TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @JoshRainerGold

Saved - August 16, 2025 at 9:00 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m diving into the RWBB vs Peater debate using some broscience. I've experienced weight fluctuations, hitting 195 lbs at 10% body fat and later 230 lbs. Weight loss isn't just about calories; it involves understanding body composition and metabolism. Extreme diets can harm muscle and metabolism, leading to weight regain. Historically, people consumed high calories and remained lean, suggesting our modern environment and diet have drastically changed. My own journey reflects this, as stress and health issues impacted my weight despite high activity levels. Let's focus on sustainable changes for better health.

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

We have another RWBB vs Peater battle on our hands and as a member of both parties I’m going to tackle this with some broscience. Here’s me at my leanest and fattest. 195 lbs 10% bodyfat and 230 lbs fat fat. https://t.co/dE0yAPGWuR

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

I’m going to start by saying no Peater thinks you won’t lose weight if you starve yourself. But the metabolism doesn’t just have one gear or mode. What constitutes the weight of the body is made up of dry muscle, fat, organs, bones, vital fluids, water, glycogen, etc.

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

How one loses weight is just as important as how one gains weight. Losing weight without care can go horribly wrong. The type of foods consumed, hormones and stimulation of the body all factor into whether one modifies any of the different tissues of the body.

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

Extreme weight loss done recklessly can sacrifice a very harmful and disproportionate amount of muscle, organs, and vital fluids, leaving more fat than is desired. This is not only unhealthy but never holds long term.

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

Extreme weight loss like Biggest Loser, Ozempic, or those that do surgical interventions like the lap band; extreme restriction, whether external or internal, the result is less muscle and a destroyed metabolism. Weight is regained and they’re worse off than when they started. https://t.co/quesjoKAfy

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

Even the most seasoned bodybuilders and diet coaches know that the macronutrients matter greatly, but also that you must reverse diet, incrementally add back calories, to bring the metabolism back up to normal function without weight gain. If good habits aren’t learned, disaster.

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

But in order to need weight loss you have to first have had excessive weight gain, and that’s brings us to what causes weight gain. People think we used to eat less and move more, but we really didn’t. People used to eat a ton of food and stay thin.

