Donald Trump running for president

[hairygrandpa]

thebigt, I was military too, in the NVA (national peoples army). I was a non-commissioned officer with the rank of Feldwebel (Staff Sergeant).
Our foe was NATO and my work was pinpointing air targets for our missiles.
The US was the aggressor and we were the good guys. <--- :flowers1:

I'm telling you that to show you, that your position is biased by the system you adhere to.
I had to question most what I learned in the past and I wish all people would.

 

[UncleSarm]

look here my man, over 60 million people died in WW2. the estimates are that at least an additional 500,000 American lives would have been lost invading japan.

lol...you are not very good at history, even after the 1st bomb was dropped at Hiroshima the Japanese refused to surrender...it took dropping a 2nd bomb on Nagasaki to get the japanese to surrender and even then they were hesitant.

based on that fact what impact do you think exploding the bomb over the ocean would have had?

60 million lives lost with another 500,000 American lives at risk, I think that Truman was justified in saving American lives...what if your father or grandfather would have have been one of those lost.....

Wrong, they were not hesitant. The emperor wanted to do the right thing for his people and surrender, but the military brass did not. The regulsr soldiers would have obeyed the emperor, so, if I remember correctly, the military conspired to kill him to stop him and put the blame on the allies to get the soldiers pumped up to fight harder. And this was after two bombs dropped on two cities.

 

[UncleSarm]

And it's not anti-troops to question what those in power have our people go through. I consider it patriotic.

Hear, hear! The little guys are the ones that always do the dying so that the people in power can make more money.

Even in Nazi Germany, most people didn't know what was going on in concentration camps. When German soldiers were captured, they would show them reels from camps and there are pictures of these guys sitting there with their heads hung. They thought they were fighting the good fight, but they were being lied to. Same with the Japanese. They were told that American GI's raped women and little girls and that they tortured prisoners in the worst way. The were so scared of the "white devils" that they would commit suicide rather than surrender. Today there are people that fear "white devils" and they learn in school that the US dropped bombs on them for no reason, because the government won't tell them the truth.
Whether it's American boys or German boys, or Japanese boys, it's the ones in power that lie to young impressionable minds and then send them off to die.
In North Korea it's the same thing. Look at fat boy Kim, while people in his country starve.

I grew up with the Iron Curtain and just recently had the opportunity to travel to Hungary, to Eastern Europe. It was one of the most great moments in my life, because I never thought I would do that in my lifetime. And all the people I met in Hungary were just like everyone else: eat and drink with good company, laugh about each other butchering each other's language, enjoy life and provide for your kids.

Memorial Day is to remember all those boys that died either for someone else's greed or to stop someone else's greed.

 

[ax1]

I'm 99.8% confident they would. Hitlers quest was for the wunderweapon.

I'll keep and drop this number. Keep=if we had not already developed the bomb they would use it.

I'll drop it to 20% that Japan or Germany would use it if they had it considering we already developed them and gave them the demo film. I think they would be smart enough to know that using the bomb would decimate all the empires, it's a suicide mission. Same reason I don't believe Iran will ever use their nukes in Isreal. In the end it would just be a stalemate as in the Cold War vs USSR.

Therefore we most likely need not bomb Japan as a deterrent.

 

[thebigt]

just imagine the world today if the united states had not entered WW2....

if you can find a WW2 veteran [there aren't many left] ask him if dropping the bomb was unjustified!!!

 

[thebigt]

I'll keep and drop this number. Keep=if we had not already developed the bomb they would use it.

I'll drop it to 20% that Japan or Germany would use it if they had it considering we already developed them and gave them the demo film. I think they would be smart enough to know that using the bomb would decimate all the empires, it's a suicide mission. Same reason I don't believe Iran will ever use their nukes in Isreal. In the end it would just be a stalemate as in the Cold War vs USSR.

Therefore we most likely need not bomb Japan as a deterrent.

deterrent????

 

[thebigt]

thebigt, I was military too, in the NVA (national peoples army). I was a non-commissioned officer with the rank of Feldwebel (Staff Sergeant).
Our foe was NATO and my work was pinpointing air targets for our missiles.
The US was the aggressor and we were the good guys. <--- :flowers1:

I'm telling you that to show you, that your position is biased by the system you adhere to.
I had to question most what I learned in the past and I wish all people would.

yup...hitler was a saint. the united states should have never helped defeat him....

