What does /sci/ think of broscience?
Sometimes useful but not the reasons they think. Mostly wrong
>>7720834
So calories in and calories out is all I need.
nutrition and diet as some of the most specious topics in science.
I'd say there's only one solid piece of evidence for diet, a fat based one (low CHO low protein) in the case that you are suffering from Diabetes type II.
Otherwise, it appears as though ANY components of your diet (even to a significant extent) your caloric and glycemic intake don't affect your body transformation.
Exercise is amazing for the body, considering broscience driven by improving the capacity for execise maybe this cult of gains is the best way to go about changing your diet - the effect on your ability.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/11/20/the-diet-study-that-upends-everything-we-thought-we-knew-about-healthy-food/
>>7720921
So what are you saying? It doesnt matter what i eat as long as i go to the gym 5 times a week?
>>7720837
/sci/entific /fit/izen here. Calories in/out is all you need for weight control. To build muscle you need to control your macros.
>>7720977
no i'm saying that regardless of what anyone says day 1 only rigorous recording of your weight, energy levels, etc will give you an inkling as to how your body reacts to particular diets.
But yeah personally I'd echo your sentiment. Eat whatever the fuck you want and if you start to gain weight exercise more before you change your diet substantially.
That being said raw or processed sugar is pretty poison (to your liver) in large portions, so that's one thing you can avoid and feel safe about.
>>7721001
yeah i'm growing bigger than i ever had and I'm
1 not managing my macros
2 im not recording my lifts
3 im on no sups
that being said the protein recommendation that total protein should exceed 1gram/lb of lean muscle a day seems like good advice, but don't get it twisted - it isn't per pound of total weight.
>>7720831
>>7721154
>raw or processed sugar is pretty poison
I dont think you have ANY scientific background, and are very likely parroting something you read off Dr. Mercola's website or other garbage. Please refrain from commenting on things you know nothing about.
>>7724074
They're correct though. Unless you think your body enjoys the products of fructolysis and rapid blood sugar spikes leading to increased insulin resistance. Couple that with the addiction angle, and the average composition of sugar laced "food", people are going to be more often seeking out garbage.
It depends what they mean by "raw" sugar, but I don't really care that much. I'm just posting to call you out on your own bullshit,
>>7720831
>broscience
>tell people you're engaged in a carefully designed program of nutrition, exercise and the refinement of your existing genetic background
>lift, crash diet and take steroids instead
>>7720831
its a necessary first step.
most of lifting knowledge has been deducted from bro scientists who just go out and lift for years and converse among themselves regarding what has worked.
when broscience becomes prevalent and accurate then actual scientists can start from those foundations and have a hypothesis to base more rigorous examination on.
regarding fitness, effort and determination is more important than precise scientific adherence to the perfect routine/programming.
the latter is just a way to optimize the basics.
source: 1st year math sci, lifting for 5 years natty. decent understanding of o-chem and nutritional science. subbed to over 50 fitness youtubers who i watch and synthesize info from.
