# 'almond milk and in depth carb and nutrition discussion'



## rfclee

Anno its not a supplement as such but didn't know where to put this 

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/Details/?id=273706064

Got myself a few litres of the stuff , It used to be a £1 but in true tesco fashion the price changed over night.

Love the stuff and great for cutting


----------



## Dazza

Thanks for that, i normally grab me some koko coconut milk, but it's a tad pricey for what it is.


----------



## Mighty Sparrow

Dazzza said:


> Thanks for that, i normally grab me some koko coconut mulk, but it's a tad pricey for what it is.


There are some great recipes online for non diary milk. Works out very cheap


----------



## redwing

so simple to make your own almond milk.

http://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-almond-milk-at-home-cooking-lessons-from-the-kitchn-189996


----------



## Skye666

I use this coz I can't have normal milk....hazelnut one really nice too.


----------



## Northern Lass

redwing said:


> so simple to make your own almond milk.
> 
> http://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-almond-milk-at-home-cooking-lessons-from-the-kitchn-189996


isn't it cheaper to buy it ready made tho


----------



## Guest

redwing said:


> so simple to make your own almond milk.
> 
> http://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-almond-milk-at-home-cooking-lessons-from-the-kitchn-189996


Nice 1


----------



## funkdocta

Great in shakes. Btw if you have chic whey shakes get some hazelnut milk and make them taste like Nutella


----------



## havering

Used almond milk for months while cutting in shakes, with cereal, in cooking, plenty of stuff.


----------



## redwing

YummyMummy said:


> isn't it cheaper to buy it ready made tho


No, Not even close. Dont know where your getting that from . Its only almonds and water lol

You can make lots of Almond milk with just a handful of Almonds and without the sugar that is found in many.

Next time you buy Almond milk have a look how much actual almonds are in it. 2%

Heres the ingredients for the one linked Blue Diamond which is very good.

Spring Water,Almonds (2%) ,Calcium Carbonate ,Tapioca Starch ,Sea Salt ,Stabiliser: Carrageenan ,Emulsifier: Sunflower Lecithin ,Natural Flavouring

Heres the ingredients from the most popular one Alpro . 2% Almonds PLUS the main ingredient after the obvious water is Sugar.

Ingredients

Water, Sugar, Almond (2%), Tri-calcium phosphate, Sea salt, Stabilisers (Locust Bean gum, Gellan gum), Emulsifier (Sunflower lecithin).


----------



## Clubber Lang

mother of God, i was nearly sick after drinking some of this lol. Horrible!


----------



## smarty pant

anyone recommend where to buy coconut milk?


----------



## reza85

funkdocta said:


> Great in shakes. Btw if you have chic whey shakes get some hazelnut milk and make them taste like Nutella


x2


----------



## essexboy

smarty pant said:


> anyone recommend where to buy coconut milk?


Holland and Barretts


----------



## Lou Lou

I love almond milk...don't drink normal milk anymore.


----------



## MRSTRONG

Lou Lou said:


> I love almond milk...don't drink normal milk anymore.


is that lap dance still up for grabs


----------



## gooner fc

Try the roasted almond milk cold with honey crunchy nut cornflakes. Roasted taste better than normal almond milk. Can do box of cereal easy with almond milk.


----------



## Ginger Ben

smarty pant said:


> anyone recommend where to buy coconut milk?


Asian grocery if there's one near you or a B&M again if you have one. Much cheaper there than at supermarket


----------



## ritchiedrama

redwing said:


> No, Not even close. Dont know where your getting that from . Its only almonds and water lol
> 
> You can make lots of Almond milk with just a handful of Almonds and without the sugar that is found in many.
> 
> Next time you buy Almond milk have a look how much actual almonds are in it. 2%
> 
> Heres the ingredients for the one linked Blue Diamond which is very good.
> 
> Spring Water,Almonds (2%) ,Calcium Carbonate ,Tapioca Starch ,Sea Salt ,Stabiliser: Carrageenan ,Emulsifier: Sunflower Lecithin ,Natural Flavouring
> 
> Heres the ingredients from the most popular one Alpro . 2% Almonds PLUS the main ingredient after the obvious water is Sugar.
> 
> Ingredients
> 
> Water, Sugar, Almond (2%), Tri-calcium phosphate, Sea salt, Stabilisers (Locust Bean gum, Gellan gum), Emulsifier (Sunflower lecithin).


oh noes, not the sugar..

what is your point? the only reason anyone would _ever_ have to watch sugar intake is if they are a diabetic and/or some other medical complication or issue.


----------



## redwing

ritchiedrama said:


> oh noes, not the sugar..
> 
> *what is your point? the only reason anyone would _ever_ have to watch sugar intake is if they are a diabetic and/or some other medical complication or issue*.


1 what do you mean whats my point ? I dont want sugar in my almond milk is my point I thought that was obvious.Why would you need to ask what my poiint is, can you not see it?

2 for you to say the only reason anyone would have to watch there sugar intake is for diabetic or medical complication shows you dont have the slightest clue what your talking about.

Thats the same as saying nobody had to watch anything they eat unless its for medical reasons. I choose to watch my sugar intake same as I do my fat intake. LOL your post is laughable.


----------



## ritchiedrama

redwing said:


> 1 what do you mean whats my point ? I dont want sugar in my almond milk is my point I thought that was obvious.Why would you need to ask what my poiint is, can you not see it?
> 
> 2 for you to say the only reason anyone would have to watch there sugar intake is for diabetic or medical complication shows you dont have the slightest clue what your talking about.
> 
> Thats the same as saying nobody had to watch anything they eat unless its for medical reasons. I choose to watch my sugar intake same as I do my fat intake. LOL your post is laughable.


Sounds like you need a good education lesson on food if you ask me.

Sugar is IRRELEVANT to body composition, as is fat intake. You must be one of those broscience clowns.

And... fat does not make you fat - so why did you mention you watch your fat intake? dafuq is wrong with you.


----------



## OrganicSteel

ritchiedrama said:


> Sugar is IRRELEVANT to body composition


Pretty sure that's not true.


----------



## ritchiedrama

OrganicSteel said:


> Pretty sure that's not true.


I'm 100% sure that IS true.


----------



## redwing

ritchiedrama said:


> Sounds like you need a good education lesson on food if you ask me.
> 
> Sugar is IRRELEVANT to body composition, as is fat intake. You must be one of those broscience clowns.
> 
> And... fat does not make you fat - so why did you mention you watch your fat intake? dafuq is wrong with you.


You seem to be under an illusion I said dont take sugar, when all i did was offer a cheap way of making almond milk rather than buying expensive almond milk with added sugar . If you want to make almonld milk with sugar in thats fine.

I watch what sugar intake I have so I like it without but nowhere did i say dont have it.

Now your deciding to give me lessons on my diet which you know absolutely nothing about, Sugar does you no harm fat doesnt make you fat therefore no one has to watch anything they eat at all.When ive not made a single claim at all, im just prudent with the fat and sugar intake I have.

Now resorted to name calling me a broscience clown when ive claimed absolutely nothing the only one claiming anything here is YOU.Making many claims. a typical keyboard warrior now saying silly words DAFUQ is wrong with me lol.

RitchiedramaQueen should be your name as youve made a whole lot of drama out of nothing.


----------



## redwing

ritchiedrama said:


> I'm 100% sure that IS true.


Still making those Broscience claims


----------



## ritchiedrama

redwing said:


> You seem to be under an illusion I said dont take sugar, when all i did was offer a cheap way of making almond milk rather than buying expensive almond milk with added sugar . If you want to make almonld milk with sugar in thats fine.
> 
> I watch what sugar intake I have so I like it without but nowher did i say dont have it.
> 
> Now your deciding to 1 give me lessons on my diet which you know absolutely nothing about, Sugar does you no harm fat doesnt make you fat therefore no one has to watch anything they eat at all.When ive not made a single claim at all, im just prudent with the fat and sugar intake I have.
> 
> Now resorted to name calling me a broscience clown when ive claimed absolutely nothing the only one claiming anything here is YOU.Making many claims. a typical keyboard warrior now saying silly words DAFUQ is wrong with me lol.
> 
> RitchiedramaQueen should be your name as youve made a whole lot of drama out of nothing.


So you watch your sugar intake for what reason then? There must be some reason as to why you'd choose to watch it and choose to make your own Almond Milk without sugar?

"for you to say the only reason anyone would have to watch there sugar intake is for diabetic or medical complication shows you dont have the slightest clue what your talking about."

Ok, so tell me one reason why they would have to watch sugar intake and how I have no slight clue what I am talking about.


----------



## OrganicSteel

ritchiedrama said:


> I'm 100% sure that IS true.


But.. When there's too much glucose in the body (muscle and liver cells full) excess glucose is converted into saturated fat.


----------



## ritchiedrama

OrganicSteel said:


> But.. When there's too much glucose in the body (muscle and liver cells full) excess glucose is converted into saturated fat.


Oh my.. ok we're in 2013 now, sugar intake is irrelevant - sugar does nothing to your body other than get used as an energy source.

1. Go do some new reading, scientific studies etc.

2. Sugar/fat/protein/dogcrap does not make you fat, excess calories do.

3. Nothing is wrong with saturated fat regardless.

4. Just to mention, sugar from fruit is the same as sugar from chocolate bars, metabolically on the same level it does exactly the same thing - but I'm fairly certain the majority of people don't realise that.


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> Oh my.. ok we're in 2013 now, sugar intake is irrelevant - sugar does nothing to your body other than get used as an energy source.
> 
> 1. Go do some new reading, scientific studies etc.
> 
> 2. Sugar/fat/protein/dogcrap does not make you fat, excess calories do.
> 
> 3. Nothing is wrong with saturated fat regardless.
> 
> 4. Just to mention, sugar from fruit is the same as sugar from chocolate bars, metabolically on the same level it does exactly the same thing - but I'm fairly certain the majority of people don't realise that.


Fructose does not act the same in the body as sugar, some fruit sources are better than others,

The best been berries, blueberries blackberries etc...

Bananas have there uses too


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> Fructose does not act the same in the body as sugar, some fruit sources are better than others,
> 
> The best been berries, blueberries blackberries etc...
> 
> Bananas have there uses too


No, I am sorry. Sugar is just sugar. It all ends up in the same place (and does the same thing).

I'd also like to stater; both fuctose and glucose are chemically C6 H12 O6


----------



## redwing

ritchiedrama said:


> So you watch your sugar intake for what reason then? There must be some reason as to why you'd choose to watch it and choose to make your own Almond Milk without sugar?
> 
> "for you to say the only reason anyone would have to watch there sugar intake is for diabetic or medical complication shows you dont have the slightest clue what your talking about."
> 
> Ok, so tell me one reason why they would have to watch sugar intake and how I have no slight clue what I am talking about.


The burdon of proof is on you to back all the claims you keep making but to be honest I think your a bit silly. I posted the almond milk thing a while ago your brought it up to start making claims about sugar. I think your probably just trolling.


----------



## ritchiedrama

redwing said:


> The burdon of proof is on you to back all the claims you keep making but to be honest I think your a bit silly. I posted the almond milk thing a while ago your brought it up to start making claims about sugar. I think your probably just trolling.


Definitely not "trolling". Trying to remove the bro from science


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> No, I am sorry. Sugar is just sugar. It all ends up in the same place (and does the same thing).
> 
> I'd also like to stater; both fuctose and glucose are chemically C6 H12 O6


ok mate,

humour me

you google the difference between fructose and glucose of where it metabolises in the body.

then you come back to me with why your right


----------



## redwing

ritchiedrama said:


> Definitely not "trolling". Trying to remove the bro from science


and doing such a poor job.

Firstly picking an Almond milk thread to make your sugar row, then making non stop claims with absolutly nothing to back them up at all and all done in a manner of a 10 year old.

throw that in a bowl mix together for 20 secs you get an instant pile of hot steaming Troll.


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> ok mate,
> 
> humour me
> 
> you google the difference between fructose and glucose of where it metabolises in the body.
> 
> then you come back to me with why your right


They end up in the same place, doing the same thing. I am very aware of what happens before that, regardless - they end up doing the same thing for your body.

http://drpinna.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/glucose-fructose-and-sucrose.jpg

Our bodys just see sugar. End of the story really. Eating sugar of any form does not have any affect on body composition, eating too many calories does - if you DISAGREE with that, then you're very very strange.


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> They end up in the same place, doing the same thing. I am very aware of what happens before that, regardless - they end up doing the same thing for your body.
> 
> http://drpinna.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/glucose-fructose-and-sucrose.jpg
> 
> Our bodys just see sugar. End of the story really. Eating sugar of any form does not have any affect on body composition, eating too many calories does - if you DISAGREE with that, then you're very very strange.


so do you not believe in the GI and the GL of the carbs you take in either?

i have no bother eating sugars... but only around the workout

where as blueberries have plenty of benefits /w antioxidants with a carb meal on a low carb day.

and a banana has potassium benefits post workout for nutrient shuttling


----------



## k3z

ritchiedrama said:


> They end up in the same place, doing the same thing. I am very aware of what happens before that, regardless - they end up doing the same thing for your body.
> 
> http://drpinna.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/glucose-fructose-and-sucrose.jpg
> 
> Our bodys just see sugar. End of the story really. Eating sugar of any form does not have any affect on body composition, eating too many calories does - if you DISAGREE with that, then you're very very strange.


It effects oral health, that's enough for me to limit intake.


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> so do you not believe in the GI and the GL of the carbs you take in either?
> 
> i have no bother eating sugars... but only around the workout
> 
> where as blueberries have plenty of benefits /w antioxidants with a carb meal on a low carb day.
> 
> and a banana has potassium benefits post workout for nutrient shuttling


GI is irrelevant for body composition, also so no.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/532251-let-s-talk-about-the-gi-index

All you need to do is read the first post by Acg67 to understand this, also.

Don't take anything I say as a personal attack to you (i am not saying you are seeing it as an attack, jus saying) - but I spent a few years eating "clean" and all that non sense, eating certain foods at certain times 6-7 meals a day. It makes no difference, not one bit.

It was hard to take at first because I felt like I had wasted so much time for nothing but I was glad I learnt and then just opened my mind to the fact that this broscience was bs. There is many competitive bodybuilders coming in at 4-5% bodyfat who follow flexible dieting now also.


----------



## ritchiedrama

k3z said:


> It effects oral health, that's enough for me to limit intake.


I brush my teeth twice a day, my teeth are perfect - I'll take my chances.

Do you even know how many grams of sugar you consume a day? Like, honestly?


----------



## redwing

ritchiedrama said:


> They end up in the same place, doing the same thing. I am very aware of what happens before that, regardless - they end up doing the same thing for your body.
> 
> http://drpinna.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/glucose-fructose-and-sucrose.jpg
> 
> Our bodys just see sugar. End of the story really. Eating sugar of any form does not have any affect on body composition, eating too many calories does - if you DISAGREE with that, then you're very very strange.


I didnt even want to get into the sugar thing but is that it?

is that your whole point? nothing about timings , the lack of any other benefit to the body and nutrients.

As you quoted to someone this is 2013 youve caused all this drama and the only thing you have to tell us is sugar is a fast carb source nothing more. I thought you had something new to tell the world.


----------



## ritchiedrama

redwing said:


> I didnt even want to get into the sugar thing but is that it?
> 
> is that your whole point? nothing about timings , the lack of any other benefit to the body and nutrients.
> 
> As you quoted to someone this is 2013 youve caused all this drama and the only thing you have to tell us is sugar is a fast carb source nothing more. I thought you had something new to tell the world.


After reading each of your posts again, I have come to understand that you are the one that is brain dead. Timing of food has no effect on anything, either.


----------



## redwing

ritchiedrama said:


> I brush my teeth twice a day, my teeth are perfect - I'll take my chances.
> 
> Do you even know how many grams of sugar you consume a day?* Like, honestly?*


You sound very young


----------



## k3z

ritchiedrama said:


> I brush my teeth twice a day, my teeth are perfect - I'll take my chances.
> 
> Do you even know how many grams of sugar you consume a day? Like, honestly?


Im not that anal about it, but I don't have added sugar with anything - tea, coffee etc all without sugar, Same with salt - don't add it to anything. If its in it already, that's fine no biggie ill not worry about it


----------



## ritchiedrama

k3z said:


> Im not that anal about it, but I don't have added sugar with anything - tea, coffee etc all without sugar, Same with salt - don't add it to anything. If its in it already, that's fine no biggie ill not worry about it


I don't add sugar or salt to anything either, but I eat tonnes of it. I did state anyway I was talking purely on a body composition level


----------



## ritchiedrama

redwing said:


> You sound very young


Asks for evidence about things I'm saying.

Gets provided evidence.

Continues to talk nonsense.


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> GI is irrelevant for body composition, also so no.
> 
> http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/532251-let-s-talk-about-the-gi-index
> 
> All you need to do is read the first post by Acg67 to understand this, also.
> 
> Don't take anything I say as a personal attack to you (i am not saying you are seeing it as an attack, jus saying) - but I spent a few years eating "clean" and all that non sense, eating certain foods at certain times 6-7 meals a day. It makes no difference, not one bit.
> 
> It was hard to take at first because I felt like I had wasted so much time for nothing but I was glad I learnt and then just opened my mind to the fact that this broscience was bs. There is many competitive bodybuilders coming in at 4-5% bodyfat who follow flexible dieting now also.


sorry mate but you are off point

i have paid for coaching from jordan peters , do you favour your knowledge over his? I have had discussions on this very topic, and the GI+GL of foods Does make a difference - for the time of the day + perimeter of your workout,

I take in no sugars unless pre intra or post workout

I eat protein/fat/veg meals untill my low gi carb meal pre workout to increase the insulin sensitivity of that meal.

every little helps m8 just depends how far you want to take it

your not gonna get fat by eating white rice...


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> sorry mate but you are incorrect
> 
> i have paid for coaching from jordan peters , do you favour your knowledge over his? I have had discussions on this very topic, and the GI+GL of foods Does make a difference - for the time of the day + perimeter of your workout,
> 
> I take in no sugars unless pre intra or post workout
> 
> I eat protein/fat/veg meals untill my low gi carb meal pre workout to increase the insulin sensitivity of that meal.
> 
> every little helps m8 just depends how far you want to take it
> 
> your not gonna get fat by eating white rice...


I take Alan Aragorn, Lyle McDonald & Layne Norton over Jordan Peters any day of the week.

Science > Jordan Peters.

Sorry to burst your bubble bud, but I provided plenty of evidence to solidify my statement. You'll enjoy your life more if you add it into practice too! 

Good luck!

Edit: and after reading several interviews with peters, I can already see he is a broscientissssst.


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> After reading each of your posts again, I have come to understand that you are the one that is brain dead. Timing of food has no effect on anything, either.


OF course the timing of food has effect

it is THE most important thing in building the best physique

read up on insulin sensitivity and resistance


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> I take Alan Aragorn, Lyle McDonald & Layne Norton over Jordan Peters any day of the week.
> 
> Science > Jordan Peters.
> 
> Sorry to burst your bubble bud, but I provided plenty of evidence to solidify my statement. You'll enjoy your life more if you add it into practice too!
> 
> Good luck!


Scott Stevenson PHD > all those you quoted... which is where JPs info comes from..

im sure pscarb who also shares the same coach will devalue your statements somewhat.

im out anyway cos argueing with an idiot only leads to looking like an idiot yourself


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> OF course the timing of food has effect
> 
> it is THE most important thing in building the best physique
> 
> read up on insulin sensitivity and resistance


Oh my, all you have to do is read all the SCIENTIFIC evidence I provided which you asked for.

Good day sir!

Just another quick link for ya (which involves more ACTUAL science).

http://www.josefrakichfitness.com/pages/meal-frequency-and-nutrient-timing


----------



## k3z

Got plenty to read now - I hope its bloody worth it


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> Oh my, all you have to do is read all the SCIENTIFIC evidence I provided which you asked for.
> 
> Good day sir!
> 
> Just another quick link for ya (which involves more ACTUAL science).
> 
> http://www.josefrakichfitness.com/pages/meal-frequency-and-nutrient-timing


nothing in that statement is incorrect however you generalised the "food timing statement"

there is a MASSIVE improvement in the bodys use of carbs when fats have been eaten previous to them due to the insulin sensitivity provided

P.s. articles from men without test studies is not scientific..

to put that JP sprouts bro science is one of the funniest things ive ever read on UK-M

I dont have the nutritional qualifications or experience to back up what im saying as at the end of the day, i am an IT consultant not a nutritionist ..

however @Pscarb can


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> nothing in that statement is incorrect however you generalised the "food timing statement"
> 
> there is a MASSIVE improvement in the bodys use of carbs when fats have been eaten previous to them due to the insulin sensitivity provided
> 
> P.s. articles from men without test studies is not scientific..
> 
> to put that JP sprouts bro science is one of the funniest things ive ever read on UK-M
> 
> I dont have the nutritional qualifications or experience to back up what im saying as at the end of the day, i am an IT consultant not a nutritionist ..
> 
> however @Pscarb can


The issue here is you are telling me that meal timing is relevant..

So now tell me why there are competitive bodybuilders and/or guys with great physiques that say it ISN'T relevant?

Surely that just shows it is not relevant and it doesn't matter and eat how you want to eat? (oh and plenty of science to show the body reacts the same way whether you eat 2 big meals a day, or 6).


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> They end up in the same place, doing the same thing. I am very aware of what happens before that, regardless - they end up doing the same thing for your body.
> 
> http://drpinna.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/glucose-fructose-and-sucrose.jpg
> 
> Our bodys just see sugar. End of the story really. Eating sugar of any form does not have any affect on body composition, eating too many calories does - if you DISAGREE with that, then you're very very strange.


i am just leaving to get my boy from school so no time to go through every link but the fact you believe that it is just about calories is niave the source of those calories does matter, i see later on your quote Layne and i understand why because he is very knowledgeable but even he has discussed that fact that you cannot just rely on calories where these come from has a huge influence on how your body responds for example getting all your carbs from fibrous sources say greean veg will have a different affect on the body from say getting them from table sugar, i know this is extreme but by your own post where they are from should not matter this is not true and this is certainly not Bro Science.


----------



## redwing

ritchiedrama said:


> The issue here is you are telling me that meal timing is relevant..
> 
> *So now tell me why there are competitive bodybuilders and/or guys with great physiques that say it ISN'T relevant? *
> 
> Surely that just shows it is not relevant and it doesn't matter and eat how you want to eat? (oh and plenty of science to show the body reacts the same way whether you eat 2 big meals a day, or 6).


Thats not an answer . I can just say the same back tell me why there are bodybuilders today that say it IS relevant?

You keep on about Broscience but its you that keeps using lines like your last one. "Surely that shows its not relevant" is that your science because some guys say it isnt?


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> i am just leaving to get my boy from school so no time to go through every link but the fact you believe that it is just about calories is niave the source of those calories does matter, i see later on your quote Layne and i understand why because he is very knowledgeable but even he has discussed that fact that you cannot just rely on calories where these come from has a huge influence on how your body responds for example getting all your carbs from fibrous sources say greean veg will have a different affect on the body from say getting them from table sugar, i know this is extreme but by your own post where they are from should not matter this is not true and this is certainly not Bro Science.


I know exactly what Layne says and I know that fiber is extremely important (and I thought I mentioned that, if I didn't it was in another thread).

I never said it is just about calories, it's about macronutrient intake and calories. My point was, whether you get 20g of sugar from an apple, or 20g of sugar from your favourite chocolate bar, in a BODY COMPOSITION argument (which is what I clearly stated, several times) no differences would occur.


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> I know exactly what Layne says and I know that fiber is extremely important (and I thought I mentioned that, if I didn't it was in another thread).
> 
> I never said it is just about calories, it's about macronutrient intake and calories. My point was, whether you get 20g of sugar from an apple, or 20g of sugar from your favourite chocolate bar, in a BODY COMPOSITION argument (which is what I clearly stated, several times) no differences would occur.


It's the fact that you disagreed with the points I raised including timing of fat meals, insulin sensitivity, The use of the right GI+GL foods at the right times that I have an issue with

Oh and saying that JP talks crap is odd too


----------



## ritchiedrama

redwing said:


> Thats not an answer . I can just say the same back tell me why there are bodybuilders today that say it IS relevant?
> 
> You keep on about Broscience but its you that keeps using lines like your last one. "Surely that shows its not relevant" is that your science because some guys say it isnt?


Because they are close minded and stick with what works, but it does not mean it is the ONLY way.

I never said what they do does NOT work. I said what they do has no affect on their body composition. I am not telling you they're doing it wrong, I am saying it is not necessary.

Not to mention, we're talking stage ready level bodybuilders here, which who follow your principle and the principle I've laid out, yet they all come in at 4-5% body fat levels - doesn't that tell you enough?

I used to be a 200+ lb fat kid, I used to eat "clean", 6 meals a day, it is a ridiculous lifestyle to follow for many, and something you do NOT have to do. There is no good or bad foods, just foods. Our body knows no better from a body composition viewpoint.

99% of people here will never be competitors, so why do things the way an IFBB pro would anyway? Wake up.


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> It's the fact that you disagreed with the points I raised including timing of fat meals, insulin sensitivity, The use of the right GI+GL foods at the right times that I have an issue with
> 
> Oh and saying that JP talks crap is odd too


Body composition has no affect on when you time your fat, or your insulin sensitivity or the use of certain GI+GL foods.

Edit: http://www.josefrakichfitness.com/pages/iifym-if-it-fits-your-macros-2


----------



## marknorthumbria

what do you define when you say body composition

as that includes fat loss for me,

and for fat loss insulin sensitivity is defonately key,

and by the way i'm a 220lb 'ripped kid' and I have got this way by not denying the advice given on this forum and being a know it all after 100 posts and a month..



ritchiedrama said:


> Because they are close minded and stick with what works, but it does not mean it is the ONLY way.
> 
> I never said what they do does NOT work. I said what they do has no affect on their body composition. I am not telling you they're doing it wrong, I am saying it is not necessary.
> 
> Not to mention, we're talking stage ready level bodybuilders here, which who follow your principle and the principle I've laid out, yet they all come in at 4-5% body fat levels - doesn't that tell you enough?
> 
> I used to be a 200+ lb fat kid, I used to eat "clean", 6 meals a day, it is a ridiculous lifestyle to follow for many, and something you do NOT have to do. There is no good or bad foods, just foods. Our body knows no better from a body composition viewpoint.
> 
> 99% of people here will never be competitors, so why do things the way an IFBB pro would anyway? Wake up.





ritchiedrama said:


> Body composition has no affect on when you time your fat, or your insulin sensitivity or the use of certain GI+GL foods.
> 
> Edit: http://www.josefrakichfitness.com/pages/iifym-if-it-fits-your-macros-2


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> what do you define when you say body composition
> 
> as that includes fat loss for me,
> 
> and for fat loss insulin sensitivity is defonately key,
> 
> and by the way i'm a 220lb 'ripped kid' and I have got this way by not denying the advice given on this forum and being a know it all after 100 posts and a month..


I never said your way does not work, not once, read my other posts.

By body composition, yes, fat loss.

Fat loss is not affected by your insulin sensitivity. Go read the link I provided above it exactly shows you why.

Calorie & macro-nutrient intake is the only determining factor.

I also checked your journal, you look great mate. I am *NOT* taking anything away from you or your achievements. I am just spreading scientific knowledge which in reality you could use yourself to enjoy yourself a bit more if you so pleased.

And if you REALLY want some good information (your friend that you also tagged here, said Layne is knowledgeable) look at the link below, if you're open minded and want to actually try and understand something you will watch it.





 - BioLayne Video Log 12 - Clean Eating vs IIFYM (If it fits your macros)





 - Alberto Nuñez on IIFYM/Flexible Dieting





 - Rant My Take On Recent IIFYM & Flexible Dieting Debates (Jason Blaha)

(the reason I gave the above videos to you, is just general information to others, also).


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> Because they are close minded and stick with what works, but it does not mean it is the ONLY way.
> 
> I never said what they do does NOT work. I said what they do has no affect on their body composition. I am not telling you they're doing it wrong, I am saying it is not necessary.
> 
> Not to mention, we're talking stage ready level bodybuilders here, which who follow your principle and the principle I've laid out, yet they all come in at 4-5% body fat levels - doesn't that tell you enough?
> 
> I used to be a 200+ lb fat kid, I used to eat "clean", 6 meals a day, it is a ridiculous lifestyle to follow for many, and something you do NOT have to do. There is no good or bad foods, just foods. Our body knows no better from a body composition viewpoint.
> 
> 99% of people here will never be competitors, so why do things the way an IFBB pro would anyway? Wake up.


i have no time to argue with you which is what you seem to be after, 6 x day meal timings work and work well studies have shown that there is no difference if you have 3 or 10 meals per day as long as calories are the same yet it does have an impact on protein turnover and synthesis along with digestion

i would also say that you need to open your mind to others opinions and stop quoting other people, the quote "there is no good or bad foods" part is straight from phil learney @Learney and although true there are rules to that......you seem to be closed to everyones opinion other than the people you quote.

i would also say what works for one will not work for another so what is deemed not necassery for one individual may be necassery for another finding what works for you is key, take me for example i am around 220lbs approx 11-12%bf (dexa scan) but timing the majority of my carbs around my workouts is certainly the best approach for me, spreading them out has worked but the best approach is to better time my carbs around workouts i work with others who do not react as well......

if you are going to debate then you need to open your mind to other opinions that are not yours and in a way you are doing this but your writing style telling others to wake up screams to me of someone who thinks they know it all......


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> I never said your way does not work, not once, read my other posts.
> 
> By body composition, yes, fat loss.
> 
> Fat loss is not affected by your insulin sensitivity. Go read the link I provided above it exactly shows you why.
> 
> Calorie & macro-nutrient intake is the only determining factor.
> 
> I also checked your journal, you look great mate. I am *NOT* taking anything away from you or your achievements. I am just spreading scientific knowledge which in reality you could use yourself to enjoy yourself a bit more if you so pleased.
> 
> And if you REALLY want some good information (your friend that you also tagged here, said Layne is knowledgeable) look at the link below, if you're open minded and want to actually try and understand something you will watch it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - BioLayne Video Log 12 - Clean Eating vs IIFYM (If it fits your macros)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Alberto Nuñez on IIFYM/Flexible Dieting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Rant My Take On Recent IIFYM & Flexible Dieting Debates (Jason Blaha)
> 
> (the reason I gave the above videos to you, is just general information to others, also).


tasteful - respectful post so I will just ditch and agree to disagree on this one bud


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> i have no time to argue with you which is what you seem to be after, 6 x day meal timings work and work well studies have shown that there is no difference if you have 3 or 10 meals per day as long as calories are the same yet it does have an impact on protein turnover and synthesis along with digestion
> 
> i would also say that you need to open your mind to others opinions and stop quoting other people, the quote "there is no good or bad foods" part is straight from phil learney @Learney and although true there are rules to that......you seem to be closed to everyones opinion other than the people you quote.
> 
> i would also say what works for one will not work for another so what is deemed not necassery for one individual may be necassery for another finding what works for you is key, take me for example i am around 220lbs approx 11-12%bf (dexa scan) but timing the majority of my carbs around my workouts is certainly the best approach for me, spreading them out has worked but the best approach is to better time my carbs around workouts i work with others who do not react as well......
> 
> if you are going to debate then you need to open your mind to other opinions that are not yours and in a way you are doing this but your writing style telling others to wake up screams to me of someone who thinks they know it all......


I like the fact you make a good response to my posts though, we're merely discussing, not arguing. But if I'm honest it seems like you largely agree with me.

As for there are no good or bad foods quote, I didn't even realise I was quoting anything? I just... typed a sentence? lol.

As for your carb timings, it sounds like you're talking personal preference here for how you respond in a way OTHER than body composition. Because in reality we are actually all the same, we are humans with the same functions and unless medical issues are evident, we are all the same and no-one is a special snowflake.

Preference, though, sure.

As for - "99% of people here will never be competitors, so why do things the way an IFBB pro would anyway? Wake up."

My statement is very true. Why do anything an IFBB pro does when they are using drugs that cost over 15k a year to sustain what they're doing? (rough estimate, from things I have researched, jason blaha hit on it in the video I posted above too, and yes, that is something I am reciting from him, but he has a lot of first hand experience with these people).

My mind is always open, and I am very aware preference is key - but when someone tells me that there is a difference on bodycomposition between High/Low GI foods etc, that statement is absolutely incorrect.


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> I like the fact you make a good response to my posts though, we're merely discussing, not arguing. But if I'm honest it seems like you largely agree with me.
> 
> As for there are no good or bad foods quote, I didn't even realise I was quoting anything? I just... typed a sentence? lol.
> 
> *As for your carb timings, it sounds like you're talking personal preference here for how you respond in a way OTHER than body composition. Because in reality we are actually all the same, we are humans with the same functions and unless medical issues are evident, we are all the same and no-one is a special snowflake.*
> 
> Preference, though, sure.
> 
> As for - "99% of people here will never be competitors, so why do things the way an IFBB pro would anyway? Wake up."
> 
> My statement is very true. Why do anything an IFBB pro does when they are using drugs that cost over 15k a year to sustain what they're doing?
> 
> My mind is always open, and I am very aware preference is key - but when someone tells me that there is a difference on bodycomposition between High/Low GI foods etc, that statement is absolutely incorrect.


the bit in bold is incorrect as each individual with process carbs, protein and fats differently depending on there fat levels, muscle mass and insulin sensitivity which does certainly have an influence on how someone uses calories, women are different to men as hormones have an influence on how there body reacts.

you are correct my my take on how i do things is based on how i react but also how the people i work with react to certain diet types and timings of foods, you can dismiss this if you want but it does matter how you approach each individual if this was not the case cookie cutter diets would work every single time for everyone and they do not.

as for the quote on the IFBB Pro's if you think for a minute a Pro uses that much more than some amateurs then you are naive all you have to see is the doses used by forum members on this and other forums.......i personally know several Pro's and many do not do things that differently now to what they did coming through the ranks and whilst drugs play a big role every single one of them will vouch that timing of macro's is an important part of there overall plan....

i agree on something's we agree but on others it does not seem the case plus from your writing (and text does not have any emotions etc) you seem to dismiss everyone's opinion if it is not backed up by a so called expert or a study, where as Bro Science is rife you also have to take any study and apply it in the real world with real world issues like stress muscle mass, body fat etc to determine if it can be used to the whole.

hopefully @Learney will drop in as i would like him to answer your post on that insulin sensitivity does not matter and that we all react the same.....


----------



## Lou Lou

ewen said:


> is that lap dance still up for grabs


Hahaha of course...when are you doing it for me? ;-)


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> the bit in bold is incorrect as each individual with process carbs, protein and fats differently depending on there fat levels, muscle mass and insulin sensitivity which does certainly have an influence on how someone uses calories, women are different to men as hormones have an influence on how there body reacts.
> 
> you are correct my my take on how i do things is based on how i react but also how the people i work with react to certain diet types and timings of foods, you can dismiss this if you want but it does matter how you approach each individual if this was not the case cookie cutter diets would work every single time for everyone and they do not.
> 
> as for the quote on the IFBB Pro's if you think for a minute a Pro uses that much more than some amateurs then you are naive all you have to see is the doses used by forum members on this and other forums.......i personally know several Pro's and many do not do things that differently now to what they did coming through the ranks and whilst drugs play a big role every single one of them will vouch that timing of macro's is an important part of there overall plan....
> 
> i agree on something's we agree but on others it does not seem the case plus from your writing (and text does not have any emotions etc) you seem to dismiss everyone's opinion if it is not backed up by a so called expert or a study, where as Bro Science is rife you also have to take any study and apply it in the real world with real world issues like stress muscle mass, body fat etc to determine if it can be used to the whole.
> 
> hopefully @Learney will drop in as i would like him to answer your post on that insulin sensitivity does not matter and that we all react the same.....


As far as my knowledge extends here, insulin sensitivity is only factored in the heavily obese - I'm FAIRLY certain on that, not 100% - but I mean, like I said after being basically obese 2 years ago, I ate carbs like no other, so upon reading the science and applying it to myself (that insulin sensitivity was irrelevant) all it does is give me more evidence that it's right in thinking that way.

We will just have to disagree anyway, unless you can provide real science (just the way I do things). I am definitely not trying to be a "know" it all, or act like some superior being at all and I apologise if I come across that way. At least we agree in some places and it is nice to have mature discussions about this also!


----------



## Learney

Insulin sensitivity does matter am afraid. Saying sensitivity doesn't matter is like saying resistance makes no difference either. It would also mean that low carb dieting could endlessly be applied with composition continuously improving.....which it wouldn't. You create up and down regulation of hormones, enzymes and metabolic actions for a reason. You also consider resistance sensitivity and the de-sesitizing of receptors as a factor. Someone who continuosly hammers carbs will de=sensitize receptors and damage the beta cells of the pancreas. Therefore insulin production, uptake and secretion (GSIS) becomes compromised. If as you're saying insulin sensitivity doesn't matter how is the person in question with de-sensitised receptors, damaged beta cells and uptake compromised going to stop an excessive accumulation of both circulating insulin and glucose (which damages cells, nerve endings etc etc)??

If you down regulate insulin stimulation (erradicating carbs is your typical approach) sensitivity will increase. This is the way that methods such as IF, CBL and carb cycling work otherwise there would be zero point in doing any of them. It's the same as saying increasing protein synthesis or indeed thyroid output plays no role either which is basically what IIFYM is saying. It's saying meal frequency makes no difference, carb intake, protein intake and fat intake play no relevance to anything but being a bunch of calories you need to hit on a daily basis. Someone with a decent metabolic output, decent hormonal profile, immune and digestive system will probably have decent success with such a system but A) it wont get them super lean or build a great deal of tissue B) It shouldn't put them in a position to say that all and sundry can use it successfully either.

.......IN a NUTSHELL....


----------



## Learney

This also applies to lean people and is the way in which carb refeeds and cheat meals work. They develop sensitivity much faster than someone obese that is all. So as an example someone at 25% bodyfat may need weeks to create adequate sensitivity (why low carb diets work well for this population....to a point) until they can refeed or introduce carbs in a low level. Someone at sub 10% will create sensitivity within days hence why carb tolerance goes up the leaner someone becomes (despite people reducing carbs even when lean????....and never quite naiining their condition funly enough), 3 days, heightened sensitivity, carb up and boom metabolism goes crazy. They basically dispose of glucose faster.


----------



## MRSTRONG

Lou Lou said:


> Hahaha of course...when are you doing it for me? ;-)


I'll pop over next week


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> As far as my knowledge extends here, insulin sensitivity is only factored in the heavily obese - I'm FAIRLY certain on that, not 100% - but I mean, like I said after being basically obese 2 years ago, I ate carbs like no other, so upon reading the science and applying it to myself (that insulin sensitivity was irrelevant) all it does is give me more evidence that it's right in thinking that way.
> 
> We will just have to disagree anyway, unless you can provide real science (just the way I do things). I am definitely not trying to be a "know" it all, or act like some superior being at all and I apologise if I come across that way. At least we agree in some places and it is nice to have mature discussions about this also!


this is fine mate i certainly do not dismiss science in fact the opposite but at some point science has to reach the real world and this is when it can be applied differently, but what you are saying about insulin sensitivity is not science as such it is how the human body works, Phil has done a great job in explaining it better than i could hence why i asked him to jump in, not to disprove what you was saying or approve what i was but to get the facts.

it is clear you are knowledgeable and love to listen and learn you should listen to https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/phil-learney-nutrition-performance/id687834141 his site is also a very good read http://www.phillearney.com/


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> Insulin sensitivity does matter am afraid. Saying sensitivity doesn't matter is like saying resistance makes no difference either. It would also mean that low carb dieting could endlessly be applied with composition continuously improving.....which it wouldn't. You create up and down regulation of hormones, enzymes and metabolic actions for a reason. You also consider resistance sensitivity and the de-sesitizing of receptors as a factor. Someone who continuosly hammers carbs will de=sensitize receptors and damage the beta cells of the pancreas. Therefore insulin production, uptake and secretion (GSIS) becomes compromised. If as you're saying insulin sensitivity doesn't matter how is the person in question with de-sensitised receptors, damaged beta cells and uptake compromised going to stop an excessive accumulation of both circulating insulin and glucose (which damages cells, nerve endings etc etc)??
> 
> If you down regulate insulin stimulation (erradicating carbs is your typical approach) sensitivity will increase. This is the way that methods such as IF, CBL and carb cycling work otherwise there would be zero point in doing any of them. It's the same as saying increasing protein synthesis or indeed thyroid output plays no role either which is basically what IIFYM is saying. It's saying meal frequency makes no difference, carb intake, protein intake and fat intake play no relevance to anything but being a bunch of calories you need to hit on a daily basis. Someone with a decent metabolic output, decent hormonal profile, immune and digestive system will probably have decent success with such a system but A) it wont get them super lean or build a great deal of tissue B) It shouldn't put them in a position to say that all and sundry can use it successfully either.
> 
> .......IN a NUTSHELL....


Thanks for taking time to respond.

My question to you is; I've seen plenty of people get super lean ignoring meal frequency - so what about that? Are they just different in your opinion?

I am someone who did IF when cutting, with carb cycling - and obviously I understood the differences with leptin levels increasing when you re-feed/carb cycle.

I disagree with thee last part of your post though about how they can't get super lean with such system. Will keep re-reading the rest,, really tired atm and I like to read thoroughly.


----------



## Learney

ritchiedrama said:


> Thanks for taking time to respond.
> 
> My question to you is; I've seen plenty of people get super lean ignoring meal frequency - so what about that? Are they just different in your opinion?
> 
> I am someone who did IF when cutting, with carb cycling - and obviously I understood the differences with leptin levels increasing when you re-feed/carb cycle.
> 
> I disagree with thee last part of your post though about how they can't get super lean with such system. Will keep re-reading the rest,, really tired atm and I like to read thoroughly.


Define 'super lean' and define ignoring meal frequency?

It isn't just about leptin levels, infact leptin compared to other hormones plays very little direct impact. Show me someone who has 'got' super lean not just leaner (whilst already super lean) using these systems and also someone who without any assistance has developed a lot of tissue. Even the poster boys for IIFYM are tiny....and I mean super small, they're just ripped.


----------



## marknorthumbria

Learney said:


> Define 'super lean' and define ignoring meal frequency?
> 
> It isn't just about leptin levels, infact leptin compared to other hormones plays very little direct impact. Show me someone who has 'got' super lean not just leaner (whilst already super lean) using these systems and also someone who without any assistance has developed a lot of tissue. Even the poster boys for IIFYM are tiny....and I mean super small, they're just ripped.


I don't even know what a podcast is but by god I'm going to listen to yours


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> Define 'super lean' and define ignoring meal frequency?
> 
> It isn't just about leptin levels, infact leptin compared to other hormones plays very little direct impact. Show me someone who has 'got' super lean not just leaner (whilst already super lean) using these systems and also someone who without any assistance has developed a lot of tissue. Even the poster boys for IIFYM are tiny....and I mean super small, they're just ripped.


Well science shows meal timing has no affect on muscle gain (optimally there is some studies that show possibly for protein synthesis but it would never show any difference in a real world scenario) or fat loss, so that point stands regardless. As for people who have done it without "assistance" everyone and their dog uses gear of some kind these days,, so its kinda irrelevant. I guess maybe we have a difference in "super lean" too. But realistically im talking about people like Josef Rakich, the Gymshark crew, Christian Guzman, Alberto Nunez etc, some of them just ripped as you said, but 99% chance of them all using something (nunez definitely of course) but as I said regardless, it is just science. and there is nothing to stop someone from getting lean by eating 2 meals a day and using flexible dieting. Fat loss doesn't change from 30%--->20%---10%---6% - same principle i'm afraid.


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> Well science shows meal timing has no affect on muscle gain (optimally there is some studies that show possibly for protein synthesis but it would never show any difference in a real world scenario) or fat loss, so that point stands regardless. As for people who have done it without "assistance" everyone and their dog uses gear of some kind these days,, so its kinda irrelevant. I guess maybe we have a difference in "super lean" too. But realistically im talking about people like Josef Rakich, the Gymshark crew, Christian Guzman, Alberto Nunez etc, some of them just ripped as you said, but 99% chance of them all using something (nunez definitely of course) but as I said regardless, it is just science. and there is nothing to stop someone from getting lean by eating 2 meals a day and using flexible dieting. Fat loss doesn't change from 30%--->20%---10%---6% - same principle i'm afraid.


I'll put it simply mate theres no fecking way that I can eat the clean 5400 Cals that I do to grow in 2 b4stard meals lol


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> I'll put it simply mate theres no fecking way that I can eat the clean 5400 Cals that I do to grow in 2 b4stard meals lol


Oh sure, obviously not - I used to eat 2 only, now I eat 3 because I upped my cals to 3200-4000 and it makes me feel sick, but it makes no difference if I choose to eat 8 instead, was my point.


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> Oh sure, obviously not - I used to eat 2 only, now I eat 3 because I upped my cals to 3200-4000 and it makes me feel sick, but it makes no difference if I choose to eat 8 instead, was my point.


We're going round in circles here..lol

As before insulin sensitivity from fat timed meals does matter what more proof do you need than probably the most well distinguished nutritionist in uk telling it directly to you lol


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> We're going round in circles here..lol
> 
> As before insulin sensitivity from fat timed meals does matter what more proof do you need than probably the most well distinguished nutritionist in uk telling it directly to you lol


Well you could just test it yourself and see if I'm honest with you. I gave you the proof from people who are "shredded" also, so that's enough for me ontop of all the scientific evidence there is out there. You could also just go over to leangains.com and read Martin Berkhans blog.

Most of this page is relevant: http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html


----------



## Learney

ritchiedrama said:


> Well science shows meal timing has no affect on muscle gain (optimally there is some studies that show possibly for protein synthesis but it would never show any difference in a real world scenario) or fat loss, so that point stands regardless. As for people who have done it without "assistance" everyone and their dog uses gear of some kind these days,, so its kinda irrelevant. I guess maybe we have a difference in "super lean" too. But realistically im talking about people like Josef Rakich, the Gymshark crew, Christian Guzman, Alberto Nunez etc, some of them just ripped as you said, but 99% chance of them all using something (nunez definitely of course) but as I said regardless, it is just science. and there is nothing to stop someone from getting lean by eating 2 meals a day and using flexible dieting. Fat loss doesn't change from 30%--->20%---10%---6% - same principle i'm afraid.


There isn't a single study that correlates meal frequency with hormonal status either so you can disregard point 1. They all talk about differentials in metabolic output, lean tissue gain (which is hormonally, tissue and training dependant anyways) and fat loss isn't real world fat loss it's simply them saying it has no relationship with metabolic output or stoking the 'fire'. Which is utter drivel anyways. The gymshark crew are all tiny and all use meal frequency from what I have seen and use a flexible approach but when you're that lean (my point before) you can use 'flexibility' or refeeds....just depends how you want to market it and lets be honest. The gymshark crew NO one would know who they are if they hadn't used IIFYM as a tool to promote their clothing company.

There are plenty of things to stop someone getting lean on 2 meals a day. You keep quoting science but only selectively. PTOR will be affected. TEF, which despite minimal and fairly insignificant will be affected. Insulin levels, state of hypo/hyperglycaemic status.

There isn't a single high level BB or physique competitor using 2 meals a day......unless you know something I don't? Do you eat 2 meals a day? Are you super lean? You keep stating you know loads of people applying these methods with success but unless you show me some you're just misquoting and selectively quoting science. Also all these guys 'using' why are they using testosterone which will drop with restricted calories and 2 meals a day, thyroid hormones which will also do the same? The only hormone that would be useful that would go up would be GH.......so with minimal metabolic regulation (leptin) stimulation (thyroid hormones), anabolism (test) WHY oh why would anyone use assistance? ALL of these are affected by diet......

'there is nothing to stop someone from getting lean by eating 2 meals a day and using flexible dieting. Fat loss doesn't change from 30%--->20%---10%---6% - same principle i'm afraid'

On that quote I will leave the discussion as it's like playing chess with a pigeon at times.


----------



## Learney

ritchiedrama said:


> Well you could just test it yourself and see if I'm honest with you. I gave you the proof from people who are "shredded" also, so that's enough for me ontop of all the scientific evidence there is out there. You could also just go over to leangains.com and read Martin Berkhans blog.
> 
> Most of this page is relevant: http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html


Haha.....studies are all shocking.....already read them all. Thats ONE person....Is he natural? If not he can fast and keep hormones elevated....hmmm.

So you're now selectively quoting selectively quoted scientific studies.......NOT a good way to go tbh


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> There isn't a single study that correlates meal frequency with hormonal status either so you can disregard point 1. They all talk about differentials in metabolic output, lean tissue gain (which is hormonally, tissue and training dependant anyways) and fat loss isn't real world fat loss it's simply them saying it has no relationship with metabolic output or stoking the 'fire'. Which is utter drivel anyways. The gymshark crew are all tiny and all use meal frequency from what I have seen and use a flexible approach but when you're that lean (my point before) you can use 'flexibility' or refeeds....just depends how you want to market it and lets be honest. The gymshark crew NO one would know who they are if they hadn't used IIFYM as a tool to promote their clothing company.
> 
> There are plenty of things to stop someone getting lean on 2 meals a day. You keep quoting science but only selectively. PTOR will be affected. TEF, which despite minimal and fairly insignificant will be affected. Insulin levels, state of hypo/hyperglycaemic status.
> 
> There isn't a single high level BB or physique competitor using 2 meals a day......unless you know something I don't? Do you eat 2 meals a day? Are you super lean? You keep stating you know loads of people applying these methods with success but unless you show me some you're just misquoting and selectively quoting science. Also all these guys 'using' why are they using testosterone which will drop with restricted calories and 2 meals a day, thyroid hormones which will also do the same? The only hormone that would be useful that would go up would be GH.......so with minimal metabolic regulation (leptin) stimulation (thyroid hormones), anabolism (test) WHY oh why would anyone use assistance? ALL of these are affected by diet......
> 
> 'there is nothing to stop someone from getting lean by eating 2 meals a day and using flexible dieting. Fat loss doesn't change from 30%--->20%---10%---6% - same principle i'm afraid'
> 
> On that quote I will leave the discussion as it's like playing chess with a pigeon at times.


Well the quote is true, I managed to drop to 9-10% following that principle, it didn't get any harder or easier at any point just required eating less each time or increasing activity.

As for not knowing who Martin Berkhan is, we'll just leave it at that.

Had a good discussion, cheers.


----------



## Learney

ritchiedrama said:


> Well the quote is true, I managed to drop to 9-10% following that principle, it didn't get any harder or easier at any point just required eating less each time or increasing activity.
> 
> As for not knowing who Martin Berkhan is, we'll just leave it at that.
> 
> Had a good discussion, cheers.


I have no idea at what stage I said I didn't know who he was so you can leave it however you wish. You dropped fat? Where are these lean gains??


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> I have no idea at what stage I said I didn't know who he was so you can leave it however you wish.


It was very much implied, and you obviously did not read all of those studies, which were not based around one person, like you stated.

I'd also like to mention, I quote scientific studies, I use Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon, Martin Berkhan, Ian McCarthy, & a few others - my opinion is based off all of the information I have read around what these people have presented scientifically. You cannot argue with science at this level when it has been tested over and over again. You have presented nothing to me.

Answer this.

Can I reach 6-7% bodyfat eating TWO meals a day, whilst fasting for 16/18 hours a day and maintaining the majority/if not all of my muscle mass? Yes or No.


----------



## Learney

Well, I'm afraid I did read all those studies a LONG time ago and do you even read what I write or again are you being selective....'based on one person' why would a bunch of studies be based on 'one person'

Also I read all the studies on Martin Berkhams site yet STILL didnt know who he was??? I don't really understand you now


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> Well, I'm afraid I did read all those studies a LONG time ago and do you even read what I write or again are you being selective....'based on one person' why would a bunch of studies be based on 'one person'
> 
> Also I read all the studies on Martin Berkhams site yet STILL didnt know who he was??? I don't really understand you now


So you disagree with everything he has achieved, and achieved for clients & the same for the thousands of people that follow the protocol which you say you can't get super lean on?


----------



## Learney

ritchiedrama said:


> So you disagree with everything he has achieved, and achieved for clients & the same for the thousands of people that follow the protocol which you say you can't get super lean on?


No but show me all the super lean unassisted results. What about the millions that follow weight watchers, atkins, the zone.......they're all systems and when 1000s of people follow them I would assume 1000s of results if they are really that uniformly good. Sadly no.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> No but show me all the super lean unassisted results. What about the millions that follow weight watchers, atkins, the zone.......they're all systems and when 1000s of people follow them I would assume 1000s of results if they are really that uniformly good. Sadly no.


http://rippedbody.jp/english/results-english/

Worked with Martin Berkhan a while back - this is how I changed my life, I put these principles into action. It worked. Plenty of very lean normal average unassisted people here mate. Obviously don't expect every single person to be mega lean, this website is for everyone, not just ripped people - but there is plenty of people who got extremely low bf here also.

And can you answer my question;

Can I reach 6-7% bodyfat eating TWO meals a day, whilst fasting for 16/18 hours a day and maintaining the majority/if not all of my muscle mass? Yes or No.


----------



## Learney

Ok at this stage Ritchie I will leave you to your opinion. You've just quoted a bunch of people you are once again selectively quoting. You clearly know WAY too much on this topic and have both the results personally and with your clients to prove this. Best of luck with your ventures and can't wait to see you in that list of people you just quoted in the near future.


----------



## Learney

ritchiedrama said:


> http://rippedbody.jp/english/results-english/
> 
> Can I reach 6-7% bodyfat eating TWO meals a day, whilst fasting for 16/18 hours a day and maintaining the majority/if not all of my muscle mass? Yes or No.


Categorically NO.....and if you claim you can you're assisted

Oh and EVERY one of the before and after are either lean people getting slightly leaner (and certainly NOT gained any notable muscle) or fat people getting skinnier. There is photo evidence you just posted yourself.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> Categorically NO.....and if you claim you can you're assisted


http://rippedbody.jp/2012/07/26/switching-from-six-meals-phils-story/ <-- here was a very good example of an actual bodybuilder who switched from five/six meals a day to two.

As for what you just said, I will get to 6-7% bodyfat in my next cut, UNASSISTED, I will log here and tag you in it and we'll see what happens.

Even Jay Cutler posted a link on his Facebook the other day about how some of his "friends" were using "IF" and getting great results and he was shocked to see it.


----------



## Heath

Not had chance to read the thread properly but why is Martins work being questioned?

As a coach his clients transformations speak for themselves.


----------



## paul xe

And to think, all this started from almond milk!

Still , some cracking info being dished out which makes for good reading.


----------



## Gym Bunny

Don't get involved, don't get involved, don't get involved....Oh fück it.

Please, if you are going to bang on about the science at least reference some scientific studies. So, far I've seen you post only the different chemical structure of 2 sugars and claim that as the chemical composition is identical C6H12O6 that our body see's them as identical.

This it best naive, and at worst displays a staggering ignorance of chemistry.

Let me give you a simple analogy first, and then if that doesn't demonstrate why isomers are not perceived differently by the body I'll go into a crash course in basic biochem.

Diamonds and graphite are carbon.

They differ in chemical structure.

Graphite sheets split easily from one another and can be used for writing.

Whereas diamonds are the hardest substance known to man. The chemical bonding of its atoms, unlike graphite is highly complex, with multiple covalent (double bonds) and hexagonal rings which makes it so strong.

Chemical formula the same, properties very different.

So trying to categorise something by its chemical formula alone isn't a realistic, nor accurate description of its properties or how it will be (in the case of sugars) digested by the body.

EDIT: Just found some links to abstracts buried in a wall of text. I'll read them now.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Gym Bunny said:


> Don't get involved, don't get involved, don't get involved....Oh fück it.
> 
> Please, if you are going to bang on about the science at least reference some scientific studies. So, far I've seen you post only the different chemical structure of 2 sugars and claim that as the chemical composition is identical C6H12O6 that our body see's them as identical.
> 
> This it best naive, and at worst displays a staggering ignorance of chemistry.
> 
> Let me give you a simple analogy first, and then if that doesn't demonstrate why isomers are not perceived differently by the body I'll go into a crash course in basic biochem.
> 
> Diamonds and graphite are carbon.
> 
> They differ in chemical structure.
> 
> Graphite sheets split easily from one another and can be used for writing.
> 
> Whereas diamonds are the hardest substance known to man. The chemical bonding of its atoms, unlike graphite is highly complex, with multiple covalent (double bonds) and hexagonal rings which makes it so strong.
> 
> Chemical formula the same, properties very different.
> 
> So trying to categorise something by its chemical formula alone isn't a realistic, nor accurate description of its properties or how it will be (in the case of sugars) digested by the body.
> 
> Coal


Regardless of whether I gave a chemical structure and that makes no difference to you; or whether it does - my point is still, completely intact, completely invalid. Sugar is just a carb, and has no effect on our body composition.

aaaaand, metabolically speaking there is no difference between natural sugar, refined sugar etc.

Andddddddd; havee a great day - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf - this puts the issue to bed, really.


----------



## Learney

ritchiedrama said:


> Regardless of whether I gave a chemical structure and that makes no difference to you; or whether it does - my point is still, completely intact, completely invalid. Sugar is just a carb, and has no effect on our body composition.


Aaaaaaand.....goodnight at that.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> Aaaaaaand.....goodnight at that.


I like your ability to never actually provide me with anything than to try and mock a scientific approach towards things, yet I give you hard evidence and you sit there and have nothing left to say - just like a few previous posts up there,, because when you're challenged you do NOT like it. Your methods are out-dated, and not the only way to do things, and that for some reason makes you angry, perhaps you should enjoy a few poptarts or something then you might realise you didn't have to spend the last several years of your life living as a robot.


----------



## Fatstuff

ritchiedrama said:


> I like your ability to never actually provide me with anything than to try and mock a scientific approach towards things, yet I give you hard evidence and you sit there and have nothing left to say - just like a few previous posts up there,, because when you're challenged you do NOT like it. Your methods are out-dated, and not the only way to do things, and that for some reason makes you angry, perhaps you should enjoy a few poptarts or something then you might realise you didn't have to spend the last several years of your life living as a robot.


I don't like ur attitude young man lol


----------



## ritchiedrama

Fatstuff said:


> I don't like ur attitude young man lol


Why is that? Because I defend myself from an onslaught of people who react the same way when their way is challenged? But it makes it ok right because you share the same opinion as them?


----------



## Learney

Heath said:


> Not had chance to read the thread properly but why is Martins work being questioned?
> 
> As a coach his clients transformations speak for themselves.


No one is questioning Martins work. Ritchie is stating that martins work is THE way to get lean and shredded. He is also throwing up a bunch of selectively quoted selected studies to argue his point that 2 meals are no different to more and sugars are no different. Basically he is saying count your calories and macros and it makes zero difference to anything how, when or why you structure it. You could be natural, assisted whatever you want none of it makes any difference.

Why anyone studies anything to do with foods we ingest and endocrinology, immune function, digestion, hormonal influence is besides me??? Its all just a bunch of numbers, follow them and you'll get shredded. Protein powder and donuts it is for me at 2000k/cal a sitting. Saturated, mono, poly, it makes no difference, fat is fat. LOL Laughable.


----------



## Learney

ritchiedrama said:


> I like your ability to never actually provide me with anything than to try and mock a scientific approach towards things, yet I give you hard evidence and you sit there and have nothing left to say - just like a few previous posts up there,, because when you're challenged you do NOT like it. Your methods are out-dated, and not the only way to do things, and that for some reason makes you angry, perhaps you should enjoy a few poptarts or something then you might realise you didn't have to spend the last several years of your life living as a robot.


Haha......angry man. I bow before your presence. Oh and of course I provided you with nothing, no science or anything LOL


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> No one is questioning Martins work. Ritchie is stating that martins work is THE way to get lean and shredded. He is also throwing up a bunch of selectively quoted selected studies to argue his point that 2 meals are no different to more and sugars are no different. Basically he is saying count your calories and macros and it makes zero difference to anything how, when or why you structure it. You could be natural, assisted whatever you want none of it makes any difference.
> 
> Why anyone studies anything to do with foods we ingest and endocrinology, immune function, digestion, hormonal influence is besides me??? Its all just a bunch of numbers, follow them and you'll get shredded. Protein powder and donuts it is for me at 2000k/cal a sitting. Saturated, mono, poly, it makes no difference, fat is fat. LOL Laughable.


And YOU talk about selective things yet you have just said I said Martins work is _THE_ way to get shredded? Actually, read my responses to everyone else - I said I had *NO* issue with you doing things your way,, the issue I had was YOU tell me other ways don't work, as did everyone else. I never ONCE said that Martin's work was the only way, or THE way to get lean and shredded, you told me his way does not work.

But it's ok, perhaps you should go do some more, Learney.

Not to mention "Its all just a bunch of numbers, follow them and you'll get shredded. Protein powder and donuts it is for me at 2000k/cal a sitting. Saturated, mono, poly, it makes no difference, fat is fat."

Not one person (and if you had looked at the links I provided, proves you don't really and you're just ignorant) says to do this, and knows it is NOT possible to hit macros eating "donuts & protein powder" - you're an ignoramus.


----------



## Learney

Overdominant SNS and thyroid output......says it all. Little tetchy as he's only eaten twice today, he's hypo, his ghrelin is up, his adrenaline is high and his SNS is on overtime. Poptart should knock off those symptoms Richie.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> Overdominant SNS and thyroid output......says it all. Little tetchy as he's only eaten twice today, he's hypo, his ghrelin is up, his adrenaline is high and his SNS is on overtime. Poptart should knock off those symptoms Richie.


I eat 4 meals a day, actually, thanks for the concern though bud - I like to see how your jimmies have got rustled, it's alright I promise you, your entire career (I assume thats what you do) hasn't been based around myths.

Oh, and please don't tell me you were implying saturated fat was bad for you?


----------



## Learney

ritchiedrama said:


> I eat 4 meals a day, actually, thanks for the concern though bud - I like to see how your jimmies have got rustled, it's alright I promise you, your entire career (I assume thats what you do) hasn't been based around myths.
> 
> Oh, and please don't tell me you were implying saturated fat was bad for you?


Oh no, I work in IT so I'm ok :thumbup1:


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> I eat 4 meals a day, actually, thanks for the concern though bud - I like to see how your jimmies have got rustled, it's alright I promise you, your entire career (I assume thats what you do) hasn't been based around myths.
> 
> Oh, and please don't tell me you were implying saturated fat was bad for you?


In the words of your insufferable type

'do u even lift bro'


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> Oh no, I work in IT so I'm ok :thumbup1:


Probably very wise if I'm honest with you, sooner these myths die out the better.


----------



## Fatstuff

ritchiedrama said:


> Why is that? Because I defend myself from an onslaught of people who react the same way when their way is challenged? But it makes it ok right because you share the same opinion as them?


Well... Actually, don't make presumptions. I used IF to get from 18 and half stone down to 14 and half, along with other methods. I've read the same sources of info as you, along with others. Although, I've never been shredded and am still learning. I like IF, made dieting easier, I like IIFYM as long as I hit my micros as well as my macros.

Main difference is I'm not arrogant enough to think that it is optimal and that I know all because I've read the likes of Berkhan , McDonald, Aragon etc.

My opinion is that your attitude stinks and ur questioning some seriously knowledgeable guys where you could just be humble and then u may even learn something to add to ur hugely infallible knowledge.


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> In the words of your insufferable type
> 
> 'do u even lift bro'


I'm not sure why you make the time to come back and chime in with something like that when I've shown you nothing but respect for what you've achieved


----------



## ritchiedrama

Fatstuff said:


> Well... Actually, don't make presumptions. I used IF to get from 18 and half stone down to 14 and half, along with other methods. I've read the same sources of info as you, along with others. Although, I've never been shredded and am still learning. I like IF, made dieting easier, I like IIFYM as long as I hit my micros as well as my macros.
> 
> Main difference is I'm not arrogant enough to think that it is optimal and that I know all because I've read the likes of Berkhan , McDonald, Aragon etc.
> 
> My opinion is that your attitude stinks and ur questioning some seriously knowledgeable guys where you could just be humble and then u may even learn something to add to ur hugely infallible knowledge.


I learn every single day of my life. Arrogant to think its optimal? What? Do you even realise what you are typing?

IF/IIFYM/6 Meals a day/ etc etc etc

It's all the same thing.. just different methods, do you believe that 6 meals a day is optimal then? Or do you just believe what the next broscientist over at uk-muscle tells you? I was 14 stone 3, I got down to 10 stone on the dot with IF/IIFYM where as when following a six meals a day method my life was misery, and anyone who has to limit food choices to achieve a body when it is not necessary is being silly. Our body sees food as macros and micros simple as that. Our body doesn't care when we eat, as long as we eat.

As for questioning some "seriously" knowledgeable guys.. i don't even.. so a guy who works in IT is "seriously knowledgeable" over people like Alan Aragon/Layne etc, alright bud.


----------



## Learney

ritchiedrama said:


> Probably very wise if I'm honest with you, sooner these myths die out the better.


But you should catch me speaking at Bodypower this year.....or maybe hit one of my seminars in 2014. I don't present in Grimsby sadly but I'll be all over the UK, Australia, Dubai and NZ. I hope to catch one of your seminars as you're obviously very clued up. However maybe I should just go to one of Alans, Lyles, Martins etc however as you've only quoted their work and formed zero research of your own.

I'm calling it the Broscience tour in honour of you.

http://www.phillearney.com/products-page/seminars/

International dates will actually be added tomorrow :whistling:


----------



## Fatstuff

ritchiedrama said:


> I learn every single day of my life. Arrogant to think its optimal? What? Do you even realise what you are typing?
> 
> IF/IIFYM/6 Meals a day/ etc etc etc
> 
> It's all the same thing.. just different methods, do you believe that 6 meals a day is optimal then? Or do you just believe what the next broscientist over at uk-muscle tells you? I was 14 stone 3, I got down to 10 stone on the dot with IF/IIFYM where as when following a six meals a day method my life was misery, and anyone who has to limit food choices to achieve a body when it is not necessary is being silly. Our body sees food as macros and micros simple as that. Our body doesn't care when we eat, as long as we eat.


I agree with u 6 meals a day made my life a misery too. Why are u making opposing presumptions of what I've actually said. Your creating a straw man to knock down. Pointless. You argue for sake of arguing. Why??


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> But you should catch me speaking at Bodypower this year.....or maybe hit one of my seminars in 2014. I don't present in Grimsby sadly but I'll be all over the UK, Australia, Dubai and NZ. I hope to catch one of your seminars as you're obviously very clued up. However maybe I should just go to one of Alans, Lyles, Martins etc however as you've only quoted their work and formed zero research of your own.


Your methods are not wrong, your methods work, no one is saying they do not. You are being really dim now, how many times do I have to repeat this? This really is becoming a COMPLETELY pointless discussion, there is plenty of people out there that have proved that meal timing, etc etc etc etc thee same things we've been talking about are irrelevant.

Enjoy your seminars.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Fatstuff said:


> I agree with u 6 meals a day made my life a misery too. Why are u making opposing presumptions of what I've actually said. Your creating a straw man to knock down. Pointless. You argue for sake of arguing. Why??


You said IIFYM/IF is not optimal - you gave me no reason why? Who is to say it is not optimal?


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> But you should catch me speaking at Bodypower this year.....or maybe hit one of my seminars in 2014. I don't present in Grimsby sadly but I'll be all over the UK, Australia, Dubai and NZ. I hope to catch one of your seminars as you're obviously very clued up. However maybe I should just go to one of Alans, Lyles, Martins etc however as you've only quoted their work and formed zero research of your own.
> 
> I'm calling it the Broscience tour in honour of you.
> 
> http://www.phillearney.com/products-page/seminars/
> 
> International dates will actually be added tomorrow :whistling:


Look at the names of your seminars/tours lol! You're exactly what Phil explained in that link I posted above.


----------



## Fatstuff

ritchiedrama said:


> You said IIFYM/IF is not optimal - you gave me no reason why? Who is to say it is not optimal?


I said I'm not arrogant enough to believe it is optimal. Different words. I am not arrogant enough to blindly follow anything with 100% belief. It's called critical thinking mate, try and take in different points of view and humbly accept that there may be other ways.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Fatstuff said:


> I said I'm not arrogant enough to believe it is optimal. Different words. I am not arrogant enough to blindly follow anything with 100% belief. It's called critical thinking mate, try and take in different points of view and humbly accept that there may be other ways.


Can you just re-read all of my posts please and find where I said other ways do not work, Cheers.


----------



## Fatstuff

ritchiedrama said:


> Can you just re-read all of my posts please and find where I said other ways do not work, Cheers.


Can you re read all my posts and find where I said that you said other ways do not work.

You are the king of straw man arguments, it's an ugly trait mate and not the best when trying to have an intelligent debate.


----------



## Learney

ritchiedrama said:


> Look at the names of your seminars/tours lol! You're exactly what Phil explained in that link I posted above.


HUH??? :confused1:


----------



## ritchiedrama

Fatstuff said:


> Can you re read all my posts and find where I said that you said other ways do not work.
> 
> You are the king of straw man arguments, it's an ugly trait mate and not the best when trying to have an intelligent debate.


No, I am responding to what you said, you said i need to realise there are other ways, siince page 2 or 3, i've said there are many ways to do this. This is going nowhere.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> HUH??? :confused1:


you're sposed to be a smart guy, figure it out, off to eat anyway, 5th meal of the day, i'll be shredded in no time i'm doin what you do, 'nom sayin?


----------



## Learney

ritchiedrama said:


> you're sposed to be a smart guy, figure it out, off to eat anyway, 5th meal of the day, i'll be shredded in no time i'm doin what you do, 'nom sayin?


It's like fighting an inexperienced fighter. You may get caught out as they will do something completely unpredictable and stupid.....because they are actually stupid. :bounce:


----------



## Queenie

Well this has been entertaining


----------



## Learney

Oh I will now take this opportunity to promote my upcoming seminars.

The Advanced Nutritional Strategies will cover

Determining baseline requirements

Digestion and turnover rates

Cellular absorption and permeability

Individual hormonal considerations

Impact of androgens

Stress

Metabolic pathways and manipulation of energy pathways

Energy system requirements with sports specific strategies

Carbohydrates

Amino Acids

Lipids and acids

Anabolism and Catabolism

Insulin and glycemic management

Beta Cell dysfunction

Resistance and Sensitivity

Osmoregulation

Protein turnover, synthesis and Breakdown

Caloric restriction

Hypo, hyper and Iso caloric diets

Fasting

Carb loading

Nutrient Cycling

Nutrient Timing

Refeeding

Depletion strategies

Much much more......

http://us6.campaign-archive2.com/?u=e3536efa62c525e934497a043&id=cac99b6fb2

Sign up is here, hope this is ok with the admins, if not just delete it and slap me on the wrist. If not thanks


----------



## redwing

ritchiedrama said:


> you're sposed to be a smart guy, figure it out, off to eat anyway, 5th meal of the day, i'll be shredded in no time i'm doin what you do, 'nom sayin?


Why such a bad attitude? you've been determined from the start to have an argument with as many people as possible.

You could've started a thread, saying your opinions and started a discussion and made some valid points, this isn't a discussion.Its just you looking for a fight to preach.

I suppose that's the problem none of them are your own opinions. You've just read something become a disciple and are determined to find somewhere to preach it and tell everyone there wrong.

Ive been to the gym and back and your still banging on and on.

I just dont get why such a bad attitude in a thread no one has made any claims except you. Im not gonna carry on theres seems some really cool people on this forum I spose I just dont understand the hostility.


----------



## Fatstuff

Learney said:


> Oh I will now take this opportunity to promote my upcoming seminars.
> 
> The Advanced Nutritional Strategies will cover
> 
> Determining baseline requirements
> 
> Digestion and turnover rates
> 
> Cellular absorption and permeability
> 
> Individual hormonal considerations
> 
> Impact of androgens
> 
> Stress
> 
> Metabolic pathways and manipulation of energy pathways
> 
> Energy system requirements with sports specific strategies
> 
> Carbohydrates
> 
> Amino Acids
> 
> Lipids and acids
> 
> Anabolism and Catabolism
> 
> Insulin and glycemic management
> 
> Beta Cell dysfunction
> 
> Resistance and Sensitivity
> 
> Osmoregulation
> 
> Protein turnover, synthesis and Breakdown
> 
> Caloric restriction
> 
> Hypo, hyper and Iso caloric diets
> 
> Fasting
> 
> Carb loading
> 
> Nutrient Cycling
> 
> Nutrient Timing
> 
> Refeeding
> 
> Depletion strategies
> 
> Much much more......
> 
> http://us6.campaign-archive2.com/?u=e3536efa62c525e934497a043&id=cac99b6fb2
> 
> Sign up is here, hope this is ok with the admins, if not just delete it and slap me on the wrist. If not thanks


What do u know??

I've read Martin Berkhans blog!!


----------



## Gym Bunny

ritchiedrama said:



> Regardless of whether I gave a chemical structure and that makes no difference to you; or whether it does - *my point is still, completely intact, completely invalid*. Sugar is just a carb, and has no effect on our body composition.
> 
> aaaaand, metabolically speaking there is no difference between natural sugar, refined sugar etc.
> 
> Andddddddd; havee a great day - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf - this puts the issue to bed, really.


First off, can you give a download link for that paper, cause each time I try opening it, it crashes my browser.

I agree your point is invalid. :lol: No seriously, I won't poke fun............but...........you got it the wrong way round....carbohydrates (clue in name) are sugars....

Specifically, large polymers of sugars are carbohydrates and they can be 100's of sugars long and either straight or branched. Long chains of sugars are complex carbohydrates.

Here's a case in point.....Three common types of complex carbohydrates: *Starch, Cellulose, *and *Glycogen*. All three are composed only of Glucose. They differ only in the bonding arrangements between the Glucose subunits.










Cellulose for example, is a carbohydrate, which is composed of sugar, but in this polymer form is *insoluble fibre*. Necessary for healthy colon function, but not digested or it's energy utilised in the same way, as for example, a simple sugar like frutose which our body can easily break the isomer bonds and utilise the energy.

Starch, is a primary source of calories for humans as the monolinear-orientated sugars have bonds that are easy to break.

Glycogen, is like the other 2 a complex carbohydrate but in the body is a stored energy source, residing in the liver and muscles.

Do I need to explain why the bonding and structure variations are so important as to how the body treats the source differently?


----------



## Queenie

@Learney - I think the mods/admins have asked you to post more! So they won't begrudge some seminar pimping


----------



## Heath

This is going to take some catching up on :lol:

I might have to skip dinner and lose all dem potential gainz to read instead


----------



## essexboy

Ive read most of this.I tend to agree with op, in some respects.I used to think that "No bad foods" existed too.However, recent research regarding trans fats and the like might suggest otherwise.

My experience re fat loss, has shown that you can really over complicate this stuff.I glean most of my "Fat Loss" knowledge from one man.Who has been getting "normal" people and top bodybuilders lean for 30 plus years.

Two of the many rules that he adheres too are making sure you eat every four hours, and not consuming the exact same amount of calories every day(whilst trying to lose fat)

There are no fancy science behind this, just a theory which I find hard to argue with.It is currently working well for me.

Eating on a regular basis, lets you body know that everything is alright.If you remember our physiology is 100k plus years old.We ate sporadically and as often as we could.Having large gaps in our eating, sends messages that lean times maybe ahead, and the metabolism starts to work more efficently.So we eat even less, or increase activity which in turn, shuts us down even more.This makes perfect sense, and was born our recently.After losing 12lbs of fat, I stalled .I was on 1600cals daily and didnt want to go any lower.He told me to increase intake of iced water, and increase calories to 2000 daily on training days.

Within a week, fat loss had restarted, and I was visibly leaner.Whether or not the theory is right I dont know.It works, and that enough for me.Gentlemen please continue.


----------



## essexboy

redwing said:


> Why such a bad attitude? you've been determined from the start to have an argument with as many people as possible.
> 
> You could've started a thread, saying your opinions and started a discussion and made some valid points, this isn't a discussion.Its just you looking for a fight to preach.
> 
> I suppose that's the problem none of them are your own opinions. You've just read something become a disciple and are determined to find somewhere to preach it and tell everyone there wrong.
> 
> Ive been to the gym and back and your still banging on and on.
> 
> I just dont get why such a bad attitude in a thread no one has made any claims except you. Im not gonna carry on theres seems some really cool people on this forum I spose I just dont understand the hostility.


I see his attitude as passionate.Whether he is right or wrong,It makes for interesting reading.


----------



## Heath

essexboy said:


> I see his attitude as passionate.Whether he is right or wrong,It makes for interesting reading.


The few posts I read he came across fine, slightly provoked if anything..


----------



## ritchiedrama

Gym Bunny said:


> First off, can you give a download link for that paper, cause each time I try opening it, it crashes my browser.
> 
> I agree your point is invalid. :lol: No seriously, I won't poke fun............but...........you got it the wrong way round....carbohydrates (clue in name) are sugars....
> 
> Specifically, large polymers of sugars are carbohydrates and they can be 100's of sugars long and either straight or branched. Long chains of sugars are complex carbohydrates.
> 
> Here's a case in point.....Three common types of complex carbohydrates: *Starch, Cellulose, *and *Glycogen*. All three are composed only of Glucose. They differ only in the bonding arrangements between the Glucose subunits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellulose for example, is a carbohydrate, which is composed of sugar, but in this polymer form is *insoluble fibre*. Necessary for healthy colon function, but not digested or it's energy utilised in the same way, as for example, a simple sugar like frutose which our body can easily break the isomer bonds and utilise the energy.
> 
> Starch, is a primary source of calories for humans as the monolinear-orientated sugars have bonds that are easy to break.
> 
> Glycogen, is like the other 2 a complex carbohydrate but in the body is a stored energy source, residing in the liver and muscles.
> 
> Do I need to explain why the bonding and structure variations are so important as to how the body treats the source differently?


So wait, unless i'm misunderstanding something here..

I said sugar does NOT have an effect on body composition whether you have 30g, 100g, 200g - if your goal is to cut to 8% (just a random number, no specific reason) and you're in a caloric deficit the sugar intake does not matter, whether its from fruit, candy, chocolate, etc etc - are you saying you disagree with that? And it does matter?

Just for argument purposes, even though I've said plenty of times that science backs my opinion/statement up; I was eating/drinking 100-300g of sugar almost every single day whilst cutting to around 9-10% - if you disagree with my statement, you need to tell me how this happened.

Edit: can you not just right click the link and save as?


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> Oh I will now take this opportunity to promote my upcoming seminars.
> 
> The Advanced Nutritional Strategies will cover
> 
> Determining baseline requirements
> 
> Digestion and turnover rates
> 
> Cellular absorption and permeability
> 
> Individual hormonal considerations
> 
> Impact of androgens
> 
> Stress
> 
> Metabolic pathways and manipulation of energy pathways
> 
> Energy system requirements with sports specific strategies
> 
> Carbohydrates
> 
> Amino Acids
> 
> Lipids and acids
> 
> Anabolism and Catabolism
> 
> Insulin and glycemic management
> 
> Beta Cell dysfunction
> 
> Resistance and Sensitivity
> 
> Osmoregulation
> 
> Protein turnover, synthesis and Breakdown
> 
> Caloric restriction
> 
> Hypo, hyper and Iso caloric diets
> 
> Fasting
> 
> Carb loading
> 
> Nutrient Cycling
> 
> Nutrient Timing
> 
> Refeeding
> 
> Depletion strategies
> 
> Much much more......
> 
> http://us6.campaign-archive2.com/?u=e3536efa62c525e934497a043&id=cac99b6fb2
> 
> Sign up is here, hope this is ok with the admins, if not just delete it and slap me on the wrist. If not thanks


All those "Advanced Nutritional Strategies"

I have a simple one, just eat less and hit your targets, how's that sound?


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> So wait, unless i'm misunderstanding something here..
> 
> I said sugar does NOT have an effect on body composition whether you have 30g, 100g, 200g - if your goal is to cut to 8% (just a random number, no specific reason) and you're in a caloric deficit the sugar intake does not matter, whether its from fruit, candy, chocolate, etc etc - are you saying you disagree with that? And it does matter?
> 
> Just for argument purposes, even though I've said plenty of times that science backs my opinion/statement up; I was eating/drinking 100-300g of sugar almost every single day whilst cutting to around 9-10% - if you disagree with my statement, you need to tell me how this happened.
> 
> Edit: can you not just right click the link and save as?


well this has certainly turned.....ok i will bite show me the science that says you can eat 200g of plain old sugar on a daily basis and it not negatively affect body composition i am keen to learn and you have many times stated the science so please post up the link to the study not someones understanding of the study but the study itself as i have seen many times science being misrepresented to fit a certain opinion or goal


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> well this has certainly turned.....ok i will bite show me the science that says you can eat 200g of plain old sugar on a daily basis and it not negatively affect body composition i am keen to learn and you have many times stated the science so please post up the link to the study not someones understanding of the study but the study itself as i have seen many times science being misrepresented to fit a certain opinion or goal


Posted in a pdf above, as I also said, averaging 100-200g of sugar everyday during my cut down to 9% bodyfat, not possible according to you.


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> Posted in a pdf above, as I also said, averaging 100-200g of sugar everyday during my cut down to 9% bodyfat, not possible according to you.


why is my opinion any different to yours? according to you anyone can do this and get down to 9% (was this supported by Dexa Scan) i know many people who eat 200g of sugar a day could not get down to 9% does that mean they are all wrong and you are correct?

now please provide me with the reference for the study so i can read it


----------



## ritchiedrama

I will be starting my cut in 27 days. I will be documenting the entire thing, with videos, etc etc etc you name it, it'll be there. It will be unassisted no help from any drugs/compounds etc etc.

You will have access to my food diary and what not. I will reach 7% bodyfat eating *TWO* meals a day, using IF and the IIFYM principle.

I am unsure whether I will be carb cycling or not, I did last time, but will be testing the waters with just weekly maintenance re-feeds first.

I don't care if you don't care, but I have been told by people here it is not possible eating two meals a day and following IIFYM.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> why is my opinion any different to yours? according to you anyone can do this and get down to 9% (was this supported by Dexa Scan) i know many people who eat 200g of sugar a day could not get down to 9% does that mean they are all wrong and you are correct?
> 
> now please provide me with the reference for the study so i can read it


If they can't get down to 9% they're consuming too many calories then buddy, or are all the people you know 'dem speshul snowflakes?


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> If they can't get down to 9% they're consuming too many calories then buddy, or are all the people you know 'dem speshul snowflakes?


Who the feck eats 200g of sugar? How do you fit that into normal meals? Chicken and haribos?!


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> Who the feck eats 200g of sugar? How do you fit that into normal meals? Chicken and haribos?!


Flavoured Milk, Monster Energy Drinks - had 381g the other week, was great.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/diary/ritchiebulk?date=2013-09-24 <-- 100g of sugar missing due to Strawberry 1L of milk didn't have it iin the database.


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> Flavoured Milk, Monster Energy Drinks - had 381g the other week, was great.


That explains your avi


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> That explains your avi


What do you mean?


----------



## Heath

marknorthumbria said:


> That explains your avi


Let's not get personal.

Ian McCarthy doesn't look amazing but I wouldn't argue that he doesn't know his stuff.


----------



## Breda

ritchiedrama said:


> What do you mean?


You're really skinny... think thats what he's tryin to say and we all know abs on a skinny man dont count


----------



## marknorthumbria

Heath said:


> Let's not get personal.
> 
> Ian McCarthy doesn't look amazing but I wouldn't argue that he doesn't know his stuff.


Breda said what I meant,

Same as fat t1ts on a fat girl


----------



## ritchiedrama

Breda said:


> You're really skinny... think thats what he's tryin to say and we all know abs on a skinny man dont count


Irrelevant, I am 5'6 and 174 lbs right now. I am far from 'skinny' - I had never used any form of assistance until now and I used a PH, nothing like test. Besides, as the other dude said, no need to get personal, science trumps people like this on the internet anyway.

Oh and lets just remember, I did what you said can't be done, and will do it again but better.


----------



## Breda

ritchiedrama said:


> Irrelevant, I am 5'6 and 174 lbs right now. I am far from 'skinny' - I had never used any form of assistance until now and I used a PH, nothing like test. Besides, as the other dude said, no need to get personal, science trumps people like this on the internet anyway.


You asked what was meant by a comment and I answered wasnt lookin for your trainin and PH history


----------



## ritchiedrama

Breda said:


> You asked what was meant by a comment and I answered wasnt lookin for your trainin and PH history


It wasn't directed at you, it was in response to his comment, in which you had explained.

Don't need to be a pig, Breda.


----------



## Breda

ritchiedrama said:


> It wasn't directed at you, it was in response to his comment, in which you had explained.
> 
> Don't need to be a pig, Breda.


Sorry Ritchie


----------



## MRSTRONG

ritchiedrama said:


> If they can't get down to 9% they're consuming too many calories then buddy, or are all the people you know 'dem speshul snowflakes?


look at pscarbs avi then look at yours , you should be listening to him not telling him how to diet :lol:


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> If they can't get down to 9% they're consuming too many calories then buddy, or are all the people you know 'dem speshul snowflakes?


they must be....so i ask again how did you measure the 9% dexa? caliper?

lowering calories work every time i know plenty of people who lower calories in and raise calories out and lose weight yet they look the same i believe Layne did a few Vlogs on the subject of metabolic damage which is in fact calories in/out losing weight for the average guy is easy losing weight for someone who is severely overweight is not as hormonal imbalances, down regulation of thyroid and metabolism and even leptin sensitivity all come into play.

i see you have mentioned that you have managed to do it and that is great this does not mean it can be done by everyone in this same way......that study you linked has promise yet it was carried out on severely obese people that did not follow a exercise structure and was eating a severely calorie restricted diet even if it was high in sucrose (170g was the high) so like i said above dropping calories will work but they had no muscle to preserve no strength to keep and even at the end of the 6 weeks the average was just 3% BF drop on the low sucrose diet slightly less on the high one........

so given what you have said above and that you have quoted this study how long would these women take to drop to 9% from an average of 48% BF seeing as anyone can do it??


----------



## jon-kent

Breda said:


> Sorry Ritchie


----------



## ritchiedrama

ewen said:


> look at pscarbs avi then look at yours , you should be listening to him not telling him how to diet :lol:


What because someone has trained for longer than I am, older than I am, used more steroids than I have - I can have no opinion of anything? I'd listen to Ian McCarthy over him and I'm bigger than him.

Ignorance.


----------



## MRSTRONG

ritchiedrama said:


> What because someone has trained for longer than I am, older than I am, used more steroids than I have - I can have no opinion of anything? I'd listen to Ian McCarthy over him and I'm bigger than him.
> 
> Ignorance.


ive no idea who Ian McCarthy is and ive no idea who you are but i do know pscarb is the man people turn to , so i can only assume he knows alot more than most .


----------



## Breda

ritchiedrama said:


> What because someone has trained for longer than I am, older than I am, used more steroids than I have - I can have no opinion of anything? I'd listen to Ian McCarthy over him and I'm bigger than him.
> 
> Ignorance.


You can not discount what Pscarb is sayin with your science argument either as he is talkin from experience and not studies


----------



## 3752

ewen said:


> look at pscarbs avi then look at yours , you should be listening to him not telling him how to diet :lol:


i am assisted he is not so this makes a difference but there is nothing he can say to prove the many naturals i have gotten ready for stage at low single digit bf% are doing it wrong......

i like a good debate but after reading through the answers my first impression is still valid and that is your are closed to other peoples opinions yet your opinions are based on a cpl of marketing hype websites (the ripped body one the differences where very small and lighting played a big role in the difference) and your own experiences. yet you dismiss mine as not backed by science (and yes i have read your posts) i eat 6 sometimes 7 meals a day because it works for me i have tried IF and IIFYM and overall the results where not as good in fact the IF diet fell way short as my goal is muscle gain and the one thing IF is not is a diet for muscle gain.

i would re-read your earlier posts where you say you like a mature debate then read your later ones where you dismiss everyones opinion other than your own........

this is not a dig or anything like that but i prefer to debate with open minded people so i will bow out of this so called debate and let you be with your way of thinking.


----------



## 3752

ewen said:


> look at pscarbs avi then look at yours , you should be listening to him not telling him how to diet :lol:


i am assisted he is not so this makes a difference but there is nothing he can say to prove the many naturals i have gotten ready for stage at low single digit bf% are doing it wrong......

i like a good debate but after reading through the answers my first impression is still valid and that is your are closed to other peoples opinions yet your opinions are based on a cpl of marketing hype websites (the ripped body one the differences where very small and lighting played a big role in the difference) and your own experiences. yet you dismiss mine as not backed by science (and yes i have read your posts) i eat 6 sometimes 7 meals a day because it works for me i have tried IF and IIFYM and overall the results where not as good in fact the IF diet fell way short as my goal is muscle gain and the one thing IF is not is a diet for muscle gain.

i would re-read your earlier posts where you say you like a mature debate then read your later ones where you dismiss everyones opinion other than your own........

this is not a dig or anything like that but i prefer to debate with open minded people so i will bow out of this so called debate and let you be with your way of thinking.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> they must be....so i ask again how did you measure the 9% dexa? caliper?
> 
> lowering calories work every time i know plenty of people who lower calories in and raise calories out and lose weight yet they look the same i believe Layne did a few Vlogs on the subject of metabolic damage which is in fact calories in/out losing weight for the average guy is easy losing weight for someone who is severely overweight is not as hormonal imbalances, down regulation of thyroid and metabolism and even leptin sensitivity all come into play.
> 
> i see you have mentioned that you have managed to do it and that is great this does not mean it can be done by everyone in this same way......that study you linked has promise yet it was carried out on severely obese people that did not follow a exercise structure and was eating a severely calorie restricted diet even if it was high in sucrose (170g was the high) so like i said above dropping calories will work but they had no muscle to preserve no strength to keep and even at the end of the 6 weeks the average was just 3% BF drop on the low sucrose diet slightly less on the high one........
> 
> so given what you have said above and that you have quoted this study how long would these women take to drop to 9% from an average of 48% BF seeing as anyone can do it??


Merely estimates from several people, there was not a chance I was over 10% bf not at all. (It was very, clear).

For argument purposes as I said, I will log everything this time around, pictures weekly, I will get any scan you want I will record everything I do - I don't even care if you don't watch it, I just want to prove a point.

As for it can't be done for everyone; simply, it can. We are all the same body we are not different in that aspect. I've managed to coach several people with the exact same methods, from obese people to people with little muscle mass.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> i am assisted he is not so this makes a difference but there is nothing he can say to prove the many naturals i have gotten ready for stage at low single digit bf% are doing it wrong......
> 
> i like a good debate but after reading through the answers my first impression is still valid and that is your are closed to other peoples opinions yet your opinions are based on a cpl of marketing hype websites (the ripped body one the differences where very small and lighting played a big role in the difference) and your own experiences. yet you dismiss mine as not backed by science (and yes i have read your posts) i eat 6 sometimes 7 meals a day because it works for me i have tried IF and IIFYM and overall the results where not as good in fact the IF diet fell way short as my goal is muscle gain and the one thing IF is not is a diet for muscle gain.
> 
> i would re-read your earlier posts where you say you like a mature debate then read your later ones where you dismiss everyones opinion other than your own........
> 
> this is not a dig or anything like that but i prefer to debate with open minded people so i will bow out of this so called debate and let you be with your way of thinking.


My whole entire argument stemmed from the sugar thing, then meal timing (which I still believe, irrelevant) - how come IF / IIFYM did not work for you?


----------



## ritchiedrama

Oh and dude, please stop saying that I am saying your methods are wrong.. this is not what I've said. not once. you know i haven't said that!


----------



## Heath

Even though personally I trust the science behind the overall macros being the most important single entity with regards to diet it is still important to keep an open mind as new research tomorrow could change everything. That's how this game seems to work. Even Berardi has practically benched his beliefs on nutrient timing and not having carbs+fats in same meals because of new research.


----------



## jon-kent

Very interesting read from both sides (90% went over my head though lol)


----------



## Breda

jon-kent said:


> Very interesting read from both sides (90% went over my head though lol)


There is valid reasoning on both ends mate 90% of which went over my head


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> Merely estimates from several people, there was not a chance I was over 10% bf not at all. (It was very, clear).
> 
> For argument purposes as I said, I will log everything this time around, pictures weekly, I will get any scan you want I will record everything I do - I don't even care if you don't watch it, I just want to prove a point.
> 
> As for it can't be done for everyone; simply, it can. We are all the same body we are not different in that aspect. I've managed to coach several people with the exact same methods, from obese people to people with little muscle mass.


so a guess?? ok at least we now have a base so what was your BF% before you used this method to get to 9% or 10%?? and how long did it take you?

you saying it can be done for everyone is not backed by science but you are a man of science (your words) if it can be done for everyone then the study YOU provided would have had a much more varied subject range but they where all obese women who did not train?? not really speaking for everyone really would you say?

you have coached several people i have coached several hundred both natural and assisted, Bodybuilder, strength athletes and plain old Mums after child birth do i know what i am talking about i would say i do, is that because i am older than you? or use steroids? or trained longer than you hell no it is because i have more real life experiences than you your pool of reference is several people mine is several hundred.....

now in no way am i saying IF or IIFYM diets do not work hell no there are some members on here who have had great results but then there are many who have not and the reason they have not is because one size does not fit all (if it did your science study would show all the subjects had the same results but they did not did they)

good luck with getting down to 6% i will continue to plod along with my outdated methods that do not work........i would suggest that you get a dexa scan done though if you are going to brag about body fat percentage as someones guess does not hold up to scrutiny in my experience....


----------



## 3752

Heath said:


> Even though personally I trust the science behind the overall macros being the most important single entity with regards to diet it is still important to keep an open mind as new research tomorrow could change everything. That's how this game seems to work. Even Berardi has practically benched his beliefs on nutrient timing and not having carbs+fats in same meals because of new research.


could not agree more i wrote a decent article in the August edition of the BEEF about myths and how they are outdated meal timings being one of them, science when relevant is creating more and more questions to long standing beliefs and i am all for this but even the top guys like Berardi are open to other peoples opinions.......


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> so a guess?? ok at least we now have a base so what was your BF% before you used this method to get to 9% or 10%?? and how long did it take you?
> 
> you saying it can be done for everyone is not backed by science but you are a man of science (your words) if it can be done for everyone then the study YOU provided would have had a much more varied subject range but they where all obese women who did not train?? not really speaking for everyone really would you say?
> 
> you have coached several people i have coached several hundred both natural and assisted, Bodybuilder, strength athletes and plain old Mums after child birth do i know what i am talking about i would say i do, is that because i am older than you? or use steroids? or trained longer than you hell no it is because i have more real life experiences than you your pool of reference is several people mine is several hundred.....
> 
> now in no way am i saying IF or IIFYM diets do not work hell no there are some members on here who have had great results but then there are many who have not and the reason they have not is because one size does not fit all (if it did your science study would show all the subjects had the same results but they did not did they)
> 
> good luck with getting down to 6% i will continue to plod along with my outdated methods that do not work........i would suggest that you get a dexa scan done though if you are going to brag about body fat percentage as someones guess does not hold up to scrutiny in my experience....


Ok, once again you've claimed I said your methods do not work. I have not, and will not say that, stop it. You're mentally damaged if you repeat it once more, there has to be something wrong with you if you keep saying that.

Ok, so, the people who didn't manage to get it to work on IIFYM, shall I tell you what went wrong? They ate too much. Simple, that is a fact of Science.

End of the day, if a person is going to control their meals, with a set of calories, do small diet breaks and refeeds as Lyle McDonald suggests, results can be had. I will reach 6% and you will see it happen.


----------



## jon-kent

The mind is like a parachute.......it works best when its open !


----------



## Gym Bunny

ritchiedrama said:


> So wait, unless i'm misunderstanding something here..
> 
> I said sugar does NOT have an effect on body composition whether you have 30g, 100g, 200g - if your goal is to cut to 8% (just a random number, no specific reason) and you're in a caloric deficit the sugar intake does not matter, whether its from fruit, candy, chocolate, etc etc - are you saying you disagree with that? And it does matter?
> 
> Just for argument purposes, even though I've said plenty of times that science backs my opinion/statement up; I was eating/drinking 100-300g of sugar almost every single day whilst cutting to around 9-10% - if you disagree with my statement, you need to tell me how this happened.
> 
> Edit: can you not just right click the link and save as?


I'm attempting to explain that not all sugar is equal. So, yes, I am disagreeing with your statement that source of sugar intake e.g. from cellulose, fruit, chocolate, syrup, milk, alcohol does matter. As does the amount.

Let's assume, that when you talk about sugar you are referring to sucrose, table sugar, which is made from glucose and fructose. Now, why would you consume 100-300g of this in place of a complex carbohydrate, which is also a sugar? The sucrose doesn't add any vitamins minerals or fibre to your diet.

If all sugar is equal, you could just as likely get your sugar source from alcohol. It's a form of sugar. So if all sugar is equal then using alcohol would be an acceptible source, surely? Can we agree that it isn't?

Incidentally, will you please stop staying science backs up your opinion/statement. Because


Science is not a fixed, unanimous source, I'm using science, specifically food chemistry to demonstrate the difference in sugar structure.

Scientists adapt and change their viewpoints when encountering new scientific evidence that invalidates or amends the evidence so far.

The abstracts to various papers you've provided are not the whole of the study and no necessarily indicative of the field.


Finally, I need to tell you how your personal protocol had the effect it did? Without physically conducting a full blood screening, I can't, as you probably knew when you posed the statement.

Moreover, it's impossible, because:


I haven't observed you.

I don't know what your actual starting and finishing body composition was, lean body mass/body fat % weight change.

I don't know what your calorie deficit is, nor macro split.

I have only your word for the amount of sugar you were consuming, nor have you specified the type of sugar.

Plus the range of sugar you estimate you consumed varies by a factor of 3.

Finally you haven't provided any supporting evidence for an end result of 9-10%. I hope you don't buy into the old adage that you have to be sub 10% for abs, because that's frankly not true.


As a scientist, there is no way I could draw any conclusion or mechanism for a result without knowing the variables.


----------



## 3752

You have said that this way works for everyone I have said it does not as I have tried it with many people hence saying what I do is wrong now don't start getting personnel .

Now I posed a few questions in my last post but you again have not addressed them just saying what Lyle says again it is an opinion and opinion of a great person but still an opinion.

Your making a lot of assumptions and again one is that I do not know what I am talking about the people who I have coached who wanted to use IIFYM have not eaten to much they have eaten what they should have. So that's twice I have shown you assuming what I do is wrong??

Layne himself has said that IIFYM does not work for everyone in the same video where he stated the poster boy could get ripped eating just pop tarts something others cannot do, so if it works for everyone why does layne say this? He also pokes holes in the method fibre being a huge one.......

I use a combination of clean eating and IIFYM when I prep people so I do not dismiss it but it certainly is not a diet for everyone as you have clearly pointed out and it certainly is not a nutritional process for muscle gain

So above I have given you 2 examples of where you have said I am doing it wrong yet you have not addressed my questions , please do as a good debate is beneficial to all please don't go down the route of personnel attacks as that is not nice 



ritchiedrama said:


> Ok, once again you've claimed I said your methods do not work. I have not, and will not say that, stop it. You're mentally damaged if you repeat it once more, there has to be something wrong with you if you keep saying that.
> 
> Ok, so, the people who didn't manage to get it to work on IIFYM, shall I tell you what went wrong? They ate too much. Simple, that is a fact of Science.
> 
> End of the day, if a person is going to control their meals, with a set of calories, do small diet breaks and refeeds as Lyle McDonald suggests, results can be had. I will reach 6% and you will see it happen.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> You have said that this way works for everyone I have said it does not as I have tried it with many people hence saying what I do is wrong now don't start getting personnel .
> 
> Now I posed a few questions in my last post but you again have not addressed them just saying what Lyle says again it is an opinion and opinion of a great person but still an opinion.
> 
> Your making a lot of assumptions and again one is that I do not know what I am talking about the people who I have coached who wanted to use IIFYM have not eaten to much they have eaten what they should have. So that's twice I have shown you assuming what I do is wrong??
> 
> Layne himself has said that IIFYM does not work for everyone in the same video where he stated the poster boy could get ripped eating just pop tarts something others cannot do, so if it works for everyone why does layne say this? He also pokes holes in the method fibre being a huge one.......
> 
> I use a combination of clean eating and IIFYM when I prep people so I do not dismiss it but it certainly is not a diet for everyone as you have clearly pointed out and it certainly is not a nutritional process for muscle gain
> 
> So above I have given you 2 examples of where you have said I am doing it wrong yet you have not addressed my questions , please do as a good debate is beneficial to all please don't go down the route of personnel attacks as that is not nice


Then please, stop stop stop saying that I am saying your methods do not work, I've not said that once.

Just so you know, we've gone from IIFYM not working, to IIFYM now being used sometimes - so the plot has thickened, if we're honest here. This is one reason why I don't buy into what you're saying. Your story keeps changing. If the people you were coaching were eating what they *should* have been eating - they would have lost bf - it isn't really up for debate. Simply they were consuming too many calories. Layne also does not talk about IIFYM in the way you suggested, he said it's a viable way to eat foods you want to eat and not have cheat meals - and infact, the other dude here, Learney and probably you, incorporate cheat meals into peoples diets which makes little sense in Laynes view, same as it makes little sense in my view when you can eat these foods DAILY and keep your sanity,. enjoy a normal life and most importantly it yields the same results.

I also want to say, as I mentioned before, I was 200 lbs (at 5'6) I was heavily overweight my entire life - if IIFYM wasn't gonna work for someone, it wouldn't work for me. But it does. Because it is science.


----------



## redwing

ritchiedrama said:


> *Then please, stop stop stop saying that I am saying your methods do not work, I've not said that once.*
> 
> Just so you know, we've gone from IIFYM not working, to IIFYM now being used sometimes - so the plot has thickened, if we're honest here. *This is one reason why I don't buy into what you're saying*. Your story keeps changing. If the people you were coaching were eating what they *should* have been eating - they would have lost bf - it isn't really up for debate. Simply they were consuming too many calories. Layne also does not talk about IIFYM in the way you suggested, he said it's a viable way to eat foods you want to eat and not have cheat meals - and infact, the other dude here, Learney and probably you, incorporate cheat meals into peoples diets which makes little sense in Laynes view, same as it makes little sense in my view when you can eat these foods DAILY and keep your sanity,. enjoy a normal life and most importantly it yields the same results.
> 
> I also want to say, as I mentioned before, I was 200 lbs (at 5'6) I was heavily overweight my entire life - if IIFYM wasn't gonna work for someone, it wouldn't work for me. But it does. Because it is science.


is that not another way of saying his methods dont work?


----------



## ritchiedrama

Gym Bunny said:


> I'm attempting to explain that not all sugar is equal. So, yes, I am disagreeing with your statement that source of sugar intake e.g. from cellulose, fruit, chocolate, syrup, milk, alcohol does matter. As does the amount.
> 
> Let's assume, that when you talk about sugar you are referring to sucrose, table sugar, which is made from glucose and fructose. Now, why would you consume 100-300g of this in place of a complex carbohydrate, which is also a sugar? The sucrose doesn't add any vitamins minerals or fibre to your diet.
> 
> If all sugar is equal, you could just as likely get your sugar source from alcohol. It's a form of sugar. So if all sugar is equal then using alcohol would be an acceptible source, surely? Can we agree that it isn't?
> 
> Incidentally, will you please stop staying science backs up your opinion/statement. Because
> 
> 
> Science is not a fixed, unanimous source, I'm using science, specifically food chemistry to demonstrate the difference in sugar structure.
> 
> Scientists adapt and change their viewpoints when encountering new scientific evidence that invalidates or amends the evidence so far.
> 
> The abstracts to various papers you've provided are not the whole of the study and no necessarily indicative of the field.
> 
> 
> Finally, I need to tell you how your personal protocol had the effect it did? Without physically conducting a full blood screening, I can't, as you probably knew when you posed the statement.
> 
> Moreover, it's impossible, because:
> 
> 
> I haven't observed you.
> 
> I don't know what your actual starting and finishing body composition was, lean body mass/body fat % weight change.
> 
> I don't know what your calorie deficit is, nor macro split.
> 
> I have only your word for the amount of sugar you were consuming, nor have you specified the type of sugar.
> 
> Plus the range of sugar you estimate you consumed varies by a factor of 3.
> 
> Finally you haven't provided any supporting evidence for an end result of 9-10%. I hope you don't buy into the old adage that you have to be sub 10% for abs, because that's frankly not true.
> 
> 
> As a scientist, there is no way I could draw any conclusion or mechanism for a result without knowing the variables.


On a metabolic level all sugar is equal, there is no need to track sugar intake, ever. I will try gather together all the information over the next few days, it's been a long day and I need to do some collecting! 

As to answer a few of your questions I was probably between 18-20% bf.

No I do not think I have to be sub 10% for abs, I am probably at least 14-15 now and I can still see my abs after a 32 lb gain (at least 10 lbs water most likely).

My diary has all my sugar logged, as linked before to someone else in a reply on myfitnesspal.

etc etc etc


----------



## ritchiedrama

redwing said:


> is that not another way of saying his methods dont work?


...What? You are REALLY dim, i'm sick of your responses, go make some almond milk. been lurking here all day and chimed in with nothing but rubbish.


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> Then please, stop stop stop saying that I am saying your methods do not work, I've not said that once.
> 
> Just so you know, we've gone from IIFYM not working, to IIFYM now being used sometimes - so the plot has thickened, if we're honest here. This is one reason why I don't buy into what you're saying. Your story keeps changing. If the people you were coaching were eating what they *should* have been eating - they would have lost bf - it isn't really up for debate. Simply they were consuming too many calories. Layne also does not talk about IIFYM in the way you suggested, he said it's a viable way to eat foods you want to eat and not have cheat meals - and infact, the other dude here, Learney and probably you, incorporate cheat meals into peoples diets which makes little sense in Laynes view, same as it makes little sense in my view when you can eat these foods DAILY and keep your sanity,. enjoy a normal life and most importantly it yields the same results.
> 
> I also want to say, as I mentioned before, I was 200 lbs (at 5'6) I was heavily overweight my entire life - if IIFYM wasn't gonna work for someone, it wouldn't work for me. But it does. Because it is science.


You have clearly replied when I have said I have used IIFYM and IF it has not worked you have then said the individuals eat more than they should assuming I did not know what I was talking about.

As for your second point I am getting the reeling you only answer what you choose to and then twist the words I have not once said IIFYM or IF did not work I have said they do not work for everyone so how does me using parts of say IIFYM in a diet plan say cereal after training instead of maltodextrin make the plot thicken?? As I have said many times I am not closed to anything but unlike you I do not believe that IIFYM or IF or any one diet approach will be a success on everyone you have clearly said it is.........

Please go back a few posts and answer my question on what BF you was before you dropped and how long it took then answer the question I posed concerning the study showing a very small drop in BF over a 6 week period and how that study is relevant to young men and women who are not 200% above average BF% (average 48%) like I have said make the study relevant to the audience.

You dropped what 24 lbs using IIFYM what BF was you before?? And why if it work on you it will work on everyone?? So you have the hormones of a woman? Your metabolism is the same as everyone's else's??And please show me the scientific study to show IIFYM is actual science (your words)


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> ...What? You are REALLY dim, i'm sick of your responses, go make some almond milk. been lurking here all day and chimed in with nothing but rubbish.


Don't insult other members keep it civil


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> You have clearly replied when I have said I have used IIFYM and IF it has not worked you have then said the individuals eat more than they should assuming I did not know what I was talking about.
> 
> As for your second point I am getting the reeling you only answer what you choose to and then twist the words I have not once said IIFYM or IF did not work I have said they do not work for everyone so how does me using parts of say IIFYM in a diet plan say cereal after training instead of maltodextrin make the plot thicken?? As I have said many times I am not closed to anything but unlike you I do not believe that IIFYM or IF or any one diet approach will be a success on everyone you have clearly said it is.........
> 
> Please go back a few posts and answer my question on what BF you was before you dropped and how long it took then answer the question I posed concerning the study showing a very small drop in BF over a 6 week period and how that study is relevant to young men and women who are not 200% above average BF% (average 48%) like I have said make the study relevant to the audience.
> 
> You dropped what 24 lbs using IIFYM what BF was you before?? And why if it work on you it will work on everyone?? So you have the hormones of a woman? Your metabolism is the same as everyone's else's??And please show me the scientific study to show IIFYM is actual science (your words)


I meant your older methods work. If you are using IIFYM, and your client is consuming the same macro ratio as your old method, but with different foods and eating the same calories - it is their fault and they are over eating and not telling you, it doesn't get more black and white. All calories are equal from whatever food they are from.

I follow IIFYM but I still eat plenty of nutritious foods, and plenty of vegetables, get my fiber, vitamins etc.

I answered the Bf thing above, I must have been around 18-22% bf give or take, 203 ish lbs maybe a bit higher, I got down to 139.6 lbs - can't remember the exact time frame, originally I started by doing 6 meals a day, "clean" eating not eating ANY treats, had some success but didn't want to live my life like that, found rippedbody.jp applied the methods and within 5 months I looked good. Strength remained the same or improved the entire way through my cut also.

As for IIFYM being science, you aree aware our body cannot distinguish 20g of protein from a McDonalds burger or 20g of protein from a lean chicken breast right? Our body works off macros it doesn't care where it comes from (for body composition, once agaiin).

Sorry if I missed anything,,,, so much reading today.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> Don't insult other members keep it civil


Alright for your lil buds to comment on my appearance though right? Yeah ok.


----------



## Gym Bunny

ritchiedrama said:


> On a metabolic level all sugar is equal, there is no need to track sugar intake, ever. I will try gather together all the information over the next few days, it's been a long day and I need to do some collecting!


So you're saying that it is perfectly acceptable to get your sugar from alcohol? Or are you just going to ignore that question for a second time.

You are wrong, in your statement that all sugar is equal on a metabolic level. Once a sugar has been digested and then broken down into it's component glucose molecules, those glucose molecules are then equal.

*However the breakdown process to glucose is different depending on the sugar source!*

Please read this article, a delightfully concise explanation of a rather complex system:

Dynamic-adaptation-of-nutrient-utilization-in-humans


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> Alright for your lil buds to comment on my appearance though right? Yeah ok.


In what post did they insult you ?? If I missed it I will read it.

Don't get like this they have there opinion I have mine I have not seen any of them call you dim or ignorant names you have used but like I says if I have missed these posts please point them out


----------



## ritchiedrama

Gym Bunny said:


> So you're saying that it is perfectly acceptable to get your sugar from alcohol? Or are you just going to ignore that question for a second time.
> 
> You are wrong, in your statement that all sugar is equal on a metabolic level. Once a sugar has been digested and then broken down into it's component glucose molecules, those glucose molecules are then equal.
> 
> *However the breakdown process to glucose is different depending on the sugar source!*
> 
> Please read this article, a delightfully concise explanation of a rather complex system:
> 
> Dynamic-adaptation-of-nutrient-utilization-in-humans


How it's broken down is irrelevant, it ends up the same way as all sugar and our body makes the same use of it, has been my point the entire time, which is why i have been saying it doesn't matter where we get our sugar from.

As for Alcohol, it is 7 calories per gram, correct? Therefor making itself an entirely different 'macronutrient' to carbohydrates. As for Alcohol also, it can fit iinto a bodybuilding diet too, sure but it's a stupid comparison, don't remember the last time a chocolate bar made me drunk.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> In what post did they insult you ?? If I missed it I will read it.
> 
> Don't get like this they have there opinion I have mine I have not seen any of them call you dim or ignorant names you have used but like I says if I have missed these posts please point them out


Commenting on my physique as if it removes my opinion. That is always going to spark a reaction from someone.


----------



## redwing

ritchiedrama said:


> ...What? You are REALLY dim, i'm sick of your responses, go make some almond milk. been lurking here all day and chimed in with nothing but rubbish.


Ive not insulted you.

Youve read a study become a disciple and stuck to it , a couple of people have said that everyone should be open to your claims because science is ever changing, that is true, but that doesnt mean every new claim that comes along is correct.

Surely you must have expected some debate and questions if you say something like 2 - 3 hundreds grams of sugar a day ,Timings mean nothing,All Sugar is all the same, monster drinks everyday , etc.

You keep saying how great your going to look. Ill look forward to seeing it.


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> Commenting on my physique as if it removes my opinion. That is always going to spark a reaction from someone.


Again I have not seen any member say you look sh1t again if I have missed that please point me to the post. How you react is down to you


----------



## ritchiedrama

redwing said:


> Ive not insulted you.
> 
> Youve read a study become a disciple and stuck to it , a couple of people have said that everyone should be open to your claims because science is ever changing, that is true, but that doesnt mean every new claim that comes along is correct.
> 
> Surely you must have expected some debate and questions if you say something like 2 - 3 hundreds grams of sugar a day ,Timings mean nothing,All Sugar is all the same, monster drinks everyday , etc.
> 
> You keep saying how great your going to look. Ill look forward to seeing it.


I already managed to get low-ish bf. It isn't hard, just patience. I never said I'd look great - I don't believee I have enough "mass" to look great, I said I'd be 6%


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> Again I have not seen any member say you look sh1t again if I have missed that please point me to the post. How you react is down to you


Well it's not something that would bother me,, someone calling me skinny, I'm over it - but its just a bit weird


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> Well it's not something that would bother me,, someone calling me skinny, I'm over it - but its just a bit weird


Why is it weird? You said it did not bother you yet you reacted by insulting others?


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> Why is it weird? You said it did not bother you yet you reacted by insulting others?


So why are you defending other people about what I'm saying to them?


----------



## ritchiedrama

dbl post.


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> So why are you defending other people about what I'm saying to them?


I am not defending anyone I am a MOD on this site and insulting members is against the rules, if any member resorted to the name calling you have I would be having the same conversation with them.

If you notice I have asked at least once to keep the debate civil this was aimed at everyone then you persisted to call another member dim as his opinion did not match yours


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> I am not defending anyone I am a MOD on this site and insulting members is against the rules, if any member resorted to the name calling you have I would be having the same conversation with them.
> 
> If you notice I have asked at least once to keep the debate civil this was aimed at everyone then you persisted to call another member dim as his opinion did not match yours


Ok, sure.

Apologies, @redwing.


----------



## redwing

ritchiedrama said:


> Ok, sure.
> 
> Apologies, @redwing.


no probs


----------



## jonnym4

You lost 60lbs to drop 9-12% bodyfat and you think that it worked well?


----------



## 3752

jonnym4 said:


> You lost 60lbs to drop 9-12% bodyfat and you think that it worked well?


This had me thinking... @richiedramacan I just confirm your numbers please...

Starting weight approx 203lbs

Starting BF% 18-20%

So this means you had approx 36-40lbs of fat and approx 162lbs of lean tissue

Yet you said that you dropped to approx 10% but your weight was 139?? In approx 5 months

Now the bit I am confused about is that you have said you dropped approx half your BF% (18-20% to 10%) but from your starting weight a drop of 10% would mean a drop of approx 20lbs so 203 down to 180lbs so my question is what was the further 41lbs made up of (203-139) from what you have said that your strength was not compromised through the entire cut but if this was true are you saying you dropped 41lbs of water? As any muscle loss would effect strength especially for a natural......

The only thing I can assume and please let me know if I have this wrong, on this method of dieting you lost a lot of muscle

You have now said that you have now gained 32lbs and are sitting at approx 15% BF so this is a 5% rise in BF which would account for approx 16lbs of fat, you have said you estimate 10lbs is water so we can safely assume that you have gained 5% bf for approx 6lbs of muscle?

Yet from your original starting weight of 203lbs to your current weight of 171lbs and your starting BF% of approx 18-20% to your current BF% of approx 15% the numbers do not add up how can you have a drop of approx 3-5% in BF yet a drop in weight of 32lbs??

Again this is not a dig in any way just very confusing with the numbers you have given, this goes with what I have said before anyone can drop weight/BF given the calories are low enough but given the audience of this forum losing that much muscle would deem it not the most optimal way to lose fat would you not agree??


----------



## Learney

ritchiedrama said:


> I will be starting my cut in 27 days. I will be documenting the entire thing, with videos, etc etc etc you name it, it'll be there. It will be unassisted no help from any drugs/compounds etc etc.
> 
> You will have access to my food diary and what not. I will reach 7% bodyfat eating *TWO* meals a day, using IF and the IIFYM principle.
> 
> I am unsure whether I will be carb cycling or not, I did last time, but will be testing the waters with just weekly maintenance re-feeds first.
> 
> I don't care if you don't care, but I have been told by people here it is not possible eating two meals a day and following IIFYM.


Funny you dismiss carb cycling and then say you may do it. If everything you've stated is fact carb cycling makes no difference. Could you contradict yourself anymore in a single thread.....


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> Funny you dismiss carb cycling and then say you may do it. If everything you've stated is fact carb cycling makes no difference. Could you contradict yourself anymore in a single thread.....


Carb cycling has no effect on body composition, I merely enjoyed it due to the fact of not feeling so bloated on rest days. Also removed the need for re-feeds weekly.

Off to sleep, night.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> This had me thinking... @richiedramacan I just confirm your numbers please...
> 
> Starting weight approx 203lbs
> 
> Starting BF% 18-20%
> 
> So this means you had approx 36-40lbs of fat and approx 162lbs of lean tissue
> 
> Yet you said that you dropped to approx 10% but your weight was 139?? In approx 5 months
> 
> Now the bit I am confused about is that you have said you dropped approx half your BF% (18-20% to 10%) but from your starting weight a drop of 10% would mean a drop of approx 20lbs so 203 down to 180lbs so my question is what was the further 41lbs made up of (203-139) from what you have said that your strength was not compromised through the entire cut but if this was true are you saying you dropped 41lbs of water? As any muscle loss would effect strength especially for a natural......
> 
> The only thing I can assume and please let me know if I have this wrong, on this method of dieting you lost a lot of muscle
> 
> You have now said that you have now gained 32lbs and are sitting at approx 15% BF so this is a 5% rise in BF which would account for approx 16lbs of fat, you have said you estimate 10lbs is water so we can safely assume that you have gained 5% bf for approx 6lbs of muscle?
> 
> Yet from your original starting weight of 203lbs to your current weight of 171lbs and your starting BF% of approx 18-20% to your current BF% of approx 15% the numbers do not add up how can you have a drop of approx 3-5% in BF yet a drop in weight of 32lbs??
> 
> Again this is not a dig in any way just very confusing with the numbers you have given, this goes with what I have said before anyone can drop weight/BF given the calories are low enough but given the audience of this forum losing that much muscle would deem it not the most optimal way to lose fat would you not agree??


It is all rough numbers, my bf could have been much higher than what I stated when I started, I can upload a picture if you want, I was pretty fat dude. I'll do it tomorrow if you're interested, need to get some rest, still haven't slept 

But honestly, my strength did NOT decrease i only got stronger through my cut.


----------



## Learney

To quote yourself 'c'mon you're a smart guy' but in this case you dismiss methods and say you'll do them, say you're not angry and defensive and you clearly are, talk all about 'the science' then dismiss it completely saying none of it matters and that all the topics I cover in my seminar are irrelevant according to your theories....I spend too much time entertaining people like yourself online so I'm absolutely out of this convo.


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> It is all rough numbers, my bf could have been much higher than what I stated when I started, I can upload a picture if you want, I was pretty fat dude. I'll do it tomorrow if you're interested, need to get some rest, still haven't slept
> 
> But honestly, my strength did NOT decrease i only got stronger through my cut.


again confusing really mate as they might be rough number but you were pretty adamant on them? lets say you was 30%BF which i highly doubt but lets say you was then you had 60lbs of fat so your lean muscle weight was 143lbs now add the 10% you claimed to have reached then this would make your approx 157lbs yet you was 139lbs?? so again you lost over a stone in muscle.....

the numbers may be rough but they would have to be totally out to get any where near the numbers you have claimed even if you was a whole 10% fatter at the start than you estimate, that is if we can now believe you was 10% at the end? but all that aside you lost muscle and a sh1t load of it so where as your method of dieting *did *work to drop both weight and BF you also lost a load of muscle and given this is a bad thing why are you claiming it is a good way to diet?? because of these numbers i do not see how your strength did not decrease though as you was natural and you obviously lost a lot of muscle so again very confused

but please post up the before and after pictures (approx 203lbs & 139lbs/ 20% Vs 10%) as when all said and done it is all about the visual perception to if a certain approach is a success or not....


----------



## Ginger Ben

Pscarb said:


> again confusing really mate as they might be rough number but you were pretty adamant on them? lets say you was 30%BF which i highly doubt but lets say you was then you had 60lbs of fat so your lean muscle weight was 143lbs now add the 10% you claimed to have reached then this would make your approx 157lbs yet you was 139lbs?? so again you lost over a stone in muscle.....
> 
> the numbers may be rough but they would have to be totally out to get any where near the numbers you have claimed even if you was a whole 10% fatter at the start than you estimate, that is if we can now believe you was 10% at the end? but all that aside you lost muscle and a sh1t load of it so where as your method of dieting *did *work to drop both weight and BF you also lost a load of muscle and given this is a bad thing why are you claiming it is a good way to diet?? because of these numbers i do not see how your strength did not decrease though as you was natural and you obviously lost a lot of muscle so again very confused
> 
> but please post up the before and after pictures (approx 203lbs & 139lbs/ 20% Vs 10%) as when all said and done it is all about the visual perception to if a certain approach is a success or not....


I'm glad you took the time to work the numbers out as they were confusing me but I couldn't get my head round why lol


----------



## Sambuca

i syphoned through some of this as there was good debate at one point.

so is almond milk anygood? :lol:


----------



## 3752

Sambuca said:


> i syphoned through some of this as there was good debate at one point.
> 
> so is almond milk anygood? :lol:


it is fine mate i use the unsweetened type


----------



## k3z

@Pscarb

I don't have the time to go back to quote you, but you mentioned that you IF is a bad way to gain weight, but if you were to consume the same calories in 8 hours that you would without using IF, then what difference would that make?

I use IF at present as ive never been one to have breakfast and I enjoy eating large meals in one sitting as opposite to smaller meals which only seem to spike further hunger leading to snacking on convenience foods which aren't part of my plan.

This isn't to disagree that IF may be a very bad for bulking, im just trying to gather every bit of info I can and make an educated decision as to how to bulk in the future


----------



## 3752

k3z said:


> @Pscarb
> 
> I don't have the time to go back to quote you, but you mentioned that you IF is a bad way to gain weight, but if you were to consume the same calories in 8 hours that you would without using IF, then what difference would that make?
> 
> I use IF at present as ive never been one to have breakfast and I enjoy eating large meals in one sitting as opposite to smaller meals which only seem to spike further hunger leading to snacking on convenience foods which aren't part of my plan.
> 
> This isn't to disagree that IF may be a very bad for bulking, im just trying to gather every bit of info I can and make an educated decision as to how to bulk in the future


in my opinion based on people who have used it plus speaking to knowledgeable people in the field IF is not great for gaining muscle, weight yes as you have pointed out if you eat enough calories you will gain weight but as i mentioned before losing weight is not hard anyone can do this but losing weight whilst maintaining as much muscle as possible is the trick, same with gaining weight this is easy but gaining muscle tissue is not.....

IF was never a method to gain weight in fact in its original form it was more for longevity of life not even weight loss then it was used for this and whilst it is good for dropping weight i have my concerns that you drop weight at the expense of muscle tissue


----------



## Bull Terrier

Pscarb said:


> in my opinion based on people who have used it plus speaking to knowledgeable people in the field IF is not great for gaining muscle, weight yes as you have pointed out if you eat enough calories you will gain weight but as i mentioned before losing weight is not hard anyone can do this but losing weight whilst maintaining as much muscle as possible is the trick, same with gaining weight this is easy but gaining muscle tissue is not.....
> 
> IF was never a method to gain weight in fact in its original form it was more for longevity of life not even weight loss then it was used for this and whilst it is good for dropping weight i have my concerns that you drop weight at the expense of muscle tissue


My brother has been doing IF for quite a few months, and I don't know why he insists with it. So far, he has lost weight for sure. But his strength has taken a big hit which makes me think that he's also lost a fair bit of muscle.

The system doesn't really convince me at all.


----------



## 3752

Bull Terrier said:


> My brother has been doing IF for quite a few months, and I don't know why he insists with it. So far, he has lost weight for sure. But his strength has taken a big hit which makes me think that he's also lost a fair bit of muscle.
> 
> The system doesn't really convince me at all.


it is a good system to lose weight this is for sure but from what i know and the people i know who have used it you drop a fair amount of muscle as well....


----------



## k3z

Bull Terrier said:


> My brother has been doing IF for quite a few months, and I don't know why he insists with it. So far, he has lost weight for sure. But his strength has taken a big hit which makes me think that he's also lost a fair bit of muscle.
> 
> The system doesn't really convince me at all.


Is he using it to gain weight?


----------



## Heath

"It seems to me some 'science mofos' aren't sufficiently discriminating when it comes to what they write off as 'broscience'.

Let us take, as an example, the statement "Nutrient timing doesn't matter."

Preworkout nutrition can have significant effects on your performance, and thus, indirectly, your overall progress (this strikes me as wholly uncontroversial).

So, it comes to this: if eating before training in a way that optimizes your performance qualifies as a form of nutrient timing (which I think it does), then the statement "Nutrient timing doesn't matter" is, at best, too broad, and, at worst, simply false.

In short: care about what matters, but not less than that."

Ian McCarthy put this on Facebook yesterday, seemed fitting to some of the discussions in here.


----------



## k3z

Heath said:


> "It seems to me some 'science mofos' aren't sufficiently discriminating when it comes to what they write off as 'broscience'.
> 
> Let us take, as an example, the statement "Nutrient timing doesn't matter."
> 
> Preworkout nutrition can have significant effects on your performance, and thus, indirectly, your overall progress (this strikes me as wholly uncontroversial).
> 
> So, it comes to this: if eating before training in a way that optimizes your performance qualifies as a form of nutrient timing (which I think it does), then the statement "Nutrient timing doesn't matter" is, at best, too broad, and, at worst, simply false.
> 
> In short: care about what matters, but not less than that."
> 
> Ian McCarthy put this on Facebook yesterday, seemed fitting to some of the discussions in here.


But then its what you take in the 24 hours prior to a sessions what counts the most toward that session...not what you ate in the 1-2 hours before


----------



## 3752

just read a great article by Alan Aragon on meal timing and IF the whole article can be found here http://www.alanaragon.com/an-objective-look-at-intermittent-fasting.html

he makes a good summary at the bottom i will quote it here:



> Research Summary
> 
> Meal Frequency
> 
> § A haphazard/randomly variable meal frequency, not necessarily a lower frequency, negatively impacts thermogenesis, blood lipids, and insulin sensitivity.
> 
> § Within a day, a higher frequency has no thermodynamic advantage over a lower frequency under controlled conditions.
> 
> § The majority of controlled intervention trials show no improvement in body composition with a higher meal frequency.
> 
> § Studies indicating the disappearance or lack of hunger in dieters occur in either complete starvation, or very low calorie VLCD regimes (800 kcal/day or less).
> 
> § Hunger is a persistent problem with reduced meal frequency in non-starvation and other protocols with calories above VLCD levels.
> 
> § For controlling appetite, the majority of research indicates the superiority of a higher meal frequency.
> 
> § The body appears to be "metabolically primed" to receive calories and nutrients after an overnight fast. Breakfast is a particularly beneficial time to have dietary protein, since muscle protein synthethis rates are typically lowest at this time.
> 
> § Overall, both experimental and observational research points to breakfast improving memory, test grades, school attendance, nutrient status, weight control, and muscle protein synthesis.
> 
> Intermittent Fasting
> 
> § Animal research has shown a number of positive health effects of ADF and CR.
> 
> § Human ADF research is scarce and less consistent than animal research, showing both benefits (insulin sensitivity is the most consistent outcome) and risks (impaired glucose tolerance in women).
> 
> § So far, control groups are absent in all human ADF studies. Thus, no comparative conclusions can be drawn between ADF and linear caloric intake.
> 
> § The of the single published controlled trial to date (Stote, et al) comparing 1 versus 3 meals is heavily confounded by an exceptionally high dropout rate in the 1-a-day group, and the use of BIA to measure body composition.
> 
> § The 1-a-day group reported increasing hunger levels throughout the length of the trial, echoing the problem of hunger with a reduced meal frequency seen in other similar research.
> 
> § Ramadan fasting (12-16 hours per day, sunrise to sunset) decreases daytime alertness, mood, wakefulness, competitive athletic performance, and increases the incidence of traffic accidents. It's difficult to determine the relative contributions of dehydration and a lack of food to these adverse phenomena.
> 
> § The effects of exercise and meal frequency on body composition is an interesting but largely unexplored area of research.
> 
> Fasting & Exercise
> 
> § Improvements in insulin sensitivity, glucose tolerance (except in women undergoing ADF), bodyweight/bodyfat, blood pressure, blood lipids, and heart rate are commonly cited benefits of IF & CR.
> 
> § All of the above benefits can be achieved by exercise, minus the downsides of fasting.
> 
> § IF and CR have both been found to have neuroprotective effects by increasing BDNF levels.
> 
> § A growing body of research shows that exercise can also increase BDNF, and the degree of effect appears to be intensity-dependent.
> 
> § Based on the limited available data, resistance training performance, especially if its not particularly voluminous, might not be enhanced by preworkout EAA+CHO.
> 
> § Despite equivocal performance effects of pre- or midworkout EAA+CHO, it minimizes muscle damage that occurs from fasted resistance training.
> 
> § Immediate preworkout protein and/or EAA+CHO increases protein synthesis more than fasted resistance training with those substrates ingested immediately postworkout.
> 
> § It's possible that a partial fast (as short as 4 hours) before resistance training can negatively impact muscle protein status.
> 
> Conclusion
> 
> *It's given that personal goals and individual response are the ultimate navigators of any protocol. Therefore, training and meal schedules should be built upon individual preferences & tolerances, which undoubtedly will differ. However, the purpose of this article is to arm the reader with the facts, so that opinions and anecdotes can be judged accordingly. Personal testimony is invariably biased by the powerful placebo effect of suggestion, and sometimes by ulterior agenda. Science is perched on one end of the epistemological spectrum, and hearsay is on the opposite end. As the evidence clearly indicates, IF is not a bed of roses minus the thorns - there are definite pros and cons. *
> 
> In the world of fitness, recommendations for improving performance and body composition often gain blind acceptance despite a dearth of objective data. This is common in a field where high hopes and obsessive-compulsive tendencies are united with false appeals and incomplete information. In order to be proven effective beyond the mere power of suggestion, supposed truths must be put through the crucible of science. Drawing conclusions from baseless assumptions is a good way to get nowhere - fast.


there is nothing in there to say it is the bed of roses many claim it to be, i particular like the first para of his conclusion....

he references all the studies on the website.


----------



## Mr_Morocco

Nice derailment of a thread about Almond Milk.

Back on topic, wheres the cheapest place to get it?


----------



## resten

Mr_Morocco said:


> Nice derailment of a thread about Almond Milk.
> 
> Back on topic, wheres the cheapest place to get it?


If you're not making your own, Asda is reasonably priced. It seems to be kept with the UHT milk


----------



## Bull Terrier

k3z said:


> Is he using it to gain weight?


He was hoping to lose fat and pack on the muscle. The leangains website is pretty convincing, but like Pscarb says - perhaps the results don't generally hold up to careful scrutiny. I don't want to say that my brother's case is convincing proof that the system isn't valid, because like most things there will always be individual variation. But I will say that knowing my brother he will have done the system to the letter and it has been a big disappointment.


----------



## k3z

Bull Terrier said:


> He was hoping to lose fat and pack on the muscle. The leangains website is pretty convincing, but like Pscarb says - perhaps the results don't generally hold up to careful scrutiny. I don't want to say that my brother's case is convincing proof that the system isn't valid, because like most things there will always be individual variation. But I will say that knowing my brother he will have done the system to the letter and it has been a big disappointment.


Each day I'm becoming more convinced of this... It will work to an extent but so will other methods. Everyone is different I guess the deciding factor for me was the ease of only having 3 large meals per day to prepare instead of 6 and all of the extra Tupperware, meal timings Etc that comes with it.

I'm not training competitively so the dedication the typical bodybuilding approach warrants just didn't appeal to me. I don't like to live a scheduled lifestyle either so if I miss a meal ittl never panic me where as the 6 small meals per day would be an added burden!


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> again confusing really mate as they might be rough number but you were pretty adamant on them? lets say you was 30%BF which i highly doubt but lets say you was then you had 60lbs of fat so your lean muscle weight was 143lbs now add the 10% you claimed to have reached then this would make your approx 157lbs yet you was 139lbs?? so again you lost over a stone in muscle.....
> 
> the numbers may be rough but they would have to be totally out to get any where near the numbers you have claimed even if you was a whole 10% fatter at the start than you estimate, that is if we can now believe you was 10% at the end? but all that aside you lost muscle and a sh1t load of it so where as your method of dieting *did *work to drop both weight and BF you also lost a load of muscle and given this is a bad thing why are you claiming it is a good way to diet?? because of these numbers i do not see how your strength did not decrease though as you was natural and you obviously lost a lot of muscle so again very confused
> 
> but please post up the before and after pictures (approx 203lbs & 139lbs/ 20% Vs 10%) as when all said and done it is all about the visual perception to if a certain approach is a success or not....




Best I can find right now, and on the right as you can see I wasn't 10% there, but also 150-155 lb region and after I got back from holiday I cut down to 139 lbs.

I did 18 hours fasting a day, and ate all my calories within 6 hours (12-6pm), trained 3x a week, and at 180lbs I was benching 90 kg x6, at 139 lbs I was benching 90 kg x8 - strength increased, and even if it DID decrease (which it didn't) strength and muscle are not even completely linked together.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> just read a great article by Alan Aragon on meal timing and IF the whole article can be found here http://www.alanaragon.com/an-objective-look-at-intermittent-fasting.html
> 
> he makes a good summary at the bottom i will quote it here:
> 
> there is nothing in there to say it is the bed of roses many claim it to be, i particular like the first para of his conclusion....
> 
> he references all the studies on the website.


It also completely says everything I was basically saying about meal frequency having no impact & everything basically coming down to personal preference, and I stated preference about 20x yesterday.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Heath said:


> "It seems to me some 'science mofos' aren't sufficiently discriminating when it comes to what they write off as 'broscience'.
> 
> Let us take, as an example, the statement "Nutrient timing doesn't matter."
> 
> Preworkout nutrition can have significant effects on your performance, and thus, indirectly, your overall progress (this strikes me as wholly uncontroversial).
> 
> So, it comes to this: if eating before training in a way that optimizes your performance qualifies as a form of nutrient timing (which I think it does), then the statement "Nutrient timing doesn't matter" is, at best, too broad, and, at worst, simply false.
> 
> In short: care about what matters, but not less than that."
> 
> Ian McCarthy put this on Facebook yesterday, seemed fitting to some of the discussions in here.


It's a fair point, but it only leads back to preference, again. His statement is also "can" have significant.

When I was cutting I found it much better to train in a fasted state, not sure why - but I couldn't do that now I was gaining, just didn't feel right. End of the day, hit your macros in a 24 hour period, live your life, lift weights, results occur. It isn't really up for a discussion anymore, every single person who has said IIFYM or IF doesn't work here,, has then turned around and said they have still incorporated it with their clients in areas.

Why? It doesn't work according to you - the goal posts have been moved significantly from the start of this discussion. As for the person who chimed in about drinking alcohol and using it in a diet for nutritional purposes, that was laughable.


----------



## Gym Bunny

ritchiedrama said:


> Why? It doesn't work according to you - the goal posts have been moved significantly from the start of this discussion. *As for the person who chimed in about drinking alcohol and using it in a diet for nutritional purposes, that was laughable.*


Derp, derp. You really didn't understand the discussion at all did you?


----------



## ritchiedrama

Gym Bunny said:


> Derp, derp. You really didn't understand the discussion at all did you?


Btw, http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-science-of-nutrition-is-a-carb-a-carb.html

ends the debate quite nicely i think :]


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> View attachment 138910
> 
> 
> Best I can find right now, and on the right as you can see I wasn't 10% there, but also 150-155 lb region and after I got back from holiday I cut down to 139 lbs.
> 
> I did 18 hours fasting a day, and ate all my calories within 6 hours (12-6pm), trained 3x a week, and at 180lbs I was benching 90 kg x6, at 139 lbs I was benching 90 kg x8 - strength increased, and even if it DID decrease (which it didn't) strength and muscle are not even completely linked together.


you mentioned yesterday that i changed what i did and because of this i lost all credibility you have just done the same you say one thing for your starting body fat then say you could of been wrong, you have clearly said after 5 month you went down to 139lbs at 10% bodyfat now above you say it was 150-155 well what was it 150 or 155?? either way you lost a shed load in fact over a stone of muscle.......

your claims when put to the test are not spectacular as you think yes you lost weight but you lost a ton of muscle this is clear....

just to add you are not 10% in the right hand picture at 10% you would have muscle hardness and vascularity you have neither



ritchiedrama said:


> It also completely says everything I was basically saying about meal frequency having no impact & everything basically coming down to personal preference, and I stated preference about 20x yesterday.


read it again it does not say there is no impact it says that missing breakfast as you would in a fast would have an impact as does low meal frequency on appetite. it does not say BASICALLY what you have said......

i just noticed that you have a covered head on the before picture and not on the after?? why is that post up the original picture with both heads uncovered or your bullsh1tting and this is not you on the before picture


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> It's a fair point, but it only leads back to preference, again. His statement is also "can" have significant.


so you now twisting his words lol



ritchiedrama said:


> When I was cutting I found it much better to train in a fasted state, not sure why - but I couldn't do that now I was gaining, just didn't feel right. End of the day, hit your macros in a 24 hour period, live your life, lift weights, results occur. It isn't really up for a discussion anymore, every single person who has said IIFYM or IF doesn't work here,, has then turned around and said they have still incorporated it with their clients in areas.


no what was said was that when i did IF with myself and clients some did not get the results comparable to not doing IF and what i said about IIFYM was i incorporated this in my PWO meal as i have cereal this is a small area 1 meal of IIFYM not the whole method and at no point did i say it did not work you now need to go back and read the posts, i said that it does not work for everyone as you claim.........if you are going to quote me please get it right



ritchiedrama said:


> Why? It doesn't work according to you - the goal posts have been moved significantly from the start of this discussion. As for the person who chimed in about drinking alcohol and using it in a diet for nutritional purposes, that was laughable.


the goal posts have not been moved go back and look what i said at the beginning i said it does not work for everyone as everyone is different and respond differently to different methods, you claimed that we are all the same thus we all can benefit from it........you have clearly said nutrient timing does not matter and quoted many people including Ian Mcarthy yet in the quote above he clearly says it does matter and to say it does not is false



> then the statement "Nutrient timing doesn't matter" is, at best, too broad, and, at worst, simply false.


your numbers themselves showed you losing a huge amount of weight with only a modest fat loss (in comparison) so a large muscle loss which is not a good method to diet......

you said something in one of your posts yesterday when i said i used the theory in general of IIFYM with PWO meal you said this



> if we're honest here. This is one reason why I don't buy into what you're saying. Your story keeps changing.


now apply this to constant changing of the goal posts with your weight and bodyfat start and finish 

this is no longer a debate in my opinion for this forum as the target audience on the whole want to preserve muscle when losing fat the method you are totally blinded to has been shown by YOUR own numbers to have lost a huge amount of muscle even in the very best scenario it is over a stone of muscle loss when you consider finishing weight and Bodyfat percentage........


----------



## NightHawk

yeah I spotted price hike too. Don't really like the taste on it's own but can add it to my shakes all day long!


----------



## Gym Bunny

ritchiedrama said:


> Btw, http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-science-of-nutrition-is-a-carb-a-carb.html
> 
> ends the debate quite nicely i think :]


Not really, not a scientific paper. Just one person's interpretation.


----------



## 3752

Gym Bunny said:


> Not really, not a scientific paper. Just one person's interpretation.


funny that


----------



## Gym Bunny

Pscarb said:


> funny that


Isn't it just.


----------



## Heath

Gym Bunny said:


> Isn't it just.


The references are all listed I believe.

Maybe you should read and discredit them?


----------



## ritchiedrama

Gym Bunny said:


> Not really, not a scientific paper. Just one person's interpretation.


Plenty of science there. It kills the argument, and I no longer need to continue this conversation.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> so you now twisting his words lol
> 
> no what was said was that when i did IF with myself and clients some did not get the results comparable to not doing IF and what i said about IIFYM was i incorporated this in my PWO meal as i have cereal this is a small area 1 meal of IIFYM not the whole method and at no point did i say it did not work you now need to go back and read the posts, i said that it does not work for everyone as you claim.........if you are going to quote me please get it right
> 
> the goal posts have not been moved go back and look what i said at the beginning i said it does not work for everyone as everyone is different and respond differently to different methods, you claimed that we are all the same thus we all can benefit from it........you have clearly said nutrient timing does not matter and quoted many people including Ian Mcarthy yet in the quote above he clearly says it does matter and to say it does not is false
> 
> your numbers themselves showed you losing a huge amount of weight with only a modest fat loss (in comparison) so a large muscle loss which is not a good method to diet......
> 
> you said something in one of your posts yesterday when i said i used the theory in general of IIFYM with PWO meal you said this
> 
> now apply this to constant changing of the goal posts with your weight and bodyfat start and finish
> 
> this is no longer a debate in my opinion for this forum as the target audience on the whole want to preserve muscle when losing fat the method you are totally blinded to has been shown by YOUR own numbers to have lost a huge amount of muscle even in the very best scenario it is over a stone of muscle loss when you consider finishing weight and Bodyfat percentage........


Do the pictures I provided you with show 1 stone of muscle loss? Definitely not. Do my strength statistics show muscle loss? Definitely not.

"no what was said was that when i did IF with myself and clients some did not get the results comparable to not doing IF and what i said about IIFYM was i incorporated this in my PWO meal as i have cereal this is a small area 1 meal of IIFYM not the whole method "

Yes, you said people wanted to use IIFYM and it didn't work - that's because you did it wrong,, or they did it wrong, simple as that. Yeah man,, the cereal thing over rice too, I mean, if both contained 50g of carbs, it'd change your body composition if you ate the rice more often though right? Lol.


----------



## Gym Bunny

Heath said:


> The references are all listed I believe.
> 
> Maybe you should read and discredit them?


*sigh*

You don't really get how this works do you?

You don't discredit someone's research unless you replicate the work and/or find errors or biases in their protocol.

If the author of that letter actually sampled all the current literature and explored the different view points and compared the various studies to produce a review paper, then I might pay a little more attention. A good review paper has very little difficulty being published and often has a much higher CI number than an original piece of research.

But IMO, you're simply trying to get a rise rather than anything else.


----------



## Heath

Gym Bunny said:


> Lots of meaningless fluff
> 
> *If the author of that letter*
> 
> Lots more meaningless fluff


You will find it was an article not a letter. *double sigh*


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> Do the pictures I provided you with show 1 stone of muscle loss? Definitely not. Do my strength statistics show muscle loss? Definitely not.
> 
> "no what was said was that when i did IF with myself and clients some did not get the results comparable to not doing IF and what i said about IIFYM was i incorporated this in my PWO meal as i have cereal this is a small area 1 meal of IIFYM not the whole method "
> 
> Yes, you said people wanted to use IIFYM and it didn't work - that's because you did it wrong,, or they did it wrong, simple as that. Yeah man,, the cereal thing over rice too, I mean, if both contained 50g of carbs, it'd change your body composition if you ate the rice more often though right? Lol.


Of course they show more than a stone in muscle loss but that is not the point your own weights and bodyfat percentages show this and they are your numbers.

I do not even believe the before and after are the same person in fact looking at your AVI it looks nothing like your after picture.......

You are not getting boring so put up before and after pictures with your face uncovered so we can see it is the same person or I call bull****


----------



## Gym Bunny

Heath said:


> You will find it was an article not a letter. *double sigh*


Nope, it's a letter, non-technical language and author's opinion.


----------



## Heath

Gym Bunny said:


> Nope, it's a letter, non-technical language and author's opinion.


Letter - a written, typed, or printed communication, sent in an envelope by post or messenger.

Article - a piece of writing included with others in a newspaper, magazine, or other publication

When your being condescending, it's best to be correct.

Just saying.


----------



## Breda

ritchiedrama said:


> View attachment 138910
> 
> 
> Best I can find right now, and on the right as you can see I wasn't 10% there, but also 150-155 lb region and after I got back from holiday I cut down to 139 lbs.
> 
> I did 18 hours fasting a day, and ate all my calories within 6 hours (12-6pm), trained 3x a week, and at 180lbs I was benching 90 kg x6, at 139 lbs I was benching 90 kg x8 - strength increased, and even if it DID decrease (which it didn't) strength and muscle are not even completely linked together.


Dont know if its been said but why the fuk would you cover your face in 1 and not the other?


----------



## marknorthumbria

Breda said:


> Dont know if its been said but why the fuk would you cover your face in 1 and not the other?


Either cos your ashamed of the pic, or it's not you lol


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> Of course they show more than a stone in muscle loss but that is not the point your own weights and bodyfat percentages show this and they are your numbers.
> 
> I do not even believe the before and after are the same person in fact looking at your AVI it looks nothing like your after picture.......
> 
> You are not getting boring so put up before and after pictures with your face uncovered so we can see it is the same person or I call bull****




there is the original, andthe other pic is now me a few months ago, and as i said, probably around 15% now

the face was covered cos thats how i had it saved on my pc.. i dont need to lie im not some kind of weird dude, i just speak my opinion and mind and its annoyed you alot 

im glad i blocked the face out now, only shows my results were as i had said


----------



## Breda

marknorthumbria said:


> Either cos your ashamed of the pic, or it's not you lol


I'd go with it not bein him


----------



## ritchiedrama

Breda said:


> I'd go with it not bein him


check above buddy


----------



## Breda

ritchiedrama said:


> View attachment 138931
> View attachment 138932
> 
> 
> there is the original, andthe other pic is now me a few months ago, and as i said, probably around 15% now
> 
> the face was covered cos thats how i had it saved on my pc.. i dont need to lie im not some kind of weird dude, i just speak my opinion and mind and its annoyed you alot
> 
> im glad i blocked the face out now, only shows my results were as i had said


Please cover it


----------



## ritchiedrama

Breda said:


> Please cover it


haha you little fka


----------



## Heath

ritchiedrama said:


> View attachment 138931
> View attachment 138932
> 
> 
> there is the original, andthe other pic is now me a few months ago, and as i said, probably around 15% now
> 
> the face was covered cos thats how i had it saved on my pc.. i dont need to lie im not some kind of weird dude, i just speak my opinion and mind and its annoyed you alot
> 
> im glad i blocked the face out now, only shows my results were as i had said


I am now officially lost in the time scale between the 200 lbs pic, the 150-155 lbs, the pic from a few months ago and your avi :laugh:


----------



## Breda

ritchiedrama said:


> haha you little fka


Fair fuks to you man but you could do with tidyin up a touch


----------



## ritchiedrama

Heath said:


> I am now officially lost in the time scale between the 200 lbs pic, the 150-155 lbs, the pic from a few months ago and your avi :laugh:


the 200 lbs pic was a while back, dont have an exact date, the pic from a few months ago was like 2 months ago possibly, and my avi was two months before that maybe, when i started epistane i was eating a ridiculous amount hence why im at 15 ish now. 155 lbs pic was when i went to barca, can get a date for that later if you want, downstiars on some dog laptop atm driving me mad typing on this thing lol


----------



## Mr_Morocco

Im guessing its ok to purposely derail the thread from the original topic seeing as a mod is involved, as good as the debate is.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Breda said:


> Fair fuks to you man but you could do with tidyin up a touch


i assume you mean the 155 lbs pic and the mess? if not i am upset  lol


----------



## Mr_Morocco

On topic, i bought some Almond Milk earlier to have with my Chocolate Coconut whey later, looking forward to it!


----------



## ritchiedrama

Mr_Morocco said:


> On topic, i bought some Almond Milk earlier to have with my Chocolate Coconut whey later, looking forward to it!


the alpro almond milk sweetened or unsweetened is on offer atm at morrisons 2 for 2 quid, its nice.


----------



## Heath

ritchiedrama said:


> the 200 lbs pic was a while back, dont have an exact date, the pic from a few months ago was like 2 months ago possibly, and my avi was two months before that maybe, when i started epistane i was eating a ridiculous amount hence why im at 15 ish now. 155 lbs pic was when i went to barca, can get a date for that later if you want, downstiars on some dog laptop atm driving me mad typing on this thing lol


fair enough, thought your avi was most recent and you had lost mass


----------



## Mr_Morocco

ritchiedrama said:


> the alpro almond milk sweetened or unsweetened is on offer atm at morrisons 2 for 2 quid, its nice.


Are those the litre bottles?


----------



## Breda

ritchiedrama said:


> i assume you mean the 155 lbs pic and the mess? if not i am upset  lol


The 200lbs and 155lbs my man. You must live on your own


----------



## ritchiedrama

Heath said:


> fair enough, thought your avi was most recent and you had lost mass


nah the avi was around 145ish lbs maybe a bit higher, i upped my carb intake loads and looked quite lean for a while but now we're far from that [point ahaha.


----------



## Heath

Mr_Morocco said:


> On topic, i bought some Almond Milk earlier to have with my Chocolate Coconut whey later, looking forward to it!


Almond milk, choc fudge dymatize whey poured on choc orange shreddies.

PWO from the God's :laugh:


----------



## ritchiedrama

Breda said:


> The 200lbs and 155lbs my man. You must live on your own


hahaha 200 = in garage where my gym used to be and 155 was me going out for a night out in barcelona so i emptied everything i had on thje bed


----------



## ritchiedrama

Mr_Morocco said:


> Are those the litre bottles?


they are 1L cartons yeah


----------



## Heath

ritchiedrama said:


> hahaha 200 = in garage where my gym used to be and 155 was me going out for a night out in barcelona so i emptied everything i had on thje bed


what was your weight in the 15'ish% pic?


----------



## Mr_Morocco

ritchiedrama said:


> they are 1L cartons yeah


Thats a bargain tbf, might stock up


----------



## ritchiedrama

Heath said:


> what was your weight in the 15'ish% pic?


well im around 174-5 lbs this morning, and my weight hasnt changed mch opver the last few weeks, so prob a bit less than now, im holding a lot of water lately though from my carb intake, hitting 500-600g a lot lol


----------



## andyhuggins

Mr_Morocco said:


> Thats a bargain tbf, might stock up


Might try some of this stuff guys, seeing its on offer.


----------



## Tinytom

Mr_Morocco said:


> Im guessing its ok to purposely derail the thread from the original topic seeing as a mod is involved, as good as the debate is.


Had enough of your constant 'mods are biased' snides.

You've been warned again and again but not listened and now it's snide comments on a thread which had excellent debate and probably one of the best I've read in a while. But you slag it off because Paul and a few others entered into a debate.

Bye.


----------



## Heath

ritchiedrama said:


> well im around 174-5 lbs this morning, and my weight hasnt changed mch opver the last few weeks, so prob a bit less than now, im holding a lot of water lately though from my carb intake, hitting 500-600g a lot lol


it's a good transformation so far for a natty so fair play even if the numbers are a tad confusing :thumbup1:


----------



## ritchiedrama

Heath said:


> it's a good transformation so far for a natty so fair play even if the numbers are a tad confusing :thumbup1:


thanks man, appreciate it.

i did what everyone asked and posted pictures as they asked, and yeah maybve the numbers are slightly confusing purely because i didn't document everything, all i wanted was to be lean after being fat for my whole life lol and i achieved it, so that was more important before it became a serious thing to me.

and this is why i said ill document my next cut. and after that i want to start maybe taking something to assist me to build up some more muscle mass.


----------



## andyhuggins

Hey @ritchiedrama ever thought of starting a journal?


----------



## ritchiedrama

andyhuggins said:


> Hey @ritchiedrama ever thought of starting a journal?


not sure if this was a joke (just because ive had a few sly comments here lol) - if not, errm, yeah i guess, i really enjoy testing methods and putting them into practice and learning so its probably something i should do.


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> View attachment 138931
> View attachment 138932
> 
> 
> there is the original, andthe other pic is now me a few months ago, and as i said, probably around 15% now
> 
> the face was covered cos thats how i had it saved on my pc.. i dont need to lie im not some kind of weird dude, *i just speak my opinion and mind and its annoyed you alot*
> 
> im glad i blocked the face out now, only shows my results were as i had said


no one is annoyed i just do not agree with you this is called a debate nothing more nothing less



Heath said:


> it's a good transformation so far for a natty so fair play even if the numbers are a tad confusing :thumbup1:


this is the thing the transformation is good but the numbers do not add up on any level and your numbers do clearly show muscle loss as you did say yourself you went from 203lbs to 139lbs in 5 months and from 20% to 10% BF that is a gap of approx 40lbs thats why things do not add up......

non of the side by side pictures are 10% though, your Avi looks near the mark as you have hardness to the chest but hey if you say you was 10% you was 10% but the numbers still show a huge drop in muscle, you will probably argue the point but they are your numbers......


----------



## Heath

Pscarb said:


> no one is annoyed i just do not agree with you this is called a debate nothing more nothing less
> 
> this is the thing the transformation is good but the numbers do not add up on any level and your numbers do clearly show muscle loss as you did say yourself you went from 203lbs to 139lbs in 5 months and from 20% to 10% BF that is a gap of approx 40lbs thats why things do not add up......
> 
> non of the side by side pictures are 10% though, your Avi looks near the mark as you have hardness to the chest but hey if you say you was 10% you was 10% but the numbers still show a huge drop in muscle, you will probably argue the point but they are your numbers......


Looking at the numbers, 64 lbs weight loss over 5 months = 3.2 lbs loss per week?

Maybe the cut was just too aggressive for a natural.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> no one is annoyed i just do not agree with you this is called a debate nothing more nothing less
> 
> this is the thing the transformation is good but the numbers do not add up on any level and your numbers do clearly show muscle loss as you did say yourself you went from 203lbs to 139lbs in 5 months and from 20% to 10% BF that is a gap of approx 40lbs thats why things do not add up......
> 
> non of the side by side pictures are 10% though, your Avi looks near the mark as you have hardness to the chest but hey if you say you was 10% you was 10% but the numbers still show a huge drop in muscle, you will probably argue the point but they are your numbers......


I think I may have typed something wrong, or you misunderstood me - the FULL transformation was not 5 months, when I switched to IIFYM / IF it was 5 months from there on and results improved drastically - If I said otherwise I'm sorry but I thought i mentioned that. But I am 99% sure there was no muscle loss & if there was it was very minimal as my strength was not hit at all, at most some sessions I lost a rep, but then carbed up and the next session it was back - nothing that indicated muscle loss.

As I said, apologies If I did type it wrong (the 5 month thing, but I swear I wrote when I switched it took me 5 months to go from something like 180 to 139). My bad if I didn't.


----------



## Tinytom

ritchiedrama said:


> well im around 174-5 lbs this morning, and my weight hasnt changed mch opver the last few weeks, so prob a bit less than now, im holding a lot of water lately though from my carb intake, hitting 500-600g a lot lol


That change is a good progression. I understand where you are coming from about certain macros at a specific time not affecting body composition at that time.

I've looked over the abstracts from the studies you've listed and there's a common theme.

1. A lot were done on women not men so considering different endocrine responses from men and women regarding testosterone levels and affected insulin response (because muscle provides more receptors for insulin and women have genetically less muscle and more fat) do you have any studies that reference effects on men who train. This would be more relevant to the discussion I feel.

As @Learney has said the insulin sensitivity increases with carb cycling and also lower body fat levels. Leptin plays a role in this as well. However none of those studies are based on that environment. Unless I've missed it it's all a type of 'slim fast' study whereby the subjects are less calories but a lot from sugar so yes over time they would lose weight because of the calorie deficit but that only proves that less calories means weight loss which is a given anyway

To continue the analogy if you come off the slim fast diet then you'd gain weight quickly as the body has been in a state of relying on fast carbs so the insulin sensitivity is reduced. By switching back to a 'standard' diet (which is a fallacy there is no standard diet but I hope you get the term) of balanced carbs the bodies response is not to output enough insulin and so therefore the complex carbs can actually be detrimental and cause weight gain even though they may be the same calories gram for gram.

2. There's the obvious muscle loss from this possible route. Casting aside the assertion that 'everyone is on some form of gear' which I think you said back somewhere at the beginning. Natural bodybuilders that I personally know are clean and have excellent physiques have never followed this type of diet as they need to preserve muscle tissue by maintaining a constant nitrogen surplus which can only be maintained by regular meals of high protein. Do you feel that your system (I mean the one you promote not yours personally) is optimum for maintaining muscle mass. That would be more relevant to this forum.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Tinytom said:


> That change is a good progression. I understand where you are coming from about certain macros at a specific time not affecting body composition at that time.
> 
> I've looked over the abstracts from the studies you've listed and there's a common theme.
> 
> 1. A lot were done on women not men so considering different endocrine responses from men and women regarding testosterone levels and affected insulin response (because muscle provides more receptors for insulin and women have genetically less muscle and more fat) do you have any studies that reference effects on men who train. This would be more relevant to the discussion I feel.
> 
> As @Learney has said the insulin sensitivity increases with carb cycling and also lower body fat levels. Leptin plays a role in this as well. However none of those studies are based on that environment. Unless I've missed it it's all a type of 'slim fast' study whereby the subjects are less calories but a lot from sugar so yes over time they would lose weight because of the calorie deficit but that only proves that less calories means weight loss which is a given anyway
> 
> To continue the analogy if you come off the slim fast diet then you'd gain weight quickly as the body has been in a state of relying on fast carbs so the insulin sensitivity is reduced. By switching back to a 'standard' diet (which is a fallacy there is no standard diet but I hope you get the term) of balanced carbs the bodies response is not to output enough insulin and so therefore the complex carbs can actually be detrimental and cause weight gain even though they may be the same calories gram for gram.
> 
> 2. There's the obvious muscle loss from this possible route. Casting aside the assertion that 'everyone is on some form of gear' which I think you said back somewhere at the beginning. Natural bodybuilders that I personally know are clean and have excellent physiques have never followed this type of diet as they need to preserve muscle tissue by maintaining a constant nitrogen surplus which can only be maintained by regular meals of high protein. Do you feel that your system (I mean the one you promote not yours personally) is optimum for maintaining muscle mass. That would be more relevant to this forum.


I believe that the system I use - is optimal for maintaining muscle mass because I believe training correctly and efficiently is what maintains muscle mass, with an adequate protein intake over a 24 hour period (36 hours is fine, also from studies I've looked at, but not looked that deep into it because I don't want to go that long without eating regardless, I enjoy food). I've seen the system I use work for hundreds of people (naturals) and maintain all their mass and either increase strength at the same time in a deficit OR maintain it. I fully stand by that 100% - at first when I started to learn this stuff I thought none of this was possible.

I then put it into practice because I was fat, angry, depressed I had nothing to lose, and the results I received changed my life.


----------



## 3752

Heath said:


> Looking at the numbers, 64 lbs weight loss over 5 months = 3.2 lbs loss per week?
> 
> Maybe the cut was just too aggressive for a natural.


yes this is what i am thinking as it is a huge loss with only 10% bf loss



ritchiedrama said:


> I think I may have typed something wrong, or you misunderstood me - the FULL transformation was not 5 months, when I switched to IIFYM / IF it was 5 months from there on and results improved drastically - If I said otherwise I'm sorry but I thought i mentioned that. But I am 99% sure there was no muscle loss & if there was it was very minimal as my strength was not hit at all, at most some sessions I lost a rep, but then carbed up and the next session it was back - nothing that indicated muscle loss.
> 
> As I said, apologies If I did type it wrong (the 5 month thing, but I swear I wrote when I switched it took me 5 months to go from something like 180 to 139). My bad if I didn't.


you did say 5 months but this is fine there has been a lot of posts but your missing my point be it 5 months or 12 months your numbers do say 64lbs loss in weight and only 10% drop in BF which by the way is good for a natty but the fat loss only covers approx 23lbs so you must of lost muscle there is no other reason for it and to be fair muscle loss is expected to a degree but as i said before it is not really what the target audience want to see to show a method works, as i have said it does work for weight loss but in my opinion not for maintaining muscle especially when you are natural and your numbers do show this.......but this in no way detracts from the achievement you lost so much weight

not everything i write is a dig at you as you do sort of come across defensive no one is right or wrong as if there was only one way to diet there would be only ever one way to diet people like Layne, Alan aragon, Ian Mcarthy and Phil Learney (and yes he is up at the same level as these guys) would all agree and they certainly do not......


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> yes this is what i am thinking as it is a huge loss with only 10% bf loss
> 
> you did say 5 months but this is fine there has been a lot of posts but your missing my point be it 5 months or 12 months your numbers do say 64lbs loss in weight and only 10% drop in BF which by the way is good for a natty but the fat loss only covers approx 23lbs so you must of lost muscle there is no other reason for it and to be fair muscle loss is expected to a degree but as i said before it is not really what the target audience want to see to show a method works, as i have said it does work for weight loss but in my opinion not for maintaining muscle especially when you are natural and your numbers do show this.......but this in no way detracts from the achievement you lost so much weight
> 
> not everything i write is a dig at you as you do sort of come across defensive no one is right or wrong as if there was only one way to diet there would be only ever one way to diet people like Layne, Alan aragon, Ian Mcarthy and Phil Learney (and yes he is up at the same level as these guys) would all agree and they certainly do not......


Ok, so lets ignore the weight loss/bodyfat - we can't be 100% sure and you can only take my word on things (what bf do you THINK i look like in the 200 lb pic and the 155 lb picture, just for pure conversation purposes).

The strength increase/maintenance from 200-139 lbs - that would need an explanation - i have no reason to lie about this, I have a 9 month log of my weight training, I never miss a session I write it all down - my strength did not decrease so how do you explain this if I lost so much muscle?


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> *I believe that the system I use - is optimal for maintaining muscle mass* because I believe training correctly and efficiently is what maintains muscle mass, with an adequate protein intake over a 24 hour period (36 hours is fine, also from studies I've looked at, but not looked that deep into it because I don't want to go that long without eating regardless, I enjoy food). I've seen the system I use work for hundreds of people (naturals) and maintain all their mass and either increase strength at the same time in a deficit OR maintain it. I fully stand by that 100% - at first when I started to learn this stuff I thought none of this was possible.
> 
> I then put it into practice because I was fat, angry, depressed I had nothing to lose, and the results I received changed my life.


did you use a different system to you describe there? as you lost most of your muscle with it lol -

gotta give it to you, you dont back down lol


----------



## Heath

ritchiedrama said:


> The strength increase/maintenance from 200-139 lbs - that would need an explanation - i have no reason to lie about this, I have a 9 month log of my weight training, I never miss a session I write it all down - my strength did not decrease so how do you explain this if I lost so much muscle?


had you done any weight training previous to this?


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> Ok, so lets ignore the weight loss/bodyfat - we can't be 100% sure and you can only take my word on things (what bf do you THINK i look like in the 200 lb pic and the 155 lb picture, just for pure conversation purposes).
> 
> The strength increase/maintenance from 200-139 lbs - that would need an explanation - i have no reason to lie about this, I have a 9 month log of my weight training, I never miss a session I write it all down - my strength did not decrease so how do you explain this if I lost so much muscle?


because i do not know you or how you train i cannot just explain it i can only make assumptions on the numbers given to me and you have to admit they are not in your favor when you claim no muscle loss you must see this.....

the pictures the before yea i can see you would be approx 20% the first after pic i would say 12% ish and the second after maybe 13-14% but to be honest mate it is all a guess as they are not full body pics.

i get my bodyfat measured by DXA scan which is the gold standard test and it showed i hold the majority of my fat around my core front and back but i have extremely lean legs and arms/upper chest shoulder area.

take for example your Avi picture you show hardness on your midsection and chest line but are you holding on your back or legs? this all need to be considered if you see what i mean but then all this is irrelevant to a degree as it is about how you feel if you feel good about yourself does it matter you are 10% or 15%??

this is the last post for the night as i need to spend time with the wife......


----------



## Tinytom

ritchiedrama said:


> I believe that the system I use - is optimal for maintaining muscle mass because I believe training correctly and efficiently is what maintains muscle mass, with an adequate protein intake over a 24 hour period (36 hours is fine, also from studies I've looked at, but not looked that deep into it because I don't want to go that long without eating regardless, I enjoy food). I've seen the system I use work for hundreds of people (naturals) and maintain all their mass and either increase strength at the same time in a deficit OR maintain it. I fully stand by that 100% - at first when I started to learn this stuff I thought none of this was possible.
> 
> I then put it into practice because I was fat, angry, depressed I had nothing to lose, and the results I received changed my life.


That it changed your life is unquestionable you look much better now.

However I do think you lost muscle mass while losing all that fat.

I would really say that now you are leaner you would stand a better chance of maintaining a harder drier physique from a different approach incorporating more starchy carbs in some respect.

I own a gym and have seen your transformation a number of times and the guys do get caught up in the weight loss thing when they have been overweight before.

I've helped a number if guys change things around because at a lower bf level they have better ability to utilise starchy carbs and get more out of their workouts whereas when overweight they sometimes need to curtail starch as this can give a constantly small insulin output which can affect Gh levels and also fat loss.

The IF approach does burn fat because of the lower insulin output but when you have less fat to muscle ratio it's not optimal and part of progression is a progression of your ideas. A carb cycling approach may not have worked when overweight but I would say it would be optimal for you for maintaining and growing muscle while continuing to lose fat.

Just a viewpoint.


----------



## andyhuggins

So is almond milk of any use? Be it cutting or bulking.


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> did you use a different system to you describe there? as you lost most of your muscle with it lol -
> 
> gotta give it to you, you dont back down lol


I lost no muscle, pictures show this.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> because i do not know you or how you train i cannot just explain it i can only make assumptions on the numbers given to me and you have to admit they are not in your favor when you claim no muscle loss you must see this.....
> 
> the pictures the before yea i can see you would be approx 20% the first after pic i would say 12% ish and the second after maybe 13-14% but to be honest mate it is all a guess as they are not full body pics.
> 
> i get my bodyfat measured by DXA scan which is the gold standard test and it showed i hold the majority of my fat around my core front and back but i have extremely lean legs and arms/upper chest shoulder area.
> 
> take for example your Avi picture you show hardness on your midsection and chest line but are you holding on your back or legs? this all need to be considered if you see what i mean but then all this is irrelevant to a degree as it is about how you feel if you feel good about yourself does it matter you are 10% or 15%??
> 
> this is the last post for the night as i need to spend time with the wife......




picture of my back, dont have any of my legs, but they aren't fatty orr anything, i hold most my fat around stomach/mid section, enjoy your evening buddy.


----------



## andyhuggins

Maybe this thread should be re-named?


----------



## Huntingground

ritchiedrama said:


> I lost no muscle, pictures show this.


Pscarb has ascertained that you have lost over a stone of muscle. Anybody can get abs, it's having some muscle with them that is appealing to me. Indeed, last time I was in Birkenhead I saw two smackheads walking down the street, topless, drinking Skol Super. One of them had a cracking set of abs, was I impressed, was I fck


----------



## Heath

andyhuggins said:


> So is almond milk of any use? Be it cutting or bulking.


probably if you, a) are lactose intolerant or B) prefer the taste.

but the ingredients list is normally as long as my arm so far from a "natural product"


----------



## ritchiedrama

Tinytom said:


> That it changed your life is unquestionable you look much better now.
> 
> However I do think you lost muscle mass while losing all that fat.
> 
> I would really say that now you are leaner you would stand a better chance of maintaining a harder drier physique from a different approach incorporating more starchy carbs in some respect.
> 
> I own a gym and have seen your transformation a number of times and the guys do get caught up in the weight loss thing when they have been overweight before.
> 
> I've helped a number if guys change things around because at a lower bf level they have better ability to utilise starchy carbs and get more out of their workouts whereas when overweight they sometimes need to curtail starch as this can give a constantly small insulin output which can affect Gh levels and also fat loss.
> 
> The IF approach does burn fat because of the lower insulin output but when you have less fat to muscle ratio it's not optimal and part of progression is a progression of your ideas. A carb cycling approach may not have worked when overweight but I would say it would be optimal for you for maintaining and growing muscle while continuing to lose fat.
> 
> Just a viewpoint.


Good post. I did use IF + Carb cycling before, you may not have seen that. I trained 3x a week, high carb/low fat training days, and 4x a week rest days high fat low carb. I don't agree with the carb thing you said, as in types of carbs you consume etc (i've posted enough stuff as to why I think what carbs you eat are irrelevant to anything) my viewpoint will remain that way due to the evidence I have read, seen and posted anyway,, unless newer studies come out and prove that wrong.


----------



## Milky

Well 3 experts in this thread, all with a wealth of experience.....

Doesn't get much better than that...


----------



## Breda

ritchiedrama said:


> I lost no muscle, pictures show this.


You lost loads pictures show this


----------



## ritchiedrama

Huntingground said:


> Pscarb has ascertained that you have lost over a stone of muscle. Anybody can get abs, it's having some muscle with them that is appealing to me. Indeed, last time I was in Birkenhead I saw two smackheads walking down the street, topless, drinking Skol Super. One of them had a cracking set of abs, was I impressed, was I fck


I do not look like a skinny smackhead with a cracking set of abs though, never did, never would. Yes I'm not the biggest guy ever, obviously. But, I was strong for 139 lbs & I had mass, as the pictures show, it's not like I look silly or anything. I gotta take it one step at a time, which is why I've been building muscle the last few months etc etc etc. Hoping to start some good compounds/stacks next year.


----------



## andyhuggins

Heath said:


> probably if you, a) are lactose intolerant or B) prefer the taste.
> 
> but the ingredients list is normally as long as my arm so far from a "natural product"


Thanks @Heath I,ll check that out.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Breda said:


> You lost loads pictures show this


In what way do they show this? I look more muscular @ 155 lbs, than I did at 200 lbs. Whilst maintaining/increasing strength the entire time all the way 'til 139 lbs.


----------



## Heath

Milky said:


> Well 3 experts in this thread, all with a wealth of experience.....
> 
> Doesn't get much better than that...


any way of separating into another thread?

let's be honest it's gone a bit further than almond milk now and deserves its own thread really..


----------



## andyhuggins

Heath said:


> any way of separating into another thread?
> 
> let's be honest it's gone a bit further than almond milk now and deserves its own thread really..


Agreed.


----------



## Milky

@ritchiedrama

Do you know the who Phil learney is mate ?

Obviously Paul and Tom are a wealth of knowledge but you know who they are..


----------



## Milky

Heath said:


> any way of separating into another thread?
> 
> let's be honest it's gone a bit further than almond milk now and deserves its own thread really..


Not my call mate, not really been part of it but when l see @Pscarb @Tinytom and @Learney quoting in the same thread l take a look in.


----------



## Queenie

Milky said:


> @ritchiedrama
> 
> Do you know the who Phil learney is mate ?
> 
> Obviously Paul and Tom are a wealth of knowledge but you know who they are..


This is what I found so entertaining yesterday.


----------



## Huntingground

ritchiedrama said:


> I do not look like a skinny smackhead with a cracking set of abs though, never did, never would. Yes I'm not the biggest guy ever, obviously. But, I was strong for 139 lbs & I had mass, as the pictures show, it's not like I look silly or anything. I gotta take it one step at a time, which is why I've been building muscle the last few months etc etc etc. Hoping to start some good compounds/stacks next year.


I never did state that you looked skinny/smackhead etc. You do look much better but my point stands, this board is about building muscle (Look at the name) and you lost a load of muscle. Therefore, what you are espousing is something none of us would use.

Good luck on your quest with building muscle, I just hope that you open your mind a little and listen to some of the more experienced guys who have been there and done it.


----------



## andyhuggins

Does almond milk mix well?


----------



## ritchiedrama

Milky said:


> @ritchiedrama
> 
> Do you know the who Phil learney is mate ?
> 
> Obviously Paul and Tom are a wealth of knowledge but you know who they are..


He linked me to his website, his information etc.

Does this mean he is right, or everything he says is correct? Absolutely not.

Would you listen to Kai Greene's nutritional advice or perhaps his training advice? I wouldn't.

Ian McCarthy is more knowledgeable than everyone on this board, less qualified and doesn't look anything near the physique of huge bb's etc. Doesn't make him wrong.

Who Phil Learney is, is irrelevant to the entire conversation, he is free to voice his opinion, as am I at any point he wishes - but I repeat, it does not make him right and me wrong.


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> I do not look like a skinny smackhead with a cracking set of abs though, never did, never would. Yes I'm not the biggest guy ever, obviously. But, I was strong for 139 lbs & I had mass, as the pictures show, it's not like I look silly or anything. I gotta take it one step at a time, which is why I've been building muscle the last few months etc etc etc. Hoping to start some good compounds/stacks next year.


to be honest you have done well, but do you really think you can progress now with maximum potential without broadening the techniques you use?

and you did lose muscle, the weight loss in the timespan + pictures both point this way


----------



## andyhuggins

Heath said:


> any way of separating into another thread?
> 
> let's be honest it's gone a bit further than almond milk now and deserves its own thread really..


Bump.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Huntingground said:


> I never did state that you looked skinny/smackhead etc. You do look much better but my point stands, this board is about building muscle (Look at the name) and you lost a load of muscle. Therefore, what you are espousing is something none of us would use.
> 
> Good luck on your quest with building muscle, I just hope that you open your mind a little and listen to some of the more experienced guys who have been there and done it.


I had never tried to build any form of muscle until 4-5 months ago, and it is going well, I lost no muscle in my opinion, my pictures do *NOT* show that, neither does my strength progress and maintenance.

You saying I lost muscle or anyone else does not prove I did, I can only go with what actually happened, the picture comparisons and my lifts.


----------



## Milky

ritchiedrama said:


> He linked me to his website, his information etc.
> 
> Does this mean he is right, or everything he says is correct? Absolutely not.
> 
> Would you listen to Kai Greene's nutritional advice or perhaps his training advice? I wouldn't.
> 
> Ian McCarthy is more knowledgeable than everyone on this board, less qualified and doesn't look anything near the physique of huge bb's etc. Doesn't make him wrong.
> 
> Who Phil Learney is, is irrelevant to the entire conversation, he is free to voice his opinion, as am I at any point he wishes - but I repeat, it does not make him right and me wrong.




Ok mate, what ever you say...


----------



## Heath

RXQueenie said:


> This is what I found so entertaining yesterday.


I thought I knew this industry pretty well but I admit I had not heard of him.


----------



## andyhuggins

Does it mix well or not ant takers as the thread was originally about almond milk?


----------



## Breda

ritchiedrama said:


> In what way do they show this? I look more muscular @ 155 lbs, than I did at 200 lbs. Whilst maintaining/increasing strength the entire time all the way 'til 139 lbs.


You look more muscular because you can actually see it mate.

Strength has little to do with muscle mass, the fact that you say you lost no strenght does not mean you lost no muscle

Good transformation man but you've definitely lost muscle it'd be very difficult not to as a natural trainer


----------



## marknorthumbria

Milky said:


> View attachment 138938
> 
> 
> Ok mate, what ever you say...


----------



## Huntingground

ritchiedrama said:


> I had never tried to build any form of muscle until 4-5 months ago, and it is going well, I lost no muscle in my opinion, my pictures do *NOT* show that, neither does my strength progress and maintenance.
> 
> You saying I lost muscle or anyone else does not prove I did, I can only go with what actually happened, the picture comparisons and my lifts.


You are the one who stated that you had lost muscle by quoting the figures you did, this has already been ascertained so no idea why you are arguing this point.


----------



## Queenie

Heath said:


> I thought I knew this industry pretty well but I admit I had not heard of him.


Heath please go look at his website  I know u love your seminars and Phils would be well worth going to.


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> to be honest you have done well, but do you really think you can progress now with maximum potential without broadening the techniques you use?
> 
> and you did lose muscle, the weight loss in the timespan + pictures both point this way


I corrected myself with the timespan, if you look a few posts back to pscarb, we either misunderstood or I typed something slightly wrong. The pictures indicate no muscle loss (my opinion as I look more muscular @ 155 lbs than I do @ 200 lbs) - Also as mentioned several times my strength did not take any hit.

My "techniques" change all the time, my point merely was and has been the same from the start..

Meal frequency is irrelevant.

Meal timing is irrelevant.

Both of the above are personal preference and hold no impact over building muscle or losing fat.

Any forms of carbs, at any time are perfectly fine to build muscle and/or retain muscle and lose fat. Plenty of science I posted here about that, and none of you have been able to discredit it, and you won't.

Sugar is fine to consume.

You can reach 6-7% body fat without the aid of any supplements and eating two meals a day and eating sugar.

Those were the main points, and I will document my next cut which starts in 25/26 days - can't remember exactly - as soon as my PCT is done. II will be using nothing to assist me.


----------



## Breda

andyhuggins said:


> Does it mix well or not ant takers as the thread was originally about almond milk?


Just as well as any other milk I'd assume mate


----------



## ritchiedrama

Breda said:


> You look more muscular because you can actually see it mate.
> 
> Strength has little to do with muscle mass, the fact that you say you lost no strenght does not mean you lost no muscle
> 
> Good transformation man but you've definitely lost muscle it'd be very difficult not to as a natural trainer


I also mentioned I knew completely that muscle and strength were not completely linked, I agree.

But I disagree that I have lost muscle in those pictures, my chest is definitely more muscular and so are my arms, possibly delts too & that is NOT because you can just 'see' it now.


----------



## Heath

ritchiedrama said:


> I had never tried to build any form of muscle until 4-5 months ago, and it is going well, I lost no muscle in my opinion, my pictures do *NOT* show that, neither does my strength progress and maintenance.
> 
> You saying I lost muscle or anyone else does not prove I did, I can only go with what actually happened, the picture comparisons and my lifts.


I have repped you because,

1. you have made a good transformation

2. you question people despite reputation.

But you must learn that even Alan Aragon would tell you to question even HIS research, so don't take what he, Lyle etc say as fact either. But you are doing trial and error which is good.

Don't forget to also trial what you may consider "bro" also though because you won't be able to compare how your body responds.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Huntingground said:


> You are the one who stated that you had lost muscle by quoting the figures you did, this has already been ascertained so no idea why you are arguing this point.


I am arguing this point because I have provided everyone with everything they asked, my pictures, my strength etc.

Does it not make you wonder that in the first pictures I provided no-one even BELIEVED that the pictures were me? That speaks volumes about this discussion.


----------



## Breda

ritchiedrama said:


> I also mentioned I knew completely that muscle and strength were not completely linked, I agree.
> 
> But I disagree that I have lost muscle in those pictures, my chest is definitely more muscular and so are my arms, possibly delts too & that is NOT because you can just 'see' it now.


Ok bud as long as you're happy


----------



## andyhuggins

Would you use it over regular milk?


----------



## Milky

Heath said:


> I thought I knew this industry pretty well but I admit I had not heard of him.


He did a cracking thread about comp prep on here mate, a brilliant read if you look for it..


----------



## ritchiedrama

Milky said:


> View attachment 138938
> 
> 
> Ok mate, what ever you say...


That is a really mature response, I see you're capable of holding a good discussion and merely because someone is "known" you believe I can't question them? I guess I should just shut up and accept everything in life I am told by someone just because, yeah?


----------



## marknorthumbria

ritchiedrama said:


> I corrected myself with the timespan, if you look a few posts back to pscarb, we either misunderstood or I typed something slightly wrong. The pictures indicate no muscle loss (my opinion as I look more muscular @ 155 lbs than I do @ 200 lbs) - Also as mentioned several times my strength did not take any hit.
> 
> My "techniques" change all the time, my point merely was and has been the same from the start..
> 
> Meal frequency is irrelevant.
> 
> Meal timing is irrelevant.
> 
> Both of the above are personal preference and hold no impact over building muscle or losing fat.
> 
> Any forms of carbs, at any time are perfectly fine to build muscle and/or retain muscle and lose fat. Plenty of science I posted here about that, and none of you have been able to discredit it, and you won't.
> 
> Sugar is fine to consume.
> 
> You can reach 6-7% body fat without the aid of any supplements and eating two meals a day and eating sugar.
> 
> Those were the main points, and I will document my next cut which starts in 25/26 days - can't remember exactly - as soon as my PCT is done. II will be using nothing to assist me.


this is what i feel like right now


----------



## Heath

RXQueenie said:


> Heath please go look at his website  I know u love your seminars and Phils would be well worth going to.


At a glimpse it seems heavily related to Poliquins sort of stuff?


----------



## ritchiedrama

andyhuggins said:


> Would you use it over regular milk?


Almond milk is extremely tasty, mixes well but is very 'thin' compared to normal milk, so it isn't as good for a shake or something, but for cereal it is brilliant. Due to the low calorie content also means you can fit more food into your IIFYM diet


----------



## ritchiedrama

marknorthumbria said:


> this is what i feel like right now


So we're going down that route of maturity?

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/


----------



## Huntingground

ritchiedrama said:


> I am arguing this point because I have provided everyone with everything they asked, my pictures, my strength etc.
> 
> Does it not make you wonder that in the first pictures I provided no-one even BELIEVED that the pictures were me? That speaks volumes about this discussion.


I joined the discussion late. I understand that you have provided pics etc. My point stands - you lost a sh1tload of muscle therefore I wouldn't use this technique.

Also your responses to Gym Bunny's scientific posts were shockingly amateurish.

Anyhow, we could argue here ad finitum and I'm out of here.


----------



## Learney

ritchiedrama said:


> Ian McCarthy is more knowledgeable than everyone on this board


Much like everything else you've stated presumptuous and lacking in clear evidence. I think you should stick to your guns my friend and keep doing what you're doing. Clearly being a member of a forum is just a place for you to air your superior understanding of everything that is nutrition and bodybuilding.

Maybe you should start a blog, start teaching, start the REVOLUTION and clear up all these things that everyone on here is clearly doing wrong and you're doing right.


----------



## Queenie

Heath said:


> At a glimpse it seems heavily related to Poliquins sort of stuff?


Well Poliquin himself has stepped away from 'Poliquin'


----------



## Learney

Heath said:


> At a glimpse it seems heavily related to Poliquins sort of stuff?


In what way may I ask?

Am sure you can ask ANYONE who has been on any of my seminars that it is VERY unlike anything of Poliquins.


----------



## Tinytom

ritchiedrama said:


> Good post. I did use IF + Carb cycling before, you may not have seen that. I trained 3x a week, high carb/low fat training days, and 4x a week rest days high fat low carb. I don't agree with the carb thing you said, as in types of carbs you consume etc (i've posted enough stuff as to why I think what carbs you eat are irrelevant to anything) my viewpoint will remain that way due to the evidence I have read, seen and posted anyway,, unless newer studies come out and prove that wrong.


You've missed my point.

You did it before and it didn't really work maybe due to your body comp.

What I'm saying is now you are much leaner (a more efficient machine) you should be able to get more out of it.

But I accept some things work for different people as each body is different.


----------



## Milky

ritchiedrama said:


> That is a really mature response, I see you're capable of holding a good discussion and merely because someone is "known" you believe I can't question them? I guess I should just shut up and accept everything in life I am told by someone just because, yeah?


No, l guess you should show these people some respect is what l guess.

Tell you what, do me a list of your qualifications and customers, your acheivements and succuesses.

What you do need to do is get the chips of your shoulders and stop acting like a petulant child, ok didums..


----------



## Breda

andyhuggins said:


> Would you use it over regular milk?


It can be substituded mate yes. I actually prefer almond milk for taste


----------



## ritchiedrama

Learney said:


> Much like everything else you've stated presumptuous and lacking in clear evidence. I think you should stick to your guns my friend and keep doing what you're doing. Clearly being a member of a forum is just a place for you to air your superior understanding of everything that is nutrition and bodybuilding.
> 
> Maybe you should start a blog, start teaching, start the REVOLUTION and clear up all these things that everyone on here is clearly doing wrong and you're doing right.


Ok, so once again - I did not ever, not once, say that YOU or anyone else is doing _anything_ wrong.

I stated from the start that

a) Your methods, and conventional methods work.

B) That you have achieved a lot and should be respected.

But;

This does not mean I cannot challenge your methods, and provide other methods which I say achieve the same results as yours. I stand by this.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Milky said:


> No, l guess you should show these people some respect is what l guess.
> 
> Tell you what, do me a list of your qualifications and customers, your acheivements and succuesses.
> 
> What you do need to do is get the chips of your shoulders and stop acting like a petulant child, ok didums..


A list of my qualifications and customers is what makes me less knowledgeable than someone else?

Keep the mind open dude, maybe you'll learn a few things.

And for the record, how dare you say I've disrespected any of these people? I have told them several times that their physiques are great and their methods work. I have not disrespected anyone..


----------



## Milky

We have been here before with aceofspadez if anyone remembers..


----------



## ritchiedrama

Huntingground said:


> I joined the discussion late. I understand that you have provided pics etc. My point stands - you lost a sh1tload of muscle therefore I wouldn't use this technique.
> 
> Also your responses to Gym Bunny's scientific posts were shockingly amateurish.
> 
> Anyhow, we could argue here ad finitum and I'm out of here.


The evidence I produced to GymBunny was extremely good evidence and cannot be discredited or debunked by her.


----------



## andyhuggins

Breda said:


> It can be substituded mate yes. I actually prefer almond milk for taste


Thanks mate. I will look into it


----------



## Milky

ritchiedrama said:


> A list of my qualifications and customers is what makes me less knowledgeable than someone else?
> 
> Keep the mind open dude, maybe you'll learn a few things.
> 
> And for the record, how dare you say I've disrespected any of these people? I have told them several times that their physiques are great and their methods work. I have not disrespected anyone..


Yeah your right mate, maybe one day l will look as awesome as you, respect to you...


----------



## Heath

Learney said:


> In what way may I ask?
> 
> Am sure you can ask ANYONE who has been on any of my seminars that it is VERY unlike anything of Poliquins.


It was just what sprung into my mind when I glimpsed the seminar breakdown.

No offense was intended, I am sure there is a lot of crossover in this field.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Tinytom said:


> You've missed my point.
> 
> You did it before and it didn't really work maybe due to your body comp.
> 
> What I'm saying is now you are much leaner (a more efficient machine) you should be able to get more out of it.
> 
> But I accept some things work for different people as each body is different.


What do you mean it didn't work? (I just don't understand what didn't work?)

I was planning to cut without carb cycling thing time and seeing how it goes, testing the waters. And re-feeding once a week, as I mentioned before all will be documented, so success/fails will be seen.

Thanks for your posts dude, appreciate it.


----------



## resten

Breda said:


> It can be substituded mate yes. I actually prefer almond milk for taste


Feel for the lad trying to ask questions about almond milk!

@andyhuggins, anywhere you'd use regular milk you could use almond milk. It'll impart a different flavour of course. Can add a different flavour to shakes etc.

I like it, although I'm used to the thickness of gold top milk and almond milk is very thin


----------



## ritchiedrama

Milky said:


> Yeah your right mate, maybe one day l will look as awesome as you, respect to you...


There definitely has to be people reading this and realising how rude you are acting now, not the other way round


----------



## Learney

Heath said:


> It was just what sprung into my mind when I glimpsed the seminar breakdown.
> 
> No offense was intended, I am sure there is a lot of crossover in this field.


Heeeeyyyyyyyy no offence taken, just wondered why? Always good to know. I know Charles pretty well but have done ZERO of his courses.


----------



## Milky

ritchiedrama said:


> There definitely has to be people reading this and realising how rude you are acting now, not the other way round


Oh well...


----------



## Breda

Milky said:


> No, l guess you should show these people some respect is what l guess.
> 
> Tell you what, do me a list of your qualifications and customers, your acheivements and succuesses.
> 
> What you do need to do is get the chips of your shoulders and stop acting like a petulant child, ok didums..


Tbf mate I think he's handled himself very well and presented his argument better than most would have

I admire a man who sticks to his guns and doesnt hide and kiss ass because of someones name. Ok he could have been more receptive to the info and experiences of others but his lack of conformation has created a good debate... one that has been lackin on ukm as late so he deserves some credit


----------



## Learney

resten said:


> Feel for the lad trying to ask questions about almond milk!
> 
> @andyhuggins, anywhere you'd use regular milk you could use almond milk. It'll impart a different flavour of course. Can add a different flavour to shakes etc.
> 
> I like it, although I'm used to the thickness of gold top milk and almond milk is very thin


Goats and Sheeps milk.....genuinely worth a look.


----------



## Milky

Breda said:


> Tbf mate I think he's handled himself very well and presented his argument better than most would have
> 
> I admire a man who sticks to his guns and doesnt hide and kiss ass because of someones name. Ok he could have been more receptive to the info and experiences of others but his lack of conformation has created a good debate... one that has been lackin on ukm as late so he deserves some credit


Hey l am out mate, and re the last comment, one to ponder on that isn't it...


----------



## resten

Learney said:


> Goats and Sheeps milk.....genuinely worth a look.


Will have a look! Your podcast with Ben Coomber was great btw mate.

Maybe see you at a protein pow workshop?


----------



## Heath

Learney said:


> Heeeeyyyyyyyy no offence taken, just wondered why? Always good to know. I know Charles pretty well but have done ZERO of his courses.


Do you have an articles page somewhere?

Always looking for further info/research :thumbup1:


----------



## Breda

andyhuggins said:


> Thanks mate. I will look into it


No worries andy


----------



## Tinytom

andyhuggins said:


> Maybe this thread should be re-named?


I can rename when on my PC. You can't do on iPad.

Some really good info here and be a shame it gets lost


----------



## Milky

Tinytom said:


> I can rename when on my PC. You can't do on iPad.
> 
> Some really good info here and be a shame it gets lost


What do you want to rename it too mate will sort it..


----------



## Learney

Heath said:


> Do you have an articles page somewhere?
> 
> Always looking for further info/research :thumbup1:


All articles here: http://www.phillearney.com

If you scroll down all archived. I also have a monthly column in Muscle & Fitness

FB Page here: http://www.facebook.com/PhilLearney?ref=hl

Podcasts here: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/phil-learney-nutrition-performance/id687834141


----------



## Tinytom

Breda said:


> Tbf mate I think he's handled himself very well and presented his argument better than most would have
> 
> I admire a man who sticks to his guns and doesnt hide and kiss ass because of someones name. Ok he could have been more receptive to the info and experiences of others but his lack of conformation has created a good debate... one that has been lackin on ukm as late so he deserves some credit


I remember when the majority of threads on here were like that. Really good to see some quality discussion from intelligent and informed people. And people not afraid of fighting their corner.


----------



## andyhuggins

Learney said:


> Goats and Sheeps milk.....genuinely worth a look.


Thanks mate. will give them a go.


----------



## Heath

Milky said:


> What do you want to rename it too mate will sort it..


So much has been covered I wouldn't want that decision :laugh:


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> I had never tried to build any form of muscle until 4-5 months ago, and it is going well, I lost no muscle in my opinion, my pictures do *NOT* show that, neither does my strength progress and maintenance.
> 
> You saying I lost muscle or anyone else does not prove I did, I can only go with what actually happened, the picture comparisons and my lifts.


You are correct people saying this does not prove this but I ask again for the 4th time how do you explain the extra 40lbs weight loss as it was not fat so if it was not fat what else other than muscle could it be??

Even enhanced athletes when they diet lose some muscle you are natural so it stands to reason you have lost muscle but putting all that aside YOUR numbers point towards muscle loss


----------



## Tinytom

Learney said:


> All articles here: http://www.phillearney.com
> 
> If you scroll down all archived. I also have a monthly column in Muscle & Fitness
> 
> FB Page here: http://www.facebook.com/PhilLearney?ref=hl
> 
> Podcasts here: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/phil-learney-nutrition-performance/id687834141


I'm going to get to one of your seminars this year mate. Well worth the money.


----------



## andyhuggins

Tinytom said:


> I can rename when on my PC. You can't do on iPad.
> 
> Some really good info here and be a shame it gets lost


I agree with the good info. If it means losing it then maybe not.


----------



## jonnym4

Kook dairy free too, found in the UHT section, even better than almond!


----------



## Tinytom

Milky said:


> What do you want to rename it too mate will sort it..


Something like 'almond milk and in depth carb and nutrition discussion' and sticky it. Cheers


----------



## andyhuggins

Learney said:


> All articles here: http://www.phillearney.com
> 
> If you scroll down all archived. I also have a monthly column in Muscle & Fitness
> 
> FB Page here: http://www.facebook.com/PhilLearney?ref=hl
> 
> Podcasts here: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/phil-learney-nutrition-performance/id687834141


Thanks for the info mate


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> You are correct people saying this does not prove this but I ask again for the 4th time how do you explain the extra 40lbs weight loss as it was not fat so if it was not fat what else other than muscle could it be??
> 
> Even enhanced athletes when they diet lose some muscle you are natural so it stands to reason you have lost muscle but putting all that aside YOUR numbers point towards muscle loss


I don't know, as I said the only indication is the pictures & the strength maintenance/increase.

Only things I could think of...

a) I hadn't trained in 2-3 years when I started @ 200 lbs - could that have meant I gained some lost muscle after being sedentary due to training even whilst in a deficit?

B) I lost very SLIGHT muscle (it would DEFINITELY not have been more than 2-3 lbs of muscle, that is clear in the pictures imo)


----------



## resten

jonnym4 said:


> Kook dairy free too, found in the UHT section, even better than almond!


I know it's just a mistype, but in case anyone looks for it, it's called koko isn't it?


----------



## andyhuggins

resten said:


> I know it's just a mistype, but in case anyone looks for it, it's called koko isn't it?


New one to me mate.


----------



## Heath

would also maybe move to nutrition section?


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> I don't know, as I said the only indication is the pictures & the strength maintenance/increase.
> 
> Only things I could think of...
> 
> a) I hadn't trained in 2-3 years when I started @ 200 lbs - could that have meant I gained some lost muscle after being sedentary due to training even whilst in a deficit?
> 
> B) I lost very SLIGHT muscle (it would DEFINITELY not have been more than 2-3 lbs of muscle, that is clear in the pictures imo)


But it was as you lost a further 40lbs not 2-3lbs you are considerably smaller in the after pics than the before pics and you are still soft this all indicates to extensive muscle loss but I am done arguing it is your own numbers that indicates muscle loss nothing else and you cannot explain this away??


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> But it was as you lost a further 40lbs not 2-3lbs you are considerably smaller in the after pics than the before pics and you are still soft this all indicates to extensive muscle loss but I am done arguing it is your own numbers that indicates muscle loss nothing else and you cannot explain this away??


Considerably smaller? I'm just fairly lean, just like my avi. I'm 5'6 and a tiny framed guy, I'm obviously going to look smaller, but if I lost as much muscle as you were suggesting,, I would have lost considerable strength,, agreed?


----------



## resten

andyhuggins said:


> New one to me mate.


Asda sell their coconut milk.

It's not like coconut milk in a can, again it's thin in consistency and macros are completely different. Also nice in shakes, but I really like it in coffee.

Crap if you don't like coconut though


----------



## Learney

resten said:


> I know it's just a mistype, but in case anyone looks for it, it's called koko isn't it?


That actually looks pretty decent at first glance


----------



## 3752

ritchiedrama said:


> Considerably smaller? I'm just fairly lean, just like my avi. I'm 5'6 and a tiny framed guy, I'm obviously going to look smaller, but if I lost as much muscle as you were suggesting,, I would have lost considerable strength,, agreed?


Mate your not getting it I and no one else is suggesting anything your numbers are saying this you dropped from 203lbs to 139 and only 10% bf (23lbs) so how do you explain the additional 41lbs please try answering this question this time


----------



## Milky

resten said:


> Asda sell their coconut milk.
> 
> It's not like coconut milk in a can, again it's thin in consistency and macros are completely different. Also nice in shakes, but I really like it in coffee.
> 
> Crap if you don't like coconut though


Is it the same as the oil in coffee ?

Also what is the price roughly as the oil is a fortune.


----------



## ritchiedrama

Pscarb said:


> Mate your not getting it I and no one else is suggesting anything your numbers are saying this you dropped from 203lbs to 139 and only 10% bf (23lbs) so how do you explain the additional 41lbs please try answering this question this time


We're assuming that I was definitely 20% in the 200 lb pic, and definitely 10% in the 139 lb range. It could have been 23% first pic, and 11% in the other pic (just an example). I cannot fully explain the additional 41 lbs. I am not ignoring the question I am going from what I know, my pictures, and my strength.

But as I stated *if* I lost as much muscle as you say I did, I'd have lost one hell of a lot of strength. At 139 lbs I was bench pressing 90kg for 6 reps, yes I always talk about bench press as if its some magical thing, but as I am aware bench is the one people struggle with to maintain strength in a deficit from everyone's experiences.

I am sorry that I cannot answer your question better than that. I've given you everything you've asked for, if theres anything you can think of that'll help, then maybe I can answer it better.


----------



## Learney

Milky said:


> Is it the same as the oil in coffee ?
> 
> Also what is the price roughly as the oil is a fortune.


Oil is cheap mate for what you use. The issue is you buy a LOT of servings all at once.


----------



## andyhuggins

resten said:


> Asda sell their coconut milk.
> 
> It's not like coconut milk in a can, again it's thin in consistency and macros are completely different. Also nice in shakes, but I really like it in coffee.
> 
> Crap if you don't like coconut though


Sounds good in a coffee.


----------



## marknorthumbria

Learney said:


> Oil is cheap mate for what you use. The issue is you buy a LOT of servings all at once.


coconut oil is cheap?! i've been having my b4stard eyes out then by buying it from sainsburys, i use 35g in shake, and 10g in morning black coffee - n the tubs gone in no time

I have to sell my bird on the streets to afford it


----------



## Queenie

andyhuggins said:


> Sounds good in a coffee.


It really is.


----------



## Breda

andyhuggins said:


> Sounds good in a coffee.


Its lovely in a shake mate


----------



## Milky

Learney said:


> Oil is cheap mate for what you use. The issue is you buy a LOT of servings all at once.


You clearly have too much money Mr Learney..


----------



## andyhuggins

So are some higher in fats than others?


----------



## jonnym4

resten said:


> I know it's just a mistype, but in case anyone looks for it, it's called koko isn't it?


Haha yes it is! Bloody iPads!


----------



## Tinytom

marknorthumbria said:


> coconut oil is cheap?! i've been having my b4stard eyes out then by buying it from sainsburys, i use 35g in shake, and 10g in morning black coffee - n the tubs gone in no time
> 
> I have to sell my bird on the streets to afford it


I get mine from Cardiff sports mate. Loads in a jar for under a tenner


----------



## Milky

marknorthumbria said:


> coconut oil is cheap?! i've been having my b4stard eyes out then by buying it from sainsburys, i use 35g in shake, and 10g in morning black coffee - n the tubs gone in no time
> 
> I have to sell my bird on the streets to afford it


Protein works mate.


----------



## marknorthumbria

Tinytom said:


> I get mine from Cardiff sports mate. Loads in a jar for under a tenner


sainsburys does 300g tub for £5, cardiff is 500g for £10, not much in it.

I must just be a cheap skate lol

I still cry every time I have to spend a tenner on fecking spinach


----------



## Heath

RXQueenie said:


> It really is.


do you use in place of milk?

will give it a try tomorrow


----------



## Learney

marknorthumbria said:


> coconut oil is cheap?! i've been having my b4stard eyes out then by buying it from sainsburys, i use 35g in shake, and 10g in morning black coffee - n the tubs gone in no time
> 
> I have to sell my bird on the streets to afford it


Coconoil 4.6kg tub 57.99

Thats 44p for your 35g Serving and 12p for your 10g serving


----------



## Queenie

Heath said:


> do you use in place of milk?
> 
> will give it a try tomorrow


Well I drink my coffee black anyway. It's an oil - not milky at all so no substitute lol. Though u could have it in black or white coffee tbh.


----------



## andyhuggins

Sounds like it could be the way to go for coffee. Is this good to go for fasted training?


----------



## Heath

http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/Details/?id=256412443

not seen this in store yet tho

only normally have this expensive fvcker http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/Details/?id=268622297


----------



## Heath

andyhuggins said:


> Sounds like it could be the way to go for coffee. Is this good to go for fasted training?


you wouldn't be fasted mate lol


----------



## jonnym4

Heath said:


> http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/Details/?id=256412443
> 
> not seen this in store yet tho
> 
> only normally have this expensive fvcker http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/Details/?id=268622297


This is the same as olive oil, you should only buy the virgin coconut oil as the first one has been processed and been ruined! This is very cheap and generally used in long shelf life biscuits etc


----------



## Heath

jonnym4 said:


> This is the same as olive oil, you should only buy the virgin coconut oil as the first one has been processed and been ruined! This is very cheap and generally used in long shelf life biscuits etc


Never really noticed it wasn't virgin, tiredness. lol


----------



## andyhuggins

Heath said:


> you wouldn't be fasted mate lol


OOPS i'm bad is it good for keto purposes?


----------



## Heath

I know that John Meadow's highly rates it as an energy source and it shouldn't kick you out of ketosis.


----------



## andyhuggins

Heath said:


> I know that John Meadow's highly rates it as an energy source and it shouldn't kick you out of ketosis.


Thanks I will do some research.


----------



## Learney

Heath said:


> I know that John Meadow's highly rates it as an energy source and it shouldn't kick you out of ketosis.


Medium Chain Triglycerides have less carbon links that LCTs and actually less cals 8.3 per/g. The absorbtion rate is much faster for MCTs and they're metabolised for fuel much better. They cross the double mitochondrial membrane faster producing excess acetyl-coA, and the metabolic enzymes 3-oxo acid CoA-transferase, citrate synthase and malate dehydrogenase. These are all actively involved in the krebs cycle and will help produce ketones. For keto diets MCTs are a great addition, fuel source and good for overall health.

Butter and Coconut Oil.....nom nom


----------



## andyhuggins

Learney said:


> Medium Chain Triglycerides have less carbon links that LCTs and actually less cals 8.3 per/g. The absorbtion rate is much faster for MCTs and they're metabolised for fuel much better. They cross the double mitochondrial membrane faster producing excess acetyl-coA, and the metabolic enzymes 3-oxo acid CoA-transferase, citrate synthase and malate dehydrogenase. These are all actively involved in the krebs cycle and will help produce ketones. For keto diets MCTs are a great addition, fuel source and good for overall health.
> 
> Butter and Coconut Oil.....nom nom


Thank you.


----------



## marknorthumbria

Learney said:


> Medium Chain Triglycerides have less carbon links that LCTs and actually less cals 8.3 per/g. The absorbtion rate is much faster for MCTs and they're metabolised for fuel much better. They cross the double mitochondrial membrane faster producing excess acetyl-coA, and the metabolic enzymes 3-oxo acid CoA-transferase, citrate synthase and malate dehydrogenase. These are all actively involved in the krebs cycle and will help produce ketones. For keto diets MCTs are a great addition, fuel source and good for overall health.
> 
> Butter and Coconut Oil.....nom nom


copy + paste into brain

thanks


----------



## kingdale

Got about 3 quarters of the way through and could no longer take his stubbornness, think you guys might be getting trolled.


----------



## kingdale

But other than that it was a good read but now I am getting 5 hours sleep before work, hope you can live worth the guilt of causing this


----------



## ritchiedrama

kingdale said:


> Got about 3 quarters of the way through and could no longer take his stubbornness, think you guys might be getting trolled.


Yeah, so defending my perfectly valid point which has not been discredited is definitely being trolled.


----------



## Heath

ritchiedrama said:


> Yeah, so defending my perfectly valid point which has not been discredited is definitely being trolled.


What I find slightly funny is the different styles of dieting that are popular on different boards.

Eg, paleo and keto get ripped apart these days at bb.com by guys like Alan Aragon but are still popular on here.

If you posted your diet over there you would have been backed up much more :lol:

MDD is massive at t-nation where it used to be all about Berardi's 7 nutrition rules.

Swings and roundabouts this game with constantly changing guru's and research 

Another example, a few years ago no carbs after 6pm got you ripped, now with CBL (don't get me started) carbs AFTER 6pm will get you ripped lol.

Basically anything sensible works. Just stick to what your happy with IME.


----------



## Fatstuff

Great thread, anyone remember the anaabollox zero carb bulking thread??


----------



## rfclee

27 pages! I only started this to make people aware of a deal in tesco lol :laugh:


----------



## L11

My summary after reading all 27 pages

Ritchie, the picture shows you lost muscle mass, your own numbers show you lost muscle mass. You lost muscle mass. You didnt lose any strength, wanna know the reason why? You weren't exactly strong in the first place. I too lost a decent amount of weight when i first did Keto, and miraculously got stronger at the same time, but truth be told I wasn't exactly strong in the first place, it was just the first time I looked at my diet (increased protein quite a lot). Trying the same method a year later when I had a decent amount of strength and it dropped dramatically. And the fact is, basing the effectiveness on IIFYM and IF on your own results probably wasn't the best idea to support your argument on the preservation of muscle mass, because you hardly have any muscle. If you look at the before and after for people on IF, most of them are relatively small, thus supporting the idea that whilst it's great for weight loss, it's not great for any decent amount of size (which is obviously a relative term)

And before you think this is an attack at your theory, I guess I should say that I use IF, mainly because it fits my lifestyle, and I'm not overly concerned with being "big". If I was, I'd probably look at something else tbh.

That being said, personally I think you handled most of your responses pretty well.


----------



## Huntingground

@Pscarb, here is a thread which you may remember, Richie from Grimsby spouting off. Was great entertainment, especially his failure to grasp simple maths


----------



## jake87

don't see the point of this, the lovely thing about milk or soya milk(which is brilliant) is the extra protein you get when making a shake or whatever, this is pretty much flavoured water isn't it?


----------



## 3752

Huntingground said:


> @Pscarb, here is a thread which you may remember, Richie from Grimsby spouting off. Was great entertainment, especially his failure to grasp simple maths


yes it just clicked buddy i now remember the man who can quote every celebrity trainer etc but cannot add for sh1t


----------



## 3752

jake87 said:


> don't see the point of this, the lovely thing about milk or soya milk(which is brilliant) is the extra protein you get when making a shake or whatever, this is pretty much flavoured water isn't it?


no mate it isn't it actually tastes very nice, problem with Soya milk is that SOYA has been shown to increase levels of oestrogen i believe


----------



## bobbydrake

Pscarb said:


> no mate it isn't it actually tastes very nice, problem with Soya milk is that SOYA has been shown to increase levels of oestrogen i believe


Yeah wouldn't touch any soya ever...


----------



## jake87

Pscarb said:


> no mate it isn't it actually tastes very nice, problem with Soya milk is that SOYA has been shown to increase levels of oestrogen i believe


ive been hearing that soya increases oestrogen levels however, when you're on gear for example and using an AI, isn't all of that under control anyway?


----------



## 3752

jake87 said:


> ive been hearing that soya increases oestrogen levels however, when you're on gear for example and using an AI, isn't all of that under control anyway?


it might be but i am not certain it is the same type. it may be and it might not be affected at all


----------



## Tinytom

jake87 said:


> ive been hearing that soya increases oestrogen levels however, when you're on gear for example and using an AI, isn't all of that under control anyway?


I believe that the estrogen doesn't come from aromatase route. There was an article in MD a while back I'll try to find it. So in short an AI won't stop estrogen from soya.


----------



## jake87

Tinytom said:


> I believe that the estrogen doesn't come from aromatase route. There was an article in MD a while back I'll try to find it. So in short an AI won't stop estrogen from soya.


it would be good to know if the amount of oestrogen consumed from soya is enough to cause a negative effects, it could be something like 0.045/nmol per litre


----------



## Tinytom

jake87 said:


> it would be good to know if the amount of oestrogen consumed from soya is enough to cause a negative effects, it could be something like 0.045/nmol per litre


If I remember correctly it wasn't so much estrogen production as testosterone suppression which in turn raised the ratio. The article was talking about testosterone release and cited soya as a negative. Also talked about eggs and vitamin d3 as potential test raising products.

I'll see if I've still got at the gym but it might be in MD archive on their site.


----------



## jake87

cheers. Don't want it turning into one of those bro science things because like for like I think its a great replacement for milk with the bonus of hardly any sugar


----------



## Tinytom

jake87 said:


> cheers. Don't want it turning into one of those bro science things because like for like I think its a great replacement for milk with the bonus of hardly any sugar


Personally I'd go with almond milk or another nut based milk. Or rice milk.

I've never read anything nice written about soya milk by actual bbing orientated people.


----------



## Dan94

Clubber Lang said:


> mother of God, i was nearly sick after drinking some of this lol. Horrible!


good for protein shakes though, cant taste the difference from normal milk


----------



## Mighty Sparrow

Tastiest non dairy milk I've tried is coconut based Koko.


----------



## Clubber Lang

Dan94 said:


> good for protein shakes though, cant taste the difference from normal milk


its horrible, never using it again, gagged on it!

i mix my shakes with only water.

on another note, Goats milk is tasty lol


----------

