Only non bro's need apply....
Discussion
For some reason (and I know I'm not the most prolific poster here) but almost unique to this forum are people who say they are eating far below maintenance calories on it's own or coupled with lots of exercise and aiming for a quick 2-4lb a week weight loss. Unfortunately, a lot of bro-science (crap that is passed from one bro in the gym to another with no basis in science) is also being passed on and confusing those asking advice. Things like this and some other posts have made me feel I should share my experiences.
I have previously blindly followed similar bro-scientists advice when I didn't know better and sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. The problem is it has never worked over a period of time and enabled me to get where I want to be. Don't get me wrong, I can lift a few lbs but it's been a while since I've got my arse in to gear. I don't really like eating 'clean' for everything I eat and anyway, I've learnt that that very expression is crap. In reality, things like losing weight can be a lot simpler than it appears but can also be made as complicated as you want too.
For the last 50 days exactly, I have recorded everything I have eaten and drank that has a calorific value on a spreadsheet as I wanted to actually know if flexible dieting (the simple common sense approach) would work. I now have over 200 foods on there from pasta to ben and jerry's and each day's figures are easy to work out. Basically, I have never really known what my BMR has been but looked at a few equations to work it out and it is normally around the 2700 calories a day mark. I started at 16st 50 days ago and just looked to aim at some basics each day which were based on recommendations from various studies and nutrition experts like Alan Aragon etc.
So far my macros have averaged out at 173p, 218c, 68f and 2287 cals per day. I weight train in the 6-10 rep range mainly with heavy weights doing bodypart splits so normally each bodypart is trained once a week. My goal here is to maintain strength while losing weight. Ideally, my daily protein should be closer to 200g per day but it is trending upwards. I might do the odd cardio session of 30 mins stat bike but now very often.
In terms of food, The bare bones of the day can be plotted first with, say good protein sources (including whey as it's an excellent nutritional choice) followed by carbs and the fats normally works itself out. There is no limit of when to eat anything or in any singular quantity (100g of protein at a time is fine, carbs are fine at any time of day).
As for supplements, I'm not using creatine at the moment as I'd rather know exactly what my 'real' weight is without the possibility of water retention, no matter how minimal but will start soon after I reach a stage I am happy with. Other supplements (I don't class whey in these as it's a food choice) I use are beta alanine, citrulline malate, L-Tyrosine and Actyl L Carnitine. All have studies demonstrating a given benefit to weight training people. Of course, caffeine is there as well as an energy booster pre-workout if needed.
Anyway, after 50 days, I have lost exactly a stone in weight with virtually unnoticed drops in strength when lifting. I am visually leaner (I haven't tested my bf yet) and in some lifts, I am actually stronger. The thing that I want to express though, is that I am following the route demonstrated to work by science, and not a well marketed diet plan or new book by a nutritionist looking to make a few quid. It's dieting and working out stripped back to pure scientific principles and it works just fine. I was just too lazy before to test the theory. Unfortunately, most will just see this as a 'diet' and say that it's great it works for me. I'd say it will work for anyone that can be arsed to record a few things at the start. No food is off the menu, I eat chocolate, ice cream, pop tarts whenever I like (within the basic premise above) and it's not an issue.
As for myths that this method / philosophy debunks, these include (but not limited to):
The GI index is terrible for basing food choices on
You do not need to load creatine
Whey is an excellent nutritional choice
You can eat more than 20g protein per sitting
You do not need to eat regularly throughout the day
Carbs at any time of the day are fine
Fat burners are nonsense
Fat loss is based on calories in v calories out
You do not need fast carbs with protein after a workout
Over 1lb a week weight loss will result in LBM loss which is hard to regain following the 'cut'
There are loads more but these are a few popular ones.
Hope this helps a few and any questions / comments are welcome.
I have previously blindly followed similar bro-scientists advice when I didn't know better and sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. The problem is it has never worked over a period of time and enabled me to get where I want to be. Don't get me wrong, I can lift a few lbs but it's been a while since I've got my arse in to gear. I don't really like eating 'clean' for everything I eat and anyway, I've learnt that that very expression is crap. In reality, things like losing weight can be a lot simpler than it appears but can also be made as complicated as you want too.
For the last 50 days exactly, I have recorded everything I have eaten and drank that has a calorific value on a spreadsheet as I wanted to actually know if flexible dieting (the simple common sense approach) would work. I now have over 200 foods on there from pasta to ben and jerry's and each day's figures are easy to work out. Basically, I have never really known what my BMR has been but looked at a few equations to work it out and it is normally around the 2700 calories a day mark. I started at 16st 50 days ago and just looked to aim at some basics each day which were based on recommendations from various studies and nutrition experts like Alan Aragon etc.
