toxictoffee

when it comes to training/nutrition/gear, what do you base your debate on?

1 anecdotal evidence
2 science/empirical evidence
3 marketing
4 what you heard
5 controlled in vivo studies of your own (or uncontrolled)
6 a combination (stating which ones)
6 other

cheers

ah24

I go by what someones says, if they can explain it fully and to me it seems to make sense, ill give it a go.

If it works it works if it dont it dont.

You seem to base a lot of your theories on science - and im not saying for sure - but i doubt you even try any of it.

Science is all well and good, but there are so many variables in tests etc and everyone is different. It's like the raw eggs debate with science saying that in raw eggs the protein isnt able to be absorbed

Iv never had a problem with raw eggs, and DB swears by them in his morning shakes!

I think sometimes people get too wrapped up in science, its good to have a basic knowledge but taking everything from a lab as gospel isnt for me.

toxictoffee

what sort of problems would they possibly be?

ah24

I think you know what i meant. Wrong choice of word, sorry.
I mean i seem to of grown fine off of them, they havent been 'wasted' like some would believe when raw.

toxictoffee

yes its the biotin/avidin issue

whole eggs raw are fine when the yolk to white ratio is fine

now, ah24...didnt you say your a fan of layne norton?

ah24

Didnt say i was a 'fan' but i like what he says and how he backs it up. He's working with me on my diet so iv got to trust him.

Whats that got to do with this thread? Feel free to PM if your going onto another debate or trying to start an argument

Bulldozer

IMO (again pmsl) there are little actual FACTS in training! There are tonnes of theories that stand true!! But somebody's theory is not scientific fact!
Its just a theory! Then there are 10 other dudes with a different theory!

I suspect there are more scientific facts in the diet/ nutrition department.

Gear, well im a natty so stay out of the steriod section mainly. (i certainly never give any advice) But IMHO there are little actual facts here, there has never been a conclusive study on human AAS usage to my knowledge.


I try not to over complicate things!

toxictoffee

no no, im on the same debate

layne norton is the most calculated guy in the world, i mean heck he is dedicating his life to find a definitve answer in grams as to how many grams of protein the body can ingest in one sitting and utlise before the requirements for positive nitrogen balance are met

thats why i questioned it when you quoted

i have done a bit of research, again not to laynes depth but isnt this a contradiction?

bulldozer

thanks for the insight mate

ps - i never go to PM - simply debate here and put my 2p on the table

ah24

Same as me, i respect all the science side of it but think sometimes people over-complicate.

Toxic, i do enjoy reading your posts and you are clearly knowledgable. I just dont think EVERYTHING should be based on science. Some things you say i agree with, others i do not - the world would be boring if we all agree'd on everything.

Where we debated in that other thread, as far as im concerned its forgotten, im cool to start fresh, if we disagree we disagree but i dont intend on carrying a grudge - i just hope your with me on that one and understand that at the end of the day, its an internet board with different theories not many of them are proven so as said we can't always agree.

However, i think you should post more articles you have written, you write well and they are pretty interesting.

d@n

the same as bulldozer more or less. what category would class advice from someone who has walked the walk so to speak tt?

ah24

Just seen your 2nd post. I dont think its contradictive - he bases a lot on science, i listen and try things he suggests - but not only what he suggests iv tried other methods like Bigs believing in around 2g per body lb, i tried it, i didnt get anything fancy. I tried 1.5 pretty much the same, i listened to Layne and lowered to around 1.2g and again - im gaining.

I enjoy trying different things, and eventually after i see how im getting on with this diet will be trying what you said and up the fats see how it works.

I like to be pretty open minded...like with training, Layne suggested training muscles twice a week (upper lower x2) i tried it for about 8 weeks - didnt really work for me so gone back to a 4day split which seems to suit me.

wogihao

when it comes to training/nutrition/gear, what do you base your debate on?

1 anecdotal evidence - yea quite a bit but sometimes you have to chalange the accepted norms to progress.

2 science/empirical evidence - yes to a extent, but sometimes the science is flawed so as to produce a result to fit in with a companys marketing ect.

3 marketing - honestly its hard sometimes to distinguish between the science and the marketing in some magazines (MD probably the worst).

4 what you heard - Yea, what worked for other people has a good chance of working with me. its always worth a try.

5 controlled in vivo studies of your own (or uncontrolled) - stuff i have self tested i will coment on but I dont expect anyone to use this as a reasion to try it themselves its just a sugestion (well it worked for me - it might for you..)

6 a combination (stating which ones) this is probably the one i do the most, if the science backs up what i have heared/accepted norms ect then its probably good at the end of the day its a judgement call.

6 other - it came to me in a dream.. haha

Im no guru i just want to get the best information, i dont have a good science background (and yes i beleve that will hurt me in the long run as alot of the cutting edge stuff comes out of scientific studies.)

toxictoffee

cheers gents

d@n

yes to some extent walking the walk helps but for some they have not walked the walk, someone has dragged them by the leash and genetics and spoon feeding has got them where they are (with hard work of course)

so brawn over brains

BUT and a massive but

those who have walked the walk because they have implemented the tirla and error, the theory and the practice themselves = awesome

so the complete package yes

but i know plenty of atheletes who are amazing but dont have a clue, just have the right people behind them and amazing genetics

Britbb is one who falls into the bracket of walking and talking (yet he will agree we clash on some theories:preggers whilst some others are simply puppets for the men in white coats and have the genetics..i know of one one cycling champion who needs help doing his shoe laces up, let alone knowing anything about science/training...he just sucks eggs and the thought of him giving advice is scary as he would not be able to adapt it to be sitation specific, just tell you what he does, which of course is useless if it cant be use always

wogihoa, thanks mate and nice to see you here too

ah24

ketosis article out soon, should be fun

tony1blue

If I enter into a debate its uaually based on what I have tried and tested myself. Which is why my scope for debating most topics is limited.

TBH in most internet debates I end up being baffled by the scientific jargon that is thrown at me. I usually therefore state my opinion and leave.

toxictoffee

i repsect your opinion though tony as your logic is there and work ethic follows and you have walked the walk

5 x 5 debate soon? surely we have to have one sooner or later