Science Vs Reality

[Dtlv]

There's certainly a well observed thing with athletes new to resistance training in a few studies that suggest after the first six-twelve months of training the amount of protein needed/bodyweight seems to drop off a little as the body gains a small degree of efficiency... the difference is fairly small though in real life terms, but I guess would be magnified in bodybuilders more than in anyone else due to the high muscle mass carried.

 

[Khaos]

one thing that intriques me is what le labrada recently stated in his come back message.
he's now back training harder than he used to be to get into even better shape (he never let himself go but you know what i mean) but he said he's not taking in as much protein as he used to yet growing well.

He questions if we actually need the super high amounts touted for growth?

Genetically ungifted need amounts of protein, but the Immortals don't need as much because they synthesise protein from a fart.....

 

[Rab]

I don't waste my life buried in papers as con says it won't do favours.I think the big problem like Josh hit on isn't the science as a correctly done study will five you the reality, it's the using study's to prove a point hat don't have relevance to the subject matter.....is using a study on monkeys or pigs to prove that it's the case for humans...not so most of the time. A food example is much o the acien e around amino acids. I personally don't think they are a great supplement but the science apparently says so.....when you look at the accidence in depth you find that the trials were not done using bodybuilders who were consuming a ****load of aminos from whey n meat each day aswell. Point is I think the science is mostly right if you wade through the sh!t and apply it where it is proper to do so. Most scholars of the university of google make a grand c*nt of this on bb forums