PDA

View Full Version : How essential is a strict diet?



WillyTheGreat
08-26-2002, 04:21 PM
A great deal of care is put into diet and that's pretty obvious just by the existence of this forum. Now, I wanna know how much you think a strict diet is essential to working out?

I know people who work out and they eat like they always have. Of course, genetics, etc. plays a part but they still gain muscle and everything.

So, not for the purposes of competition bodybuilding...just getting a nice figure and being strong, how important is a strict diet routine?

Shao-LiN
08-26-2002, 04:42 PM
Just as important for optimum results.

TreeTrunks
08-26-2002, 04:59 PM
Ditto. Your diet should reflect the kind of results you want. A poor diet means your looking for poor results and a strict, well structured diet gives you the results you want.

LAM
08-26-2002, 04:59 PM
Very important. going to the gym is the EASY part...

TreeTrunks
08-26-2002, 05:11 PM
workout out is 10% diet is 90%

BennettBoy
08-26-2002, 05:12 PM
I workout with alot of folks day in and day out that lift but continue to eat whatever they want. And yep....they are getting bigger LOL.....a tad of muslce and mucho fat. But keep in mind, everybody has different goals. Some folks workout just so they can continue to eat whatever they want. They love to eat that much. IMO, you choose to have a strict diet because you want folks to be able to look at you and KNOW you bodybuild.

FuriousFerret
08-26-2002, 07:29 PM
I used to have a very strict diet and still do to an extent. Now I do 'cheat' at lunchtime but all other meals are strict and it seems to work well.

Alex.V
08-26-2002, 07:33 PM
The importance of diet is vastly overstated. But it's still essential.

mrunknown
08-26-2002, 07:41 PM
one thing i found out is dont be to strict youll blow your whole diet

NateDogg
08-26-2002, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by mrunknown
one thing i found out is dont be to strict youll blow your whole diet

Yes, good point. Cheat once in a while, or you are most likely going to binge and "fall off the wagon" if you will.

zwarrior99
08-26-2002, 07:55 PM
Diet is almost everything.. You dont eat you dont grow easy as that. But I would also argue that a calorie of fat and a calorie of protein are still the same thing..

Blood&Iron
08-26-2002, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Belial
The importance of diet is vastly overstated. But it's still essential.
I'd agree.

Personally, I sorta view diet, training, and rest/recuperation as a triangle. You can't have a triangle with two sides. But is any one side more important to making a triangle a triangle than the other sides? No.

Uh, I just realized I have no f*cking idea what I'm talking about...

Shao-LiN
08-26-2002, 09:17 PM
I think I know...err, I forgot.

TreeTrunks
08-26-2002, 09:55 PM
I got ya blood&iron

Shankerr
08-26-2002, 11:02 PM
I'd say diet is the most important part if you're serious. You are what you eat?? right.?.?.? eat like a Fatty McFat, and you will become one. Eat like a bodybuilder, and you will be... umm, as long as you also work your ass like a bodybuilder ;-)

I don't think there is anything wrong with a cheat day now and then though, we all have to have a break sometime.. I find a cheat day every few weeks helps control any kind of cravings I get if i don't have one.

LAM
08-26-2002, 11:14 PM
Fatty McFat.... LMAO ! :zipit:

RainerG9
08-27-2002, 03:06 AM
You probably can make gains without a proper bodybuilding diet, but you'll never reach the level you would if u followed a good diet regimen.

As far as those who bodybuild and eat as they did before, most guys in my gym are like that, but the only reason they dont follow a good diet is because they probably dont even know that u need to follow a good diet in order to see good progress. Ive only seen like 5 ppl from my gym have post-workout shakes, most of them go up the road to a fast-food place right after gym and have burgers and fries!

Only the massive guys follow a strict diet..and probably thats why theyre massive, and every1 else isnt!

MonStar
08-27-2002, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Belial
The importance of diet is vastly overstated. But it's still essential.

Agreed. I think that ample calories are essential for growth, and lower calories are essential for fat-burning.

But specific foods I dont think that your body knows the difference. Calories or calories in my eyes. I know that most people will just say I am lazy but I doubt your body is thinking, well since this 500 calories is chicken and rice vs. a 500 calorie cheeseburger, Ill end build muscle. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Shao-LiN
08-27-2002, 10:08 AM
well since this 500 calories is chicken and rice vs. a 500 calorie cheeseburger, Ill end build muscle.

One is a better source of protein and carbs than the other. And the other is filled with more saturated fats. But yah, cheating is good every now and then. Your body does think though.

PowerManDL
08-27-2002, 10:51 AM
Wow, you guys are taking the PowerMan approach to dieting. If I can just get yall to stop eating at scheduled times and totally quit caring just what the hell you eat, you'll be on the way!

TreeTrunks
08-27-2002, 10:58 AM
Monstar, and any others, check out these articles:

http://www.testosterone.net/articles/209lean.html
http://www.testosterone.net/articles/210lean.html

galileo
08-27-2002, 11:33 AM
I think prayer is the most important part of any training regimen.

galileo
08-27-2002, 11:33 AM
No, not really, I can't back that up.

WillyTheGreat
08-27-2002, 02:12 PM
Rainer, you're right...I don't think many people know about the diet that "should" be followed while working out. Hell, I had NO CLUE about the vastness about this SCIENCE of bodybuilding until I came to this site...it's pretty amazing how big it is and how specific it is.


Now, I'm not suggesting not eating healthy foods, I'm just wondering if everything has to be exact like the number of protein, carb., and fat grams you eat daily, etc.

TMan
08-27-2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by TreeTrunks
Monstar, and any others, check out these articles:

http://www.testosterone.net/articles/209lean.html
http://www.testosterone.net/articles/210lean.html

"John Berardi doesn't know **** from shinola."

- Lyle McDonald

Blood&Iron
08-27-2002, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by TMan


"John Berardi doesn't know **** from shinola."

- Lyle McDonald
That's just what I was thinking.

Here's a nice example of why from Lyle's forum:


on 08/27/2002 08:28 lyle wrote:
And since I imagine someone's now going to ask, I figure I'll just get it over with.

Here's what Berardi wrote:
http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/leaneating_2.htm

"In a study by Agus et al (2000), it was demonstrated that during a short, 6 day, low-calorie diet, a low-GI carb intake preserved metabolism and enhanced fat loss vs. a high-GI diet. The low GI group saw a 5% decline in metabolic rate and a 7.7lb weight loss while the high-GI group saw an 11% decline in metabolic rate and a 6.6lb weight loss. In these subjects, fasted glucose and insulin values were lower in the low-GI group, indicating better glucose and insulin sensitivity."

Sounds great, right but let's look at the study (you can read it in it's entirely free online to see if it says what I say it says).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/utils/fref.fcgi?http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=full&pmid=10731495

They ostensibly gave subjects a high GI vs. low GI diet to compare various effects. But the diets were different in ways besides GI. The composition (as percent of energy) was:

Low GI: 43% carbs, 27% protein, 30% fat
HIgh GI: 67% carb, 15% protein, 18% fat

So that's 4 differences between groups: GI, carb intake, protein intake, and fat intake. That's crap research.

Each diet was given for 6 days and no measures of fat loss were done (only weight loss was measured). The high GI diet lost ~3.2 kg vs. 3.6 kg in the low GI diet (7 vs. 8 lbs so I'm not sure where Berardi's numbers came from).

The lwo GI diet also had a higher nitrogen balance and metabolic rate didn't fall as far (4.6% vs. 10.5% which worked out to about a 100 cal/day difference).

Ok, let's look at this. The diets aren't comparable. The low GI diet had twice as much protein, of course it had a higher nitrogen balance. And adequate dietary protein during dieting is a key to maintaining metabolic rate (other studies show that higher protein maintains BMR better during dieting). As well, 6 vs. 7 lbs over 6 days, how much of that can be true weight (fat or muscle) anyhow? I mean, that's a pound a day (calories were approx 1500 cal/day).

As well, the lower carb intake on the low GI diet would promote more water loss. On and on it goes.

Bascially, this study is crap and for Berardi to say what he said is incredibly misleading. he not only got the numbers wrong, but they didn't measure fat loss in the first place, and the diets were totally different to make the results completely irrelevant.

Frankly, I could use this study to argue high vs. low carbs (67% vs. 43$), high vs. low protein (27% vs. 15%), high vs. low fat (30% vs. 18%) or high vs low GI because it compared all four.

Lyle

TreeTrunks
08-27-2002, 03:36 PM
That meant nothing. Its one persons word against another. Berardi is a PhD candidate and a competitive bodybuilder, among many other titles. While Lyle McDonald just has a BS in exercise science. I know some of you say degrees mean nothing but come on lyle knows just as much abuot nutrition as anyone that is able to read while John is getting his PhD in exercise and nutritional biochemistry. John is clearly a more credible source but hey thats my opinion, everyone is entitled to there own.

Blood&Iron
08-27-2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by TreeTrunks
That meant nothing. Its one persons word against another. Berardi is a PhD candidate and a competitive bodybuilder, among many other titles. While Lyle McDonald just has a BS in exercise science. I know some of you say degrees mean nothing but come on lyle knows just as much abuot nutrition as anyone that is able to read while John is getting his PhD in exercise and nutritional biochemistry. John is clearly a more credible source but hey thats my opinion, everyone is entitled to there own.
It has nothing to do with anyone's word. Read the article. It's available in it's entirety at the provided link. Either Berardi is:
a)willfully misrepresenting the study, knowing very few people ever bother to actually look at cited research
b)never bothered to read anything but the abstract
c)he is simply monumentally retarded and was unable to see the seriously flawed nature of the study

If you think Lyle simply knows what anyone would from reading up on the subject, you are seriously mistaken. He, along with Elzi Volk, Bryan Haycock, and a handful of others are at the forefront of true science-based bodybuilding. John Berardi is simply a Biotest whore.

P.S. Berardi is an idiot.

TreeTrunks
08-27-2002, 05:11 PM
Berardi is not a biotest whore. True he writes for t-mag, which is funded by biotest, I have never read an article by him where he hocks there supplements.

Blood&Iron
08-27-2002, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by TreeTrunks
Berardi is not a biotest whore. True he writes for t-mag, which is funded by biotest, I have never read an article by him where he hocks there supplements.
http://www.testosterone.net/articles/184growth.html


Supplementation

• Multi-Vitamin/Multi-Mineral

• Surge — half a serving taken during each workout and half a serving taken immediately after each workout

• Tribex — 6 capsules per day

• Methoxy 7 — per label recommendations

• Biotest "M" — per label recommendations if our factory got its butt in gear and got it out in time. (If not, then consider using a stand-alone vitex product.)

• 10g of regular ol’ creatine powder (taken as you did in the first two stages)

• Advanced Protein — Use as needed to meet calorie and protein requirements and fill in the gaps from regular food intake.

That's 5 Biotest supplements by my count.

http://t-mag.com/html/body_142post.html :


At this point, before the jaded cynics write in shouting about how this article is probably nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at introducing a new Biotest supplement, I'm gonna' head them off at the pass. This isn't a thinly veiled attempt at introducing a new supplement. It is a full fledged, in your face, introduction to a new Biotest supplement .



I'm sure I could find plenty more examples if I looked hard enough.


Of course, one could say Berardi is merely trying to help bodybuilders out by developing and making available efficacious supplements. This, for instance, is what Bryan Haycock is doing. The difference is that Berardi twists the facts and misrepresents studies left and right and Haycock doesn't.

MonStar
08-27-2002, 11:37 PM
"John Berardi doesn't know **** from shinola."

- Lyle McDonald

Hehe agreed here. I completely agree.

arnach
09-08-2002, 09:14 PM
Hah one time I tried to get a girl i knew on a low-cal diet .. she said shed try it the next day and i talked to her the following night, after about 6 hours of tuna .. she gave up consumed 3 hot dogs, a medium pizza, and a double whopper with cheese. whew.

Jilla82
09-08-2002, 09:54 PM
is she fat?

Stray
09-09-2002, 08:15 AM
if she isn't she soon will be.

Puttn
09-10-2002, 05:49 AM
i eat as clean as possible but i make sure i get 300 grams of protein and a good postworkout meal other than that i just eat as clean as possible

galileo
09-10-2002, 08:47 AM
Diet Enforcer :ninja:

Stray
09-10-2002, 08:52 AM
Funny thing is..I am so specific and picky about what I eat (no mayo no cheese, lightly toasted, wheat not white, no yolks please) but when I get something recreational to drink it doesn't matter what the hell it is as long as its alcoholic.

Bad, bodybuilder, BAD!

galileo
09-10-2002, 09:11 AM
Yeah, that's...funny...because...yeah.

Stray
09-10-2002, 09:20 AM
Not so "haha" funny.

More funny like...Jerry Lewis funny.

Accipiter
10-10-2002, 01:40 PM
I've gained with a shitty diet, but my gains have slowed down. I guess eating right would help me get started again though

Maki Riddington
10-10-2002, 01:48 PM
Eat above maintanence level = gain weight
Eat below maintanence level = lose weight

If you suffer from certain problems then I do believe ratios do play a large part in determining your outcome. Other then that it's pretty basic.

Right now I'm cutting and I'm just eating less, some days less then others and some days I'll pig out. In two months we'll see how well it worked.

Yanick
10-10-2002, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
Eat above maintanence level = gain weight
Eat below maintanence level = lose weight

If you suffer from certain problems then I do believe ratios do play a large part in determining your outcome. Other then that it's pretty basic.

Right now I'm cutting and I'm just eating less, some days less then others and some days I'll pig out. In two months we'll see how well it worked.

this is interesting, be sure to keep us posted Maki.

Jilla82
10-10-2002, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
Eat above maintanence level = gain weight
Eat below maintanence level = lose weight

If you suffer from certain problems then I do believe ratios do play a large part in determining your outcome. Other then that it's pretty basic.

Right now I'm cutting and I'm just eating less, some days less then others and some days I'll pig out. In two months we'll see how well it worked. thats how I go about things. Just see what happens.

restless
10-10-2002, 02:29 PM
Just out of curiosity, what's your ideia of a clean diet? I'm wondering about this as everyone speaks about it but no one ever seems to make any specific references to macronutrient ratios and things like that. Out of pure curiosity....

Here's mine:

No trans or hidrogenated fats. This rules out all super market oils but extra virgin olive oil.

Apropriate Omega 3 intake by means of good quality cod liver oil, salmon oil or sardines. Other fishes including tuna should be kept to a minimum due to high heavy metal content.

Proper intake of fruit and green vegetables.

No frying, grilling should be used sparingly, and most food should be either steamed, boiled, or pressure cooked.

Keep simple carbs to were they're needed, post and just before workout, recent research has been showing that chronic high insulin levels will shorten lifespan on most if not all species.

Keep grain intake to 30 % or below of total intake (this one is gonna get me into trouble...:) ). This is mostly for the same reason, and in the case of whole grains due to high anti nutrient content that ends creating mineral deficiencies in your organism. Grains aren't part of the diet human beings evolved in for two million years as hunter gatherers.

High protein intake, one gram per pound from animal sources.

Track foods that you might have intolerances to, milk in my case, and consume them sparingly.

Don't eat the same foods every single day. This is the best way of developing food intolerances in the long run and will create health problems.

I guess that's it. I'm sure a few of you are gonna disagree with a lot of stuff i said so let the debate begin!! outnumber

restless
10-10-2002, 02:35 PM
I forgot macronutrient ratios, i use a 40-45 % fat (50 % mono, 25 % sat, 25% poly), 30-35 % carbs and 20-25% pro. This will be the most individual thing, IMO.

Silverback
10-10-2002, 03:56 PM
most of it is pretty reasonable but:


Apropriate Omega 3 intake by means of good quality cod liver oil, salmon oil or sardines. Other fishes including tuna should be kept to a minimum due to high heavy metal content

The thing about tuna isn't really true, i think the mercury debate comes in another form of tuna, the steaks if i remember rightly, the canned stuff is pretty sweet, i hope it is anyway i eat about 2 a day

bradley
10-10-2002, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by restless

No frying, grilling should be used sparingly, and most food should be either steamed, boiled, or pressure cooked.



Why do you say no grilling?

restless
10-10-2002, 04:11 PM
All tune comes from the same fish. Even the FDA has already warned that pregnant women and children avoid eating tuna more than 3 X week. The higher the fish is in the food chain the more mercury it will have in it. I also wished this wasn't the thruth as tuna is such a convenient and cheap protein source. I avoid it almost completely, if the FDA released a warning against a product from such a powerfull industry as the fish industry it's because this is such a serious subject that they were forced to take a stand.

restless
10-10-2002, 04:19 PM
The higher the cooking temperature, the more carcinogenic and mutagenic substances are created. I only grill steak ocasionally, but i eat it almost raw, If you have to grill don't do it to the point were the meat turns black, those spots are what's really bad for you.