PDA

View Full Version : To End The Science Vs. Broscience



blacksmith77
11-01-2008, 07:04 PM
Been doing a little digging and this was said this a while ago but I think it sums everything up very nicely:

The lab makes its best attempt, but doesn't necessarily reflect the real world. Conversely, the real world can serve as a lab for experimentation, but controlling the variables is a bitch with sharp teeth.

Without a doubt, anecdote is one of the main sources to derive questions that fuel scientific investigation.

Alan Aragon.


So
Yes, Science can work , but everyone is different and you gotta do what works for you.

lth
11-01-2008, 07:09 PM
amen...I do not hate broscience entirely, because some bro methods worked for me in the past BUT I hate the type of broscience that can cause EDs, such as ''you have to eat every 3 hours!!" "No high GI carbs!". Its just not compatible with living a normal life, I eat 6 times a day but not 3 hours on the damn dot.Macros are macros to me and thats worked just as good or better than broscience...I love my social life and will NEVER give that up for food....even on contest prep; the military really instilled the ''keep it simple stupid'' mentality in me and it works very well.

thebasil
11-01-2008, 07:10 PM
Nice post, very very true info.

Sleepstream
11-01-2008, 07:11 PM
The last statement is what many have been saying forever, but everyone refuses to take the time to figure out what works for them.

blacksmith77
11-01-2008, 07:12 PM
amen...I do not hate broscience entirely, because some bro methods worked for me in the past BUT I hate the type of broscience that can cause EDs, such as ''you have to eat every 3 hours!!" "No high GI carbs!". Its just not compatible with living a normal life, I eat 6 times a day but not 3 hours on the damn dot.Macros are macros to me and thats worked just as good or better than broscience...I love my social life and will NEVER give that up for food....even on contest prep; the military really instilled the ''keep it simple stupid'' mentality in me and it works very well.

I think those are some very old school bro science quips that most bro's who know what theyre talking about would disagree with even nowadays. . but your right , they still exist, and people are left with issues due to them. But I do think that things are starting to get better , and dare I say it , bros are picking things up from science and vice versa more now than before.

Neopragmatist
11-01-2008, 07:15 PM
http://i35.tinypic.com/25uie12.jpg

lth
11-01-2008, 07:17 PM
I think those are some very old school bro science quips that most bro's who know what theyre talking about would disagree with even nowadays. . but your right , they still exist, and people are left with issues due to them. But I do think that things are starting to get better , and dare I say it , bros are picking things up from science and vice versa more now than before.

Word. If anyone closes their mind off completely to one theory, they're only hurting themselves because something they are ignoring may work great for them.

reefpicker
11-01-2008, 07:47 PM
I find it interesting how in a high-testosterone, image-driven, environment like this, people get so excited about science vs. experience....

One imagines a scientist as being the antithesis of a bodybuilder: nerdy, a bit fat or skinny, and very out of shape... The anti-athlete... So how can HE/SHE know ANYTHING about sport science or nutrition?

What gets me about the "bro" is not what Alan is trying to tackle in his statement, but the things that are just non-sensical.

I have said, and argued to death one time here, that evolution is not a theory in the layman's term. It is a fact. We scientist never take evolution as some esoteric theory that needs to be proven. When we test something in a mouse, then in a chimp, for safety in humans, we do it because we know that these species are distant or close from an evolutionary stand-point. In a similar manner, the effect of pesticides on insects is often derived from the evolutionary relationships that can be drawn between the species. What is the mechanism that drives evolution? NOW THAT IS WHERE THE THEORIES COME IN!

The reason I digress and talk about this here is that there are times when someone will say something that is just non-sensical from a scientific stand point.

Anecdotal evidence drives research ALL THE TIME. It drives the questions that are asked. Experience and intuition are at the core of any scientific endevour. But when something is downright impossible and factually inaccurate, no amount of experience can be brought to bear in the hopes to support the "facts" of broscience.

Still, I have to say, part of bodybuilding is art. Like in that other hobby of mine, aquariums, there is science in keeping the animals alive, and there is art in keeping them thriving... One can draw the same analogy here... To get that extra humph from your workout, from your genes, you need to apply all the weapons at your disposal and when you have reach a certain threshold, you might need to experiment with yourself, to obtain the maximal conditioning you are striving for....

Bro-science is really one part of bodybuilding... We, the scientist (Ok, I am not a sport/nutrition scientist, but I am still a scientist!), have to take it apart, and make sure that all those "facts" are true and not something that inherently violates the mechanisms that we know are at play.

My favorite example is colon-cleansing. To put it mildly, it is stupid. No facts to look for there. In a similar line of reasoning, I heard the other day that fasting was good so the body had time to get rid of toxins WTF?

Another is the idea of carrying a BIG jug of water around and drinking TONS of water, in an exaggerated attempt to remain hydrated. Getting up in the middle of the night to drink another cup of water, even if you are not thirsty? All of it BS....

I will finish this with a recent example... Broscience is at its core, reductionist. As such, much is made out of the insulin spike, or the effects of soy on testosterone. While some of this is based in sound science, it leaves out the fact that hormone integration is a very complex process. Controlling insulin, or testosterone can help you achieve your goals, but how much control you have over it, can be tricky. Putting too much fate on any one factor is non-sensical. It is the big picture that matters...

I guess, the point here is, do not go overboard with those little things because in the end the bottom line is always the same: WORK HARD AT THE GYM, EAT WELL, and the rest will come naturally... Like puberty... It just happens :)

Phosphate bond
11-01-2008, 08:58 PM
Yes, Science can work , but everyone is different and you gotta do what works for you.

Nothing wrong with anecdotal (in certain circumstances). More often than not it seems science is discovered in a reverse fashion- First comes the observation then the discovery for the explanation follows.

But "Overgeneralizing" about what works for one person to an entire population (with a bell curve shaped distribution) can be stretching things.

For example with regard to Macros. Often times you will see someone swear that 40% protein gives them the most gains. But then if you question them further you find out the rest of their diet is deficient and the beneficial effect they think is coming from the extra aminos really isn't the reason why the extra protein is working.

P.S. I haven't come close to reading all of Alan Aragons writing (I doubt I have even seen .0001% of it at best) but the few times I have picked up Men's Health his information seemed much more informative than this "Macros stuff". Trouble is the understanding behind structured dietary advice like the 2005+ food pyramid (for the carb macro) is that all mechanisms haven't been fully elucidated yet. For example it appears that long term insulin receptor downregulation is not directly tied to insulin secretion IMO (thus invalidating the use of Glycemic index for obesity control).

Phosphate bond
11-01-2008, 09:20 PM
The lab makes its best attempt, but doesn't necessarily reflect the real world. Conversely, the real world can serve as a lab for experimentation, but controlling the variables is a bitch with sharp teeth.






With regard to controlling variables the few full studies I have looked at (so far) were awful in some respects of nutritional requirements. For example the 2005+ food pyramid advocates 7-9 servings of vegetables for the carb macro but the carb studies I was looking at weren't even close to achieving this.

This makes me wonder how useful some of the data that is collected really is?

reefpicker
11-01-2008, 09:30 PM
t long term insulin receptor downregulation is not directly tied to insulin secretion IMO (thus invalidating the use of Glycemic index for obesity control).

Insulin resistance is probably due to a multitude of factors. I have not touched the literature about this in a while, so you could be basing this in something really concrete that I have not seen. Can you point out to me where you read this?

Dr. Horse
11-01-2008, 09:36 PM
Broscience is ALWAYS bad. It's always wrong.

It often results in success. It can generate productive decisions.

But that doesn't make the logic right.

You can be right for the wrong reasons.

Phosphate bond
11-01-2008, 09:41 PM
Insulin resistance is probably due to a multitude of factors. I have not touched the literature about this in a while, so you could be basing this in something really concrete that I have not seen. Can you point out to me where you read this?

Insulin resistance is related more to energy balance than Glycemic index.

Trouble with Glycemic index is that apparently empty calorie fructose overfeeding can induce insulin resistance (in some models) even though fructose itself doesn't lead to much insulin secretion itself. You see the paradox I'm talking about?

That being said I am not sure natural nutrient dense foods (like fruit) containing fructose would do the same thing but the science here is still developing. ( Definitely it appears vegetables are favored in this new food pyramid although natural fruits are good for other reasons)

Passion4Pump
11-01-2008, 09:53 PM
I find it interesting how in a high-testosterone, image-driven, environment like this, people get so excited about science vs. experience....

One imagines a scientist as being the antithesis of a bodybuilder: nerdy, a bit fat or skinny, and very out of shape... The anti-athlete... So how can HE/SHE know ANYTHING about sport science or nutrition?

What gets me about the "bro" is not what Alan is trying to tackle in his statement, but the things that are just non-sensical.

I have said, and argued to death one time here, that evolution is not a theory in the layman's term. It is a fact. We scientist never take evolution as some esoteric theory that needs to be proven. When we test something in a mouse, then in a chimp, for safety in humans, we do it because we know that these species are distant or close from an evolutionary stand-point. In a similar manner, the effect of pesticides on insects is often derived from the evolutionary relationships that can be drawn between the species. What is the mechanism that drives evolution? NOW THAT IS WHERE THE THEORIES COME IN!

The reason I digress and talk about this here is that there are times when someone will say something that is just non-sensical from a scientific stand point.

Anecdotal evidence drives research ALL THE TIME. It drives the questions that are asked. Experience and intuition are at the core of any scientific endevour. But when something is downright impossible and factually inaccurate, no amount of experience can be brought to bear in the hopes to support the "facts" of broscience.

Still, I have to say, part of bodybuilding is art. Like in that other hobby of mine, aquariums, there is science in keeping the animals alive, and there is art in keeping them thriving... One can draw the same analogy here... To get that extra humph from your workout, from your genes, you need to apply all the weapons at your disposal and when you have reach a certain threshold, you might need to experiment with yourself, to obtain the maximal conditioning you are striving for....

Bro-science is really one part of bodybuilding... We, the scientist (Ok, I am not a sport/nutrition scientist, but I am still a scientist!), have to take it apart, and make sure that all those "facts" are true and not something that inherently violates the mechanisms that we know are at play.

My favorite example is colon-cleansing. To put it mildly, it is stupid. No facts to look for there. In a similar line of reasoning, I heard the other day that fasting was good so the body had time to get rid of toxins WTF?

Another is the idea of carrying a BIG jug of water around and drinking TONS of water, in an exaggerated attempt to remain hydrated. Getting up in the middle of the night to drink another cup of water, even if you are not thirsty? All of it BS....

I will finish this with a recent example... Broscience is at its core, reductionist. As such, much is made out of the insulin spike, or the effects of soy on testosterone. While some of this is based in sound science, it leaves out the fact that hormone integration is a very complex process. Controlling insulin, or testosterone can help you achieve your goals, but how much control you have over it, can be tricky. Putting too much fate on any one factor is non-sensical. It is the big picture that matters...

I guess, the point here is, do not go overboard with those little things because in the end the bottom line is always the same: WORK HARD AT THE GYM, EAT WELL, and the rest will come naturally... Like puberty... It just happens :)


I find it interesting how in a high-testosterone, image-driven, environment like this, people get so excited about science vs. experience....

One imagines a scientist as being the antithesis of a bodybuilder: nerdy, a bit fat or skinny, and very out of shape... The anti-athlete... So how can HE/SHE know ANYTHING about sport science or nutrition?

What gets me about the "bro" is not what Alan is trying to tackle in his statement, but the things that are just non-sensical.

I have said, and argued to death one time here, that evolution is not a theory in the layman's term. It is a fact. We scientist never take evolution as some esoteric theory that needs to be proven. When we test something in a mouse, then in a chimp, for safety in humans, we do it because we know that these species are distant or close from an evolutionary stand-point. In a similar manner, the effect of pesticides on insects is often derived from the evolutionary relationships that can be drawn between the species. What is the mechanism that drives evolution? NOW THAT IS WHERE THE THEORIES COME IN!

The reason I digress and talk about this here is that there are times when someone will say something that is just non-sensical from a scientific stand point.

Anecdotal evidence drives research ALL THE TIME. It drives the questions that are asked. Experience and intuition are at the core of any scientific endevour. But when something is downright impossible and factually inaccurate, no amount of experience can be brought to bear in the hopes to support the "facts" of broscience.

Still, I have to say, part of bodybuilding is art. Like in that other hobby of mine, aquariums, there is science in keeping the animals alive, and there is art in keeping them thriving... One can draw the same analogy here... To get that extra humph from your workout, from your genes, you need to apply all the weapons at your disposal and when you have reach a certain threshold, you might need to experiment with yourself, to obtain the maximal conditioning you are striving for....

Bro-science is really one part of bodybuilding... We, the scientist (Ok, I am not a sport/nutrition scientist, but I am still a scientist!), have to take it apart, and make sure that all those "facts" are true and not something that inherently violates the mechanisms that we know are at play.

My favorite example is colon-cleansing. To put it mildly, it is stupid. No facts to look for there. In a similar line of reasoning, I heard the other day that fasting was good so the body had time to get rid of toxins WTF?

Another is the idea of carrying a BIG jug of water around and drinking TONS of water, in an exaggerated attempt to remain hydrated. Getting up in the middle of the night to drink another cup of water, even if you are not thirsty? All of it BS....

I will finish this with a recent example... Broscience is at its core, reductionist. As such, much is made out of the insulin spike, or the effects of soy on testosterone. While some of this is based in sound science, it leaves out the fact that hormone integration is a very complex process. Controlling insulin, or testosterone can help you achieve your goals, but how much control you have over it, can be tricky. Putting too much fate on any one factor is non-sensical. It is the big picture that matters...

I guess, the point here is, do not go overboard with those little things because in the end the bottom line is always the same: WORK HARD AT THE GYM, EAT WELL, and the rest will come naturally... Like puberty... It just happens :)

I like your post. Only thing is, I don't see how drinking a lot of water is not beneficial, if only a bit. I mean, I'm taking in over 200g protein a day. So shouldn't I provide my body with the means to flush all of the waste products out, even if it doesn't quite need all I give it? That, and hydrated pees feel oh so good.

