Best way to reduce belly fat?

[marmel75]

The critical skeptic is on your @ss again marmel

Look.... John Romaniello is a steroid user, Martin Berkhan is a steroid user, Brad Pilon is one too from the looks of it but his stats are nowhere to be found so I can't confirm... do you have anything that isn't made and/or marketed by a drug user? of course they will have "good success" and be "well respected"... Ori Hofmekler is the only one who from a quick google search is not a user at least on the pictures I saw.

Being 183 cm and 77 kg is either small or normal depending on how long he's trained, which we don't know (or at least I haven't caught it anywhere). You however are a steroid user, which makes it a given that your stats will be that of a so-called "beast", and your basis for how big someone should be is based on steroid use from what else I've read unless we are talking about a different species. Leaving that out is dishonest to the people who are not as informed about the potential of natural stats as for example I am.

I haven't done enough research on IF to really speak for or against it and I can't verify or deny your anecdotes. I'm not biased either way, but I wanted to clear this stuff up. Gonna start reading up properly on IF now. Starting with Ori Hofmekler's claims, which I've already seen disproved while reading about other things but I will do this thoroughly.

They may be. However, their clients for the most part are not. I am on TRT. 150 mg of Test E every 5 days, roughly 210 mg per week. At points I was adding microdoses of Tren and Masteron in with it, but I have stopped for the time being for 2 reasons. First, the tren even at a low dose of 20mg a week about sent me into renal failure---blood pressure skyrocketed, got gout for the first time in 5 years, etc. Took that out real quick...this was after about 3-4 weeks. Then I went with 100mg Test E and 50mg of Masteron, but after a while I was havign some pretty significant ED, which turns out was a result of not having enough Test because as soon as I switched back to all Test E this issue disappeared within a few weeks and I started waking up and still wake up with incredible hard-ons during the night that literally make it hard to go back to sleep(my wife has found out on several occasions).

That puts my levels in the high normal range, not supraphysiological range. I have tried to run other cycles in the past but I had to abort early because my body cannot handle it. CNS is overactive(sympathetic nervous system is dominant it appears) and even normal cycles which most people can handle cause high blood pressure and massive adrenal rushes that can last for hours causing rapid heartrate and high blood pressure. Its not an estrogen related side as I at one point was taking 25mg of legit pharm grade Aromasin daily, although I am very prone to it.

All I know is what works best for me, and what I outlined is it.

 

[AttackFormation]

And all I know is that regardless of what you claim your dosages are, your stats and those of the people you have given names of are far beyond natural potential so using them to prove your points is at best a weak argument. I would however gladly view some stats and pictures of their clients who are not using drugs but I'm not asking you to bother finding any. Not that there aren't fat-burning drugs they could use for marketing purposes with some poster guy, but whatever...

 

[marmel75]

And all I know is that regardless of what you claim your dosages are, your stats and those of the people you have given names of are far beyond natural potential so using them to prove your points is at best a weak argument. I would however gladly view some stats and pictures of their clients who are not using drugs but I'm not asking you to bother finding any. Not that there aren't fat-burning drugs they could use for marketing purposes with some poster guy, but whatever...

If I could make sure the program was followed properly, I would be more than happy to test out a group of people who followed what I advised versus a group who followed various other recommendations. I would bet a large sum of money my way would give faster and better results. The first year I did this I had never touched a steroid, SARM or any other anabolic compound and got pretty much the same results.

Unfortunately there isn't a way to do this without monitoring someone 24/7.

Also, using www.weightrainer.net/bodypred.html and putting in my stats:

Height: 68"
Wrist: 6 inches
Ankle: 8.75 inches
Bodyfat: 9.5%

I get the following for maximum muscular bodyweight at 9.5%: 182.1 lbs, which is pretty close to what I was at, fluctuating between 180-185 lbs. I never claimed to be 5% bodyfat, which is what most of those other calculators base your maximum weight at...

Also, if you put in the same stats and put in 11.9% which was where my SKULPT measured me yesterday at 189 lbs, it comes out dead on 189 lbs. Not sure where the discrepancy is at with my weight vs. Bodyfat % levels because crosschecking them even further if you go back to when I said I was 18% at 207 lbs they all come out pretty much exactly what I said. 18% shows my maximum weight at 208.3 lbs, when I was actually at 207.6 lbs.

Estimated measurements are a little off with chest, thighs, neck and calves all being lower than actual(thighs significantly lower...my thighs, hamstrings, calves and butt are all pretty large), but forearms being higher than actual(forearms and biceps are my weakpoints). Biceps being close or slightly smaller...

 

[Yewki]

Again, they can choose who to take advice from. The 6'0" 170 lb skeletor, or the 5'8" 185 lb beast who lives, eats and breathes this stuff.

Where you f*cked up was when you whipped out weight loss figures that are impossible. You should have made up/embellished/fabricated sh*t that was actually believable, but you apparently didn't know any better and went full retard. Now you have no credibility. Sorry.

Yes, you can easily lose 18 lbs in 3 weeks. But you absolutely cannot lose 18 lbs of muscle/fat in 3 weeks. This is where you f*cked up. What's even worse is you very confidently gave specific numbers too.

Sorry, it's not even remotely feasible. You can try to blame faulty equipment or whatever, but the fact you didn't even have the intelligence to realize how stupid your measurements were just goes to show you're clueless. If you had done an absurd 2000 calorie deficit every single day, for three consecutive weeks, you would have lost at most 12 lbs of pure muscle/fat. And you'd be on the verge of dying. But nah, you rather easily lost 18 using your "optimal fat burning environment" which is completely ambiguous, apparently involves steroids or something (??), and doesn't track any type of calorie intake or anything in any quantifiable number. Right.

And now you're trying to turn a discussion about fat loss into a bodybuilding competition. The only reason I'm responding at this point is to make sure no one takes you seriously.

 

[AttackFormation]

Also, using www.weightrainer.net/bodypred.html and putting in my stats:

Height: 68"
Wrist: 6 inches
Ankle: 8.75 inches
Bodyfat: 9.5%

I get the following for maximum muscular bodyweight at 9.5%: 182.1 lbs, which is pretty close to what I was at, fluctuating between 180-185 lbs. I never claimed to be 5% bodyfat, which is what most of those other calculators base your maximum weight at...

Also, if you put in the same stats and put in 11.9% which was where my SKULPT measured me yesterday at 189 lbs, it comes out dead on 189 lbs. Not sure where the discrepancy is at with my weight vs. Bodyfat % levels because crosschecking them even further if you go back to when I said I was 18% at 207 lbs they all come out pretty much exactly what I said. 18% shows my maximum weight at 208.3 lbs, when I was actually at 207.6 lbs.

Estimated measurements are a little off with chest, thighs, neck and calves all being lower than actual(thighs significantly lower...my thighs, hamstrings, calves and butt are all pretty large), but forearms being higher than actual(forearms and biceps are my weakpoints). Biceps being close or slightly smaller...

Like I've said before, you weigh as much as or more (depending on what number you've given we go on) than Frank Zane's competition weight (a bodybuilder from the time when steroids were legal and used openly), not being far from his off-season weight, and on top of that you are an inch shorter than him. In other words, you are on steroids and your results are thereafter. What more is there to say? I can't think of anything except what I said in my last post: don't use steroid-fueled physiques as proof of natural methods.

 

[marmel75]

Like I've said before, you weigh as much as or more (depending on what number you've given we go on) than Frank Zane's competition weight (a bodybuilder from the time when steroids were legal and used openly), not being far from his off-season weight, and on top of that you are an inch shorter than him. In other words, you are on steroids and your results are thereafter. What more is there to say? I can't think of anything except what I said in my last post: don't use steroid-fueled physiques as proof of natural methods.

And of course you choose to completely ignore what I just posted, which is actually based on mathematical equations of 300+ natural bodybuilders weights/heights/bone structures from 1947-2010 by a guy with a Ph.D and more than likely is far more accurate than whatever "guesstimation" you are coming up with from whatever other site. Instead, you continue to argue that I couldn't possibly be what I am claiming based on a sample of 1(Frank Zane).

But, for the sake of argument, let's say these equations don't exist. Here are two other people's attempts at estimating ideal muscular weight:

1) Steve Reeves, a champion bodybuilder said ideal muscular weight is to take height of 5'5" and 160 lbs and add 5 lbs for every inch. So at 5' 8" I would weight 175 lbs if I was in "competition shape", which I am not. I don't feel 7 lbs with an extra 4-5% bodyfat(maybe 2-3% back then) is too much of a difference.

