Dude, you’re insane. You clearly like the sound of your own voice (or look of your written words) but you haven’t said anything that isn’t complete nonsense. Nothing you’re doing is working, your self proclaimed lifts are either way exaggerated or an outright lie and your “experiment” is counterproductive to any kind of physical betterment. You picked a fitting username at least.
Also, Colucci’s Die Hard 2 analogy was dynamite.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Also, Colucci’s Die Hard 2 analogy was dynamite. [/quote]
He really is quite the gifted writer 
(COLUCCI that is)
S
I was about to post a missing thead bulletin to inquire on the whereabouts of this treasured topic. Fortunately I was able to locate the missing thread in this non-fitness subforum before I needed to alert the authorities.
I’m just glad everyone is safe.
I read the diet and it pissed off my colon.
Then, I read the majority of the OP’s posts. Now, I have a headache.
Thanks dickhead:(
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
Although what’s great is even though I’m getting attacked for the excerpt and my credentials no one has sad anything in the excerpt is incorrect or bad advice.[/quote]
That whole excerpt is jacked up
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
Here’s an example:
How many meals should I eat?
Eat one or ten and it doesn’t matter.
[/quote]
Not true. No one in the world is going to build a lean, strong, muscular physique eating 1 meal a day. It’s not happening. The exact number of meals doesn’t matter but eating once isn’t going to cut it.
Nutrient timing DOES matter. There’s a reason why virtually all physique oriented dieters time carbs around their workouts and avoid fats at certain times… Because it works. It’s worked for thousands of people for decades now.
Again, not true. You’re telling me that you could do a 2.5 hour intense mountain dog style leg session or run an Iron Man triathlon and it will have “little if any effect on energy usage and availability”??? Come on now buddy
I’m not even going to continue with the rest of your writing but this above^^ is all jacked up dude. You are posting this stuff on a bodybuilding website. What you’re trying to sell isn’t what people here are buying. No one got super strong, super jacked and super lean doing what you say.
We’re trying to bench double our bodyweight for reps, squat so many plates that the bar looks like it’s going to snap, rattle the windows during sets of deadlifts, take our shirts off at the beach and have women instinctively flocking like the salmon of Capistrano.
That, my friend, is not happening with 135 pound quarter squats and eating a tube of raw hamburger every other Tuesday.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
Although what’s great is even though I’m getting attacked for the excerpt and my credentials no one has sad anything in the excerpt is incorrect or bad advice.[/quote]
That whole excerpt is jacked up
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
Here’s an example:
How many meals should I eat?
Eat one or ten and it doesn’t matter.
[/quote]
Not true. No one in the world is going to build a lean, strong, muscular physique eating 1 meal a day. It’s not happening. The exact number of meals doesn’t matter but eating once isn’t going to cut it.
Nutrient timing DOES matter. There’s a reason why virtually all physique oriented dieters time carbs around their workouts and avoid fats at certain times… Because it works. It’s worked for thousands of people for decades now.
Again, not true. You’re telling me that you could do a 2.5 hour intense mountain dog style leg session or run an Iron Man triathlon and it will have “little if any effect on energy usage and availability”??? Come on now buddy
I’m not even going to continue with the rest of your writing but this above^^ is all jacked up dude. You are posting this stuff on a bodybuilding website. What you’re trying to sell isn’t what people here are buying. No one got super strong, super jacked and super lean doing what you say.
We’re trying to bench double our bodyweight for reps, squat so many plates that the bar looks like it’s going to snap, rattle the windows during sets of deadlifts, take our shirts off at the beach and have women instinctively flocking like the salmon of Capistrano.
That, my friend, is not happening with 135 pound quarter squats and eating a tube of raw hamburger every other Tuesday.[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
Although what’s great is even though I’m getting attacked for the excerpt and my credentials no one has sad anything in the excerpt is incorrect or bad advice.[/quote]
That whole excerpt is jacked up
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
Here’s an example:
How many meals should I eat?
Eat one or ten and it doesn’t matter.
