What supplement should I take or should I do both?
Replies
-
trigden1991 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »The only supplements I take are Protein (whey & beef), BCAA's, Creatine and a pre workout. Just before I train, I take a niacin which dilates the blood vessels and helps get a better pump. OH, I also take Milk Thistle because it helps protect my liver from large amounts of protein and a few other things. Some days, I add a Lenny & Larry's cookie. I still also have a ton of stuff I have not tried yet, that I got at the Olympia last September, but will be trying on and off after my competition.
if you take milk thistle to protect your liver from high amounts of protein then why consume high amounts of protein? sounds counterproductive. studies proving it protects from anything is also inconclusive-https://nccih.nih.gov/health/milkthistle/ataglance.htm I also dont think if you are consuming large amounts of protein it will damage your liver unless you have a liver/other health issue, it may stress your kidneys. but any legit study I have read the conclusion is that high protein levels wont harm your liver unless you have a liver issue.other health issue or for some reason your body cant metabolize the protein. how much are you consuming?
The milk thistle is being taken because of the "and a few other things".
It's not doing anything, but that's why it's being taken.
It was actually recommended by my naturopath, because I am doing TRT, which is not unusual at my age. The reason for high amounts of protein is to build muscle with a malabsorption issue. Basically the more I take in the more my body absorbs while I am bulking on a 10 week cycle.
ahh the naturopath, that explains a lot
I trust her more than my primary care who is in bed with the pharmaceuticals. Nothing wrong with exploring natural remedies.
99% of the misinformed "medical" advice on here is from their naturopath.
I had pain in my right arm for 2 years from a fractured radial head. My Primary Care and Ortho were both unsuccessful in relieving the pain. They just pumped me full of muscle relaxers. It took 3 months of treatment from my NP, and I am pain free with NO MEDICATION. Yeah, she earned my trust.0 -
yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.0
-
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.0 -
jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.0 -
jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
First, let me start by clarifying that the following statement is in no way intended to justify the use of an unproven supplement, even though thr stuff's pretty cheap, so who the hell cares?
You're going to run into a lot of resistance here when it comes to anything you may do that doesn't have a laundry list of studies backing it. Trust me, you're gonna see the word "broscience" a lot around here. You eventually just learn to ignore it. If I had a dollar for everytime some 120 lbs. smartass told me that guys like Lewis, Carter, Coan, and Efferding peddle "broscience that does nothing", I'd be rich as hell.
When it comes to strength and mass, I experiment for myself, taking wisdom that works from the strong and big, and dropping that which doesn't work for me. I prefer the Wendler approach due to individual biology: "You want science and studies? *kitten* you. I've got scars and blood and vomit."
Funny that for all of the people here who have seen success with 5/3/1, that point of his usually gets left out.1 -
jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.0 -
jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
If you look at the works of people like Layne Norton, PhD , bodybuilder and powerlifter, he would probably disagree with many of the things you are saying. Even people on roids don't need to eat 350g of protein.
Was your malabsorption issue diagnosed by a GI specialist or another specialis?0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
First, let me start by clarifying that the following statement is in no way intended to justify the use of an unproven supplement, even though thr stuff's pretty cheap, so who the hell cares?
You're going to run into a lot of resistance here when it comes to anything you may do that doesn't have a laundry list of studies backing it. Trust me, you're gonna see the word "broscience" a lot around here. You eventually just learn to ignore it. If I had a dollar for everytime some 120 lbs. smartass told me that guys like Lewis, Carter, Coan, and Efferding peddle "broscience that does nothing", I'd be rich as hell.
When it comes to strength and mass, I experiment for myself, taking wisdom that works from the strong and big, and dropping that which doesn't work for me. I prefer the Wendler approach due to individual biology: "You want science and studies? *kitten* you. I've got scars and blood and vomit."
Funny that for all of the people here who have seen success with 5/3/1, that point of his usually gets left out.
In all fairness, a lot of things "work" (like brosplits). But it doesn't mean other approaches won't provide greater results, in a faster timeframe, with less complication. Largely, things work because of power of the placebo. Later to find out the science doesn't support half the claims. Hell, look at how much BCAAs were pushed and now the science is coming out that they were not really beneficial.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
First, let me start by clarifying that the following statement is in no way intended to justify the use of an unproven supplement, even though thr stuff's pretty cheap, so who the hell cares?
