Hi Ellington,
Just wondered what your thoughts may be on the above. It probably accounts for a huge proportion of failures in training and fat loss. I know I was extremely guilty of neglecting my nutrition for many years. Personally I used to find the subject “difficult to grasp” and I was sucker punched by all the bro science. Now… I study nutrition as thoroughly as I can and it’s just easy!
I don’t get this thought.
The only information on optimizing body composition from the niutritional side came from bro-science when I started lifting weights (1970’s). If it weren’t for bro-science there was nothing nutritionally.
Now I understand there were a few different approaches. I can attest to that. We were all amazed at the definition that Joe Means attained, in particular, winning “most muscular” in the 1976 AAU Mr America. We found that he did a very low carbohydrate diet. I tried it, but only got “stringy”. I lost all of my fullness. I rejected the extremely low carbohydrate method for my use.
I do certainly believe that nutrition is important but I definitely find the training to be more important. At least if building muscle is your primary concern. However, I think most people who get really into training are also very regimented with their diet and supplementation as they all go hand-in-hand once you’re passionate about lifting and achieving physique goals.
If someone’s primary focus is just nutrition without the lifting, there’s a very good chance they look like my great grandmother who had the same views. Skinny and weak.
But I do wish to state again, I do view training as a bit more important than nutrition, but diet is of very high importance still. Nutrition timing being a point of particular emphasis to me.
1 Like
I agree entirely here. Adding the need to personalize your diet according to your genetics. I believe my plateau in earlier years was much depending on a low calorie, fat free diet, which did not suit me that well (as a “hardgainer” of sorts back then). Nowadays I eat fairly healthy but make sure to eat properly, and keep out of the fixation on diet. Having said that I’m just about to eat a burger…
1 Like
I don’t know which is the most important, but I do know which is the hardest for me and thats nutrition
i have no problem getting to the gym and training intensely on a consistent basis
However, eating as healthy as i can or staying on a calorie deficit consistently is a chore and the thing is…its all my fault, nobody to blame but myself…ok, after eating this ice cream cone i will be better, 
You need to be aware of both. Then try to understand and apply the best that science has to offer.
1 Like
The late Vince Gironda always said bodybuilding – if that is your goal – is 80% (or 90%?) nutrition, the rest training. A brief, intense, safe workout will get the job done. Even if volume training is your method*, the numbers prove that the impact is low relative to food.
*I love Dr Doug McGuff’s detailed video on the fallacy of bro volume programs along with John Janquish’s recent interview with Dr. Gabrielle Lyon. Hypertrophy is a Side Effect - YouTube
And you cannot eat or supplement your way to “muscle”. McGuff’s video has the science on this, even Dr. Barry Sears, PhD (wrote the Zone Diet), discussed the science vs. fallacy in the 90s. If you can “eat” your way to muscle by over-consuming ‘protein’, we’d all look like Arnold. Instead, you see soft/bloated bros in the gym as Dr. Art Devany observed in his blogs in the 2000s.
Diet determines your arterial health, longevity, etc. As the saying goes, “Genetics are the gun, you diet pulls the trigger.”
This hyperbole is unproductive no matter how you view it. It might sound profound, but it is based in no reality. Who doesn’t understand that we all have a genetic ceiling? How could you get through high school and not easily see that some had much more athletic ability (gifted) than the rest?
You say you will work harder to reach the top. Do you believe that you are the only one working “harder”? Sure, given fairly equivalent genetics, the one who works the smartest and hardest will prevail. But if the person with superior genetics works just as smart and hard, you will be sadly disappointed come contest time.
Hyperbole? How about facts and you’re unwilling to accept them. (Or maybe you don’t know the definition of hyperbole?)
Regardless, I didn’t say a single thing about “working harder to reach the top” anywhere, did I? And the top of what…? Ambiguity doesn’t contribute to a discussion or make a point.
“Do you believe that you are the only one working “harder”?” Again, what is the point of this comment and how does it relate to my post?
