Jed Vassallo

Fat Leo pic

74 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Andreas said:

 

 

He is a chiropractor and has a surface level understanding of genetics 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

36 minutes ago, Girzo said:

@Andreas This whole argument is pointless. You have wrongly interpreted what was being said in the beginning. The ecto-, meso-, endomorph example was brought up not to say that certain people are just fat or thin because of their genetics, but to highlight the fact that fat will look different on them.

Someone can be overweight but look fairly normal, thanks to their body type. I don't know what's so hard to grasp there.

I am honestly willing to listen to other perspectives here. But this just doesn't seem to make sense. At least for me. I might be wrong here but I don't personally believe so. The thing is that the research I provided showed difference in peoples weight, which in return shows differences in peoples bodymass, which in return shows differences in peoples bodies. You should take a look at this article: 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/childhood-obesity-determined-largely-by-environmental-factors/

 

37 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Andreas

 He speaks a lot of truth, especially regarding environmental impacts on childhood obesity. Yet he is not a geneticist and does a poor job integrating genetics, environment, the cellular level, the organismal level, short time frames and ling time frames. This takes a lot of expertise and can be difficult to communicate in layman’s terms. I think he has a basic understanding of the underlying genetics, yet my sense is his understanding Is rudimentary. Quite often a scientist will try to simplify complex underlying mechanisms in explanations to laymen. It would take hours or days to describe it thoroughly. Yet my sense is he does not have strong understanding of the underlying genetics and he is making some misinterpretations. His claim that genetics is only related to less than 1% of all human illness is laughable. I’m not sure of his schtick or agenda, yet he is steering people in a way that isn’t quite tight. He is a mixture of true and not-quite true.

Don’t let the “Dr.” title mislead you. In certain areas he has surface level understanding and makes some fallacious claims. Again, he makes some good points as well.

Skjermbilde.PNG

Edited by Andreas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 minutes ago, still_no_satori said:

The thing I liked best about Leo's picture was that HE IS WEARING THE BLACK T-SHIRT, its just hidden underneath the overshirt. He may not have looked like the Leo we know now but the Superman was there waiting to get out!

9 minutes ago, kieranperez said:

@still_no_satori lol I love your username

@kieranperez cheers man! Got it from a book called 'The Dice Man'. Its kind of like Fight Club meets Psychotherapy meets Jed Mckenna, as you might imagine its a fun book!

Edited by still_no_satori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is also a question about the mathematics of genomics.

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

He is a chiropractor and has a surface level understanding of genetics 

Oh well. I saw a documentary once debunking all chiropractors pretty hard so this guy might be a bit irrelevant. But I see lots of medical doctors taking his side. Including professors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Andreas I’m not saying all those claims. You are seeing this as two “sides”. It is not binary like that. A lot of what those doctors are saying is accurate and I agree with them. Yet some of the claims are extrapolated into falsehoods. 

For example, imagine a detective investigating a murder seen. He discovers a bloody knife at the scene and says “There is a 99% chance the murder weapon is a knife and less than a 1% chance of a gun being the weapon”. That is a totally reasonable statement. Yet he the goes on and says “99% of murders are due to knife stabbings, and less than 1% is due to gun shots”. Well. . wait a minute. . . that’s kinda twisted and not quite true. 

That is what the guy in the video is doing. I would agree with his basic premise. I would say that over 99% of obesity increases in the U.S. is environmental and less than 1% is due to changes in allelic gene frequencies at the population level. That’s all that dude in the video wanted and needed to say. But then he extrapolates too far and makes partially false statements. He goes on some anti-genetic crusade which is unneeded and becomes misleading on some points. 

Fundamentally, I think you are seeing this as binary. As two sides. That is making it difficult to see nuances at deeper levels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Andreas said:

 

Skjermbilde.PNG

I would agree with the underlying sentiment, yet I think he is framing it in a slightly biased way. I would estimate 99% of the increase in childhood obesity in the last 50 years in the U.S. is environmental.  So I agree with the fundamental sentiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

When I first saw Leo on his video in his current shape, I thought Leo was an ex member of a neo-nazi skinhead brotherhood who turned to the good side and now preaches personal development.

He also looked like a cool devil with beard.

Edited by CreamCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 22/04/2019 at 2:43 AM, Serotoninluv said:

@Andreas I’m not saying all those claims. You are seeing this as two “sides”. It is not binary like that. A lot of what those doctors are saying is accurate and I agree with them. Yet some of the claims are extrapolated into falsehoods. 

For example, imagine a detective investigating a murder seen. He discovers a bloody knife at the scene and says “There is a 99% chance the murder weapon is a knife and less than a 1% chance of a gun being the weapon”. That is a totally reasonable statement. Yet he the goes on and says “99% of murders are due to knife stabbings, and less than 1% is due to gun shots”. Well. . wait a minute. . . that’s kinda twisted and not quite true. 

That is what the guy in the video is doing. I would agree with his basic premise. I would say that over 99% of obesity increases in the U.S. is environmental and less than 1% is due to changes in allelic gene frequencies at the population level. That’s all that dude in the video wanted and needed to say. But then he extrapolates too far and makes partially false statements. He goes on some anti-genetic crusade which is unneeded and becomes misleading on some points. 

Fundamentally, I think you are seeing this as binary. As two sides. That is making it difficult to see nuances at deeper levels. 

I guess I should just be more openminded.. But what about the studies who showed a very minimal effect over the environment? About 3%.. Seems to be a very small factor? 

Edited by Andreas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayurveda calls Ecto-, Meso- and Endomorph Vata, Pitta and Kapha. If you dig a bit into ayurvedic literature you can figure out what suites your type the best.

hqdefault.jpg


What's the difference between a duck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎22‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 4:26 AM, CreamCat said:

When I first saw Leo on his video in his current shape, I thought Leo was an ex member of a neo-nazi skinhead brotherhood who turned to the good side and now preaches personal development.

He also looked like a cool devil with beard.

 

The truth unveiled

 

leo_gura_pic.png


If you want the moon, do not hide from the night
If you want a rose, do not run from the thorns
If you want love, do not hide from yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/4/2019 at 9:48 PM, Leo Gura said:

@Andreas It's not bullshit. Go to the gym and observe people's body types. Trust your eyes, not videos or "science".

Observe females too. You can clearly spot female endomorphs vs ectomorphs. Some girls are super skinny and it's not a diet thing. Some girls are beefy. You can clearly see this by watching porn.

Underlying body type is independent of fat or muscle.

You can also see this in animals. Some breeds of dog are naturally very skinny while others are squat. Compare a grey hound to a pitbull.

I am like a grey hound. Joe Rogan is like a pitbull.

The mistake is expecting a grey hound to be like a pitbull. That mistake is on you, not the grey hound. The grey hound is designed for speed. If you were a careful observer, you would notice the perfection of its design rather than judging it.

When I've seen your fat pic the first thing I thought is its Jay Cutler when was a child. Your facial features and skull shape were very alpha.

The fact that now your head is more like an inverted triangle may be related to your vegetarian-eggs diet. The less meat you chew the skinnier the maxillary muscles become. Head bones are in plasticity practically all our life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Very nice inspiration. I weigh 325lb and I am trying to get to 225lb by next July. But I am 6'8. 225lb is just my guess as to what I need to be with sub 10% bodyfat because I look good at 260lb tbh.

I hate how I currently look even though I know it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things.

 

IMG_0124.JPG

Edited by thesmileyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is that a ketone strip youre holding up there?


‘The water in which the mystic swims is the water in which a madman drowns. --Joseph Campbell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now