You're going to run into a lot of resistance here when it comes to anything you may do that doesn't have a laundry list of studies backing it. Trust me, you're gonna see the word "broscience" a lot around here. You eventually just learn to ignore it. If I had a dollar for everytime some 120 lbs. smartass told me that guys like Lewis, Carter, Coan, and Efferding peddle "broscience that does nothing", I'd be rich as hell.
When it comes to strength and mass, I experiment for myself, taking wisdom that works from the strong and big, and dropping that which doesn't work for me. I prefer the Wendler approach due to individual biology: "You want science and studies? *kitten* you. I've got scars and blood and vomit."
Funny that for all of the people here who have seen success with 5/3/1, that point of his usually gets left out.
In all fairness, a lot of things "work" (like brosplits). But it doesn't mean other approaches won't provide greater results, in a faster timeframe, with less complication. Largely, things work because of power of the placebo. Later to find out the science doesn't support half the claims. Hell, look at how much BCAAs were pushed and now the science is coming out that they were not really beneficial.
That was my point regarding the supplement aspect. Yeah, there's a whooole lot of stuff out there that does precisely nothing.
My point overall was more geared toward the attitude in general. You'll still see people here, to this day, who will swear that high protein will make you *kitten* a kidney, red meat will give you cancer of the AiDS, etc., and all of them can link to a study that verifies the claims, even though the educated among us know that most of them are correlation garbage.
The only thing about it that really torques me is when people want to completely cast off any and everything that doesn't have a pubmed link, even if it's something that's been used successfully before. As I've pointed out to many people, if you look at the training and diet methods of the strongest guys who predated the steroid era, all of them had pretty much nothing in common, other than a buttload of protein, and lifting the heaviest things they could get their hands on. The Saxons were well known for putting poundages overhead that even today's guys on gear struggle with. However, I assure you, if I were to post up their diet and training and ask if I should do this, 90+% of the responses would be "lol, not unless on steroids or want to overtrain yourself into a grave". Why? Because an imaginary "average person" that all of these studies base around wouldn't be able to do it.
Essentially, if we refuse to experiment with ourselves individually to get better, why bother? Sure, some are going for "health" or whatever. I don't get that feeling from this guy. He definitely seems like he's striving to be better.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
First, let me start by clarifying that the following statement is in no way intended to justify the use of an unproven supplement, even though thr stuff's pretty cheap, so who the hell cares?
You're going to run into a lot of resistance here when it comes to anything you may do that doesn't have a laundry list of studies backing it. Trust me, you're gonna see the word "broscience" a lot around here. You eventually just learn to ignore it. If I had a dollar for everytime some 120 lbs. smartass told me that guys like Lewis, Carter, Coan, and Efferding peddle "broscience that does nothing", I'd be rich as hell.
When it comes to strength and mass, I experiment for myself, taking wisdom that works from the strong and big, and dropping that which doesn't work for me. I prefer the Wendler approach due to individual biology: "You want science and studies? *kitten* you. I've got scars and blood and vomit."
Funny that for all of the people here who have seen success with 5/3/1, that point of his usually gets left out.
In all fairness, a lot of things "work" (like brosplits). But it doesn't mean other approaches won't provide greater results, in a faster timeframe, with less complication. Largely, things work because of power of the placebo. Later to find out the science doesn't support half the claims. Hell, look at how much BCAAs were pushed and now the science is coming out that they were not really beneficial.
That was my point regarding the supplement aspect. Yeah, there's a whooole lot of stuff out there that does precisely nothing.
My point overall was more geared toward the attitude in general. You'll still see people here, to this day, who will swear that high protein will make you *kitten* a kidney, red meat will give you cancer of the AiDS, etc., and all of them can link to a study that verifies the claims, even though the educated among us know that most of them are correlation garbage.
The only thing about it that really torques me is when people want to completely cast off any and everything that doesn't have a pubmed link, even if it's something that's been used successfully before. As I've pointed out to many people, if you look at the training and diet methods of the strongest guys who predated the steroid era, all of them had pretty much nothing in common, other than a buttload of protein, and lifting the heaviest things they could get their hands on. The Saxons were well known for putting poundages overhead that even today's guys on gear struggle with. However, I assure you, if I were to post up their diet and training and ask if I should do this, 90+% of the responses would be "lol, not unless on steroids or want to overtrain yourself into a grave". Why? Because an imaginary "average person" that all of these studies base around wouldn't be able to do it.
Essentially, if we refuse to experiment with ourselves individually to get better, why bother? Sure, some are going for "health" or whatever. I don't get that feeling from this guy. He definitely seems like he's striving to be better.
I definitely agree with personal experimentation. Largely speaking, dietary compliance and consistency is the key to success; regardless if you are dieting, maintaining or bulking. Having said that, there are areas that have been heavily studied (e.g., protein), at various ranges, that do not show much benefit (in terms of additional muscle growth) outside of 2.2g/kg of weight. Can you or should you eat more, sure if it helps you feel satiated. Is it going to help you big more muscle... probably not, but that isn't a big deal.
My other concern would be training. To be consistent with your example, if you look at many of the found natty lifters and body builders, what do they share in common? Many of them followed a 3 day full body or split. And this holds to true to be largely beneficial since muscle protein synthesis occurs over a 36 to 48 period. So a bro split, would not be as effective, unless you are not natty and can increase the MPS window.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
First, let me start by clarifying that the following statement is in no way intended to justify the use of an unproven supplement, even though thr stuff's pretty cheap, so who the hell cares?
You're going to run into a lot of resistance here when it comes to anything you may do that doesn't have a laundry list of studies backing it. Trust me, you're gonna see the word "broscience" a lot around here. You eventually just learn to ignore it. If I had a dollar for everytime some 120 lbs. smartass told me that guys like Lewis, Carter, Coan, and Efferding peddle "broscience that does nothing", I'd be rich as hell.
When it comes to strength and mass, I experiment for myself, taking wisdom that works from the strong and big, and dropping that which doesn't work for me. I prefer the Wendler approach due to individual biology: "You want science and studies? *kitten* you. I've got scars and blood and vomit."
Funny that for all of the people here who have seen success with 5/3/1, that point of his usually gets left out.
In all fairness, a lot of things "work" (like brosplits). But it doesn't mean other approaches won't provide greater results, in a faster timeframe, with less complication. Largely, things work because of power of the placebo. Later to find out the science doesn't support half the claims. Hell, look at how much BCAAs were pushed and now the science is coming out that they were not really beneficial.
That was my point regarding the supplement aspect. Yeah, there's a whooole lot of stuff out there that does precisely nothing.
My point overall was more geared toward the attitude in general. You'll still see people here, to this day, who will swear that high protein will make you *kitten* a kidney, red meat will give you cancer of the AiDS, etc., and all of them can link to a study that verifies the claims, even though the educated among us know that most of them are correlation garbage.
The only thing about it that really torques me is when people want to completely cast off any and everything that doesn't have a pubmed link, even if it's something that's been used successfully before. As I've pointed out to many people, if you look at the training and diet methods of the strongest guys who predated the steroid era, all of them had pretty much nothing in common, other than a buttload of protein, and lifting the heaviest things they could get their hands on. The Saxons were well known for putting poundages overhead that even today's guys on gear struggle with. However, I assure you, if I were to post up their diet and training and ask if I should do this, 90+% of the responses would be "lol, not unless on steroids or want to overtrain yourself into a grave". Why? Because an imaginary "average person" that all of these studies base around wouldn't be able to do it.
Essentially, if we refuse to experiment with ourselves individually to get better, why bother? Sure, some are going for "health" or whatever. I don't get that feeling from this guy. He definitely seems like he's striving to be better.
I definitely agree with personal experimentation. Largely speaking, dietary compliance and consistency is the key to success; regardless if you are dieting, maintaining or bulking. Having said that, there are areas that have been heavily studied (e.g., protein), at various ranges, that do not show much benefit (in terms of additional muscle growth) outside of 2.2g/kg of weight. Can you or should you eat more, sure if it helps you feel satiated. Is it going to help you big more muscle... probably not, but that isn't a big deal.
My other concern would be training. To be consistent with your example, if you look at many of the found natty lifters and body builders, what do they share in common? Many of them followed a 3 day full body or split. And this holds to true to be largely beneficial since muscle protein synthesis occurs over a 36 to 48 period. So a bro split, would not be as effective, unless you are not natty and can increase the MPS window.
Absolutely. I keep protein as high as I do because I can stuff an obscene amount of it in my face and have less issues with caloric overages (the TEF factor), and because the cost isn't really an issue for me.
As for the training: I tend to focus more on strength than hypertrophy, so that may be where the disconnect occurs. Again, referencing the old school strongmen: most of them would likely be asked "do you even lift bro?", or whatever by today's size obsessed legions, yet they still put up weights that can barely be matched today by people on gear. We lost something somewhere, and while I'm not 100% positive on what that something is, part of me feels like it's work ethic, and the iron resolve to get better, no matter the cost.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains0 -
jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
I assume you mean ounces of meat right? Because a literal ounce of protein per lbs. of bodyweight would be like 22,000 kcals per day, just from protein, for a 200 lbs. dude.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
I assume you mean ounces of meat right? Because a literal ounce of protein per lbs. of bodyweight would be like 22,000 kcals per day, just from protein, for a 200 lbs. dude.
My bad, its 1.85 grams of protein per pound of body weight.0 -
jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
Everybody on the internet knows Olympia competitors and their diets apparently.2 -
jwknight67 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
I assume you mean ounces of meat right? Because a literal ounce of protein per lbs. of bodyweight would be like 22,000 kcals per day, just from protein, for a 200 lbs. dude.
My bad, its 1.85 grams of protein per pound of body weight.
Are these competitors natty or do they supplement?2 -
jwknight67 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
I assume you mean ounces of meat right? Because a literal ounce of protein per lbs. of bodyweight would be like 22,000 kcals per day, just from protein, for a 200 lbs. dude.
My bad, its 1.85 grams of protein per pound of body weight.
Ah, okay. Yeah I actually go higher than that for reasons I listed earlier in the thread. No mass building benefit to the 3x LBM I sometimes eat, but I just love the hell out of protein rich foods, can afford the habit, and the slightly higher thermo effect is nice.0 -
jwknight67 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
I assume you mean ounces of meat right? Because a literal ounce of protein per lbs. of bodyweight would be like 22,000 kcals per day, just from protein, for a 200 lbs. dude.
My bad, its 1.85 grams of protein per pound of body weight.
Are these competitors natty or do they supplement?
-Natty
-Olympia competitor
Pick one4 -
trigden1991 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
I assume you mean ounces of meat right? Because a literal ounce of protein per lbs. of bodyweight would be like 22,000 kcals per day, just from protein, for a 200 lbs. dude.
My bad, its 1.85 grams of protein per pound of body weight.
Are these competitors natty or do they supplement?
-Natty
-Olympia competitor
Pick one
^ Good point. Ain't no Olympia competitor who's natty.
If you're going to take their advice for training and nutrition, you better also ask them what their "supplement" stack is.1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
I assume you mean ounces of meat right? Because a literal ounce of protein per lbs. of bodyweight would be like 22,000 kcals per day, just from protein, for a 200 lbs. dude.
My bad, its 1.85 grams of protein per pound of body weight.
Are these competitors natty or do they supplement?
-Natty
-Olympia competitor
Pick one
^ Good point. Ain't no Olympia competitor who's natty.
If you're going to take their advice for training and nutrition, you better also ask them what their "supplement" stack is.
Kind of the point. Following "successful" people by mimicing their training methods and diet but not their "supplementation" would yield inadequate results. Drugs change equations. If you aren't on enhancers, eating crap tons of protein and following a bro-split is going to be disappointing. From Dr. Layne Norton (an actual scientist and natty powerlifter/bodybuilder).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQEXQFrBUy0 2 -
jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
my studies and research come from medical and scientific peer reviewed studies. as for being condescending you are right now the pot calling the kettle black.2 -
As others have said, you don't need to take BCAAs so long as you're getting adequate aminos in the rest of your diet.
and even then i wouldn't recommend that specific brand. marketed for "women"? check. Pink swirly lettering? check. Selling for literally double the price of brands like optimum nutrition? Sounds about right.
1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
I assume you mean ounces of meat right? Because a literal ounce of protein per lbs. of bodyweight would be like 22,000 kcals per day, just from protein, for a 200 lbs. dude.
My bad, its 1.85 grams of protein per pound of body weight.
Are these competitors natty or do they supplement?
-Natty
-Olympia competitor
Pick one
^ Good point. Ain't no Olympia competitor who's natty.
If you're going to take their advice for training and nutrition, you better also ask them what their "supplement" stack is.
Kind of the point. Following "successful" people by mimicing their training methods and diet but not their "supplementation" would yield inadequate results. Drugs change equations. If you aren't on enhancers, eating crap tons of protein and following a bro-split is going to be disappointing. From Dr. Layne Norton (an actual scientist and natty powerlifter/bodybuilder).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQEXQFrBUy0
Very true, but most people here seem to automatically assume that everyone is "natty", and that such a title even has a universally accepted definition. It's almost as bad as "clean eating".
I've seen definitions ranging all the way from never even having used caffeine (it's a PED, whether we like it or not), to has used gear before, but has been off for years, and everything in between. We've also seen plenty of instances of people whose hormones are so screwed that they need gear to even reach "normal" levels, and other people who naturally produce absurd levels of T, and have amazing insulin sensitivity.
So, where's the line, and how is said line even helpful? Don't get it twisted. I'm not talking about the dudes who are 275+ and 5% bodyfat, but with the absurd range of PHs out there (some do things, some don't), who sets the line? WADA? The guys who bought the scary hype about DMAA and banned it?0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
I assume you mean ounces of meat right? Because a literal ounce of protein per lbs. of bodyweight would be like 22,000 kcals per day, just from protein, for a 200 lbs. dude.
My bad, its 1.85 grams of protein per pound of body weight.
Are these competitors natty or do they supplement?
-Natty
-Olympia competitor
Pick one
^ Good point. Ain't no Olympia competitor who's natty.
If you're going to take their advice for training and nutrition, you better also ask them what their "supplement" stack is.
Kind of the point. Following "successful" people by mimicing their training methods and diet but not their "supplementation" would yield inadequate results. Drugs change equations. If you aren't on enhancers, eating crap tons of protein and following a bro-split is going to be disappointing. From Dr. Layne Norton (an actual scientist and natty powerlifter/bodybuilder).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQEXQFrBUy0
Very true, but most people here seem to automatically assume that everyone is "natty", and that such a title even has a universally accepted definition. It's almost as bad as "clean eating".
I've seen definitions ranging all the way from never even having used caffeine (it's a PED, whether we like it or not), to has used gear before, but has been off for years, and everything in between. We've also seen plenty of instances of people whose hormones are so screwed that they need gear to even reach "normal" levels, and other people who naturally produce absurd levels of T, and have amazing insulin sensitivity.
So, where's the line, and how is said line even helpful? Don't get it twisted. I'm not talking about the dudes who are 275+ and 5% bodyfat, but with the absurd range of PHs out there (some do things, some don't), who sets the line? WADA? The guys who bought the scary hype about DMAA and banned it?
for men? i get it, totally....but for women?
Maybe i'm just bitter, but it makes me insanely mad to see women who clearly took prohormones to acheive their physique passing themselves off as "totally just a normal fit chick guys, lol you just don't train hard enough" or "Skinny bunny tea and sweet sweat gave me my physique".
For men? Yes, the lines are blurred. some men have higher levels of test naturally, that's an unfair advantage. As you said there's people who have in the past taken gear, there's dudes with *kitten* up levels of estrogen that need test just to be normal and not have *kitten* tits. I totally get this.
I would say when you're physique is beyond your genetic potential as a result of taking these substances this is when it gets out of control. Especially if you are trying to lie about it and/or use your awesome physique to be a scumbag theif.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
I assume you mean ounces of meat right? Because a literal ounce of protein per lbs. of bodyweight would be like 22,000 kcals per day, just from protein, for a 200 lbs. dude.
My bad, its 1.85 grams of protein per pound of body weight.
Are these competitors natty or do they supplement?
-Natty
-Olympia competitor
Pick one
^ Good point. Ain't no Olympia competitor who's natty.
If you're going to take their advice for training and nutrition, you better also ask them what their "supplement" stack is.
Kind of the point. Following "successful" people by mimicing their training methods and diet but not their "supplementation" would yield inadequate results. Drugs change equations. If you aren't on enhancers, eating crap tons of protein and following a bro-split is going to be disappointing. From Dr. Layne Norton (an actual scientist and natty powerlifter/bodybuilder).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQEXQFrBUy0
Very true, but most people here seem to automatically assume that everyone is "natty", and that such a title even has a universally accepted definition. It's almost as bad as "clean eating".
I've seen definitions ranging all the way from never even having used caffeine (it's a PED, whether we like it or not), to has used gear before, but has been off for years, and everything in between. We've also seen plenty of instances of people whose hormones are so screwed that they need gear to even reach "normal" levels, and other people who naturally produce absurd levels of T, and have amazing insulin sensitivity.