@Outdoctrination - Analyze & Optimize

EVERYONE used to be thin. They ate over 3,000 calories and 100 grams of sugar per day. (and it wasn't due to more exercise): In the 1960s and prior, the obesity rate was consistently under 10% and has only gotten worse since, now sitting at about 40%. In the late 1940s, a study was conducted on U.S Army soldiers to measure exactly how much they were eating, and despite only weighing 157 pounds on average, the men gorged on nearly 6,000 calories per day. The researchers stated that “judging by interrogation and observation, the average man was moderately active and spent about three hours daily in the open.” The soldiers’ diets consisted of milk, meat, bread, potatoes, fruit, vegetables, eggs and even lots of white sugar! That’s right, the soldiers were putting away anywhere from ¾ of a cup to half a pound of refined sugar daily! Another example is in 1945, where US soldiers were recorded as having eaten an average of 3,700 calories a day, including over 400 grams of carbohydrate and 180 grams of fat daily. The researchers documenting this stated, “there was no significant variation of caloric intake with degree of activity of troops.” Around the turn of the 20th century, people from Denmark were consistently recorded consuming over 3,000 calories daily. The record keepers noted that, “The most prosperous of the… families again reach the same level as the agricultural worker in their consumption of calories… The more well-to-do classes… [mostly doctors], obtained a fair supply of energy, particularly when their restricted amount of muscular work is taken into account.” In other words, the rich ate a lot, didn't move much relative to the laborers and farmers, but were still exceptionally thin, as the researchers here stated that a man of “normal weight” was just 154 pounds! The US' 1939 book of agriculture gives us a glimpse into the diets of the time. On average, people consumed around 3,500 calories daily, with the wealthiest consuming well in excess of 4,000 calories daily, again weighing around 154 pounds with just moderate activity levels! Throughout the 20s and 30s, the US bought anywhere from 106 to 118 pounds of sugar per person per year, equivalent to right around 140 grams or ¾ of a cup of sugar daily! Bread and potatoes were also consumed in massive quantities, making this a high carb, high sugar diet. They ate so much saturated fat that the fat intake was recorded as either “butter” or “fats other than butter.” They also consumed plenty of meat including organs and eggs, while so-called plant proteins like beans, peas and nuts were essentially negligible. In 1943, the average diets of the US, Canada, and the United Kingdom included TONS of white sugar at over 100 grams, or half a cup, per day, and plenty of milk, meat, fruits, vegetables, potatoes and bread. This all amounted to supplies north of 3,000 calories, including around 400 grams of carbohydrate and 130 grams of fat per day. The average man and woman were listed at 154 and 123 pounds, respectively. They also maintained their lean physiques on no more than 100 grams of protein per day. Another analysis from 1945 further confirms these trends, showing that the diets of the US, Canada, and UK were very similar to that in 1943. The dietary guidelines of the pre-obesity era were the complete opposite of today. Calories were treated like any other nutrient, they were concerned about people getting enough, whereas today the guidelines have calorie limits. Recommended intake was AT LEAST 3,000 for an average man and 2,500 for an average woman, who weighed 154 and 123 pounds respectively. At least 3,800 calories was considered a good target for young men 16-20 years old, and teenage girls were told to eat an insane 2,800 calories. They also provided meal plans, suggesting a diet of milk at every meal, meat, bread, potatoes, sugar, fruits and vegetables. Getting your recommended amount of sugar and calories for the day apparently didn’t make anyone fat! One of the most famous studies in the history of nutrition was the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, which took place in the late 1940s. These men maintained an average weight of around 150 pounds, yet ate well over 3,000 calories daily! A typical dinner on this maintenance diet was roast beef with gravy, whipped potatoes, tomato salad and ice cream for dessert. In 1942, the average amount of calories per person purchased was around 3,500, and that number jumped up to around 3,800 calories in 1948! Fruit, vegetables, dairy, meat, bread, potatoes, and 1-2 pounds of sugars and sweets per week. This trend continued into the 1950s, where English factory workers were on average 5'7 and 147 lb and ate 3,500 calories per day. This included non-active workers. Clearly, our not-so distant ancestors ate way more, and ate lots of things we think of as unhealthy today, but they did not have the health issues we currently struggle with. Ultimately, the explanation here is that our metabolisms have been completely and utterly decimated over the past 100 years. What is it that slows down the metabolism and causes weight gain? Lots of things can do it, but a few key ones are: • Poor thyroid function • An excess of polyunsaturated fats (seed oils) • Inadequate micronutrients • Suboptimal light environment / lack of sunlight • Dysregulated circadian rhythm • Digestive distress + increased serotonin • A lack of muscle mass • Chronic stress • Chronic inflammation • Excess estrogen • Environmental toxins People from past eras ate mostly animal fat: butter and cream, whereas today we eat mostly vegetable oil, which has anti-metabolic and thus fattening effects. We don’t eat the whole animal anymore, including all of the tendons, organs, and even the glands that produced hormones, neglecting a unique set of compounds with beneficial effects. Then there’s pollutants like BPA, heavy metals, PFAs, parabens, and so many more that get stored in fat to protect the rest of the organs from their toxicity. Spending less time outside, in communities and in nature, has decimated the microbial environments in our bodies, making us more susceptible to bacterial overgrowths in the gut that end up fattening us up. Our food has become a smorgasbord of emulsifiers, added vitamins, gums, colorings, flavorings and so much more that inflame our digestion and leave us ripe for fat gain. Since the birth of big pharma in the 1940s, we’ve been exposed to increasingly higher loads of drugs that poison our energy metabolism, even if we aren’t prescribed them. Even the light we get exposed to, enriched in blue light and lacking in the rest of the natural frequencies, plays a role in us putting on weight. Our ENVIRONMENT has become obesogenic.

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

To understand how someone can get fat without eating more, there’s Cushing’s Syndrome - pathological cortisol excess. In this state, the body will start breaking down muscle, bone, skin, even hair, and start depositing all this former healthy tissue as fat across the body. https://t.co/Y1iS41ZxB6

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

This happens entirely without eating more, but if one were to try to combat this weight gain by restricting calories further, they would only lose more healthy tissue. It’s a lose-lose situation until the body can be signaled out of this stressful and destructive state.

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

When you factor in how different the foods are that people eat now, junk ingredients, and every other technological advancement that changes the entire environment, there are so many ways both natural and unnatural that can cause weight gain on a stressed and weak metabolism.

