nutritional beliefs you formerly held

Battossi said:
Oh god...Let's see...like the op..

I was way to concerned about meal timing. Other than that..

I was obsessed with eating organic until I talked to someone who works for the usda now I buy regular eggs and milk..

I used to think low carb/keto was the only way to lose weight.
I used to believe that you can target different parts of the quad but muscle mechanisms have taught me different.

I used to believe in extra bcaas in the form of intra workout.

I used to believe that carbs during training was a one way ticket to gain town.

I used to believe that if I ran on the treadmill for 3 hours at full speed I could stuff myself and not gain weight.
I used to believe that you have to lose muscle and get weaker on a cut.
I used to believe everyone on steroids was lazy or a douche.
I used to believe that you could permanently damage your metabolism.
I used to believe that going to the gym 6x a week had benefits.
I used to worry about insulin and /or try to manipulate the Insulin response which is a non issue with natural lifters.
More lol. But the shame.
Click to expand...

But you can emphasize a certain quad muscle! Now surely cant isolate each one, but you can emphasize certain quad muscles! At least from my experience!
 
NattyForLife said:
But you can emphasize a certain quad muscle! Now surely cant isolate each one, but you can emphasize certain quad muscles! At least from my experience!
Click to expand...

Localized igf1 +growth factor plus others and sure. But as for squat stance or doing leg press one way vs another? ...unfortunately that has been left behind in the 80s and 90s.
 
Battossi said:
Localized igf1 +growth factor plus others and sure. But as for squat stance or doing leg press one way vs another? ...unfortunately that has been left behind in the 80s and 90s.
Click to expand...

Okay say for instance...the leg extension machine! If you lean forward your gonna reduce the recruitment of the rectus femoris, or if you put the backrest all the way back(and lean back) or you could get on a lay down leg ext. The reason why this happens is because the rectus femoris is put on less stretch or more stretch, so yea..in my experience, you can "emphasize" (not completely isolate) certain quad muscles!

And im not sure about you but wide stance leg press/squats tear my VMO up! I always started feeling it in my VMO while doing wide stance leg press!
 
NattyForLife said:
Okay say for instance...the leg extension machine! If you lean forward your gonna reduce the recruitment of the rectus femoris, or if you put the backrest all the way back(and lean back) or you could get on a lay down leg ext. The reason why this happens is because the rectus femoris is put on less stretch or more stretch, so yea..in my experience, you can "emphasize" (not completely isolate) certain quad muscles!

And im not sure about you but wide stance leg press/squats tear my VMO up! I always started feeling it in my VMO while doing wide stance leg press!
Click to expand...

Emphasize sure . I was referring to isolating the different parts of the quad.

Your friend who has huge tear drops and small outer sweep is not that was because he didn't have a wide stance. He got that way because he's built that way. Literally. Genetics.

You would be surprised at how many people think that. Even guys on major drugs are prone to genetic limits. For instance :calves on ifbb pros. They obviously know how to eat,how to train and what to do. Because they are on that level.

However. ...very few ifbb pros with some rock hard, monstrous ,veiny calves unless they have the genetics for it.

For some reason it's big calves or no calves most of the time. All down to genetics. Not that extra inch to the left they place their feet.
 
Battossi said:
Emphasize sure . I was referring to isolating the different parts of the quad.

Your friend who has huge tear drops and small outer sweep is not that was because he didn't have a wide stance. He got that way because he's built that way. Literally. Genetics.

You would be surprised at how many people think that. Even guys on major drugs are prone to genetic limits. For instance :calves on ifbb pros. They obviously know how to eat,how to train and what to do. Because they are on that level.

However. ...very few ifbb pros with some rock hard, monstrous ,veiny calves unless they have the genetics for it.

For some reason it's big calves or no calves most of the time. All down to genetics. Not that extra inch to the left they place their feet.
Click to expand...

While I agree that genetics is a factor when considering muscle shape and size, you cannot downplay the importance of balanced training when looking at muscles such as the deltoid, quads, and hamstrings. How many people do you see at the gym with disproportionally developed anterior deltoids when compared to the medial and posterior portion of the same muscle.

You cannot tell me that no matter what training techniques these individuals use, that they are genetically predisposed to having a hyper kyphotic thoracic curve and anteriorly rounded shoulders
 
money0351 said:
While I agree that genetics is a factor when considering muscle shape and size, you cannot downplay the importance of balanced training when looking at muscles such as the deltoid, quads, and hamstrings. How many people do you see at the gym with disproportionally developed anterior deltoids when compared to the medial and posterior portion of the same muscle.

You cannot tell me that no matter what training techniques these individuals use, that they are genetically predisposed to having a hyper kyphotic thoracic curve and anteriorly rounded shoulders
Click to expand...

I said for the quads specifically. The calves were just an example.
 
Battossi said:
I said for the quads specifically. The calves were just an example.
Click to expand...
IMO that principal would apply even more to the quads. They are 4 different muscles with similar (but still different) actions. So yes, different exercises would stimulate different muscles of the quad in different degrees.

But I absolutely agree with you about insertion points (like in the calves) being a genetic limitation
 
money0351 said:
IMO that principal would apply even more to the quads. They are 4 different muscles with similar (but still different) actions. So yes, different exercises would stimulate different muscles of the quad in different degrees.

But I absolutely agree with you about insertion points (like in the calves) being a genetic limitation
Click to expand...

How do the quads have different actions? The VMO, vastus lateralis, and vastus intermedialis all extend the knee....thats it! The 4th muscle, the rectus femoris, extends the knee and flexes the hip!
 
NattyForLife said:
How do the quads have different actions? The VMO, vastus lateralis, and vastus intermedialis all extend the knee....thats it! The 4th muscle, the rectus femoris, extends the knee and flexes the hip!
Click to expand...

Like I stated before they all serve as primary knee extensors and hip flexors but the vastus lateralis also exerts a lateral pull on the patella and the VMO a medial pull. So different exercises (depending on angle of movement against resistance) will activate these differently.
 
NattyForLife said:
How do the quads have different actions? The VMO, vastus lateralis, and vastus intermedialis all extend the knee....thats it! The 4th muscle, the rectus femoris, extends the knee and flexes the hip!
Click to expand...

I'm simply trying to point out that when the individual above had stated that having a larger VMO and less developed vastus lateralis was solely genetics and no amount of balanced or corrective exercises would change that
 
Battossi said:
Localized igf1 +growth factor plus others and sure. But as for squat stance or doing leg press one way vs another? ...unfortunately that has been left behind in the 80s and 90s.
Click to expand...

You can.

Leg drops for example target the VMO moreso than the lateralis.

We use them to stabilise the knee if the lateralis is dominant.
 
money0351 said:
I'm simply trying to point out that when the individual above had stated that having a larger VMO and less developed vastus lateralis was solely genetics and no amount of balanced or corrective exercises would change that
Click to expand...

Oh yes i surely believe that!
 
money0351 said:
Like I stated before they all serve as primary knee extensors and hip flexors but the vastus lateralis also exerts a lateral pull on the patella and the VMO a medial pull. So different exercises (depending on angle of movement against resistance) will activate these differently.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Same as the hamstring group. Some are emphasized more duting a leg curl and others during hip extension.
 
money0351 said:
Like I stated before they all serve as primary knee extensors and hip flexors but the vastus lateralis also exerts a lateral pull on the patella and the VMO a medial pull. So different exercises (depending on angle of movement against resistance) will activate these differently.
Click to expand...

Jiigzz said:
Absolutely. Same as the hamstring group. Some are emphasized more duting a leg curl and others during hip extension.
Click to expand...

Agreed as well. I've seen a notable improvement in my quad sweep since using different stances and variations to put more emphasis on the vastus lateralis. You can certainly feel the difference when doing them as well.


Invalid Link Removed
 
breezy11 said:
Agreed as well. I've seen a notable improvement in my quad sweep since using different stances and variations to put more emphasis on the vastus lateralis. You can certainly feel the difference when doing them as well.


Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Bret is the man. My post is actually based on that haha.
 
What the issue here really boils down to is how the argument is constructed (false dichotomy) It isn't an either or scenerio. Nothing ever is. Yes genetics are a factor and yes movement is a factor. It isn't solely one or the other.
 
The biggest nonsense ive followed for nearly a decade is the need for copious amounts of protein.. I also deprived myself of feel good foods like sugary delicious carbs in fear of it going straight to my vagina...
 
hvactech said:
The biggest nonsense ive followed for nearly a decade is the need for copious amounts of protein.. I also deprived myself of feel good foods like sugary delicious carbs in fear of it going straight to my vagina...
Click to expand...

Just curious as to how much protein you shoot for. I've heard everything from 1.5g/lb of LBM; 1g/lb of bodyweight; 0.8g/kg bodyweight. Seems like recommendations are all over the place!
 
BRUstrong said:
Just curious as to how much protein you shoot for. I've heard everything from 1.5g/lb of LBM; 1g/lb of bodyweight; 0.8g/kg bodyweight. Seems like recommendations are all over the place!
Click to expand...

I aim for no less than 1g/bodyweight and no more than 1.5, as long as im in that range... unless im on cycle then I try a minimum of 1.25-1.5
 
BRUstrong said:
Just curious as to how much protein you shoot for. I've heard everything from 1.5g/lb of LBM; 1g/lb of bodyweight; 0.8g/kg bodyweight. Seems like recommendations are all over the place!
Click to expand...

The 0.8g per kg is for the non exercising population.

1.6-1.8g/kg for the weight bearing population.

1.2-1.4g/kg for cardio folk.

In deficits the numbers increase.

A few small studies in BBers but I cant remember what protein measurement system they used to determine it
 
I like 1g/lb as a nice general recommendation for most
 
Thanks guys. I fall victim to paralysis by analysis all the time. Haha I'm pretty type A. Just have to remind myself to keep it simple!
 
hvactech said:
The biggest nonsense ive followed for nearly a decade is the need for copious amounts of protein.. I also deprived myself of feel good foods like sugary delicious carbs in fear of it going straight to my vagina...
Click to expand...
Makes sense, you already have an extremely large vagina

The biggest thing I learned from then and now, nutritionally or otherwise, is the less time spent arguing over dumb **** on the Internet, the more time for exercising and Eating, which translates into results. Finding balance with research, experience, and putting something into practice is where the magic happens :)
 
Spaniard said:
Makes sense, you already have an extremely large vagina

The biggest thing I learned from then and now, nutritionally or otherwise, is the less time spent arguing over dumb **** on the Internet, the more time for exercising and Eating, which translates into results. Finding balance with research, experience, and putting something into practice is where the magic happens :)
Click to expand...

Boom!
 
Been learning so much in the last few months when I was cutting so I am not ashamed of my body again. The main thing to remember is to work out what works for you personally. Everyone is different, and little things can make a big diff!

I know its been said many times, but people still look for the magic routine, diet, or supplement. Learn to listen to your body and treat it well! we only have one to work with after all lol.
 
drinking a shake immediately after lifting
NO boosters (late 90's)

I still eat five times a day though. And have cottage cheese before going to bed and not eating for 8 hours.

In good fun I'm going to leave this IIFYM video here too: Invalid Link Removed
 
JudoJosh said:
Even by the definition of soft and hard sciences (which in itself is stupid) it still isn't soft. It would be categorized as a hard science. We make testable predictions, perform controlled experiments a d rely on data obtained via the scientific method. Soft sciences are more of a reference to things like psych, sociology, economic science, political science, etc.