So, where's the line, and how is said line even helpful? Don't get it twisted. I'm not talking about the dudes who are 275+ and 5% bodyfat, but with the absurd range of PHs out there (some do things, some don't), who sets the line? WADA? The guys who bought the scary hype about DMAA and banned it?
for men? i get it, totally....but for women?
Maybe i'm just bitter, but it makes me insanely mad to see women who clearly took prohormones to acheive their physique passing themselves off as "totally just a normal fit chick guys, lol you just don't train hard enough" or "Skinny bunny tea and sweet sweat gave me my physique".
For men? Yes, the lines are blurred. some men have higher levels of test naturally, that's an unfair advantage. As you said there's people who have in the past taken gear, there's dudes with *kitten* up levels of estrogen that need test just to be normal and not have *kitten* tits. I totally get this.
I would say when you're physique is beyond your genetic potential as a result of taking these substances this is when it gets out of control. Especially if you are trying to lie about it and/or use your awesome physique to be a scumbag theif.
The only problem with this is that genetic potential is impossible to quantify with anything even remotely resembling accuracy. I know a guy that I've been acquainted with since middle school. He started lifting at 13, and by the time he was 19, had already exceeded his supposed genetic potential.
This kid's family was more poor than mine, and he lived on a poverty diet beyond belief until he finally found a decent job in 2006. He couldn't even afford chicken breast or protein powder regularly, so I assure you, gear was out of the question. However, he kept making slow gains well into his 20s, at which point he very clearly got on the bike. However, that doesn't change the fact that he had blown his "potential" out of the water years earlier, but kept growing on the food that bleeding hearts swear just makes poor people fat.
Anyway, got off on a bit of a tangent, but I think you see my point. People thought he was on, years before he actually was.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
I assume you mean ounces of meat right? Because a literal ounce of protein per lbs. of bodyweight would be like 22,000 kcals per day, just from protein, for a 200 lbs. dude.
My bad, its 1.85 grams of protein per pound of body weight.
Are these competitors natty or do they supplement?
-Natty
-Olympia competitor
Pick one
^ Good point. Ain't no Olympia competitor who's natty.
If you're going to take their advice for training and nutrition, you better also ask them what their "supplement" stack is.
Kind of the point. Following "successful" people by mimicing their training methods and diet but not their "supplementation" would yield inadequate results. Drugs change equations. If you aren't on enhancers, eating crap tons of protein and following a bro-split is going to be disappointing. From Dr. Layne Norton (an actual scientist and natty powerlifter/bodybuilder).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQEXQFrBUy0
Very true, but most people here seem to automatically assume that everyone is "natty", and that such a title even has a universally accepted definition. It's almost as bad as "clean eating".
I've seen definitions ranging all the way from never even having used caffeine (it's a PED, whether we like it or not), to has used gear before, but has been off for years, and everything in between. We've also seen plenty of instances of people whose hormones are so screwed that they need gear to even reach "normal" levels, and other people who naturally produce absurd levels of T, and have amazing insulin sensitivity.
So, where's the line, and how is said line even helpful? Don't get it twisted. I'm not talking about the dudes who are 275+ and 5% bodyfat, but with the absurd range of PHs out there (some do things, some don't), who sets the line? WADA? The guys who bought the scary hype about DMAA and banned it?
for men? i get it, totally....but for women?
Maybe i'm just bitter, but it makes me insanely mad to see women who clearly took prohormones to acheive their physique passing themselves off as "totally just a normal fit chick guys, lol you just don't train hard enough" or "Skinny bunny tea and sweet sweat gave me my physique".
For men? Yes, the lines are blurred. some men have higher levels of test naturally, that's an unfair advantage. As you said there's people who have in the past taken gear, there's dudes with *kitten* up levels of estrogen that need test just to be normal and not have *kitten* tits. I totally get this.
I would say when you're physique is beyond your genetic potential as a result of taking these substances this is when it gets out of control. Especially if you are trying to lie about it and/or use your awesome physique to be a scumbag theif.
The only problem with this is that genetic potential is impossible to quantify with anything even remotely resembling accuracy. I know a guy that I've been acquainted with since middle school. He started lifting at 13, and by the time he was 19, had already exceeded his supposed genetic potential.
This kid's family was more poor than mine, and he lived on a poverty diet beyond belief until he finally found a decent job in 2006. He couldn't even afford chicken breast or protein powder regularly, so I assure you, gear was out of the question. However, he kept making slow gains well into his 20s, at which point he very clearly got on the bike. However, that doesn't change the fact that he had blown his "potential" out of the water years earlier, but kept growing on the food that bleeding hearts swear just makes poor people fat.
