1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Weight loss advice (Plateau)

Discussion in 'Health and Fitness' started by dWreck, Jan 18, 2013.

  1. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Sort of, it is provable that reducing caloric intake and increasing physical activity will reduce weight

    Question here is more about maximizing an approach
     
    DePhinistr8 likes this.
  2. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,954
    10,268
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    I agree. It's Superman im disagreeing with.

    Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2
     
  3. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Right. But there's a reason for that and it's not optimal health. In fact, the military usually produces interesting material on fitness stuff. They can push limits and boundaries that researches can't/won't. I read an awesome article about muscle loss from the military not too long ago. Should help influence further research.

    As far as everybody reacts differently... To a degree yes. Not the extreme you're thinking of.
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html
     
  4. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Fair enough. That said, allow me to clarify the issue at hand. The articles that you've read about fasted cardio being better for fat loss? They're wrong. Articles you've read that suggest meal frequency matter? They're wrong. I'm sure there's a bunch of **** you've heard that's wrong. Which is I posted in this thread. OP had a problem, he needed help, I've laid out what needs to be done to fix the problem. Along the way, I also want to correct the obvious (to me it's obvious, I'm someone who spends way too much time caring about this ****, on an internet forum no less) untruths that were being posted.

    If there's anything I've posted you disagree with, OK. You can disagree all you want to. But let me be super(man) clear. What I'm posting is fact, based on proven results, backed by scientific peer reviewed research. There is no flip side to that. If something can be proven, it's not an opinion. We're not talking Bowe vs. Jennings vs. Wallace here.
     
  5. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Of course, the gentleman does not know me, or that I've done this since 1990 or so, an amorphous link on in the internet trumps my own personal knowledge..

    Uhm, yeah.

    Been around long enough to recall when the same NIH was touting low fat/high carb diets as the most effective, only to watch that shift to the sort of high protein low carb intake scale of things, wait long enough and the rabbit will circle around again back where it was when it started.

    Point being this, nothing trumps personal knowledge of one's own body and how it reacts to what amounts to purposely induced stress on it.

    Do agree with:

    -Don't be a slave to the scale, it is merely a tool for learning how one's body reacts..over time, it shows a trend.

    -Your 8 hr window, this is from personal experience

    Where I think conventional advice falls down a bit:

    -Think more fiber is needed in diets, especially in the form of nuts
    -Think some react better to a higher carb to protein ratio than others do
    -A calorie may be a calorie, think eating late at night is a mistake, one eats for energy, there is little need to eat before going to sleep
    -Also think people do not work out enough, the human body is capable of amazing things but few push to do them
     
  6. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    That guy happens to be Lyle McDonald, a nutritional expert. Considered one of the three smartest men out there on the subject, by nutritionalists, bodybuilders, and the fitness community as a whole. He does know more than you. Anecdotal evidence is invalid. You have no idea what to look for, pay attention to, rigorous methodology, etc... to be able to justify any conclusion of "I know myself better than science knows me." You don't. Really, it's the ego talking to suggest otherwise.

    And what you're saying about cycles is true... Someone writes a book, dumbasses will read it, and then tout it as the right way, and there will be a shift in how we as a society look at nutrition.

    However, in reality, the right way has never shifted or cycled. It's always been truth. Dr. Atkins, Gary Taubes, etc... are fads. They're not legitimate members of the nutritional research community. Their opinions may matter to the less educated, but not to anyone who follows closely. And in this world, there is no cycle. Certainly research evolves, different methodology is used, but there are no drastic changes. Small details at most. Nothing substantial. No game changers. We're bound by the laws of physics. If anyone has an issue with that, take it with the imaginary man in the sky. See if he listens.

    I've always said, if it works for you, do it. If you don't want to eat carbs, don't eat them. If you want to eat 6 times a day, OK. Have at it. But when someone passes it off as a factual, when (legitimate)research has dictated otherwise, it should be called out.
     
  7. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    My 8 hour window was just an example. It is personal preference 100%. It doesn't matter when you eat during the day or how many meals. I'm not trying to say it's better or more efficient, it's not proven to be at all (not yet, we'll see what UCLA's research looks like soon enough).

    The late night eating is also bull****. Energy balance equation (AKA physics). Your body is in a constant state of flux of storing and burning fat. Eating at a specific time is irrelevant. Energy will be stored and used as needed. If it all adds up over a surplus, you'll store more fat for that period based on caloric consumption. If it's a deficit, you'll burn more fat for that period of caloric consumption.
     
  8. DePhinistr8

    DePhinistr8 Season Ticket Holder

    3,125
    2,247
    113
    Mar 24, 2008
    I'm not trying to pass of anything as the 'end-all-be-all' fact, I'm just supplying information that has worked for me and dozens of people whom I've helped along the way; which may or may yield the same results for everyone. If it helps, great, if not, at least we'll know that's not to proper course. YMMV
     
  9. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Disagree, simply b/c consuming food, any food, will spike your blood sugar to some degree, to eat then go to bed would then mean you've spiked your blood sugar only to sleep on it.
     
  10. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    So? Does that undo the energy output you've contributed prior? No. eating (at night or any other time) will simple be an issue of calories consumed. If eating that late night snack pushes you over a deficit and into a surplus, the yeah. It was a mistake.
    http://www.leangains.com/2011/06/is-late-night-eating-better-for-fat.html

    Chalk full of studies with Martin's discussion and commentary. I'll provide sooo much more at your request, if interested.
     
  11. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Well gosh Mr Kent, if your blood sugar is spiked, and you go to sleep on it, what happens to that additional energy you just poured into your system?

    Let me guess, just dream about cross country training?

    Put it this way, what does that blood sugar become if it is not immediately used?
     
  12. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Gosh Senior Padre, I guess the same things all calories (derived from macros) become. Fat and/or Glycogen (both are sources of stored energy). Oh but wait, our bodies are in a CONSTANT STATE OF STORING AND BURNING ENERGY AT ANY GIVEN TIME.

    You eat. Macros are broken down. Fats becoming fatty acid. Protein becomes ammino acid. Carbs become glucose. They're partitioned to where they're needed. Any extra's get stored as fat (AKA Energy stores) or glycogen (also stored energy). If your body requires additional energy beyond your basal metabolic rate (which it will, unless you're in a coma), that energy is pulled from fat or glycogen. Daily needs, it comes from fat. Hard workouts (cardio or weightlifting) comes from glycogen. If you've eaten too few calories over a period of time, more fat will be burned than stored and you'll get skinnier. Too many calories eaten over a period of time, and more fat is stored than burned and you'll get fatter. The cycle continues.

    TA DA!
     
  13. dWreck

    dWreck formerly dcaf

    5,200
    2,975
    113
    Oct 23, 2011
    Sebring, FL
    mommy, daddy, don't fight.

    i'll just eat lots of cookies D:
     
    SICK, Clark Kent and DePhinistr8 like this.
  14. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Dibs on being daddy in this scenerio!
     
  15. dWreck

    dWreck formerly dcaf

    5,200
    2,975
    113
    Oct 23, 2011
    Sebring, FL
    in all fairness, i'm obviously not sure where i stand on this, everything i've read and seen and heard about so far backs up what pads and a few others are saying. But on the flip side i've strained away from dieting a tiny bit and have just been eating regular food (moderately) and it looks like my plateau is starting to break. i will see at the end of the week with my weigh in and know for sure, although i will admit regardless i wasn't too happy with myself, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
     
  16. DePhinistr8

    DePhinistr8 Season Ticket Holder

    3,125
    2,247
    113
    Mar 24, 2008
    I think pads and clark are both right, despite being on different sides of the argument. I believe what works for people is something they can stick with. For me, frequent, small meals work great because I'm less likely to chow down on a bunch of crap in one sitting. For others, eating only 2 or 3 times can work just fine. It's about finding what works for you.
    For every link Clark posted, you can find a link that draws different conclusions, all of which are backed up by solid science. 1000's have been successful doing exactly what are in Clark's examples, and 1000's have been successful doing what Pads and a few others have cited.

    Experiment with it. Find your nutritional sweet spot (and heck, this moves depending on your body composition). Eat clean and work hard, there's no substitute for that.
     
    Clark Kent likes this.
  17. Fin-Omenal

    Fin-Omenal Initiated

    36,954
    10,268
    0
    Mar 25, 2008
    Thee...Ohio State University
    Its an inexact science, because its a case by case scenario.



    Sent from my MB855 using Tapatalk 2
     
    DePhinistr8 likes this.
  18. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Yes. This is more important than anything. If you can stick to whatever it is you're doing, you're ahead of the curve. The only caveat the pops up in my mind is VLC (very low calorie diets). People often get a rush when they start dieting and push themselves too far. They never know it until the breaking point. As long as you're in a deficit, fat loss will happen, sos whatever it is you're doing, do it. Just understand why.

    Yes, the "theory" of physics.
     
    DePhinistr8 likes this.
  19. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Give yourself at least two weeks off a diet. This is the minimum amount of time necessary for a diet break. Usually 6-8 weeks is the sweet spot for dieting. Followed by a 2 week break, eating at maintenance. You'll be good to go.
     
  20. DePhinistr8

    DePhinistr8 Season Ticket Holder

    3,125
    2,247
    113
    Mar 24, 2008
    I'm with you on that one..I see people frequently saying "I lost weight going to 800 calories a day!"...well duh, they're starving themselves....and creating a dangerous slowdown with their metabolism.
    People get so results oriented that they fail to realize it's a lifestyle change that takes time.
     
    Clark Kent likes this.
  21. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Physics and Biology? Interesting

    Anyhow, VLC's are more a matter of personal choice, I do tend to agree they are virtually impossible to stick to and can eventually lead to health issues.

    To me, the only time they are to be used is after a couple of days of heavy eating, and even then I'd probably do a day, maybe two days of VLC

    The only athletes I know of who use them are Body Builders right before a contest..well that and a boat load of masking agents..:lol:
     
  22. SICK

    SICK Lounge Moderator

    72,739
    35,437
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Charlotte NC
    wrestlers, boxers and mma fighters do as well to make weight. Other than that, bad choice of diet.
     
  23. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Sick how's your diet going?
     
    SICK likes this.
  24. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 Well-Known Member

    13,100
    6,464
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    I'm not sure if you were trying to prove a point, and you didn't mean it literally but...

    I'm just curious what research revealed that...as an example... eating 2 thousand calories and 160 gs of protein in 2 sittings, or even as you eluded, 1 sitting, COULD be as effective as 4 meals at 500 calories split with 40 gs of protein per meal? Your research leads you to believe that bottom line calories and nutrients in a day provides the same results regardless of how they are distributed?

    And your point can get confusing where saying a pizza and apple can have the same benefit on the person consuming. There will never come a time when 2 or 3 slices of pizza yields the same results in the body as 6 oz of chicken breast and a yam. There is food, and then there is food that "works."
     
  25. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Yes, it doesn't matter if you eat 160g of protein in one sitting or four. Your body will synthesize the protein just the same. There is no biological reason to eat multiple meals a day. It's a social construct. In fact, from an evolutionary perspective, eating once a day is more along the lines of how we evolved in the first place as a species.

    You're free to personalize your eating habits anyway you chose. In terms of body composition, the results will be the same one way or the other. Go with what feels right for you. If eating 6 meals a day sounds awesome, go for it. Just understand, it's not what's causing you to lose weight and your metabolism isn't being "stoked" like a fire. That's simply not how our biology works.



    OK, you're now confusing me. What is the difference between food and food that "works?" What is the difference between protein from a slice of pizza and protein from chicken breast? The carbs from a yam and the carbs from a piece of pizza will both turn to glucose. One will turn faster, sure. That might have a different effect energy wise (rapid energy vs. sustained) But at the end of the day, what's the difference when you add them up? The answer is nothing. They're not different. Their volume is different though. Obviously a piece of CB yields far more protein than a slice of pizza. Certainly our two meals will have different p/c volume, ratios, micro nutrient counts, but at the end of the day, neither food is making you lose or gain weight. Carbs, proteins, fats... There molecules. All the same, really.

    OP made the point he's stopped eating certain things because they were bad. There is no bad food in the right context. In your example, If I haven't eaten enough protein for the day and have limited calories to spare, eating that pizza is stupid because it won't allow for me to meet my protein count. In this context, chicken breast will yield better results.

    If I've eaten chicken breast all day, and have limited amount of calories to spare, will the pizza hurt me? Will eating pizza to get to my caloric goal cause me to lose less body fat? No. In fact, neither will cookies, brownies, etc...

    You don't need to eat just chicken breast, tuna, beef, veggies, fruits, etc... to make a diet work. A surplus of calories from chicken breast and yams will cause you to gain fat and a deficit of calories from pizza will cause you to lose fat. It comes to down to calories at the end of the day. Certainly it can be a good idea to make lean meats, veggies, fruits, etc... inclusive of your diet (to get sufficient macros and micros), but food is food. Protein is protein. Carbs are carbs (complex or simple). Fats are fats. Just molecules.

    Two quick examples.

    1. Arnold Schwarzenegger - During his training for Mr. Universe (the cutting phase), he would regularly eat apple pie and ice cream every night, much to the shock of his competitors who told him he was ruining his diet and his chances to win. Arnold knew then what we know now. Calories in and Calories out. It made no difference if Arnold got his carbs and fats from from pie and ice cream or veggies and fruits as long as the calories were tracked and he met his caloric goals. Arnold won.

    Now, maybe you're thinking... OK, Arnold is a genetic monster. I'm not him... Fair enough.

    http://broscience.com/broscience-co...91-calories-calories-dr-layne-norton-phd.html check out this article by bodybuilder and nutritional PHD Layne Norton. It's relevant to my next example.

    2. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html This nutrition professor decided to make the bulk of his cutting diet from sugary snacks, twinkies, pies, ho-hos, ring dings, etc... He lost 27 lbs and improved his body fat % and health makers dramatically (he was obese at the beginning of his diet). Now, to be 100% clear... I'm not suggesting this was optimal, nor do I recommend this type of diet. It's deficient in protein and micros and there are better ways to do it. I'm just showing you this to make a point about calories dictating weight loss.

    Flexibility in your diet is OK. That's my only point.
     
  26. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 Well-Known Member

    13,100
    6,464
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    There are studies and notes from Lyle McDonald himself that the body can only process so much protein at a given time, as well as carbs, fats... The general understanding from studies is that our max protein consumption for a 2-3 hour period is 30-60 gs. Consuming 160 Gs of protein in one sitting will be wasted and expelled, not synthesized.

    And foods that work simply refers to nutrition and diet...and mostly body building. The optimal foods to consume to achieve your goals. The right amount of carbs and protein and fats in a serving. But I think were fine on this point. I don't think you would eat 7 slices of pizza, to get the protein and fat content of 7 oz of Salmon. And I think you realize that with cholesterol and caloric intake, the two are very different, despite bottom line macro #s.

    Also, a lot of the info Arnold put out there is/was bogus and hearsay. Of course to get a competitive advantage. If you think Phil Heath and Kai Greene are going to win a Sandow eating Apple Pie regularly 4 weeks out....
     
  27. SICK

    SICK Lounge Moderator

    72,739
    35,437
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Charlotte NC
    Good man, trying hard to find protein every day. I have leg day today (going to substitute leg press for squats due to my knee issues, and Ill be doing some roman dead lifts.) Had 3 eggs for breakfast with yogurt and string cheese, snacking on beef jerky today, and will have tuna melt for lunch. Going to get some chicken breast and cottage cheese for dinner.

    PROTEIN PROTEIN PROTEIN
     
    Clark Kent likes this.
  28. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Arnold discussed this long after his competition days were over (He was governor at the time). And he trained along side other competitors who saw him do it. And I'm sure the BB's don't eat apple pie that close the end. Simply because calories are cut to bare minimum and satiety on such a low calorie diet takes precedence. Either way, I think we're getting off point. The example was to illustrate flexibility in ones food choices will lead to the same results assuming macros and calories are met ateotd.

    [​IMG]

    As far as protein consumption is concerned, I think you have Lyle mistaken. His position is pretty clear. This is from his protein book.

     
  29. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 Well-Known Member

    13,100
    6,464
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    Oddly, Mentzer took a swing at Arnold when he saw him at the 80' Olympia, for calling him "fat and out of shape."

    Not to get evolutionary or political, but our ancestors are not a valid comparison. Its a theory that could sell, but their construct was not that of today's human. And like most wild animals, they ate and gorged when they were fortunate enough to catch food. How we all evolve personally, and today, to gorge a couple times a week like our animal ancestors is crazy. And I can see buying into a theory saying, "we evolved from this, so we should be able to handle high loads of macros." But like many theories, this one is not for me. I prefer to model my successful contemporaries, rather than theories that no one of significance has proved worthy or groundbreaking.

    Lyle also says:
    Now I agree that there is no staple # in dieting, and we're all different. The 30gs of protein blanket recommendation is nuts, and I don't think its even a discussion anymore. Of course my skinny teenage nephew's ideal protein consumption is not equal to mine, and mine is not equal to Jay Cutler's(not the *****y QB, the other Jay Cutler). And most supplement companies are ran by modern day snake oil salesman. The industry is extremely dishonest. But our needs are ever changing.

    A lot of what I'm seeing is theory still. And I won't poo-poo it if that's what works for you. When I was forced to have just a couple large meals a day, back in college when I was lazy and broke..it did nothing for my health and physique. Now, eating 6+ times a day, I have a lot more energy and a lot less fat. Part of it is food quality. Part of it is my eating habit though. But I will never buy into the theory
    that 2500 calories and 200 grams of protein can be synthesized in 1 meal, in the same manner as spreading it out over 5 meals. Thats downright dangerous. We are not those primal cro-magnons anymore. We are different animals today.

    I can see where if you are eating near optimal, but deficient in carbs for the day, eating the pizza or ice cream is going to help fill the quota. But this completely neglects things like cholesterol, processed sugars and other garbage, and the bad fats. And too much of that on a regular basis is no good.

    And back to Mentzer, I take everything i hear from a bodybuilder with a grain of salt. Especially Mentzer who had a monster ego and was a bit nuts. Most motivation behind bodybuilder's advice is to either psych out their competition, misinform potential competition, or add to their aging aura(ego). "Yeah, I was 270lbs with 3% body fat and ate a gallon of ice cream and pizza whenever I wanted."

    If it works for you, great. We all have our training styles, that others will bad mouth or say is inferior. We have our dieting theories, tips, and tricks. You've read a lot, done a lot of homework. That is good. I may use some of this after I review more of it. But never think something is the end all.
     
  30. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Not neccessarily SDaddy, the thing with protein is most forms are slowly digested and requires a lot of liquid for the digestion process.

    You can consumer you 60 grams of protein and it will take more time to process, this is one of the reasons why I favor Fiber+Protein.
     
  31. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 Well-Known Member

    13,100
    6,464
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    Plenty of proteins digest quickly. Especially in this Whey and Hydo-Whey age. Maybe not a porterhouse...That said, I'm not sure what you disagreed with?
     
  32. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Oh not at all, just pointing out that proteins can take a lot of time to work through the body.

    No big deal to that, just the 60 gram limit is not what one may think it is.
     
  33. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 Well-Known Member

    13,100
    6,464
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    You have a point. That argument is meant more for the fast absorption post workout protein shake market.

    That said, a 16oz steak with 100+ Gs of protein will not be fully absorbed if eaten in one shot. Then it's more about indulgence.
     
    Fin-Omenal likes this.
  34. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    That 16 oz will be absorbed. if its not, the calories don't count. PFC and alcohol are the only things containing calories. Therefore, the indulgence wouldn't matter anyway in your example. You over estimate how quickly gastric emptying can be with whole food protein, especially with carbs and fats in the mix. Fats are the only macro that isn't absorbed fully. 5% of all fat you eat passes through. Negligible amounts of carbs and proteins with it. If you eat 6 meals a day you're consuming more protein when your body hasn't even processed the protein you've already consumed. its an invalid argument anyway you slice it.

    And I think you should research sugar and dietary cholesterol some more. You gave big misconceptions of both. Namely, neither is unhealthy to eat. In fact dietary cholesterol is important for testosterone in that it synthesizes it. Body cholesterol is the real fear. Despite the similar names, they're different things. Losing fat is the solution to BC. Which is why high fat low carb diets still reduce body cholesterol despite high dietary cholesterol.

    Oh and Sodium is perfectly fine too. Mo real correlation with blood pressure.

    As for your other post, ill just leave it be. There clearly is no more reason to discuss it. Nothing I say, studies, links will change your mind. Annecdotal experience not scrutinized by proper authortizes is not good enough for me. it shouldn't be good enough for anyone else. Its flawed beyond merit in every way. It reminds me of Richard Dawkins trying to convince a church full of people about evolution. Believe whatever wish. Good luck.
     
    Sethdaddy8 likes this.
  35. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Well CKent, this is one of the reasons why I prefer mixing fiber in with nutrition

    As one says, there is partial absorption, fiber allows the still in process of digestion stuff of dubious value to be removed.
     
  36. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 Well-Known Member

    13,100
    6,464
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    I wasn't talking about dextrose so much as corn syrup. And yes there's good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. There's not just one positive only side to any of these.
     
  37. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15164336

    Not going to quote this next article. Read the whole thing. You'll enjoy it, I believe.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/the-cholesterol-myth-that_b_676817.html


    http://smartass-guide-to-fitness.blogspot.com/2009/11/lyle-mcdonald-on-dietary-cholesterol.html


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20047139

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20047139

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20086073
     
  38. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 Well-Known Member

    13,100
    6,464
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    Was that a Layne Norton video I saw? The guy on twitter who argued with DORIAN YATES, how his training methods don't work? Thats self trained, self coached, self fed, 6 time Mr. Olympia Dorian Yates.
     
  39. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    I dunno. Which post (if you even are) are you referencing?

    But yeah, Layne was discussing a about study about HIT vs. training volume I believe. Yates said it's flawed. Layne asked if there's anything specific that DY thought was flawed. Yates, like a child (he's a real **** anyway) responds by saying he's a 6x Mr. O. Strong logic is strong.

    [​IMG]

    Layne > Yates in this debate. I'm not sure you'll find anyone credible in the BB community who would support Yates on the argument he was making. Especially when he chooses to make claims with nothing to support it. But yeah, go broscience!
     
  40. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Nope, individual experience trumps mass studies C Kent.

    IMO, study 100 Laynes with the same parameters vs "50 yr old male, 23 yr old female, 35 yr old" etc etc

    This is but one of the reasons why such studies fall short, it is not comparing highly tuned athlete vs highly tuned athlete it is comparing 100 people who signed up for the study.
     

Share This Page