Question about meal times

Discussion in 'Diet & Nutrition' started by s2b33, Jan 14, 2007.

  1. stevejones

    stevejones Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">never said you had to follow science, but to decry it because you cannot decipher things from it is a bit rich</div>

    I never advocated using anecdotal evidence to the exclusion of science, and I believe that science does have it's place; but you continue to say that anecdotal evidence is worthless. I and others are living proof that you are incorrect.  

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Anecdotes are worthless because they are associated with a large amount of bias.</div>

    So are scientific studies which are inundated with ad hoc hypothesis and trial and control groups full of subjects who are not bodybuilders.  


    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If I get an anecdote from BigbodybuilderA that he gained 20lbs from upping his protein to 3g./lb, what caused this effect?</div>

    Which is why you never take anything at face value, but investigate.  As aforementioned, it's easier to investigate anecdotal evidence than it is to analyze scientific studies, many of which don't provide much information on the groups they study.


    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But then on that tangent, Who is the best bodybuilder in the world?

    Doe he train HST?</div>

    Who is the best exercise scientist in the world ?

    Does he recommend HST ?


    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Both sports have something else in common, rampant use of drugs... hmmm I wonder where the application of massive protein intakes fits with that?  Oh and in terms of PL, you would be surprised how low protein some of the strongest men in the world eat... but drugs work well.</div>

    High protein is rampant in both natural and unnatural bodybuilding.  You might be surprised at the incredibly high level of protein used by powerlifters, particularly those who are not trying to stay in their weight classes, although the ratio of powerlifters consuming low levels of protein to powerlifters consuming high levels might be lower than bodybuilding due to the fact that muscle size is not important to them, as they train strictly for strength.  Many who are dieting and on low protein are trying to stay in their weight classes.  


    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">of course, which is where the biases come into it, just as the people who are eating multiple times per day look at the bbrs doing it and conclude this is part of the reasons bbrs look like they do.</div>  

    You should always base your conclusions on what you see in the mirror after doing it.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Two things can be correlative, but does not mean that is the cause of it.</div>

    So, if I follow a scientific study and achieve success, it's not necessarily due to science.  It might just be coincidental.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Of course, which leads to fantastic Bro-logic that abounds on Bbing.com and similar websites.  It also leads to fantastic quantities of money being spent on pointless supplements, but thats anotehr industry.</div>

    Hmmm...interesting that you equate &quot;bro-logic&quot; to spending money in the supplement industry.  Seems to me that most of those useless ads for cell tech and other 'scientifically approved' powders always point to the superior science they used to develop this &quot;awesome revolutionary powder that is the new legal steroid.&quot;  The reason I never use any of those supplements is that I used &quot;bro-logic&quot; to ascertain that they were worthless.
     
  2. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    <div>
    (stevejones @ Jan. 26 2007,12:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I never advocated using anecdotal evidence to the exclusion of science, and I believe that science does have it's place; but you continue to say that anecdotal evidence is worthless. I and others are living proof that you are incorrect.  </div>

    Anecdotes are worthless.  

    Someone succeeding is not evidence.

    While mel siff once said that 100 anecdotes are as worthless as one, they offer some potential, but they are still not evidence.

    It is possible to do single subject research, and thats something coaches do routinely to build a base of knowledge of what works and what doesnt.


    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So are scientific studies which are inundated with ad hoc hypothesis and trial and control groups full of subjects who are not bodybuilders.   </div>

    Can you show me how bodybuilders are genetically different?

    You understand where the intial concept of eating more frequently came from?  hint, it wasnt bbrs.  

    But the likes of the weiders did a fantastic job promoting it to sell their supplements.

    Does that mean it was a worthless concept? because it wasnt developed on bbrs?

    What about low carb diets? are they worthless? they havent been tested on bbrs  

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Which is why you never take anything at face value, but investigate.  As aforementioned, it's easier to investigate anecdotal evidence than it is to analyze scientific studies, many of which don't provide much information on the groups they study.</div>
    and most anecdotes provide far less infromation than is available from scientific research.  Reading a full paper will provide inforamtion on age, weight, height, sex, blood parameters, genetic markers, tested strength, muscle girths, fibre types and onwards.  Dont get that with anecdotes...

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Who is the best exercise scientist in the world ?</div>

    there is not one

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Does he recommend HST ?</div>

    Look at the ACSM recommendations for weight training and then get back to me.


    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">High protein is rampant in both natural and unnatural bodybuilding.   You might be surprised at the incredibly high level of protein used by powerlifters, particularly those who are not trying to stay in their weight classes, although the ratio of powerlifters consuming low levels of protein to powerlifters consuming high levels might be lower than bodybuilding due to the fact that muscle size is not important to them, as they train strictly for strength.  Many who are dieting and on low protein are trying to stay in their weight classes</div>
    There are certainly some lifters who consume large amoutns of protein, but dont confuse that with 'incredibly high amounts'.  And those who are generally on higher protien are generally the ones trying to maintin or lose weight, not the way you have put it.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You should always base your conclusions on what you see in the mirror after doing it. </div>

    Which, while associted with its own variability, is the ultimate end point.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So, if I follow a scientific study and achieve success, it's not necessarily due to science.  It might just be coincidental.</div>
    natural variation is a fun part of life.  Understanding the variability behind it is part of the scientific process.  Enabling you to pick out the underlying cause of changes, rather htan relying on multple anecdotes

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Hmmm...interesting that you equate &quot;bro-logic&quot; to spending money in the supplement industry.  Seems to me that most of those useless ads for cell tech and other 'scientifically approved' powders always point to the superior science they used to develop this &quot;awesome revolutionary powder that is the new legal steroid.&quot;  The reason I never use any of those supplements is that I used &quot;bro-logic&quot; to ascertain that they were worthless.</div>

    Well done, now tell me,

    what is a marketer if he uses scientific studies to dupe people? is he a scientist? or a marketer?  

    One of the reasons bryan did not achieve much from his supplement line is that he actually relied on an evidence base for its sale rather than marketing garbage to talk up.  If he had used the animalpak brologic approach, he would have continued sales and made a good $$ on it.

    Just as dressing a wolf to be a sheep doesnt make it a sheep.  Dressing marketing up as science doesnt make it science.
     
  3. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    Oh, and I use anecdotes in my training quite a lot. But I apply as much rigor (or more, depending on the source) around my interpretation as I would to any scientific paper.

    So perhaps I shouldnt say worthless, but rather the lowest quality evidence within an evidence base
     
  4. Aaron, don't a good number of hypothesese stem from observations ... that would mean anecdotal accounts leading to a hypothesis, motivating research?
     
