Bodybuilding Debate, Broscience Vs Hard Science

Blatter · 25-03-2013 2:20am #1

Found this a good watch and thought others might enjoy it. It really does show up the old fashioned broscience for what it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJk1DxJXBjk

AMT · 25-03-2013 12:30pm

As I say to the scrawny dudes when they butt in univited to whatever me and my mates are talking about on the gym floor...

You go your way kid and I'll go mine and we'll see who ends up bigger, more muscled and stronger.

POSSY · 25-03-2013 1:14pm

Without knowing too much about him, and after only watching 30/40 mins, I get the distinct feeling that Ian is full of waffle (not saying he is wrong) just that he is waffling. From a scientific stance, he provides no evidence for his claims that research refutes this/that, without reference.

I get the distinct feeling that he has read some research, while not actually taking a critical eye on the methodology/testing/inference approaches. Moreover, is the control group used in the research he has read appropriate for a body building discussion.

To be brief, (pressed for time), I get the distinct feeling he's read more than he understands, and feels he is more knowledgable than he is.

To be crude, he claims he's here to refute all the "so called gurus", while he doesn't appear to actually have a sport/nutrition science background (from what I can gather he has a Philosophy background not a scientific one). Just my 0.02e.

herbytosh · 25-03-2013 1:15pm

POSSY wrote: »

Without knowing too much about him, and after only watching 30/40 mins, I get the distinct feeling that Ian is full of waffle (not saying he is wrong) just that he is waffling. From a scientific stance, he provides no evidence for his claims that research refutes this/that, without reference.

I get the distinct feeling that he has read some research, while not actually taking a critical eye on the methodology/testing/inference approaches. Moreover, is the control group used in the research he has read appropriate for a body building discussion.

To be brief, (pressed for time), I get the distinct feeling he's read more than he understands, and feels he is more knowledgable than he is.

To be crude, he claims he's here to refute all the "so called gurus", while he doesn't appear to actually have a sport/nutrition science background (from what I can gather he has a Philosophy background not a scientific one). Just my 0.02e.

can't see the link but saw you mentioned the name Ian??

Dont tell me its Ian Mccarthy

drdeadlift · 25-03-2013 1:23pm

POSSY wrote: »

Without knowing too much about him, and after only watching 30/40 mins, I get the distinct feeling that Ian is full of waffle (not saying he is wrong) just that he is waffling. From a scientific stance, he provides no evidence for his claims that research refutes this/that, without reference.

I get the distinct feeling that he has read some research, while not actually taking a critical eye on the methodology/testing/inference approaches. Moreover, is the control group used in the research he has read appropriate for a body building discussion.

To be brief, (pressed for time), I get the distinct feeling he's read more than he understands, and feels he is more knowledgable than he is.

To be crude, he claims he's here to refute all the "so called gurus", while he doesn't appear to actually have a sport/nutrition science background (from what I can gather he has a Philosophy background not a scientific one). Just my 0.02e.

I get the Distinct feeling much

POSSY · 25-03-2013 1:40pm

herbytosh wrote: »

can't see the link but saw you mentioned the name Ian??

Dont tell me its Ian Mccarthy

Yup, it's Ian Mc Carthy

googled eyes · 25-03-2013 1:43pm

Your man Ian is quite annoying. Hes like the kid from school who "thinks" he knows it all.

RidleyRider · 25-03-2013 1:56pm

I so wanna post a link to brosciencelife YouTube channel but im on my phone

POSSY · 25-03-2013 2:00pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXO2azb3_PE

JJayoo · 25-03-2013 2:33pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XrgkvzAorM

"Muscle Grinding Cash Badger"

harvester of sorrow · 25-03-2013 2:35pm

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ah man thats too funny:D!

herbytosh · 25-03-2013 2:35pm

POSSY wrote: »

Yup, it's Ian Mc Carthy

should have known...

if science = more muscle gains why does it look like a sparrows kneecap has more muscle mass than Mr.Mc Carthy

chaps a goon

hes blocked me from youtube aswell..give him a piece of your mind

Doug Cartel · 25-03-2013 2:49pm

herbytosh wrote: »

if science = more muscle gains why does it look like a sparrows kneecap has more muscle mass than Mr.Mc Carthy

Is it because knowing how to do something and actually doing it are not the same thing?

Hypothetically he could be the most unfit person in the world and it wouldn't change the validity of what he says. (Though I've never heard of the guy, so I have no idea how valid any of the stuff he says is.)

jive · 25-03-2013 3:05pm

Jeesh people involved in health/fitness/bodybuilding get so hung up on this stuff. You can be efficient without having absolutely everything down to a tee and backed up by irrefutable scientific research.

I'm all for 'clever' and informed training but I reckon if people hung up on 'broscience' stopped doing so much research and instead just trained hard then they'd look a lot better.

herbytosh · 25-03-2013 3:06pm

jive wrote: »

Jeesh people involved in health/fitness/bodybuilding get so hung up on this stuff. You can be efficient without having absolutely everything down to a tee and backed up by irrefutable scientific research.

I'm all for 'clever' and informed training but I reckon if people hung up on 'broscience' stopped doing so much research and instead just trained hard then they'd look a lot better.

yeah but naturals need all the help they can get...

googled eyes · 25-03-2013 3:12pm

That broscience life is good. Trying not to laugh with a sleeping baby is bad. I lost it to the there will be grunts episode

Blatter · 25-03-2013 3:15pm

POSSY wrote: »

Without knowing too much about him, and after only watching 30/40 mins, I get the distinct feeling that Ian is full of waffle (not saying he is wrong) just that he is waffling. From a scientific stance, he provides no evidence for his claims that research refutes this/that, without reference.

I get the distinct feeling that he has read some research, while not actually taking a critical eye on the methodology/testing/inference approaches. Moreover, is the control group used in the research he has read appropriate for a body building discussion.

To be brief, (pressed for time), I get the distinct feeling he's read more than he understands, and feels he is more knowledgable than he is.

To be crude, he claims he's here to refute all the "so called gurus", while he doesn't appear to actually have a sport/nutrition science background (from what I can gather he has a Philosophy background not a scientific one). Just my 0.02e.

I've seen a fair few of his videos, and found him very good. He goes into more detail about studies and experiments when talking about a specific subject. Very logical person.

googled eyes wrote: »

Your man Ian is quite annoying. Hes like the kid from school who "thinks" he knows it all.

Maybe rather than come out with these blanket statements about him, you'd have more credence if you coherently refuted something(s) he's said.

I can see how people don't like his personality, but that's nothing really got to do with the content of what he says.

herbytosh wrote: »

should have known...

if science = more muscle gains why does it look like a sparrows kneecap has more muscle mass than Mr.Mc Carthy

chaps a goon

hes blocked me from youtube aswell..give him a piece of your mind

lol, maybe he blocked you because he doesn't want to entertain keyboard warriors who have no interest (or are not able to) have a logical debate with him and just throw around personal insults.

herbytosh · 25-03-2013 3:19pm

Blatter wrote: »

I've seen a fair few of his videos, and found him very good. He goes into more detail about studies and experiments when talking about a specific subject. Very logical person.

Maybe rather than come out with these blanket statements about him, you'd have more credence if you coherently refuted something(s) he's said.

I can see how people don't like his personality, but that's nothing really got to do with the content of what he says.

lol, maybe he blocked you because he doesn't want to entertain keyboard warriors who have no interest (or are not able to) have a logical debate with him and just throw around personal insults.

have no interest??lol

im 6'1 215lbs 9%bf

I think I have interest in this subject

googled eyes · 25-03-2013 3:24pm

Blatter wrote: »

Maybe rather than come out with these blanket statements about him, you'd have more credence if you coherently refuted something(s) he's said.

I can see how people don't like his personality, but that's nothing really got to do with the content of what he says.

I'm not saying what he says is wrong.

I just ment that he seems like a certain lad I went to school with, who if you were in a discussion with him, he had no interest really in what you had to say. In his mind what you say has no credence. The other guy (I cant remember his name) was a lot more accepting of his arguement.

Even during the video Ian was surprised by how little they had argued and how then even had similar views on issues. He obviously was just thinking I'm going into a discussion with a broscience meathead.

He went into the discussion, with a terrible attitude and this is why I said what I said.

Blatter · 25-03-2013 4:16pm

herbytosh wrote: »

have no interest??lol

im 6'1 215lbs 9%bf

I think I have interest in this subject

So can you tell me what exactly do you disagree with what McCarthy says then?

Do you think meal frequency has an effect on metabolism?

Do you think carbs are bad for you at night?

What exactly do you have a problem with what he refutes?

googled eyes wrote: »

I'm not saying what he says is wrong.

I just ment that he seems like a certain lad I went to school with, who if you were in a discussion with him, he had no interest really in what you had to say. In his mind what you say has no credence. The other guy (I cant remember his name) was a lot more accepting of his arguement.

Even during the video Ian was surprised by how little they had argued and how then even had similar views on issues. He obviously was just thinking I'm going into a discussion with a broscience meathead.

He went into the discussion, with a terrible attitude and this is why I said what I said.

OK fair enough, I didn't really get that sort of vibe from him though.

googled eyes · 25-03-2013 4:23pm

Blatter wrote: »

OK fair enough, I didn't really get that sort of vibe from him though.

Ive actually been researching him more since this thread opened.

I have to say I dont like the guy at all.

Im all for hard science and i think it greatly helps sports but im not a fan of Ian.

Not a person · 25-03-2013 4:56pm

herbytosh wrote: »

have no interest??lol

im 6'1 215lbs 9%bf

I think I have interest in this subject

So you`ve a BMI of about 28?? Overweight, close to obese!?

Ah no, with 9% Body fat, you must have alot of muscle mass. Do you even lift?

JJayoo · 25-03-2013 6:01pm

Not a person wrote: »

So you`ve a BMI of about 28?? Overweight, close to obese!?

Ah no, with 9% Body fat, you must have alot of muscle mass. Do you even lift?

Herbytosh is a genetic beast lobster, don't angry him.

LuckyLloyd · 25-03-2013 6:58pm

Not sure anything is 'shown up' to any great extent. McCarthy is extremely articulate but he was faced with a very reasonable foil.

DL Saint · 25-03-2013 8:56pm

After watching the above video and then browsing through a number of Youtube videos, I have to agree that I do not like Ian McCarthy. He comes across as such a know it all and very arrogant as he sees himself as a higher intellectual than all other bodybuilders.

Dave has prepped many people for bodybuilding contests and has years of experience as they say the proof is in the (protein) pudding. Ian on the other hand seems to read a lot of studies, but has never gotten someone contest ready, or even close to it. He mentions 3DMJ as people who have got people ready while using his approach, but I would be very skeptical if these guys are actually dieting on iifym and are not using some kind of assistance. Also we never hear of the people who failed to get show ready using this approach, but since getting contest ready is different for everybody, I am sure that there are a fair amount of their clients that the iifym approach has not worked for.

Also while browsing Youtube I found comments from Ian about Dave, criticizing his entire bodybuilding career and naming more successful bodybuilders who he believes have used the iifym approach to win their titles :P

Gummy Panda · 25-03-2013 9:03pm

My view is studies are great but they're not a one size fits all as a lot are on untrained/assisted people.

Even Ian's favourite "gurus" like Lyle McDonald say bodybuilders have been doing things before the science proved it. Though he is responding to an American audience and there is a lot of broscience on bb.com

JJayoo · 25-03-2013 9:08pm

Robin Williams has something to say to Ian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEIQSbul9Os

willmunny1990 · 25-03-2013 9:35pm

Dave Pulcinella once said there are only 6 foods that work in order to create the leanest body possible...

This is nothing short of retarded, why anyone would limit themselves to such a ****ty bland diet is beyond me, this sort of advice deserves to be ridiculed. The Youtube fitness community is full of people who spout this kind of non sense. Ian at least offers a different approach with IIFYM while still always stressing how important it is to not just stuff your face with fast food, cake etc..

Dislike him all you want but the fact of the matter is he offers some of the best, most truthful advice.

He also collaborates with Alan Aragon and Eric Helmes. He also uses some of Lyle's material.

I also understand Matt Ogus and 3DMJ have been very successful with the IIFYM approach.

JJayoo · 25-03-2013 9:42pm

This is nothing short of retarded, why anyone would limit themselves to such a ****ty bland diet is beyond me

Who cares if it's bland, if it works it works. If a bodybuilder is worried about his food being too bland then he should just give up.

willmunny1990 · 25-03-2013 9:57pm

JJayoo wrote: »

Who cares if it's bland, if it works it works. If a bodybuilder is worried about his food being too bland then he should just give up.

But it doesn't need to be bland! Eating stuff that tastes like cardboard all day may work but it's not in any way necessary and shouldn't be pushed as such.

RidleyRider · 25-03-2013 10:20pm

Don't know how much relevance this is but I think a certain amount of hard science and broscience work.

Gummy Panda · 26-03-2013 12:21am

willmunny1990 wrote: »

But it doesn't need to be bland! Eating stuff that tastes like cardboard all day may work but it's not in any way necessary and shouldn't be pushed as such.

In fairness that was during a show prep and if limiting your food to 6 items makes you win, then BBers will do it.

willmunny1990 · 26-03-2013 12:49am

Gummy Panda wrote: »

In fairness that was during a show prep and if limiting your food to 6 items makes you win, then BBers will do it.

No need for it though, I've heard of some naturals that practice IIFYM eating poptarts only a few weeks out.

Bodybuilders have this notion that a meal has to be bland and tasteless to be effective which is not true, it's a real masochist attitude.

It's a real unhealthy view of food IMO that shouldn't be pushed.

Hanley · 26-03-2013 9:28am

Wait sorry. Is this "science" guy pushing pop tarts with no emphasis on food quality, or have I missed something??

Hanley · 26-03-2013 9:31am

Holy ****ing ****. It doesn't matter if you eat pizza or chicken if it fits your macros? This Thread needs to be locked right now and that skinny little **** needs to be disemboweled. Don't fall for this crap people.

jive · 26-03-2013 5:38pm

Hanley wrote: »

Holy ****ing ****. It doesn't matter if you eat pizza or chicken if it fits your macros? This Thread needs to be locked right now and that skinny little **** needs to be disemboweled. Don't fall for this crap people.

lol strong bro science. u tink the body rly notices the difference between broccoli and pizza?? c'mon bro use ur mind. once it hits that sweet sweet stomach pH it's all about them there macros man, everything else just gets destroyed by dat der peristalsis namsayin? protein/carbs/fats all dat counts bro ya scurvy cur

i know a guy who was 8% and just ate pizza. #caseclosed

Doug Cartel · 26-03-2013 5:45pm

jive wrote: »

i know a guy who was 8% and just ate pizza. #caseclosed

How about 7% with a habit of eating whole apple pies in one sitting. Though I don't do that any more because the sugar crash tends to be a bit of a balls.

jive · 26-03-2013 5:49pm

Doug Cartel wrote: »

How about 7% with a habit of eating whole apple pies in one sitting. Though I don't do that any more because the sugar crash tends to be a bit of a balls.

how about 6% and rhubarb crumbles? my dad could beat up your dad

Doug Cartel · 26-03-2013 5:51pm

With custard?

Blatter · 26-03-2013 6:03pm

Hanley wrote: »

Holy ****ing ****. It doesn't matter if you eat pizza or chicken if it fits your macros? This Thread needs to be locked right now and that skinny little **** needs to be disemboweled. Don't fall for this crap people.

Nope, he never once claims that. You're going off at the deep end here.

He (and most others that are a fan of IIFYM) claim that micronutrients, what type of fat you consume etc. is important but once you eat what you need of these, filling up the rest of your macros with whatever you want (which probably won't be a whole lot), won't make any difference to your goals.

Hanley · 26-03-2013 6:06pm

Blatter wrote: »

Nope, he never once claims that. You're going off at the deep end here.

He (and most others that are a fan of IIFYM) claim that micronutrients, what type of fat you consume etc. is important but once you eat what you need of these, filling up the rest of your macros with whatever you want (which probably won't be a whole lot), won't make any difference to your goals.

Can you explain that again because its not making sense?

I think he's saying the quality of your food doesn't matter once it fits your macros. Is that not correct?

Blatter · 26-03-2013 6:29pm

Hanley wrote: »

Can you explain that again because its not making sense?

I think he's saying the quality of your food doesn't matter once it fits your macros. Is that not correct?

He pretty much explains it himself here for a few mins from 2:25.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuOqffuH-ZA

AMT · 28-03-2013 3:34pm

willmunny1990 wrote: »

But it doesn't need to be bland! Eating stuff that tastes like cardboard all day may work but it's not in any way necessary and shouldn't be pushed as such.

Some of us prefer to eat for function rather than pleasure. Food is fuel for the body to grow bigger and stronger and it's a simpler, more disciplined outlook in life of...

Doug Cartel · 28-03-2013 3:42pm

AMT wrote: »

it's a simpler, more disciplined outlook in life of...

It's kind of arbitrary though, isn't it?

You could pick all sorts of rules for your diet, and it would probably take discipline to stick to those rules, and while discipline is great and all, it's not really most people's end goal is it?

RidleyRider · 28-03-2013 3:47pm

I think food has to be someway exciting. I know myself I went off track a little the past week or so regarding my diet because I got bored of what I was eating. Flavours became the same cardboard taste day in day out. I think it's better for the body to spice up variety, like workouts change your food every once and a while.

It's hard to keep your head in the game when there's so much food thats on the go, easier to eat but I think if you begin to look forward to meals that aren't always the same you'll still be getting your macronutrient needs, you'll still be eating healthy and you're still gonna get big as fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck :pac:

Variety is the spice of life

AMT · 28-03-2013 7:06pm

Agreed... 95% of these people's goals are to sleep with hot chicks and/or show those guys that called me small and weak. Then again they aren't bodybuilders and they don't last.

While it is arbitrary, there's no discipline in committing to a rigid diet of pizza and ice cream. The challenge is in fighting your physiology which craves those sugars and fats and rising above the influence of others who want you to fail selfish motives.

It's a game of mind over body

meijin · 28-03-2013 7:52pm

RidleyRider wrote: »

I think it's better for the body to spice up variety, like workouts change your food every once and a while.

Yep, you need to keep the stomach guessing! :rolleyes:

RidleyRider · 28-03-2013 8:20pm

meijin wrote: »

Yep, you need to keep the stomach guessing! :rolleyes:

Much like muscle memory

Zamboni · 29-03-2013 12:55am

I got through 8 minutes of it and stopped.
I don't care if he is right, wrong or whatever.
The kids a dick, weighs about 40kilos and is a dick.

btkm8unsl0w5r4 · 29-03-2013 12:06pm

It is an interesting debate, I agree with the geeky fellow on the science, but....

1. Science tells us what works on average. This may of may not work on a individual basis.
2. The discipline of eating regularly is part of it. If you can bring that discipline to your eating then it will follow in everything else. Its a focus.
3. The messenger is important. I cannot trust the advice from the geek because he looks scrawny. If he were big I would believe him more.
4. The body-builder is talking about high calorie intake, the kid look like he is on about 200 calories a day. Try taking 5000kcal in 3 sitting with clean food, thats a lot of chewing.

The problems is the kid is correct in his argument, but because he is a whiney, tiny fellow who seems very impressed that he is educated he argues endlessly with somebody that has done it.

Blatter · 29-03-2013 12:41pm

Rayden Rich Mobster wrote: »

It is an interesting debate, I agree with the geeky fellow on the science, but....

1. Science tells us what works on average. This may of may not work on a individual basis.
2. The discipline of eating regularly is part of it. If you can bring that discipline to your eating then it will follow in everything else. Its a focus.
3. The messenger is important. I cannot trust the advice from the geek because he looks scrawny. If he were big I would believe him more.
4. The body-builder is talking about high calorie intake, the kid look like he is on about 200 calories a day. Try taking 5000kcal in 3 sitting with clean food, thats a lot of chewing.

The problems is the kid is correct in his argument, but because he is a whiney, tiny fellow who seems very impressed that he is educated he argues endlessly with somebody that has done it.

He was much bigger at one stage but just didn't keep up eating the amount he had to. He isn't a dedicated bodybuilder and has no problem admitting it. He also realises genetics is a big factor in it all. Worth remembering that he used to be anorexic as well. It was only a few years ago he was 100 pounds or so.

Edit: There would be other people that subscribe to McCarthy's pov and are in fantastic shape.

Bodybuilding Debate, Broscience Vs Hard Science

Comments