Effects of boxing training on hands

Off-Topic
#15

Not for mass, for mass you just need calories. Most builders trying to gain mass don’t give a shit about what they are stuffing their faces with just so long as it lines up with what ever they have calculated to be their ideal macro ratio and calorie intake, whether that be home cooking or Mickey D’s . If you are trying to gain mass you have to gain weight, and you don’t get to choose whether that weight is fat or muscle no matter how hard you are working out. The hope is that with that weight gain and a work out that focuses on hypertrophy, some of that weight is muscle. (A lot of it will be fat though, you can’t just gain pure muscle). After this, they will usually go through a cutting cycle to get rid of all the fat gained, by significantly lowering caloric intake, but keeping protein intake high to prevent the body from going into a catabolic state, and eating the muscle gained. At the end of this cycle, a natural body builder would be lucky if they have even gained 5lbs of pure muscle in a year of doing this. And the gains are smaller and smaller after. That’s where Our friends AAS’s come in hand. That’s why next time you read about some Hollywood schmuck gaining 25lbs of pure muscle in 6 months to play some marvel character, you can almost guarantee they’re using gear. Even with the best of genetics, it’s just not possible to do that naturally.

The studies in protein consumption have been ongoing with the consensus being about .8g for every 1lb of body weight, but that all depends on what you are trying to achieve. For people not trying to go all in and just improve their physique a little, it can be relaxed a bit.

#16

Disclaimer that I didn’t read the papers; I’m going off Henselmans’ summaries.

Interestingly, the bro science I used to follow suggested 1g of protein per pound of current lean mass, which for people between 10% and 20% body fat is not all that far off from the high end of the range suggested by Henselmans’ article.

And in terms of scientific rigor, it’s too bad that Henselmans’ citations are mostly studies running 4 weeks or less. And the 3 month study covered a pretty narrow range for the independent variable. I get why most studies like this typically cover a short time period, but it’s still unfortunate. Probably the most compelling thing to me was the note about observed protein oxidation in the “high protein” group in the 1992 Tarnopolsky et al. paper.

And finally, I think his last point re: “origins of the myth” is probably the closest to the truth about why the 1g/lb number has been so culturally persistent:
“People can’t be bothered with decimals and just round up to the nearest convenient integer, which so happens to be an easy to remember 1.”

1 Like
#17

But if they are in fact ensuring they hit their macro ratios, then they aren’t being totally indiscriminate about what calories they stuff in their faces. Even if someone isn’t actually measuring what they eat, they have no chance of hitting their macro ratio unless they apply some kind of heuristic to their food choices. There’s probably lots of embedded decision making too in terms of what food a person keeps around their house. No bodybuilder eats a diet consisting exclusively of Pringles and Pepsi in order to hit their calorie number.

#18

Yeah, though I never developed a physique worth bragging about, I did follow the sport pretty heavily for a number of years. I read tons of interviews and even bought some “doc” type dvds. I didn’t see or hear of anyone eating like a pig. Sure, they occasionally had some cheat meals, and during offseason more so. But they still ate pretty clean, year round, compared to the average American :slight_smile:

Lots of lean protein, lots of shakes, slow-to-medium burning carbs (and LOTS of them in the offseason) like oatmeal, brown rice and Ezekiel bread. All of this is in massive quantities compared to what the average person (even the average slightly fat American…which I guess is the average American lol). So they were getting in tons of calories, not pillaging their local pizza shops :slight_smile: Well, maybe some days they would, but the majority I’d say was still pretty healthy foods.

#19

Not exclusively pringles and Pepsi, but again you won’t hit any preferred macro ratio with just that anyway, As little to no protein is present. You will get NASH with that though, that’s exactly how we give mice NASH in the lab.

The point is, the discrimination about how “clean” the diet is, is weak at best with a lot of those guys. Most are “dirty” bulkers and use a lot of chemicals.

#20

Trust me, I’ve seen it first hand, and was in that for a while. It was a lot of dirty bulking, and testosterone and insulin injections. Then come post cycle therapy in the hopes you didn’t just permanently screw your whole natural hormonal balance. Then it was a cleaner high protein calorie deficient diet coupled with more drugs for the cutting cycle.

#21

For sure. And I’d bet lots of high school football players still try stuff like “Gallon Of Milk A Day”.

1 Like
#22

Likely. This stuff is super reliant on what they call “bro” science, which is weak science at best,

2 Likes
#23

Yeah, I know what you mean.

