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?
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...
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.
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 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 ?
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.
Just eat. On workout days eat more.
Not hard.
I've started eating all my macros in one meal every 5 days, srs.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?