For the gym rats
- Thread starter NitrogenY3K
- Start date
- Status
Permabanned
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 9,204
Im afraid, as a degree holding biologist, i cant see a mechanism by which external factors such as food intake and food type can affect tissue composition.
Think about it, youre essentially saying that a man who built muscle from cheese has different muscle to a man who built muscle from beef? Doesnt sound like it makes as much sense there does it?
Biology 101 - Nutrients ingested are broken down into their component parts, in the case of proteins, amino acids, in the case of fats into fatty acids and carbohydrates into simple sugars.
Now whether or not your initial source is a lovely prime rib, or a ground up carcass, its nutritional value is a constant. The body will take in the ground up carcass, seperate out the proteins the fats the carbohydrates and the undigestible chaff. The body will break them down into their specific amino acids, sugars and fatty acids. All 'toxins', undesirable chemicals, will be filtered out by the liver or passed as waste.
The body can now use the amino acids to build muscle (which will eventually become dinner). These amino acids are 'binary' in nature, they exist in one form, one stucture and one level of 'quality'. You dont get Leucine and Good Leucine and Poor Leucine, you just have Leucine. One molecule, one structure one composition. By their very nature the building blocks are sanitized by normal biological processing.
Then you talk about hormones. Firstly hormones have little to no effect when applied orally as our livers do a damn fine job breaking them down, the dosages that 'could' be present in the tiny amount of chicken blood that MIGHT be ingested in an undercooked chicken would be beyond negligible. Hormone is not stored in muscle thus there can be no 'build up' of it over time in the chicken meat.
Its all just pseudoscience, to clarify what PSEUDOSCIENCE is, is simply something that sounds feasible to someone of good intelligence with no specialist knowledge on the subject. I totally agree that it sounds plausible that if you feed an animal junk and drugs that the resulting meat should be of questionable quality. But this is quite simply a massive underestimation of the complexity and efficiencey of biology. Millions of years of evolution have worked to combat problems like this and to assume that purely logical principles like "Crap in = Crap Out" apply is to fundementally lack a rounded understanding of biological systems
Permabanned
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 9,204
I dont see how that corralates, solanine is a naturally occuring poinson in some plants of the nightshade family, one of which is the potato.
If your suggesting that some poisons exist in food naturally...errr...well yeah duh. Or maybe your suggesting if you poisoned a chicken you shouldnt eat it...maybe.
Perhaps you have read how an animal ingesting another animal that has been poisoned can also be poisoned? Youd be misinterpereting but ok
Could you be more specific or site a case reference if im missing something?
Last edited:
Solanine doesn't get "filtered." It ends up everywhere.. and well yes, my point has always been that badly fed (ergo poisoned, see my point about the chemicals in the food) animals eaten by other animals (us, humans) leads to them being poisoned..
A can of tuna mixed with some mixed frozen vegtables makes a nice small meal/snack. Tried it a few times and while I was at first apprehensive about it tasting anywhere near good, I now love it. Sometimes throw in a bit of ketchup (or mayonaise) to help it all stick together. Keeping vegtables on the fork is a pain in the arse, a decent sized mouthful that is!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 9,204
inside muscle tissue? That is specifically what im getting at, im fully aware of how toxic chemicals can build up in food chains, usually in the livers and fat storage of larger mammals. But bringing things back to the present debate. Do these chemicals collect in bloodless muscle tissue such as chicken breast. I cannot find any evidence or scientific reasoning to suggest they do. Thats my only argument here, that chicken breast, whatever its fed, is chicken breast.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,648
- Location
- Falling...
U_E... so how come hormones such as... I dunno, gear work then if the liver removes them? 
If I had a choice of eating a chicken that was built like a brick outhouse for having run around a farmyard being the alpha male, vs. one which has been injected full of steroids and rolling around in it's own crap in a battery farm I know which I'd choose. And you'd be a fool to choose anything but the healthy chicken. You don't need scientific fact for that or any other type of diatribe, a scrawny ill fed, doped up to the eyeballs chicken is NOT going to be as good for you as naturally well fed and well exercised one.
Your arguments don't prove anything, they are just hearsay to my eyes I'm afraid - sorry dude!
If I had a choice of eating a chicken that was built like a brick outhouse for having run around a farmyard being the alpha male, vs. one which has been injected full of steroids and rolling around in it's own crap in a battery farm I know which I'd choose. And you'd be a fool to choose anything but the healthy chicken. You don't need scientific fact for that or any other type of diatribe, a scrawny ill fed, doped up to the eyeballs chicken is NOT going to be as good for you as naturally well fed and well exercised one.
Your arguments don't prove anything, they are just hearsay to my eyes I'm afraid - sorry dude!
funnily enough I just made a quick tuna snack more suited to someone on a high fat low carb diet though, it was a tin of tuna dollop of mayo grated chedder cheese, pepper, lea n perins yum
Permabanned
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 9,204
the liver does remove them dude. Oral steroids need to be bound to sacrificial chemicals in order to survive the first hepatic pass, they are broken down in the second pass completely but by this point they have already done a full cycle of the body and had their necessary effect. Havent you ever wondered why oral drugs are so bad for the liver but when injected intravenously can be administered in much higher doses? Its not the drug that hurts the liver but the sacrificial chemical that helps it survive the bodies metabolic processes. If you bypass this by injecting a chemical you can get a much safer and more profound effect. Paracetamol would be injectable if anyone would stick a needle in themselves to cure a headache!
My arguments are based on science, both of you two are the ones using hearsay, i mean come on your ASSUMING that if you juice up a chicken and feed it crap that its meat will be inferior, your assuming this with no factual evidence to back it up. Meanwhile im happy to expalin the half-lives of steroidal compounds, which are too short to be present in slaughtered meat. Im happy to explain how muscle tissue is generated and how this is not linked to the type of nourishment ingested.
I mean i dont know what else you want, im offering facts you can look up in a high school biology text and your coming back with "that doesnt make sense because i dont think thats how it works" ? Cant argue that can i?
My arguments are based on science, both of you two are the ones using hearsay, i mean come on your ASSUMING that if you juice up a chicken and feed it crap that its meat will be inferior, your assuming this with no factual evidence to back it up. Meanwhile im happy to expalin the half-lives of steroidal compounds, which are too short to be present in slaughtered meat. Im happy to explain how muscle tissue is generated and how this is not linked to the type of nourishment ingested.
I mean i dont know what else you want, im offering facts you can look up in a high school biology text and your coming back with "that doesnt make sense because i dont think thats how it works" ? Cant argue that can i?
Meh, Chickens chicken...
Granted (usually) more expensive chicken (not just chicken but foods in general) tend to have higher protein ratings for whatever reason...And cheaper varients have less....
You get what you pay for at the end of the day.
If you food physically tastes different because of what sort of life it has had, then fair do's for you
I'm pretty used to 'cheap' foods, as it's the family I've grown up in and we've never had the money to just spend on food like that, so hey.
Granted (usually) more expensive chicken (not just chicken but foods in general) tend to have higher protein ratings for whatever reason...And cheaper varients have less....
You get what you pay for at the end of the day.
If you food physically tastes different because of what sort of life it has had, then fair do's for you
I'm pretty used to 'cheap' foods, as it's the family I've grown up in and we've never had the money to just spend on food like that, so hey.
Pretty interesting discussion boys, must say im like Freefaller in the sense that I tend to go for 'quality' foods i.e. sourced from a local butcher. The taste is much nicer and can often be without much added expense if you buy in bulk and consider that tescos chickens expel about a litre of water when cooked.
Ultra definately has me thinking whether im taking the right approach though, my only wonder is surely the nutrients in the meat of the animal i.e. vitamins etc are of much lower quality, if existant in a battery chicken compared to a free range one. My thinking is that the battery chicken isnt exposed to a decent amount of nutrients via its feed, therefore how can I expect it to have a plethora of vitimans and minerals itself.
Im still on the same side it must be said, if you factor out taste it still seems to me that surely the quality of the chicken is different. Its like comparing freefaller to a fat couch potato (if we ate humans, not that i do) surely the quality of what hes eating and his lifestyle effect the quality of the muscle, its maturity, so when compared 100g of freefaller to 100g of fat dude, theres a difference?
Ultra definately has me thinking whether im taking the right approach though, my only wonder is surely the nutrients in the meat of the animal i.e. vitamins etc are of much lower quality, if existant in a battery chicken compared to a free range one. My thinking is that the battery chicken isnt exposed to a decent amount of nutrients via its feed, therefore how can I expect it to have a plethora of vitimans and minerals itself.
Im still on the same side it must be said, if you factor out taste it still seems to me that surely the quality of the chicken is different. Its like comparing freefaller to a fat couch potato (if we ate humans, not that i do) surely the quality of what hes eating and his lifestyle effect the quality of the muscle, its maturity, so when compared 100g of freefaller to 100g of fat dude, theres a difference?
This discussion is not limited to chicken breast.. at least from my POV it never was. Besides which, we cook our meat in the fat it comes with.
Despite there being less profit in organic foods than in battery farmed?
theres always going to be a high amount of bs circulated regarding expensive meats because theres profit involved. Sure there is some benefits (taste and animal well being for starters) but would take them with pinch of salt lol.
freefaller aren't male chickens called roosters or something. Pretty sure you don't get alpha male chickens
freefaller aren't male chickens called roosters or something. Pretty sure you don't get alpha male chickens
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,648
- Location
- Falling...
Hormones act as signals to cells so when you hit puberty different genes get expressed depending on whether they receive estrogen or testosterone. In fact it's way more complex as it involves proportions and different hormones signal the production of other hormones and then express genes. So add anything into the system and yes you muck up what nature intended. To say that injecting hormones into chicken will not affect the meat is rubbish.
Humans on gear are a brilliant example: because you add in more testosterone and you get bone remodelling, brow ride formation for e.g. also more bone is added to the chin and that gets more prominant, voice box changes, more hair growth, male pattern baldness, testes shrink, on women the clit become bigger. On things like winny it can get so big it resembles a small penis (lovely), you get muscle development where it wouldn't normally grow.
e.g. women lose fat on triceps
I bet the structure of the muscle is different too.
Steroids DO have an effect and the liver tries to remove them in fact to quote: "Oral steroids involve modification of the parent steroid to make it harder for the liver to degrade the steroid molecules. This modification is almost always the addition of an alkyl (methyl) group at the 17 position of the steroid ring. The liver can still degrade the steroid, but not as effectively as the un-modified steroid. Therefore, oral steroids make several cycles through the bloodstream before being excreted. Most oral steroids are, to various degrees, excreted from the body unchanged."
Lower levels of protein and minerals in battery vs wild chicken let's not ignore the fact that battery chickens are often debeaked to prevent fighting and the close cramped conditions often give rise to things like salmonella and e-coli. With regards to theliver removing things, yes, which is why humans take supps to protect their livers when using gear. Do chickens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken#Issues_with_mass_production
A healthy chicken's muscle structure will be denser and richer in nutrients than a hormone injected one as a result.
Humans on gear are a brilliant example: because you add in more testosterone and you get bone remodelling, brow ride formation for e.g. also more bone is added to the chin and that gets more prominant, voice box changes, more hair growth, male pattern baldness, testes shrink, on women the clit become bigger. On things like winny it can get so big it resembles a small penis (lovely), you get muscle development where it wouldn't normally grow.
e.g. women lose fat on triceps
I bet the structure of the muscle is different too.
Steroids DO have an effect and the liver tries to remove them in fact to quote: "Oral steroids involve modification of the parent steroid to make it harder for the liver to degrade the steroid molecules. This modification is almost always the addition of an alkyl (methyl) group at the 17 position of the steroid ring. The liver can still degrade the steroid, but not as effectively as the un-modified steroid. Therefore, oral steroids make several cycles through the bloodstream before being excreted. Most oral steroids are, to various degrees, excreted from the body unchanged."
Lower levels of protein and minerals in battery vs wild chicken let's not ignore the fact that battery chickens are often debeaked to prevent fighting and the close cramped conditions often give rise to things like salmonella and e-coli. With regards to theliver removing things, yes, which is why humans take supps to protect their livers when using gear. Do chickens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken#Issues_with_mass_production
A healthy chicken's muscle structure will be denser and richer in nutrients than a hormone injected one as a result.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,648
- Location
- Falling...
theres always going to be a high amount of bs circulated regarding expensive meats because theres profit involved. Sure there is some benefits (taste and animal well being for starters) but would take them with pinch of salt lol.
freefaller aren't male chickens called roosters or something. Pretty sure you don't get alpha male chickens
Yeah yeah you know I meant
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,648
- Location
- Falling...
It's nothing to do with hippy nonsense it's just facts. A healthy chicken is going to be better to eat than an emaciated artificially grown one. I'd rather have spots on my apples than "perfect" ones which are artificially grown and taste bland and have half the nutritional conent than they would normally have!
Think about it, manufacturers are trying to make a profit, and they just have to pass a bare minimum of "quality"... would you really want to put inferior food into your body?
I state again, I think I'm a pretty good testament to what healthy eating can bring - the fact that some people on here have accused me for being on gear is a huge compliment. Sure I pay more than the average Joe for food, but it's good quality food.
Despite there being less profit in organic foods than in battery farmed?
At which level? For the farmers? At the supermarket? Any proof?
- Status