d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > Sports Coliseum > Health & Fitness > Ultimate Post Your Own Picture Thread > Show Off Your Hard Earned Body
Prev192939495962274Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 4,455
Joined: Aug 30 2006
Gold: 191.75
Sep 16 2011 01:24pm
You can always try alternating with reps, going for all the ranges in respective cycle but I'm fairly sure you do that anyways.

How are your legs doing? I'm focusing on those now, twice a week.
Member
Posts: 36,434
Joined: Oct 6 2006
Gold: 1,187.93
Sep 16 2011 01:27pm
Quote (wildjesus @ Sep 16 2011 03:24pm)
You can always try alternating with reps, going for all the ranges in respective cycle but I'm fairly sure you do that anyways.

How are your legs doing? I'm focusing on those now, twice a week.


aesthetically, there getting there
they don't look as big as I'd want them.

but I squat and dead well into the 4's, so strength isn't a problem, just size.

This post was edited by Tear on Sep 16 2011 01:27pm
Member
Posts: 308
Joined: Mar 6 2011
Gold: 0.00
Sep 16 2011 01:41pm
Quote (Darkblue @ Sep 16 2011 01:17pm)
Sure to provide "evidence" but it's a matter of credibility as well. some view Alan Aragon as controversial with the shit he brings out. And as a matter of fact everything you've just said is basically verbatum throwup of his articles.


Controversiality isn't the basis of credibility or not. Just because something is controversial does not mean it isn't correct. Additionally, just because something is widely accepted amongst educated individuals does not make it true. What makes something true in the world of science is controlled, properly conducted studies.

Furthermore, credibility is garnered by individuals saying such and such is credible. There are plenty of "credible" people who actually give bad advice that is simply not supported by current scientific literature. This is why Alan Aragon is, more often than not, almost always correct. Everything he says is based on CURRENT scientific literature. In the end, that's all that ever will matter.

And, yes, I agree that pubmed doesn't make you a doc but being a doc also means jack shit. Education is quite often overstated and people who are educated quite often say false things. Regardless, here is the only pubmed study that matters for saturated fat:
"A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

Read that carefully: There is no significant evidence. The demonization of saturated fat is simply unwarranted and unsupported.

I must note that nitpicking specific things (i.e. carbs, saturated fats, sugar, etc.) has become common trait in nutrition. At one point it was low fat then low carbs then low sugar, etc. Examining societies healthier than the Westerners reveals that nitpicking is simply silly. Inuits consuming mostly animal fat with animal protein and trace carbs. Certain tropical islands have extremely high saturated fat levels yet lower cardiovascular disease than a typical Westerner. The Okinawas live the longest out of any population yet they have a relatively low fat, low protein diet and mostly made up of carbs. These massive differences yet they all are healthier than the average Westerner.
Member
Posts: 30,254
Joined: Nov 5 2007
Gold: 0.50
Warn: 20%
Sep 16 2011 02:27pm
Quote (AeolianHarp @ Sep 16 2011 07:41pm)
Controversiality isn't the basis of credibility or not. Just because something is controversial does not mean it isn't correct. Additionally, just because something is widely accepted amongst educated individuals does not make it true. What makes something true in the world of science is controlled, properly conducted studies.

Furthermore, credibility is garnered by individuals saying such and such is credible. There are plenty of "credible" people who actually give bad advice that is simply not supported by current scientific literature. This is why Alan Aragon is, more often than not, almost always correct. Everything he says is based on CURRENT scientific literature. In the end, that's all that ever will matter.

And, yes, I agree that pubmed doesn't make you a doc but being a doc also means jack shit. Education is quite often overstated and people who are educated quite often say false things. Regardless, here is the only pubmed study that matters for saturated fat:
"A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

Read that carefully: There is no significant evidence. The demonization of saturated fat is simply unwarranted and unsupported.

I must note that nitpicking specific things (i.e. carbs, saturated fats, sugar, etc.) has become common trait in nutrition. At one point it was low fat then low carbs then low sugar, etc. Examining societies healthier than the Westerners reveals that nitpicking is simply silly. Inuits consuming mostly animal fat with animal protein and trace carbs. Certain tropical islands have extremely high saturated fat levels yet lower cardiovascular disease than a typical Westerner. The Okinawas live the longest out of any population yet they have a relatively low fat, low protein diet and mostly made up of carbs. These massive differences yet they all are healthier than the average Westerner.