I already linked a site I found earlier that’s pretty interesting. Menno Henselmans does a lot of intelligent “meta” analysis on these studies that everyone sites as fact and have become dogma. It’s pretty funny how unscientific a lot of them really are. A few of my favorites were what’s really going on with adding carbs to a post workout shake; the general idea that you have this 30 - 60 window of opportunity to ingest a post workout meal or your screwed (lol); and the one I mentioned with the 1-gram-of-protein-per-pound-of-body-weight-per-day. All were very poorly done studies, somehow the ‘results’ became gospel.

Truth be told though, I don’t know how something like body building can have a truly “scientific” study. The results are at best, really slowly achieved, and the fact that it’s pretty much impossible to control factors like exactly the same stimulus between subjects (number of reps perceived exertion etc.), or even the same subject day after day. Or exactly the same recovery and rest.

We’re left with people equating how they ‘felt’ about a certain workout or routine. “Bro, I freaking destroyed my quads yesterday. What a great workout!”

So, yeah. “Bro Science” indeed.

#24

I like how this spiraled from “will boxing be a problem” into nutrition, lol.

I try to stick to 1g / lb, but I’m sure I swing +/- 30g any given day. It’s easy for me since I only eat once a day, so counting only one macro (protein) for one meal (dinner) is chill.

1 Like
#25

Ha…yeah. I’m sort of a forum jerk. Always hijacking people’s threads. Sorry @PickingApprentice I should make a new thread called “Guitar Players Discuss BodyBuilding Dogma” or something lol

#26

If the weights sound loud and feel good, it is good :slight_smile:

1 Like
#27

Well slower if you are going all natural for sure.

Typically the studies are done by allotting a time span where a difference can possibly be achieved, and then grouping the subjects between a control and treated group. The results are then averaged between the two or more groups to see what the mean change effect was.

#28

Not bodybuilding related, but an epic example of this was a supposed study showing the Dvorak keyboard layout was more efficient for typists than the Qwerty layout. It got cited like crazy over the years, by people who clearly hadn’t actually bothered to read it. This came to light when one researcher discovered how incredibly difficult the text was to track down. And then it turned out it was basically a sales pamphlet from someone hawking Dvorak keyboards back in the day.

1 Like
#29

That’s insane!

Not bodybuilding related either, but an epic example of this was a supposed biomechanics-based series showing that slanting a guitar pick was the trick for clean string changes. It got cited like crazy by guitarists over the years and led tens (hundreds?) of thousands of guitarists down the wrong technical path. This came to light when the guy who made the discovery realized how incredibly sparse the results were of people achieving high-speed alternate picking based on the series. And then it turned out slanting the pick had nothing to do with it.

Crazy!

2 Likes
#30

I know you’re being playful, but I’d say this was more of a “correlation versus causation” thing. The slant itself won’t produce clean string changes, but the slant is often (though not always) observed coinciding with clean string changes.

In single-escape picking, string changes are cleanest when the pick orientation on downstrokes and upstrokes is very nearly symetrical relative to the path of the picking motion, which translates into an observable “slant” in the pick relative to the plane of the strings. But yeah, the motion is the key, and attempting to describe it in terms of the “slant” confused a lot of people, and caused some others to dismiss the insights altogether.

2 Likes
#31

You actually indulged my mindless bored-on-a-Friday-afternoon-at-work shitposting with class and gave a pickslanting mini-primer in the process.

1 Like
#32

I mean you’ll find the same shit a lot of places. Another famous examples are ones showing no correlation between glucose based sweeteners and diseases such as NASH, Diabetes, heart disease etc… you then see the sponsor as Coca Cola inc.

Well that’s were you would look to see if there is a secondary party who sponsored the study and check for vested financial interests involved.

#33

Right. Any research worth any value takes a good deal of money to fund. I mean, someone needs to pay the researchers. Well designed studies take talent and too much time for some brilliant but benevolent group of scientists to just do it for the greater good. If you follow the money you eventually find as best bias, at worst nefarious profit seeking.

I really don’t consider myself a conspiracy theorist, I promise! But the more of these “studies” I look into, the more I find stuff like you mentioned. I guess those things don’t need to be mutually exclusive though, right? :slight_smile: I can believe some big companies are funding some of these to make more money for themselves, and also not believe they are doing it because the illuminati are making them lol!

#34

Even when you rule out the nefarious, there are perverse incentives in the publish-or-perish model that lead to stuff like this:

1 Like