PDA

View Full Version : MarkusReinhardt or Jeff Willet for Advise???



torched02
03-23-2002, 04:16 PM
I speak to both via Email...

MarKus-
high carbs 300-400, low protein125-150 and fat 30, low calories..

Jeff-
High protein 400g medium carbs 200 low fat 30g

Markus-
HIT 6-10 reps 1 set 2-3 exercises per bodypart based on pre-exhaust. 40-60 min of light cardio 3-7 days per week.

Jeff-
Reps 4-6 2 sets 2-3 exercises per bodypart. Cardio 20 min high intense...

Both are in great shape! What to do??

My goal is to get in my best condition ever!
Im 6ft
220lbs
26yrs old

Maki Riddington
03-23-2002, 05:47 PM
Use whichever one you haven't used before.

torched02
03-23-2002, 06:09 PM
thanks,

Ive tried both...

Savannah
03-23-2002, 06:15 PM
Well which ever one you found worked better for YOU then.

Songsangnim
03-23-2002, 11:45 PM
You might try using one's diet and the other's training.

Leviathan
03-24-2002, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by ExtremeAnabolic
You might try using one's diet and the other's training.

That would be a bad idea since each training routine is based around an inclusive diet routine also.

I prefer Willet's (and AST-SS's) method, but I've tried both and both have worked for me (Willet's has just worked faster).

Songsangnim
03-24-2002, 03:01 AM
Only if you subscribe to the idea (popularized by the Joe Weider pros) that diet is 90% of success. As long as you get enough calories and keep saturated fat to a mimimum and ingest quality protein, I believe the rest takes care of itself. In other words, diet is not THAT important that you need to have a different one, each time you change your routine...,unless you are changing from cutting to bulking and vice versa. The trouble with bodybuilding today is that people tend to go overboard with the small stuff and not focus enough on the big things. It's not rocket science:rolleyes:

Leviathan
03-24-2002, 05:54 AM
From what I've seen, Weider pros tend to push excessive supplementation. If they say that diet is 80% training then they are correct. No, it isn't rocket science... it is common sense. You grow outside of the gym, not in it. And your body is built by nutrients reaching your muscles. If that wasn't the case, the most successful pro and amateur bodybuilders wouldn't be counting calories.

That being said, that doesn't mean you need to restrict all the foods you eat. It simply means you must meet your macronutrient needs for each day.

Songsangnim
03-24-2002, 06:25 AM
Nonsense. Diet isn't 80 or even 50 percent of bodybuilding. Training is at least 50%. You can have the best diet, but if your training is bad, you will not grow much. On the other hand, most people know someone who has a terrible diet, yet because he trains hard he gets big. I put on 45 pounds following a terrible diet myself, and I'm a hard gainer (six-inch wrists). Training is at least 50% and then there is rest, and diet makes up what's left.
If we add great genetics and steriods then diet becomes even less important. Look at Nasser and Priest. They follow terrible diets at least most of the time. Priest claims he sometimes eats a bucket of ice cream or KFC at one sitting. Steriods keep them lean though. Dorian Yates claimed he ate hamburgers up to the day of the Mr.Olympia contest. Pros generally have the worst kinds of ideas of what proper nutrition consists of. I would take their advice with a few grains of salt. Bottom line, if you train hard you can get big even with a bad diet. On the other hand, you can have the best diet, but if you don't train, or train badly, you will not get much bigger. So training is more important than diet, yet you are saying training should be based on diet? The most important variable should be based on a less important variable?tuttut

Songsangnim
03-24-2002, 06:29 AM
BTW those articles about the pros counting calories, they are ghost-written. All you need to grow on a bad diet, are sufficent calories and you will grow. For OPTIMUM growth, that's another story...but training is still more important.

Leviathan
03-24-2002, 09:07 AM
Ok... go eat hamburgers and deep-fried chicken and come back here in 12 months. We'll see how much you've progressed, and how much I've progressed over that time.

Don't believe the crap you read in magazines. Lee Priest, Nasser El Sonbaty, etc. - none of them are chowing down hamburgers pre-competition. I can guarantee that. In their off-season... sure. Have you ever seen what these guys look like off-season? They look like complete fat asses. The only reason they are able to cut down so quickly is because they are pumping their veins so full of gear - and one day their bodies will have to pay the piper for that.

Judging by your name, I'm assuming you are juicing. Fine. But for natural bodybuilders diet is more important than anything you do in the gym. I'm willing to bet that most people on this forum will back me up on that comment.

Yes... training is important. You won't grow unless you have a good training routine. But diet is far more important.

chris mason
03-24-2002, 09:30 AM
Leviathan, I must disagree with you. I think you have the same misconception (in my opinion) that most people have (and that is understandable because the supplement companies bombard you with it).

I think at the core of this argument is a misunderstanding. The statement that diet is 80% of bodybuilding is true in one sense, and bullshit in another. Your bodyfat levels are controlled 80% plus by diet, so in that sense the statement is true. Your lean body mass, the amount of muscle you have, is only controlled by diet insofar as you need to consume more calories than is required to maintain your current level of size if you wish to gain mass. The constitution of these calories, the macronutrient breakdown, is really of little importance as long as sufficient calories are consumed (assuming the basic needs of the body are met, i.e. you need to eat sufficient levels of the basics, which the average American diet does). Personally, I made great gains while consuming a diet that was chock full of fast foods and every other kind of "bad" food. A great example of diet and muscle mass are the World's Strongest Man competitors. The vast majority of these guys just eat a ton of food, not worrying excessively about the constitution of their diet. They have obviously not had a great deal of trouble gaining mass. Now, if you want to use steroids as a reason that they can do this, I will go back a little further in time. Paul Anderson and Doug Hepburn, 2 of the strongest men ever, both ate huge quantities of food without a great deal of care for what they ate (other than drinking a lot of milk). These men were incredibly huge and strong, and natural. They both got to bodyweights where they carried too much bodyfat, but they had a crapload of muscle underneath it.

Big Show
03-24-2002, 09:53 AM
I agree with what Chris said.For myself personally I find that my size gains have been comming alot better since I decided to just eat.Mind you I still somewhat watch what I eat in terms of protein consumption but overall I just eat.And what Chris said about those strongman competitors is true,I've some that have 20%+ bodyfat but they also have alot of muscle mass to the point that they don't look fat at all

Leviathan
03-24-2002, 12:21 PM
Ok, we are talking about two different things here. Powerlifters ajnd bodybuilders. I have no doubt that someone can become huge and strong by simply eating everything in sight and training with intelligence and intensity. That's not my argument. As a bodybuilder, my aim is to gain lean muscle mass (i.e. muscle, not fat). That being said, diet is of utmost importance in a bodybuilder's regime. Sure, it will take longer to gain 10-20lbs. and remain under 10% BF in the process, but it is possible with a solid clean bulking diet - and in the long run will take a shorter amount of time than bulking and cutting.

Unless you are a powerlifter... what good is muscle if you can't see it?

chris mason
03-24-2002, 02:32 PM
Leviathan, I am going to let you in on a little secret, if you stay natural, you will not be able to maximize your lean muscle gains without adding some fat. Yes, you can add muscle without fat, but it is a very tricky thing, and as a natural trainee you will find that it produces diminishing results as you get bigger. Contrary to what you may read, or others may say, them is the facts! If you look at guys who stay lean while gaining size, you will note that they are the smaller guys who do not posess the greatest size and strength. Now, I am not saying that a bodybuidler wants to become a blimp in the off-season either, merely that added bodyfat is a requisite for the natural trainee to maximize his gains.

body
03-24-2002, 04:28 PM
thats my excuse for a extra layer of adipose.

when mags quote lean body mass, they are referring to non-fat mass. lean body mass contians water, bones etc.

as a bbers you want to gian as much muscle mass.

torched02
03-24-2002, 08:43 PM
umm... I think this had drifted far enough.

tony touch
03-24-2002, 09:45 PM
chris's advise was as solid as its goin to get. u wanna get big, u gotta eat. bulking means maximizing muscle and for most that means having to go above 10 percent bodyfat. it doesnt mean eat a ton of garbage either. i always stay conditioned and keep up with abs and some cadio when bulking but its hard as hell to maximize muscle gain while worrying about bodyfat percentage. im trying to add a little muscle rite now while mantaining cuts and its hard as hell, lemme tell u. its extremely tricky. u do tho have a point when u say what good is muscle if u cant see it. i feel ya on that one. i always tell people "u cant flex fat" but for most nattys u gotta be big and smooth before u can be big and ripped. i kno it sucks, tell me about it. :(

Songsangnim
03-24-2002, 10:12 PM
Okay, let's say you have two identical twins. One has a diet designed by a top dietician. But his training program is haphazard. One week he trains seven days, next week maybe only one day. The other has a bad diet (lots of fast food) but his training routine is designed by a top bodybuilding and strength coach. Both are natural. After one year who is more likely to be bigger and stronger? It's rather obvious...,but the obvious is often overlooked by those who are looking for a magic pill or supplement to make them stronger. Anyway, the whole crux of my arguement was that training is more important than diet. So one should base their diet on their training not the other way around. Go with what works for you, not someone else. How do you know that say using Markus' training program with Jeff's diet (or vice versa) will not produce great gains?
BTW, I am natural not juicing. As for my experience I have 12+ years bodybuilding as well as a Master's degree in Physical Science (specifically exercise). So I have the background to make these statements.

MarshallPenn
03-25-2002, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by chris mason
Leviathan, I am going to let you in on a little secret, if you stay natural, you will not be able to maximize your lean muscle gains without adding some fat. Yes, you can add muscle without fat, but it is a very tricky thing, and as a natural trainee you will find that it produces diminishing results as you get bigger. Contrary to what you may read, or others may say, them is the facts! If you look at guys who stay lean while gaining size, you will note that they are the smaller guys who do not posess the greatest size and strength. Now, I am not saying that a bodybuidler wants to become a blimp in the off-season either, merely that added bodyfat is a requisite for the natural trainee to maximize his gains.

Chris - Why do you say this? It's not been my experience w/friends who lift and compete. How is adding fat a requisite? Skip LaCour seems to be an example of someone who stays lean year round.

Leviathan
03-25-2002, 08:35 AM
Your degree doesn't mean much to me ExtremeAnabolic. I know plenty of people with degrees in physical science that are spewing forth bad information to the people they are trying to help. I'm not saying you are one of these people, but I am saying that credentials are simply pieces of paper.

Your analogy isn't really applicable. I'm not saying that training has NO importance in gaining muscle mass. Of course you have to train consistently and with intensity to build muscle - that's the 20% I was talking about. The other 80% is diet and rest. I know plenty of people out there that go to the gym consistently, and then go out for beers and pizza and all other manner of junk food afterwards. I am sure you have seen them... guys who just end up looking like fat asses year round. Do the girls want them? No. Women like muscle, but they also like a guy who is ripped. Do they look like they've been lifting? No. They just look fat. Are they being healthy? No. All that junk food will have serious effects on the cardiovascular and immune systems as well.

As far as the diets for Reinhardt and Willet are concerned. Take a look at them. Both of them tend to keep fat at very low levels. Hmm... I wonder why that is.

Maki Riddington
03-25-2002, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by MarshallPenn


Chris - Why do you say this? It's not been my experience w/friends who lift and compete. How is adding fat a requisite? Skip LaCour seems to be an example of someone who stays lean year round.

*** I whole heartedly agree with Chris. You can't gain muscle without fat unless you are using drugs. Skip Lacour is suspect as to whether or not he is "all natural".

tony touch
03-25-2002, 12:22 PM
holy **** if u honestly believe that skip lacour is 100 percent natural then u r extremely naive. i admire him and how intensely he trains and that hes done good 4 the sport. that said, hes loaded on GH and probably dabbles in some deca and primo. sure his cycles arent goin to be as crazy as the ifbb pros are but hes definitely not natural. dont mean to flame anybody here but most know this. ask chris or paul about skip and they'll probably tell u the same thing.

take a look at skip's stomach, thats a gh gut

tony touch
03-25-2002, 12:24 PM
i kno ur probably thinking rite now..why in the hell would skip lacour lie about being natural? if he told everybody he uses drugs and all that bullshit, would he be making as much money as he is now? definitely not. he makes money off his reputation as a jacked natty bb. his endorsments would go down the drain if everybody knew he was a juicehead

mr_hand
03-25-2002, 12:54 PM
Okay, so what do you do after you get to the part where you put on weight, and you are big and smooth, with the muscles underneath? When does the diet become important? Are you guys saying calorie counting is not detrimental to ridding yourself of the unwanted fat, once you have bulked up?

body
03-25-2002, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Leviathan

Your analogy isn't really applicable. I'm not saying that training has NO importance in gaining muscle mass. Of course you have to train consistently and with intensity to build muscle - that's the 20% I was talking about. The other 80% is diet and rest. I know plenty of people out there that go to the gym consistently, and then go out for beers and pizza and all other manner of junk food afterwards. I am sure you have seen them... guys who just end up looking like fat asses year round.

.

you may know who go to the gym consistently, but have they got good routines?
also eating fast food and drinking beer are different. beer will decrease test/increase estrogen. fast food will not do that. if any thing it will raise test and decrease estrogen as it will give you a surplus of kcals.
above said a fast food diet, not a beer drinking(which also reduce sleep quality).

the old time BBers used to bulk a lot before roids and other drugs allowed them to stay relativley lean while putting on weight.

torched02
03-25-2002, 01:42 PM
Skip would not lose his endorsement contracts! If he did then all the juicing pros will not get contracts either...

But this is not about Drugs... read the first post!

tony touch
03-25-2002, 04:03 PM
i know this has nothing to do with the question and i dont want to ruin this thread but skip lacour is much different from all the other pros. people admire skip because he has achieved a great deal while "staying natural". people want him to be a spokesperson for them, etc. because he is the best "natural bodybuilder in the world" so on and so on. people find out hes a juicer, then all he is is a minature version of ifbb pros. hes not even close to ifbb pros either. plus when people find out hes a fake, nobody will want to listen to a word he says.

bulking does not mean eating a ton of fast food. its about eating the same foods you do when cutting, except eating much much more of it and including more cheat meals

Cackerot69
03-25-2002, 05:02 PM
I clearly stated that my:

Shut up Anna :)

post was necessary. Dummies.

Leviathan
03-25-2002, 06:20 PM
What the hell does that mean cack?

Songsangnim
03-25-2002, 08:51 PM
And I know plenty of people that get a good diet and a lot of rest, yet they don't look big or ripped. You still haven't answered my question. Which will get you bigger and stronger, training or diet? BTW have you heard of Fred Hatfield, Stuart MacRobert, or John MaCallom (sp)? All are published authors, bodybuilding experts, and a couple have degrees. They all state that diet is not 80% or even 50% of bodybuilding success. Nor have I heard anyone else (on this forum or elsewhere make that claim) except in the magazines (which as you rightly point out are crap). And yes the pros DO eat like crap on-season as well as off (not all but many). The steriodsand other drugs keep them lean and ripped. I am going to go out on a limb here and ask you, "Do you take supplements?" Also ask yourself this question, why is it you are the only one stating that diet is 80%. Are you right and all the rest of us wrong?

MarshallPenn
03-26-2002, 01:43 AM
OK, sorry I brought up Skip. I should have known better. Bad example. Still don't think you need to get fat to gain muscle. Hasn't been the case with me. Actually, right now my BF% is dropping and I'm still going up in weight.

Leviathan
03-26-2002, 04:16 AM
And I know plenty of people that get a good diet and a lot of rest, yet they don't look big or ripped. You still haven't answered my question. Which will get you bigger and stronger, training or diet?

I believe this is the whole crux of my argument, and I've answered it time and time again in this thread. In my belief, a good diet and consistent training will get you bigger and stronger in a shorter amount of time than a bad diet and consistent training. The reason why people say that diet is 80% is because arranged your training routine is the easy part... the fun part. Few people have the discipline to also insure they are eating the proper things.

Have you ever heard of taking advantage of the post-workout 'anabolic window'? Insulin-spikes? etc.? These are all very important aspects of weight training associated with diet. They aren't magazine jive... it is backed by hard science (of which I can provide articles if you would like).

Have you heard of Fred Hatfield, Stuart MacRobert, or John MaCallom (sp)? All are published authors, bodybuilding experts, and a couple have degrees. They all state that diet is not 80% or even 50% of bodybuilding success.

What did I tell you about my feeling on credentials? There are an equal number of published 'experts' out there that say diet is the most important aspect of training. I don't take my advice from these guys, I follow a regime and see what works for myself and for others.

And yes the pros DO eat like crap on-season as well as off (not all but many). The steriodsand other drugs keep them lean and ripped.

Umm... where is your proof for this statement? Steriods won't keep you lean if you are eating pizza and hamburgers all the time. You gotta have your diet in order too. I've seen plenty of juice-heads who are very fat. I can guarantee from first-hand experience that the pros aren't eating like crap on-season. They only do that off-season.


I am going to go out on a limb here and ask you, "Do you take supplements?" Also ask yourself this question, why is it you are the only one stating that diet is 80%. Are you right and all the rest of us wrong?

It seems to me that there are quite a few on this thread that agree with me, and I know there are many more on WBB and Elite Fitness that agree with my point-of-view. As far as supplements, of course I take supplements, it would be stupid not to. However, I only stick with the basics. Protein, Creatine, and Glutamine. Sometimes I take an ECA stack for pre-workout energy. I don't read the magazines, I take my advice from people who've been there and know what works from first-hand experience.

Songsangnim
04-05-2002, 12:04 AM
I've read the entire thread, and I have yet to see one person agree with you. Also I never said that a bad diet and consistent training will give you better gains than a good diet and good training. What I said was, a bad diet and good training will take you further than a good diet and bad training. You are comparing apples to oranges. The original question was which is better, a good diet and bad training or good training and a bad diet? Obviously a good diet and good training is the best way to go. I am not questioning that.

Leviathan
04-05-2002, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by MarshallPenn
Still don't think you need to get fat to gain muscle. Hasn't been the case with me. Actually, right now my BF% is dropping and I'm still going up in weight.

Looks like this is a statement that agrees with my point-of-view.

Go look at the online journals (or even the this diet and nutrition section on a given day), if diet is so unimportant why is everyone (including seasoned BBs) developing these complicated meal plans? Why does everyone advocate sticking to an appropriate p/c/f ratio?

Songsangnim
04-06-2002, 01:03 AM
You simply won't answer the question, will you. Sounds to me like you are aware that I am right and you are wrong. BTW I never said diet was unimportant. Stop twisting my words. I stated it was less important than training. The question again was, what will take you further, good training and a bad diet or bad training and a good diet. Good training and a bad diet as the majority of people on this thread agreed with me, can add massive size and strength. Bad training and a good diet, will either not add size and strength or get you injured. Granted, a good diet and good training is the way to go. But that was never the question. Which was more important?

Leviathan
04-06-2002, 01:53 AM
Your whole argument rests on your definition of bad training. What exactly do you mean by bad training? If you mean someone who trains once a month, and is lifting 2 pound dumbbells - sure, I'd tend to agree with you that that guy isn't going to be going anywhere fast.

On the other hand, I know plenty of guys that could fit into the 'bad training' category in my book, but they follow a good diet and still end of making gains (albeit at a slower rate) without putting on fat.

Songsangnim
04-06-2002, 09:34 AM
Okay, I will admit there are exceptions to the rules, but they tend to be few and far in between. BTW (my idea of) bad training is someone (natural) who follows the Arnold style of training. Six days a week, 2 hours (or more training), 20 sets a bodypart. This is not the only type of bad training, but it appears to be the most common type, judging from this board as well as others. There are usually only three types of people who can add a good deal of muscle without putting on fat. 1. Newbies. 2. Someone who is experienced, but has laid off for a long time, and is just coming back (muscle memory). 3. Someone with EXCEPTIONAL genetics. Again there are exceptions but in this case, they are extremely few. Only Marshall Penn has claimed this as far as I know, and he is 1 out of 2, maybe 3 hundred users on this board? And anyone can make claims on a Internet board.

One more thing, about credentials. You claim they mean nothing. So if you needed surgery, you would let a friend who has no medical training operate on you, because he would do it for free? After all, a qualified doctor's credentials mean nothing now, do they? Would you let a neighbor with no legal training represent you in court? After all a lawyer's credentials are worthless, aren't they? :confused: Credentials are earned through training and experience. To dismiss them as "they mean nothing" is foolish and rash. Speaking of experience it's been mine that only people who don't have them (credentials) speak poorly of them.

Leviathan
04-06-2002, 10:46 AM
A board certified medical degree is one thing, an Master's in Exercise Science is an entirely different matter. There is very little peer review of the exercise science community (unlike the medical community - which I am very familiar with)... that is why so many so-called 'experts' are able to successful push bogus products, training routines, etc. When I speak of credentials... I am refering specifically to the exercise/kinesiology profession.

Now... you speak about putting on muscle without putting on fat as nearly impossible for consistently training bodybuilders. I disagree. Why exactly do you think that fat is so important? Is it because you don't think you can develop a meal plan with enough calories if fat is kept low? Wrong. I'm currently consuming 4000 calories a day and only 81 grams of that is fat - mostly coming from Flaxseed Oil (which I need for EFAs).

I think it is a misconception that you must put on loads of fat to gain. No.... you simply need to be consuming more calories than you are burning in a day. Yes, fat packs a lot of calories, but if you space your meals 2-3 hours apart and eat 6-9 meals a day, 4000 (which is plenty for most people) is enough to bulk at a consistent rate.

Don't think it works? I've put on 10 pounds in 4 months while reducing my BF% from 10% to 8%. I've been lifting for several years, and I don't attribute my gains to exceptional genetics.

Songsangnim
04-06-2002, 10:47 PM
Where did I say that fat is necessary to gain? You're confusing me with Mr. Mason. I said, that very few people can gain a large amount of muscle without fat. 10 pounds in 4 months while not bad, is hardly what I would call a large amount of muscle. ( I am going out on a limb here and taking you at your word.) About the meals. Most people don't have the time to cook, prepare and eat 6-9 meals a day. Family, work and studies get in the way, as does living in a entirely different culture. About the credentials. So chiro's are fakes then according to your reasoning.? WRONG! They are accepted by the medical community, which you claim to be familar with.
Bottom line if you've found what works for you, fine. But it seems it only works for a few people (you and Mr. Penn) To advocate it as a viable alternative doesn't make sense. If most people could benefit from that, there would not be such an obssesion about diet or bodyfat on this board. Eating clean all the time, just doesn't seem to work for most people.

Mark
04-07-2002, 03:42 AM
Just looked at this thread and I'm going to jump in and say that from my experience I agree with Leviathan.

Training is extremely important but if you don't give your body the nutrition for health, energy, recovery and growth you won't go far.

I've worked out extremely intensly without good nutrition and made slight gains and I've worked out with good nutrition and got significantly better results.

In fact I've worked out even harder because with improved nutrition I could work harder.

If you can make good gains without quality nutrition you are extremely fortunate in my book.

You don't need to put fat on to make gains, that just shows an ignorance of nutrition and probably only reinforces Leviathan's argument.

Take a look at serious olympic power athletes like weightlifters and sprinters. Did they bulk up and get fat in order to improve their performance?

Leviathan
04-07-2002, 03:49 AM
What is a 'good deal' of muscle in your book ExtremeAnabolic? I think most people will agree that 10lbs. of lean muscle mass, while at the same time reducing bodyfat in 4 months is a relatively good goal for non-beginner natural bodybuilders.

Preparing 6-9 meals a day is not difficult. I simply prepare my food the night before and put it in tupperware. It is very easy to get down all the necessary meals (2 of those meals are MRPs, and 1 meal is the post-workout shake).

I never said Chiropractors are fakes... I simply mean that their credentials mean less to me than their references. Who cares if they are accepted by the medical community, they are neither board-certified or peer-reviewed as MDs/PH.Ds are on a regular basis. I'm not saying that people in these fields are not legitimate, I'm just saying that it takes more to convince me they know what they are talking about than a certificate.

It's true that my method works for me, but I'm arguing that it will work for most people. You say that is hard for people to gain a large amount of muscle without fat. And then you also ask 'where did I say that fat is necessary to gain'. The only thing I can assume from this comment is that you are of the belief that everyone's carbs are magically converting into fat. This can be avoided if you eat complex low-glycemic carbs that don't convert to glucose as quickly as higher-glycemic carbs. I'm convinced that if you structure your diet program appropriately you can find the optimal point that your body will put on lean muscle mass without the fat.

Songsangnim
04-07-2002, 05:55 AM
Most Olympic weightlifters (at least in the heavier classes) are pretty fat, Mark. Very few of them have bodybuilding type bodies. And very few have the body the general public would want.
As for Leviathan, well preparing nine meals a day may not be difficult for you right now. But come back when you are married, with kids, have a full time job, live in an entirely different culture and country and are studying for your PH.D Tell me then, that preparing nine meals a day is not difficult. Most people do not have the time or money to work on their diet program, when there are a number of vastly more important matters to focus on. Sounds like you have an ideal situation for dieting and training. You may be able to put on muscle without fat for a while. Eventually your body will hit a "brick wall" and you will find it very difficult to gain muscle without gaining fat. This is particularly true as you get older. When I was younger I could eat anything and not gain fat. As I got older, I had to watch my diet more closely as my impunity to gain fat decreased.
Sure you can "structure your diet program" and 'find the optimal point" However this "optimal point" will not always remain at the same level. Five years from now, it could be quite different.

Leviathan
04-07-2002, 06:31 AM
It sounds like those are excuses ExtremeAnabolic, not reasons for not sticking to a diet. Personally, it takes me 30-40 minutes to prepare my meals for the next day. If you don't have that much free time at night then I would venture to say you need take it easier.

Guess what. I'm also in another country. I'm studying international business in Denmark right now for 4 months. Being here has not interfered with my routine at all. Yes, I'm young and have a high metabolism, but if I was on the "McDonald's Diet" I'd be fat too.

It seems like you are beginning to contradict yourself. You say that when you were younger you could eat anything and not get fat, but now you have to watch your diet so you don't get fat. Hmm... hasn't this whole thread been about how diet doesn't matter?

I certainly agree with you that this 'optimal point' or your optimal p/c/f ratios will change as you get older, but a diet isn't a static thing - you learn about your body, you learn how you react to different ratios, and you adjust appropriately. It isn't rocket science, and doesn't take that long - it is just something you must do consistently to track your gains.

Songsangnim
04-07-2002, 10:52 PM
Actually if you go back and read my posts, this thread has been about how diet is LESS important than training in achieving size and strength. I NEVER claimed that diet didn't matter. In a previous post I clearly stated that optimal diet and training is the way to go. This whole thread started over a discussion over which was more important (diet or training) You've already agreed that bad training (bad training is overtraining or undertraining) and a good diet will get you "nowhere fast" (your words). With good training and a bad diet (as Chris and myself have pointed out) you can still make good gains.
Granted I have to watch my diet now, but when I was younger, I made my fastest gains on "junk food" in both size and strength.
As far as being in another country is concerned. Denmark is much closer to N.A. in culture then S. Korea is. You mentioned in a post that three of your meals consisted of protein drinks. Well in S. Korea there is no such thing as a protein drink, much less a GNC corner store where you can run down and get some. To prepare nine solid food meals would take a lot longer than 45 minutes for me anyway. Excuses? Try telling your wife she's just an excuse. For most people a wife and kids, a job and education are more important than obsessing over every bite of food that goes into your mouth. It's all about priorities. For me those are more important, than tracking a diet. I just make sure I eat a lot healthier than I did when I was young.

Leviathan
04-08-2002, 05:59 AM
Specifically, I said the following:

If you mean someone who trains once a month, and is lifting 2 pound dumbbells - sure, I'd tend to agree with you that that guy isn't going to be going anywhere fast.

On the other hand, I know plenty of guys that could fit into the 'bad training' category in my book, but they follow a good diet and still end of making gains (albeit at a slower rate) without putting on fat.

So I did not agree that bad training and a good diet will get you "nowhere fast"... I agreed that absolutely awful training and a good diet will get you "nowhere fast". That is why I specifically made an example of someone who lifts only once a month with extremely low weights.

I'm not debating that you CAN'T make gains on a junk food diet. I'm saying that you can make greater gains on a clean bulking diet.

Granted South Korea is not as westernized as Denmark, but I don't buy supplements in Denmark - I order them online and have them shipped to me. That would be possible almost anywhere you might be in the world.

Of course family and the rest of your life are more important than bodybuilding, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying that preparing a few meals in advanced is not a big deal and doesn't interfere with the rest of life. I prepare 5 solid meals the night before by using 3 cups of rice, 5 baked potatos, 2 grilled chicken breasts, 8 oz. of steak, and some broccoli. You can cook the potatos and broccoli together in one pan, the rice in another, and the chicken and steak in another. Overall, it takes about 45 minutes to prepare. Not a big deal.

Songsangnim
04-08-2002, 08:12 AM
Well then as far as I am concerned this thread is over. You've agreed that absolutely bad training even with a good diet will get you nowhere. On the other hand an absolutely bad diet (when I was younger MacDonalds, KFC, Subway) and good training can produce large gains in size. I do agree that when it comes to controlling bodyfat, diet is 80% of bodybuilding success though, (just not for size or strength)

Leviathan
04-08-2002, 04:30 PM
*sigh*... for every step forward in this thread we take two steps backward. It seems like we've gotten to the point of arguing the definition of bad training. I'm not arguing, first of all, about size or strength - those are important from a bodybuilders perspective, but not the of utmost importance. Most importantly is symmetry and lean muscle mass. With a bad diet, you will hide all of your gains and that will require extra time to cut so your muscles achieve definition.

Of course I agree that terrible training with a good diet won't make you the next Arnold, but I disagree that a terrible diet with good training will make you look any better. Haven't you seen complete fat asses in the gym that seemingly train well?

My entire argument then... in simpler terms is that diet is more important. In other words, a person with adequate training and an exceptional diet will fare better than a person with an adequate diet and exceptional training.