is everyone really so different?

[LKQSJH]

I spend way too much time reading about diet and training. Thought was that the more i learned the better my results would be. The biggest thing that stands out to me anymore is that there is very little if anything that is universally agreed upon in this sport other than being tan makes you look better than being pale! I'm sure someone will disagree with that too.

carbs vs low/no carbs, high fat vs low fat, how much protein do you really need, carb source importance, high volume vs low volume training, hiit vs liss cardio, dc vs other training programs etc. Are we really all so different that there can't be a "general rule" on most of it. Even something as simple as whey protein that i thought everyone agreed was a good tool Phil Hernon says sucks. I get there is more than one way to get to the finish line in this sport but it seems there would be more that is agreed upon. If all of these different methods will work does it just come back to what Lee Preist says about lift, eat, and sleep. To grow, eat more or to lean up, eat less and add cardio? I know thats oversimplification of the process but i am really wondering does all of this little stuff add up to a major measurable difference in results? Some of the biggest and strongest guys i know don't ever worry about this stuff. Maybe its just because they are on all kinds of drugs or maybe genetics but they sure look better than me and are stronger.

Just to be clear i'm not talking about the guy who eats fast food everyday vs. someone who eats clean whole foods as much as i am about taking wpi shakes vs micellar casein or using dextrose as a post workout carb source vs hbcd.

[LG1]

LOL this is good stuff...

[homonunculus]

I spend way too much time reading about diet and training. Thought was that the more i learned the better my results would be. The biggest thing that stands out to me anymore is that there is very little if anything that is universally agreed upon in this sport other than being tan makes you look better than being pale! I'm sure someone will disagree with that too.

carbs vs low/no carbs, high fat vs low fat, how much protein do you really need, carb source importance, high volume vs low volume training, hiit vs liss cardio, dc vs other training programs etc. Are we really all so different that there can't be a "general rule" on most of it. Even something as simple as whey protein that i thought everyone agreed was a good tool Phil Hernon says sucks. I get there is more than one way to get to the finish line in this sport but it seems there would be more that is agreed upon. If all of these different methods will work does it just come back to what Lee Preist says about lift, eat, and sleep. To grow, eat more or to lean up, eat less and add cardio? I know thats oversimplification of the process but i am really wondering does all of this little stuff add up to a major measurable difference in results? Some of the biggest and strongest guys i know don't ever worry about this stuff. Maybe its just because they are on all kinds of drugs or maybe genetics but they sure look better than me and are stronger.

Just to be clear i'm not talking about the guy who eats fast food everyday vs. someone who eats clean whole foods as much as i am about taking wpi shakes vs micellar casein or using dextrose as a post workout carb source vs hbcd.

How do you critically evaluate your information sources?...

How would you know if one opinion is better substantiated than another?...

How can you tell if two people might have different opinions on what is best simply because they have not tried the same things?...

Can you tell if something is a placebo effect?...

You might enjoy reading these (that's me who wrote 'em):

http://drscottstevenson.com/forum/Thread-Musclemag-com-Article-Anatomy-of-A-Supplement-Part-1-and-2

-S

[LKQSJH]

How do you critically evaluate your information sources?...
i wouldn't say i critically evaluate my sources at all but i try to look for opinions of people with results and without pushing a product they have a stake in.

How would you know if one opinion is better substantiated than another?...
I really don't. Some things can be backed with science and some cant but that doesn't mean that there is no truth to it.

How can you tell if two people might have different opinions on what is best simply because they have not tried the same things?...
I guess i really can't and am counting on their veteran experience.

