Glutamine

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Kipper

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2000
7,366
0
0
Originally posted by: alkemyst

Many true powerlifters and bodybuilders have shown what 'medicine' says works/doesn't work is quite different in their experiments. The main problem with 'scientific research' is other they can't quite get the exact type of subjects they need and try to extrapolate the data to it. It doesn't always hold true...the first seven years of my education was deep in biological science and chemistry esp focusing on what could help my performance in the gym.

My triglycerides were off the chart, but I was in perfect health. It wasn't until I started going to a D.O. that specialized in sports medicine and weight lifters that I was really getting proper advice/treatment for injury and my health.

MAYBE the findings of research are not generalizable to this population - but maybe they are. And if they aren't, what makes these people so different? Do they have some type of strange, off the charts biochemistry? I'm willing to bet that if there are differences, they aren't going to be different to the point that XYZ supplement "only" works on this tiny, tiny population. There ARE studies out there, although few in number, done on this population.

Bodybuilders' claims may be true, but that's all anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence x1000 doesn't mean anything - it's a logical fallacy. Also tie that in with the fact many of them have vested financial interests in saying XYZ product "works." If I say that dancing under a full moon cures cancer and my cancer vanishes, it doesn't mean that I'm right. Just the same, some claim that 2g/lb bodyweight in protein is necessary, but I'm betting it's something else - the caloric surplus, the increased availability of carbohydrate for exercise, something. But the protein is definitely not "OMFG anabolic."
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: Kipper
MAYBE the findings of research are not generalizable to this population - but maybe they are. And if they aren't, what makes these people so different? Do they have some type of strange, off the charts biochemistry? I'm willing to bet that if there are differences, they aren't going to be different to the point that XYZ supplement "only" works on this tiny, tiny population. There ARE studies out there, although few in number, done on this population.

Bodybuilders' claims may be true, but that's all anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence x1000 doesn't mean anything - it's a logical fallacy. Also tie that in with the fact many of them have vested financial interests in saying XYZ product "works." If I say that dancing under a full moon cures cancer and my cancer vanishes, it doesn't mean that I'm right. Just the same, some claim that 2g/lb bodyweight in protein is necessary, but I'm betting it's something else - the caloric surplus, the increased availability of carbohydrate for exercise, something. But the protein is definitely not "OMFG anabolic."

Are you a scientist at all? That would sort of be needed to understand. I can be sure you aren't a lifter/athlete.

Also I am not sure if you know what anecdotal means. These guys are human science projects. I am not talking about Lee Hanley making some endorsement.

The population is a small one to begin with though...there are only so many dedicating the time to the level needed. I no longer have time to be doing fitness related activities 3-4 hours per day.

I have always focused on getting about 1g/lb that's the standard I have always heard used by 'mortals'. If you are pounding Deca and the like, then one could probably utilize 2g per lb of 'lean body weight'.

I haven't heard of protein being an anabolic agent really. It's definitely needed to build muscle though.

What are you trying to accomplish in your debate?
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,483
32
81
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: Kipper
MAYBE the findings of research are not generalizable to this population - but maybe they are. And if they aren't, what makes these people so different? Do they have some type of strange, off the charts biochemistry? I'm willing to bet that if there are differences, they aren't going to be different to the point that XYZ supplement "only" works on this tiny, tiny population. There ARE studies out there, although few in number, done on this population.

Bodybuilders' claims may be true, but that's all anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence x1000 doesn't mean anything - it's a logical fallacy. Also tie that in with the fact many of them have vested financial interests in saying XYZ product "works." If I say that dancing under a full moon cures cancer and my cancer vanishes, it doesn't mean that I'm right. Just the same, some claim that 2g/lb bodyweight in protein is necessary, but I'm betting it's something else - the caloric surplus, the increased availability of carbohydrate for exercise, something. But the protein is definitely not "OMFG anabolic."

Are you a scientist at all? That would sort of be needed to understand. I can be sure you aren't a lifter/athlete.

Also I am not sure if you know what anecdotal means. These guys are human science projects. I am not talking about Lee Hanley making some endorsement.

The population is a small one to begin with though...there are only so many dedicating the time to the level needed. I no longer have time to be doing fitness related activities 3-4 hours per day.

