DaveH

Be a man and get those calluses, they only hurt for the first couple months. Preach That and if you grip correctly, calluses should be minimized anyway. Gloves seem to throw things off, but I used to use them

Current research disagrees. Check out Dr. Layne Norton's research Generally, you body will absorb everything you put in it. Sometimes, more than everything from a calorie perspective If it didn't, you'd have a diarrhea problem after every meal that exceeded this arbitrary limit. People don't have this problem.. What is limited is how much protein is needed to trigger muscle protein synthesis. Current research shows Leucine appears to be intimately involved here. This threshold appears to be about 1.75g of leucine to trigger it at all, with optimal levels being reached at 3-4g. You can get this from a variety of sources, but generally 20g or so of protein from an animal will suffice. So it's more about what the minimum is to get the intended effect. MPS lasts about 3 hours minimum once triggered.. Any additional substrate ingested for that is used energy. It isn't wasted. Your body didn't evolve to be wasteful of food, as evidenced by all the large people walking around..

I'd love to have a home gym with a cage, a bench, some iron and some bumpers. Oh and a platform, probably make it myself. Someday..

But I'm another one of those that still laughs that in 2015 we are having a discussion about weed, and it's even news. This shouldn't cost him money, or at least I hope not. But, those are the rules, I guess. I would agree. The weed isn't necessarily the problem. It's Randy. It'd be the same if he had a booze problem. It's his problem with it that's the problem.

You might want to work up to the 200mg

A gym is no place to make fun of people at. I have no respect for people like that. I have a really good friend that I have been trying to get in the gym but he doesn't want to because he doesn't want to look like a pu&&y when it comes to lifting. I told him everyone starts some where and who cares if you can't lift as much as someone else, at least your putting in an effort. This. I tell my wife this all the time. Don't worry about what other people are doing. Put in the work, make some progress and come back a few days later and make more progress. Many people will come and go.

You know there are actual symptoms of legit over training. Constant elevated heart rate, trouble sleeping come to mind immediately. Probably continual declining training performance.. I forget all of them but they're out there somewhere. As per usual in this game, there are a thousand ways to skin this cat. People like their own stuff. My opinion is that as long as you can actually measure progress (by weight lifted increases over time, time\distance ran decrease\increase over time, etc) then you're actually training and improving in some way. Otherwise, you're just moving around.

Caffeine is hella better than CLA IMO This. It actually works which is a step in the right direction.

Over training is a very real thing. It can be, but for most recreational folks I see it used more of an excuse than an actual thing.

They may have filmed some more present day scenes for the first season, but as others said it's pretty clear that the Omaha part should be closer to the end of the series.

I don't think the carb matters too much as long as there is not a large amount of fiber to go along with it that could slow absorption. There is some synergistic activity between protein and carbs, I think that's what you're remembering. It's not huge, but it does seem to exist.

That's messed up.

What do you mean by active versus passive diet management? Active diet management - Tracking calories/what is consumed/how much/when consumed... Passive diet management - Eating without regard to any of these areas Duh. I didn't even think there'd be a term for eating whatever you want. ha!

What do you mean by active versus passive diet management?

We can go wherever we like with it I guess it comes down to what research you're willing to put some time into and what you're not. That's where we differ. My original statement should have been something like "I wouldn't concern yourself with diet soda on your weight loss journey. There are bigger fish to fry". My mistake. It just irks me when people bring this stuff up out of no where, then point to a random article written by someone who read an abstract. It just irks me to no end when I see the spread of half information. With regard to half information, some stuff out there deserves to be discounted, you know. Examine would discount a study if it saw it as being flawed enough to not consider it. That's perfectly fine with me. It may not be with you.

Layne is usually my go to source, but he just had so much damn information sometimes it's an overload. I'm with you there. It's insane sometimes.