So far my macros have averaged out at 173p, 218c, 68f and 2287 cals per day. I weight train in the 6-10 rep range mainly with heavy weights doing bodypart splits so normally each bodypart is trained once a week. My goal here is to maintain strength while losing weight. Ideally, my daily protein should be closer to 200g per day but it is trending upwards. I might do the odd cardio session of 30 mins stat bike but now very often.
In terms of food, The bare bones of the day can be plotted first with, say good protein sources (including whey as it's an excellent nutritional choice) followed by carbs and the fats normally works itself out. There is no limit of when to eat anything or in any singular quantity (100g of protein at a time is fine, carbs are fine at any time of day).
As for supplements, I'm not using creatine at the moment as I'd rather know exactly what my 'real' weight is without the possibility of water retention, no matter how minimal but will start soon after I reach a stage I am happy with. Other supplements (I don't class whey in these as it's a food choice) I use are beta alanine, citrulline malate, L-Tyrosine and Actyl L Carnitine. All have studies demonstrating a given benefit to weight training people. Of course, caffeine is there as well as an energy booster pre-workout if needed.
Anyway, after 50 days, I have lost exactly a stone in weight with virtually unnoticed drops in strength when lifting. I am visually leaner (I haven't tested my bf yet) and in some lifts, I am actually stronger. The thing that I want to express though, is that I am following the route demonstrated to work by science, and not a well marketed diet plan or new book by a nutritionist looking to make a few quid. It's dieting and working out stripped back to pure scientific principles and it works just fine. I was just too lazy before to test the theory. Unfortunately, most will just see this as a 'diet' and say that it's great it works for me. I'd say it will work for anyone that can be arsed to record a few things at the start. No food is off the menu, I eat chocolate, ice cream, pop tarts whenever I like (within the basic premise above) and it's not an issue.
As for myths that this method / philosophy debunks, these include (but not limited to):
The GI index is terrible for basing food choices on
You do not need to load creatine
Whey is an excellent nutritional choice
You can eat more than 20g protein per sitting
You do not need to eat regularly throughout the day
Carbs at any time of the day are fine
Fat burners are nonsense
Fat loss is based on calories in v calories out
You do not need fast carbs with protein after a workout
Over 1lb a week weight loss will result in LBM loss which is hard to regain following the 'cut'
There are loads more but these are a few popular ones.
Hope this helps a few and any questions / comments are welcome.
Aphex said:
I spent 20 minuts on the bodybuilding forum a couple of months ago to figure that little lot out. I think maybe more people are realising the same as you and are sharing their experiences and backing it up with results making it easier to find the correct information?
Hopefully, they are finding the right info and I do sense things changing but I would say the overwhelming majority of people are still of the bro variety, similar to old wives tales. Look around the gym and just looking at someones form can tell you a lot. Another one: The negative is more important than the positive when lifting.
horico said:
Hopefully, they are finding the right info and I do sense things changing but I would say the overwhelming majority of people are still of the bro variety, similar to old wives tales. Look around the gym and just looking at someones form can tell you a lot.
Another one: The negative is more important than the positive when lifting.
I'm pretty new to it all but I appreciate you taking the time to start the thread as it's always nice to have something to refer back to Another one: The negative is more important than the positive when lifting.
horico said:
As for myths that this method / philosophy debunks, these include (but not limited to):
The GI index is terrible for basing food choices on
You do not need to load creatine
Whey is an excellent nutritional choice
You can eat more than 20g protein per sitting
You do not need to eat regularly throughout the day
Carbs at any time of the day are fine
Fat burners are nonsense
Fat loss is based on calories in v calories out
You do not need fast carbs with protein after a workout
Over 1lb a week weight loss will result in LBM loss which is hard to regain following the 'cut'
There are loads more but these are a few popular ones.
Hope this helps a few and any questions / comments are welcome.
Am I reading this right? Are those statements you say are proved wrong by your findings or things you have found RIGHT, thus debunking myths???The GI index is terrible for basing food choices on
You do not need to load creatine
Whey is an excellent nutritional choice
You can eat more than 20g protein per sitting
You do not need to eat regularly throughout the day
Carbs at any time of the day are fine
Fat burners are nonsense
Fat loss is based on calories in v calories out
You do not need fast carbs with protein after a workout
Over 1lb a week weight loss will result in LBM loss which is hard to regain following the 'cut'
There are loads more but these are a few popular ones.
