Low Carb Friends

Low Carb Friends (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/)
-   Muscle Matters! (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/muscle-matters/)
-   -   Men vs Women (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/muscle-matters/805885-men-vs-women.html)

Trillex 06-11-2013 06:04 AM

Men vs Women
There's a boys-vs-girls battle going on right now in the bodybuilding social networks, and I thought some of you folks in the forum might be interested in the details. Every few weeks, it seems that a new thread that discusses calorie levels appears here in the Main Lobby. So I thought you might be interested to know that athletes who competitively cut bodyfat have similar sorts of differences of opinion on this topic. Interestingly, the current dispute in the bodybuilding world seems to be split between men who are fairly unified in the position that drastic calorie cutting is necessary to achieve the goals of the sport, and women who are arguing that drastic calorie cutting damages their future competitive potential.

Recently, Layne Norton, a significant figure in American physique competition, had a series of outbursts on his YouTube channel about "bad coaching" that cuts calories so low that physique competitors -- like bodybuilders and fitness models -- have difficulty "recovering" between competition cycles. Norton's YouTube lectures were directed at coaches who, in his opinion, cut calories too drastically. Norton says that he gets clients whose previous coach caused "metabolic damage" by getting the client competition-ready on a calorie level that is so low that their metabolic systems have down-regulated in a way that keeps them from being able to eat a heavy weight training level of calories without over-accumulating bodyfat, rather than building muscle during the "bulking" cycle.

To explain, weights and bodyfat levels for physique competitors -- especially for bodybuilders -- aren't static. They "cycle" through different phases throughout the year. For example, male bodybuilding competitors "cut" their bodyfat below 5% (aiming for 3%) specifically for contests, then they typically go back up to between 8-10% for "maintenance," and they'll sometimes go as high as 12% bodyfat when they're "bulking" to add muscle. Some go higher than 12%, but that's a really bad idea because it becomes difficult to "cut" the additional bodyfat back down below 5%. And there are a *few* who stay between 5-7% bodyfat throughout the year, but they're VERY rare because that's a really difficult level to maintain while eating to support active training and the nutritional needs of muscle "hypertrophy" (which is extremely large-size muscle growth).

Bodyfat levels increase between competitions because eating a lot of food to build muscle *typically* also adds a certain amount of fat. So all coaches and physique competitors *expect* to gain some bodyfat between competitions, but Norton says that the drastically low-calorie measures that some coaches give their clients creates what he calls "metabolic damage," which means their "muscle bulking" cycles become "fat bulking" cycles with less muscle gain. Norton is a champion bodybuilder AND champion powerlifter AND performance coach to other champions AND he has a doctorate in performance nutrition. And he's one of those people who, because he has the credentials he has, is *absolute* in how he says things must be done -- so his position is that calories should *never* fall very far below the body's measured maintenance level. (Please note that part of the coaching process is to get calorimetric testing, so the coaches should know the client's metabolic rate.)

But as everyone on this forum knows, "cutting" bodyfat is not an *easy* linear process. Different individuals, who have the same goals, run into different sets of challenges at different times during the fat cutting process. Physique competitors have this same situation -- *some* of them can cut bodyfat more easily than *others*. So *some* competitors can't cut their bodyfat to competition level without using "extreme" measures. And there are hormonal differences between different bodies -- which is how Norton's opinion became a social network fight between men and women.

After Norton posted his first YouTube clip about "metabolic damage," hordes of female (mostly fitness model) competitors responded in the comments section, saying that they are now *stuck* eating 1,000 or 1,200 calories per day to keep from gaining "too much" fat, and they say that they have had a lot of difficulty maintaining and adding muscle after a former coach cut their calories "too low" while getting them ready for a contest. So then hordes of male bodybuilders responded to these women saying that they're "lying" about their food intake, that what they're saying is "impossible." These guys are arguing that they've been competing for 5 or 10 or how ever many years, going back and forth between extremely low calorie "cuts" and extremely high calorie "bulks," and that they've never experienced what these women are claiming has happened, no matter how low they've cut calories.

I'm not kidding you, it's groups of just male competitors arguing against groups of just female competitors. The *nice* guys are saying that the women "think" they're eating less than they're eating. The *less nice* guys are calling these women "whiners" and, literally, telling the women to go take some testosterone. A lot of my best friends -- including both of my brothers and more than a dozen of my cousins -- are competitive bodybuilders, so my Facebook wall has had this contentious argument going on for more than a month now. A lot of the males are supporting their arguments with links to clinical research. But the research is all either done on male athletes or on "average" females. There just isn't a body of research on what clinicians call "metabolic adaptations" in high-performance, very-low-bodyfat females.

So one side has a research-based argument -- but the research isn't necessarily applicable to the population that is being discussed -- and the other side is coming from experienced competitors -- but their evidence is all anecdotal so it can't necessarily be accepted to establish a physiological case.

All of the bodybuilders that I'm close to -- my brothers, my cousins, my uncles, many of my closest friends -- are all male. And I've watched these guys do incredibly destructive things to their bodies in order to achieve their physique goals. I'm not sure that women can be as "extreme" and recover the way that male bodies recover. I don't think that women are *delicate* -- I am a woman and I think I'm very strong and resilient. But even female bodybuilders who are very careful and conservative in their approach to nutrition and training still lose their menstrual cycles before competition. Female competitors have a lot more bone and joint problems. There are physical and ESPECIALLY hormonal differences between the genders and, although I don't *know* who is right and who is wrong in the current dispute -- I do feel that the men are missing something important when they project their experiences and outcomes onto the challenges that are being reported by a different gender.

My brothers -- who are typically quite supportive of their female colleagues in competition -- think this gulf between the genders exists because (in their opinion) men are less "sensitive" about putting on bodyfat while bulking. According to them, men are "cool" with putting on fat while bulking because they don't mind looking huge, but that women "freak out" when they start to look huge because the goals of female competitors is more about looking "ripped up" than looking "freakin' enormous." My brothers are arguing that these women just don't want to go back up to maintenance calories and take the fat gain that inevitably comes with it.

This is a specific example of where I think males are unfairly projecting their experiences onto the other gender, because I know that my brothers both monitor their bodyfat when they bulk, and I know they put on more muscle than fat during a bulking cycle -- but these women are saying that they're putting on more fat than muscle after an extremely low-calorie cut. So the females are reporting a totally different situation than my brothers have experienced, but my brothers are responding as if the situations are the same.

Anyway, I think this is an interesting and relevant situation that sort of shows how difficult it is for *diverse* groups who want to cut bodyfat. Most of us on the forum and doing it (basically) on our own and trying to figure out the best approach. Physique competitors have highly-experienced professionals monitoring them and customizing programs for them, but there are still some very contentious disagreements in that community about *how* the fat cutting should be done.

margame 06-11-2013 08:29 AM

yep, the good ole "if this worked for me, it MUST work for you or you are not doing it right/you are lying etc" mentallity. as if people can't have different experiences in same situations. :rolleyes:

margame 06-11-2013 08:54 AM


Originally Posted by Trillex (Post 16465230)
But even female bodybuilders who are very careful and conservative in their approach to nutrition and training still lose their menstrual cycles before competition. Female competitors have a lot more bone and joint problems.

i know of female long distance runners who also experience loss of menstrual cycles, bone and joint problems.


Originally Posted by Trillex (Post 16465230)
My brothers -- who are typically quite supportive of their female colleagues in competition -- think this gulf between the genders exists because (in their opinion) men are less "sensitive" about putting on bodyfat while bulking. According to them, men are "cool" with putting on fat while bulking because they don't mind looking huge, but that women "freak out" when they start to look huge because the goals of female competitors is more about looking "ripped up" than looking "freakin' enormous." My brothers are arguing that these women just don't want to go back up to maintenance calories and take the fat gain that inevitably comes with it.

i can relate to this ... i've been weight lifting for about 3 years now, for my health, and it wasn't until i started my low carb woe that i could start to "see" and not just "feel" any muscle definition. looking "freakin' enormous" is something most females don't want and the main reason many females won't weight/strength train.

i weight trained in the early 1980s along with doing the atkins diet so i know from experience that after the bulk of fat is gone from your body you start to look "freakin' fabulous" and feeling great. can't wait to get back to that stage of looking great and more importantly feeling like you can conquer the world.

SlowSure 06-11-2013 09:36 AM

Trillex, you consistently post interesting studies, reviews, observations, and controversies such as this.

One of the items that you've highlighted is a particular bug bear of mine because of the way that it's become accepted as an indisputable truth in some circles that women grossly under estimate their energy intake. In the absence of something like a Cochrane systematic review of the available literature, I don't understand why people are so ready to think that they're giving an accurate view of the literature.

My overview of the field is no more reliable or unreliable than most, I think. It's my impression that several large statistical analyses of NAHNES, EPIC alongside the small scale trials and observations indicate that accuracy varies for both men and women according with variables in education, socio-economic status, health, smoking, ethnicity etc. etc.

Given that female body builders strike me as likely to be very educated about such topics, to be unusually self-disciplined in managing themselves, to be health aware, etc., it's difficult to believe that they would suddenly develop such a blind spot about one particular aspect of their regime.

By virtue of their advances in body building and what it takes to achieve that, I'd have thought that they 'd be as likely as their male colleagues to be the definition of 'educated compliers', as described in the 'Bias of Compliance' section of Taubes good piece on epidemiology -Do we really know what makes us healthy-, NYT 2007.

It seems almost impossible to discuss some matters in a way that will help people advance our collective knowledge when it's accepted wisdom to imply that all women self-deceive or fib about this. It feels like the literature doesn't support this but that would really be besides the point when confirmation bias takes the place of a good, well-designed, systematic review.

SlowSure 06-11-2013 10:26 AM

I should think that both successful male and female bodybuilders are those who are likely to be faithful adherers, compliant users of training regimes. It makes no sense that a gender difference would appear solely when it comes to estimating calories and that it should be so substantial it would trump all of the other known variables as well as compliance.

Taubes, G (2007). Do we really know what makes us healthy. NYT Magazine.


The Bias of Compliance

A still more subtle component of healthy-user bias has to be confronted. This is the compliance or adherer effect. Quite simply, people who comply with their doctors’ orders when given a prescription are different and healthier than people who don’t. This difference may be ultimately unquantifiable. The compliance effect is another plausible explanation for many of the beneficial associations that epidemiologists commonly report, which means this alone is a reason to wonder if much of what we hear about what constitutes a healthful diet and lifestyle is misconceived.
The lesson comes from an ambitious clinical trial called the Coronary Drug Project that set out in the 1970s to test whether any of five different drugs might prevent heart attacks. The subjects were some 8,500 middle-aged men with established heart problems. Two-thirds of them were randomly assigned to take one of the five drugs and the other third a placebo. Because one of the drugs, clofibrate, lowered cholesterol levels, the researchers had high hopes that it would ward off heart disease. But when the results were tabulated after five years, clofibrate showed no beneficial effect. The researchers then considered the possibility that clofibrate appeared to fail only because the subjects failed to faithfully take their prescriptions.
As it turned out, those men who said they took more than 80 percent of the pills prescribed fared substantially better than those who didn’t. Only 15 percent of these faithful “adherers” died, compared with almost 25 percent of what the project researchers called “poor adherers.” This might have been taken as reason to believe that clofibrate actually did cut heart-disease deaths almost by half, but then the researchers looked at those men who faithfully took their placebos. And those men, too, seemed to benefit from adhering closely to their prescription: only 15 percent of them died compared with 28 percent who were less conscientious. “So faithfully taking the placebo cuts the death rate by a factor of two,” says David Freedman, a professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley [who passed away, regrettably, in 2008]. “How can this be? Well, people who take their placebo regularly are just different than the others. The rest is a little speculative. Maybe they take better care of themselves in general. But this compliance effect is quite a big effect.”
The moral of the story, says Freedman, is that whenever epidemiologists compare people who faithfully engage in some activity with those who don’t — whether taking prescription pills or vitamins or exercising regularly or eating what they consider a healthful diet — the researchers need to account for this compliance effect or they will most likely infer the wrong answer. They’ll conclude that this behavior, whatever it is, prevents disease and saves lives, when all they’re really doing is comparing two different types of people who are, in effect, incomparable.
This phenomenon is a particularly compelling explanation for why the Nurses’ Health Study and other cohort studies saw a benefit of H.R.T. [hormone replacement therapy, one subject of the article] in current users of the drugs, but not necessarily in past users. By distinguishing among women who never used H.R.T., those who used it but then stopped and current users (who were the only ones for which a consistent benefit appeared), these observational studies may have inadvertently focused their attention specifically on, as Jerry Avorn says, the “Girl Scouts in the group, the compliant ongoing users, who are probably doing a lot of other preventive things as well.”

sox fan 06-11-2013 07:51 PM

Nicely written. It's not easy to walk the line like you did, but your skill is evident in the prose. I wouldn't be at all surprised if women as a group react differently than men as you offer. It sounds like we need some scientific studies to make that determination.

Trillex 06-12-2013 01:39 AM

You've all made really insightful points! And I'm actually a bit shocked that the folks who are "discussing" this on my Facebook wall aren't making the connections that you're making -- because this is their obsession. For most of them, this is one of the most significant parts of their lives. So I genuinely don't understand why a lot of truly good guys aren't taking a more nuanced look at the situation.

I don't think there are actually any *bad guys* in this. For example, I know that one of my good friends, who is a male bodybuilder, absolutely HATES the fact that he's "against" the women on this issue. He's one of those people who doesn't want to be identified as a "muscle guy" so he's usually on the opposite side of any argument that bodybuilders make about what people *should* be doing. But he just can't break from what he believes the research tells him because the research is consistent with *his* experience. So he hasn't been able to give the benefit of the doubt to the women who are telling him that their experiences have been different. I genuinely don't understand why really decent people are being so contentious and unwilling to listen to colleagues who have equal amounts of experience.

Layne Norton *says* he's going to do specific research on this phenomena in female physique competitors. He has a lot of financial backing from several large companies that he consults with, plus Norton is kind of the "darling" of some big, mid-western research universities. So he *could* actually do some research and contribute something significant to the field. Unfortunately, Norton typically talks more than he acts. So -- I may be unfairly judging him -- but I'm not sure he's actually going to get anything done. And it will be a shame if he doesn't actually produce something positive from this unfortunate situation.

I don't think it's Norton's *fault* for speaking out on this topic. But now that it's gone viral and people are being belittled and marginalized in their community, I think he has a responsibility to at least do what he has publicly promised to do.

SlowSure 06-12-2013 06:52 AM

To me, this bodybuilding controversy looks like a variation on how much useful data collection or an opportunity for knowledge advancement is almost wilfully ignored because it's easier to resort to shaming an out-group (eg, fat people, those encountering difficulty with a training regime) than to listen to what they're saying, collect data and decide whether there's something useful to be evaluated.

I'm a little surprised that the body-building community isn't sufficiently interested in these reports to suggest ways of evaluating people's personal experience. I know double label water assessment is expensive but in the overall scheme of how much money people spend on training and supplements, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that some of these women might be willing to stump up the money if Layne Norton were able to arrange some sort of collaboration with appropriate centres. Not least because it would allow the women to get better value from their coaching and associated financial outlay.

Data from such evaluations would also be invaluable to the wider training, health and fitness communities (I'd have thought).

Spanilingo 06-15-2013 02:34 PM

Controversy between the sexes is really not new and given the historical bias against female body builders even among other female body builders it doesn't surprise me that male competitors would take that stance.

As far as metabolic damage, I can't imagine they would not have damage. Not because of the calories specifically but "traditional" body builder diets consist of an extraordinary amount of carbs and and too much lean protein (grilled Turkey grilled turkey grilled Turkey) while eschewing as many fats as they can THEN cut calories and go even more lean. They look fantastic but we know they problems from these low fat diets on top of trying to build muscle.

I would be interested to know if they norton discussed the type of diet the women chose as opposed to just the calories (I didn't watch the video). Unfortunately, the body building community is still lacking on understanding nutrition outside of their immediate goals.

avid 06-18-2013 03:22 PM

I think any time people get obsessed about a topic, they get vehement about being right.
I have seen this in all sorts of venues, but competitive sports is one of the worst.
Have you managed to stay above the fray?

inatic 06-18-2013 07:34 PM

Many of the coaches Layne disputes are those that do stupid crap! LOW Calories on top of ton of cardio. Little or no off season where clients spend a significant time out of a caloric deficit. Crazy stuff.

Trillex 06-19-2013 11:37 AM


Originally Posted by avid (Post 16476196)
I think any time people get obsessed about a topic, they get vehement about being right.
I have seen this in all sorts of venues, but competitive sports is one of the worst.
Have you managed to stay above the fray?

I think that's very true. The only way these guys can be successful competitors is by being obsessive about every aspect of eating, training, and even sleeping. It takes a certain amount of obsessiveness to do what needs to be done. And that makes this a sport that is largely populated by very strong-minded individuals who really enjoy being *right*.

I've tried to be diplomatic about this situation because I think there's also a huge component of fear that's right under the surface. And fear makes people act a bit crazy. I think the most upsetting thing a competitive bodybuilder can hear is the phrase that Layne Norton used, "metabolic damage." The idea that they might find themselves in a situation where changing training routines won't be enough to support continued progress... Where changing nutrition won't be enough... Where new drugs won't be enough... Is absolutely unacceptable to them. They're spending their lives trying to *beat* nature through a tenuous combination of willpower and the intricate manipulation of details. So the idea that a physical situation -- that is beyond their manipulation -- could enforce limits on their progress is the absolutely most terrifying idea in their world, so they're not going to *easily* accept this thought.

From the first day they get into the sport, physique competitors are faced with the scary prospect of limitations on their genetic potential. So the successful folks stop thinking "can I cut that low?" or "can I get that big?" And they start thinking "what do I have to do to get there?" The part of their brain that could even entertain the thought that "there's nothing you can do" just gets completely cut out. So their response to someone not making progress is that the person who is complaining isn't trying hard enough. Because every time they've hit an obstacle, these individuals have used their obsessiveness to beat it. So the thing they *least* want to hear is that someone is being beaten by an obstacle. The thought that "if it can happen to them then it could happen to me" turns into "it just can't happen."

avid 06-19-2013 05:29 PM


Now that's what I call "insightful"
Well said Ms. Trillex

Spanilingo 06-19-2013 07:41 PM

I find anyone whose way of eating becomes a lifestyle commitment thinks the same way. Vegans , low carbers , lowfatters etc... Bodybuilders in my opinion are not specifically commited to health but to their "competition ." Of course their way of eating and excercise can cause metabolic damage. The amout if carbs and protein are hard on the body and not conducive to optimal health . Though I do like the mindset of fitness model Flavia Delmonte. While she is competitive , she seems to have a good understanding of how the body uses nutrients . Also Lyle mcDowell.

Trillex 06-20-2013 12:04 AM


Originally Posted by Spanilingo (Post 16478273)
I find anyone whose way of eating becomes a lifestyle commitment thinks the same way. Vegans , low carbers , lowfatters etc... Bodybuilders in my opinion are not specifically commited to health but to their "competition ." Of course their way of eating and excercise can cause metabolic damage. The amout if carbs and protein are hard on the body and not conducive to optimal health . Though I do like the mindset of fitness model Flavia Delmonte. While she is competitive , she seems to have a good understanding of how the body uses nutrients . Also Lyle mcDowell.

I hear what you're saying, the bodybuilding pursuit definitely isn't about *health*. I honestly think it's more about achieving a physical ideal, though, than it is about competition. It's actually a surprisingly collegial community. In some ways, I think figure competitors enjoy *seeing* bodies that they find glorious (almost) as much as they enjoy *achieving* a personal level of what they consider physical glory.

I don't think most competitors get too upset when they're *beaten* in a contest by a truly fantastic body. From what I've seen, the prevailing attitude is to give credit when it's due. Because I think most competitors know their own weakness and just believe they can *fix* the problems and do better next time. The *beefs* seem to happen when somebody loses to a body that they believe is inferior in some way. It's an aesthetic standard so people don't always agree on the results of the judging. Probably the most famous historical bodybuilding beef was between Mike Mentzer and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Mentzer just never believed Schwarzenegger's physique was a title winner (at that time). He seemed to believe that Schwarzenegger's stage presence won the title, which infuriated Mentzer until the day he died because he thought of it as *cheating*.

Personally, I don't think nutrition is the major bodybuilding health problem. Just cutting bodyfat down to compete is probably one of the most traumatic things a human can do to his or her body. I've lived with many male bodybuilders -- some were close friends, I've lived with boyfriends through contests, both of my brothers compete -- and things happen to a human body that most people don't know *can* happen when bodyfat is cut down to, basically, just the essential fat. Small things, like cutting the fat that pads the bottom of human feet, can be excruciatingly painful -- especially for guys who are carrying enormous amounts of lean weight. And the diuretics drain so much fluid from the body that the joints can lose their cushioning. The natural hormone levels change and they can't sleep, but can't stay conscious, can't focus, definitely can't function romantically. They're like gigantic, weirdly-emotional, delirious babies before contests. It's INTENSE!

Even training, in my opinion, is more of a physical threat than the nutrition because physique competitors will train through injuries that they know *could* become something serious and/or permanent. Part of success is the willingness to take risks. Sometimes the risks are reasonable but sometimes they're COMPLETELY unreasonable. Dorian Yates famously ripped his bicep and tricep muscles -- RIPPED THEM! He was doing an intense lifting regime with loads that he knew were dangerous to humans, but that's what he felt he had to do to get the development he wanted. Yates is an extreme example but many competitors do permanent damage to things like their rotator cuffs, knees, and backs. It's fairly common. The risks increase the longer they train and the more they compete because development just becomes more difficult to achieve over time and they feel that they have to push harder.

And bodybuilding nutrition isn't the same from cycle to cycle or competitor to competitor. There are different cycles that contribute to different results. A *common* maintenance diet is typically 40% carbs, 40% protein, and 20% fat, along with supplementing the essential fatty acids (EFA). EFA supplements have been standard practice since the 1970s. I don't think that's an inherently *dangerous* diet. It's pretty typical to use low-fat protein sources, but that's mostly about *controlling* the levels and types of fat that are ingested, rather than an attempt to completely eliminate fat from the diet. They would rather add fat to a lean meat source, so they can measure it more precisely, than eat fatty meat. Because the fat composition of a steak, for example, varies from steak to steak so it's more difficult to determine *exactly* how much fat is being ingested when eating a steak, as compared to eating a chicken breast with olive oil -- which is also why they don't eat fried foods (except on "free" meals) because the amount of fat that the food will absorb will vary from portion to portion. But on a ketogenic cut, they'll eat beef. And "IIFYM" (If It Fits Your Macros) followers will eat ANYTHING at any time as long as they can reasonably calculate the macros. Diet composition varies depending on the cycle and the desired outcome, as well as on the school of thought the competitor is following.

I think a lot of people have heard about carb "re-feeds" and perhaps think it's standard for bodybuilders to eat a thousand grams of carbs every day. But re-feeds are a *special* case. Mauro di Pasquale, Dan Duchaine, and Michael Zumpano, back in the early 1980s, discovered through reading studies on endurance athletes and through experimentation that glycogen depletion followed by a high-carb re-feed could over-compensate the levels of starch and water that are stored in muscle tissue. The re-feeds preferentially channel the ingested carbs and water into muscle tissue, rather than burning the ingested carbs as fuel. A *standard* re-feed could contain well over 1,000g of carbs in a single day (depending on the weight of lean body mass) and would typically contain 50g-75g of fat, protein would be between 1g-2g per kilogram of lean body mass. Fat is extremely low on a high-carb re-feed because the re-feed puts the body into a hormonal "storage" state, which is advantageous to "storing" glycogen in muscle tissue but this hormonal state could also be a "fat storage" environment. So fat is kept low during this period to avoid adding to fat stores while glycogen storage is desired and enhanced.

In the mid-1990s, clinical studies on strength athletes and nutrition eventually found the biological mechanisms that make the re-feeds work the way that Di Pasquale, Duchaine, and Zumpano established through practice in the early 1980s. Strength training up-regulates the enzymes for glycogen synthesis and glycogen storage, and the hormone "AMP-activated protein kinase" (AMPK) stimulates increased nutrient delivery sensitivity in muscle tissue to enhance the uptake of the hormones that store nutrients in muscle tissue following intense strength training. The depletion of liver glycogen, which is part of the depletion process that occurs in order to facilitate the re-feed, changes the liver metabolism and down-regulates the hormones and enzymes that process glucose as fuel. So the re-feeds take advantage of a *window* in which the body isn't ready to process glucose as *fuel*, but is primed to *store* the incoming glucose sources as glycogen. The re-feeds that are done by competitive bodybuilders are carefully timed and are calibrated to their body mass. This isn't the way they eat every day. It's a very special approach that is taken to serve a specific purpose.

With regard to fat sources, I think it comes from a crazy old wives tale but bodybuilders don't avoid saturated fat for health reasons but because there's an *idea* that saturated fat intake makes it more difficult to cut. I'm serious! I don't know where the idea came from but it's surprisingly widely believed. My uncles got into competition back in the 1970s and they tell a story about an old-school, Eastern-bloc coach they had in Venice Beach back in the day who told them they weren't allowed to eat pork. We're Puerto Rican so they were totally NOT going to give up pork! So when they were down to their last cut before a competition, this coach totally called them out and told them EXACTLY how much pork they'd been eating! This guy was pointing to their bodies, like, "I can see bacon RIGHT HERE!" According to my uncles, he was shockingly correct about how much saturated fat they'd been eating. So the myth perpetuates down through each new generation.

Trillex 06-20-2013 12:05 AM


Originally Posted by avid (Post 16478067)

Now that's what I call "insightful"
Well said Ms. Trillex

HUGS, Avid! You're such a sweetie!

Spanilingo 06-20-2013 06:24 AM

Oh Trillex--- you are a walking encyclopedia! I always finish your posts a little smarter about things I never thought about being smart about ! Lol! Thank you for taking the time to educate!

clackley 06-20-2013 08:16 AM

Marking my spot. Very interesting subject!!

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:29 PM.