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

Bringing this back to my own experience, when I got to 10% body fat, I was coming from almost 2 whole years of maintaining weight within a 5 lb range. Slowly getting leaner. Then with a high metabolism and active lifestyle, I started removing calories and increased cardio. Easy. https://t.co/ytqWpBrRx1

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

Flash forward a couple years, I started doing a very stupid diet that left me without any energy, stopped working out altogether and got fat on purpose, not smart! And then I got meningitis, bedridden for 2 months, very bad! In one year I lost lots of muscle and gained 20 lbs. https://t.co/5NQPxonusf

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

Once I was working on the farm, I thought I would lose weight easily. I was walking 10-15 miles a day, 25-30k steps a day, burning at least 4500 calories a day. I gained another 20 lbs in 6 months! I’d spent a decade tracking food, I know ballpark what’s what. Made no sense! https://t.co/ipMpiFeVFm

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

Tracked just to be sure and was averaging 3-3.5k cals a day! This would seem impossible not to lose weight with my activity level. But when you factor in terrible health, nearly dying and not being able to eat for weeks, then right into farm work and having a newborn. Stress!

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

So I got back in the gym, started eating less and I lost weight, ok great. But I was only able to lose so much weight before I started to feel terrible. Stress was still very high. My son started to sleep better, I switched work to just butchering, less stress, more weight loss.

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

Just as with restricting too much, all at once, runs you into a metabolic wall, eating too much suddenly will cause you to gain too much fat. Bulk and cut cycles exist for a reason because they are punctuated and managed. The “natural” way works on scales of years to make change.

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

The metabolism is not a closed system with one input and one output. The more factors you give attention, like macro/micro nutrients, stress, sleep, exercise, supplements, hormones, light, emotions, the better you can drive results in a healthy and sustainable ways.

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

Now figure out what’s wrong with you and do something about it. We’re all here to help. Because you should probably lose some fat and gain some muscle.

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

@celestialbe1ng Thanks for reading!

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

@iohndee I need to be getting bigger…

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

@The_W_Coleman Much appreciated William

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

@colinricco I felt like shit

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

@ruecambonx You’ll naturally lose some strength but I know you have your goals so you’ll know what makes you feel best. You can do a small amount of weight training just to maintain. Even a little goes a long way

@JoshRainerGold - Josh Rainer

@Frenlyguyfrog 29 and 33

Saved - December 9, 2024 at 7:55 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
A discussion began with the observation that around 60% of major marathons in the past 30 years were won by Kenyan runners from the Kalenjin tribe, despite their small global population. One participant argued that race is a flawed concept, emphasizing human adaptation to geography. Another contributor referenced the Inuit, noting their adaptation to seasonal climates in the Arctic. The conversation concluded with a comment suggesting the previous responses resembled AI-generated content.

@JoshRainerGold - Joshua Rainer

Approximately 60% of major marathon events in the last 30 years have been won by Kenyan runners from the Kalenjin tribe. At only .08% of the world population, this should be impossible.

@ChrisSn84413920 - Chris Snyder

@JoshRainerGold I think it shows that race is a ridiculous concept and people pretty much reflect geography. Humans adapt to their environment and their bodies adjust physically to their specific needs

@tired_sun_aeiou - AEIOU

@ChrisSn84413920 @JoshRainerGold You mean like the people who adapted to seasonal winters being better at long term planning and thinking?

@ChrisSn84413920 - Chris Snyder

@tired_sun_aeiou @JoshRainerGold You mean Eskimo ?

@tired_sun_aeiou - AEIOU

@ChrisSn84413920 @JoshRainerGold Seasonal winters. Eskimos live in constant cold and don't have to save up food for the winter.

@ChrisSn84413920 - Chris Snyder

Absolutely, Eskimos, or more appropriately referred to as the Inuit, reside in the Arctic regions from Alaska to Siberia, and they certainly experience a seasonal environment. The Arctic's climate is characterized by long, cold winters and short, cool summers. The Inuit people have adapted to this environment over thousands of years, developing a rich culture and lifestyle that is closely tied to the seasonal changes in their environment. Their traditional activities, such as hunting, fishing, and gathering, are often dictated by the seasons, with different resources becoming available at different times of the year. So, in short, the answer is a resounding yes, with a side of ice and a dash of snow.

@PepMangione - Luigi Mangione

@ChrisSn84413920 @tired_sun_aeiou @JoshRainerGold such blatant chatgpt lmfao

View Full Interactive Feed