[quote]flipcollar wrote:
I always wonder about some of the guys who post exclusively in PWI. DO THEY EVEN LIFT?[/quote]
Most don’t. I have asked that question before.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Up a few pounds and noticing more definition. I’m actually getting separation between my upper and lower chest. Pretty cool. Am I doin it right?[/quote]
Are you counting your macros and calories?
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Up a few pounds and noticing more definition. I’m actually getting separation between my upper and lower chest. Pretty cool. Am I doin it right?[/quote]
Are you counting your macros and calories?[/quote]
Now? Yes.
Although last week I was on vacation so I just ate lots and trained for like 2-3 hours a day. =0)
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Up a few pounds and noticing more definition. I’m actually getting separation between my upper and lower chest. Pretty cool. Am I doin it right?[/quote]
Are you counting your macros and calories?[/quote]
Now? Yes.
Although last week I was on vacation so I just ate lots and trained for like 2-3 hours a day. =0)[/quote]
That’s the dream…
Looking swole as fuck.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Up a few pounds and noticing more definition. I’m actually getting separation between my upper and lower chest. Pretty cool. Am I doin it right?[/quote]
Are you counting your macros and calories?[/quote]
Now? Yes.
Although last week I was on vacation so I just ate lots and trained for like 2-3 hours a day. =0)[/quote]
If you’re counting, you’re not doing it right.
You’re just supposed to indiscriminately stuff your face with the same foods every day and if you see some lay growth you pound down a couple more slices and ride out the bulk.
Have you learned nothing?
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
I know that those logs exist. And, yes, I do frequently visit them. I was just making note of how sad it is that I can’t go for five minutes reading through this forum without seeing this same shit. Every other thread in here lately seems to be a shit-storm thread. I just think it’s sad that this site has become little more than a way to blow off steam for guys than an actual site for discussion.[/quote]
You’re taking what you’re finding in half a dozen BSL threads and applying it to the whole site. Those thread comprise a tiny percentage of the content here. Every other forum is filled with quality information and discussion. If you ignored the threads that are entirely comprised of bitching between those 6 or 7 posters you mentioned, there would be nothing to complain about. Except the PWI forum. That shit is nuts forever.[/quote]
That’s the sad part tho…
I actually think this forum has a lot of potential…And I’ve gained some valuable information even within these SHITSTORM threads…it’s just so draining and time-wasting to have to read through them.
I think alot of the topics in these shitty threads have actually been discussion-worthy. If only we can stop the back and forth femine chatter.
I actually now think “whatshisface” was on to something when he made that thread about ignoring Prof X. If ppl don’t like him, ignore him. And vice-versa. If you want to challenge what is being said, then feel free to do so. But the bickering has got to stop.
[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
I know that those logs exist. And, yes, I do frequently visit them. I was just making note of how sad it is that I can’t go for five minutes reading through this forum without seeing this same shit. Every other thread in here lately seems to be a shit-storm thread. I just think it’s sad that this site has become little more than a way to blow off steam for guys than an actual site for discussion.[/quote]
You’re taking what you’re finding in half a dozen BSL threads and applying it to the whole site. Those thread comprise a tiny percentage of the content here. Every other forum is filled with quality information and discussion. If you ignored the threads that are entirely comprised of bitching between those 6 or 7 posters you mentioned, there would be nothing to complain about. Except the PWI forum. That shit is nuts forever.[/quote]
That’s the sad part tho…
I actually think this forum has a lot of potential…And I’ve gained some valuable information even within these SHITSTORM threads…it’s just so draining and time-wasting to have to read through them.
I think alot of the topics in these shitty threads have actually been discussion-worthy. If only we can stop the back and forth femine chatter.
I actually now think “whatshisface” was on to something when he made that thread about ignoring Prof X. If ppl don’t like him, ignore him. And vice-versa. If you want to challenge what is being said, then feel free to do so. But the bickering has got to stop. [/quote]
Agree with this 100%. I have noticed even when I try to ignore some of them though, they will still follow me around the forum.
I know I will try to avoid adding to it much in the future.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Up a few pounds and noticing more definition. I’m actually getting separation between my upper and lower chest. Pretty cool. Am I doin it right?[/quote]
Are you counting your macros and calories?[/quote]
Now? Yes.
Although last week I was on vacation so I just ate lots and trained for like 2-3 hours a day. =0)[/quote]
If you’re counting, you’re not doing it right.
You’re just supposed to indiscriminately stuff your face with the same foods every day and if you see some lay growth you pound down a couple more slices and ride out the bulk.
Have you learned nothing?[/quote]
Lol…Good job DD looking impressive.
[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Up a few pounds and noticing more definition. I’m actually getting separation between my upper and lower chest. Pretty cool. Am I doin it right?[/quote]
Are you counting your macros and calories?[/quote]
Now? Yes.
Although last week I was on vacation so I just ate lots and trained for like 2-3 hours a day. =0)[/quote]
If you’re counting, you’re not doing it right.
You’re just supposed to indiscriminately stuff your face with the same foods every day and if you see some lay growth you pound down a couple more slices and ride out the bulk.
Have you learned nothing?[/quote]
Lol…Good job DD looking impressive.
[/quote]
x2 DD
You look great and have improved tremendously since really tracking your calories and macros.
Who would have thought?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Up a few pounds and noticing more definition. I’m actually getting separation between my upper and lower chest. Pretty cool. Am I doin it right?[/quote]
You obviously are robbing yourself of gains since you aren’t 20% bf.
But seriously, holy shit, looking amazing
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Up a few pounds and noticing more definition. I’m actually getting separation between my upper and lower chest. Pretty cool. Am I doin it right?[/quote]
Yes. Looking great.
What did you do? I didn’t see a training log on here.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]
Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.
The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]
What the fuck are you even talking about? No one is saying to “eat perfect” they’re saying stay within your calorie allotment and macro ranges (doesn’t have to be exact numbers) and eat when your day permits. So what if you only get to eat 3 times? Hit your macros and cals with those meals. Just because you’re not eating chicken and rice every 3 hours doesn’t meant the other alternative is indiscrimitely stuffing your face
[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]
Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.
The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]
What the fuck are you even talking about? No one is saying to “eat perfect” they’re saying stay within your calorie allotment and macro ranges (doesn’t have to be exact numbers) and eat when your day permits. So what if you only get to eat 3 times? Hit your macros and cals with those meals. Just because you’re not eating chicken and rice every 3 hours doesn’t meant the other alternative is indiscrimitely stuffing your face[/quote]
Once again, the person who is working all day may have a much harder time trying to get all of that down in one or two meals if they eat the same types of foods.
No one wrote anything anywhere about “stuffing your face”.
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]
Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.
The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]
What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?
What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]
You’ve reached the heart of the meal frequency debate.
Today, many say it doesn’t matter, as long as your daily macros meets your needs.
However, old school guys bring up things like nitrogen retention and the need for a steady stream of amino acids to prevent catabolism.
I’ve read all the arguments and tried both ways, and in my opinion – and this is N=1, as they say – if trying to add mass you will get better results by eating more frequently.
Furthermore, if trying to lose fat, I would still sip on something like MAG-10 if during fasting periods.
Ducks for cover[/quote]
Have you read layne norton’s phd research ? Just curious
[/quote]
No, though from what I’ve gleaned he isn’t a big fasting guy either.
[/quote]
But he also isn’t a 6 meals a day guy either from his papers. They show the largest protein synthesis comes from 4 maybe 5 meals. Spread out because of a refractory period
[/quote]
Please don’t say you think 4-5 meals is the same as fasting…?
Call me crazy, but 4-5 meals a day is reasonably high meal frequency. [/quote]
I don’t believe in my statements I said it was IF? I’m confused
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]
Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.
The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]
What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?
What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]
Everyone doesn’t have the same appetite. It is easier for me to eat smaller meals than try to get down a ton of chicken breasts in one.
You seem to think all people work like you do.
By the way, there is no real “perfect”. [/quote]
LOL how do you know how I work? LOL at assuming you know how i eat.
But any who, what I’m referring to is that “The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much” line you wrote. Who is eating less because of not being able to eat every 3 hours?
Like you’ve said before you weren’t always hungry when you ate, because it was required to grow. I feel the ‘lean-gainers’ do the same, they eat according to whatever their macros are for that day usually. So I guess I don’t see how having a real job or just life in general makes a difference over one way of gaining muscle vs another (I guess I’m referring to bulking vs lean gaining but that’s so stupid sounding lol)
Like the eating every 3 hours stuff is one of the most bro-sciency things ever, and you’re not a fan of that. So I guess I just am not following how not being able to eat every 3 hours supports a less calculated bulk?
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]
Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.
The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]
What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?
What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]
You’ve reached the heart of the meal frequency debate.
Today, many say it doesn’t matter, as long as your daily macros meets your needs.
However, old school guys bring up things like nitrogen retention and the need for a steady stream of amino acids to prevent catabolism.
I’ve read all the arguments and tried both ways, and in my opinion – and this is N=1, as they say – if trying to add mass you will get better results by eating more frequently.
Furthermore, if trying to lose fat, I would still sip on something like MAG-10 if during fasting periods.
Ducks for cover[/quote]
Well, I get that. But do you really feel eating every 3 hours vs 2-3 bigger meals vs 1 giant meal, of at the end of the day is all the same macros/cals, is going to be THAT drastic when it comes to the results they produce?
I mean I personally feel protein digests better spacing it out a bit, timing carbs can help a bit with body comp, but that it’s more ‘icing on the cake’ (yum). But I mean, if schedule only allows one over the other, then it’s not a big deal.
Plus I think any benefit of fasting has more so to do with absence of carbs vs absence of food (just my opinion lol).
Regardless, I think meal frequency is probably one of the LEAST important aspects of bulking/gaining muscle probably. And idk how anyone who in one way claims something is nothing but ‘bro-science’ can then spout ‘eating every 3 hours’ as if it’s not the Holy Grail of bro-science lol
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]
Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.
The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]
What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?
What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]
You’ve reached the heart of the meal frequency debate.
Today, many say it doesn’t matter, as long as your daily macros meets your needs.
However, old school guys bring up things like nitrogen retention and the need for a steady stream of amino acids to prevent catabolism.
I’ve read all the arguments and tried both ways, and in my opinion – and this is N=1, as they say – if trying to add mass you will get better results by eating more frequently.
Furthermore, if trying to lose fat, I would still sip on something like MAG-10 if during fasting periods.
Ducks for cover[/quote]
Well, I get that. But do you really feel eating every 3 hours vs 2-3 bigger meals vs 1 giant meal, of at the end of the day is all the same macros/cals, is going to be THAT drastic when it comes to the results they produce?
I mean I personally feel protein digests better spacing it out a bit, timing carbs can help a bit with body comp, but that it’s more ‘icing on the cake’ (yum). But I mean, if schedule only allows one over the other, then it’s not a big deal.
Plus I think any benefit of fasting has more so to do with absence of carbs vs absence of food (just my opinion lol).
Regardless, I think meal frequency is probably one of the LEAST important aspects of bulking/gaining muscle probably. And idk how anyone who in one way claims something is nothing but ‘bro-science’ can then spout ‘eating every 3 hours’ as if it’s not the Holy Grail of bro-science lol
[/quote]
^-^
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]
Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.
The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]
What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?
What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]
You’ve reached the heart of the meal frequency debate.
Today, many say it doesn’t matter, as long as your daily macros meets your needs.
However, old school guys bring up things like nitrogen retention and the need for a steady stream of amino acids to prevent catabolism.
I’ve read all the arguments and tried both ways, and in my opinion – and this is N=1, as they say – if trying to add mass you will get better results by eating more frequently.
Furthermore, if trying to lose fat, I would still sip on something like MAG-10 if during fasting periods.
Ducks for cover[/quote]
Well, I get that. But do you really feel eating every 3 hours vs 2-3 bigger meals vs 1 giant meal, of at the end of the day is all the same macros/cals, is going to be THAT drastic when it comes to the results they produce?
I mean I personally feel protein digests better spacing it out a bit, timing carbs can help a bit with body comp, but that it’s more ‘icing on the cake’ (yum). But I mean, if schedule only allows one over the other, then it’s not a big deal.
Plus I think any benefit of fasting has more so to do with absence of carbs vs absence of food (just my opinion lol).
Regardless, I think meal frequency is probably one of the LEAST important aspects of bulking/gaining muscle probably. And idk how anyone who in one way claims something is nothing but ‘bro-science’ can then spout ‘eating every 3 hours’ as if it’s not the Holy Grail of bro-science lol
[/quote]
For bulking, yes, I do believe frequent meals are better than 1 big meal, mainly due to more insulin secretion throughout the day.
Better than 2-3 meals? If they’re spaced relatively evenly apart, probably not much difference.
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]
Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.
The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]
What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?
What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]
You’ve reached the heart of the meal frequency debate.
Today, many say it doesn’t matter, as long as your daily macros meets your needs.
However, old school guys bring up things like nitrogen retention and the need for a steady stream of amino acids to prevent catabolism.
I’ve read all the arguments and tried both ways, and in my opinion – and this is N=1, as they say – if trying to add mass you will get better results by eating more frequently.
Furthermore, if trying to lose fat, I would still sip on something like MAG-10 if during fasting periods.
Ducks for cover[/quote]
Well, I get that. But do you really feel eating every 3 hours vs 2-3 bigger meals vs 1 giant meal, of at the end of the day is all the same macros/cals, is going to be THAT drastic when it comes to the results they produce?
I mean I personally feel protein digests better spacing it out a bit, timing carbs can help a bit with body comp, but that it’s more ‘icing on the cake’ (yum). But I mean, if schedule only allows one over the other, then it’s not a big deal.
Plus I think any benefit of fasting has more so to do with absence of carbs vs absence of food (just my opinion lol).
Regardless, I think meal frequency is probably one of the LEAST important aspects of bulking/gaining muscle probably. And idk how anyone who in one way claims something is nothing but ‘bro-science’ can then spout ‘eating every 3 hours’ as if it’s not the Holy Grail of bro-science lol
[/quote]
For bulking, yes, I do believe frequent meals are better than 1 big meal, mainly due to more insulin secretion throughout the day.
Better than 2-3 meals? If they’re spaced relatively evenly apart, probably not much difference. [/quote]
Yeah, and I know personally it depends on the person. I know I eat 4-5 meals a day, but only put carbs in some because I personally feel having insulin elevated all day isn’t the best thing.
But I know people that have gotten results with all the strategies above, and the benefits/negatives of one in comparison to another I feel kind of make them all ‘even’, and you have to find what works for you.
Btw, appreciate you commenting on this thread as a contributor, and doing so in a civil way.
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]
Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.
The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]
What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?
What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]
You’ve reached the heart of the meal frequency debate.
Today, many say it doesn’t matter, as long as your daily macros meets your needs.
However, old school guys bring up things like nitrogen retention and the need for a steady stream of amino acids to prevent catabolism.
I’ve read all the arguments and tried both ways, and in my opinion – and this is N=1, as they say – if trying to add mass you will get better results by eating more frequently.
Furthermore, if trying to lose fat, I would still sip on something like MAG-10 if during fasting periods.
Ducks for cover[/quote]
Well, I get that. But do you really feel eating every 3 hours vs 2-3 bigger meals vs 1 giant meal, of at the end of the day is all the same macros/cals, is going to be THAT drastic when it comes to the results they produce?
I mean I personally feel protein digests better spacing it out a bit, timing carbs can help a bit with body comp, but that it’s more ‘icing on the cake’ (yum). But I mean, if schedule only allows one over the other, then it’s not a big deal.
Plus I think any benefit of fasting has more so to do with absence of carbs vs absence of food (just my opinion lol).
Regardless, I think meal frequency is probably one of the LEAST important aspects of bulking/gaining muscle probably. And idk how anyone who in one way claims something is nothing but ‘bro-science’ can then spout ‘eating every 3 hours’ as if it’s not the Holy Grail of bro-science lol
[/quote]
For bulking, yes, I do believe frequent meals are better than 1 big meal, mainly due to more insulin secretion throughout the day.
Better than 2-3 meals? If they’re spaced relatively evenly apart, probably not much difference. [/quote]
Yeah, and I know personally it depends on the person. I know I eat 4-5 meals a day, but only put carbs in some because I personally feel having insulin elevated all day isn’t the best thing.
But I know people that have gotten results with all the strategies above, and the benefits/negatives of one in comparison to another I feel kind of make them all ‘even’, and you have to find what works for you.
Btw, appreciate you commenting on this thread as a contributor, and doing so in a civil way. [/quote]
Also, don’t forget that all food – even fats – raise insulin (to a degree). Some proteins are as insulinogenic as carbs!
(I save all my snark for the football forums.)