For the 'Just Eat' Crowd

Nutrition
62

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Age does guarantee size for the vast majority of the population. Ghandi would have gotten fat if he hadn’t fasted so often. Just look at Buddha.[/quote]

That’s bullshit. INACTIVITY guarantees fat gain in the vast majority of the population. Combine that with the typical shitty American diet, and you’ve got middle aged obesity.

And Ghandi also walked miles in peace marches, and performed manual labor to protest the caste system in India. Why was Buddha fat? Maybe because he sat around and meditated all day.

63

By the logic of only trusting those who have been there, why do world record holders have trainers? Nobody’s gone as far as they have…

64

[quote]Kruiser wrote:

But it IS the same. If I’m reading you guys right you’re telling me that you have nothing to learn from anyone who is smaller/weaker than you, and anyone bigger/stronger has an almost magical ability to help you achieve your goals. I still maintain that good, helpful knowledge is just that; regardless of its source. [/quote]

You’ve missed the boat and, honestly, we’re not waiting around to scoop you up. If you honestly think that someone MUCH smaller than the bodybuilder in question has a higher chance of being more informed, then please, simply say so. Speaking in hypotheticals is getting old and ridiculous. I want you to explain why someone who is 250lbs of mostly muscle, that they built over years, would be MORE likely to get “good helpful knowledge” from someone 100lbs smaller than them.

Please explain.

I swear it is like it hurts to admit that those big guys just might know something that those little guys don’t.

[quote]

Again, having the best of both worlds is great. I’d love an olympic coach that could impress me with his lifts as well as his knowledge of the subject and teaching skills. If I have to pick one or the other though, I’ll take a good teacher that has learned his stuff the hard way rather than some dumb jock who got where he is by virtue of genetic traits. [/quote]

How would you possibly know how someone got big without speaking with them? How “dumb” is he if he quickly found what worked for him? I don’t read most of the articles on this site and couldn’t tell you half of the acronyms I see flying all over the place. Why? Because I don’t care. I am making progress and understood the basics a long time ago…basics that are STILL more applicable than most of the shit these newbies are getting bogged down with. Does this make me a “dumb jock” simply because I don’t search out this or that author? Does this mean I stopped learning simply because I see most of this as irrelevant?

There is a HUGE difference between experience and theory. Most of these guys are so caught up in theory that they’ve forgotten about the small fact that they sure aren’t making much progress.

Gee, guy, this may surprise you but many of us are “cerebral” as well. That still doesn’t mean I need to read or even know much of the stuff being branded as the latest training info. I also know how to have a conversation with the least educated and those who think they are so well read. I have found the ones that have figured it out are quite often the same ones so many “cerebrals” believe don’t know anything. In this day and age, why is it big muscles still mean “stupid” to so many who aren’t making progress?

One more thing…knowledge does NOT equal hard work. No one cares how much you think you know if it has produced NOTHING in the way of results for you or even most people.

65

[quote]Evilmage wrote:
By the logic of only trusting those who have been there, why do world record holders have trainers? Nobody’s gone as far as they have…[/quote]

Who has written that they only trust “those who have been there”? I think what you would find is that it was written many would be more likely to approach someone who has built the size than some guy who hadn’t yet thinks he has read a lot. If someone has an established background of helping people reach the goal I am after, then obviously they would be asked for info.

How many times do you see this happening? How many little guys are the trainers of champions in bodybuilding and have the proof to back it up? Being able to name one or two people does not erase the fact that MOST LITTLE GUYS DON’T KNOW SHIT ABOUT HOW TO GET BIG.

Please deny this.

66

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Um, why would someone SEDENTARY be on a BODYBUILDING website attempting to gain weight? Why do you think people are giving advice to SEDENTARY people? Are you ill? Do you take medication for psychosis?

Anyone who is just getting involved with physical training for the first time could be considered a sedentary individual. It doesn’t have to be an exact definition. [/quote]

Uh, someone just getting involved with training…WOULD BE INVOLVED WITH TRAINING!

How does that mean they are still sedentary? You jumped into this without looking, didn’t you?

