OMP33 Member

Its not debunked if there's still research and studies behind it.

You know that the WHO has placed meat in the same Cancer causing category as tobacco right?

It's a video proving that Layne Norton is a load of nothing. Yeah, he has a PhD, but he also receives funds from the dairy, meat, and egg industry to make claims that meat isn't bad for you.

Every study saying that meat is not bad for you is probably written by someone who eats meat. So there's propaganda right there!

Layne is a goof. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEkCK28Wwcw

Quick and easy carb source! Not much else cheaper when I am a college student.

It doesn't matter. It was a study that was conducted and the conclusions came out to say that dietary cholesterol affects blood cholesterol. Humans have not evolved in the past 20 years so the study remains the same as if it were conducted today.

I have provided clear research with almost everything I say. I'm not trolling, but I will agree to say that each is own. I'm trying to help people see another point of view and to challenge the norm. Some things people put in their body is ridiculous and I want them to know that.

Please don't assume I'm not an athlete, it's embarrassing for you. I am an athlete who competes in local bike races. I'm not a pro, but to say I'm not an athlete is absurd.

"CONCLUSIONS: In typical diets replacing 60% of saturated fats by other fats and avoiding 60% of dietary cholesterol would reduce blood total cholesterol..." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/

You use energy from fat when endurance training while interval training depletes glycogen storages from carbs.

So you're saying dietary cholesterol doesn't raise or lower cholesterol levels..? Wow.

If I eat under it yet still can train very hard and long, then why should I up my intake?

Layne Norton is a goof, definitely not a good source of info.

Meat is out of question. I'd rather not play russian roulette with my food, too many risks of getting cancer, high cholesterol, and heart disease.

I have proper nutrition for the kind of lifestyle I live. I need carbs for the energy during my intense workouts, I need moderate protein to recover, and I don't have a need for fat because I do not train for endurance, I interval train.

It honestly depends on the person as to how much protein they need. Protein is subjective.

What works for me might not work for you. What works for you might not work for me, so I'm not wrong, it's just that I'm the minority.

I'm no pro, but I do local races in-state and in neighboring states occasionally.

So he won cause he was doping.

So in theory he won because he was doping.

He was doping. Geez, you'll argue on anything. We first stated that pro cyclists don't want a big upper body, and that's true. Just drop it.

No, he won because he was doping. Not because he was strong and muscular.

Lance Armstrong also used EPO, enhanced his testosterone, used Cortisone, and used Human growth hormones. He's not the most natural cyclist, he's admitted to doping. Here's Chris Froome, pro cyclist who's apart of team sky who just won his second tour de france in 2015…

Why should I be getting that extra 30g of protein? What will it be doing for me in the long-run?

Did you see the word "about"

And that's about what I get. I get around 50-60g a day.

As we had no mention of "lower body" muscle, I don't know where you got that from. We were talking about upper-body.

I'm not sure, ask yourself that question.

That's silly.