I have always focused on getting about 1g/lb that's the standard I have always heard used by 'mortals'. If you are pounding Deca and the like, then one could probably utilize 2g per lb of 'lean body weight'.

I haven't heard of protein being an anabolic agent really. It's definitely needed to build muscle though.

What are you trying to accomplish in your debate?

Do YOU know the definition of anecdotal? Anecdotal evidence is that done inconclusively and by those not qualified to be making scientific statements. Anecdotal evidence means nothing until tested experimentally because there isn't a control, there may be other factors, or it may (which it often times is) be coincidence or be the result of some completely unrelated variable. They are not science projects.

There has been research ON bodybuilders and weightlifters that showed no extra benefits of 2g+/lb lean muscle mass. What you're saying has been proving directly against in science and in the population you're saying hasn't been tested. True alkemyst style if you ask me :)
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: Kipper
MAYBE the findings of research are not generalizable to this population - but maybe they are. And if they aren't, what makes these people so different? Do they have some type of strange, off the charts biochemistry? I'm willing to bet that if there are differences, they aren't going to be different to the point that XYZ supplement "only" works on this tiny, tiny population. There ARE studies out there, although few in number, done on this population.

Bodybuilders' claims may be true, but that's all anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence x1000 doesn't mean anything - it's a logical fallacy. Also tie that in with the fact many of them have vested financial interests in saying XYZ product "works." If I say that dancing under a full moon cures cancer and my cancer vanishes, it doesn't mean that I'm right. Just the same, some claim that 2g/lb bodyweight in protein is necessary, but I'm betting it's something else - the caloric surplus, the increased availability of carbohydrate for exercise, something. But the protein is definitely not "OMFG anabolic."

Are you a scientist at all? That would sort of be needed to understand. I can be sure you aren't a lifter/athlete.

Also I am not sure if you know what anecdotal means. These guys are human science projects. I am not talking about Lee Hanley making some endorsement.

The population is a small one to begin with though...there are only so many dedicating the time to the level needed. I no longer have time to be doing fitness related activities 3-4 hours per day.

I have always focused on getting about 1g/lb that's the standard I have always heard used by 'mortals'. If you are pounding Deca and the like, then one could probably utilize 2g per lb of 'lean body weight'.

I haven't heard of protein being an anabolic agent really. It's definitely needed to build muscle though.

What are you trying to accomplish in your debate?

Do YOU know the definition of anecdotal? Anecdotal evidence is that done inconclusively and by those not qualified to be making scientific statements. Anecdotal evidence means nothing until tested experimentally because there isn't a control, there may be other factors, or it may (which it often times is) be coincidence or be the result of some completely unrelated variable. They are not science projects.

There has been research ON bodybuilders and weightlifters that showed no extra benefits of 2g+/lb lean muscle mass. What you're saying has been proving directly against in science and in the population you're saying hasn't been tested. True alkemyst style if you ask me :)

Where is the research that 2g/lb with bodybuilders/powerlifters on steroids showed no benefit? If you look at my statement though, personally I was not buying into it and that part was anecdotal.

There are quite a few bodybuilders that are science majors and have self-studied.

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Agree that ECA certainly seemed to work for me when I tried it in the 90's. I really think fatburners are a bad idea now and not worth the health risk, but the ECA stack seemed to work pretty decently. Losing weight is a damned hassle.
 

Eric62

Senior member
Apr 17, 2008
528
0
0
Anecdotal evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

What works in real life far out weighs what works in theory only. How many dozen studies "prove" the benefits of HMB? How many people got an ounce of muscle gain from HMB? You can create a study to "prove" most any conclusion - doesn't mean squat if it doesn't translate into real world results.

Michael Phillips Diet: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/20...t-dont-try-it-at-home/
Of those 12,000 calories a day, I'd guess that at least 1,600 (400 grams) come from animal source proteins. Since the poor bastard can't even take a bong toke without getting caught (LOL), I'm inclined to believe that he's never used anabolic steroids, which he's been tested for dozen's of times.
 

Kipper

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2000
7,366
0
0
Originally posted by: alkemyst

Where is the research that 2g/lb with bodybuilders/powerlifters on steroids showed no benefit? If you look at my statement though, personally I was not buying into it and that part was anecdotal.

There are quite a few bodybuilders that are science majors and have self-studied.

