Weight lifting advice?

Godeatsboogers wrote: »

I think you're just eager for an argument but your wife or gf always wins so you're on here trying to redeem some self esteem or something. I'm only offering the information I've collected from people with way more experience then me, I'd take their advice over your offerings with added constant little jabs any day.

You’re information is incorrect. You should really stop giving advice where you have absolutely no business doing so.

Godeatsboogers wrote: »

5 sets of 5 reps of high weight will promote muscle growth, so I've been told by a pretty big bloke who's been weightlifting for over 20 years. The diet tip came from Dorian Yates, and sure he was a professional but he says even for non professionals a diet minus junk food is a big help in gaining weight, muscle mass. As for toning? Pretty common knowledge that 4 sets of the 10 to 12 reps of light weight is great for toning. Also, this ... Is an elipsis, .........., this means nothing

High reps ...build muscle ....at a high enough weight.

Lower reps with high weight ...strength...

Obv tho ..in order to train as a beginner you might need to build strength in order to really get to a point where you can train safely.

Toning ..is building muscle ...nothing more ..you can't actually tone muscle ....the area might look firmer because there is lower body fat etc.

You can look more toned by losing body fat ...or growing muscle.

Muscle doesn't tone ..it gets bigger ..or you lose general body fat.

No junk food is obviously a benefit. But "****ting out the nutrients" is nonsense. The excess macro nutrients in junk is what cause weight gain. If we just sh*t them out, you could eat all the chocolate you like and lose weight.

Actually your body does spit out nutrients from junk food. Partic stuff that will dehydrate you ..it makes your body lose more potassium. Alchohol will do it.

Sugar will also inhibit your body's ability to take up vit d and vit C....therefore also inhibits your calcium.

Sugar also increases excretion of magnesium and chromium from the kidneys.

Since junk food is full of sugar generally ..yes junk food will literally make your body spit out nutrients long term.

This level of excretion has actually been measured in urine. It is a fact that can't be disputed. Junk food makes your body spit out nutrients.

It doesn't just displace nutrient dense foods in the diet. It makes your body literally pee out more more nutrients to a high level that has been observed in urine tests.

lus, the above also applies to non junk food. Sugar in fruit or other sources will have the same effect.

No the sugar in juices etc are not the same. Firstly it enters the blood stream at a different rate.

The body reacts to and uses natural sugars differently to refined sugars. Natural sugars are broken down MUCH slower as their structure is different to refined sugars.

Fructose glucose and sucrose are different.

Sucrose is table sugar ....it has a diff chemical structure to fructose and glucose . Fructose is in VEGGIES and FRUITS. Glucose is known as grape sugar. Its also in corn.

Out of the three FRUCTOSE has a MUCH LESS measured effect on your blood sugar. But it actually has the sweetest taste

Not all sugars are equal.

Sucrose is (C12H22O11). Glucose is (C6H12O6 . Fructose hast the same molecular structure as glucose (C6H12O6) BUT but glucose has a six member ring and fructose has a five member ring structure. Sucrose is ONE fructose and one glucose molecule. The body breaks these down.

There is also alpha D glucose and beta D glucose.

So as you can see their chemical structures are diff. The effect they have on the body is diff.


Because fructose is metabolized in the liver to glucose, fructose has the lowest glycemic index (GI = 19) of all the natural sugars.Whereas sucrose has a GI of 55.

And the difference between natural fructose and the high fructose corn syrup that is extracted is that actually high fructose corn syrup is not all fructose its about 50% glucose too. Which means its ACTUALLY like sucrose ..but just ALREADY broken down for you. That is why its so much worse than even table sugar. They just call it fructose but its glucose and fructose already broken down. And remember sucrose has a GI of 55 ..this is not even taken into account that most fructose foods like fruit have fibre etc.

https://www.healthdesigns.net/natural-vs-refined-sugar/


Its not simply just the fibre in fruits that makes the sugar better for you than table sugar. Its a lot more.
As i said ..refined sugar increases excretion of certain nutrients from the kidneys. Whereas fructose etc for healthy people is different.

Obv people with diabetes will still need to be avoid juices certain fruits etc. And everything in moderation ...5 apples a day might be a bit much.

Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental showed that consuming a diet consisting of 35% simple refined sugars increased natural excretion rates by 300%!

Mellor wrote: »

Restricting absorption of some nutrients is not the same as passing out all nutrients.
There will be traces of nutrients in urine all the time. This is example of bad use of absolute and relative terms.

No ...this is a measured increase in traces of nutrients in urine under laboratory conditions with an increase in sugar intake.

If you don't believe ME ask your GP or any dietician.

Sugar also contributes to cystitus.

Mellor what you are saying is not logical?

You say sugar is bad for you .....but you don't seem to understand the why it is bad for you.

There will be sugar also in your local takeaway.

Yes too much sat fats ...etc not good for you. No argument here.

Chocolate doesn't dehydrate you. Neither do crisps

No but people with pancreatitis ..can't eat crisps for example.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975866/

Also on sugar and muscle. I can't prove this ..as its only a theory ...but there is a theory that REFINED sugar inhibits protein synthesis. Therefore reducing lean mass. It is just a theory though. Its thought to be to do with the effects refined sugars have on insulin.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

No the sugar in juices etc are not the same. Firstly it enters the blood stream at a different rate.

The body reacts to and uses natural sugars differently to refined sugars. Natural sugars are broken down MUCH slower as their structure is different to refined sugars.

Fructose glucose and sucrose are different.

Sucrose is table sugar ....it has a diff chemical structure to fructose and glucose . Fructose is in VEGGIES and FRUITS. Glucose is known as grape sugar. Its also in corn.

Out of the three FRUCTOSE has a MUCH LESS measured effect on your blood sugar. But it actually has the sweetest taste

Not all sugars are equal.

What has fructose vrs sucrose have to do with anything in the tread to date.
None of it is relevant.

Sucrose is also found in sugar cane - a natural sugar.
It is found in bags of sugar - refined.

Fructose is in fruit - natural.
It is also in Coca cola and soft drinks - refined.

So as you can see their chemical structures are diff. The effect they have on the body is diff.

Nobody said different sugars don't exist.

You sad sugar blocks vitamen C. None of the above suggest natural sugar won't.

Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental showed that consuming a diet consisting of 35% simple refined sugars increased natural excretion rates by 300%!

Exception rates of what. You are just posting random words without a coherent point. Nothing you have said appears relevant.

No ...this is a measured increase in traces of nutrients in urine under laboratory conditions with an increase in sugar intake.

Right, trace nutrients. Not the nutrition needs for muscle growth - macro nutrients.

You are proving my point tbh.

Sugar also contributes to cystitus.

Cool. Tobacco leads to lung cancer.
Why are we posting irrelevant facts?

No but people with pancreatitis ..can't eat crisps for example.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975866/

Sucks for them I guess.

Mellor what you are saying is not logical?

You say sugar is bad for you .....but you don't seem to understand the why it is bad for you.

Point out my flawed logic please.
Also point to where I said sugar is bad for you?

Also on sugar and muscle. I can't prove this .

I know you can't. Because it's not true.
Anyone that thinks a small amount of sugar, (or chocolate) will prevent muscle growth shouldn't be giving advice on training/diet. The post above was nonsense, no idea why you are defending it.

Mellor wrote: »

Honestly, your reading comprehension appears pretty poor.

I am just going to say you are 100% wrong ..but since you have stooped to this level and seem yet ONCE again mellor to want to derail this thread ..that you are not really worth responding to

Please don't respond to my posts again you are muted.

Cill94 wrote: »

Yikes

Gone way beyond useful advice by now anyway

I'm looking forward to getting back to my gym, I expect many more casual gym users will not be back until the new year now.