6 Bodybuilding Rules You May Need to Break - Steroids Source Talk

01dragonslayer · #1 (**permalink**) 03-08-2025, 02:23 PM

Nick Ludlow
6 Bodybuilding Rules You May Need to Break
We've all heard the "latest and greatest" from Joe GymBro about the practices you MUST employ if you want to gain muscle, lose fat, increase strength, or attain Greek god status. The purpose of this article is to analyze common OCD muscle building practices and determine if they're impactful enough for the average muscle head who trains drug-free.

Rule #1 - Fasted Training is Great for Fat Burning
Verdict: The average trainee does not need to worry about training in a fasted state. There is no statistically significant benefit.

This OCD practice came about from the theory that hunger pangs signify your body is using body fat for fuel. The followers of this ritual typically debate the actual definitions of "fasted" or "empty stomach", meaning there is no unanimous rule about how long after a meal you are in a fasted state.

This semantic skirmish aside, the proponents unanimously believe that training in this style is optimal for burning as much fat as possible. Let's examine the research:

One study that examined the body composition effects of fasted versus non-fasted aerobic exercise in 20 females found that fasted and fed trainees experienced the same statistically significant decreases in body mass, BMI, percent body fat, waist circumference and fat mass and no changes in fat free mass. [1]
A meta-analysis of 17 articles found that carbohydrates consumed pre-workout did not improve performance during exercise sessions lasting less than 70 minutes, and for sessions lasting longer than 70 minutes, carbohydrates improved performance ~59% of the time. [2]
After 20 males engaged in a 6 week endurance training program, exercising 3 days per week for 1 to 2 hours at 75% of peak Vo2 max, the fat oxidation did not differ between fasted and carbohydrate-fed participants. However, the fasted trainees experienced decreased glycogen breakdown. [3]
Another 20 males engaged in a 6 week endurance training program, exercising 3 days per week for 1 to 2 hours at 75% of peak Vo2 max. This study found that the 10 fasted trainees increased "post-exercise dephosphorylation of eEF2", which researchers believe increases the re-activation rate muscle protein synthesis (MPS) after endurance exercise. [4]
When scientists measured the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC) of six untrained individuals they found that EPOC was higher in fed trainees over the 7 hours post-exercise. It is often thought that a higher EPOC equates to more calories (and potentially fat) burned. However this study concluded that fasted versus fed exercise does not affect EPOC to a statistically significant degree. [5]
12 males engaged in 1 hour of treadmill running at 70% of peak Vo2 max, but found that the fasted training group burned the same amount of fat and did not experience additional hunger suppression (re: consumed the same number of calories) compared to the fed trainees. [6]
Although this study examined rats, it found that rats who fasted for 24 hours had increased fatty acid utilization and increased endurance compared to fed rats. [7]
Bottom Line: Each of these studies examined the impact of fasted versus fed (non-fasted) training on aerobic endurance exercise, which is typically performed during a fat loss phase. These studies did not produce a unanimous decision, but it's safe to say that the average muscle head should not worry about training fasted versus fed as the differences are not statistically significant. It would be beneficial to see additional fasted vs. fed studies performed using anaerobic exercise such as resistance training and sprinting.

Instead of worrying about fasted training, use a proven pre-workout formula like MTS Clash to help improve gym performance, focus and energy.

Rule #2 – Eat Every 2-3 Hours to Keep the Metabolism Stoked
Verdict: Frequent meals may actually hinder the fat loss process.

This OCD practice came about from the theory that a bodybuilder must eat every 2 to 3 hours to maximize muscle protein synthesis and anabolism throughout the day. Some devout followers will even set alarms at night so that they can consume food during their sleeping phase.

Proponents of frequent feeding are typically convinced that eating more often allows them to eat more calories per day (due to increased metabolism and/or thermic effect of food). They believe that those who only eat 2 or 3 meals per day have a metabolic disadvantage. Let's examine the research:

Researchers examined the effect of 6 meals per day versus 3 meals per day on 8 obese males and 8 obese females; despite keeping a ~3000 weekly caloric deficiency for each individual for 8 weeks, both groups lost identical amounts of body weight, fat mass, lean body mass, and BMI. [8]
8 individuals consumed a high carb/low-fat meal (70% carbs, 19% fat, 11% protein) and 10 individuals consumed a low carb/high-fat meal (24% carbs, 65% fat, 11% protein) as one large 1,200 calorie meal or two 600 calorie meals on two separate occasions; meal frequency and meal composition did not affect the thermic effect of food (TEF). [9]
When 15 lean individuals (7 male, 8 female) consumed energy balanced diets (re: calories burned = calories consumed) comprised of either three meals or six meals per day; 24-hour fat oxidation was the same across both groups, but perceived levels of hunger and the desire to eat were increased in the six-meals-per-day group. [10]
12 healthy males consumed energy balanced diets (15% protein, 30% fat, 55% carbs) spread across either three or 14 meals per day; researchers found fat oxidation was the same across both groups and the lower meal frequency group experience decreased glucose levels as well as increased rest metabolic rate (RMR) and appetite control.
Bottom Line: For the average muscle head there's no need to eat every two to three hours. If your goal is general wellness, then low meal frequency may actually improve your glucose levels. If you goal is fat loss, then high frequency feedings may actually hinder your results through an increased desire to eat and poorer appetite control. If your goal is lean mass gain and you have a small appetite then high frequency feedings may help, but it will not cause you to burn any more calories per day compared to a low frequency feeding.