Jump to content

YOU CAN EAT WHATEVER YOU WANT!!


JOSEF RAKICH

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd like to see these studies used on the top ranked natural bodybuilders in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

What's your point?

That your comment there is totally irrelevant. Biology works (broadly) the same no matter what you've achieved in sport. Being a top-ranked bodybuilder or fat person or anyone else doesn't magically alter realities of physics and chemistry. Special pleading is a bad argument, hence "not even wrong".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That your comment there is totally irrelevant. Biology works (broadly) the same no matter what you've achieved in sport. Being a top-ranked bodybuilder or fat person or anyone else doesn't magically alter realities of physics and chemistry. Special pleading is a bad argument, hence "not even wrong".

What I am getting at is that the studies are so controlled that the "test subjects" barely even push themselves to their limits. If someone isn't training really hard then how can you accumulate fully accurate data pertaining to a bodybuilders diet with out actually using someone that is gonna go through the same sort of conditions.

Half the shit I see is "test group performed push/pull program at 70% 1RM for 4 weeks" blah blah blah. How is that transferable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are too many things wrong in this post for me to be bothered trying to refute them. Others are doing a decent job of that.

My big issue with your position Josef, is that you're claiming to wage a war on 'broscience' yet, the way you're doing it is introducing another form of broscience.

"I eat this much food from these places and it got me this body, so it must be right". That is essentially the basis of all broscience. The extrapolation of results in one person to the wider populace and assuming that what works for you or Joe Bloggs proves it is right for the rest of the population. If your your before pics are anything to go by you're an ectomorph, you look like you'd struggle to put fat on even if you tried, this is by an large why it works for you, you'd be ripped anyway. Gaining muscle would have been the hard part for you.

How about you go away, do some research, and link us some studies that can support your hypothesis, stop with all this n=1 bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am getting at is that the studies are so controlled that the "test subjects" barely even push themselves to their limits. If someone isn't training really hard then how can you accumulate fully accurate data pertaining to a bodybuilders diet with out actually using someone that is gonna go through the same sort of conditions.

Half the shit I see is "test group performed push/pull program at 70% 1RM for 4 weeks" blah blah blah. How is that transferable?

You're right about that. Lots of training studies are done badly for a variety of reasons, and you do have to be careful generalizing.

Nutrition's a whole different game. At this point we're getting massively off-topic, though. Discussing the philosophy of science is really integral to understanding all of this, and most of these kinds of discussions are pointless without that grounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am getting at is that the studies are so controlled that the "test subjects" barely even push themselves to their limits. If someone isn't training really hard then how can you accumulate fully accurate data pertaining to a bodybuilders diet with out actually using someone that is gonna go through the same sort of conditions.

Half the shit I see is "test group performed push/pull program at 70% 1RM for 4 weeks" blah blah blah. How is that transferable?

You're right about that. Lots of training studies are done badly for a variety of reasons, and you do have to be careful generalizing.

Nutrition's a whole different game. At this point we're getting massively off-topic, though. Discussing the philosophy of science is really integral to understanding all of this, and most of these kinds of discussions are pointless without that grounding.

Fair enough, in which instance we actually need these studies from JR so that we can truly see what these studies found and how they arrived there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are too many things wrong in this post for me to be bothered trying to refute them. Others are doing a decent job of that.

My big issue with your position Josef, is that you're claiming to wage a war on 'broscience' yet, the way you're doing it is introducing another form of broscience.

"I eat this much food from these places and it got me this body, so it must be right". That is essentially the basis of all broscience. The extrapolation of results in one person to the wider populace and assuming that what works for you or Joe Bloggs proves it is right for the rest of the population. If your your before pics are anything to go by you're an ectomorph, you look like you'd struggle to put fat on even if you tried, this is by an large why it works for you, you'd be ripped anyway. Gaining muscle would have been the hard part for you.

How about you go away, do some research, and link us some studies that can support your hypothesis, stop with all this n=1 bullshit.

