Let's Discuss some Bodybuilding Myths

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]AlteredState wrote:
hexx wrote:
PC/PF is dead. Please stop buying into this ridiculousness. Ask CT what he thinks of this garbage, and he’ll tell you even Berardi is moving away from that idea.

Also, Zagman I think you need to review your collegiate physiology handbook. So what if I ingest carbs before bed? If the muscle has been somewhat depleted of glycoglen (assuming a work out earlier in the day) carbohydrates don’t instantly go to fat.

Rather they are stored into the muscle tissue for the next day. I wouldn’t feel like shit and I would have stored carbohydrates for training the next day.

Also I’m not trying to go at such extremes as FAT one meal, PRO one meal, CARB one meal; I’m merely saying nutrient partitioning isn’t nearly as big of a deal as it’s made out to be.

Trust me it’s not like I instantly regarded these ideas as bunk. I am a college athlete and I have tested these nutrition theories to maintain a weight class.

I think that you are assuming that because crtain ideas work on you, they work on everyone.

For example, if you are insulin sensitive in skeletal muscle and are highly active, carbs before bed may be fine. If you are the opposite, carbs before bed can be a very bad idea.

No, carbs don’t instantly go to fat, even in those with poor insulin snsitivity. However, judge you nightime carb intake wrong and you will saturate the glycogen in muscle, and spill over into fat storage.[/quote]

Altered, I agree, but what I’m saying is that if your total macros for the day are accomplished by eating your carbs before bed vs immediately upon waking, there will be no difference from a physiological standpoint because they are still going where they need to go.

22

[quote]hexx wrote:

  • The whole PC/PF bullshit. Folks, it doesn’t matter at all. Your total macros of the day is what is truly important. The hormonal conseqences of a meal last much longer than 2-4 hours. The whole PC/PF things is totally irrelevant and in my experience, is useless.

[/quote]

As a general statement, I would disagree. With my experience changing my physique and working with clients, I’ve found that, IN GENERAL, the following makes a big difference:

Having primarily protein/carb meals in the same eight-hour section of the day as the weight-training workout, with the majority of daily carb intake occurring soon after weight training. Primarily protein/fat meals occurring in the opposite eight hour portion of the day.

[Personal example: I get up at 5:45am, go to bed around 9:30-10. I workout at 7:am. From 5:45 to about 1:45, I have the majority of my carbs. From about 2 till 10, I have most of my fats.]

[quote]- Eating every 3 hours. This is important to follow if you are taking in a significant amount of calories to maintain, or gain weight on an already large physique (4000+ kcal I’d say).

Otherwise, 3 meals plus snacks like mixed nuts or shakes in between meals is fine. Again, total calories of the day is king.[/quote]

. . . For me, the terms you used seem to make a contradiction. I would encourage most people, regardless of activity level, to eat something with protein every 3-4 hours.

In those with poor insulin sensitivity, or those with “fast metabolisms,” this can affect not only muscle gain and fat loss, but also hormonal balance, energy levels, and mental acuity. (Of course, these things are all tied together.)

23

[quote]Vash wrote:
hexx wrote:

  • The whole PC/PF bullshit. Folks, it doesn’t matter at all. Your total macros of the day is what is truly important. The hormonal conseqences of a meal last much longer than 2-4 hours. The whole PC/PF things is totally irrelevant and in my experience, is useless.

As a general statement, I would disagree. With my experience changing my physique and working with clients, I’ve found that, IN GENERAL, the following makes a big difference:

Having primarily protein/carb meals in the same eight-hour section of the day as the weight-training workout, with the majority of daily carb intake occurring soon after weight training. Primarily protein/fat meals occurring in the opposite eight hour portion of the day.

[Personal example: I get up at 5:45am, go to bed around 9:30-10. I workout at 7:am. From 5:45 to about 1:45, I have the majority of my carbs. From about 2 till 10, I have most of my fats.]

  • Eating every 3 hours. This is important to follow if you are taking in a significant amount of calories to maintain, or gain weight on an already large physique (4000+ kcal I’d say).

Otherwise, 3 meals plus snacks like mixed nuts or shakes in between meals is fine. Again, total calories of the day is king.

. . . For me, the terms you used seem to make a contradiction. I would encourage most people, regardless of activity level, to eat something with protein every 3-4 hours.

In those with poor insulin sensitivity, or those with “fast metabolisms,” this can affect not only muscle gain and fat loss, but also hormonal balance, energy levels, and mental acuity. (Of course, these things are all tied together.)[/quote]

I agree that following that following a workout is the optimal time for carbohydrate bombs. There is no doubt about that. The whole PC/PF I was more or less trying to get at is when people vary a PC meal, then a PF meal then a PC meal, as if the hormonal effects of a meal only last 2-3 hours.

I don’t think I’m contradicting myself for the 3 hour rule. The reason I’m saying that for bulking, or large calorie intake the 3-4 meal is probably necessary because eating that amount of nutrients at once would be nauseating.

24

[quote]hexx wrote:
Also, Zagman I think you need to review your collegiate physiology handbook. So what if I ingest carbs before bed? If the muscle has been somewhat depleted of glycoglen (assuming a work out earlier in the day) carbohydrates don’t instantly go to fat.[/quote]

NO, oh wise one, the carbohydrates will not “instantly go to fat”, but what about the consequences of the hormonal state of that meal in regards to the large amount of circulating triglycerides coupled with immediate inactivity?

My point is, don’t take the exact opposite stance on a subject; disagree within reason. But, I see that you are nicely changing your position to a more moderate one already.

26

ok, heres what im saying…the super simple extended version.

people seem to think that say doing a set of 10 for legs will produce the same result as what a set of 20 will do.

they also feel that the set of 20 is going to “cut them up” meaning give their legs definition as opposed to mass.

another example would be anything else where something like a set of 5 is favored because they think its the best rep number for adding size when in FACT training heavy weight+low reps is better for strength gains which are NOT directly related to size gains meaning that just cause you get stronger doesnt mean youre gonna be bigger.

there just seems to be this general mentality in gyms that the more reps you do he more “cut” youre gonna be. and people think if they want to diet down they should do higher reps when in fact the most effective method would be to lift heavy and low.

…leave powerlifting out of this because A) these people goals arent to be powerlifters B) powerlifting methods arent as effective for putting on size as bodybuilding C) bodybuilders are bigger than powerlifters, take the biggest powerlifter put him against the biggest bodybuilder in a show and see who wins.

also dont lose track of what was said in the first few paragraphs just because of the PLer BBer comparisons, which i know everyone is going to do anyway.

27

I think enough people ‘in the know’ have debunked the ‘calorie is a calorie’ B.S.

All you have to realize is that your metabolism slows as the day goes on, as well as the fact that your body expends different amounts of energy (heat) in the simple digestion of different macros (thermic effect of protein anyone?)

I can’t believe this is even in debate here, you guys all know better than this -lol.

S

28

[quote]AlteredState wrote:
hexx wrote:
AlteredState wrote:
hexx wrote:
PC/PF is dead. Please stop buying into this ridiculousness. Ask CT what he thinks of this garbage, and he’ll tell you even Berardi is moving away from that idea.

Also, Zagman I think you need to review your collegiate physiology handbook. So what if I ingest carbs before bed? If the muscle has been somewhat depleted of glycoglen (assuming a work out earlier in the day) carbohydrates don’t instantly go to fat.

Rather they are stored into the muscle tissue for the next day. I wouldn’t feel like shit and I would have stored carbohydrates for training the next day.

Also I’m not trying to go at such extremes as FAT one meal, PRO one meal, CARB one meal; I’m merely saying nutrient partitioning isn’t nearly as big of a deal as it’s made out to be.

Trust me it’s not like I instantly regarded these ideas as bunk. I am a college athlete and I have tested these nutrition theories to maintain a weight class.

I think that you are assuming that because crtain ideas work on you, they work on everyone.

For example, if you are insulin sensitive in skeletal muscle and are highly active, carbs before bed may be fine. If you are the opposite, carbs before bed can be a very bad idea.

No, carbs don’t instantly go to fat, even in those with poor insulin snsitivity. However, judge you nightime carb intake wrong and you will saturate the glycogen in muscle, and spill over into fat storage.

Altered, I agree, but what I’m saying is that if your total macros for the day are accomplished by eating your carbs before bed vs immediately upon waking, there will be no difference from a physiological standpoint because they are still going where they need to go.

Well I don’t agree, sorry. Firstly who knows or can judge precisely how many carbs they need? Secondly, the type of carbs has a big impact.

Basically it sounds like you are saying ‘a calory is just a calorie’ and I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly.[/quote]

Not that I want to argue anything here, but Carb-Cutoffs (no carb meals after six or whatever cutoff time you choose) and not combining fat+carbs (as far as it can even be avoided) have proven very effective at keeping people at reasonable bf levels during a bulk… See DC trainees as an example of people who do this.

29

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I think enough people ‘in the know’ have debunked the ‘calorie is a calorie’ B.S.

All you have to realize is that your metabolism slows as the day goes on, as well as the fact that your body expends different amounts of energy (heat) in the simple digestion of different macros (thermic effect of protein anyone?)

I can’t believe this is even in debate here, you guys all know better than this -lol.

S
[/quote]

We’re having debates about whether tbt is better for building mass than splits, whether splits are outright useless, and a lot of other idiotic topics…

So apparently there are still people who refuse to listen to all reason.

30

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I think enough people ‘in the know’ have debunked the ‘calorie is a calorie’ B.S.

All you have to realize is that your metabolism slows as the day goes on, as well as the fact that your body expends different amounts of energy (heat) in the simple digestion of different macros (thermic effect of protein anyone?)

I can’t believe this is even in debate here, you guys all know better than this -lol.

S
[/quote]

I never once claimed a calorie was a calorie and I think it would be downright foolish to suggest this. What I am saying is that carbohydrate injestion is human consumes x amount of carbohydrate, pancrease releases x amount of insulin.

If person A consumes 3000 kcal in a 40/30/30 split (for instance) over a 24 hour period and B consumes 3000 in an 8 hour period there will be no discernible difference.

31

[quote]Zagman wrote:
hexx wrote:
Also, Zagman I think you need to review your collegiate physiology handbook. So what if I ingest carbs before bed? If the muscle has been somewhat depleted of glycoglen (assuming a work out earlier in the day) carbohydrates don’t instantly go to fat.

NO, oh wise one, the carbohydrates will not “instantly go to fat”, but what about the consequences of the hormonal state of that meal in regards to the large amount of circulating triglycerides coupled with immediate inactivity?

My point is, don’t take the exact opposite stance on a subject; disagree within reason. But, I see that you are nicely changing your position to a more moderate one already.[/quote]

Don’t be so ridiculous. I never claimed all of these variables you are now throwing around were in question. If large amount of triglycerides were floating around vs consumption from 2 hours ago vs 5 hours ago, followed by EQUAL calories over a 24 hour period plus macronutrient ratios and activity were equal, there will be no real physiological difference between people.

32

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
AlteredState wrote:
hexx wrote:
AlteredState wrote:
hexx wrote:
PC/PF is dead. Please stop buying into this ridiculousness. Ask CT what he thinks of this garbage, and he’ll tell you even Berardi is moving away from that idea.

Also, Zagman I think you need to review your collegiate physiology handbook. So what if I ingest carbs before bed? If the muscle has been somewhat depleted of glycoglen (assuming a work out earlier in the day) carbohydrates don’t instantly go to fat.

Rather they are stored into the muscle tissue for the next day. I wouldn’t feel like shit and I would have stored carbohydrates for training the next day.

Also I’m not trying to go at such extremes as FAT one meal, PRO one meal, CARB one meal; I’m merely saying nutrient partitioning isn’t nearly as big of a deal as it’s made out to be.

Trust me it’s not like I instantly regarded these ideas as bunk. I am a college athlete and I have tested these nutrition theories to maintain a weight class.

I think that you are assuming that because crtain ideas work on you, they work on everyone.

For example, if you are insulin sensitive in skeletal muscle and are highly active, carbs before bed may be fine. If you are the opposite, carbs before bed can be a very bad idea.

No, carbs don’t instantly go to fat, even in those with poor insulin snsitivity. However, judge you nightime carb intake wrong and you will saturate the glycogen in muscle, and spill over into fat storage.

Altered, I agree, but what I’m saying is that if your total macros for the day are accomplished by eating your carbs before bed vs immediately upon waking, there will be no difference from a physiological standpoint because they are still going where they need to go.

Well I don’t agree, sorry. Firstly who knows or can judge precisely how many carbs they need? Secondly, the type of carbs has a big impact.

Basically it sounds like you are saying ‘a calory is just a calorie’ and I disagree with that statement wholeheartedly.

Not that I want to argue anything here, but Carb-Cutoffs (no carb meals after six or whatever cutoff time you choose) and not combining fat+carbs (as far as it can even be avoided) have proven very effective at keeping people at reasonable bf levels during a bulk… See DC trainees as an example of people who do this.

[/quote]

A carb cutoff means that less carbohydrates are ingested in a 24 hour period. Thus that is irrelevant and not part of the discussion.

33

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
ok, heres what im saying…the super simple extended version.

people seem to think that say doing a set of 10 for legs will produce the same result as what a set of 20 will do.

they also feel that the set of 20 is going to “cut them up” meaning give their legs definition as opposed to mass.

another example would be anything else where something like a set of 5 is favored because they think its the best rep number for adding size when in FACT training heavy weight+low reps is better for strength gains which are NOT directly related to size gains meaning that just cause you get stronger doesnt mean youre gonna be bigger.

This I do not agree with. Strength gains ARE related to gains in muscle mass and vice versa. There may be an optimal ranges for strength gains and an optimal range for hypertrophy but their is a correlation between strength and hypertrophy.

there just seems to be this general mentality in gyms that the more reps you do he more “cut” youre gonna be. and people think if they want to diet down they should do higher reps when in fact the most effective method would be to lift heavy and low.

This I agree with. Keep reps low and weight high when cutting.

…leave powerlifting out of this because A) these people goals arent to be powerlifters B) powerlifting methods arent as effective for putting on size as bodybuilding C) bodybuilders are bigger than powerlifters, take the biggest powerlifter put him against the biggest bodybuilder in a show and see who wins.

also dont lose track of what was said in the first few paragraphs just because of the PLer BBer comparisons, which i know everyone is going to do anyway.[/quote]

34

B) Powerlifting/Powerbuilding(ie getting stronger constantly) IS the most effective way to gain size. Bar none.

C) Maybe at the very elite level… but walk into a powerlifting gym and everyone who wants to be(who isn’t restricting food for low weight classes) is thick and dense… walk into your average bodybuilding gym and there are plenty of skinny weak dweebs walking around.

If we put some 275-SHW bodybuilders on a low carb diet, did 45 minutes of cardio 3-5 times a week and gave them 3-4 months a lot of them would CRUSH bodybuilders in contests based on sheer overpowering size.

35

theres a correlation between hypertrophy and strength as in, the bigger a muscle get the stronger it will inevitably become.

however it is not applicable reversed as in, the stronger a muscle gets the bigger it will become. this is because strength has everything to do with neurons.

basically in order for a muscle to hypertrophy, or get bigger, it has to have adequate stimulation for muscle fiber recruitment and most importantly enough calories especially from protein in order to grow.

however with strength you only need to improve the neural efficeny and this can be down without increasing calories, therefore size is related to strength but strength is only strength.

i know everyone is going to say “well if you eat while you lift heavy youll still get bigger”. yes, you can grow from lifting heavy but first and foremost the difference is that size:strength ratio is solely based on size which is impossible to achieve without sufficient caloric intake and since strength is achieved with or without the caloric intake via neural improvement/recruitment then its not applicable.

the second factor is that lifting heavy for low reps is not a better producer of hypertrophy even with adequate caloric intake than a method in the moderate to higher rep rep ranges.

if lifting like a powerlifter was the best method for getting bigger then common sense would tell even the dumbest bodybuilder to train that way. yet since majority of contest winners dont train that way and with the backing of science, it think its safe to say if you want to put on size train like a BBer, not a PLer.

36

[quote]Scott M wrote:

…leave powerlifting out of this because A) these people goals arent to be powerlifters B) powerlifting methods arent as effective for putting on size as bodybuilding C) bodybuilders are bigger than powerlifters, take the biggest powerlifter put him against the biggest bodybuilder in a show and see who wins.

B) Powerlifting/Powerbuilding(ie getting stronger constantly) IS the most effective way to gain size. Bar none.

C) Maybe at the very elite level… but walk into a powerlifting gym and everyone who wants to be(who isn’t restricting food for low weight classes) is thick and dense… walk into your average bodybuilding gym and there are plenty of skinny weak dweebs walking around.

If we put some 275-SHW bodybuilders on a low carb diet, did 45 minutes of cardio 3-5 times a week and gave them 3-4 months a lot of them would CRUSH bodybuilders in contests based on sheer overpowering size.

[/quote]

heres your first job, go find out how long it took that PLer to get to where they were as far as musculature. a person training for BBing in get into a comp after only a few years of training BBing style whereas it would take a person training in only the PLer method much longer to achieve that same level of muscularity. my guess is a PLer would have to train twice as long as a BBer to get into that BBers bracket of competition.

what do you call a BBing gym? a BBer can find the resources to do what that do at any gym with sufficient DBs and single joint equipment.

a PLer gym is going to be much more specific and have a different client base. you go to a PLer gym and everyone there knows what theyre doing it for, youll also find just as many skinny dweebs who weigh like 160, i mean shit theres plenty of em on this site, as you would find at a PlanetFitness.

bottomline is a BBer is a BBer and they train their way for a reason, its most effective for putting on size, period. if you took two clones and trained one with high weight and low reps and trained the other in a more classic BBer method and give them as much food as they can eat. the goal being to compete at a BBing show you really think the PLer person is going to achieve the goal faster? thats flat out dumb. its literally the equivelant of me saying its a better idea to train a BBer style for a PLer comp. because you know, you still get stronger from getting bigger.

37

i mean for fucks sake, theres people on this very site in the RMP forum who’ve been training from 2-4 years that have achieved the same level of muscularity as im sure the top PLer guys on here have in less than half the time and probaly got a good 50lbs less than em too. dylanj > Dave Tate

38

What I want to clarify first off is I don’t necessarily mean lifting “heavy” as in 1-3 reps. I mean heavy as in as much weight as you can handle for your desired rep range whether that’s 5s or 10-12s or 20s; and more importantly HEAVIER than you’ve done before.

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
theres a correlation between hypertrophy and strength as in, the bigger a muscle get the stronger it will inevitably become.

however it is not applicable reversed as in, the stronger a muscle gets the bigger it will become. this is because strength has everything to do with neurons and nothing to do with size.
[/quote]
Show me some guys who can bench 500x8 reps with small chests and I’ll start believing that. Of course you can get stronger without getting bigger if you purposely try… but besides guys in competition with weight classes who does that on purpose? Take your incline bench press from 185x10 to 405x10 over a couple years and eat to grow and your chest will be incredibly larger… no matter if you trained bodyparts 1x a week with 5 exercises and 3-4 sets each or 1 exercise 1-3 set twice a week. Fact.

Do you not think adding 2.5-10 lbs on the bar consistently will force more than adequate fibers to be recruited? And food shouldn’t even be a discussion topic here… anyone who doesn’t know the role of food in growing needs to X out and read the beginners section ASAP. Powerlifters know how to eat and grow into the right weight class for their frame so it’s not like there’s an epidemic of 6’0 guys in the 165-181 classes(Check the bodybuilding forum and there IS an epidemic of those guys wondering how to get bigger hmmm). They are likely going to work their way up to 242+ to increase leverage and along the way develop a shit ton of muscle.

I can agree with that, a safe rep range is preferred. My point was that these powerlifters are almost ALWAYS big and strong and bodybuilders lose that lesson somehow. Strength gains+adequate food intake=size gains and should be top priority for just about every single person in this forum(unless they are at their strength maxes across the board) who wants to become significantly larger.

[quote]
if lifting like a powerlifter was the best method for getting bigger then common sense would tell even the dumbest bodybuilder to train that way. [/quote]

That message wasn’t lost on Ronnie Coleman, Johnnie Jackson, Branch Warren David Henry. They train for strength and they are all thick and not exactly lacking bodyparts(outside of genetics like calf insertions). The guys who are winning contests you can count on 1 hand pretty much on the pro stage. Dexter Tony Phil Jay and maybe another guy or two is in contention…

Take it a couple notches below and watch how new pros who need to fill out their frames train… or amateurs who need to add 10-20 lbs of muscle to be competitive at Nationals train. It isn’t light fluff training like a guy who has all his muscle built(ala Jay Cutler)… it’s hard and heavy and progressive or else they aren’t going to make it size wise.

Bottom line here is you DO NOT see a bunch of really strong guys(300+ lb benches 450+ lb squats for 6-12 reps etc) complaining about not being big enough… you DO see a bunch of really weak guys complain about it. Somewhere along the way people are going to have to figure this stuff out… and it’s not about research and lab results. It’s about observing those that have been successful around you and finding common denominators.

39

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:

heres your first job, go find out how long it took that PLer to get to where they were as far as musculature. a person training for BBing in get into a comp after only a few years of training BBing style whereas it would take a person training in only the PLer method much longer to achieve that same level of muscularity.
[/quote]

Besides guys like Phil Heath or Jay Cutler(genetic wondera) how many people are honestly ready to compete nationally after their first 5 years of training… or even 10? You have to eliminate the guys who are apartment complexes on legs after 2 years of training because they are not the norm.

[quote]
if you took two clones and trained one with high weight and low reps and trained the other in a more classic BBer method and give them as much food as they can eat. the goal being to compete at a BBing show you really think the PLer person is going to achieve the goal faster?.[/quote]

If the one powerlifting triples his strength to the point he’s benching 365x10 and dead lifting 505x12 while the bodybuilding one still pussy foots around in the gym and does 225x10 on the bench and 275x12 dead lifting to “feel the burn” the powerlifting clone will dwarf the bodybuilding one. Absolutely no doubt about it come contest time if all other factors are equal.

Go look up 2005 Minnesota State Bodybuilding Championships if you want to see what happens when a guy who trains shit heavy decides to diet down… the phrase “total eclipse of the competition” comes to mind. Tell me the guy who came in 2nd trains with 800 lbs on the dead lift when they turn around… you’ll start figuring out what I’m talking about.

40

Myth #11) Mike Mentzer started life as a unicorn.