In your experience, how much part does each play in getting bigger? I say straight 50/50.
80% Diet / 20% trainig, IMO.
id say 50-50 or 60-40 diet/training
dude if you were right about 80-20 then we could eat like vegetarians and lift like shit and be huge…rethink what you said
80-90% diet. Nutrient timing is important.
[quote]jmwintenn wrote:
id say 50-50 or 60-40 diet/training
dude if you were right about 80-20 then we could eat like vegetarians and lift like shit and be huge…rethink what you said[/quote]
The original question was “…in getting bigger?” Getting bigger is an open-ended question. If getting bigger means more muscle, then diet is 80-90% of the equation. This does not imply that the workout can be shit. It also does not imply that you can be a vegetarian (although there have been body builders who were).
The percentage doesn’t matter and no one can even tell you how much of one or the other it is.
The most important thing is that you bust your ass with both and stay consistent. It takes diet, training and rest, along with a balanced lifestyle.
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
The percentage doesn’t matter and no one can even tell you how much of one or the other it is.
The most important thing is that you bust your ass with both and stay consistent. It takes diet, training and rest, along with a balanced lifestyle.[/quote]
The above poster is right,the percentage doesn’t matter.
Training is most important if u want to get “bigger” because u must lift some big ass weights plus u can and should eat whatever u want IMO
BUT nutrition is most important if u are trying to cut or stay in shape.
Peace
K of K
Dude, this isn’t an either/or thing…
Try both, see which gets you better results. Then stop being lazy and put all your effort into both, and see the kind of results you get when everything is in order.
Other than that, the best answer you can give is that it depends HIGHLY on your goals, what you want to achieve…
[quote]King of Kings wrote:
Nate Dogg wrote:
The percentage doesn’t matter and no one can even tell you how much of one or the other it is.
The most important thing is that you bust your ass with both and stay consistent. It takes diet, training and rest, along with a balanced lifestyle.
The above poster is right,the percentage doesn’t matter.
Training is most important if u want to get “bigger” because u must lift some big ass weights plus u can and should eat whatever u want IMO
BUT nutrition is most important if u are trying to cut or stay in shape.
Peace
K of K[/quote]
If only life were that easy that you could give your 100% best effort to everything that matters even a bit. Unfortunately, life isn’t, and sometimes you have to make sacrifices, and maybe that is why the OP is posing the question.
Maybe a more interesting question:
if you had to miss a day of training or a day of “diet” (this could mean like v-diet to cheat day or precision nutrition to an average day, precontest bodybuilder or a guy trying to maintain 16% bf, whatever)–> which one do you pick?
a week?
a month?
if you could train per choice and eat like a regular joe(this doesnt neccesarily mean just eat potato chips, it means eat sort of regular)or exercise like a regular joe and eat per choice (again this could mean playing basketball 4 days a week, its up to your interpretation), which do you pick?
i pick training in all cases except missing a day of, a rest day is something i should do more often; with me interpreting missing your diet as really cheating good. however for body comp, diet is way more important. size,not as sure. John Berardi talks about something sort of interesting like this on the fit cast wrt dave tate’s eating habits designed for his strength/training/weight and how he looked (19% bf at 300 lbs and looking like less due to subabdominal fat really isnt that bad). good listen.
[quote]Contach wrote:
King of Kings wrote:
Nate Dogg wrote:
The percentage doesn’t matter and no one can even tell you how much of one or the other it is.
The most important thing is that you bust your ass with both and stay consistent. It takes diet, training and rest, along with a balanced lifestyle.
The above poster is right,the percentage doesn’t matter.
Training is most important if u want to get “bigger” because u must lift some big ass weights plus u can and should eat whatever u want IMO
BUT nutrition is most important if u are trying to cut or stay in shape.
Peace
K of K
If only life were that easy that you could give your 100% best effort to everything that matters even a bit. Unfortunately, life isn’t, and sometimes you have to make sacrifices, and maybe that is why the OP is posing the question. [/quote]
Right. And it’s much easier to stay on track with making your body progress if you just keep the diet on track most of the time. Even missed workouts need not have much impact if the food intake is right. If the food intake is wrong, you’ll never make it up with extra workouts, or longer workouts. It’s really that simple. You are what you eat.
the people that are saying training is more important are probably 160lbs. if you wanna be big or cut its all about diet. if you dont eat enough or eat liek crap your going to either be small or a lard ass. can you eat 20 bags of chips a days and gain muscle. no
You cannot grow without eating.
You can certainly get bigger without exercise.
I think diet is definately a larger percentage simply because of frequency. I eat 6 times a day. That’s 42 times a week I can eat the right stuff, of fuck up royally. Cardio and lifting together is only 6-8 times per week.
Don’t forget time commitment for cooking, getting groceries, meal planning, supplement costs, etc, etc.
Not to mention, if you are not eating enough, or eating garbage, your body is not going to be funcionning 100% in the Gym, it will decrease your performance and ultimately results. Basically crappy diet will have negative effects on your work out. Conversely, someone could do the lousiest work out in the world, eg. curling in the squat rack for an hour, and it would not really affect there “eating performance” so to speak.
Although they might have to have the next few meals through a straw due to having been hit in the jaw with 45lb plate.
I’d say it depends on the individual. For me, diet is far more important than training. That’s not to say training doesn’t matter at all, it does. But, my training has been modified slightly (more squats and deadlifts) during my successful stints at getting bigger. My diet, on the other hand, was modified a great deal.
I worked out for 3 or 4 years or so and fluctuated from 163-173 pounds or so. It was only when I started to really pay attention to caloric intake and protein amounts that I started to gain. In the same amount of time concentrating on diet with a similar excercise routine I went from 173 to 200.
In my skinny case it was more about the food.
[quote]martin blank wrote:
I’d say it depends on the individual. For me, diet is far more important than training. That’s not to say training doesn’t matter at all, it does. But, my training has been modified slightly (more squats and deadlifts) during my successful stints at getting bigger. My diet, on the other hand, was modified a great deal.
I worked out for 3 or 4 years or so and fluctuated from 163-173 pounds or so. It was only when I started to really pay attention to caloric intake and protein amounts that I started to gain. In the same amount of time concentrating on diet with a similar excercise routine I went from 173 to 200.
In my skinny case it was more about the food.[/quote]
are you saying it took you another 3-4 years to go from 173 to 200?
For the beginner, it doesn’t matter as much. Once you get past that initial growth spurt, then you will only grow as much as your diet allows. Assuming good training and inadequate diet, you will level out and stagnate. Vice versa, you will get fat.
I think it was Berardi that said you can’t out-train a bad diet. The good ProfX says eat the cheeseburger.
You won’t grow big muskulls without lots of food, but you can get fat without lots of training. I think the diet will determine your success to a greater degree than the training. But both are required for anything more than average.
-folly
I’d say its 39.1% Training, 39.2% Diet, and 21.7% contrast shower intensity.
[quote]budlight1 wrote:
the people that are saying training is more important are probably 160lbs. if you wanna be big or cut its all about diet. if you dont eat enough or eat liek crap your going to either be small or a lard ass. can you eat 20 bags of chips a days and gain muscle. no[/quote]
budlight1, I agree completely. If one is working towards getting bigger in regard to muscle mass it’s all about the diet. If you are cutting to lose fat and keep muscle it’s all about the diet. A workout program without the marriage to nutrition is all but useless to anyone who desires considerable body composition changes.
D
[quote]dez6485 wrote:
martin blank wrote:
I’d say it depends on the individual. For me, diet is far more important than training. That’s not to say training doesn’t matter at all, it does. But, my training has been modified slightly (more squats and deadlifts) during my successful stints at getting bigger. My diet, on the other hand, was modified a great deal.
I worked out for 3 or 4 years or so and fluctuated from 163-173 pounds or so. It was only when I started to really pay attention to caloric intake and protein amounts that I started to gain. In the same amount of time concentrating on diet with a similar excercise routine I went from 173 to 200.
In my skinny case it was more about the food.
are you saying it took you another 3-4 years to go from 173 to 200?[/quote]
Yep. 10 pounds a year in '03, '04, '05 with zero body fat increase. In fact, my abs are more visible now, even though I don’t really focus on them at all. I’m still trying to get bigger (I’m 6-4 and change, so 200 is no great shakes for me, while 160 flat out sucked).
In that previous 3-4 years 10 pound fluctuation (163-173), the weight gain would never stick, minimal as it was, so I guess you could count that extra ten that now has “stuck around” toward the total.
Anyway, I don’t know if that seems like it’s slow-going or not, but that’s the way it’s been for me. It would have been zero - ten pound fluctuations had I continued to ignore diet.