Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
This is so funny.
Thaibox: First of all, your questions were vauge and non-specific. Then when you don't get a detailed response you accuse my information as crap. You say that I'm talking out my ass. You disregard my statement about progress and then belittle it by telling me how much your father can bench. And then you get all pissy because I don't didn't get back to you fast enough? That isn't out of line?
In case you weren't aware of it, Thaibox -- I don't work for you. I have no responsibility to answer every point to your satisfaction. I go on the boards to exchange info and to offer a service where I can -- not to prove myself to some guy who, once again, HASN'T EVEN READ THE BOOK!!!
I've had some of the biggest names in the industry praise my work, and you think I'm sidestepping YOU?
Can somebody explain this to this guy, or is it me?
I tell you what: You went from 140 as an adult to 265 with no gear and kept your bf% below 10%??? If so, I think you should write a book. And I'll read it.
Thaibox: First of all, your questions were vauge and non-specific. Then when you don't get a detailed response you accuse my information as crap. You say that I'm talking out my ass. You disregard my statement about progress and then belittle it by telling me how much your father can bench. And then you get all pissy because I don't didn't get back to you fast enough? That isn't out of line?
In case you weren't aware of it, Thaibox -- I don't work for you. I have no responsibility to answer every point to your satisfaction. I go on the boards to exchange info and to offer a service where I can -- not to prove myself to some guy who, once again, HASN'T EVEN READ THE BOOK!!!
I've had some of the biggest names in the industry praise my work, and you think I'm sidestepping YOU?
Can somebody explain this to this guy, or is it me?
I tell you what: You went from 140 as an adult to 265 with no gear and kept your bf% below 10%??? If so, I think you should write a book. And I'll read it.
I did a long post last night and find I screwed up and did not post it(since i can not find it so here goes again. I believe what we have here is a problem of "black and white" without any shades of gray. Nelson refuses to think there is any merit in aerobics for weight loss and CVH where, in fact, both published and experiential data indicate it is just plain true. Does that mean that weight lifting does not play a significant role in fat loss and CVH, of course not, they both can and do. I think what Nelson was referring to with his food timing point was something that was discussed earlier, that is, exercise perfomed on an empty stomach preferentially burns fat. Get a life, this is fact, I will put up all the studies you need to demonstrate this. It has also been shown that interval training burns more fat "overall" after taking into account longer term metabolic effects. Now, before you get your undies in a bundle, Nelson, it is not inconceivable that the way you train is in fact a form of interval training which mixes anaerobic and aerobic conditioning during the bout of exercise. So, even though we know that high intensity exercise(VO2 Max 70%+ ) preferentially burns carbohydrates not fat the overall effects becomes an effective fat burner eliminating the need for aerobics in "your" training program. The rub here is nelson's inability to see another point of view that does not agree with his even if it is founded in solid science and experience. Just to show that there are no hard feelings and that i am able to change my beliefs based on solid science(yes I have gained some knowledge during this thread but thru my own research and others not any gems of wisdom from Nelson, here is a study that supports Nelson's belief that weightlifting is better for fat burning than aerobics of the same caloric expenditure(given this experimental paradigm).:
