch of fat. Same usually goes for the lungs, which might have similar shear resistance to gelatin but much lower density. (Ribs are thin and don’t tend to slow down handgun bullets noticeably.)
It doesn’t look like his chest is much more than ~15” front to back, and some portion of that is just nonvital chest wall tissue on the off side, so standard JHPs should work fine if you can aim.
Very unlikely. ~20”+ of fat, muscle, and intestines, plus the skin on the far side is disproportionately good at containing bullets that have slowed down a lot. But then again, you don’t need them to. Bullets that hit there tend to not be all that effective regardless of the level of obesity.
>Expecting someone who ruined their own body to respect the physical status of anything
The fat lower class live in a weird state of moron zen where they just accept that they will frick up things and roll with it.
any cartridge that can pen at least 12 inches of ballistic gel (which is more tougher than hooman skin) is k. fun fact: some indio (not pajeet) managed to kill a grisly with a .22LR with her single shot rifle.
A 10mm loaded with Buffalo bore hard cast would do the trick no problem
how does someone get this fat? Even if you have slow metabolism, the basic routine of cardio and muscular exercise can keep you fit.
>slow metabolism
meme
put down the fork and pick up an exercise schedule
>meme
Anon, not everybody has a consistent metabolism. Some people are slow while others are fast. What helps balance it out is basic exercise that can help boost your metabolism and energy consumption.
There's plenty of research on this. Any difference in "metabolic rate" disappears once you stop using self-report measures. People are good at lying to themselves.
While true, obese people tend to have slow metabolism due to high fats and low muscles. The issue with obesity is that its easily fix by basic routine of exercising that helps with the metabolic issues. Even if you have trouble to gain muscles, exercising can still make you gain it regardless of your metabolic rates.
>While true, obese people tend to have slow metabolism due to high fats and low muscles.
The point is that fat blobs don't mean "Oh, I burn fewer calories than normal because I'm a lazy piece of shit and because I have way less muscle mass than expected (muscles burn lots of calories even at rest.)" They take it to mean "No matter how much I eat - I'll be fat because 'set-points' or whatever. My body violates conservation of energy so it's not my fault I'm 500lbs."
Just keeping your heart pumping blood and keeping your temperature up will burn most of your calories. Unless you're cold-blooded and you're a vampire - you aren't getting to or maintaining a BMI of well over 40 without inhaling greasy and sugary shit all day in massive quantities. There are genuinely people who have serious genetic metabolic issues - those people are incredibly rare and they require constant medical supervision because they're constantly in danger of dying.
>There are genuinely people who have serious genetic metabolic issues
Do not conflate ''genetic'' with ''hereditary''. Some of these fat fricks live such an unhealthy life that it alters their genes.
>Do not conflate ''genetic'' with ''hereditary''.
>Some metabolic issues are caused by their life style habits.
I wasn't talking about mostly self-inflicted issues like diabetes or metabolic syndrome - I was talking about shit like Prader-Willi.
> There are genuinely people who have serious genetic metabolic issues
Some metabolic issues are caused by their life style habits. If you're fat, your metabolism gets lowered as the body begins to store more fat and the muscles don't need the energy. There is also issies regarding body structures too. For example, if you're a endomorph, you will have a slow metabolic rates and you will gain weight more easily l.
Just because you have slow metabolism doesn't mean you can't lose weight. If you don't eat anything, your body will start to use up fat as emergy regardless of their metabolic rates.
Anon, some people just have a hard time metabolizing their shit. Fat people specifically(either by genetics or self cause) have a slow metabolic rates due to their bodies storing that many energy and using very little of it. As long as they exercise and do a little bit of diet, they can return to normal in matter of months. The changes can be dependent on how their body functions in general.
if your metabolism is 100 calories per day slower than someone else's that's a 52kg gain over 10 years.
you homies know frickall about how weight loss/gain works.
t. PrepHole
46kg and you are a complete moron who missed the point of my post.
t. giga/fit/
100*365*10=365,000
/7000 = 52.1kg
and no i didn't miss the point of your post. two olympic fricking athletes eating the exact same diet and doing hard workouts twice a week but with a relatively "minor" difference in metabolism on the order of 100 calories per day would end up with vastly different weights over the course of their lives. "slow metabolism" is actually relevant when considering why some people are fat and others aren't.
dumb c**t.
imagine two relatively petite women who are 5'0 and finish college weighing 120lbs with a BMI of 23. the first woman eats a perfect diet and maintains her college body for 20 years. the second woman behaves in the exact same way as the first woman but has a metabolism which is 100 calories slower per day - after 20 years the second woman would weigh 350lbs and have a BMI of 68.8.
the second woman eating the exact same diet and doing the exact same exercise ends up supermorbidly obese.
