Seriously over analyzing nutrition

Joel Tomkins said:

I wasn't questioning your education or experience on the subject, but you claimed that the majority of what you are reading on GB forum is broscience. I asked how much of the forums you have read as if you had read the majority of posts you would find most people giving good advice and if not, Josh and others correcting any misinformation.

Daniel has pretty much summed up what I would have said. It seems like you have a few different definitions to us in terms of whole foods and general health. The definition that you posted for health is fine but no where in there does it say you have to know how to get buff to be healthy.

You also are generalizing a lot. There is a huge range of philosophies on nutrition and training in every sport which is why statements like "bodybuilding is the mecca for all things healthy" just aren't right. There are no doubt some really smart, healthy body builders out there but there is many more that just don't have a clue. The term 'broscience' actually came from body building so obviously that community isn't perfect.

The OP was trying to make the point (and using kids who aren't thinking about these things as an example) that actually eating and training are more efficient ways of spending your time than over thinking it. No broscience there!

 

Well Josh made a very general list there and from what I'm reading it shows being forced to be restrictive eating very specifically rather than flexibly like any human regardless of being exercising or not should be doing anyways. For example he said that there is plenty of fat coming from the meat itself which is true and you should watch out for adding unnecessary calories from fat products however..that isn't a really good source of fat as it's mainly saturated fat. What about polyunsaturated fatty acids or monounsaturated fatty acids? They both play a huge role in nutrition and eating just meat for a fat source is not wise.

If you are saying I'm generalizing, well frankly if you look at us humans as a whole, we are nothing but skin, bones, blood, and organs. There is nothing special about certain individuals that people claim are "genetically" gifted whereas eating specific rations in macros applies to all and can be used for different tools depending on your end goal.

Also being buff is just an aesthetic goal. By no means is that the requirement and optimal sign that you are in top health. If you read my definition I gave previously before to Daniel about the word health, we are all doing it in some form or manner for all sport and physical endeavors. What I'm saying is that a really awesome sign that body builders and aesthetic pursuers have that show that they know about being in healthy condition more than anyone is that they can easily go from bulking and appearing very overweight if they went that far to bone shredded and still remain healthy vitally, physically, and mentally (and vise versa go backwards to bulk minus all the things associated with being "that big"). That's what separates us as other sports don't care about looks as much we do. It's just about performance.

Joshua Naterman said:

 

• Get a serving of protein that's close to the size of your palm with every meal
• Fill at least half your plate with a pile of at least two different veggies.
• Have some fruit when you want a sweet treat.
• Eat whatever starch sources you enjoy, but preferably stick to whole food sources.
• Remember to have some fat with each meal. Might be a tablespoon of oil or butter, or there might already be plenty of fat in the meat (if you eat meat).
• Have the starch, veggies, and protein (meat or vegetarian sources, doesn't matter that much) at every meal.
• Drink water while eating.
• Stop eating when you start feeling full, regardless of whether your plate is empty or not.

 

 

Dude, that ^^ is not restrictive. You could have any meal you wanted within those guidelines.. just get the ratios right - which is your point isn't it?

You're right, it is a generalized meal plan. That's fine because as you say we are all skin, bone and muscle and should be fulfilling our bodies needs in the same way. But the way each of us thinks is NOT all the same - which is why you can't generalize about one sport being healthier than another because within each community there are many different opinions.

Josh also said be sure to get some fat with each meal, OR you might have already got that with your meat (which could have been a piece of salmon) so he isn't recommending saturated fats at all.

If you think that all saturated fats, or even most of them, are "bad" then you have a lot to learn. I think you might enjoy reading about individual saturated fatty acids... try searching Google for effects of palmitic acid on cholesterol, and then make the same search for lauric acid and stearic acid.

Joel Tomkins said:

Dude, that ^^ is not restrictive. You could have any meal you wanted within those guidelines.. just get the ratios right - which is your point isn't it?

You're right, it is a generalized meal plan. That's fine because as you say we are all skin, bone and muscle and should be fulfilling our bodies needs in the same way. But the way each of us thinks is NOT all the same - which is why you can't generalize about one sport being healthier than another because within each community there are many different opinions.

Josh also said be sure to get some fat with each meal, OR you might have already got that with your meat (which could have been a piece of salmon) so he isn't recommending saturated fats at all.

 

 

Fats like butter, coconut oil, fish oil capsule, etc. That's what I should have said.

He said fruit for a sweet treat. So no more what you love like ice cream, pop tarts, etc? None of these things are starchy as they are simple carbs yet it's what most want.

Having starches at every meal? You can get them all in one shot and be done with micronutrient needs and eat whatever else fits like poptarts if they fit in. (Also piling vegetables counts as calories as well as carb grams. Piling up without counting at all can still cause spill over into fat even though yes it fills you up volume wise.)

Eating protein the size of your palm at every meal? Not all protein caloric values work that way. Most of the meat anyways contains saturated fats and only a handful contain one of the good fatty acids needed. The other half needs to be full filled with something else.

Stop eating when you feel full? In no way shape or form do you have to. It's only when you hit your calorie goal for the day you should stop which could also be one huge meal or a billion microscopic meals.

Also it's not matter of who "THINKS" when it is a matter of the fact. It's not opinion. What other sport out there manipulates hormones through diet and training for gaining weight and losing weight frequently and done in a safe manner and maintains health? None. Because of none of them care about hormonal manipulation through diet which in turns keeps them healthy. The other sports only emphasis about performance.

strongyetagile said:

Fats like butter, coconut oil, fish oil capsule, etc. That's what I should have said.

He said fruit for a sweet treat. So no more what you love like ice cream, pop tarts, etc? None of these things are starchy as they are simple carbs yet it's what most want.

Having starches at every meal? You can get them all in one shot and be done with micronutrient needs and eat whatever else fits like poptarts if they fit in. (Also piling vegetables counts as calories as well as carb grams. Piling up without counting at all can still cause spill over into fat even though yes it fills you up volume wise.)

Eating protein the size of your palm at every meal? Not all protein caloric values work that way. Most of the meat anyways contains saturated fats and only a handful contain one of the good fatty acids needed. The other half needs to be full filled with something else.

Stop eating when you feel full? In no way shape or form do you have to. It's only when you hit your calorie goal for the day you should stop which could also be one huge meal or a billion microscopic meals.

Also it's not matter of who "THINKS" when it is a matter of the fact. It's not opinion. What other sport out there manipulates hormones through diet and training for gaining weight and losing weight frequently and done in a safe manner and maintains health? None. Because of none of them care about hormonal manipulation through diet which in turns keeps them healthy. The other sports only emphasis about performance.

I think you are having trouble recognizing that those are basic guidelines.

There are layers of knowledge that have to be built. For people who have eating patterns that are way, way screwed up it can become necessary to follow a much more specific meal plan for 8-12 weeks, but once you re-establish your body's basic hunger responses you will literally hit your goals without thinking about them. simply by eating to satisfaction, and eating as often as it takes to stay satisfied, while still following all of the rules above.

Once you have learned control, and established good habits, you can slowly re-introduce certain treats... but you have to learn to recognize your own personal limits. Some people just can't have certain trigger foods at all, and that's the way it is. Others succeed in reprogramming their psychological response to food to the extent that they can have a former trigger food in a small portion without feeling temptation or watching their willpower crumble to dust. Everyone is different in this regard.

The way you talk makes me think that you are either somehow taking this conversation WAY too personally... that or you really just have no business giving people nutritional advice.

strongyetagile said:

Also it's not matter of who "THINKS" when it is a matter of the fact. It's not opinion. What other sport out there manipulates hormones through diet and training for gaining weight and losing weight frequently and done in a safe manner and maintains health? None. Because of none of them care about hormonal manipulation through diet which in turns keeps them healthy. The other sports only emphasis about performance.

Up until a year ago I cut regularly for MMA, K1 and NHB; definitely didn't care about looks, only cared that I didn't slow down.

My nutrition know-how isn't on a level to argue the papers with you, but a LOT of sports require weight manipulation, and it's not enough to fall off the scale after making weight.

strongyetagile said:

Also it's not matter of who "THINKS" when it is a matter of the fact. It's not opinion. What other sport out there manipulates hormones through diet and training for gaining weight and losing weight frequently and done in a safe manner and maintains health? None. Because of none of them care about hormonal manipulation through diet which in turns keeps them healthy. The other sports only emphasis about performance.

Any professional athlete concerned with performance is concerned with hormone levels - because they effect performance. The reason other athletes don't bulk and cut is because they don't need to. A professional sprinter doesn't want to bulk and have unnecessary weight, neither does a gymnast. The goal is to stay at their ideal body composition, which is the one that they perform best at. Having only 5% body fat does not give a competitive advantage to any athlete other than body builders and neither is it healthy in the long term.

Charm said:

Up until a year ago I cut regularly for MMA, K1 and NHB; definitely didn't care about looks, only cared that I didn't slow down.

 

My nutrition know-how isn't on a level to argue the papers with you, but a LOT of sports require weight manipulation, and it's not enough to fall off the scale after making weight.

Try me. This where I'm actually headed with my education in nutrition. I would love to see what you know.

Joshua Naterman said:

I think you are having trouble recognizing that those are basic guidelines.

 

There are layers of knowledge that have to be built. For people who have eating patterns that are way, way screwed up it can become necessary to follow a much more specific meal plan for 8-12 weeks, but once you re-establish your body's basic hunger responses you will literally hit your goals without thinking about them. simply by eating to satisfaction, and eating as often as it takes to stay satisfied, while still following all of the rules above.

 

Once you have learned control, and established good habits, you can slowly re-introduce certain treats... but you have to learn to recognize your own personal limits. Some people just can't have certain trigger foods at all, and that's the way it is. Others succeed in reprogramming their psychological response to food to the extent that they can have a former trigger food in a small portion without feeling temptation or watching their willpower crumble to dust. Everyone is different in this regard.

 

The way you talk makes me think that you are either somehow taking this conversation WAY too personally... that or you really just have no business giving people nutritional advice.

No I'm not taking it personally at all. Would are just both conversing as well as debating (kinda) about nutrition. I understand your guidelines idea but to me, as a trainer and nutrition coach, those are are far too vague and most of my clients would never get that. They need to be taken to a level where I'm directly telling them exactly what to eat as they are afraid of eating everything because of the belief they'll gain weight with everything they put into their mouth. Obviously that isn't true.

And the reason I'm finding out most of all why people don't count or care is because they didn't know they could previously. That flexible dieting existed and if they found that out a long time ago, it would be FAR easier to adhere any "extreme" or not extreme diet, never gotten into the situation they are in the first place, because they know that every day they can have something they want. Its no longer becomes a "trigger food" because they aren't being restricted to eating a specific way anymore. And they thank me by paying and recommending more people.

Joel Tomkins said:

Any professional athlete concerned with performance is concerned with hormone levels - because they effect performance. The reason other athletes don't bulk and cut is because they don't need to. A professional sprinter doesn't want to bulk and have unnecessary weight, neither does a gymnast. The goal is to stay at their ideal body composition, which is the one that they perform best at. Having only 5% body fat does not give a competitive advantage to any athlete other than body builders and neither is it healthy in the long term.

You do know that achieving ideal body recomposition requires either losing fat/weight or gains some muscle in the correct places/weight right? Technically speaking body recomposing is losing fat and building muscle at the exact same time which means even more specific macro numbers in between a weekly period. It's the most advanced and effective way to do exactly what you're talking about, especially for elite athletes.

And of course being 5% bf doesn't have any competitive advantage to any other athlete other than physique competitors. I never said that they stay 5% year round. That is absurd and not healthy. Ideally all athletes from different sports vary from 8%-15% bodyfat for obvious performance reasons. (8 being sprinters n' cyclists and 15 MMA fighters n' football players |<-not soccer*|)

What I did say was that bodybuilders constantly go past the normal ranges of body composition year in  and year out going to shredded to just past being athletically lean. That is what makes them an image for all things healthy as they go to both extremes and still remain healthy. (You can also see that image in magazines and movies along side other athletes who are shown for their athleticism not aesthetics.)

strongyetagile said:

You do know that achieving ideal body recomposition requires either losing fat/weight or gains some muscle in the correct places/weight right? Technically speaking body recomposing is losing fat and building muscle at the exact same time which means even more specific macro numbers in between a weekly period. It's the most advanced and effective way to do exactly what you're talking about, especially for elite athletes.

Exactly. And other athletes do it successfully too. Just because they don't do it to extremes or repeatedly doesn't mean they can't or aren't as healthy. I would assume staying at a constant weight and body comp would be less stressful on the body and therefore healthier in the long run but that's just a guess. Actors have done similarly extreme recomps to body builders as well.

Joel Tomkins said:

Exactly. And other athletes do it successfully too. Just because they don't do it to extremes or repeatedly doesn't mean they can't or aren't as healthy. I would assume staying at a constant weight and body comp would be less stressful on the body and therefore healthier in the long run but that's just a guess. Actors have done similarly extreme recomps to body builders as well.

In order to get better, you must recomp as it does play a role in performance after becoming a seasoned athlete. You will start to notice the very small differences and feelings you get. (This is what also makes an elite athlete elite. They know themselves down to the very letter.)

Its nearly impossible to stay the exact same weight anyways due to an ever aging factor and muscle gains in order to cope for the new found improvement in body composition. It's very very rare I hear and see anyone not changing in weight at all over a time period..say a decade. If they got better in their sport all or just fitness level, their weight changed indefinitely.

strongyetagile said:

Try me. This where I'm actually headed with my education in nutrition. I would love to see what you know.

Try you what? I'm telling you that other people than bodybuilders manipulate their weight to extremes for weigh-ins and still need to perform. Some people also have no trouble exercising some discipline and eating foods for other reasons than energy in/energy out. Why do you want to know my background in nutrition for that?

I don't mean this personally, but your posts sound as if you are trying to prove something to me. I don't care about proving anything to you, and don't care to have people posture at me, so maybe I'll just leave you to it. Good luck in your studies.

Charm said:

Try you what? I'm telling you that other people than bodybuilders manipulate their weight to extremes for weigh-ins and still need to perform. Some people also have no trouble exercising some discipline and eating foods for other reasons than energy in/energy out. Why do you want to know my background in nutrition for that?

 

I don't mean this personally, but your posts sound as if you are trying to prove something to me. I don't care about proving anything to you, and don't care to have people posture at me, so maybe I'll just leave you to it. Good luck in your studies.

There is no inclination proving to you at all. Sorry if it came off that way. I wascurious on your traig was all. No worries and thanks for the kind words of encouragement.

Thanks everyone for commenting on my post. I enjoyed seeing what everyone has had to say. Although, I am concerned that "strongyetagile" did not understood the point I was trying to make. Nothing I stated in my original post has anything to do with "broscience." I was pointing out the fact that people tend to focus on the finer details of nutrition before they really understand more basic (and more important) details. The "basic details" being those that Mr. Naterman has pointed out. For example, lets pretend Jimmy wants to start eating healthy and exercising. It is more important for Jimmy to focus on facts that have research and evidence behind them. For example, drinking the proper amount of water. Studies show that performance is impaired when dehydration exceeds 2% body weight. Also, Jimmy should focus on consuming enough calories from a variety of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, lean meats, low fat dairy, and healthy oils. Jimmy should be aware of the misinformation that people spread online. He should do his own research to form his own view and opinion on a subject. I believe that "strongyetagile" believes what he says, and that his intentions are good. A lot of what he said has no fact to support it:

"he is acting like his body is just like these children who able to get away with it"

-I never said I ate like these children do. That is how I used to eat when I was a kid and that is how a lot of young gymnasts eat. It is a fact that the biggest influence on a child's diet is their parents. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20807465

"With that logic of not caring, it's easy to see why I'm calling broscience"

-For one, this statement does not even make sense. In what way do I not care? I made an observation that most young kids focus a small amount of their time on their diet. Second, broscience has nothing to do with not caring. It is a term used describe information passed along through word of mouth and online that has no scientific basis.

"0.85-1.0g/lb Carbs" a day

-Your kidding right. This was the most concerning statement I saw. The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institutes of Medicine recommends 5 to 12 g of carbohydrate/kg body weight a day. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16004827

I'm not trying to be a jerk but you should do a little research before you post things online without the knowledge to give a well informed response.

vinni20 said:

Thanks everyone for commenting on my post. I enjoyed seeing what everyone has had to say. Although, I am concerned that "strongyetagile" did not understood the point I was trying to make. Nothing I stated in my original post has anything to do with "broscience." I was pointing out the fact that people tend to focus on the finer details of nutrition before they really understand more basic (and more important) details. The "basic details" being those that Mr. Naterman has pointed out. For example, lets pretend Jimmy wants to start eating healthy and exercising. It is more important for Jimmy to focus on facts that have research and evidence behind them. For example, drinking the proper amount of water. Studies show that performance is impaired when dehydration exceeds 2% body weight. Also, Jimmy should focus on consuming enough calories from a variety of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, lean meats, low fat dairy, and healthy oils. Jimmy should be aware of the misinformation that people spread online. He should do his own research to form his own view and opinion on a subject. I believe that "strongyetagile" believes what he says, and that his intentions are good. A lot of what he said has no fact to support it:

"he is acting like his body is just like these children who able to get away with it"

-I never said I ate like these children do. That is how I used to eat when I was a kid and that is how a lot of young gymnasts eat. It is a fact that the biggest influence on a child's diet is their parents. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20807465

"With that logic of not caring, it's easy to see why I'm calling broscience"

-For one, this statement does not even make sense. In what way do I not care? I made an observation that most young kids focus a small amount of their time on their diet. Second, broscience has nothing to do with not caring. It is a term used describe information passed along through word of mouth and online that has no scientific basis.

"0.85-1.0g/lb Carbs" a day

-Your kidding right. This was the most concerning statement I saw. The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institutes of Medicine recommends 5 to 12 g of carbohydrate/kg body weight a day. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16004827

I'm not trying to be a jerk but you should do a little research before you post things online without the knowledge to give a well informed response.

Well if you read through the posts you'd see that the reasons for going 0.85-1.0glb Carbs a day is because if you are doing floor work from Coach's gymnastic program, you're not going to be needing as many calories as you'd think from a carbohydrate source as you'd think. (Unless you are training directly under him and he's pushing you beyond this program aha.)

Just because Pubmed says these are the ideal ratios doesn't mean it actually directly applies to what you need for training and current body composition. Having 5-12g for that day is for someone either getting for a competition later and needs to refeed with cyclist coming close second to matching that need as they are endurance athletes. (Either that or they have an extremely high metabolism thus making a need for more energy.)

The other reason is the demand based on the sport. Cyclists are a great example of this. They'd consume 3-4g/lb every day because of the of needing instantaneous energy from eating that many carbs. They burn it off far rapidly and effectively than someone like one us doing the activities we are doing through floor work.

Floor work/ring work can classify what we do as being power athletes. (Like a powerlifter/weightlifter but not to the demand of energy they need as it succeeds what we do.) Our goals differ because their goal is either hypertrophy/strength gains whereas we are focused on strength gains with neuromuscular efficiency to contract all muscles at once and through that..possible hypertrophy will follow as the body will grow if necessary to assist making the movements better and easier.

As far your statement saying,

"For one, this statement does not even make sense. In what way do I not care? I made an observation that most young kids focus a small amount of their time on their diet. Second, broscience has nothing to do with not caring. It is a term used describe information passed along through word of mouth and online that has no scientific basis."

Bro science is not just when information is passed along through word of mouth and online. Broscience does actually have some scientific basis..it's just not complete. It's because the information is impartially discussed and read up on. That is where it gets confusing and where people like me come in alongside my other colleges about filling in the gaps as the truth always lies somewhere in the middle and never extreme right or left. Facts are left out and people will often suffer because of that through their diets that they can never adhere to for life.

And it isn't just us, it's other people out there as well who believe in the flexible dieting/IIFYM and have shown what it can do and work tremendously well.

Just read through and if you'd like to discuss some more I'd be happy to continue because this is one of my passions.

(P.S. OH I almost forgot to touch on that children bit from the Pubmed post. Just like adults, it's no different when it comes to nutrition with the exception of that much of their needs will be carbohydrate sources due to most of their exercises/movements they do from day to day will be considered aerobic.)

strongyetagile said:

Bro science is not just when information is passed along through word of mouth and online. Broscience does actually have some scientific basis..it's just not complete. It's because the information is impartially discussed and read up on. That is where it gets confusing and where people like me come in alongside my other colleges about filling in the gaps as the truth always lies somewhere in the middle and never extreme right or left. Facts are left out and people will often suffer because of that through their diets that they can never adhere to for life

Broscience isn't troubled by being confusing, IMO - Much of it is pretty straight forward, because it is based on simplistic assumptions about human biology. And your assertion/assumption that 'the truth always lies somewhere in the middle and never extreme right or left' concerns me a bit - How can your belief possibly impact on the biological systems of humans? The causal connection works in the opposite direction: The biological system operates in a certain way, which is uncovered through scientific processes of establishing hypotheses, and subsequently falsifying or confirming those hypotheses, which are then rejected or refined. Repeating this proces many, many times should inform our opinion on the truth. The truth does not care about us, it can be as extremely left or right as it pleases. It is only up to us to observe the truth, not form opinions on what the truth 'should be'. Preconceptions like the one you're exhibiting above doesn't do much to convince other people that you possess a balanced, objective view on the subject.

strongyetagile said:

Broscience does actually have some scientific basis..it's just not complete.

Wow. My involvement in this conversation ends here.

Ravn said:

Broscience isn't troubled by being confusing, IMO - Much of it is pretty straight forward, because it is based on simplistic assumptions about human biology. And your assertion/assumption that 'the truth always lies somewhere in the middle and never extreme right or left' concerns me a bit - How can your belief possibly impact on the biological systems of humans? The causal connection works in the opposite direction: The biological system operates in a certain way, which is uncovered through scientific processes of establishing hypotheses, and subsequently falsifying or confirming those hypotheses, which are then rejected or refined. Repeating this proces many, many times should inform our opinion on the truth. The truth does not care about us, it can be as extremely left or right as it pleases. It is only up to us to observe the truth, not form opinions on what the truth 'should be'. Preconceptions like the one you're exhibiting above doesn't do much to convince other people that you possess a balanced, objective view on the subject.

No I explained what I was taught by others have taught me from their own studies and years of research from either a decade two.(2 being very specific study cases.) What they presented was being the latest in their findings such as protein and how much is actually being used for anabolism toward hypertrophy, anaerobic activities, and aerobic activities.

As with some other studies I've read about from Pubmed, school, and some authors about meal frequency are examples of having the truth lay in the middle as their opinions being diversely abroad (School and most authors being extremely far left about eating 6-8 times a day and a handful of authors + Pubmed on the right with most studies suggesting 1-3 meals.)

They did the work and I'm looking through and piecing their own work with my work. (An example of what we all do finding the truth in the middle as it satisfies us enough to proceed for by applying to own on bodies and lives.)

And you do realize that even still that the "truth" is still ones own perception of what that looks, right? I can ask the same thing to you.

Of course if both read the exact same thing, we will go separate ways of what that "truth" is and spread our findings to others who ask or lecture anyways.

Before comong to this board, my background as far as sports and training is bodybuilding and basketball. In the time i have been lifting weights( 5 years ) i have studied a reasonable amount of nutrition.

The fitness and bodybulilding culture will make it out that you can eat your way into getting bigger muscles. People will get stressed about not hitting their macro profile they have planned out, thinking you won't make or even lose muscle gains if things like a certain amount of protein is not eaten at a certain given time, and not getting enough protein.

Then there is the people who will tell you carbs make you fat, especially fast digesting carbs.

In short, if you try and eat your way into looking and performing bigger and better....you will most most likely get fat.

Your training is what will bring forward progression in performance and physique. So long as your eating a fairly well balanced diet, and the correct amount of calories for you given goal. Stressing about protein intake, bad carbs and all the other nonsense trends that come and go is not worth the time and money.