[quote]
If you already look like Arnold and you find that you can’t gain more weight, more calories might be the way to go. If you look like the average skinny guy and you can’t gain weight on 3,000, then it’s time to get some bloodwork done before shoving more crap into your mouth.[/quote]

This crap here doesn’t even need a comment. I’ll just let you know that I needed more calories than that when I was “skinny”. According to you, this meant I had a disease.

I hope people are laughing by now.

67

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
You tackle it at the source: Stop excess carbohydrate consumption. That’s what’s responsible for this epidemic in both adults and children. The kids, as fat as they are, will only grow fatter if they don’t ditch the sugars and starches.

You aren’t much of a nutritionist. I certainly hope you are a better “trainer”.

There will come a point when, if consuming 3000 cals per day, 3000 cals/day will be maintainence level for an individual, and they will cease to gain weight.

Yet you contend that because of the types of calories they consume, a person will get fatter. They may lose LBM, but there is no way in hell they can get more obese than they already are at 3000 cals/day if that is their maintainence level.

Seriously - if you just want to piss in the swimming pool, admit to it. Stop trying to pass yourself off as an expert in an area that you are so obviously clueless. [/quote]

Clueless, I’m not. What I am is an advocate of high fat, moderate protein diets - not a foreign concept on this site, by any means.

The “calories in, calories out” dogma is the oldest horse in the stable. You can’t make a statement about nutrition on an online forum without someone throwing it in your face. I’ve already dealt with it and refuted it countless times.

I admit it: I’m not a fan of carbohydrates. What negative side effects the medical establishment associates with lipids, I associate with carbs, instead.

As regards obesity, people consuming a greater percentage of carbs in their diet have a greater chance of getting fat than those who subsist primarily on fats and proteins.

And if you want to compare isocaloric diets, [which is a thoroughly flawed methodology with no real world application, since the types of food that people eat dictate how much they eat - animal fats and proteins are highly satiating, whereas carbohydrates are highly addictive] this still does not rule out the possibility of negative body composition changes, if not outright weight gain.

I have found this site to be a great primer:

http://www.biblelife.org/carbs.htm

The front page sounds like scare tactics, but read deeper and you will find the guy knows what he’s talking about.

The very first time I read it, I thought, “This guy takes the anti-carb tirade too far”. Now, I think he’s right on the money.

68

[quote]Kruiser wrote:
But it IS the same. If I’m reading you guys right you’re telling me that you have nothing to learn from anyone who is smaller/weaker than you, and anyone bigger/stronger has an almost magical ability to help you achieve your goals. I still maintain that good, helpful knowledge is just that; regardless of its source.

Again, having the best of both worlds is great. I’d love an olympic coach that could impress me with his lifts as well as his knowledge of the subject and teaching skills. If I have to pick one or the other though, I’ll take a good teacher that has learned his stuff the hard way rather than some dumb jock who got where he is by virtue of genetic traits.

Of course, I’m rather cerebral myself (that’s actually me in my avatar) so it’s also a bit of a personal preference. I’ll never discount information from any source until I feel justified deeming in worthless to me. Why would I?

[/quote]

You’re still confusing book learning and experience. Your coach who learned stuff the hard way learned it from experience. He may not be able to snatch 315 lbs., but he has coached dozens of atheletes who have. He was there with them from day one, helped them overcome obstacles and reach the elite level, and I’m sure he learned more from being there than he ever learned from books.

We are lucky enough to have a few such coaches who post here, but they are out numbered by the legion of kids who have read a few articles and then preach what they themselves have never practiced, or even witnessed anyone else put into practice.

And I don’t get the disrespect for the “dumb jock.” Even with his genetic advantages, he still had to work his ass off to there. No one is saying you have to take the “dumb jock’s” word as gospel just because he is bigger than you. But why would you assume that you couldn’t learn anything from talking to him?

69

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
You tackle it at the source: Stop excess carbohydrate consumption. That’s what’s responsible for this epidemic in both adults and children. The kids, as fat as they are, will only grow fatter if they don’t ditch the sugars and starches.

You aren’t much of a nutritionist. I certainly hope you are a better “trainer”.

There will come a point when, if consuming 3000 cals per day, 3000 cals/day will be maintainence level for an individual, and they will cease to gain weight.

Yet you contend that because of the types of calories they consume, a person will get fatter. They may lose LBM, but there is no way in hell they can get more obese than they already are at 3000 cals/day if that is their maintainence level.

Seriously - if you just want to piss in the swimming pool, admit to it. Stop trying to pass yourself off as an expert in an area that you are so obviously clueless.

Clueless, I’m not. What I am is an advocate of high fat, moderate protein diets - not a foreign concept on this site, by any means.

The “calories in, calories out” dogma is the oldest horse in the stable. You can’t make a statement about nutrition on an online forum without someone throwing it in your face. I’ve already dealt with it and refuted it countless times.

I admit it: I’m not a fan of carbohydrates. What negative side effects the medical establishment associates with lipids, I associate with carbs, instead.

As regards obesity, people consuming a greater percentage of carbs in their diet have a greater chance of getting fat than those who subsist primarily on fats and proteins.

And if you want to compare isocaloric diets, [which is a thoroughly flawed methodology with no real world application, since the types of food that people eat dictate how much they eat - animal fats and proteins are highly satiating, whereas carbohydrates are highly addictive] this still does not rule out the possibility of negative body composition changes, if not outright weight gain.

I have found this site to be a great primer:

http://www.biblelife.org/carbs.htm

The front page sounds like scare tactics, but read deeper and you will find the guy knows what he’s talking about.

The very first time I read it, I thought, “This guy takes the anti-carb tirade too far”. Now, I think he’s right on the money.[/quote]

Unless you have found a way to disprove the whole thermodynamics thing, you are wrong.

70

Nominal Prospect, you’re a complete idiot. What’s all this talk about people over the age of 40 being heavier than they were at 20? People are becoming obese because of inactivity and large amounts of processed foods and alcohol which was already accessed by Prof X.

I know people over the age of 40 that eat similar to what they ate as kids, resulting in weight gain. I also don’t see many people over 40 attending a gym that have a clue on how to improve physique in any way.

I saw a guy today, probably late 50s, bench pressing with a spread eagle footing. I’m not sure if you could even call it footing because his feet were in the air. It’s fucking STUPID!

Back to the original topic though. I give props to prof x with relentless come backs. Everything he says is extremely on target.

I think some of you are straying from my original statement. Stop saying that a average joe coache is better than athletes at telling you how to train. These coaches don’t just walk into the gym and say “I’m going to be a bodybuilding coach today, without any knowledge what so ever.” You’re talking about coaches who have BEEN THERE, IN THEIR SHOES, SUCCESSFUL. You take advice from someone who has been down the path you which to follow.

Not from the 140lb fruit fly who watched Pumping Iron.

71

[quote]IQ wrote:
<<< Information is useless until it has been applied, at least we know that the big guys have applied their information on 1 person successfully, that’s 1 more than most of the people arguing with them.[/quote]

This is the point.

72

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

Clueless, I’m not. What I am is an advocate of high fat, moderate protein diets - not a foreign concept on this site, by any means.

Wow, that’s pretty narrow minded and down right scary!

The “calories in, calories out” dogma is the oldest horse in the stable. You can’t make a statement about nutrition on an online forum without someone throwing it in your face. I’ve already dealt with it and refuted it countless times.

Well here it comes, right in your face.

I admit it: I’m not a fan of carbohydrates. What negative side effects the medical establishment associates with lipids, I associate with carbs, instead.

I’m fifty years young, I consume more than 4k calories a day, low fat, high carb, moderate to high protein. I’m 168lbs lean with a decent physic and 8.7%bf. I resistance train and cardio train daily and work my ass off all day. Carbs are my best friend. I get quarterly fitness consultations at my gym to measure my fitness and progress.

As regards obesity, people consuming a greater percentage of carbs in their diet have a greater chance of getting fat than those who subsist primarily on fats and proteins.