[/quote]
Not true. No one in the world is going to build a lean, strong, muscular physique eating 1 meal a day. It’s not happening. The exact number of meals doesn’t matter but eating once isn’t going to cut it.
Nutrient timing DOES matter. There’s a reason why virtually all physique oriented dieters time carbs around their workouts and avoid fats at certain times… Because it works. It’s worked for thousands of people for decades now.
Again, not true. You’re telling me that you could do a 2.5 hour intense mountain dog style leg session or run an Iron Man triathlon and it will have “little if any effect on energy usage and availability”??? Come on now buddy
I’m not even going to continue with the rest of your writing but this above^^ is all jacked up dude. You are posting this stuff on a bodybuilding website. What you’re trying to sell isn’t what people here are buying. No one got super strong, super jacked and super lean doing what you say.
We’re trying to bench double our bodyweight for reps, squat so many plates that the bar looks like it’s going to snap, rattle the windows during sets of deadlifts, take our shirts off at the beach and have women instinctively flocking like the salmon of Capistrano.
That, my friend, is not happening with 135 pound quarter squats and eating a tube of raw hamburger every other Tuesday.[/quote]
OH GOD YES
Wow…just wow. Had a few comments but Stu, Flash and Greg covered it
The only thing this thread is missing for HOF status is a shoe and a pair of trapplejacks.
[quote]gregron wrote:
Not true. No one in the world is going to build a lean, strong, muscular physique eating 1 meal a day. It’s not happening. The exact number of meals doesn’t matter but eating once isn’t going to cut it.[/quote]
First off this is for beginners and beginner’s can most definitely get away with one meal. With glycogen storage for up to 72 hours and the majority of nutrients with availability much greater than 24 hours it’s not going to make any significant impact. I’d like to see you provide a source that says so.
[quote]
Nutrient timing DOES matter. There’s a reason why virtually all physique oriented dieters time carbs around their workouts and avoid fats at certain times… Because it works. It’s worked for thousands of people for decades now.[/quote]
Berardi seems to disagree with you too… Here’s a quote from an article at precisionnutrition.com/nutrient-timing:
Indeed, if youâ??re just starting out â?? and looking to get healthier and more fit â?? you donâ??t need specific nutrient timing protocols.
[quote]
Again, not true. You’re telling me that you could do a 2.5 hour intense mountain dog style leg session or run an Iron Man triathlon and it will have “little if any effect on energy usage and availability”??? Come on now buddy[/quote]
I improperly worded this one, “What you do…” should be “How many meals you eat…”
Who is selling? I’m here for critique. Mission accomplished. Hell you just helped me realize I need to reword something. Thanks!
You’re being incredibly intellectually dishonest with how you are quoting that article.
"Let me be clear: no, I donâ??t think nutrient timing is dead, worthless, whatever. In certain situations itâ??s probably really important. (Weâ??ll explore them below.)
However, lots of really smart and hard working people are getting lost in the finer points of nutrient timing, while consistently missing out on sleep, or vegetables, or other â?? more important â?? health and lifestyle factors. And thatâ??s a shame."
From what I’ve seen in this discourse you haven’t quoted your ‘science’ while qualifying it by saying “this is the science for fat out of shape people who really just need to get the basics down first, crawl->walk->run and whatnot” or really anything at all, you just say “here’s some science.”
This is also completely ignoring the fact that the article also says there is conflicting studies about this, and that they have decided to take a certain approach with their clients and aren’t saying that the other approach(putting a lot of emphasis on nutrient timing) is incorrect at all.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
Who is selling? I’m here for critique. Mission accomplished. Hell you just helped me realize I need to reword something. Thanks![/quote]
You need to do a lot more than rewording…
I wouldn’t ever eat 3lbs of raw meat, let alone in one sitting, let alone, for 90 days straight, so thanks for doing that.
Keep on trucking mothasucka.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
First off this is for beginners and beginner’s can most definitely get away with one meal. With glycogen storage for up to 72 hours and the majority of nutrients with availability much greater than 24 hours it’s not going to make any significant impact. I’d like to see you provide a source that says so.[/quote]
Are you talking about the “I’m only eating something so I don’t die” types?