  5. stevejones

    stevejones Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Anecdotes are worthless.  
    Someone succeeding is not evidence.
    While mel siff once said that 100 anecdotes are as worthless as one, they offer some potential, but they are still not evidence.</div>
    Mel Siff was a very knowledgeable scientist, and he was wrong.  Well, maybe not…I’d have to count the number of anecdotes I’ve ignored as compared to the
    ones I’ve heeded.  The number most likely exceeds 100; but, yes--I do get his point, and he’s wrong.  
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Can you show me how bodybuilders are genetically different?</div>
    No, but that’s not relevant.  What is relevant is the fact that people who have never worked out or work out occasionally respond differently to exercises
    than experienced bodybuilders.  The methods I used to grow like a weed when I was new to bbing no longer work.  
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You understand where the intial concept of eating more frequently came from?  hint, it wasnt bbrs.
    But the likes of the weiders did a fantastic job promoting it to sell their supplements.</div>
    In this very thread it is stated that there isn’t any reputable scientific analysis that proves eating more frequently is superior to eating infrequently.,
    and that it’s all about the calories.  So, I assume you’re not talking about science, but claiming that Weider came up with this to sell his crap?   The hint
    wasn’t sufficient, you’ll have to spell it out for me.
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Does that mean it was a worthless concept? because it wasnt developed on bbrs?</div>
    The concept isn’t worthless because I have used it based on anecdotal evidence I have read and it works for me.  If my results are not a direct reflection of
    my efforts, then I'm blissfully large and ignorant.  That's fine by me.  
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What about low carb diets? are they worthless? they havent been tested on bbrs </div>
    Yes, they are worthless.  I spent 2 months doing strictly cardio on the atkins diet, with poor results.  Felt great and didn’t notice a change in energy until I started exercising.  If a scientific study comes out claiming otherwise, I’ll know better. Were there conditions present during my diet that might not be present for others if they're on a low carb diet ?  Perhaps so, but would the same conditions be present for me if I tried the low carb diet again ?  Most likely
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">and most anecdotes provide far less infromation than is available from scientific research.  Reading a full paper will provide inforamtion on age, weight, height, sex, blood parameters, genetic markers, tested strength, muscle girths, fibre types and onwards.  Dont get that with anecdotes...</div>
    Well, that is true.  Anecdotes are far from perfect.  However, at least I know or have a good idea of who is giving me the anecdotes, and how similar their frame and genetics are to mine, which helps greatly in my decision process when it comes to change.
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Who is the best exercise scientist in the world ?</div>
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">there is not one</div>
    Correct, and the same answer applies to bbing
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There are certainly some lifters who consume large amoutns of protein, but dont confuse that with 'incredibly high amounts'.  And those who are
    generally on higher protien are generally the ones trying to maintin or lose weight, not the way you have put it. </div>
    I believe that to be incorrect.  High protein diets, of course, are very popular among lifters trying to lose weight.  Most of the lifters I have spoken with say that the total grams of protein being consumed while trying to lose weight decreases, but at the same time protein will make up a larger percentage of their diet, due to lower caloric intake.  I spent about 10 minutes babbling to Mark Miller, the world record holder in the squa (world record depending on whether you’re in the ipa,  ipf, wpo, wpf..and all the problems and different rules between them).  He weighs 410 and told me he consumes over 1000 grams of protein per day.  You might not consider that incredible, but it’s over 2g per pound.  When you consider how little protein the average human being consumes, I think his intake is incredible.  Scot Mendelson (fights with Rychlak over world record bench) consumes 6 lbs of beef per day.  That alone is approximately 525 grams per day, but I don’t know his total.
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> natural variation is a fun part of life.  Understanding the variability behind it is part of the scientific process.  Enabling you to pick out the
    underlying cause of changes, rather htan relying on multple anecdotes</div>
    Variation in bbing might be fun for scientists studying bbing.  It’s not much fun for bbers trying to bodybuild, particularly if their primary occupation has nothing to do with bodybuilding.  I don’t trust in the ability of science to always recognize the catalyst of change.  It has been too inaccurate and unreliable in the past to rely on it to the point where you exclude anecdotes.  Anecdotes, of course, can be wildly erratic and unreliable. However,that's where common sense in deciding which anecdotes to closely observe comes into play.
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">what is a marketer if he uses scientific studies to dupe people? is he a scientist? or a marketer? Dressing marketing up as science doesnt make it science.</div>
    http://www.muscletech.com/RESEARC....H.shtml   ---these are the studies celltech or …er, muscletech uses to market it’s stuff…looks like science to me.  They might be marketers, but it's still science, right? You have your subjects in an experiment, etc. etc. (at least you did in the first abstract, I didn’t bother to look at the rest.)  Because you’re a scientist, you might be able to pick apart the studies, and differentiate between what you deem as good science and bad science. I can't do that.  I’m not a biochemist. All I can do is analyze what others who aren't paid by muscletech say about those kind of powders in terms I understand, whilst using the best judgment possible.  
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Oh, and I use anecdotes in my training quite a lot.</div>
    lololol...ok, well that concludes the conversation for me.  So, now they're no longer worthless, but perfectly fine to use as long as you're a scientist?  Well, I realize that I am unable to apply the same kind of academic rigor to anecdotes as you, so all I can do is be as scrupulous as possible when applying them to my training.
     
  6. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    <div>
    (etothepii @ Jan. 26 2007,16:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Aaron, don't a good number of hypothesese stem from observations ... that would mean anecdotal accounts leading to a hypothesis, motivating research?</div>
    Some do, others come from observational research that is also down the chain of evidence.
    Nearly all fail miserably when researched under experimental conditions.
     
  7. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    <div>
    (stevejones @ Jan. 26 2007,19:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I do get his point, and he’s wrong.</div>
    mel was wrong about a lot of things, but not this.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">No, but that’s not relevant. What is relevant is the fact that people who have never worked out or work out occasionally respond differently to exercises
    than experienced bodybuilders. The methods I used to grow like a weed when I was new to bbing no longer work. </div>

    Its utterly relevant, when genetics affect the ultimate growth potential more than what the differences between novice / advanced do.