People who are fat are lazy bastards. It is not what you eat its how you eat. Your body does not give a shit, it will store all excess food as body fat unless you carp out the excess and that takes fiber. Guess what, zero fiber in fat or protein. Active people at not fat lazy bastards are. Are you smarter than a fifth grader.

And if you want to compare isocaloric diets, [which is a thoroughly flawed methodology with no real world application, since the types of food that people eat dictate how much they eat - animal fats and proteins are highly satiating, whereas carbohydrates are highly addictive] this still does not rule out the possibility of negative body composition changes, if not outright weight gain.

WHAT!!!

I have found this site to be a great primer:

http://www.biblelife.org/carbs.htm

The front page sounds like scare tactics, but read deeper and you will find the guy knows what he’s talking about.

The very first time I read it, I thought, “This guy takes the anti-carb tirade too far”. Now, I think he’s right on the money.[/quote]

Well marry the dick head, that will give you four heads. Then maybe just maybe you won’t be clueless.

73

in reference to that article listed above.

“insulin is a disease causing hormone”, WOW! I guess type 1 diabetics have the perfect life since they don’t produce insulin.

74

[quote]djreef wrote:
I’ve got 2 words for you all - Eric Cressey.

DJ[/quote]

I have one word for that. Egomaniac.

75

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’m sorry, but this is retarded. The 250lbs guy does NOT know how to gain muscle mass? As if he woke up one day weighing 250lbs and never had to lift a weight to do it? Who are you kidding? Just because someone has better genetics than you, it does not mean they are clueless. [/quote]

I have certainly met 250-pound guys who do not know how to gain muscle mass. The largest influence on sheer size is genetic. I can think of one friend right now, he lifts a little, he’s massive and strong. He wouldn’t be able to tell a 180-pound guy diddly squat about how to get to 250 pounds.

And I did not ever say that all of the genetically gifted are clueless.

I’m not claiming to know.

It’s not one of my goals. But if it were, I would read about it rather than ask my genetically massive friend.

Not every guy with 22" arms is gonna give you superior INFORMATION if you ask him that question.

And not every 180-pound trainer is going to be clueless about it, either.

Once again, when you’re looking for INFORMATION, it’s either right or wrong. It doesn’t matter who delivers the information. It doesn’t matter if they have applied it themselves.

Well – no. The pianists don’t know what works for them. They really don’t. Their strategies actually slow their progress somewhat. They have to make up for their inferior practice technique with way more time spent practicing. Inferior information can be overcome with sheer work – sometimes – but that’s not my point.

Expert pianists have spent at least 10,000 hours practicing. So of course they can develop skill with enough time. But when they tell the beginner what to do, their advice may not be the best.

The girl with the photographic memory absolutely does NOT know how to TEACH anyone else how to learn. She’s the last person the average student should ask for advice how to study.

10,000 hours of practice will have a large enough effect to overcome an inferior practicing technique. The amount of time spent practicing matters.

But overtraining isn’t as much of an issue for pianists. (Though it is becoming more of an issue as the demands of concert professionals continue to increase. Making efficient practicing more important.) It’s harder for weight trainers to overcome inefficient training methods with just more and more training.

Time spent training is the single most important factor in achieving skill.

But time spent training is NOT the most important factor in knowing how to train.

This is because the best way to increase knowledge is to observe and measure (the scientific method). The conscious part of the human brain is mostly unaware of what the motor system is doing. And unaided human perception and memory are biased and flawed.

In bodybuilding and weight training, information about HOW TO train is important or else this site wouldn’t exist. Trainers wouldn’t need to exist.

It would be nice to think that action alone is enough. That with enough determination and time in the gym, anyone can reach these goals. But it’s not always enough.

A proof by example that I have seen is the swim team at a major university (not a major sports university). They train for 6 or 8 hours per day, paying no attention to nutrition, and curiously enough, they perform worse and worse as the season progresses. A few weeks after the season ends, their times in recreational practice are much improved compared to the big meet a few weeks earlier. Of course they are coached by a really fast former swimmer. But I am positive that some of the trainers on this site could improve the swimmers’ performance during the season even if said trainers don’t know how to swim.

