Disaster after following the TA principles.

[The_Leafy_Bug]

He and his idol have no proof.. I mean Adonis even resorted to attacking Layne Norton when someone pointed our his recommendation of one gram of protein per pound of body weight. Saying Norton is invalid because he's religious.

And I posted a lot at the start of this topic.

Same idiot who says he gained on 800 calories a day. You're the idiot.

Wow... you didnt even read that thread. If you had read it you would know i only did 800 cals for a few days and thats because i was running out of time. Thank you for outting yourself as a clown.

[Camel Jockey]

Wow... you didnt even read that thread. If you had read it you would know i only did 800 cals for a few days and thats because i was running out of time. Thank you for outting yourself as a clown.

Bottom line is that Adonis' principles do hold some weight.. Calorie is a calorie, but to say what types of calories consumed are not important = just plain stupid.

MattC is a good example of just why it isn't that easy. No one is a better judge of someone's physique than themselves. If Matt claims he lost size and got fatter, then I believe him. I also count that as a strike against the Adonis' principles.

[Camel Jockey]

I was partially wrong about Adonis.

He's way to inconsistent in his ways to be credible, and his knowledge of science is not that great in many cases. He never backs up his claims either.

The way he tried to attack Layne Norton after using him for validation was pathetic, Layne can run circles around Adonis both in scientific knowledge and physiquewise.

I bet he is trying to play a hoax.

Yeah.. He dares to attack someone with a PhD when he's nothing more than a Google clown.

I dare to someone cut on vodka and cardboard.. They both have calories. Good look holding onto your size and gains. 

Hedge already pointed out the many fallacies in his garbage 'principles' earlier in the topic, yet many of his nuthuggers are still clinging to his nuts like he's a god or something.

[The_Leafy_Bug]

Yeah.. He dares to attack someone with a PhD when he's nothing more than a Google clown.

I dare to someone cut on vodka and cardboard.. They both have calories. Good look holding onto your size and gains. 

Hedge already pointed out the many fallacies in his garbage 'principles' earlier in the topic, yet many of his nuthuggers are still clinging to his nuts like he's a god or something.

It's simple logic... here tell me this and ill decide if i want to pursue this argument. Do you believe in evolution?

[shiftedShapes]

That's speculation.

it is the most certain fact we know about human longevity, but by all means roll the dice with your life.

[ManBearPig...]

It's simple logic... here tell me this and ill decide if i want to pursue this argument. Do you believe in evolution?

so this simple logic says that eating 100 calories of chicken and 100 calories of cardboard is the same?

[Camel Jockey]

It's simple logic... here tell me this and ill decide if i want to pursue this argument. Do you believe in evolution?

Of course I do.

Do you think Adonis' opinions carry greater weight than Layne Norton's?

I don't want to argue with you... It's like arguing with a creationist.  

[Camel Jockey]

Your choice of words here made me laugh

By his reasoning, the residents of Darfur should outlive most of us. 

[The_Leafy_Bug]

so this simple logic says that eating 100 calories of chicken and 100 calories of cardboard is the same?

Answer me this power rod. Which weighs more? A pound of feathers or a pound of bricks.

[The_Leafy_Bug]

By his reasoning, the residents of Darfur should outlive most of us. 

America has one ofthe lowest averages for length of life lived out of any western country.... i think its pretty safe to say eating more doesn't = a longer and healthier lived life considering 60% of this country is obese.

[Camel Jockey]

America has one ofthe lowest averages for length of life lived out of any western country.... i think its pretty safe to say eating more doesn't = a longer and healthier lived life considering 60% of this country is obese.

Due to gorging and excessive calorie intake. That's an obvious problem.

shiftedshapes claimed that Matt was shortening his lifespan. 

[Earl1972]

I mean bulked up he looked pretty big, but when cut he seemed to lose quite a bit of muscle.

I don't think he did lose muscle

if he did it wasn't much

E

[The_Leafy_Bug]

Due to gorging and excessive calorie intake. That's an obvious problem.

shiftedshapes claimed that Matt was shortening his lifespan. 

Mice fed lower calorie diets live 30% longer then rats fed normal diets. It is the only way to slow down the aging process. Brian Whitacre is the perfect example. The guy is almost 30 and looks 16.

[The_Leafy_Bug]

Your reasoning is not applicable to athletes, because the issue being discussed is calorie intake only, not along with obesity.