Hope this helps a few and any questions / comments are welcome.
i.e - You say "Fat burners are nonsense" is a myth you have debunked???
Aphex said:
I'm pretty new to it all but I appreciate you taking the time to start the thread as it's always nice to have something to refer back to
Glad to have helped, that was the idea of the thread. What I posted is just an outline and can be added to but to do that would mean going on for ages! If there is anything that anyone would like more detail, I can try and explain more.Your post comes across a bit preachy when as far as I can see you are saying "eat sensibly, have a calorie defecit, and you'll lose weight". Which is fairly obvious.
And as for your "debunked myths" I think 50 days of one persons un scientific research and saying that you have "proved" anything is just as bad as the "bro science" in the first place. As another posted has said, I'm not sure if these are the myths, or the results from what you have "proved", I'm assuming the latter?. Just a few points...
ETA
If this is in the same context as your other "debunked myths", you're saying the negative is more important?
And as for your "debunked myths" I think 50 days of one persons un scientific research and saying that you have "proved" anything is just as bad as the "bro science" in the first place. As another posted has said, I'm not sure if these are the myths, or the results from what you have "proved", I'm assuming the latter?. Just a few points...
horico said:
As for myths that this method / philosophy debunks, these include (but not limited to):
The GI index is terrible for basing food choices on
You do not need to load creatine
Whey is an excellent nutritional choice Whilst whey is good, a complete milk protein has been shown to be just as, if not more effective - whey is just another food and not always the best choice
You can eat more than 20g protein per sitting yes you can. You could eat 200g if you wanted. Your body will not use it all though. It is different for everyone but around 30g is generally considered the maximum usefull amount
You do not need to eat regularly throughout the day No, but part of eating a simple diet means that this is often an easy way to reduce binge eating when you're hungry - no need to over complicate things
Carbs at any time of the day are fine
Fat burners are nonsense
Fat loss is based on calories in v calories out
You do not need fast carbs with protein after a workout No, you don't NEED anything post workout but a combination of sugars and protein has been demostarted tobe the most beneficial to aid recover
Over 1lb a week weight loss will result in LBM loss which is hard to regain following the 'cut' on what are you basing this
There are loads more but these are a few popular ones.
Hope this helps a few and any questions / comments are welcome.
I hope this doesn't come across badly to you, its just friendly critism - no malace intended.The GI index is terrible for basing food choices on
You do not need to load creatine
Whey is an excellent nutritional choice Whilst whey is good, a complete milk protein has been shown to be just as, if not more effective - whey is just another food and not always the best choice
You can eat more than 20g protein per sitting yes you can. You could eat 200g if you wanted. Your body will not use it all though. It is different for everyone but around 30g is generally considered the maximum usefull amount
You do not need to eat regularly throughout the day No, but part of eating a simple diet means that this is often an easy way to reduce binge eating when you're hungry - no need to over complicate things
Carbs at any time of the day are fine
Fat burners are nonsense
Fat loss is based on calories in v calories out
You do not need fast carbs with protein after a workout No, you don't NEED anything post workout but a combination of sugars and protein has been demostarted tobe the most beneficial to aid recover
Over 1lb a week weight loss will result in LBM loss which is hard to regain following the 'cut' on what are you basing this
There are loads more but these are a few popular ones.
Hope this helps a few and any questions / comments are welcome.
ETA
If this is in the same context as your other "debunked myths", you're saying the negative is more important?
horico said:
Another one: The negative is more important than the positive when lifting.
Which is utter tripe. Making any kind of statement lik that just demonstrates ignornance and no knowledge of how training works. Which makes me think maybe you wrote that in the opposite context to your prevoius statements; you're saying that the above statement is false?Edited by balders118 on Friday 14th September 16:01
I'm not preaching anything actually, just sharing my experience with the addition of an anecdotal 50 days. I'm also not trying to change anyone's mind as in the end, it's up to each and every person to do what they want.
I will reply to your questions but amusingly, I'm late for the gym before I go out on the piss.
Cheers
I will reply to your questions but amusingly, I'm late for the gym before I go out on the piss.
Cheers
Although very hungover, I'll try and reply to a few points above. It's not been for me to debunk any myths but hopefully have a few folk look a little deeper into the science behind the training and nutrition.
Firstly, protein intake: Here is an excellent article by Alan Aragon who sums up the argument nicely:
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-th...
If you can't be bothered to read the whole article, he basically says while 30g protein per meal is the much touted figure, as a simple example, this is at odds with the recent increase in IF'ers who might eat only once or twice a day and don't appear to be protein deficient. He says more and is worth a read.