You are arguing that the preaching is wrong unless the preacher practices what he preaches. That’s just not true. Logically, it’s not true. Proof by example shows it’s not true. If a doctor tells a patient to stop smoking, then heads outside for his own smoke, that doesn’t make his advice wrong.

I cannot play the piano as well as many of the experts, but I can and have successfully taught pianists who are much more technically skilled than I. That’s because I have studied the process of learning to play. They have spent more time practicing. That’s the difference between us. It makes me the better teacher, them the better performers. I don’t actually have to do all the hours of practicing myself in order to tell them how to do it. This may not be as emotionally appealing as the contrary view, but it’s rational and true.

76

This is retarded. The original post is stupid. Professor X’s ego is going to buy out Wal-Mart. “most little guys don’t know shit about how to get big” That might be the dumbest thing I have ever read on here. Skinny assholes know damn well how to get big. They just don’t do it for whatever reason.

Eating food and lifting weights until you start to grow is how you get big. OMG I just spilled all the secret information from Professor X’s Priory of Sion of Hugeness. Honestly, you people make me sad for the people who actually have to see and hear you day in and day out.

P.S. I fucking rule.

77

[quote]rainjack wrote:

There’s a world of difference between researching how to play the piano, and sitting your ass on the bench and playing. People have to be taught. [/quote]

Yes, there is a world of difference: they are two entirely different things. Success in playing the piano does not guarantee success in teaching how.

[quote]
You must be taught by someone that has done what it is you are wanting to learn.[/quote]

Not true at all.

I never said “doing” was unnecessary, did I?

You’re saying that just because you have to apply the information, the information doesn’t matter. That’s not true.

Research CAN help you lose weight. Appropriate scientific research COULD help you gain LBM. After all, science is just observing and measuring how things work.

Someone wanting to lose weight who looks for good information and then applies it will be more successful than someone who just takes a shot in the dark what to do.

Of course the act of reading the information doesn’t make the fat melt off, but nobody said it did.

78

[quote]
Yes, maybe you taught them quicker on the basics of being a pianist but what happens when they need to advance? You will be incapible of helping them beyond a certain point and a more skilled pianist will need to be present. This still isn’t the greatest example you give because although weight lifting does have elements of skill, it’s different from that of something like being a excellent pianist.[/quote]

First, I’m NOT incapable of teaching those who can play better than me. I have done it successfully. I know exactly what to tell them to do. I don’t WANT to sit down and do it myself. So what? I wouldn’t be able to help them with a technique that I haven’t studied and don’t have good information about. I know that, and I stay within the limits of my knowledge.

Second, playing the piano and weight lifting aren’t as different as you think. They both require directed, focused training. Not just randomly playing keys or moving dumbbells around. You need strategies when you train for either one. That’s where the need for information and coaching comes in.

Yeah, I know it’s annoying and I’ve wondered why this is. But the bottom line is, is the advice to eat more good or not? If it’s good, it’s good, no matter how annoying.

If “eat more” is the wrong advice, then it should be criticized for being wrong. Not for coming from the wrong person.

79

[quote]andersons wrote:
I have certainly met 250-pound guys who do not know how to gain muscle mass. The largest influence on sheer size is genetic. I can think of one friend right now, he lifts a little, he’s massive and strong. He wouldn’t be able to tell a 180-pound guy diddly squat about how to get to 250 pounds. [/quote]

I would love to hear this from him. We have some posters, like Fullback 33 above, writing, “Eating food and lifting weights until you start to grow is how you get big” as if there is nothing more. If that is the case, are you saying your friend is so dumb he can’t manage a sentence like the above? He couldn’t teach someone who is 180lbs anything at all? Nothing? He looks like a bodybuilder, trains like a bodybuilder and knows absolutely NOTHING? That in itself is impressive.

I wonder if your friend would agree that he doesn’t know anything at all.

I also know most serious trainers wouldn’t listen to someone who “trains a little”. Do you really think that little tid-bit would be ignored? How “little” does he train? I really want specifics…because I am having doubts as to whether your “friend” exists.

