low carb dieting to cut
Replies
-
"The Special Snowflake Fallacy:
A specific type of fallacious argument in which a bodybuilder argues that scientific research does not apply to them because said research is done on "normal" people, the implication being that bodybuilders are special snowflakes whose basic physiology differs from everyone else's."
^ Taken from Ian McCarthy's No Bull**** Bodybuilding FB page.
I don't get why people like Ian McCarthy, he's basically the Eric Kanevsky of nutrition. He looks like sh** compared to the people he's bashing, but because he read a few books people are all over his nuts.
And the point that Pulcinella made in the video was that the studies done on "normal" people have room for error in a lot of cases. And weight training changes a lot of things in your body. So there is a difference between a few people supposedly eating at certain times, that don't know how to train properly, and a bodybuilder who has his diet/training dialed in.
The bottom line is, low carb dieting works, carb cycling works. Otherwise the top names in the business wouldn't be doing it. I'm gonna listen to people like Keifer, and Shelby Starnes before I listen to some youtube sensation or a guy on a forum...
... Are you just trolling? You do realze that the "top names in the business" usually have no ****ing clue what the're doing regarding nutirition. You are exactly what I hate about people. Despite overwhelming amounts of reason and evidence, you refuse to change yur mind because the bottom line is "low carb dieting works, carb cycling works." An unwillingness to change has always been a trait I do not envy any human to posses... You could just keep believing it's true because it's true because it's true. Afterall, Phil Heath does it so it must be awesome, bro.
if the individual is getting desired results from low carbing, carb cycling, back-loading or what ever. who are you to tell them that they are doing it the wrong way? Should they change their views in which they most likely have the experience testing these philosophies, for the sake of change? or to just to massage your ego?0 -
theryan244, according to his profile, is a 6'4" bean pole. He's also 21, meaning he hasn't seen or done **** in life besides go to school. Obviously, he can read books, and picks and chooses bro-science above all else.
All of your "research" is based on poor control groups that don't fairly represent the bodybuilding or athletic community as a whole.
The fact you believe hormones play no role in body composition or performance shows you lack ALL knowledge of the endocrine system...
Also, I don't care what you read. Real world results always out weight whatever some "scientist" says. Here is an example.
On paper, according to physics and aeronautical science, the Chinook cannot fly. It is impossible. Yet, the Army flies the hell out of those things in real life.
Perhaps the reason you find it so hard to spread truth is your inability to grasp the concept that you are wrong and those who's theories you subscribe to have little real world merit.0 -
theryan244, according to his profile, is a 6'4" bean pole. He's also 21, meaning he hasn't seen or done **** in life besides go to school. Obviously, he can read books, and picks and chooses bro-science above all else.
All of your "research" is based on poor control groups that don't fairly represent the bodybuilding or athletic community as a whole.
The fact you believe hormones play no role in body composition or performance shows you lack ALL knowledge of the endocrine system...
Also, I don't care what you read. Real world results always out weight whatever some "scientist" says. Here is an example.
On paper, according to physics and aeronautical science, the Chinook cannot fly. It is impossible. Yet, the Army flies the hell out of those things in real life.
Perhaps the reason you find it so hard to spread truth is your inability to grasp the concept that you are wrong and those who's theories you subscribe to have little real world merit.
this x 500 -
... Are you just trolling? You do realze that the "top names in the business" usually have no ****ing clue what the're doing regarding nutirition. You are exactly what I hate about people. Despite overwhelming amounts of reason and evidence, you refuse to change yur mind because the bottom line is "low carb dieting works, carb cycling works." An unwillingness to change has always been a trait I do not envy any human to posses... You could just keep believing it's true because it's true because it's true. Afterall, Phil Heath does it so it must be awesome, bro.
You're right. Shelby Starnes, a professional bodybuilder and nutritionist doesn't have a clue about nutrition. Clients just pay him hundreds of dollars to put them on carb cycling diets for ****s and giggles.
John Medows also doesn't know what he's talking about. And the countless elite level powerlifters who have cut weight and set world records with CBL also don't know what they're doing.
You, a 21 year old skinny kid who read a handful of books, clearly know more than guys who have spent 20 years in the strength community, and make a living out of helping people achieve their goals.............
seems legit
You can have all the theory in the world, and read all the books you want. But until you DO IT, no one gives a **** what you say on a message board.0 -
"The Special Snowflake Fallacy:
A specific type of fallacious argument in which a bodybuilder argues that scientific research does not apply to them because said research is done on "normal" people, the implication being that bodybuilders are special snowflakes whose basic physiology differs from everyone else's."
^ Taken from Ian McCarthy's No Bull**** Bodybuilding FB page.
I don't get why people like Ian McCarthy, he's basically the Eric Kanevsky of nutrition. He looks like sh** compared to the people he's bashing, but because he read a few books people are all over his nuts.
And the point that Pulcinella made in the video was that the studies done on "normal" people have room for error in a lot of cases. And weight training changes a lot of things in your body. So there is a difference between a few people supposedly eating at certain times, that don't know how to train properly, and a bodybuilder who has his diet/training dialed in.
The bottom line is, low carb dieting works, carb cycling works. Otherwise the top names in the business wouldn't be doing it. I'm gonna listen to people like Keifer, and Shelby Starnes before I listen to some youtube sensation or a guy on a forum...
... Are you just trolling? You do realze that the "top names in the business" usually have no ****ing clue what the're doing regarding nutirition. You are exactly what I hate about people. Despite overwhelming amounts of reason and evidence, you refuse to change yur mind because the bottom line is "low carb dieting works, carb cycling works." An unwillingness to change has always been a trait I do not envy any human to posses... You could just keep believing it's true because it's true because it's true. Afterall, Phil Heath does it so it must be awesome, bro.
if the individual is getting desired results from low carbing, carb cycling, back-loading or what ever. who are you to tell them that they are doing it the wrong way? Should they change their views in which they most likely have the experience testing these philosophies, for the sake of change? or to just to massage your ego?
When did I ever say low those obscure carb diets don't work? An enormous misconception people have is thinking I'm claiming these things won't get people results. They very well may, but this does not mean they are magical, necessary, safe or optimal. I can achieve the exact same results with less effort and stress if I eat 3 meals a day as opposed to eating every 2 hours.0 -
theryan244, according to his profile, is a 6'4" bean pole. He's also 21, meaning he hasn't seen or done **** in life besides go to school. Obviously, he can read books, and picks and chooses bro-science above all else.
All of your "research" is based on poor control groups that don't fairly represent the bodybuilding or athletic community as a whole.
The fact you believe hormones play no role in body composition or performance shows you lack ALL knowledge of the endocrine system...
Yeah man, you're 5 years older than me, you're so cool bro. It's pathetic when people use age as an insult or as a tool to build themselves up.
... Once again I don't have to say anything to expose ignorance. This is a lost cause. You're hopeless if you don't reconsider those statements. You of course don't have to though... I don't really care anymore.0 -
... Are you just trolling? You do realze that the "top names in the business" usually have no ****ing clue what the're doing regarding nutirition. You are exactly what I hate about people. Despite overwhelming amounts of reason and evidence, you refuse to change yur mind because the bottom line is "low carb dieting works, carb cycling works." An unwillingness to change has always been a trait I do not envy any human to posses... You could just keep believing it's true because it's true because it's true. Afterall, Phil Heath does it so it must be awesome, bro.
You're right. Shelby Starnes, a professional bodybuilder and nutritionist doesn't have a clue about nutrition. Clients just pay him hundreds of dollars to put them on carb cycling diets for ****s and giggles.
John Medows also doesn't know what he's talking about. And the countless elite level powerlifters who have cut weight and set world records with CBL also don't know what they're doing.
You, a 21 year old skinny kid who read a handful of books, clearly know more than guys who have spent 20 years in the strength community, and make a living out of helping people achieve their goals.............
seems legit
You can have all the theory in the world, and read all the books you want. But until you DO IT, no one gives a **** what you say on a message board.
Using that logic I would have to play professional football to tell you how to win a game or I would have to first jump off a 50 story building in order to know if I'm I am going to die or not. A basic understanding of gravity allows me to make a confident judgement before I jump. I can provide people with information because of my rudimentary understanding of human physiology, nutritional science, training, etc.0 -
theryan, u r right. but u r fighting a losing battle. u can only educate people who want to be educated.
... Are you just trolling? You do realze that the "top names in the business" usually have no ****ing clue what the're doing regarding nutirition. You are exactly what I hate about people. Despite overwhelming amounts of reason and evidence, you refuse to change yur mind because the bottom line is "low carb dieting works, carb cycling works." An unwillingness to change has always been a trait I do not envy any human to posses... You could just keep believing it's true because it's true because it's true. Afterall, Phil Heath does it so it must be awesome, bro.
You're right. Shelby Starnes, a professional bodybuilder and nutritionist doesn't have a clue about nutrition. Clients just pay him hundreds of dollars to put them on carb cycling diets for ****s and giggles.
John Medows also doesn't know what he's talking about. And the countless elite level powerlifters who have cut weight and set world records with CBL also don't know what they're doing.
You, a 21 year old skinny kid who read a handful of books, clearly know more than guys who have spent 20 years in the strength community, and make a living out of helping people achieve their goals.............
seems legit
You can have all the theory in the world, and read all the books you want. But until you DO IT, no one gives a **** what you say on a message board.
Using that logic I would have to play professional football to tell you how to win a game or I would have to first jump off a 50 story building in order to know if I'm I am going to die or not. A basic understanding of gravity allows me to make a confident judgement before I jump. I can provide people with information because of my rudimentary understanding of human physiology, nutritional science, training, etc.0 -
theryan, u r right. but u r fighting a losing battle. u can only educate people who want to be educated.
Why are you encouraging him? He's said nothing of merit. You yourself have only contributed to this conversation that a caloric excess will lead to weight gain...0 -
Yeah man, you're 5 years older than me, you're so cool bro. It's pathetic when people use age as an insult or as a tool to build themselves up.
... Once again I don't have to say anything to expose ignorance. This is a lost cause. You're hopeless if you don't reconsider those statements. You of course don't have to though... I don't really care anymore.
I'm not insulting you or building myself up by referring to your age, merely pointing out you have little to no experience in what you're talking about, whereas I have been practicing what I preach for a decade.
You statement that manipulating naturally occurring hormones through diet is of no use is completely false. Insulin is the most anabolic hormone in the body, therefore of paramount importance when striving to build muscle or strength.
Where do I get my info? I've read Weider's Ultimate Bodybuilding book. Being "in the game" for the larger part of a century Joe has far better information and is actually credible, unlike your McCarthy character who is a nobody with a facebook page with almost no followers and is constantly flamed for good reason. His own results are meager at best.
I've also read books on genetics related to bodybuilding, read Growth Principles. I train with a guy who's been bodybuilding for 20+ years and won the MR USA competition in the ANBC (a now defunct natural bodybuilding organization), and many more seasoned vets. I've gotten info from guys winning big shows and small shows alike.
You simply pull nonsense from the internet, have zero experience or success with your own advice and preach like an all knowing guru when the simple fact of the matter is you lack any credibility of your own and support you statements with quotes from suspect sources. You've yet to concretely refute anything I've said, nor suggest an alternative to what anyone has said, other than make blanket statements of "you're hopeless" and "McCarthy said". Come up with an idea, find an impressive real world example and then perhaps you may have a reasonable argument.0 -
Using that logic I would have to play professional football to tell you how to win a game or I would have to first jump off a 50 story building in order to know if I'm I am going to die or not. A basic understanding of gravity allows me to make a confident judgement before I jump. I can provide people with information because of my rudimentary understanding of human physiology, nutritional science, training, etc.
I get what you're saying. But do you really think you've read more in the past couple years than people who live and breathe the sport have read in the past 20?
Hormones make a huge difference. I've played around with meal timing and realized the impact it can make. And I've watched countless world record lifters cut weight optimally using carb cycling or carbohydrate backloading.
Yes, you can lose weight and get super lean without it. No one is arguing that point. For 99% of people in the gym, just counting macros will probably do enough for them. But some people want to optimize their results...0 -
Yeah man, you're 5 years older than me, you're so cool bro. It's pathetic when people use age as an insult or as a tool to build themselves up.
... Once again I don't have to say anything to expose ignorance. This is a lost cause. You're hopeless if you don't reconsider those statements. You of course don't have to though... I don't really care anymore.
I'm not insulting you or building myself up by referring to your age, merely pointing out you have little to no experience in what you're talking about, whereas I have been practicing what I preach for a decade.
You statement that manipulating naturally occurring hormones through diet is of no use is completely false. Insulin is the most anabolic hormone in the body, therefore of paramount importance when striving to build muscle or strength.
Where do I get my info? I've read Weider's Ultimate Bodybuilding book. Being "in the game" for the larger part of a century Joe has far better information and is actually credible, unlike your McCarthy character who is a nobody with a facebook page with almost no followers and is constantly flamed for good reason. His own results are meager at best.
I've also read books on genetics related to bodybuilding, read Growth Principles. I train with a guy who's been bodybuilding for 20+ years and won the MR USA competition in the ANBC (a now defunct natural bodybuilding organization), and many more seasoned vets. I've gotten info from guys winning big shows and small shows alike.
You simply pull nonsense from the internet, have zero experience or success with your own advice and preach like an all knowing guru when the simple fact of the matter is you lack any credibility of your own and support you statements with quotes from suspect sources. You've yet to concretely refute anything I've said, nor suggest an alternative to what anyone has said, other than make blanket statements of "you're hopeless" and "McCarthy said". Come up with an idea, find an impressive real world example and then perhaps you may have a reasonable argument.
If you truly think that mentally masturbating over minutia like carb spiking insulin, GH secretion in relation to diet , etc. will significantly impact your results when compared to someone who disregards endogenous hormones then you're mistaken. I see three different possibilities.
Number one, you're hopelessly mistaken and refuse to acknowledge new information because it conflicts with your beliefs. I think often times the impact of rejection gets downplayed but it's effects are very apparent overwhelming when you challenge or criticize someone's beliefs. This is a rejection of their thoughts and accordingly a rejection of them. This is largely irrelevant but I think it's useful to acknowledge the massive impact of rejection when considering why someone refuses to change their beliefs. Number two, you're ignorant, but like I mentioned before this is no excuse considering the vast amount of information available to the layman. Number three, the last possibility, I am wrong. If you disagree with me, not solely on this one issue of hormones but other issues as well, then you are also disagreeing with some of the most genuinely knowledgeable and intelligent men associated with nutritional and exercise science. If you disagree with me then you're disagreeing with the empirical, peer-reviewed, respectable research. If you disagree with me then you're disagreeing with basic principles of irrefutable processes like thermodynamics and homeostasis.
I pull bull**** from the internet and preach like an all knowing guru?... I make simple, truthful, evidence-supported assertions. You're making ridiculous claims about post workout carb insulin spiking with high GI carbs and some other unnecessary nonsense about GH secretion and carbs/sleep. These are the types claims that people like TMW popularized. They are a product of misinformation, ignorance, pseudoscience, supplement company corruption, and the internet. The bodybuilding community seems to be moving away from the out-dated, misinformed, extreme "broscientist" method of bodybuilding and more toward an intelligent, safe, scientific, critical, and moderate approach. Are you foolish enough to not at least consider the latter? I have found that most people are.
You guys can keep believing whatever you want to believe, I don't really know if I care anymore. I want truth to be accepted by everyone, even if it conflicts with what I think, but as of late I've been realizing the difficulty that arises with change will not allow it.
Lastly, stop with the personal attacks claiming I have no "real world" experience or success. You have not the slightest clue what I have accomplished, learned, and how much I've changed/grown since I started bodybuilding... So **** off, sir.0 -
Please, stop with the cultist belief in so-called scientists...their story changes every few years with "more data" and "new observations" They always begin their story-changing with the phrase "recent research suggests" or "recent studies show" and then will appear at midway "contrary to a previous study".
Please stop referring to research as a be-all. Real world results are what counts. Real world examples, not lab room experiments and classroom numbers.
As for your success and or results. Pics or it didn't happen.
The bodybuilding community is not moving anywhere in the diet field. Guys are upping their carbs and cardio during the early and mid stages of their prep, rather than just cut carbs...which they still do during the back leg of prep. That's been the only significant change in years.
Perhaps you're considering all the new "contrary" diet theory associated with mma, crossfit, p90x, physique classes, and other gimmickly-sold box programs and fitness plans. And for those people that may be just fine, but their goals are entirely different from than those of the bodybuilding community.0 -
Please, stop with the cultist belief in so-called scientists...their story changes every few years with "more data" and "new observations" They always begin their story-changing with the phrase "recent research suggests" or "recent studies show" and then will appear at midway "contrary to a previous study".
Please stop referring to research as a be-all. Real world results are what counts. Real world examples, not lab room experiments and classroom numbers.
As for your success and or results. Pics or it didn't happen.
The bodybuilding community is not moving anywhere in the diet field. Guys are upping their carbs and cardio during the early and mid stages of their prep, rather than just cut carbs...which they still do during the back leg of prep. That's been the only significant change in years.
Perhaps you're considering all the new "contrary" diet theory associated with mma, crossfit, p90x, physique classes, and other gimmickly-sold box programs and fitness plans. And for those people that may be just fine, but their goals are entirely different from than those of the bodybuilding community.
The hypocrisy shines yet again. I always find it humorous when people insult science via the internet. It's absolutely mind-blowing to me that one can even consider constructing an anti-science argument and still participate as an active member of society. Cognitivedissonance.jpeg.
Judging from my observations, the bodybuilding community is certainly in the infancy stages of transitioning from it's traditional out-dated origins.
Proving my personal success to you isn't of much importance to me and I don't really think you care that much anyway... With that being said, I absolutely can prove it if someone tells me I'm lying.0 -
The hypocrisy shines yet again. I always find it humorous when people insult science via the internet. It's absolutely mind-blowing to me that one can even consider constructing an anti-science argument and still participate as an active member of society. Cognitivedissonance.jpeg.
Judging from my observations, the bodybuilding community is certainly in the infancy stages of transitioning from it's traditional out-dated origins.
Erm, what hypocrisy?
And insulting science? No, I said stop with the cultist belief in it. The story of science has, and continues to change as I pointed out. The world was once flat remember? Ok that might be a tad over-doing it.
Do you know there exists literature by "scientists" and MD's stating that Androgenic Anabolic Steroids do not work and have no effect on performance in sports?
Did you know it's been suggested by "scientists" one cannot build muscle or strength due to marijuana use?
And where do you see bodybuilding "transitioning from it's traditional out-dated origins"? What the hell are you even talking about?0 -
The hypocrisy shines yet again. I always find it humorous when people insult science via the internet. It's absolutely mind-blowing to me that one can even consider constructing an anti-science argument and still participate as an active member of society. Cognitivedissonance.jpeg.
Judging from my observations, the bodybuilding community is certainly in the infancy stages of transitioning from it's traditional out-dated origins.
Erm, what hypocrisy?
And insulting science? No, I said stop with the cultist belief in it. The story of science has, and continues to change as I pointed out. The world was once flat remember? Ok that might be a tad over-doing it.
Do you know there exists literature by "scientists" and MD's stating that Androgenic Anabolic Steroids do not work and have no effect on performance in sports?
Did you know it's been suggested by "scientists" one cannot build muscle or strength due to marijuana use?
And where do you see bodybuilding "transitioning from it's traditional out-dated origins"? What the hell are you even talking about?
This is what you said...
"Please, stop with the cultist belief in so-called scientists...their story changes every few years with "more data" and "new observations" They always begin their story-changing with the phrase "recent research suggests" or "recent studies show" and then will appear at midway "contrary to a previous study"."
How can someone not deem this as an insult to science? How can you not recognize the hypocrisy? I literally spelled out how this is hypocritical. You clearly do not grasp the significant privilege science has granted you and I and the degree to which it impacts our world. If you want to trash science, then get the *kitten* off your laptop or smart phone.
Show me one, one lone piece of scientific literature that is respected in field and makes claims like: marijuana completely inhibits muscle growth. People who claim that science is bogus because it's always changing either have not looked at the relevant, peer-analyzed, concrete research or (it's likely both however) are... retarded and have not the slightest clue what they are talking about. The world was thought to be flat because of a lack of understanding of course. Now that we understand, are going to challenge me when I say that the Earth is round? Are going to challenge me when I say that gravity is a force that attracts physical objects to each other? Both gravity and the Earth's roundness can be scientifically observed and similarly so can phenomena pertaining to bodybuilding and exercise. We are more intelligent than ever before and our understanding, as relatively minute as it may seem, has far surpassed expectations. If scientists can calculate how much the entire universe weighs, observe objects in the past millions of light years away and determine with near certainty how everything came into existence, I feel pretty confident when the precise scientific literature demonstrates that how many meals I eat per day is not going to impact how I look. If I wish to turn to other methods of understanding, my options include the flawless and rational teachings of religious dogma, astrology, TMW, etc. (not srs.)
There are relevant pro and amateur bodybuilders in the middle of contest prep utilizing flexible dieting, doing less cardio, going out to eat, training more efficiently with push/pull/legs or upper/lower as opposed to "bro" splits, supplementing with products that are ACTUALLY effective, etc. There are people, primarily from what I've observed on the internet, taking legitimate and prominent actions toward a more knowledgeable, safe and efficient bodybuilding approach. Even some average lifters at my gym seem to be catching on with the movement.
Are we done here? Honestly, I'm not just saying this as a cop-out like how so many people do, but I have so many better things to do with my time. Like... we're going to ****ing die pretty soon. We have a moment and then it's gone... I could be making snowman or something.0 -
Hypocrisy:
1.
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2.
a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
I fail to see that on my part. Although you adamantly proclaim to be the second.
I fail to see how we are "more intelligent than ever before" with regards to bodybuilding. Certainly drug use has produced leaps and bounds of advancement...but we'll put the drugs aside. Consider the statue of David, Hercules, or any of the several hundred paintings/statues from ancient Greece and Rome depicting well built athletes toting ripped abs, striated shoulders etc. More recently, consider the likes of Sandow, Reg Park, Bill Pearl, Jack Lalanne or Steve Reeves. All tremendously built without this concrete science so you avidly admire.
The original topic of this thread was about carb manipulation. A technique which has been empirically proved effective for decades.
Your blanket statement that natural athletes do not need to acknowledge endogenous hormones has also been empirically proved wrong.
I want to say it was a UCLA study which the authors included a short section discussing the reasons people like you in the scientific community come to the conclusion certain practices are irrelevant or useless. It's the fact that often times the results achieved by manipulating insulin or growth hormone (for example) through diet yield a 1-5% (I believe that was the range used) advantage over those who do not. Often the scientific conclusion is that such a small advantage or difference is in real world application negligible. However what these same scientist fail to recognize is that in fact, in many sports or competitions the margin of victory is often very very small, something all athletes know. Any single percent advantage is still an advantage, and therefore carries merit, again as empirical evidence has shown.0 -
Hypocrisy:
1.
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2.
a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
I fail to see that on my part. Although you adamantly proclaim to be the second.
I fail to see how we are "more intelligent than ever before" with regards to bodybuilding. Certainly drug use has produced leaps and bounds of advancement...but we'll put the drugs aside. Consider the statue of David, Hercules, or any of the several hundred paintings/statues from ancient Greece and Rome depicting well built athletes toting ripped abs, striated shoulders etc. More recently, consider the likes of Sandow, Reg Park, Bill Pearl, Jack Lalanne or Steve Reeves. All tremendously built without this concrete science so you avidly admire.
The original topic of this thread was about carb manipulation. A technique which has been empirically proved effective for decades.
Your blanket statement that natural athletes do not need to acknowledge endogenous hormones has also been empirically proved wrong.
I want to say it was a UCLA study which the authors included a short section discussing the reasons people like you in the scientific community come to the conclusion certain practices are irrelevant or useless. It's the fact that often times the results achieved by manipulating insulin or growth hormone (for example) through diet yield a 1-5% (I believe that was the range used) advantage over those who do not. Often the scientific conclusion is that such a small advantage or difference is in real world application negligible. However what these same scientist fail to recognize is that in fact, in many sports or competitions the margin of victory is often very very small, something all athletes know. Any single percent advantage is still an advantage, and therefore carries merit, again as empirical evidence has shown.
I swear you're trolling or something. Did you really just compare bodybuilding to ancient sculptures? How is this relevant in any sense? All this demonstrates is that people a few hundred year ago were really good at making sexy looking statues. This does absolutely nothing in terms of moving your argument forward. And you don't need to be extensively knowledgeable to obtain a great physique. I never claimed this and don't know why you felt it necessary to name a bunch of old-school bodybuilders. Yeah, they don't need to be scientifically educated to look good. Similarly they don't need your bull**** carb insulin spiking, high GI, GH manipulation nonsense. If you don't think we're more intelligent than ever before, then like I mentioned initially, you are hopeless. You're fixed on a set of beliefs and refuse to accept any slight deviation. The majority of people I've encountered operate under this principle and it's useless for this conversation to continue. If you do not acknowledge that we are more advanced, intelligent, and knowledgeable than ever before regarding exercise science, nutritional science, training, supplementation, etc. then this conversation is over.
So now you're cherry picking? You bash science and it's apparent bogus research but this one study that supports what you claim is on limits? Show me the study. Explain the method by which they were able to calculate such a range (1-5%). How come this study doesn't apply to your "science is always changing and therefore can't be trusted" belief?0 -
You're reading skills a brilliantly lacking.
I did not indicate any specific study saying manipulating specifically GH or Insulin yielded a 1-5% increase.
What i said was there was a SECTION in a report done at UCLA (which was probably on steroids) where the authors discussed how many scientific findings/conclusions often dismiss slight or small (in their opinion) increases in performance as negligible or insignificant. The point being (since you're thick headed and dead set on being contrary) that such practices do in fact work, are measurable, and have empirically been shown to work, despite researchers concluding the real-world application to be not worthwhile or effective.
As for the statue thing, again over your head...let me simplify. Thousands of years ago what happened inside the body was not understood as it is supposedly understood today. Yet, the makers of these statues obviously had a model with which to base their art on. Nobody just decided to carve a well formed physique without actually seeing one in the flesh. Point being, with zero knowledge (according to you since science didn't exist back then as it does today) men were able to build impressive physiques without the use of fancy scientific plans of action with diet or exercise programs, but merely with BASIC food and exercise practices. (Here's a cliff version in normal people talk: Guys were getting jacked 2000 years ago without understanding all the crap that you fancy as overwhelmingly necessary).
Also, I never claimed science was bogus. I merely suggested it often is contradictory of itself and the general consensus on which side is right changes. I suggested you give up the cultist belief of it and actually question what you read. You made statements that hold up in a lab but fail to explain the real-world success on the contrary to your conclusions. Simply put, I suggested taking what you read with a grain of salt rather than hold to your absolutist beliefs in a non-absolute world.0 -
I think this pissing contest has gone on long enough. Agree to disagree and keep following what ever philosophies you want.0
-
You're reading skills a brilliantly lacking.
I did not indicate any specific study saying manipulating specifically GH or Insulin yielded a 1-5% increase.
What i said was there was a SECTION in a report done at UCLA (which was probably on steroids) where the authors discussed how many scientific findings/conclusions often dismiss slight or small (in their opinion) increases in performance as negligible or insignificant. The point being (since you're thick headed and dead set on being contrary) that such practices do in fact work, are measurable, and have empirically been shown to work, despite researchers concluding the real-world application to be not worthwhile or effective.
As for the statue thing, again over your head...let me simplify. Thousands of years ago what happened inside the body was not understood as it is supposedly understood today. Yet, the makers of these statues obviously had a model with which to base their art on. Nobody just decided to carve a well formed physique without actually seeing one in the flesh. Point being, with zero knowledge (according to you since science didn't exist back then as it does today) men were able to build impressive physiques without the use of fancy scientific plans of action with diet or exercise programs, but merely with BASIC food and exercise practices. (Here's a cliff version in normal people talk: Guys were getting jacked 2000 years ago without understanding all the crap that you fancy as overwhelmingly necessary).
Also, I never claimed science was bogus. I merely suggested it often is contradictory of itself and the general consensus on which side is right changes. I suggested you give up the cultist belief of it and actually question what you read. You made statements that hold up in a lab but fail to explain the real-world success on the contrary to your conclusions. Simply put, I suggested taking what you read with a grain of salt rather than hold to your absolutist beliefs in a non-absolute world.
When the **** did I ever say that understanding the science behind bodybuilding was "overwhelmingly necessary?" I never once insinuated this just like how I never suggested that these "bro-science" methods like eating every two hours won't give you results. You can do your carb backloading, insulin spiking, low GI carb, etc. nonsense and still get desired results. Similarly, I can be an ignorant mother ****er who knows nothing about the science behind bodybuilding and still get results. What I insist you should understand is when we seek knowledge to better ourselves, we have to look toward science to prove a claim's truthfulness. If something is true of this reality, it should be scientifically testable, provable and quantifiable to the senses since our senses are what construct this reality (seemingly). If there is no evidence to support a claim then you are believing something to be true because you think it is true. There is no room for such nonsense in a modern conversation regarding... anything. If there is anecdotal "evidence" perpetuated largely by ignorant, close-minded bros that contradicts what the concrete, respectable research demonstrates, that refutes universal laws of energy transfer, and disregard the understandings of some of the most brilliant men on Earth, then I think it is fair to say that such claims should not be tolerated, or at least should not be distributed as truth claims. Little understanding is required to build an impressive physique. But if one does wish to expand the scope of their knowledge, although I don't think we can perceive absolute objective truth, I think one deserves to be granted with information that is as close to the truth as humanly possible, and science utilizes the most accurate and credible approach to obtaining truth. Like I previously mentioned, if we don't take a scientific approach to proving claims, then we are reduced to the daftness of superstition, religion, anecdote etc. for answers.
I do not embrace a cultist belief in science. Do not suggest to me that I should question what I read and hear as if I am some mindless zombie, acknowledging only what aligns with what I already believe. You are not in a position to make assumptions and accusations about how I view the world, although I can understand how you've come to such conclusions when considering the conversation exchange to this point. If you did understand me, you would know that I once endorsed an approach similar to what you seemingly affiliate with. You would also know that I don't believe anything can be claimed with absolute certainty, I largely remain agnostic on most issues and I think that very few things are more important than the question of "why."
Ok. I'm done. This is no longer enjoyable for me, just a nuisance. You're likely not going to reconsider and neither am I, which I hate but it appears to be the only likely possibility in this circumstance. Maybe I'm as hypocritical as I claim you are, I really don't ****ing know. I find the relationship between people's beliefs and what is true to be particularly strange.0