2) Stuart McRobert tried to add in bone structure by saying to start at 5'0" and 100 lbs and then add 10 lbs for every inch for medium bone structure, 8 pounds for small bone structure and 12 lbs for large bone structure. I would likely fall somewhere between medium and large bone structure so I'm adding between 10-12 lbs per inch, so that equates to 180-196 lbs. Again, right smack dab in the middle of where I am at.

Neither of these are anywhere close to as accurate or precise as what he has come up with, if you simply took the time to read and understand how he came up with these equations, which are actually based on bodybuilders height, wrists(upper body bone structure) and ankles(lower body bone structures) from the past 60+ years.

So again, I have no idea where the confusion is at, but I'd probably take a little bit closer look at where you are getting your information from because I doubt its coming from a more reputable place than what he has worked out with his equations based on actual measurements of far more bodybuilders than 1. But let's take a look at that 1, Frank Zane a little more closely.

Here are Frank Zane's pertinent stats:

Height: 69 inches
Weight: 185 lbs(contest)/200 lbs(offseason)--195 lbs when he won Mr. Olympia
Wrist: 6.5 inches
Ankle: 8 inches

Right off the bat, you can see that he has a slightly bigger potential for upper body size than I do, but I have an even greater potential for lower body size than he has in upper body potential over me. Considering you can carry more musculature in your lower body than you can in your upper body, and that I have extraordinarily big quads, hamstrings, glutes and calves(for the most part between 1-2" inches bigger than estimated maximum's for my size), your argument already is falling apart rather quickly. What falls apart even quicker is thinking Frank Zane wasn't on steroids when you run his numbers:

Zane's maximum muscular potential at 5% bodyfat is 171.9 lbs natural. Using my stats at 5% my potential is 170.1 lbs. The extra inch gives him a 1.8 lb advantage over me, but if we were the same height and BF%(69 inches, 5% BF), I would actually have a greater potential at 173.9 lbs due to bigger leg structure.

Seeing as how he is 24.1 lbs over that weight in his Mr. Olympia competition, and 13 lbs over in some of his earlier competitions, I think it's obvious he was using some good juice. Just looking at him, its pretty obvious he is using steroids but it is just as obvious he was blessed with great genetics as well. Either way, nothing in this makes what I have said outlandish or unbelievable in any shape or form, other than perhaps shattering your notion that Zane wasn't using steroids. Let's be real..he wasn't known as "the chemist" for nothing.

Maybe you should read this first so you have a better understanding of where the calculations came from:

http://www.weightrainer.net/potential.html

"The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but in the end, there it is."

- Sir Winston Churchill

 

[AttackFormation]

1) What's the verification that they are natural? everyone claims to be.

2) I base my estimations on this guide and site (chart near the bottom of the article) which has a long series of comparisons. "This chart is based on the following principle: you start at 5′ 5″ (165cm) and 135lbs (62kg) and for every inch (2.5cm) above or below you either add or take away 7 lbs (3kg). Keep in mind that the numbers are just a guideline and are for people who are in contest shape and have favorable bodybuilding genetics."

You last said you are 182 pounds at 9,5% bf. This means at 5% bf you would weigh 177,5 pounds, or 0,5 pounds more than someone 3 inches taller than you according to this guide. You also take 210 mg of testosterone weekly according to your own claim which alone is a super-physiological amount contrary to what you say. Even if you double the average amount of testosterone a man produces a day (7 mg by the estimate I'm using), you don't produce even half of that naturally. And that's on top of the testosterone you produce yourself. That alone is proof enough, but for good measure the guides you provided for estimating stats are made by steroid users and made for them as well which we can see because their numbers add up to making steroid users (in this example you) have stats that make sense naturally. Gee, I wonder why they'd do that.

3) If your physique is obtainable naturally then why didn't Frank Zane get bigger than he was? he was popping the roids like the rest of them after all. And he by the way is an example I picked because his height is closest to yours by the ones I have off the top of my head, of course there are more examples.

 

[AttackFormation]

According to those two guides I should be 205 or 240 pounds "ideally". lol....

Of course the weighttrainer.net link is made by a steroid user, and it also includes steroid users as its subjects of measurement while claiming that they are drug-free. By now I really feel I don't need to say any more.

