This is a funny thread. Still fighting the good fight [MENTION=6722]Bazza20[/MENTION]!
There is some truth to nutrient timing having some importance but it is going to be the icing on the cake. Focus on energy balance first, appropriate macros and micros second and nutrient timing a distance third.
I tend to think that the obesity epidemic has more to do with the whole energy balance thing rather than what time of day people are eating their excess calories
Bazza if greater muscle gains come from greater insulin sensitivity then it is logical to assume that eating in a way that makes you more insulin sensitive or eating when you're insulin sensitive would lead to greater muscle gains. Because greater muscle gains come from greater insulin sensitivity
Bazza if lowering your insulin resistance increases the amount of muscle you gain over fat then lowering your insulin resistance will achieve it.
You don't get magically different results from lowering your insulin resistance just because you achieved it through diet, drugs or whatever. Lowered resistance is lowered resistance
If you're insulin sensitive already you're not going to see as big an increase as someone who is diabetic obviously. But it doesn't make the entire system bullshit or whatever. All it is or claims to be is lowering insulin resistance. One of the major things people shit their pants over is that it is marketed as being "better than steroids" and tbh I would argue it is. Eating good and having healthy insulin sensitivity will result in a much better body composition than taking any amount of steroids and just eating whatever. So I'm not really seeing what the issue is apart from people thinking that it is claiming to do something completely drastic
I still think the "fasted" way though would be to fatass yourself for a good two years then cut down like say, George Leeman did and ended up looking pretty good naturally but not everyone wants to be a fatass.
Rugby - is there something specific that science hasn't addressed weight training wise that you'd like it to?
Bodybuilders and overweight people seem to me have the same special flower syndrome where they think their physiology is somehow radically different to the rest of the population.
Thing is bodybuilders are famous for falling for every new supp as the best thing since steroids. Then not too long later we find out with actual research it does nothing.
Bodybuilders are the last people I would be asking for real world results.
Rugby - is there something specific that science hasn't addressed weight training wise that you'd like it to?
Bodybuilders and overweight people seem to me have the same special flower syndrome where they think their physiology is somehow radically different to the rest of the population.
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...
The target market is the inexperienced guy, the guy new to the gym etc etc - def not top bodybuilders, strength athletes, athletes in general....they are the last people spending large amounts of money on different supplements...
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
Always good to stir the pot
Always good to stir the pot
You got a study to prove that?
Touché
Just sorting out my references mate!
hurry up before a new study comes out
We should start stirring then immediately!Lets just say stirring the pot has shown through our test trials to increase stuff by 10010% - we are yet to determine what stuff yet....
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?