here is the video of mike talking about nutrition and the 60/25/15 percent ration of a balanced diet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf2dLpJE9N8
Printable View
here is the video of mike talking about nutrition and the 60/25/15 percent ration of a balanced diet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf2dLpJE9N8
anybody have any say in this.. i dont really agree
If I ate 65% carb out of my cals intake, I would gain fat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liftnainez
yea thats what I was thinking..
hes says you cant use supernutrion only optimum nutrition and the rest is excreted
More and more I'm starting to agree with this. Obviously eveybody has different genetics, and a diet should be tweaked for your goals ect., but the whole low-moderate carb thing is stupid for gaining mass IMHO. Even for contest prep I will now switch to a higher carb approach. As far as supernutrion...its to hard to gauge your cal expenditure on any given day so I always try to get in as many cals (and protein) as possible for growth, given you are on AAs. It's better to get more, than not enough. But I also have a fast metabolism. End rant.
I would NEVER do this. I dont like people who STATE their opinion as fact. OK great Mentzer it can work, so can 40/40/20 or whatever.
Neither Jay Cutler or Ronnie Coleman uses Mentzer's ratio, I am merely using these two names because they are top right now.
I use something close to Branch Warren, who never has his carbs higher than his protein on or OFF season.
I STRONGLY believe that protein should be run at 1.5-2g per pound ldm. If I was to still go by this and use the Mentzer ratio my carbs would be above 800g per day. Just totally unnecessary.
Everyone in this world is gonna have a different view, if they are successful people just tend to take it for fact...try things for yourself and make your own decisions.
I mean you and Mike Menzter are not the same person...Im not trying to be rude but who gives a shit what Mike Mentzer ate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by C_Bino
You said this PERFECTLY! I couldn't agree more!
yeah but ronnie and cutler have the best genetics around plus all that ghg and steroids. in reality there can only be one valid theory just like in everything else.
I havent seen that clip. But Mentzer seems like a guy that follows what seems logical. Not what is scientificly proven. i.e HIT training.
Beeing a meth addict probably increased how much carbs he can eat without turning fat aswell :rolleyes:
u serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by vitamindrew
u bet your ass I am, there is one valid theory in math, science, why not exercise science and when it comes to exercise science it just so happens to be a high intensity stress. Wake up guys and read HEAVY DUTY 2: MIND AND BODY. you will never look at bodybuilding the same. Ignorance is hold each and every one of u back.
What makes you think that what Mentzer writes has any scientific merit?Quote:
Originally Posted by vitamindrew
I have yet to se any study that supports HIT training(granted I havent realy looked that hard) and the most famous and most educated trainers like Poliquin, Simmons ect doesnt seem to agree at that much with HIT or Mentzer.
Thats why I said HIT sounds logical but has no scientific base at all. Its a training philosophy that tries to claim its scientific.
If HIT was the ultimate way to train. Why does just about ALL strenght athletes avoid to train to failure? If HIT was the ultimate, why is there only one single Mr Olympia that has trained HIT style(it seems though that Dorian didnt realy train pure hit since his warmup sets looks more like heavy non failure worksets)?
About the only one theory thing.
Even though there is only one theory of quantum mechanics there is still a billion different ways to build semiconductors.
So even if a "ultimate theory" of training would be discovered it would still be applied in lots of different ways.
A ultimate theory would not be a "one routine fits all" kind of thing. It would be a set of principles that would be used to custom make routines for each individual.
Due to the nature of my workouts, I use 60-20-20.
But when I used to workout with weights, I did low-moderate carb for a while....I loved it for the 1st 2-3 weeks then after that I started getting flat as fvck, tired, you dont have that good pump which makes you feel like " I can fvcking lift all the wieghts in the gym here and workout forever"
If I were to go back Id deff up my calories more, instead of 2000-3000 Id go Higher and Id make the ratio 50-25-25.
There is no single formula for everyone, each body respsonds differently.
You have to try em all and decide for yourself what's the best for YOU.
if you are comparing mentzers training to Poliquin, go ahead and sign up for him. You deserve each other and secondly, what the hell is wrong with going to fauilure when it stimulates the most muscle fibers and causes more growth. And stop refering to the top champs, THEY ARE GENETIC FREAKS. culter was 230 in highschool and have u ever seen a pic of ronnie playing highschool football?? They are the top of the top. I ganrentee they would of reached thier potential alot faster using hit. read mentzers books and then come talk to me. You will be a changed man. u have nothing to lose and everything to gain. period
checkout this pic of mentzer at his peak!
http://forums.steroid.com/attachment...4&d=1151546573
Im not searching for what works best for me. This is the one and only valid training thoery that will and has to work for everone or reality would not work. maybe your just not intelligent enough to understand this?
"Everything a bodybuilder does from the moment he walks into the gym from the moment he leaves is litery WRONG" Mike Mentzer
Mentzer was a genetic freak aswell.Quote:
Originally Posted by swedd
I would defenetly hire poliquin before I would touch anything by Mentzer. Because Poliquin acctualy has a education in the field while Mentzer hadnt. Poliquin is a WAY more acomplished trainer than Mentzer ever was and Poliquin use science as a guide. Not philosophy.
Going to failure is not needed, something just about all strenght athletes has demonstrated. That last rep of the set does nothing extra to fatigue the acctual muscle fibers but does alot to burn out the CNS. A muscle can recover fully in 24-48 hours. Its burning out the CNS that causes overtraining. Doing 3-5 non failure sets gives more stimulation to the muscle and tax the CNS less than one set to failure. This IS the superior way to gain strenght. Ask any stenght coach. Go to the powerlifting section of this board and ask how many powerlifters do HIT training.
No need to get insulting here bro. I assure you I have a very firm grasp of science. Probably more so than you since I am studying it. Im not gonna get into a big dick contest regarding intelligence either but I assure you I have plenty of intelligence to spare.Quote:
Originally Posted by swedd
I ask again. IF HIT is the superior way to gain strenght and size. Why does just about NO strenght athletes use HIT training? Why does no athlete that need explosive strenght use HIT?
Like I said even if there existed a perfect theory of exercise you would still not have a "one routine fits all" theory. It would be a set of principle that would be applied on a individual basis so everyones routines would look differently.
Also your statement falsifie itself. If HIT was the one and only way of training then obviously no other method would work. But its obvious from walking into any gym in the world that alot of people have alot of success with non HIT training.
If you want to prove HIT is the way I suggest you go digging in peer review exercise journals and show PROOF in the form of studies that agree with your statement. Otherwise its just pure speculation. Trying to figure out how the world works with thought alone died with the greeks. The rest of the world wants proof, reliable and repetable proof.
thats exactly what i meant by my comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by johan
Sweed you're a bit new around here to be making statements like this. :1hifu:Quote:
Originally Posted by swedd
You are kidding, right? Only one training theory, or reality would not work. You have to be joking. This is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. Ever. You mock others intellect, yet you are unable to craft a grammatically correct statement. You reek of the type of person who has read one book, believing unquestionably all contained within. Out of curiousity, what level of education have you completed?Quote:
Originally Posted by swedd