Kimmo

ramuta's, without a doubt. super technical work by a guy who really cares about a perfect finish. like frost above says, drop off at seattle vertical world for free shipping (do ask when they're shipping next, cuz they could end up sitting in their box for a bit til full). i had such a bad experience at dave page's twenty years ago hah! that i never could bring myself to try them again.

Gadd, probably. now back to the microscope: what's your source about starving fatties and fat burning at the altar of protein!

definitely not as much as simply the amount people eat.

you're funny. try going on a juice fast some time and see how easy it is. and then check on some things pro cyclists do, like wiggins, since i think i saw you mention you race. if you thought outside the box a little, you might get yourself out of cat 5 someday.

i know you're easily amused, but i can't help asking what it's about this time?

only vaccines, game theory, and juice fasting.

This is very false. The main barrier to entry is that people don't want to spend the money i don't know, i guess i've only talked with the "personal trainers" at LA Fitness! you know any good sport climbing specific trainers? i actually don't know a single one....

ding ding ding.

it seems this idea is a bit misguided, based on both my readings, personal experience with fasting and caloric restriction, and common sense. from my readings: the body enters ketosis after the depletion of glycogen stores, i think after two or three days under normal circumstances (link in previous post above regarding ketosis). almost all tissues can utilize ketones for energy needs. the brain is a bit different: although most areas can utilize ketones, there are small areas needing glucose (can't remember which areas; tiny cells). this glucose need can be supplied through gluconeogenesis, which requires all of 20 grams of protein (please verify!). this would be a net protein loss of 20 g per day during a complete fast, which would equate to what, a pound of protein loss every 20 days? seems a touch low, but.... another consideration in lean tissue sparing during fasting/low cal is the increase in growth hormone during fasting: here's one study link. another study, i'm sure you can google it, showed a 2,100% spike in GH after a 48 hr fast, if i recall correctly. point being, the body protects lean tissue. duh. personal experience: i've done a 7 day water fast, and an 8 day broth and juice fast, and multiple shorter fasts. during these times, guess what disappeared? that's right, fat off my body. did i lose strength ie. muscles? i won a climbing comp on the 7th day of my juice fast (~200-300 cals a day). common sense: is it reasonable to think that humans, along with every other animal, aren't biologically equipped to handle periods of caloric deprivation? nonsense! and, is it reasonable to think that during these periods of caloric deprivation, the body would utilize its lean tissues for its caloric needs, the very lean tissues it needs in order to locomote and find more calories? that's silly! of course it won't. it'll utilize fat reserves, damaged tissues, other wastes, anything and everything except the tissues necessary for the survival of the organism. if the body didn't do this, we wouldn't be around as a species. it's not like this physiological aspect has changed during the last 10,000 years of humanoid domestication.... anyways, that's my two cents on this subject. from both personal experience and a hell of a lot of reading. and to reiterate: the fastest way to lose fat is to stop eating, period. any other claim is just silly nonsense.

really? where? i eagerly await clarification on where i went wrong, since knowledge is my only aim!

have you heard of "ketosis"? you might want to read up on it, since you are seemingly interested in human, and by extension, mammalian physiology. here's a decent primer. can you cite any case studies of humanoids (or any mammals) that have died of starvation "while remaining a fatty."? i haven't heard of this, not even when oprah went on her water fast. can you link to a study showing this reduced metabolic rate after reduced eating?

what's rather strange and akilter with the above sentiments of yours is that the sociopathy on display in boston so very much pales to the sociopathy that you supported with the invasion of iraq. let's see... two misguided youth in support of whatever ideology they might have been supporting: 3 dead a few tens wounded; 1 misguided man and his cronies, along with the american public, in support of a miguided ideology: a few hundred thousand dead, many more wounded, and millions displaced. who's really crazy in this crazy world? Hey - Look who's back in Spray! 1. "The Immune System," by Peter Parham is a great, concise reference on Immunology. I just started working through it, and after the 1st chapter my thought was, there's no way that that Kimmo guy could possibly continue to entertain his anti-vaccine stance after finishing this book. Prove me wrong! 2. Just don't have time to relitigate that case again these days, but if you're feeling inspired, maybe you can explain how that same line of reasoning doesn't implicate the Civil War, WWII, etc? I think the starting point for evaluating the organized use of violence are (1)the ends one hopes to achieve, and once you move beyond a moral assessment of the ends, you have to move onto a consideration of (2)the means used to achieve them, and then conclude with (3) an evaluation of what the war actually achieved in practice. If someone claims that 1 and 2 are irrelevant, and all ends/means are morally equivalent, then persisting in a conversation with them is about as appealing to me as having a discussion about arithmetic with someone who claims that 2+2 = "Milkshake." If someone concedes that ends and means actually matter, and you need to take them into account when assessing point 3, then I could probably have an interesting conversation with them, at least in theory. But, as I said, I just don't have the time or the inclination to pursue that kind of conversation here anymore. If you want to meet in person, after you've read Parham, *and* you buy the drinks I'll listen to you defend both points. E.g. that vaccines cause Autism and that I'm a sociopath, shoot me a PM I'll try to find the time. Happy Reading. yup, back to say hi to all my friends. would only a crazy person compare the iraq invasion to ww2? certainly seems that way, if that one uses the metrics you propose for establishing a defense for using an organized military action. i think i'd much rather prefer a conversation with someone who claims 2+2=milkshake, since they'd probably have something more interesting to say. and instead of me reading your suggested book, why don't you go back and read the thread where you seemingly got the mistaken idea someone here supports the notion that vaccines cause autism. after that, i'd be happy to buy you a drink. what's your preferred beverage?

