Author Topic: A RECENT MEMBERS Consultation with LEE HANEY  (Read 17477 times)

Mike

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1729
Re: A RECENT MEMBERS Consultation with LEE HANEY
« Reply #75 on: March 29, 2007, 12:22:00 PM »
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.

bigbobs

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9677
  • Islam, Nasser and Corvettes.
Re: A RECENT MEMBERS Consultation with LEE HANEY
« Reply #76 on: March 29, 2007, 12:26:20 PM »
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.

pumpher

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
Re: A RECENT MEMBERS Consultation with LEE HANEY
« Reply #77 on: March 29, 2007, 12:44:13 PM »
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.

El Diablo Blanco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31826
  • Nom Nom Nom Nom
Re: A RECENT MEMBERS Consultation with LEE HANEY
« Reply #78 on: March 29, 2007, 01:03:49 PM »
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.  

wolfgang187

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1703
  • My power is discombobulatingly & devastating!
Re: A RECENT MEMBERS Consultation with LEE HANEY
« Reply #79 on: March 29, 2007, 01:11:59 PM »
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!

Rudee

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6088
Re: A RECENT MEMBERS Consultation with LEE HANEY
« Reply #80 on: March 29, 2007, 03:45:47 PM »
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.

Mr. Intenseone

  • Guest
Re: A RECENT MEMBERS Consultation with LEE HANEY
« Reply #81 on: March 29, 2007, 06:18:09 PM »
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!

Princess L

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 13095
  • I stop for turtles
Re: A RECENT MEMBERS Consultation with LEE HANEY
« Reply #82 on: March 29, 2007, 07:48:36 PM »
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".


:

Rimbaud

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9884
  • There can be only one.
Re: A RECENT MEMBERS Consultation with LEE HANEY
« Reply #83 on: March 30, 2007, 03:22:08 AM »
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

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19466
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: A RECENT MEMBERS Consultation with LEE HANEY
« Reply #84 on: March 30, 2007, 04:55:10 AM »
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
As empty as paradise

mental_masturbator

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 121
  • Getbig!
Re: A RECENT MEMBERS Consultation with LEE HANEY
« Reply #85 on: March 31, 2007, 03:18:37 AM »
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.

pobrecito

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4851
Re: A RECENT MEMBERS Consultation with LEE HANEY
« Reply #86 on: March 31, 2007, 10:13:45 AM »
.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 ;)