Protein intake and the anabolic response

[Rugby88]

IIFYSP

If it fits your stirring pot is the new way of doing things - if the food you eat can fit into your scientifically proven Stirring Pot (TradeMark) you will increase everything by 100% at least...

 

[Darkoz]

I've got one right here.

I'll take two please

 

[Wolfgang]

Supplements are a whole thing within themselves and from my experience and from what I have seen the better bodybuilders, athletes etc don't fall for the supplement industry crap...

No not at all - I don't believe anything needs to be addressed - of course its fantastic to having science backing what people do but it doesn't mean it works or not - nor can every single thing be backed by science - I was simply saying that you may find that some things will never be backed by science, nor do they need to be - but can be shown to work through real world results - i.e you would have to say that 97-99% of the worlds good bodybuilders follow the same sort of core approach come diet and training - doesn't that show you something? Or is it not proven to work because a uni hasn't done a study on it?

I don't disagree or agree with anything but I think when it comes to training and diet there are core things that are shown to work that have not been proved/backed by science....

I would like to ask you would you follow the advice of a top level athlete or a scientist that has studied training/diet etc but has never trained?

I find it intriguing that common sense in now science and that what the best athletes have been doing for years is now simply wrong in a lot of peoples books because it is not proven by science....

What is science anyway when it comes to weight training? What is the driving force behind the idea of science now days to explain - yes I can have my protein shake and some ice cream too - isn't that simply common sense?

Its an interesting topic which has been done to death on the forum - me and @Bazza20 ; have had some mighty fine battles haha

Sure, anecdotal evidence can be handy, but what you think a reason for something working is, and what the reason actually is are very different things. You may say "so what? As long as it works", but I personally like to know the real reason something works. 97-99% of the world's best bodybuilders may indeed follow the same approach and get great results, but just because a lot of people do something it doesn't mean their reason for doing it is right, or that it's the only way or easiest way. Pros can still spout nonsense, no matter what the sport, because they've attributed a cause and effect to a particular belief. So while I'd take advice on board from a pro in their sport, it doesn't mean I'd follow it to a T. If they're at the top level they may have the ability for better recovery time, access to rehab specialists, PEDs etc. What they have done/do may not apply to me.

A scientist/study can give me objective information. For example, there's no difference in glycogen synthesis rate between a mixed post workout drink (66% carb, 23% protein, 11% fat) and a 100% carbohydrate drink. I wouldn't say it's beyond the realm of possibility for a jacked dude or pro to tell me that I should avoid fat post workout and I should only consume carbs and protein in that time period. If I believe what the bodybuilder says, then that's changing my post workout protocol unnecessarily, and in some people, say a fan of said bodybuilder, it can screw with their head if they happen to have fat as well. Bodybuilders can be extremely OCD, and science can tell them whether they actually need to stress over something or not. I think ego is probably the driving force behind people rejecting ideas or new information. If they've done something one way for so long, and told other people to do that same thing, they think that it must be the only way. I've been wrong about retarded things, and when I was told I was wrong I experienced dissonance, but eventually came around to a new way of thinking based on evidence instead of speculation. This can be hard for a lot people, but it gets a lot easier the more you value evidence.

"What is the driving force behind the idea of science now days to explain"? Knowledge. Knowledge leads to more knowledge. Someone asked how and why, then found answers, then more people asked, and more people. If those people didn't exist, we wouldn't have this talky text machine that we're exchanging ideas through right now.

If this topic has been done to death, then I hope I at least have given someone a different perspective within my approach, or even brought something new to the table. And now I shall go and consume my post workout shake. It's been over 30mins since my workout, but thanks to science I know I won't lose all my gains.

To finish with a Neil deGrasse Tyson quote - "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it".

 

[Bazza20]

No not at all - I don't believe anything needs to be addressed - of course its fantastic to having science backing what people do but it doesn't mean it works or not - nor can every single thing be backed by science - I was simply saying that you may find that some things will never be backed by science, nor do they need to be - but can be shown to work through real world results - i.e you would have to say that 97-99% of the worlds good bodybuilders follow the same sort of core approach come diet and training - doesn't that show you something? Or is it not proven to work because a uni hasn't done a study on it?

I don't disagree or agree with anything but I think when it comes to training and diet there are core things that are shown to work that have not been proved/backed by science....

I would like to ask you would you follow the advice of a top level athlete or a scientist that has studied training/diet etc but has never trained?

I find it intriguing that common sense in now science and that what the best athletes have been doing for years is now simply wrong in a lot of peoples books because it is not proven by science....

