These experiments are just a way for the OP to “successfully” remain mediocre.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Quite possibly one of the silliest things I’ve read on these forums. So anyone who lives on nothing but burgers and Doritos for an extended period, is a “successful?” I think most people would agree that a diet usually has an end goal, whether it’s short term, or long term sustainable.[/quote]
Except you’re arguing this with a single, finite example when I said “any” which means to be an expert dieter that person who has the capability to eat Doritos all day must be able to eat nothing but spinach all day too or any other healthy diet.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Seriously? Unless you’re the .00001% genetic anomaly that internet experts always cite to dispute available scientific data, I really doubt you can build an elite physique without intelligent and consistent focus on diet.
Also, following a ridiculous diet without deviation will certainly not lead to a good physique. There are too many other variables.[/quote]
So you’re telling me that David Tate and his prior love for junk food (particularly Pop Tarts if I remember correctly) is an example how you have to have a healthy did to reach elite physical status? Now I don’t know a whole lot of powerlifters personally but my impression has always been they’re more of an IIFYM approach…
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
It just means that you either have decent will power, are reasonably intelligent to understand that long term goals mean short term sacrifice, or perhaps you just don’t have especially gourmet taste buds.
Whichever the actual reason, I don’t really see it as a laudable talent.
S[/quote]
You don’t see it as a laudable talent but you say its a necessity to reach elite status?
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Quite possibly one of the silliest things I’ve read on these forums. So anyone who lives on nothing but burgers and Doritos for an extended period, is a “successful?” I think most people would agree that a diet usually has an end goal, whether it’s short term, or long term sustainable.[/quote]
Except you’re arguing this with a single, finite example when I said “any” which means to be an expert dieter that person who has the capability to eat Doritos all day must be able to eat nothing but spinach all day too or any other healthy diet.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Seriously? Unless you’re the .00001% genetic anomaly that internet experts always cite to dispute available scientific data, I really doubt you can build an elite physique without intelligent and consistent focus on diet.
Also, following a ridiculous diet without deviation will certainly not lead to a good physique. There are too many other variables.[/quote]
So you’re telling me that David Tate and his prior love for junk food (particularly Pop Tarts if I remember correctly) is an example how you have to have a healthy did to reach elite physical status? Now I don’t know a whole lot of powerlifters personally but my impression has always been they’re more of an IIFYM approach…
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
It just means that you either have decent will power, are reasonably intelligent to understand that long term goals mean short term sacrifice, or perhaps you just don’t have especially gourmet taste buds.
Whichever the actual reason, I don’t really see it as a laudable talent.
S[/quote]
You don’t see it as a laudable talent but you say its a necessity to reach elite status?
[/quote]
Dave Tate did not have an elite physique he had elite powerlifting numbers, which is completely different.
Honestly OP, if your drive and willpower are as good as you claim, you could have a moderately impressive physique in just a few years time. Hell, if you had applied that skill set to a decent strength training program and sensible, proven diet instead of testing wild hypotheses and starving yourself you’d be there already. It kind of reminds me of the overweight girls you see at the gym every day on the elliptical sweating like crazy day after day, year after year but never making any real progress. They dutifully put in their time on the machines and follow whatever shitty, useless diet they read in some magazine or online, but somehow their body stays the same. The desire is there, and so is the willingness to put in the work. Unfortunately the application is shit and so are their results. It’s a bummer.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Quite possibly one of the silliest things I’ve read on these forums. So anyone who lives on nothing but burgers and Doritos for an extended period, is a “successful?” I think most people would agree that a diet usually has an end goal, whether it’s short term, or long term sustainable.[/quote]
Except you’re arguing this with a single, finite example when I said “any” which means to be an expert dieter that person who has the capability to eat Doritos all day must be able to eat nothing but spinach all day too or any other healthy diet.
[/quote]
And if you use spinach, it’s still just as silly an example.
I respect Tate as being the guy intelligent enough to bring Westside training to the masses via his writing, but (and I mean this with all due respect), his is not what I would call an “Elite physique”. IIFYM when used correctly isn’t 100% responsible for the physiques they accompany.
Not always. One of my buddies is a very promising amateur BBer and the combination of his genetics and his IIFYM adherence have served him quite well without really much in the way of suffering to be honest. Of course by the logic I think you’re trying to lead into, is having a gym membership necessary to reach elite status? You’re kind of grasping here.
S
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
These experiments are just a way for the OP to “successfully” remain mediocre. [/quote]
Pretty much. It’s easy to declare your “experiments” a “success” when you change the target every few weeks. I can focus on my bench press for a few months and “add 50 pounds to my bench” - then start biking exclusively and “climb hills like never before” - then change the target again.
For what it’s worth, I’ve fallen into this category myself for the last year or two. I played high school and college football (during which I was a very focused and dedicated lifter) and then ran long-distance races (5K through marathon) somewhat competitively for a couple years. When some running-related injuries piled up, I shut it down for awhile and started toying around with lots of different fitness hobbies (rock climbing, yoga, cycling, etc).
I’ve enjoyed that, but I’m under no delusion that it’s going to lead to a better physique than a program specifically designed to enhance one’s physique. There are no shortcuts. There’s no beating the system. Like flipcollar has already said a few times, I don’t have a problem with what OP is doing - everyone’s free to do what they want. However, I do take issue with the unsubstantiated claims that he is likely to make based on his “results” from his experiment.
Anyone can start from the ground and achieve some level of “mediocrity” in the gym with a moderate amount of dedication and almost any halfway-decent program. Getting from “mediocre” to “notably strong” is a different ball game.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
what part of Oklahoma are you in?[/quote]
Oklahoma City, but noticing you’re in TX I’m also in Addison about once a week.
[/quote]
My wife’s brother lives in OKC, and I live in Dallas (the actual city, not a suburb). He trains at a gym somewhere downtown in OKC I believe. A Gold’s, maybe? I can’t remember for sure. I don’t know how it took me so long to notice your location.
[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
These experiments are just a way for the OP to “successfully” remain mediocre. [/quote]
Pretty much. It’s easy to declare your “experiments” a “success” when you change the target every few weeks. I can focus on my bench press for a few months and “add 50 pounds to my bench” - then start biking exclusively and “climb hills like never before” - then change the target again.
For what it’s worth, I’ve fallen into this category myself for the last year or two. I played high school and college football (during which I was a very focused and dedicated lifter) and then ran long-distance races (5K through marathon) somewhat competitively for a couple years. When some running-related injuries piled up, I shut it down for awhile and started toying around with lots of different fitness hobbies (rock climbing, yoga, cycling, etc).
I’ve enjoyed that, but I’m under no delusion that it’s going to lead to a better physique than a program specifically designed to enhance one’s physique. There are no shortcuts. There’s no beating the system. Like flipcollar has already said a few times, I really don’t have a problem with what OP is doing - everyone’s free to do what they want. However, I do take issue with the unsubstantiated claims that he is likely to make based on his “results” from his experiment.
Anyone can start from the ground and achieve some level of “mediocrity” in the gym with a moderate amount of dedication and almost any halfway-decent program. Getting from “mediocre” to “notably strong” is a different ball game.[/quote]
Absolutely and many of us have been or are there.
My only problem with the OP is the fact that he is trying to sell his ideas. Otherwise I couldn’t care less what he does with his time.
This guy cannot be for real.
[quote]gregron wrote:
This guy cannot be for real.[/quote]
Have you watched his videos? He’s as real as can be.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
My only problem with the OP is the fact that he is trying to sell his ideas. Otherwise I couldn’t care less what he does with his time. [/quote]
This experiment is really far out there admittedly, but my other work isn’t. The beginner’s guide is honestly the best comprehensive FAQ I’ve seen around. It’s not meant for the T-Nation audience though, it’s meant for the overweight/obese with health issues who are just starting to get into health. I’ve done a lot of research and believe it’s valuable information. There’s way too much myth, misinformation, and broscience out there. If you want to check it out let me know…
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
There’s way too much myth, misinformation, and broscience out there. If you want to check it out let me know…
[/quote]
Why should I buy your book? Who are you, what are your credentials, what are your experiences/achievements, and what results have those you’ve trained achieved?
[quote]TrevorLPT wrote:
Honestly OP, if your drive and willpower are as good as you claim, you could have a moderately impressive physique in just a few years time. Hell, if you had applied that skill set to a decent strength training program and sensible, proven diet instead of testing wild hypotheses and starving yourself you’d be there already. It kind of reminds me of the overweight girls you see at the gym every day on the elliptical sweating like crazy day after day, year after year but never making any real progress. They dutifully put in their time on the machines and follow whatever shitty, useless diet they read in some magazine or online, but somehow their body stays the same. The desire is there, and so is the willingness to put in the work. Unfortunately the application is shit and so are their results. It’s a bummer. [/quote]
this is it exactly. If you have the willpower to eat nothing but deep fried turds for 6 months or whatever retarded “experiment” you claim to be conducting, why not use this willpower to eat and train properly and actually achieve something?
All you’ve proven is that you can force yourself to eat weird shit for an extended period of time.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
There’s way too much myth, misinformation, and broscience out there. If you want to check it out let me know…
[/quote]
Why should I buy your book? Who are you, what are your credentials, what are your experiences/achievements, and what results have those you’ve trained achieved? [/quote]
You cut out the really important parts about what you’re quoting… I’m not saying that it’s a great fit for you, it’s meant for the obese and unhealthy who are just starting to get into health. Yes I’m lacking credentials, but judging material by the presenter is a logical fallacy called argument by authority. Everything in my work is backed up by sources like all health advice should be. Judge a book by the merit of it’s contents…
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
There’s way too much myth, misinformation, and broscience out there. If you want to check it out let me know…
[/quote]
Why should I buy your book? Who are you, what are your credentials, what are your experiences/achievements, and what results have those you’ve trained achieved? [/quote]
You cut out the really important parts about what you’re quoting… I’m not saying that it’s a great fit for you, it’s meant for the obese and unhealthy who are just starting to get into health. Yes I’m lacking credentials, but judging material by the presenter is a logical fallacy called argument by authority. Everything in my work is backed up by sources like all health advice should be. Judge a book by the merit of it’s contents…
[/quote]
I don’t mean me specifically, I mean me the consumer. Your target market, why should they buy your book?
No, it’s not a logical fallacy, it’s called being intelligent about what you spend your money on. If you and Warren Buffet both wrote books about investing, who’s do you think I’d buy? If you and John Meadows have books about nutrition, who’s do you think I’ll buy? If you and Jim Wendler have books on training who’s do you think I’ll buy. I can not know what the content of your book actually provides unless I buy it so my only course of action is to judge the book by it’s author. That’s how it works.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
There’s way too much myth, misinformation, and broscience out there. If you want to check it out let me know…
[/quote]
Why should I buy your book? Who are you, what are your credentials, what are your experiences/achievements, and what results have those you’ve trained achieved? [/quote]
You cut out the really important parts about what you’re quoting… I’m not saying that it’s a great fit for you, it’s meant for the obese and unhealthy who are just starting to get into health. Yes I’m lacking credentials, but judging material by the presenter is a logical fallacy called argument by authority. Everything in my work is backed up by sources like all health advice should be. Judge a book by the merit of it’s contents…
[/quote]
That’s easier said than done though, isn’t it? Especially for your target audience? How is a lay-person supposed to sift through content and decide what’s good information and what’s not? That’s why people pay attention to things like credentials. It’s not perfect, but it can be useful. I think USMC’s point is, why would anyone pick up your book in the first place to even find out what the contents are?
His point that you haven’t coached/trained anyone other than yourself (at least to our knowledge) is reasonable as well. If I was looking for a nutritionist, I would likely to refer to his client base before I sought his advice or read his book.
At the very least, if the author doesn’t have a client base, I would want the author’s own physique to be enviable. And I guess to some extent you’ve done this. I don’t want to look/perform like you, but I’m also not the average dude looking for basic nutritional suggestions.
Anyway. I’m still enjoying the thread.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I can not know what the content of your book actually provides unless I buy it so my only course of action is to judge the book by it’s author. That’s how it works. [/quote]
And that’s why reviews and exposure are needed. There are plenty of credentialed people that write really dumb s***, is it so hard to believe someone without credentials can write something really good?
Here’s an example:
How many meals should I eat?
Eat one or ten and it doesnâ??t matter.
For a long time diets have focused on what is referred to as nutrient timing which essentially means what you eat and when you eat it matters. Although many people have fears of nutrient timing beliefs like avoiding carbohydrates after a certain time and eating bigger breakfasts to help keep weight off the body stores enough glucose for 3 days and enough fat for months of energy. What you do over a 24 hour period will have little if any impact on energy usage and availability.
There are many studies that have shown negative correlations between skipping meals and negative health effects; however, these studies are purely correlative and not causal. Many causal reasons exist behind skipping meals such as already being overweight and wanting to cut down on intake or not planning meals well which leads to later impulse eating. Parents who donâ??t feed their kids breakfast may be impoverished or not as involved with their children both of which can produce trends towards obesity. Particularly when it comes to obesity there is no scientific reason why eating the same caloric content in one meal versus ten within a 24 hour period will lead to weight gain.
There are actually several forms of intermittent fasting that promote skipping meals such as the Warrior Diet which advocates only eating during one 4 hour window during the day. Although I donâ??t believe the scientific literature suggests any significant benefit with 24 hour eating patterns, there is still some scientific credibility to theories that suggest eating less frequently can reduce weight. Eating more food in less time inevitably increases entropy so at minimum net caloric intake should be slightly reduced over spreading meals out.
Another interesting thing to note is none of the calculations for total daily energy expenditure take nutrient timing into account. Nothing in Harris-Benedict, Katch-McArdle, Mifflin St Jeor or other REE formula has a variable for accounting for what time of day youâ??re eating at. If your caloric expenditure isnâ??t changing and your caloric intake isnâ??t changing there is no reason to believe that when you eat your carbohydrates will change the difference between those two values.
There are plenty of other non-physiological reasons why eating patterns may influence health. As mentioned earlier if you get really hungry and you choose not to handle your hunger you may stop and get some high calorie, nutritionally void fast food or candy bar. Conversely though if you are choosing to be hungry for something like the Warrior Diet it may be exercising more control over your eating which can therefore lead to less impulse eating. Same eating pattern, two different perspectives, two different outcomesâ?¦ In this example and many more the outcome boils down to choosing to be healthy and making a healthy choice.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
How is a lay-person supposed to sift through content and decide what’s good information and what’s not?[/quote]
This is why I wrote it. I wanted to put enough science and objectivity in every single response that the reader can trust the material. Even with credentialed authors personal bias and failure to re-examine paradigms can lead to failing advice (before anyone says it yeah, yeah, I know). And there’s no single objective and scientific source for beginners that I’ve seen. It may be out there don’t get me wrong, but people don’t ask “How many calories should I eat?” 1,000 times a day in health forums because the answer is easy to find and understand.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I can not know what the content of your book actually provides unless I buy it so my only course of action is to judge the book by it’s author. That’s how it works. [/quote]
And that’s why reviews and exposure are needed. There are plenty of credentialed people that write really dumb s***, is it so hard to believe someone without credentials can write something really good?[/quote]
No, it’s not hard to believe that at all.
What you’re failing to convince me is that your stuff is any good for anyone but yourself. And I’m not so sure about that even since the biggest accomplishment seems to be that you haven’t killed yourself off yet.
Whether subjective or objective, I’m just not seeing it.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I can not know what the content of your book actually provides unless I buy it so my only course of action is to judge the book by it’s author. That’s how it works. [/quote]
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
And that’s why reviews and exposure are needed. There are plenty of credentialed people that write really dumb s***, is it so hard to believe someone without credentials can write something really good? [/quote]
Yes there are, which is why credentials aren’t everything, but they are something. Just like experience isn’t everything, but it’s something. Just like achievements aren’t everything, but they’re something.
You little experience, no achievements, and no credentials. Yet you are selling a product as if you do.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
Here’s an example:
How many meals should I eat?
Eat one or ten and it doesn�¢??t matter.
For a long time diets have focused on what is referred to as nutrient timing which essentially means what you eat and when you eat it matters. Although many people have fears of nutrient timing beliefs like avoiding carbohydrates after a certain time and eating bigger breakfasts to help keep weight off the body stores enough glucose for 3 days and enough fat for months of energy. What you do over a 24 hour period will have little if any impact on energy usage and availability.
There are many studies that have shown negative correlations between skipping meals and negative health effects; however, these studies are purely correlative and not causal. Many causal reasons exist behind skipping meals such as already being overweight and wanting to cut down on intake or not planning meals well which leads to later impulse eating. Parents who don�¢??t feed their kids breakfast may be impoverished or not as involved with their children both of which can produce trends towards obesity. Particularly when it comes to obesity there is no scientific reason why eating the same caloric content in one meal versus ten within a 24 hour period will lead to weight gain.
There are actually several forms of intermittent fasting that promote skipping meals such as the Warrior Diet which advocates only eating during one 4 hour window during the day. Although I don�¢??t believe the scientific literature suggests any significant benefit with 24 hour eating patterns, there is still some scientific credibility to theories that suggest eating less frequently can reduce weight. Eating more food in less time inevitably increases entropy so at minimum net caloric intake should be slightly reduced over spreading meals out.
Another interesting thing to note is none of the calculations for total daily energy expenditure take nutrient timing into account. Nothing in Harris-Benedict, Katch-McArdle, Mifflin St Jeor or other REE formula has a variable for accounting for what time of day you�¢??re eating at. If your caloric expenditure isn�¢??t changing and your caloric intake isn�¢??t changing there is no reason to believe that when you eat your carbohydrates will change the difference between those two values.
There are plenty of other non-physiological reasons why eating patterns may influence health. As mentioned earlier if you get really hungry and you choose not to handle your hunger you may stop and get some high calorie, nutritionally void fast food or candy bar. Conversely though if you are choosing to be hungry for something like the Warrior Diet it may be exercising more control over your eating which can therefore lead to less impulse eating. Same eating pattern, two different perspectives, two different outcomes�¢?�¦ In this example and many more the outcome boils down to choosing to be healthy and making a healthy choice.
[/quote]
Did you write this?
Here is a prime example of what I have a problem with(assuming you wrote the above):
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
“Although I don’t believe the scientific literature suggests” [/quote]
To be blunt, who are you to sell your opinion on “the scientific literature?”
My overall point is, you lack credibility.