Article on Exercise Not Leading to Weight Loss

Lately I’ve been on kind of a diet and exercise kick trying to put on some weight and get more cut. It started with Tim Ferriss‘ article on gaining muscle quickly. Then I saw Dream’s talk on proper exercise and nutrition which opened me up to a whole new world of ideas. I’ve since read Body by Science and there was a whole new world of information which I digested in a couple of days. I’m now reading Good Calories, Bad Calories, which Tim Ferriss considers to be the definitive work on nutrition, and it’s making a lot of sense to me. It’s really fascinating that the public’s general understanding of these two topics is essentially wrong in every possible way. In fact, if you do the exact opposite of what pretty much anyone out there tells you to do, you’ll be healthier and get better results.

So obviously since this is something that I’ve really engulfed myself in and including starting an all (grassfed) meat diet, people I know have started to take some interest, including a colleague of mine sending me an article in a NY Times blog which baffled me. I spent some time today writing an email in response:


When I saw the title of this article, I had really high hopes for it. Could this help fix all of the myths in current weight loss and exercise culture? Unfortunately, I was very disappointed. I barely even know where to start.

First of all, not all calories are created equal. While taking in less calories than you burn is a sure fire way to lose weight, the macronutrient that you get those calories from matter. Tim Ferriss gives a GREAT example of this in the scientific research in this post comparing Ancel Keys’ Great Starvation Study (Keys is the man who is basically single handedly responsible for this pervasive myth that saturated fat and cholesterol are bad while carbohydrates and sugars are good) with John Yudkin’s low-carb study. As you can see, the two groups on average ate nearly identical numbers of calories, yet one group starved to the point of insanity and breaking off their own fingers while the other self selected to eat 10 less calories on average.

Second, this sentence is, and I mean no disrespect in saying this, beyond idiotic: “It is well known physiologically that, while high-intensity exercise demands mostly carbohydrate calories (since carbohydrates can quickly reach the bloodstream and, from there, laboring muscles), low-intensity exercise prompts the body to burn at least some stored fat. All of the subjects ate three meals a day.”  While low-intensity training may burn some fat stores in your body during the exercise, the number of calories burned during exercise is totally irrelevant, particularly given the number of calories that you’re burning in an exercise. One pound of fat has 3500 calories, and you just aren’t going to burn that many calories from exercise, or even anything close to that, so why are we measuring the fat that is burned during the exercise?

On the flip side of this discussion though, here’s what a low-intensity training does do; it stimulates low order slow twitch muscle fibers which require very small amounts of energy (ATP) to fire. There are a lot of these slow twitch fibers, and they recover very quickly, so no matter how long you pump your legs on that bike, you’re not going to get to the higher order fibers. This type of exercise tells your body that you are about to find food, and as a result makes you hungrier, because our biology is built for a world in which food is a scarce resource (2 million years as compared to 300 generations since agriculture). This is why people get hungrier as a result of “cardio.”

Assuming that people resist this urge to eat more, however, they are still not going to see the calorie burning effects. You see, your body likes homeostasis. It’s about survival. If your body notices an imbalance in the energy being taken in and the energy being burned, it will fix this by breaking down your most energy expensive tissue, your muscles. As of now the most difficult exercise you’re doing is riding a bike with low resistance for a half hour, and you’re only using a couple of your slower twitch fibers, so the body will break down the more energy expensive fast twitch fibers that are not being used. This will lower your basal metabolic rate, and now you need to cut your calorie content even more to lose the same amount of weight.

The solution to this is doing High-Intensity Training, which works out all of your muscle fibers to failure very infrequently. The idea behind this training that you put your body through a substantial trauma and then give it time to recover. Given enough time, your body will overcompensate in its recovery, thinking that your environment is more dangerous than your current musculature can handle, and the result is more muscle mass. The number of muscle fibers in any given muscle is fixed, but the size and strength of each of these fibers is variable. This means that your body will be able to do the same exercise using less muscle fibers, and as a result require less oxygen.  These are the “aerobic” gains that people speak of. It’s not actually an increase in your lung and heart capacity, it’s a change in the musculature. Now, lung and heart capacity can increase, as they will grow proportionally to growth in your musculature, but “aerobic” gains are muscle specific. This is why someone who is a marathon runner will get out of breath very quickly if they try rowing a meaningful distance, and vice versa.

Increases in your musculature will also increase your basal metabolic rate, as well as a bunch of other great weight loss and health benefits. Your body stores glycogen in the muscles in case it has an emergency fight or flight situation that it needs to get out of. Low-intensity exercise will not tap into these reserves, which is why it will burn some fat during the workout, but high-intensity training will deplete the energy in these stores. As a result, when you eat new carbohydrates, they will be taken up by your muscles as opposed to your fat cells. Your muscles will also become more insulin sensitive, which is important because insulin is very bad for your tissue. Less insulin in your blood stream means less trauma to your veins. Cholesterol is the substance that your body uses to patch up this trauma in your veins and arteries, so lowering this trauma lowers your cholesterol levels. Cholesterol is not inherently bad for your body, it is actually a symptom of problems rather than a cause. You can find more color on this subject in Good Calories, Bad Calories. That’s pretty much the definitive book on nutrition and weight loss if you want to learn how to effectively diet, although I would argue that this is how everyone should eat.

I implore you to do your own research and correct your article. If you want to learn more about all of this, Body by Science is a great resource.




NFL Betting – Week 4

Last week I was flirting with disaster, and got lucky doubling or nothing on the Sunday night game. That said, I must like taking punishment, because I’m back at it again. Here are the picks:


$55 Bengals over Browns -0.5 and Bengals/Browns over 32 WIN

$55 Saints over Jets -1 and Saints/Jets over 39.5 LOSS

$55 Steelers over Chargers -1 and Steelers/Chargers under 49.5 TBD

Single Bet:

Ravens over Patriots +1.5 LOSS

NFL Betting – Week 3

Last week was kind of a rough week. My bet on the Giants/Cowboys game didn’t end up going through because of some error on the Bodog website, but I ended up winning $100 on the Monday night game, making me -$30 on the week last week but +$140 on the season.

My picks for this week are:


$55 Giants over Bucks -1 and Giants/Bucks over 38

$55 Bills over Saints +12 and Bills/Saints over 46

$55 Redskins over Lions -0.5 and Redskins/Lions over 32.5 (part of my always bet against the Lions strategy)


$33 (to win $80.40) Titans over Jets +3 and Colts over Cardinals +2.5

Posted in betting. 1 Comment »

NFL Betting – Week 2

What’s up guys? I had a pretty good week betting last week, winning a total of $170 (If the fucking Bears had just held onto the football it would have been another $110). Anyway, I forgot to post my bets for this week on here, but I did pretty poorly, particularly compared to last week’s results.

3 Team Teaser (6 points)

$100 Titans over Texans -1, Vikings over Lions -4, Patriots over Jets +2

Result- LOSS. Fucking Pats your defense was embarrassing against the rook QB

Single Bet

$30 Carolina over Atlanta.

Result- LOSS. Really didn’t expect the Falcons to beat the Panthers. They didn’t look very good against the Eagles last week, but I thought that was because they were playing the Eagles. Lesson learned I guess?


$55 Steelers over Bears +3 and Steelers/Bears under 43.5

Result- PUSH. Kind of lame, the Steelers missed 2 field goals at the end, but at least I get my money back.

$55 Giants over Dallas +9 and Giants/Cowboys over 39

Result- TBD

NFL Betting – Week 1

It’s that time of year again! I did really poorly last year, but I’m looking forward to killing it this year. Week 1 is always a toss up because you don’t know how people are coming out, but there are some teams that you always know how they’re going to come out, and I’m feeling good about my picks. The only scary thing is that I probably made too many of them, so we’ll see how things go.