I've heard actually that is a bad idea, because it gets the body to slow its metabolism. I don't know how true that is, but I try to start my day with something, however small, soon after waking up. But, again, what works for one may not work for another. I like the idea of maybe having a smaller dinner than lunch, but that rarely works for me. Not eating breakfast is a terrible idea. After a night of sleep, your body is starving for something to fuel itself. What I typically try to do is eat breakfast, but try to have my biggest meal of the day at lunch, and then eat a light dinner. I have all afternoon/evening to burn the calories from lunch, and then I try to go to bed slightly hungry. Anything in your stomach first thing in the morning kick-starts the metabolism & digestive processes. Not doing this causes your body to think it needs to store fat. It gets your metabolism & digestive system working against you. You don't need to eat a lot but gotta eat something. As far as going to bed hungry, be careful with that. You want to be satiated when you go to bed or you can fall into the same issues as not eating breakfast... This isn't necessarily true. Intermittent fasting may have some merit to it. Not eating for a 16 hour period can have your body burning fat stores. There aren't a whole lot of studies out there on it, but some show decreases in body fat and increase in insulin sensitivity. Two different things - Intermittent vs Consistent. Fasting will typically cause the body to burn stored nutrients. Doing this intermittently might not cause the "rebound" where your metabolism stays slow once you eat to store fat. Doing this consistenly will typically cause this rebound. Consistent Fasting without excercise increases the likelihood that muscle gets burned before fat reserves are touched. Intermittent fasting has quite a few different meanings and one of the is what BRB is describing. Essentially not eating for an extended period of time everyday, but consuming what you need with in a window during the daytime. Nobody is talking about doing these diets without exercise. That's obviously an option but like you said your going to lose your muscle mass, as you would on any extended diet. Sorry Zrod, you are referencing the fad diet/dieting pattern group. I did not realize that until this last post. It's still totally different. Skipping breakfast just cuz is very different than going with a fad diet/dieting pattern with presciptive calorie/intake guidelines. It's passive vs active diet management... No, it's exactly the same. You're not eating for an extended period of time and then eating throughout the day. Either way there's enough evidence to suggest that when it comes to losing weight it doesn't matter whether or not you eat breakfast. If it works for you not to eat breakfast then do it, if not that's fine too. http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/06/05/skipping-breakfast-may-not-be-so-bad-for-weight-loss-study-finds/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-berardi-phd/breakfast-health_b_4436439.html https://www.yahoo.com/health/5-reasons-to-skip-breakfast-97835884338.html I'm not into the fad stuff like Paleo, etc. you're body doesn't really know the difference between "good" carbs and "bad" carbs it just knows the differential in amounts. But personally I've tried IF for a little while and I like way that I felt and looked, it just wasn't practical for me to do it. See, this is reasonable. Some people like IF, some people don't. There is no magic, really. If it works for you in terms of driving compliance with your overall calorie\macro goals then great. If not, that's cool too. It likely doesn't matter that much. What does matter is long term commitment and working hard both in the kitchen and the gym.

If you guys are curious about protein and some studies surrounding it, look up some of Dr. Layne Norton's stuff on Muscle Protein Synthesis (MPS). In short, it seems the overall amount of protein isn't as important as how often you can stimulate MPS with a minimum amount of protein. It's not like eating that much is "bad" and doesn't work, but it seems that it's not very optimal.

Even the article contradicts your statement. The article states there are "no studies that indicate any long-term health risks". There are plenty of documented & established health risks with diet soda. Faster eroding of tooth enamel & stomach lining are two off the top the of my head... Also off memory, Aspartame has been causally linked to trigger cluster headaches (more debilitating than migraines) and has been established as a trigger for auto-immune disease responses such as pemphigus (if i recall correctly). There is evidence it is bad for you. Is it worse than anything else, such as regular soda? That is TBD... Can you point to some good studies that show that diet soda leads to faster tooth enamel eroding and stomach lining, than, say, coffee or anything else? Ones with control groups, good sample size, etc. Also, would like to see a reputable study on these "headaches". I do know that a very small percentage of the population report headaches, but so did people with MSG and that was proven to just not be the case. They essentially made it up. The OP has much bigger fish to fry then futzing over diet soda. I don't want to hijack this thread but if you create a new one to discuss, I will be happy to participate. If this is your requirement, the examine site you reference routinely violates this. Randomly looking at a few articles, they routinely give an A (robust research w/ multiple double blind...) to a group of research that is purely data analysis. The articles are also inconsistent in their reader/editor bias. Not saying the site is bad, just identifying it doesn't live up to your measure... EDIT: Removed comment that maybe sounded more rude/terse than I intended... I enjoy the dialogue and your points. They're something to be said for data analysis and providing information for someone to make their own decision. They do a good job of providing information and some qualified opinion, but I don't look to it for absolute answers because there rarely are any absolute answers. There are just varying degrees of certainty. Further more the stuff that we'd like to see good studies on may never exist. Either for logistical reasons or just because there's no large interest in studying the topic. So, the best information is sometimes just meta analysis. But that's different than click-bait article that cherry pick results and, really, just want you to read their crappy article to get a few clicks. I, for one, use the data at examine and make my own decisions. That's what I'm suggesting. Some of the data is pretty telling, though, like the diet soda stuff. You can't read that analysis and say that diet soda is proven to have side effects worth discussing. Let alone side effects that would affect weight loss. If the guy drinks diet soda and can control his intake sufficiently, he will lose weight. It doesn't matter one bit if he can control his intake. Now if for some reason he's an outlier and drinking diet soda makes him go on large ravenous binges then, no, he probably should abstain. I don't think is likely though. It's just information that is distracting from what matters most. Really, the best answers in this thread are ones that revolve around watching overall caloric load and moving more. That's the long and short of it. Sure, the other "life hacks" that some of us suggest work, but they typically only work because they help drive compliance with your calorie or macro goals. Everyone has these hacks and they're fine but there's no real magic with them. Not eating breakfast, or eating a crap load of protein, low carb (ketosis aside), etc. I think they all just help drive compliance in certain populations for a myriad of reasons.

BRB is especially correct with these statements. In your age group, you also need to think about joint & bone health. Range of motion with different excercises will help with both of these. If you just do one thing, it's harder to push the body in regards to calorie management. I am 6' and ~6 years ago, I decided to drop ~35 lbs. I have kept almost all of it off since then (~32.5 lbs). I played competive sports until my early 30s and that was when weight became an issue. I was running at least 7 miles per day, weight training at least 3x per week and eating healthy and still got out of balance on calorie intake vs expenditure. It starts & ends with diet for your age group. The healthier you eat, the easier it will be, imo. With the exception of highly processed foods & soda, it's about moderation. Sugar is a killer as with most processed foods. My big issue was fresh fruit. I ate healthy but too much fresh fruit can be like too much soda... One tip I got from a GI Dr & nutrionist that works with a lot of Olympic & pro atheletes is fiber intake. She was religous about males over middle-age needing well over 40g fiber daily. At least 60% from natural food sources (non-processed veggies). This is bare minimum & her general rule over 35+ was 45-50g per day. For myself, I found that staying within this range gave me way more flexibility with the rest of my diet. Her rule for meals was carb to fiber ratio... My recommendation is definitely speak with someone in this space (GI and/or nutrionist) as it will make it much easier to make adjustments to your diet. Losing the wieght only to put it back on again starts a very unhealthy cycle. Best to avioid if you can... Thanks everyone for your input. It is really appreciated. I think you hit on something here ColoNo. I eat pretty decently - my wife has to be gluten free so that affects our meals at home, I normally have a salad, fruit and either chicken or salmon on my salad for lunch. However, I may be getting too much fruit - normally a apple (or 2), banana, orange a day. Plus my "healthy' snacks typically are peanuts, nuts and sunflower seed (and the occasional junk salty chips from the snack machine). I rarely have a soda and we know the problem wt sugar (cancer loves it - so we use more healthy alternatives if possible). So I may be getting too many natural sugars from the fruit, too much salt from my snacks, and not enough fiber. I've lost 20 or more lbs before only to gain it back Thanks for the input The importance of how much you're eating versus what you're eating can't be overstated..

Gonna be an interesting year. Exciting because honeymoon's are always exciting

Something in my head says Randy underachieved at his time at NU. Not sure why, just a feeling I have. Needs to work harder...

I like the comments about running the ball and working off play action. So simple yet so underused in the recent past here.

The study specifed in this list re: diabetes is pretty crappy. It doesn't show causality (i.e. consuming diet soda DOES increase your risk for diabetes). Basically it's saying there maybe a relationship here, or not. We don't really know. Again. A crappy source. Same study, same thing. This is not good enough science to actually show a real problem worth acting on. Just another list, pointing to vague studies about dyes and what not. Listen, I'm not saying to go out and drink 12 of, well, anything except water. What I am saying is that this is NOT the biggest thing the OP, or anyone for that matter, has to worry about. You want a diet soda or two? Fine, have some. It's not going to kill you now, or even in the long run. If you think it's the boogey man and to blame for your problems, fine don't drink it. Just know that science clearly shows that it won't kill you or even do you appreciable harm. Spreading "news" that it will is sort of irresponsible IMO. Stick to sources like Examine.com. They actually analyze these studies, sort the good from the bad and give you the straight dope on the topic. This is a much better approach that reading an abstract, not really understanding the parameters, etc. Then putting together a click-bait article up about "Top X things you didn't know about Y".

Even the article contradicts your statement. The article states there are "no studies that indicate any long-term health risks". There are plenty of documented & established health risks with diet soda. Faster eroding of tooth enamel & stomach lining are two off the top the of my head... Also off memory, Aspartame has been causally linked to trigger cluster headaches (more debilitating than migraines) and has been established as a trigger for auto-immune disease responses such as pemphigus (if i recall correctly). There is evidence it is bad for you. Is it worse than anything else, such as regular soda? That is TBD... Can you point to some good studies that show that diet soda leads to faster tooth enamel eroding and stomach lining, than, say, coffee or anything else? Ones with control groups, good sample size, etc. Also, would like to see a reputable study on these "headaches". I do know that a very small percentage of the population report headaches, but so did people with MSG and that was proven to just not be the case. They essentially made it up. The OP has much bigger fish to fry then futzing over diet soda.