 

[thebigt]

Hear, hear! The little guys are the ones that always do the dying so that the people in power can make more money.

Even in Nazi Germany, most people didn't know what was going on in concentration camps. When German soldiers were captured, they would show them reels from camps and there are pictures of these guys sitting there with their heads hung. They thought they were fighting the good fight, but they were being lied to. Same with the Japanese. They were told that American GI's raped women and little girls and that they tortured prisoners in the worst way. The were so scared of the "white devils" that they would commit suicide rather than surrender. Today there are people that fear "white devils" and they learn in school that the US dropped bombs on them for no reason, because the government won't tell them the truth.
Whether it's American boys or German boys, or Japanese boys, it's the ones in power that lie to young impressionable minds and then send them off to die.
In North Korea it's the same thing. Look at fat boy Kim, while people in his country starve.

I grew up with the Iron Curtain and just recently had the opportunity to travel to Hungary, to Eastern Europe. It was one of the most great moments in my life, because I never thought I would do that in my lifetime. And all the people I met in Hungary were just like everyone else: eat and drink with good company, laugh about each other butchering each other's language, enjoy life and provide for your kids.

Memorial Day is to remember all those boys that died either for someone else's greed or to stop someone else's greed.

how misinformed I am...thank you for enlighting me. the united states should have never been involved in WW1. we should have just stayed home and let hitler and japan do as they pleased...we were definitely the aggressors, power hungry, greedy americans were the reason for WW2.

 

[ax1]

deterrent????

Yes, absolutely. If a nation knows the consequences which is complete and total obliteration that certainly works as a deterrent.

how misinformed I am...thank you for enlighting me. the united states should have never been involved in WW1. we should have just stayed home and let hitler and japan do as they pleased...we were definitely the aggressors, power hungry, greedy americans were the reason for WW2.

Its non-interventionism, a peaceful policy of minding your own business until your national security is at stake. That was the attitude before Pearl Harbor, and staging Pearl Harbor changed that overnight, just like 9-11. Waging economic warfare on the Japanese who had no interest in being involved with the US is typical failed interventionist policies which in this case was set up to stage the show.

yup...hitler was a saint. the united states should have never helped defeat him....

People in the west including the US helped him do as he pleased. Hitler also had backing from the British, Rothechilds and so on as well as the American "elite" Im speaking of with Prescott Bush and US Banking financing Hitler even AFTER we declared war.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[thebigt]

Yes, absolutely. If a nation knows the consequences which is complete and total obliteration that certainly works as a deterrent.



Its non-interventionism, a peaceful policy of minding your own business until your national security is at stake. That was the attitude before Pearl Harbor, and staging Pearl Harbor changed that overnight, just like 9-11. Waging economic warfare on the Japanese who had no interest in being involved with the US is typical failed interventionist policies which in this case was set up to stage the show.



People in the west including the US helped him do as he pleased. Hitler also had backing from the British, Rothechilds and so on as well as the American "elite" Im speaking of with Prescott Bush and US Banking financing Hitler even AFTER we declared war.

Invalid Link Removed

ok, we should never have entered WW2...that is your opinion, correct?

how about the revolutionary war, civil war?

 

[UncleSarm]

how misinformed I am...thank you for enlighting me. the united states should have never been involved in WW1. we should have just stayed home and let hitler and japan do as they pleased...we were definitely the aggressors, power hungry, greedy americans were the reason for WW2.

I agree that dropping the bombs was a regrettable but necessary action to end the war of attrition that WW2 had become.

I agree that US intervention in WW2 was necessary, because if Germany and Japan had won, it was just a question of time before they set their sights on the Americas. So Memorial Day is to remember all those men that gave their life so we can enjoy our freedoms.
However Vietnam, in my opinion, was a war of aggression and greed. The French should have been left to deal with their colonial cluster***, instead of sending 60k GI's (mostly young boys) to die in some jungle somewhere. But Memorial Day is also to remember these boys that died because their government sent them into harm's way for the wrong reasons.

Memorial Day is to remember all the solders that died fighting for the North during the Civil War, but also for all the young boys that the South sent into harm's way.

In the same spirit, Memorial Day is to remember those young Japanese boys that got fed lies by their own government and then got sent off to die.
As all wars are about economics, for me, Memorial Day is the hope no more boys get sent to die by greedy governments and no more boys are sent to die to stop greedy governments.

 

[ax1]

ok, we should never have entered WW2...that is your opinion, correct?

how about the revolutionary war, civil war?

Yes, considering Rosevelt and his bankers staged economic warfare on Japan to provoke them to attack just to gain support of the American people in that scenario I do not support entrance to WWII. Civil war is one of the worst wars ever, it was politics not ethics imo. If it was truly just about slaves it would have been far cheaper without 1 million+ deaths by simply buying the slaves and simply freeing them. Modernization would have changed things too, if it wasnt for the Civil War slavery would be gone with short time too. Revolutionary war I have mixed feelings about.....in one way is good to move away from the british, another way it was bad people fighting over stolen land. Since they were already here, sure fight for freedom over british tyranny.

 

[Thiefcatcher]

How about, since today is Memorial Day and it's meant to honor those who have died fighting for this country, no matter what the reason was for the war, that you both just STFU about politics and reasons and save it for tomorrow!

/rant

 

[ax1]

I agree that dropping the bombs was a regrettable but necessary action to end the war of attrition that WW2 had become.

I agree that US intervention in WW2 was necessary, because if Germany and Japan had won, it was just a question of time before they set their sights on the Americas. So Memorial Day is to remember all those men that gave their life so we can enjoy our freedoms.

We have been going to alot of wars over "what if's" scenario lately.

I dont believe Germany of Japan would have won. China side was building strength away from the coast and building a massive military, they could have increased an alliance with Russia, it would have been a matter of time before Tokyo fell. On the other side, I feel the British along with Russia and China would also have taken out Hitler as well.

Im total non-interventionist in my foreign policy, but what they could have done was simply armed the Chinese (they have ALOT of people) and let them take care of their own problems, and also send arms to British and Russia so they can handle their thing too if they were totally convinced it would be a thread to American National Security. Its not that complicated imo and so many American lives would have been kept with us. Then again this may have provoked an attack, it would need to be done in covert.

 

[thebigt]

We have been going to alot of wars over "what if's" scenario lately.

I dont believe Germany of Japan would have won. China side was building strength away from the coast and building a massive military, they could have increased an alliance with Russia, it would have been a matter of time before Tokyo fell. On the other side, I feel the British along with Russia and China would also have taken out Hitler as well.

Im total non-interventionist in my foreign policy, but what they could have done was simply armed the Chinese (they have ALOT of people) and let them take care of their own problems, and also send arms to British and Russia so they can handle their thing too if they were totally convinced it would be a thread to American National Security. Its not that complicated imo and so many American lives would have been kept with us. Then again this may have provoked an attack, it would need to be done in covert.

I get it....you are trying out a new comedy routine.

it would be funny if it weren't so demeaning to all the brave men and women who have sacrificed their lives so you can have the freedom to post crap like this, particularly on memorial day.

 

[ax1]

I get it....you are trying out a new comedy routine.

it would be funny if it weren't so demeaning to all the brave men and women who have sacrificed their lives so you can have the freedom to post crap like this, particularly on memorial day.

I just have an political opinion and it differs from yours, it. Its not a comedy routine and Im not trying to be funny. Just because my political views may differ from yours, it doesnt mean I disgrace the troops and vets. Ill say to investigate the past and have open conversations about what happened it is to honor them and lead the country in the future to the better place even on Memorial Day.

 

[thebigt]

I just have an political opinion and it differs from yours, it. Its not a comedy routine and Im not trying to be funny. Just because my political views may differ from yours, it doesnt mean I disgrace the troops and vets. Ill say to investigate the past and have open conversations about what happened it is to honor them and lead the country in the future to the better place even on Memorial Day.

look...what you think doesn't matter...what I think doesn't matter...


WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT THOSE BRAVE MEN @ WOMEN WERE THINKING!!! THEY WERE THINKING THAT THEY WERE NOT ONLY FIGHTING FOR THEIR HOMELAND AMERICA, BUT THEY WERE FIGHTING TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER, SAFER PLACE. THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER!!!

HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Yes, considering Rosevelt and his bankers staged economic warfare on Japan to provoke them to attack just to gain support of the American people in that scenario I do not support entrance to WWII. Civil war is one of the worst wars ever, it was politics not ethics imo. If it was truly just about slaves it would have been far cheaper without 1 million+ deaths by simply buying the slaves and simply freeing them. Modernization would have changed things too, if it wasnt for the Civil War slavery would be gone with short time too. Revolutionary war I have mixed feelings about.....in one way is good to move away from the british, another way it was bad people fighting over stolen land. Since they were already here, sure fight for freedom over british tyranny.

Simply buying slaves and freeing them would have been nothing more than a temporary fix. What are you proposing? The North buys EVERY slave in the south? Ok. There would still be plenty of potential slaves for the South to take from Africa with their newfound money. At the time, slave labor was an integral part of their economy. What then? Does the North keep buying and freeing every shipment of slaves the South brings in? That's not sustainable at all. It was necessary to legally prohibit slavery to prevent it at the time.

 

[jswain34]

Also, there is no way in hell southern slave owners would have been so ignorant to blindly sell all their slaves to northerners knowing that they would just be freed immediately.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Also, there is no way in hell southern slave owners would have been so ignorant to blindly sell all their slaves to northerners knowing that they would just be freed immediately.

They would have sold them for the right price. It's just such a silly conversation to even have. There are so many things wrong with it that I could spend all day explaining why it would never work. The South really wouldn't want to sell slaves just to have them freed, but I'm sure there's a high enough price that they'd do it. But what then? The South now has no slaves and an economy that needed slave labor at the time. They'd obviously get more salves from Africa. Now we're back where we started. Would the North buy and free all of the new slaves again? If not, it didn't solve anything. If so, the new economy of the South would revolve entirely around buying/importing slaves and immediately selling them to the North to be freed. Of course, this is not realistic and not sustainable by any means.

 

[NutraChem]

How about, since today is Memorial Day and it's meant to honor those who have died fighting for this country, no matter what the reason was for the war, that you both just STFU about politics and reasons and save it for tomorrow!

/rant

Agreed. People argue about their political ideologies all day, but what's the bottom line? That's why there's still a Memorial Day, because the bottom line never changes!

But people still don't let it go, not even for one day, to remember what all this bickering accomplishes in the end. :worried:

 

[ax1]

Simply buying slaves and freeing them would have been nothing more than a temporary fix. What are you proposing? The North buys EVERY slave in the south? Ok. There would still be plenty of potential slaves for the South to take from Africa with their newfound money. At the time, slave labor was an integral part of their economy. What then? Does the North keep buying and freeing every shipment of slaves the South brings in? That's not sustainable at all. It was necessary to legally prohibit slavery to prevent it at the time.

We can rid of Slavery without killing so many people. Its ultra realistic without having 600,000 Americans perish over this and the economic costs that went along with it. Its totally sustainable, every other major country in the world rid of slavery without a Civil War.

The British Empire in fact did implement this model, they did buy slaves just to free them. There is no slavery there now.

The British used about 1/3rd of its entire national budget to free the slaves in 1833 and compensate former slave owners over 100 billion US dollars in todays money.

Slavery would have been phased out as the country was modernizing just like it did every other modernized nation, I have no doubts about this.

The Civil War was not about abolishing slavery, but rather keeping the Union, implementing a strong national government

"If I can save the Union by keeping Slavery I will."
Abraham Lincoln

Then to top it off there was a Constitutional Amendment to abolish slavery in 1860 and Lincoln didnt even want to support it.

Lincoln stood for big government, not the the abolishment of slavery.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

We can rid of Slavery without killing so many people. Its ultra realistic without having 600,000 Americans perish over this and the economic costs that went along with it. Its totally sustainable, every other major country in the world rid of slavery without a Civil War.

The British Empire in fact did implement this model, they did buy slaves just to free them. There is no slavery there now.

The British used about 1/3rd of its entire national budget to free the slaves in 1833 and compensate former slave owners over 100 billion US dollars in todays money.

Slavery would have been phased out as the country was modernizing just like it did every other modernized nation, I have no doubts about this.

The Civil War was not about abolishing slavery, but rather keeping the Union, implementing a strong national government

"If I can save the Union by keeping Slavery I will."
Abraham Lincoln

Then to top it off there was a Constitutional Amendment to abolish slavery in 1860 and Lincoln didnt even want to support it.

Lincoln stood for big government, not the the abolishment of slavery.

I'm not in the mood for a lengthy debate. I'm also not saying that a civil war was the ONLY way to end slavery in the US, only that, at the given time, buying all of the salves would not have been a permanent fix given the political, social, and economic climate at the time.

 

[ax1]

Slavery Abolition Act 1833

The Act provided for compensation for slave-owners who would be losing their property. The amount of money to be spent on the compensation claims was set at "the Sum of Twenty Millions Pounds Sterling".[14] Under the terms of the Act, the British government raised £20 million (£69.93 billion in 2013 pounds)[15] to pay out in compensation for the loss of the slaves as business assets to the registered owners of the freed slaves. The names listed in the returns for slave compensation show that ownership was spread over many hundreds of British families,

Full info: Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

I'm not in the mood for a lengthy debate. I'm also not saying that a civil war was the ONLY way to end slavery in the US, only that, at the given time, buying all of the salves would not have been a permanent fix given the political, social, and economic climate at the time.

If you have other ideas to end slavery outside of the Civil War Im all ears my man!

 

[muscleupcrohn]

If you have other ideas to end slavery outside of the Civil War Im all ears my man!

Hmm... I'm not entirely sure at this time. All I'm saying is that I'm not willing to say that a civil war was absolutely the only way slavey could possibly have ended in the US. I'm more saying I don't know than I do know, if that makes any sense.

 

[Socalmk6gti]

Guy from other forum who is taking in 1,000-1,500 calories on a DNP cycle was just given advice to cut calories by 5-10% to continue his fat loss since it stalled. I feel so sorry for this guy who is taking his advice.

 

[ax1]

Guy from other forum who is taking in 1,000-1,500 calories on a DNP cycle was just given advice to cut calories by 5-10% to continue his fat loss since it stalled. I feel so sorry for this guy who is taking his advice.

YIKES!

 

[NutraChem]

Here's that DNP guy, but ONLY after he adjusted his macros that extra 5%...

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Socalmk6gti]

This is what started my frustration

Invalid Link Removed

 

[muscleupcrohn]

This is what started my frustration

Invalid Link Removed

Wow. I don't know the whole story, but I'm sure he's not losing any muscle at all either at <1000 calories a day either

 

[Thiefcatcher]

Funny, there's a guy on this forum as well who seems to be staying below 1k cal/day, wonder if it's the same dude?

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/281368-fat-loss-insan1ty.html

 

[Socalmk6gti]

Wow. I don't know the whole story, but I'm sure he's not losing any muscle at all either at <1000 calories a day either

He is convinced on making a point that continued dropping of calories will lead to continued fat loss. The Minnesota Study supposedly proved this, however unhealthy their results were. I refuse to advocate this or prescribe it to my clients, I've had far better results with higher calories on fat loss clients and overall health.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

He is convinced on making a point that continued dropping of calories will lead to continued fat loss. The Minnesota Study supposedly proved this, however unhealthy their results were. I refuse to advocate this or prescribe it to my clients, I've had far better results with higher calories on fat loss clients and overall health.

I don't doubt that you can continue to lose weight by starving yourself, but at a certain point you're going to be losing a good bit of muscle as well. Bad idea IMO.

 

[ax1]

This is what started my frustration

Invalid Link Removed

Doesnt sound like someone who deserves quality advice from you.

 

[muscleupcrohn]

Doesnt sound like someone who deserves quality advice from you.

If he keeps starving himself, he may be up for a Darwin Award.

 

[ax1]

He is convinced on making a point that continued dropping of calories will lead to continued fat loss. The Minnesota Study supposedly proved this, however unhealthy their results were. I refuse to advocate this or prescribe it to my clients, I've had far better results with higher calories on fat loss clients and overall health.

I can only see going that low for a short amount of time, a week or two if you really have an emergency and dont mind losing some muscle. Personally to me its all about finding out your maintenance, a little math and taking diet breaks.

 

[Socalmk6gti]

Funny, there's a guy on this forum as well who seems to be staying below 1k cal/day, wonder if it's the same dude?

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/281368-fat-loss-insan1ty.html

That's a hefty guy to be on 1,000 calories, not worth the health risk IMO. Slow and steady is a healthier approach, his approach is far too aggressive.

 

[Socalmk6gti]

Here's the thread if you're bored and want to read horrible advice

Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

Here's the thread if you're bored and want to read horrible advice

Invalid Link Removed

13 pounds in 3 weeks? lol (some other member)

Usually it starts off by hey Im going to go on the diet and eat less.....then all the crap in my stomach Ive been eating is gone and lost 5 lbs in 1 and a half days!

So I call 4-5lbs in fecal matter, and then water and muscle loss. Maybe he loss 4-6lbs fat but I dunno.

 

[jswain34]

That's a hefty guy to be on 1,000 calories, not worth the health risk IMO. Slow and steady is a healthier approach, his approach is far too aggressive.

1000-1200 cals a day with 200-250g protein...+t3, 3 other fat burners, and super-11kt....smart guy. I wonders why he has been yo yoing in weight for the last decade...

 

[ax1]

1000-1200 cals a day with 200-250g protein...+t3, 3 other fat burners, and super-11kt....smart guy. I wonders why he has been yo yoing in weight for the last decade...

Ive seen his stuff in the recent past, he often blames cortisol.

 

[Socalmk6gti]

Ive seen his stuff in the recent past, he often blames cortisol.

Same with his weight gain, not the Big Macs, it's the cortisol. Lol

 

[UncleSarm]

We have been going to alot of wars over "what if's" scenario lately.

I dont believe Germany of Japan would have won. China side was building strength away from the coast and building a massive military, they could have increased an alliance with Russia, it would have been a matter of time before Tokyo fell. On the other side, I feel the British along with Russia and China would also have taken out Hitler as well.

Im total non-interventionist in my foreign policy, but what they could have done was simply armed the Chinese (they have ALOT of people) and let them take care of their own problems, and also send arms to British and Russia so they can handle their thing too if they were totally convinced it would be a thread to American National Security. Its not that complicated imo and so many American lives would have been kept with us. Then again this may have provoked an attack, it would need to be done in covert.

You need to read up on WW2 history. Germany had a treaty with Russia (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) until Germany invaded Russia. Germany also had a cooperation agreement with China (Invalid Link Removed) until it made an alliance with Japan because of Japan's superior military capability. Russia also negotiated a cease fire with Japan.
The UK was barely hanging and the Nazis were planning to invade it (Invalid Link Removed). If the US has not intervened, things would have been very grim. I have British friends who grew up during the Nazi bombing of the UK who said they are very grateful for what American GI's did in WW2.
General Patton alone broke the Nazi advance in North Africa and then stopped the Nazi counteroffensive in Belgium, both of which cost the Nazis dearly in attention and equipment. The Nazis had the most modern and efficient army in the world. The US military at the time was not great, but was eventually able to outmatch both the Nazis and the Japanese because of massive production and no damage to production facilities.
As far as China is concerned, they have always had the million man army, but they were defeated time and again. Genghis Khan defeated them at the head of 100k Mongols and a 10:1 disadvantage. Japan also defeated the million man army again and again (Invalid Link Removed) and if it hadn't been for the US involvement in the pacific, Japan would have eventually taken China, or most of it anyway.
Any way you slice it, US involvement in WW2 was paramount in turning the tide against the Axis powers and growing the military industrial complex.

 

[hairygrandpa]

Give HIT4ME a shot, it's always interesting when someone has a radical different approach.
He is measuring his body regularly, gives all relevant information AND he knows that his diet runs against mainstream opinions.
I see him as a test pilot, lets see what happens, please stop the bashing for a moment, would you?

 

[HIT4ME]

Just chiming in because I was womdering how I got mentioned in a political thread. Haha. Whoever the other guy is that everyone is talking about, it isn't me. I have the thread mentioned above, and as I pointed out in the title, my approach could be considered insane.

3 weeks in and down about 12.5 pounds and very little loss in strength (if any).

And I have a LOT to lose, so this approach would be modified if I was leaner...and will be when I get there.

Follow along guys. You can wacth my muscle wasting away from the front row!

 

[jswain34]

It's just not smart. And perfectly correlates with his experience in his yo yo dieting over the last decade. Im not bashing anyone. Just saying he shouldnt act like its some big mystery why he gains so much weight back after he eats 1000-1200 calories for X amount of time.

Edit: now that i see you are above me. There ya go, there are my thoughts.

 

[ax1]

Just chiming in because I was womdering how I got mentioned in a political thread. Haha. Whoever the other guy is that everyone is talking about, it isn't me. I have the thread mentioned above, and as I pointed out in the title, my approach could be considered insane.

3 weeks in and down about 12.5 pounds and very little loss in strength (if any).

And I have a LOT to lose, so this approach would be modified if I was leaner...and will be when I get there.

Follow along guys. You can wacth my muscle wasting away from the front row!

Welcome! Yeah, you wouldnt believe some of the things that come up here, lol

Actually, I made a post about you and cortisol just before...I just checked and I confused you for someone else.

Ill follow you along....been there done that, lost 50+ twice and 30+ another time and been finally cut the roller coaster ride back in 2009. I have an unorthodox approach myself to control habitual issues with food, although I do follow basic fundamentals for long term success.

 

[NutraChem]

1000-1200 cals a day with 200-250g protein...+t3, 3 other fat burners, and super-11kt....smart guy. I wonders why he has been yo yoing in weight for the last decade...

It can be done. The body has generations of programming in it's genes to deal successfully with starvation. But you don't really switch to burning fat until around the 3rd week of strict starvation, so you burn about 100g of lean mass everyday in the meantime to generate glucogenic aminos. After that 3wks it's much less stressful on health, and even has some advantages beyond weight loss if you know what you're doing. But those first 3wks are dangerous for muscle loss, and anabolics or at the very least anti-catabolics are important. Also, your body won't make a distinct "switch" to ketones just with a low calorie diet (unless you find a good starvation simulation regimen and keep carbs very low.)

 

[HIT4ME]

Guy from other forum who is taking in 1,000-1,500 calories on a DNP cycle was just given advice to cut calories by 5-10% to continue his fat loss since it stalled. I feel so sorry for this guy who is taking his advice.

As in my log, people often think fat loss has stalled when weight loss stops. Just keep going. After a few days, there is often a flush and you drop weight in chunks. If you are at a lower bf, refeeds are helpful.

Funny, there's a guy on this forum as well who seems to be staying below 1k cal/day, wonder if it's the same dude?

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/281368-fat-loss-insan1ty.html

That's me, but I am not using rat poisons or explosives...so I am not the other guy who stalled.

He is convinced on making a point that continued dropping of calories will lead to continued fat loss. The Minnesota Study supposedly proved this, however unhealthy their results were. I refuse to advocate this or prescribe it to my clients, I've had far better results with higher calories on fat loss clients and overall health.

Both approaches have a use, depending on the situation. My gf went on this diet when I did last year. After coming off the diet she got a stomach bug and wound up in the ER. The doctor asked what she did because her blood work had improved dramatically over the last year. Healthy is a relative term.

I don't doubt that you can continue to lose weight by starving yourself, but at a certain point you're going to be losing a good bit of muscle as well. Bad idea IMO.

This is something I agree with, but it seems to be a bigger issue at lower body fat percentage. I am losing some muscle, maybe, but it isn't dramatic I don't think.

That's a hefty guy to be on 1,000 calories, not worth the health risk IMO. Slow and steady is a healthier approach, his approach is far too aggressive.

Generally, I agree, but this isn't always the case. And for me personally, slow and steady will mean I will never lose the weight. I am not advising anyone do what I am trying. I am not even saying it is healthy or smart. Just trying to question some steadfast beliefs.

1000-1200 cals a day with 200-250g protein...+t3, 3 other fat burners, and super-11kt....smart guy. I wonders why he has been yo yoing in weight for the last decade...

No yo-yo. I was purely gaining weight for over a decade until about 3-4 years ago. Slow and stead got me from 290 to 250. This modified fast got me from 250 to 178. Then over 8 months I gained about 35 pounds back.

I don't blame cortisol. I blame stuffing my face with fast food and take out. It is just the way life is. I over eat. It could be called rebound, but I like to believe in the law of thermodynamics more than some rebound theory.

It can be done. The body has generations of programming in it's genes to deal successfully with starvation. But you don't really switch to burning fat until around the 3rd week of strict starvation, so you burn about 100g of lean mass everyday in the meantime to generate glucogenic aminos. After that 3wks it's much less stressful on health, and even has some advantages beyond weight loss if you know what you're doing. But those first 3wks are dangerous for muscle loss, and anabolics or at the very least anti-catabolics are important. Also, your body won't make a distinct "switch" to ketones just with a low calorie diet (unless you find a good starvation simulation regimen and keep carbs very low.)

Interesting. It wouldn't appear I have lost 4 pounds of muscle in the 3 weeks. But it is hard to say...