6 Point Teasers:

$55 – Colts over Jaguars -1 and Cowboys over Bucks

$110 – Giants over Redskins -1/2 and Giants/Skins OVER 31

$55 – Steelers over Titans -1/2 and Steelers/Titans UNDER 41


Eagles over Panthers -2.5 and Bears over Packers +3.5

Psychological Addiction Through Intermittent Reward

A couple weeks ago I got my hands on an account to BitSeduce and went download crazy. I basically downloaded an entire library of pickup material and stored it on an external hard drive  before getting kicked off for having a poor Upload/Download ratio. It’s kind of bs to me because there was no way that I could have a good download ratio since no one was downloading anything from me, but oh well, I pretty much got everything I could possibly ever want for anyone off of it.

I have no plans on watching, listening to, or reading everything I downloaded, but there definitely have been a few things I’ve been checking out. The programs that I’ve been going through have mainly been focused on relationship management and specifically getting a girlfriend to do the things that you want her to do.

I have quite a bit of experience with relationship management, but up to this point my strategy for getting what I want from a girl is purely based on compliance and denial of attention (e.g. “I understand if you don’t want to have a threesome but I have threesomes in my relationships and if that’s not okay with you then let’s take a break”). I still have a bunch of programs to go through, but so far the one that I really really loved that I would recommend to anyone in a relationship is NathanX’s Relationship Management program. It talks a lot about relationship dynamics and value balances as well as reframing beliefs in order to get what you want out of a girl and “build a better girlfriend” as Mark Cunningham puts it (this is another program on the to watch list).

Getting back into the theoretical side of things a little has given me the motivation to finally dive into Mehow’s “10 Second Sexual Attraction” course which I talked about a while back, having recently gotten my hands on the program through Demonoid. So far, I’m very impressed. I expected 10SSA to be specifically about the mid-game strategy that he has developed from watching Kamoflauge and Hypnotica, but it is really an all encompassing pickup book from what I can tell. Maybe not quite as in depth as something like Magic Bullets, but at least the first part of it gets pretty in depth about lifestyle design, which is probably as important if not more important to the pickup as techniques.

In his book, Mehow brings up a really interesting point about psychological addiction, and how you can use compliments and what he describes as “edge elements” to get a woman addicted to your attention in the same way that a slot machine does through “intermittent reward.” Intermittent reward is a seemingly random system of positive and negative reinforcement which actually causes the subject to want the payout more than if you were to just give consistent positive reinforcement.

I have heard something similar to this once before. I don’t recall where at the moment, but I remember reading or hearing something about how love is chemically addictive in the brain, and the withdrawl from those chemicals are what make breakups so difficult. As I read on in Mehow’s book, I look forward to learning more about how to specifically cultivate this addiction, but in the meantime I think that being conscious of this process can really help with your game.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Posted in dating. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

Day Game is Fucking Easy…

I don’t really do much day game, in fact I can count my non-night game approaches this summer on one hand, and there are a lot of reasons for this. The first and most important is that I don’t have the patience or time for it. Even in NYC, women who are hot enough for me to justify approaching are few and far between, so I can walk around for literally 2-3 hours and not run into any women of that caliber. Then again, there are other times where I’ll be in a hurry to get somewhere and I’ll see five women who I should approach but just don’t really have time to. The second reason I haven’t been doing day game is that I have had a pretty regular stream of quality women that I’ve been meeting lately at night and wouldn’t have the time to go out with the women were it to go successfully. Then of course there’s the whole having the balls to do it; it takes time to psych yourself into the headspace (or at least it does for me) and there are definitely times where I see someone I want to talk to and I just take too long to decide to make the move.

It’s really hypocritical of me to not be doing day game. I’ve been sort of semi-instructing my friend on his journey lately (not that I’m really all that qualified to do so), and a big part of this has been getting his ass fired up to approach, particularly during the day since it’s more conducive to what he likes and wants. The thing is though, he’s been doing this for months, and yet he’s not getting results. He’s not really getting dates, and one of his first approaches in a pizza shop led to a lay but it was clearly a fluke with a girl who just wanted it because he hasn’t had a day game lay since.

I went on a “day game” date last night, although I put it in quotes because even though it was a day game style street approach, it was at 9 PM last Friday and was decidedly dark outside at the time, and it reminded me how fucking easy day game is. When I approached her, Kiwi and I were walking around my neighborhood totally smashed after coming from a free open bar. We had been sort of teasing each other about our game, i.e. he was teasing me about my game and I was laughing at him because my results speak for themselves, when I saw him approach and get blown out quickly. So I now had material to knock him on, which I proceeded to do for a block and a half, at which point I told him that I was going to show him how it was done and I ran up and approached this girl who was about a block ahead of us.