Anyway, got off on a bit of a tangent, but I think you see my point. People thought he was on, years before he actually was.
Genetic outliers are a pretty poor n=1 when discussing advice for the general population though. Special snowflakes exist, but they're not near as common as people think. At the other end of the bell curve you also have non-responders who are seemingly unable to put on muscle no matter what they do.
But at least your example shows that it is possible to get big and strong without eating "clean" or taking tons of supplements. Which has often been said here by the non-bros who understand that you don't have to subsist on skinless chicken breasts, brown rice and broccoli 24/7.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
I assume you mean ounces of meat right? Because a literal ounce of protein per lbs. of bodyweight would be like 22,000 kcals per day, just from protein, for a 200 lbs. dude.
My bad, its 1.85 grams of protein per pound of body weight.
Are these competitors natty or do they supplement?
-Natty
-Olympia competitor
Pick one
^ Good point. Ain't no Olympia competitor who's natty.
If you're going to take their advice for training and nutrition, you better also ask them what their "supplement" stack is.
Kind of the point. Following "successful" people by mimicing their training methods and diet but not their "supplementation" would yield inadequate results. Drugs change equations. If you aren't on enhancers, eating crap tons of protein and following a bro-split is going to be disappointing. From Dr. Layne Norton (an actual scientist and natty powerlifter/bodybuilder).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQEXQFrBUy0
Very true, but most people here seem to automatically assume that everyone is "natty", and that such a title even has a universally accepted definition. It's almost as bad as "clean eating".
I've seen definitions ranging all the way from never even having used caffeine (it's a PED, whether we like it or not), to has used gear before, but has been off for years, and everything in between. We've also seen plenty of instances of people whose hormones are so screwed that they need gear to even reach "normal" levels, and other people who naturally produce absurd levels of T, and have amazing insulin sensitivity.
So, where's the line, and how is said line even helpful? Don't get it twisted. I'm not talking about the dudes who are 275+ and 5% bodyfat, but with the absurd range of PHs out there (some do things, some don't), who sets the line? WADA? The guys who bought the scary hype about DMAA and banned it?
for men? i get it, totally....but for women?
Maybe i'm just bitter, but it makes me insanely mad to see women who clearly took prohormones to acheive their physique passing themselves off as "totally just a normal fit chick guys, lol you just don't train hard enough" or "Skinny bunny tea and sweet sweat gave me my physique".
For men? Yes, the lines are blurred. some men have higher levels of test naturally, that's an unfair advantage. As you said there's people who have in the past taken gear, there's dudes with *kitten* up levels of estrogen that need test just to be normal and not have *kitten* tits. I totally get this.
I would say when you're physique is beyond your genetic potential as a result of taking these substances this is when it gets out of control. Especially if you are trying to lie about it and/or use your awesome physique to be a scumbag theif.
The only problem with this is that genetic potential is impossible to quantify with anything even remotely resembling accuracy. I know a guy that I've been acquainted with since middle school. He started lifting at 13, and by the time he was 19, had already exceeded his supposed genetic potential.
This kid's family was more poor than mine, and he lived on a poverty diet beyond belief until he finally found a decent job in 2006. He couldn't even afford chicken breast or protein powder regularly, so I assure you, gear was out of the question. However, he kept making slow gains well into his 20s, at which point he very clearly got on the bike. However, that doesn't change the fact that he had blown his "potential" out of the water years earlier, but kept growing on the food that bleeding hearts swear just makes poor people fat.
Anyway, got off on a bit of a tangent, but I think you see my point. People thought he was on, years before he actually was.
Genetic outliers are a pretty poor n=1 when discussing advice for the general population though. Special snowflakes exist, but they're not near as common as people think. At the other end of the bell curve you also have non-responders who are seemingly unable to put on muscle no matter what they do.
Very true, but pretending like said far outliers (and even those marginally on either side of the curve) don't exist is just as bad. Let me posit a bit of a what-if: let's say that MFP had've existed at the time, and that guy I know came here seeking advice. Nearly everything he'd have gotten here would have been completely wrong, because it's based in the average. So, instead of "buying the hype" from the lifting mags at the time and pushing the living hell out of himself, while shoving every calorie of godawful trans fat laden garbage he could afford into himself (remember, poor AF, and calories are needed for growth), he'd have ended up eating half as much because "lean bulk", and kept his intensity and volume lower because "overtraining", and he'd have likely accomplished half of what he did.
