Articles that Confirm My Bias

[dw]

So as much as athlean-douche gets it wrong, for as much as he is accidently right, he might not be much better or worse than some of the other Top Experts shown in that thumb nail.

Athlean-rofl reccomends 10 sets of 10 with 80% of your e1RM. He also recommends to breathe out before you descent on your squat. So no, I don't think that he's "not much better of worse" than Nuckols, Israetel or somebody comparable.

I think Isratel, and Matt Reynolds, and some others have said #1 factor for long term gains is just consistently hitting the gym with good-effort and just a modicum of proper nutrition (enough protein and calories).

I've had many periods of hitting the gym with good effort, high consistency, and proper nutrition, and no progress. So I also disagree with that.

If you were training for hypertrophy this should never be the case imo, discounting medical conditions or aging. Even when very advanced but not actually at your natural limit the progress should just be so slow that it is almost undetectable (again imo rather than ime).

How reliably this can be converted to 1rm strength gains is beyond me, but I'm pretty confident that you have to get quite strong before this becomes a major difficulty.

[mbasic]

I've had many periods of hitting the gym with good effort, high consistency, and proper nutrition, and no progress. So I also disagree with that.

probably hyperbole^ with the 'no progress' thing.

And the "many periods" thing kinda disqualifies this statement from what I said.

I believe I said long term

[KyleSchuant]

I think Isratel, and Matt Reynolds, and some others have said #1 factor for long term gains is just consistently hitting the gym with good-effort and just a modicum of proper nutrition (enough protein and calories).

Programming details, volume, technique, split type, recovery, supplements, etc (aka The Science) .... really aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things.

This guy would agree. He happens to like sandbags... a lot.

[alek]

I had been seeing a lot of stuff about how oreos lower ldl more than statins, and I had no idea where it was coming from. Then Layne posts this:



So 1 guy doing keto, whose ldl was over 400 ate some oreos for 16 days, and his ldl dropped significantly. After a few months of going back to his regular diet, he takes statins for 6 weeks, and his ldl dropped, but not as much as when he ate oreos. And people are using that case study of 1 guy to say all kinds of bullshit. Wowie kazowie.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@alek Wait so this guy had LDL in the normal range 100, then starts a keto diet and his LDL jumps up to 300 ? Isnt that a sign to, you know, quit the keto diet ?

[alek]

alek Wait so this guy had LDL in the normal range 100, then starts a keto diet and his LDL jumps up to 300 ? Isnt that a sign to, you know, quit the keto diet ?

I think he'd been doing Keto for a long time and already had a high LDL. Then the case study is this guy on Keto with high LDL taking meds to stay in ketosis while eating the Oreos. After 16 days, his LDL has plummeted. Then after a "washout" period where I assume he goes back to his normal Keto diet, he takes statins for 6 weeks. His LDL goes down, but not as much as when he ate the Oreos.

The clickbait claim is that Oreos are better than statins, statins are bullshit, etc. Layne gives an explanation as to why reintroducing carbohydrates into the diet may bring LDL down dramatically--you'll have to watch the video for his explanation, but it seems plausible to me.

Layne calls this guy, and the few other hundred the researchers were able to find like him, a unicorn. All their markers are good, BMI is good, lean--it's just that they have super high LDL. I didn't read the study or watch any other videos put out by the researchers, but from what I've seen tangentially to it, the Keto bros are hitting the clickbait shit hard.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@alek I see what you're saying. I mean the keto bros don't seem to be very intellectually honest. What I was thinking was that the idea of "high LDL but healthy because low BMI, lean etc." does not really make sense. In my opinion, if you have high LDL you're not in good health, it's just that for you to see the effects of this elevated LDL you'll have to wait for 20-25 years. How many keto bros have been doing a keto diet for the last 25 years ? Probably very few, since they are the type of people to go from one fad diet to the next. Most of those diets are meant to be untenable in the long run anyways.

[cgeorg]

One of my favorite climbing dudes to follow has generally followed a ketogenic diet for quite some time. He's also a nutritionist and has studied it a lot. He posted a gigantic video a while back, 4 hours long, about everything he's found. My one quibble is that he talks about an athletic keto diet, which I think means occasionally cycling in some carbs, but I don't think he really went into specifics. Anyway, IIRC, LDL has both small and large particle size, and keto folk tended to have more large LDL particles, which are less likely to gum up the works.

Blog post w/video and citations: https://www.davemacleod.com/blog/keto
A few select citations:
https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/4/1/e000429.abstract
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27166203/
https://lipidworld.biomedcentral.com/ar ... 21-01533-6
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33222611/