Posts by placidranger

Matthew Richardson81 said:Setting aesthetic goals aside—this just isn't healthy.

😕
I look at gummy bears as being slightly less "unhealthy," but even then... you can't exactly go eating them by the pound.

The foundation.

Calories. It’s basically just a way to measure the caloric value of the food we eat—and, by extension, the amount of stored energy we burn through physical activity.

When you eat more than you burn—that’s when you hit a caloric surplus—and that's exactly how the weight starts creeping on. Simple math, really.
It’s basic math—when you consume fewer calories than you burn, you're in a caloric deficit. That's how you lose weight. Simple as that.
If you eat exactly what you burn, you’re at zero—pure caloric equilibrium.

It’s basic physics—the law of thermodynamics is set in stone. It isn't like those "scientific" guidelines about how many glasses of water you need to drink daily that seem to change every few years. Still, it isn't quite that simple. The human body is a complex machine; it fights weight loss by slowing down your metabolism—but I'll get into that later.

Look, if you want to lose weight, it’s basic math—burn more than you consume. One pound of fat contains roughly 3,500 calories, so if you want to see that number drop on the scale, you have to burn through that energy—essentially, you need to manufacture a caloric deficit. There are three ways to tackle this: Eat less, move more—or find a way to balance both. It’s the age-old debate. Personally, I’ve found that relying solely on one side of the equation usually leads to a dead end. You can starve yourself, but you'll feel like garbage, or you can grind through endless cardio only to realize your diet is undoing all that effort. A bit of both is the only logical path forward. Since this is the Recreation subforum, the most obvious answer is simply to "work out more"—though for those actually looking to make progress, a combination approach is usually better.

How to pick an activity.

Most people could get by just fine by putting in an hour of exercise a day—assuming, of course, they aren't eating more than they were before. It’s basic math. Ideally, you’d pick something you actually enjoy, though frankly, ANY activity is going to move the needle. If you haven't found your thing yet, you’re just going to have to trial a few different options until something sticks.

Let’s talk about calories—specifically, how much we actually burn. Everyone loves to obsess over the numbers, but most people have a fundamentally flawed understanding of the math involved. It isn't just about what you eat versus what you move; it’s more complicated than that.

Even when you’re doing absolutely nothing—just sitting there, staring at a wall—your body is still burning fuel. It’s constant. You have to maintain core temperature, keep the brain firing, pump blood through the heart, breathe, digest whatever you last ate... all that baseline energy expenditure is what we call basal metabolism. Basal metabolic rate—BMR. It’s the baseline. The energy your body burns just to stay alive while you're sitting around doing absolutely nothing. It’s the foundation of any metabolic calculation, though most people tend to overcomplicate it.People labeled with a "fast metabolism" typically burn more energy just existing—they run hotter and generally have a higher drive for physical activity. On the flip side, those with a slower metabolism experience the exact opposite. It’s largely driven by thyroid hormones, adrenal function, and the fact that Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) varies wildly from one person to the next. That isn't to say anyone with a slower metabolism is destined to be overweight. It simply means their body requires less fuel to stay operational. From an evolutionary standpoint, this was actually a survival mechanism—those who could easily store fat had a distinct advantage over those who couldn't. They essentially built up "emergency reserves" to weather droughts or harsh winters. In the wild, being able to pack on weight was the difference between life and death.

Moving muscles requires energy—it’s just how things work. More strenuous, long-duration activities burn more calories, obviously. When you push through high-intensity sessions, your heart rate climbs, your breathing quickens, and your body temperature spikes—and that heat doesn't just vanish instantly. It stays elevated, driving up your metabolic demand even after you've stopped. Essentially, pretty much any movement can be leveraged for weight loss, provided you're willing to put in the work that actually exhausts you.

To get a handle on your BMR, you’ll need to plug in some data—for instance... If you're looking for a quick way to estimate your BMR, this calculator is fine—it gets the job done without any unnecessary fluff. It’s basic math, really. Just plug in your stats and see where you land. Don't overthink the results; it's just a starting point, not gospel. I used one of these back when I was trying to dial in my macros last year—it gave me a decent baseline, though life isn't always as predictable as an algorithm. Use it if you need it. Once you've done that, follow the 'Daily Calorie Needs' link—it’ll give you a ballpark figure for your daily caloric burn based on how active you actually are. Just keep in mind, it's nothing more than an estimate. Don't take it to the bank.

Let's talk about calories—specifically, how much we actually ingest. It’s easy to get caught up in the math, but the reality is often more complicated than a simple spreadsheet.

When you break down food components—or macronutrients, if we’re being technical—it really boils down to a few primary categories: proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and, I suppose, alcohol.

Protein. Everyone’s obsessed with it lately—it’s practically a religion in every gym from New York to LA. People obsess over grams per pound like they’re calculating interest rates, but most of it is just noise. Honestly, if you aren't hitting your baseline, you're wasting your time, but chasing perfection is a fool's errand. Just eat the damn meat and move on. Amino acid supplements are just a way to supplement what the body uses every single day—hair growth, nail strength, hormone production, neurotransmitters, and building muscle when you're actually putting in the work. You get them primarily from animal products like milk, cheese, meat, fish, and eggs, though plant-based options like soy and beans are decent sources too. Once they hit your digestive tract, they break down into amino acids to synthesize new proteins. Just remember: proteins pack about 4 calories per gram. Simple enough.

Carbohydrates (Carbs) are essentially glucose molecules arranged in different ways. Fruit, veggies, bread, potatoes, pasta, table sugar—you get the idea. They all contain a high percentage of carbs that break down into glucose during digestion. That glucose hits your bloodstream to fuel your immediate needs or gets tucked away in your liver and muscles as glycogen. Glucose—also known as blood sugar or dextrose—is the primary fuel for pretty much every cell in your body. When those glycogen stores in your liver and muscles are maxed out, the excess glucose gets converted into body fat. Carbs pack about 4 kcal per gram. Technically, the body can function without them—that’s when you enter ketosis and pull energy from fat stores instead. Some people thrive on that, some don't; but just so we're clear—keto diets aren't inherently more effective than non-keto ones.

Fats consist of fatty acid chains. They are vital for basic biological functions. The only ones we know for certain are harmful are hydrogenated vegetable oils (trans fats). All fats are calorie-dense, clocking in at 9 kcal per gram. This is why "low-fat" is such a common trope in weight loss advice. However, cutting fats too low isn't a smart move—it can lead to various health issues if you aren't careful.

Alcohol is its own special category. Your body doesn't need it to function, and once you consume it, your system treats it as priority fuel because it can't store it. This actually encourages the body to store everything else moving through your digestive tract as fat. It sits at roughly 7 kcal per gram.

Coming up next:
On calorie counting
On popular diets—when they work and when they fail
On meal frequency
...

There it is. Leave your comments, suggest topics for future Basics articles, or write your own pieces.

Jonathan Miller7 said:Look, I’m also guilty of mindless candy snacking during my workouts—just trying to clear out the sugar rush, I guess. 😁
Sometimes I even go for those chocolate-covered raisins. 😁

That’s just how it goes, man—pure hardcore mode. 🙂 😬

Raymond Hughes said:Can I swap out glucose for fructose when I take my whey?

Any carb works—the effect on protein anabolism stays basically the same. You could go with fruit, honey, or if you want to keep it simple, just some powdered sugar.

I was browsing an old fitness forum the other day—some guy mentioned using Jolly Ranchers for their post-workout window. 😬 😬

Kenneth Robinson85 said:Question: how can you actually lose weight using protein?🙏

They’re incredibly filling—meaning you can't exactly shovel them down in massive quantities. Theoretically, that should keep you on track, though I've seen some people manage to avoid gaining weight even on an all-protein diet simply by eating much larger portions of protein than necessary.

And don't forget—you’re just losing all that water weight held by the carbs you're eating. That isn't actual fat loss. Once you go back to your normal diet—ugh—that weight comes right back.

redmarlin3 said:bluewalker33, you seriously have the best handle on this entire forum. I actually lost it when I first saw it. 🤣 🙏 🙏 🙏

Anyway. Are we all certain that everyone actually "hears" the words they read in their head? Like, as a sound, for example?
Because me, honestly, I could spend all day reading, but I don't hear a single thing, I swear... 🤷

You might be missing the concept—it's called subvocalization.
You should be able to "hear" it if you slow down (to a speaking pace) and pronounce the words mentally without moving your lips.
That’s how kids learn to read, and the habit tends to stick.

Joseph Watson3 said:I’d argue that the ones who "hear" it are either kids still learning or people who don't read much at all. Then you have the group below them—the ones who actually move their lips while they go through a page.

I suspect that with enough practice, reading should eventually become "untethered" from vocalization altogether. 🤷

I think it can be eliminated through conscious effort, though the ability to subvocalize remains. It’s still there for me, even though I read quite a bit. In fact, I'll consciously subvocalize when I want to process something deeply or just need to slow my pace down.

Eric Gray3 Kazes:
So, I spend my time training martial arts and working with the Kettlebell.

I just stick to the classics at home—push-ups, squats, crunches, that kind of thing. Simple enough.

In that case—I'm not sure how much benefit you'd actually see from creatine. It might be worth looking into if you’re planning an extended stretch of intense strength training, but otherwise? Probably not. 🤷

Yeah, I’m finally running low on my Scitech Nutritional Whey protein—time to restock.

A friend mentioned that some of the Herbalife stuff is better because it supposedly has fewer chemicals. Honestly? I don't buy it—not even close. It’s just more marketing noise. Everyone claims their formula is "cleaner" than the next guy's, but at the end of the day, it's all processed powders. Just follow the macros and move on.

So, what’s the consensus here—are there actually any decent protein powders out there, or is it all just overpriced sludge? Mine currently sit at 22g per serving, which hits about 44% of my daily requirement. I'm starting to wonder if I should be looking for something with a higher dosage per scoop. Any thoughts?

RDA stands for Recommended Dietary Allowance—basically, the suggested daily amount of protein per scoop. If you double up and take two scoops, you’re hitting 88% of that target, which comes out to 44g total. Honestly, I have no clue who they were actually calculating those numbers for.
Honestly, obsessing over the RDA is a waste of time. You’re better off just looking at the protein percentage—aim for 90% or higher—keep the carbs and sugar minimal, and then... well, just make sure it actually tastes good. That's really all that matters.

steelskipper5 said:The alphabet basically follows pronunciation—graphemes more or less track phonemes. But sign language users can't really lean on that when they're reading.

It’s not that they have trouble reading per se, it’s more about the process of learning how to read.
Take me, for example—when I'm reading, I only "hear" the pronunciation if I slow down, really get into the dialogue and stuff like that. Otherwise, I read way faster than my internal voice could even articulate. So, yeah, speech and hearing aren't strictly necessary for reading itself.

I honestly have no idea how Deaf people actually learn to read.😕 I assume when they're learning letters, they're shown the corresponding hand sign or finger spelling, and then words are presented as a sequence of those signs—they just have to bridge the gap between the two.
Eventually, words are likely presented as a series of movements. (From what I gather, there are signs for entire words, which they might pick up later🤷).

Since hearing people have a certain way of thinking through "inner speech"—say, right before we speak or write something—maybe Deaf people visualize a sequence of movements as a sentence.

When I read, I only "hear" the pronunciation if I slow down and really sink into the dialogue—otherwise, I read much faster than my internal voice could ever articulate. Speech and hearing aren't strictly necessary for reading.

Personally, I feel like I have an inner voice more often than not, but yeah, articulation isn't required for reading. However, if we assume there’s a middle stage between learning to read and reading without articulation—where that inner voice is almost always present—the question is: what is the equivalent phenomenon for Deaf people?
It’s probably a sequence of finger movements that was paired with the letters they learned, much like sounds were paired for us.

steelskipper5 said:I mean, this feels less like Psychology and more like Cognitive Science... honestly, it could have easily stayed over in Natural Sciences.

People who lose their vision dream in really fascinating ways. For instance—do they dream about someone they knew before they went blind and someone they met after? Apparently, they see them differently: they’ll see the first person as they used to, while the second one is processed through these entirely new perceptions.

And when it comes to the Deaf community, sign language is still just... language. You don't need to hear something to understand it, which is pretty much what sign language proves, right?
If I remember correctly, the Brooklyn and Wernicke areas still kick in for Deaf individuals—it's just that instead of responding to audio, they respond to visual input. The brain is still processing language the same way.
The real struggle for many Deaf people is that written text doesn't always carry much weight on its own—words don't exactly "sound" like anything to them the way they do to us.

In what sense is that an actual problem?

Eric Gray3 said:I've been using Scitech Whey protein... they're alright, I guess.

I paired them with some vitamin supplements—massive pills, honestly, a total struggle to swallow—and I can see progress.

But I want more. Better. Faster. So I'm thinking about stacking something else on top.

I've heard people use creatine and other supplements... just not sure if it's actually healthy... hmmm??

Creatine isn't harmful—it helps performance, provided you're already at an advanced level. I haven't tried it myself, but word is it doesn't do much for beginners.

Have you considered changing your training routine? That usually makes a bigger difference in progress. What’s your current split, and how long have you been at it?

Alex Long8 said:What’s the deal with this chicken soup—how much actual protein is in there versus just... noodles?

It's right there on the label.😬

Jonathan Miller7 said:You can, if you don't mind giving me the short version—I don't have the bandwidth to read the whole thing right now.

The study compares the effect of a glucose + whey mix (specifically the Surge product) against one of their chocolate milk brands post-workout regarding muscle protein synthesis—basically anabolic impact—and glycogen replenishment. The takeaway? Chocolate milk comes out ahead. Specifically, when looking at sugars, the sucrose and fructose in that chocolate milk perform just as well as, if not better than, glucose for refilling glycogen stores.