This is precisely what I mean by "anecdotal." Just because Joe the bodybuilder eats 2g/lb protein does not mean 2g/protein is necessary, or that his level of intake was what made him huge. Simply because he/she is a "science major" doesn't really mean anything more, or give what they're saying any more authority. What it DEFINITELY doesn't mean is that 2g/protein is required for everybody, because Joe is just one person. That makes him a good case study, but nothing more.

However, take fifteen, a hundred, a thousand people like Joe, feed them whatever nutrient you want to manipulate, and then watch the results/biomarkers. Do it often enough, and you eventually get a good idea of an appropriate range that you can generalize to the rest of the population. As of right now, they haven't found that 2g/lb is warranted or even necessary. 2g/kg, maybe.
 

Kipper

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2000
7,366
0
0
Originally posted by: Eric62
Anecdotal evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

What works in real life far out weighs what works in theory only. How many dozen studies "prove" the benefits of HMB? How many people got an ounce of muscle gain from HMB? You can create a study to "prove" most any conclusion - doesn't mean squat if it doesn't translate into real world results.

Exactly. And controlled studies are "real life" - in the somewhat controlled environment of a laboratory, perhaps, but nutrition studies outside of metabolic units generally DO emulate real life. The protein intake studies DO find that increased protein intake is necessary to support protein synthesis in strength athletes. What they DON'T find is that your performance improves with intake above a certain level, say ~2.0g/kg.

Michael Phillips Diet: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/20...t-dont-try-it-at-home/
Of those 12,000 calories a day, I'd guess that at least 1,600 (400 grams) come from animal source proteins. Since the poor bastard can't even take a bong toke without getting caught (LOL), I'm inclined to believe that he's never used anabolic steroids, which he's been tested for dozen's of times.

Just because Michael Phelps eats 12,000 calories a day (an allegation, mind you, published in the New York Post) does not necessarily mean that he eats 400g of protein. I'd be willing to bet his diet is mostly carbohydrate...and based on that report (which mentions a POUND of pasta and five bajillion sandwiches on white bread) it would seem that Phelps is all about the carbs.
 

brikis98

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2005
7,253
8
0
Originally posted by: Kipper
As of right now, they haven't found that 2g/lb is warranted or even necessary. 2g/kg, maybe.

Yup. This paper has a good summary of a lot of the research and their conclusions are that "exercising individuals need approximately 1.4 to 2.0 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight per day."
 

Kipper

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2000
7,366
0
0
Originally posted by: alkemyst

Are you a scientist at all? That would sort of be needed to understand. I can be sure you aren't a lifter/athlete.

Also I am not sure if you know what anecdotal means. These guys are human science projects. I am not talking about Lee Hanley making some endorsement.

The population is a small one to begin with though...there are only so many dedicating the time to the level needed. I no longer have time to be doing fitness related activities 3-4 hours per day.

I have always focused on getting about 1g/lb that's the standard I have always heard used by 'mortals'. If you are pounding Deca and the like, then one could probably utilize 2g per lb of 'lean body weight'.

I haven't heard of protein being an anabolic agent really. It's definitely needed to build muscle though.

What are you trying to accomplish in your debate?

I don't have a PhD, if that's what you are wondering. I don't really see how that or having to be an athlete is relevant, but okay...

Powerlifters and bodybuilders have pushed their genetics to the limits, to be sure. That's what makes them elite athletes. I don't see where you are really going with this, but simply because they are elite athletes doesn't really mean all of the sudden their biochemistry is radically different from the rest of us. Are they outliers? Certainly, most likely. But completely different? Hardly.
 

Kipper

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2000
7,366
0
0
Originally posted by: brikis98
Originally posted by: Kipper
As of right now, they haven't found that 2g/lb is warranted or even necessary. 2g/kg, maybe.

Yup. This paper has a good summary of a lot of the research and their conclusions are that "exercising individuals need approximately 1.4 to 2.0 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight per day."

Another one - original research, a bit dated, but regardless, as opposed to a review. What's interesting about this one is that strength athletes fed a 2.4g/kg (roughly 1.1g/lb) diet did not increase protein synthesis appreciably when compared to those eating a "moderate" protein diet (1.4g/kg).