What is science anyway when it comes to weight training? What is the driving force behind the idea of science now days to explain - yes I can have my protein shake and some ice cream too - isn't that simply common sense?

Its an interesting topic which has been done to death on the forum - me and [MENTION=6722]Bazza20[/MENTION]; have had some mighty fine battles haha

Mate even for a troll that is a fucking terrible post. Made zero sense at all.

Problem is people trying to disregard science usually have no idea of what science is or the scientific method at all.

They seem to think science is something debatable like religion.

 

[0ni]

one thing internet fame has taught me is that the only thing more common than pussies talking shit on the internet is lazy, stupid pussies accusing people far better educated and stronger than they are of "broscience", because it's one of the few words they can spell correctly

 

[Rugby88]

All stirring/trolling aside -

- Train hard
- Eat well (Healthy high protein, fat, some carb foods)
- Be consistent
- Have a cheat/chill out acouple times a week

If your motivated, driven and consistent - then science or no science your well on your way to reaching your goals.

For me of course I believe in science haha - but I also believe in doing what has been shown to work through results in the gym and what and how ALOT (if not all) top athletes/strength athletes eat - I just dont know why you would believe in a study done by a uni etc but then not believe in a "real world" "study" (to a degree) done by thousands/100's of thousands of bodybuilders/strength athletes/athletes over the last 60 odd years? I hate to say it but as much as you want to believe that you dont have to eat like that, train like that etc to get to their level you are wrong....

Of course if your looking at putting on some muscle, look better than the avg joe and train fairly hard in the gym then of course you can take a more relaxed approach.

People forget that there is a difference between someone who trains in the gym to gain abit of muscle, get stronger and becoming a top level athlete/bodybuilder/strength athlete - most of us on the forum (including myself) fall into the 1st section - so we can be abit more relaxed in how we approach things.

Again I am not saying one way is right/one way is wrong - I am saying that you cant preach science but then totally disregard what pretty much every single top bodybuilder/athlete/strength athlete has been doing for 50-60 years by simply saying "just coz they do it doesnt mean its right" - well their results say different.

 

[High Road]

one thing internet fame has taught me is that the only thing more common than pussies talking shit on the internet is lazy, stupid pussies accusing people far better educated and stronger than they are of "broscience", because it's one of the few words they can spell correctly

Clip of 100kg Power Reverse Curl still isn't loading....and you want to point the finger at others and call them pussies and shit talkers....

 

[High Road]

All stirring/trolling aside -

- Train hard
- Eat well (Healthy high protein, fat, some carb foods)
- Be consistent
- Have a cheat/chill out acouple times a week

If your motivated, driven and consistent - then science or no science your well on your way to reaching your goals.

For me of course I believe in science haha - but I also believe in doing what has been shown to work through results in the gym and what and how ALOT (if not all) top athletes/strength athletes eat - I just dont know why you would believe in a study done by a uni etc but then not believe in a "real world" "study" (to a degree) done by thousands/100's of thousands of bodybuilders/strength athletes/athletes over the last 60 odd years? I hate to say it but as much as you want to believe that you dont have to eat like that, train like that etc to get to their level you are wrong....

Of course if your looking at putting on some muscle, look better than the avg joe and train fairly hard in the gym then of course you can take a more relaxed approach.

People forget that there is a difference between someone who trains in the gym to gain abit of muscle, get stronger and becoming a top level athlete/bodybuilder/strength athlete - most of us on the forum (including myself) fall into the 1st section - so we can be abit more relaxed in how we approach things.

Again I am not saying one way is right/one way is wrong - I am saying that you cant preach science but then totally disregard what pretty much every single top bodybuilder/athlete/strength athlete has been doing for 50-60 years by simply saying "just coz they do it doesnt mean its right" - well their results say different.

Again, can you give an example of something supported by science that doesn't work, or something that works that is not supported by science?

Do you think scientists have totally disregarded what people have done for the past years and just developed their own way? Or do you think they have tested and continue to test methods, both new and old to find out what works best? What's the best for building muscle size, what's the best for muscular endurance, what's ATP, what's the lactic system, what's an energy system, how many energy systems are there...where do you think the answers to these question came from? Body builders from 50-60years ago, or sports scientist from the world over doing studies to help their athletes perform at a top level? Because top performance brings in big dollars. Just because something has been done a "way" for 50-60 years and it's achieved some form of "results" is it the best way of doing it to achieve those results?

 

[Darkoz]

The word 'scientist' is being thrown around willy nilly around here

 

[Rugby88]

Again, can you give an example of something supported by science that doesn't work, or something that works that is not supported by science?

