[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I vote that assisted lifters not be used as examples of what works nutrition wise, in this thread…clearly the same rules do not apply to them as naturals.
[quote]
You know this for a fact? Why would drug use make any information regarding their food intake useless?[/quote]
An iFBB pros food intake is irrelevant to 99.9% of the weight training community. we are not stage ready 250lb beasts.[/quote]
But I want to be =(
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I vote that assisted lifters not be used as examples of what works nutrition wise, in this thread…clearly the same rules do not apply to them as naturals.
[quote]
You know this for a fact? Why would drug use make any information regarding their food intake useless?[/quote]
An iFBB pros food intake is irrelevant to 99.9% of the weight training community. we are not stage ready 250lb beasts.[/quote]
But I want to be =([/quote]
lol you can… maybe 
For clarification… if a natty guy took a “supplemented” pro and used a ratio to comparing his lbm to that of the pro’s he’d probably get a decent idea of what his macro’s are. Meaning the following. If a pro weighs 300lbs, eats 600 grams of protein, 900 grams of carbs, and 100 grams of fat a day, and said lifter weighs 200lbs, he would want 400 grams of protein, 600 grams carbs, and 66 grams of fat a day (hope I did that math right).
The only thing the drugs do, is allow the body to synthesize more protein, thus giving them more mass per weight lifted. This creates more muscle, which burns more calories, which requires more protein. Its a “cycle.” The idea of using macro’s etc. is all still solid, from beginner to IFBB pro, its just the amounts that are different.
If a beginner took the absolute quantities and tried to consume them, he’d end up super fat. But that’s a fail on the beginner to not understand ratios, and look purely at values without understanding the why.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]actionboy wrote:
Just my two cents/a question:
Does anyone think of their macros as a weekly number instead of a daily?
I started doing that a bit ago and it seems like things even out in the sense that some days I’m not so hungry and other days I’m a bottomless pit. So, some days maybe i dont hit my " daily" macros (I might only have one major meal plus shakes) and other days I eat all day long (and go way over my daily macros).[/quote]
Phil Hernon recommends eating only when hungry. [/quote]
I have followed his advice for years and this actually allowed me to eat more calories than when using a set 6, every 3 hour, meal schedule.
I find I can eat more when I am slightly hungry. It got me up to well over 260lbs…
Mind you, I think it is easier to get your calories in 3 meals when you lean more towards a higher fat diet. Case in point, my dinner was 4 full fat beef patties prepared in coconut oil (1200 calories), 6 free range eggs (400 calories), spinach, onions, tomatoes and 2 pickles followed by a cream (organic) shake with added protein and pineapple. This was well over 2000 calories and currently I am getting hungry again. I will have a small snack, cottage cheese mixed with greek yoghurt and papaya/pineapple before going to bed at 11PM (easily 500 calories).
Even with two meals and a snack I can quite comfortably ingest AND digest 5000 calories…
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
An iFBB pros food intake is irrelevant to 99.9% of the weight training community. we are not stage ready 250lb beasts.[/quote]
Guess I better ignore all of Shelby Starnes’ and John Meadows’s nutritional advice.
Considering that IFBB pros and other top assisted competitors are the biggest and leanest people that lift weights, it seems reasonable to pay attention to how they eat.
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
An iFBB pros food intake is irrelevant to 99.9% of the weight training community. we are not stage ready 250lb beasts.[/quote]
Guess I better ignore all of Shelby Starnes’ and John Meadows’s nutritional advice.
Considering that IFBB pros and other top assisted competitors are the biggest and leanest people that lift weights, it seems reasonable to pay attention to how they eat.
[/quote]
Steriods change the rules when it comes to nutrient partitioning and protein synthesis. If you disagree good luck to you, no amount of evidence or arguing will change youre mind.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
For clarification… if a natty guy took a “supplemented” pro and used a ratio to comparing his lbm to that of the pro’s he’d probably get a decent idea of what his macro’s are. Meaning the following. If a pro weighs 300lbs, eats 600 grams of protein, 900 grams of carbs, and 100 grams of fat a day, and said lifter weighs 200lbs, he would want 400 grams of protein, 600 grams carbs, and 66 grams of fat a day (hope I did that math right).
The only thing the drugs do, is allow the body to synthesize more protein, thus giving them more mass per weight lifted. This creates more muscle, which burns more calories, which requires more protein. Its a “cycle.” The idea of using macro’s etc. is all still solid, from beginner to IFBB pro, its just the amounts that are different.