A trial by Bowtell et al showed a glucose polymer to synthesize more glycogen by the 2-hr mark postworkout [14]. However, two other trials whose postexercise observation periods were 4 and 6 hours respectively saw no significant difference in glycogen storage between sucrose and glucose [15,16].
Perhaps the most overlooked advantage of a fructose-containing carbohydrate source (sucrose is 50% fructose) is that it supports liver glycogen better than a glucose-only source, as in the case of Surge. A little-known fact is that hepatic glycogenolysis (liver glycogen use) occurs to a significant degree during exercise, and the magnitude of glycogenolysis is intensity-dependent [17]. Illustrating the potential superiority of sucrose over glucose, Casey et al saw no difference in muscle glycogen resynthesis 4 hrs postexercise [15]. However, there was more liver glycogen resynthesis in the sucrose group, and this correlated with a slightly greater exercise capacity.

I linked the article because it’s packed with scientific references—you can tell the guy isn't just making things up on the fly.

By the way, that guy (Alan Aragon) writes top-tier nutrition papers. 🙏
Check it out: www.alanaragon.com

Jonathan Miller7 said:Why wouldn't I?

Take a look at this:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...-recovery.html

briskmarlin59 said:should I still be adding dextrose to this?

It’s really not a dealbreaker—provided you're eating solid meals both before and after your workout.

briskmarlin59 said:Is it worth drinking whey after a circuit of push-ups, squats, and crunches?

If you’re running low on protein, then yeah—it's worth it, regardless of your workout routine.
You'll be short if you aren't hitting roughly 2g of protein per kg of body weight daily.

Look, man, it's loaded with sugar—about two-thirds of the mass is just maltodextrin, which is basically starch that turns straight into sugar anyway. He’d definitely save some cash if he just mixed his own, even assuming he bought all the ingredients here in the States... but if you're feeling lazy about mixing and you happen to be passing through Chicago...

Matthew Richardson81 said:Stop being a sucker for mass gainers. Just do the math—compare the cost of that gainer against mixing your own whey with glucose, dextrose, or maltodextrin. I'd bet my life it ends up being cheaper and better quality if you DIY it.

Here is what’s actually in that gainer:

Maltodextrin, protein blend (whey protein concentrate, micellar casein, whey protein isolate), inulin, flaxseed oil, MCT, calcium caseinate, natural and artificial flavors (strawberry/cocoa pieces), sodium chloride, sucralose, acesulfame potassium, coloring.

Total weight: 3176 g

Serving size: 155 g (3.5 scoops)
NUTRITION FACTS:
Calories: 611 kcal
Protein: 52.7 g
Carbs: 88 g
Fat: 5.3 g

Three pounds of this stuff for $35. That breaks down to one pound of protein and two pounds of sugar.
The price seems fine to me—I mean, sure, it would definitely be cheaper to just mix your own protein and carbs or just eat more food, but overall? This doesn't look half bad.

Alex Long8 said:this doesn't include mass gainers—it’s calculated based on four meals, which is the bare minimum I’d eat.

as for fats, honestly, I haven't a clue🤷—I'll have to look up nutrition labels online and figure it out. how much fat should I actually be hitting?

well, you're eating pretty little (or your math is off 😁). what's your height and weight?

here's the quick breakdown of what you need:
the priority is roughly 2 to 2.5 grams of protein per kg of lean body mass (LBM), and the rest can come from carbs and fats. You definitely need some fat since the body needs it to function, and for carbs, it's best to get them from plenty of fruits and vegetables—vitamins, minerals, fiber, and all that good stuff for digestion.

Let's say you weigh 154 lbs, with 10% body fat—that would put you at about 139 lbs of LBM, so your total protein intake would be around 120-150g daily.
that's about 500-600 kcal.
if you need, say, 2500 kcal a day just to maintain your current weight (check here and here), then the sweet spot for bulking up would be roughly 500 calories above that—so 3000 calories. That's a ballpark figure, but it's a solid starting point. If you start putting on too much fat, cut the calories; if you aren't gaining, bump them up.

Alex Long8 said:that would work out to: 4g carbs per kg of body weight and 2g protein per kg

And how much fat?
As it stands, that doesn't look like enough—unless you're talking strictly about what's coming from the mass gainer, in which case it seems like plenty 😕.

Jonathan Miller7 said:There’s a massive difference between knowing something and actually understanding it. If you truly understood, your perspective would be different.

I regularly mix glucose into my whey—mostly because I'm too lazy to prep actual meals and just need an easy way to bump up my calories.