Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Marty Champions on October 08, 2006, 11:23:53 AM

Title: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Marty Champions on October 08, 2006, 11:23:53 AM
there are plenty of breakthrough studies done on dietary intake/muscle biopsies/roles of nutrients ect.. yet none of these magazines or internet boards relates them to new diet and workout plans

seems like people are still hooked on 80's and 90's technology
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Marty Champions on October 08, 2006, 11:25:13 AM
i think im going to have to be the daddy and pull all the new research together to come out with some revolutionary principles
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Figo on October 08, 2006, 11:28:16 AM
Start the Daddywaddy Principles of Diet and Training.

Next thing you know, you got a bbing mag, and your own federation, then you can start ripping the competitors off, and...

Sorry, been done.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Marty Champions on October 08, 2006, 11:29:50 AM
Start the Daddywaddy Principles of Diet and Training.

Next thing you know, you got a bbing mag, and your own federation, then you can start ripping the competitors off, and...

Sorry, been done.

very true im not trying to make money, more seeking knowledge and the truth of things is what im after
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Figo on October 08, 2006, 11:32:10 AM
very true im not trying to make money, more seeking knowledge and the truth of things is what im after

Just kidding, who knows, maybe you come up with revolutionary stuff!
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: SteelePegasus on October 08, 2006, 11:44:40 AM
put a tshirt on him and you couldn't tell that waddy works outs

Here are some pics of a 6'4 guy that doesn't work out by bodybulding stamdard yet gives waddy a run for his money
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: The True Adonis on October 08, 2006, 11:51:39 AM
Some are stuck even further behind than that.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Figo on October 08, 2006, 11:53:03 AM
Some are stuck even further behind than that.

True.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Rammer on October 08, 2006, 01:12:12 PM
there are plenty of breakthrough studies done on dietary intake/muscle biopsies/roles of nutrients ect.. yet none of these magazines or internet boards relates them to new diet and workout plans

seems like people are still hooked on 80's and 90's technology

Problem is the scientific studies are not done on bodybuilders.  Scientists are not doing double blind clinical studies to see how a 250lb guy can put on 10 more lbs of muscle using a particular nutrient.  Most of the studies are done on undernourished children or the elderly etc.  Back in the 90's when I worked at a supplement distributor we would get the actual studies referenced in the marketing material for supplements like CLA, HMB, OKG etc.  One of the studies was done on pregnant women and showed they lost less lean body mass during pregnancy while ingesting the supplement.  They used that study to suggest that bodybuilders could use their product as an anticatabolic when dieting for a show.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: The True Adonis on October 08, 2006, 01:15:08 PM
Problem is the scientific studies are not done on bodybuilders.  Scientists are not doing double blind clinical studies to see how a 250lb guy can put on 10 more lbs of muscle using a particular nutrient.  Most of the studies are done on undernourished children or the elderly etc.  Back in the 90's when I worked at a supplement distributor we would get the actual studies referenced in the marketing material for supplements like CLA, HMB, OKG etc.  One of the studies was done on pregnant women and showed they lost less lean body mass during pregnancy while ingesting the supplement.  They used that study to suggest that bodybuilders could use their product as an anticatabolic when dieting for a show.

Bodybuilders are just average people.  Their genetic makeup is no different than anyone on earth.

It would not matter if anything was tested on them....The things that do matter are the controls and vairables such as workouts, diet etc....

But doing a test on a bodybuilder and a regular person will yield the same results provided the controls and vairable are ALL THE SAME.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: SteelePegasus on October 08, 2006, 01:15:55 PM
"on a patient immobilized, he lost muscle......"
"on a rat, it gained muscle while using...."

"on some fat f**k, 1 gram of protein per lb is useless......"
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Rammer on October 08, 2006, 01:17:52 PM
Bodybuilders are just average people.  Their genetic makeup is no different than anyone on earth.

It would not matter if anything was tested on them....The things that do matter are the controls and vairables such as workouts, diet etc....

But doing a test on a bodybuilder and a regular person will yield the same results provided the controls and vairable are ALL THE SAME.

I see what you're saying but if an undernorished child is given HMB and gains 10lbs of lean mass in a month should a seasoned BB expect the same results?
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: The True Adonis on October 08, 2006, 01:19:46 PM
I see what you're saying but if an undernorished child is given HMB and gains 10lbs of lean mass in a month should a seasoned BB expect the same results?

The controls and vairables are too different to be equal.

A child is still developing and does not have testosterone and is clearly under nourished.

You cannot use the two for a study and no educated person would, unless you were trying to prove the effectiveness on two different individualized groups.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Darth Muscle on October 08, 2006, 01:21:34 PM
Bodybuilders are just average people.  Their genetic makeup is no different than anyone on earth.

It would not matter if anything was tested on them....The things that do matter are the controls and vairables such as workouts, diet etc....

But doing a test on a bodybuilder and a regular person will yield the same results provided the controls and vairable are ALL THE SAME.

If that were true, every pro would look like Ronnie.  All pros are doing the same thing, but they all don't look the same.  Genetics and work ethic  are just as important as diet and drugs.  You need to face facts swimmer boy.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Rammer on October 08, 2006, 01:24:40 PM
The controls and vairables are too different to be equal.

A child is still developing and does not have testosterone and is clearly under nourished.

You cannot use the two for a study and no educated person would, unless you were trying to prove the effectiveness on two different individualized groups.

Exactly but the supplement companies do not tell you that when they put something on the market.  They just say we have scientific proof than an individual taking our supplement on avg gains 10lbs of muscle in a month and you buy it thinking you will gain 10lbs of muscle.  If you as a consumer do some research and find out what the variables of the study were you would know they are selling snake oil.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: El_Spiko on October 08, 2006, 01:26:27 PM
MD publishes a lot of study results and their implications for a bodybuilder. And these days, there a lot more studies done on average adults to find out more about diet and exercise, not just children and the elderly.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: The True Adonis on October 08, 2006, 01:27:10 PM
If that were true, every pro would look like Ronnie.  All pros are doing the same thing, but they all don't look the same.  Genetics and work ethic  are just as important as diet and drugs.  You need to face facts swimmer boy.

The IFBB pros are not using the same controls and vairables with their drug regimens or training or nutrition.

To have a REALLY accurate study, one would need to take a large segment using the same controls and vairables.

For instance, to figure out the effectiveness of a certain supplment, you would want to take as many people as you can, break them into individualized groups that share the same qualities, such as muscle mass and height etc. and then control all vairables such as diet,training and nutrition and duration.

It wont matter if someone is a Bodybuilder or not since the genetics are the same.  Humans do not vary much at all.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: The True Adonis on October 08, 2006, 01:28:07 PM
Exactly but the supplement companies do not tell you that when they put something on the market.  They just say we have scientific proof than an individual taking our supplement on avg gains 10lbs of muscle in a month and you buy it thinking you will gain 10lbs of muscle.  If you as a consumer do some research and find out what the variables of the study were you would know they are selling snake oil.

Oh trust me I have :)

That is why I say nearly all supplement and protein powders are garbage :)
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: danielson on October 08, 2006, 01:33:47 PM
Oh trust me I have :)

That is why I say nearly all supplement and protein powders are garbage :)

TA, I have a serious question. I don't eat very much at all, never have. I don't get very much protein, but I do drink Musclemilks frequently. About 4 a day. Are they a waste for someone like me who doesn't eat many calories?
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: The True Adonis on October 08, 2006, 01:36:14 PM
TA, I have a serious question. I don't eat very much at all, never have. I don't get very much protein, but I do drink Musclemilks frequently. About 4 a day. Are they a waste for someone like me who doesn't eat many calories?

Not at all.

IF that is what you like to drink.

Nothing wrong with them at all.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: danielson on October 08, 2006, 01:38:20 PM
Not at all.

IF that is what you like to drink.

Nothing wrong with them at all.

Cool. I can't stand the Pure Proteins, I hate sugary things. Musclemilks remind me of milkshakes. Thanks.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: sarcasm on October 08, 2006, 01:38:31 PM
TA, I have a serious question. I don't eat very much at all, never have. I don't get very much protein, but I do drink my boyfriend's ballmilk frequently. About 4 a day. Are they a waste for someone like me who doesn't eat many calories?
oh brother.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: danielson on October 08, 2006, 01:40:33 PM
oh brother.

Maybe your mom can buy you some too Sarcasm, they are actually good. Tell her less writing Ron letters and more grocery shopping.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Palpatine Q on October 08, 2006, 01:56:55 PM
there are plenty of breakthrough studies done on dietary intake/muscle biopsies/roles of nutrients ect.. yet none of these magazines or internet boards relates them to new diet and workout plans

seems like people are still hooked on 80's and 90's technology

Fat is still fat, muscle is still muscle and 80 lbs. is still  80lbs.

90% of the people posting here will stay basically the same size and weight  No matter how hard they train or how much protein they eat. They will make a bit of progress but nothing dramatic unless they hit the sauce.But you are not going to see a guy like Bigmc hit the weights and turn into a beast. Then there are the lucky few (myself, Meso,daddywaddy, bast), that have a genetic predisposition the grow muscle, and we are the guys who get BIG. You will never rise above your genetics no matter what exotic protocol you adhere to. That's life
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Marty Champions on October 08, 2006, 02:31:54 PM
Fat is still fat, muscle is still muscle and 80 lbs. is still  80lbs.

90% of the people posting here will stay basically the same size and weight  No matter how hard they train or how much protein they eat. They will make a bit of progress but nothing dramatic unless they hit the sauce.But you are not going to see a guy like Bigmc hit the weights and turn into a beast. Then there are the lucky few (myself, Meso,daddywaddy, bast), that have a genetic predisposition the grow muscle, and we are the guys who get BIG. You will never rise above your genetics no matter what exotic protocol you adhere to. That's life


you know nothing about intramuscular triglycerides obviously. you know nothing about the mitochondria of the cell and how fat is the main part of it obviously... you are still stuck in 80's 90's mentality bro. you are ignorang a big chunk of research that is taking place on this
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Samourai Pizzacat on October 08, 2006, 03:25:08 PM
There's been shitloads of research on the topics of nutrition and excercise. But as in allmost any scientific field these results tend to contradict each other or are applicable to just a small range of the spectrum. Besides issues with in-vitro studies, animal studies, small N in studies, etc, there's the one of the biggest problems; most research is done with fundings of supplement companies or other lobbygroups (think dairy and sugar lobby). Most research isn't unbiassed or independant. Be very critical when reviewing a study:

-Who did the research (many references from colleagues?)
-Who funded the research?
-who and how big was the test population?
-was there a controlgroup?
-was it a dubbelblind study?
-Was there sufficient control for confounds?
-what was the alpha (significance) of the test?
-where there modifications in the dataset?
etc.

Trust me, DaddyWaddy and TA, you aren't the first to go through studies in the hope of finding the new 'training and nutrition paradigm'.
When you resd more and get into the matter deeper you begin to realise that it's a great tangle of conflicting theories and vague hypotheses.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: kawaks on October 08, 2006, 03:38:33 PM
Fat is still fat, muscle is still muscle and 80 lbs. is still  80lbs.

90% of the people posting here will stay basically the same size and weight  No matter how hard they train or how much protein they eat. They will make a bit of progress but nothing dramatic unless they hit the sauce.But you are not going to see a guy like Bigmc hit the weights and turn into a beast. Then there are the lucky few (myself, Meso,daddywaddy, bast), that have a genetic predisposition the grow muscle, and we are the guys who get BIG. You will never rise above your genetics no matter what exotic protocol you adhere to. That's life


What a croc! Anyone can add size and shape without cheating it just takes longer and you don't get that fake steroid look with real muscle PLUS you're liver and body thanks you for no abuse.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: WhiteCastle on October 08, 2006, 03:55:39 PM
The one thing I notice particularly with exercise/supplement studies is the really low sample numbers.  Psychology has this issue often too.  Basically, they will have trouble noticing small effects from things when the sample sizes are smaller, and a lot of these supplements may give smaller benefits.  The reason why the research bounces back and forth so much is, IMO, purely from methodology errors.  I'm not sure if fitness studies have as much publication bias as the social sciences, but I guess it could be possible.  Also, half of the citations given by supplement companies seem to contradict the claims made on the product label when I look at the article, while the other half are run by the industry.  But on the bright side, I don't think it is nearly as bad as the way the drug industry controls so much of medical research now.

This article came out not too long ago in PLOS, and I think it is dead on.  It presents the argument that most published research is incorrect.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Message boards like these can potentially be used for quasi-experiments if people were honest, but I don't see it ever happening due to egos and the desire for certain products to work simply because we bought them.  It would be decent because we could create matched comparison groups where bodybuilders who post online would be the actual population. 
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Brutal_1 on October 08, 2006, 04:15:27 PM
Bodybuilders are just average people.  Their genetic makeup is no different than anyone on earth.

It would not matter if anything was tested on them....The things that do matter are the controls and vairables such as workouts, diet etc....

But doing a test on a bodybuilder and a regular person will yield the same results provided the controls and vairable are ALL THE SAME.

This post is wrong on so many levels :o ::)

"Bodybuilders are just average people"

Uh, No!  Maybe they're nothing special in terms of physiology, but their lifestyles make them completely different.  You can't compare a person who works nine to five and eats three meals a day, to someone who trains hours per day, damaging muscle tissue and taxing the CNS daily, adding to that high amounts of protein and in most cases AS....sorry, two different types of people.

"Their genetic makeup is no different than anyone on earth"

Everyone's genetic makeup is different  ::)  Which is why one diet or one type of training style DOES NOT work for everyone, i.e. Ben and Jerry's?! ::)

"The things that do matter are the controls and vairables But doing a test on a bodybuilder and a regular person will yield the same results provided the controls and vairable are ALL THE SAME."

This one's too easy...you contradict yourself  ::)

It's the "variables" that make bodybuilders different.  If you had a study with a cohort of 100 males, twenty of which never touched a weight and the other 80 were conditioned bodybuilders, I don't care which "variable" you measure fat loss, muscle gain, RER, etc.  The results will be skewed and you can't apply them to the dormant individual! PERIOD!! :P
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Palpatine Q on October 08, 2006, 04:16:09 PM
Oh trust me I have :)

That is why I say nearly all supplement and protein powders are garbage :)

I agree.  Did you ever notice that people in supplement forums are always vague about the actual results they got?  It's always "I felt fuller" or "tighter" or some bullshit.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Marty Champions on October 08, 2006, 04:18:07 PM
the more fit you are the more you are able to store fats inside the muscle than in adipose tissue. very interesting. but these fat stores wont grow inside the muscle if you dont consitently get enough fat in the diet.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Marty Champions on October 08, 2006, 04:21:07 PM
Team Daddywaddy for 07' ?

people are still hitting the wall with there low fat high protien diets, maybe they will come around and join the team
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Rammer on October 08, 2006, 04:59:54 PM
people are still hitting the wall with there low fat high protien diets, maybe they will come around and join the team

I tried using MCT oil back in the day when it first came onto the market.  I got it for free from a sponsor so I decided to try it during a precontest diet.  I was up to 15-20 tablespoons a day and I was the leanest ever for that show, around 5-6% bf.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Marty Champions on October 08, 2006, 05:04:14 PM
I tried using MCT oil back in the day when it first came onto the market.  I got it for free from a sponsor so I decided to try it during a precontest diet.  I was up to 15-20 tablespoons a day and I was the leanest ever for that show, around 5-6% bf.
MCT's gave me the shits i cant handle them.
Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Mr. Intenseone on October 08, 2006, 05:27:43 PM
I was up to 15-20 tablespoons a day and I was the leanest ever for that show, around 5-6% bf.

Right there should tell you that most of these supps on the market are a crock of crap..........15-20tbls per day?? and how much does it cost? and how soon do you run out?? See my point?

Title: Re: Science in bodybuilding
Post by: Rammer on October 08, 2006, 05:42:52 PM
Right there should tell you that most of these supps on the market are a crock of crap..........15-20tbls per day?? and how much does it cost? and how soon do you run out?? See my point?



I was only able to take the MCT oil like that because I got it for free from a sponsor.  I took a lot of second rate supplements because I got them free.  I would have preferred some of the better tasting protein powders but free is free so you hold your nose and slug it down.  When the freebies ran out you better believe I switched to good tasting better quality stuff.