Steady State Cardio - Is it necessary?

[not_a_virus.exe]

Originally Posted by Rikkar501

Sweet jesus, you just don't get it. I clearly said show me a natural bodybuilder (now that we all agree that not all bb'ers take drugs) who has built a competition worthy physique while strictly adhering to a low protein, maintenance level diet. There is plenty of evidence to prove my point, I'm asking you to provide proof of yours. Drugs DO NOT need to come into this discussion, as I have plainly laid the requirements for your evidence. I don't give two ***** if you don't lift like a powerlifter. You obviously don't get the point that I'm asking you to show me someone who has built significant strength while following your diet guidelines. If you can't show me someone who has built a competition worthy physique or who has powerlifting worthy strength I will continue to believe you are full of **** and basing your entire philosophy on authors who have blogs to promote their books and a few scientific studies for support. Whatever. If you have some serious **** to bring to the discussion we'll talk. At least there are a few who understand what I'm talking about

no, YOU don't get it. your idea of a "competition worthy" physique is a drug-induced physique. and i did provide plenty of examples of truly natural weightlifters who only consume a rolling daily average of 70-120 grams of protein. but again, you dismiss my examples because they don't have drug-induced physiques (you seem unable to see how this is a false analogy). either way, asking for such examples won't disprove anything; so far, you have only proved that mega-dosing in protein gives gains. that doesn't disprove that lower doses won't produce the same gains. i think this is my 3rd time telling you this, but you still seem so irrationally adamant for examples. also, let's see this supposed "plenty of evidence."

 

[not_a_virus.exe]

Originally Posted by Rikkar501

At least there are a few who understand what I'm talking about

this alone demonstrates your incompetence in the socratic method (most people are anyway - that's why they are so easily scammed and brainwashed). argumentum ad populum anyone? p.s. it's not a few - MOST people believe in what you/the industry preaches. oh, that's right - if most people believe in it, it must be true lol.

 

[Rikkar501]

Marine Master Sargent Philip Ricardo Jr. 100% life time natural and competing in the INBA (which has the strictest testing in the natural scene btw). Go ahead, tear him apart, tell me he's lying. Care to retract your opinion that my expectations are based on "drug-induced physiques"? Probably not, but that's what you get for trying to guess someones expectations on te interebz.

Whatever virus, this has gone on long enough and no one really gives a ****. Until someone can provide concrete examples to the contrary, I will continue to follow the advice and practices of men stronger than me, with the credentials and the results to back their **** up. Until then it's just conjecture and hypothesis. Makes for a good blog post though...

 

[not_a_virus.exe]

Originally Posted by Rikkar501

Marine Master Sargent Philip Ricardo Jr. 100% life time natural and competing in the INBA (which has the strictest testing in the natural scene btw). Go ahead, tear him apart, tell me he's lying. Care to retract your opinion that my expectations are based on "drug-induced physiques"? Probably not, but that's what you get for trying to guess someones expectations on te interebz. Whatever virus, this has gone on long enough and no one really gives a ****. Until someone can provide concrete examples to the contrary, I will continue to follow the advice and practices of men stronger than me, with the credentials and the results to back their **** up. Until then it's just conjecture and hypothesis. Makes for a good blog post though...
1. do you know what the socratic method is? do you know what critical thinking is? logic? 2. scientific evidence > anecdotal evidence 3. here are more than enough examples for you of people making great gains without mega-dosing on protein AND also examples of people mega-dosing on protein and not getting any better gains than people who don't mega-dose (you must have overlooked this post):

Originally Posted by not_a_virus.exe

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Ab...Muscle.25.aspx in this study, 79 grams of protein per day was enough to allow for muscle growth while 138.5 grams of protein per day did not promote any ADDITIONAL muscle growth. here's another study done on different protein amounts and no significant changes were seen in body blass, lean body mass, or fat mass in any group while significant bench press and squat improvements were seen in all groups. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18500968 and fyi, in scientific studies, "high protein" is 0.55 to 0.7 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight whereas in advertising, "high protein" is 2 to 3 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight.
4. you picture does not appear, but it doesn't matter - finding a picture of some genetically gifted guy doesn't prove anything (for some reason, you are unable to see the logical fallacy in examples). 5. quit trying to compensate for your inability to make cogent arguments by trying to be an internet tough guy. 6.

Originally Posted by not_a_virus.exe

also, let's see this supposed "plenty of evidence."
if you answered "no," to question 1, do no pass go and do not collect $200.

 

[Rikkar501]

Wow, this is entertaining

1. Why yes, I do know what the socratic method is! I was unaware that SF is a classroom (which btw is how Socrates employed his methods and is how they are supposed to be used). I'm just a guy on a forum asking for real world results to back up your theories.

2. To a scientist. The average person doesn't care about the scientific evidence if they can't produce the same results. Which is why I have repeatedly asked for examples of someone who has followed a low protein diet while eating below maintenance and has done more than lose a few pounds and gain some definition. If you can't produce the same results with that kind of diet compared to someone who eats a high protein, above maintenance diet all the scientific studies in the world don't mean ****.

