Spotlight Fitness Club

[Germaine]

Firstly I am no expert or nutritionist but I have been training for 10+ years and when I started I took some advice from the guy that owned the gym where I first started training. He was a competing pro body builder and new his stuff from the diet all the way to substances ( if you choose that route ). He first said a massive part is genetics. Take a look at your parents and grandparents and this will give you a little insight on the goals you may or may not achieve. Diet is just as important as the training itself but you don't want to over complicate this with facts and figures because "conditioning" seems to have replaced "bodybuilding" these days creating products and bull**** leading us to believe it all works. He said there are few rules to follow. Training wise always use full range of motion and rep out to failure, its only the last few reps that really do the damage. Never neglect to train your legs as this stimulates the growth for the rest of your body. Vary the exercise because you will become stronger at what you do all the time but weaker at the things you don't. Diet wise I would forget all the rocket science and just keep it clean. 6 meals per day consumed every 3 hours ( supplements are ok but not as good as food ). 1.5 grams of protein per kg of body weight per day if your looking to pack on some muscle. As for the cardio debate yes if you need to trim up but always start with 10 mins or so to warm the tendons purely as a safety aspect. If your going to do a diet that strips a lot of food out then up the protein intake or you will lose size. Remember we are all different. Ive trained with guys that ate crap and grew in front of my eyes in the gym. One last tip and the best one of all is rest when your not training and plenty of it.

I'd ignore everything this guy just said.....

6 meals a day?
Train to failure?
Only last reps count?
Clean eating?
Vary exercise?

So much wrong with this.

 

[kimajy]

Okay, first off, forget about ecto, endo & meso. They don't have any real world application. You can easily change from one to the other.

Sorry Germaine but now it's you who seem to be talking a wee bit of bollox. Deepseadiver is not an ectomorph ... he mixes with far too many beefcakes and thinks he is thin but in reality he is a perfectly normal guy lol.

I am a different story - a true 'ecto' .... small wrists and ankles, skinny as f*ck, 62kg lifetime peak weight at 5' 7", eat 3,000+ calories per day most days, don't do excessive cardio exercise (sometimes hardly any), can train very hard progressively 3 times a week (with trainer) with plenty of protein and also cals during exercise and still take 3 months to put on 3kg. I'll lose that weight in 7-10 days if I stop gymming it and revert to my "normal state" which I've been at for pushing 25 years. The physio bods blame it on my eating as apparently that must be the reason I don't gain more bulk for the programmes I've done - the real truth is my body doesn't want to and I now can't be a*sed to try to force something which isn't a natural sustainable state.

I simply do not have the genetics to bulk up significantly - unless perhaps if I pumped myself full of steroids which is a daft thing to do. However on the plus I also don't store fat easily ... and I'm pretty much now officially middle aged. So those body types do have a real world application. Retaining fat round the middle is something which often accompanies ageing and lower testosterone levels. If you're pre-disposed to it then excess calories will end up there. Simples.

 

[Moondust]

I'd ignore everything this guy just said.....

6 meals a day?
Train to failure?
Only last reps count?
Clean eating?
Vary exercise?

So much wrong with this.

How i trained and what i ate today : -

Breakfast : Porridge oats & raisins with skimmed milk + protein shake + banana

Gym : shoulder work out : 10 min cycle warm up.

: Machine shoulder press ( 90kg ) 3 sets ( 12 reps 10 reps 8 reps all to fail )
: Dumbell shoulder press ( 30kg each ) 3 sets ( 10 reps 8 reps 8 reps to fail )
: Machine Incline shoulder press ( 70kg ) 3 sets ( 10 reps 9 reps 8 reps )
: Front raises with bar ( lightweight 10kg strict reps 3 sets to fail )
: Side dumbell raises ( 15k 10kg 3 drop sets to fail )
: Rear delt raises : ( 15kg 3 sets to fail )
: Ab work out
: Post workout protein shake
Lunch : Grilled chicken with brown pasta
Snack : Tuna and wholewheat pitta
Dinner : Turkey breast with brown rice
Evening : cashew nuts & protein shake.

Instead of telling everyone to ignore me where am i going wrong????????????

 

[Germaine]

Sorry Germaine but now it's you who seem to be talking a wee bit of bollox. Deepseadiver is not an ectomorph ... he mixes with far too many beefcakes and thinks he is thin but in reality he is a perfectly normal guy lol.

I am a different story - a true 'ecto' .... small wrists and ankles, skinny as f*ck, 62kg lifetime peak weight at 5' 7", eat 3,000+ calories per day most days, don't do excessive cardio exercise (sometimes hardly any), can train very hard progressively 3 times a week (with trainer) with plenty of protein and also cals during exercise and still take 3 months to put on 3kg. I'll lose that weight in 7-10 days if I stop gymming it and revert to my "normal state" which I've been at for pushing 25 years. The physio bods blame it on my eating as apparently that must be the reason I don't gain more bulk for the programmes I've done - the real truth is my body doesn't want to and I now can't be a*sed to try to force something which isn't a natural sustainable state.

