310 pounds to 169 pounds
- 02-06-2013, 03:30 PM
- 02-06-2013, 03:47 PM
The last paragraph was the reality check.
- 02-06-2013, 04:15 PM
02-06-2013, 08:03 PM
So much irony....
M.Ed. Ex Phys
02-06-2013, 08:20 PM
02-06-2013, 10:06 PM
I post to an OP and the same scenario as this thread plays out from training to nutrition and even general chat political sub-forums. Some of the same characters either happen to have uncannily similar interests or an awkard and contrary chip on their shoulder and will ignore context and common sense to play it. It's weird.
02-06-2013, 10:17 PM
02-06-2013, 10:31 PM
Oh, I remember another, aesthetic balance argued on planar terms. It's always semantical bull**** and I don't initiate it, this thread is a perfect example.
02-06-2013, 10:34 PM
02-06-2013, 10:39 PM
02-06-2013, 10:49 PM
I mean, have any of you even contributed to the OP's questions? Or is your only interest here arguing semantics out of context and then pointing fingers at other people for the monkey **** it turned in to?
02-07-2013, 12:25 AM
Texas, you as well seem quite educated along with fuelled. My gym experience went okay.. forgot my pre workout... so we know how that all goes.. Had an intense Clen/T3 Migraine as well, but I thought ****it. At least I went!
Tomorrow Im going to go in the morning pre-breakfast and try somethings you guys are throwing at me.. with my pre-workout (no bull), and probably smash it one more time in the evening on my break. Whats a healing agent after a kick ass workout? My legs still hurt from two days ago, but I'm pretty confident the clen has something to do with that. Again, thank you everyone for your help, you're all fantastic! I don't think I've ever been so excited to smash jim at 6AM.
02-07-2013, 01:35 AM
If you read the Protein thread in general, Texas, you bring in multiple points to try stray away from the points others have made in order to make your stance the most correct one, even when disputed WITH science you seemingly end the thread with anecdotal evidence.
This statement is similar in regards to what you constantly say; "I eat >2g/lb of BW therefore this is the only correct way to build muscle, everything else is just useless, pointless and sub-optimal". When disputed, you turn on a tangent to stary away from the initial argument even with confronted with multiple studies that do not reinforce your stance.
I believe you are the one who is unable/unwilling to move into the "new-age" of advanced nutritional research and would rather argue that the old school approach is the only way to live. The last paragragh you wrote completely described yourself to the 'T'.
You act as though you know everything about everything despite many of us having years of study, research and dedicated our lives to training in our chosen fields; JJ, Rodja and Cel all being examples and yet tyou thrive off anecdotal evidnce with seemingly puts all our hardwork into bettering the BB and PLing population and confronting religious dogma that has been shown to not actually exist. The only reason we gave up was the mere fact you were unwilling to accept our arguments unless it followed in the concept of your own line of thought.
02-07-2013, 01:39 AM
02-07-2013, 07:53 AM
Regarding your prior post, the OP in the protein thread asked a question about protein intake to a general population. He recieved multiple answers, including an academic essay referencing studies demonstrating the value of relatively high protein intake, which was then argued as pointless, wasteful and outdated information, and by one guy in particular who admittedly didn't even read the essay, much less check its references while arguing it. In fact, the key argument was that "excess" protein oxidizes and is flushed out anyways yet the entire premise of the essay and it's referenced studies demonstrate that even this excess protein stimulates MPS and nitrogen retention, and ingested properly (high leucine content and in a 2:1 carb to protein ratio) can cause supraphysical levels of MPS and nitrogen retention.
I mentioned anecdotal evidence, yes. We all did. This was not the basis of the conversation but a small part of it, one I elaborated on as confusion sprung off of it. Regarding this particular conversation, I acknowledged gains are possible with lower levels of protein intake. Anecdotally, I shared I've gained off of roughtly 1 gram per pound. I simply believe best practice is more protein, posted two studies to show it along with the academic essay containing references viewers are open to read. You are editing what I said and posted. It wasn't me dogmatically defending one approach and ignoring the rest as wasteful, useless and pointless. I had a good and best stance, supported by research.