Edit: I liked your post SO much that apparently I quoted it twice. Go figure.

MarkVI
11-01-2008, 10:01 PM
Broscience is ALWAYS bad. It's always wrong.

It often results in success. It can generate productive decisions.

But that doesn't make the logic right.

You can be right for the wrong reasons.

X2

You can obtain favorable results despite yourself....and your broscience

TheWaffleIron
11-01-2008, 10:02 PM
Broscience is ALWAYS bad. It's always wrong.

It often results in success. It can generate productive decisions.

But that doesn't make the logic right.

You can be right for the wrong reasons.

this

MAKUA NUI
11-01-2008, 10:08 PM
Just like the argument back and forth between HIIT and LISS! My take on it was.

I was stuck on doing LISS and nothing was working but, it was working for a frined of mine.

So, I started doing HIIT and the weight started flying off. That same friend tried it out thinking that she was gonna have great results. That was not the case so, she went back to doing LISS.

In conclusion it really is what works for you.

blacksmith77
11-02-2008, 05:46 AM
Broscience is ALWAYS bad. It's always wrong.

It often results in success. It can generate productive decisions.

But that doesn't make the logic right.

You can be right for the wrong reasons.

There are so many takes to bro science now that to say it is 100% wrong is rather a broad statement. Maybe you have a defined view of broscience like lth mentioned- eat every 3 hours , no carbs before bed etc. But there are some broscience things(maybe of which you are unaware, or indeed maybe what I consider broscience?) which are RIGHT and even come from or have been taken to science.

I am not for either side, I merely think what the science guys say doesnt necessarily work for everyone despite its flawless logic. Its application and research has yet to be proven? Maybe if nutritional science for a given circumstance was used with application maybe more people would listen. The reason Broscience is more popular is because there are many who have used it and I it is a safety blanket for them. The problem nowadays is people want to know what they are buying into before they do. Which broscience can offer and science cannot. We say that Broscience is wrong because it is of the idea that what works for one works for all, but there are a few strands to Broscience, dont you think, I mean there are many schools of thought yet they are still quite bro-ish

dn27
11-02-2008, 05:55 AM
Broscience is ALWAYS bad. It's always wrong.


This is a broscience statement, lol.

Holyspokes
11-02-2008, 06:02 AM
Isn't BROscience by definition, somewhat misguided...?

I think that's what Mr. Horse is trying to say..

blacksmith77
11-02-2008, 06:05 AM
Isn't BROscience by definition, somewhat misguided...?

I think that's what Mr. Horse is trying to say..

What I can surmise is that he is saying that the logic including variable is wrong.

blacksmith77
11-02-2008, 06:58 AM
Nothing wrong with anecdotal (in certain circumstances). More often than not it seems science is discovered in a reverse fashion- First comes the observation then the discovery for the explanation follows.

But "Overgeneralizing" about what works for one person to an entire population (with a bell curve shaped distribution) can be stretching things.

For example with regard to Macros. Often times you will see someone swear that 40% protein gives them the most gains. But then if you question them further you find out the rest of their diet is deficient and the beneficial effect they think is coming from the extra aminos really isn't the reason why the extra protein is working.

P.S. I haven't come close to reading all of Alan Aragons writing (I doubt I have even seen .0001% of it at best) but the few times I have picked up Men's Health his information seemed much more informative than this "Macros stuff". Trouble is the understanding behind structured dietary advice like the 2005+ food pyramid (for the carb macro) is that all mechanisms haven't been fully elucidated yet. For example it appears that long term insulin receptor downregulation is not directly tied to insulin secretion IMO (thus invalidating the use of Glycemic index for obesity control).

I agree,
Macros really dont mean anything, and theyre a very poor poor way to structure your diet. I mean if your on a 1800 calorie diet, getting 20% of your calories from Fat could be way too little. And if you were eating 4000calories getting 40% of you calories from protein , way too much. It just isnt a logical way to even begin to plan food intake.

The only advantage to limiting/controlling carboydrate intake is the hunger issues it causes. I think this is why the GI diet came to the fore in the first place, it is not the actual insulin response that messes with your bodyfat levels but the fact that you will very possibly eat more.

lth
11-02-2008, 07:10 AM
I agree,
Macros really dont mean anything, and theyre a very poor poor way to structure your diet. I mean if your on a 1800 calorie diet, getting 20% of your calories from Fat could be way too little. And if you were eating 4000calories getting 40% of you calories from protein , way too much. It just isnt a logical way to even begin to plan food intake.

The only advantage to limiting/controlling carboydrate intake is the hunger issues it causes. I think this is why the GI diet came to the fore in the first place, it is not the actual insulin response that messes with your bodyfat levels but the fact that you will very possibly eat more.

I disagree with macros not mattering; not being an ass on this....just don't agree with it. This is why keto works for some so well because they are very insulin resistnant, while others struggle on keto type diets because their body metabolizes glucose very well. So it does matter I think as far as CHO and Fat macro manipulation goes, protein....is far and away the most overhyped of the three IMO....So many people are startled to hear that I eat 1g per pound, at the most 1.2g. But i think macro manipulation definitley matters, as long as you can keep it balanced to were there is not a **** load of definciency as phosphate was referring to.

Passion4Pump
11-02-2008, 08:05 AM
I agree,
Macros really dont mean anything, and theyre a very poor poor way to structure your diet. I mean if your on a 1800 calorie diet, getting 20% of your calories from Fat could be way too little. And if you were eating 4000calories getting 40% of you calories from protein , way too much. It just isnt a logical way to even begin to plan food intake.

Well, yea, maybe sticking to a set macro ratio regardless of caloric intake is not so wise. But I think when people talk about sticking to your macros, they're talking about the macros that you set for that particular intake. For instance: I ate 4200 calories yesterday (I was hungry!) and only 26% came from protein. However, that was 280g protein, which is about 1.5 times my body weight in pounds (plenty!). I still tried to keep my carb/fat ratio at around 5/2 though, meaning that I integrated ratios into my system. If I were to actually follow the protein ratio, then at that high caloric intake, the goal would be between a fifth and a quarter of total calories. But at a more reasonable intake, the protein goal would be a higher percentage. I guess I'm not exactly arguing against you, but I'm saying that macros aren't a terribly poor method when combined with absolute needs.

X-Mark-X
11-02-2008, 08:19 AM
Well, yea, maybe sticking to a set macro ratio regardless of caloric intake is not so wise. But I think when people talk about sticking to your macros, they're talking about the macros that you set for that particular intake. For instance: I ate 4200 calories yesterday (I was hungry!) and only 26% came from protein. However, that was 280g protein, which is about 1.5 times my body weight in pounds (plenty!). I still tried to keep my carb/fat ratio at around 5/2 though, meaning that I integrated ratios into my system. If I were to actually follow the protein ratio, then at that high caloric intake, the goal would be between a fifth and a quarter of total calories. But at a more reasonable intake, the protein goal would be a higher percentage. I guess I'm not exactly arguing against you, but I'm saying that macros aren't a terribly poor method when combined with absolute needs.

I agree with this. Personally, I am bulking right now and at 200lbs I am eating 4500 calories/day. When I was cutting in the summer I got down to 185lbs and I was only eating about 2700 calories/day. My body adapts to how much I am eating very quickly, I constantly have to adjust my caloric intake to keep gaining/losing weight. Anyway, if I were to stick to, let's say 30% protein the entire time. That would be 203g of protein while I'm cutting and 338g while bulking, for only a 15lb weight difference. That's from 1.1g/lb to 1.7g/lb. I usually pick my total macro's, then figure out what % those macro's are after, much better way to go IMO.

X-Mark-X
11-02-2008, 08:42 AM
Been doing a little digging and this was said this a while ago but I think it sums everything up very nicely:

The lab makes its best attempt, but doesn't necessarily reflect the real world. Conversely, the real world can serve as a lab for experimentation, but controlling the variables is a bitch with sharp teeth.

Without a doubt, anecdote is one of the main sources to derive questions that fuel scientific investigation.

Alan Aragon.


So
Yes, Science can work , but everyone is different and you gotta do what works for you.

I think one of the big issues here is that it's easy to question the practical application of the research. Maybe the duration of the study wasn't long enough, maybe there was a variable that should have been controlled but wasn't, maybe the study was on obese sedentary men instead of bodybuilders, there's many reasons to question a study.

You can't say that ALL broscience is useless. After all, I derive my required caloric intake entirely from broscience. I don't plug my stats into some scientific formula that tells me how many calories to eat. I eat a set amount of food, see how my body responds, and then adjust it as needed to gain or lose the amount of weight I want to. This is the same thing that some people are doing with their diets and training. Trying stuff out, seeing what works, and changing it accordingly.

This is also how I pick which supplements to take. I look for consumer reviews, if I see a bunch of people saying that a product doesn't work, then I'm not going to try it. I don't care if you give me some research saying how great it is, if it doesn't work in the real world then your research is garbage.

That being said, I do agree that some people are anal about their broscience. For example, all these "I ate a doughnut, should I go do cardio now?" threads. Or the "omg my friend puts store bought tomato sauce on his whole wheat pasta he is going to be so fat hahaha" threads. Or the "should I drink my post workout shake 5 minutes or 6 minute after my workout?" threads.

TheWaffleIron
11-02-2008, 09:04 AM
There seems to be a misunderstanding of people who rely on science, on this board.

I would classify myself as a "science guy" (not a scientist - I don't have any degrees). I use the bulk of existing scientific literature to refine my dietary principles; I don't religiously follow every study I read.

For example, as a broscientist, my protein intake was over 1.5 g/lb daily. After researching the matter, I found that most studies and articles pointed towards roughly .6 - .7 g/lb LBM was necessary.

I lowered my protein intake, and I replaced the calories with carbs and fats. I didn't set protein intake to .65 g/lb LBM exactly. It probably went to (and still is at) roughly .7 - .8 g/lb. In all likelihood, its more than necessary. But, I'm no longer going out of my way to eat over 300g of protein.

SDC77
11-02-2008, 09:14 AM
What it all boils down to with the broscience debate is the fact that it isn't the holy grail it's made out to be. No one is arguing that eating 6 - 8 meals spaced out every 3 hours and divided into certain macros won't work..... it's that there is no evidence (other than anecdotal) that eating 3 - 4 meals spaced out in no particular time frame and with no particular macros (except ensuring adequate protein for recovery and muscle building) wouldn't produce similar results.

Where I have an issue with broscience is when people condemn foods based on glycemic index, take in empty calories like dextrose and WMS while fearing fruit, and labor under the belief that if adequate protein intake is good, that massive protein intake must surely be better.

No one likes to hear "calories in v/s calories out", but it's the f*cking truth at the end of the day. You can pull a CrossFit thing and cite Gary Taubes and Robert Atkins and Barry Sears and preach the glory of hormonal control and manipulation, but all of that **** is trumped if you take in more energy than you expend.

In bodybuilding, body composition is the name of the game, we all know this. I can't count how many times the debate has raged over "If I eat 3,000 calories of junk food, there is no way I would have the ripp3d fibraz that I would if I ate 3,000 of clean foods". Chances are, the results would not be drastically different, given the same workouts/rest/recovery. However, no one wants to hear this. People want to feel that there is a reward for eating chicken breast, broccoli, and brown rice 4 times a day over someone who eats a balanced diet without the pageantry of macros and meal timing. That's the big issue that people seem to have, it's a bit silly.

Alas, people should do what they feel is best for themselves. If broscience makes you life easier and brings you the results you want, knock yourselves out. It's not the only way, the best way, or the worst way. It's simply a way.

Passion4Pump
11-02-2008, 09:16 AM
There seems to be a misunderstanding of people who rely on science, on this board.

I would classify myself as a "science guy" (not a scientist - I don't have any degrees). I use the bulk of existing scientific literature to refine my dietary principles; I don't religiously follow every study I read.

For example, as a broscientist, my protein intake was over 1.5 g/lb daily. After researching the matter, I found that most studies and articles pointed towards roughly .6 - .7 g/lb LBM was necessary.

I lowered my protein intake, and I replaced the calories with carbs and fats. I didn't set protein intake to .65 g/lb LBM exactly. It probably went to (and still is at) roughly .7 - .8 g/lb. In all likelihood, its more than necessary. But, I'm no longer going out of my way to eat over 300g of protein.

How has that lower protein intake worked out for you? Would you say aiming for 1g/lb, but not stressing out if you go over it would be a good mentality?

blacksmith77
11-02-2008, 09:26 AM
I disagree with macros not mattering; not being an ass on this....just don't agree with it. This is why keto works for some so well because they are very insulin resistnant, while others struggle on keto type diets because their body metabolizes glucose very well. So it does matter I think as far as CHO and Fat macro manipulation goes, protein....is far and away the most overhyped of the three IMO....So many people are startled to hear that I eat 1g per pound, at the most 1.2g. But i think macro manipulation definitley matters, as long as you can keep it balanced to were there is not a **** load of definciency as phosphate was referring to.

What I meant by Macros being a poor way to structure your diet is by setting your macros at 40/40/20 or 50/30/20, set numbers etc ... thats broscience, the kind of broscience that doesnt work. Protein should be set at a certain amount per 0.8-1.5(max)per lb. Fat at 0.5 per lb and carbs should fill the rest of you calorie allotment depending on your activity levels and goals. If you decrease carb levels, fat should make up for it and vice versa if you increase carb levels. This is why the macro law is flawed.

blacksmith77
11-02-2008, 09:28 AM
There seems to be a misunderstanding of people who rely on science, on this board.

I would classify myself as a "science guy" (not a scientist - I don't have any degrees). I use the bulk of existing scientific literature to refine my dietary principles; I don't religiously follow every study I read.

For example, as a broscientist, my protein intake was over 1.5 g/lb daily. After researching the matter, I found that most studies and articles pointed towards roughly .6 - .7 g/lb LBM was necessary.

I lowered my protein intake, and I replaced the calories with carbs and fats. I didn't set protein intake to .65 g/lb LBM exactly. It probably went to (and still is at) roughly .7 - .8 g/lb. In all likelihood, its more than necessary. But, I'm no longer going out of my way to eat over 300g of protein.

I think for maintaining setting protein at such levels work , but when it comes to cutting , and when carb manipulation starts to become important your going to have to increase the protein level

blacksmith77
11-02-2008, 09:30 AM
Well, yea, maybe sticking to a set macro ratio regardless of caloric intake is not so wise. But I think when people talk about sticking to your macros, they're talking about the macros that you set for that particular intake. For instance: I ate 4200 calories yesterday (I was hungry!) and only 26% came from protein. However, that was 280g protein, which is about 1.5 times my body weight in pounds (plenty!). I still tried to keep my carb/fat ratio at around 5/2 though, meaning that I integrated ratios into my system. If I were to actually follow the protein ratio, then at that high caloric intake, the goal would be between a fifth and a quarter of total calories. But at a more reasonable intake, the protein goal would be a higher percentage. I guess I'm not exactly arguing against you, but I'm saying that macros aren't a terribly poor method when combined with absolute needs.

Yes, but what I was arguing against was that macros were a poor way to structure your diet , whereas what you did was structure your PROTEIN intake and manipulate your carbohydrate and fat intake alongside... This is not beginning with set macro ratios which , I again will say, is a POOR way to begin to structure a diet.

TheWaffleIron
11-02-2008, 09:43 AM
How has that lower protein intake worked out for you? Would you say aiming for 1g/lb, but not stressing out if you go over it would be a good mentality?

There hasn't been a noted difference in "teh gainz."

Yes, that would work (as would not stressing out if you were under 1 g/lb).


I think for maintaining setting protein at such levels work , but when it comes to cutting , and when carb manipulation starts to become important your going to have to increase the protein level

My knowledge of physiology is too limited to agree or disagree.

I've yet to see any research which deals with this situation.

Passion4Pump
11-02-2008, 09:47 AM
Yes, but what I was arguing against was that macros were a poor way to structure your diet , whereas what you did was structure your PROTEIN intake and manipulate your carbohydrate and fat intake alongside... This is not beginning with set macro ratios which , I again will say, is a POOR way to begin to structure a diet.

Like I said before, I wasn't exactly disagreeing you. Like you said here, you only used the word "macro", and didn't specify that you were arguing against beginning totally with set macro ratios, and not against using ratios at all. I definately agree that BEGINNING with set macro ratios is a poor way to BEGIN to structure a diet, but that doesn't mean that macros don't mean anything which is what you said. I am curious to hear from an expert if the ratio of calories from carbs to calories from fat makes a difference.

blacksmith77
11-02-2008, 09:56 AM
I've yet to see any research which deals with this situation.

This is the big issue with non-broscience, as it were :)


I am curious to hear from an expert if the ratio of calories from carbs to calories from fat makes a difference.

Something to do with glycogen stores - I really am a bit foggy this sunday evening to pick it out . And would rather someone more knowledgable than I to answer!

Lets hope this thread stays sane!

Dr. Horse
11-02-2008, 10:21 AM
There are so many takes to bro science now that to say it is 100% wrong is rather a broad statement. Maybe you have a defined view of broscience like lth mentioned- eat every 3 hours , no carbs before bed etc. But there are some broscience things(maybe of which you are unaware, or indeed maybe what I consider broscience?) which are RIGHT and even come from or have been taken to science.

Broscience isn't a set of beliefs. It's not a way of acting.

It's a way of thinking. And it is, by definition, faulty.

But that's just my definition of broscience- it has about 8 definitions on this board.


This is a broscience statement, lol.

You and I have a very different definition of "broscience".

blacksmith77
11-02-2008, 10:26 AM
It's a way of thinking.



Which consists of?

You said it though, there are variations and your perception is probably one that makes broscience negative. . .

Dr. Horse
11-02-2008, 10:29 AM
Which consists of?

You said it though, there are variations and your perception is probably one that makes broscience negative. . .

Until on very recently on this board, I never heard broscience talked about with any positivity. It was always an insult and a derogatory term AFAIK.

I think the hardcore bros started wearing it as a badge of honor and turned the word around a bit. Kinda like "gay" or "queer" I guess.


Broscience is an absolute misunderstanding and misapplication of real information. How can that ever be a good thing?

Passion4Pump
11-02-2008, 10:34 AM
Kinda like "gay" or "queer" I guess.

haha, what a fitting comparison

lth
11-02-2008, 10:34 AM
Until on very recently on this board, I never heard broscience talked about with any positivity. It was always an insult and a derogatory term AFAIK.

I think the hardcore bros started wearing it as a badge of honor and turned the word around a bit. Kinda like "gay" or "queer" I guess.


Broscience is an absolute misunderstanding and misapplication of real information. How can that ever be a good thing?

True; almost like a ridiculous cult in the bb'ing community. Like i've said, anyone that closes their mind to other possibilities is only hurting themselves.

blacksmith77
11-02-2008, 10:37 AM
Until on very recently on this board, I never heard broscience talked about with any positivity. It was always an insult and a derogatory term AFAIK.

I think the hardcore bros started wearing it as a badge of honor and turned the word around a bit. Kinda like "gay" or "queer" I guess.


Broscience is an absolute misunderstanding and misapplication of real information. How can that ever be a good thing?

AFAIK?

Yes well if were going by your definition of Broscience , it means that Broscience is never a good thing.


True; almost like a ridiculous cult in the bb'ing community. Like i've said, anyone that closes their mind to other possibilities is only hurting themselves.

If the definition of Broscience anyone that closes their mind to other possibilities then Yes, of course, it is wrong. And stupid.

Dr. Horse
11-02-2008, 10:51 AM
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=109609031

lth
11-02-2008, 10:54 AM
What I meant by Macros being a poor way to structure your diet is by setting your macros at 40/40/20 or 50/30/20, set numbers etc ... thats broscience, the kind of broscience that doesnt work. Protein should be set at a certain amount per 0.8-1.5(max)per lb. Fat at 0.5 per lb and carbs should fill the rest of you calorie allotment depending on your activity levels and goals. If you decrease carb levels, fat should make up for it and vice versa if you increase carb levels. This is why the macro law is flawed.

ok, you are most certainly correct.....I agree; protein imo should be at 0.8 to 1.2(max) fat at .5 as well with carbs filling in the rest. repped

dn27
11-02-2008, 10:57 AM
You and I have a very different definition of "broscience".

Broscience to me is a bunch of facts that haven't/can't be proven but are talked about like true statements. By not backing up his post, it's like broscience. (Yes, I'm aware that Mr. Horse constantly proves broscience false, but he didn't in this case, so I'm giving him crap)

Absence of proof isn't proof of absence. You can't say it doesn't work just because they can't prove it does.

With all this said, I'll be making obvious good choices with food without restricting myself to the point of hating to eat.

X-Mark-X
11-02-2008, 11:49 AM
I always thought of broscience as using anecdotal evidence and many times myths that have no scientific support rather than scientific studies. For example, my genius friend who at one point started doing cardio wearing a garbage bag because some girl at the gym told him it helped burn more fat would be a broscientist lol.

I would say by this definition though it can have uses because if I notice something working for me and can't find a scientific study to either confirm or refute it (unfortunately there is a lack of research in some areas) then I could just assume I am right and keep doing it. In fact, I can use my own broscience to refute the broscience of others. When I was a noob some guy at GNC told me I needed tons of protein, so I bought some protein powder and had, I kid you not, 8 scoops a day lol. My muscles didn't magically expand, in fact, I honestly didn't notice a damn bit of difference. It would be broscientific of me to conclude from this that I don't need a ton of protein, but I would also happen to be correct.

But if we're going to define broscience as the misinterpretation of information then it's pretty much never good.

lth
11-02-2008, 11:53 AM
I always thought of broscience as using anecdotal evidence and many times myths that have no scientific support rather than scientific studies. For example, my genius friend who at one point started doing cardio wearing a garbage bag because some girl at the gym told him it helped burn more fat would be a broscientist lol.

I would say by this definition though it can have uses because if I notice something working for me and can't find a scientific study to either confirm or refute it (unfortunately there is a lack of research in some areas) then I could just assume I am right and keep doing it. In fact, I can use my own broscience to refute the broscience of others. When I was a noob some guy at GNC told me I needed tons of protein, so I bought some protein powder and had, I kid you not, 8 scoops a day lol. My muscles didn't magically expand, in fact, I honestly didn't notice a damn bit of difference. It would be broscientific of me to conclude from this that I don't need a ton of protein, but I would also happen to be correct.

But if we're going to define broscience as the misinterpretation of information then it's pretty much never good.

lmao; that is exactly how I started man....took advice from people who didn't know a damn thing, bought a ton of supplements because thats what I thought made a good physique...... and ended up losing weight.

Sibrek
11-02-2008, 01:07 PM
can u retards chill with this **** and just eat moar to bulk and less to cut

bp16
11-02-2008, 01:14 PM
can u retards chill with this **** and just eat moar to bulk and less to cut

I like your way of thinking

TheWaffleIron
11-02-2008, 01:23 PM
can u retards chill with this **** and just eat moar to bulk and less to cut

http://mikeabundo.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/internet-serious-business.jpg

lth
11-02-2008, 01:27 PM
http://mikeabundo.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/internet-serious-business.jpg

I was hoping for the Hell yeah motherf*cker

blacksmith77
11-02-2008, 01:27 PM
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f12/blacksmith77x/Serious-Cat-Joker.jpg