Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by dodgepaul

  1. I dont' feel this is too damning...basically the participants were given a 730 calorie breakfast one day and another day they skipped breakfast. "When the researchers offered the participants lunch at the end of the study, people ate a fifth more calories if breakfast was missed." Now they don't quanitify the calories consumed at lunch, but a fifth more calories is still a reduction in total daily calories versus eating a 730 calorie breakfast, unless they were eating more then 3650 calories for lunch. Bottom line,the way I read this study, even if you are prone to eating more after fasting through breakfast, you'll likely still eat fewer calories.
  2. So at the risk of offending the Chuck Taylor wearing hordes, I don't like them and don't want to buy them. Yes it's a rediculously vain thing probably, but I always thought they looked silly with athletic shorts and I don't want to wear them. However, I do acknowledge that my athletic shoes aren't doing me any favors deadlifting anyway, and I can't always deadlift barefood due to gym policies. Any recommendations? I'm also considering buying a weightlifting shoe such as the Do-wins but haven't decided there either. Is there issues with deadlifting in weightlifting shoes with a heel? Seems like a problem, but I know people do it. I'm considering some of the "mimimalist" style shoes which are supposed to give "feel" to the wearer like being barefoot. Thoughts?
  3. Deadlifting Shoes That Aren't Chucks

    Thanks Spector - Think I'm going to pony up the cash for both in the very near future. Which style of minimus do you have? I'm leaning towards the minimus LIFE
  4. Britains Strongest Man Under 105Kg 2012

    Unbelievable - great vids, thanks for sharing! Amazing showing Mark
  5. Deadlifting Shoes That Aren't Chucks

    So for the Do-Win wearers (is that even a word?)... I want to order a pair of the Rogue Do-Wins - the website says sizing runs "normal" whatever that means. Any real life perspective? My normal shoe size varies from 11-11.5 (US) and I'll order running shoes from 11.5-12. They say they have plenty of room in the toe and run wide which I dont' need so I'm leaning towards ordering a a size 11. Thoughts?
  6. Deadlifting Shoes That Aren't Chucks

    Gotcha, thanks:)
  7. Deadlifting Shoes That Aren't Chucks

    ^ this is kind of where I'm leaning. Get a decent pair of weightlifting shoes and wear them for everything. Although I do like the nb minimus shoes. Many would argue they are FAR uglier then the chucks, but to each his own.
  8. Deadlifting Shoes That Aren't Chucks

    Lou, what are Deadlift slippers? And btw, your metal shoes rock.
  9. Deadlifting Shoes That Aren't Chucks

    You may be, although I said a disclaimer ahead of time which makes it all ok...right? Something along the lines of, " no offence, but...."
  10. Deadlifting Shoes That Aren't Chucks

    I was thinking something more along the lines of these Reeboks, or these New Balance shoes. Still minimalist without the toes
  11. Deadlifting Shoes That Aren't Chucks

    Not sure where to find Kung Fu slippers in Washington state Although I had considered wrestling shoes...not really the same thing I'm guessing although my Kung Fu is weak in the slipper department
  12. Bench PR today...Benched 300 lbs for the first time in my life...even got a second rep!

  13. Game Changers By Dan John

    Good article...I actually recently got into a discussion where I questioned when I would be "strong enough" and need to reevaluate my goals. Don't think I'm there yet, but the subjective definition of "enough" can be hard to define. Guess I the question I really need ask is what my goals are. Good read SB!
  14. A Calories Is Not A Calorie

    No, I totally think carb cycling CAN be effective - I've used it myself with some success. I actually followed a Lyle McDonald plan with low carb days and carb refeeds and realized a lot about what can work for me. That being said, I don't think there is any magic there (neither does Lyle Mcdonald). It's about reducing calories. In this case Carbs, but really the point was to ensure adequate protein (1 gram per lb of bodyweight), and cut carbs and fat calories. The reason for adequate protein wasn't for the thermic effect, but to try to spare lean body mass while cutting. The thermic effect was there - but was a side benefit. The ingested protien was there to try to keep the body from sacrificing muscle mass. Like most diets that profess that calories don't matter as long as you do "this" whatever "this" is...it's really just masking lower calorie consumption.
  15. A Calories Is Not A Calorie

    ^this is what I was trying to say above - although much more poorly. It's an interesting discussion for the nutrition nerds, myself included, but not of huge importance to the dieter trying to cut fat.
  16. A Calories Is Not A Calorie

    If you read Lyle's works, he rarely simplifies things (a joke for those who follow his sometimes rather wordy papers) In fact, Lyle frequently discusses how internal processes confound the supposed linear process of weight loss. He has never to my knowledge proposed the strawman arguement that Keifer throws out that Calories in=Calories out +/- weight gain/loss. What he does disagree with is that the whole notion that any of this matters in the real world. Reality is that all of this hard to measure physiological processes that could be studied to determine what different macro nutrient levels lead to slight (read negligible) variations in calorie utilization - are an interesting scientific study...But entirely unimportant in real world weight loss. Once again - all of these processes and differences in calore absorption add up almost nothing. My (and I would argue most dieters) margin of error in food measurement FAR exceeds what we are discussing. Its a big deal about not much if you ask me.
  17. A Calories Is Not A Calorie

    I guess I read it a little differently...Lyle's comments I thought really hightlighted the fact that while there are thermic efficiencies and many other variables in diet's of different macro nutrient levels they all basically add up to much ado about nothing. Too small to accurately measure and here is the real take away for me - largely irrelevent in the real world. I know I struggle acurately tracking my calories so worrying over the effect of differences that add up to far less then even 100 calories a day - my margin of error is greater then the "difference" they are arguing over. My opinion is really unchanged - after establishing macro nutrient lelels that are in line with your goals for protein especially, it really does come down to a calorie is a calorie.
  18. Stomach bugs suck-feel like I would have trouble lifting my gym bag, let alone any decent weights.

    1. Adriany


      Im in the same boat pal...not good

    2. NeilPorter


      rest up too...