• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Bro Science

bull

Member
Ok everything to do with nutrition appears to be bro science according to the experts on here. We might as well be all eating like a dog with one feed a day it would seem.

My question is, does non-bro science exist as real science or is non-bro science just bro science in a cunning disguise? Has anyone credible actually demonstrated that serious weight training can be conducted on a completely unstructured nutrition protocol without limiting results?

There is lots of science about various hormone levels being affected by nutrient intake, how does non-bro science deal with these claims? Are they wrong, biased by supp companies or irrelevant as the fluctuations in hormone levels do not have the claimed effects on protein synthesis/catabolism?

These are serious questions. I couldn't be bothered doing the research myself but there seems to be plenty of people on here who already know so someone fill in the gaps for me please.
 
Depends what you call training, if your a powerlifter doing strongman, you could almost eat anything you want at a massive volume and it won't limit your results.

As for bodybuilding thats a differant story.

Regarding hormonr levels and protein synthesis, someone else can talk about that i'm not learned enough.
 
Every time a new nutrition fad or diet comes along everyone jumps on board and screams how great it is and writes off everyone elses theories as bogus.

I don't need peer reviewed studies to tell me I can't perform on any empty stomach. I have worked out on an empty stomach and been piss weak in the gym. Call that broscience, bullshit or whatever you want.

I am inclined not to trust anyone who is trying to sell something through their spruiking but look at jz he has the results to prove it's working for him and no need to try and plug the daily macro diet thing. It might work for him but I won't be trying it because I think regular well rounded meal times are sensible.

To each his own
 
My question is, does non-bro science exist as real science or is non-bro science just bro science in a cunning disguise? Has anyone credible actually demonstrated that serious weight training can be conducted on a completely unstructured nutrition protocol without limiting results?

That's a pretty tough question to look at, that could be investigated via mathematical logic and reasoning.

Is there room inside of your questions for a 'some' bro-science is real science though I suspect not much of it.
 
Every time a new nutrition fad or diet comes along everyone jumps on board and screams how great it is and writes off everyone elses theories as bogus.

I don't need peer reviewed studies to tell me I can't perform on any empty stomach. I have worked out on an empty stomach and been piss weak in the gym. Call that broscience, bullshit or whatever you want.

I am inclined not to trust anyone who is trying to sell something through their spruiking but look at jz he has the results to prove it's working for him and no need to try and plug the daily macro diet thing. It might work for him but I won't be trying it because I think regular well rounded meal times are sensible.

To each his own

Brick...

Your on the right track... Eat what you want when you want...

Noone here us suggesting you should train on an empty stomach...

Daily macro is not a diet..... It's just your totals for what you ate over the day...
 
I deleted a person off my friends list, from this forum, because I could never work out if his posts were real nutritional advice or having a go at myth/bro science.
 
Brick...

Your on the right track... Eat what you want when you want...

Noone here us suggesting you should train on an empty stomach...

Daily macro is not a diet..... It's just your totals for what you ate over the day...

Sorry mate I mean the IIFYM thing with some blokes doing the macros in only 1 or 2 meals. I get the theory behind it and yeah if it works for ya do it. But at the end of the day you can find endless studies giving results each way, I think it's near impossible to find an impartial study that proves whether one way or the other is advantageous.
 
Sorry mate I mean the IIFYM thing with some blokes doing the macros in only 1 or 2 meals. I get the theory behind it and yeah if it works for ya do it. But at the end of the day you can find endless studies giving results each way, I think it's near impossible to find an impartial study that proves whether one way or the other is advantageous.

That's because neither is better, or worse.

It's what works for you, that's important.

Do you HAVE to eat 6 meals a day? No.
Do you HAVE to eat ony twice a day? No.
Do you HAVE to eat prior to a workout? No.
Do you HAVE to have 3000 calories per meal? No.

You do what works, within the parametres of your own lifestyle to achieve the results you seek.

We're all so different, having options and choices, is a beautiful thing.

I couldn't eat 6 meals a day. I wouldn't stick to anything. But then, I've never eaten breakfast and always workout fasted. Always. And it works for me.

But it wouldn't work for everyone.

You do the very best you can, with what you're able to sustain and have some momentum and consistency with.

No study will ever show that one method is better than the other, because the results are always based on an individuals willingness, ability and comfortability with successfully being abe to incorporate the method into their lifestyle.
 