Can you tell if something is a placebo effect?...
nope


I can't talk all the science stuff as i'm just a dumb country boy but i'm a car guy so see if this makes any sense. An 02 F150 4.2 v6 is rated at 205hp/255tq. They are known to have rod nock issues and people replace them with a 3.8 mustang engine because they are cheaper. The 3.8L is rated at 190hp/220tq. Now i can put both engines on a dyno and show you how much better the 4.2 performs with its 8% more hp and 15% more torque than the 3.8 but the truth is in the real world and seat of your pants you can't tell the damn difference at all. The numbers (science backed data) are there and can't be argued with but it just isn't enough to matter at the end of the day. I lol at the aftermarket parts that claim "4% increase in horsepower" or some garbage like that because the average joe will never be able to tell any difference at all. My point is if i gotta go get a dexa scan to tell i put on the extra .3lbs of mucsle mass after a year of using x traing program over y, or casein over whey then its really never going to make that big of a difference to me and the money spent on said product is not worth the extra 3 lbs of muscle over 10 years. I get an aspiring IFBB pro needs to pull every card they can and that little extra is needed but for us average joes that compete once in a while and this is just a hobby does all the small crap even matter? Now I've rambled too long and its been 3.1296 hours since i have eaten!! I am proably catabolic lol!

[RobbHensel]

How do you critically evaluate your information sources?...
i wouldn't say i critically evaluate my sources at all but i try to look for opinions of people with results and without pushing a product they have a stake in.

How would you know if one opinion is better substantiated than another?...
I really don't. Some things can be backed with science and some cant but that doesn't mean that there is no truth to it.

How can you tell if two people might have different opinions on what is best simply because they have not tried the same things?...
I guess i really can't and am counting on their veteran experience.

Can you tell if something is a placebo effect?...
nope


I can't talk all the science stuff as i'm just a dumb country boy but i'm a car guy so see if this makes any sense. An 02 F150 4.2 v6 is rated at 205hp/255tq. They are known to have rod nock issues and people replace them with a 3.8 mustang engine because they are cheaper. The 3.8L is rated at 190hp/220tq. Now i can put both engines on a dyno and show you how much better the 4.2 performs with its 8% more hp and 15% more torque than the 3.8 but the truth is in the real world and seat of your pants you can't tell the damn difference at all. The numbers (science backed data) are there and can't be argued with but it just isn't enough to matter at the end of the day. I lol at the aftermarket parts that claim "4% increase in horsepower" or some garbage like that because the average joe will never be able to tell any difference at all. My point is if i gotta go get a dexa scan to tell i put on the extra .3lbs of mucsle mass after a year of using x traing program over y, or casein over whey then its really never going to make that big of a difference to me and the money spent on said product is not worth the extra 3 lbs of muscle over 10 years. I get an aspiring IFBB pro needs to pull every card they can and that little extra is needed but for us average joes that compete once in a while and this is just a hobby does all the small crap even matter? Now I've rambled too long and its been 3.1296 hours since i have eaten!! I am proably catabolic lol!

You already answered your own question, is this more of a rant than a question? I get what you're saying, and it may not matter to you at all but it might to me. To each their own, but there in lies the overanalyzing, average joes like us it probably doesn't mean a thing.

[LKQSJH]

You already answered your own question, is this more of a rant than a question? I get what you're saying, and it may not matter to you at all but it might to me. To each their own, but there in lies the overanalyzing, average joes like us it probably doesn't mean a thing.

I really didn't mean this as a rant in anway. I am still a total newb to this sport as I have only been serious about 4 years. I am truly curious if all the small stuff together adds up to nice results (kinda a 1+1+1=5 deal) or if its all just marketing pushed down from people who are making money and will hardly ever make a big difference. Maybe i'm just getting older but i've come to figure out the old people in my life are the "smartest". Maybe not book smart but they have experience most of the time when they tell me something it holds true. Was hoping some of the veterans would say that doing this + this took them to the next level or that they have tried it all and didn't notice anything great etc. I would rather not try something for a year to look back and think it was a waste.

[MachMood]

IMO no most People aren't that different. Ill use myself as an example as to my journey and how I've changed my training. I started off doing 1 muscle a week with high volume. Didn't see great results so searched the Internet. I found a low volume/higher frequency workout people seemed to like so tried it. My strength sky rocketed and I gained some size. I thought I had finally found the holy grail. I stuck with this style of training for a very long time advocating to people how great it was. I really wanted to help Otner people get the results I did. To veterans I PROB sounded like an idiot, but to me it worked it was all I knew. After my first Initial great results my strength kept going up slightly but size stalled. After a long time on this workout and wanting more size I decided to search again. I decided I really liked higher frequency so decided to go with 3 on 1 off with pretty high volume. My size shot up but strength stagnated. Also after my initial bump in size i stslled again. It's a never ending process but over time you will learn what works. If you asked me a few years ago I'd say volume is a waste of time, hit/low volume is the only way. Ask me now id say both need to be used to achieve size. Here's my final take away, and may be wrong but its where I'm at. Both need to be used to get as big as possible. In order to grow you need to make your muscles adapt to a new stimulus. One way of doing this is constantly getting stronger. Unfortnetly the lack of volume (working sets) needed for progressive overload isn't optimal for size(just my opinion) . And on the Otner side volume(with frequency) adds size quickly nut stalls because your body adapts. So now you either have to add Weignt to your current exercises or add more volume. Obviously u can't magically just lift heavier Weignt, and volume has a very low ceiling. My solution is cycle between something like DC where you get Stronger then once in a while kill it for 6-8 weeks with volume. I think you see so many different systems because peopel are looking for ways to make their muscles adapt with stuff like drop sets, RP, stall sets etc. if your an advanced lifter you need to get more extreme and more extreme. mayb in 2 years what im doing will stop working and ill be singing a different tune. In reality it's all trying to achieve the same result, just different ways of getting there. Also the more advanced you are the tougher it gets. Ask some of the vets on here and if they did what I did they might not get anything from it. I could be dead wrong on all of this, but that's how i see it

[greensoup]

i think lifting heavy progressive weights + calories in vs calories out + high protein is all you need. everything else is just our overanalyzing nature and asperg

[homonunculus]

How do you critically evaluate your information sources?...
i wouldn't say i critically evaluate my sources at all but i try to look for opinions of people with results and without pushing a product they have a stake in.

How would you know if one opinion is better substantiated than another?...
I really don't. Some things can be backed with science and some cant but that doesn't mean that there is no truth to it.

How can you tell if two people might have different opinions on what is best simply because they have not tried the same things?...
I guess i really can't and am counting on their veteran experience.

Can you tell if something is a placebo effect?...
nope


I can't talk all the science stuff as i'm just a dumb country boy but i'm a car guy so see if this makes any sense. An 02 F150 4.2 v6 is rated at 205hp/255tq. They are known to have rod nock issues and people replace them with a 3.8 mustang engine because they are cheaper. The 3.8L is rated at 190hp/220tq. Now i can put both engines on a dyno and show you how much better the 4.2 performs with its 8% more hp and 15% more torque than the 3.8 but the truth is in the real world and seat of your pants you can't tell the damn difference at all. The numbers (science backed data) are there and can't be argued with but it just isn't enough to matter at the end of the day. I lol at the aftermarket parts that claim "4% increase in horsepower" or some garbage like that because the average joe will never be able to tell any difference at all. My point is if i gotta go get a dexa scan to tell i put on the extra .3lbs of mucsle mass after a year of using x traing program over y, or casein over whey then its really never going to make that big of a difference to me and the money spent on said product is not worth the extra 3 lbs of muscle over 10 years. I get an aspiring IFBB pro needs to pull every card they can and that little extra is needed but for us average joes that compete once in a while and this is just a hobby does all the small crap even matter? Now I've rambled too long and its been 3.1296 hours since i have eaten!! I am proably catabolic lol!

You don't sounds like a dumb country boy to me at all, man.

I think if someone came up with the third option as far as engines in your example above, showed on a dynamometer that it was X% better than other options, you'd probably ask, "So can you tell any difference when you actually get it in a car and on the road?..."

Sounds to me like you might not be doing this when it comes to whatever person X, advertisement Y or what have you is claiming.

Call people on their shit, regardless if they are a world-acclaimed multiple Noble laureate IFBB Pro super guru or just a guy who says this is how it is. Shit, take that "country gumption" and use it to your advantage. Example:

What's the purpose of using a hydrolzyed whey vs. a hydrolyzed casein? Well, ask, compare, contrast.

Does hydrolyzed do anything for absoption, does this matter during exercise, does this affect muscle metabolism?...

Is there a difference in the amino acid / small peptide content of a hydro whey vs. hydro casein that matters?... If so, how and why and don't just say, "because some studies I read showed..." I wanna see the studies.

If a buddy of yours knows a guy who put Engine Z in his mustang and it ran faster, then can you take a ride in it?... How much faster, specifically?... Where did he run the car and how good of a driver is he?... Is he 16yr old or a 39yr old with 12 years of stock car driving under his belt and a local drag-racing legend?...

Just more questions and eventually you can find when and if a particular argument, claim, etc. breaks down, reaches an unkown, or holds good water...

-S

[LKQSJH]

Thanks for the reply Scott. I guess I just need to look into each of my questions one by one and see what conclusion I can come to and see if respected others have a similar view.

Since you brought it up though I'm gonna ask you about the hydrolyzed whey. I found a review article on it that says "intake of protein hydrolysates and amino acids in combination with carbohydrates can result in an insulinotropic effect as much as 100% greater than with the intake of carbohydrates only."

"Recovery sports drinks containing protein hydrolysates and insulinotropic amino acids may be of great value. However, the potential to stimulate post-exercise net muscle protein anabolism, and the mechanisms involved, remains to be investigated."

http://www.jssm.org/vol3/n2/1/v3n2-1pdf.pdf

I also found this study comparing the two but its just beyond my comprehension level.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18679613

In your experience does this result in a noticeable difference over wpi or is this one of those things where the science is there and yes it's better but it's probably not going to make a measurable difference for the average gym rat? Or can you help me understand how insulinotropic effect translates to muscle growth because I am kinda lost on that.

[homonunculus]

Thanks for the reply Scott. I guess I just need to look into each of my questions one by one and see what conclusion I can come to and see if respected others have a similar view.

Since you brought it up though I'm gonna ask you about the hydrolyzed whey. I found a review article on it that says "intake of protein hydrolysates and amino acids in combination with carbohydrates can result in an insulinotropic effect as much as 100% greater than with the intake of carbohydrates only."

"Recovery sports drinks containing protein hydrolysates and insulinotropic amino acids may be of great value. However, the potential to stimulate post-exercise net muscle protein anabolism, and the mechanisms involved, remains to be investigated."

http://www.jssm.org/vol3/n2/1/v3n2-1pdf.pdf

I also found this study comparing the two but its just beyond my comprehension level.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18679613

In your experience does this result in a noticeable difference over wpi or is this one of those things where the science is there and yes it's better but it's probably not going to make a measurable difference for the average gym rat? Or can you help me understand how insulinotropic effect translates to muscle growth because I am kinda lost on that.

Hey Bud,

Can you formulate a question about those studies / review?... Do you know what insulinotrophic means?... What does insulin have to do with gaining muscle?... (I didn't even read those studies, but I'd bet my bottom dollar it's addressed in there.)

Did you hammer through that entire .pdf to try to find *something* that made sense? You seem to be giving up too easy (like someone who see "V8" and just stops there).

Did you look for science where a something the gym rat would notice was measured?... I don't know many gym rats who measure insulin levels, but they do pay attention to strength and body comp?... Did you even LOOK for any TRAINING studies?...

All of the above could / can be done before asking me what my real world evidence is. (There is an advantage to science: I'd take a double blind, placebo controlled study, using applicable subjects, over what my sense is when I apply only the best strategies I know of - without a control period where I'm monitoring clients but not trying to help them per se, much of the time. )

How 'bout logic?...