 

[marmel75]

1) What's the verification that they are natural? everyone claims to be.

2) I base my estimations on this guide and site (chart near the bottom of the article) which has a long series of comparisons. "This chart is based on the following principle: you start at 5′ 5″ (165cm) and 135lbs (62kg) and for every inch (2.5cm) above or below you either add or take away 7 lbs (3kg). Keep in mind that the numbers are just a guideline and are for people who are in contest shape and have favorable bodybuilding genetics."

You last said you are 182 pounds at 9,5% bf. This means at 5% bf you would weigh 177,5 pounds, or 0,5 pounds more than someone 3 inches taller than you according to this guide. You also take 210 mg of testosterone weekly according to your own claim which alone is a super-physiological amount contrary to what you say. Even if you double the average amount of testosterone a man produces a day (7 mg by the estimate I'm using), you don't produce even half of that naturally. And that's on top of the testosterone you produce yourself. That alone is proof enough, but for good measure the guides you provided for estimating stats are made by steroid users and made for them as well which we can see because their numbers add up to making steroid users (in this example you) have stats that make sense naturally. Gee, I wonder why they'd do that.

And where does that guide come up with their numbers? They don't say. Did they just throw darts at a board somewhere? Because it doesn't jibe with any of the other places that you can get information from, nor from people who have spent significant time and energy in developing such methods and published books on it. When I played soccer in college I got down to around 150 lbs(at one point got down to 147 lbs which was my lightest) and was measured at 5% bodyfat. My face looked like I should have been in a concentration camp. I lifted weights but did way too much cardio(had no choice---the first day of practice you had to run 3 miles in 18 minutes as a fitness test or you had to repeat it every day until you passed before you were allowed to practice), was constantly playing pickup basketball or soccer games on a near daily basis as well as practicing, and was no where near as muscular as I am now. Not even close.

I'm not sure what type of frame they are using for these numbers, but since they are trying a "one size fits all approach" the best you can do is make generalizations. In fact, right in the writeup they say that people with larger bone structures are going to carry more bodyweight and muscle mass. But since they give you no way to even factor this in, they might as well be throwing darts at a board. Basically the site looks like complete BS, if you'll pardon my French. You want to claim the equations the site I went to are "unscientific", yet apparently the site you use just comes up with some random number based on well, nothing as far as I can tell--obviously not a person's upper and lower body bone structures which might be THE most important factor of all after height and can cause wide discrepancies BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, and you carry that torch around like you are lighting the fire at the Olympics. So they rightly say that your bone structure plays a huge role in all of this, but then use a "one size fits all approach". Uhhh...epic fail.

As far as testosterone usage, you cannot say what constitutes a supraphysiological dose without blood tests. They vary widely from person to person. One person can take 125 mg of Test and be at 1100, another can take the same dose and be at 700. I know guys who take pharmaceutical brand T doses at 200 mg a week prescribed by their doctors and their test levels come back at slightly over 900. And considering even Pharmaceutical grade testosterone can vary significantly in strength from one vial to the next(shown by people who use it and have widely fluctuating T values after starting new vials), that claiming someone has supraphysiological levels without knowing their blood T levels is ridiculous. You should know better than that. Factor in that I am not using a prescription grade, and although I have sources that are very reputable, in most cases, based on various tests carried out on numerous labs through testing, vials usually are 15-25mg less than what they claim, ie a 250mg/ml vial might only actually contain 225-235mg/ml. Again, you should already know this if you are claiming to have all of this knowledge. However, they have done tests on Watson brand, one of the most well known pharmaceutical brands and found it was lower than claimed in some cases. So unless you are actually having each vial tested before using it, to know for sure, its a safe bet to assume its somewhat lower than advertised. I give blood regularly every 8 weeks and my Hematocrit values are never out of whack, usually in the mid 15-low 16 range. If I was getting such a supraphysiological dose, these values would be in the high 16s to mid 17s or higher because of the excess red blood cell production. Again, you should already know this, tho. Not to mention that when you take exogenous testosterone your body completely stops making endogenous testosterone, as evidenced by my shriveled up balls(the one thing I miss, lol, but luckily it doesn't effect the amount you shoot). So I have no testosterone that I am actually making.

3) If your physique is obtainable naturally then why didn't Frank Zane get bigger than he was? he was popping the roids like the rest of them after all. And he by the way is an example I picked because his height is closest to yours by the ones I have off the top of my head, of course there are more examples.

How much bigger did Zane have to get? The guy was 25 lbs higher than his expected maximum muscular potential. Bodybuilders back then focused more on aesthetics than size. C'mon, you should already know this. Even the biggest bodybuilders back then would be considered average or even small by today's standards.

 

[marmel75]

According to those two guides I should be 205 or 240 pounds "ideally". lol....

Of course the weighttrainer.net link is made by a steroid user, and it also includes steroid users as its subjects of measurement while claiming that they are drug-free. By now I really feel I don't need to say any more.

Well at 5% BF, unless you are 6' 6" tall with 10 inch wrists and 10 inch ankles I don't see that. If that is the case, I would suggest that you didn't read the instructions for HOW to measure your ankles and wrists, as measuring in a different spot than it says will give you a bigger measurement...sometimes by more than an inch.

 

[Tenacity]

Well, I just want to add that I HOPE nobody on this forum is experimenting with any type of steroid. I guess you could make the case if you were getting paid to look a certain way, but just taking them to show off a body at the beach would make no sense at all.

I'm lean and toned, with no supplements whatsoever other than a protein shake, a multi-vitamin and fish oil.

 

[Yewki]

Well, I just want to add that I HOPE nobody on this forum is experimenting with any type of steroid. I guess you could make the case if you were getting paid to look a certain way, but just taking them to show off a body at the beach would make no sense at all.

Nah brah I'm tellin you, the best way to reduce belly fat is to become a bodybuilder and use steroids. Tracking calorie intake is for suckers and doesn't work. Trust me, I've tried everything. The only thing that really works is making up numbers and pretending you know what you're talking by reciting generic information from articles. I went from 18% body fat to 11.7% in just 3 weeks with no real understanding of how weight loss works and so can you! But I'm not making this up.

 

[amazingswayze]

Nah brah I'm tellin you, the best way to reduce belly fat is to become a bodybuilder and use steroids. Tracking calorie intake is for suckers and doesn't work. Trust me, I've tried everything. The only thing that really works is making up numbers and pretending you know what you're talking by reciting generic information from articles. I went from 18% body fat to 11.7% in just 3 weeks with no real understanding of how weight loss works and so can you! But I'm not making this up.

I should try steroids too!

 

[marmel75]

Nah brah I'm tellin you, the best way to reduce belly fat is to become a bodybuilder and use steroids. Tracking calorie intake is for suckers and doesn't work. Trust me, I've tried everything. The only thing that really works is making up numbers and pretending you know what you're talking by reciting generic information from articles. I went from 18% body fat to 11.7% in just 3 weeks with no real understanding of how weight loss works and so can you! But I'm not making this up.

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your ignorance apparently. You want to argue semantics. I said fat when I probably could have said Non-LBM. Does that make you feel better? Either way it shows up in calculations as the same thing. The fact remains that on December 28th I weighed 207.6 lbs and this morning I weighed 188.4 lbs.

Once again you fail to understand that hormones are one of the key components to weight loss few people understand or consider. Your failure to comprehend this leads you to buy into the only way to lose weight is to continually lower calories, but you are just simply wrong. Whether you want to believe that or not doesn't change the truth. I've done far more in terms of fitness than you have and have far more experience in this realm than you.

Why do you think caloric or carb cycling is so popular among people who workout? Because it works. A hell of a lot better than eating the same number of calories each day, even if the total number of calories for the week are the same. What I'm doing is a form of caloric cycling, but because you probably have no concept of what caloric or carb cycling is or how it can be beneficial, you don't get it. To put it another way, what I am doing is a dietary form of HIIT training versus your "steady state" calorie approach. If you can't see that correlation then there really is no helping you, you are simply too dense. I truly hope you are not going to argue that you burn more fat with steady state cardio than HIIT.

For the sake of example, and I will try to keep it simple so you can follow along, let's say you decide that your daily caloric expenditure is 2600 calories, so you decide that you are going to lower it to 2400 calories to put you in a 200 calorie deficit. 2400x7 days=16,800 calories for the week. Now let's look at what I'm doing. Sunday is my big calorie day, let's say 7,000 on average. I have 3 fast days where I might eat 800 calories after breaking the fast which comes out to 2400 calories, and then have 3 normal days where I would say I average 2500 calories(7500 total between the 3 days). So it's 7,000+2,400+7,500=16,900 calories for the week.

The calorie totals are pretty close, nearly identical, so from a calorie standpoint we are in taking the same calories. The difference is that I am using hormones to greatly influence fat burning potential while you are not. That's the entire part you just can't understand. It DOES matter. It's IMPORTANT. Hormones are a huge piece of the puzzle people just seemingly want to brush under the carpet and ignore, and that's to their detriment.

To go even further, after I stop running this program, I will transition into a caloric cycling program, except I don't actually count calories with it, I simply change the focus of what I eat on certain days and the amounts I eat, which changes your calorie intake by itself without having to measure and keep a notebook. That's why I say I don't keep track of calories, because although I know if it's an up calorie or down calorie day, I don't actually sit there and add them up. It's easy enough to do without it...eat more vegetables with low calorie contents(kale, broccoli, zucchini, lettuce, etc) on down days and eat more carb related things on up days(oats, rice, potatoes, etc). These up/down cycles with calories will give you far better results than if you keep calories steady, no different than HIIT giving better results than steady state cardio.

That's my whole point. If you actually KNOW your stuff, you don't NEED to sit there and count calories. I know how to modulate them easy enough and I know how many grams of something is in an amount. A cup of rice is 45g of carbs, 6g of protein and 2-3g of fat, a cup of oats is 56g of carbs, 10g of protein and 5g of fat, a tablespoon of oil is 14g of fat, 20-23 raw almonds are 14g of fat, 6g of protein and 4-5g of carbs, etc. You want to say I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't count calories, but you don't understand that's because I don't NEED to anymore because I know the protein, fat and carb content of pretty much every food I eat in the portions I eat them in. I stopped counting calories 3 years ago. I keep things simple.

 

[marmel75]

Well, I just want to add that I HOPE nobody on this forum is experimenting with any type of steroid. I guess you could make the case if you were getting paid to look a certain way, but just taking them to show off a body at the beach would make no sense at all.

I'm lean and toned, with no supplements whatsoever other than a protein shake, a multi-vitamin and fish oil.

Why?

If you are in the proper age range, use the proper supports and use them responsibly, they are some of the safest drugs you can use. Far, far safer than the vast majority of prescription drugs and many over the counter ones. Don't believe me? If I gave you a bottle of aspirin, a bottle of caffeine pills, a bottle of Vodka and a bottle of D-Bol, which one could you take the entire bottle of and feel pretty confident you'd wake up the next morning. Got a hint for you, it's the one that's banned because it's "sooooo dangerous".

The problem is, they take the idiots who abuse steroids by taking huge amounts without taking any breaks, use no supports, do no PCT, and are way too young to be even contemplating them and hoist them up as an example of what happens to the average person who uses steroids. And on top of this never bother to mention that almost all of the ones who have issues are also taking recreational drugs on top of them like cocaine or prescription painkillers, etc. I think you'd be shocked if you compared the health of the average testosterone user and say the average statin user.

Now, I'm not saying there are no dangers to using steroids, there are. There are also dangers to getting in your car to drive somewhere, getting on an airplane or crossing the street. Unfortunately you can never completely eliminate your risk in ANYTHING, illustrated by the case of a guy who was deathly afraid of flying that he would never go anywhere on a plane, yet was killed when a plane crashed into his house while he was sleeping. What you can do with some basic knowledge and research is to minimize the risks to the best of your ability. Everyone handles them differently. Some people can take large amounts with no sides while others like me, take standard cycles and their body freaks out. So if that happens you simply stop, analyze what is happening and why and see if there is anything you can do to prevent it. It's the people who ignore what is going on in their body and think they are invincible that bad things happen to, not the people who understand, have done their research, and know how steroids work, their effects on your body(especially the increased risk of atherosclerosis due to upping bone density and not having enough Vitamin D, K2 and Magnesium to get the calcium into the bones instead of in the soft tissues), and to use basic common sense. Give blood every 8 weeks to keep Hematocrit and RBC count down, use short cycles and take AI's if needed to prevent excess estrogen, which can be a HUGE problem if you are taking an aromatizing steroid. Understand how and why oral steroids are much more toxic than injectible steroids and their effects on the liver and how to protect your organs(heart, liver, kidneys, etc).

I always thought the same way regarding steroids growing up, but then you take a cold hard look at the facts and see there is an agenda out there that isn't supported by the facts. If it was, the FDA wouldn't have been the only agency that wanted to ban them. All the others said there was no evidence of excessive harm from them, and certainly far less than already approved prescription drugs, many of which are treating minor conditions and are completely unnecessary. Do you realize that when enough people don't fit the profile of people who have a condition and need a drug(cholesterol for instance), they simply progressively lower the "normal range" so more people will "need" their drugs. Do you realize in most instances, having low cholesterol is FAR more dangerous on a day to day basis than having high cholesterol? Or what they claim is high, because not too long ago 200 and even 250 was considered normal?

I'm not arguing anyone should or shouldn't be using steroids, it's a personal choice that should be made under careful consideration and gathering knowledge about all of the things they entail, and not just while you are taking them...having your body properly recover afterwards is as if not more important. But let's stop the sham that steroids are somehow the most dangerous things you could be taking. They aren't, not even close.

 

[Yewki]

The fact remains that on December 28th I weighed 207.6 lbs and this morning I weighed 188.4 lbs.

Hate to burst your bubble but let me fill you in on some details. Everyone's weight fluctuates by several pounds every day due to differences in hydration (60% of your body is water) and current food in your stomach. You take your weight at its high point then take your weight at its low point, and you can have 5-10lbs difference or even more (depending how much you want to skew the data) with no change in your fat/muscle content.

Also, after you've been excessively eating (like you were over the holidays) you can lose a lot of meaningless weight simply by restricting your eating and getting the excess food out of your system. This lady ate over 80 lbs worth of food in one single meal. Yes, she literally gained 80 lbs in two hours. If she went on a diet for a few days she'd lose that weight and then some. Same concept as you binge eating during the holidays, then going on a crash diet. Just on a smaller scale. I can get on the bike and lose 10lbs in water weight in an hour. Losing "weight" isn't particularly meaningful, especially if it's presented in a deceiving way.

The amount of fat/muscle you think you lost is totally off base. You don't have a "method" of fat loss, as everything you wrote is ambiguous and unreproducable. You only just now provided actual numbers for your calorie in take, after having claimed you didn't count calories because you tried it and it didn't work (???). In your example you have a 200 calorie deficit. Cool story. You would have needed a 3000 calorie deficit daily for 3 weeks to even theoretically lose the fat/muscle you had spoke of earlier (I say theoretically because even this isn't possible).

Your explanation for the difference? "The difference is that I am using hormones to greatly influence fat burning potential while you are not." So, you're using some magical steroid (btw did you ever say what it was so people can follow your "program") to induce some magical ~2800 additional calorie deficit? Right, you should probably write your "method" up sell it and become rich already. Also, it would have been easier if you had just said upfront "I use steroids to lose weight" instead of trying to lead people on that it's about your ambiguous eating schedule. Or better yet just said, "I don't know what I'm talking about and make sh*t up to try to impress people"

 

[marmel75]

Hate to burst your bubble but let me fill you in on some details. Everyone's weight fluctuates by several pounds every day due to differences in hydration (60% of your body is water) and current food in your stomach. You take your weight at its high point then take your weight at its low point, and you can have 5-10lbs difference or even more (depending how much you want to skew the data) with no change in your fat/muscle content.

Also, after you've been excessively eating (like you were over the holidays) you can lose a lot of meaningless weight simply by restricting your eating and getting the excess food out of your system. This lady ate over 80 lbs worth of food in one single meal. Yes, she literally gained 80 lbs in two hours. If she went on a diet for a few days she'd lose that weight and then some. Same concept as you binge eating during the holidays, then going on a crash diet. Just on a smaller scale. I can get on the bike and lose 10lbs in water weight in an hour. Losing "weight" isn't particularly meaningful, especially if it's presented in a deceiving way.