what's rather strange and akilter with the above sentiments of yours is that the sociopathy on display in boston so very much pales to the sociopathy that you supported with the invasion of iraq. let's see... two misguided youth in support of whatever ideology they might have been supporting: 3 dead a few tens wounded; 1 misguided man and his cronies, along with the american public, in support of a miguided ideology: a few hundred thousand dead, many more wounded, and millions displaced. who's really crazy in this crazy world?

Yeah, 95% is at the extreme end and hard. But you don't start there. You start somewhere more manageable, as hard as you can go for 2 hours and recover from. 90% is very doable after a few months. this sounds like a very hard way to lose belly fat is this training for something specific, or just to be/get in shape?

2 hrs at 95% AT? yikes.

the fastest way to lose fat is to not eat, and burn as many calories as you can. now that might have flaws.... but can you think of anything faster? oh, liposuction. yeah more muscles burn more calories, sure, but not sure how building muscles would be the fastest way to lose fat. really? citation needed. i think the above would require a creative definition for "starvation"? google "longest water fast". something like 300 days i think it was. obese dude, lost over 200 lbs.

You paste a bunch of garbage about the molecular biology of metabolism and then say this. it is a conundrum: he gives advice, then says all advice is terrible. i suppose this would include not only his initial advice, but the advice about all advice being terrible?

problem is finding a "good" trainer. most are probably busy working with high caliber athletes.

huh? not sure how your citations above really address the OP's question about "tricks to lose belly fat". -firstly, i don't think there are any "tricks"; -secondly, you can be a skinny guy with no muscles and very low body fat (hence, low belly fat), and you can be a muscular guy with low body fat (hence, low belly fat). if low belly fat is the goal, the actual goal, then it's pretty easy: consume less calories than you burn.

is it possible to "train" the body to utilize fats at "higher outputs"? my understanding is that the body will utilize what's available and the easiest to use. meaning: first glycogen, then fats, and finally and last (starvation), lean body tissues. I don't think it's as static and defined as that, but in general.... I think it's generally understood that the quickest way to "fat utilization" as the primary energy source for humanoids is to stop all consumption of carbs (actually fasting is, but not realistic if wishing to continue to train). it's hard, and the body goes through an adaptation period, but after a few days, primarily turns fat into ketone bodies for energy. fascinating stuff, really. if i remember right, ketones are an acetate, similar to acetone you buy at the store for cleaning paint etc., very volatile, with some lost through the breath because of its volatility (that's why someone who's fasting for a few days, or eating no or really low carbs, gets a chemical smell in their breath). extreme northern clime peoples were almost always in a ketogenic state, since their diet was what, 95% animal fats and protein.... but again, if you eat more calories than you use, generally speaking, you store it as fat. doesn't really matter where the calories come from.

man, it'd be pretty cool if there was some easy "trick" to burning fat from one specific section of the body, but i just don't think mammalian physiology works that way....your body won't, i don't think under any circumstances, magically utilize just belly fat for its deficit energy needs. people love to complicate things, but the concept of losing fat is pretty simple: burn more calories than you consume. doesn't matter how you burn them: sitting on your butt and breathing in front of the computer, running 20 miles a day, or lifting 1,000 lbs over your head 100 times. the equation remains the same: burn more calories than you consume, consume less calories than you burn.

nah, it seems like the taliban hate the foreign influence, and enjoy exploiting the situation for their own gain, but all I know is from the stories i read, and who knows what-all is missing from the reporting. interesting stuff about polio tho... it seems epidemics appeared only AFTER sanitation and sewer systems appeared. before, everybody got the illness when very young, when the chances of paralysis are basically nil. after sewer systems, lifelong immunity was no longer obtained at the young age, and guess what, the older you are, the greater the chances of paralysis. another interesting fact: 95% of polio cases are virtually asymptomatic, so how are they coming up with stats in afghanistan? sounds like they are vastly under-reporting cases, if only confirmed cases are counted....

you might be confusing military conscripts with citizens. while conscripts have tight controls placed on their issued gun use, the general population does not seem to have the same degree of restrictions. 46 guns per 100 humanoids in swizzyland, with 10% of the population enjoying target shooting as a regular pastime. but they pay a price for this liberal proliferation of guns: swizzy and finland vie for the top gun murder rates in europe; no coincidence there.

so i read somewhere that switzerland and israel have more liberal gun ownership laws than the US, with a higher ownership percentage, but they have a much lower incidence of homicide. i wonder how much gang-related murder drives the US stats?

btw, it ain't the mass killings that seem to be a good argument against lax gun laws, it's the daily carnage of about 5 a day that we don't even hear about. easy to pick up a gun when angry.