Im not into fat guys, but i am weird and am only into skinny femboys as far as guys go.
Posted under General
LatinaOfHearts said:
Not particularly since caloric restriction (best way to lose weight) will decrease your T levels.. so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and while it might give you acne or whatever that's preferable to having your skin sag and wrinkle (happens when you don't have enough fat in your face)
Eating less food doesn't lower your T, we arent talking about malnutrion. In fact low calorie diets can raise T if you do those wierd ones on fringe fitbro spheres like eating raw eggs. High caloric foods in fact can also lower testerone because most of it comes from proccessed trash filled with seed oils. Eating just steak, chicken, and eggs will give you way more testerone than just eating a bunch of potato chips, craft mac and cheese, soda, sweets and other nonsense.
And skin wrinkling and sagging is from getting fat. That's why fat people who lose weight have that problem still. Getting fat stetches out your skin.
fkiblaze said:
Eating less food doesn't lower your T, we arent talking about malnutrion. In fact low calorie diets can raise T if you do those wierd ones on fringe fitbro spheres like eating raw eggs. High caloric foods in fact can also lower testerone because most of it comes from proccessed trash filled with seed oils. Eating just steak, chicken, and eggs will give you way more testerone than just eating a bunch of potato chips, craft mac and cheese, soda, sweets and other nonsense.
And skin wrinkling and sagging is from getting fat. That's why fat people who lose weight have that problem still. Getting fat stetches out your skin.
Eating just steak chicken and eggs without veggies and fruits, water, fruit juices (natural) carbohydrates like rice etc. Will lead to you being malnourished and thus lowering your testosterone... I absolutely accept that eating fatty foods isn't good but malnourishing and crippling yourself because "yah bro, raw milk and two boiled eggs bro!! Best healthy dinner ever because there's no seed oils!!!" Is crazy.
And no, skin sagging (from age) is because there is no fat to keep your skin streched out. Sure, skinny people that were once fat will also have sagging skin (in the arms, belly etc and not the face but let's skip over that) however you can prevent that by losing weight gradually and not immediately. That's why all the gymbros are doing Botox, they look old from all the chemical tren and the shitty diet they consume.
LatinaOfHearts said:
Eating just steak chicken and eggs without veggies and fruits, water, fruit juices (natural) carbohydrates like rice etc. Will lead to you being malnourished and thus lowering your testosterone... I absolutely accept that eating fatty foods isn't good but malnourishing and crippling yourself because "yah bro, raw milk and two boiled eggs bro!! Best healthy dinner ever because there's no seed oils!!!" Is crazy.
And no, skin sagging (from age) is because there is no fat to keep your skin streched out. Sure, skinny people that were once fat will also have sagging skin (in the arms, belly etc and not the face but let's skip over that) however you can prevent that by losing weight gradually and not immediately. That's why all the gymbros are doing Botox, they look old from all the chemical tren and the shitty diet they consume.
Might have to do something I don’t particularly like doing which is explain dietary needs and human nutritional health in a condescending way, so sorry if this offends anyone but I don’t know how else to explain. Nutrition can be divided into 2-3 categories, macro-nutrients (fats, protein, carbs), micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, subfats and synthesised proteins, etc), and something else I forget
Once you have your macros met, those being a 3 way split between carbs, protein and fats, you still need to meet a baseline amount of micronutrients (most people miss this). Very important ones would be vitamin D, C, Zinc, Magnesium, and Omega-3. There’s a lot more that people generally get in their daily diets anyways, but the harder to get ones that are actually useful for us are indeed found in meats, eggs, fruits. It’s important to note that some of these micronutrients can be created internally by your body by eating all kinds of foods, whereas certain micronutrients like Omega-3 HAVE to be consumed by eating fish or seafood to get it (it’s most common in seafood).
