Treat Sugar like Alcohol and Cigarettes

Barrel

You do know that some of us were not born using, I spent a good while building a natural base before I started using AAS. I also dont stay on all the time. While I know Im not a natural I know all too well the about training naturally for extended periods where actually you might not expect it from a user but I can still gain muscle during those times ......shocking isnt it? LOL
I dont wanna get into an internet p1ssing match coz you're obviously an intelligent guy but I do wanna say some things are tried and tested even if they are not outlined in medical white papers. Bodybuilders learn a lot from trial and error which is why this sport is at the forefront of nutrition and a lot of other sports learn from as then apply the science

 
I understand 'most' people are experienced in natural BBing before moving onto using AAS.  I will most likely one day move on, but I'm only 19 so I would do more harm than good starting now so must remain natural until fully developed and have a strong natural base.
 
But there are those (2 on this forum) who admitted to me using AAS while being the same weight as me yet are taller after comparing their assisted gains to mine. 
Clearly have no experience in natural BBing.
 
I agree that a lot of BBing is trial and error.  But BBing is a niche sport which combined multiple sciences.
Human physiology, Sports science, nutritional sciences.  Yet a lot of people discredit the scientific research because they ate broccoli, egg whites, chicken breast and eggs and gained a few lbs of muscle. 

Liddy

I agree that a lot of BBing is trial and error.  But BBing is a niche sport which combined multiple sciences.
Human physiology, Sports science, nutritional sciences.  Yet a lot of people discredit the scientific research because they ate broccoli, egg whites, chicken breast and eggs and gained a few lbs of muscle. 

 
What you also have to remember is that there is always going to be numerous sources of scientific evidence to prove a point and then others equally as credible to dismiss that same point, so we learn from other successfull assisted and natural bodybuilders, by our own trial and error and by the articles we find, some of which will contradict each other. All I can say is, as I've said before I have experimented with the sources, timings, insulin manipulation through carbs and various other things that you are saying are meaningless against just the macro-nutrient numbers and have experienced first hand the results.  I try, if it works I keep it, if it doesnt I dump it. I keep logs of my progress etc and I know my body. Im not the only only one who does either, there are bodybuilders with much better competitive results than mine (actually mine arent that good at all LOL) that also utilise all these methods and get the results by them.

Barrel

Liddy


I don't discredit if they use AAS.

Someone can use AAS and be the smartest nutritionist ever. 

But someone who takes AAS comparing their gains to mine (natural) and saying it worked for him.  Of course it worked for him, a person could inject exogenous testosterone and gain 20lbs of lbm without touching a weight given the right circumstances.! 

You do know that some of us were not born using, I spent a good while building a natural base before I started using AAS. I also dont stay on all the time. While I know Im not a natural I know all too well the about training naturally for extended periods where actually you might not expect it from a user but I can still gain muscle during those times ......shocking isnt it? LOL
I dont wanna get into an internet p1ssing match coz you're obviously an intelligent guy but I do wanna say some things are tried and tested even if they are not outlined in medical white papers. Bodybuilders learn a lot from trial and error which is why this sport is at the forefront of nutrition and a lot of other sports learn from as then apply the science

 
In a complex world, trial and error is the best way of learning anything. And that's the key lesson. 
 
However, due to the enormous complexity of the human body, an individual bodybuilder has no way of knowing what the reasons for the effects they see are, only that they coincide with certain causes. They confuse correlation with causation. The whole point of science is to tease apart causation from correlation. Which is why science should be given more credit and individual anecdote less, and not vice versa. 
 
Also, if you could give an example in the bodybuilding realm where something is tried and tested but doesn't have some associated scientific research then I'd be extremely grateful and interested to hear of one. 
 

sillynarbie

Also, if you could give an example in the bodybuilding realm where something is tried and tested but doesn't have some associated scientific research then I'd be extremely grateful and interested to hear of one. 

 
I can't give you an example where something is tried and tested but is not supported by any scientific research. But there are certainly plenty of examples of methods where research has two totally contradicting views, each negating the other. Post work-out sugar intake, volume v's HIT, high protein vs moderate protein. There are proponents and articles is support of each, plenty of contradicting views. My point is it doesn't make 1 wrong, there are just other actions/interactions at work not considered.
 
Anyway's gotta go pick father up from the airport, the lucky g1t has been skiing for 3 weeks so I'm gonna get that fact rubbed in coz I couldnt afford to go this year!!

Liddy


Did you do better naturally?

Maybe I should just jump on the gear? 

sillynarbie
 

Liddy
 

And the fact you're not natural answers your question, have a read of the 1996 Bhasin Study. 

 

I love that study. And the one which showed ~20lbs of lean mass increase in men given ~600mg of test PW for a few months without any exercise whatsoever.  

 



Precisely why I disregard any one who isn't natural and uses "It worked for me" as an excuse.

 
Yes. I have.
 
I went back to training in 1996 after a long (many years) break, and trained naturally for the next 4 years, and in the first year gained just over 2 stone while my BF% actually reduced slightly, - about 29lbs lean and 3 fat all told.
 
I know you students love your research and all, but the fact remains that, both natural and assisted, I have tried eating clean and tried eating dirty and I can assure you that my body responds entirely differently to 3500 cals/day of junk than it does to 3500cals/day of clean food.  I may be assissted (on and off) now, but I've trained natural for nearly as long as you've been alive, and Ive acheived significantly better results than you have it seems, natural, with my quaint unscientific theory that there's more to a diet than the numbers on a calculator.

you came back to training, maybe that's why......
In my first year I actually reduced my bf% from 30% to 10%
But my first proper year resistance training I gained 2 and half stone. around 20lbs lean.
 
-EDIT-
Also admit that the first 6 months of resistance training my training was kack and my diet was crap.
Too much protein, not enough carbs and not enough calories at all. 

Been away from the forum for a few months and come back first thread I read has liddy talking rubbish again about diet and how his 165lbs natural is amazing, and what's with the calling everyone sir?

Saw this and thought of this thread:
 

swordfish


Been away from the forum for a few months and come back first thread I read has liddy talking rubbish again about diet and how his 165lbs natural is amazing, and what's with the calling everyone sir?

 
Never said it was 'amazing' (far from it).  But I think my gains are pretty standard, maybe not.
As for sir, just a bit of respect for my elders sir. 
 
But just some people here can seem to grasp physique =/= knowledge.

But can we get back on topic a defer away from this I can inject more exogenous hormones and bench press more than you, plus you look like s**t.

Or do you guys want to continue pointing out my inferior physique? 

Back on topic. Liddy:
 
Im trying to get my head around what exactly you are saying.
 
Lets say we have two guys eating above maintainance cals (the same diet) except one guys carbs source is dextrose, the others guys source is low gi.
 
Now, one guy will be spiking his insulin levels every few hours when he eats. the other will not.
 
Assuming both these guys are consuming the exact same diet (except for the carb sources) and training routine are you saying the gains will be identical body comp wise?
 
Thanks
tbip2001

Liddy


But can we get back on topic a defer away from this I can inject more exogenous hormones and bench press more than you, plus you look like s**t.

Or do you guys want to continue pointing out my inferior physique? 

 
thing is though, that physique is kind of the be all and end all with BBing. If you step on stage the judges dont award points for what diet you stuck to, what research you can quote, or even how much you can bench - purely what your physique looks like.
 
Now you may or may not be right in what you claim about nutrition - but it contradicts established wisdom, plus the personal experience of (Im sure) more people than just myself... and great claims require great proof - which in bodybuilding is physique.
 
You'll find it a lot easier to persuade people of the veracity of your favourite theories if, in a few years time, you're an impressive 15 stone of single figure BF% muscle natural than you do by simply quoting from PubMed.
 
Your gains over the last year are ok, respectable even so I dont intend to mock or criticise - but there's nothing about them that screams "this guy is in possesion of superior knowledge and wisdom"
 
I may, for example, study economics and have a theory of forex market trends. My theory may even be correct, and superior to the current paradigm. But Im going to have a really hard time convincing established  traders of that fact if many of them have made considerably more from the market with their 'old'  erroneous game-plans than I have so far.
 
anyway, I wish you well, and will be perfectly happy if you''re posting progress pics on here in a couple of years time that back it up

tac


Saw this and thought of this thread:

 
If you don't believe in the scientific method tac, jokes on you.

tbip2001


Back on topic. Liddy:

Im trying to get my head around what exactly you are saying.

Lets say we have two guys eating above maintainance cals (the same diet) except one guys carbs source is dextrose, the others guys source is low gi.

Now, one guy will be spiking his insulin levels every few hours when he eats. the other will not.

Assuming both these guys are consuming the exact same diet (except for the carb sources) and training routine are you saying the gains will be identical body comp wise?

Thanks
tbip2001

 
The glycemic load is identical, so the same volume of insulin will be secreted.
One will be over a shorter period of time, the other over a longer period of time.
So the one who eats Dextrose will have more prolonged periods of time where their insulin levels are below baseline of the low GI diet. 
 
Net result will be identical.  (Assuming the two guys are indentical and micronutrients aside as I wouldn't suggest anyone eats 100% of their carbs from dextrose).
 
-EDIT-
There's a study I'll look to see if I can find later, it explained this graphically to make it easier to see exactly what I'm trying to get across. 
 
Also the difference in the time of secretion of insulin will depends on fat/fibre content and protein sources within the diet.
But overall insulin amount will be the same. 

Tac, would you rather take nutritional advice from Lyle Mcdonald or Phil Heath?
 
Just out of curiosity.
 
I agree that it will be easier to persuade people if I had a more impressive physique, not my fault that people are closed minded.
Nor am I training to convince people, I train for my own pleasure.  If someone disregards my comments due to my physique, that's their choice.
 
If someone takes someone's advice solely due to their physique, they're an idiot.

Liddy


Tac, would you rather take nutritional advice from Lyle Mcdonald or Phil Heath?

 
Sums it up for me.
 
You often hear pro's say stupid things with regards to diet and training. 

Liddy


Tac, would you rather take nutritional advice from Lyle Mcdonald or Phil Heath?

Just out of curiosity.

 
Honestly? Neither of them. its not even a question I would much consider
 
If i were conducting research myself then its probably something Id spend much time considering, but Im not training as a scientist, I train because I enjoy it, and because I look and feel better as a result. Trial and error with my own body has shown me that I look better when I eat clean than I do when I simply calorie count and dont pay attention to where the calories come from - so any time I feel like stepping it up a notch and getting back into shape I tend to simply repeat what has worked for me previously.
 
Ironically, this is LESS important if Im running AAS - Ive found I can get away with much sloppier diet when juicing (seems to be a common enough experience), and its the only time when my body IS more likely to respond simply to how many calories it receives (vs expenditure) rather than the picture being complicated by where they come from, whether carb sources are simple or complex, carb:fat rations, meal timing etc. In fact if I was asked to name the single biggest difference between natural and assisted training (aside from the obvious speed of progress) Id plump (no pun intended) for how much more discipline with clean diet natural training requires.
 
@sillynarbie: er, that was a joke mate, not a neo-Luddite attack on the scientific method per se. You know, irony, lighten the mood and all that?
Im a psychologist so I get my fair share of research papers to trudge through as part of my job - although I've also read enough Thomas Kuhn to occasionally query whather the scientific method is always as objective as it like to claim it is.

Choosing PH or LM is a totally loaded question though.

I take advice from Big Dave.

free radicals anyone?