If a beginner took the absolute quantities and tried to consume them, he’d end up super fat. But that’s a fail on the beginner to not understand ratios, and look purely at values without understanding the why.[/quote]
Exactly. I’m not so moronic to think that if I read an example of Phil Heath’s diet online, that’s exactly what I need to eat. However I can look at the number of feedings, and macros in each meal and use that as an example of what I would need, knowing that my overall caloric intake would be much lower.
This is why to say for someone to say that the diets of IFBB pros are irrelevant to 99.9% of the weight training community is completely stupid.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It would seem that the anabolic environment provided by assistance would not allow the eating habits to be compared to a lifter that was natural?
Do you disagree?[/quote]
I do. I don’t think steroids change physiology so much that food intake is drastically different from naturals. Sure it may make things somewhat different, but not so much that we should just ignore the dietary habits of all drug users.
[/quote]
Why don’t you adopt some juice monkeys diet (assuming you’re natural) and see how it works out then?[/quote]
No I won’t do that because i’m not a fucking idiot. What I am saying is that their dietary habits should not be ignored simply because they use drugs.
Glad to see that usual suspects have thrown in the steroids vs. natty argument. Never gets old.
I can’t believe how strong this thread is going. Not that I have any intention of controlling anyone (unlike someone we know), but I’m just astonished.
It can be summed up like this:
If I recall correctly, in an interview with Special Ed, Justin Harris said that when he was bulking, he would bring 4 or more meals to work and was eating almost every 90 minutes there. I don’t know how he got any work done.
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It would seem that the anabolic environment provided by assistance would not allow the eating habits to be compared to a lifter that was natural?
Do you disagree?[/quote]
I do. I don’t think steroids change physiology so much that food intake is drastically different from naturals. Sure it may make things somewhat different, but not so much that we should just ignore the dietary habits of all drug users.
[/quote]
Don’t mean this in a ‘rude’ way or anything, but do you know anyone who uses? Especially something like Tren? It literally transforms people lol
Look at their diets, and realize while it’s not a 100% change, drugs do change things. It’s like tennis and badminton: very similar, but still 2 completely different games.
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
It’s like tennis and badminton: very similar, but still 2 completely different games. [/quote]
This is good. I’m totally gonna steal it!
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
It would seem that the anabolic environment provided by assistance would not allow the eating habits to be compared to a lifter that was natural?
Do you disagree?[/quote]
I do. I don’t think steroids change physiology so much that food intake is drastically different from naturals. Sure it may make things somewhat different, but not so much that we should just ignore the dietary habits of all drug users.
[/quote]
Don’t mean this in a ‘rude’ way or anything, but do you know anyone who uses? Especially something like Tren? It literally transforms people lol
Look at their diets, and realize while it’s not a 100% change, drugs do change things. It’s like tennis and badminton: very similar, but still 2 completely different games. [/quote]
Knowing someone who uses =/= a deep knowledge about steroids and how they work.
Too many people on these forums think they know a ton about steroids/their effects despite never actually using them.
Also the comment was in response to IFBB pro’s dietary habits being worthless. These guys are the best because they use drugs and they also have their diets nailed down (among other things). All I am saying is that drug use doesn’t render their dietary practices useless to natural trainees.
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
Knowing someone who uses =/= a deep knowledge about steroids and how they work.
Too many people on these forums think they know a ton about steroids/their effects despite never actually using them.
Also the comment was in response to IFBB pro’s dietary habits being worthless. These guys are the best because they use drugs and they also have their diets nailed down (among other things). All I am saying is that drug use doesn’t render their dietary practices useless to natural trainees.[/quote]
This is true.
Steroids increase protein anabolism and increase the loss of body fat. They do not change the DNA structure of the user or their basic physiology. In effect, it makes what you can do work better…it doesn’t make you magic or create super powers.
Most IFBB pros are genetic freaks to start with either in their metabolism or their response to training and drugs. It doesn’t change the basic way that foods work in the human body. These would be the same guys who could eat the occasional chocolate cake and gain muscle from it.
Telling someone to adopt some pros eating schedule and see how it works is asinine. That makes as much sense as telling a 150lbs kid to follow the diet of someone 100lbs heavier than them.
The cry that you shouldn’t listen to someone who has used steroids seems to be used very selectively…and only for certain people.
Notice, I also used in majority non-pro bodybuilders in most of my pictures and this is still being argued.
If you ignore every big guy because you think that alleged steroid use makes everything they do pointless to a natural lifter I am not sure how to even process that.
I don’t see someone with that thought process even reaching their own full potential. It just isn’t true and seems to be something you only see on websites.
Guru Worship
I see the use of many author’s names being used in this thread but only ONE actual quote or link that Chris Colucci provided at the start.
No offense, but writing, “AUTHOR said this” is not a reference or even an attempt at a discussion. It is an attempt to silence any further questions by name dropping. Please provide the actual quote of the author you are mentioning so freely here.