>"b-b-b-but people should follow individualised routines that..."
yeah and people do which is why in real life the second woman notices she's getting fat and changes up her diet, but for various other reasons it's not as simple as putting a car into reverse so although further gains are to an extent forestalled she never gets back to where she started.
you are simply fricking wrong. and badly wrong. you are wrong in a basic and fundamental way because you are utterly ignorant of this topic and everything you think you know about it comes from fricking PrepHole and plebbit.
real life is not as simple as this example which should be obvious from the fricking premise (two people who are exactly the same and do exactly the same thing for 20 years...) but you get the point.
or do you? who knows what your monkey brain is capable of understanding.
there's no need to reply to this post.
addendum: the difference between a 5th percentile metabolism and a 95th percentile metabolism is ~600kcal per day, so this effect can actually be very significant for a handful of people. most people of course are average but it's simply a fact that we know of heaps of things that make people genetically predisposed to obesity.
slow metabolism is one, ADHD is another because you can't control your impulse to eat and sweet food gives you the dopamine that your brain is deficient in; lower IQ makes you more likely to be fat and IQ sure as frick isn't something you get to choose. and there are socioeconomic factors as well.
approaching obesity as an individual, personal failing when it affects the fricking majority of society is moronic. humans are not uncontrollable stomachs on legs. humans are not perfect but they are also not irredeemable - i would contend that there's nothing wrong with the human spirit but even if you want to be a teenager about it and insist that there is, so fricking what? who can make straight what god has made crooked? you have to work with what you've got, and there ARE things that we can do to lower obesity rates. it's just that they're all boring things like encouraging people to ride a bike to work (and restructuring our cities so that it's possible).
this refusal to accept obesity as a health problem and insistence on treating it like it's a fricking medieval sin is wrongheaded and self-defeating. go and preach the gospel of the antifat but it doesn't work, and it never has. the reason people preach it is the inverse of what you think - they do it to make themselves look good. if being fat is a vice then being thin is a virtue, and so of course the cruellest evangelists are also the people least interested in actually fixing the problem because if nobody's fat then nobody's thin, like the good old days before 9/11.
it's transparent and repugnant, but not surprising. and even still it's not beyond redemption.
>he difference between a 5th percentile metabolism and a 95th percentile metabolism is ~600kcal per day
even for the 5th percentile the deviation from the median is about half that, so you're being a bit cheeky there: comparisons like that are made comparing to the average, not the other end of the spectrum. and again: if you can except a 180lbs guy to not eat as much as a 200lbs guy (or another 180lbs guy who has a slightly more strenuous job) - you can expect someone with a slightly lower metabolic rate to not eat as much as someone with a slightly higher one.
>most people of course are average
duh.
>metabolism is one, ADHD is another
my sympathies for your shit genetics: but you're not a benchmark for the rest of humanity. we don't give people dietary advice based off olympic athletes - why should we give it based on someone like that.
>approaching obesity as an individual, personal failing when it affects the fricking majority of society is moronic
think globally, act locally. it's a cliche but it works. if you care about your health - it's on you to take care of it. going on and on about how having a reasonable BMI is such an impossible standard to achieve and how everyone who manages it can only do it due to being inherently "gifted" is such a toxic and ass-backwards thing to do. and you know it. explanations should be separate from justifications.
>so fricking what?
obesity leads to misery, if you care so much about "human spirit" (btw, omfg how old are you? bringing the fricking human spirit into simple dieting advice) then you should be for curbing it - just like you should be for curbing crime, drug abuse, etc. - all things that are far more socially induced than obesity and we still except people to try and refrain from them.
> 9/11
what the frick are you on about? you know what, for a moment there i took you seriously: my mistake. go have another deep fried snickers and tell yourself that nothing in life is your fault or under your control.
hahaha the human spirit and 9/11 got me too. i think he’s severely autistic. he’s grandstanding on weirdly specific technicalities.
>obese, adhd, ranting about "cruellest evangelists," can't grasp the concept of self-regulation or edge cases, "if you speak out against something, you're obviously secretly in favour of it"...
probably got self-diagnosed ptsd and uses the term "neuro-typical" at least twice a day.
off-topic blog; but once i made a simple pun and got 5 character-limit posts about how puns are the mark of bullies and sociopaths, and how any tinge of lightheartedness (or god forbid, outright humor) is a conspiracy against actual intellectual discourse on PrepHole or something. even got coordinates on another continent with an invitation for a to-the-death knife-fight at dawn. the topic was fricking chili recipes.
>/7000 = 52.1kg
it's 7750calories to a kg of fat, you could argue that weight gain/loss is never pure fat - but that leaves you open to wildly varying estimates. in which case citing an exact figure is pointless - which i was poking fun at.
>imagine two relatively petite women
your whole point boils down to:
>"different people can't consume the exact same amount of food and have the exact same activity levels and get the exact same result"
duh, no shit moron.
>"b-b-b-but people should follow individualised routines that..."
yeah, people being expected to eat as much as THEY need not someone else is such a weird and outlandish "cope." whatever moron.
>but for various other reasons it's not as simple
yeah it is. 90% of the people i see everyday are a relatively normal weight into middle age, can't be that hard. it's been that way in most of the world most of the time even after industrialization stabilized food supplies.
look, i get what you're trying to say - there've been times that i've been chubby due to various factors such as stress, lack of sleep, whatever. i understand how and why people get fat in a creeping way. but if you had actually read my post instead of just smugly insulting me and pretending like you're the only one who knows how to count calories like it's some arcane knowledge: you would have maybe noticed that i was merely pointing out that "muh metabolism" is not a valid excuse or root cause for most peoples obesity. it's a scapegoat that is used to justify self-destructive behaviour. i even pointed out when that is not the case and when metabolism is actually to blame.
>fricking PrepHole
half reading someone post, calling them a moron and then posting two tl;dr posts when getting the same response in kind is peak PrepHole behaviour - you're not so above the rest of us plebs, it seems.
that's a very long way of saying i'm right but you don't like how i said it.
kthxbai moron, i accept your concession.
>if you're losing an argument just play "lol, i don't care. thanx bye" card.
nice try, but the whole "i typed less than you, therefore i care less, therefore i win" card is unplayable after you drop 2 tl;dr posts out of the blue. shit clearly got to you.
you're utterly wrong on the idea that for any appreciable portion of the population differences in metabolic rate are, in any way shape or form, significant or an obstacle to maintaining a healthy weight. when controlled for age, lean body mass and activity levels - metabolic rates vary by less than 5% in the vast majority of cases. that's in the literature and i personally know because i've estimated caloric intake and expected weight loss for dozens of people using very rudimentary formulas: i was right to within even less than that every time. in fact it's scary how accurately a bit of basic math can predict behaviour of a complex system like the human body. well, perhaps not too surprising since human bodies are pretty optimized and it all boils down to basic thermodynamics.
and guess what: if you notice you're constantly gaining weight: you can just - idk - eat slightly less. shocker. nobody is shoving your recommended caloric intake into your face and you certainly don't get to a BMI of 40 by eating 2500kcal/day (or whatever the recommendation for your gender and age is.)
me saying "well, obviously not everyone has EXACTLY the same genetics and body and lifestyle" is not a gotcha - any non-moron would infer that. in fact my first post (the one that triggered you) was me stating just that. i pointed that out to you and you naturally went "aaahhhh, so you concede!" which is a special kind of thick.
i didn't even bother pointing out that in your imaginary scenario - the woman with the 100kcal lower dietary needs would only gain weight until the extra weight balanced her metabolic rate. which would occur at about 3kg not 50kg. i thought that was obvious, but perhaps not to someone as dumb as you.