Ok everything to do with nutrition appears to be bro science according to the experts on here. We might as well be all eating like a dog with one feed a day it would seem.

My question is, does non-bro science exist as real science or is non-bro science just bro science in a cunning disguise? Has anyone credible actually demonstrated that serious weight training can be conducted on a completely unstructured nutrition protocol without limiting results?

There is lots of science about various hormone levels being affected by nutrient intake, how does non-bro science deal with these claims? Are they wrong, biased by supp companies or irrelevant as the fluctuations in hormone levels do not have the claimed effects on protein synthesis/catabolism?

These are serious questions. I couldn't be bothered doing the research myself but there seems to be plenty of people on here who already know so someone fill in the gaps for me please.

No one has totally unstructured nutritional programs that does IF, infact far form it.
 
No one has totally unstructured nutritional programs that does IF, infact far form it.

Now we are getting somewhere. Intermittent fasting I have heard of. I didn't realise that the bro science brigade were intermittent fasters.
 
No study will ever show that one method is better than the other, because the results are always based on an individuals willingness, ability and comfortability with successfully being abe to incorporate the method into their lifestyle.



*cough* bull$hit. Science provides real life evidence of what is what. That's why 2 experiments are done at the same time (obviously using different people)....to conclude better practices. If two experiments were done, with one sample group consuming 5% of their calories as protein....while the other being 25%....do you really think that thered be no meaningful difference between the two groups experiment ?
 
*cough* bull$hit. Science provides real life evidence of what is what. That's why 2 experiments are done at the same time (obviously using different people)....to conclude better practices. If two experiments were done, with one sample group consuming 5% of their calories as protein....while the other being 25%....do you really think that thered be no meaningful difference between the two groups experiment ?

Pete, I was referring more to the set amount of times we eat per day, not the macros or balance of protein/carbs/fat.

It's all about what you're eating.

How frequently or infrequently we choose to eat, comes down to personal preference.

No one way, is better than the other and no study will ever prove otherwise. Individuals are individuals and what works for me, won't necessarily work for the next person.

So thanks for the 'bullshit' comment, completely uneccessary as it was:rolleyes:
 
That's a pretty tough question to look at, that could be investigated via mathematical logic and reasoning.

Is there room inside of your questions for a 'some' bro-science is real science though I suspect not much of it.

You love your maths don't you?

There is room within my question for the answer regardless of what it is. I would have thought that the effects of nutrition inputs on hormone levels and protein synthesis should have been well understood. Similarly, the effects of fasting or other meal plans should be well understood. I'm interested in whether a winner has been identified and who identified it.

I have a default position that all the tricky training and nutritional techniques combined add up to about 5% of results but at times that 5% can be significant so it's worth knowing the answers.
 
in fairness....some studies indicate that practice X1, Y1, Z1 and X2 is efficent w striving to reach goal G.


Th best way I can write it (here ) is that X1, Y1, Z1, X2 equals approximately G.

Different practices give differing results which would be measurabl. 'Studies that find Y2 and Z2 as having no meaningful effect would be left on the scrap heap....or investigated to work out why didn't it work...
 
Yep I get that.

The bro science guys are Z1 and disputing the claims that X1 is optimal.

I want to know whether anyone has demonstrated whether both approaches do actually equal approximately G.
 
This is going to sound very broscientific, but if something has been working for you, wouldn't you continue to do it despite the real science saying otherwise?

Eg not eating carbs at night time...
 
I've started eating all my macros in one meal every 5 days, srs.

lol just the thought of all the kCals would put me into an instant food coma! :eek:

It's what works for you, that's important.

You do what works, within the parametres of your own lifestyle to achieve the results you seek.

We're all so different, having options and choices, is a beautiful thing.

You do the very best you can, with what you're able to sustain and have some momentum and consistency with.

spot on, BB. What works brilliantly for one person may be a disaster for another.

Lifestyle factors, personality, and also individual physiology all play a part.
I couldn't eat one meal a day. Well I could but watch me disappear because no way I could eat all the KCals I need to train in one meal.
Other people can eat a buffet of food in one meal ...

But i can't do the "cook once a week and shove 6 meals per day into tupperware" thing. I'd die.

For me 3 meals, plus random snackage if I need it. I eat when I'm hungry.

Listen. To. Your. Body. it won't lie to you.
 
Top