- 12-31-2012, 04:24 PM
- 12-31-2012, 04:34 PM
12-31-2012, 04:41 PM
12-31-2012, 04:52 PM
12-31-2012, 04:54 PM
That's Christian bale lol before the batman movies.. I believe that movie was called the engineer or something like that.. DunnoOriginally Posted by Danb2285
12-31-2012, 04:59 PM
12-31-2012, 04:59 PM
12-31-2012, 05:01 PM
12-31-2012, 05:32 PM
I'm responding to your comment about my not regarding advanced gains when I was talking to you about your gains, while you were gaining, before your "subconcious mindset" told you not to get "too big" because you would look like a refrigerator and you're already stronger than a 6 foot, relatively lean (beach bod) 240 pound guy (legitimately lean at 225 or so) with 15+ years experience lifting anyways.
Either you are a true genetic freak or an ignorant yet "know it all" noob who has read just enough to make fly by one liners that kinda, sorta make sense until you examine them in context and then instead of follow the conversation you start, you take people down some weird rabbit hole of CelorzaLand, where you then play the victim when you can't even keep that up.
The bull**** disparities between your lifting totals and added lean mass "without much bodyfat" in a given beginner period, then the backsliding to water and glycogen, then the idea that somehow advanced limitations apply to you...
Either you are flat out looking for a rise from people or you read more than you lift and are trying to write a book report on what you've learned while pretending to have some kind of lifting results and are failing at it as you are applying tidbits of training from all over the board to one single brag that doesn't even make any real world sense.
I'm not even going to try and imagine what kind of delusional conclusions your quest for power "in all aspects of life" has led you to. Collectively they could be a Tim Burton movie, I have no doubt.
12-31-2012, 05:49 PM
Why, if leangains and warrior are optimal natural diets, are they trash on steroids when you believe it doesn't matter when a person eats his quota as long as he does?
To use your example, 6,000 calories = 6,000 calories and they will have the same effect on your physique whether you eat them across 5-6 meals, three meals or one meal. But if you're on steroids, 6,000 calories does not equal 6,000 calories on all diets. 6,000 only equals 6,000 sometimes. When, how so and why?
I can't asnwer someone asking me why grass is black, because it's not. There is no answer. Instead I would ask them why they would describe grass as black to begin with.
12-31-2012, 06:10 PM
Speaking of questions, I do have a couple:
1) Can someone explain to me the significance of reputation points? I realize they play an integral role in relations around the boards but what are they, what do they do?
2) What does the designation of Company Representitive mean? I get that they promote a company product line but are they actually employed sales reps, good customers receiving some kind of discount for waving the flag or something else altogether?
12-31-2012, 06:53 PM
Company reps are people that have shown to be knowledgeable and because of this have been chosen by a company to represent them and help others. They answer questions regarding training, nutrition, and supplementation. Specifically those related to the company they represent. They are employed, generally they recieve product for free or monetary compensation for their ervices.
12-31-2012, 07:14 PM
Simple as that.
A ketogenic diet thrives in an environment that is glycogen free and with no sugar in the bloodstream, if one is to add outside sources that will cause unnatural spikes of these, the body will never produce Ketosterones, and therefore, the diet goes down the drain.
Workout regimes also change in the presence of steroids as muscle recovery happens faster, allowing for people to do more sets and workout more often; under standard conditions, that person would be overtraining, but with the use of AAS that is no longer the case.
All in all to sum it up, use of AAS =/= a control group environment and therefore holds no ground in a nutrition discussion as everything will be specific to the steroid being utilized, how it reacts and its particular peculiarities. Can we drop this now or will you keep beating this dead horse?
Androhard + Andromass Log
12-31-2012, 07:48 PM
What I do find interesting is that in this post you are plain as day saying that nutrient timing, selection and intake protocols in general are important factors to consider in a diet, where you have previously suggested it doesn't matter when food is consumed as long as it is and inferred that protein synthesis can not be manipulated above certain levels by ingesting protein frequently (referencing Layne Norton's work referencing studies showing, in fact, this is the case), all of which brings me back to the initial point of the last eight or so pages of this thread.
Don't suggest to the OP he should skip a meal when his diet plan doesn't call for it. Applying X protocols to Y diet is a recipe for failure.
I think you just did put the dead horse to rest, even if inadvertently.
Anyways, happy new years. I'm off to pick up a pretty little thing and get my penis kissed at midnight.
12-31-2012, 07:50 PM
12-31-2012, 07:52 PM
12-31-2012, 08:08 PM
M.Ed. Ex Phys
01-01-2013, 09:50 PM
Which steroid compound and specific effect correlating to which diet are you referring to?
I've mentioned crossover between various training styles. Irregardless, the physiological effects of one style over another certainly are weighted heavily in one direction or another.
The burden of proof is a tricky one to place as the whole conversation has been off topic. So far, the traditional bodybuilding diet has been put on the defensive, with no legitimate offensive to take except to default to calling it BS because leangains says to something different and it's easier to just ignore decades of empirical evidence for the trendy new diet. And this has essentially been the conversation. It would seem to me burden of proof is on the people flinging poo at traditional diets to prove they aren't effective beyond a doubt and any limitation.
And again, empirical evidence with such broad and consistent results can not be discounted entirely as gym floor bs, not without proving otherwise beyond any limitation or doubt in the face of so much success from the pros on down to the lean bros with decent looking bumps on their arms.
Dogma is a system of belief or doctrine held by a group or organization. The leangains camp is certainly a group spewing dogma while choosing to ignore decades worth of real world results for dogma.
As far as a "sole parade" I've posted outside of this conversation, but within the conversation I do reply to the conversation.
01-01-2013, 10:46 PM
Someone tag me in!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
01-01-2013, 10:52 PM
01-01-2013, 10:54 PM
01-01-2013, 11:02 PM
What I love the absolute most is that you fling dogmatic adherence on the LG community, yet they provide peer-reviewed data along the way. Not only that, but there is also recognition amongst the entire IF community that many different methods of IF exist and each has their own merits. Even Berardi has his own ebook on IF, so it is extremely ironic that you brought his name into the fold when he recognizes that there is merit to the many protocols of IF on body composition.
M.Ed. Ex Phys
01-01-2013, 11:04 PM
Celorza suggests OP just skips breakfast. Due to a lack of explanation, this was interpreted initially as if the OP should just skip his macros altogether.
It was stated this is a horrible idea. People on the leangains diet puffed up defensively.
The conversation then shifted to applying Diet Y to Diet X while defending Diet Y on Diet Y's terms and scattered across multiple threads in multiple forums.
Celorza came back and let everyone know that he does not, in fact, bulk or ever want to outside of his intial "amazing" newb gains where he started looking too much like a refrigerator at almost 150 pounds, yet he continued to give bulking advice to Diet X using Diet Y principles.
Other people chimed in with various angles along the way, whether on topic or not.
And here you are!
01-01-2013, 11:06 PM
01-01-2013, 11:10 PM
01-01-2013, 11:28 PM
Yes, LG proponents have been providing peer reviewed information to support their claims while ignoring the same when it doesn't apply though the conversation spilled over to multiple threads and it's hard to keep it all organized. I realize Berardi has an IF protocol out there. As the conversation morphed from an evident miscommunication over Celorza's post to a defense of LG and attack of frequent, high protein meals, my stance was that multiple diets work through various metabolic pathways, including IF protocols and I said so many times in many threads on this topic.
The problem is that people attacking a diet that has been shown to be effective for decades from the pros to the joes argued one diets principles as if they are the universal dietary guideline. And they are not.
Let me state directly, IF protocols work. Applying Diet Y principles to Diet X isn't a good idea and neither is arguing from that stand point. You can not prove frequent, high protein meals are ineffective because they are, even if a white coat hasn't put it on paper.
And yes, nutrient timing and TEF are applicable to metabolism and fat loss within the right diet plan. 1000lories, whether split up in to two meals or one will wind up as 900 calories. We then have to discuss nutrient aborption rates and storage but this was ignored completely. While a fasting diet may prime the body to absorb more nutrients in a sitting given hormonal responses, a frequent meal plan will not. That said, various macros ellicit different TEF responses and this is one angle of high protein ingestion.You can eliminate total calories by choosing the right foods to stoke your metabolism through TEF. And studies were posted to show this. You simply ignored the context to disregard them.
And ftr I edited your post for the Berardi link. I can't post them yet.
01-02-2013, 12:00 AM
01-02-2013, 09:45 AM
Oh for crying out loud, we are back to this?
Jesus... Either prove one needs breakfast or move on. Macros to be hit don't require a breakfast to be accomplished. Suggesting he skips breakfast in no way shape or form infers that he should reduce caloric intake.
Androhard + Andromass Log
01-02-2013, 09:49 AM
01-02-2013, 10:35 AM
You already had ad hominem, red herring, and burden of proof. Now, you can add straw man and arguing in a circle to your list of BS arguments.
However, I'll start with a simple science lesson for you since you really seem to be struggling in this department. AAS will skew results; this is not a point of debate, but you fail to realize that this skewing of results completely nullifies any application to the lay population as they push the boundaries beyond what is possible under non-PED usage conditions. My personal usage or non-usage has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
You also seem to think that meal frequency has something to do with macronutrient breakdown as evidenced by your linking of meal frequency and high protein consumption, which, again, is not something that has been said along the way. High protein consumption is not the same thing as frequent feedings despite your attempts to link them. This protein consumption and subsequent TEF has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread. At no point was macronutrient breakdown ever discussed until you decided to throw the thread in that direction in an attempt to use that to prove the merits of frequent feedings. In addition, you seem to really misunderstand nutrient timing and it's application to the non-endurance athlete population and how using these principles as attestation for your position actually works against you, but insulin sensitivity, GLUT-4, etc. would again steer the conversation into a different direction beyond the scope of the thread.
M.Ed. Ex Phys
Similar Forum Threads
- By YellowJacket in forum Weight LossReplies: 2Last Post: 02-11-2003, 09:54 PM
- By drfly in forum Weight LossReplies: 1Last Post: 02-08-2003, 01:00 PM
- By Biggs in forum Weight LossReplies: 0Last Post: 01-27-2003, 04:20 PM
- By YellowJacket in forum Weight LossReplies: 30Last Post: 01-26-2003, 01:33 PM
- By Biggs in forum Weight LossReplies: 9Last Post: 01-12-2003, 10:18 PM