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/...ent/abstract/73/5/1986
 

brikis98

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2005
7,253
8
0
Originally posted by: Kipper
Originally posted by: brikis98
Originally posted by: Kipper
As of right now, they haven't found that 2g/lb is warranted or even necessary. 2g/kg, maybe.

Yup. This paper has a good summary of a lot of the research and their conclusions are that "exercising individuals need approximately 1.4 to 2.0 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight per day."

Another one - original research, a bit dated, but regardless, as opposed to a review. What's interesting about this one is that strength athletes fed a 2.4g/kg (roughly 1.1g/lb) diet did not increase protein synthesis appreciably when compared to those eating a "moderate" protein diet (1.4g/kg).

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/...ent/abstract/73/5/1986

Yup, I've seen probably a half dozen studies confirming similar things. Here's one that turned up in a quick google search from 2006:

Effect of Protein Intake on Strength, Body Composition and Endocrine Changes in Strength/Power Athletes

"Comparison of protein intakes on strength, body composition and hormonal changes were examined in 23 experienced collegiate strength/power athletes participating in a 12-week resistance training program."

...

"The results of this study do not provide support for protein intakes greater than recommended levels in collegiate strength/power athletes for body composition improvements, or alterations in resting hormonal concentrations."


 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: brikis98
Originally posted by: Kipper
Originally posted by: brikis98
Originally posted by: Kipper
As of right now, they haven't found that 2g/lb is warranted or even necessary. 2g/kg, maybe.

Yup. This paper has a good summary of a lot of the research and their conclusions are that "exercising individuals need approximately 1.4 to 2.0 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight per day."

Another one - original research, a bit dated, but regardless, as opposed to a review. What's interesting about this one is that strength athletes fed a 2.4g/kg (roughly 1.1g/lb) diet did not increase protein synthesis appreciably when compared to those eating a "moderate" protein diet (1.4g/kg).

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/...ent/abstract/73/5/1986

Yup, I've seen probably a half dozen studies confirming similar things. Here's one that turned up in a quick google search from 2006:

Effect of Protein Intake on Strength, Body Composition and Endocrine Changes in Strength/Power Athletes

"Comparison of protein intakes on strength, body composition and hormonal changes were examined in 23 experienced collegiate strength/power athletes participating in a 12-week resistance training program."

...

"The results of this study do not provide support for protein intakes greater than recommended levels in collegiate strength/power athletes for body composition improvements, or alterations in resting hormonal concentrations."

per kilo is where people go wrong with thinking 2g per pound is the way to go. Not saying it doesn't work at the upper end but personally I didn't get much better gains going to 300+ calories from proteins over around 160ish.

Also to the above talking anecdotal again (anecdotal like douche is a popular ATOT buzzword it seems)...when a scientist is doing a study and taking on subjects and testing...it's no longer anecdotal.

The population is very small and thus if you are looking to get all your knowledge from google daily it's likely you will not stumble upon them.

I swear about 90% of what's spouted off as canonical here would be laughed off and probably perm-banned on any serious BB forum.

 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: Kipper
Originally posted by: alkemyst

Are you a scientist at all? That would sort of be needed to understand. I can be sure you aren't a lifter/athlete.

Also I am not sure if you know what anecdotal means. These guys are human science projects. I am not talking about Lee Hanley making some endorsement.

The population is a small one to begin with though...there are only so many dedicating the time to the level needed. I no longer have time to be doing fitness related activities 3-4 hours per day.

I have always focused on getting about 1g/lb that's the standard I have always heard used by 'mortals'. If you are pounding Deca and the like, then one could probably utilize 2g per lb of 'lean body weight'.

I haven't heard of protein being an anabolic agent really. It's definitely needed to build muscle though.

What are you trying to accomplish in your debate?

I don't have a PhD, if that's what you are wondering. I don't really see how that or having to be an athlete is relevant, but okay...

Powerlifters and bodybuilders have pushed their genetics to the limits, to be sure. That's what makes them elite athletes. I don't see where you are really going with this, but simply because they are elite athletes doesn't really mean all of the sudden their biochemistry is radically different from the rest of us. Are they outliers? Certainly, most likely. But completely different? Hardly.

didn't ask about PhD...are you a scientist...like have you had more than just Bio and Chem 101?

Most have no idea what being an athlete is about...hell many see acrobatics and think it's CG or done with strings.

The biochemistry of an elite athlete is very different than a gamer who maybe walks a total of 5 miles in a week and lives off Ballz and Chipotle. Are they RADICALLY different? I don't know what the qualifiers are in your opinion....but one is a hell of a lot more efficient and gets far more utilization out of their foods.
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,483
32
81
Originally posted by: alkemyst
per kilo is where people go wrong with thinking 2g per pound is the way to go. Not saying it doesn't work at the upper end but personally I didn't get much better gains going to 300+ calories from proteins over around 160ish.

Also to the above talking anecdotal again (anecdotal like douche is a popular ATOT buzzword it seems)...when a scientist is doing a study and taking on subjects and testing...it's no longer anecdotal.

The population is very small and thus if you are looking to get all your knowledge from google daily it's likely you will not stumble upon them.

I swear about 90% of what's spouted off as canonical here would be laughed off and probably perm-banned on any serious BB forum.

Clearly it's not anecdotal when a scientist runs a scheduled experiment, but when a bodybuilder observes something, he or she is not a scientist and their correlations could be completely incorrect.

90% of stuff at serious BB forums is questionable at best. You wouldn't believe how much stuff I've read on those sites that has been disproven in exercise biology labs with those same populations. Bodybuilding is dominantly known for meatheads that don't actually any real idea of what's happening in the body. I'm not saying all bodybuilders do, clearly. But I'd guess about 90% have no idea what their body goes through. If they did have an idea, they would quit spending so much money on the supplements that don't do crap for them.

Originally posted by: alkemyst
didn't ask about PhD...are you a scientist...like have you had more than just Bio and Chem 101?

Most have no idea what being an athlete is about...hell many see acrobatics and think it's CG or done with strings.

The biochemistry of an elite athlete is very different than a gamer who maybe walks a total of 5 miles in a week and lives off Ballz and Chipotle. Are they RADICALLY different? I don't know what the qualifiers are in your opinion....but one is a hell of a lot more efficient and gets far more utilization out of their foods.

Lol, what? The biochemistry is literally the same for an athlete as it is for a gamer, however in different concentrations (often very minimal - milli/micro/nanomoles different depending on the compound). Yes, those who train utilize their resources a bit more optimally, but that's because their cells accommodate, not because their biochem is really all that different.
 

KoolDrew

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
10,226
7
81
90% of stuff at serious BB forums is questionable at best. You wouldn't believe how much stuff I've read on those sites that has been disproven in exercise biology labs with those same populations. Bodybuilding is dominantly known for meatheads that don't actually any real idea of what's happening in the body. I'm not saying all bodybuilders do, clearly. But I'd guess about 90% have no idea what their body goes through. If they did have an idea, they would quit spending so much money on the supplements that don't do crap for them.

*cough* bb.com *cough*
 

Kipper

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2000
7,366
0
0
Originally posted by: alkemyst

didn't ask about PhD...are you a scientist...like have you had more than just Bio and Chem 101?

Most have no idea what being an athlete is about...hell many see acrobatics and think it's CG or done with strings.

The biochemistry of an elite athlete is very different than a gamer who maybe walks a total of 5 miles in a week and lives off Ballz and Chipotle. Are they RADICALLY different? I don't know what the qualifiers are in your opinion....but one is a hell of a lot more efficient and gets far more utilization out of their foods.

Clearly, your definition of "scientist" is different from mine. But I have had a fair amount of graduate-level class work, particularly in this area (nutrition & foods).

The biochemistry of an elite athlete MAY be "different" in the sense that things are happening more rapidly and to a greater degree (e.g. metabolism, protein turnover, etc.) but that doesn't mean that the major rules are any different than they are for "regular" people. Blood glucose cannot be out of control or you get diabetes. Insulin still drives nutrients into cells. Various hormones still do whatever they do.

Look at it this way: the gamer is a Civic, and an elite athlete is a Hummer. They burn gas at different rates, but when you boil it down they both run off of gas, they essentially have the same type of engineering put into them, but one uses much less gas than the other and might have a nicer interior.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Clearly it's not anecdotal when a scientist runs a scheduled experiment, but when a bodybuilder observes something, he or she is not a scientist and their correlations could be completely incorrect.