I acknowledged IF diets are effective, to a point, though pointed out limitations which were largely ignored or avoided altogether. The actual issue there as I'm sure you will remember was that a guy was on a diet plan requiring breakfast and Celorza suggested he just skip breakfast, effectively applying LG principles to a guy on a different diet altogether, instead of helping him in his chosen diet. My stance there was that various diets of all stripes work through various metabolic pathways, and while acknowledging LG works in it's own right, my argument was ultimately not to argue diet Y against X on diet X principles. Never once did I say leangains is ineffective though multiple pages in multiple threads were spent by others on an LG soapbox, defending LG alone.
In a discussion of the importance of biceps, their function as stabilizers to the bench press was called in to question by a certain Celorza, which is just silly. The actual conversation was whether or not direct training granted beneficial carry over to other lifts but no studies were posted on either side really, just anecdotal evidence and Celorza being a wild man with his off topic flame thrower. An article by a Jim Wendler was posted, however, discussing the effectiveness directly trained biceps of his clients had on their bench press, nevermind pulls. Anecdotal, yes. Alond with the mish mash of anecdotal evidence and from a guy more elite than anyone here where coaching results are concerned. And what happened? Flaming! "No way training biceps could ever help the bench press, god that is so stupid we are just going to ignore it", except Celorza and his off topic flame circus (always entertaining). Why? Because of the reasons mentioned in my last paragraph of the post in question, regardless of common sense and a powerlifting heavy weight weighing in. I don't even know if powerlifting was the the OP topic. It very well could've been hypertrophy but we went so sideways it was hard to tell. And it wasn't me pulling it.
Read the threads again. Start with this one.
02-07-2013, 07:57 AM
02-07-2013, 08:00 AM
Mitigating pain from inflammation is another story. Ginger, fish oil, curcumin (turmeric) and a plethora of other natural solutions with anti-inflammatory properties can help. Anti-oxidant rich fruits and veggies too.
02-07-2013, 09:07 AM
M.Ed. Ex Phys
02-07-2013, 09:20 AM
02-07-2013, 09:41 AM
1) Not defending anyone, I will say that there is an unspoken aspect missing in this argument. Jigzz, good point, I mean it. But I do think that the scientific community has kinda lost its credibility with a bunch of worthless studies. I'm am not saying that your studies were worthless, I'm speaking in general terms. There is so much randomness to studies nowadays that its really hard to bring a good, solid truth home with most of these pseudo studies. I've seen the scientific community jump to a conclusion, then a few years later change its mind..no wait! And back to the same old conclusion again. Its just overwhelming trying to keep up with a bunch a students and professors. I'd rather just try some things on myself and log it as I go and learn what made me respond and what didn't. Finding a random relationship between two things does not merit truth to be told about it. It doesn't even add up to a theory.
2) And since the scientific community is always all over the place, discovering new things, debunking old myths, and rediscovering old truths all the time, I'm forced to only take into consideration what has passed the test of time - what has worked best for previous bodybuilders and athletes.
3) The last problem is this: people are trying to find some worth and value in themselves rather than finding truth. This leads to people writing up articles and publishing a study just to be known for something. To be special, more or less. Again, not saying you are doing that Jigzz, but it does exist.
It all adds up to me searching for truth in men that have already found it. I don't need the credit for myself. So I look for guys who have been successful in the gym rather than in the text. I hope you can understand at least my point of view on things.
02-07-2013, 09:55 AM
>SNS-Glycophase<Serious Nutrition Solutions Rep
02-07-2013, 11:12 AM
02-07-2013, 11:16 AM
Have you tapered up to those respective dosages and how long have you been using them? Clen is generally used in short bursts of 7-14 days due to how quickly the body attenuates to the compound. T3, though, can be run for much longer.
M.Ed. Ex Phys
02-07-2013, 11:25 AM
02-07-2013, 11:27 AM
02-07-2013, 11:29 AM
02-07-2013, 11:49 AM
02-07-2013, 11:51 AM
02-07-2013, 11:52 AM
02-07-2013, 11:58 AM
And look into Albuterol instead of Clenbuterol. The benefits of clen, with less of the shakes. And some research showed and increase in aerobic capacity.
The Historic PES Legend
02-07-2013, 12:42 PM
Re: 310 pounds to 169 pounds
120mcg of T3 seems like awfully a lot.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
02-07-2013, 12:58 PM
Re: 310 pounds to 169 pounds
So that becomes science is capable of going against himself or refuting itself then it is invalid?
I say, this is what makes science great. That really at its core its sole purpose is to disprove things. Never accepting the status quo and constantly asking why and how to the claims being made. When presented with new data science can and will evolve and change. Why is this bad?
This is something I posted in another thread and seems relevant to your post
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
02-07-2013, 01:59 PM
SarahLou, I really must apologize on behalf of the blokes for takin over your thread, sometimes they just can't help themselves. The key question we need you to settle is which of the 3 Texans was the most helpful.
Now great egos hang in the balance so we all need you to be precise in your decision. Obviously Celorza with his zillions of rep. power would be the wise choice as he may jus send somadat ur way...
02-07-2013, 02:36 PM
Now that second set of paragraphs I can agree with personally and I like that thought process. I wasnt tellin u that I or anyone else might nullify research altogether, but sometimes the scientific community will publish findings and preach and teach polar opposites at the same time. Like someone is fighting for their theory to win the crowd over. And this type of thing has been goin on for thousands of years in regards to scientists fighting to take the high ground. Personally I'd just rather let em fight, and I'll keep believing what has been working for me and AFTER the fighting is done and everyone comes into universal agreement about theories and fact, I'll then take a closer look at those newly accepted theories or facts.
Case in point - The Big Bang vs. Steady State
not phys ed related but this is a simple straight-forward example of what I'm gettin at.
I agree with what u said above. I'm not sure I did in the past but today I believe I do. Granted, I'll always value my experience more than all else.
02-07-2013, 02:41 PM
If you call people out, expect a response. And don't say you weren't.
02-07-2013, 03:11 PM
And though I've already given a lengthy response I will reiterate here that not once have I dismissed science, nor completely disregarded methodologies outside of my own. An honest read through the various arguments will show I've acknowledged methods outside my preferences to work. I have, however, given my opinion, based on results and backed by science on what I think best practice is. And no, I don't care if you study kinesiology, it isn't exactly a finite science with exclusive information held by a handful of elite yodas. I am not belittling your field but I am saying a few college hours don't give you exclusive rights to being right.
I don't claim to know everything. I've posted in a relatively small amount of topics considering the breadth of the website. I certainly don't know much about drugs, I don't need'em, which is why I'm ignoring that aspect of this thread.
I sure as do **** know how to build an athletic, strong and muscular body(largely by utilizing existing, tried and true programs though I do draw up my own too) and I will never ignore how my body responds to certain training and dietary protocols because a paper rife with limitations says it isn't.
Edit: Generally speaking and using fueledpassions post as a conversation piece, ftr.
02-07-2013, 03:15 PM
02-07-2013, 03:19 PM
02-07-2013, 03:26 PM
02-07-2013, 03:36 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By fadi in forum Training ForumReplies: 1Last Post: 04-04-2012, 03:29 PM
- By Ryno703 in forum Workout LogsReplies: 49Last Post: 12-24-2008, 10:57 PM
- By Wendy21 in forum Weight LossReplies: 18Last Post: 07-08-2007, 12:11 PM
- By nidan in forum AnabolicsReplies: 14Last Post: 01-23-2005, 06:41 PM
- By windwords7 in forum Weight LossReplies: 10Last Post: 03-02-2003, 05:32 PM