Walnuts: p64.

The finer distinctions between recommended and allowed/optional were not part of my initial statement about my experience with the diet. In hindsight my statement of nuts being recommended must be clarified as to recommended as a food in general but to be used sparingly during the undereating phase (which I did, btw).

ETA: I'm not on the diet now and not planning to. Just to be clear.

Reshifting the goalposts. Awesum1

Page 64 is about prepping the main meal of your overeating portion of the diet. You're either 1) terrible at reading 2) an outright liar. There is nothing about walnuts wrt undereating. rofl

ead

Dude. Keep the volume down. Call me a liar? Are you out of your mind? I made a short statement about my experience with the diet and then you come along with some nitty remark about a detail. I miss a point about walnuts being just generally recommended or in the undereating phase and you make this a matter of life and death? Are you so desperate to be "right" about your porn remark that you need to blow this out of proportion and get stuck on a detail? Single out one thing so that the dumbness of your whole remark is hidden behind it? Do you think I can't see what you're doing there? Take your pathetic little victory and have sex with it. At least you got laid in Europe then.

Don't bother to answer. I don't care about narcissists like you.

Projection IMO. You're idea of what the "Warrior Diet" is, is something vaguely similar to the diet, but not exactly what is written in the book. I ask you to cite material to support your viewpoint and you deliberately present information in a disingenuous manner. You're trying to take material and literally lie about what it is. We were talking about the undereating phase, nothing about overeating was mentioned at all, and you cite a page number to obfuscate the meaning.

I'm not calling you a liar, like someone says "My Dad can beat up your Dad." You are a liar.

lol More about how you did the "Warrior Diet" without really following the recommendations and just kinda... did stuff.

yeah right. I have never made a distinction between the general recommendations and the undereating phase.
I cite a certain page in the book that is clearly in the overeating chapter and refer to it as his love for nuts in general and that's supposed to imply that I'm saying it's in the undereating phase? That is just ridiculous. And playing around with supposed literal meanings of liar? Are you kidding? Willul ignorance. Great trick. Your debating "skills" are so transparent that a toddler would think of you as a fool.

Name calling. Sick.

Clearly the mark of an educated man.

A statement.

Recommends is a tricky word. Especially when you try to act like you've read the book and it states what you contend.

Ironically, allowed and recommended don't mean the same thing.

Generally... Another interesting and vague word. I won't even get into the former statement which is completely made up.

So you were wrong? Its not recommended? Or recommended for people who workout?

lol Citing the overeating segment as if its indicative of anything supporting the following.

While I don't try to deny loving myself, I find it funny you resort to name calling and silliness when faced with factual inconsistencies and an inability to support positions you assert (especially when you want to position yourself as someone who has read "the book" whereas I clearly have not).

lol Germany lol free speech

More name calling. Could someone point out where you went from talking about the undereating segment to the general recommendations of the diet? I see a ton of lolz about the undereating segment, which you vaguely follow. Then at some point you start blathering on about the general recommendations and name calling.

Saying the sky is blue is not "name calling". You may have trouble being ESL. But someone who "lies" is a "liar". Much like someone who "paints" is a "painter". Deliberately changing your argument midstream and presenting "evidence" in the most confusing manner possible would be a fine example of intellectual dishonesty.

/rapepwn

cue special olympics pic

- I admitted that I was incorrect or imprecise about the details of nuts during the day because I was referring to the book from memory and it's almost two years that I read it.

- Almonds are allowed during the day. For them being "recommended" or just "optional" during the undereating phase, see the above point.

page 199: "(...), whereas post-workout recovery meals are critical."
page 201: "Recovery meals should be composed of fast-assimilating proteins, good fat, and slow-releasing carbs: serving size 25-30 grams of protein and 10-25 g of carbs. The best fast-assimilating proteins are whey and milk proteins."

The comment "for people who work out a lot" referred specifically to the protein, not the nuts/seeds.

