You have Pubmed adhd.
Go hit the weights and keep it simple.
6’0", male, 35 years old, 180 lbs around 16% body fat (I get DXA’s regularly for my health experiments so I have a pretty good assessment of this value)
1RM bench/squat/deadlift - 275/325/375
I can do about 20 pull-ups in a single set with slightly wider than shoulder width pronated grip. When I go weighted I can go up to +60 lbs for sets of 3 - 5.
When I go heavy on dips I use +110 lbs for sets of 3.
1RM clean and press is 165 lbs
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
You have Pubmed adhd.
Go hit the weights and keep it simple.
[/quote]
HA! Yeah, that’s what happens when you write a controversial health, diet, and nutrition book…
This is Gunnar. He’s about 5 months old a turning into quite an athlete and hunter. Seriously, he’s making great gains and turning into quite the beast. He eats dog food twice a day and runs around the yard chasing sticks. Maybe you should try that.
1 Like
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
You have Pubmed adhd.
Go hit the weights and keep it simple.
[/quote]
HA! Yeah, that’s what happens when you write a controversial health, diet, and nutrition book…
[/quote]
Title? ISBN? Gross sales?
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
You have Pubmed adhd.
Go hit the weights and keep it simple.
[/quote]
HA! Yeah, that’s what happens when you write a controversial health, diet, and nutrition book…
[/quote]
Notwithstanding the advent of e-publication, is your book formally published by a third party?
The difference between an author and a cabin-dwelling, manifesto-writing fringe whacko is essentially publication. And, trust me, that’s a low bar.
J/k kind of. You don’t seem insane so much as profoundly misguided. Though, I am morbidly interested in the results of your experiment. I hope you don’t get gout.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
This is Gunnar. He’s about 5 months old a turning into quite an athlete and hunter. Seriously, he’s making great gains and turning into quite the beast. He eats dog food twice a day and runs around the yard chasing sticks. Maybe you should try that. [/quote]
No, no, no he should eat dog food six times a day every third day.
Hey, Pure, you should consider some fiber. I am worried that meat will need help getting out. Seriously, dude.
Not to be OTT, but I find this an apallingly wasteful and silly first-world behaviour.
You’re incredibly priveliged to have ready access to good food, a gym and the knowledge and opportunity to exercise optimally.
You’ve stated you know this won’t give optimal results.
So what’s the goal? To see how far from ideal you can get? I know what you said your goal was but the logic doesn’t add up. It’s pointless daydream logic, not actual real world logic.
I’ll give you the tip: You’re going to get constipated, you’re going to isolate yourself socially (anyone want to eat dinner with Dad???), you’re not going to get as strong as you could, and you’re not going to get as big as you could.
You know what they say? Common sense aint that common.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
…but seeing how many people (like myself) that struggle to make progress compared to others expending far less effort…
As objective as I can be I put in more effort into lifting than many people bigger than me.
I’d also propose that my body favors anti-angiogenesis. It’s a scientifically credible theory that essentially validates the potential for a person to have trouble putting on mass even with great training and diet.
If my body favors anti-angiogenesis I believe I can tilt the scales if I convince my body it needs to for survival hence The Predator Program. [/quote]
And here it is…
[quote]CrushKillDestroy wrote:
You’ve stated you know this won’t give optimal results.[/quote]
I never stated that, hence the experiment.
[quote]CrushKillDestroy wrote:
So what’s the goal? To see how far from ideal you can get? I know what you said your goal was but the logic doesn’t add up. It’s pointless daydream logic, not actual real world logic.[/quote]
The goal is to use the theories to test a real world application which potentially can create large physiological change.
[quote]CrushKillDestroy wrote:
I’ll give you the tip: You’re going to get constipated, you’re going to isolate yourself socially (anyone want to eat dinner with Dad???), you’re not going to get as strong as you could, and you’re not going to get as big as you could.[/quote]
I don’t think you picked up on a few things: 1) I’ve eaten 4.5 lbs of raw beef a day for 4 weeks in a row before in my previous health experiments and had absolutely no digestive issues to include constipation; 2) I’m not isolating myself socially from this and I’ve had unique eating patterns for the last 2 years; 3) I’ve said over and over again I believe this has the potential to create optimal results which is the entire point in testing it.
The point of experimentation is to see if we can get better. If we think we know all the ways to illicit muscle growth and body composition we will never learn anything new. I’m using a very old approach - see what nature does and try to mimic it. Yes it’s not exactly the same, but neither are the ways engineering has solved challenges in the past either. Case and point bullet trains… There was a bullet train being designed and they had huge issues from the air pocket created going into tunnels. There was a humming bird that dives in the water without a splash so they modeled the nose of the train after the hummingbird.
