Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Nutrition, Products & Supplements Info => Topic started by: The True Adonis on March 29, 2007, 05:44:50 AM
-
NPEART
My chat with Mr. Lee Haney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, after years of working out and dieting, I decided I have taken my routine as far as I can on my own. I came to the conclusion I needed an "expert" to look over my routine and diet, and make any necessary adjustments.
So after weeks of looking at the websites of gurus, trainers and so-called experts, I decided that Lee Haney was the man to talk to. Why Lee Haney?To put it in perspective, Dave Palumbo gets $150.00 for a half-hour phone consultation. 8-time Mr. Olympia, Lee Haney, charges $50.00. Hmmm. . . a hundred dollars less to talk to a guy who has actually won something? Seemed like a no-brainer to me.
Here's how it went down:
I sent Lee an email and explained I felt "stuck" in my present routine and wanted him to look it over for me and offer any advice he deemed useful. Lee requested pictures of all bodyparts and measurements first. You want to be humbled, fellas? Send an 8-time Mr. O pictures of yourself in your underwear. I also had to fill out a form on Lee's site detailing my current diet, supplementation, etc. So once he has all your pertinent info, and you pre-pay the $50.00 phone consultation fee, you get a call from the great Lee Haney himself. I have to say it was a thrill and an honor to hear his voice on the other end of my cell phone.
Okay, so then he gets down to business. A few myths Lee completely debunked:
1) fruit is absolutely fine. Lee advocates lots of pineapple and pears.
2) 1 gram of protein for every pound of "lean" body mass - not for every pound you weigh.
3) He has no use for creatine. He said it does nothing but volumize cells and cause water retention
4) He advocates Glutamine
5) Hit every bodypart twice per week - not once. He put me on a 3 on, 1 off training schedule
In 4 weeks, I'll take more pics, send him my measurements again, and do another half-hour on the phone.
For any of you who want your current routine looked at, I recommend you give Mr. Haney's website a look - www.leehaney.com.
I am not going to post the workout Lee crafted for me here. It would not be fair to Lee for me to hand out his training advice for free. For those who do not know, Lee has personally trained Evander Holyfield, Gary Sheffield, and Shannon Sharpe. FYI - Lee will not offer ANY advice or entertain any conversation regarding steroids, so don't ask. You're on your own there.
Overall, I'd say it's the best $50.00 you'll ever spend.
__________________
Coiled for the spring or caught like a creature in the headlights
Of a desparate panic or a temptest of blind fury
My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.
-
So if you are reading this correctly, because a lot of you fail to comprehend simple things, Lee Haney RECOMMENDS 1 gram of protein for every pound of "lean" body mass - not for every pound you weigh.
Since the Body is roughly 45-55 percent Muscle, You will adjust your protein amount accordingly.
This PARALLELS what I advocate as far as protein consumption and falls PERFECTLY with the RDA,DRI amounts for Protein.
Very good info from Lee Haney here.
-
3 years ago i was in atlanta and trained at haney's gym, the animal kingdom. He was there about to train himself, introduced myself, talked a few minutes and he asked what i was training and i told him chest and triceps. He said 'well come on, lets train together'.
best hour and half in my life, he is over 50 and dear god he can still train like an animal.
I proudly wear my I TRAINED WITH LEE t-shirt a couple times a week when i trained because i actually trained with the 8 time olympia beast!
-
He would have been better off using Google the word " Diet" ;)
-
nothing groundbreaking here
Adonis do you advocate glutamine?
-
I saw Lee Haney on a public local TV station a few months ago. He was giving advice to a group of geriatric black women. I must say I got a laugh out of his "nutritional" advice. ..... Among which he Promotes cherios and pinapple and canola oil along with 1/2 body weight squats to really "tone" the legs. ::)
-
and lee is right about creatine, its just a water retention supplement, fuck creatine.
-
I do disagree with Glutamine. It is useless to supplement as it has no effect on protein synthesis. Layne Norton Agrees as well:
str8flexed
Army Of Me
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the gym or the lab
Age: 25
Stats: 5'10", 223 lbs
Posts: 20,562
BodyBlog Entries: 22
BodyPoints: 3658
Rep Power: 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsheppard1
You have to use it in pretty high doses to get the desired effect. A lot of people just take 5 g's post-workout, which won't cut it. It gets pretty pricey, as you have to take about 20 g's a day.
no, dosing is not the issue. Studies have looked at 20g and above. No effect on protein breakdown or protein synthesis
__________________
Pro Natural Bodybuilder
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne.htm
http://www.myspace.com/layne1
http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/str8flexed/That which does not make you stronger is killing you.
-
I saw Lee Haney on a public local TV station a few months ago. He was giving advice to a group of geriatric black women. I must say I got a laugh out of his "nutritional" advice. ..... Among which he Promotes cherios and pinapple and canola oil along with 1/2 body weight squats to really "tone" the legs. ::)
Oh yeah, i'm sure everyone would rather get advice from you instead of an 8 time olympia champion. ROTFLMAO!
-
Oh yeah, i'm sure everyone would rather get advice from you instead of an 8 time olympia champion. ROTFLMAO!
Oh I agree with you there. 99% of the population are mindless sheep and will follow someone based SOLEY on their appearance. Not realizing that Haney won his shows because of 1) ELITE GENETICS and 2) HEAVY DRUG USE, NOT because of the way he trained and ate.
Honestly, I dont know anyone who would be impressed with 8 let along 1 Mr Olympia, hell most people dont even know what the "Olympia " is :-\
HOpe this helps
-
I do disagree with Glutamine. It is useless to supplement as it has no effect on protein synthesis. Layne Norton Agrees as well:
str8flexed
Army Of Me
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the gym or the lab
Age: 25
Stats: 5'10", 223 lbs
Posts: 20,562
BodyBlog Entries: 22
BodyPoints: 3658
Rep Power: 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsheppard1
You have to use it in pretty high doses to get the desired effect. A lot of people just take 5 g's post-workout, which won't cut it. It gets pretty pricey, as you have to take about 20 g's a day.
no, dosing is not the issue. Studies have looked at 20g and above. No effect on protein breakdown or protein synthesis
__________________
Pro Natural Bodybuilder
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne.htm
http://www.myspace.com/layne1
http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/str8flexed/That which does not make you stronger is killing you.
Interesting info Adam..... do you believe in a multi vitamin?
-
haney pwns coleman.
in case you didn't know.
-
Interesting info Adam..... do you believe in a multi vitamin?
Adonis promotes the RDI.
-
Oh I agree with you there. 99% of the population are mindless sheep and will follow someone based SOLEY on their appearance. Not realizing that Haney won his shows because of 1) ELITE GENETICS and 2) HEAVY DRUG USE, NOT because of the way he trained and ate.
Honestly, I dont know anyone who would be impressed with 8 let along 1 Mr Olympia, hell most people dont even know what the "Olympia " is :-\
HOpe this helps
Useless, negative tripe. Get over to the V board ASAP.
-
Haney sounds like a real nice guy; being able to train with him would be awesome, something i doubt most getbig knuckleheads would offer to do.
$50 sounds like an excellent investment, whereas adonis' info, who cares? ;D
-
3 years ago i was in atlanta and trained at haney's gym, the animal kingdom. He was there about to train himself, introduced myself, talked a few minutes and he asked what i was training and i told him chest and triceps. He said 'well come on, lets train together'.
best hour and half in my life, he is over 50 and dear god he can still train like an animal.
I proudly wear my I TRAINED WITH LEE t-shirt a couple times a week when i trained because i actually trained with the 8 time olympia beast!
wow.thats cool story though!
-
Lee Haney RECOMMENDS 1 gram of protein for every pound of "lean" body mass - not for every pound you weigh.
So, you have spent the last 2 years or more on here-and prior to that you were on MM before you BANNED- telling everyone that all professional BBers are ALL DRUGS. As well as talking about how you're the strongest natural bber and can lift this or that.
Now, you do an about face, and take advice from someone that you yourself consider to be ALL DRUGS, and most likely has no idea what he is talking about since he doesn't know how to train properly without gear?
That's good Adam. I'll hand it to you, if anything, you at least keep your material fresh. But you're still a douche bag.
-
Okay, so then he gets down to business. A few myths Lee completely debunked:
1) fruit is absolutely fine. Lee advocates lots of pineapple and pears.
2) 1 gram of protein for every pound of "lean" body mass - not for every pound you weigh.
3) He has no use for creatine. He said it does nothing but volumize cells and cause water retention
4) He advocates Glutamine
5) Hit every bodypart twice per week - not once. He put me on a 3 on, 1 off training schedule
lol...so he debunked those myths?
i agree with the use of glutamine....other than that i would consider it a waste of 50 bucks.
although haney is a legend so talkin to him about his bodybuilding career for 30mins would be pretty cool.
i would leave the training n nutrition part to the experts.
-
Haney seems like an awesome guy, I don't think he does it really for the money cause he could charge much more as others actually do. I would have to say he would know a great deal about training and nutrition being an 8 time Mr. O, he doesn't have to be an expert but he could def help anyone who is a beginner or stuck in a rut. I think it's awesome he would help so much for so little, I have had multiple people ask me if I could write out diets for them or training programs for anywhere from $20-$100+. Some people really need help getting the basics down and the fact that Lee is willing to do it and be professional about it while charging much less then most professionals charge shows allot about Lee and his generosity.
-
Haney sounds like a real nice guy; being able to train with him would be awesome, something i doubt most getbig knuckleheads would offer to do.
$50 sounds like an excellent investment, whereas adonis' info, who cares? ;D
OMG I FUCKING AGREE WITH YOU :o :o :o
-
So, you have spent the last 2 years or more on here-and prior to that you were on MM before you BANNED- telling everyone that all professional BBers are ALL DRUGS. As well as talking about how you're the strongest natural bber and can lift this or that.
Now, you do an about face, and take advice from someone that you yourself consider to be ALL DRUGS, and most likely has no idea what he is talking about since he doesn't know how to train properly without gear?
That's good Adam. I'll hand it to you, if anything, you at least keep your material fresh. But you're still a douche bag.
::)
What the fuck are you talking about?
-
::)
What the fuck are you talking about?
Doesn't take a genius such as yourself to figure it out. I suppose that once you hit "post" you just completely forget what you have written.
-
Interesting info Adam..... do you believe in a multi vitamin?
No. You do not need to supplement a regular diet at all.
There was a recent study that implicates Multi-Vitamins with various health problems and a Greater Death Risk, notably a shortening of lifespan. Further studies are coming as a result. Seems to be pretty interesting.
Vitamin supplements linked to early death
28th February 2007, 9:45 WST
Millions of people who take antioxidant supplements such as beta carotene and vitamins A and E may be putting their lives at risk rather than improving their health, according to a major review.
And a separate study has warned using supplements and complementary medicines to boost fertility may have the opposite effect.
Danish researchers suspect that by eliminating harmful free radicals in the body, anti-oxidants might interfere with essential defensive mechanisms and cause toxic reactions.
Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, doctors from Copenhagen University Hospital warn their findings contradict claims that anti-oxidant supplements improve health.
Their analysis of several studies into the effects of the supplements found vitamin A products increased the risk of death 16 per cent, while beta carotene and vitamin E increased the risk of death by 7 per cent and 4 per cent respectively.
But they said the jury was still out on whether vitamin C had a positive or negative effect on life expectancy
“Considering that 80-160 million people in North America and Europe consume these supplements, the public health consequences may be substantial,” the researchers warned. “Beta carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E, given singly or combined with other anti-oxidant supplements significantly increase mortality.”
Complementary Healthcare Council executive director Tony Lewis said it would review the findings but it appeared the research was based on high-level dosages not allowed in Australia.
“In Australia these products are regulated as medicines, so there are tight controls. The findings might not have the same relevance for us as for others,” he said.
In another shock finding, Australian fertility experts believe couples may actually be reducing their chances of having a baby by taking multivitamins and herbs.
Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, they warn couples trying to have a baby to make sure they tell their doctor if they are taking alternative remedies because they can reduce the chances of conceiving.
Researcher Marcin Stankiewicz, from the Flinders Medical Centre, said he did not want to deter couples from using alternative therapies but it was important to document their use so doctors could study the effects on conception.
Dr Roger Hart, a reproductive medicine specialist at the University of WA and medical director of the Fertility Specialists of WA, said while the value of taking folate before conception to prevent birth defects was well known, the benefits of other complementary medicines remained unproved.
-
Lee Haney is a man of God.
-
OMG I FUCKING AGREE WITH YOU :o :o :o
Who the f*** cares, from an know-all 16 year old with 6 months of training? LOL
-
Doesn't take a genius such as yourself to figure it out. I suppose that once you hit "post" you just completely forget what you have written.
I posted someone elses post after they talked with Lee Haney.
Are you stupid or just plain dumb?
-
ADONIS.... why do you advocate taking advice from the most GENETICLY GIFTED. It should be from someone who WASNT so gifted and made it happen anyway! Thats who you take advice from. The ones who know how to make the most of a situation.
-
ADONIS.... why do you advocate taking advice from the most GENETICLY GIFTED. It should be from someone who WASNT so gifted and made it happen anyway! Thats who you take advice from. The ones who know how to make the most of a situation.
That makes no sense. There is NO SUCH THING as a genetic superior when it comes to Nutrition. The same thing works for everyone.
-
I posted someone elses post after they talked with Lee Haney.
Are you stupid or just plain dumb?
You were the one that made the color change in the post about only needing your lean mass worth of protein. Did you not?
-
Okay, so then he gets down to business. A few myths Lee completely debunked:
1) fruit is absolutely fine. Lee advocates lots of pineapple and pears.
2) 1 gram of protein for every pound of "lean" body mass - not for every pound you weigh.
3) He has no use for creatine. He said it does nothing but volumize cells and cause water retention
4) He advocates Glutamine
5) Hit every bodypart twice per week - not once. He put me on a 3 on, 1 off training schedule
lol...so he debunked those myths?
i agree with the use of glutamine....other than that i would consider it a waste of 50 bucks.
although haney is a legend so talkin to him about his bodybuilding career for 30mins would be pretty cool.
i would leave the training n nutrition part to the experts.
EXACTLY! These clowns like rooster and pumpster and adonis think this guy is some sort of a "guru" on nutrition because he is 8 x Mr O
-
That makes no sense. There is NO SUCH THING as a genetic superior when it comes to Nutrition. The same thing works for everyone.
LOL U HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!
-
That makes no sense. There is NO SUCH THING as a genetic superior when it comes to Nutrition. The same thing works for everyone.
WTF do you mean the same thing works for everyone? You're joking right? lol
-
No. You do not need to supplement a regular diet at all.
There was a recent study that implicates Multi-Vitamins with various health problems and a Greater Death Risk, notably a shortening of lifespan. Further studies are coming as a result. Seems to be pretty interesting.
Vitamin supplements linked to early death
28th February 2007, 9:45 WST
Millions of people who take antioxidant supplements such as beta carotene and vitamins A and E may be putting their lives at risk rather than improving their health, according to a major review.
And a separate study has warned using supplements and complementary medicines to boost fertility may have the opposite effect.
Danish researchers suspect that by eliminating harmful free radicals in the body, anti-oxidants might interfere with essential defensive mechanisms and cause toxic reactions.
Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, doctors from Copenhagen University Hospital warn their findings contradict claims that anti-oxidant supplements improve health.
Their analysis of several studies into the effects of the supplements found vitamin A products increased the risk of death 16 per cent, while beta carotene and vitamin E increased the risk of death by 7 per cent and 4 per cent respectively.
But they said the jury was still out on whether vitamin C had a positive or negative effect on life expectancy
“Considering that 80-160 million people in North America and Europe consume these supplements, the public health consequences may be substantial,” the researchers warned. “Beta carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E, given singly or combined with other anti-oxidant supplements significantly increase mortality.”
Complementary Healthcare Council executive director Tony Lewis said it would review the findings but it appeared the research was based on high-level dosages not allowed in Australia.
“In Australia these products are regulated as medicines, so there are tight controls. The findings might not have the same relevance for us as for others,” he said.
In another shock finding, Australian fertility experts believe couples may actually be reducing their chances of having a baby by taking multivitamins and herbs.
Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, they warn couples trying to have a baby to make sure they tell their doctor if they are taking alternative remedies because they can reduce the chances of conceiving.
Researcher Marcin Stankiewicz, from the Flinders Medical Centre, said he did not want to deter couples from using alternative therapies but it was important to document their use so doctors could study the effects on conception.
Dr Roger Hart, a reproductive medicine specialist at the University of WA and medical director of the Fertility Specialists of WA, said while the value of taking folate before conception to prevent birth defects was well known, the benefits of other complementary medicines remained unproved.
interesting read...... thanks
-
That makes no sense. There is NO SUCH THING as a genetic superior when it comes to Nutrition. The same thing works for everyone.
Not true. Motabolisms are different for EVERYONE. I can eat like a HORSE n not work out for 6 months (done it) and still have abs. I know people who eat 1/4 of what i do, bust their asses in the gym... and look decent (yes i was clean too smartass). I also know people who bulk up 10x faster than me on half the food. Your buddy Mo who im very good friends with for example hit 280 while i was struggling for 230 eating half the food i do due to his heavy work schedule. He would miss half his meals too and barely sleep. We workout out together so training wasnt different, he just grows better. He wasnt on alot of shit either, same as me as we both got it together. GENETICS matter bro.
Learn from those who busted their asses to get there, not the ones who got there without trying (Dillet, Heathe, Haney etc..) They could eat grass n mow lawns n grow
-
Not true. Motabolisms are different for EVERYONE. I can eat like a HORSE n not work out for 6 months (done it) and still have abs. I know people who eat 1/4 of what i do, bust their asses in the gym... and look decent (yes i was clean too smartass). I also know people who bulk up 10x faster than me on half the food. Your buddy Mo who im very good friends with for example hit 280 while i was struggling for 230 eating half the food i do due to his heavy work schedule. He would miss half his meals too and barely sleep. We workout out together so training wasnt different, he just grows better. He wasnt on alot of shit either, same as me as we both got it together. GENETICS matter bro.
Learn from those who busted their asses to get there, not the ones who got there without trying (Dillet, Heathe, Haney etc..) They could eat grass n mow lawns n grow
Here is Layne Norton in AGREEMENT with what I stated:
March 20th, 2007, 08:42 AM #45
str8flexed
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,311
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Myth
If you are starting off with a huge amount of adipose tissue, I think the 2000 cals is a place to start regardless of food.
Once you get to a place where you want to start really defining and you are moving towards single digit bf% and maintaining/building muscle, I think what you are talking about will really come into play.
not really, thermodynamics hold true for everyone
__________________
Pro Natural Bodybuilder
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne.htm
http://www.myspace.com/layne1
Doubt me! Hate me! You're the inspiration I need!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 20th, 2007, 02:13 PM #47
str8flexed
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,311
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
meaning that what will work best for someone who is lean in terms of macronutrient breakdown for losing bodyfat will also work well for you
__________________
Pro Natural Bodybuilder
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne.htm
http://www.myspace.com/layne1
Doubt me! Hate me! You're the inspiration I need!
-
Here is Layne Norton in AGREEMENT with what I stated:
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,311
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
meaning that what will work best for someone who is lean in terms of macronutrient breakdown for losing bodyfat will also work well for you
__________________
Pro Natural Bodybuilder
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne.htm
http://www.myspace.com/layne1
Doubt me! Hate me! You're the inspiration I need! [/color]
But a calorie is a calorie! ;D
-
But a calorie is a calorie! ;D
He agrees with that as well.
-
Here is Layne Norton in AGREEMENT with what I stated:
March 20th, 2007, 08:42 AM #45
str8flexed
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,311
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Myth
If you are starting off with a huge amount of adipose tissue, I think the 2000 cals is a place to start regardless of food.
Once you get to a place where you want to start really defining and you are moving towards single digit bf% and maintaining/building muscle, I think what you are talking about will really come into play.
not really, thermodynamics hold true for everyone
__________________
Pro Natural Bodybuilder
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne.htm
http://www.myspace.com/layne1
Doubt me! Hate me! You're the inspiration I need!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 20th, 2007, 02:13 PM #47
str8flexed
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,311
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
meaning that what will work best for someone who is lean in terms of macronutrient breakdown for losing bodyfat will also work well for you
__________________
Pro Natural Bodybuilder
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne.htm
http://www.myspace.com/layne1
Doubt me! Hate me! You're the inspiration I need!
who has he trained besides himself that has proven this? He studies books and studies. "said study showed an 30% increase in 1RM for single leg leg presses in 90yr old women and 2yr old lab rats". MOST OF THESE STUDIES CANNOT BE APPLIED TO US. WE ARE NOT 90yr old women or lab rats! In THEORY it works, its not factual. If you want EXPERIENCE... i could bring in 100s of people who will tell you that you are dead wrong based on EXPERIENCE....BODYBUILDE RS.... ya know the people we are trying to apply this to?
-
who has he trained besides himself that has proven this? He studies books and studies. "said study showed an 30% increase in 1RM for single leg leg presses in 90yr old women and 2yr old lab rats". MOST OF THESE STUDIES CANNOT BE APPLIED TO US. WE ARE NOT 90yr old women or lab rats! In THEORY it works, its not factual. If you want EXPERIENCE... i could bring in 100s of people who will tell you that you are dead wrong based on EXPERIENCE....BODYBUILDE RS.... ya know the people we are trying to apply this to?
Bodybuilders are humans. They are not made of anything different. They are not of a different genetic makeup. They are Homo Sapiens.
-
Bodybuilders are humans. They are not made of anything different. They are not of a different genetic makeup. They are Homo Sapiens.
exactly.
-
Bodybuilders are humans. They are not made of anything different. They are not of a different genetic makeup. They are Homo Sapiens.
I was regarding bodybuilders as far as GOALS... not makeup. We train for different goals than the average person. For the average person... yes a calorie is a calorie. etc... but for us every inch counts, every macro counts... diet down against me end of this year on YOUR diet (post it specificly and show RECEIPTS from McDonalds as you say to PROVE it with dates) and i will post my diet. See who wins?
-
Human variation undoubtly exists - a proclamation supported by the workings of your idol Richard Dawkins. This sort of egalitarian thought lead to social disasters such as communism.
-
Bodybuilders are humans. They are not made of anything different. They are not of a different genetic makeup. They are Homo Sapiens.
Brilliant
-
Human variation undoubtly exists - a proclamation supported by the workings of your idol Richard Dawkins. This sort of egalitarian thought lead to social disasters such as communism.
Not very much at all.
-
So if you are reading this correctly, because a lot of you fail to comprehend simple things, Lee Haney RECOMMENDS
This PARALLELS what Ellington Darden advocate as far as protein consumption and falls PERFECTLY with the RDA,DRI amounts for Protein.
Very good info from Lee Haney here.
fixed that for ya.
-
Not very much at all.
decline my challange? take it as a friendly challange, not hostile. For fun and science and bodybuilding.
-
I was regarding bodybuilders as far as GOALS... not makeup. We train for different goals than the average person. For the average person... yes a calorie is a calorie. etc... but for us every inch counts, every macro counts... diet down against me end of this year on YOUR diet (post it specificly and show RECEIPTS from McDonalds as you say to PROVE it with dates) and i will post my diet. See who wins?
You use or have used drugs.
I eat whatever I want.
I will(am) be leaner than you though with about 3-4 lbs more muscle than I had last year.
-
3 years ago i was in atlanta and trained at haney's gym, the animal kingdom. He was there about to train himself, introduced myself, talked a few minutes and he asked what i was training and i told him chest and triceps. He said 'well come on, lets train together'.
best hour and half in my life, he is over 50 and dear god he can still train like an animal.
I proudly wear my I TRAINED WITH LEE t-shirt a couple times a week when i trained because i actually trained with the 8 time olympia beast!
Actually today he is 47...
-
You use or have used drugs.
I eat whatever I want.
I will(am) be leaner than you though with about 3-4 lbs more muscle than I had last year.
Your point? Your superior knowledge should outdo me. Last time i competed i was leaner than you have ever been... and i did not do any cardio and barely used any fat burners. As i said.... we are not talking physiques or muscle mass... simply who is leaner.... up for it?
-
Who the f*** cares, from an know-all 16 year old with 6 months of training? LOL
Yeah one day I hope to make it over 16 as well as get over 6 months of training, I have been stuck in my rut for a while now ::) ;)
-
Your point? Your superior knowledge should outdo me. Last time i competed i was leaner than you have ever been... and i did not do any cardio and barely used any fat burners. As i said.... we are not talking physiques or muscle mass... simply who is leaner.... up for it?
yep! I am!
-
yep! I am!
sounds good.... im gonna have fun and bullshit all summer... then get serious for a show....this will be interesting.... both post our diets (and your mc Ds receipts and dates for proof that you really are eating that) and any changes in diet/cardio up to the show/date....probably a good idea is to begin and end with a hydrostatic weighing to show actual LBM where diet starts and ends. If thats not possible then calipur clips at 11 sites and post the measurement not the bf% and go from there.
-
{BURP} whoops, sorry bout that. I just consumed a mega-protein shake mixed with glutamine and creatine. Carry on.
-
5) Hit every bodypart twice per week - not once. He put me on a 3 on, 1 off training schedule[/color]
Has Haney ever trained without steroids, etc? Of course, it depends what intensity you use. If you don't train very hard (and you're natural) you can definitely do muscles 2x/wk. But if you're natural and you train really hard (like Gaspari or Platz did), then you can't train your muscles 2x/wk. no way.
-
That makes no sense. There is NO SUCH THING as a genetic superior when it comes to Nutrition. The same thing works for everyone.
Thermodynamically speaking, your "nutrition theory" is correct. However it is FLAWED for a number of reasons.
1) You have assumed equal 100% ABSORBTION, when there are vast differences in how people absorb their food (Both from a genetic viewpoint, and how timing, amount, individual macros can induce greater/lesser absorption and influence metabolism)
There are genetic differences between how humans ABSORB nutrients across the luminal wall of the intestine and across enterocytes. If you give 50 different patients an identical 100g glucose + 25g lipid + 25g oral load and measure serum levels of glucose, aminos, lipids after you will find that they will vastly differ. (Glucose is aborbed very well in general, but there are significant differences between lipids & protein) Another method would be to take the fecal matter and place it into a bomb calorimeter. This is not common for obvious reasons, but you will find that humans are far from 100% efficient, and that there is great variability in the amount of energy that remains in fecal matter.
A common example, lactase deficiency will spark a chain of events leading to a bid difference in absorption. Lactose remains in the intestinal lumen and is osmotically active. This will increase transit time, and reduce absorption of all other nutrients. This is a genetic difference.
2) You have assumed 100% of nutrition is used for energy (when in fact there are other metabolic fates, such cell wall maintenance, recycling of proteins, etc... which are preserved even in a caloric deficient state). You use Atwater values which are problematic to begin with (but we really have no other easy alternative)
3) Furthermore, there are genetic differences in the body METABOLIZES nutrients, once they are absorbed. Different hormonal environments can influence the resultant equilibrium and ultimate biochemical fate of macros once absorbed. The same 100g oral glucose load will not induce the same insulin release across all test patients. Many americans are insulin resistant, or have varying degrees of Type II diabetes. Once again, vast genetic differences.
Another example, take A) a 100g glucose from a simple carbohydrate, say a fruit drink B) 100g glucose from a complex carbohydrate, say starch. Although both are 100g of glucose, worth the same energy, the absorption profile and insulin release over time will differ. They will not have the same effect on the human body.
What I do like about your method is 1) frequent feedback & adjustments - because there are individual differences between people 2) simplicity which is appealing for beginners
But to say there are no genetic differences between humans with respect to ABSORBPTION and METABOLISM of nutrients is WRONG.
-
So if you are reading this correctly, because a lot of you fail to comprehend simple things, Lee Haney RECOMMENDS 1 gram of protein for every pound of "lean" body mass - not for every pound you weigh.
Since the Body is roughly 45-55 percent Muscle, You will adjust your protein amount accordingly.
This PARALLELS what I advocate as far as protein consumption and falls PERFECTLY with the RDA,DRI amounts for Protein.
Very good info from Lee Haney here.
Correction: You claim that there is no need to eat a certain amount of protein.
That a beer-only diet would be fine.
That as long as the calorie requirement is met, you can eat "whatever you like".
That is not what Lee Haney recommends, obviously.
Here is a pic from the diet you used:
-
Has Haney ever trained without steroids, etc? Of course, it depends what intensity you use. If you don't train very hard (and you're natural) you can definitely do muscles 2x/wk. But if you're natural and you train really hard (like Gaspari or Platz did), then you can't train your muscles 2x/wk. no way.
Bingo. Did legs Monday morning; still tight. No way I could muster two of those in one week.
-
Thermodynamically speaking, your "nutrition theory" is correct. However it is FLAWED for a number of reasons.
1) You have assumed equal 100% ABSORBTION, when there are vast differences in how people absorb their food (Both from a genetic viewpoint, and how timing, amount, individual macros can induce greater/lesser absorption and influence metabolism)
There are genetic differences between how humans ABSORB nutrients across the luminal wall of the intestine and across enterocytes. If you give 50 different patients an identical 100g glucose + 25g lipid + 25g oral load and measure serum levels of glucose, aminos, lipids after you will find that they will vastly differ. (Glucose is aborbed very well in general, but there are significant differences between lipids & protein) Another method would be to take the fecal matter and place it into a bomb calorimeter. This is not common for obvious reasons, but you will find that humans are far from 100% efficient, and that there is great variability in the amount of energy that remains in fecal matter.
A common example, lactase deficiency will spark a chain of events leading to a bid difference in absorption. Lactose remains in the intestinal lumen and is osmotically active. This will increase transit time, and reduce absorption of all other nutrients. This is a genetic difference.
2) You have assumed 100% of nutrition is used for energy (when in fact there are other metabolic fates, such cell wall maintenance, recycling of proteins, etc... which are preserved even in a caloric deficient state). You use Atwater values which are problematic to begin with (but we really have no other easy alternative)
3) Furthermore, there are genetic differences in the body METABOLIZES nutrients, once they are absorbed. Different hormonal environments can influence the resultant equilibrium and ultimate biochemical fate of macros once absorbed. The same 100g oral glucose load will not induce the same insulin release across all test patients. Many americans are insulin resistant, or have varying degrees of Type II diabetes. Once again, vast genetic differences.
Another example, take A) a 100g glucose from a simple carbohydrate, say a fruit drink B) 100g glucose from a complex carbohydrate, say starch. Although both are 100g of glucose, worth the same energy, the absorption profile and insulin release over time will differ. They will not have the same effect on the human body.
What I do like about your method is 1) frequent feedback & adjustments - because there are individual differences between people 2) simplicity which is appealing for beginners
But to say there are no genetic differences between humans with respect to ABSORBPTION and METABOLISM of nutrients is WRONG.
spikety....
sppppiiikeettyyyyy...... ..
SPANKED!
-
since pretty much everything TA posts these days eventually turns into him argueing with everyone on here about a calorie or something why don't the mods just move his thread to the nutrition boards? Doesn't this kind of thread sorta belong there?
I feel like I've read this shit 200 times already.
-
Thermodynamically speaking, your "nutrition theory" is correct. However it is FLAWED for a number of reasons.
1) You have assumed equal 100% ABSORBTION, when there are vast differences in how people absorb their food (Both from a genetic viewpoint, and how timing, amount, individual macros can induce greater/lesser absorption and influence metabolism)
There are genetic differences between how humans ABSORB nutrients across the luminal wall of the intestine and across enterocytes. If you give 50 different patients an identical 100g glucose + 25g lipid + 25g oral load and measure serum levels of glucose, aminos, lipids after you will find that they will vastly differ. (Glucose is aborbed very well in general, but there are significant differences between lipids & protein) Another method would be to take the fecal matter and place it into a bomb calorimeter. This is not common for obvious reasons, but you will find that humans are far from 100% efficient, and that there is great variability in the amount of energy that remains in fecal matter.
A common example, lactase deficiency will spark a chain of events leading to a bid difference in absorption. Lactose remains in the intestinal lumen and is osmotically active. This will increase transit time, and reduce absorption of all other nutrients. This is a genetic difference.
2) You have assumed 100% of nutrition is used for energy (when in fact there are other metabolic fates, such cell wall maintenance, recycling of proteins, etc... which are preserved even in a caloric deficient state). You use Atwater values which are problematic to begin with (but we really have no other easy alternative)
3) Furthermore, there are genetic differences in the body METABOLIZES nutrients, once they are absorbed. Different hormonal environments can influence the resultant equilibrium and ultimate biochemical fate of macros once absorbed. The same 100g oral glucose load will not induce the same insulin release across all test patients. Many americans are insulin resistant, or have varying degrees of Type II diabetes. Once again, vast genetic differences.
Another example, take A) a 100g glucose from a simple carbohydrate, say a fruit drink B) 100g glucose from a complex carbohydrate, say starch. Although both are 100g of glucose, worth the same energy, the absorption profile and insulin release over time will differ. They will not have the same effect on the human body.
What I do like about your method is 1) frequent feedback & adjustments - because there are individual differences between people 2) simplicity which is appealing for beginners
But to say there are no genetic differences between humans with respect to ABSORBPTION and METABOLISM of nutrients is WRONG.
1.) YOU have assumed that I said that. I haven`t. There are too many factors to affect absorbtion, too many variables at stake to pin down, but this is pretty much irrelevant for Bodybuilders as they are not much different when compared to the Sednetary individual as far as nutritional demans go.
The same 3 Macro Nutrients will have the SAME properties on everybody. This cannot be debated which you are not trying to do, Although you are giving that impression to those that don`t understand or those that cannot comprehend.
2.)100 PERCENT of FOOD IS ENERGY. Metabolic Processes,cell wall maintenance, recycling of proteins, ALL REQUIRE ENERGY from FOOD to be completed. They can`t happen miraculously. ALL FOOD IS USED AS ENERGY. Another Fact. EVERYTHING takes ENERGY, no matter what. This cannot be debated.
3.) Individuals do not Vary much and you are twisting my words. You note that my method employs,"1) frequent feedback & adjustments". I do this because I already account for EVERYTHING you have just stated. The variance is easily accounted for and my method takes advantage of the efficiency and ease to spot such trends. I think you went a little overboard in your assumptions. The differences are noted and adjusted accordingly as I have always said. You are correct in that my method gives 1) frequent feedback & adjustments . Humans still do no Vary much at all from this standpoint. Not in the reference that people want to believe. If there was THAT much variance, Modern Medicine would be no different than using a "Jump to Conclusions mat", Magic 8 ball, MojoMan or a prayer to god instead of using clinical trials and Evidence-based Science.
-
Again nothing new from Apenis. Just some more cut & paste. Dude what are you trying to prove. All you do is show that you agree with some people. DO you think because Lee says it then it is 100% true or works for everyone. Why are you so stupid. Oh now I see, it is the degree that makes you so smart.
-
sounds good.... im gonna have fun and bullshit all summer... then get serious for a show....this will be interesting.... both post our diets (and your mc Ds receipts and dates for proof that you really are eating that) and any changes in diet/cardio up to the show/date....probably a good idea is to begin and end with a hydrostatic weighing to show actual LBM where diet starts and ends. If thats not possible then calipur clips at 11 sites and post the measurement not the bf% and go from there.
That was the challenge to Anssi as I wanted to bring corporate attention to MD at the time and Dave agreed and was going to put it in the magazine.
He conceded in defeat already. So that was that.
I eat whatever I want and I would be willing to post a picture of Everything I eat,Everyday.
-
I eat whatever I want and I would be willing to post a picture of Everything I eat,Everyday.
then do it
put up or shut up..please just make a thread...with even ONE of your meals a day, and put a piece of paper that says True Adonis beside it...do this everyday for a month and people will have more respect for you
thats it...ONE MEAL
i bet it wont happen but just sayin'
-
A calorie is not a calorie. 200 cals of broccoli vs 200 of cake will effect the body very differently.
The brocolli will require more calories to process than it actually has. Lose weight.
The cake could spike insulin and go right to fat cells. gain weight.
It always made sense to me that your calorie requirment and protien is based on lean mass...................I always laughed at guys who said i need 3600 calories a day to maintain cuz the book says it right here!!! They were 25% bodyfat so id point them down the column to 2400 and say there you go.
-
Correction: You claim that there is no need to eat a certain amount of protein.
That a beer-only diet would be fine.
That as long as the calorie requirement is met, you can eat "whatever you like".
That is not what Lee Haney recommends, obviously.
Here is a pic from the diet you used:
1. I advocate adequate Protein intake. RDA,DRI.
2. I said you will survive. I did not said it would be adequate.
3. You can. You will also hit RDA,DRI values easily with a normal diet. Obviously you aren`t goind to eat a jar of Mayonaisse only etc... You have to go OUT of your way to not meet these requirements.
4. Those are food items I ate. They didn`t comprise my whole diet. I can post any day though you like as I have diet logs.
-
then do it
put up or shut up..please just make a thread...with even ONE of your meals a day, and put a piece of paper that says True Adonis beside it...do this everyday for a month and people will have more respect for you
thats it...ONE MEAL
i bet it wont happen but just sayin'
Here is one I ate last week.
-
I am about to post my meal from Last night!
We drank a 90 dollar bottle of wine last night.
-
Ok could be me but why do you have pictures of your meals?
-
Ok could be me but why do you have pictures of your meals?
We spend a lot of time cooking them!
We are proud of them!
Last night was a Filet Mignon, Medium Rare, Doused in RedWine Reduction and shallots, Portabellos with goat cheese and reggiano. Brocolli on the side.
and a 90 dollar Brunello.
1300 calories in this meal, counting my 3 glasses of wine.
-
We spend a lot of time cooking them!
We are proud of them!
Last night was a Filet Mignon, Medium Rare, Doused in RedWine Reduction and shallots, Portabellos with goat cheese and reggiano. Brocolli on the side.
and a 90 dollar Brunello.
1300 calories in this meal, counting my 3 glasses of wine.
-
We spend a lot of time cooking them!
We are proud of them!
Last night was a Filet Mignon, Medium Rare, Doused in RedWine Reduction and shallots, Portabellos with goat cheese and reggiano. Brocolli on the side.
and a 90 dollar Brunello.
1300 calories in this meal, counting my 3 glasses of wine.
Ok thanks. Not a fan of seafood but your last night meal looked great.
-
adonis how do you feel about lee haney's advocation of glutamine, when the research shows its basically worthless. is this ignorance perhaps, or do you pick and choose who you agree with while ignoring other points? perhaps since he is horrible wrong about glutamine, he is also wrong about protein. also, the massive amounts of drugs he took, may have something to do with his eating habits.
-
I do disagree with Glutamine. It is useless to supplement as it has no effect on protein synthesis. Layne Norton Agrees as well:
str8flexed
Army Of Me
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the gym or the lab
Age: 25
Stats: 5'10", 223 lbs
Posts: 20,562
BodyBlog Entries: 22
BodyPoints: 3658
Rep Power: 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsheppard1
You have to use it in pretty high doses to get the desired effect. A lot of people just take 5 g's post-workout, which won't cut it. It gets pretty pricey, as you have to take about 20 g's a day.
no, dosing is not the issue. Studies have looked at 20g and above. No effect on protein breakdown or protein synthesis
__________________
Pro Natural Bodybuilder
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne.htm
http://www.myspace.com/layne1
http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/str8flexed/That which does not make you stronger is killing you.
Page 100 of the newest Journal of Stregth and Conditioning Research has an article titled "Effects of a Drink Containing Creatine, Amino Acids and Protein Combined With Ten Weeks of Resistance Training on Body Composition, Strength and Anaerobic Performance"
It begs to differ with you and Layne Norton
-
adonis how do you feel about lee haney's advocation of glutamine, when the research shows its basically worthless. is this ignorance perhaps, or do you pick and choose who you agree with while ignoring other points? perhaps since he is horrible wrong about glutamine, he is also wrong about protein. also, the massive amounts of drugs he took, may have something to do with his eating habits.
Scroll back.
I have already stated it was worthless. I also posted Layne stating the same thing.
Lee Haney sells certain supplements so there is where his interest lies perhaps.
-
Page 100 of the newest Journal of Stregth and Conditioning Research has an article titled "Effects of a Drink Containing Creatine, Amino Acids and Protein Combined With Ten Weeks of Resistance Training on Body Composition, Strength and Anaerobic Performance"
It begs to differ with you and Layne Norton
The study you mentioned is not for GLUTAMINE only. Did you fail to comprehend the study?
-
The study you mentioned is not for GLUTAMINE only. Did you fail to comprehend the study?
I'm also refering to Lee Haneys myth about Creatine being useless.
-
Has Haney ever trained without steroids, etc? Of course, it depends what intensity you use. If you don't train very hard (and you're natural) you can definitely do muscles 2x/wk. But if you're natural and you train really hard (like Gaspari or Platz did), then you can't train your muscles 2x/wk. no way.
I train each bodypart not quite twice a week, but once every 4 days. I think that's what Haney put the guy on, because you can't get exactly 2x per week with a 3-day one one day off cycle. You just need to decrease the number of sets you do. I only do about 4-6 working sets per bodypart. From watching training videos, thats how Ronnie trains as well. He usually only does 1-2 hard sets per exercise, and 2-4 exercises per bodypart.
-
Adonis, If I have misinterpreted you, or assumed that you assumed incorrectly, I apologize. I actually agree with many of your statements.
2.)100 PERCENT of FOOD IS ENERGY. Metabolic Processes,cell wall maintenance, recycling of proteins, ALL REQUIRE ENERGY from FOOD to be completed. They can`t happen miraculously. ALL FOOD IS USED AS ENERGY. Another Fact. EVERYTHING takes ENERGY, no matter what. This cannot be debated.
I agree that all metabolic processes, etc... require energy. I disagree that "all food is used as energy." I will say that all food has the capability or biochemical pathway to be utilized as an energy source. This is not the same thing.
If amino acids are utilized in synthesizing albumin, for example, it is not readily available to be deaminated and utilized as an energy source. Structural proteins, cell wall maintenace etc... are just some examples that I gave that are obligate processes that require nutrients. In fact these obligate processes are the basis for the "obligate level of protein" - because they are utilized for purposes other than energy provision.
-
I agree. I have found that I am less sore when I DON'T supplement with glutamine. I feel better and I recover faster. Something about Glutamine messed with me and I never liked it.
I do disagree with Glutamine. It is useless to supplement as it has no effect on protein synthesis. Layne Norton Agrees as well:
str8flexed
Army Of Me
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the gym or the lab
Age: 25
Stats: 5'10", 223 lbs
Posts: 20,562
BodyBlog Entries: 22
BodyPoints: 3658
Rep Power: 7374
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsheppard1
You have to use it in pretty high doses to get the desired effect. A lot of people just take 5 g's post-workout, which won't cut it. It gets pretty pricey, as you have to take about 20 g's a day.
no, dosing is not the issue. Studies have looked at 20g and above. No effect on protein breakdown or protein synthesis
__________________
Pro Natural Bodybuilder
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne.htm
http://www.myspace.com/layne1
http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/str8flexed/That which does not make you stronger is killing you.
-
1. I advocate adequate Protein intake. RDA,DRI.
2. I said you will survive. I did not said it would be adequate.
3. You can. You will also hit RDA,DRI values easily with a normal diet. Obviously you aren`t goind to eat a jar of Mayonaisse only etc... You have to go OUT of your way to not meet these requirements.
4. Those are food items I ate. They didn`t comprise my whole diet. I can post any day though you like as I have diet logs.
YOU ALSO ADVOCATE EATING ROAD KILL AND J#WS!
-
It's all a matter of opinion. If you were to ask every former Mr Olympia winner his advice about nutrition and exercise, you would certainly get a different answer from each one of them. Some will advocate higher amounts of protein, others lower amounts, some will encourage lots of carbs, some will discourage it, etc.
Rather then ask a genetically gifted person for advise find a person who has accomplished encouraging results with a body and metabolism similar to yours. Preferably, someone who is done this without the help of drugs. You have a far better chance of reproducing the results yourself.
-
Here is Layne Norton in AGREEMENT with what I stated:
March 20th, 2007, 08:42 AM #45
str8flexed
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,311
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Myth
If you are starting off with a huge amount of adipose tissue, I think the 2000 cals is a place to start regardless of food.
Once you get to a place where you want to start really defining and you are moving towards single digit bf% and maintaining/building muscle, I think what you are talking about will really come into play.
not really, thermodynamics hold true for everyone
__________________
Pro Natural Bodybuilder
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne.htm
http://www.myspace.com/layne1
Doubt me! Hate me! You're the inspiration I need!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 20th, 2007, 02:13 PM #47
str8flexed
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,311
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
meaning that what will work best for someone who is lean in terms of macronutrient breakdown for losing bodyfat will also work well for you
__________________
Pro Natural Bodybuilder
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/layne.htm
http://www.myspace.com/layne1
Doubt me! Hate me! You're the inspiration I need!
Bring Layne on here, if he really thinks the way you do, we can own him too!
-
No. You do not need to supplement a regular diet at all.
There was a recent study that implicates Multi-Vitamins with various health problems and a Greater Death Risk, notably a shortening of lifespan. Further studies are coming as a result. Seems to be pretty interesting.
Vitamin supplements linked to early death
28th February 2007, 9:45 WST
Millions of people who take antioxidant supplements such as beta carotene and vitamins A and E may be putting their lives at risk rather than improving their health, according to a major review.
