Bodybuilding Mythbusters

[BHillz]

I heard fapping cuts your gains short..is this true?

[DDon1996]

How much sleep is required for optimal muscle gain(age)! Yes I said gainage. lmao

Well ****, ya'll are making me feel stupid! I need someone smarter to come along and answer all of these.

I truly have no clue, and can't find ANYTHING examining the effects of sleep duration on hormone response, or anything else!



Although while looking up things for that, I came across something interesting as hell!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18076267

Basically what this shows is that one sleepless night didn't have any negative physical impact on gym performance. I had no idea that was true, and often have blamed bad gym days on sleepless nights (although that still holds some bearing due to the psychological problems associated with a night without rest).

I think that's a myth busted, albeit accidentally!!

[Adamisseyegh]

Yup. Bioavailability may differ, but with an excess of protein, it doesn't matter.

I reckon it holds a huge advantage over food... simply easy to prepare and swallow

[DDon1996]

I reckon it holds a huge advantage over food... simply easy to prepare and swallow

Well yeah, but that's not quite the same premise. A counter-argument can be made that is doesn't "taste as good." I'm trying to strictly speak from a scientific standpoint.

[Adamisseyegh]

Well yeah, but that's not quite the same premise. A counter-argument can be made that is doesn't "taste as good." I'm trying to strictly speak from a scientific standpoint.

no you are right im just being an *******
you really 14? you going to have fun at uni :P

[BitterBlossom]

Edit: Changed my mind. I'm finishing this up.

Working out longer for an hour is counter-productive

This one was a tough one. There were several components to look at and unfortunately, many of the websites that offered information on the subject did not use credible resources. That...or they had no references whatsoever.

Anyway, the general argument for this myth is that after a certain period of time of weight lifting - your body's testosterone levels drop and its cortisol levels increase.

I'll start with cortisol.

For those who are unsure:

Cortisol is a steroid hormone released by the outer part (cortex) of the adrenal glands. Cortisol has a robust circadian rhythm under constant conditions and is also released in stressful situations. This includes mental and emotional stress but more importantly for bodybuilders - physical stress.

So why is this bad? According to the legion of bro scientists that march across the internet - elevated cortisol levels can "wreak havok on muscle gains."

http://www.ironmagazine.com/article19.html

As informative as that article may be, it failed to cite any sources to his bold claims. He also failed to mention his education. As far as we know, he could be a 15 year old fat kid posting a crap storm so he could become popular on a bodybuilding forum. So, in light of this - I decided to use a credible piece of information from a widely recognized fitness professional.

Normal physiological pulses of cortisol are necessary for healthy normal function (for example, the morning spike in cortisol is required for optimal lipolysis). There's a reason the stress response occurs and that we evolved it.

Considering that protein breakdown following training appears to be required to turn on protein synthesis (see the research on anti-inflammatories and how blocking the inflammatory prostaglandins inhibit normal protein synthesis), blocking cortisol post training may not be a very good idea at all.

For muscular remodeling to occur, you need both breakdown AND synthesis to occur.

It's when cortisol is chronically, pathologically elevated that problems start.

The truth is, it isn't - for everyday people in everyday situations. As the definition suggests, cortisol is an excellent tool the body uses to control stress levels.

In other words, a rise in cortisol is not significant enough to pose a threat to bodybuilders unless it a chronic condition. So that elliminates that argument for this myth.

The other part of this argument is the decrease of testosterone.

"A 2004 study used three groups of subjects: G1, the control subjects, didn’t exercise; G2 did 25 sets; and G3 did 50 sets. The workouts consisted of the big, basic exercises—squats, etc.—a few sets of each, and reps were five to 10 with 90 to 120 seconds of rest between sets. The high-volume group had significantly suppressed testosterone over a 24-hour period, although there was no drop in the moderate-volume group. (Alemany, J.A., et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 36:S238; 2004)."

http://www.ironmanmagazine.com/site/...sterone-surge/

So what does this mean? Testosterone plays a vital role in not only maintaining and building muscle mass, but also in increasing bone density. This could be detrimental for a weight lifter if his or her workouts are consistently too high in volume. In the very least, they might not see as satisfying results as someone who uses lower volume.

In the end, it is still a personal preference. The evidence I have collected suggests that while temporarily increased cortisol is not a threat, lowered testosterone levels are. Don't worry excessively over how much time you are spending in the gym but try to keep it in a reasonable time frame.

[bleee]

explain bioavailability and whether or not i should consider it when structuring my diet.

[DDon1996]

explain bioavailability and whether or not i should consider it when structuring my diet.

Bioavailability is simply how well your body can use something. Assuming you aren't eating nails and rubber, and are eating like a normal person, it's not something you need to worry about.

[Havux]

30% of your 1RM is 70 %...

Assuming your 1RM is 100%, then 30% of your 1RM is 30%.

If you are right I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure it's 30%.

[AndrewK1]

Assuming your 1RM is 100%, then 30% of your 1RM is 30%.

If you are right I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure it's 30%.

Well you think about the amount of reps determines your maximum output... IE 100% and if we are measuring 100% as the 1RM ( which we are) 30% off your max is 70%

[Havux]

Well you think about the amount of reps determines your maximum output... IE 100% and if we are measuring 100% as the 1RM ( which we are) 30% off your max is 70%

Yeah 30% off your 1RM is 70%, but I thought it said 30% of your 1RM

[jonathanhef]

Yeah 30% off your 1RM is 70%, but I thought it said 30% of your 1RM

You're right. I don't think he actually remembers what his post was.

[TheDarkKnight27]

Is it bad if u train the same muscle twice a week?

Like chest on Monday and chest on thursday?

[DDon1996]

Is it bad if u train the same muscle twice a week?

Like chest on Monday and chest on thursday?

This was answered in the OP...

[DDon1996]

Edit: Post below- Thanks!

[BignSwoll]

done.

[EpicBroMan]

Good thread, I learned a lot.

[MrB1g]

Assuming your 1RM is 100%, then 30% of your 1RM is 30%.

If you are right I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure it's 30%.

Well you think about the amount of reps determines your maximum output... IE 100% and if we are measuring 100% as the 1RM ( which we are) 30% off your max is 70%

Yeah 30% off your 1RM is 70%, but I thought it said 30% of your 1RM

You're right. I don't think he actually remembers what his post was.

You guys could've just read the study if you were confused!


30% of your 1 repetition maximum = 30% of it, not 30% taken away from your maximum.

[jonathanhef]

You guys could've just read the study if you were confused!


30% of your 1 repetition maximum = 30% of it, not 30% taken away from your maximum.

Lol that's what I was trying to confirm. I was never confused..

[Havux]

You guys could've just read the study if you were confused!


30% of your 1 repetition maximum = 30% of it, not 30% taken away from your maximum.

Lol that's what I was trying to confirm. I was never confused..

I wasn't confused either. I just didn't want to look stupid if I interpreted it wrong.

[jaminb]

I liked to see if you really need simple carbs post-workout rather then complex carbs, like 5-10 mins after. Seems to be 50/50 on this.

[Havux]

I liked to see if you really need simple carbs post-workout rather then complex carbs, like 5-10 mins after. Seems to be 50/50 on this.

xtwo

[MrB1g]

I liked to see if you really need simple carbs post-workout rather then complex carbs, like 5-10 mins after. Seems to be 50/50 on this.

This was covered.

No you don't. Insulin remains sufficiently elevated from a sufficient pre-workout meal to render it unimportant.

[Piemaster4]

Wow that is interesting

[robertowns955]

Anything on protein causing farts?

[Twstd]

Well, this thread may be a flop, but I'm bored and I'll give it a shot.

The bodybuilding industry (I say this encompassing all aspects: Nutrition, kinesthetics, supplementation, etc) is full of misinformation. The myths in this industry run rampant. What's worse is that often times these myths are purported by people you would expect to be knowledgeable in the field (doctors, supplement representatives, nutritionists, dietitians, personal trainers, etc)....... So where can you turn? There is only ONE way to get correct information free of bias and bull****, can you guess what it is?

SCIENCE!

So, in addition to all of the recent "Guide" threads, the "Ask a Guy Anything" threads, and all other threads of the sort... I've decided to make this thread. It's dynamic, with user input being the driving factor, and it's informative. Any one is free to chip in, especially the members with a good rep around here (B1g, Cajun, Bitter, Matt, Air, Jake, whoever else I'm forgetting <3) as long as you have SCIENCE backing you, and try to keep as much bias out as possible. This thread's sole purpose is to debunk common lies spread around the bodybuilding world, and help spread the truth.
Post as many myths as you like, and we'll do our best to either confirm or deny them.

So, to kick it off, I've got a few I see often that are ridiculous...


The first- possibly the most common myth since the creation of bodybuilding....


MEAL FREQUENCY!

Often, you see things like:

"Eat every 2-3 hours to burn more fat!" or "Your body needs a constant supply of protein to keep it building muscle."
You see these both in magazines and online, but recently this statement is being challenged more often online (usually without reason).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...ubmed_RVDocSum

This study compared 5 meals a day to 2 meals a day, both with the same total caloric intake. The conclusion of this study came to be: "With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

This is some-what of an analysis of ALL studies done regarding meal frequency and energy expenditure (calories burnt). It essentially states that most studies are neutral on the matter, that is meal frequency has no effect on metabolism. The VERY few studies saying otherwise were likely flawed.

http://www.slideshare.net/biolayne/o...nd-muscle-mass

That is a slideshow done by Dr. Layne Norton. It essentially shows that protein synthesis is not related to an absolute increase in plasma amino levels, which would be sustained by frequent meals. It's hypothesized that plasma amino spikes are able to stimulate protein synthesis at a much greater rate. This would actually support eating LESS frequently rather than more frequently.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413096

Here's another study that may be taking this myth and completely reversing it. It showed that although eating one meal/day as opposed to three caused an increase in hunger, it actually caused a DECREASE in fat mass, it also showed decrease in the catabolic hormone cortisol.


Myth DENIED! Eating every two to three hours is definitely not necessary, and is quite likely even less beneficial than eating every 5-6 hours, possibly more.



Another common thing I hear... You MUST IMMEDIATELY take a fast-digesting protein, such as whey, prior to working out to stimulate the best gains.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21045172

This study showed that immediate responses to whey and casein ingestion were different... But the end result was the same. They both stimulated protein synthesis equally.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570142

This study shows almost exactly the same thing. Both proteins caused equal protein synthesis.

These findings are only compounded by having solid pre workout nutrition. A quote by Alan Aragon states: "Properly done preworkout nutrition EASILY elevates insulin above and beyond the maximal threshold seen to inhibit muscle protein breakdown. This insulin elevation resulting from the preworkout meal can persist long after your resistance training bout is done. Therefore, thinking you need to spike anything is only the result of neglecting your preW nutrition"

Myth, again, DENIED! You do not need a fast-digesting protein immediately postworkout. Nor do you need ANY protein post workout provided you are not lifting in a fasted state.



Another common myth deals with training frequency. ALL THE TIME people make these ridiculous splits and worry about overtraining.

http://forum.body-fitness.nl/The-inf...y-m500296.aspx


Here are a few quotes directly from that article:

"Some evidence suggests that the training frequency has a large impact on the rate of gain in muscle volume for shorter periods of training."

"For hypertrophy, studies suggest that training two or three times per week is superior to training one time per week, even when volume is equal."

But you don't train for size, you train for strength????

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373

This is from a meta-analysis of a ****load of people. It's not a little study on a small group. It shows that maximal strength gains for beginners (which most people who ask are) are elicited at 3 days/week.... And it then moves to 2 days/week and STAYS THERE. Never does it mention the best strength gains occurring when you train once per week (I can see an argument possibly being made for the elite, but no one here is, so it's irrelevant).

MYTH DENIED! You will not die from training more than once per weekly, and on the contrary, you will more than likely actually gain BETTER with the increase in training frequency.


Well, I figure this OP is long enough. This thread is now open to all other questions and answers, GOGOGOGGOGO!

Hey guys AWESOME THREAD, such a breath of fresh air. There is one thing im confused about and I guess I might be missing something but about this section: Another common myth deals with training frequency. ALL THE TIME people make these ridiculous splits and worry about overtraining. It states that training 3 times is better then once a week... But who the hell goes to the gym once a week? Also what about your cookie cutter BB routines that rep the 5 day splits? I dont see anything about 5 days or what muscles are trained on each day of the 3 day/2 day routine they say is better. Unless its the same fullbody workout 3/2 times a week? Just a little more clarification would be awesome.

[MrB1g]

Hey guys AWESOME THREAD, such a breath of fresh air. There is one thing im confused about and I guess I might be missing something but about this section: Another common myth deals with training frequency. ALL THE TIME people make these ridiculous splits and worry about overtraining. It states that training 3 times is better then once a week... But who the hell goes to the gym once a week? Also what about your cookie cutter BB routines that rep the 5 day splits? I dont see anything about 5 days or what muscles are trained on each day of the 3 day/2 day routine they say is better. Unless its the same fullbody workout 3/2 times a week? Just a little more clarification would be awesome.

It's referring to how often you train a certain muscle group, 3 times being a full body workout, once being a 3, 4 or 5 day split for instance, not total training sessions.

[Twstd]

It's referring to how often you train a certain muscle group, 3 times being a full body workout, once being a 3, 4 or 5 day split for instance, not total training sessions.

Ahhh thats what I thought, thx for the quick reply bro. And again, thanks for all the knowledge.

EDIT: scratch my question Its answered in the articles.

[.Excalibur]

Just realized this was stickied.


Son, i am impress

[TheDarkKnight27]

The conclusion to the OP -->



Including myself.