90% of stuff at serious BB forums is questionable at best. You wouldn't believe how much stuff I've read on those sites that has been disproven in exercise biology labs with those same populations. Bodybuilding is dominantly known for meatheads that don't actually any real idea of what's happening in the body. I'm not saying all bodybuilders do, clearly. But I'd guess about 90% have no idea what their body goes through. If they did have an idea, they would quit spending so much money on the supplements that don't do crap for them.


That's not what I said. I said most of the stuff spouted off here and even talked about as "Y0 BAD ASS"...would be laughed off the BB forums by those that know.


Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
Lol, what? The biochemistry is literally the same for an athlete as it is for a gamer, however in different concentrations (often very minimal - milli/micro/nanomoles different depending on the compound). Yes, those who train utilize their resources a bit more optimally, but that's because their cells accommodate, not because their biochem is really all that different.

Forget about it then. Why I caveated my statement...from the layman's point of view is where I was coming from and not trying to argue that it's all the same mechanisms and cycles.

 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: Kipper
Originally posted by: alkemyst

didn't ask about PhD...are you a scientist...like have you had more than just Bio and Chem 101?

Most have no idea what being an athlete is about...hell many see acrobatics and think it's CG or done with strings.

The biochemistry of an elite athlete is very different than a gamer who maybe walks a total of 5 miles in a week and lives off Ballz and Chipotle. Are they RADICALLY different? I don't know what the qualifiers are in your opinion....but one is a hell of a lot more efficient and gets far more utilization out of their foods.

Clearly, your definition of "scientist" is different from mine. But I have had a fair amount of graduate-level class work, particularly in this area (nutrition & foods).

The biochemistry of an elite athlete MAY be "different" in the sense that things are happening more rapidly and to a greater degree (e.g. metabolism, protein turnover, etc.) but that doesn't mean that the major rules are any different than they are for "regular" people. Blood glucose cannot be out of control or you get diabetes. Insulin still drives nutrients into cells. Various hormones still do whatever they do.

Look at it this way: the gamer is a Civic, and an elite athlete is a Hummer. They burn gas at different rates, but when you boil it down they both run off of gas, they essentially have the same type of engineering put into them, but one uses much less gas than the other and might have a nicer interior.

nutrition and foods as nothing to do with how they affect athletes.

Again like the other guy you can believe what you want if it makes you feel you are no different than an athlete and know what it's like since you can read about being one.

I have both a science background, have studied nutrition, and used to train 3-4 hours a day at a minimum. I played football, wrestling, competed in martial arts, ran, and did heavy weight lifting for over a decade. Since then I tapered down to 3-4 days a week of running/lifting. My needs now are far different than they were then.
 

brikis98

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2005
7,253
8
0
Originally posted by: alkemyst
nutrition and foods as nothing to do with how they affect athletes.
What?

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I have both a science background, have studied nutrition, and used to train 3-4 hours a day at a minimum. I played football, wrestling, competed in martial arts, ran, and did heavy weight lifting for over a decade. Since then I tapered down to 3-4 days a week of running/lifting. My needs now are far different than they were then.
Yes, we all recognize what an incredible athlete you were and how your biochemistry was radically different. But to counter your point, I was friends with a few people who you would classify as "elite athletes" that also devoted 4+ hours per day to training and many of them were incredibly successful without resorting to all sorts of drugs/supplements and without gorging on ridiculous amounts of protein. See, that's the funny thing about anecdotal evidence: it can go both ways. You're quick to dismiss scientific studies, but at least the results from them should be reproducible, which in my eyes makes their conclusions valid and yours just hearsay.
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,483
32
81
Originally posted by: alkemyst
nutrition and foods as nothing to do with how they affect athletes.

Again like the other guy you can believe what you want if it makes you feel you are no different than an athlete and know what it's like since you can read about being one.

I have both a science background, have studied nutrition, and used to train 3-4 hours a day at a minimum. I played football, wrestling, competed in martial arts, ran, and did heavy weight lifting for over a decade. Since then I tapered down to 3-4 days a week of running/lifting. My needs now are far different than they were then.

