<div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ May 16 2007,13:04)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What`s even funnier is that you quote me, you state I`m right, and you`re pushing rat based ideas. And no, I`m not of the bunch of bros who think that science is useless without pics or any such nonsense, because if you look at the available science you`ll really get the idea about what should and shouldn`t be done. And there`s not magic to low-carbs, high-fat diets. It used to be in the 80s, but I hope we`ve gotten smarter now. So to sum things up, I really don`t agree with you, actually, I think that some of the stuff you`ve claimed is dead wrong.</div>
Rat-based ideas, eh? this is the first I've ever heard the low carb/high protein/heavy lifting-based cutting approach referred to as such. You're right. I totally misinterpreted your post.
But please don't twist my words around. I'm not saying science is useless. I'm one of the few people I've seen on this site who actually discussed my quantifiable results in the scientific spirit that so many around here hold so dear.
On my last cut, I knew exactly how many pounds of muscle I lost; I knew exactly how many pounds of bodyfat I lost; I kept track of every protein/fat/carb gram I placed in my mouth.
In addition, I tracked my progress with bf/lbm comp tests every 60 days. Therefore, when I post my workout plan and results, they have more validity than someone just saying, "you're wrong", or "such-and-such" approach would work better", or, "I was able to cut eating lots of carbs and doing no cardio."
Really? Great! I'm in complete support of other methods besides mine, but aside from these very general statements that I see posted repeatedly in defiance of what I'm espousing, where are the numbers/analyses/pics from the naysayers to back it up?
As far as pics being nonsense, I say
that's nonsense! What better way to tell the visual story of bodybuilding progress than via pictorial means? This is, of course, assuming that the pics are undoctored, which is not an issue here.
So, if you want to tell me I'm wrong, fine. I've been wrong before...many times...but in order for me to respect your opinion, I'd need to see hard data showing me you did it a different way, and did it more effectively.
Sci wrote:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Nobody ever said that what you are doing is invalid, slaps. What you are doing works. the part I didn't like was when you said...."you MUST eat less than a 100 g of carbs/day and you MUST do cardio."
Now that method is very valid, but is not a MUST. Calories in/calories out....100 ways to skin a cat and your method is only one of them.</div>
I'll concede that point, Sci. If I remember the start of the thread correctly, someone was asking for cutting advice, which I posted in the most general sense. The word "must" should not have been used with respect the 100 grams of carbs, but I still stand by its use with respect to cardio.
That said, I am, indeed, being told by quite a few that the method I'm speaking of is, in fact, invalid. This is where I take offense, because I've proved that it is, in fact, valid, by my very own results.
Now, excuse me while I go eat my sugar free pudding cup (only 6 grams of carbs!)