[quote]
And I did not ever say that all of the genetically gifted are clueless. [/quote]

Of course not. You are simply trying very hard to show us all that big guys exist who don’t know anything…because this obviously means that no one should approach anyone else based on their size or personal achievement. Right?

[quote]

It’s not one of my goals. But if it were, I would read about it rather than ask my genetically massive friend.[/quote]

Is your genetically massive friend the only person who has ever gained a lot more muscle than you? If not, why use one person to represent everyone else who got huge? Where would you read about what someone should do to gain more size after they reach that level?

[quote]
Not every guy with 22" arms is gonna give you superior INFORMATION if you ask him that question.[/quote]

Gee, barely ANY guys with 15" arms are going to give me superior information so it looks like I have better chances with the guy who has 22" arms.

[quote]
And not every 180-pound trainer is going to be clueless about it, either.[/quote]

I am willing to bet that there are way more guys under 180lbs who are clueless than there are guys who have built themselves up beyond that. Again, the chances are simply better so why go looking for little people for advice?

[quote]
Once again, when you’re looking for INFORMATION, it’s either right or wrong. It doesn’t matter who delivers the information. It doesn’t matter if they have applied it themselves.[/quote]

Someone who has not applied this info at all doesn’t know whether this information actually works. There are many theories that look good on paper that wouldn’t pan out in the real world. With that in mind, it does matter whether they have applied it. Otherwise, they are simply parrots who don’t have a clue what they are saying. A coach with a history of training elite athletes SHOULD be trusted more than some guy who has read about elite athletes and is simply repeating what he read somewhere. Why would anyone argue against that?

[quote]
The girl with the photographic memory absolutely does NOT know how to TEACH anyone else how to learn. She’s the last person the average student should ask for advice how to study.[/quote]

Now wait a second. A moment ago you wrote that it doesn’t matter WHERE the info comes from as long as it is right. Then you turn around and claim to know what other people know? How do you know this girl didn’t READ about how to learn? Wouldn’t she retain the information about HOW TO LEARN better than most? Maybe she read several books on the issue. How is it you claim to know that this girl knows nothing and that so many big guys don’t know anything?

Are you claiming to be psychic…or just really poor at sticking to your own logic?

That sure does sound a lot like, “I’m jealous of people with better genetics than me so I claim they are all clueless to make me feel better”, does it not?

[quote]

This is because the best way to increase knowledge is to observe and measure (the scientific method). [/quote]

What better ‘observation’ is there than getting in a weight room and seeing how your body responds to something?

[quote]

In bodybuilding and weight training, information about HOW TO train is important or else this site wouldn’t exist. Trainers wouldn’t need to exist.

It would be nice to think that action alone is enough. That with enough determination and time in the gym, anyone can reach these goals. But it’s not always enough.[/quote]

I wrote that no one has told people to stop learning…so why would you tell me that action alone is not enough? Where did I write that knowledge was irrelevant?

80

Do you have any idea how many coaching experts analyze (via high-speed video) every little detail of these guys’ throw and try to tweak the movements they make?

Sometimes the athletes are good at analyzing themselves too. (Tiger Woods?) But the process is the same; they’re studying and looking for a better strategy for their training, to give them an edge. Ability, yeah yeah.

81

[quote]andersons wrote:
This is just silly. Tom Brady knows how to throw a football. The coaching staff knows when and where to throw it in a game situation. They take Brady’s ability and tweak it and apply it to game plans.

Do you have any idea how many coaching experts analyze (via high-speed video) every little detail of these guys’ throw and try to tweak the movements they make?

Sometimes the athletes are good at analyzing themselves too. (Tiger Woods?) But the process is the same; they’re studying and looking for a better strategy for their training, to give them an edge. Ability, yeah yeah.[/quote]

Wait…so you would see Tom Brady walking down the street and would assume he is a poor source for info on how to throw a ball? Regardless of who is analyzing his game, he had to have the ability in the first place and understand HOW TO THROW. It is like you are trying too hard to make it seem as if the better someone is at something, the less they know or can help others. Is this like the underachievers’ motto or something?