People who refer to ExPhys as a soft science (like Amir and his science hater crew) do so as a thinly veiled attempt to discredit research that conflicts with his personal outlook
Click to expand...

I think the concern is that most studies available for bodybuilding related discussion include insufficient sample size, there is no control for variables that affect muscle growth outside of the testing stimuli (muscle fiber make up, training age, hormone profile et cetera) so you really aren't comparing one apple to another even within the same study.

And then you have people shoving these studies down your throat from a 180 lb soap box (lets say on a 6 ft frame) while you're a good 20-30 lbs heavier and start warming up when they're done lifting. And if you skipped breakfast, for example, you'd have to eat an elephant later in the day to hit your macros. And you probably won't digest it effectively. I'll be happy to argue that from the toilet.

I've missed you guys
 
TexasGuy said:
I think the concern is that most studies available for bodybuilding related discussion include insufficient sample size, there is no control for variables that affect muscle growth outside of the testing stimuli (muscle fiber make up, training age, hormone profile et cetera) so you really aren't comparing one apple to another even within the same study.
Click to expand...

This is more about you not fully understanding research and not so much a critique against scientific studies. You are creating this imaginary bar that a paper gas to reach in order to be valid. That is not how science works. I mentioned this last week in the pre bed protein thread. Working with humans means there will ALWAYS be variables you can't control for in a single paper. This is why you form your hypotheses off the body of literature and not just a single paper. More often then not, when I read someone on a forum trying to discredit a paper it is them complaining it wasn't done the way "they" would have done it, they being some keyboard pubmed warrior who has no idea what goes into putting together a study. Futhermore, they will often completely ignore the researchers hypothesis question and form their own and be all butt hurt that the study didn't answer "their" question. Science is a cumulative thing. It builds off previous work. Papers aren't perfect because they can't be. So what they do is try to control for what they can control and see if the hypothesis is true or false. If it turns out to be true then subsequent papers are done who's purpose is to try and disprove the initial hypothesis by conducting tighter controlled studies or focusing on different variables then the previous paper. Then after years and years someone writes a analysis of all the research and we get somewhat an understanding of aomething. For most people who complain about science, the problem isn't science, isn't them not understanding what science and scientific research is.

TexasGuy said:
And then you have people shoving these studies down your throat from a 180 lb soap box (lets say on a 6 ft frame) while you're a good 20-30 lbs heavier and start warming up when they're done lifting. And if you skipped breakfast, for example, you'd have to eat an elephant later in the day to hit your macros. And you probably won't digest it effectively. I'll be happy to argue that from the toilet.

I've missed you guys
Click to expand...

I am always puzzled by these types of statements, as logically they make no sense. You are essentially saying, because a person isn't big they can't possibly know how to get big, despite any academic achievements they might have.

May I ask, if you got cancer would you only seek the advice of some guy ho has had cancer as well or would you want to see an actual oncologist for your treatment?

Same logic.
 
TexasGuy said:
drinking a shake immediately after lifting
NO boosters (late 90's)

I still eat five times a day though. And have cottage cheese before going to bed and not eating for 8 hours.

In good fun I'm going to leave this IIFYM video here too: Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

I remember being a noob and bringing a shaker with protein powder in it consuming it right after performing my last rep. Then going home to eat again lol.
 
I remember this morning when I had a pre workout meal, pre/intra/post shake, and a meal when I got home. It might sound "wrong" to some, but as stated earlier, context is key.
 
breezy11 said:
I remember this morning when I had a pre workout meal, pre/intra/post shake, and a meal when I got home. Might sound "wrong" to some, but as stated earlier, context is key.
Click to expand...

The way you said "I remember this morning..." :lol:
 
Back in the 90s I underestimated the importance of protein for building muscle, and obviously that was a mistake. In more recent years, as in 5 or 6 years ago, I didn't pay attention to sodium (wasn't protein, fats, or carbs so why bother?) which was a bad idea.
 
JudoJosh said:
This is more about you not fully understanding research and not so much a critique against scientific studies. You are creating this imaginary bar that a paper gas to reach in order to be valid. That is not how science works. I mentioned this last week in the pre bed protein thread. Working with humans means there will ALWAYS be variables you can't control for in a single paper. This is why you form your hypotheses off the body of literature and not just a single paper. More often then not, when I read someone on a forum trying to discredit a paper it is them complaining it wasn't done the way "they" would have done it, they being some keyboard pubmed warrior who has no idea what goes into putting together a study. Futhermore, they will often completely ignore the researchers hypothesis question and form their own and be all butt hurt that the study didn't answer "their" question. Science is a cumulative thing. It builds off previous work. Papers aren't perfect because they can't be. So what they do is try to control for what they can control and see if the hypothesis is true or false. If it turns out to be true then subsequent papers are done who's purpose is to try and disprove the initial hypothesis by conducting tighter controlled studies or focusing on different variables then the previous paper. Then after years and years someone writes a analysis of all the research and we get somewhat an understanding of aomething. For most people who complain about science, the problem isn't science, isn't them not understanding what science and scientific research is.



I am always puzzled by these types of statements, as logically they make no sense. You are essentially saying, because a person isn't big they can't possibly know how to get big, despite any academic achievements they might have.

May I ask, if you got cancer would you only seek the advice of some guy ho has had cancer as well or would you want to see an actual oncologist for your treatment?

Same logic.
Click to expand...

I enjoy theory and hypotheses as much as the next guy.

But I would pick the doctor with the most successful track record of treating whichever cancer I had over one who had a filing cabinet of book reports.
 
TexasGuy said:
I enjoy theory and hypotheses as much as the next guy.

But I would pick the doctor with the most successful track record of treating whichever cancer I had over one who had a filing cabinet of book reports.
Click to expand...
That doesn't follow the analogy. The choice is between someone who is academically trained and someone who claims to just intrinsically "know".

So your choices are a oncologist (academically trained) or someone who just knows (think food babe type person) for your cancer treatment

You created the dichotomy here, don't try and change it now.
 
JudoJosh said:
That doesn't follow the analogy. The choice is between someone who is academically trained and someone who claims to just intrinsically "know".

So your choices are a oncologist (academically trained) or someone who just knows (think food babe type person) for your cancer treatment

You created the dichotomy here, don't try and change it now.
Click to expand...

No, a bodybuilder knows how to build muscle on his frame through observation and experimentation in the real world.

Science attempts to explain why and how. You're putting the cart before the horse.

In your dichotomy we are comparing an experienced doctor to a med student.
 
TexasGuy said:
No, a bodybuilder knows how to build muscle on his frame through observation and experimentation in the real world.

Science attempts to explain why and how. You're putting the cart before the horse.

In your dichotomy we are comparing an experienced doctor to a med student.
Click to expand...

your original statement was

TexasGuy said:
And then you have people shoving these studies down your throat from a 180 lb soap box (lets say on a 6 ft frame) while you're a good 20-30 lbs heavier and start warming up when they're done lifting. And if you skipped breakfast, for example, you'd have to eat an elephant later in the day to hit your macros. And you probably won't digest it effectively. I'll be happy to argue that from the toilet.
Click to expand...

so you pitted a 180lb academic showing you evidence how to train vs yourself whose only qualifications are weighs 20-30lbs heavier and stronger than the academic

So we can illustrate your example... we have Brad Schoenfeld who is academically trained but by no means is a "big" guy saying X works... vs just some gym guy who is "bigger" than Schoenfeld saying "Y" works and only offering himself as evidence.

I will go with Schoenfeld over the bro, any day of the week. What about you?
 
JudoJosh said:
May I ask, if you got cancer would you only seek the advice of some guy ho has had cancer as well or would you want to see an actual oncologist for your treatment?

Same logic.
Click to expand...

I used this same exact analogy on another forum almost verbatim
 
JudoJosh said:
your original statement was



so you pitted a 180lb academic showing you evidence how to train vs yourself whose only qualifications are weighs 20-30lbs heavier and stronger than the academic

So we can illustrate your example... we have Brad Schoenfeld who is academically trained but by no means is a "big" guy saying X works... vs just some gym guy who is "bigger" than Schoenfeld saying "Y" works and only offering himself as evidence.

I will go with Schoenfeld over the bro, any day of the week. What about you?
Click to expand...
I get what he's saying, to a certain extent. I think a better analogy in this situation would be a 180lb academic, Schoenfeld works, vs Arnold. In that situation, I would listen to both and I'm a science major. It doesn't have to be either or.

The way I took his post was more so directed at 180lb scientists on forums vs himself, so to keep things in context elite vs elite seems more appropriate.

The dividing line between the scientific field and practical (experienced) is moronic and counterproductive, both serve purposes. There is only so much book/school knowledge can provide, while on the other hand, field experienced bb'ers and elite coaches have been getting real world results based on protocols used for 50+ years. The truly great will find that balance between academic knowledge and practical experience IMO.

Academic education is one tool. I'll tell you this as I know you're well aware - there's a **** ton of education that comes with getting under the bar and finding out how to continually keep progressing for yourself, by kicking and fighting to beat pr after pr
 
I don't consider Schoenfeld to be an elite researcher. He is fairly new to the science side of things, and while he is cranking out an unbelievable amount of publications, which are good quality stuff, I still would put him as elite.

If I were matching a scientist against Arnold I would go with someone like Kramer, in which case Kramer all day ;)

Bit overall I get the point of your post here, and I often do try and give anecdotal evidence credit because it is a required part of the scientific process here BUT the tone I got from his post was more so that he intrinsically knows more than scientist, who he labeled as scrawny men who don't lift *cough* Hatfield *cough* and therefore can't possibly know what's real. It's a typical argument you see from people who don't understand science. His post seemed to auggest, to me at least, that true knowledge only comes from under the bar experience, and that is demonstrably false.
 
Here's a perfect example: Eric Cressey. Dude is not large by any means (most would say on the smallish side), but he is absolutely brilliant. The guy who won the AL Cy Young is a long standing client of his.
 
Rodja said:
Here's a perfect example: Eric Cressey. Dude is not large by any means (most would say on the smallish side), but he is absolutely brilliant. The guy who won the AL Cy Young is a long standing client of his.
Click to expand...
I've been meaning to go check out his gym. An acquaintance of mine is a coach under him there. Seems to be big into FMS type stuff. Mobility stuff and that née thing that has been getting more popular.. the breathing thing.. I forget the name of it.
 
JudoJosh said:
I've been meaning to go check out his gym. An acquaintance of mine is a coach under him there. Seems to be big into FMS type stuff. Mobility stuff and that née thing that has been getting more popular.. the breathing thing.. I forget the name of it.
Click to expand...

Apical breathing?
 
TexasGuy said:
I think the concern is that most studies available for bodybuilding related discussion include insufficient sample size, there is no control for variables that affect muscle growth outside of the testing stimuli (muscle fiber make up, training age, hormone profile et cetera) so you really aren't comparing one apple to another even within the same study.

And then you have people shoving these studies down your throat from a 180 lb soap box (lets say on a 6 ft frame) while you're a good 20-30 lbs heavier and start warming up when they're done lifting. And if you skipped breakfast, for example, you'd have to eat an elephant later in the day to hit your macros. And you probably won't digest it effectively. I'll be happy to argue that from the toilet.

I've missed you guys
Click to expand...

If this is mostly about IIFYM, then a lot of us may actually share yiur sentiment. JJ has posted numerous times shedding more light that it isnt as simple as "eat your macros, be huge and shredded", however a lot of people use more drugs to compensate so it kinda blurs the lines between what works and what doesnt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top