HEREEEEEEEEEEEEE I COMEEEEE TO WRECK THE DAYYYYYYYY!!!

.... with another long post!

Page 38

@ quote from someone...

>> it say we can do either 3 x 10 or 5 x 5.. any different?

◘ Yes, different rep ranges will lead to different training effects. A set of 5 reps will most likely influence CNS drive, while a set of 10 reps will have a much lesser impact on CNS and target the structual aspects of the muscle.

@ arekey

>> Arnold use high volume while mike mentze focus on high intensity

◘ Actually, Mentzer was an advocate of the "1 set to failure" nonsense, which is nothing more than nonsense fabricated by Arthur Jones to sell his Nautilous machines. Mentzer's idea of 'intensity' was one set of high reps done extra extra slow which by definition is the exact opposite of intensity. Finally, Mentzer got the body in that pic by doing traditional bodybuilding training. He switched to HIT after he already looked like that.

http://www.muscleandstrength.com/articles/...est-growth.html - this article was given to support your statement.

Responding to that article for a moment:

1. "What you’ll notice from both definitions is that protein synthesis is the process by which the body repairs damaged muscle tissue from exercise, and while it is involved in muscle growth, IT IS NOT A CUT AND DRY INDICATOR THAT YOU ARE BUILDING MUSCLE" - The only argument given in support of this premise is that training too much too often can cause damage quicker than the body can repair. Complete nonsense... just because it is POSSIBLE to overtrain if you use an insane volume in one workout, does not mean you WILL overtrain. It's like saying you shouldn't take vitamins because taking too many is bad for you. Of course that's true, but it doesn't mean you WILL take too many. It fails as an argument.

2. "What the latter part of the last sentence means is that while high volume training is notorious for leading to overtraining of the musculoskeletal system, high intensity training with heavy loads is notorious for leading to central nervous system overtraining (3)." - The author has no f*ing clue what he's talking about.

High volume DOES NOT lead to overtraining.

High intensity DOES NOT lead to overtraining.

OVERTRAINING IS WHAT LEADS TO OVERTRAINING!!!

3. "If you’re involved in a high intensity routine, just because your muscles are failing to lift a load, does not mean that that is the result of muscle damage." - True, but this does not mean you're overtrained just as soon as you can no longer lift the weight.

At this point I would normally post a page from my book explaining precisely what overtraining is... but I've posted pages from my book in other threads already. Kinda hoping some of you guys will sign up for the course... we cover exactly what overtraining is, what it's not, and how it works. http://kaseybrownfitness.blogspot.com/p/be...-certified.html

4. "Despite these concerns for high intensity training, the fact remains the same that the best way to induce progress is to increase the amount of weight you are using to induce muscular tension" - not true. There are many ways to induce progress. Increasing the amount of weight is only ONE OF MANY ways to do this, and it is by no means "best".

5. "So the question is which training style is best?" - You'd think that I'd get used to such garbage after a while, but this still illicits from me a heavy sigh and a roll of the eyes. Especially when the next sentence mentions Arthur Jones.

It works like this.

If you train more volume, you'll need more rest between each workout.

If you train with less volume, you'll need less rest between each workout.

Lets use 100 reps per week as our bench mark. If you go to the gym and do 10 sets of 10 reps of bench press, you've done 100 reps right there. You wont train your chest again for 1 more week. If you do train it's only going to be a maintenance workout (dont ask me what a maintenance workout is, please sign up for the course and we'll teach you how to design routines on your own). However, if you do 3 sets of 10, you can do that 3 times per week. By the end of the week you've done 90 reps. Almost the same thing.

So you could go

================
MONDAY
Bench press - 10 sets 10 reps

(next) MONDAY
Bench perss - 10 sets 10 reps
================

-OR-

================
MONDAY
Bench press - 3 sets 10 reps

WENDESDAY
Bench press - 3 sets 10 reps

FRIDAY
Bench press - 3 sets 10 reps
================

^^^ There isn't necessarily a "better way". You might take a plane and fly to Penang. I might drive to Penang. Which way is better? Neither... it depends on what we prefer, and we both still end up in Penang.

6. " As far as what method incorporates aspects of both styles, Arthur Jones, the founder of Nautilus back in the 1970’s, still stakes a claim to being one of the geniuses of strength and conditioning as his form of high intensity training focused on relatively low volume cadence lifting that brought muscles to failure without over stimulating the central nervous system or overdoing things with total volume." - virtually everything Arthur Jones ever said in regards to training was scientifically refuted almost the day it was published. There has never been any evidence supporting his claims beyond a few cherry picked studies, or studies set up deliberately to prove the claims ahead of time.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ - see this. There is actually a society of people who support the notion at the earth is flat. This is a real society of real people who REALLY HONESTLY BELIEVE the world is flat and the round-earth theory is all a conspiracy. Arthur Jones and his followers are similar to this... they actually believe volume training is wrong, in the same way the flat-earthers believe round-earth theory is wrong.

Its one of those things... if you believe in Hight Intensity Training, then you're absolutely hopeless. You probably believe in 10 or more conspiracies, and think Big Foot is working with the FBI and the Russians are listening to your thoughts so they can design vaccines and take them to the city of Atlantis and begin a New World Order. You're just beyond hope.

Ok, back to responding to the thread.

The next thing I see is "Arnolds Basic Routine"

1. 30 to 40 exercises? Speaking in general terms, the fewer exercises, the better.

2. I see pull overs included in his "basic mass routine". See http://kaseybrownfitness.blogspot.com/2010...-exercises.html .

3. Leg raises train the hip flexors, not the abs.

---

Added on January 2, 2011, 12:28 pmPage 39

@MelforC3

>> Im experiencing hair loss which i believe quite serious. I read through some article and said that because of testosterone level that react with some enzyme at hair follicle. Everytime when i wash hair, i can see my hair around my hand. Even the barber said i have quite less hair.

◘ I wont comment too much on this. Hair loss is a science all on it's own, with just as much nonsense and mis-information as you'll find in fitness.

It's not the testosterone, its dihydrotestosterone. All men go through "male menopause" at around the age of 27, where our hormonal profile changes. Testosterone changes, and the result for some men, based on genetics and probably 27 dozen other factors that are well outside my expertise, is hair loss.

You're better off consulting a specialist, but I wouldn't know where to direct you.

@ darklight79 (I think it's the second time I've ever disagreed with him)

>> Yes, bloody hell wear a damn belt when you get to those poundages. Now I know why those IFBB Pro INSIST on wearing belts. The intraabdominal pressure is insane.

◘ If you're coming close to your 1 RM, then I can agree that some will see higher lifts if they wear a belt. I still wont do this personally... by training without a belt, your own abdominals can and will, eventually, achieve the ability to sustain that pressure on their own. There's countless vids on youtube of people squatting 700 pounds or more without a belt.

>> Ever since I started using the Smith for shoulder pressing my delts have been a lot better compared to free weights (dbs and bbs). You don't waste effort on stabilization so you can focus on heavier poundages (WITH GOOD FORM!). More poundage = more size (with good form).

◘ There's a better way.

You could try lateral raises immediately followed by overhead dumbbell presses. The machine robs you of muscle coordination, which is very key factor in strength building. The more real-world strength you have from free weights, the more CNS drive you'll be able to commit towards hypertrophy training.

Machines should normally be avoided.

@ theCrab

>> is excess protein harmful ??

◘ No.

>> I read from somewhere,or from some doctor
they telling me excess protein will tax your kidney
bad for health

◘ Your doctor is wrong.

@ LadyVanity

>> hey dark, just wondering whats ur perspective on core bracing using the Valsalva maneuver? no good?

◘ I hope it's alright if I answer. You should generally avoid teh Valsalva maneuver unless you have a good reason to use it. If you're shot putting, or javelin throwing, then a powerful exhale will create a vacuume in your stomach which can make your body "fold over" and reduce the power of your throw.

If you're power lifting, it's acceptable but not entirely necessary. Dr Hatfield has written that air should always be moving in or out, even during a 1 rep max. For me this turns into a roar as I lift the weight. Mark Ripptoe has said otherwise... it's a matter of preference for 1 rep maxes.

>> im wondering if its not very relevant for very high poundages (is that what u meant? ><)

◘ If you're going for anything above 3 reps, you should have air either going in or out.

>> i hv been cautioned that it can trigger hypertension and heart failure...

◘ it can raise your blood pressure, so it's contraindicated for those with pre-existing conditions. It will not cause heart failure if you do not already have a condition.

---

Added on January 2, 2011, 12:49 pmPage 40

@ shiloong7081

>> one question, what's the point in binge eating ? can an excess of 2000 calories in one day help you build anything ?

◘ Those engaged in competitive training may need anywhere between 5,000 and 10,000 calories a day.

@ arekey

>> As you know, this formula will fail because 2000 calories from pastries, pre-packaged
macaroni and cheese, and fast food is completely different from 2000 calories of
natural fruit and vegetables, lean cuts of high quality protein and healthy fats.

◘ No it isn't. Your gym teacher was absolutely right. The calories from pastries and pre-packaged food are indeed precisely the same as calories from vegetables and fruits.

What's different is the vitamins and mineral content. However, the calories are just the same.

>> In the book, “Nutrient Timing” by Drs. John Ivy and Robert Portman, the authors
refer to three critical times of the day in which nutrient timing takes on a greater
importance. These times are known as the Energy Phase, The Anabolic Phase, and The
Growth & Recovery Phase.

◘ It's true that timing is important, but this does not support the previous paragraph.

>> For example,sugar should be avoided at almost all costs except prior to, during and after your
workout.

◘ The principle is sound, but that's taking it a bit extreme.

>> Certain proteins such as whey are
excellent during and immediately after a workout but not so beneficial at other
times of the day.

◘ That's not entirely true either... while I would get just "any protein" and not waste my whey scoops throughout the day, it's not to say whey isn't as equally beneficial as any other form of protein.

@ harris92

>> From what I understand from that post is that,
>> 1) 2000 calories from healthy food is different than 2000 calories from, say, potato chips.
◘ No, they're the same.
>> 2) That the calories from healthy food will help us gain weight better.
◘ If no nutrient deficiencies exist, then no, it wont.
>> 3) Unhealthy foods will not make us gain as much weight. (Why?)
◘ There's no such thing as "healthy foods" and "unhealthy foods".

>> Question is, how do I explain to some people why do we have to eat clean while trying to gain weight

◘ There is no such thing as "junk food", and it is not practical to "eat clean" to gain weight. 2 pounds of tomotoe, celery sticks, carrots, lettuce, broccoli, and cabage may give you 200 calories, tops. And that's 2 pounds of food. Just imagine the size of the bowl.

1 big mac gives you around 500 calories. Eat 2 and that's around 1,000 calories.

To grow, you may need around 4,000 calories. Now how you gonna get that eating clean? Why is it even necessary to get all that way solely and entirely off just eating clean as long as you're still getting all the vitamins and minerals you need from somewhere?

>> "If I want to gain weight, why not eat chips? Its unhealthy as hell, so I should gain the weight, right?".

◘ It is not unhealthy, and yes, they will gain weight. It's a good strategy.

@ arekey

>> Let’s say your body needs 2000 calories to grow – don’t think that your body will grow on 2000 calories of
chips and cookies just because you are in a SURPLUS.

>> Two thousand calories of junk and empty calories is COMPLETELY different than 2000 calories of high quality carbs,
proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals.

>> Anybody who does not understand this does not Understand the theory that a calorie is not a calorie.

◘ I'm sorry, but this is not how nutrition science works.

---

Added on January 2, 2011, 2:15 pmPage 41

What arekey said at the top there is mostly correct, but keep in mind the corrections I made earlier.

Someone posted this... http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/nutrition/bedtime.htm - omfg talk about making rocket science out of shoe strings... PUH-LEASE.

Dont even read that article. It's like 3,000 words telling you eat protein before you sleep at night. Seriously! >_<

As for ab training... When you do front squats, you're essentially training your abs. when you do overhead presses you're also training your abs.

MONDAY
front squats

WEDNESDAY
overhead presses

FRIDAY
Pre-stretch crunch

^^^ You're training abs 3 times a week that way. This is perfectly fine.

---

Added on January 2, 2011, 2:21 pmPage 42

@ Cloud2322

>> Should I slim down first before I build my muscles? I'm weight 82.5kg and 17years old. But I have to slim down first ain't? Or not the muscles will built under my fats right?

◘ body fat percentages of over 15% for men and 18% for women will reduce your growth hormone output. If you're obese, you need to cut first. If you simply have a small layer of fat, then its up to you.



This post has been edited by Kasey Brown: Jan 2 2011, 02:21 PM

@ shiloong7081

>> So you are saying that 2 persons, who undergo the same training routine, one eating 3000cals worth of milkshakes and another eating 3000worth of protein loaded meals, will be able to gain the same amount of weight ? genetic differences excluded. What about muscle mass ?