3. I did not miss your post, but.....you're citing a study on creatine....WTF?! Not one mention of protein. And I couldn't believe you were really using the second article to support your theory so I didn't bother mentioning it. Is that your "more than enough examples for you of people making great gains without mega-dosing on protein AND also examples of people mega-dosing on protein and not getting any better gains than people who don't mega-dose"?! Collegiate athletes who ate well below energy maintenance levels, and had no changes in body mass, lean body mass or percent body fat after 12 weeks?! Not to mention that this study actually provides evidence against your theory of eating below maintenance while building muscle. Guess you missed this bit:

"It is likely that despite protein intakes that were at or above recommended levels, the inadequate caloric consumption limited body mass and lean tissue gains."

"The thought being that experienced, competitive strength/power athletes that exercise at a high intensity and volume of training may require a greater need of protein to stimulate muscle growth and strength development. Although the results of this study do not provide statistical support for this hypothesis, a 35% and 42% greater improvement (p > 0.05) in Δ 1-RM bench press was seen by AL in comparison to BL and RL, respectively. In addition, improvements in Δ 1-RM squat were 63% and 22% greater (p > 0.05) for AL compared to BL and RL, respectively." (AL=above rec doses, BL=below rec doses, RL=rec doses)

4. My picture (fixed) illustrates what my expectations are for a natural bodybuilder. Not sure how that was hard to understand...

5. Lol at you thinking my responses to you are "internet tough guy" status. Must not visit many forums

 

[kopiluwak98]

no not so

 

[indesertum]

uggh. let's just stop bitching at each other. you can believe what you want to

 

[db_ggmm]

Skimmed the thread. Here's the thing...

Let's say 1g / kilo is scientifically enough for 90% of people, but 1.5g / kilo is needed for the remaining 10%. Or even throw in a 2g / kilo 0.05% remainder.

With all the time / effort you spend in the gym - what are you gonna eat? The bodybuilder way is to overshoot protein consumption, not to the point it hurts, but just enough that all the hard work is utilized.

 

[not_a_virus.exe]

Originally Posted by Rikkar501

Wow, this is entertaining

1. Why yes, I do know what the socratic method is! I was unaware that SF is a classroom (which btw is how Socrates employed his methods and is how they are supposed to be used). I'm just a guy on a forum asking for real world results to back up your theories. 2. To a scientist. The average person doesn't care about the scientific evidence if they can't produce the same results. Which is why I have repeatedly asked for examples of someone who has followed a low protein diet while eating below maintenance and has done more than lose a few pounds and gain some definition. If you can't produce the same results with that kind of diet compared to someone who eats a high protein, above maintenance diet all the scientific studies in the world don't mean ****. 3. I did not miss your post, but.....you're citing a study on creatine....WTF?! Not one mention of protein. And I couldn't believe you were really using the second article to support your theory so I didn't bother mentioning it. Is that your "more than enough examples for you of people making great gains without mega-dosing on protein AND also examples of people mega-dosing on protein and not getting any better gains than people who don't mega-dose"?! Collegiate athletes who ate well below energy maintenance levels, and had no changes in body mass, lean body mass or percent body fat after 12 weeks?! Not to mention that this study actually provides evidence against your theory of eating below maintenance while building muscle. Guess you missed this bit: "It is likely that despite protein intakes that were at or above recommended levels, the inadequate caloric consumption limited body mass and lean tissue gains." "The thought being that experienced, competitive strength/power athletes that exercise at a high intensity and volume of training may require a greater need of protein to stimulate muscle growth and strength development. Although the results of this study do not provide statistical support for this hypothesis, a 35% and 42% greater improvement (p > 0.05) in Δ 1-RM bench press was seen by AL in comparison to BL and RL, respectively. In addition, improvements in Δ 1-RM squat were 63% and 22% greater (p > 0.05) for AL compared to BL and RL, respectively." (AL=above rec doses, BL=below rec doses, RL=rec doses) 4. My picture (fixed) illustrates what my expectations are for a natural bodybuilder. Not sure how that was hard to understand... 5. Lol at you thinking my responses to you are "internet tough guy" status. Must not visit many forums

that was a rhetorical question. you may know what the socratic method is, but you clearly don't understand it, hence your insistence that your examples of protein mega-dosing disproves that only mega-dosing will give those kind of gains. i gave 2 simple studies that showed that protein consumption above my recommended range does not give any extra gains. and it's a study's data will always be open to good and bad interpretation, not to mention lean body mass is NOT the same as muscle mass (this is a common mistake that people who don't understand human physiology make). more importantly, calories can come from food or body fat stores. EDIT: also lol @ #2. yes, to a scientist, and also anyone with a rational mind. ANYONE can make up anecdotes. hell, even i could have, but i instead pulled scientific evidence. your argument is still entirely based on anecdotes.