>you're utterly wrong on the idea that for any appreciable portion of the population differences in metabolic rate are, in any way shape or form, significant or an obstacle to maintaining a healthy weight.
sure, so long as you try.
some people don't try. and while you can characterize "not trying" as a failure if you want, let's revise what was actually posted:
>you aren't getting to or maintaining a BMI of well over 40 without inhaling greasy and sugary shit all day in massive quantities.
this is a lie.
you can easily get to a BMI of well over 40 eating a not-obscene diet if you
1. are unlucky
and
2. don't bother doing anything about it when you notice you're gaining weight
over a period of 10 or 20 years you can put on lots of weight eating not-obscenely if you're particularly unlucky and disinterested.
you're just a liar. you were wrong because you were ignorant and now you're strawmanning some shit that nobody cares about as if by addressing self-admitted tangents you're kicking goals.
christ dude, if i knew you were this stupid i wouldn't have bothered effortposting.
>BMI over 40
>eating not-obscenely
eating whole meals? no, no fricking way unless you count inhaling a whole pot roast with a couple of rotisserie chicken on the side as "non-obscene"
a 152cm woman who weighs 100kg has a BMI of 43 and a TDEE of 2000 calories a day. if they have a 5th percentile metabolism they would have a TDEE of 1700 calories a day.
so yes, a person who in all likelihood eats less than fricking you do could definitely achieve a BMI over 40.
you fricking god damn moron. you could have done all of this fricking maths yourself but you don't because you're so fricking stupid and lazy and complacent with your nice self-confirming worldview.
fricking c**t moron.
>which i pointed out in my very first post.
no you didn't. you implied that a "slow metabolism" could only possibly be materially significant in the case of like 1 in 100,000 genetic disorders and that's simply wrong. you implied that people would have to shovel down junk food and grease 24/7 to ever end up morbidly obese and that's also wrong.
>what i take umbrage with is when fatties again and again try to push their psychological issues and shortcomings under the rug of "but it's way harder/impossible for me, specifically, to maintain a reasonable weight."
i don't care. that's not what you said. you said something else and what you actually said was simply wrong.
furthermore, your implication that weight loss is easy and people are just making excuses is also wrong. weight loss is very hard. how do we know this? well, the only objective way of measuring the difficulty of a task is to look at how many people try and fail. right? that's a reasonable way of measuring difficulty. if most people who try to do something fail to do it, it must be pretty hard. and wouldn't you know it, you have a better chance of surviving a gunshot wound than you do of losing a significant amount of weight and keeping it off. people don't need excuses about why losing weight is hard for them, specifically. losing weight is just straight up hard, by any reasonable definition of the word.
and that is what you're actually angry about.
>sure, so long as you try.
aha! you concede! seriously: that was my main point - looking like a slob is usually the result of acting like a slob. this whole time you're trying to break it down into this sociological, metaphysical bullshit - ie. you're arguing from the general to the particular. that or you bring out extreme outliers - ie. you're arguing from the exceptions. bad form (and pathetic) from someone who so readily calls other moronic.
>this is a lie.
okay, a simple contention. let's see.
>a BMI of well over 40 eating a not-obscene diet if you
>1. are unlucky
which i pointed out in my very first post. so why the frick did you even start an argument if that's your point? the thing i was drawing attention to was that the percentage of obese people who are truly fricked by genetics or factors completely outside their control is minuscule. it is not the norm. very, very far from it. arguing edge cases as the default is arguing in bad faith and you know it. the fact that i stated that before you even replied makes you doubly moronic.
>2. don't bother doing anything about it when you notice you're gaining weight
okay, that is a psychological issue - not a metabolic one. but, crucially (for the 4th time:) THAT WAS MY FRICKING POINT IN THE FIRST PLACE. what the frick is wrong with you? are you one of those morons that can't take a point unless it is worded exactly the way you would word it? that's a major warning sing for autism.
AGAIN: what i take umbrage with is when fatties again and again try to push their psychological issues and shortcomings under the rug of "but it's way harder/impossible for me, specifically, to maintain a reasonable weight." no. it's not. at least in 99.9999% of cases it's not. in something like 10% of cases it's about 5% or less harder. that's nothing, especially since weight gain is self-regulating unless you:
>inhale greasy and sugary shit all day in massive quantities.
>BMI of well over 40
>not-obscene diet
burger moment.
Remember that lost ship where all the survivors were thin except the ones with "slow metabolisms?" Ya I don't remember that ever happening either...
>this car won't drive because the engine is broken
>Nooo! It can't drive because the RPM says zero, as a result of the engine being broken!
That's you, that's what you sound like.
Not entirely. Age slows your metabolism, but you are mostly correct.
>Age slows your metabolism
Only past 60, there is no effect between ages 20 to 60.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/surprising-findings-about-metabolism-and-age-202110082613
Nah, that's a thing.
But the fat fricks blaming slow metabolism are delusional
It looks like his body is retaining water due to liver damage rather than just being fat.
I've literally never seen anyone refer to someone who is alive as a "liver". Are you fricking moronic?
2/10, (You)
He's a fatass alcoholic with heart failure, he's likely dead now, once you start with the abdominal ascites it's a slow awful march towards death.
those coopers greens are good shit boy
Slow metabolism also means you get hungry less.
If I were to guess. He's drinking all his calories.
Carbohydrates and sugar. There is an epidemic of insulin resistance going on now. Constant blood sugar spikes -> creates insulin -> body resists insulin -> energy stored as fat -> once blood sugar goes down you get hungry again -> more carbs -> body resists insulin and so the cycle continues. People need to reduce their carb and sugar intake and stop eating so much processesed food. Eat more whole foods, leafy greens and non-starch vegetables, and more meat and eggs (keto diet)
Also fasting is good thing because you teach your body to burn fat and you become less hungrier over time
Here is the thing, though. The main issue is that people are not balancing their sugar/carb intakes with exercising. Insulin resistance and energy(fats) are reduced by general exercising. So even if you eat alot of sugar/carbs, having a exercise routine can help prevent things like insulin resistance because exercising can boost metabolism and energy consumption. Muscles also help in reducing fat/insulin resistance too. The issue with these people is that they barely do exercise to balance out their habits.
Wrong. Insulin resistance comes from fat cells, so much so that a newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus type 2 patient can be cured if more than 40% fat is removed in the first few months after diagnosis.
And how do you become fat to begin with? Because you eat and don't let your body process what you've already eaten before your next meal. It's not just about exercise and calories in and calories out. All the participants on The Biggest Loser re-gained all their weight again because they didn't change what they ate and didn't commit to fasting, intermittent fasting, or one meal day. Sugars will make you hungry constantly, whereas a diet based on fat and protein, mixed with fasting, will keep your blood sugars stable so you don't feel hungry all the time. Exercise is important because it's just a good thing for your health in any case, but it's not central in the big picture. The most important thing is to reduce how many times you eat a day, eating less sugars and don't spike insulin levels all the time.
Speaking as a former fatty BTW.
From my personal experience you don't need to commit to a low carb diet all the time, the absolute most important thing to do is fasting, whether it is going 24 hours between a meal or even 72 hours. I also walked 10-14 000 steps a day
You become fat due to your body having more shit than it needed. For example, if you eat 3,000 calories a day and you only burn 2,500, the 500 calories will be converted to extra energy. Same goes for sugar. All that unneeded energy goes towards making your fat or to maintain your muscles. Which is why muscles are important when it comes to not being fat. The most important thing when it comes is to balance out your eating habits with exercising ones. As long as you don't eat too much, then you can eat anything you want while doing basic exercising to maintain weight.
Actually, insulin resistance come from excess fats than carbs. The fats in your body makes it difficult for the body to process insulin and will result in insulin resistance. If you exercise, you can reduce fats and increase blood flow, which will make it easier to absorb insulin. Insulin resistance comes down to how fats effect your ability to absorb insulin.
>le keto meme diet
frick off fatty
Anon…the man in the picture is an alcoholic towards the end of his life. This is the final form of alcohol abuse.
>the basic routine of cardio and muscular exercise
I too lazy yo do it alone. And i have no gf or bro to do it together with. I not that fat tho, was 95 kg before Ukraine war, and was moving to 80, then get bigger up to 110 kg due to stress. now again closer to 100.
>And i have no gf or bro to do it together with. I not that fat tho, was 95 kg before Ukraine war, and was moving to 80, then get bigger up to 110 kg due to stress. now again closer to 100.
Fricking hell did we find Gerasimov on this board?
jk bro hope things get better
If you want advice on how to lose weight and change your lifestyle I recommend Dr sten ekberg on youtube. Stress is a known cause for weight gain because it raises cortisol levels in your body that causes you to become hungry and over eat. I've been addicted to sugars and carbs myself and the journey to low carb and healthier lifestyle doesn't happen over night. It takes months
For stress get a motorcycle :3
chronic pain and depression.
hes a feedismgainer fetishist
Any caliber larger than 9mm.
He's just like me no cap fr fr
It's very easy to eat more calories than you need.
> the basic routine of cardio and muscular exercise can keep you fit.
but that would be work wouldn't it?
not really actually. if you go significantly over your calories your body compensates for it by making you fidget, for example.
i need to eat less
Its parasites in this case for that kind of stomach
a blank .22LR should be enough to give him a heart attack
Is this achievable natty?
yeah
BOOMER!!
I hear a Smo-*AAAAACK*
Anyone got the pics of that morbidly obese ISIS fighter who had his guts split open by shrapnel?
Pepper spray or CO2 charged shark knoife
you just have to poke a hole in him and all his precious goo will leak out
I wouldn't be using HP, that's for sure. TC is probably the way to go, any pistol throwing over 140gr should do the trick.
Any answer other than whaling harpoons is misinformed.
a lot of that is his swollen dead liver
Do you think that fat could stop a hollow point before it reaches his organs?
Any basic cartridge 380 and up with fmj can reach vitals on this target.
You don’t aim at his bloated stomach anon, the vitals aren’t there.
You aim at his chest cavity. In between the sternum and collarbones.
In fairness he also has pretty thick breasts, but JHPs should penetrate at least 12” of 10% ordnance gelatin generally speaking, and fat has lower density (about 0.9 g/cc vs 1.04 g/cc) as well as lower shear resistance compared to gelatin, so an inch of gelatin is worth more than an inch of fat. Same usually goes for the lungs, which might have similar shear resistance to gelatin but much lower density. (Ribs are thin and don’t tend to slow down handgun bullets noticeably.)
It doesn’t look like his chest is much more than ~15” front to back, and some portion of that is just nonvital chest wall tissue on the off side, so standard JHPs should work fine if you can aim.
If you shot him at his widest section with a 9mm jhp, do you think it would exit?
Very unlikely. ~20”+ of fat, muscle, and intestines, plus the skin on the far side is disproportionately good at containing bullets that have slowed down a lot. But then again, you don’t need them to. Bullets that hit there tend to not be all that effective regardless of the level of obesity.
Why the stupid fascination with baby guns? Baby guns are for plinking. Magdump a proper rifle into that pile of guts and problem solved.
a few hydo shock rounds. Guy looks like hes 90% water!
Why is he ruining the vtac barricade
>Expecting someone who ruined their own body to respect the physical status of anything
The fat lower class live in a weird state of moron zen where they just accept that they will frick up things and roll with it.
Was kinda disappointed it wasn’t a downie when he turned around. El Goblino has almost the exact same build as one.
any cartridge that can pen at least 12 inches of ballistic gel (which is more tougher than hooman skin) is k. fun fact: some indio (not pajeet) managed to kill a grisly with a .22LR with her single shot rifle.
A whaling harpoon
1 hotdog straight in to its belly
.45 acp
9mm can penetrate 60cm of fat, so fatter than that dude.
Holy shit. The back problems he experiences on a daily basis must be insane...
+p 9mm or 38 at least, if you’re talking the gut
It's like an rpg battle, where the boss has separate HP for its different body parts
Reminder that you should be aiming for the thoracic cavity and the lungs have about 7-10x more blood flow than the intestines.
I bet hes American.