Negatives: Most of the metabolic damage to the muscle occurs in the negative or eccentric portion of the lift, so, if your goal is hypertrophy, the speed of your negatives should be taken note of. You don't need heavy weights at all, this is pure vanity (as in swinging them about using poor form, momentum and lightning fast eccentrics).
Post workout carbs: Where have you got the information regarding your comment, I'm genuinely interested. Are you referring to the desire to spike insulin with the carbs which gets the protein to your muscles faster and speeds up recovery? As far as I can understand, there is no magic 'window' immediately after a workout but more the case that after training, muscles are increasingly receptive to protein intake for up to 24 hours.
Meal frequency: Not sure what your point was - I did nothing to complicate things but simply stated the popular belief of regular, similarly portioned meals throughout the day was not necessary - if you were to do a straw poll of gym goers, this regiment would likely to be the most popular choice currently. Of course, if a regimen helps you keep to the numbers, brilliant - but that is not what I said.
Fat Burners: Specifically, these are designed to 'burn fat' as you might think but reducing body fat levels has nothing to do with a bit of ginseng here, green tea there and caffeine over there. As mentioned already, bodyweight is a result of overall energy balance on average over several days. Keeping calorie intake and training exactly the same and only using a 'fat burner' will not have any effect. If you want to refer to any you feel are worth using, I'd be happy to discuss them. It is different to state that taking in an appropriate supplement mix pre-workout won't work as there is science to say that some are good choices but fat burners are responsible for supplement companies best marketing work.
I think that covers most things.
Cheers
Firstly, protein intake: Here is an excellent article by Alan Aragon who sums up the argument nicely:
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-th...
If you can't be bothered to read the whole article, he basically says while 30g protein per meal is the much touted figure, as a simple example, this is at odds with the recent increase in IF'ers who might eat only once or twice a day and don't appear to be protein deficient. He says more and is worth a read.
Negatives: Most of the metabolic damage to the muscle occurs in the negative or eccentric portion of the lift, so, if your goal is hypertrophy, the speed of your negatives should be taken note of. You don't need heavy weights at all, this is pure vanity (as in swinging them about using poor form, momentum and lightning fast eccentrics).
Post workout carbs: Where have you got the information regarding your comment, I'm genuinely interested. Are you referring to the desire to spike insulin with the carbs which gets the protein to your muscles faster and speeds up recovery? As far as I can understand, there is no magic 'window' immediately after a workout but more the case that after training, muscles are increasingly receptive to protein intake for up to 24 hours.
Meal frequency: Not sure what your point was - I did nothing to complicate things but simply stated the popular belief of regular, similarly portioned meals throughout the day was not necessary - if you were to do a straw poll of gym goers, this regiment would likely to be the most popular choice currently. Of course, if a regimen helps you keep to the numbers, brilliant - but that is not what I said.
Fat Burners: Specifically, these are designed to 'burn fat' as you might think but reducing body fat levels has nothing to do with a bit of ginseng here, green tea there and caffeine over there. As mentioned already, bodyweight is a result of overall energy balance on average over several days. Keeping calorie intake and training exactly the same and only using a 'fat burner' will not have any effect. If you want to refer to any you feel are worth using, I'd be happy to discuss them. It is different to state that taking in an appropriate supplement mix pre-workout won't work as there is science to say that some are good choices but fat burners are responsible for supplement companies best marketing work.
I think that covers most things.
Cheers
Just some input...
horico said:
Although very hungover, I'll try and reply to a few points above. It's not been for me to debunk any myths but hopefully have a few folk look a little deeper into the science behind the training and nutrition.
Firstly, protein intake: Here is an excellent article by Alan Aragon who sums up the argument nicely:
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-th...
If you can't be bothered to read the whole article, he basically says while 30g protein per meal is the much touted figure, as a simple example, this is at odds with the recent increase in IF'ers who might eat only once or twice a day and don't appear to be protein deficient. He says more and is worth a read.
This chap does give evidence supporting both arguments. At the end of the day it's obvious that 30g is not a cut off where you cannot use a gram more. He does seem to state that there is evidence that suggests that ~30g is the maximum, but he seems to just brush over it and side with the "it's not true" argument simply because that has supporting evidence too.
Negatives: Most of the metabolic damage to the muscle occurs in the negative or eccentric portion of the lift, so, if your goal is hypertrophy, the speed of your negatives should be taken note of. You don't need heavy weights at all, this is pure vanity (as in swinging them about using poor form, momentum and lightning fast eccentrics
So the statement "negative is more important" you meant in terms of hypertrophy? Because obviously it's not always going to be the most useful if you have other goals. Have you actually any evidence to support this statement? Loads of stuff has been thrown about in the past, inlcuding isometrics being the best. If speaking in terms of just hypertrohpy, weight is obviosuly important in order to load the muscle up. Obviously poor form reduces the stress on the target muscle so is detrimental.
Post workout carbs: Where have you got the information regarding your comment, I'm genuinely interested. Are you referring to the desire to spike insulin with the carbs which gets the protein to your muscles faster and speeds up recovery? As far as I can understand, there is no magic 'window' immediately after a workout but more the case that after training, muscles are increasingly receptive to protein intake for up to 24 hours.
Ivy et al, (2003)dounf that 4:1 CHO:Protein ratio beneficial. Millard-Stafford et al, (2008) demonstrated that CHO + possibly small amount of protein can enhance muscle glycognen regeneration rates. It has been shown that consuming this within an hour post workout is when it is most beneficial (costill, 1991) - yes thats an old reference but I am yet to see anything credible to say that this is not beneficial. These are all studies published in reputable peer reviewed papers.
Meal frequency: Not sure what your point was - I did nothing to complicate things but simply stated the popular belief of regular, similarly portioned meals throughout the day was not necessary - if you were to do a straw poll of gym goers, this regiment would likely to be the most popular choice currently. Of course, if a regimen helps you keep to the numbers, brilliant - but that is not what I said.
Fat Burners: Specifically, these are designed to 'burn fat' as you might think but reducing body fat levels has nothing to do with a bit of ginseng here, green tea there and caffeine over there. As mentioned already, bodyweight is a result of overall energy balance on average over several days. Keeping calorie intake and training exactly the same and only using a 'fat burner' will not have any effect. If you want to refer to any you feel are worth using, I'd be happy to discuss them. It is different to state that taking in an appropriate supplement mix pre-workout won't work as there is science to say that some are good choices but fat burners are responsible for supplement companies best marketing work.
I think that covers most things.
Cheers
As I said before, I'm not trying to pick a fight. Just something I do know about and like to discuss. Firstly, protein intake: Here is an excellent article by Alan Aragon who sums up the argument nicely:
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-th...
If you can't be bothered to read the whole article, he basically says while 30g protein per meal is the much touted figure, as a simple example, this is at odds with the recent increase in IF'ers who might eat only once or twice a day and don't appear to be protein deficient. He says more and is worth a read.
This chap does give evidence supporting both arguments. At the end of the day it's obvious that 30g is not a cut off where you cannot use a gram more. He does seem to state that there is evidence that suggests that ~30g is the maximum, but he seems to just brush over it and side with the "it's not true" argument simply because that has supporting evidence too.
Negatives: Most of the metabolic damage to the muscle occurs in the negative or eccentric portion of the lift, so, if your goal is hypertrophy, the speed of your negatives should be taken note of. You don't need heavy weights at all, this is pure vanity (as in swinging them about using poor form, momentum and lightning fast eccentrics
So the statement "negative is more important" you meant in terms of hypertrophy? Because obviously it's not always going to be the most useful if you have other goals. Have you actually any evidence to support this statement? Loads of stuff has been thrown about in the past, inlcuding isometrics being the best. If speaking in terms of just hypertrohpy, weight is obviosuly important in order to load the muscle up. Obviously poor form reduces the stress on the target muscle so is detrimental.
Post workout carbs: Where have you got the information regarding your comment, I'm genuinely interested. Are you referring to the desire to spike insulin with the carbs which gets the protein to your muscles faster and speeds up recovery? As far as I can understand, there is no magic 'window' immediately after a workout but more the case that after training, muscles are increasingly receptive to protein intake for up to 24 hours.
Ivy et al, (2003)dounf that 4:1 CHO:Protein ratio beneficial. Millard-Stafford et al, (2008) demonstrated that CHO + possibly small amount of protein can enhance muscle glycognen regeneration rates. It has been shown that consuming this within an hour post workout is when it is most beneficial (costill, 1991) - yes thats an old reference but I am yet to see anything credible to say that this is not beneficial. These are all studies published in reputable peer reviewed papers.
Meal frequency: Not sure what your point was - I did nothing to complicate things but simply stated the popular belief of regular, similarly portioned meals throughout the day was not necessary - if you were to do a straw poll of gym goers, this regiment would likely to be the most popular choice currently. Of course, if a regimen helps you keep to the numbers, brilliant - but that is not what I said.
Fat Burners: Specifically, these are designed to 'burn fat' as you might think but reducing body fat levels has nothing to do with a bit of ginseng here, green tea there and caffeine over there. As mentioned already, bodyweight is a result of overall energy balance on average over several days. Keeping calorie intake and training exactly the same and only using a 'fat burner' will not have any effect. If you want to refer to any you feel are worth using, I'd be happy to discuss them. It is different to state that taking in an appropriate supplement mix pre-workout won't work as there is science to say that some are good choices but fat burners are responsible for supplement companies best marketing work.
I think that covers most things.
Cheers
Nice post Balders, your points tie in with stuff I have been reading about. I can't give references because I either can't recall the ref or it's stashed away somewhere in my work folder.
I do now take honey after my workout (around 50 minutes best bet I think I recall) after stuff I read and being advised. A simple sugar that can be quickly taken up to help against the catabolic effect with no added crap.
I do now take honey after my workout (around 50 minutes best bet I think I recall) after stuff I read and being advised. A simple sugar that can be quickly taken up to help against the catabolic effect with no added crap.
Edited by Halb on Sunday 16th September 09:32
Where "Bro science" comes from people who are not aware of things like Somatotypes, who try something on themselves that they discover appears to work for them, and thinks that therefore this will work for everyone.
It demonstrates only one thing: A gaping hole in their schooling.
Different methods of exercise and diet affect different people in different ways. This has been absolutely proven in various lab environments, in surveys and in studies, and on humans and animals.
Official science is official science. Right or wrong in your experience, this is what is accepted by the official bodies of the scientific community. It takes a while for things to be accepted by the scientific community because it needs conclusive evidence, unfortunately due to human rights, this takes longer than in any other field. Coupled with Somatotypes
Anything else is "bro science".
Other than that, I'm firmly on Balders "side" here. So given I've only just discovered this thread at this hour, for now I'll grab the popcorn.
But I have much to say on this, from an official science pov and my own through experience, testing and putting 2+2 together (although that would not be classed as "bro science" per se, as it aheres to the rules of the official science where applicable and only speculatory where vaguenesses currently exist).
Anyway, due said grey areas on this subject, there is plenty of room for discussion and discovery on these matters, so no-one should take too much to heart. Just remember that a lot of articles published out there are also from mavericks out to make as much a name for themselves as those plugging their own book...
It demonstrates only one thing: A gaping hole in their schooling.
Different methods of exercise and diet affect different people in different ways. This has been absolutely proven in various lab environments, in surveys and in studies, and on humans and animals.
Official science is official science. Right or wrong in your experience, this is what is accepted by the official bodies of the scientific community. It takes a while for things to be accepted by the scientific community because it needs conclusive evidence, unfortunately due to human rights, this takes longer than in any other field. Coupled with Somatotypes
Anything else is "bro science".
Other than that, I'm firmly on Balders "side" here. So given I've only just discovered this thread at this hour, for now I'll grab the popcorn.
But I have much to say on this, from an official science pov and my own through experience, testing and putting 2+2 together (although that would not be classed as "bro science" per se, as it aheres to the rules of the official science where applicable and only speculatory where vaguenesses currently exist). Anyway, due said grey areas on this subject, there is plenty of room for discussion and discovery on these matters, so no-one should take too much to heart. Just remember that a lot of articles published out there are also from mavericks out to make as much a name for themselves as those plugging their own book...
Edited by mattikake on Monday 17th September 02:29
Oh feck. I'm biting...
However, it makes no sense to say a 7st weakling needs and can absorb, the same amount of protein as a 18st meathead.
What I have discovered myself though (not just on myself but through clients too), is that you can keep increasing your protein uptake in one sitting and/or over the course of hours, until you start dropping stinking farts. This largely only happens when unabsorbed protein makes it all the way through your small intestines into your large intestines, where it starts to react with the bacteria in your colon... and starts to produce gaseous by-products. I.e. the physical limitations of your body mean couldn't absorb it all. Once you can find this limit, by carefully looking at your diet (not just brute quantities and timing, but also the biological value and type of the protein you are consuming), you can workout roughly what you maximum protein absorption is.
But... this has no bearing on what excesses your kidneys have to deal with that make it into your bloodstream, which in terms of self-experiementation, is pretty hard to determine.
Protein digestion, absorption and usage, are 3 completely separate processes to consider.
It's not just hypertrophy, you also you need to consider muscular fitness, contractile performance, motor-neuron efficiency, myogenic and neurogenic muscle tone, water retention, calcium retention etc. etc...
What actually matters for all the above is muscle confusion. Hit them in different ways, with different loads, at different intensities, in different ranges of motion, with different motion (isometric/isotonic etc.) Keep mixing it up, you keep your muscles in a continued state of adapting to a new environment, as you are ensuring the environment is constantly changing.
P90X maximises the muscle confusion principle. But it is in no way the only way or most effective way of doing so (by far).
Again, having said all that, you must also factor in Somatotypes for your baseline benchmark for all the above.
Oh btw, Insulin is utterly critical to cell function, nutrient uptake and release. You get a spike after exercise as a part of "coming down" from exercise... load of blurb here, but it's getting too late.
Anyway, as many have said, not having a go, just saying what I know. I too have also been on a continual voyage of discovery, after being taught the official science (such as in how much protein one can absorb as explained above). Always things to learn.
That will do for now. Getting late, so sorry for sounding abrupt if I do.
balders118 said:
Just some input...
The official science is 34.5g. Period. horico said:
Although very hungover, I'll try and reply to a few points above. It's not been for me to debunk any myths but hopefully have a few folk look a little deeper into the science behind the training and nutrition.
Firstly, protein intake: Here is an excellent article by Alan Aragon who sums up the argument nicely:
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-th...
If you can't be bothered to read the whole article, he basically says while 30g protein per meal is the much touted figure, as a simple example, this is at odds with the recent increase in IF'ers who might eat only once or twice a day and don't appear to be protein deficient. He says more and is worth a read.
This chap does give evidence supporting both arguments. At the end of the day it's obvious that 30g is not a cut off where you cannot use a gram more. He does seem to state that there is evidence that suggests that ~30g is the maximum, but he seems to just brush over it and side with the "it's not true" argument simply because that has supporting evidence too.
Firstly, protein intake: Here is an excellent article by Alan Aragon who sums up the argument nicely:
http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/is-th...
If you can't be bothered to read the whole article, he basically says while 30g protein per meal is the much touted figure, as a simple example, this is at odds with the recent increase in IF'ers who might eat only once or twice a day and don't appear to be protein deficient. He says more and is worth a read.
This chap does give evidence supporting both arguments. At the end of the day it's obvious that 30g is not a cut off where you cannot use a gram more. He does seem to state that there is evidence that suggests that ~30g is the maximum, but he seems to just brush over it and side with the "it's not true" argument simply because that has supporting evidence too.
However, it makes no sense to say a 7st weakling needs and can absorb, the same amount of protein as a 18st meathead.
What I have discovered myself though (not just on myself but through clients too), is that you can keep increasing your protein uptake in one sitting and/or over the course of hours, until you start dropping stinking farts. This largely only happens when unabsorbed protein makes it all the way through your small intestines into your large intestines, where it starts to react with the bacteria in your colon... and starts to produce gaseous by-products. I.e. the physical limitations of your body mean couldn't absorb it all. Once you can find this limit, by carefully looking at your diet (not just brute quantities and timing, but also the biological value and type of the protein you are consuming), you can workout roughly what you maximum protein absorption is.
But... this has no bearing on what excesses your kidneys have to deal with that make it into your bloodstream, which in terms of self-experiementation, is pretty hard to determine.
Protein digestion, absorption and usage, are 3 completely separate processes to consider.
horico said:
Negatives: Most of the metabolic damage to the muscle occurs in the negative or eccentric portion of the lift, so, if your goal is hypertrophy, the speed of your negatives should be taken note of. You don't need heavy weights at all, this is pure vanity (as in swinging them about using poor form, momentum and lightning fast eccentrics
So the statement "negative is more important" you meant in terms of hypertrophy? Because obviously it's not always going to be the most useful if you have other goals. Have you actually any evidence to support this statement? Loads of stuff has been thrown about in the past, inlcuding isometrics being the best. If speaking in terms of just hypertrohpy, weight is obviosuly important in order to load the muscle up. Obviously poor form reduces the stress on the target muscle so is detrimental.
Negatives important for hypertrophy? In the terms you imply, I'll quickly say, no. Negatives or "overloading in an eccentric contraction" mostly causes z-disc damage and is a major (but not only) cause of DOMS. It has less effects on myosin than other techniques, although due to the # of engagement of myosin, any myosin damage should be significant. You should consider that due to the # of engaged myosin, the strength of the muscle is maximised meaning the weakest link becomes the z-disc, not individual myosin filaments = z-disc damage, not myosin. Just like velcro.So the statement "negative is more important" you meant in terms of hypertrophy? Because obviously it's not always going to be the most useful if you have other goals. Have you actually any evidence to support this statement? Loads of stuff has been thrown about in the past, inlcuding isometrics being the best. If speaking in terms of just hypertrohpy, weight is obviosuly important in order to load the muscle up. Obviously poor form reduces the stress on the target muscle so is detrimental.
It's not just hypertrophy, you also you need to consider muscular fitness, contractile performance, motor-neuron efficiency, myogenic and neurogenic muscle tone, water retention, calcium retention etc. etc...
What actually matters for all the above is muscle confusion. Hit them in different ways, with different loads, at different intensities, in different ranges of motion, with different motion (isometric/isotonic etc.) Keep mixing it up, you keep your muscles in a continued state of adapting to a new environment, as you are ensuring the environment is constantly changing.
P90X maximises the muscle confusion principle. But it is in no way the only way or most effective way of doing so (by far).
Again, having said all that, you must also factor in Somatotypes for your baseline benchmark for all the above.
horico said:
The GI index is terrible for basing food choices on
For certain individuals with certain goals, this is an essential thing to consider. However, Glycemic Load is more important and more accurate.
You do not need to load creatine
Depends on the user. They might have issues tiring too quickly. Generally though, you synthesize all the Creatine you need from the protein you eat, but IIRC it takes at least 20 minutes rest for this to kick-in after exercise and 20 minutes to happen.
Whey is an excellent nutritional choice
Yes, it is. Is that a debunk or aggreement though? Confused.
You do not need to eat regularly throughout the day
If you're walking/running 20km in periods thoughout a day or doing multiple workouts (e.g. a gym user who is also labourer as a profession), you most definitely DO need to eat regularly! Also true if you don't want to stress your digestive system out with large loads of food in one go etc. etc. Again, depends on the person.
Carbs at any time of the day are fine
For who? You and your routine and goals?
Fat burners are nonsense[b]All of them? Can't really comment on magical properties of foods and remedies. It's not really my field, but there must be some truth to them. For instance, capsicum based foods take extra processing due to the spice and heat and this means more calorie usage, which would surely constitute a fat burner?[b]
Fat loss is based on calories in v calories outA calorie is a calorie is a bit old school. It's not that simple or that black and white. Type. Timing. Activity. Goal. Somatotype.
You do not need fast carbs with protein after a workoutDepends on the person, what the workout was, what your goals are...
Over 1lb a week weight loss will result in LBM loss which is hard to regain following the 'cut'
Possibly, but again, it depends on the person, what the workout was, what your goals are...
This is what I mean. Just because it's worked for you (and there may be better and faster ways to get things to work for you, you have yet to discover) doesn't mean it will work for everyone. This kind of mentality is exactly where "bro science" comes from.For certain individuals with certain goals, this is an essential thing to consider. However, Glycemic Load is more important and more accurate.
You do not need to load creatine
Depends on the user. They might have issues tiring too quickly. Generally though, you synthesize all the Creatine you need from the protein you eat, but IIRC it takes at least 20 minutes rest for this to kick-in after exercise and 20 minutes to happen.
Whey is an excellent nutritional choice
Yes, it is. Is that a debunk or aggreement though? Confused.
You do not need to eat regularly throughout the day
If you're walking/running 20km in periods thoughout a day or doing multiple workouts (e.g. a gym user who is also labourer as a profession), you most definitely DO need to eat regularly! Also true if you don't want to stress your digestive system out with large loads of food in one go etc. etc. Again, depends on the person.
Carbs at any time of the day are fine
For who? You and your routine and goals?
Fat burners are nonsense[b]All of them? Can't really comment on magical properties of foods and remedies. It's not really my field, but there must be some truth to them. For instance, capsicum based foods take extra processing due to the spice and heat and this means more calorie usage, which would surely constitute a fat burner?[b]
Fat loss is based on calories in v calories outA calorie is a calorie is a bit old school. It's not that simple or that black and white. Type. Timing. Activity. Goal. Somatotype.
You do not need fast carbs with protein after a workoutDepends on the person, what the workout was, what your goals are...
Over 1lb a week weight loss will result in LBM loss which is hard to regain following the 'cut'
Possibly, but again, it depends on the person, what the workout was, what your goals are...
Oh btw, Insulin is utterly critical to cell function, nutrient uptake and release. You get a spike after exercise as a part of "coming down" from exercise... load of blurb here, but it's getting too late.
Anyway, as many have said, not having a go, just saying what I know. I too have also been on a continual voyage of discovery, after being taught the official science (such as in how much protein one can absorb as explained above). Always things to learn.
That will do for now. Getting late, so sorry for sounding abrupt if I do.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff