Bodybuilding Mythbusters Compiled

MEAL FREQUENCY! Often, you see things like: "Eat every 2-3 hours to burn more fat!" or "Your body needs a constant supply of protein to keep it building muscle." You see these both in magazines and online, but recently this statement is being challenged more often online (usually without reason). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...ubmed_RVDocSum This study compared 5 meals a day to 2 meals a day, both with the same total caloric intake. The conclusion of this study came to be: "With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494 This is some-what of an analysis of ALL studies done regarding meal frequency and energy expenditure (calories burnt). It essentially states that most studies are neutral on the matter, that is meal frequency has no effect on metabolism. The VERY few studies saying otherwise were likely flawed. http://www.slideshare.net/biolayne/o...nd-muscle-mass That is a slideshow done by Dr. Layne Norton. It essentially shows that protein synthesis is not related to an absolute increase in plasma amino levels, which would be sustained by frequent meals. It's hypothesized that plasma amino spikes are able to stimulate protein synthesis at a much greater rate. This would actually support eating LESS frequently rather than more frequently. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413096 Here's another study that may be taking this myth and completely reversing it. It showed that although eating one meal/day as opposed to three caused an increase in hunger, it actually caused a DECREASE in fat mass, it also showed decrease in the catabolic hormone cortisol.

Myth DENIED! Eating every two to three hours is definitely not necessary, and is quite likely even less beneficial than eating every 5-6 hours, possibly more.

Another common thing I hear... You MUST IMMEDIATELY take a fast-digesting protein, such as whey, prior to working out to stimulate the best gains. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21045172 This study showed that immediate responses to whey and casein ingestion were different... But the end result was the same. They both stimulated protein synthesis equally. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570142 This study shows almost exactly the same thing. Both proteins caused equal protein synthesis. These findings are only compounded by having solid pre workout nutrition. A quote by Alan Aragon states: "Properly done preworkout nutrition EASILY elevates insulin above and beyond the maximal threshold seen to inhibit muscle protein breakdown. This insulin elevation resulting from the preworkout meal can persist long after your resistance

training bout is done. Therefore, thinking you need to spike anything is only the result of neglecting your preW nutrition" Myth, again, DENIED! You do not need a fast-digesting protein immediately postworkout. Nor do you need ANY protein post workout provided you are not lifting in a fasted state.

Another common myth deals with training frequency. ALL THE TIME people make these ridiculous splits and worry about overtraining. http://forum.body-fitness.nl/The-inf...y-m500296.aspx

Here are a few quotes directly from that article: "Some evidence suggests that the training frequency has a large impact on the rate of gain in muscle volume for shorter periods of training." "For hypertrophy, studies suggest that training two or three times per week is superior to training one time per week, even when volume is equal." But you don't train for size, you train for strength???? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373 This is from a meta-analysis of a ****load of people. It's not a little study on a small group. It shows that maximal strength gains for beginners (which most people who ask are) are elicited at 3 days/week.... And it then moves to 2 days/week and STAYS THERE. Never does it mention the best strength gains occurring when you train once per week (I can see an argument possibly being made for the elite, but no one here is, so it's irrelevant). MYTH DENIED! You will not die from training more than once per weekly, and on the contrary, you will more than likely actually gain BETTER with the increase in training frequency.

Testosterone levels highest in teen years a myth? I have a feeling this will be very hard to prove, someone else may have access to resources I do not. Testosterone levels in teens are not a common area for research. http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homep...yclo_Entry.pdf "In humans, testosterone levels peak in the late teens to early twenties." That's about all I have.. I'll keep looking though. Throwing a bit of common sense out there- just look at the virilization. It's fairly evident that my high voice, lack of facial hair, and open epiphyseal plates (just a few examples) hint more toward lower testosterone than a 25 year old's full beard, deep voice, and growth maturation. The old, 'high protein diet is bad for your kidneys.' http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16174292 One of the typical mum arguments, as has been well established, a high protein diet holds NO health risks provided there is no heridetary or pre-existing conditions.

'While protein restriction may be appropriate for treatment of existing kidney disease, we find no significant evidence for a detrimental effect of high protein intakes on kidney function in healthy persons after centuries of a high protein Western diet.' Squats to depth are bad for your knees. http://www.trulyhuge.com/news/tips68g.html (not a PubMed source, but the section I'm quoting is very much legit.)

You hear this one from all the gym bro's. Ignore it.

'This causes a lot of compressive forces against the patella, and pulls forcefully against the posterior cruciate ligament. These potentially destructive forces become significantly less as you descend further into the squat position.'

'The second reason is that, because of better leverage doing partials, youre obliged to use a far heavier weight in order to gain any sort of adaptive overload on the muscles involved; dangerous to the entire shoulder girdle, neck, low back, and knees.'

Edit: To clarify, the quotes I took are referring to squats ABOVE parallel.

You must lift heavy things up, and put heavy things down for big muscles. Or must you? As much as it pains me to post this particular article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0012033

Training at 30% of your 1RM to failure was more effective in elevating acute muscle anabolism then 90% of your 1RM to failure.

Saturated Fats are bad Most people I know and talk to think fats are bad and you should stay away from them. I also have a few people in my family who think saturated fats are the worst for you, and these same people never drink full fat milk/cheese, red meats, fast food etc etc (pisses me off when I try to explain the importance of everything in moderation, and they take no interest in listening to me). The below studies clearly indicate fats (saturated fats in particular) can make a significant impact on androstenedione, free testosterone, and total testosterone levels. Decrease of serum total and free testosterone during a low-fat high-fibre diet. Hmlinen EK, Adlercreutz H, Puska P, Pietinen P. Abstract The concentrations of serum total and free testosterone were studied in 30 healthy, middle-aged men during a dietary intervention program. When men were transferred from their customary diet to an experimental diet, which contained less fat with a higher polyunsaturated/saturated ratio (P/S-

ratio) and more fibre, there was a significant decrease in serum total testosterone concentrations (22.7 +/- 1.2 vs 19.3 +/- 1.1 nmol/l SEM, P less than 0.001). Furthermore, serum free, unbound testosterone fell from 0.23 +/- 0.01 to 0.20 +/- 0.01 nmol/l SEM (P less than 0.01). The hormonal changes were reversible. This observation suggests that testosterone activity in plasma can at least partly be modified by changing the composition of the diet. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6298507 Diet and serum sex hormones in healthy men. Hmlinen E, Adlercreutz H, Puska P, Pietinen P. Abstract The possible effect of dietary fat content and the ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fatty acids (P/S-ratio) on serum sex hormones was studied in 30 healthy male volunteers. The customary diet of the subjects, which supplied 40% of energy as fat (mainly from animal sources, P/S-ratio 0.15) was replaced for a 6 weeks period by a practically isocaloric experimental diet containing significantly less fat (25% of energy) with a higher P/S-ratio (1.22) and other environmental factors were stabilized. Serum testosterone and 4androstenedione decreased from 22.7 +/- 1.1 nmol/l to 19.3 +/- 1.2 nmol/l, (SEM, P less than 0.001) and from 4.6 +/- 0.2 nmol/l to 4.3 +/- 0.2 nmol/l (SEM, P less than 0.01), respectively. These changes were paralleled by a reduction in serum free (non-protein bound) testosterone (P less than 0.01) suggesting a possible change in biological activity. During the low fat period a significant negative correlation between serum prolactin and androgens was observed. All the changes in androgen levels were reversible. With the exception of a small but non-significant decrease in serum estradiol-17 beta, the other hormone parameters were practically unaffected by the dietary manipulation. Our results indicate that in men a decrease in dietary fat content and an increase in the degree of unsaturation of fatty acids reduces the serum concentrations of androstenedione, testosterone and free testosterone. The mechanism and importance of this phenomenon is discussed in the light of epidemiological and experimental data. PMID: 6538617 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Soure: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6538617 Influence of dietary fatty acids composition, level of dietary fat and feeding period on some parameters of androgen metabolism in male rats. Gromadzka-Ostrowska J, Przepirka M, Romanowicz K. Department of Dietetics and Functional Foods, Faculty of Human Nutrition and Consumer Sciences, Warsaw Agricultural University, Warsaw, Poland. gromadzka@alpha.sggw.waw.pl Abstract The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of the composition of dietary fatty acids, the duration of feeding period and dietary fat level on androgen metabolism in male rats. One hundred and twelve Wistar rats were divided into 18 groups which were fed three diets containing different types of fat (rapeseed [R], palm [P] and fish [F] oil) at either normal fat level (w/w; 5%) or high fat level (20%) during one, three or six weeks. Blood plasma level of androgen (testosterone+dihydrotestosterone) and testicular activity of 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (17beta-HSD) were investigated. In addition, androgen content in cytosol of the heart, the target organ, was measured. Androgen concentration in both blood plasma and heart cytosol extracts was measured by radioimmunoassay. The activity of 17Beta-HSD was expressed as a conversion of [3H]androstendione to [3H]testosterone in soluble fraction of gonadal homogenates. Plasma androgen concentration was influenced by a type of dietary fat (p<0.05). The highest plasma level of androgen was observed in animals fed R diets rich in unsaturated fatty acids. Significantly lower androgen concentration was demonstrated in rats fed P diets rich in saturated fatty acids. Only the feeding period factor significantly influenced androgen content in cytosol fraction of heart muscle cells (p<0.01). A positive correlation was found between plasma androgen concentration in plasma and cytosol fraction of the heart muscle cells (r=0.63, p<0.001). The feeding period (p<0.001) and dietary fat type (p<0.05) significantly affected the activity of 17beta-HSD. The least 17beta-HSD activity was observed in animals consuming the P-20% diet for six weeks. In summary, dietary fat type and feeding period, but not fat level, significantly affected both testosterone production and testosterone uptake by

the target organ in male rats. It was found that a rapeseed diet rich in unsaturated fatty acids stimulated the testicular function in rats. PMID: 14666150 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14666150

Effects of dietary fat and fiber on plasma and urine androgens and estrogens in men: a controlled feeding study. Dorgan JF, Judd JT, Longcope C, Brown C, Schatzkin A, Clevidence BA, Campbell WS, Nair PP, Franz C, Kahle L, Taylor PR. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892-7326, USA.dorganj@dcpcepn.nci.nih.gov Abstract We conducted a controlled feeding study to evaluate the effects of fat and fiber consumption on plasma and urine sex hormones in men. The study had a crossover design and included 43 healthy men aged 19-56 y. Men were initially randomly assigned to either a low-fat, high-fiber or high-fat, low-fiber diet for 10 wk and after a 2-wk washout period crossed over to the other diet. The energy content of diets was varied to maintain constant body weight but averaged approximately 13.3 MJ (3170 kcal)/d on both diets. The lowfat diet provided 18.8% of energy from fat with a ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fat (P:S) of 1.3, whereas the high-fat diet provided 41.0% of energy from fat with a P:S of 0.6. Total dietary fiber consumption from the low- and high-fat diets averaged 4.6 and 2.0 g.MJ-1.d-1, respectively. Mean plasma concentrations of total and sex-hormone-binding-globulin (SHBG)-bound testosterone were 13% and 15% higher, respectively, on the high-fat, low-fiber diet and the difference from the low-fat, high-fiber diet was significant for the SHBG-bound fraction (P = 0.04). Men's daily urinary excretion of testosterone also was 13% higher with the high-fat, low-fiber diet than with the low-fat, high-fiber diet (P = 0.01). Conversely, their urinary excretion of estradiol and estrone and their 2-hydroxy metabolites were 12-28% lower with the high-fat, low-fiber diet (P < or = 0.01). Results of this study suggest that diet may alter endogenous sex hormone metabolism in men. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8942407 Another source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8942407

"Mean plasma concentrations of total and sex-hormone-binding-globulin (SHBG)-bound testosterone were 13% and 15% higher, respectively, on the high-fat, low-fiber diet and the difference from the low-fat, high-fiber diet was significant for the SHBG-bound fraction (P = 0.04). Men's daily urinary excretion of testosterone also was 13% higher with the high-fat, low-fiber diet than with the low-fat, high-fiber diet (P = 0.01). " TL;DR, fats are good! Does weight lifting stunt growth? http://stronglifts.com/does-weight-l...-stunt-growth/ cliffsWeight lifting has no effect on growth. There is more reason to believe that it actually helps growth. Eating 2000 Calories under your maintenance will actually make you gain body tissue (gain weight).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/174829096

True.

Whey and casein labeled with L-[1-13C]leucine and muscle protein synthesis: effect of resistance exercise and protein ingestion. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21045172 Another question just came to mind. In reference to the meal frequency and post-workout studies, how does this information relate to pre-bed/morning nutrition? Should slow digesting foods (fats, casein, etc) still be eaten before bed and fast digesting upon waking? Or does the meal frequency study refute this? Sort of. Here's some more for ya. "The beginnings of body protein losses occur after roughly 20-24 hrs of eating zippo. Thus, if you're saying that skipping dinner is generally not conducive to the goal of gaining muscle at a maximal rate, then fine. However, if you don't skip dinner, then the difference between this type of protein or that is much ado about nothing." - Aragon

"Even though whey protein is relatively fast digesting, it still takes several hours for all the amino acids to be liberated & absorbed into the bloodstream." - Norton There are VERY specific circumstances in which it matters (EG you're doing multiple endurance training sessions per day fasted). None of us do that ****, so it doesn't matter to us. Studies show that there are no significant differences in the digestion rates of whey/casein, slow/fast digesting carbs. Kind of. They do have different digestion rates, they just generally don't matter.

I respect all of these studies...BUT...these studies did not envolve with an individual in the bodybuilding sport. So i believe the meal frequency and all is a must for bodybuilding. Dr. Layne Norton IS a pro natty bodybuilder, and almost all of his work is directly related. Alan Aragon also specifically does work in the bodybuilding field. Find me a study done on a 176 pound 5'6" 14 year old with blue eyes who speaks fluent English and is studying German in high school as of January 24th, 2011. Bodybuilders are not of another species. Will diet have any affect on blood cholesterol levels? Yes. If you refer to one of the studies in the original post[somewhere toward the top], as well as the studies on dietary fat, you'll see they all have some effect on lipids.

Cardio should not be done with weight training The general argument for this ridiculous myth is - it will hinder muscle growth, or eat up more calories that stop you from bulking.

The honest truth is: cardio eats up calories. So what is the solution for this? Consume more calories. What happens if you don't consume more calories? You lose weight. This is where that god awful myth comes from. So if your diet is in check, that means you won't lose any muscle mass. However, even with this cleared up - many people still wonder why they should use some of their precious time to do cardio training. I will first post this link - which lists all of the benefits of performing aerobic exercise(aka cardiorespiratory training.) http://faculty.weber.edu/molpin/exercisebenefits.html Dr. Michael Olpin's education includes: B.S. Pyschology. BYU M.S. Health Promotion. BYU PH.D Health Education As you can see, this source is more then credible for anyone unsure about whether these vast multitude of benefits is a collection of crap or not. However this link is absolutely filled with information. This information is for the general public, but many of the benefits are essential for weightlifters. For example: 1. Get more oxygen and nutrients into the cells throughout the body 2. An increase in capillarization will increase the amount of places nutrients can pass out of the blood into cells 3. Increase in anaerobic threshold - allows you to work or exercise longer at a higher level before a significant level of lactic acid builds up 4. Increases blood hemoglobin levels - which makes much more efficient use of inhaled air to use the oxygen so you can do more work without getting tired 5. Increase respiratory muscle strength and endurance 6. Increases the body's ability to utilize fat as an energy source during physical activity 7. Decreases body fat 8. Increase V02 max - increases the total amount of work you can do at any workload 9. Increases the body's ability to remove waste products 10. Aids in digestion of food 11. Increases growth hormone production 12. Increases thickness of cartilage in the joints 13. Increases the strength of connective tissue such as ligaments and joints 14. Helps to alleviate low back pain 15. Increases bone density 16. Maintains and increase muscle and joint flexibility 17. Increases overall muscle strength 18. Increases overall muscle endurance These are merely the benefits to bodybuilders such as myself. Obviously, there is a much longer and much more detailed list of overall health benefits for anyone doing cardio. For those who still confused at what this all means...cardio: makes your joints, connective tissues, muscles and bones stronger; burns fat and builds muscle; lets you use nutrients more efficiently; allows you to train longer and harder; enhances your recovery. So as long as you have a good diet, cardio can be an effective tool to aiding bodybuilders in achieving their ultimate goal. Cheers. Is there a correlation between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol? This is a common myth... Here's enough evidence to disprove it for the next 69 centuries: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9430080

"The misperception that dietary cholesterol determines blood cholesterol is held by many consumers in spite of evidence to the contrary. Many studies reported over the past 2 years have shown that dietary cholesterol is not a significant factor in an individual's plasma cholesterol level or cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Reports from the Lipid Research Clinics Research Prevalence Study and the Framingham Heart Study have shown that dietary cholesterol is not related to either blood cholesterol or heart disease deaths. In a similar manner, 10 clinical trials (1994 to 1996) of the effects of dietary cholesterol on blood lipids and lipoproteins indicate that addition of an egg or two a day to a low-fat diet has little if any effect on blood cholesterol levels. This observation was noted in young men and women with normal cholesterol levels as well as older subjects with elevated plasms cholesterol concentrations."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16340654 "We need to acknowledge that diverse healthy populations experience no risk in developing coronary heart disease by increasing their intake of cholesterol but, in contrast, they may have multiple beneficial effects by the inclusion of eggs in their regular diet."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7310532 "Change in cholesterol intake related to addition or deletion of two eggs in the daily diet had no significant effect on serum triglycerides, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, or relative lipoprotein concentrations."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2546416 "Reduction in dietary cholesterol below 400 mg/d produces no further substantial cholesterol lowering." There may be some effect of DRASTIC changes in dietary cholesterol on lipid profiles, but I've never seen evidence suggesting so. Also- one of the studies ^^ said that subjects who DID experience a rise in LDL cholesterol as a result of dietary cholesterol intake also experienced a rise in HDL cholesterol. What about that whole "squatting increases testosterone" myth http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1860749 To examine endogenous anabolic hormonal responses to two different types of heavy resistance exercise protocols (HREPs), eight male and eight female subjects performed two randomly assigned protocols (i.e. P1 and P-2) on separate days. Each protocol consisted of eight identically ordered exercises carefully designed to control for load, rest period length, and total work (J) effects. P-1 utilized a 5 RM load, 3-min rest periods and had lower total work than P-2. P-2 utilized a 10 RM load, 1-min rest periods and had a higher total work than P-1. Whole blood lactate and serum glucose, human growth hormone (hGH), testosterone (T), and somatomedin-C [SM-C] (i.e. insulin-like growth factor 1, IGF-1) were determined preexercise, mid-exercise (i.e. after 4 of the 8 exercises), and at 0, 5, 15, 30, and 60 min post-exercise. Males demonstrated significant (p less than 0.05) increases above rest in serum T values, and all serum concentrations were greater than corresponding female values. Growth hormone increases in both males and females following the P-2 HREP were significantly greater at all time points than corresponding P-1 values. Females exhibited significantly higher pre-exercise hGH levels compared to males. The P-1 exercise protocol did not result in any hGH increases in females. SM-C demonstrated random significant increases above rest in both males and females in response to both HREPs.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) not exactly "directly" related to what you said, but it could help a bit. Does time of consumption for creatine matter?Or is it the same as the "After work-out shake myth"? No. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC155521/ Gym inactivity over a certain amount of time causes muscle loss? myth or not myth? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19727029

An overview, not really a study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...1116/table/T1/ A table demonstrating the effects of weight bearing exercise in comparison to non-weighted exercise (this is only semi-relevant).

http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/4/1494.full "After 4 and 60 days of SI, mean absolute soleus weights were 27 and 64% smaller than in control rats, whereas the relative weights (mg/kg) were 10 (P > 0.05) and 62% smaller. Mean absolute soleus weights were 49% smaller in SI60d than SI-4d rats. " "More than two-thirds of slow muscle fiber mass can be attributed to activity-dependent factors. "

This is fairly hard to disprove. Not a lot of studies are done on the effects of inactivity on skeletal muscle atrophy in HEALTHY subjects. I found a lot relating to people recovering from injury, or with specific diseases, but these wouldn't apply. As much as I hate to say this- I think common sense plays a large part in proving this myth incorrect. Does fapping lower test, does not fapping lower test? Do cold showers raise testosterone? Didn't know if this was a troll or not- but I figured I'd answer it anyhow. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11760788 "In contrast, although plasma testosterone was unaltered by orgasm, higher testosterone concentrations were observed following the period of abstinence. These data demonstrate that acute abstinence does not change the neuroendocrine response to orgasm but does produce elevated levels of testosterone in males." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/135817 "The plasma levels of all steroids were significantly increased after masturbation, whereas steroid levels remained unchanged in the control study. " http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2509408 "We conclude that 1) prolactin and cortisol were secreted rapidly in response to SS and SSE, 2) the rise in cortisol concentrations likely suppressed testosterone secretion within the next hour, and 3) stallions appeared to associate the distant sounds of other stallions with their own previous exposure to SS and SSE, resulting in a cortisol response (and perhaps a prolactin response) even in the absence of direct stimulation." This seems to show a definite effect on serum steroids immediately following masturbation. I'd be interested to see some long-term studies (couldn't find any)... All in all- it doesn't seem too good for you chronic fappers out there. Taking glutamine is EXTREMELY beneficial! I love people who piss their money away on glutamine supplements when its shown time and time again to be pointless. Save your money dudes!

The effects of high-dose glutamine ingestion on weightlifting performance. Antonio J, Sanders MS, Kalman D, Woodgate D, Street C.

Sports Science Laboratory, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA. The purpose of this study was to determine if high-dose glutamine ingestion affected weightlifting performance. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, 6 resistance-trained men (mean +/SE: age, 21.5 +/- 0.3 years; weight, 76.5 +/- 2.8 kg(-1)) performed weightlifting exercises after the ingestion of glutamine or glycine (0.3 g x kg(-1)) mixed with calorie-free fruit juice or placebo (calorie-free fruit juice only). Each subject underwent each of the 3 treatments in a randomized order. One hour after ingestion, subjects performed 4 total sets of exercise to momentary muscular failure (2 sets of leg presses at 200% of body weight, 2 sets of bench presses at 100% of body weight). There were no differences in the average number of maximal repetitions performed in the leg press or bench press exercises among the 3 groups. These data indicate that the short-term ingestion of glutamine does not enhance weightlifting performance in resistance-trained men. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...pmtitlesearch4 Effect of glutamine supplementation combined with resistance training in young adults. Candow DG, Chilibeck PD, Burke DG, Davison KS, Smith-Palmer T. College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of oral glutamine supplementation combined with resistance training in young adults. A group of 31 subjects, aged 18-24 years, were randomly allocated to groups (double blind) to receive either glutamine (0.9 g x kg lean tissue mass(-1) x day(-1); n = 17) or a placebo (0.9 g maltodextrin x kg lean tissue mass(-1) x day(-1); n = 14 during 6 weeks of total body resistance training. Exercises were performed for four to five sets of 6-12 repetitions at intensities ranging from 60% to 90% 1 repetition maximum (1 RM). Before and after training, measurements were taken of 1 RM squat and bench press strength, peak knee extension torque (using an isokinetic dynamometer), lean tissue mass (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) and muscle protein degradation (urinary 3-methylhistidine by high performance liquid chromatography). Repeated measures ANOVA showed that strength, torque, lean tissue mass and 3-methylhistidine increased with training (P < 0.05), with no significant difference between groups. Both groups increased their 1 RM squat by approximately 30% and 1 RM bench press by approximately 14%. The glutamine group showed increases of 6% for knee extension torque, 2% for lean tissue mass and 41% for urinary levels of 3-methylhistidine. The placebo group increased knee extension torque by 5%, lean tissue mass by 1.7% and 3-methylhistidine by 56%. We conclude that glutamine supplementation during resistance training has no significant effect on muscle performance, body composition or muscle protein degradation in young healthy adults. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...pmtitlesearch4 Addition of glutamine to essential amino acids and carbohydrate does not enhance anabolism in young human males following exercise. Wilkinson SB, Kim PL, Armstrong D, Phillips SM. Exercise Metabolism Research Group, Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada. We examined the effect of a post-exercise oral carbohydrate (CHO, 1 g.kg(-1).h(-1)) and essential amino acid (EAA, 9.25 g) solution containing glutamine (0.3 g/kg BW; GLN trial) versus an isoenergetic CHO-EAA solution without glutamine (control, CON trial) on muscle glycogen resynthesis and whole-body protein turnover following 90 min of cycling at 65% VO2 peak. Over the course of 3 h of recovery, muscle biopsies were taken to measure glycogen resynthesis and mixed muscle protein synthesis (MPS), by incorporation of [ring-2H5] phenylalanine. Infusion of [1-13C] leucine was used to measure whole-body protein turnover. Exercise resulted in a significant decrease in muscle glycogen (p < 0.05) with similar declines in each trial. Glycogen resynthesis following 3 h of recovery indicated no difference in total accumulation or rate of repletion. Leucine oxidation increased 2.5 fold (p < 0.05) during exercise, returned to resting levels immediately post-exercise,and was again elevated at 3 h post-exercise (p < 0.05). Leucine flux, an index of whole-body protein breakdown rate, was reduced during exercise, but increased to resting levels immediately post-exercise, and was further increased at 3 h post-exercise (p < 0.05), but only during the CON trial. Exercise resulted in a marked suppression of whole-body protein synthesis (50% of rest; p <

0.05), which was restored post-exercise; however, the addition of glutamine did not affect wholebody protein synthesis post-exercise. The rate of MPS was not different between trials. The addition of glutamine to a CHO + EAA beverage had no effect on post-exercise muscle glycogen resynthesis or muscle protein synthesis, but may suppress a rise in whole-body proteolysis during the later stages of recovery. Amino acids and endurance exercise. Hargreaves MH, Snow R. School of Health Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, 3125, Australia. Although skeletal muscle is capable of oxidizing selected amino acids, exercise in the fed and carbohydratereplete condition results in only a small increase in amino acid utilization. Nevertheless, it may be important to increase the dietary protein requirements of active individuals. There is ongoing debate as to whether the amino acids for oxidation are derived from the free amino acid pool, from net protein breakdown, or a combination of both. There has been interest in the potential ergogenic benefits of amino acid ingestion; however, BCAA ingestion does not appear to affect fatigue during prolonged exercise, there is little support from controlled studies to recommend glutamine ingestion for enhanced immune function, and although glutamine stimulates muscle glycogen synthesis, its addition to carbohydrate supplements provides no additional benefit over ingestion of carbohydrate alone. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...gdbfrom=pubmed Facts and fallacies of purported ergogenic amino acid supplements. Williams MH. Department of Exercise Science, Physical Education, and Recreation, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, USA.mwilliam@odu.edu Although current research suggests that individuals involved in either high-intensity resistance or endurance exercise may have an increased need for dietary protein, the available research is either equivocal or negative relative to the ergogenic effects of supplementation with individual amino acids. Although some research suggests that the induction of hyperaminoacidemia via intravenous infusion of a balanced amino acid mixture may induce an increased muscle protein synthesis after exercise, no data support the finding that oral supplementation with amino acids, in contrast to dietary protein, as the source of amino acids is more effective. Some well-controlled studies suggest that aspartate salt supplementation may enhance endurance performance, but other studies do not, meriting additional research. Current data, including results for several well-controlled studies, indicated that supplementation with arginine, ornithine, or lysine, either separately or in combination, does not enhance the effect of exercise stimulation on either hGH or various measures of muscular strength or power in experienced weightlifters. Plasma levels of BCAA and tryptophan may play important roles in the cause of central fatigue during exercise, but the effects of BCAA or tryptophan supplementation do not seem to be effective ergogenics for endurance exercise performance, particularly when compared with carbohydrate supplementation, a more natural choice. Although glutamine supplementation may increase plasma glutamine levels, its effect on enhancement of the immune system and prevention of adverse effects of the overtraining syndrome are equivocal. Glycine, a precursor for creatine, does not seem to possess the ergogenic potential of creatine supplementation. Research with metabolic by-products of amino acid metabolism is in its infancy, and current research findings are equivocal relative to ergogenic applications. In general, physically active individuals are advised to obtain necessary amino acids through consumption of natural, high-quality protein foods. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...m&ordinalpos=6 Exercise-induced immunodepression- plasma glutamine is not the link. Hiscock N, Pedersen BK. Copenhagen Muscle Research Centre and Department of Infectious Diseases, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.

The amino acid glutamine is known to be important for the function of some immune cells in vitro. It has been proposed that the decrease in plasma glutamine concentration in relation to catabolic conditions, including prolonged, exhaustive exercise, results in a lack of glutamine for these cells and may be responsible for the transient immunodepression commonly observed after acute, exhaustive exercise. It has been unclear, however, whether the magnitude of the observed decrease in plasma glutamine concentration would be great enough to compromise the function of immune cells. In fact, intracellular glutamine concentration may not be compromised when plasma levels are decreased postexercise. In addition, a number of recent intervention studies with glutamine feeding demonstrate that, although the plasma concentration of glutamine is kept constant during and after acute, strenuous exercise, glutamine supplementation does not abolish the postexercise decrease in in vitro cellular immunity, including low lymphocyte number, impaired lymphocyte proliferation, impaired natural killer and lymphokine-activated killer cell activity, as well as low production rate and concentration of salivary IgA. It is concluded that, although the glutamine hypothesis may explain immunodepression related to other stressful conditions such as trauma and burn, plasma glutamine concentration is not likely to play a mechanistic role in exerciseinduced immunodepression. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...gdbfrom=pubmed Dosing and efficacy of glutamine supplementation in human exercise and sport training. Gleeson M. School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU England. m.gleeson@lboro.ac.uk Some athletes can have high intakes of l-glutamine because of their high energy and protein intakes and also because they consume protein supplements, protein hydrolysates, and free amino acids. Prolonged exercise and periods of heavy training are associated with a decrease in the plasma glutamine concentration and this has been suggested to be a potential cause of the exercise-induced immune impairment and increased susceptibility to infection in athletes. However, several recent glutamine feeding intervention studies indicate that although the plasma glutamine concentration can be kept constant during and after prolonged strenuous exercise, the glutamine supplementation does not prevent the postexercise changes in several aspects of immune function. Although glutamine is essential for lymphocyte proliferation, the plasma glutamine concentration does not fall sufficiently low after exercise to compromise the rate of proliferation. Acute intakes of glutamine of approximately 20-30 g seem to be without ill effect in healthy adult humans and no harm was reported in 1 study in which athletes consumed 28 g glutamine every day for 14 d. Doses of up to 0.65 g/kg body mass of glutamine (in solution or as a suspension) have been reported to be tolerated by patients and did not result in abnormal plasma ammonia levels. However, the suggested reasons for taking glutamine supplements (support for immune system, increased glycogen synthesis, anticatabolic effect) have received little support from well-controlled scientific studies in healthy, well-nourished humans. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...pmtitlesearch4 So, if its not essential to take a whey shake immediately after workout, when is the best time to, if at all? It doesn't matter provided you're hitting your daily macronutritional requirements. Nutrient timing is very overrated. I know Aragon has a lot to say about that if he is ITT. I've been taking N.O. Xplode preworkout. Necessary at all? And by necessary i mean will it affect ANYTHING no matter how small? Necessary, no. Will if affect things? Hell yes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16937961 "Thus, the caffeine-containing supplement may be an effective supplement for increasing upper-body strength and, therefore, could be useful for competitive and recreational athletes who perform resistance training."

I'm too lazy to look up the entire profile of NO Xplode and prove every single ingredient, and I'm certain there are some in there that don't work for ****.... But the main psychomotor stimulant that gives you the "energy" is the caffeine. It's a very well documented drug, and the only reason I posted one study is because there are so many it would be ridiculous to post them all. I read in here that you get best gains training each body part 2x a week... Idk about you guys but each body part is usually sore for 3-4 days after i workout. Can't squeeze in 2x a week unless i am lifting while sore, which is a big no no right? It is not bad to lift a sore muscle. AFAIK we do not know the exact cause of DOMS (there are many theories, but nothing conclusively proven) but we DO know that the best gains are elicited lifting with a body part multiple times per week. Is 2 hrs too long for a workout? Mind you this is 2hrs total including rest time (alot of it) not 2hrs of actual movement. Not at all, although I do not have any studies reflecting workout length on cortisol response.... Someone else may be able to pots one or two up! Working out longer for an hour is counter-productive This one was a tough one. There were several components to look at and unfortunately, many of the websites that offered information on the subject did not use credible resources. That...or they had no references whatsoever. Anyway, the general argument for this myth is that after a certain period of time of weight lifting - your body's testosterone levels drop and its cortisol levels increase. I'll start with cortisol. For those who are unsure: Cortisol is a steroid hormone released by the outer part (cortex) of the adrenal glands. Cortisol has a robust circadian rhythm under constant conditions and is also released in stressful situations. This includes mental and emotional stress but more importantly for bodybuilders - physical stress. So why is this bad? According to the legion of bro scientists that march across the internet - elevated cortisol levels can "wreak havok on muscle gains." http://www.ironmagazine.com/article19.html As informative as that article may be, it failed to cite any sources to his bold claims. He also failed to mention his education. As far as we know, he could be a 15 year old fat kid posting a crap storm so he could become popular on a bodybuilding forum. So, in light of this - I decided to use a credible piece of information from a widely recognized fitness professional.
Originally Posted by lyle mcdonald

Normal physiological pulses of cortisol are necessary for healthy normal function (for example, the morning spike in cortisol is required for optimal lipolysis). There's a reason the stress response occurs and that we evolved it. Considering that protein breakdown following training appears to be required to turn on protein synthesis (see the research on anti-inflammatories and how blocking the inflammatory prostaglandins inhibit normal protein synthesis), blocking cortisol post training may not be a very good idea at all. For muscular remodeling to occur, you need both breakdown AND synthesis to occur. It's when cortisol is chronically, pathologically elevated that problems start.

The truth is, it isn't - for everyday people in everyday situations. As the definition suggests, cortisol is an excellent tool the body uses to control stress levels. In other words, a rise in cortisol is not significant enough to pose a threat to bodybuilders unless it a chronic condition. So that eliminates that argument for this myth. The other part of this argument is the decrease of testosterone. "A 2004 study used three groups of subjects: G1, the control subjects, didnt exercise; G2 did 25 sets; and G3 did 50 sets. The workouts consisted of the big, basic exercisessquats, etc.a few sets of each, and reps were five to 10 with 90 to 120 seconds of rest between sets. The high-volume group had significantly suppressed testosterone over a 24-hour period, although there was no drop in the moderate-volume group. (Alemany, J.A., et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 36:S238; 2004)." http://www.ironmanmagazine.com/site/...sterone-surge/ So what does this mean? Testosterone plays a vital role in not only maintaining and building muscle mass, but also in increasing bone density. This could be detrimental for a weight lifter if his or her workouts are consistently too high in volume. In the very least, they might not see as satisfying results as someone who uses lower volume. In the end, it is still a personal preference. The evidence I have collected suggests that while temporarily increased cortisol is not a threat, lowered testosterone levels are. Don't worry excessively over how much time you are spending in the gym but try to keep it in a reasonable time frame. Pre-exercise stretching reducing muscular strength myth

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18379222 "After stretching, strength was decreased by 17% at 80 degrees , 11% at 65 degrees , 5% at 50 degrees , 7% at 35 degrees , and 8% at 20 degrees , and it was increased by 6% at 5 degrees (angle effect P < 0.01)." This study showed that the effect of stretching indeed did decrease isometric force production at all angles excluding near-full contraction (IE 1 inch bicep curls). Another study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1150232/) says that: "Both static and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching caused similar deficits in strength, power output, and muscle activation at both slow (60s1) and fast (300s1) velocities. The effect sizes, however, corresponding to these stretching-induced changes were small, " Here is a table from the second study showing the exact changes in strength output: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...0-40-2-94-t01/

You can see the changes for yourself. Are they there? Yes. Are they as drastic as I personally, or most other people, thought them to be? No. Here's a short summary on the topic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17326697 "Although most studies have found acute decreases in strength following stretching...... Consequently, the duration of the stimuli were excessively long compared with common practice" I'd agree that more studies need to be done on the subject, but as the evidence presents itself to me now....

Myth CONFIRMED! Static stretching prior to lifting DOES reduce maximal strength output, however, the level at which it does so is greatly exaggerated. It also provides NO documented benefit... So why take the risk for absolutely no benefit? Breathing while lifting http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20634749 This study was done on lifts with 10 reps, so keep that in mind. "The HB technique used in this investigation produced minimal elevations in HR and BP and appears to be safe when performing the chest press and leg press lifts at a moderate resistance. Education on proper weight training techniques can help limit unwanted risks during these exercises."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2883611/ "The peak force during the Valsalva maneuver was not different from forced exhalation for all tested muscle groups" it also went on to say; "Given increased cardiovascular risks associated with the Valsalva maneuver, it is highly recommended that forced exhalation should be used during exercises at maximal levels, especially in repetitive repetitions."

Now given this, it seems to show that forced breathing>valsalva.... However: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3750086 "The Valsalva maneuvers did raise intraabdominal pressure"

No studies that I can find have been done directly on the valsalva's effects on "big" lifts, EG the squat and deadlift. I would hypothesize that during movements that utilize less core stability, forced exhalation on the concentric would be your best bet; HOWEVER, on "big" lifts that rely on IAP for stability, I think the valsalva (trying to exhale without exhaling) would be most effective. Note: ^^^ is just my thoughts, I can not find literature backing either side.

Fasted Cardio http://www.alanaragon.com/myths-unde...ed-cardio.html

If you're too lazy to read the whole thing, allow me to post the essential conclusion... "At the established intensity level of peak fat oxidation (~63% VO2 max), carbohydrate increases performance without any suppression of fat oxidation in trained subjects." Basically- Fasted cardio is a no-no. The long speculated low carb diet for fat loss. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046 It's been proposed that low carbohydrate diets hold a metabolic advantage, promoting greater weight loss.

The comparison between groups on a ketogenic diet or a diet receiving 40% of total calories from carbohydrates showed no statistically significant difference in weight or fat loss, the non-ketogenic diet actually had a higher mean weight and fat loss.

What exactly is fat burning? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19855335

Long story short, if you're running, you're in the fat burning zone. Supplement Studies Creatine has studies supporting its claims. I posted numerous studies proving that glutamine is completely pointless (see post 101 and post 102). Protein powders/bcaas you don't need, most people buy because of their convenience for after a workout, or with breakfast, or for traveling purposes etc. Its no different then the protein you get in a steak or chicken breast, just in a powdered form for supposively better absorption or whatever. Multivitamins also have no evidence of enhancing performance, but are advised for individuals who don't have their diets in check.

Trace mineral requirements for athletes. Clarkson PM, Haymes EM. Department of Exercise Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst 01003. Abstract This paper reviews information pertaining to zinc, copper, chromium, and selenium requirements of athletes. Exercise increases zinc loss from the body, and dietary intake for some athletes, especially females, may be inadequate. Blood copper levels are altered by exercise, but there is no information to suggest that copper ingestion or status is compromised in athletes. Studies have shown that urinary chromium excretion is increased by exercise, but whether this leads to an increased requirement is still unknown. There is concern that athletes may not ingest sufficient quantities of chromium; however, there are inadequate data to confirm this. The limited data that exist show that athletes do not have altered selenium status. There is no conclusive evidence that supplementation with any of these trace minerals will enhance performance. A diet containing foods rich in micronutrients is recommended. However, for those athletes concerned that their diets may not be sufficient, a multivitamin/mineral supplement containing no more than the RDA may be advised. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...ubmed_RVDocSum Vitamin and mineral status of trained athletes including the effects of supplementation. Weight LM, Noakes TD, Labadarios D, Graves J, Jacobs P, Berman PA. Department of Physiology, University of Cape Town Medical School, South Africa. Abstract We measured serum concentrations of thiamin, riboflavin, nicotinic acid, pyridoxine, folate, cyanocobalamin, ascorbic acid, retinol, tocopherol, zinc, magnesium, copper, iron, and ferritin as well as hemoglobin, hematocrit, percentage transferrin saturation, and total iron-binding capacity in athletes who ingested a multivitamin and mineral supplement for 3 mo. All blood variables were normal and except for pyridoxine and riboflavin there were no significant changes in the blood concentrations of any other vitamins or minerals measured. This may have been due to variable interactions between the vitamins and minerals in the supplement that prevented their being adequately absorbed. There were no signs or symptoms of

serious toxic side effects. We conclude that multivitamin and mineral supplementation was without any measurable ergogenic effect and that such supplementation is unnecessary in athletes ingesting a normal diet. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3...ubmed_RVDocSum

Do squats really elevate testosterone levels enough to (noticeably) increase bench? I'll tackle this one first, since I already have studies that somewhat relate. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2796409 "Basal levels of T decreased in both groups, but were not significant." "The basal level of GH increased by 44.9% in the young and by only 3% in the elderly but neither change was significant." "The T response to an acute bout of exercise was not significant but did increase in both age groups." What does all this mean? Lifting indeed ****s with your hormones, but not significantly.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/87/3/982.full

Here's a graph for all you graph-lovers. You can easily see the changes (rather, the lack of) in total and free test from 10 weeks of squats. Does protein cause Acne? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18496812 "Changes in HOMA-IR were significantly different between groups at day 7 (-0.57 for LGL vs. 0.14 for HGL, p = 0.03). SHBG levels decreased significantly from baseline in the HGL group (p = 0.03), while IGFBP-I and IGFBP-3 significantly increased (p = 0.03 and 0.03, respectively) in the LGL group. These results suggest that increases in dietary glycemic load may augment the biological activity of sex hormones and IGF-I, suggesting that these diets may aggravate potential factors involved in acne development."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17448569 This one is saying a high protein diet may reduce acne. "total lesion counts had decreased more in the experimental group compared with the control group" "This suggests nutrition-related lifestyle factors play a role in acne pathogenesis. However, these preliminary findings should be confirmed by similar studies."

Would I say these studies prove it or deny it? No. They have multiple factors other than protein levels that come into play. They MAINLY focus on carbohydrates effect on acne, with protein coming in on the side. I can't find anything directly related to protein on acne. As said before- it has more and all to do with puberty. Limit on amount of protein body can absorb at one time

In sum, view all information especially gym folklore and short-term research with caution. Dont buy into the myth that protein wont get used efficiently unless its dosed sparingly throughout the day. Hopefully, future research will definitively answer how different dosing schemes with various protein types affect relevant endpoints such as size and strength. In the mean time, feel free to eat the whole steak and drink the whole shake, and if you want to get the best bang for your buck, go for a quality protein blend such as Nitrean! Source: Article written by Mr. Aragon: http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-n...a-single-meal/

Will a certain macro be preferentially stored as fat when eating at an excess? Does the type of macro have any effect on bodyfat gain when eating at an excess? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1543621/ "The macronutrient that is most easily stored (fat) is oxidized last, while macronutrients that can not be stored at all (alcohol), or that can only be stored under certain circumstances (protein) or in limited amounts (carbohydrate) are oxidized first." "The intake of any macronutrient in excess of energy needs will lead to fat storage, but a reduced capacity for fat oxidation could particularly predispose to obesity." "The limited storage capacity for carbohydrates forces an increase in carbohydrate oxidation with carbohydrate overfeeding, which together with a decrease in fat oxidation results in a positive fat balance" "In addition, there are other ways to store excess energy as fat. The storage of body fat from dietary fat is the most energy efficient (~0.02 MJ per MJ ingested fat), but dietary protein and carbohydrate can also be stored as fat (~0.25 MJ per MJ ingested protein or carbohydrate)" What does all this mean? Well, I'd say that fat IS the most readily stored macronutrient when a caloric excess is present. Does this mean you should avoid fat? Hell no. Please, PLEASE, don't do that. As long as you control caloric excess (IE don't overfeed by an immense amount), fats will be far more beneficial than detrimental. I can't find anything on the latter question- but I can give my thoughts, I suppose. I don't see a "type" of macronutrient having a preferred oxidation level (EG saturated fats being more readily stored as adipose tissue than monounsaturated fats, those being more readily oxidized by the body), but an argument MIGHT be able to be made about the effects of "simple" carbs (more appropriately, carbs that cause a sudden, large spike in insulin secretion) than "complex" carbs (more appropriately, the inverse of the former statement) on fat storage, due to hormonal response rather than the preferential "type" of carb to the body... Don't take this paragraph as fact, as it's just my thinking, but.... Yeah. Take it or leave it, I suppose. Alcohol and bodybuilding http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_...e_to_alcohol_1 Avoid bingeing, but moderate alcohol consumption is fine and could have some anti-inflam and heart-health effects. Myth: High intensity cardio burns a lot more calories because of EPOC http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17101527

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...nsumption.html The simple fact is that the calories burned during activity are going to contribute the most to calorie burn, not EPOC and focusing on increasing that value is going to have a much larger impact on calorie balance (all other things equal) than worrying about EPOC. Soy Lowers Total and/or Free Testosterone Levels and Raises Estrogen Levels in Men and Should Therefore Be Limited in Dietary Intake http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378106 In contrast to the results of some rodent studies, findings from a recently published metaanalysis and subsequently published studies show that neither isoflavone supplements nor isoflavone-rich soy affect total or free testosterone (T) levels. Similarly, there is essentially no evidence from the nine identified clinical studies that isoflavone exposure affects circulating estrogen levels in men. basically states that the isoflavone metabolism in rodents and human beings is so disparate that research done on rodents bears little to no relevance on the human physiological response to soy. so..... EAT UP Too much milk can cause bitch tits http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19496976 "The present data on men and children indicate that estrogens in milk were absorbed, and gonadotropin secretion was suppressed" "After the intake of cow milk, serum estrone (E1) and progesterone concentrations significantly increased, and serum luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and testosterone significantly decreased in men. Urine concentrations of E1, estradiol, estriol and pregnanediol significantly increased in all adults and children." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125328 "Among dietary risk factors, we are most concerned with milk and dairy products, because the milk we drink today is produced from pregnant cows, in which estrogen and progesterone levels are markedly elevated."

This is funny, because my instinct told me to say "No you idiot." But then science comes along and ****s **** up. Effect of marijuana on muscle gains http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1935564 "Chronic marijuana use showed no significant effect on hormone concentrations in either men or women." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6316036 "A reanalysis of existing data established that testosterone levels are depressed both after smoking one marijuana cigarette" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16499939 "Our results suggest that marijuana abuse is considered an endocrine-disrupting factor. "The estrogenic effect of MSC was further confirmed by the immature female rat uterotrophic assay. MSC stimulated the estrogenicity related to the ER-mediated pathway"

That's all fine and dandy, but this here summarizes my thoughts: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12412841 "Despite these findings in animals, the effects in humans have been inconsistent, and discrepancies are likely due in part to the development of tolerance. The long-term consequences of marijuana use in humans on endocrine systems remain unclear."

TL;DR, we don't know what it does. Expanding the ribcage via deep breathing exercises http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_...act_or_fiction During the early twenties, in the vast majority of males, the costal cartilages ossify or become fixed. After ossification occurs, weight training, forced breathing, and stretching are going to have little effect on increasing the size of the ribcage. Teenagers," Dr. Medaera continued, "who perform breathing squats and pullovers progressively for many months can expect from one to two inches of ribcage growth

Does locking out on exercises do any damage to your joints/tendons/ligaments whatsoever? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15934121 "In a subgroup of 218 patients with no or little joint damage (defined as Larsen score < or = 5; 80% of our study population) the proportions of patients with an increase in joint damage were similar for the exercise and usual-care group (35% versus 36%, risk ratio [RR] 1.0 [0.7-1.4]; P = not significant), " http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1754798/ "The progression of radiological joint damage of the hands and feet in patients with RA is not increased by long term high intensity weightbearing exercises. These exercises may have a protective effect on the joints of the feet. " Everything is on arthritis patients. I can't find **** on weight bearing exercise in healthy individuals. Eating raw eggs involves a dangerously high risk of contracting salmonella. Or does it? If one looks at studies which have been done to analyse the risks of contracting salmonella from raw eggs, it is surprising to find out how low this risk actually is. A study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2002 (Risk Analysis April 2002 22(2):203-18) indicates that only 2.3 million, out of the 69 billion eggs produced annually, are contaminated with salmonella. So this really means that only 0.003 % of eggs are infected. Viewed another way, only 1 in every 30,000 eggs is contaminated with salmonella, which shows how uncommon this problem actually is. Based on those numbers, the average person would come across a contaminated egg only once in 42 years. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12022671?dopt=Abstract An overview of the Salmonella enteritidis risk assessment for shell eggs and egg products. Related to above: Very good study, i use to eat raw eggs all the time with no problems BUT the next problem there is the difference of how much protein is bio-available (digestible) from raw vs cooked. Studies show that the protein in a raw egg has 51% bio-available whereas the cooked egg is nearer 91%.

Not to contradict what you have said, its a very valid point just thought this is also important for people to be aware of the following before they start eating there eggs raw instead. Source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9772141 Does creatine really have long term effects on your kidneys/other parts of your body? I'm 15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12500988 "Therefore, it appears that oral supplementation with CrM has no long-term detrimental effects on kidney or liver functions in highly trained college athletes in the absence of other nutritional supplements." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12701816 "Results indicate that long-term creatine supplementation (up to 21-months) does not appear to adversely affect markers of health status in athletes undergoing intense training in comparison to athletes who do not take creatine. Level of mercury in tuna The FDA has this to say: "Eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury. * Five of the most commonly eaten fish that are low in mercury are shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish. * Another commonly eaten fish, albacore ("white") tuna has more mercury than canned light tuna. So, when choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish, you may eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week." Sourced from: http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/p.../ucm115662.htm Related to above: The problem with fish and mercury is nonexistent. There is a better chance to develop aluminium poisoning or botulism from bacterias that proliferate in open cans. There have been only four documented case of people being poisoned by mercury found in their food. (fungicide in grains). Here is the data : Mercury Myths 1. Myth: The amount of mercury in our environment (and in the fish we eat) is dangerously increasing. The truth: There's considerable evidence that the amount of mercury in fish has remained the same (or even decreased) during the past 100 years. One team of researchers from Duke University and the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum compared 21 specimens of Atlantic Ocean blue hake preserved during the 1880s with 66 similar fish caught in the 1970s. They found no change at all in the concentration of mercury. In another study, Princeton scientists compared samples of yellowfin tuna from 1971 with samples caught in 1998. They expected to find a mercury increase of between 9 and 26 percent, but they found a small decline instead. And in a unique experiment, curators of the Smithsonian Institution tested tuna samples that were archived between 1878 and 1909, and compared them with similar fish tissue from 1971 and 1993. They found significantly less mercury in the more recently caught fish. In some cases, the difference was more than 50 percent.

There's even some evidence that human beings are exposed to less mercury today than in the past. Alaska's Public Health Department, for example, reports that when the hair of eight 550-year-old Alaskan mummies was tested for mercury, the results showed levels averaging twice the blood-mercury concentration of today's Alaskans.

2. Myth: Mercury in fish presents a serious health risk to Americans. The truth: The best science suggests that the tiny amounts of mercury in fish aren't harmful at all. A recent twelveyear study conducted in the Seychelles Islands (in the Indian Ocean) found no negative health effects from dietary exposure to mercury through heavy fish consumption. On average, people in the Seychelles Islands eat between 12 and 14 fish meals every week, and the mercury levels measured from the island natives are approximately ten times higher than those measured in the United States. Yet none of the studied Seychelles natives suffered any ill effects from mercury in fish, and they received the significant health benefits of fish consumption. In November 2005, The American Journal of Preventive Medicine published new research from Harvard University that put the risk from fish-borne mercury in its proper context. Dr. Joshua Cohen, the study's lead author, summed up the issue for MedScape Medical News: "[W]e're talking about a very subtle effect of mercury changes that would be too small to measure in individuals."

3. Myth: The health risk from mercury outweighs the health benefits of eating fish. The truth: The opposite is true. Omega-3 fatty acids found in fish can decrease the risk of heart attacks, strokes, kidney disorders, Alzheimer's disease, breast cancer, prostate cancer, uterine cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, type-2 diabetes, low birth-weight, post-partum depression, and pre-term delivery. The bad news? Partially because of the health scares surrounding mercury, Americans' intake of Omega-3 acids is 3 to 6 times lower than the levels recommended by the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. Harvard's Dr. Eric Rimm told The New York Times in 2004: "The message of fish being good has been lost, and people are learning more about the hypothetical scare of a contaminant than they are of the well-documented benefits." A 2005 study published in Archives of Neurology showed that elderly people who eat fish at least once a week can slow their rate of mental decline by between 10 and 13 percent. Research published in the same journal in 2003 found that adults who consume fish once or more each week have a 60 percent lower risk of developing Alzheimer's Disease. A 2004 study of children in Bristol, England showed that the children of pregnant women who consumed high amounts of fish scored higher on mental development tests. That same study found "no adverse developmental effects associated with mercury." And studies published in the November 2005 American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that even eating small amounts of fish each week can result in a 17 percent lower risk of heart disease, a 12 percent lower risk of stroke, and (when eaten by pregnant women) a modest 1/8-point increase in children's IQ. Sources : Alaska Department of Health and Social Sciences. State of Alaska Epidemiology Bulletin. 2002 Dec 11;29. Christine M. Albert et al. Blood Levels of Long-Chain n-3 Fatty Acids and the Risk of Sudden Death. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002 Apr 11;346(15):1113-18. Scott M. Arnold and John P. Middaugh, Alaska Division of Public Health. Use of Traditional Foods in a Healthy Diet in Alaska -- Risks in Perspective, Volume 2: Mercury. 2004 Dec 2;8(11) Michael Bolger and Bernard A. Schwetz. Perspective: Mercury and Health. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002 Nov 28;347(22):1735-36. Effects of supplements before/during/after workout

Check out these studies with regard to the effect of protein timing on changes in strength, power and body composition: 1) Hoffman, J. R., Ratamess, N. A., Tranchina, C. P., Rashti, S. L., Jie, K., & Faigenbaum, A. D. (2009). Effect of Protein-Supplement Timing on Strength, Power, and Body-Composition Changes in Resistance-Trained Men. International Journal of Sport Nutrition & Exercise Metabolism, 19(2), 172-185. Abstract: The effect of 10 wk of protein-supplement timing on strength, power, and body composition was examined in 33 resistance-trained men. Participants were randomly assigned to a protein supplement either provided in the morning and evening (n = 13) or provided immediately before and immediately after workouts (n = 13). In addition, 7 participants agreed to serve as a control group and did not use any protein or other nutritional supplement. During each testing session participants were assessed for strength (one-repetitionmaximum [1RM] bench press and squat), power (5 repetitions performed at 80% of 1RM in both the bench press and the squat), and body composition. A significant main effect for all 3 groups in strength improvement was seen in 1RM bench press (120.6 20.5 kg vs. 125.4 16.7 at Week 0 and Week 10 testing, respectively) and 1RM squat (154.5 28.4 kg vs. 169.0 25.5 at Week 0 and Week 10 testing, respectively). However, no significant between-groups interactions were seen in 1RM squat or 1RM bench press. Significant main effects were also seen in both upper and lower body peak and mean power, but no significant differences were seen between groups. No changes in body mass or percent body fat were seen in any of the groups. Results indicate that the time of protein-supplement ingestion in resistancetrained athletes during a 10-wk training program does not provide any added benefit to strength, power, or body-composition changes. 2) Cribb, P. J., & Hayes, A. (2006). Effects of Supplement Timing and Resistance Exercise on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(11), 1918-1925. Abstract: Purpose: Some studies report greater muscle hypertrophy during resistance exercise (RE) training from supplement timing (i.e., the strategic consumption of protein and carbohydrate before and/or after each workout). However, no studies have examined whether this strategy provides greater muscle hypertrophy or strength development compared with supplementation at other times during the day. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of supplement timing compared with supplementation in the hours not close to the workout on muscle-fiber hypertrophy, strength, and body composition during a 10-wk RE program. Methods: In a single-blind, randomized protocol, resistance-trained males were matched for strength and placed into one of two groups; the PRE-POST group consumed a supplement (1 g.kg-1 body weight) containing protein/creatine/ glucose immediately before and after RE. The MOR-EVE group consumed the same dose of the same supplement in the morning and late evening. All assessments were completed the week before and after 10 wk of structured, supervised RE training. Assessments included strength (IRM, three exercises), body composition (DEXA), and vastus lateralis muscle biopsies for determination of muscle fiber type (I, IIa, IIx), cross-sectional area (CSA), contractile protein, creatine (Cr), and glycogen content. Results: PRE-POST demonstrated a greater (P < 0.05) increase in lean body mass and 1 RM strength in two of three assessments. The changes in body composition were supported by a greater (P < 0.05) increase in CSA of the type II fibers and contractile protein content. PRE-POST supplementation also resulted in higher muscle Cr and glycogen values after the training program (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Supplement timing represents a simple but effective strategy that enhances the adaptations desired from RE-training. Training to Failure http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/Abs...nstream.2.aspx http://www.motleyhealth.com/strength...ration-is-best http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/tra...ng-part-6.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16410373 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19211941

"These results indicate that when intensity and volume are equated, failure or nonfailure training results in similar gains in lower body muscular endurance." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17530977 "Furthermore, training to failure should not be performed repeatedly over long periods, due to the high potential for overtraining and overuse injuries." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19997025 "NRF group experienced larger gains in one- repetition maximum strength and muscle power output (4.6% and 6.4%, respectively) in BP compared with both 4RF (2.1% and j1.2%) and 2NRF (0.6% and -0.6%). 4NRF and 2NRF groups experienced larger gains in W 10 strokes (3.6% and 5%) and in W 20 min (7.6% and 9%) compared with those found after 4RF (-0.1% and 4.6%)."

Do Natural test boosters (Tribulus) really work? No The effects of Tribulus terrestris on body composition and exercise performance in resistance-trained males. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the herbal preparation Tribulus terrestris (tribulus) on body composition and exercise performance in resistance-trained males. Fifteen subjects were randomly assigned to a placebo or tribulus (3.21 mg per kg body weight daily) group. Body weight, body composition, maximal strength, dietary intake, and mood states were determined before and after an 8-week exercise (periodized resistance training) and supplementation period. There were no changes in body weight, percentage fat, total body water, dietary intake, or mood states in either group. Muscle endurance (determined by the maximal number of repetitions at 100-200% of body weight) increased for the bench and leg press exercises in the placebo group (p <.05; bench press +/-28.4%, leg press +/-28.6%), while the tribulus group experienced an increase in leg press strength only (bench press +/-3.1%, not significant; leg press +/-28.6%, p <.05). Supplementation with tribulus does not enhance body composition or exercise performance in resistance-trained males. The effect of five weeks of Tribulus terrestris supplementation on muscle strength and body composition during preseason training in elite rugby league players. Tribulus terrestris is an herbal nutritional supplement that is promoted to produce large gains in strength and lean muscle mass in 5-28 days (15, 18). Although some manufacturers claim T. terrestris will not lead to a positive drug test, others have suggested that T. terrestris may increase the urinary testosterone/epitestosterone (T/E) ratio, which may place athletes at risk of a positive drug test. The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of T. terrestris on strength, fat free mass, and the urinary T/E ratio during 5 weeks of preseason training in elite rugby league players. Twenty-two Australian elite male rugby league players (mean +/- SD; age = 19.8 +/- 2.9 years; weight = 88.0 +/- 9.5 kg) were match-paired and randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to either a T. terrestris (n = 11) or placebo (n = 11) group. All subjects performed structured heavy resistance training as part of the club's preseason preparations. A T. terrestris extract (450 mg.d(-1)) or placebo capsules were consumed once daily for 5 weeks. Muscular strength, body composition, and the urinary T/E ratio were monitored prior to and after supplementation. After 5 weeks of training, strength and fat free mass increased significantly without any between-group differences. No between-group differences were noted in the urinary T/E ratio. It was concluded that T. terrestris did not produce the large gains in strength or lean muscle mass that many manufacturers claim can be experienced within 5-28 days. Furthermore, T. terrestris did not alter the urinary T/E ratio and would not place an athlete at risk of testing positive based on the World Anti-Doping Agency's urinary T/E ratio limit of 4:1.

Myth: You can only gain 2lbs of muscle / month. Facts:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12094125 They gained ~ 4lbs / month average. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684208 http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/6990/buildmuscle.gif In a 12 week period. Someone gained 6 lbs / month, average with milk was ~ 3 lbs. Here you COULD theoretically argue it was just glycogen / water even if we simply don't know.

Starting Strength novie effect: http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/6990/buildmuscle.gif Mark measured with caliper, uploaded pictures and videos of huge strength gains. So definitly zach gained a lot more then just 2lbs / month IMO and not just waterweight because that won't account for 31lbs of lean mass in not even 3 monhts. 11lbs / month.