My post related to some pretty straightforward science via Dr. McGuff and training along with a response to the question about “diet” for this thread.
“Sure, given fairly equivalent genetics, the one who works the smartest and hardest will prevail. But if the person with superior genetics works just as smart and hard, you will be sadly disappointed come contest time.”
What are you referring to? What contest? And if you’re referring to bodybuilding, this is completely irrevelant. Plenty of examples over the decades.
This isn’t true, either. There were plenty of resources available outside of the muscle rags. Arthur Jones’ Nautilus Bulletin had dietary information and they were definitely not an “insider” like Weider, Hoffman, etc., at the time as they did have knowledgeable people at Deland. Definitely not bro. There were also books on nutritional science, etc., back in the day.
And Joe Means? What PEDs was he taking to help get into contest shape. Zane cycled his diet when he was getting ripped. Bob Birdsong wrote a couple of articles about how he dropped low carb after working with a nutritionist and felt he looked/felt better.
Who considered that gospel? And who knew it existed? I had seen Arthur in Deland (Lake Helen) on two different occasions and he never mentioned any dietary information. When was it well known that Arthur Jones was offering dietary information. You and I are not going to get along very well. What I said was absolutely true. PERIOD.
Since you are the authority on Arthur Jones nutritional contribution to the bodybuilding world, what earth shacking knowledge did he contribute?
What does this mean? I suppose he was taking some very similar AAS as other competitors, but I have no idea what he took. His conditioning is what stood out on stage.
This does seem different from what we “heard” Joe Means was doing. We were cycling our diets in the late 1970’s.
And I did that when I saw how very low carbohydrates made me look. No one had to tell me any louder than the mirror did.
Just out of curiosity, how long have you been lifting weights?
This stands as one of the dumbest comparisons that I have ever heard.
1 Like
Actually, it is probably one of the wiser things you’ve read today. And it is “dumbest”, btw.
Who considered that gospel? And who knew it existed? I had seen Arthur in Deland (Lake Helen) on two different occasions and he never mentioned any dietary information. When was it well known that Arthur Jones was offering dietary information. You and I are not going to get along very well. What I said was absolutely true. PERIOD.
Do you read or know what is in your own posts? You were talking about “bro” science being the only source of nutrition in the bodybuilding world. Go back and check. And apparently you didn’t read Jones’ writings as I cited them as being non-bro nurtitional recommendations. And who knew about them? Apparently all of Peary Rader’s subscribers did and many signed up for Jones’ training and dietary information.
You and I are not going to get along very well.
And? When I’m the smarter person in the discussion, I always get that response.
Since you are the authority on Arthur Jones nutritional contribution to the bodybuilding world, what earth shacking knowledge did he contribute?
What is earth shacking? Regardless, Jones didn’t do “bro” – he advocated for basic nutrition. Probably aligned with Dr. Darden’s following his grad work. Your pretend to have knowledge in this area but clearly you don’t.
What I said was absolutely true. PERIOD. What is ‘absolutely true’? How about absolutely NOT. 
What does this mean? I suppose he was taking some very similar AAS as other competitors, but I have no idea what he took. His conditioning is what stood out on stage.
Seriously? You made a point of Means being on a low carb diet – was that the only reason he was lean or were there PEDs that assisted him? I pointed out Birdsong getting ripped on a higher carb diet. Believe he’d admitted to juicing, etc. So just because someone’s on a low carb diet isn’t the whole story – claiming so is silly.
And I did that when I saw how very low carbohydrates made me look. No one had to tell me any louder than the mirror did.
And in your case n may equal 1. I tried it after visiting Vince’s Gym and his insistence it was the optimal diet but all it did was make me sick and empty my wallet with all of the dessicated liver tabs, digestive enzymes (which didn’t help) and wrecked my ability to do PT. Again, n = 1 in my case. OTOH, Mark Sisson talks about a succesful very low carb ultra runner who actually doesn’t eat while competing and relies on ketones. Again, n = 1
Just out of curiosity, how long have you been lifting weights?
Quite a while. Long enough to have been to Vince’s Gym. Paid Mentzer for a couple of sessions. Visited Deland once.
I can only speak from my experiences
I started lifting weights in 1968. I entered my first bodybuilding contest in 1970, where Casey Viator was guest posing. He at 18 years of age had placed 3rd in the 1970 Mr America (where he first met Arthur Jones). So Arthur Jones can’t even claim Casey as a diamond in the ruff.
I recall what nutritional information was “readily” available through the 1970’s. There was only that which Hoffman or Weider included in their magazines. What was most common was much more protein than the FDA recommended. No science. Just trial and error. I tried more protein and I gained more muscle. Maybe not causation, but clearly correlation. If you wanted to get cut, you clearly had to drop calories, but we believed you had to keep protein high. All this is bro-science. Even with no knowledge I got fairly good results.
Bro-science put nutritional insulin management to practice, before the public was aware of the term. It is a key component for optimizing body composition.
Do you seriously believe that any one in contention to place in the 1976 AAU Mr. America was not on AAS? That was a given. Yet the condition of Joe Means stood out. They are all on AAS. So he was either taking the holy grail AAS formula, or his diet was the difference. (If anyone did cardio in those days that is news to me.)
It was the Mr America. Anyone thinking that AAS isn’t one of the most important components to outcome clearly has their head in the sand. Once again, AAS is a given. In 1955 CIBA changed everything.
I got sufficiently cut eating more carbohydrates, so the Birdsong comment adds nothing. He was on AAS and I was on AAS. I did say I competed, didn’t I. I always used the feedback system to ascertain what changes to make to optimize body composition. So, I too was an n=1. IMO, there is no perfect “formula” for optimal body composition nutrition.
I started lifting weights in 1968. I entered my first bodybuilding contest in 1970, where Casey Viator was guest posing. He at 18 years of age had placed 3rd in the 1970 Mr America (where he first met Arthur Jones). So Arthur Jones can’t even claim Casey as a diamond in the ruff.
Well, I’ve come to realize over the years experience means nothing. Science and knowledge are changing rapidly – McGuff’s video is a prime example. I woke up a long time ago and realized the volume stuff, changing to this or that program was pointless. But the bro programs,supplements, etc., continue to suck people in and sustain an industry that outside of creatine, really doesn’t have the magic pill.
And Viator? Jones never, ever made that claim so why are you stating that. Those who’ve been around know the story of Viator by now and what Jones said.
I recall what nutritional information was “readily” available through the 1970’s. There was only that which Hoffman or Weider included in their magazines. What was most common was much more protein than the FDA recommended. No science. Just trial and error. I tried more protein and I gained more muscle. Maybe not causation, but clearly correlation. If you wanted to get cut, you clearly had to drop calories, but we believed you had to keep protein high. All this is bro-science. Even with no knowledge I got fairly good results.
Protein had little to do with it. When I first got into lifting, I saw guys pack on muscle and their bench presses shoot up to 225, 250, 315 eating crap. Pizza and beer. Anyone who claims the high protein shtick is the reason for their hypertrophy doesn’t know how hypertrophy works. You ate more protein…but you were lifting. The latter is the reason you added any muscle as it stimulated the hormonal responses and hypertrophy and you were young. And as long as there’s enough leucine with the BCAAs (not a lot is needed per the experts), you can build muscle.
Bro-science put nutritional insulin management to practice, before the public was aware of the term. It is a key component for optimizing body composition.
Uh, no. Bro science in the 1970s and even 1980s had no clue what insulin management was. I’ve still got a few of the muscle rags from that era…happy to dig them up and will confirm there was never a word printed about any of that.
Probably the first person that really brought this out was Keith Klein, CN, who worked for an endocrinologist following grad school. Keith introduced the idea of nutritional partitioning by the mid-1980s to control insulin spikes and he began turning out ripped bodybuilders (Lee Labrada is one of his trainees) but his focus was on his clinical practice. John Parillo/Cliff Sheats started selling the idea a few years later, but then Keith was hired by Bill Phillips to revamp the Muscle Media program and the rest is history. Dr. Darden started talking about controlling insulin surges by the time he published Living Longer Stronger.
Do you seriously believe that any one in contention to place in the 1976 AAU Mr. America was not on AAS? That was a given. Yet the condition of Joe Means stood out. They are all on AAS. So he was either taking the holy grail AAS formula, or his diet was the difference. (If anyone did cardio in those days that is news to me.)
I don’t “believe” anything – again, you need to read what was written. And apparently you don’t have any idea about posting things on the public domain…Means could come back after you and sue you for accusing him of juicing without proof. If you’re okay with that, go ahead. Apparently you know more about the law than the rest of us as well. And yes, cardio was common in the 1970s and 1980s. Pictures of Zane riding his bike. Gironda advocated aerobics but only once a week to ''preserve muscle".
It was the Mr America. Anyone thinking that AAS isn’t one of the most important components to outcome clearly has their head in the sand. Once again, AAS is a given. In 1955 CIBA changed everything.
Apparently you’ve got your head in the sand if you believe you can state flat out someone is taking steroids with absolutely no proof. Was Means juicing? Andreas Cahling? They sure as hell looked like it but have not seen it stated in the public domain. Off the top of my head, the people I recall who have admitted to juicing are Mentzer, Zane, Arnold, Grymkowski (he had articles on using growth hormone in Weider’s rag). More, I know. But, this is what has been stated on the public domain via articles, interviews, etc.
I got sufficiently cut eating more carbohydrates, so the Birdsong comment adds nothing. He was on AAS and I was on AAS. I did say I competed, didn’t I. I always used the feedback system to ascertain what changes to make to optimize body composition. So, I too was an n=1. IMO, there is no perfect “formula” for optimal body composition nutrition.
The Birdsong comment shows your comment on Means being lean is pointless because of low carb. You don’t seem to understand.
He was on AAS and I was on AAS. I did say I competed, didn’t I.
Regardless, you competed. And…? Did you make millions and retire? Get fame riches and glory? Apparently not as you’re spending time like the rest of us posting on this board. I thought about it, Mentzer told me it was a waste of time and money unless one has the genetics but even then you had the nonsense (drugs aside) that went along with bodybuilding. (Recently well documented in Muscle, Smoke and Mirrors by Randy Roach, but even Pumping Iron talks about Fire Island, etc.) Besides, I was having fun with my gig at the time and didn’t want to mess that up. And why screw around with steroids and end up with acne on your back (several friends always had bloody shirts after benching) or watch your genitals shrink up, which I thought was hilarious – 19" arms, a 500lb squat but no manhood to speak of.
I did not say that bro-science knew what they were doing, but they were practicing nutritional insulin management.
I competed because I enjoyed it. I did not compete to make money. If I’m going to do something, then I do it to the best of my ability.
It sounds as though Mentzer didn’t enjoy the ride. I did. I started wanting to look the best in the gym I worked out in college. That is what I wanted to do. I kept trying to improve every contest. I never never felt like I wasted my time or money. I have no regrets.
Do you hold to the same defeatist attitude as Mentzer?
I am thinking the same thing. Only you seem to be the misinformed one. Have ever competed in a contest to see what it takes to get in contest shape? Education is good, but what works in the lab doesn’t always carry over in the field.
When discussing Birdsong and Means, we are comparing outcomes of diet approaches for competition.
What worked for Joe Means didn’t seem to work for me. I got too stringy in appearance. But the thing is, it worked for Joe Means. From my experience, “One size does not fit all.”
There is no conflict. There is just a differing response of different individuals.
19" arms on stage is plenty impressive.
A 500lb squat, not so much.