This is easy, and you don't even need science. There are two positions being stated here:

1. Eat for calories and macros. As long as those fit, you'll get results.

2. Calories and macros are just the beginning. To see the best results, you have to also consider food quality and nutrient timing among other things.

The first is a very simple and very broad statement. The second is considerably more complex.

Considering that people get results without the complexity of the second statement*, it's easy enough to say that the complexity isn't necessary. You can rule it out with Occam's razor.

Stated another way, people who are getting results with the complex method are still doing what the first method suggests -- eating within calorie and macro targets. The "IIFYM" explanation explains *both* guys like JR and what the big pros are doing. The complex meal-timing etc. explanation explains the big pros but...doesn't account for JR and co.

Always go for the simplest explanation that explains all the data.

* For the record, I do think that there's something to food quality in that crappy foods won't let you meet your macro targets -- but that's something that JR has acknowledged. The idea that you can only eat junk food completely ignores that you still have to get the right nutrients.

I also think that as you get leaner and bigger, the meal timing issues may be more relevant, but that's almost an academic exercise because you won't ever know it without trial and error in the first place; it's not something you can get from a study or by looking at what "the big guys" do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does this have to be so complicated? Nutrition for growth really isn't a hard concept to grasp..? I eat a mix of low fat chicken breast & veges and Mac attacks, double burger meals from bk ect if my weight isn't going up i eat more and it usually works... If you want to lose weight eat less WOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does this have to be so complicated? Nutrition for growth really isn't a hard concept to grasp..? I eat a mix of low fat chicken breast & veges and Mac attacks, double burger meals from bk ect if my weight isn't going up i eat more and it usually works... If you want to lose weight eat less WOW.

Simple yet effective!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A crate. Time to get fucked up

Hmmm if only. However I'm still recovering from last weekend...still waiting to hit the mid-week point where your whole mindset changes from "im never drinking again" to "cant wait to get on the piss again this weekend".

I'll stick to some sandwiches from the bakery cos it fits my macros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah for sure bro, thats why I don't like the simple IIFYM, and yeah energy balance is important. The bigger picture should focus on healthy eating

Chemo i dont think you understand IIFYM by the way you reply to my posts. They dont make much sence lol..

Of corse healthy eating is important, all im saying is if you want to eat them skittles, fit them into your macros and eat them skittles. You arnt automatically going to gain fat.

You've said above that "Of corse you should still follow your healthy diet" which is cool and makes a lot of sense, and I understand the idea behind cheat meals. But healthy eating needs to be put before IIFYM because a calorie is not simply a calorie, and the IIFYM can be deceiving

Its not a cheat meal IIFYM, its only a "cheat meal" if it exceeds your daily macros target. Do you understand where i am coming from yet??

If you eat a piece of chocolate cake and a f*ck load of cream and it fits into your daily macros, then its not a cheat meal. However if you eat a piece of chocolate cake and a f*ck load of cream and it dosent fit into your daily macros then that is a cheat meal.

Of corse healthy eating is more important then IIFYM, im just clearing up the fact where people think if they eat a cream pie they are automatically going to sore fat lol. And yes a calorie is a calories they are forms of energy.

I guess there's different definitions of a cheat meal then.

Na I understand how it works in moderation bro,and your examples are great examples of athletes with a good diet that have the ability to eat some calorie dense food. I just think its a shitty anagram with a shitty statement eluding to the fact that cals are simply cals and that's all that matters. The energy balance is very important, but "IIFYM" puts no importance on proper nutritional basics where in the health and fitness scene it should.

My posts prob are off the mark, don't think a series of 5 letters has ever pissed me off more in my life lol, ima go get me a double down and chill out, my next post will be with lolcats...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. So let's put up our considered, calm, rational, unemotive arguments one by one. And JR can respond in a similar manner - one by one. By taking it one point at a time, we can minimise any ambiguity.

Like this...

My argument:

Joseph, you say GI doesn't make any difference. Putting aside the issue of micronutrients (vitamins and minerals), you say that 100g of carbs from sugar has the same fat loss/storage potential (depending on your total daily intake) as 100g of carbs from a low GI source like rice. Have I got that right?

