[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]
I hear what you’re saying and completely acknowledge the large amount of people who share your same viewpoint. I know that in terms of both physique and strength I’m a beginner, but I do not consider myself a beginner in terms of diet, nutrition, or health. Due to my lack of credentials and physique some people will blatantly dismiss this without even looking at my material; however, those who give my material a thorough examination will find otherwise.
Everyone is going to have disagreements with what I write, but that is going to the be same for even PhDs. I know to most people it seems I’m blatantly dismissing the criticism but I’m not… I just understand that I have an uphill battle for establishing myself as an diet/nutrition author and that I have a long way to go with my physique. I also understand that all that I can do from this point on is learn as much as can and make progress.
I will not, however, remove creativity or innovation from a scientific field. I may have failed miserably at expressing this point to most here, but I’m not trying to deny time tested methods or find an easier way. My whole deal is to use extreme experiments to make effects more obvious so they’re easily observed. I mean alternate day fasting is one form of IF but scientific literature doesn’t suggest any difference between this pattern and a low-calorie diet. Even BMR adapted after just 3 weeks for participants in one study. The question I can get out of my brain is how about every 2? 3? 4? 7? I believe the scientific literature and nature suggest 3 may have some physiological benefit hence the experiment.
At any rate. I knew I was going to get thrashed in this forum but that’s why I’m here. Sure I may not get someone who tries to put much though in their critique/insults because I’m dismissed as an idiot, but the underlying logic is usually notable. I’ll try my best to learn from it…
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]
No one needs a specific nutrient timing protocol. That doesn’t mean not having a specific nutrient timing protocol is optimal.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Great, tell me again why I should believe the high level concepts you added and your interpretation of the article as a layman?[/quote]
The majority of America has the fitness goal of lose weight. The general guiding principle is eat less, burn more. There’s a long standing myth that increasing meal frequency increases metabolism; however, smaller meals if anything increase calories absorbed from food by reducing entropy. As a whole though no BMR equation takes meal timing into account. I think these are important things to note to help a beginner understand they’re not going to do anything miraculous by eating 6 times a day compared to 2 or 3 (over even 1).
Indeed, if you�¢??re just starting out �¢?? and looking to get healthier and more fit �¢?? you don�¢??t need specific nutrient timing protocols.
[/quote]
No one needs a specific nutrient timing protocol. That doesn’t mean not having a specific nutrient timing protocol is optimal.
Another example of your bias. [/quote]
I agree with you that nutrient timing aspects even for a beginner may have slight benefit, but we’re talking a minimal amount. You know at first I wanted to dismiss this as just not confusing the reader about something that likely won’t impact them, but I can see how this may be considered bias.
I guess I’m biased to only view bias as potential significant impacts like vegan versus Paleo or the lipid hypothesis… It’s true that you can never completely remove bias from any thing you say/write, but you can try as much as possible and I think I do a good job at it. Of course I guess that’s bias again 'eh?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Great, tell me again why I should believe the high level concepts you added and your interpretation of the article as a layman?[/quote]
The majority of America has the fitness goal of lose weight. The general guiding principle is eat less, burn more. There’s a long standing myth that increasing meal frequency increases metabolism; however, smaller meals if anything increase calories absorbed from food by reducing entropy. As a whole though no BMR equation takes meal timing into account. I think these are important things to note to help a beginner understand they’re not going to do anything miraculous by eating 6 times a day compared to 2 or 3 (over even 1).
[/quote]
This is your opinion. It does not answer the question. Why should I believe your?
Indeed, if you�?�¢??re just starting out �?�¢?? and looking to get healthier and more fit �?�¢?? you don�?�¢??t need specific nutrient timing protocols.
[/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No one needs a specific nutrient timing protocol. That doesn’t mean not having a specific nutrient timing protocol is optimal.
Another example of your bias. [/quote]
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
I agree with you that nutrient timing aspects even for a beginner may have slight benefit, but we’re talking a minimal amount. You know at first I wanted to dismiss this as just not confusing the reader about something that likely won’t impact them, but I can see how this may be considered bias. [/quote]
How do you know it’s only a slight benefit? A minimal amount according to who?
I’m sure you think you do a good job of removing bias, but that doesn’t’ mean you actually do a good job of it. I think my deadlift form is spot on, but I bet if I posted a video or went to Dave Tate for tips 15 flaws could be pointed out.
I’ve said this several times on here. Self assessment is extremely difficult because we are inherently bias in favor of ourselves.
The details are important and that’s my opinion/bias.
I could go over the sources and details with you, but it looks like you really don’t care and just want to pick it apart regardless. If you disagree with something I’m saying note why, but I’m not going to provide more details while you keep moving the goal post.
Why should anyone believe me? Because I provide valuable information that’s a hell of a lot more scientifically valid than several credentialed nutritionists telling beginners they need to eat 6 meals a day. Hell… Even TC wrote an article about that was negative towards high meal frequency within the last year or two.
Lol, okay PureNsanity. Keep your blinders on that’s fine. It’s not like you’ll be the first person to make money off uneducated people with garbage anyway.
Weight 158; Fasting period 61 hours; Ketones - (forgot to measure).
Okay so I did some 1RMs today to include deadlift (345 lbs), bench (235 lbs), and pull-ups (+80 lbs). Squats and clean & press coming up. I didn’t do squats because I honestly don’t know what that number will be going from below parallel, but I knew I could get 1.5x on bench and 2x on deadlift. Technically the bench is 1.49, but I’m lifting while fasted for 61 hours… Both lifts seemed to be around 10% less of what I normally can do which I think is reasonable to credit to the fasted state.
Admittedly my back arch went to utter crap at 345 lbs, but I thought I held it okay at 325 lbs. I tried to tighten up setting into the deadlift but still noticed a little looseness. I’ll keep working at it. I almost got stuck on bench, elbows could have been in a little better position, arched the back a little when I got stuck. Of course I welcome to hearing how crappy everything was, how skinny fat I am, etc.
Weight 158; Fasting period 61 hours; Ketones - (forgot to measure).
Okay so I did some 1RMs today to include deadlift (345 lbs), bench (235 lbs), and pull-ups (+80 lbs). Squats and clean & press coming up. I didn’t do squats because I honestly don’t know what that number will be going from below parallel, but I knew I could get 1.5x on bench and 2.5x on deadlift. Technically the bench is 1.49, but I’m lifting while fasted for 61 hours… Both lifts seemed to be around 10% less of what I normally can do which I think is reasonable to credit to the fasted state.
Admittedly my back arch went to utter crap at 345 lbs, but I thought I held it okay at 325 lbs. I tried to tighten up setting into the deadlift but still noticed a little looseness. I’ll keep working at it. I almost got stuck on bench, elbows could have been in a little better position, arched the back a little when I got stuck. Of course I welcome to hearing how crappy everything was, how skinny fat I am, etc.
Thanks for the update. What is your typical Ketone count?
Why should anyone believe me? Because I provide valuable information that’s a hell of a lot more scientifically valid than several credentialed nutritionists telling beginners they need to eat 6 meals a day. [/quote]
Your legs really bow out on your DL. Especially that second one (325).
I don’t know if its the angle, but you look too horizontal like you’re about to fall forward. Maybe start lower so you’re a bit more vertical and explode up faster using your legs.
You also return the weight very slowly to the ground. I wouldn’t use a slow eccentric movement on your DL. No beuno on your back and might be what is leading to your rounding on later sets.
Just some friendly observations.
Edit: lastly, it doesn’t appear you are using chalk (your gym might not allow it, but do it anyway). Chalk adds significant pounds to my DL totals. I wouldn’t use it every set, but on 1RM attempts, I definitely would recommend it.
Are you arguing that beginners will see benefits of eating 6 meals a day versus 2? That meal frequency is a significant concern for beginners?[/quote]
I’m merely highlighting your unfounded arrogance.
Meal frequency should depend on what is preferential for the beginner. If they struggle to eat all calories in 1 or 2 sittings 4 or more may be beneficial to ensure they got the calories and nutrients they need to grow comfortably.
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
I’m merely highlighting your unfounded arrogance.[/quote]
It’s not arrogance, it’s that some doctors and nutritionist give really, really bad advice. Why in the world would you think a nutritionist giving horrible advice is better than a non-credentialed author using science?
One of the worst cases I’ve personally heard is a pregnant woman with gestational hypoglycemia being told by her doctor to drink Gatorade and eat Snickers to keep her blood sugar up. That’s asinine and no where close to scientifically established ways to treat hypoglycemia.
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
If they struggle to eat all calories in 1 or 2 sittings 4 or more may be beneficial to ensure they got the calories and nutrients they need to grow comfortably. [/quote]
And how is that different from saying it doesn’t really matter?
Why should anyone believe me? Because I provide valuable information that’s a hell of a lot more scientifically valid than several credentialed nutritionists telling beginners they need to eat 6 meals a day. [/quote]
[/quote]
Gold pure Gold