Given that a person stays in good shape throughout his life, and maintains a 9 - 13% bf, do you think an average calorie intake of 3000 calories will shorten his life, compared to an average intake of 2000, given that this person can maintan more muscle and be more active + live a better life with 3000 cals a day? (as the person ages, the calorie amount will be reduced)

According to "shiftedShapes", taking in up to 4000 calories a day for an athlete to cover energy expenditure will shorten this athletes lifespan.. 

You are not thinking this through. As long as they are burning what is used i don't think it would be any different then eating less although i haven't seen a study that covered that. Eating less has been proven in mice to make them live longer.

[Master Blaster]

Why is it that study after study shows that diets with a higher percentage of calories from high quality protein result in more muscle tissue accumulation and more body fat loss in individuals engaged in exercise versus a control group?

 

It's like the fuckin X-files or something.

[Krankenstein]

Mice fed lower calorie diets live 30% longer then rats fed normal diets. It is the only way to slow down the aging process. Brian Whitacre is the perfect example. The guy is almost 30 and looks 16.

Once again.....have you seen his diet?  If you did you would see that it debunks your theory and opinion that meal frequency does not matter.

[The_Leafy_Bug]

Once again.....have you seen his diet?  If you did you would see that it debunks your theory and opinion that meal frequency does not matter.

We aren't discussing meal frequency right now. We are discussing that cutting on mcdonalds is just as muscle sparing as cutting on oatmeal and chicken.

[Earl1972]

Brian Whitacre is the perfect example. The guy is almost 30 and looks 16.

haha looking younger than 21 is never a good thing for a guy

E

[The_Leafy_Bug]

Once again.....have you seen his diet?  If you did you would see that it debunks your theory and opinion that meal frequency does not matter.

I am sure he cuts on oatmeal and chicken and everything else clean. I know for a fact because i have read his thread on the OCB board.

[columbusdude82]

Matt C, what do you know about bbing any way.. you probably just have sucky genetics.

I have made great progress following the Adonis principles. I plan on asking Adam if he'll train me for a show next year, but I am not sure if he'll take me.

[pumpher]

Hey Leafy Bug:

1) What stimulus will result in greater absorption and uptake through enterocytes, higher endogenous secretion of insulin, and subsequently a greater anabolic effect in vivo?

A) 100 calorie oral intake of carbohydrates
B) 100 calorie oral intake of lipids

2) You claim "not to lose an ounce of muscle" when dieting to a lower weight. Assuming all your weight loss was comprised of fat & water only (no muscle loss), should you not have the same or greater strength at the lower bodyweight? Please explain.

[The_Leafy_Bug]

I am thinking it through, by questioning the holes in your statements.

That's the point. The excess calories probably shortens lifespan partially because it leads to weightgain and the unhealthy reactions to obesity.

More food = more total insulin is made in the body. Insulin can speed up the cells "replication", thus, speeding aging.

I agree with you that bulking up and down all the time, fattening up like a cow can unhealthy.

But using a few studies on mice and using it to back up a statement such as "MattT is playing with his life" is just plane stupidity. For example: Do you know the different bodycompositions of the 2 mice groups? What about the mice's blood chemistry? Did they find specific chemical indicators in the body that somehow indicated why the low calorie mice lived longer?

Using a study like this without having all details on the table is pushing it. And transfering the findings blindly to humans without knowing the variables involved is even pushing it further.

I think I'm gonna ask Layne Norton

Another question: Where does the limits go? Is it ok to bulk up eating 100 - 200 calories a day more than you burn, and then cut down slowly?

The mice argument is still very weak, because there are so many unanswered questions.

The thing I do agree on is that rapidly trying to change the body will lead to unhealthy side effects. Dieting and gaining very slowly with a long term objective in mind gives the best results in my opinion, and both these objectives requires that one does not deviate to much from the baseline metabolic calorie requirement.

Another aspect is how much one is willing to do to "squeeze out a few extra years"..

[Krankenstein]

Oh wait....high protein/low carb sucks right???

Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression 1 ,2 ,3
James W Krieger1, Harry S Sitren1, Michael J Daniels1 and Bobbi Langkamp-Henken1

1 From the Departments of Food Science and Human Nutrition (JWK, HSS, and BL-H) and of Statistics (MJD), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

2 Supported by the primary investigator (JK). Funding did not come from any outside source.

3 Reprints not available. Address correspondence to J Krieger, University of Florida, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, PO Box 110370, Gainesville, FL 32611-0370. E-mail: jkrieger@ufl.edu.
 
Background: It is unclear whether low-carbohydrate, high-protein, weight-loss diets benefit body mass and composition beyond energy restriction alone.

Objective: The objective was to use meta-regression to determine the effects of variations in protein and carbohydrate intakes on body mass and composition during energy restriction.

Design: English-language studies with a dietary intervention of ≥4200 kJ/d (1000 kcal/d), with a duration of ≥4 wk, and conducted in subjects aged ≥19 y were considered eligible for inclusion. A self-reported intake in conjunction with a biological marker of macronutrient intake was required as a minimum level of dietary control. A total of 87 studies comprising 165 intervention groups met the inclusion criteria.

Results: After control for energy intake, diets consisting of ≤35–41.4% energy from carbohydrate were associated with a 1.74 kg greater loss of body mass, a 0.69 kg greater loss of fat-free mass, a 1.29% greater loss in percentage body fat, and a 2.05 kg greater loss of fat mass than were diets with a higher percentage of energy from carbohydrate. In studies that were conducted for >12 wk, these differences increased to 6.56 kg, 1.74 kg, 3.55%, and 5.57 kg, respectively. Protein intakes of >1.05 g/kg were associated with 0.60 kg additional fat-free mass retention compared with diets with protein intakes ≤1.05 g/kg. In studies conducted for >12 wk, this difference increased to 1.21 kg. No significant effects of protein intake on loss of either body mass or fat mass were observed.

Conclusion: Low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets favorably affect body mass and composition independent of energy intake, which in part supports the proposed metabolic advantage of these diets.

[The_Leafy_Bug]

Hey Leafy Bug:

1) What stimulus will result in greater absorption and uptake through enterocytes, higher endogenous secretion of insulin, and subsequently a greater anabolic effect in vivo?

A) 100 calorie oral intake of carbohydrates
B) 100 calorie oral intake of lipids

2) You claim "not to lose an ounce of muscle" when dieting to a lower weight. Assuming all your weight loss was comprised of fat & water only (no muscle loss), should you not have the same or greater strength at the lower bodyweight? Please explain.

Not neccesarily. Certain lifts can be effected by weight like squats and deadlift. Having a bigger waist aids greatly in these lifts. I did however beat my  bench press and nearly matched my deadlift at a weight that was 60 pounds lighter then what i previously was. I even benched more when i leaned out then i did when i was fat. I think it is fair to say i didn't lose any muscle but im basing this simply by visual appearance. Strength is not an indication of how much muscle one has.

[The_Leafy_Bug]

Oh wait....high protein/low carb sucks right???

Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression 1 ,2 ,3
James W Krieger1, Harry S Sitren1, Michael J Daniels1 and Bobbi Langkamp-Henken1

1 From the Departments of Food Science and Human Nutrition (JWK, HSS, and BL-H) and of Statistics (MJD), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

2 Supported by the primary investigator (JK). Funding did not come from any outside source.

3 Reprints not available. Address correspondence to J Krieger, University of Florida, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, PO Box 110370, Gainesville, FL 32611-0370. E-mail: jkrieger@ufl.edu.
 
Background: It is unclear whether low-carbohydrate, high-protein, weight-loss diets benefit body mass and composition beyond energy restriction alone.

Objective: The objective was to use meta-regression to determine the effects of variations in protein and carbohydrate intakes on body mass and composition during energy restriction.

Design: English-language studies with a dietary intervention of ≥4200 kJ/d (1000 kcal/d), with a duration of ≥4 wk, and conducted in subjects aged ≥19 y were considered eligible for inclusion. A self-reported intake in conjunction with a biological marker of macronutrient intake was required as a minimum level of dietary control. A total of 87 studies comprising 165 intervention groups met the inclusion criteria.

Results: After control for energy intake, diets consisting of ≤35–41.4% energy from carbohydrate were associated with a 1.74 kg greater loss of body mass, a 0.69 kg greater loss of fat-free mass, a 1.29% greater loss in percentage body fat, and a 2.05 kg greater loss of fat mass than were diets with a higher percentage of energy from carbohydrate. In studies that were conducted for >12 wk, these differences increased to 6.56 kg, 1.74 kg, 3.55%, and 5.57 kg, respectively. Protein intakes of >1.05 g/kg were associated with 0.60 kg additional fat-free mass retention compared with diets with protein intakes ≤1.05 g/kg. In studies conducted for >12 wk, this difference increased to 1.21 kg. No significant effects of protein intake on loss of either body mass or fat mass were observed.

Conclusion: Low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets favorably affect body mass and composition independent of energy intake, which in part supports the proposed metabolic advantage of these diets.

lol.... are you even reading your own studies or do you just copy and paste?