A couple of interesting things about this particular approach:

1) I scared the shit out of her, and I think it worked to my advantage. When I approached, I walked up ahead of her to check out her face for a second, then dipped behind her for a moment before touching her arm and opening. She had headphones on so she didn’t see or hear me coming and was startled, but I used very passive body language backing off a full five feet and apologizing for startling her (note: for startling her, not for approaching her or interrupting her), and we started talking. I think scaring her helped me though, possibly by crossing signals with attraction switches and making me seem hotter.

2) She is at the very least three years older than me, and it hasn’t come up at all. Usually women her age will qualify me on my age immediately, since they don’t like dating guys younger than them, and I look about 6 years younger than I actually am (23). So since it hasn’t come up, even on our three hour date, I think she’s probably concerned that her being as old as she is will disqualify her from me. That means that my frame is good, and she’s interpreting me as “the chooser.”

3) She was totally dressed down when I approached, so I didn’t realize how fucking hot she was! When I saw her from behind, I could tell she was definitely in the range, but for some reason I thought she had a little junk in the trunk (maybe it was the loose t-shirt covering her ass) and I knew that her face was already showing her age, so after getting her number, she wasn’t exactly that high on my priority list. But when last night opened up, she got her shot, and wow was I wrong about her body. She had just run a half marathon yesterday, and the fact that she was a runner definitely showed. Tight little body (spinner!!), totally flat stomach (with a belly button piercing), nice rounded athletic ass, basically totally perfect fuck buddy material. It’s always nice to find a sleeper hottie.

4) She thanked me for approaching her as we said goodbye. This further confirms my hypothesis that women like to be approached by guys they’re interested in having sex with. It’s nice to have that positive reinforcement, especially since it’s such a socially awkward thing to do. I’ve pretty much always had success with day game, but that doesn’t mean there still aren’t going to be personal obstacles to overcome in order to man up. I fully believe that we are evolutionarily hard coded with approach anxiety to prevent approaching the wrong women (which would lead to being killed by an alpha of the tribe, a phenomenon that still occurs in many cousin species), and it always amazes me the mental gymnastics that my mind can do despite such blatant evidence in my personal experience to the contrary.

Alright well I wanted to touch on a few things that I notice about what I do differently from my buddy that I think a lot of guys who are having trouble doing day game might be doing wrong. The first thing is that he’s not being genuine with women. He’s using no inflection when he complements and making it seem like he does this all the time (which he does), but the problem is that he’s not making them feel special. When I go direct on the street, I have this very coy attitude and come across non-threatening. My friend isn’t getting the results that he wants, and I keep telling him that he needs to do a better job of being genuine, but he refuses saying opening is not his problem because he’s getting into conversations with women. Yet I’ve seen him in conversations with women, and the dynamic isn’t right from the beginning. He’ll figure it out eventually, but for now, you guys can learn from his mistake.

The next BIG mistake he’s making is that he’s not stopping women. I don’t really understand why he doesn’t do this one, but it makes such a difference. Even when you’re going in the same direction as a woman, stop her to talk. You’re important, and it builds compliance. As you open, stop and wait for her to stop. Then talk to her, and if after a few minutes you want to walk together, do that on your terms.

The last mistake he’s making is that he’s not having interesting conversations. Everything is logistics, where she’s going, what she does, etc. There’s no emotion, nothing that is going to hook her. It comes down to being interesting and likeability. He’s not taking a genuine interest in these women and as a result he’s not receiving a genuine interest from them. So he’s getting numbers, but they’re all flakes. Flakes happen a lot in night game, and no matter how good you are you’re still going to have at least a 25-50% flake ratio there, but during the day they really shouldn’t happen very much.

Anyway, just to round out the story, I didn’t lay the girl on the date last night, but we made out quite a bit and if there’s a next time, I think that it’ll happen with near certainty.