Do you think scientists have totally disregarded what people have done for the past years and just developed their own way? Or do you think they have tested and continue to test methods, both new and old to find out what works best? What's the best for building muscle size, what's the best for muscular endurance, what's ATP, what's the lactic system, what's an energy system, how many energy systems are there...where do you think the answers to these question came from? Body builders from 50-60years ago, or sports scientist from the world over doing studies to help their athletes perform at a top level? Because top performance brings in big dollars. Just because something has been done a "way" for 50-60 years and it's achieved some form of "results" is it the best way of doing it to achieve those results?

I think you are missing the point - I get what your saying - cheers for the convo - Its been done to death over the last couple of years on the forum and its always something that simply goes around in circles...

 

[Bazza20]

Clip of 100kg Power Reverse Curl still isn't loading....and you want to point the finger at others and call them pussies and shit talkers....

I thought Oni was referring to himself in his post.

 

[Bazza20]

All stirring/trolling aside -

- Train hard
- Eat well (Healthy high protein, fat, some carb foods)
- Be consistent
- Have a cheat/chill out acouple times a week

If your motivated, driven and consistent - then science or no science your well on your way to reaching your goals.

For me of course I believe in science haha - but I also believe in doing what has been shown to work through results in the gym and what and how ALOT (if not all) top athletes/strength athletes eat - I just dont know why you would believe in a study done by a uni etc but then not believe in a "real world" "study" (to a degree) done by thousands/100's of thousands of bodybuilders/strength athletes/athletes over the last 60 odd years? I hate to say it but as much as you want to believe that you dont have to eat like that, train like that etc to get to their level you are wrong....

Of course if your looking at putting on some muscle, look better than the avg joe and train fairly hard in the gym then of course you can take a more relaxed approach.

People forget that there is a difference between someone who trains in the gym to gain abit of muscle, get stronger and becoming a top level athlete/bodybuilder/strength athlete - most of us on the forum (including myself) fall into the 1st section - so we can be abit more relaxed in how we approach things.

Again I am not saying one way is right/one way is wrong - I am saying that you cant preach science but then totally disregard what pretty much every single top bodybuilder/athlete/strength athlete has been doing for 50-60 years by simply saying "just coz they do it doesnt mean its right" - well their results say different.

Fail again.

First correlation doesn't equal causation.

Have a look at elite sports clubs and athletes, they all employ sports scientists. Do they do that to be at the cutting edge of bioscience or actual science.

Do elite clubs do the same thing now and train the same way as 50 years ago. Fuck no. Lol. Next.

 

[High Road]

I think you are missing the point - I get what your saying - cheers for the convo - Its been done to death over the last couple of years on the forum and its always something that simply goes around in circles...

If I'm missing the point, maybe you aren't explaining yourself fully, I'm responding to what you have written. Discussions regarding religion and evolution goes are in circles too.. Evolution relies on science, religion relies on beliefs...

Scientists, as sports scientist, someone with a degree in sports and exercise science..

 

[White_Lie]

Fail again.

First correlation doesn't equal causation.

Have a look at elite sports clubs and athletes, they all employ sports scientists. Do they do that to be at the cutting edge of bioscience or actual science.

Do elite clubs do the same thing now and train the same way as 50 years ago. Fuck no. Lol. Next.

While I'm not completely disagreeing here, how many of us are elite athletes that put in 110% every minute of every day? If you do the basics like rugby is saying, you'll get results.

And if average Joe was to read something like Arnold's encyclopaedia of bodybuilding, follow the routines in there or look up the latest and greatest workout on bb.com do you think they're going to achieve vastly different results?

 

[High Road]

Where do you think the basics came from? Do you think they are untested?

 

[Bazza20]

While I'm not completely disagreeing here, how many of us are elite athletes that put in 110% every minute of every day? If you do the basics like rugby is saying, you'll get results.

And if average Joe was to read something like Arnold's encyclopaedia of bodybuilding, follow the routines in there or look up the latest and greatest workout on bb.com do you think they're going to achieve vastly different results?

I think you got me wrong. I'm all about getting the basics right.

What I am saying is just because such and such does it this way doesn't make it right.

 

[Arfwit]

While I'm not completely disagreeing here, how many of us are elite athletes that put in 110% every minute of every day? If you do the basics like rugby is saying, you'll get results.

Studies show you can not put in 110%...

 

[Goosey]

Studies show you can not put in 110%...

Hehe...

like.

 

[White_Lie]

Studies show you can not put in 110%...

Only the ones funded by the government!

 

[Big Mick]

Just eat more food