A couple of cardio questions...

**pistachio** · 14-10-2011 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by dave

Think of it like this. Early research leads to theories and with further research those theories have to be disregarded and the real picture comes out. It is not like the research is totally debunking having aminos available it is just that theories went a little too far as they do with limited research.

Also the net and your friends tend to enlarge theories a little bit. I have done it believing other scientists too but when evidence stares you in the face you have to take notice.

So have a pre workout shake and you will be fine. Have a meal after you workout when ever. I personally have a huge meal post workout as that is the time I need and have to eat due to work etc.

Do you not see the irony in this tho? There are new theories now and the net is saying different things.

Who's to say we won't look back on this in 5 years and be saying the exact same thing about the 'new' theory?

I'm not saying its not necessarily correct, but the point above resonates in my mind. I got shown loads and loads of studies back in the day about how important a PWO shake was. Then I got shown loads and loads of studies about how its really a 3-4:1 carb / protein ratio you need PWO.

Now the studies are showing this. What will they show next month? Will it be back to PWO shakes with high protein?

**The Hulk** · 14-10-2011 09:12 PM

I don't know for sure, but a lot of those past studies promoting post workout protein supplements may have been funded and pushed by the protein companies?

**Bazza20** · 14-10-2011 09:34 PM

Pistach that is how science works. Theories improve as better research and science becomes available. This is how our knowledge advances, otherwise we would be still back in the dark ages thinking the world was flat.

Also not to mention the fitness industry loves to take things to extremes. Eg, no fat diets, no carb diets, eating 10 meals a day, ect.

**Fadi** · 14-10-2011 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by DKD

I've been meaning to re-visit Fadi's lose fat/keep muscle thread...whatever it's called....he talks about HIIT and doing a 10 minute workout from memory. I read it several weeks back....i think it's an excellent read for those interested in this topic.

Thank you DKD.

I think you're talking about this (the 10 minutes program):Let’s Lose Some Fat Mass…

The other program, this one:Lose Fat / Maintain Muscle is geared to setting some soild metabolic/mitochondria foundation for the new muscle growth that is to come.

Take care,

Fadi.

**DKD** · 14-10-2011 10:37 PM

Thanks Fadi, I've just read through both threads. Excellent food for thought in both of them. I need to 'waken' my metabolism so your advice will be invaluable.

**pistachio** · 14-10-2011 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Bazza20

Pistach that is how science works. Theories improve as better research and science becomes available. This is how our knowledge advances, otherwise we would be still back in the dark ages thinking the world was flat.

Also not to mention the fitness industry loves to take things to extremes. Eg, no fat diets, no carb diets, eating 10 meals a day, ect.

I know, i am still always somewhat hesitant to jump on the latest bandwagon tho....

Originally Posted by Fadi

Thank you DKD.

I think you're talking about this (the 10 minutes program):Let’s Lose Some Fat Mass…

The other program, this one:Lose Fat / Maintain Muscle is geared to setting some soild metabolic/mitochondria foundation for the new muscle growth that is to come.

Take care,

Fadi.

I'm curious Fadi that you responded to that, but didn't address any of the topic related to PWO nutrition?

I know you are (were?) a huge fan of the 3-4:1 carb-protein ratio. Have you been converted, or just didn't want to argue your point?

**dave** · 14-10-2011 11:15 PM

Things evolve as we learn, as bazza said we know the earth is not flat now and have moved on from there.

You may also have looked at all these studies (I mean this with no offense intended) but do you think you could understand the complexities of breaking down the information of a physiology based study without training in it. Could you spot the flaws, assumptions, manipulations of data etc that goes on to purport the scientists believed theory (they are still human). This breaking down of a study is what is really needed to get full benefit from its findings. Trust me it is hard and tedious and took me a long time to get it to where i am now and I still don't think I am good at it. Then there are people who will take bits to show their way of thinking is right without using the whole information from the study. There are also mistakes we make in thinking that the findings as are important as we.want them to be.

**pistachio** · 15-10-2011 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by dave

Things evolve as we learn, as bazza said we know the earth is not flat now and have moved on from there.

You may also have looked at all these studies (I mean this with no offense intended) but do you think you could understand the complexities of breaking down the information of a physiology based study without training in it. Could you spot the flaws, assumptions, manipulations of data etc that goes on to purport the scientists believed theory (they are still human). This breaking down of a study is what is really needed to get full benefit from its findings. Trust me it is hard and tedious and took me a long time to get it to where i am now and I still don't think I am good at it. Then there are people who will take bits to show their way of thinking is right without using the whole information from the study. There are also mistakes we make in thinking that the findings as are important as we.want them to be.

nah no offense mate, and i agree 100% with what your saying.

pretty much what you've said is the confirmation I've wanted. the text in bold is why I didn't accept it as fact just because someone quoted a study. Cos everyone does that.

But if this is the general consensus these days, AFTER everyone has actually analysed the studies, then i am satisfied