[quote]1 Man Island wrote:
I believe carnivores have a gene to help convert protein to vitamin C, something we humans can’t do…[/quote]
Beef kidneys (which I’ll be consuming) have a good deal of Vitamin C. I’ll be getting only about 20% of the DRV on average though (accounting for fasting days) which is a reason why I’m limiting the experiment to 90 days. I’ll be doing a refeed after that and stocking back up on Vitamin C. Scurvy takes 90+ days of complete Vitamin C deprivation to develop.
[quote]Paul33 wrote:
honestly though, listen to him. he knows more than you. [/quote]
I’m not trying to discredit Chris or to brag, but I’m a very intelligent man who has been digging at research around this for two years. I don’t know everything and I can admit it which is exactly why I’m looking for feedback - and there has been some great feedback. To suggest though that I should drop all my arguments because someone has more credentials than me is supporting the logical fallacy argument from authority.
I’ve already accomplished a lot of things that people would suggest isn’t possible like gaining 26 lbs of lean mass in 7 weeks, going without drinking any liquids for 5 days, going without salt for 6 months, dropping my cholesterol by 204 mg/dL in 23 days, and a few more… It’s an experiment and I’m doing it to test a theory and until someone tests it we can’t say for certain.
i can say for certain that there are far faster and more efficient ways to get strong. just because something works, does not mean its the best or even worth doing over better methods.if youre as intelligent as you believe yourself to be, you would understand that a person who squats 225, no matter how much reading they have done, does not have as deep an understanding as they might think they do
You DID NOT gain 26lbs of lean mass in a month and a half. You just didn’t. You ever been in a classroom where one wacko is shouting about some goofy idea and everyone (including the teacher) keeps telling him he’s wrong? Yeah…
the likelihood that the OP is a delusional fool
99.99999999999999999999999%
the likelihood the OP is a misunderstood genius who is going to revolutionize eating, training, living, etc.
0.00000however many 0s before the 1, im sure he can work it out
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]Paul33 wrote:
honestly though, listen to him. he knows more than you. [/quote]
I’m not trying to discredit Chris or to brag, but I’m a very intelligent man who has been digging at research around this for two years. I don’t know everything and I can admit it which is exactly why I’m looking for feedback - and there has been some great feedback. To suggest though that I should drop all my arguments because someone has more credentials than me is supporting the logical fallacy argument from authority.
I’ve already accomplished a lot of things that people would suggest isn’t possible like gaining 26 lbs of lean mass in 7 weeks, going without drinking any liquids for 5 days, going without salt for 6 months, dropping my cholesterol by 204 mg/dL in 23 days, and a few more… It’s an experiment and I’m doing it to test a theory and until someone tests it we can’t say for certain.
[/quote]
You’ve been a pretty good sport about it.
Doesn’t look like anyone’s going to dissuade you, which is fine. If you’re onto something and it works for you, great. If it doesn’t, you can come back and reconsider the common line most everyone is presenting – just stick basically with what works, adapting as necessary. Many of us (myself included) had to figure that out the hard way.
Some of my threads a few years ago were pretty ridiculous. They were based in a lot of real science, but they just didn’t pan out. It took awhile, but I eventually came around (and learned a lot in the process).
It’s a learning process one way or another. In the grand scheme of things, 90 days isn’t much if you turn out to be completely wrong.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
You DID NOT gain 26lbs of lean mass in a month and a half. You just didn’t. You ever been in a classroom where one wacko is shouting about some goofy idea and everyone (including the teacher) keeps telling him he’s wrong? Yeah…[/quote]
Except I have DXA scans and video proof of it. Now that being said before I gained 26 lbs of lean mass I had lost probably at least 15 lbs of lean mass the 10 weeks prior.
On 1/14/13 I started my cholesterol experiments which used a banana diet as the stabilization diet. I started at 172 lbs but after 9 weeks I was done to 152 lbs. On the 10th week I did a water fast (cool side note, cholesterol increases in caloric deficit due to fat mobilization) and ended up at 143 lbs on 3/25/13. At this weight I was roughly 8.4% body fat. I have a DXA scan of me from the year prior at 145 lbs and a video diary on 3/24/13 showing how thin I was. On 5/10/13 (7 weeks later) I was 187 lbs at 15.2% body fat. I have the DXA scan and video of me at 6 weeks at 181 lbs showing the weight gain.
I’ll gladly provide all the documents and videos but before I do I have to ask… Does it matter to you? Will you explain away the results and evidence some other way? I just want to know beforehand because when I do and you think it was impossible I know what to expect.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
This screams beginner (or troll) on too much ADD medication.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure that you will not become a badass “predator” doing this. Why not simply stick to what is actually known to work? [/quote]
this.
and yet another 70+ posts followed (including mine… lol
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
I’ll gladly provide all the documents and videos but before I do I have to ask… Does it matter to you? Will you explain away the results and evidence some other way? I just want to know beforehand because when I do and you think it was impossible I know what to expect.
[/quote]
That would be a rebound, wouldn’t it? You essentially described it as such in a different thread, didn’t you?
It would be a whole different ballgame if you gave anybody else a program of some type to follow while they’re sitting at a homeostatic state of say 165, and within that same time frame jumped up to a lean 190.
That would be tremendous, but is also simply not the case. Now, I’m not trying to dog you but when you try to dick swing with a self published e-book which even you yourself won’t charge very much for I have to laugh.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
That would be a rebound, wouldn’t it? You essentially described it as such in a different thread, didn’t you?[/quote]
Maybe… I don’t recall going in detail about this on T-Nation but I have in other forums. Still I’ve got the proof… I’ve got another phase that was a 13.3 lbs lean mass gain in 4 weeks too. Again, I can provide all the documents. My blood work, DXA scans, BMR tests, and food logs are all available online.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Now, I’m not trying to dog you but when you try to dick swing with a self published e-book which even you yourself won’t charge very much for I have to laugh.[/quote]
If you can sell 10x more copies at $2.99 than $5.99 what’s the better price? I’m also not charging much for it because I’m trying to get exposure. If you look into e-book publishing it’s very common for people to sell e-books from $0.99 to $2.99. It’s also very common to give it away for free which I do run the free promotion deals on it too. The $2.99 price is the least I can charge on Amazon and get 70% royalty. The more people that read it and review it the more popularity it will get which means the more it will sell.
For those who read this thread and said 26 lbs of lean mass in 7 weeks bullshit I’d love to hear the explanations of why the results are bullshit or where it comes from before I post all the links to that stuff… Just for fun I’ll start off with a teaser - the 13.3 lbs lean mass gain in 4 weeks. During this gain I was eating solely beef so throw out the ideas of it being a water weight/glycogen retention change.
My food logs starting 5/24/12 - Btente's Food Diary | MyFitnessPal.com
DXA scan on 5/24/12 - DXA_2012_05_24.jpg - Google Drive
DXA scan on 6/21/12 - DXA_2012_06_21.jpg - Google Drive
This gain is actually a bit more pertinent to the thread because it was a raw beef diet.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
You’ve been a pretty good sport about it.[/quote]
Gotta be, but I’m used to it. My egg experiment was a classic (averaged 36 eggs a day for 4 weeks). “Eggs don’t raise serum cholesterol.” I show them my blood work reflecting 99mg/dL to 346 mg/dL total cholesterol in 4 weeks. “Oh you’re a hyper-responder.” I show them my blood work with normal cholesterol and normal levels, my fasting cholesterol levels, my cholesterol after eating a ton of saturated fat and cholesterol in just a few days without a hyper-response. “Bullshit! You must not have been fasting during the egg blood draws or lying about what you ate!”
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Doesn’t look like anyone’s going to dissuade you, which is fine. If you’re onto something and it works for you, great. If it doesn’t, you can come back and reconsider the common line most everyone is presenting – just stick basically with what works, adapting as necessary. Many of us (myself included) had to figure that out the hard way.[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
It’s a learning process one way or another. In the grand scheme of things, 90 days isn’t much if you turn out to be completely wrong.[/quote]
Amen.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
That would be a rebound, wouldn’t it? You essentially described it as such in a different thread, didn’t you?[/quote]
Maybe… I don’t recall going in detail about this on T-Nation but I have in other forums. Still I’ve got the proof… I’ve got another phase that was a 13.3 lbs lean mass gain in 4 weeks too. Again, I can provide all the documents. My blood work, DXA scans, BMR tests, and food logs are all available online.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Now, I’m not trying to dog you but when you try to dick swing with a self published e-book which even you yourself won’t charge very much for I have to laugh.[/quote]
If you can sell 10x more copies at $2.99 than $5.99 what’s the better price? I’m also not charging much for it because I’m trying to get exposure. If you look into e-book publishing it’s very common for people to sell e-books from $0.99 to $2.99. It’s also very common to give it away for free which I do run the free promotion deals on it too. The $2.99 price is the least I can charge on Amazon and get 70% royalty. The more people that read it and review it the more popularity it will get which means the more it will sell.
[/quote]
^ Thats why I also asked about gross sales.
But back to the diet claims- What makes your plans particularly special or valid other than that you rebounded after a massive deficit?
I’ve recovered 20-some lbs. after incurring an injury that prevented me from eating for several weeks. That doesn’t really qualify me to write any type of recommendations for anybody else, and to do so would just be disingenuous.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
For those who read this thread and said 26 lbs of lean mass in 7 weeks bullshit I’d love to hear the explanations of why the results are bullshit or where it comes from before I post all the links to that stuff…[/quote]
You are the one claiming it is valid. The burden of proof rests on you. More importantly, how does it apply to anybody else?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
For those who read this thread and said 26 lbs of lean mass in 7 weeks bullshit I’d love to hear the explanations of why the results are bullshit or where it comes from before I post all the links to that stuff…[/quote]
You are the one claiming it is valid. The burden of proof rests on you. More importantly, how does it apply to anybody else?
[/quote]
Let me clarify… I fully expect to provide burden of proof that it happened, but I’m asking before I do that people provide theories in advance how a 26 lbs lean mass gain can occur without it actually being lean mass (i.e. water, glycogen, etc). Basically I want to know beforehand how people would explain it away…
I am of the opinion that, due to your present stats, your rate of lean mass gained is generally not incredibly noteworthy nor does it validate any one method.
I am curious if you have proof of this method working with other, more successful individuals.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
For those who read this thread and said 26 lbs of lean mass in 7 weeks bullshit I’d love to hear the explanations of why the results are bullshit or where it comes from before I post all the links to that stuff…[/quote]
You are the one claiming it is valid. The burden of proof rests on you. More importantly, how does it apply to anybody else?
[/quote]
Let me clarify… I fully expect to provide burden of proof that it happened, but I’m asking before I do that people provide theories in advance how a 26 lbs lean mass gain can occur without it actually being lean mass (i.e. water, glycogen, etc). Basically I want to know beforehand how people would explain it away…
[/quote]
You’re either obstinate or intentionally obtuse. You make the claim. You provide theory, mechanisms and modes of action and results within a range of predictable and consistent results.
You don’t need to worry about how people will shoot it down if you’ve done it right. Given that the sample of 1 is You, I can see a big hole in these experiments already.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
You make the claim. You provide theory, mechanisms and modes of action and results within a range of predictable and consistent results.[/quote]
My point isn’t to prove that theory though, my point is to simply support that a 26 lbs lean mass change occurred because it’s been said to be impossible. I believe that lean muscle can deflate and inflate similarly to how fat cells work, but I have no way to prove that. Which is why this type of gain would only be possible after such large lean mass “losses”. It would redefine views on catabolism though which is why most people still explain it away or scream BS.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
I am of the opinion that, due to your present stats, your rate of lean mass gained is generally not incredibly noteworthy nor does it validate any one method.
I am curious if you have proof of this method working with other, more successful individuals. [/quote]
During both the 13.3 regain and 26 regain I was primarily doing GVT and dynamic effort work, not this new program.
I was speaking of methods, not programs.
Your present statement does not answer my question.