A RECENT MEMBERS Consultation with LEE HANEY

[The True Adonis]

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!

[TooPowerful4u]

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. 

[Dingleberry]

{BURP} whoops, sorry bout that. I just consumed a mega-protein shake mixed with glutamine and creatine. Carry on.

[donrhummy]

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.

[pumpher]

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.

[Hedgehog]

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:

[dr.chimps]

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. 

[TooPowerful4u]

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! 

[natural al]

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.

[The True Adonis]

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.

[onlyme]

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.

[The True Adonis]

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.

[affy]

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'

[War-Horse]

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.

[The True Adonis]

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.

[The True Adonis]

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.

[The True Adonis]

I am about to post my meal from Last night!

We drank a 90 dollar bottle of wine last night.

[Always Sore]

Ok could be me but why do you have pictures of your meals?

[The True Adonis]

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.

[The True Adonis]

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.

[Always Sore]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[Mike]

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

[The True Adonis]

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.

[The True Adonis]

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?