If a post-workout supplement, composed of protein and carbs that:
-Presents aminos, with their anabolic effects
-Stimulates insulin release with its ____ effects(You fill it in here)
-Helps replenish glycogen

Is effective in promoting muscle growth, then one would expect a spectrum of some sort:
-No supplement at all - no effect

-Protein only - some effect, ranging from slowly absorbed to rapidly absorbed in terms of effect, possibly with some plateau / maximal

-No insulin= no effect, with even increasing effects of insulin.

-Same as above regarding carbs, absorption and glycogen replenishment

-SYNERGY among all three, whereby the faster absorbed, best combo of protein / amino acid, the greatest insulin release and / or the fastest absorbed carb source, and/or the OPTIMAL combo of all three would maximize the protein balance (synthesis - breakdown).

So, keeping things simple, one would expect that a car with the highest HP motor, lowest wind resistance, and lightest body weight would be the fastest, with possible interactions such as front end lift if the car is too light (poor traction) or other things that YOU would knwo about much better than me.


(I'm trying to get you in the habit of using your own brain to it's maximum before relying on that of others... )

-S

[Victory Kick]

I spend way too much time reading about diet and training. Thought was that the more i learned the better my results would be. The biggest thing that stands out to me anymore is that there is very little if anything that is universally agreed upon in this sport other than being tan makes you look better than being pale! I'm sure someone will disagree with that too.

carbs vs low/no carbs, high fat vs low fat, how much protein do you really need, carb source importance, high volume vs low volume training, hiit vs liss cardio, dc vs other training programs etc. Are we really all so different that there can't be a "general rule" on most of it. Even something as simple as whey protein that i thought everyone agreed was a good tool Phil Hernon says sucks. I get there is more than one way to get to the finish line in this sport but it seems there would be more that is agreed upon. If all of these different methods will work does it just come back to what Lee Preist says about lift, eat, and sleep. To grow, eat more or to lean up, eat less and add cardio? I know thats oversimplification of the process but i am really wondering does all of this little stuff add up to a major measurable difference in results? Some of the biggest and strongest guys i know don't ever worry about this stuff. Maybe its just because they are on all kinds of drugs or maybe genetics but they sure look better than me and are stronger.

Just to be clear i'm not talking about the guy who eats fast food everyday vs. someone who eats clean whole foods as much as i am about taking wpi shakes vs micellar casein or using dextrose as a post workout carb source vs hbcd.

No everyone is not really so different. Think of people who are fat and want to lose weight. Is it really that complicated? No. Eat less calories than you burn. Yet people will blame their macros, thyroid, ...the list goes on. Yes hormones may affect weight loss, but they sure as heck do not make it impossible. That sugar laden diet is what makes it impossible.

Building muscle/bodybuilding is not that complicated either. Use common sense. Yeah there is a bit of education that you need as far as dieting and exercise go, but it's not as complicated as people would have you believe.

There is one primary reason that people want to make it so complicated. To sell something. From personal trainers at the gym doing strange exercises to authors of books and magazines, the goal is to sell you something. Why would Phil Hernon non like whey protein? That is advertisement. He wants you to think he knows something that you do not in order to sell you something- a different supplement or training/advise most likely.

Of course bodybuilding at a high level will be more complicated. But gaining muscle and being lean (which is what 90% of people really mean when they say they are "bodybuilding") is not complicated. Bottom line - eat healthy and exercise and you will look good.

personal anecdote: when my goal was size I ate a shit load (for me) which was 5k calories per day and lifted 4 times per week. This approach got me to just over 230lbs and the only lift i remember from back then was barbell incline of 275x11 followed by 225 x something in the mid to high teens. Not huge especially compared to serious bodybuilders on this site who may scoff at such numbers, but I obviously gained strength and size.

Now I eat common sense healthy foods, I don't count macros, lift weights 1-3 times per week, run with my dog a couple times per week, play tennis with my wife and weigh ~200 lbs and am not fat nor shredded, but still look more muscular than 90% of people at the pool.

Sorry for the huge rant but my point is that it is just not as hard as people would have you believe. If you are not getting result you want, chances are you are lying to yourself about either how hard you are working or how much/little you are eating.

IMO