- Hm..:
Saying that one should disregard the derogatory and offensive connotation of the word because you are using it in a technical sense is purely ridiculous.

You made this whole struggle about the difference between "recommended" and "optional" while it's pretty clear in the book that Hofmekler thinks that nuts and esp. almonds are great and a) I made it clear pretty early that I was imprecise about just that and b) therefore pointing out points in the book where he talks about the usefulness of nuts and seeds in general. And it's clearly not a misapplication of the diet to eat almonds during the day as it is regarded "optional".

- Dude. These statements are so worthless and desperate. I made a general and blank statement about the diet and no statement of my application in detail. The specifics I gave only served the purpose that it's not an IF diet in the sense of "just drink water during the fast."
My statement was useless for any conclusion as to what degree I complied to the diet. After your pretty stupid statement about me misapplying the diet (which is even more stupid regarding that all the things I listed in my first post are clearly part of the undereating phase and my nuts/seeds mistake only happened in the post AFTER that) I wanted to clear up the misunderstandings about the use of nuts and seeds by pointing out the relevant statements in the book.
You are deliberately singling out details and blowing them out of proportion so you can maintain your point that I allegedly misapplied the diet while I have provided no base for that.
You are being intellectually dishonest by derailing the initial point of my statement and accusing me of being imprecise while the situation didn't call for absolute precision. Your first TWO replies where just poo. The pron and the consistency remark where nothing but destructive. Now trying to take the high ground and insulting me because you have successfully turned a casual remark about a diet into a struggle for precision and are now able to point out that the first statement was actually imprecise (what a revelation!) is really worth a lot. Congratulations.

you wish.

I even bought the book.

Other topic: awesome knock out by Klitschko.

Yawn. Heavyweight fights are so boring. Kitchkos fight each other already. or David Haye at least. God boxing really is dreadful nowadays.

If you two want to refund the portion of my hourly for the time I wasted reading that argument you can ship on stars or FTP.

Pm me for nicks.

Cheers.

jesus christ thremp if you are going to be such a pedantic nit at least know the difference between your and you're.

Dun curr.

its danke

ahahaha

So,

anyone got an idea on the general caloric requirements to make steady progress on TM?

Thats a vague question.

A surplus?

Hm well, I saw Rip answer that novice eating is unnecessary, which obviously makes sense. The question is, how much of a surplus? Caloric partitioning a big deal (eat lots mon, fri e.g.)? The end goal is to add strength but not too much body fat.

Despite thremp thinking it's ******ed. TM is a lot less volume than SS so on a major deficit with refeeds on mom/fri seems to work well for a few ppl on lyles board. They aren't giving exact specifics. Maintenance on m/f and 20% deficit otherwise. I'm thinking of adapting to this on Monday. Finding difficulty in setting up everything else tho. A 4 day split that psixcer does might be better. So not really tm at all. Maybe just a volume day and an intensity day. Squat twice a week everything else once.

Monday - volume - squat,
Tuesday - bench or press, weighted pulls
thurs - intensity - squat/dead
fri - bench/press, weighted pulls.

Dunno kicking around diff ideas.

PPAN style

Mon - squat/bench/chin

wed - dl/press

fri - squat/bench/chin

with less volume than 3x5 obv.

Having a hard time deciding. I think the issue is that my press is pretty much stagnant and need to change something up but still progressing linearly on bench.

Didn't I say almost the exact same thing, except for a "refeed" on Wed with the workout?

wtf?

if you are worried about gaining fat then you arent gonna be able to move the boulder.

did i do that right?

"novice eating" is also unnecessary as a novice.

you don't have to gain weight to get stronger. a surplus will prolong your stay at any stage of training, but it is not necessary to progress.

Repeated for emphasis. I think this is the thing that is most misunderstood in this forum.

Quoted for deemphasis.

I really think Miles overgeneralizes this point based on his personal experience.