I simply do not have the genetics to bulk up significantly - unless perhaps if I pumped myself full of steroids which is a daft thing to do. However on the plus I also don't store fat easily ... and I'm pretty much now officially middle aged. So those body types do have a real world application. Retaining fat round the middle is something which often accompanies ageing and lower testosterone levels. If you're pre-disposed to it then excess calories will end up there. Simples.

Solution = Count calories and eat more. Obviously if you stop lifting and go back to eating lower calories you will the weight you put on. Ecto = someone who doesn't eat enough. Somatotypes are bollox.

Instead of telling everyone to ignore me where am i going wrong????????????

Okay.

1. There's no need to eat 6x a day. There is no metabolic advantage to this. You can eat once a day or 6x a day, and your metabolism will be the same.

2. Training to failure is not a very efficient way to train. It can be a useful tool in training occasionally but training to failure every time is not smart. Training close to failure however is good.

3. ALL reps count, not only the last few. Once you lift anything 85%+ of your 1RM all of your muscle fibres get recruited from the very first rep. Only if you are messing around with a weight that is too light will the last reps matter. If that's the case, lift some heavier weights....

4. "Clean" eating is stupid. It has no definition. It varies from person to person. It is subjective. There are no healthy or unhealthy foods per se outside the context of the diet as a whole.

5. There is little to no merit to varying exercises. Stick to the ones that work. Big, heavy compounds. Stick to them and progressively overload them. That's how you grow. You want the muscles to adapt. Adapting means getting bigger and stronger.

6. Training a body part once a week is less efficient than 2-3x a week. You will make slower progress giving each body part its own day insread of something like full body 3x week or Upper/Lower split or Push/Pull split.

 

[kimajy]

Solution = Count calories and eat more. Obviously if you stop lifting and go back to eating lower calories you will the weight you put on. Ecto = someone who doesn't eat enough. Somatotypes are bollox.

Bullsh*t. If I stop lifting I do not go back to eating lower calories - I have just as much.... and lose weight owing to muscle atrophy. If you are telling me that I burn 3,000 - 3,500 calories per day leading a regular not particularly active life and I am not eating enough then frankly you're woefully blinkered and completely out of touch with how some peoples' real bodies work rather than your lab theories and generalized science.

I have lived with my body for nearly 40 years. Whether I eat 1,700 or 3,500 calories per day makes virtually no difference to my stable weight. It zeros in on its natural level and can only be deviated from that on a very temporary basis through muscle building. So something is happening which none of your a=b equations actually explain or rationalize. The body is clearly doing something to cause this and no so-called expert or scientist has been able to explain it to me.

Somatotypes = not bollox. Some people bulk up easy others very much not so for the same effort. Others get fat easy whereas people like me can basically eat twice an average guy's recommended daily calories and it makes very little difference to my weight (fat or otherwise).

Big bones = beefcake or fattie. Little bones = skinny f*cker. It's determined when you are born - only steriods, testosterone, human growth hormone etc. will stimulate body to break type at the extremes.

 

[Germaine]

Whether I eat 1,700 or 3,500 calories per day makes virtually no difference to my stable weight.

Yeah, you can defy Laws of physics.....

Somatotypes were first suggested by psychologist William Sheldon in the 40s. He published his “findings” in 1954. He concluded on the three body types by looking at thousands of pictures of people and classifying them based on how their appearance made him feel. There is no scientific basis to this, just the feelings and observations of a psychologist.

Describing yourself by one of the three somatotypes is just a limiting belief and a rationalization for failure. The top skills someone training needs, regardless of goals, is accountability and consistency. If you don't have a general idea of how much you're eating or how much you're progressing you're just going to be stuck treadmilling in the same spot, going nowhere.

"Somatotypes are a myth and is a theory that has long been discredited. Of course different people and races have different body tendencies but the fact is: Most people are a "combination" of these three, which begs thequestion of why there are three types that very few people fall exclusively under? Also, muscularity seems to completely skew these "bodytypes" since it can often depend more on the training/nutrition aspect as well as lifestyle rather than the genetic.

Look at Brock Lesnar for example. He is really thick and clearly has a natural propensity to add muscle (meso). Yet at the same time he's tall and has really long limbs too (ecto) and a huge torso and waist (endo)"

" somatotyping is, generally speaking, garbage" - Lyle McDonald

If somatotypes are not Bull, then prove it.

 

[craig72]

 

[kimajy]

Yeah, you can defy Laws of physics.....

Somatotypes were first suggested by psychologist William Sheldon in the 40s. He published his “findings” in 1954. He concluded on the three body types by looking at thousands of pictures of people and classifying them based on how their appearance made him feel. There is no scientific basis to this, just the feelings and observations of a psychologist.

Describing yourself by one of the three somatotypes is just a limiting belief and a rationalization for failure. The top skills someone training needs, regardless of goals, is accountability and consistency. If you don't have a general idea of how much you're eating or how much you're progressing you're just going to be stuck treadmilling in the same spot, going nowhere.

"Somatotypes are a myth and is a theory that has long been discredited. Of course different people and races have different body tendencies but the fact is: Most people are a "combination" of these three, which begs thequestion of why there are three types that very few people fall exclusively under? Also, muscularity seems to completely skew these "bodytypes" since it can often depend more on the training/nutrition aspect as well as lifestyle rather than the genetic.

Look at Brock Lesnar for example. He is really thick and clearly has a natural propensity to add muscle (meso). Yet at the same time he's tall and has really long limbs too (ecto) and a huge torso and waist (endo)"

" somatotyping is, generally speaking, garbage" - Lyle McDonald

If somatotypes are not Bull, then prove it.

So you still haven't explained why my body does not store excess calories and what it does with it or how my weight stays stable when I cut them over such a huge range. Biological responses are a great deal more complex than a simple linear relationship between calories in the mouth and calories stored. My guess is that you have no answers, just like most of the other so-called self-styled experts who think they know it all but discredit each other every 5 minutes and contradict themselves every few years lol. There is no point thinking people are lying when they report things which don't conform to your limited understanding of the complexities of the human body.

The typing is actually very useful as a broad categorization but in every category in many things there are exceptions, particularly in the biological sphere of life. As a broad typing I think it's pretty useful actually and far more relevant than the alternative you seem to be proposing which is that everyone is the same and if the way their bodies respond to nutrient and stimulus are not what you think they should be then then they must be talking sh*t. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea where you think you get off. But in this sense you're talking as much complete boloney as I've heard anyone else talk on this matter lol. Credibility rating just sank into minus numbers Germaine. Sorry !

 

[Germaine]

So you still haven't explained why my body does not store excess calories

It does...... Again, you can't defy the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Grouping everybody into 3 categories is downright retarded. You are not restricted to one category. You never will be. Yes, people have different bone structures, ligament/tendon lengths, muscle bellies, etc and it's why everyone looks different at different BF %, but it is quite easy to jump from one category to another. Fat people lose weight all the time. Skinny people bulk up all the time. People who use to be skinny get fat.

You are the one saying there are somatotypes, thus, the burden of proof lies with you. Prove it.....

 

[kimajy]

It does...... Again, you can't defy the Laws of Thermodynamics.

What on earth have thermodynamics got to do with the scenario posed to you ?

You can tell me I can;t defy whatever you like but the facts are the facts. I have given you the observations - if you are anything like a scientist it is up to you to give me the explanation no the other way around. You cannot tell me I MUST be putting on weight or MUST lose it when I f*cking well don't !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You lot are all the same - all theories but no answers.

Grouping everybody into 3 categories is downright retarded. You are not restricted to one category. You never will be. Yes, people have different bone structures, ligament/tendon lengths, muscle bellies, etc and it's why everyone looks different at different BF %, but it is quite easy to jump from one category to another. Fat people lose weight all the time. Skinny people bulk up all the time. People who use to be skinny get fat.

You are the one saying there are somatotypes, thus, the burden of proof lies with you. Prove it.....

I don't have to prove anything it is you who are uncomfortable with the general categorization which is there as a guide and not as a rule. Fine a person my jump from one category to another especially when they are on the margin, stuff their faces with cornish pasties and cream all day or get old and fat when their hormone balances change.. we all know what triggers muscle bulking and what stimulates fat bellies in men and big a*ses in women. The body makes the very chemicals which trigger these changes and the timing at which those changes occur is genetically controlled. Diet plays a role (e.g. avoiding excess calorie consumption) but the simple truth seems to be that it's as much hormones as food which regulate body responses. So unless you mess with your hormones there is only so much you can expect to do. Hormone interactions and effects are still not well understood by the scientific community so I am not surprised they seem to dodge the importance of this.

.... and you can say what you like about typing but I will tell you something for sure - if you have Mo Farah's bone structure and genetics you are never going to look like Sylvester Stallone however much gymming it you do... so stop misleading people with generalized equations that only seem to apply to fat Westerners trying to lose weight (dieting being a phenomenon I only really came across after moving to Europe). No-one is saying every person is 100% in one category with 'typing'. But it's a useful guide to help understand where a person fits, roughly, as a rough guide as to what to expect. That is all most thinking people take from it and then use that as a starting point to understand a little more about themselves and how to look after their own bodies.

I've seen pretty much nothing helpful from your posts to people working through a good nutritional approach to their circumstances and goals. Just a load of cannons fired in all directions and a blinkered conviction that the only thing which matters is calorie counting. I can tell you for sure that is NO WAY the end of the story when it comes to weight management. However I think you are like so many other "scientists" - rather like our ancestors when they thought the world was flat - and only able to consider the world with reference to the studies you and your colleagues have conducted. Well, what about those yet to be conducted and as yet undiscovered ? Meaningless until they are ... to you at least. I've yet to speak to a nutritionist who has been in any way helpful in weight management. Load of old c*ck - on a great deal of fronts !

 

[Germaine]

What on earth have thermodynamics got to do with the scenario posed to you ?

You can tell me I can;t defy whatever you like but the facts are the facts. I have given you the observations - if you are anything like a scientist it is up to you to give me the explanation no the other way around. You cannot tell me I MUST be putting on weight or MUST lose it when I f*cking well don't !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You lot are all the same - all theories but no answers.

Lol.

The Laws of Thermodynamics have everything to do with it.... Do more research and develop a bit more knowledge on the subject if you wish to continue "discussing" it.

Facts are facts and Laws are Laws.

Lol. You obviously have no idea how science works. YOU make a claim, therefore YOU have to prove it.

The Laws of Thermodynamics are not theories... They are LAWS.

Science isn't all theories. You must have no serious knowledge on this subject. Science develops theories or hypothesis'. These are then tested in controlled environments. Results are recorder and conclusions drawn. The research then proceeds under peer-review scrutiny and other researchers further test the hypothesis.

 

[Germaine]

I don't have to prove anything it is you who are uncomfortable with the general categorization which is there as a guide and not as a rule. Fine a person my jump from one category to another especially when they are on the margin, stuff their faces with cornish pasties and cream all day or get old and fat when their hormone balances change.. we all know what triggers muscle bulking and what stimulates fat bellies in men and big a*ses in women. The body makes the very chemicals which trigger these changes and the timing at which those changes occur is genetically controlled. Diet plays a role (e.g. avoiding excess calorie consumption) but the simple truth seems to be that it's as much hormones as food which regulate body responses. So unless you mess with your hormones there is only so much you can expect to do. Hormone interactions and effects are still not well understood by the scientific community so I am not surprised they seem to dodge the importance of this.

.... and you can say what you like about typing but I will tell you something for sure - if you have Mo Farah's bone structure and genetics you are never going to look like Sylvester Stallone however much gymming it you do... so stop misleading people with generalized equations that only seem to apply to fat Westerners trying to lose weight (dieting being a phenomenon I only really came across after moving to Europe). No-one is saying every person is 100% in one category with 'typing'. But it's a useful guide to help understand where a person fits, roughly, as a rough guide as to what to expect. That is all most thinking people take from it and then use that as a starting point to understand a little more about themselves and how to look after their own bodies.

I've seen pretty much nothing helpful from your posts to people working through a good nutritional approach to their circumstances and goals. Just a load of cannons fired in all directions and a blinkered conviction that the only thing which matters is calorie counting. I can tell you for sure that is NO WAY the end of the story when it comes to weight management. However I think you are like so many other "scientists" - rather like our ancestors when they thought the world was flat - and only able to consider the world with reference to the studies you and your colleagues have conducted. Well, what about those yet to be conducted and as yet undiscovered ? Meaningless until they are ... to you at least. I've yet to speak to a nutritionist who has been in any way helpful in weight management. Load of old c*ck - on a great deal of fronts !

That's all I read. You are saying somatotypes exist, that everybody falls into one of these 3 categories, therefore the burden of proof is on YOU.

By the way, somatotypes are generally thought of as Bullsh!t by anyone who knows anything.

 

[Germaine]

I don't have to prove anything it is you who are uncomfortable with the general categorization which is there as a guide and not as a rule. Fine a person my jump from one category to another especially when they are on the margin, stuff their faces with cornish pasties and cream all day or get old and fat when their hormone balances change.. we all know what triggers muscle bulking and what stimulates fat bellies in men and big a*ses in women. The body makes the very chemicals which trigger these changes and the timing at which those changes occur is genetically controlled. Diet plays a role (e.g. avoiding excess calorie consumption) but the simple truth seems to be that it's as much hormones as food which regulate body responses. So unless you mess with your hormones there is only so much you can expect to do. Hormone interactions and effects are still not well understood by the scientific community so I am not surprised they seem to dodge the importance of this.

.... and you can say what you like about typing but I will tell you something for sure - if you have Mo Farah's bone structure and genetics you are never going to look like Sylvester Stallone however much gymming it you do... so stop misleading people with generalized equations that only seem to apply to fat Westerners trying to lose weight (dieting being a phenomenon I only really came across after moving to Europe). No-one is saying every person is 100% in one category with 'typing'. But it's a useful guide to help understand where a person fits, roughly, as a rough guide as to what to expect. That is all most thinking people take from it and then use that as a starting point to understand a little more about themselves and how to look after their own bodies.

I've seen pretty much nothing helpful from your posts to people working through a good nutritional approach to their circumstances and goals. Just a load of cannons fired in all directions and a blinkered conviction that the only thing which matters is calorie counting. I can tell you for sure that is NO WAY the end of the story when it comes to weight management. However I think you are like so many other "scientists" - rather like our ancestors when they thought the world was flat - and only able to consider the world with reference to the studies you and your colleagues have conducted. Well, what about those yet to be conducted and as yet undiscovered ? Meaningless until they are ... to you at least. I've yet to speak to a nutritionist who has been in any way helpful in weight management. Load of old c*ck - on a great deal of fronts !

First off, hormones ARE very well understood in the scientific community, just not by you.... And it's funny that when people throw the word around, they never seem to be able to explain it. Let's try that. Explain what you mean. What specific hormones are you referring to? What are you saying about these hormones?

Yeah, Sly is on tons of gear. Nice strawman.

"My equations"? What equations would these be? Any information I give is not just for fat Westerners and it's ignorant and uninformed to suggest that. Seriously, go do more research, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're out of your depth.

It's not a useful guide. It's a stupid guide with zero practical application. It doesn't tell you anything to expect.

I'll list all my helpful posts in my next post

I Never said there was one way to diet. Strawman argument again. You're lying and trying to deceive. Calories In vs Calories Out are what determines weight gain/loss. This is fact. This is a LAW. It's true 100% of the time. Calorie counting is the most accurate way to manage weight changes, not the only.

 

[Germaine]

I'd recommend using an app such as MyFitnessPal to track calories and macros. This gives you a lot more control over your diet and you can learn a lot about your body. How it reacts to high carbs. If you function better high fat. What calorie level is where you maintain weight. How big your refeeds need be. Plus, consistency is key and it helps keep calories consistent.

Helpful

What? What did I say that was aggressive? Never used any aggressive language or punctuations....

I know you're not following his diet. I saw you say that. It's still full of crap though. Btw, I'd also recommend a different programme. Something with a higher training frequency and a progression scheme. Kris is on a lot of juice and it may be why his routine is good for him.

Okay, first off, forget about ecto, endo & meso. They don't have any real world application. You can easily change from one to the other.

If you lose weight easy, but not fat, that only leaves LBM (lean body mass). This could be down to insufficient training programme, too low calories or too low protein, or a combination.

Search youtube for a video by IceCreamFitness called "My Novice 5x5 for Bodybuilders". That's the type of training programme you should be following. You may need to reduce volume slightly if you are cutting. Cardio can be done on off days if you wish.

My diet advice remains the same. - Estimate maintenance calories
- Eat 15-20% below this
- Ensure 1g/lb protein minimum
- Ensure 0.4g/lb fat minimum
- Try get 13-15g/1,000kcal fibre

Helpful

Just stating it because you seem to be under the impression you are now eating a "healthier" diet and processed foods are bad. Just pointing out why you may be wrong.



Whey protein is one of the most highly processed foods out there. I'm willing to bet your PT takes them. Most PTs, not all, are very misled when it comes to nutrition. Not entirely their fault. There is a lot of misinformation.

The majority of your diet should come from whole and minimally processed foods, but processed foods in moderation will have no negative impact, with perhaps artificial trans fats being the exception. Not need to stick to "lean" foods. Fat is essential and good for you.

Helpful

Does red meat cause cancer: http://examine.com/faq/does-red-meat-cause-cancer.html

Is processed meat bad for you: http://examine.com/faq/is-processed-meat-bad-for-me.html

Media Sensationalism: Meat is Bad for your Heart: http://examine.com/blog/media-sensationalism:-meat-is-bad-for-your-heart/

Helpful

Exactly this ^. I'm a regular poster on the bb.com forums.

Cardio is not necessary but it can help create a larger deficit allowing you to eat more food while still losing weight.

Helpful

Solution = Count calories and eat more. Obviously if you stop lifting and go back to eating lower calories you will the weight you put on. Ecto = someone who doesn't eat enough. Somatotypes are bollox.



Okay.

1. There's no need to eat 6x a day. There is no metabolic advantage to this. You can eat once a day or 6x a day, and your metabolism will be the same.

2. Training to failure is not a very efficient way to train. It can be a useful tool in training occasionally but training to failure every time is not smart. Training close to failure however is good.

3. ALL reps count, not only the last few. Once you lift anything 85%+ of your 1RM all of your muscle fibres get recruited from the very first rep. Only if you are messing around with a weight that is too light will the last reps matter. If that's the case, lift some heavier weights....

4. "Clean" eating is stupid. It has no definition. It varies from person to person. It is subjective. There are no healthy or unhealthy foods per se outside the context of the diet as a whole.

5. There is little to no merit to varying exercises. Stick to the ones that work. Big, heavy compounds. Stick to them and progressively overload them. That's how you grow. You want the muscles to adapt. Adapting means getting bigger and stronger.

6. Training a body part once a week is less efficient than 2-3x a week. You will make slower progress giving each body part its own day insread of something like full body 3x week or Upper/Lower split or Push/Pull split.

Helpful

I'd ignore everything this guy just said.....

6 meals a day?
Train to failure?
Only last reps count?
Clean eating?
Vary exercise?

So much wrong with this.

Helpful

Diet is simple:

- Estimate maintenance calories
- Eat 15-20% below this
- Ensure 1g/lb protein minimum
- Ensure 0.4g/lb fat minimum
- Try get 13-15g/1,000kcal fibre

Processed foods, take aways, chocolate, etc are all fine when kept in moderation. Check out www.myfitnesspal.com It's a great way to track calories.

Workout, can differ based on experience. A good simple start:

Workout A:
Squat 5x5
Bench 5x5
Row 5x5

Workout B:
Squat 5x5
Military Press 5x5
Deadlift 1x5

Keep increasing weight each week. As you progress, you can add ancillary exercises. Perform 3x week such as: W1 - ABA, W2 BAB, etc....

Cardio can be done on off days to increase the deficit.

Helpful

 

[kimajy]

Germaine, you can refer to as many scientific studies as you like but it doesn't make them fact or correct. The whole scientific community could agree on something and it still be complete bullsh*t. I am obviously being provocative as you have come on this thread and spouted a great deal of cr*p to the extent that most people have turned off your posts.

What you do not consider is things like short digestive tracts (meaning a lot of calories pass through the body without actually being digested or absorbed). Is all excess protein (often included in calorie counts) absorbed and burned or converted to glycogen or does it wind up down the toilet ? What's the effect of a person having a tapeworm ?

Hormones .... well - the sex hormones and HGH as well as insulin. To name a few. Why do some Italian women start out svelte and wind up as hefty Mama Mias ? It's not all down to the pasta and Dolmio is it ? They grow older and their body changes. Especially after a few kids. What's behind all that ? Hormones !!!!!!!!!!!

I never said ALL people fit into one stereotypical somatotype. Read my post again. I repeat - it is still a useful guide. In my opinion. Which is MY opinion and is not WRONG because YOU say so. I happen to find the guide useful. You don't. So who the f*ck cares about that ? I certainly don't. You think about the world your way - other people may find it beneficial to think about it in different ways that are meaningful to them to understand how their bodies work and respond to training and nutrition. That doesn't make either right or wrong.

You still haven't addressed the other points I made at all - including explaining why I do not gain weight when virtually doubling my calorie intake and have sustained a weight within a 3-4kg total lower/upper range of a stable median that is deemed underweight by the medical profession for 20 years. Through periods of massive overindulgence, virtual starvation and highly supplemented "healthy" diets. Makes jack all difference. The truth is you CAN'T explain it can you ? Your only answer is that it's impossible according to natural laws that you say HAVE to determine weight. Well it f*cking isn't, so LISTEN UP for once, OPEN YOUR MIND instead of behaving like a blinkered test-tube shaker and maybe broaden YOUR knowledge before coming on here spouting like you're a world expert.

I have no interest in fixating on this topic although I have some interest in it - if I can learn something new for ME. I have heard pretty much everything you have said before along with a load of other stuff but none of it explains how my body works as far as nutrition and weight management is concerned. Sure if I have 6000 Calories a day and do no exercise I'll likely turn into a porker. It doesn;t take a bl**dy degree or PhD to work that out. But I've given you some numbers which are 100% correct and you've no answers to explain the observed results. So for me you're like the rest of 'em. Waste of blooming airspace lol.

Now I'm going back into my box of not giving a sh*t about my weight or how I look. I'm healthy and fit with a 64-CT readout that indicates zero build-up in my arteries and <10% body fat for my 3,000 - 3,500 calories a day. That's all I need to know really - and will be looking forward to eating what my body tells me it wants and clicking off what seems (again) to be an area of discussion that leads nowhere meaningful for me.

 

[Germaine]

Germaine, you can refer to as many scientific studies as you like but it doesn't make them fact or correct. The whole scientific community could agree on something and it still be complete bullsh*t. I am obviously being provocative as you have come on this thread and spouted a great deal of cr*p to the extent that most people have turned off your posts.

Highly unlikely. Seriously, you don't understand science or nutritional science. Everything I have said is true, not crap. Go spend some researching it.... So far you haven't said anything informative, just spouted a load of nonsense with zero evidence to support it.

What you do not consider is things like short digestive tracts (meaning a lot of calories pass through the body without actually being digested or absorbed). Is all excess protein (often included in calorie counts) absorbed and burned or converted to glycogen or does it wind up down the toilet ? What's the effect of a person having a tapeworm ?

Please..... You actually believe excess protein is excreted? Oh lord.....

Hormones .... well - the sex hormones and HGH as well as insulin. To name a few. Why do some Italian women start out svelte and wind up as hefty Mama Mias ? It's not all down to the pasta and Dolmio is it ? They grow older and their body changes. Especially after a few kids. What's behind all that ? Hormones !!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, way to deflect. You named a couple of hormones. Now explain, in detail, what you're talking about. What about hormones? Everyone has hormones. I fail to see your point. You can't just say "hormones". What about them?

I never said ALL people fit into one stereotypical somatotype. Read my post again. I repeat - it is still a useful guide. In my opinion. Which is MY opinion and is not WRONG because YOU say so. I happen to find the guide useful. You don't. So who the f*ck cares about that ? I certainly don't. You think about the world your way - other people may find it beneficial to think about it in different ways that are meaningful to them to understand how their bodies work and respond to training and nutrition. That doesn't make either right or wrong.

Somatotypes have no practical application. None.

You still haven't addressed the other points I made at all - including explaining why I do not gain weight when virtually doubling my calorie intake and have sustained a weight within a 3-4kg total lower/upper range of a stable median that is deemed underweight by the medical profession for 20 years. Through periods of massive overindulgence, virtual starvation and highly supplemented "healthy" diets. Makes jack all difference. The truth is you CAN'T explain it can you ? Your only answer is that it's impossible according to natural laws that you say HAVE to determine weight. Well it f*cking isn't, so LISTEN UP for once, OPEN YOUR MIND instead of behaving like a blinkered test-tube shaker and maybe broaden YOUR knowledge before coming on here spouting like you're a world expert.

You obviously don't track your caloric intake very well. Do you even weigh your food? Read labels? Probably not. I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof, once again, falls on YOU. To quote Lyle McDonald "You are not a special snowflake". You can make up whatever imaginary scenario you like, the burden of proof lies on YOU to prove it. YOU have to explain it. Again, you don't even understand simple Laws of physics, so again, you're out of your depth, just stop talking about something you clearly don't understand.

I have no interest in fixating on this topic although I have some interest in it - if I can learn something new for ME. I have heard pretty much everything you have said before along with a load of other stuff but none of it explains how my body works as far as nutrition and weight management is concerned. Sure if I have 6000 Calories a day and do no exercise I'll likely turn into a porker. It doesn;t take a bl**dy degree or PhD to work that out. But I've given you some numbers which are 100% correct and you've no answers to explain the observed results. So for me you're like the rest of 'em. Waste of blooming airspace lol.

You've given a couple of random numbers. Here's a helpful tip: Start tracking and weighing your food intake everyday and record it on MyFitnessPal. Eat the same amount everyday. Track your weight for 2 weeks. If there is no change, increase calories by 2-300kcal. Proceed another 2 weeks and weigh again. You will most likely start to gain weight. Note, as you eat more food, and put on more weight, your metabolism increases, so you will find yourself continuously having to increase calories. You have said NOTHING informative. You have said NOTHING of any value. All you have done is present strawmen arguments and made outrageous claims with absolutely no proof. Do you even science?

Now I'm going back into my box of not giving a sh*t about my weight or how I look. I'm healthy and fit with a 64-CT readout that indicates zero build-up in my arteries and <10% body fat for my 3,000 - 3,500 calories a day. That's all I need to know really - and will be looking forward to eating what my body tells me it wants and clicking off what seems (again) to be an area of discussion that leads nowhere meaningful for me.

Please do.

Bold

 

[kimajy]

Go spend some researching it.... So far you haven't said anything informative

That's because you are meant to be the expert not me and have completely failed to explain my body's responses to varying calorie intake over the range quoted. This is your obsession not mine. Where in my posts am I trying to educate the world in this area ? I have asked you to explain something you cannot and have merely pointed to observed changes none of which you have substantively given an explanation for.

You obviously don't track your caloric intake very well. Do you even weigh your food? Read labels? Probably not. I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof, once again, falls on YOU. To quote Lyle McDonald "You are not a special snowflake". You can make up whatever imaginary scenario you like, the burden of proof lies on YOU to prove it.

Where in the name of all that's unholy do you think you get off ?

As far as calorie counting is concerned, since when I've calorie counted I've eaten meat/fish and vegetables together with eggs, bread and (if something sweet a portion of it in a box with a calorie count written on the box) I think I am capable of weighing and counting calories, thank you.... and yes I wrote them down and yes, I am certainly capable of keeping a diet constant and adding 3 x 600 calorie/serving mass gainer portions onto an existing diet and observing no significant weight increase over a 6 week period. Please explain.

Do not call me a lier or try to imply that I I have to prove an explanation. In case you haven't noticed I ASKED THE QUESTION and you have failed to answer save to say I must have counted wrong. That's because you don't have the answer. Nor do your scientist mates. QED. Germaine's "count calories" single track mantra does not explain. Same as all your other nutritionist buddies. QED.

Please..... You actually believe excess protein is excreted? Oh lord.....