And a separate study has warned using supplements and complementary medicines to boost fertility may have the opposite effect.
Danish researchers suspect that by eliminating harmful free radicals in the body, anti-oxidants might interfere with essential defensive mechanisms and cause toxic reactions.
Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, doctors from Copenhagen University Hospital warn their findings contradict claims that anti-oxidant supplements improve health.
Their analysis of several studies into the effects of the supplements found vitamin A products increased the risk of death 16 per cent, while beta carotene and vitamin E increased the risk of death by 7 per cent and 4 per cent respectively.
But they said the jury was still out on whether vitamin C had a positive or negative effect on life expectancy
“Considering that 80-160 million people in North America and Europe consume these supplements, the public health consequences may be substantial,” the researchers warned. “Beta carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E, given singly or combined with other anti-oxidant supplements significantly increase mortality.”
Complementary Healthcare Council executive director Tony Lewis said it would review the findings but it appeared the research was based on high-level dosages not allowed in Australia.
“In Australia these products are regulated as medicines, so there are tight controls. The findings might not have the same relevance for us as for others,” he said.
In another shock finding, Australian fertility experts believe couples may actually be reducing their chances of having a baby by taking multivitamins and herbs.
Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, they warn couples trying to have a baby to make sure they tell their doctor if they are taking alternative remedies because they can reduce the chances of conceiving.
Researcher Marcin Stankiewicz, from the Flinders Medical Centre, said he did not want to deter couples from using alternative therapies but it was important to document their use so doctors could study the effects on conception.
Dr Roger Hart, a reproductive medicine specialist at the University of WA and medical director of the Fertility Specialists of WA, said while the value of taking folate before conception to prevent birth defects was well known, the benefits of other complementary medicines remained unproved.
We've been over this one before.
The report relates only to synthetic supplements and not to fruits and vegetables in everyday diets which are natural and contain less concentrated levels of antioxidants, said the study from the Centre for Clinical Intervention Research at Denmark's Copenhagen University Hospital.
It said the increased death risk is about 5 per cent higher than those not given supplements and that figure is probably conservative. It was reported the study found Vitamin A was the worst offender, raising the death risk by 17 per cent.
The finding drew fire from critics who said it was flawed and based largely on studies of people who were already chronically ill before they were treated with the supplements.
While the review did not pinpoint any biochemical mechanism that may be behind the increased death risk, it may be that "by eliminating free radicals from our organism, we interfere with some essential defensive mechanisms," the study concluded.
Antioxidants are believed to fight free radicals, atoms or groups of atoms formed in such a way that they can cause cell damage.
"Beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E given singly or combined with other antioxidant supplements significantly increase mortality," the study found.
It also found no evidence that vitamin C increases longevity and though selenium tended to reduce mortality, more research is needed on that topic.
Balz Frei, director of the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University, said the study and the data studied are both flawed because more than two-thirds of the previous research that was examined involved people with heart disease, cancer or other risks who were being treated to see if the supplements worked.
"This kind of approach does not work," he said. "Over the years it has become clear from these clinical trials that antioxidants don't work in disease treatment."
The Complementary Healthcare Council (CHC), which represents the industry in Australia, said the results were based on old data and included trials which allowed doses of vitamins not accepted in Australia.
CHC executive director Tony Lewis would not comment on the study's claims but said the evidence was "weak".
-
We've been over this one before.
The report relates only to synthetic supplements and not to fruits and vegetables in everyday diets which are natural and contain less concentrated levels of antioxidants, said the study from the Centre for Clinical Intervention Research at Denmark's Copenhagen University Hospital.
It said the increased death risk is about 5 per cent higher than those not given supplements and that figure is probably conservative. It was reported the study found Vitamin A was the worst offender, raising the death risk by 17 per cent.
The finding drew fire from critics who said it was flawed and based largely on studies of people who were already chronically ill before they were treated with the supplements.
While the review did not pinpoint any biochemical mechanism that may be behind the increased death risk, it may be that "by eliminating free radicals from our organism, we interfere with some essential defensive mechanisms," the study concluded.
Antioxidants are believed to fight free radicals, atoms or groups of atoms formed in such a way that they can cause cell damage.
"Beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E given singly or combined with other antioxidant supplements significantly increase mortality," the study found.
It also found no evidence that vitamin C increases longevity and though selenium tended to reduce mortality, more research is needed on that topic.
Balz Frei, director of the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University, said the study and the data studied are both flawed because more than two-thirds of the previous research that was examined involved people with heart disease, cancer or other risks who were being treated to see if the supplements worked.
"This kind of approach does not work," he said. "Over the years it has become clear from these clinical trials that antioxidants don't work in disease treatment."
The Complementary Healthcare Council (CHC), which represents the industry in Australia, said the results were based on old data and included trials which allowed doses of vitamins not accepted in Australia.
CHC executive director Tony Lewis would not comment on the study's claims but said the evidence was "weak".
Don't bother answering TA (you're wasting your time) just use your mod powers to delete his threads & posts. ;D
-
Bring Layne on here, if he really thinks the way you do, we can own him too!
I don't think Norton should be brought into this.
When Abeles claimed that the barbell isn't brought up and down in a squat, then I realized it was a lost cause (arguing with him).
Edit: it was apparently squat, not benchpress.
-Hedge
-
So if you are reading this correctly, because a lot of you fail to comprehend simple things, Lee Haney RECOMMENDS 1 gram of protein for every pound of "lean" body mass - not for every pound you weigh.
Since the Body is roughly 45-55 percent Muscle, You will adjust your protein amount accordingly.
This PARALLELS what I advocate as far as protein consumption and falls PERFECTLY with the RDA,DRI amounts for Protein.
Very good info from Lee Haney here.
Uhhm, no it doesn't fall perfectly with the RDA (0.8 g per kg bodyweight). The RDA is barely adequate for sedentary folks. While consuming protein for only lean mass makes some sense, it doesn't correspond to what good research says (you might actually want to read Dr. Lemon's paper of which you posted the abstract from in other posts): something along the lines of 0.8 grams per pound bodyweight tops for weight training enthusiasts, if memory serves. Rounding up to 1.0 g/lb probably wouldn't hurt and might actually help if one is trying to gain mass (those excess kcal's you keep harping on...). I suppose one could estimate bf% to fine tune the amount of protein, but if one is fairly lean it gets to be like splitting hairs. Please Adonis, just stop.
-
.8g/kg is for completely sedentary tards.
1g/kg for the elderly
1.5-2.0g/kg for athletes
2.1g/kg for infants
Those are the RDAs for protein ;)