Lulz. I can honestly use the same argument. I have competed in sports all my life (track, cross country, soccer, water polo, basketball), am finishing my bachelor's in exercise biology this year with an emphasis on nutrition (and a psych minor, heyo!). Along with that, I performed at high levels as a sprinter and currently am approaching numbers to be fairly competitive in the powerlifting community. I still believe the research because it can be easily reproduced. Sometimes there are other variables that modify the application in the real world, yes, but that doesn't mean the research isn't right (if valid and consistently repeatable).

Plus, you seem not to be THAT experienced if you trained for 3-4 hours a day. Quality, not quantity matters. I could workout 6 hours a day, but would that make my argument more compelling? No, not exactly.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: brikis98
Originally posted by: alkemyst
nutrition and foods as nothing to do with how they affect athletes.
What?

The run of the mill nutrition tract doesn't really have any 'performance' info unless you specialize.

You should know what I was referring too...are you far along it?



Originally posted by: brikis98
Yes, we all recognize what an incredible athlete you were and how your biochemistry was radically different. But to counter your point, I was friends with a few people who you would classify as "elite athletes" that also devoted 4+ hours per day to training and many of them were incredibly successful without resorting to all sorts of drugs/supplements and without gorging on ridiculous amounts of protein. See, that's the funny thing about anecdotal evidence: it can go both ways. You're quick to dismiss scientific studies, but at least the results from them should be reproducible, which in my eyes makes their conclusions valid and yours just hearsay.

now you are just being an asshole. I was trying to qualify why I thought a certain way and you are attacking on a personal level.

I never said my 4 hours of training made me elite though...it's obvious now you are reading into everything to profess otherwise.

What did your 'elite athlete' friends do for sport? What was their diet?

Thanks for letting us know you are going off other's conclusions though.

I have made my own conclusions. I know certain products do nothing. I know 1g / lb of protein is sufficient for almost everyone.

 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Lulz. I can honestly use the same argument. I have competed in sports all my life (track, cross country, soccer, water polo, basketball), am finishing my bachelor's in exercise biology this year with an emphasis on nutrition (and a psych minor, heyo!). Along with that, I performed at high levels as a sprinter and currently am approaching numbers to be fairly competitive in the powerlifting community. I still believe the research because it can be easily reproduced. Sometimes there are other variables that modify the application in the real world, yes, but that doesn't mean the research isn't right (if valid and consistently repeatable).

Plus, you seem not to be THAT experienced if you trained for 3-4 hours a day. Quality, not quantity matters. I could workout 6 hours a day, but would that make my argument more compelling? No, not exactly.

so WTF are you trying to say? Supplements are worthless? Protein is worthless? That an athlete's needs are the same as the guy sitting on the couch just that he needs some more calories?

seriously...

btw what's your BW and big three? I don't think I have seen you mention that ever.

Edit: nm found you on BB, what are you 22 now or still 20?
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,483
32
81
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Lulz. I can honestly use the same argument. I have competed in sports all my life (track, cross country, soccer, water polo, basketball), am finishing my bachelor's in exercise biology this year with an emphasis on nutrition (and a psych minor, heyo!). Along with that, I performed at high levels as a sprinter and currently am approaching numbers to be fairly competitive in the powerlifting community. I still believe the research because it can be easily reproduced. Sometimes there are other variables that modify the application in the real world, yes, but that doesn't mean the research isn't right (if valid and consistently repeatable).

Plus, you seem not to be THAT experienced if you trained for 3-4 hours a day. Quality, not quantity matters. I could workout 6 hours a day, but would that make my argument more compelling? No, not exactly.

so WTF are you trying to say? Supplements are worthless? Protein is worthless? That an athlete's needs are the same as the guy sitting on the couch just that he needs some more calories?

seriously...

btw what's your BW and big three? I don't think I have seen you mention that ever.

The supplements that have been proven via research are great. Whey protein and creatine have been proven in the lab and in the gym time and time again. I use them because of the extensive research though. An athlete's needs for protein is much greater than a gamer due to a large need for muscle repair. However, glutamine has been proven over and over not to help stuff like this.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Thanks dodging the question I asked and yet calling me out before.

I use supplements based on my experience with them...I try them based on 'extensive research'...I try them based on 'Y0 f00 yous Trollin!' too sometimes.

glad to see you went back to the glutamine argument though...personally I think it works for me...if it really doesn't it's so cheap I don't really care.