I swear it is like some of the people here think they get extra credit for parroting what every high profile trainer on the internet thinks.
Seriously, some of us like to think for ourselves.
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
SO what me and alot of other people where saying is having a newbs stress about meal frequency is FAR LESS important than getting them to track there macros…[/quote]
Oh
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
because it has already been PROVEN scientifically that meal frequency has no effect at all on body composition.[/quote]
This thread was useful in making this seem to simply not be true…and to the guy trying to really reach their potential, ignoring the usefulness of what we are discussing doesn’t make sense…especially since that basic concept was used to build most of the really large muscular human beings on the planet over the last 70 years or so.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
Knowing someone who uses =/= a deep knowledge about steroids and how they work.
Too many people on these forums think they know a ton about steroids/their effects despite never actually using them.
Also the comment was in response to IFBB pro’s dietary habits being worthless. These guys are the best because they use drugs and they also have their diets nailed down (among other things). All I am saying is that drug use doesn’t render their dietary practices useless to natural trainees.[/quote]
This is true.
Steroids increase protein anabolism and increase the loss of body fat. They do not change the DNA structure of the user or their basic physiology. In effect, it makes what you can do work better…it doesn’t make you magic or create super powers.
Most IFBB pros are genetic freaks to start with either in their metabolism or their response to training and drugs. It doesn’t change the basic way that foods work in the human body. These would be the same guys who could eat the occasional chocolate cake and gain muscle from it.
Telling someone to adopt some pros eating schedule and see how it works is asinine. That makes as much sense as telling a 150lbs kid to follow the diet of someone 100lbs heavier than them.
The cry that you shouldn’t listen to someone who has used steroids seems to be used very selectively…and only for certain people.
Notice, I also used in majority non-pro bodybuilders in most of my pictures and this is still being argued.
If you ignore every big guy because you think that alleged steroid use makes everything they do pointless to a natural lifter I am not sure how to even process that.
I don’t see someone with that thought process even reaching their own full potential. It just isn’t true and seems to be something you only see on websites.[/quote]
Exactly. I know that I don’t need to eat 6000kcals daily to gain muscle, and reading the dietary intakes of IFBB pros doesn’t make me think otherwise. But I can still learn from the fact that most eat fairly frequently, consume protein with each meal, eat clean carb sources, incorporate healthy fats etc. All of these things are still useful for a beginner/less advanced trainee to learn from. Why steroid use would make these points utterly useless to natural trainees is beyond me.
It just seems like too many round here take any opportunity to cry that steroids are responsible for everything in the pro bodybuilding world.
Macros
Count them. It’s really effective and easy.
[quote]JBL5 wrote:
Exactly. I know that I don’t need to eat 6000kcals daily to gain muscle, and reading the dietary intakes of IFBB pros doesn’t make me think otherwise. But I can still learn from the fact that most eat fairly frequently, consume protein with each meal, eat clean carb sources, incorporate healthy fats etc. All of these things are still useful for a beginner/less advanced trainee to learn from. Why steroid use would make these points utterly useless to natural trainees is beyond me.
It just seems like too many round here take any opportunity to cry that steroids are responsible for everything in the pro bodybuilding world.[/quote]
It is the very useful “go to” defense when someone says, “Gee, maybe we should look at what the really big guys do…and maybe, just maybe it works for a real reason!” Again, I never see this in real life unless from sedentary people. No one at my gym sees some of those NPC competitors and thinks they are clueless because of it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Steroids increase protein anabolism and increase the loss of body fat. They do not change the … basic physiology. [/quote]
They actually increase the number of satellite cells of muscles… FOREVER.
It seems they do change your capacity to create satellite cells though, which might not be what you mean with ‘basic’ physiology.
CONCLUSION: Intake of anabolic steroids and strength-training induce an increase in muscle size by both hypertrophy and the formation of new muscle fibers. We propose that activation of satellite cells is a key process and is enhanced by the steroid use.
The incorporation of the satellite cells into preexisting fibers to maintain a constant nuclear to cytoplasmic ratio seems to be a fundamental mechanism for muscle fiber growth. Although all the subjects in this study have the same level of performance, the possibility of genetic differences between the two groups cannot be completely excluded.
Here is another one:
The title says it all:
Steroid therapy is associated with decreased numbers of dendritic cells and fibroblasts, and increased numbers of satellite cells, in the dystrophic skeletal muscle.
Don’t want to add fuel to the fire, II enjoy this thread and want to add to the discussion…
Based on this, and other studies I have read, I have always considered THIS the reason why long term steroid users just ‘look’ different…
Which is no doubt a subject for another thread…