There are foods that are actually NOT good for us and NOT healthy by a pure maximising diet standard. Just because we can drink alcohol for example or do some crazy drugs every once in a while does not make those things suddenly ‘okay’ for us does it? Uncomfortable fact for some to accept but here goes: vegetables are toxic, grains are also redundant and unhealthy, overcooked foods are stripped of their nutrients. Vegetables are not supposed to be ingested by human digestion systems, within most vegetables all of their nutrients are in the form of insoluble fibres, meaning that our bodies can’t break these fibres down to get at the nutrients that would be there. This is why most herbivores can and should eat vegetables but we as primates didn’t evolve to consume them. Same goes for grains (bread, rice, etc) as they too are a farmed food (ie we literally couldn’t have evolved to eat it) and as such it’s pretty much empty calories, only adding unneeded or unnecessary carbohydrates which can lead to negative outcomes.
Ideally a healthy human diet should consist mostly of properly cooked meats (specifically organ meats), naturally occurring fruits/berries, nuts, dairy etc. your body naturally produces the proper amount of fat that it needs for your body just by consuming fatty meats, or from all kinds of foods. Becoming fat can more often than not occur from eating too much carbs along with fats/protein.
What’s annoying about explaining this is that it’s like attacking a sacred cow. In our time it’s become all too common for dietitians and general food scientists to conclude that vegetables must be good for us because of ‘reasons’ and make up all kinds of bs about how unhealthy eating red meats or the like is, what with their cholesterol debacle. For the record a high cholesterol doesn’t really say much, cholesterol is used by the body to create and synthesise new micronutrients from existing material, it’s essentially the fat inside of your blood. If you’re eating healthy fats (unsaturated) you’ll have healthy cholesterol for the body. But because of correlation between high cholesterol and heart issues, people just buy into the hype that heart problems (a very multifaceted issue) are caused by eating too much red meat, and not enough veggies.. when really it’s a new thing that saturated fats are now part of western and general diets, thus making unhealthy cholesterol from unhealthy fats. I’m rambling now but hopefully you and anyone else reading this long has gotten my point. This shit is both way more complex and surprisingly simple once you understand, than it has any right to be.
If none of this convinces you or at least gets you thinking about it for more than a second, consider this “what was truly available for our earliest human ancestors to eat? What did they hunt, harvest and prepare? Maybe I should look this up or something.”
AryanSuperSoldier said:
Disagree, even if this is true later in life (which even then it’s kinda not), you can always build up to that mass/size as a man in your later years (mid-life, late stages). When you’re young you ought to be skinny>fat. Being skinny but not too terribly underweight is actually much healthier for young men because it aids in keeping testosterone levels healthy, it keeps you lean (duh) which is a major attraction factor for everyone, and most of all keeps you looking youthful and young for much longer than if you were fat. Even muscular young men age faster than skinny men.
Health wise yes, and I’d rather be skinny than fat, but as far as what women find attractive, a bigger man will usually have an easier time fending off threats. But yeah, being fat as a kid/teen (not sure if it’s the same for girls) really messes with hormones and is terrible for development.
AryanSuperSoldier said:
Might have to do something I don’t particularly like doing which is explain dietary needs and human nutritional health in a condescending way, so sorry if this offends anyone but I don’t know how else to explain. Nutrition can be divided into 2-3 categories, macro-nutrients (fats, protein, carbs), micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, subfats and synthesised proteins, etc), and something else I forget
Once you have your macros met, those being a 3 way split between carbs, protein and fats, you still need to meet a baseline amount of micronutrients (most people miss this). Very important ones would be vitamin D, C, Zinc, Magnesium, and Omega-3. There’s a lot more that people generally get in their daily diets anyways, but the harder to get ones that are actually useful for us are indeed found in meats, eggs, fruits. It’s important to note that some of these micronutrients can be created internally by your body by eating all kinds of foods, whereas certain micronutrients like Omega-3 HAVE to be consumed by eating fish or seafood to get it (it’s most common in seafood).
