Bulking Diet

But I did it anyway.................because you I was under the impression you would come back to me with some comment about not backing up my statements. I'm not getting you any more though!

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/early/2012/08/09/ajpendo.00285.2012.abstract

You need to be a member of an institution to read the whole study so i have attached the abstract.

Note: Volunteers lost 7.5 ± 0.4 kg of weight, 5.1 ± 0.2 kg of fat and 2.2 ± 0.2 kg of lean mass, with no difference between groups

As Singh says, you really don't need to worry about eating too much protein in one meal.

And 3 full body workouts per week is ideal for maximising protein synthesis, compared to working out each body part once or twice a week. To be honest, I don't do 3 full bodies (I do upper and lower splits), but that's just because I'm too lazy!

for an anonymous person (whom insulted me on my last thread )

------------------------------

Completely irrelevant, but perhaps shows your true reasons behind trying to question me on this article.... that and the fact you haven't provided any actual advise for the article creator.

You claim my original statement to be "broscience" when all you have been able to respond with, is a study I can not even read. An article from the APS, wish is renowned for it's infamous study saying that running for 30 minutes is better than running for 60 minutes (both at the same intensity), because a 'one-week' study showed no difference in fat loss from either group. These are the kind of short-term studies the APS do... and unfortunate people like yourself fall for, while trying to appear intelligent and superior.

Now I can't actually see there full details of the study you have linked (i doubt you have either) yet the following quote from your linked extract backs up what I have just said.

"It seems likely that the positive effect of caseins on protein balance occurred only at the end of the experiment".

Now to most people, this would inspire them to continue their experiment. As clearly, beyond the timescale originally set, there may well be far greater results than the original study showed. Exercise isn't a short term goal, it is a long term life choice if you want the greatest results. What the APS have here classed as "the end of the experiment" is just the beginning of a lifetime goal for most serious gym goers.

So where you say "I will encourage you to do some more research"... I will reply with, I encourage you to do smarter research. Find trustworthy organization within the exercise industry and keep an open mind. Not read an extract written by an organization that is famed throughout the running world for being a joke, that jumps to long-term conclusions via short-term experiments.

I see this on every article you comment on Singh. You over complicate everything to try and seem the more intelligent, better informed poster. It doesn't work.

^How can I show you more research..........you need to be a member to read the journal I can't do anything about that. Yes it is from the APS, yes it is short term. I can post a video regarding the physiology of the GI tract regarding the illeal brake but you will say that's just theory. So again what do you want me to do?

If you want a long-term double blind controlled trial I'm sorry I don't fund the research I can't magic one out of thin air. The copious amount of evidence you have provided has really put forward an intriguing arguement but I'd rather go of limited evidence then no evidence.

I am not overcomplicating anything.............as long as you get your daily macros you are fine. That is all.

Here's another study. You can get the whole thing this time and read it all, they conclude the same theory as yourself but this is after using probalistic inferences, the actual data indicates not difference. But believe what you want, but personal attacks don't really do you any favours.

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/9/1/91/abstract

Oh and the previous study published by the APS you hate so much was published in Aug 2012, a follow up study may not have been done yet I'm not sure on the logistics of conducting research.

You have completely over complicated this article

What could have been an alternate opinion, provided for the article creater to make his own opinion.. was instead written as attack on my theory which has resulted in this. An argument between ourselves that involves terms and acknowledgemnts which probably have TheHayemakers eyes criss-crossing in confusion.

I have disvalued your 'research' which is enough to keep me happy and you have responded with what ever that above comment was meant to be which keeps you happy.

Now if you believing telling somebody "new to the gym world" all about intermittent fasting is going to help them..... as opposed to responding to the meal plan they provided and giving them relevent advice... then

oh god

"but personal attacks don't really do you any favours."... coming from the person who began by referring to a comment i made to 'insult' you on an irrelevant article.

I've seen links to N+M before and generally find there articles quite interesting, so may have a read when im back from football. Until then though, I won't be fasting or eating 50grams of protein per meal.

Ron I meant your not really a friend/colleague of mine so why would I do a literature search to prove myself to you?

You fed OP incorrect information, I said it was not true and backed it up. I don't know if OP's diet is good because there is no macro breakdown etc. I can't judge that.

Many people don't do bodybuilding because of "restrictions" on diet. So what I have said is very relevant. I'm not here to argue with you, go and enjoy football and have a good weekend. I've got some revision to do

I said "bro science" not to attack you Ron (i even said so) but because that's what it's commonly referred to

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator