Let's start off with the big one.
A natural lifter needs the actual training session to trigger the increase in anabolism that a steroid user will get 24/7.
After a workout, anabolism/protein synthesis is elevated for roughly 30-36 hours.
Mistakes natural lifters make
THREAD ⬇️
Let's start off with the big one.
A natural lifter needs the actual training session to trigger the increase in anabolism that a steroid user will get 24/7.
After a workout, anabolism/protein synthesis is elevated for roughly 30-36 hours.
Whereas if you train a muscle 2-3x per week this goes up to 60-72 hours or even 90-108 hours of enhanced anabolism, leading to faster growth.
It's optimal to spread your total weekly volume out across the week by increasing your frequency.
If you get strong on the basic lifts and their variations such as the squat, deadlift, presses, rows and chins, I guarantee your physique will show it.
Take your squat from 225lbs x 10 up to 315 x 10 your legs will be bigger.
Stop fucking around!
Sorry to break it to you, but your favourite bodybuilder is juiced up to the eyeballs and on copious amounts of growth hormone.
Seriously what makes you think you can train and eat like them?
You can't.
"Eat big to get big" is another myth that needs to go.
250-500 cals over maintenance levels daily is all that is needed to maximise hypertrophy.
Eating thousands of extra calories will leave you looking like a bloated walrus.
Trust me 😂
You don't want to be a pretty boy show pony who refuses to lose his abs and never progresses in the gym.
There is a balance to eating to fuel growth and not getting too fat.
Find that balance and do it consistently.
"But I wanna target the upper split in my chest bro"
Less of this bullshit, Hit the heavy basics hard for years.
Take your bench from 185lbs to 315 and I guarantee your chest will have slabs of muscle on it.
All's I'd ever recommend is a protein powder and creatine, even then they're not necessary.
Train hard, get your protein from animal sources, utilise carbs and fats as you see fit and sleep.
That's all you'll ever need.
Most of your sets should fall in the 0-4 reps in reserve (RIR) mark. Which means 0-4 reps shy of muscular failure.
If you do a set of 10 and you could have done 20, that set is a complete waste of time.
There's no way around training hard!
How often do you see a lifter caught between trying to get stronger, bigger and shredded all at the same time?
All the time.
All of these require slightly different approaches if you want to maximise adaptations.
Pick one and run with it.
Listen, the body will adapt to the stimulus you provide.
If you’re constantly trying to “shock the body” by changing exercises and rep ranges each week, you are violating rule number one of a successful program which is PROGRESSIVE OVERLOAD.
Milk the most out of exercise for all it's worth and then switch things out when it becomes stale.
Simple.
More from Health
This is a limited point about availability of efficacy data for vaccines under development in the context of the approval for CovidShield and Covaxin in India.
There have been many so-called experts on the idiotbox opining about apparent availability of P III data which 1/n
2/n apparently the SEC had access to based on which it "supposedly" approved Covaxin. Another argument that is prevalent is other regulators (US FDA and MHRA) also approved vaccines based on P II data alone. Let me give you a few facts so that you can make your own decision.
3/n The protocols for both mRNA vaccines are publicly available. You can check. Both protocols *define* when the interim analysis will be done. This is not subjective. They clearly define how many infections need to be documented before the Data Safety Monitoring Board meets.
4/n Find the protocols for the bridging study for CovidShield and Covaxin and look for a similar milestone.
Here is one set of efficacy data post the interim analysis of a mRNA vaccine.
Source: https://t.co/BAPnP3PxEb
5/n This data was analyzed post the interim analysis where the blind was broken by the DSMB. Now ask yourself this question:
How does the SEC, or the sponsor of these studies, or the experts who are offering their opinion liberally on the idiotbox know what the efficacy is
There have been many so-called experts on the idiotbox opining about apparent availability of P III data which 1/n
2/n apparently the SEC had access to based on which it "supposedly" approved Covaxin. Another argument that is prevalent is other regulators (US FDA and MHRA) also approved vaccines based on P II data alone. Let me give you a few facts so that you can make your own decision.
3/n The protocols for both mRNA vaccines are publicly available. You can check. Both protocols *define* when the interim analysis will be done. This is not subjective. They clearly define how many infections need to be documented before the Data Safety Monitoring Board meets.
4/n Find the protocols for the bridging study for CovidShield and Covaxin and look for a similar milestone.
Here is one set of efficacy data post the interim analysis of a mRNA vaccine.
Source: https://t.co/BAPnP3PxEb
5/n This data was analyzed post the interim analysis where the blind was broken by the DSMB. Now ask yourself this question:
How does the SEC, or the sponsor of these studies, or the experts who are offering their opinion liberally on the idiotbox know what the efficacy is
I applaud the #EUCancerPlan *BUT* caution: putting #meat 🥩 (a nourishing, evolutionary food) in the same box as 🚬 to solve a contemporary health challenge, would be basing policy on assumptions rather than robust data.
#FollowTheScience yes, but not just part of it!
THREAD👇
1/ Granted, some studies have pointed to ASSOCIATIONS of HIGH intake of red & processed meats with (slightly!) increased colorectal cancer incidence. Also, @WHO/IARC is often mentioned in support (usually hyperbolically so).
But, let’s have a closer look at all this! 🔍
2/ First, meat being “associated” with cancer is very different from stating that meat CAUSES cancer.
Unwarranted use of causal language is widespread in nutritional sciences, posing a systemic problem & undermining credibility.
3/ That’s because observational data are CONFOUNDED (even after statistical adjustment).
Healthy user bias is a major problem. Healthy middle classes are TOLD to eat less red meat (due to historical rather than rational reasons, cf link). So, they
4/ What’s captured here is sociology, not physiology.
Health-focused Westerners eat less red meat, whereas those who don’t adhere to dietary advice tend to have unhealthier lifestyles.
That tells us very little about meat AS SUCH being responsible for disease.
#FollowTheScience yes, but not just part of it!
THREAD👇
\U0001f534LIVE \U0001f4c5Today \u23f012:00 CET
— EU_HEALTH - #EUCancerPlan (@EU_Health) February 3, 2021
We are presenting today the #EUCancerPlan as part of a strong \U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa#HealthUnion
Follow the presentation live here: https://t.co/Cr8ATvzNkg#WorldCancerDay pic.twitter.com/zdByuklWV6
1/ Granted, some studies have pointed to ASSOCIATIONS of HIGH intake of red & processed meats with (slightly!) increased colorectal cancer incidence. Also, @WHO/IARC is often mentioned in support (usually hyperbolically so).
But, let’s have a closer look at all this! 🔍
2/ First, meat being “associated” with cancer is very different from stating that meat CAUSES cancer.
Unwarranted use of causal language is widespread in nutritional sciences, posing a systemic problem & undermining credibility.
3/ That’s because observational data are CONFOUNDED (even after statistical adjustment).
Healthy user bias is a major problem. Healthy middle classes are TOLD to eat less red meat (due to historical rather than rational reasons, cf link). So, they
4/ What’s captured here is sociology, not physiology.
Health-focused Westerners eat less red meat, whereas those who don’t adhere to dietary advice tend to have unhealthier lifestyles.
That tells us very little about meat AS SUCH being responsible for disease.
