there was a time last year when I would focus mostly on nutrition. I was planning everything out. In the gym i was training like a fucking pussy.
now everything has changed and i enjoy training much more. i went to the other extreme, but i do focus on nutrition in basic stuff like:
-contain quality protein in every meal
-avoid carbs plus fats in a meal unless postworkout
-eat like a monster postworkout
-fats plus protein before sleeping
-eat as much fruits and veggies as possible
-other basic stuff (guidelines)
Now that I spend less time thinking about detailed nutrition i spend more time studying for exams and thinking about training ideas.
Strength is my insurance. Every workout I strive to add weight to my lifts. Since Ive had this mentality everything has improved.
THink about it, if you have massive strength, you have the stimulus to induce muscle growth. even if you dont eat enough now to become big, you can always start someday, and if you have great strength in the basic compound lifts plus the olympic lifts, you will have the stimulus for muscle growth once you become precise with your nutrition.
Plus, focusing on training is fun, focusing on nutrition is not as fun.
think about waterburys article, where he proves to us that athletes can have a great body composition without focusing on diet. These athletes have such stimulating workouts that their bodies have no choice but to adapt. It is not realistic to believe that we can train as those athletes, but you get the point.
I agree with Vroom that this is damn near pointless discussion. If you want subpar results focus only on training or nutrition. If you want to actually see gains (or drops if that’s the goal) try getting both figured out and quit wasting your time.
You don’t just see diet or training info on this site because one is not more important than the other, but because without both your not going to be as good as you can be.
You don’t just see diet or training info on this site because one is not more important than the other, but because without both your not going to be as good as you can be.
[/quote]
True, however if someone were looking to change their health and appearance, I’d rather them be perfect with nutrition and so-so on training.
Rather than being perfect with training and living off McD’s.
Nutrition, hands down. In my own experience, until I got my diet together, I made zippo progress in the gym. I’d been out of the gym for over 10 years. Came back about a year ago. Spent 6 months going no where while busting my ass. Finally decided to really begin monitoring my food intake and seeing what “works” for me as far as ratio’s. Strength as well as size began to go up very quickly.
Yeah, without proper training, you are not going to get anywhere fast. But without proper fuel, you’ll never even get started.
[quote]MarcAnthony wrote:
vroom wrote:
Low and behold those that were considered overweight (fat) carried more muscle mass than their “skinny” counterparts.
Fat people get more work simply by moving their own weight around, or maintain their posture when sitting or standing, than skinny people.
It makes sense.
Thats one point of view, another is that food in itself is anabolic.
[/quote]
it’s the anabolism of food, not the moving of one’s own weight.
unless we’re talking about calves, but we’re not, fat guys have big tris too.
So, now, food itself is anabolic? Sure, I guess, but don’t tell me you can gain more and more muscle just by eating a ton.
This is how those people that grow into their couches happen… yeah, that’s pretty anabolic alright!
Anyway, as you gain weight, there is more load on the spine, when standing for example. Every time you fork a mouthful of food to your face it is more work moving the twenty pound arms.
You can’t discount that, such that the additional weight itself can represent a training stimulus, but obviously not very much of one.
Gaining muscle, by eating while not working out, will certainly happen when you are undernourished also. This doesn’t prove that eating is directly anabolic, but it does show that the body has ideas of it’s own.
Finally, yes, I’m aware that eating does help move the cells towards an anabolic state, but generally you don’t see people putting on much muscle if they aren’t training. It’s still a combo thing.
this wasn’t my question but lets put a little spin on it to see if you can make this discussion a little more meaningful.
Lets say you had the opportunity to work with one of the T-Nation writers. given monetary concerns you could only choose their training plan or nutrition plan. Which one do you take and why?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Oh man.
This thread is horrible.
[/quote]
Why? Because you’re reading something that you dont agree with?
Yeah, and in case you havent heard training is catabolic
I never said that.
If you leave out proper training and nutrition you’ll hit a plateau very rapidly.
Thats right. They are in anabolic states. Exercise in itself if catabolic. An extreme case to illustrate that are marathon runner. Lord knows they exercise enough hours per week.
So, because their arm weighs 20 lbs it puts an extra stress on their body, so their body compensates by increasing its muscle mass - which in turn makes their arm heavier which places a greater stress on their body - so their body increases its muscle mass… etc etc?
I agree, I dont think its their extra bodyfat that they carry that increases their muscle mass.
Exactly, that why food alone can increase muscle mass.
Hence, anabolic
[quote]
but generally you don’t see people putting on much muscle if they aren’t training. It’s still a combo thing.[/quote]
Exactly, thats why I said that its moot.
What I’m trying to suggest is that it isn’t a simple digital on/off situation. The thread is horrible in my opinion because it leads the uninitiated to make unsubstantiated conclusions. Fair?
While you can claim exercise is catabolic, that doesn’t mean that it is going to be net catabolic.
Now, as for the fat guy, it’s pretty apparent that the body doesn’t need a lot of extra muscle to handle being overweight and sedentary, but it does require some.
However, if the fat guy started doing bodyweight exercises, I’m betting he’d be getting more of a training stimulus than a lighter skinny guy.
The concept of the thread is to gain muscle mass, not simply add bulk.
[quote]Majin wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
“Eating doesn’t produce physical qualities”??? Where do you get the enrgy to breath and walk and sleep and shit if not from nutrition?
We’re not talking about life support, we’re talking about the extra calories for building muscle. You don’t get shit from the extra calories if you don’t have physical activity - training. If you don’t stimulate your body it will never have a need to transform, as illustrated in my example.
sasquatch wrote:
If you are training and only consuming 2000cals. you are eating yourself. And your body craves protein and muscle and loves to store fat. How’s that working for ya?
Very simple. As stated before an individual eating 2000 calories a day and weight training will be stronger, faster and more muscular then if the same person would eat 3000 calories and not train. That’s why we have an obesity epidemic - people eating in exess and not doing shit.
You need both, they are inseparable. But if you had to choose one over the other exercise would win over extra calories. Because if you’re alive and have enough energy to work out you’ll always be better then your twin brother who eats a truckload but doesn’t train. [/quote]
Well first of all, your example sucked. You right away assumed that the poster was talking about bulking and YOU included the more calories thing. The gist of the post was which is more important. I’ll stick with nutrition.
This whole thread had nothing to do with eating to excess as compared to working out. I guess if you can’t comprehend the subject matter it becomes difficult to participate in the conversation.
You can do just as much harm to yourself working out at 2000 cals as you can eating 3000 without depending on a multitude of factors. The most important being your current weight and lbm ratio.
I strongly believe in the credo that you can’t out train a bad diet. And the closer you get to your goal the even more important your diet becomes.
some of the guys with the most muscle mass on the planet do nothing but eat and sit around with next to no exercise. those guys are sumo wrestlers. their muscle is just covered by masses of fat.
and the training stimuli that any fat guy gets from doing mundane stuff is mainly slow twitch. this will not build big muscles.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Well first of all, your example sucked. You right away assumed that the poster was talking about bulking and YOU included the more calories thing. The gist of the post was which is more important. I’ll stick with nutrition. [/quote]
Excuse me, but when the topic is exercise and nutrition assuming the person being alive isn’t a stretch by any means. We’re talking about which is more important in producing physique alterations not what allows you to live.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
This whole thread had nothing to do with eating to excess as compared to working out. I guess if you can’t comprehend the subject matter it becomes difficult to participate in the conversation.
[/quote]
That was an example of nutrition being less important. Here’s another one, but on a global scale. Say a normal person(neither thin nor fat) can have the best nutrition the planet has to offer, but cannot work out. That person will never be able to build as great a physique as someone with the same body eating greasy microwave tv dinners but working out like hell. The truth is that you can look and perform great even when your diet isn’t. That extreme example would be totally unhealthy, but we’re not talking about health are we? Because in the real world most people’s diets aren’t that bad in the first place.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
You can do just as much harm to yourself working out at 2000 cals as you can eating 3000 without depending on a multitude of factors. The most important being your current weight and lbm ratio.[/quote]
Please produce an example where an individual will have a better body with diet alone and no strenous physical activity than a person who works out.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I strongly believe in the credo that you can’t out train a bad diet. And the closer you get to your goal the even more important your diet becomes.[/quote]
It’s a doubious statement. What does it mean? Depending on your purpose the diet may be crap but still supply what you demand of it. You can outtrain your caloric intake to a degree and be leaner by putting more physical work into it. You can get bigger by bulking using McDonalds and pizza. And you can surely become stronger, faster and more endurant even with a shitty diet.
Diet is fuel, it’s dead without a catalyst. As long as you have enough energy to train you will get better results on ANY diet than someone who doesn’t train, period. Can you reach your upper limit with a bad diet? No. Is this rediculous thread going to decide that we should dump one and concentrate on the other? Of course not. But if hypothetically you had to build a pyramid of importance in physical appearance or performance - exercise would be on top. Physical goal - physical activity. Enough said.