There are foods that are actually NOT good for us and NOT healthy by a pure maximising diet standard. Just because we can drink alcohol for example or do some crazy drugs every once in a while does not make those things suddenly ‘okay’ for us does it? Uncomfortable fact for some to accept but here goes: vegetables are toxic, grains are also redundant and unhealthy, overcooked foods are stripped of their nutrients. Vegetables are not supposed to be ingested by human digestion systems, within most vegetables all of their nutrients are in the form of insoluble fibres, meaning that our bodies can’t break these fibres down to get at the nutrients that would be there. This is why most herbivores can and should eat vegetables but we as primates didn’t evolve to consume them. Same goes for grains (bread, rice, etc) as they too are a farmed food (ie we literally couldn’t have evolved to eat it) and as such it’s pretty much empty calories, only adding unneeded or unnecessary carbohydrates which can lead to negative outcomes.
Ideally a healthy human diet should consist mostly of properly cooked meats (specifically organ meats), naturally occurring fruits/berries, nuts, dairy etc. your body naturally produces the proper amount of fat that it needs for your body just by consuming fatty meats, or from all kinds of foods. Becoming fat can more often than not occur from eating too much carbs along with fats/protein.
What’s annoying about explaining this is that it’s like attacking a sacred cow. In our time it’s become all too common for dietitians and general food scientists to conclude that vegetables must be good for us because of ‘reasons’ and make up all kinds of bs about how unhealthy eating red meats or the like is, what with their cholesterol debacle. For the record a high cholesterol doesn’t really say much, cholesterol is used by the body to create and synthesise new micronutrients from existing material, it’s essentially the fat inside of your blood. If you’re eating healthy fats (unsaturated) you’ll have healthy cholesterol for the body. But because of correlation between high cholesterol and heart issues, people just buy into the hype that heart problems (a very multifaceted issue) are caused by eating too much red meat, and not enough veggies.. when really it’s a new thing that saturated fats are now part of western and general diets, thus making unhealthy cholesterol from unhealthy fats. I’m rambling now but hopefully you and anyone else reading this long has gotten my point. This shit is both way more complex and surprisingly simple once you understand, than it has any right to be.
If none of this convinces you or at least gets you thinking about it for more than a second, consider this “what was truly available for our earliest human ancestors to eat? What did they hunt, harvest and prepare? Maybe I should look this up or something.”
I generally agree except for the fact you forgot omega-6 being a counter to omega-3 from what i know. Also vegtables being fibre doesnt mean they are unhealthy. It just means you will get less calories which some people want. Having some fibre helps ur digestion.
AryanSuperSoldier said:
If none of this convinces you or at least gets you thinking about it for more than a second, consider this “what was truly available for our earliest human ancestors to eat? What did they hunt, harvest and prepare? Maybe I should look this up or something.”
Me when the guy that went on a tirade about nutrition doesn't know that the reason we consume veggies isn't because of vitamins or minerals but because of the fiber
Edit: I also hope that we know that just because our ancestors shat in their hands and licked up the remains because "ooga boogaaa mmmm yummyyy" doesn't mean we should. We've evolved from that.. doesn't mean that we should be consuming 35.000 kg of ice cream everyday but doesn't mean that we shouldn't be eating carbohydrates or packing up extra calories either.. eating is as much a social activity as it is survival.
fkiblaze said:
I generally agree except for the fact you forgot omega-6 being a counter to omega-3 from what i know. Also vegtables being fibre doesnt mean they are unhealthy. It just means you will get less calories which some people want. Having some fibre helps ur digestion.
there are soluble fibres and insoluble fibres. I think you get the point though, vegetables are mostly insoluble fibre meaning they are at best redundant and at worst adding unneeded carbs and toxins into the digestive process. If you needed the fibre (which in many cases people don't actually) there are other forms of food that will get you the fibre you need and people often forget that too much fibre (especially insoluble fibre) can be bad for your digestion. Good fibres to eat would be as I mentioned, fruits, berries and wild nuts, and some very specific grains/vegetables. also to reiterate, farmed foods (again generally veggies and grains) are eaten not because of their health benefits -- back when they were adopted, but because of their efficiency to mass produce people.