Here we go ... ignore the rest of the para and seize on one question with an aggressive response. Did I say I believe it ? Refer the word provocative in my post. You are not dealing with some sort of competitor in me Germaine but as with everyone else's posts you seem to think you are sitting on the equivalent of the Scientists' Debating Society. Or are you just trying to be a big fish in a small pond ?

Yeah, way to deflect. You named a couple of hormones. Now explain, in detail, what you're talking about. What about hormones? Everyone has hormones. I fail to see your point. You can't just say "hormones". What about them?

Deflect what ? This is not a technical forum so in very basic terms testosterone (for example) promotes muscle and cell growth - it's why it's used to treat muscle wasting in patients with certain diseases. It's also why steroids (which mimic effects) are used by athletes to gain fast (along with it increasing stamina, to put it politely).

Somatotypes have no practical application. None.

In YOUR opinion. As above, we will have to agree to disagree on that.

...

So .... as per my previous conclusion (!) ... seems I'm not going to learn anything I haven't already heard from Germaine ... and if I want to hear it there are far less irritating ways of doing so. IMHO.

 

[Evolution]

Sooooooooooo when are you guys hooking up?

 

[craig72]

 

[Germaine]

That's because you are meant to be the expert not me and have completely failed to explain my body's responses to varying calorie intake over the range quoted. This is your obsession not mine. Where in my posts am I trying to educate the world in this area ? I have asked you to explain something you cannot and have merely pointed to observed changes none of which you have substantively given an explanation for.

I never said I was an expert. Why you lying again? I clearly do know a lot more than you though. Oh lord. Again. Don't know how many times I have to explain it. See my previous posts as to why you don't gain weight. You're not eating enough. The burden of proof lies with YOU. Hey, my Unicorn's horn keeps turning yellow, can you explain why?.....

Where in the name of all that's unholy do you think you get off ?

As far as calorie counting is concerned, since when I've calorie counted I've eaten meat/fish and vegetables together with eggs, bread and (if something sweet a portion of it in a box with a calorie count written on the box) I think I am capable of weighing and counting calories, thank you.... and yes I wrote them down and yes, I am certainly capable of keeping a diet constant and adding 3 x 600 calorie/serving mass gainer portions onto an existing diet and observing no significant weight increase over a 6 week period. Please explain.

You're not eating enough and you're trying to eat too "clean". Eat more calorie dense foods. Ice cream, PB, chocolate, nuts, etc.... YOU explain. YOU'RE the one making outrageous claims, therefore the burden of proof lies with YOU. How do you not understand this? Can you read? I've said it over and over and over and over....

Do not call me a lier or try to imply that I I have to prove an explanation. In case you haven't noticed I ASKED THE QUESTION and you have failed to answer save to say I must have counted wrong. That's because you don't have the answer. Nor do your scientist mates. QED. Germaine's "count calories" single track mantra does not explain. Same as all your other nutritionist buddies. QED.

You have lied, therefore I call lie. You asked a question, I answered. Eat more and stop doing cardio. Lying again by saying I failed to answer. And I bet you did count incorrectly too.

Here we go ... ignore the rest of the para and seize on one question with an aggressive response. Did I say I believe it ? Refer the word provocative in my post. You are not dealing with some sort of competitor in me Germaine but as with everyone else's posts you seem to think you are sitting on the equivalent of the Scientists' Debating Society. Or are you just trying to be a big fish in a small pond ?

If someone posts BS, I call BS. I'm a no nonsense, no BS kind of guy when it comes to this. Don't get all sensitive. And about 1 question, you still haven't elaborated on the hormones. Care to?

Deflect what ? This is not a technical forum so in very basic terms testosterone (for example) promotes muscle and cell growth - it's why it's used to treat muscle wasting in patients with certain diseases. It's also why steroids (which mimic effects) are used by athletes to gain fast (along with it increasing stamina, to put it politely).

Yes, testosterone does do that, along with boosting mood & energy too. What's your point?.......

In YOUR opinion. As above, we will have to agree to disagree on that.

What practical application do you believe there is? What type of "guidelines" do you think they set? Every credible person in the fitness industry knows it's BS, not just me.

So .... as per my previous conclusion (!) ... seems I'm not going to learn anything I haven't already heard from Germaine ... and if I want to hear it there are far less irritating ways of doing so. IMHO.

Lies, avoiding topics, creating strawmen arguments, misunderstanding of basic physiology and biochemistry. The list goes on. Why do you continue to try discuss what you clearly don't understand? Seriously, accept that you are wrong and you will benefit from it.

Everything I say is crap.... Okay why don't you be a bit more specific. What exactly is crap? I've said quite a lot so you are saying ALL of it is crap? Seriously? If you actually believe that then there is no hope for you.... Better go tell everyone in the Institute of Sports Nutrition they are doing it wrong :/ Oh, better go tell Dr. Layne Norton all the bodybuilders he preps are doing it wrong. Better go tell Team 3DMJ all the athletes they coach are doing it wrong.....