Nutrient availability will depend on a lot of factors, which you seem to be (intentionally, or uninformedly) overlooking with your generalization about availability.
Not true! I get Berardi’s emails and routinely read the offerings on his site. While his target audience has indeed shifted from the hardcore athletes who founded his original following on here, everything on his PN site still supports that nutrient timing indeed has its place for people interested in maximizing performance or even physiques.
[quote]
Who is selling? I’m here for critique. [/quote]
I find that difficult to believe. That word usually applies when you appeal to someone with more experience or knowledge than you to tell you if you’re on track with something worthwhile, or very very off kilter.
(wonderful reply above Greg)
S
[quote]red04 wrote:
You’re being incredibly intellectually dishonest with how you are quoting that article.
"Let me be clear: no, I donâ??t think nutrient timing is dead, worthless, whatever. In certain situations itâ??s probably really important. (Weâ??ll explore them below.)
However, lots of really smart and hard working people are getting lost in the finer points of nutrient timing, while consistently missing out on sleep, or vegetables, or other â?? more important â?? health and lifestyle factors. And thatâ??s a shame."[/quote]
[quote]red04 wrote:
You’re being incredibly intellectually dishonest with how you are quoting that article.[/quote]
I’m not dishonest about it. The general consensus is for beginner’s it won’t have a significant impact. While the second part of the quote clearly illustrates “the finer points” of nutrient timing are taking away from the big picture.
Except the book is literally called a beginner’s guide. I think that identifies it pretty clearly. It’s not body builders guide, or athletes guide, etc.
There are conflicting studies about every health topic.
The fact is many finer points do take away from the big picture and don’t contribute any significant impact to health/weight loss. A great illustration of this is with thermogenic substances which studies show only raise BMR by about 100 calories per day and don’t have any significant weight loss associated with their consumption.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I find that difficult to believe. That word usually applies when you appeal to someone with more experience or knowledge than you to tell you if you’re on track with something worthwhile, or very very off kilter.[/quote]
Except I have gotten both good advice and just bashed. Both help. I’m going to try to take something away from every insult even if it’s just to note what people are going to try to attack.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
Except the book is literally called a beginner’s guide. I think that identifies it pretty clearly. It’s not body builders guide, or athletes guide, etc.[/quote]
Usually any such guide, while it may be aimed at an audience of a “beginner” level, is still written BY someone who is an expert in the field being addressed.
While they do indeed present simplified versions of relevant information specifically for a target audience to comprehend, I highly doubt that someone picking up a “beginner’s guide” truly expects a guide actually written BY a beginner.
S
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[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]
You interjected your personal bias in the excerpt you posted…[/quote]
Where? You think it’s personal bias to identify where scientific literature is stronger than other places and more analysis is needed? I don’t know about you but I consider bias things like a vegan who demonizes meat due to the lipid hypothesis which is far from scientifically validated. I don’t consider saying things like “believe scientific literature supports” instead of always saying something is an infallible fact is bias.
[/quote]
Seriously.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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. [/quote]
The fact is that almost every health topic has conflicting research so you have to weigh in on what side you believe in. [/quote]
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
The fact is that almost every health topic has conflicting research so you have to weigh in on what side you believe in. [/quote]
For the most part, I agree; however, this is where experience, achievements, education, etc… AKA credibility matter.
[quote]
I try to be completely honest when there’s evidence both ways. Some things are close to irrefutable like refined sugar’s independent correlation to diabetes and excessive consumption to obesity, but most aren’t. Probably the best example is what raises serum cholesterol. [/quote]
I’m sure you do and I’m really not trying to pick on you. Again though, all this is your opinion, which you are trying to sell to a demographic that doesn’t know any better.
Great, tell me again why I should believe the high level concepts you added and your interpretation of the article as a layman?
You’re supposedly about 60 days into this 90 day plan. Do you have any updates? You’ve written a lot but not really shown a lot.