STAY/GET BACK IN SHAPE VOL 3.0 -- A New Niketalk = A New Thread

so, this whole counting macro's thing, 40/40/20 split blah blah blah..I followed one of the videos posted and did the whole multiply your weight (210) by an active number (13) and got 2730....

Why is it so hard to fulfill that protein requirement?! I can barely hit 200g of protein a day! It's like I have to down protein shakes during every meal..and then for snacks too.

Any help? I'm a super noob when it comes to this stuff. I usually just eat whatever and wanted to try something new and track what I'm actually eating.
Man macros are kind of misleading. Are you trying to cut or add some mass? Rule of thumb is usually 1-1.5 grams of protein for how much you weigh. Your body can't/won't process much over 200g of protein a day if I remember correctly. Someone chime in if Im wrong. 

Just remember whatever your goals are, your diet and nutrition is most important. I don't care if you go ham everyday in the gym, you won't see any results in the mirror if your diet isn't on point.
 
Last edited:
Man macros are kind of misleading. Are you trying to cut or add some mass? Rule of thumb is usually 1-1.5 grams of protein for how much you weigh. Your body can't/won't process much over 200g of protein a day if I remember correctly. Someone chime in if Im wrong. 



Just remember whatever your goals are, your diet and nutrition is most important. I don't care if you go ham everyday in the gym, you won't see any results in the mirror if your diet isn't on point.

its per lean body mass not actual weight, unless yu are bulking or something
 
I've noticed something about this thread recently that I wanted to address. Too many people are making sweeping statements based on personal experience, rather than scientific study. While I think it's fine to state that something works for you, that doesn't mean that it's going to work for everyone or that it is scientifically sound. For instance, the fact that several individuals have had success with glucosamine should not override the fact that scientific studies have not conclusively established its effectiveness. I'm hoping we can avoid the whole "it works for me, therefore the science is wrong" attitude moving forward.
 
I've noticed something about this thread recently that I wanted to address. Too many people are making sweeping statements based on personal experience, rather than scientific study. While I think it's fine to state that something works for you, that doesn't mean that it's going to work for everyone or that it is scientifically sound. For instance, the fact that several individuals have had success with glucosamine should not override the fact that scientific studies have not conclusively established its effectiveness. I'm hoping we can avoid the whole "it works for me, therefore the science is wrong" attitude moving forward.

Word
 
I tell folks all the time, drop sugar out of your diet and watch how lean you get. It took me the longest (I think it was Durden when we went back and forth on the carbs thing) to finally realize carbs wasn't the issue, it was the fact I was eating just way to much sugar, which I contributed it to be simply eating to much carbs.
 
I tell folks all the time, drop sugar out of your diet and watch how lean you get. It took me the longest (I think it was Durden when we went back and forth on the carbs thing) to finally realize carbs wasn't the issue, it was the fact I was eating just way to much sugar, which I contributed it to be simply eating to much carbs.
What were you eating? Candy, cakes? Etc. What was your problem child?
 
I've noticed something about this thread recently that I wanted to address. Too many people are making sweeping statements based on personal experience, rather than scientific study. While I think it's fine to state that something works for you, that doesn't mean that it's going to work for everyone or that it is scientifically sound. For instance, the fact that several individuals have had success with glucosamine should not override the fact that scientific studies have not conclusively established its effectiveness. I'm hoping we can avoid the whole "it works for me, therefore the science is wrong" attitude moving forward.
I dont think anyone is saying the science is wrong though.

Its good to get scientific and personal statements though.
 
Actually, I think you're the only one saying loading is pointless.

lol the entire bb.com forum says it, and many articles state it too. But its his money he can load if he wants.

Money has nothing to do with loading or not loading. If you or anyone else thinks loading is a scheme to buy more then you have absolutely no clue on how to take creatine.

Is loading necessary? No
Does it work? Yes
Is it a money making conspiracy? Hell no.
 
I've noticed something about this thread recently that I wanted to address. Too many people are making sweeping statements based on personal experience, rather than scientific study. While I think it's fine to state that something works for you, that doesn't mean that it's going to work for everyone or that it is scientifically sound. For instance, the fact that several individuals have had success with glucosamine should not override the fact that scientific studies have not conclusively established its effectiveness. I'm hoping we can avoid the whole "it works for me, therefore the science is wrong" attitude moving forward.

Repped.

This is why people should take everything said in here with a grain of salt. ALWAYS do your own research and read actual case studies if you have a question about something.
 
Last edited:
Workout today.

Hooped for an hour

3 Sets of
Pushup/Crawl/Pushup/Crawl/Pushup/Craw - from sideline to sideline of the court.
50 toe taps, legs up in air, I am on my back, with 10 lb medicine ball
25 tricep dips
5 sprints (up and back is 1) (Baseline to baseline)
 
Money has nothing to do with loading or not loading. If you or anyone else thinks loading is a scheme to buy more then you have absolutely no clue on how to take creatine.

Is loading necessary? No
Does it work? Yes
Is it a money making conspiracy? Hell no.

Durden spits out truth in this thread. Listen to this man, people.
 
Money has nothing to do with loading or not loading. If you or anyone else thinks loading is a scheme to buy more then you have absolutely no clue on how to take creatine.

Is loading necessary? No
Does it work? Yes
Is it a money making conspiracy? Hell no.

Durden spits out truth in this thread. Listen to this man, people.

just to elaborate: loading is not necessary and it does work, but you'll get the same results if you were to take the normal 5g/day for a month (vs. a few weeks). once saturation is reached, some say only 3g is necessary to maintain saturation.

this is all hearsay though, so take it with a grain of salt.

i'm personally keeping it at 5g/day just because of talk about kidney damage (this is also being debated).
 
just to elaborate: loading is not necessary and it does work, but you'll get the same results if you were to take the normal 5g/day for a month (vs. a few weeks). once saturation is reached, some say only 3g is necessary to maintain saturation.

this is all hearsay though, so take it with a grain of salt.

i'm personally keeping it at 5g/day just because of talk about kidney damage (this is also being debated).

Well said
 
Repped.

This is why people should take everything said in here with a grain of salt. ALWAYS do your own research and read actual case studies if you have a question about something.
:rolleyes Read case studies? Someone's opinion on here basically is a case study.
 
eyes.gif
Read case studies? Someone's opinion on here basically is a case study.
Case studies are done scientifically. Some dude on here is way less credible than a case study for a variety of reasons.
 
after 3-4 months of Intermittent Fasting and inspiration from this thread, here are my progress pics! i was at 155lbs before. now i'm at 147. (ignore me posin with the Reps magazine. it was an inside joke with the wifey. lol)

700
 
Back
Top Bottom