• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Protein intake and the anabolic response

jzpowahz said:
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 :p
Click to expand...

Yeah still wasting time with it. Lol.

I'm not saying nutrient timing has zero effect. But like I asked Oni I would love to see the research showing the effect of nutrient timing on muscle gain and body comp over the long term and see how significant these differences actually are.
 
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
 
0ni said:
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
Click to expand...

In theory but it wouldn't be the first time the theory didn't extrapolate out with real world results, especially with the human body.

This is why I keep saying I want research showing nutrient timing giving significant long term gains in muscle and body comp long term. Not interested in the other bullshit that you will go on with.

If it doesn't end up with significant gains in muscle or body comp not really interested in wasting my time.
 
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.
 
0ni said:
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.
Click to expand...

You asked what I wanted.

I said research showing actual results showing significantly improved muscle gain and body comp.

I didn't ask you to try and convince me I don't need that information.
 
I think the whole "research" "study" "science" thing does not apply to bodybuilding or weight training alot of the time - because really who is going to be researching alot of the things bodybuilders etc do? Do you think when Arnold was training he was looking for the best researched and science backed program or did he use common sense and hard work and through trial and error built a foundation around that which most top athletes/bodybuilders/strength athletes will use today...

I understand what Bazza and 0ni are saying and see pros and cons either way....there is a common trend in what most top bodybuilders/athletes/strength athletes do and have done for years - and that may not be 100% backed by science - but it sure is backed by real world results....
 
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.
 
Wolfgang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Bazza20 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...

Wolfgang said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Rugby88 said:
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
Click to expand...

What!?! What the actual fu%k!?!

This isn't a religion vs evolution debate

Can you give an example of something that is backed by science that doesn't work? Or something that works that can not be backed by science?

I'd listen to the scientist, being a top level athlete doesn't mean you are a top level coach

So many "what the fu%k's" with what you have written here... I'm not even sure if you're trolling or not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top