The amount of fat/muscle you think you lost is totally off base. You don't have a "method" of fat loss, as everything you wrote is ambiguous and unreproducable. You only just now provided actual numbers for your calorie in take, after having claimed you didn't count calories because you tried it and it didn't work (???). In your example you have a 200 calorie deficit. Cool story. You would have needed a 3000 calorie deficit daily for 3 weeks to even theoretically lose the fat/muscle you had spoke of earlier (I say theoretically because even this isn't possible).

Your explanation for the difference? "The difference is that I am using hormones to greatly influence fat burning potential while you are not." So, you're using some magical steroid (btw did you ever say what it was so people can follow your "program") to induce some magical ~2800 additional calorie deficit? Right, you should probably write your "method" up sell it and become rich already. Also, it would have been easier if you had just said upfront "I use steroids to lose weight" instead of trying to lead people on that it's about your ambiguous eating schedule. Or better yet just said, "I don't know what I'm talking about and make sh*t up to try to impress people"

I feel like a college professor trying to explain calculus to a 3rd grader. You don't even understand algebra yet. You are still learning 2+2. If you had basic knowledge of how the bodies hormones work, this would probably be easier for you to accept. Instead you simply cling to the "world is flat not round" belief. You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. No matter what anyone says or points to clear evidence to the contrary, you refuse to believe it. And that's OK. It still doesn't change the truth. And the truth is, at the end of the day after all your pats on the back that you give yourself for trying to twist and turn every little thing I write, you are 6'0" 170 lbs following the way you do things and you think you uncovered some great mystery by losing 60 lbs.

Well, congratulations, I've lost more than that twice, the first time when I was 18 and a freshman in college, the second time when I was 34. Most people would freak the hell out if they gained 30-35 lbs in 3 months. I do it for fun. Well, not necessarily fun, but I could care less if I have abs in January, I love eating. So I give myself dietary freedom for 3 months because I know I can erase those 30-35 lbs in half the time or less that I gained it. No crazy cardio, no 2 hour workouts, no working out 7 days a week. I just do what I do. And I do it exceptionally well.

You again show ignorance by thinking "steroids" burn fat. Firstly, the dose of testosterone I am taking is not a "steroid" dose. Its a dose that puts my testosterone levels at high normal. Or I guess I should have just accepted and been happy with my test levels at 150 or lower for the rest of my life at age 34 right? But again, you probably don't understand that having testosterone levels that are too low actually is just as unhealthy if not more unhealthy than having levels that are too "high".

I don't have anymore time or energy to argue with someone who has accomplished nothing in the realm of fitness, is too lazy to actually go and learn about what I am discussing to even have an informed opinion so you actually could have a half-way intelligent conversation about the matter, and who has never tried it, so you don't have any first hand experience with it either.

Noone is forcing you to do anything I discussed. I've already explained the why it works better, the how it works better and how its pretty much like doing a dietary form of HIIT so you might actually have the light bulb go on inside your head. But as far as I can tell it's still pitch black in there, so I honestly don't have the time, energy or patience to bang my head in the wall and spoon feed you Jello to get you up to speed.
Do what you feel like doing, get the results you get, which are honestly sh!tty, and then keep justifying your results versus mine by trying to blame "steroids" as the reason. I know it's hard to believe, but it's because I have a much better understanding of the way things actually work than the remedial understanding you have. And unfortunately for you, no matter what words you type on this page to make yourself feel better, that still is the truth.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Here goes the deal fellas. A day of eating will not kill you. Drink water and you will be burning fat, guaranteed ketosis. You can also work out. This is a good short term plan for achieving a weight easily. It should not be maintained over the long haul, but if you were sloppy and got big this will get you down without losing a lot of muscle. On those days you have zero food intake you may drop 1lb of fat, maybe more especially if your moving around.

 

[Tenacity]

Why?

If you are in the proper age range, use the proper supports and use them responsibly, they are some of the safest drugs you can use. Far, far safer than the vast majority of prescription drugs and many over the counter ones. ...

Marmel, you are starting to totally lose all credibility with me buddy.

 

[Yewki]

I've already explained the why it works better

Your "explanation" is summed up by "hormones control weight loss" and "how often you eat controls hormone." That's it. You have no specifics and numbers justifying how. Am I wrong? Please, I'm all ears.

That is how you explain turning a 200 calorie deficit magically into ~3000. Just changing your eating schedule. Right.

Do you honestly expect anyone who is not legally retarded to believe this?