◘ If they eat at the same times of day, have no nutritional deficiencies, and both have sound training, then yes they'll gain weight at roughly the same rate. This includes muscle mass.

@ iamyuanwu

>> When you're roaring, you ARE doing the Valsava movement. Valsava movement ≠ holding your breathe.
She's probably already doing it naturally already.

>> from MedicineNet.com:
Valsalva maneuver: A maneuver in which a person tries to exhale forcibly with a closed glottis (the windpipe) so that no air exits through the mouth or nose

◘ But... if no air exits my mouth or nose... then how can I roar?

>> Eating clean ≠ just fruits & vege alone. (e.g. 2 pounds of tomotoe, celery sticks, carrots, lettuce, broccoli, and cabage may give you 200 calories, tops. And that's 2 pounds of food.)

>> Eating clean = fruits & vege & eggs & milk & properly cooked meat in good fats & carb sources high in fibre e.g. oats, brown rice & healthy fats e.g. olive oil, flax seed oils, red palm oil, butter (all preferably organic) &/or whey protein.

◘ The general idea of "eating clean" is to not eat food unless it is dense in micronutrients. I'm showing that this is unnecessary. A big mac and large coke will go a long way in helping you reach your caloric needs as well as replenishing glycogen after a workout. So long as there is no nutritional deficiency, it is not necessary to make "eating clean" a strict goal.

>> BTW, what's wrong with eating protein before you sleep?

◘ Did I say there was anything wrong with it?

>> I'm not sure if you're implying anything with sarcasm/jest in your reply...

◘ Nope. http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.com/200...surely-jest.jpg

>> Some of the your replies seems like you were disagreeing to gain attention or something.

◘ http://cdn.guyism.com/wp-content/uploads/w...juice-joker.jpg

@ Neek

>> Chow, he posted his link in his long reply. i checked his link, he's a trainer and gym owner.

◘ Now this is interesting. I own a gym?

>> Is this true ? From the Tanita machine i have 21% BF. I was thinking of doing a bulk first but if this is true then might as well cut as much as possible.

◘ Yep! Its true. You should definitely cut first.

>> on the subject of protein blends, which is preferred and what is value for money for u guyz?

◘ Chicken and eggs!

>> Well, you can argue about the semantics til the cow jumps over the moon... it still doesn't detracts from the fact that roaring/screaming when lifting heavy is a Valsalva maneuvre.

◘ No, it isn't. The Valsalva maneuver (VM) is, when, by the very definition you posted earlier, "A maneuver in which a person tries to exhale forcibly with a closed glottis (the windpipe) so that no air exits through the mouth or nose". I think the given examples may have thrown you off. During a strenuous cough, only the initial action requires the VM. Listen to someone cough. To get the cough started, they take a quick breath, and for a fraction of a second there's a pause. That pause is force building against the closed glottis before it's released, allowing the air to flow out from the throat with force behind it.

Its much like tapping your finger hard against a table. If you use your other hand to pull your finger back, it'll smack the table a lot harder than if you simply used muscular force. That same principle is in the cough. The VM is used for only a fraction of a second - the rest of the cough does not use the VM.

You cannot roar, scream, or yell and do the VM, because the VM requires a closed throat through which air cannot pass. If air can pass, then it is not the VM by definition.

>> The simple reason of avoiding junk food like Big Mac and Coke is to not take in junk that can cause health issues in the future. Fast food like Big Mac dumps boat loads of transfat into the body. And sugar messes up with insulin and metabolism in the long term.

◘ Guys, how many times have I posted this? http://kaseybrownfitness.blogspot.com/2010...er-size-me.html I dont want to keep posting the same link over and over because it might get irritating, and thought for sure everyone would have read it by now.

TL;DR Big Macs and cokes do not have any significant amount of trans fats.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fast-f...-generic/8053/2 - a big mac has less than 1.5 grams of trans fats, most of which are naturally occuring. You'd need 10 grams or more to cause health problems.

Dont think they're naturally occuring? Check out normal unprocessed meat you can take home yourself and cook on your own stove.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/8000/2 - 0.7 trans fats (per calorie, about as much as you'd find in a big mac).

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/8003/2 - 0.8 grams.

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/8004/2 - 0.5 grams, even when its raw and uncooked.

Secondly, I've said this half a dozen times, there is no such thing as junk food. The term "junk food" does not even have a solid definition. Wikipedia definds it as "any food item that is percieved to be unhealthy", but a person's perceptions are subjective, and changes from person to person. Name a food, any food, and I'll tell you a time when its advantageous to have food (dont get smart and say something like "BEER". I'm clearly not referring to medicines, drugs, alcohol, and that sort of thing). The term "empty calorie" is more appropriate term if you're referring to calories that do not have corresponding micronutrients, but these cannot be considered "junk" since absolutely do have a place in your diet, are useful to have, and are highly advantageous when eaten at certain times.

Take the red pill. There is no junk food.

Thirdly, http://kaseybrownfitness.blogspot.com/2010...-budget_14.html . A large fries from McDonalds is an excellent source of phosphorus, potassium, folate, niacin, pantathoic acid, and pyrodoxine acid. Contains decent amounts of magnesium and iron too. It's just amazing... you could basically have Centrum One-A-Day in the form of a French Fry and people would still call it "junk food". Incredible.

Finally, sugar does not "mess up" your insulin or your metabolism, long term or otherwise. The notion that sugar causes diabetes is simply a myth.

>> What's the point of becoming huge and muscular only to increase risk of heart attack, diabetes and other chronic diseases?

◘ Because if you'd been paying attention first off you'd know there is no "junk food", and second you'd know that the things you call "junk food" do not in any way promote the health detriments you've listed. Show me one single study - JUST ONE- proving any causative relationship between these things you've mentioned and this so-called "junk food".

>> Well, your phrase some how implied that it was not advisable. So, I wanted see if you had a reason for it.

◘ Ok then I didn't mean to imply that.

>> Serious because this discussion will affect someone's health. Dumping suggestions which I personally feel could increase others' risk of falling sick, should be taken SERIOUSLY... wouldn't you agree with me?

◘ Yes, I would agree, but I assure you that your personal feelings are completely unfounded.

---

Added on January 5, 2011, 4:09 am>> Lol Casey,

◘ Kasey

>> I've been training quite some time.

◘ Yes, I know. You're one of the handful of people here who I think I'd never disagree with except on a a few, exceptionally rare occasions.

>> I know what the preexhaustion principle is and no,

◘ Yes, I'm not trying to teach you what it is... my point is that (and this may actually be opinion oriented if you can bare with me) free weights should be the mainstay of training. I'd never dedicate less than 80% of training to either free weights or cables. I'd use the smith machine, but only for things like barbell throws or static presses, standing calf raises, or things like that. Overhead barbell presses do incorporate stabilizers, but once those stabilizers are bigger and stronger, you'll lift more anyway. The enhanced neural drive is also condusive towards muscle building. I'd use other fixed ROM machines, but only when they would not significantly detract from how the movement would already be performed (like leg curl, or leg extension).

I know you probably wont agree and that's ok too. I'm just trying to explain what I meant.

This post has been edited by Kasey Brown: Jan 5 2011, 04:09 AM

@ ijnek

>> frankly, i'm not a fan of any1 promoting links to his own blog/sites etc to prove his own points.

◘ So after I've done all the research, addressed all the arguments, thoroughly and completely discussed a particular topic, and posted it on my blog months earlier...

When I come here I have to type the entire discussion all over again from the start?

Of course not. It wouldn't matter even if I did start copy-pasting everything from my blog over to here instead of just posting a simple link. You'd still be irritated that I'm proving my point, not that I have a blog. Lets try to remained focused on the issues.

>> 1 thing is for sure is that fast food are generally high in salt which is not good for health in the long run and not forgetting to mention that most fast food are deep-fried.
salt and health issue

◘ Here's a point-by-point, step-by-step guide for why this is not true. Also appears on my blog, but I guess you still wont just go there and read it. So here's the link copy-pasted over to here.

http://www.health-report.co.uk/sodium_chlo...alt_myths1.html

>> of course u hv a lengthy post on fast food/junk food,but i hv my own points to note.

◘ Lets hear them. Show me why I'm wrong.

>> i used to eat alone and fast food was always my option as it's easier to get a seat in a fastfood restaurant than in a busy foodcourt.
after learning to eat better and removing away fast food as my option, i think n feel my health is better.

◘ Well of course. You need a balanced diet inclusive of green leafy vegetables, like spinach, and other fruits and veggies. You also need balanced fat intake... saturated fat is good for you. The idea that it causes health problems is a complete misunderstanding of how nutrition science works. Saturated fats only cause health problems in the absense of unsaturated fats. It's the imbalance - too many saturated, and not enough unsaturated, that causes health problems.

There aren't too many Omega 3s in fast food. So its only natural that you'd feel better if you cut back on the fast food if the other foods needed to balance it were not there.

I never advocated and all-cheeseburger-diet. I only maintain that which has traditionally been called "junk food" is actually good for you when it's included as part of a balanced nutrition strategy.

@ arekey

>> This McD 'Junk Food' Provide whoopingg 2000 instant calories

◘ No, it depends on how much you have. A large fries provides around 450 calories. A big mac is 500 calories. A coke is 250 calories. This comes to around 1,200.

>> your muscle cells and liver have only a certain storage capacity.

◘ Some athletes can require upwards of 9,000 calories a day on a heavy training cycle. This comes to almost 2,000 calories per meal over 5 meals.

It's not about the storage capacity, it's about the individual, their state of fitness, and their activity level. Ronnie Coleman could very easily use 2000 calories of McDonalds food. A middle age house wife couldn't. But then my point wasn't that everyone should get 2,000 calories at one go. It was simply that McDonalds food could help get you to the calories you needed to gain muscle weight - which is only around 500 extra than you burn each day, far easier than the "eating clean" method.

You've still yet to provide evidence for the junk-food-causes-health-problems hypothesis.

Let me see if I got this straight.

My certification course isn't worth it...

.... because ....

My biceps aren't big enough.

......................... and you want to talk about e-penis?

Going back up the page for a minute,

@ arekey

>> If we need 5000 calories a day, then we do it timely manner not one go brutha. That's why Nutrition Timing strategy is essential.

◘ I think we can agree on that. I never intended someone should get all of their calories in one gulp.

>> I said FAST = JUNK

◘ But why is "fast" = "junk"? Junk would imply that it has no use and should be discarded or avoided. But fast food is very useful in an athletes diet.

>> Tell me brutha, when you taste the McD, izzt taste same like meat/chiken or sumthing else?

◘ Everything taste like chicken.

... in the Matrix, Mr. Anderson.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestor...46284c2d5f4.jpg

>> Remember there is lot of chemical involve just to keep it the right colour at the right crispness for the right length of time.

>>This chemical is toxic and lead to.....healthy???

◘ Can you please name 2 of these chemicals?

@ shankar_dass93

>> greetings guys, i am 17 and just started bodybuilding. i really need your opinion guys,

◘ I'm sorry, we can't hear you over what's happening in this thread. http://images.mylot.com/userImages/images/...tos/2181811.jpg

@ iamyuanwu

>> Anyway, I still do not advocate fast food, because I usually don't feel good after taking fast food.

◘ Then maybe it's just not right for you?

>> Oh yeah, BTW... deep fried carbs (e.g. french fries) are high in PAH, which is a carcinogen.

◘ Oxygen is a carcinogen. You breathe it all the time.

http://kaseybrownfitness.blogspot.com/2010...ses-cancer.html

PAH works on the same principle, in that it's a bundle of electrons which can promote free radical species in the body. However, when first you consider that PAH is found in most kinds of cooked food and not just deep fried carbs, combined with the fact that you're never getting enough PAH to cause serious harm, and then consider a diet high in anti-oxidants, it quickly becomes a non-issue.

>> I forgot about this for a long time, now i remember why I shouldn't be eating too much of fries and burgers.

◘ Or anything that was ever cooked.

>> Sugar in itself (e.g. in Coke and soft drinks, syrups, sweetened food stuff) messes up the metabolism.

◘ Please explain how it "messes up the metabolism".

>> Probably won't give a person diabetes, but still not a good thing. There are better sources of carbohydrates e.g. 3 bananas

◘ What's the significance between sugars found in coke and sugars found in bananas?

>> It is a partial VM.

◘ Oh for the love of.... http://i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu330/c.../Facepalm-2.jpg

>_< A partial. VM.

I cannot believe this. I just. Cannot. Believe this.

Ok, fine. Seriously. We have created a new term. A partial VM. This is probably the first and only time in the history of mankind that an important scientific discovery was made as the result of a forum war.

In fact, you can read about it in my next book. I'm calling it the ValKasey Manuver. Donate money.

>> Let’s be frank only the biceps part are lacking ? I let everyone else be the judge

>> I am big fan of the old adage – walking the walk, talking the talk. Look at the few fitness professionals I mentioned with credible CERTIFICATION programs

◘ Are you implying that the only thing that makes a certification program credible is how big your biceps are or how much you can bench?

>> they sure as hell applied what they preached, and look the part.

◘ So you're saying I dont practice what I preach? You don't even know me, or what I do in the gym.

Besides, how much could this this guy bench? http://www.verkhoshansky.com/

Or this guy? http://www.melsiff.net/

All you've got is a single picture of me, and with that you're making an awful lot of assumptions.

>> U totally miss the part of including fitting mac donald food into a BALANCED diet and mac donalds not a end all ,by all solution , really good sales pitch btw - totally getting that sedentary fat blob attention

◘ You answered that one yourself. It was a sales pitch, yes, meant to grab attention.

>> Hydrogenated oils ? HFCS ( the stuff they use in your soft drinks as well) ? and the long ass list of chemicals ?

◘ Burden of proof. You have to provide evidence that any of the ingredients listed is damaging to one's health.

Since you've provided studies on the HFCS, I'll need at least 2 or 3 days to scrutinize them and either debunk them or amend some of my earlier recommendations.

Give me a few days.

>> you seem to avoid the fundamental questions I have been enquiring which doesn't take days to answer.

◘ Because your questions are mostly devoted towards me and my personal life. I dont feel that it's necessary to explain these because that's not the issue. If you find fault with my blog, point it out. If you find an error or mistake in something I've written, show me where you think the mistake was made. You're doing a good job on that, so that's what I'm answering.

However, you've also tried to compared a picture of me on my blog next to professional athletes to imply that my certification course wasn't credible - based solely on that - and that I was a hypocrite (in that I dont walk the walk). You've said "If your notion of a physique encompasses a big bicep and how much one can bench, then well I am lost for words." - nothing I've posted on this forum would indicate that I hold this view or that my knowledge is that limited. As such, I'm not going to lend credibility to such thinly veiled insults by answering them. They're completely irrelevant to the issue, which is whether McDonald's food has serious health concerns.

>> the ultimate question, is it working for you (your theory on McDonalds)? what are the results with real clients (considering 8 years of experience u do establish quite a large clientèle) ?

◘ I have trained clients using this method, yes. And it does work. How many clients I train is irrelevant to the discussion. Whether or not I'm what you would consider as successful in marketing and advertising, or the illnesses and circumstances I've been through which have prevented me from aggressively persuing these, has absolutely no impact on the facts being presented. http://www.geekosystem.com/twinkie-diet/ - other people have done it successfully.

>> really ? Extreme results ? 6 pack abs ?

◘ Yes, I did have that a few years ago when my circumstances allowed me to consume McDonalds food on a daily basis.

I don't have time to continue typing, sorry. I'll have to finish replying later.

Am I going to keep getting this "you dont have abs / biceps / bench press / so you dont know what you're talking about" argument?

As if we all live in a vacuum where only weight training exists and real life doesn't happen?

It could be KFC! I'm just using McDonalds as an example because it's the one people rally against most. It's a fantastic way of gaining calories on a day you need to bulk up on muscle. What I'm against is 1. downing it as "junk food" when it can't be junk if it has useful purposes, and 2. saying it causes health ailments when it doesn't. If people spent as much time blaming KFC for heart disease and clogged arteries then I'd probably be using that as my example.

Oh that and McDonalds is paying me of course. It's a conspiracy. Oops! Now I have to kill you.

First in regards to creatine, no brand or formula has been demonstrated to be superior to regular creatine monohydrate. Things like Kre-alkline are just marketing gimicks. Futher, you do not need to "load" creatine. This is another gimick created by supplement companies to make you use up your creatine faster so you have to buy more. Studies have shown that within 2 or 3 weeks, a person who did not load creatine will have just as much creatine in his system as someone who did not load.

In regards to caffeine, one brand of coffee is just as good as any other. Be aware that caffeine inhibits creatine absorption, so do not take them together.

Other than making you feel better, caffeine does not provide any serious benefits for strength building, though in super high doses it could potentially raise testosterone (you'd need a LOT of coffee for this to happen, and you may experience shakey-ness long before you get there). Caffeine has been shown to extend stamina and endurance in marathon runners.

>> i thought caffeine is bad for health ? o.O

◘ It isn't. There are virtually no ill effects to worry about, even when taken for long term.

In regards to steroids, why not simply use scientific training? You'll get the same results without ruining your health.