Arnold....I am sad,

[The Funslinger]

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over how awesome Liam Neeson is..

Don't worry. You've heard the Taken phone bit. OP is already dead.

 

[manic_depressive13]

So he's bad actor for taking roles he's good at? I'm sorry do you think it's shallow or unimpressive for someone that's good at baseball to try and play it professionally? Or someone that's good at crunching numbers to be an accountant? You're right, lets all not play to our strengths.

To Arnold's credit, he did at least try to do roles outside of his ability. I thought The Sixth Day was one of his better performances... Also Batman Forever, cause you can just watch that flick and know Arnold is having a blast doing all those lame puns. Guy gives each role his all.

Only being able to play one character archetype makes someone a bad actor, just like only being able to play one song makes someone a bad musician and only being able to cook one dish makes someone a bad chef.

So he can't be a role model because he use steroids? Uh... so what? He's an adult and he made the choice that he wanted to get bigger then what was physically possible for him with out them. It's not like he was shoving them down the throats of little children... Unless your saying he shouldn't be a role model simply because the government declared them illegal, which is just as silly of a reason. Suddenly the government's our barometer of morality.

I didn't say using steroids is immoral. I've already explained why I don't care for body building. The steroids are merely the icing on the cake. It has nothing to do with the government. Smoking is legal but I don't think a smoker would be a good role model for children either.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Jason Statom, Liam Neilson, and Dwayne Johnson make movies that are just as great, if not better, than Arnold and Stalloan's old flicks. I think that action movie stars were just more glorified back in the 80's than they are now. So that overhype, combined with nostalgia makes people see them in a better light.

Think about the movie Taken for a second. Could Arnold have pulled off all the actual acting bits there, or would his delivery come off like the emotion slaughter machine he usually plays that just happens to have a daughter?

 

[manic_depressive13]

I mean if you look at it that way, what vocation/hobby isn't (i won't say stupid) silly?

I would say one that at least requires technical skill, but preferably one that requires intelligence. Bonus points if it provides enjoyment for others, like learning the arts or cooking.

If one chooses to make video games, for example, one is looking at a future of crunch times and many-a-night away from love ones sleeping on a cot in the office to meet deadlines and the possibly of being forced to release a game thats not ready to be released and gets bad reviews.

Oh come on. Making a game requires more skill and intelligence than lifting things. You need to understand scripts and computing, be able to write a compelling story and dialogue, plus lots of other things.

Hell, look at wrestling... guys putting their bodies under unneeded stress in a sport thats not even real... only exist to tell a story, in a world where there are other mediums to tell stories that are far less stressful on the body.

I think wrestling is ... silly as well.

Finally, what moron would want to be president of the united states? Remember when Obama was elected into office how young he looked? Guy has aged two decades in 4 years. If you look at George Bush, same thing. That job is so stressful it ages a person like a ************, who would want it?

If you became president of the U.S. you could potentially influence the public opinion and at least take some steps towards reducing the wage gap and stopping your troops from slaughtering people by removing them from places they have no business being. Again, I don't think the power to influence millions of people's quality of life is comparable to lifting weights. That said, the U.S. is really fucked up and being president does seem like a really shitty job, though it's easy to see why someone might potentially want it.

 

[Giftfromme]

Arnold Swarzenegger was just a bad actor with large muscles. Why would I want to show a roided up freak to children.

Don't know much about the man do you?

Not much, no, and I don't know any more about him since you quoted me than I did before. If you would like to refute my points you are welcome to do so. However, perhaps you should refrain from quoting people if all you want to do is be snarky while providing no information or argument in your favour.

Information was provided in an above post. Not only was he a world champion body builder for what...6 or so years in a row. He had a successful career in films (not to mention already back on some high profile releases like Expendables 2) he also had a career in Politics.

I don't think his career in politics is at all relevant to the OP. He does specifically mention "when I was young" and clearly refers to Arnold's movie career and body building when "he was like a god" and "he killed everyone".

That brings us to my second point that I don't believe body building is anything to be admired. It is largely impractical and aesthetically displeasing. Also, Schwarzenegger used to use steroids to achieve the muscle mass he had, which we now know to be very unhealthy and has become illegal. I hardly consider him a role model for this reason.

Finally, Schwarzenegger was a bad actor. He fit quite well in some of the roles he was given, but that's only because he was exclusively cast as an emotionless "badass", which I consider to be shallow and unimpressive.

Overall, there was nothing very admirable about Schwarzenegger's early career. I have no idea how he is doing in office but it bears no relevance to me and no relevance to this discussion.

Ah how wrong you are. I will try and find the video, but there is video of Arnie talking to the parents of a body building guy who was his competition. He manages to subtely undermine the guy directly to the parents' face. It is incredible to see, and they are oblivious to it. This is not a one off trick that he did by accident, he set out to destroy the guy all under the guise of a pleasant talk to the parents. That takes a lot of balls and skill, and could easily backfire. I am pretty certain the guy was present too, making it all the more amazing

 

[Nash]

This is why I will always love Arnie.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

When I was young, Arnold Swarzenegger was immortal. He was the like a god. He killed everyone, there is no way to describe Arnold to the kids today.

There are no one to pick up the torch, not even after Sylvester.

How do I embed this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-al8o-Zps4

There are no heroes like Arnold today, what Brad Pitt? There are no one.

No one needs to pick up the torch because, unlike Arnold, Bruce Willis actually seems to be immortal.

That being said, I'd say The Rock is getting there now that he got rid of his old agent.

 

[Yan007]

I would say one that at least requires technical skill, but preferably one that requires intelligence. Bonus points if it provides enjoyment for others, like learning the arts or cooking.


Oh come on. Making a game requires more skill and intelligence than lifting things. You need to understand scripts and computing, be able to write a compelling story and dialogue, plus lots of other things.


I think wrestling is ... silly as well.


If you became president of the U.S. you could potentially influence the public opinion and at least take some steps towards reducing the wage gap and stopping your troops from slaughtering people by removing them from places they have no business being. Again, I don't think the power to influence millions of people's quality of life is comparable to lifting weights. That said, the U.S. is really fucked up and being president does seem like a really shitty job, though it's easy to see why someone might potentially want it.

Allow my dumb self to beg your pardon. I am a bodybuilder AND a teacher. You're right though, ever since I stopped playing WoW and decided to lift weights I started getting dumber. I wish I was smart enough to go back to grinding tier X gear and wtb gold.

You seem to believe bodybuilding is the art of lifting things. We also push things by the way (I'll let that one slide). I wish it were that easy. You judge bodybuilders the same way my grandparents judged gay people decades ago. You call us idiots, but you lack basic understanding of the activity and what is needed to properly work your body.

Being in the gym is only, at most, 20% of the work. The rest has to be done through research, determination and proper rest. You have to research all the time to know how much of what your body needs (I eat 8 to 10 times a day by the way - it is a necessity) and how you can improve your form and performance. You need determination, especially outside of the gym, because losers like you are everywhere and ready to tell us how our meals have to suck (mostly eating chicken breasts and brown rice and so on) and that our efforts are useless. You also need proper rest. Unlike you, I need a good 8-9 hours of sleep per night in order to grow and stay on top. I grow when I rest, not when I'm in the gym.

You equate strength with stupidity as if one had to be inclined towards one or the other. To me, you sound like the stupid one. I do forgive you though because you simply have no idea what it means to train at this level. By the way, the focus required to keep going through the pain and burn of high intensity training is useful elsewhere such as school. I used to program too years ago (wanted to be a game programmer) and I know I could have used that extra attention span I now have.

Do you really think training requires no technique? Have you ever gone to a gym before for any extended period of time? Saying noobs who are there to lose fat mass have no technique is one thing (although unfair to many), but saying actual bodybuilders don't have to work on technical aspects is bullshit.

I accept your apologies.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

So he's bad actor for taking roles he's good at? I'm sorry do you think it's shallow or unimpressive for someone that's good at baseball to try and play it professionally? Or someone that's good at crunching numbers to be an accountant? You're right, lets all not play to our strengths.

To Arnold's credit, he did at least try to do roles outside of his ability. I thought The Sixth Day was one of his better performances... Also Batman Forever, cause you can just watch that flick and know Arnold is having a blast doing all those lame puns. Guy gives each role his all.

Only being able to play one character archetype makes someone a bad actor, just like only being able to play one song makes someone a bad musician and only being able to cook one dish makes someone a bad chef.

Fine, rightyo on the morality.

Yeah but Arnold was really really GOOD at playing that one character- The heart of ice robotic guy. I also think he's really good at playing himself (really go watch Batman Forever and try to tell me he's not just playing himself, enjoying it)

Just the same as your other examples, what if a chef could only make hamburgers and fries but he was really good at it? Like he can cook the best damn burger on the planet, he can't cook anything else but what he can do is really good... Is he really a terrible chef? No. He's not a well rounded chef, but so long as he's selling burgers he's playing to his strengths.

 

[Michaluk]

For those of you saying Arnold is not an exceptional human being:

To get to the highest level in even a single field in your life is uncommon and impressive. Some rare individuals achieve that level in 2 very different fields. Brian May, for instance, is a legendary rock guitar player and when Queen broke up he went back to school and got a PhD in astrophysics. That's amazing. Arnold was a world champion body builder for years, then became one of the most popular movie stars in the world (once again for years, this was no passing fad), then got elected to govern the largest state in the richest, most powerful country in the world (and that state is dominated by voters of the opposition party). No matter how you try to spin it, what he has been able to accomplish is remarkable. He reached the absolute top in two completely different fields, and did pretty good in the third. The only guy who I can think of who has similar accomplishments is Brock Lesnar.

Also, he is not at all a bad actor. Like many people that get into the business based solely on their looks, he got better at acting as he went along; Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio are two more examples of this. He is legitimately good in his later movies, and had a knack for taking good scripts. There's a reason Terminator 2, Total Recall, Predator etc. are classic action movies and Jason Statham's movies are forgettable pieces of garbage. Lock Stock and Snatch are good movies, but hardly classics and Statham's not even the best character in them.

 

[imperialwar]

I would say one that at least requires technical skill, but preferably one that requires intelligence. Bonus points if it provides enjoyment for others, like learning the arts or cooking.


Oh come on. Making a game requires more skill and intelligence than lifting things. You need to understand scripts and computing, be able to write a compelling story and dialogue, plus lots of other things.


I think wrestling is ... silly as well.


If you became president of the U.S. you could potentially influence the public opinion and at least take some steps towards reducing the wage gap and stopping your troops from slaughtering people by removing them from places they have no business being. Again, I don't think the power to influence millions of people's quality of life is comparable to lifting weights. That said, the U.S. is really fucked up and being president does seem like a really shitty job, though it's easy to see why someone might potentially want it.

Allow my dumb self to beg your pardon. I am a bodybuilder AND a teacher. You're right though, ever since I stopped playing WoW and decided to lift weights I started getting dumber. I wish I was smart enough to go back to grinding tier X gear and wtb gold.

You seem to believe bodybuilding is the art of lifting things. We also push things by the way (I'll let that one slide). I wish it were that easy. You judge bodybuilders the same way my grandparents judged gay people decades ago. You call us idiots, but you lack basic understanding of the activity and what is needed to properly work your body.

Being in the gym is only, at most, 20% of the work. The rest has to be done through research, determination and proper rest. You have to research all the time to know how much of what your body needs (I eat 8 to 10 times a day by the way - it is a necessity) and how you can improve your form and performance. You need determination, especially outside of the gym, because losers like you are everywhere and ready to tell us how our meals have to suck (mostly eating chicken breasts and brown rice and so on) and that our efforts are useless. You also need proper rest. Unlike you, I need a good 8-9 hours of sleep per night in order to grow and stay on top. I grow when I rest, not when I'm in the gym.

You equate strength with stupidity as if one had to be inclined towards one or the other. To me, you sound like the stupid one. I do forgive you though because you simply have no idea what it means to train at this level. By the way, the focus required to keep going through the pain and burn of high intensity training is useful elsewhere such as school. I used to program too years ago (wanted to be a game programmer) and I know I could have used that extra attention span I now have.

Do you really think training requires no technique? Have you ever gone to a gym before for any extended period of time? Saying noobs who are there to lose fat mass have no technique is one thing (although unfair to many), but saying actual bodybuilders don't have to work on technical aspects is bullshit.

I accept your apologies.

Yan007 you sir are my god right now.
Everything i wanted to say you covered so well.

Also I came into this thread half expecting to see Arnie had passed away or something.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I mean if you look at it that way, what vocation/hobby isn't (i won't say stupid) silly?

I would say one that at least requires technical skill, but preferably one that requires intelligence. Bonus points if it provides enjoyment for others, like learning the arts or cooking.

If one chooses to make video games, for example, one is looking at a future of crunch times and many-a-night away from love ones sleeping on a cot in the office to meet deadlines and the possibly of being forced to release a game thats not ready to be released and gets bad reviews.

Oh come on. Making a game requires more skill and intelligence than lifting things. You need to understand scripts and computing, be able to write a compelling story and dialogue, plus lots of other things.

Hell, look at wrestling... guys putting their bodies under unneeded stress in a sport thats not even real... only exist to tell a story, in a world where there are other mediums to tell stories that are far less stressful on the body.

I think wrestling is ... silly as well.

Finally, what moron would want to be president of the united states? Remember when Obama was elected into office how young he looked? Guy has aged two decades in 4 years. If you look at George Bush, same thing. That job is so stressful it ages a person like a ************, who would want it?

If you became president of the U.S. you could potentially influence the public opinion and at least take some steps towards reducing the wage gap and stopping your troops from slaughtering people by removing them from places they have no business being. Again, I don't think the power to influence millions of people's quality of life is comparable to lifting weights. That said, the U.S. is really fucked up and being president does seem like a really shitty job, though it's easy to see why someone might potentially want it.

Okay this isn't about you but people in general, is it so hard to quote my whole post and just write underneath it?

Dude, your trivializing the amount of mental effort needed to body build. It's not just as simple as pumping iron, I've been in the wrestling industry and I've seen how meticulous guys are about getting their body to a certain look. It takes will power, and also a huge understanding of human physiology if one is training to compete.

Funny wrestling is silly for the same reasons... but the computer game making is less silly because it's solely the exercise of the mind and not combining brains and brawn? You do realize it's all the same bullshit- Trying to tell a story, right?

My point is that nearly any job or hobby someone is serious about takes a toll on a persons well being.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I would say one that at least requires technical skill, but preferably one that requires intelligence. Bonus points if it provides enjoyment for others, like learning the arts or cooking.


Oh come on. Making a game requires more skill and intelligence than lifting things. You need to understand scripts and computing, be able to write a compelling story and dialogue, plus lots of other things.


I think wrestling is ... silly as well.


If you became president of the U.S. you could potentially influence the public opinion and at least take some steps towards reducing the wage gap and stopping your troops from slaughtering people by removing them from places they have no business being. Again, I don't think the power to influence millions of people's quality of life is comparable to lifting weights. That said, the U.S. is really fucked up and being president does seem like a really shitty job, though it's easy to see why someone might potentially want it.

Allow my dumb self to beg your pardon. I am a bodybuilder AND a teacher. You're right though, ever since I stopped playing WoW and decided to lift weights I started getting dumber. I wish I was smart enough to go back to grinding tier X gear and wtb gold.

You seem to believe bodybuilding is the art of lifting things. We also push things by the way (I'll let that one slide). I wish it were that easy. You judge bodybuilders the same way my grandparents judged gay people decades ago. You call us idiots, but you lack basic understanding of the activity and what is needed to properly work your body.

Being in the gym is only, at most, 20% of the work. The rest has to be done through research, determination and proper rest. You have to research all the time to know how much of what your body needs (I eat 8 to 10 times a day by the way - it is a necessity) and how you can improve your form and performance. You need determination, especially outside of the gym, because losers like you are everywhere and ready to tell us how our meals have to suck (mostly eating chicken breasts and brown rice and so on) and that our efforts are useless. You also need proper rest. Unlike you, I need a good 8-9 hours of sleep per night in order to grow and stay on top. I grow when I rest, not when I'm in the gym.

You equate strength with stupidity as if one had to be inclined towards one or the other. To me, you sound like the stupid one. I do forgive you though because you simply have no idea what it means to train at this level. By the way, the focus required to keep going through the pain and burn of high intensity training is useful elsewhere such as school. I used to program too years ago (wanted to be a game programmer) and I know I could have used that extra attention span I now have.

Do you really think training requires no technique? Have you ever gone to a gym before for any extended period of time? Saying noobs who are there to lose fat mass have no technique is one thing (although unfair to many), but saying actual bodybuilders don't have to work on technical aspects is bullshit.

I accept your apologies.

This guy is right.

And homeboy, I'm sure you'd agree as well Steroids aren't just a magic pill to take either. Same amount of work is required... That is to say, fat me could go on steroids right now it's not like I'm going to get body builder shape if I'm not already training at that level.

 

[Goofguy]

A video of Arnold greasing himself up and flexing would not convince me in thinking that Arnold is awesome, if I didn't already think so.

You could have thrown in some clips from Conan the Barbarian, Predator, Commando or Terminator. Much more compelling evidence.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Allow my dumb self to beg your pardon. I am a bodybuilder AND a teacher. You're right though, ever since I stopped playing WoW and decided to lift weights I started getting dumber. I wish I was smart enough to go back to grinding tier X gear and wtb gold.

Congratulations. I quite explicitly said that while I think bodybuilding is a dumb and pointless activity, that does not mean I think all bodybuilders are idiots. WoW is also a dumb and pointless activity. That does not mean all WoW players are idiots. It just means their efforts could be better spent elsewhere. If you are a teacher perhaps you should work on your comprehension skills.

You seem to believe bodybuilding is the art of lifting things. We also push things by the way (I'll let that one slide). I wish it were that easy. You judge bodybuilders the same way my grandparents judged gay people decades ago. You call us idiots, but you lack basic understanding of the activity and what is needed to properly work your body.

I didn't call you an idiot. I said you have a shitty hobby.

Being in the gym is only, at most, 20% of the work. The rest has to be done through research, determination and proper rest. You have to research all the time to know how much of what your body needs (I eat 8 to 10 times a day by the way - it is a necessity) and how you can improve your form and performance. You need determination, especially outside of the gym, because losers like you are everywhere and ready to tell us how our meals have to suck (mostly eating chicken breasts and brown rice and so on) and that our efforts are useless. You also need proper rest. Unlike you, I need a good 8-9 hours of sleep per night in order to grow and stay on top. I grow when I rest, not when I'm in the gym.

I know what it requires. My brother used to be a bodybuilder. Sure, I am a loser because I choose to simply be physically fit and healthy instead of wasting my time becoming a brick shithouse. You couldn't backflip any more than I could lift a car. My thighs don't chafe together and I'm probably faster than you.

Also, you sleep for 8-9 hours? How impressive!

You equate strength with stupidity as if one had to be inclined towards one or the other. To me, you sound like the stupid one. I do forgive you though because you simply have no idea what it means to train at this level. By the way, the focus required to keep going through the pain and burn of high intensity training is useful elsewhere such as school. I used to program too years ago (wanted to be a game programmer) and I know I could have used that extra attention span I now have.

Again, I didn't equate strength with stupidity. I equated pointless expenditure of effort with stupidity.

Do you really think training requires no technique? Have you ever gone to a gym before for any extended period of time? Saying noobs who are there to lose fat mass have no technique is one thing (although unfair to many), but saying actual bodybuilders don't have to work on technical aspects is bullshit.

I'm sure it does require some skill and technique, just like juggling does. That doesn't make it anything more than a pointless gimmick. I could argue that the increased coordination helps in other areas of my life, but I'm not going to bend over backwards defending my shitty hobby, nor am I going to cry if you insult it. Perhaps you should take some pointers.

I accept your apologies.

I have no intention of apologising.

Okay this isn't about you but people in general, is it so hard to quote my whole post and just write underneath it?

I think it helps to clarify which points I am adressing and I believe it looks less schizophrenic than drastically changing topic with each paragraph. I'll quote the way I like to and you can do it your way.

 

[Luna]

As a bodybuilding fanatic, I must agree with you. While there may be people who surpass Arnold in the field of bodybuilding (Jay Cutler, Ronnie Coleman, Phil Heath) there are none that succeed as well in the multiple areas of life that Arnold has. He may not be the best bodybuilder, he may not be the best actor, and he may not be the best politician, but considering all that he has accomplished in his life is truly inspiring.

He was the best bodybuilder of his time.


Also, the only reason why Jay, Ronnie and Phil would beat Arnold if 1970s Arnold traveled through time to compete in 2012 is due to the way the contests are judged; the notion that bigger is better. If it were about aesthetics rather than pure size then Arnold would win IMO.

 

[Luna]

You seem to believe bodybuilding is the art of lifting things. We also push things by the way (I'll let that one slide). I wish it were that easy. You judge bodybuilders the same way my grandparents judged gay people decades ago. You call us idiots, but you lack basic understanding of the activity and what is needed to properly work your body.

Being in the gym is only, at most, 20% of the work. The rest has to be done through research, determination and proper rest. You have to research all the time to know how much of what your body needs (I eat 8 to 10 times a day by the way - it is a necessity) and how you can improve your form and performance. You need determination, especially outside of the gym, because losers like you are everywhere and ready to tell us how our meals have to suck (mostly eating chicken breasts and brown rice and so on) and that our efforts are useless. You also need proper rest. Unlike you, I need a good 8-9 hours of sleep per night in order to grow and stay on top. I grow when I rest, not when I'm in the gym.

I hate to come into this argument against you considering how misguided the person you're debating is, but I thought I would just say that you do not need to eat 8-10 times a day to achieve optimal results. This is bro-science, an exercise myth that is untrue.





Often, you see things like:

"Eat every 2-3 hours to burn more fat!" or "Your body needs a constant supply of protein to keep it building muscle."
You see these both in magazines and online, but recently this statement is being challenged more often online (usually without reason).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...ubmed_RVDocSum

This study compared 5 meals a day to 2 meals a day, both with the same total caloric intake. The conclusion of this study came to be: "With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

This is some-what of an analysis of ALL studies done regarding meal frequency and energy expenditure (calories burnt). It essentially states that most studies are neutral on the matter, that is meal frequency has no effect on metabolism. The VERY few studies saying otherwise were likely flawed.

http://www.slideshare.net/biolayne/o...nd-muscle-mass

That is a slideshow done by Dr. Layne Norton. It essentially shows that protein synthesis is not related to an absolute increase in plasma amino levels, which would be sustained by frequent meals. It's hypothesized that plasma amino spikes are able to stimulate protein synthesis at a much greater rate. This would actually support eating LESS frequently rather than more frequently.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413096

Here's another study that may be taking this myth and completely reversing it. It showed that although eating one meal/day as opposed to three caused an increase in hunger, it actually caused a DECREASE in fat mass, it also showed decrease in the catabolic hormone cortisol.


Eating every two to three hours is definitely not necessary, and is quite likely even less beneficial than eating every 5-6 hours, possibly more.




Unless you need to split your meals into 8-10 meals per day, then unless you do that so that you are physically able to consume a large amount of food, then it is unnecessary.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I freaking love Arnold.

No, he doesn't have a lot of range as an actor, but neither do a lot of other actors who don't nearly get as much criticism for it due to not being seen as a muscle head with an accent.

The Terminator 1 and 2
Predator
True Lies
Total Recall
The Running Man

Without Arnie, these movies wouldn't have been half as good.

Though I will say I hope he stays out of movies at the age he is now. It's going to be a bit pathetic to see a aged bodybuilder try and be an action hero.

 

[Yan007]

I hate to come into this argument against you considering how misguided the person you're debating is, but I thought I would just say that you do not need to eat 8-10 times a day to achieve optimal results. This is bro-science, an exercise myth that is untrue.


Often, you see things like:

"Eat every 2-3 hours to burn more fat!" or "Your body needs a constant supply of protein to keep it building muscle."
You see these both in magazines and online, but recently this statement is being challenged more often online (usually without reason).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...ubmed_RVDocSum

This study compared 5 meals a day to 2 meals a day, both with the same total caloric intake. The conclusion of this study came to be: "With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

This is some-what of an analysis of ALL studies done regarding meal frequency and energy expenditure (calories burnt). It essentially states that most studies are neutral on the matter, that is meal frequency has no effect on metabolism. The VERY few studies saying otherwise were likely flawed.

http://www.slideshare.net/biolayne/o...nd-muscle-mass

That is a slideshow done by Dr. Layne Norton. It essentially shows that protein synthesis is not related to an absolute increase in plasma amino levels, which would be sustained by frequent meals. It's hypothesized that plasma amino spikes are able to stimulate protein synthesis at a much greater rate. This would actually support eating LESS frequently rather than more frequently.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413096

Here's another study that may be taking this myth and completely reversing it. It showed that although eating one meal/day as opposed to three caused an increase in hunger, it actually caused a DECREASE in fat mass, it also showed decrease in the catabolic hormone cortisol.


Eating every two to three hours is definitely not necessary, and is quite likely even less beneficial than eating every 5-6 hours, possibly more.




Unless you need to split your meals into 8-10 meals per day, then unless you do that so that you are physically able to consume a large amount of food, then it is unnecessary.

Ya I'm splitting my meals and shakes. Can't stomach all the clean calories in only a few sitting. I also hate feeling hungry. I'd rather go with 4-5 if possible, but I just can't eat that much at the same time.

 

[Luna]

I hate to come into this argument against you considering how misguided the person you're debating is, but I thought I would just say that you do not need to eat 8-10 times a day to achieve optimal results. This is bro-science, an exercise myth that is untrue.


Often, you see things like:

"Eat every 2-3 hours to burn more fat!" or "Your body needs a constant supply of protein to keep it building muscle."
You see these both in magazines and online, but recently this statement is being challenged more often online (usually without reason).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...ubmed_RVDocSum

This study compared 5 meals a day to 2 meals a day, both with the same total caloric intake. The conclusion of this study came to be: "With the method used for determination of DIT no significant effect of meal frequency on the contribution of DIT to ADMR could be demonstrated."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

This is some-what of an analysis of ALL studies done regarding meal frequency and energy expenditure (calories burnt). It essentially states that most studies are neutral on the matter, that is meal frequency has no effect on metabolism. The VERY few studies saying otherwise were likely flawed.

http://www.slideshare.net/biolayne/o...nd-muscle-mass

That is a slideshow done by Dr. Layne Norton. It essentially shows that protein synthesis is not related to an absolute increase in plasma amino levels, which would be sustained by frequent meals. It's hypothesized that plasma amino spikes are able to stimulate protein synthesis at a much greater rate. This would actually support eating LESS frequently rather than more frequently.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413096

Here's another study that may be taking this myth and completely reversing it. It showed that although eating one meal/day as opposed to three caused an increase in hunger, it actually caused a DECREASE in fat mass, it also showed decrease in the catabolic hormone cortisol.


Eating every two to three hours is definitely not necessary, and is quite likely even less beneficial than eating every 5-6 hours, possibly more.




Unless you need to split your meals into 8-10 meals per day, then unless you do that so that you are physically able to consume a large amount of food, then it is unnecessary.

Ya I'm splitting my meals and shakes. Can't stomach all the clean calories in only a few sitting. I also hate feeling hungry. I'd rather go with 4-5 if possible, but I just can't eat that much at the same time.

Damn man, that sucks! I'm cutting now which is easy but when I bulk I usually have to eat 4 times a day to get enough calories in including a litre of milk with weightgainer a few hours after dinner.


But 8-10 meals a day sounds pretty inconvenient. It may be because you're trying to eat 'clean'. Its easier to get calories in when you get some of them from what might be seen as 'unclean' sources. In fact I'd recommend it due to there being no difference in regard to body composition as to where you get your calories from.

Say there's two twins... They are both at the same level of training experience and are running the same program and getting the same amount of rest.

Twin A consumes 3500 calories and gets in 200 grams of protein. He gets this from brown rice, low fat milk, lean chicken and broccoli.

Twin B consumes 3500 calories and gets in 200 grams of protein too. But he gets most of his calories from McDonalds, from milkshakes and from red meat.

THE TWINS WILL ACHIEVE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL RESULTS WITH REGARD TO BODY COMPOSITION.

The idea is that you still wouldn't want to eat fast food all the time, because of reasons like high blood pressure and the possible risk of diabetes, but that it is absolutely fine for bodybuilding if you get some of your food from these sources due to it making no difference in body composition.