Just think of the strength, speed, agility, and dashing good looks you would have had if you’d followed my advice and copied Gunnar’s program just two short months ago.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
And you’d have gained some pretty big balls. [/quote]
The only thing big about the op is his delusion.
With Gunnar staying sub 6% bf (Via Dexa scan I assume), while making such impressive gains, obviously I’m sure you’ve got some good e-books in the works. Quite an expert dieter you’re raising there brother.
S
Not everyone is looking for physique gains (because SHALLOW). Obviously Gunnar is making progress in that regard, but how is his blood work?
Selectively bred. Clearly not natural. Another fake natty with above average genetics that doesn’t have to worry about things like angiogenesis causing his lack of progress. Shame on you for bringing Gunnar up. Shame.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Selectively bred. Clearly not natural. Another fake natty with above average genetics that doesn’t have to worry about things like angiogenesis causing his lack of progress. Shame on you for bringing Gunnar up. Shame.[/quote]
thank god somebody said it.
There is clearly no way that dog is natty. Implying otherwise is just dishonest. I have no problem with someone using, but to claim natty status afterwards just gives noobs unrealistic expectations.
That dog has the genetics to stay big and lean regardless of what it does. It’s not a fair example.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[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]
Its been a month or two so I thought I’d update with some progress picks and science talk.
Gunner remained on a two-meal-a-day dog food diet, but we have been supplementing with occasion table scraps like steak and bacon. He is gaining speed, agility, and lean mass, and his exercise remains mainly playing “it’s my fucking stick” with Riley.
Based on this sample and the progress, science says you need to switch to eating dog food and chasing stick if you want to gain lean mass and athletic ability. Just like Gunnar. [/quote]
Your science is wack! How are you accounting for the table scraps? Too many variables!
Does Gunnar eat his own poop? Could this be the missing variable holding back OP’s gains?
What does science have to say about it?
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Very high risk, with very little (if any?) reward going on here. Comparing to your previous pictures and condition.
How is your mental state holding up on this diet? Does there seem to be any impact on your brain function?[/quote]
Aside from all the other wacky shit going on here, he just estimated his bf to be around 10%. That’s all we need to know about his mental state and brain function, though not sure we can blame that on this diet.[/quote]
I dont know if it has been stated yet.
OP PPPPPLLLLLEEEEAAAASSSSSEEEE post a picture holding a shoe. For the love of God I will buy your ebook if you do.
The ratio between Gunnar’s calf’s, biceps, and neck are way off. While he is making gainz, if he wants to be competitive in bodybuilding he needs to balance out his training.
What a bunch of haters. I’ve given you proof positive Gunnar’s program works. Science overrules your objections. Now, who thinks they got what it takes to get this stick?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
And you’d have gained some pretty big balls. [/quote]
The part that impresses me most (other than the explicit use of science) is the testicular growth. I assume HCG - correct?
Gunnar is lean and fast and fit. I love boxers. He’s weak though. I don’t hold that against him of course; it’s just genetics.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
First off, two years ago (when you were 165 in this pic, at the start of your egg diet), you actually were in a decent starting place, physique-wise.[/quote]
I was 150 lbs, 10.5% body fat, at the start of the egg phase.[/quote]
I was going by what you said @1:33 - “I’m doing a shirtless pic right now because actually I’m still losing weight. Haha. It’s been, you know, I weighed in at 150 and this morning I weighed in at 165 and a half. My morning weigh-in was less than a week ago and I’m already down three pounds again.”
I figured you mis-spoke with the 150, as I had trouble picturing how you gained 18+pounds in several days only to start losing it immediately. Did you really go from an all-potato diet immediately into an all-egg diet, with no time spent “normalizing” your system between?
Swinging from one drastic extreme to another, almost regardless of the details, can account for a huge change in results on its own. That could explain the weight gain/loss, and if so, your egg experiment was skewed from the start and performed under a false premise.
Standard practice, and common sense, in the scientific world is to alter as few variables as possible, as well as having a baseline to refer back to.
In the fitness world, Dan John has discussed the concept of always having a go-to nutrition and training plan that you know you respond to. That way, when a variable is introduced to that go-to, you can see the actual effects, or when you return to the go-to after a period of experimenting, you can try to notice any carryover.
I thought you’d said a few pages ago something along the lines of those types of health markers being unreliable due to standard fluctuations and other unaccountable variables. And still, any advice you offer needs to be asterisked with “for me, in my experience, and under all these circumstances.”
Exactly the problem with this approach. Extreme anything will exacerbate all sorts of effects that will not occur at more moderate/“normal” levels. Exercise frequency, water intake, calorie restriction, sleep, exposure to sunlight - just a quick handful of examples where going to the extreme will deliver results entirely incompatible with a more moderate approach.
I’m just saying, Rule #1 of Business: Know your target customer.
People who buy a book titled “Do You Want to Get Better at Dieting? Dieting Perspectives and Training for Success” are expecting not just fat loss, but significantly better fat loss results than they’ve gotten previously. That is not something you can deliver.
(I’m starting to feel bad about the time and energy I’m investing here, so, I need to tap out for a while. Carry on. #DogBalls)
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Did you really go from an all-potato diet immediately into an all-egg diet, with no time spent “normalizing” your system between?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Swinging from one drastic extreme to another, almost regardless of the details, can account for a huge change in results on its own. That could explain the weight gain/loss, and if so, your egg experiment was skewed from the start and performed under a false premise.[/quote]
Not having a control diet/period before any experiment skews the results which most diet studies fail to do. Since you don’t know how the person was eating prior it will create temporary, reactive changes to the diet and not some long-term, effort driven result that will persist.
The benefit to my experiments is I have several phases documented. So yes I know that during my beef phase when I regained 13.3 lbs of lean mass in 4 weeks it was only because I lost 13 lbs of lean mass over the prior 12 weeks.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Standard practice, and common sense, in the scientific world is to alter as few variables as possible, as well as having a baseline to refer back to.[/quote]
Agreed baselines are needed. Which was another reason for some of the extreme diets. For example with cholesterol, I had to first test to see if my cholesterol could be stabilized. Normally it varies about 10% week to week in people. That range is way too big to determine short term impact so I had to first prove if you had a consistent diet cholesterol would be consistent too. With a banana only diet it stabilized to 143 mg/dL ± 3%. No other cholesterol study I’ve seen tries to stabilize cholesterol prior to administering diet changes.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
I thought you’d said a few pages ago something along the lines of those types of health markers being unreliable due to standard fluctuations and other unaccountable variables. And still, any advice you offer needs to be asterisked with “for me, in my experience, and under all these circumstances.”[/quote]
Many blood work values are highly volatile and therefore unreliable as long term indicators, yes. It doesn’t mean you can’t predict or manipulate these numbers though.
I’m merely one example of this volatility, but it’s well documented in both theory and studies. I can reliably say, for example, that cholesterol should elevate when losing weight. This is due to the impact on serum cholesterol from fat mobilization. It’s of course more easily observed in extreme examples like starvation, fasting, and anorexics though… Due to the cholesterol variations noted above it makes it harder to tell, particularly when people typically cut out cholesterol rising foods to lose weight.