I'm in no way saying that science based on averages is invalid, but perhaps we should accept that some of the people who pop up here might just be one of those outliers, and stop pretending that everyone is "average".
I am not exactly sure what caused biological individuality to be completely cast off, but that's where all of the "rules" tend to come from. Using an example that someone else mentioned: what about the guy who has terrible E:T ratios? Technically, he'd never be able to accomplish *kitten* while "natty", yet few of us would demonize him for trying to level the playing field a bit. Why is it fine for him, yet as soon as someone tries to exceed "average", it's suddenly bad? There are natural outliers who get better results from iron and food than "average" people can get with gear.
That's my only real point here. We're pretending that anything that isn't "normal" is drug induced. Unless it's on the crap side of normal, then it's "wow, that sucks, but yeah, happens all the time".
ETA: none of this really answera my original question. How do we even define "natural", given the absurd number of definitions? And no "we all know what it means" isn't an answer, as that's the same silliness that "clean" food advocates put forth.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
I assume you mean ounces of meat right? Because a literal ounce of protein per lbs. of bodyweight would be like 22,000 kcals per day, just from protein, for a 200 lbs. dude.
My bad, its 1.85 grams of protein per pound of body weight.
Are these competitors natty or do they supplement?
-Natty
-Olympia competitor
Pick one
^ Good point. Ain't no Olympia competitor who's natty.
If you're going to take their advice for training and nutrition, you better also ask them what their "supplement" stack is.
Kind of the point. Following "successful" people by mimicing their training methods and diet but not their "supplementation" would yield inadequate results. Drugs change equations. If you aren't on enhancers, eating crap tons of protein and following a bro-split is going to be disappointing. From Dr. Layne Norton (an actual scientist and natty powerlifter/bodybuilder).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQEXQFrBUy0
I never said Im not using supplements.0 -
jwknight67 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »jwknight67 wrote: »
So that means all Naturopaths are bad or unreliable? Thats like saying there is one way to train, or one way to eat for mass. You sound so condescending its making me laugh.CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »yeah some woman went to her naturopath who said she had a parasite. it wasnt a parasite thats for sure and what her naturopath told her could have harmed her in more ways than one.
laugh if it makes you feel better. doesnt bother me at all,but someone telling you to take a supplement that has NOT been proven to work to prevent liver issues,because of taking in too much protein which would be counterproductive and other issues? its like an orthopedic surgeon telling you to take coconut oil and to rub it on a broken bone to heal it. and nope,no condescension here,
Well, I am working with a coach who has been very successful in my region prepping people for competition. Im working on adding mass. In case you were not aware, to get big you have to eat big. I also, had some in depth discussion with nutrition experts who I had meetings with during the Olympia last September.
I guess my coach and other experts are wrong, and maybe I should hire you to coach me.
to get big you need calories sure,nutrition experts? were they dietitians? were they licensed to practice? but more protein doesnt mean bigger muscles either,bodybuilders usually use 1g of proten per lb of body weight.some may use a little more but if you are using more than that its not needed. not to mention a progressive overload is needed to build muscle as well as a surplus of calories.an overdose of protein is not needed.
The Bodybuilders I know including some who compete in the Olympia use a protein ration of 1.85 OZ per pound of body weight. I dont care about your studies, I am going with what actually works. 1 oz per pound of body weight is not going to produce any significant gains
I assume you mean ounces of meat right? Because a literal ounce of protein per lbs. of bodyweight would be like 22,000 kcals per day, just from protein, for a 200 lbs. dude.
My bad, its 1.85 grams of protein per pound of body weight.
Are these competitors natty or do they supplement?
-Natty
-Olympia competitor
Pick one
^ Good point. Ain't no Olympia competitor who's natty.
If you're going to take their advice for training and nutrition, you better also ask them what their "supplement" stack is.
Kind of the point. Following "successful" people by mimicing their training methods and diet but not their "supplementation" would yield inadequate results. Drugs change equations. If you aren't on enhancers, eating crap tons of protein and following a bro-split is going to be disappointing. From Dr. Layne Norton (an actual scientist and natty powerlifter/bodybuilder).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQEXQFrBUy0
I never said Im not using supplements.
And my point is further proven.
When we give unsolicited advice, it can often be wrong, because we don't have all of the needed information.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions