"The Great Bodybuilding Debate" - Ian McCarthy and Dave Pulcinella

[Lvisaa2]

What's the point arguing on subjects that are so relative from person to person
Experience > Written science

This is precisely the problem. Science + experience/observations = knowledge. Experience once said the world was flat. So should we disregard science because someone had an experience to support a certain cause? No. There is tons of gray area in the scientific field and lots of it is far from conclusive, as such there should be a melding of the two. But experience should not be taken as the truth if it directly stands in contradiction to science. It kind of amazes me that people even think that experience completely overrules science. As loctus said, science is experience. Just experience in a setting where they try to isolate two variables and remove all the confounding ones. At least in experiments, they limit the amount of other possibilities, but in the real world there are so many different factors that could be playing into why you got leaner on 6 meals rather than 3 and it isn't because it makes your metabolism faster.

[MadDash]

I've tried watching this a couple of time now and i just cant. I hate this prick too much.

He's the kind of guy that would wear glasses just to appear more intellectual without actually needing them. I'd be surprised if they were even prescription lenses.

[RoroCwalker]

The "hands-on real world experience"-argument has always struck me as a strange way to reason. Do people think that studies are done in some sort of vacuum on made-up people? Written science is based on experience. Actual monitored and carefully controlled experiences of real people with real bodies.

Use of the "real world experience" argument pretty much instantly tells me that someone has no idea of what they are talking about when it comes to science. STUDIES ARE NOT COMPUTER SIMULATIONS, THEY ARE REAL WORLD EXPERIENCES DONE ON REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL FOOD AND REAL WEIGHTS and the results are then measured.

This is precisely the problem. Science + experience/observations = knowledge. Experience once said the world was flat. So should we disregard science because someone had an experience to support a certain cause? No. There is tons of gray area in the scientific field and lots of it is far from conclusive, as such there should be a melding of the two. But experience should not be taken as the truth if it directly stands in contradiction to science. It kind of amazes me that people even think that experience completely overrules science. As loctus said, science is experience. Just experience in a setting where they try to isolate two variables and remove all the confounding ones. At least in experiments, they limit the amount of other possibilities, but in the real world there are so many different factors that could be playing into why you got leaner on 6 meals rather than 3 and it isn't because it makes your metabolism faster.

Yes but the point is, there's too much variables, and I really mean to the most atomic details.
I really do thing that experiencing is better than sticking to a written subject, for example, training philosophy/methods, diets, etc.
Even if the best scientist says ''There's more hypertrophy when doing high reps'' and yet you experience that low reps are better for hypertrophy in your case...then you know that he made a study based on people on whom it worked, obviously.
If it were really like that, everyone would be on the same training regiment and diet.

[Loctus]

If it were really like that, everyone would be on the same training regiment and diet.

This has nothing to do with specific diets. Meal frequency is not related to the diet. That's the whole point of this whole thing: that meal frequency is nearly irrelevant.

And again I do have to mention how absolutely ****ing hilarious it is that people who don't even track their macros care about meal frequency. It's beyond mind boggling.

edit: Pulcinella feels like he can safely say that meal frequency has an effect on metabolism due to casual observation of his own and his clients' physiques, even though he doesn't know the macro nutrient breakdown of the diets eaten. I'm not sure what to best compare this to. It's just a completely absurd way to come to the conclusion that he does.

[Lvisaa2]

Yes but the point is, there's too much variables, and I really mean to the most atomic details.
I really do thing that experiencing is better than sticking to a written subject, for example, training philosophy/methods, diets, etc.
Even if the best scientist says ''There's more hypertrophy when doing high reps'' and yet you experience that low reps are better for hypertrophy in your case...then you know that he made a study based on people on whom it worked, obviously.
If it were really like that, everyone would be on the same training regiment and diet.

Everyone would be on the same training regiment and diet if we knew all the answer conclusively, but we don't. The point isn't to completely disregard experience. The point is to find a happy medium between experience and science. All studies still have flaws and many conclusions are drawn without proper care. I'm pretty hesitant to ever accept a conclusion. Instead, one should look at the data, analyse, and see if the conclusions is actually entailed by the findings. Many times, it is a stretch or simply an additional added finding to support a certain theory, but not conclusive. That being said, to state that metabolism is higher when you eat more meals when it has been directly studied and they found otherwise then I think people are being naive.

BTW, if you are familiar with research design then there are ways to control for variations in people. So if a study was properly designed and executed then you could create a very low statistical possibility of the results being only true for a certain group of people. With correct sampling and a large enough sample, then the results can be generalized across a population. Sadly, many times that large of an undertaking is not efficient and won't get funded.

But I've more than said my piece on this. Take what I've said or leave it. Maybe one day people will be more familiar with how studies actually work and will understand both their implications and limitations.

[BiggerTommorow]

Absolutely no one says that this is the case.

so meal frequency does make a difference. Got ya.

[RoroCwalker]

This has nothing to do with specific diets. Meal frequency is not related to the diet. That's the whole point of this whole thing: that meal frequency is nearly irrelevant.

And again I do have to mention how absolutely ****ing hilarious it is that people who don't even track their macros care about meal frequency. It's beyond mind boggling.

edit: Pulcinella feels like he can safely say that meal frequency has an effect on metabolism due to casual observation of his own and his clients' physiques, even though he doesn't know the macro nutrient breakdown of the diets eaten. I'm not sure what to best compare this to. It's just a completely absurd way to come to the conclusion that he does.

I was talking about it in general, didn't know it was about meal frequency.

Everyone would be on the same training regiment and diet if we knew all the answer conclusively, but we don't. The point isn't to completely disregard experience. The point is to find a happy medium between experience and science. All studies still have flaws and many conclusions are drawn without proper care. I'm pretty hesitant to ever accept a conclusion. Instead, one should look at the data, analyse, and see if the conclusions is actually entailed by the findings. Many times, it is a stretch or simply an additional added finding to support a certain theory, but not conclusive. That being said, to state that metabolism is higher when you eat more meals when it has been directly studied and they found otherwise then I think people are being naive.

BTW, if you are familiar with research design then there are ways to control for variations in people. So if a study was properly designed and executed then you could create a very low statistical possibility of the results being only true for a certain group of people. With correct sampling and a large enough sample, then the results can be generalized across a population. Sadly, many times that large of an undertaking is not efficient and won't get funded.

But I've more than said my piece on this. Take what I've said or leave it. Maybe one day people will be more familiar with how studies actually work and will understand both their implications and limitations.

Well if the point is ''trying to find a happy medium between experience and science'', then you become misguided.
The point is to find what brings the best results not to balance experience and science.
Hell, if I would starve for 4 days and eat 30 000 cals on the 5th day and it works for me better than eating everyday, then why shouldn't I do it, because science says so?

[Daewoo_Lanos]

What a fantastic idea.



Also, when someone tells you that you are allowed to eat steak, do you put the whole steak in your mouth and choke on it, and after you recover in the hospital, do you blame that person for not telling you not to do it?

hey... 300g carbs, 250g protein, 75g fat ... as long as i hit my macros who gives a fuk how i do it, right?

try a better analogy next time too.

[Lvisaa2]

I was talking about it in general, didn't know it was about meal frequency.



Well if the point is ''trying to find a happy medium between experience and science'', then you become misguided.
The point is to find what brings the best results not to balance experience and science.
Hell, if I would starve for 4 days and eat 30 000 cals on the 5th day and it works for me better than eating everyday, then why shouldn't I do it, because science says so?

What?... Your argument follows no logic. You just threw some words together and pretended that you were actually saying something valid.

As to the bolded, that is honestly one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard. It isn't even worth debating, because it is so blatantly wrong. Please keep living in your black and white world of fantasy. I'll keep chilling over here in reality.

[DPNZ]

All I know is that I eat multiple meals throughout the day and I have gained muscle over the years, that's enough for me to be happy.

[Clean]

i've seen a lot of people getting into financial/social problems cause they kept trying to go for bodybuilding... if you're already at a very low level and you have to make sacrifices like that you should face the facts and take it down a notch.

Come on dude, you can make that argument about a lot of hobbies. For instance, I spent wayyyy too much money on getting guitars and guitar related material. Ive probably spent over 2-3K on that alone. But hey, its something I enjoy doing and began to dial it back on that when I figured out that I would never become as good as I wanted because I didnt have the time for it right now. Does it mean it was a waste? Hell no, I enjoy the hell out of it, it makes me happy, and I learned a knew skill that broadened my knowledge.

Think of it this way. There are guys in sports, such as MMA for instance, who will never be champions. They will always be clawing at the top of the mountain, but will never get there. Would you say that they are wasting their time because they dont have the genetics to be champs etc? No way, they are still more famous then you or me even at 5th or 6th place and I gurantee you that they probably enjoy being able to do what they love for a living instead of doing something they hate simply for the money. Same goes for bodybuilders who have crap genetics, but are still able to do what they love at it.

Its better to have tried then to have always wondered what could have been.

[Clean]

edit: Pulcinella feels like he can safely say that meal frequency has an effect on metabolism due to casual observation of his own and his clients' physiques, even though he doesn't know the macro nutrient breakdown of the diets eaten. I'm not sure what to best compare this to. It's just a completely absurd way to come to the conclusion that he does.

Pulcinella is correct though. Some stuff isn't explained by science yet and has to be done in practice. Its like college. Most of your undergrad is based on theory and learning the "textbook" way of doing things. When you actually graduate and get into the real world though, you learn that sh*t doesn't apply and how to do things based on the way they actually are, not how they are spoon fed to you in college. Phuck, according to science, the world was still flat just 600 years ago...

Even I feel like sh*t when I don't eat 6 times a day. I can eat maybe 2 big ass meals of food in one day to meet my macros, but my body will feel like crap inbetween them and throughout the rest of the day. I notice I have much more energy, think better, and react better when I eat 6-7 meals a day, especially breakfast. I can also bulk up and lose bodyfat at the same time while gaining muscle. Maybe its not backed by science, and I can't explain it, but its backed by my body and the mirror. Another example is that I've taken plenty of test boosters and made massive gains and even seen elevated levels on my blood work, but the "scientific community" would have you believe that they are all bs and not properly backed by science yet. That its better to take just straight AAS or test to up your levels. Some crap out there isnt able to be explained by science appropriately or accurately. Doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

What I find funny is that the IIFYM community doesn't really have any pros (natty or not) backing it, just some people who seem to want to take the easy way out. They bash the 6-7 meals a day thing, but I would argue that most of them haven't done it properly, which is why they go to IIFYM. It took me the longest to figure out what a good 6-7 meals a day was, and when I finally did, I made the most gains of my life.

The "hands-on real world experience"-argument has always struck me as a strange way to reason. Do people think that studies are done in some sort of vacuum on made-up people? Written science is based on experience. Actual monitored and carefully controlled experiences of real people with real bodies.

Use of the "real world experience" argument pretty much instantly tells me that someone has no idea of what they are talking about when it comes to science. STUDIES ARE NOT COMPUTER SIMULATIONS, THEY ARE REAL WORLD EXPERIENCES DONE ON REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL FOOD AND REAL WEIGHTS and the results are then measured.

The problem is that most of those studies, especially concerning bodybuilding, are done in a vacuum, air tight controlled environment that doesn't account for other variables (especially genetics) and usually doesn't involve scientist who were knowledgable in sports themselves. I've had a doctor tell me that creatine isn't good for me and to lay off the supplements before. Should I take his word because he was a doctor and has proven research in the field? A lot of bodybuilding science is still down to theories at this point when compared to other areas of science.

What always gets me, is that most of the people who throw out the "science" claims on here are usually teenagers or people with not so stellar bodies. And then there is a retard meathead in the gym who eats like crazy every hour and has the body of a pro. Im not knocking science at all, but science doesn't prove everything, which is why it is constantly evolving to keep up with the times.

[RoroCwalker]

What?... Your argument follows no logic. You just threw some words together and pretended that you were actually saying something valid.

As to the bolded, that is honestly one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard. It isn't even worth debating, because it is so blatantly wrong. Please keep living in your black and white world of fantasy. I'll keep chilling over here in reality.

Alright, if it's not clear enough.

Your theory ; Point = find a happy medium between experience and science
My theory ; Point = find what brings the best results

You're saying you should be guided be experience and science.
What I'm saying is that you should only be guided by experience.

Science = not enough variables
Experience = all the needed variables

[Lvisaa2]

Alright, if it's not clear enough.

Your theory ; Point = find a happy medium between experience and science
My theory ; Point = find what brings the best results

You're saying you should be guided be experience and science.
What I'm saying is that you should only be guided by experience.

Science = not enough variables
Experience = all the needed variables

I got your point. I just don't get how someone would actually think that. Both science and experience have flaws. So why use either as your sole basis of knowledge? You shouldn't. Instead you should use all available types of knowledge to move forward in a rational way.

Science doesn't have less variables, it just controls most variables to study two(or more, but we'll stick to basic design) particular ones. Will that conclusively tell which method makes you leaner? No, but it can tell you that your metabolism is not sped up by eating more frequently. Then you can study different meal patterns for satiety, then study nutrient partioning with different meal frequencies, etc. Until you get a a solid base of evidence to make a claim such as meal frequency does not have an effect on your level of leanness. That isn't a conclusive claim, but it is a supported claim which you should then go reality test and see how things work for you.

[BBqChicken1]

hey... 300g carbs, 250g protein, 75g fat ... as long as i hit my macros who gives a fuk how i do it, right?

try a better analogy next time too.

I highly doubt there is anyone on this planet that can function eating like this properly, let alone their performance when training is optimal.

I guess we need to start telling people to use more common sense.

[Loctus]

Pulcinella is correct though. Some stuff isn't explained by science yet and has to be done in practice. Its like college. Most of your undergrad is based on theory and learning the "textbook" way of doing things. When you actually graduate and get into the real world though, you learn that sh*t doesn't apply and how to do things based on the way they actually are, not how they are spoon fed to you in college. Phuck, according to science, the world was still flat just 600 years ago...

Even I feel like sh*t when I don't eat 6 times a day. I can eat maybe 2 big ass meals of food in one day to meet my macros, but my body will feel like crap inbetween them and throughout the rest of the day. I notice I have much more energy, think better, and react better when I eat 6-7 meals a day, especially breakfast. I can also bulk up and lose bodyfat at the same time while gaining muscle. Maybe its not backed by science, and I can't explain it, but its backed by my body and the mirror. Another example is that I've taken plenty of test boosters and made massive gains and even seen elevated levels on my blood work, but the "scientific community" would have you believe that they are all bs and not properly backed by science yet. That its better to take just straight AAS or test to up your levels. Some crap out there isnt able to be explained by science appropriately or accurately. Doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

What I find funny is that the IIFYM community doesn't really have any pros (natty or not) backing it, just some people who seem to want to take the easy way out. They bash the 6-7 meals a day thing, but I would argue that most of them haven't done it properly, which is why they go to IIFYM. It took me the longest to figure out what a good 6-7 meals a day was, and when I finally did, I made the most gains of my life.





The problem is that most of those studies, especially concerning bodybuilding, are done in a vacuum, air tight controlled environment that doesn't account for other variables (especially genetics) and usually doesn't involve scientist who were knowledgable in sports themselves. I've had a doctor tell me that creatine isn't good for me and to lay off the supplements before. Should I take his word because he was a doctor and has proven research in the field? A lot of bodybuilding science is still down to theories at this point when compared to other areas of science.

What always gets me, is that most of the people who throw out the "science" claims on here are usually teenagers or people with not so stellar bodies. And then there is a retard meathead in the gym who eats like crazy every hour and has the body of a pro. Im not knocking science at all, but science doesn't prove everything, which is why it is constantly evolving to keep up with the times.

Loads and loads of white noise. You can use as many "it works for me" arguments as you want, they are irrelevant. I can throw dozens of studies at you that all conclude that meal frequency doesn't have an impact on body composition. You can probably find zero that say otherwise.
The point is that you don't even care about that, so the discussion has sort of come to a halt here.

[Daewoo_Lanos]

I highly doubt there is anyone on this planet that can function eating like this properly, let alone their performance when training is optimal.

I guess we need to start telling people to use more common sense.

it's either "if it fits your macros" or it's not. if all that matters are macros, then who cares how often you eat, when you eat, or what you eat. 300g of carbs for breakfast. 250g of protein 6 hours later, and drinking 75g of olive oil for dessert. hit my daily macros, so my physique progress should continue as is.

except, i already know from personal experience that my body responds better when i dont eat more than 50g of carbs in one meal. ive eaten the same calories in 3 big ass meals and stayed the same weight except some cuts got blurrier and some veins disappeared. sure i weighed the same because i was eating the same calories, but i didnt look as good at that weight as when i split my food into more meals and made sure i never ate more than 50g of carbs in one sitting and didnt eat the next meal for 2.5-3 hours.

i'm sure there's some study someone can point to to prove that i am full of sht... save yourself the effort because i don't really care. i know what works best for me, as do many others.

[BBqChicken1]

it's either "if it fits your macros" or it's not. if all that matters are macros, then who cares how often you eat, when you eat, or what you eat. 300g of carbs for breakfast. 250g of protein 6 hours later, and drinking 75g of olive oil for dessert. hit my daily macros, so my physique progress should continue as is.

IIFYM has nothing to do with how often or when you eat.

Furthermore, here we assume an individual is able to use common sense. I don't feel the need to tell someone that they should chew food before swallowing or not eat raw meat. The whole point of this topic is to aware people on the fact that they do not need to eat so often that they ruin their social and mental health; it's to tell people that they can eat in a way that makes them perform and feel best. You're also forgetting getting enough micronutrients.


From personal experience many people can claim that their God exists, but no one usually takes them seriously. I would appreciate it if you can provide any scientific evidence for your claim that less than 50g of carbs in one meal results in better body composition.

[JanesLastResort]

it's either "if it fits your macros" or it's not. if all that matters are macros, then who cares how often you eat, when you eat, or what you eat. 300g of carbs for breakfast. 250g of protein 6 hours later, and drinking 75g of olive oil for dessert. hit my daily macros, so my physique progress should continue as is.

Everything can be exaggerated to irrational lengths.

[Daewoo_Lanos]

IIFYM has nothing to do with how often or when you eat.

Furthermore, here we assume an individual is able to use common sense. I don't feel the need to tell someone that they should chew food before swallowing or not eat raw meat. The whole point of this topic is to aware people on the fact that they do not need to eat so often that they ruin their social and mental health; it's to tell people that they can eat in a way that makes them perform and feel best. You're also forgetting getting enough micronutrients.


From personal experience many people can claim that their God exists, but no one usually takes them seriously. I would appreciate it if you can provide any scientific evidence for your claim that less than 50g of carbs in one meal results in better body composition.

i dont have any scientific studies, but you can come live with me for a month and stare at my naked body every morning after 2 weeks of eating big ass meals with over 100g carbs in each and then 2 weeks of eating the way that i know makes me look better. the fact that i can create a diet scenario that is "irrational" while still following the guidelines of this way of eating means simply counting macros is not infallible.

look, if any non-competitor ruins their social/mental health obsessing over dumb sht like this then they have bigger problems and even if you 'save' them by opening their eyes regarding diet, their OCD bullsht will manifest itself elsewhere in their lives. i admire your efforts to save those with a tendency of turning molehills into mountains, but i really couldn't be bothered. all i know is nothing is one size fits all. do something, see results, adjust as necessary. thanks for the effort, but i'll still do it my way.

[patbanya]

you can come live with me for a month and stare at my naked body every morning...

Too soon?

[RoroCwalker]

[PillClinton]

Too soon?

or too late?

[PillClinton]

Loads and loads of white noise. You can use as many "it works for me" arguments as you want, they are irrelevant. I can throw dozens of studies at you that all conclude that meal frequency doesn't have an impact on body composition. You can probably find zero that say otherwise.
The point is that you don't even care about that, so the discussion has sort of come to a halt here.

lol, you don't even need to appeal to strict scientific values to have a meaningful argument, you just need to appeal to the value of grounded evidence (even easier!)

but people don't want to value those things more than they want to value being correct, certain, & "right."

[PillClinton]

All I know is that I eat multiple meals throughout the day and I have gained muscle over the years, that's enough for me to be happy.

keeping it simple.

I like your moves

[DPNZ]

ITT people tell others that what they're doing is wrong or doesn't adhere to scientific evidence, regardless of the fact that they say its working well for them.

A lot of you guys are also ignoring the fact that a lot of people simply have issues with digestion.

More frequent, smaller meals (FOR ME) go down a lot easier and sit more comfortably in my gut than pounding back larger meals in order to make things more convenient in the preparation department.

...now kith.

[Lvisaa2]

ITT people tell others that what they're doing is wrong or doesn't adhere to scientific evidence, regardless of the fact that they say its working well for them.

A lot of you guys are also ignoring the fact that a lot of people simply have issues with digestion.

More frequent, smaller meals (FOR ME) go down a lot easier and sit more comfortably in my gut than pounding back larger meals in order to make things more convenient in the preparation department.

...now kith.

I haven't seen anyone say you can't eat more meals, just that it isn't necessary. Your diet should be constructed in a way that suits you. Whether that be 3 meals or 6.

[jamesyboi]

Not a bad video, I wish it actually went longer.

Both had some very interesting/good opinions.

Still more of a hodge fan over Ian though.

Mainly for the Lols.

[stealth_swimmer]

What?... Your argument follows no logic. You just threw some words together and pretended that you were actually saying something valid.

As to the bolded, that is honestly one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard. It isn't even worth debating, because it is so blatantly wrong. Please keep living in your black and white world of fantasy. I'll keep chilling over here in reality.

THe statement after that makes his actual point though, imo.

I think though, that people are probably more likely to get better results when they're informed on the science and have also tried different things to see what works best for them.

[Clean]

Loads and loads of white noise. You can use as many "it works for me" arguments as you want, they are irrelevant. I can throw dozens of studies at you that all conclude that meal frequency doesn't have an impact on body composition. You can probably find zero that say otherwise.
The point is that you don't even care about that, so the discussion has sort of come to a halt here.

Here's all the proof I need "bro"....



And hey guess what? I can throw a bunch of "studies" at you that say marijuana or steroids are bad for you too, but we all know that those aren't the case. Just because someone went to college and comes out with a study doesn't mean its correct or they are credible. I'm all for science, trust me, but the human body is an extraordinary machine and we still have yet to fully understand it. Ever heard of women lifting cars when their loved ones are trapped under it, or humans doing superhuman feats of strength or surviving when they are put in bad situations? Science can barely explain that right now, but there is documented proof that it happens. If we knew why certain things worked and others don't, we would have had the cure for AIDs and cancer by now. I know my body better then you, and 6 meals a day work for me over 3 giant meals and apparently it works for the majority of other bodybuilders and people out there. Sh*t, I probably haven't met my "macros" when it comes to ruff-age and green sources in years, but obviously it hasn't stopped me from making gains. I saw Phil Heath in a vid saying the samething.

But hey, keep doing what you're doing and I'll keep doing what I'm doing.