I know I’m not a lion but a train is not a hummingbird. I know that exercise is never going to be exactly like a hunt or survival, but diving in water is never going to be exactly like going into a tunnel. In this case it’s not the differences that mattered it was the similarities. It solved the problem. Why is it so hard to believe that trying to model activity and exercise after a large, powerful predator to illicit strength/body composition gains has potential?
ahhhh the pseudo-intellectual bodybuilder/powerlifter. where the fuck do i even start. why not model training after large, powerful members of your own species? that would be far too easy i suppose. ectomorphs are just people that dont eat enough or dont work hard enough, sorry. stop eating stupidly, eat more carbs, COOK your fucking meat(you absorb far more calories from cooked meat, so eating only raw meat, you probably are still in a deficit/maintenance calories) and train with a program that actually works. youre probably too set in your ways to actually accept that getting stronger is not actually rocket science because you have far too much time invested into trying to make it into rocket science.
[quote]Dianaballs wrote:
ahhhh the pseudo-intellectual bodybuilder/powerlifter.[/quote]
Oh please share your great wisdom oh wise one.
[quote]Dianaballs wrote:
where the fuck do i even start.[/quote]
How about the start. Please say something worthwhile? No? Okay please continue drabble.
[quote]Dianaballs wrote:
why not model training after large, powerful members of your own species? that would be far too easy i suppose.[/quote]
Please read the thread.
[quote]Dianaballs wrote:
ectomorphs are just people that dont eat enough or dont work hard enough, sorry.[/quote]
Research angiogenesis.
[quote]Dianaballs wrote:
stop eating stupidly, eat more carbs, COOK your fucking meat(you absorb far more calories from cooked meat, so eating only raw meat, you probably are still in a deficit/maintenance calories) and train with a program that actually works.[/quote]
Okay so I eat around 4,500 calories of an ultra clean diet - pretty sure that’s not stupid. The training methodologies I specifically listed where HST, EDT, GVT, and Westside. Are you saying these don’t work?
[quote]Dianaballs wrote:
youre probably too set in your ways[/quote]
Except this whole experiments is changing my ways.
[quote]Dianaballs wrote:
getting stronger is not actually rocket science[/quote]
You’re right… It’s in the realm of kinesiology and health sciences.
jesus youre getting awfully defensive of your ugly baby. HST looks decent, youre pretty weak so GVT probably wouldnt be the best choice, westside done to the letter is in my opinion not at all the best choice if youre raw. as you probably realised but got stroppy about, i was talking figuratively about rocket science. “Angiogenesis is the physiological process through which new blood vessels form from pre-existing vessels. This is distinct from vasculogenesis, which is the de novo formation of endothelial cells from mesoderm cell precursors.[1] The first vessels in the developing embryo form through vasculogenesis, after which angiogenesis is responsible for most, if not all, blood vessel growth during development and in disease.[2]” what the fuck has that got to do with anything besides you pretending to be intelligent via knowing a large word? all im saying is, if youve been lifting consitently for what, 5 or 6 years? the problem isnt with programming. how much weight have you gained since you started this raw meat nonsense?
[quote]Dianaballs wrote:
jesus youre getting awfully defensive of your ugly baby.[/quote]
Not really… I’m just disgusted with morons who regurgitate the morning news without doing any half-decent research into what was said.
[quote]Dianaballs wrote:
what the fuck has that got to do with anything besides you pretending to be intelligent via knowing a large word?[/quote]
I don’t know… Maybe it’s that whole thing about angiogenesis being required for tissue growth and different people regulate angiogenesis different which enables some people to grow large quickly and leaves others with a predisposition to stay smaller.
[quote]Dianaballs wrote:
all im saying is, if youve been lifting consitently for what, 5 or 6 years? the problem isnt with programming. how much weight have you gained since you started this raw meat nonsense?[/quote]
Again if you read the thread you’d already know that answer.
i ament bothered enough to trawl through most of the shit you wrote. i read some of it. angiogenesis isnt the only thing required for tissue growth. by a long way. stan efferding started lifting weighing less than 135, and not even being able to bench that. he just worked hard for 20+ years. your genetics arent the problem.
also, if everyone else disagrees and seems like a moron to you, but 99% of them are bigger and stronger, they probably arent the moron. in all likelihood you trying to reinvent this particular wheel, without having mastered the basics of it, are going to result in a square wheel.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
HA! Yeah, that’s what happens when you write a controversial health, diet, and nutrition book…[/quote]
Title? ISBN? Gross sales?[/quote]
$2.99 Kindle ebook published two months ago. Not joking.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
Why is it so hard to believe that trying to model activity and exercise after a large, powerful predator to illicit strength/body composition gains has potential? [/quote]
The hummingbird-train analogy isn’t applicable here because the bullet train represented something new and never before done. Men have built strong, lean, muscular bodies before. Like, lots of times. That’s a pretty big difference. You have more in common with Mariusz Pudzianowski, Dimitry Klokov, and Reg Park than you do with lions, tigers, and bears.
If you can only train two hours a week, that’s been done plenty of times too, just takes a little bit of planning. You’re trying to tread new ground when there are already footsteps in place.
And for the record, in my 12+ years as a trainer, coach, and fitness writer studying under and working alongside some of the best in the business, I have never heard of angiogenesis or anti-angiogenesis being related to the rate of strength or muscle gains.
You laid it out clearly in your book description: “I am what I refer to as an expert dieter - I can do any diet for any length of time.” There’s your problem, man. “Doing a diet” doesn’t make someone an expert dieter. Getting phenomenal results does.
Your computer programmer’s brain is really at the root of all this. Your instinct seems to be to dig down and find the most intricate, complicated, complex “reasons” to do something. While that might make for an interesting ebook (220+ pages though, really dude?), it’s forgetting that training and diet doesn’t need to be that complicated, and in fact, the more complicated one tries to make it, the slower progress comes.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
A bunch of troll food.
[/quote]
He only needs to otherwise eat every third day because people keep feeding him. Although I’ll admit this thread is entertaining.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
HA! Yeah, that’s what happens when you write a controversial health, diet, and nutrition book…[/quote]
Title? ISBN? Gross sales?[/quote]
$2.99 Kindle ebook published two months ago. Not joking.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
Why is it so hard to believe that trying to model activity and exercise after a large, powerful predator to illicit strength/body composition gains has potential? [/quote]
The hummingbird-train analogy isn’t applicable here because the bullet train represented something new and never before done. Men have built strong, lean, muscular bodies before. Like, lots of times. That’s a pretty big difference. You have more in common with Mariusz Pudzianowski, Dimitry Klokov, and Reg Park than you do with lions, tigers, and bears.
If you can only train two hours a week, that’s been done plenty of times too, just takes a little bit of planning. You’re trying to tread new ground when there are already footsteps in place.
And for the record, in my 12+ years as a trainer, coach, and fitness writer studying under and working alongside some of the best in the business, I have never heard of angiogenesis or anti-angiogenesis being related to the rate of strength or muscle gains.
You laid it out clearly in your book description: “I am what I refer to as an expert dieter - I can do any diet for any length of time.” There’s your problem, man. “Doing a diet” doesn’t make someone an expert dieter. Getting phenomenal results does.
Your computer programmer’s brain is really at the root of all this. Your instinct seems to be to dig down and find the most intricate, complicated, complex “reasons” to do something. While that might make for an interesting ebook (220+ pages though, really dude?), it’s forgetting that training and diet doesn’t need to be that complicated, and in fact, the more complicated one tries to make it, the slower progress comes.[/quote]
this is what i was trying to get at. THIS IS WHY CHRIS IS A WRITER AND IM NOT. BOOOHOOOO.
honestly though, listen to him. he knows more than you.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
$2.99 Kindle ebook published two months ago. Not joking.[/quote]
I had twins at the end of February and I wanted to get my 2 years of work out there. There’s a distinct lack of professional media and professional editing, but all my data and supporting evidence is there. I’ll pick up getting it picked up by a publisher once my twins are a little older.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
The hummingbird-train analogy isn’t applicable here because the bullet train represented something new and never before done.[/quote]
Are you suggesting we can only learn from nature when it’s new? Where did you come up with that?
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
And for the record, in my 12+ years as a trainer, coach, and fitness writer studying under and working alongside some of the best in the business, I have never heard of angiogenesis or anti-angiogenesis being related to the rate of strength or muscle gains.[/quote]
And a decade ago epigenetics was relatively unheard of (still is). Doesn’t mean that’s it’s not pertinent. Dr. Leibel helped unravel the role of leptin in the 1990’s, but if you talked about it before it was around to the masses it doesn’t mean it wasn’t valid. Angiogenesis is being more heavily researched for cancer and obesity treatment, but yes it applies to tissue growth as well.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
There’s your problem, man. “Doing a diet” doesn’t make someone an expert dieter. Getting phenomenal results does.[/quote]
I’d say it’s a bit of both. There are people who can’t diet well yet still can get phenomenal results. I can cut weight like nobodies business. I’m full of energy. I never get sick. I’m happy. I’m healthy. Are those not phenomenal results?
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Your computer programmer’s brain is really at the root of all this. Your instinct seems to be to dig down and find the most intricate, complicated, complex “reasons” to do something.[/quote]
I don’t think you understand programming…
I believe carnivores have a gene to help convert protein to vitamin C, something we humans can’t do… so I would say to make sure you’re getting at least that supplement. The SAS Survival Handbook (not scientific, I know) also talks about hunters in the north starving to death because all they ate was meat all winter long and I guess it didn’t provide enough other stuff. So, I do think a little supplementation would go a long way here.
I would also think that eating actual cuts of beef, as opposed to ground, would make more sense here because 1) It’s “more natural” 2) You don’t really know what’s in ground anything, 3) Less surface area exposed to air/whatever = less risk of contamination. Granted, I think I heard a few years ago that, to get enough food from raw meat, we would need to continually be chewing meat all day… one of the arguments as to why we began cooking meat.
On the subject of contamination, they were talking about a new product on the news the other day that you spray on your food and it helps eliminate 99 percent of e. coli. I guess it’s a “phage,” which is like a virus, that naturally combats e. coli bacteria… may help with some of the safety issues.