    The difference between novice vs advanced, is a matter of stimulus to achieve the metabolic cascade. This doesnt invalidate the research, just provides a constraint over analysing the research. There is a whack of resaerch looking at novice and trained lifters.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In this very thread it is stated that there isn’t any reputable scientific analysis that proves eating more frequently is superior to eating infrequently.,
    and that it’s all about the calories. So, I assume you’re not talking about science, but claiming that Weider came up with this to sell his crap? The hint
    wasn’t sufficient, you’ll have to spell it out for me. </div>

    using the terms &quot;the likes of weider pushed it quite nicely....&quot; doesnt mean that weider came up with it. It was produced from observational research showing skinnys eating move often than fatties, creating the false causation that eating more often = leaner.
    This was then grabbed by the weight loss industry, and ultimately the bbing industry that latched onto it as a way to sell meal products.
    It also lead to a whole bunch of assumptions on why eating more oftne was better, including the most popular 'reving up the metabolism through thermic effect of food.
    You still see this repeated throughout the dieting and bbing industry, even tho there is no reving up of the metabolism (thermic effect of food is related to total food intake, not the splitting of the food into smaller steps)

    Performing research showed no difference in weight (and fat) when caloric controls were used. There is one time that things start going a bit biased towards higher meal frequency. When you are consuming an extremely low energy, low protein diet.

    But eating frequently can be beneficial for some while dieting and while gaining, for differnet roles. Eating smaller frequent meals may allow a person to feel less hungry. And on the other end, the higher meals allows for increased food intake due to more eating opportunities. hard to consume huge calories on low meals.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The concept isn’t worthless because I have used it based on anecdotal evidence I have read and it works for me. If my results are not a direct reflection of
    my efforts, then I'm blissfully large and ignorant. That's fine by me. </div>
    Of course it works. Working better is an utterly different thing.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well, that is true. Anecdotes are far from perfect. However, at least I know or have a good idea of who is giving me the anecdotes, and how similar their frame and genetics are to mine, which helps greatly in my decision process when it comes to change. </div>

    Do you mean genetics or the observed phenotype. as you cant look at somebody and determine their genotype.


    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Correct, and the same answer applies to bbing </div>Except bbrs COMPETE, and the current winner of the largest Bbing contest in the world is [​IMG]

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I believe that to be incorrect. </div>
    How nice

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">High protein diets, of course, are very popular among lifters trying to lose weight. Most of the lifters I have spoken with say that the total grams of protein being consumed while trying to lose weight decreases, but at the same time protein will make up a larger percentage of their diet, due to lower caloric intake. I spent about 10 minutes babbling to Mark Miller, the world record holder in the squa (world record depending on whether you’re in the ipa, ipf, wpo, wpf..and all the problems and different rules between them). He weighs 410 and told me he consumes over 1000 grams of protein per day. You might not consider that incredible, but it’s over 2g per pound. When you consider how little protein the average human being consumes, I think his intake is incredible.
    </div>

    Mike miller, not mark, holds the IPA record, (which aint a world record no matter what they claim). He doesnt weigh 410 or at least when he did he was fat (good PLr), and as I said above which you failed to read ... him saying and him actually doing are two different things.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Scot Mendelson (fights with Rychlak over world record bench) consumes 6 lbs of beef per day. That alone is approximately 525 grams per day, but I don’t know his total. </div>
    Scott has also claimed to be drug free... doesn’t mean he is…

    Louie has commented several times of his lifters eating bugger all protein but being amongst the strongest in his fed.
    Also been around powerlifters (drug tested from local level to world champions) for most of my adult life showing a moderately high protein intake (not much more than the larger end of the population norms), no where near 500 or 1000grams.


    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> I don’t trust in the ability of science to always recognize the catalyst of change. It has been too inaccurate and unreliable in the past to rely on it to the point where you exclude anecdotes. Anecdotes, of course, can be wildly erratic and unreliable. However,that's where common sense in deciding which anecdotes to closely observe comes into play.</div>And why science evolved away from anecdotes and into experimental evidnce, a good controlled trial is not wildly erratic or unreliable, but anecdotes always are.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> http://www.muscletech.com/RESEARC....H.shtml ---these are the studies celltech or …er, muscletech uses to market it’s stuff…looks like science to me. They might be marketers, but it's still science, right?
    </div>

    read what I said again, dressing marketing as science doesn’t change the fact that its science. It’s the science equivilant of having jay cutler standing next to the muscletech dude saying “ya I gained 20lbs from celltech”
    Is his anecdote accurate? Hes big, hes strong, hes currently the best bbr in the world. Hes gotta be right?

    But its funny that you should present creatine as an example.

    Creatine didn’t come from bbr anecdotes, it came from scientists onto athletes and then along into bbrs. It is the most researched supplements on the planet.

    Celltech is also one of the few supplements that Muscletech has actually researched, except when you start looking for the “26 times more powerful than regular creatine”. Typical marketing. Slap a few pieces of research togther, spit out a product. Add in some great anecdotes.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You have your subjects in an experiment, etc. etc. (at least you did in the first abstract, I didn’t bother to look at the rest.) Because you’re a scientist, you might be able to pick apart the studies, and differentiate between what you deem as good science and bad science. I can't do that. I’m not a biochemist. All I can do is analyze what others who aren't paid by muscletech say about those kind of powders in terms I understand, whilst using the best judgment possible. </div>

    Not being a biochemist doesn’t mean that science is worthless and just because muscletech adds some ‘science’ to their advertisements, doesn’t mean the product is good. There are also lots of shills out on the boards trying to get people to buy the supplements.


    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Oh, and I use anecdotes in my training quite a lot
    lololol...ok, well that concludes the conversation for me. So, now they're no longer worthless, but perfectly fine to use as long as you're a scientist?</div>
    Did I say that?
    Hmm don’t think I did.

    But I did say that anecdotes are the lowest quality evidence, and when there is scientific evidence showing the anecdotes wrong, guess what? The anecdote becomes worthless, or at least so devalued that it is next to worthless.

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well, I realize that I am unable to apply the same kind of academic rigor to anecdotes as you, so all I can do is be as scrupulous as possible when applying them to my training.</div>

    Putting rigor into anecdotes isn’t difficult but basing them on how the person looks or their strength is not always the best way to achieve things either, as size or strength is not the limiting factor in knowledge.
     
  8. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    It's been an interesting ride, with great points on both sides. As a BB'er, but also a busy guy (even when I'm LOOKING for my next job-bidwork) I don't have time to study everything, so like a lot of guys, I'm selective. I believe in science, and understand that some studies are incomplete, skewed, and even biased; but that isn't the norm. I refuse to appreciate anything relating to BB done on rats, or sedentary old folks, for the same reasons as Steve, and am selective about anecdotes as well.
    It's a good reason for frequenting a good forum: you get to know people and who to believe and who to take with a grain of salt. In my experience, the smaller forums have less unbelievable claims, flamers, and false information for some reason. The knowledge base may come from a smaller group, but is more viable.
    Therefore, some things I can take on faith: anecdotes from guys who GOT BIG without being that different from me (no steroids, for example) and scientific advice from guys who actually enjoy studying all that stuff. If Aaron says I don't need 3g/lb protein to grow, I don't eat that much.
     
  9. scientific muscle

    scientific muscle New Member

    Man, what a pissing contest.

    &quot;anecdotes rule!&quot;

    &quot;lab research rules!&quot;

    &quot;NO!&quot;

    &quot;NO!&quot;

    [​IMG]
     
  10. stevejones

    stevejones Member

    <div>
    (scientific muscle @ Jan. 26 2007,16:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Man, what a pissing contest.

    &quot;anecdotes rule!&quot;

    &quot;lab research rules!&quot;

    &quot;NO!&quot;

    &quot;NO!&quot;

    [​IMG]</div>
    lol....in the gym the contest would be much shorter, I assure you. For some reason it's easier to ignore comments you don't agree with when you can see a guy's size or witness his strength. Online, you rarely know for sure who you're typing to
     
  11. vagrant

    vagrant New Member

    I like the science when and if I have time to wade through it. It can help tweak one's nutrition plan. I like the &quot;I did this and it worked for me&quot; approach too. Neither is useless.

    However, if I hit a sticking point in a lift I'm going to listen to the guy squatting 600 over the 100lb guy reading in a book about how the leg extension is far superior when both offer to tell me how to get past it.

    Outside of the gym, in real life we kept getting these studies that showed how a certain medication was being underutilized so it began to be used more and more. Then the next group of studies came along and showed how it was totally useless - to the point of it being dropped from most treatment protocols. I knew from personal use with the medication that it did work, but wasn't a miracle...it did still have it's place though. I still give it at the right time, in the right place, with good success.

    So the folks who I've sent home alive because of this drug probably don't care that they are anecdotally alive.

    Like I said, both have their place, so don't make either anecdotes or studies into your god.
     
  12. stevejones

    stevejones Member

    <div>
    (vagrant @ Jan. 26 2007,21:21)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"></div>
    Definitely concur with everything you said.
     
  13. Totentanz

    Totentanz Super Moderator Staff Member

    I have never heard anyone explain any mechanism by which more meals increases metabolism, has anyone even explained this here?

    But anyway, like I said in the beginning - just eat as few or as many meals as YOU need to in order to reach your calorie goals. Obviously if you've eaten three meals today totalling 2000 calories and you can only get 2000 a day on your cut, eating three more small meals to &quot;rev up your metabolism&quot; is going to be a mistake. But likewise, if only eating three leaves you feeling hungry and more prone to binge, then more meals would most likely be a good idea for you.

    I just don't see any mechanism by which it would speed up metabolism... and considering that you will rarely have a completely empty stomach anyway, unless you are just waking up or are fasting most of the day, I don't see how more meals would even make a difference. How is the timing by which you add more food to what food is already in your stomach going to change things?
     
  14. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    <div>
    (vagrant @ Jan. 27 2007,15:21)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">However, if I hit a sticking point in a lift I'm going to listen to the guy squatting 600 over the 100lb guy reading in a book about how the leg extension is far superior when both offer to tell me how to get past it.</div>
    What about a guy squatting 600 and reading the books?
     
  15. mikeynov

    mikeynov Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div>
    (stevejones @ Jan. 26 2007,20:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
    (scientific muscle @ Jan. 26 2007,16:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Man, what a pissing contest.

    &quot;anecdotes rule!&quot;

    &quot;lab research rules!&quot;

    &quot;NO!&quot;

    &quot;NO!&quot;

    [​IMG]</div>
    lol....in the gym the contest would be much shorter, I assure you. For some reason it's easier to ignore comments you don't agree with when you can see a guy's size or witness his strength. Online, you rarely know for sure who you're typing to</div>
    So who lifts more or is bigger now determines who's right?

    If you seriously think that, I'm pretty sure you're on the wrong website. There's plenty of other locations where the bro-review system is in effect.
     
  16. dkm1987

    dkm1987 New Member

    <div>
    (vagrant @ Jan. 26 2007,21:21)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">However, if I hit a sticking point in a lift I'm going to listen to the guy squatting 600 over the 100lb guy reading in a book about how the leg extension is far superior when both offer to tell me how to get past it.</div>
    But you're looking at two extremes and neither may be right.

    Just because the guy is squatting over 600 lbs doesn't mean he can help You get passed your sticking point.

    Just because the 100 lb guy is reading from a book doesn't mean he can help You either.

    How about the guy in the middle, one who has studied extensively and coached several successful athletes/BB in accomplishing their goals but may not be able to do it himself (for whatever reason).

    For example if This guy came in and starting commenting on how you are training would you listen to him?
     
  17. stevejones

    stevejones Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> so who lifts more or is bigger now determines who's right ?</div>
    No, not exactly.  As aforementioned repeatedly, science has it's place, but when it comes to a crossroads between two opinions, I&quot;m going to choose the opinion of the guy who has made more progress toward goals that are similar to mine, and try his first.  You must take drugs and genetics into consideration, of course, and those things are not too difficult to assess in person.

    At this stage of my development and relatively quick fatigue, having come extremely close to reaching my genetic limit, I believe I'm on the correct website. If I get more serious about plifting, strongman, or decide to do drugs, then I might be better off elsewhere, or maybe not..... I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
     
  18. stevejones

    stevejones Member

    <div>
    (Dan Moore @ Jan. 27 2007,08:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">For example if This guy came in and starting commenting on how you are training would you listen to him?</div></div>
    lol
    I like that hypothetical, Dan
    Ok I'm traveling on business and am in Denver at Bally's, in the 5th session of my HST cycle, and in walks...the guy on the left, or the right (doesn't matter), and he begins to 'school' me on what I&quot;m doing wrong.  NO, I'm not going to listen.  I'm going to break out my personal mp3 player which I dislike using and continue my workout.  

    Now, if the guy walks in and I recognize him as being a famous powerlifing or bbing coach and I know he has personally helped Shane Hammon and others to break records in the Olympics (like mel siff has, for instance), then I'm listening...very closely.  I would be especially interested in the number of athletes he has trained who were drug free. So, why would I listen to him ? It's because the progress of the guys he has trained is even more impressive than making progress on his own body.  

    In either case I'm paying attention to what guys look like or their strength levels.
     
  19. scientific muscle

    scientific muscle New Member

    Steve, I both admire and abhor your stubborness! [​IMG]
    Your skull is as thick as your back! [​IMG]
    One thing I don't understand, since you obviously have great genetics for size and strength; there are only a handful of people who are bigger than you in the world without drugs. It seems to me, anyone who walked into your gym who was bigger and stronger would most likely be using steroids.
    If Marius Pudzianowski (3 times World's strongest man, 22&quot; arms, low bodyfat) and his coach walked in, would you listen to them? I hope not, because unless you used the drugs that Marius uses you would end up overtraining like mad. Marius work out 7 days/week, 2/day and probably injects himself just as often! I don't know what exactly he is using, but whatever it is , it obviously has an amazing positive effect on his recovery ability.
    And if Marius only ate 1 meal/day that doesn't mean it will work for you, nor if he eats 20 times/day.
     
  20. stevejones

    stevejones Member

    <div>
    (scientific muscle @ Jan. 27 2007,10:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Steve, I both admire and abhor your stubborness! [​IMG]
    Your skull is as thick as your back! [​IMG]
    One thing I don't understand, since you obviously have great genetics for size and strength; there are only a handful of people who are bigger than you in the world without drugs.  It seems to me, anyone who walked into your gym who was bigger and stronger would most likely be using steroids.
    If Marius Pudzianowski (3 times World's strongest man, 22&quot; arms, low bodyfat) and his coach walked in, would you listen to them?  I hope not, because unless you used the drugs that Marius uses you would end up overtraining like mad.  Marius work out 7 days/week, 2/day and probably injects himself just as often!  I don't know what exactly he is using, but whatever it is , it obviously has an amazing positive effect on his recovery ability.</div>
    And if Marius only ate 1 meal/day that doesn't mean it will work for you, nor if he eats 20 times/day.</div>
    Dude, have you been reading my posts, or just the ones that appeal to you ?  Take this excerpt from one of my posts, for instance:  &quot;You must take drugs and genetics into consideration, of course, and those things are not too difficult to assess in person.&quot;  If I was on the kind of drugs Mariusz is using, perhaps I could work out 7 days a week, or perhaps NOT---I don't know right now.  

    True, I started off larger than average, but I was nothing special.  I was never one of those guys that people would look at and think &quot;damn that guys built.&quot;  In other words, my genetics are good, and  better than I would have thought, but they are definitely not world class. I don't have what it takes to be a professional bber (well, not in the olympia) or be a competitive strongman no matter how many drugs I take.  Yet, I have made tremendous progress using this philosophy that seems to piss off so many guys who haven't made the kind of progress I have made.  I know how to get results in my endeavors, not just bodybuilding.  Paying attention to success in other people is of paramount significance.  

    There are guys on intensemuscle.com musclemayhem, elite fitness, etc. who are natural and have made more progress than me (only in powerlifting), and I pay attention to their advice.  Quadancer belongs to a website run by a guy who is superior to me in bbing, and is a natural.  I heeded his advice, but my genetics for bbing are inferior to his or different (what have you), so I no longer use his advice.  However, his advice used to work great for me !  It was time to adjust.  If I ever use steroids like your buddy Mariusz then I might have to adjust again.

    Also, the argument here was whether or not anecdotal evidence is useless, not that anecdotal evidence is supreme and that everything else should be ignored.    
     

Share This Page