But we know that a high GI increases insulin, and that makes it more likely your 100g carbs will be stored as fat. That's a fact. How does your theory disprove that?

And Joseph's argument might be:

It's true that a higher GI carb might be stored as fat. However, if you are storing 100g of carbs as fat, that's 100g of carbs that you aren't using for energy, so your body has to find the energy-equivalent of 100g of carbs elsewhere. And where does it find them? In your fat stores. So that's 100g of carbs out, but 100g of carbs in. So the net effect of a high GI carb is zero.

I have no idea whether that's Joseph's answer or not. The point is, both arguments are clear and logical, and they don't resort to name-calling. Think we can manage that?

Yes 100g high G.I carbs from sugar has the same fat loss/storage potential (depending on your total daily intake) compared to 100g low G.I carbs from rice or oats.

Low G.I carbs also = insulin, you have to look at the bigger overall picture on how fat loss/storage occurs, 100g of carbs from sugar is not more likely to be stored as fat compared to complex carbs from oats. At the end of the day it all comes down to calories in VS calories out.

Yes calories in VS calories out exctally, this is kind of a different subject but it might clear it up a bit on understanding the overall bigger picture:

Cardio

Ok people claim that doing cardio early in the morning in a fasted state will have you burning more bodyfat opposed to doing it at another time of the day in a feed state. Well no thats not true. Well yes in a way but overall on a 24 hour period, no. Thats how you need to look at the diet also, look at the bigger picture.

OK still talking about cardio, your body needs X amount of calories for maitenance lets just say 2000 for an example, if you do early morning cardio in a fasted state yes you will burn more bodyfat because your body has nothing to use but you fat for energy, but you will burn less bodyfat during the rest of the day, now if you did cardio later on in the day in a feed state you would burn less fat during the cardio, but over the entire day you will burn more fat, now compare them both over a 24 hour period and you will burn equal amounts of fat because its all about calories in VS calories out.

Does that make more sence, its about understanding the bigger picture about how the body works?

Also Pseudonym check out this short thread.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=5358123

Alan Aragon posts in there (one of the top nutritionists in the world who has like a 6 month waiting list) He earned his Bachelor and Master of Science in Nutrition with top honors. He lectures to clinicians at the FDA and the annual conference of the Los Angeles Dietetic Association. He maintains a private practice designing programs for recreational, Olympic, and professional athletes, including the Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Kings, and Anaheim Mighty Ducks. His book Girth Control is considered to be one of the most in-depth manuals for improving the body and understanding nutrition for fitness & sports.

He gives some light on the G.I being not being relevant for bodybuilding in the link i posted above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So whats everyone having for lunch today?

Im sick with glandular fever off the gym for weeks and cannot eat anything because of my throat, for 3 days straight i couldent even talk or swallow my own saliva, i would just sit there and saliva would leak out of my mouth like a disabled, I was consuming about 400 calories per day most cals coming from black current and orange juice, i couldent even finish a whole protein shake my throat was that sore, 1000000x more sore than a sore throat you get with a cold, im off worrk for weeks also all i do is sleep watch TV and computer, I have finally just started eating whole foods again, lunch today is soft fish, and some just juice for extra calories, but still only probally getting in about 1000-1200 calories per day. A bodybuilders worst nightmare.

Good bye sweet muscle gains. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah for sure bro, thats why I don't like the simple IIFYM, and yeah energy balance is important. The bigger picture should focus on healthy eating

Chemo i dont think you understand IIFYM by the way you reply to my posts. They dont make much sence lol..

Of corse healthy eating is important, all im saying is if you want to eat them skittles, fit them into your macros and eat them skittles. You arnt automatically going to gain fat.

You've said above that "Of corse you should still follow your healthy diet" which is cool and makes a lot of sense, and I understand the idea behind cheat meals. But healthy eating needs to be put before IIFYM because a calorie is not simply a calorie, and the IIFYM can be deceiving

Its not a cheat meal IIFYM, its only a "cheat meal" if it exceeds your daily macros target. Do you understand where i am coming from yet??

If you eat a piece of chocolate cake and a f*ck load of cream and it fits into your daily macros, then its not a cheat meal. However if you eat a piece of chocolate cake and a f*ck load of cream and it dosent fit into your daily macros then that is a cheat meal.

Of corse healthy eating is more important then IIFYM, im just clearing up the fact where people think if they eat a cream pie they are automatically going to sore fat lol. And yes a calorie is a calories they are forms of energy.

I guess there's different definitions of a cheat meal then.

Na I understand how it works in moderation bro,and your examples are great examples of athletes with a good diet that have the ability to eat some calorie dense food. I just think its a shitty anagram with a shitty statement eluding to the fact that cals are simply cals and that's all that matters. The energy balance is very important, but "IIFYM" puts no importance on proper nutritional basics where in the health and fitness scene it should.

My posts prob are off the mark, don't think a series of 5 letters has ever pissed me off more in my life lol, ima go get me a double down and chill out, my next post will be with lolcats...

Lol GJDM!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

f*ck these nutritionists and their science keep changing shit up every fucking year.Im just gonna eat whatever I fucking want!white bread,brown bread,no bread,yes bread,half a bread ,more bread! f*ck off.I'm gonna go have a fucking sandwich with whatever the f*ck bread is in the damn fridge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

f*ck these nutritionists and their science keep changing shit up every fucking year.Im just gonna eat whatever I fucking want!white bread,brown bread,no bread,yes bread,half a bread ,more bread! f*ck off.I'm gonna go have a fucking sandwich with whatever the f*ck bread is in the damn fridge!

have some bread on your samich. you could have a white bread sammich in between two bits of brown bread to keep the confused nutritionists happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

f*ck these nutritionists and their science keep changing shit up every fucking year.Im just gonna eat whatever I fucking want!white bread,brown bread,no bread,yes bread,half a bread ,more bread! f*ck off.I'm gonna go have a fucking sandwich with whatever the f*ck bread is in the damn fridge!

have some bread on your samich. you could have a white bread sammich in between two bits of brown bread to keep the confused nutritionists happy.

yes!yes an interracial sandwich!excellent idea!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

f*ck these nutritionists and their science keep changing shit up every fucking year.Im just gonna eat whatever I fucking want!white bread,brown bread,no bread,yes bread,half a bread ,more bread! f*ck off.I'm gonna go have a fucking sandwich with whatever the f*ck bread is in the damn fridge!

Haha i know what you mean, i use to follow all that bro science untill i learnt about how food choice is all personal preference and has no difference on body comp.

Good stuff eat that white bread, as long as it fits your macros though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes a calorie is a calories they are forms of energy.

Well they are and they aren’t and that’s why there is this debate. The trouble is... do we exactly know how the body reacts to every different food it encounters on a daily basis and the answer is no. Remember calories is a unit of energy, and energy in energy out is determined by how that energy is packed and structured into different foods of similar or the same macronutrient molecules. calories are not the same when looking at fats versus proteins versus carbs, but I’m also saying calories aren’t the same when comparing carbs versus carbs, proteins versus proteins and fats versus fats, because these macro-nutrients are structured differently in ‘clean foods’ compared to processed foods, which does effect your metabolism differently, which in turn effects your entire body differently. besides like I said, a lot of junk food is detrimental compared with ‘healthier’ ‘clean food’ options, and any one would agree that a healthier diet leads to a healthier body, and better gym gains, and a better body, so why are we still talking about this? Have junk food once or twice a week as part of your macro’s so you can satisfy superficial junk food cravings, and eat clean the rest of the time you nourish your body with the nutrients (and not just calories) that it wants, and that way I won’t be using a damaged dissection your liver as an example of how not to structure a diet around training. Actually Atherosclerosis, or other types of CHD are more likely cause of death on a ‘fit your macros, eat all the crap you want blah blah diet’

Anyways, over this now. I’m sure you know what you should be eating, seems like you're trying to find an excuse to eat what you want to eat and feel good about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



  • Popular Contributors

    Nobody has received reputation this week.

×
×
  • Create New...