What have OMR and Ron Avidan done in bodybuilding? What YOU?!

[Tapeworm]

I get "sir, are you done with that?" at the gym all the time now   I didn't shave for a couple weeks recently and noticed a few grays in the chin area.

I have fooled everyone into thinking they're blonde by affecting a Swedish accent.  On the downside I have to prop up the fiction with a lot of pickled herring in the cupboard.

[MAXX]

I made that one years ago in the 'fat people's willpower'- thread  glad it surfaced again lol

[RUDE BUOY]

yall negros is ghey

[bigmc]

I have fooled everyone into thinking they're blonde by affecting a Swedish accent.  On the downside I have to prop up the fiction with a lot of pickled herring in the cupboard.

 

carry a pair of skis round with you

[Van_Bilderass]

Van what's his name suggested that bodybuilders need more protein that I suggested. Well, it seems to me that the vast majority of muscleheads are not growing.

So any protein they need is for maintenance and that amount is far, far less than what the knuckleheads consume. What a waste of precious resources and money.

I doubt the research done today on protein requirement is worth much since those rich supplement companies might be influencing whatever is done.

This is one of the things that bodybuilders believe. Same as free weights are better than machines. What a bunch of dopes that lift weights. The stereotypes are

alive and well on Getbig.

No, I challenged you to support your claim that 20 grams of protein is enough for anyone at all.
Let's set aside the question of whether bodybuilders need additional protein. Sometimes you seem to have high respect for higher education and science and at other times you say you don't trust the research at all. Which is it? I have shown you that for example the World Health Organization has written reports based on research and given guidelines for protein requirements. This research has nothing to do with supplements or whey protein sales. They aren't selling whey to the poor negros in Africa or the people in Bangladesh or whatever. The concern is with people simply surviving and maintaining health. I also showed you examples of the recommendations of the Australian government. I could give you the recommendations of a number of countries, the US, Sweden where I reside etc. Do you think these recommendations are linked to supplement sales? Really? The government recommendations do not mention supplements at all, in fact  governments are very anti-supplement.

You claim there are some "textbooks" which support your 20g figures. I say there aren't. But you don't want to provide the references.

You are absolutely correct that most bodybuilders aren't growing. Most of the time we are standing still, regressing slighty, gaining back a little. It has to with the very limited amount of muscle the body wants to hold, we can't be growing all the time, no matter what. But let's assume you are in fact in a growth phase. It's only logical that protein requirements will go up, after all muscle doesn't materialize out of thin air. How much more you need is debatable but you seem to be under the assumption that if for example you are gaining 1g of muscle tissue a day then all you need is an additional single gram of protein. It doesn't work like that.

Since I remember you just turned 70 research like this might be interesting to you. 20 grams of high quality protein isn't even enough to maximally stimulate protein synthesis post workout in the elderly. They need double, in a single shot.

Br J Nutr. 2012 Nov 28;108(10):1780-8. doi: 10.1017/S0007114511007422. Epub 2012 Feb 7.
Resistance exercise enhances myofibrillar protein synthesis with graded intakes of whey protein in older men.
Yang Y, Breen L, Burd NA, Hector AJ, Churchward-Venne TA, Josse AR, Tarnopolsky MA, Phillips SM.
Source

Exercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1.
Abstract

Feeding stimulates robust increases in muscle protein synthesis (MPS); however, ageing may alter the anabolic response to protein ingestion and the subsequent aminoacidaemia. With this as background, we aimed to determine in the present study the dose-response of MPS with the ingestion of isolated whey protein, with and without prior resistance exercise, in the elderly. For the purpose of this study, thirty-seven elderly men (age 71 (sd 4) years) completed a bout of unilateral leg-based resistance exercise before ingesting 0, 10, 20 or 40 g of whey protein isolate (W0-W40, respectively). Infusion of l-[1-13C]leucine and l-[ring-13C6]phenylalanine with bilateral vastus lateralis muscle biopsies were used to ascertain whole-body leucine oxidation and 4 h post-protein consumption of MPS in the fed-state of non-exercised and exercised leg muscles. It was determined that whole-body leucine oxidation increased in a stepwise, dose-dependent manner. MPS increased above basal, fasting values by approximately 65 and 90 % for W20 and W40, respectively (P < 0·05), but not with lower doses of whey. While resistance exercise was generally effective at stimulating MPS, W20 and W40 ingestion post-exercise increased MPS above W0 and W10 exercised values (P < 0·05) and W40 was greater than W20 (P < 0·05). Based on the study, the following conclusions were drawn. At rest, the optimal whey protein dose for non-frail older adults to consume, to increase myofibrillar MPS above fasting rates, was 20 g. Resistance exercise increases MPS in the elderly at all protein doses, but to a greater extent with 40 g of whey ingestion. These data suggest that, in contrast to younger adults, in whom post-exercise rates of MPS are saturated with 20 g of protein, exercised muscles of older adults respond to higher protein doses.

A summary of a review of research:

Ageing is associated with a blunted muscle protein synthetic response to anabolic stimuli, i.e. feeding and resistance exercise. However, dietary and exercise interventions may prevent or slow sarcopenic muscle loss. First, we stress the importance of ingesting sufficient protein with each meal for older adults. Specifically, given the blunted sensitivity of older muscles to low doses of amino acids, a dietary plan that includes at least 20 g and as high as 30 g of high quality protein per meal will provide sufficient essential amino acids, particularly leucine, required to elicit a robust acute muscle protein synthetic response above that seen at rest, thereby promoting the accretion of muscle protein over time. Secondly, we advise the use of resistance exercise in the elderly to induce hypertrophy, improve strength and improve physical function. In older adults who are not restricted by physical disability, frequent high-intensity weight lifting will increase lean muscle mass. Alternatively, low-intensity high volume weight lifting may also promote an adaptive response in the elderly provided the working muscle is sufficiently 'stressed' (i.e. via blood flow restriction to the muscle or lifting to failure). Finally, utilizing resistance exercise and protein ingestion concurrently will promote an optimal anabolic response than either stimulus alone and should be an important consideration for clinicians and patients alike. However, in order to maximize the anabolic potential of prior resistance exercise, the elderly may require more protein (~40 g) than the young (~20 g). Further work is required in order to delineate the most appropriate feeding strategies to augment resistance exercise adaptation in the elderly.

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/8/1/68

[titusisback]

Nutrition and training expert

[Hulkotron]

You are not eating enough greens.

I think I need more orange clay from roughly a two-foot depth in my diet.

[Vince B]

Nordic Nerd proves my point. None of the studies cited remotely involve bodybuilding and maximum hypertrophy. It is a subject that science is not at all interested in. QED.

[Vince B]

Van Bilderass demonstrates very little as well. If bodybuilders ate a balanced diet there is no need for ingesting large amounts of additional protein via supplements. I stated that 50 grams a day is closer to the requirement than 1 or 2 grams per pound of body weight.

[NordicNerd]

Nordic Nerd proves my point. None of the studies cited remotely involve bodybuilding and maximum hypertrophy. It is a subject that science is not at all interested in. QED.

You are wrong. Just use the search terms and see for yourself. There are studies on hypertrophy as related to rep ranges, sets, pauses between sets, rep cadence, dietary factors etc. See these few examples:

J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Apr;24(4):1150-9. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d4d436.
Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle hypertrophy: a meta-analysis.
Krieger JW.
Source
Journal of Pure Power, Colorado Springs, CO, USA. jim@jopp.us
Abstract
Previous meta-analyses have compared the effects of single to multiple sets on strength, but analyses on muscle hypertrophy are lacking. The purpose of this study was to use multilevel meta-regression to compare the effects of single and multiple sets per exercise on muscle hypertrophy. The analysis comprised 55 effect sizes (ESs), nested within 19 treatment groups and 8 studies. Multiple sets were associated with a larger ES than a single set (difference = 0.10 +/- 0.04; confidence interval [CI]: 0.02, 0.19; p = 0.016). In a dose-response model, there was a trend for 2-3 sets per exercise to be associated with a greater ES than 1 set (difference = 0.09 +/- 0.05; CI: -0.02, 0.20; p = 0.09), and a trend for 4-6 sets per exercise to be associated with a greater ES than 1 set (difference = 0.20 +/- 0.11; CI: -0.04, 0.43; p = 0.096). Both of these trends were significant when considering permutation test p values (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between 2-3 sets per exercise and 4-6 sets per exercise (difference = 0.10 +/- 0.10; CI: -0.09, 0.30; p = 0.29). There was a tendency for increasing ESs for an increasing number of sets (0.24 for 1 set, 0.34 for 2-3 sets, and 0.44 for 4-6 sets). Sensitivity analysis revealed no highly influential studies that affected the magnitude of the observed differences, but one study did slightly influence the level of significance and CI width. No evidence of publication bias was observed. In conclusion, multiple sets are associated with 40% greater hypertrophy-related ESs than 1 set, in both trained and untrained subjects.

J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2011 Oct 27;8(1):17. doi: 10.1186/1550-2783-8-17.
Strength and hypertrophy responses to constant and decreasing rest intervals in trained men using creatine supplementation.
Souza-Junior TP, Willardson JM, Bloomer R, Leite RD, Fleck SJ, Oliveira PR, Simão R.
Source
Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. tacitojr@ufpr.br.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of the current study was to compare strength and hypertrophy responses to resistance training programs that instituted constant rest intervals (CI) and decreasing rest intervals (DI) between sets over the course of eight weeks by trained men who supplemented with creatine monohydrate (CR).
METHODS:
Twenty-two recreationally trained men were randomly assigned to a CI group (n = 11; 22.3 ± 1 years; 77.7 ± 5.4 kg; 180 ± 2.2 cm) or a DI group (n = 11; 22 ± 2.5 years; 75.8 ± 4.9 kg; 178.8 ± 3.4 cm). Subjects in both groups supplemented with CR; the only difference between groups was the rest interval instituted between sets; the CI group used 2 minutes rest intervals between sets and exercises for the entire 8-weeks of training, while the DI group started with a 2 minute rest interval the first two weeks; after which the rest interval between sets was decreased 15 seconds per week (i.e. 2 minutes decreasing to 30 seconds between sets). Pre- and post-intervention maximal strength for the free weight back squat and bench press exercises and isokinetic peak torque were assessed for the knee extensors and flexors. Additionally, muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) of the right thigh and upper arm was measured using magnetic resonance imaging.
RESULTS:
Both groups demonstrated significant increases in back squat and bench press maximal strength, knee extensor and flexor isokinetic peak torque, and upper arm and right thigh CSA from pre- to post-training (p ≤ 0.0001); however, there were no significant differences between groups for any of these variables. The total volume for the bench press and back squat were significantly greater for CI group versus the DI group.
CONCLUSIONS:
We report that the combination of CR supplementation and resistance training can increase muscular strength, isokinetic peak torque, and muscle CSA, irrespective of the rest interval length between sets. Because the volume of training was greater for the CI group versus the DI group, yet strength gains were similar, the creatine supplementation appeared to bolster adaptations for the DI group, even in the presence of significantly less volume. However, further research is needed with the inclusion of a control group not receiving supplementation combined and resistance training with decreasing rest intervals to further elucidate such hypotheses.

J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Jul;24(7):1843-50. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181ddae4a.
Comparison between constant and decreasing rest intervals: influence on maximal strength and hypertrophy.
de Souza TP Jr, Fleck SJ, Simão R, Dubas JP, Pereira B, de Brito Pacheco EM, da Silva AC, de Oliveira PR.
Source
Faculty of Physical Education of Santos, Metropolitan University of Santos, Santos, Brazil.
Abstract
Most resistance training programs use constant rest period lengths between sets and exercises, but some programs use decreasing rest period lengths as training progresses. The aim of this study was to compare the effect on strength and hypertrophy of 8 weeks of resistance training using constant rest intervals (CIs) and decreasing rest intervals (DIs) between sets and exercises. Twenty young men recreationally trained in strength training were randomly assigned to either a CI or DI training group. During the first 2 weeks of training, 3 sets of 10-12 repetition maximum (RM) with 2-minute rest intervals between sets and exercises were performed by both groups. During the next 6 weeks of training, the CI group trained using 2 minutes between sets and exercises (4 sets of 8-10RM), and the DI group trained with DIs (2 minutes decreasing to 30 seconds) as the 6 weeks of training progressed (4 sets of 8-10RM). Total training volume of the bench press and squat were significantly lower for the DI compared to the CI group (bench press 9.4%, squat 13.9%) and weekly training volume of these same exercises was lower in the DI group from weeks 6 to 8 of training. Strength (1RM) in the bench press and squat, knee extensor and flexor isokinetic measures of peak torque, and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) using magnetic resonance imaging were assessed pretraining and posttraining. No significant differences (p < or = 0.05) were shown between the CI and DI training protocols for CSA (arm 13.8 vs. 14.5%, thigh 16.6 vs. 16.3%), 1RM (bench press 28 vs. 37%, squat 34 vs. 34%), and isokinetic peak torque. In conclusion, the results indicate that a training protocol with DI is just as effective as a CI protocol over short training periods (6 weeks) for increasing maximal strength and muscle CSA; thus, either type of program can be used over a short training period to cause strength and hypertrophy.



Eur J Appl Physiol. 2013 Apr;113(4):975-85. doi: 10.1007/s00421-012-2511-9. Epub 2012 Oct 6.
Comparison of muscle hypertrophy following 6-month of continuous and periodic strength training.
Ogasawara R, Yasuda T, Ishii N, Abe T.
Source
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan. riki.ogasawara@gmail.com
Abstract
To compare the effects of a periodic resistance training (PTR) program with those of a continuous resistance training (CTR) program on muscle size and function, 14 young men were randomly divided into a CTR group and a PTR group. Both groups performed high-intensity bench press exercise training [75 % of one repetition maximum (1-RM); 3 sets of 10 reps] for 3 days per week. The CTR group trained continuously over a 24-week period, whereas the PTR group performed three cycles of 6-week training (or retraining), with 3-week detraining periods between training cycles. After an initial 6 weeks of training, increases in cross-sectional area (CSA) of the triceps brachii and pectoralis major muscles and maximum isometric voluntary contraction of the elbow extensors and 1-RM were similar between the two groups. In the CTR group, muscle CSA and strength gradually increased during the initial 6 weeks of training. However, the rate of increase in muscle CSA and 1-RM decreased gradually after that. In the PTR group, increase in muscle CSA and strength during the first 3-week detraining/6-week retraining cycle were similar to that in the CTR group during the corresponding period. However, increase in muscle CSA and strength during the second 3-week detraining/6-week retraining cycle were significantly higher in the PTR group than in the CTR group. Thus, overall improvements in muscle CSA and strength were similar between the groups. The results indicate that 3-week detraining/6-week retraining cycles result in muscle hypertrophy similar to that occurring with continuous resistance training after 24 weeks.

J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Jan;27(1):8-13. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182679215.
Effects of training volume on strength and hypertrophy in young men.
Sooneste H, Tanimoto M, Kakigi R, Saga N, Katamoto S.
Source
Graduate School of Health and Sports Science, Juntendo University, Inzai City, Japan. heikijapan@gmail.com
Abstract
Knowledge of the effects of training volume on upper limb muscular strength and hypertrophy is rather limited. In this study, both arms of the same subject were trained in a crossover-like design with different training volumes (1 or 3 sets) to eliminate the effects of genetic variation and other individual differences. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of training volume on muscular strength and hypertrophy in sedentary, untrained young Japanese men. Eight subjects (age, 25.0 ± 2.1 years; body mass, 64.2 ± 7.9 kg; height, 171.7 ± 5.1 cm) were recruited. The subjects trained their elbow flexor muscles twice per week for 12 consecutive weeks using a seated dumbbell preacher curl. The arms were randomly assigned to training with 1 or 3 sets. The training weight was set at 80% of 1 repetition maximum for all sets. The 3-set protocol increased cross-sectional area significantly more than did 1 set (1 set, 8.0 ± 3.7%; 3 sets, 13.3 ± 3.6%, p < 0.05). Furthermore, gains in strength with the 3-set protocol tended to be greater than those with 1 set (1 set, 20.4 ± 21.6%; 3 sets, 31.7 ± 22.0%, p = 0.076). Based on the results, the authors recommend 3 sets for sedentary untrained individuals. However, this population should incorporate light training days of 1 set into their training program to prevent overtraining and ensure adherence. The findings are relevant for the sedentary, untrained young male population and must be interpreted within the context of this study.





NN

[Mr Nobody]

Van Bilderass demonstrates very little as well. If bodybuilders ate a balanced diet there is no need for ingesting large amounts of additional protein via supplements. I stated that 50 grams a day is closer to the requirement than 1 or 2 grams per pound of body weight.

I agree, but Goodrum advises more maybe due to business interests.

[OneMoreRep]

Nordic Nerd proves my point. None of the studies cited remotely involve bodybuilding and maximum hypertrophy. It is a subject that science is not at all interested in. QED.

You are able to read, are you not?

Vince, many of the studies he posted deal directly with resistance training (which is the core of any bodybuilding regimen) and induced hypertrophy. You must have not read through that exhaustive list of over 100 studies that NN posted.

"1"

[Van_Bilderass]

Van Bilderass demonstrates very little as well. If bodybuilders ate a balanced diet there is no need for ingesting large amounts of additional protein via supplements. I stated that 50 grams a day is closer to the requirement than 1 or 2 grams per pound of body weight.

You maybe said 50 grams at some point but you did also say 20 grams. The WHO recommendation,
along with the recommendations of many government institutions is about 0.8g/kg or 0.36g/lb.
This is still more than 50 grams for the average adult male, and you're still not taking into account the hypertrophy the bodybuilder hopes to achieve. The RDA is just for normal health.

Sure, I think many bodybuilders may eat too much protein but that wasn't my point. My point was that you were exaggerating and refuse to admit it.  

How much bodybuilders need is debatable but there is some research that suggests that something like 1.5g/lb might be beneficial in some athletes, in some circumstances. And since eating a lot of protein is probably not harmful it might be that eating more than needed is a good strategy sometimes. Kind of like insurance.

[Vince B]

You are able to read, are you not?

Vince, many of the studies he posted deal directly with resistance training (which is the core of any bodybuilding regimen) and induced hypertrophy. You must have not read through that exhaustive list of over 100 studies that NN posted.

"1"

Give me a break. I never make jokes about hypertrophy. I am not interested in what they call resistance training. I am interested in maximum hypertrophy. This process takes years and years to obtain. The phenomenon of maximum hypertrophy in humans has never been studied.

[Vince B]

You maybe said 50 grams at some point but you did also say 20 grams. The WHO recommendation,
along with the recommendations of many government institutions is about 0.8g/kg or 0.36g/lb.
This is still more than 50 grams for the average adult male, and you're still not taking into account the hypertrophy the bodybuilder hopes to achieve. The RDA is just for normal health.

Sure, I think many bodybuilders may eat too much protein but that wasn't my point. My point was that you were exaggerating and refuse to admit it.  

How much bodybuilders need is debatable but there is some research that suggests that something like 1.5g/lb might be beneficial in some athletes, in some circumstances. And since eating a lot of protein is probably not harmful it might be that eating more than needed is a good strategy sometimes. Kind of like insurance.

So much that bodybuilders do is based on former practices handed down by word of mouth and what is written in muscle magazines and books. The magazines, collectively, are sponsored by supplement advertising so those ads distort and greatly exaggerate the nutrition requirements of bodybuilders.

The problem is that most musclemen ingest more than is required just to make sure they get enough. Has anyone actually tried to see what the minimum is? Ingesting more than is necessary is a waste of expensive protein. Bodybuilders concern themselves more with sufficiency than necessity. I am interested in necessity and limits. Mike Mentzer and Arthur Jones wrote about the myths and foolishness in bodybuilding and those two were well informed and intelligent individuals.

I argue that drugs are not necessary to get large muscles. I know it is true but most of the flotsam here literally do not believe me. Belief doesn't make something true. I prefer to believe what I found to be true through personal experimenting and results.

[Roger Bacon]

Blue Stars and an unbanned account at Ironage....where's yours at....oh that's right you don't have any.....too bad.   

Basile even gets owned by Goodrum, he is truly at the very bottom of the totem pole!!

[booty]

Give me a break. I never make jokes about hypertrophy. I am not interested in what they call resistance training. I am interested in maximum hypertrophy. This process takes years and years to obtain. The phenomenon of maximum hypertrophy in humans has never been studied.

This post is very fucked up.   

[titusisback]

I am interested in necessity and limits.

Any plans to apply that to your personal eating habits? It's clear that you're eating well above your calorie requirements.

[Vince B]

LOL. When I was much younger I taught high school PE, ran my gym at night and then had a work out. In the years from 15 to 30 I had trouble eating enough to grow. Especially when starting out. That is the problem most young guys have. They need more calories and not more protein. What a shame they learn rubbish from the start about the necessity of supplements.

As I got older I found myself not being as active. I don't particularly eat that much and often miss lunch or breakfast. The fact is we don't need as many calories in old age.

One day I will be motivated to show you guys and actually start training consistently again!

What you?

[Vince B]

Mike Mentzer's alleged intelligence is very much overstated. I was impressed with some of it when I was younger but when one reads it with a truly critical eye, it doesn't hold up. Also, his training videos on YouTube make him come across as a deranged lunatic. 

No, Mike Mentzer was way above average in intelligence. He was one of the few writers to incorporate a consistent philosophy of life throughout his articles and books. That can't be done by knuckleheads. After placing out of the top three in 1980 he became somewhat deranged via drugs and more or less was never the same again. What you see in his last videos was a shell of the former bright Mike.

[dr.chimps]

Give me a break. I never make jokes about hypertrophy. I am not interested in what they call resistance training. I am interested in maximum hypertrophy. This process takes years and years to obtain. The phenomenon of maximum hypertrophy in humans has never been studied.

Pretty sure that when someone posts up maximum hypertrophy studies, ol' Vince will say he really meant super-maximum hypertrophy.

[Vince B]

This post is very fucked up.   

No, Booty, it just sounds odd. Of course I am interested in all facets of hypertrophy and research done. It is just a fact that there have been no studies on Mr Olympias. What is the composition of their muscles? No one knows. How does one train to obtain maximum size in his muscles. It remains hearsay and not science. Of course, I exclude the drugs from the equation but that is also a separate inquiry that is of interest to me.

That is why there remains total confusion about training and in the vacuum just about everyone steps in as an expert.

[Vince B]

Pretty sure that when someone posts up maximum hypertrophy studies, ol' Vince will say he really meant super-maximum hypertrophy.

Nice try doctor. Either there are studies re maximum human hypertrophy or there are none. I haven't seen any so what you?

[chaos]

Old fat bastard talking alot of gibberish in this thread.

[Vince B]

Basile even gets owned by Goodrum, he is truly at the very bottom of the totem pole!!

I own that buffoon and he knows it. Since he is part female the only way he knows how to get even is to fabricate bullshit to try to discredit me.

The unthinking flotsam read what that dork says and believe it. Amazing. The only reason Goodrum isn't being sued is because he doesn't have

enough assets to make it worthwhile.