More people means they can overwhelm neighboring tribes with numbers and expand territory to begin more farms. This is the key distinction between the healthy bodies found in neolithic hunter/gatherer people and the shrunken skulled, cavity riddled, short weak brittle and malnourished common neolithic farmer. They are a imo a slave/peasant food, and should not be considered necessary for any healthy diet. You can eat them if you want but make sure to eat actually bio-compatible foods. There's a similar situation with dairy consumption and the lactase persistence gene found in Europeans mostly. It was not necessary but through prolonged exposure to non-human milk and great effort, with the use of farmed/pastoralized herds some humans developed the genetic ability to consume a very very powerful food source. This in turn produced taller, stronger, more robust and generally healthier humans with a relatively stable reliable food source at the ready. This should've happened to us with vegetables and grains for all humans that engaged in farming practices for the 10's of thousands of years we did it, but it didn't, because again our digestive systems aren't built for it at all, and its a miracle some types of humans can even consume dairy thanks to some crazy goat herders thousands of years ago.
edit, some links:
https://youtu.be/uaFjb3NBzu4
https://www.doctorkiltz.com/are-humans-carnivores/
Updated
AryanSuperSoldier said:
This should've happened to us with vegetables and grains for all humans that engaged in farming practices for the 10's of thousands of years we did it, but it didn't, because again our digestive systems aren't built for it at all, and its a miracle some types of humans can even consume dairy thanks to some crazy goat herders thousands of years ago.
What's your basis of evidence that humans havent adapted to farmed food after over ten+ millenia of farming, because logic dictates we would evolve for ot just like every other body change we had (smaller jaws, lactose tolerance, etc) it would make sense that groups like africans or some natives havent adapted, but asians, europeans and middle easterners have been farming for such a long time.
Edit: guy editted his comment to add links.
fkiblaze said:
What's your basis of evidence that humans havent adapted to farmed food after over ten+ millenia of farming, because logic dictates we would evolve for ot just like every other body change we had (smaller jaws, lactose tolerance, etc) it would make sense that groups like africans or some natives havent adapted, but asians, europeans and middle easterners have been farming for such a long time.
Edit: guy editted his comment to add links.
essentially it comes down to bioavailability and food compatibility. Carnivores typically have smaller intestines than herbivores on top of smaller/shorter digestive systems period because unlike herbivores, we don't go through the long process of dissolving complex carbs and insoluble fibres. We just eat the food that quickly gets absorbed and that's that (or rather that's how carnivores work). This is to say we are already primed to be effective at processing fatty or protein rich foods, like in the case of dairy. Yes we've been eating grains and farmed foods for 1000's of years, with barely any noticeable adaptations to it mind you, but we must remember that in terms of pure anthropological dietary standards, it's a drop in a bucket compared to the millions of years we've been hunting and gathering.
As for our smaller jaws, and smaller canines in particular you have to remember their purpose and our evolution alongside them. As our brains got bigger (because of our high fat/protein diets mind you) our skull had to accommodate for all that space the brain was taking and the nutrients it was needing, thus making the jaws smaller. Also consider the fact that due to our bigger brains, complex problem solving and higher iqs etc, we developed tools to fulfill the prior roles our teeth and jaws were needed for before. We don't need our canines as prominently as they were before, or our jaws to be so specialized if we can sharpen rocks and bones to a point where they can replace the tasks they fulfilled, cutting up meat for eating, and cooking meat on fire for reduced risk of disease.
As for why some of us adapted to dairy well, I've only ever heard of this one theory and mind you I'm not an expert on it either and I'm perplexed as why only some humans developed such a unique trait. Apparently, we started to eat and then relied on preserving animal milk as cheese for example, to get sufficient animal fats over the harsh winters, since with barely any game and if you did find game it was very lean, you'd suffer from protein poisoning. It was a good way to get some of those essential nutrients that are only found in animals, as well as storing it for later. This way bypasses a problem known as protein poisoning (sometimes called rabbit starvation). Basically if your only caloric intake of nutrients are coming from lean meats, and no fat or carbs even, your body will eventually begin to break down because you have no way of making fatty amino acids you need to survive. Not only did these populations survive, they thrived better than those who relied on carbs IMO at least per person.