Oh shit son.
Member
Posts: 28,903
Joined: Jun 29 2006
Gold: 1,414.04
Sep 16 2011 02:40pm
googlily in here. wheres all the pics
Member
Posts: 17,824
Joined: May 6 2008
Gold: 0.00
Sep 16 2011 02:53pm
Quote (AeolianHarp @ Sep 16 2011 04:41pm)
Controversiality isn't the basis of credibility or not. Just because something is controversial does not mean it isn't correct. Additionally, just because something is widely accepted amongst educated individuals does not make it true. What makes something true in the world of science is controlled, properly conducted studies.

Furthermore, credibility is garnered by individuals saying such and such is credible. There are plenty of "credible" people who actually give bad advice that is simply not supported by current scientific literature. This is why Alan Aragon is, more often than not, almost always correct. Everything he says is based on CURRENT scientific literature. In the end, that's all that ever will matter.

And, yes, I agree that pubmed doesn't make you a doc but being a doc also means jack shit. Education is quite often overstated and people who are educated quite often say false things. Regardless, here is the only pubmed study that matters for saturated fat:
"A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

Read that carefully: There is no significant evidence. The demonization of saturated fat is simply unwarranted and unsupported.

I must note that nitpicking specific things (i.e. carbs, saturated fats, sugar, etc.) has become common trait in nutrition. At one point it was low fat then low carbs then low sugar, etc. Examining societies healthier than the Westerners reveals that nitpicking is simply silly. Inuits consuming mostly animal fat with animal protein and trace carbs. Certain tropical islands have extremely high saturated fat levels yet lower cardiovascular disease than a typical Westerner. The Okinawas live the longest out of any population yet they have a relatively low fat, low protein diet and mostly made up of carbs. These massive differences yet they all are healthier than the average Westerner.


agreed/10

and i think you got some of my words twisted. or perhaps I did not word them out correctly.

I do not equate controversiality to lack of credibility...I never said that. I'm saying that there are many other people or organizations that may disagree with the things that he says according to their studies or the studies theyve obtained.

but anyways, you covered all of this in this well worded essay...I appreciate you coming out. Thanks!
Member
Posts: 12,963
Joined: Jun 30 2004
Gold: 87.99
Warn: 100%
Sep 16 2011 04:57pm
Quote (Trolloaloal33 @ Sep 16 2011 10:27am)
No, it's not. When I talk about cutting or bulking, it should ALWAYS be assumed that your macros are in check. Once again, I don't believe in ratios either. That's more bro-ology. What's a 50/30/20 going to do for me? Make shit extremely hard to do, that's what. Clean and dirty bulks aren't complex. It's bro-talk for non-sense. Not once have I ever heard of someone distinguishing the two based on micronutrients. It's like people keep adding to the list of what they are. Micronutrients and macronutrients can be hit despite eating junk or not and they can be hit despite being at a major surplus or a minor surplus. Those two things should always be in check, it's common sense when it comes to nutrition.


My goodness.

Either blatantly ignorant or exceptionally retarded/autistic
Member
Posts: 7,516
Joined: Oct 20 2010
Gold: 197.54
Sep 16 2011 05:05pm
Quote (Da_PkEr @ Sep 16 2011 06:57pm)
My goodness.

Either blatantly ignorant or exceptionally retarded/autistic


Jesus, apparently this is what I'm going to be doing for the rest of my time on H&F. You're an idiot and I'm not going to give you an educated response. Learn about nutrition, please.
Member
Posts: 13,463
Joined: Mar 10 2008
Gold: 27.00
Sep 16 2011 05:07pm
Quote (wildjesus @ Sep 16 2011 07:24pm)
You can always try alternating with reps, going for all the ranges in respective cycle but I'm fairly sure you do that anyways.

How are your legs doing? I'm focusing on those now, twice a week.


how are your ass doing?=

4 Bruger(e) læser dette topic (0 Gæster og 0 Anonyme Brugere): Upa, Deathslaya16, Trolloaloal33, shooter_mcgavin

loooooooooool trplll!

This post was edited by Upa on Sep 16 2011 05:09pm
Member
Posts: 7,421
Joined: Oct 8 2008
Gold: 13.37
Sep 16 2011 05:21pm
upa, don't believe everything daddy tells u.
Go Back To Health & Fitness Topic List
Prev192939495962274Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll