What was that website with all those medical studies and papers related to fitness that was used the most reliable sources?
Also research or studies on high-carb vs low-carb cutting diets. Confused as fuck about that shit.
Sent ;)
>>37906692
Examine.com
>>37906692
Medicine is a meme dude
science as a whole is pretty much just memes desu
>>37906717
Super thanks friend.
>>37906724
What else we have to work with?
>>37906730
trial and error
>>37906748
3 years on trial and error diets later and i'm still a fat DYEL faggot no thanks m8y.
>>37906783
Try some traditional medicine, meditation and vril next time faggot
>>37906801
what kind of diet works for you?
>>37906824
Pastoral diet with slightly upped grain intake pre and post-workout.
>Also research or studies on high-carb vs low-carb cutting diets. Confused as fuck about that shit.
there's a certain minimum amount of protein and fat you need. you adjust carbs based on your energy expenditure. not that difficult. if you do very low carb youre gonna have more fats but thats not gonna be optimal cause carbs are more useful for recovery and shit. if you do high carb youre not gonna get enough protein so your MPS will be lacking or your not gonna get enough fats so your hormone balance gets fucked up and shit.
i dont understand why you need studies about this
>>37906832
Do you live on a farm?
>>37906846
I just like to know that my lifestyle choices are based on legitimate and proven methods as opposed to broscience,personal anecdotes or sports nutrition shilling.
Is that so strange?
>>37906892
so what i just said means nothing just because it's not taken from a study?
>>37906863
No, but I hold chickens, a basic vegetable garden and source most of my shit from farms.
>>37906908
In a sense yes, even though you are most definitely using sound information (that looks suspiciously like it's based off of meme diet studies).
Our bodies vary in composition and our metabolisms may be in comparison faster or slower.
So what might work for you may not work for me.
Is it really that hard for /fit/ to deliver good research on their chosen diets?
>>37906971
There's very little research done on serious lifters (I know, serious lifters on /fit/ etc). The populations are usually too small and too uninterested in participation to get any good data.
>>37906940
That's pretty cool desu. What made you choose that diet?
>>37906971
>Our bodies vary in composition and our metabolisms may be in comparison faster or slower.
that only changes your tdee, not your macro composition
but yeah, there are other things that make people react differently to different diets, but how could any study take that into account?
read this, shut the fuck up and go back to /r/fitness
http://www.barbellmedicine.com/potpourri/584/
>>37907044
>but yeah, there are other things that make people react differently to different diets, but how could any study take that into account?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control
Even though I thank you for providing. That article doesn't count as a reputable study. Just some coach advocating his own shit.
>>37907115
what i mean is that there is no useful way to categorize people depending on their metabolism and shit. its individual. someone could see better results with more carbs less fats compared to someone else but there's no way to generalize that so i dont see the point
i dont get why everything has to be based on a reputable study. especially when there are just about no studies on "low carb vs high carb" and shit. anecdotal evidence can be very sound too and cited studies can be shit.
fwiw, feigenbaum has done his research on the matter. if anyone, he's an anti-broscience guy. id recommend reading the protein book by lyle macdonald if youre after studies, the book has references to some 200 studies or so. other books by lyle are similar i think.
