Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
So 10-seconds of 'research' reveals (via Google AI) that it's a mis-use of an actual term: A bioactive mimetic loop is a synthetic structure designed to mimic the bioactive region of a larger molecule, often a protein or peptide, while retaining its biological activity. These mimetics are typically small, constrained peptides or other synthetic molecules that are designed to fold into a specific conformation that resembles the native loop. They are used in various applications, including drug discovery, protein engineering, and material science
So the idea as suggested says it's about carbs where as the other is very specifically protein based (peptides are made from amino acids and so protein based).
If it's a true shift use a different name. Do NOT use a term to mis-lead or confuse. It just muddies the water.
A better thought is why? Is there an actual need, even in a carb-biased strength training (I train for strength), for loads, more carbs?
I'll address briefly the 'strongman' angle. Those that train for strength and or as strongmen (and, as is the case here, do a semi-physical job) often require higher percentages of carbs than those of equal bodyweight who call themselves bodybuilders and train accordingly. That said the top athletes (WSM level) now are leaner than previously. Abs aren't unusual. Esp so (again as is the case here) in those who are not heavyweights. That's been true of ALL kinds of weight restricted lifters. It's NOT proof of concept. It's almost a given. If you're limited to 90kg or 198lbs you
want as much muscle and so strength as possible.
You don't need fullness in how the muscle appears to train for strength. I sometimes joke it's the bodybuilder in me that sees me looking in the mirror while lifting., But truthfully how I look does f'all for my benching etc. I do NOT need a six pack or bicep veins or fullness. Function is all.
One example of what many strongmen do throughout event training and on the day of competitions is consume Gummy Bears (the Glucose based kind) and the like in small amounts. It has NOTHING to do with insulin manipulation just energy to not be knackered and continue training etc. Event days can easily be 4 hours x 3-4 events and at near maximal levels.
There IS an issue of using ChatGPT/AI. One is suggesting parameters not understood and having ChatGPT or an AI, which has NO concept of understanding, to write anything. Spelling isn't an issue.
We HAVE discussed Nutrient Partitioning. It was the idea behind N2BM's N2Slin. It's literally a part of the methods you say other use now (or else why do them). Stevesmi and I have mentioned Tren's Nutrient Partitioning benefits many times on the podcasts. Arguably ALL AAS do so to some degree if only via the uptake and retention of nitrogen/ protein at greater than natty levels. I'd also argue, as you ought to know, YOU as a single individual are NOT proof. Science requires multiple studies, many more than single users etc. It's up there with the IIFYM and having ONE guru with a six pack as 'proof'.
I said in the other thread advances are more about understanding. There will be NO changing of how humans do what they do. That's evolution. The whole uber species, next step stuff, has been around 100's of years as an idea. You even, if indirectly, touch upon this yourself in pointing out in responding to your own title ''It doesn’t activate PI3K/Akt/mTOR."You don’t need to force that pathway 24/7 People get all excited by a discovery, esp when it comes to adding muscle or strength, and rush to hammer it to death. It was said in the 1950's that if mule piss added muscle Weider would have bottled it to sell and bodybuilders would buy it. You can, at best, push natural processes. To do more leads into bad health, feedback loops and worse (see also disastrous medical studies and outcomes).
The truth is this. You're weight restricted (not a super heavy). Young enough (no age related slowing down of metabolism), physically active in training and at work (been there done that) and self aware enough to eat well and cleanly (something many strength athletes do now). Do less work, eat poorly, switch jobs, train badly and see if you stop being lean and or respond as well. These parameters MUST be taken in consideration and would be in a study. How many such studies use students (young), the untrained and in a fasted state? Because it counts. By way of example I'm no more proof of concept in how I train compared to most. I'm among (if not THE actual strongest) the stronger on most forums. But I do a LOT less volume than most. Heck I probably eat a great deal of carbs too - inc white chocolate bars. Parts of me are lean (no abs though) but as a single example I'm not proof my way is new or better than anyone else is. It's also why most systems and advice are generalized and based on what works for the many and not the few.
So the idea as suggested says it's about carbs where as the other is very specifically protein based (peptides are made from amino acids and so protein based).
If it's a true shift use a different name. Do NOT use a term to mis-lead or confuse. It just muddies the water.
A better thought is why? Is there an actual need, even in a carb-biased strength training (I train for strength), for loads, more carbs?
I'll address briefly the 'strongman' angle. Those that train for strength and or as strongmen (and, as is the case here, do a semi-physical job) often require higher percentages of carbs than those of equal bodyweight who call themselves bodybuilders and train accordingly. That said the top athletes (WSM level) now are leaner than previously. Abs aren't unusual. Esp so (again as is the case here) in those who are not heavyweights. That's been true of ALL kinds of weight restricted lifters. It's NOT proof of concept. It's almost a given. If you're limited to 90kg or 198lbs you
want as much muscle and so strength as possible.
You don't need fullness in how the muscle appears to train for strength. I sometimes joke it's the bodybuilder in me that sees me looking in the mirror while lifting., But truthfully how I look does f'all for my benching etc. I do NOT need a six pack or bicep veins or fullness. Function is all.
One example of what many strongmen do throughout event training and on the day of competitions is consume Gummy Bears (the Glucose based kind) and the like in small amounts. It has NOTHING to do with insulin manipulation just energy to not be knackered and continue training etc. Event days can easily be 4 hours x 3-4 events and at near maximal levels.
There IS an issue of using ChatGPT/AI. One is suggesting parameters not understood and having ChatGPT or an AI, which has NO concept of understanding, to write anything. Spelling isn't an issue.
We HAVE discussed Nutrient Partitioning. It was the idea behind N2BM's N2Slin. It's literally a part of the methods you say other use now (or else why do them). Stevesmi and I have mentioned Tren's Nutrient Partitioning benefits many times on the podcasts. Arguably ALL AAS do so to some degree if only via the uptake and retention of nitrogen/ protein at greater than natty levels. I'd also argue, as you ought to know, YOU as a single individual are NOT proof. Science requires multiple studies, many more than single users etc. It's up there with the IIFYM and having ONE guru with a six pack as 'proof'.
I said in the other thread advances are more about understanding. There will be NO changing of how humans do what they do. That's evolution. The whole uber species, next step stuff, has been around 100's of years as an idea. You even, if indirectly, touch upon this yourself in pointing out in responding to your own title ''It doesn’t activate PI3K/Akt/mTOR."You don’t need to force that pathway 24/7 People get all excited by a discovery, esp when it comes to adding muscle or strength, and rush to hammer it to death. It was said in the 1950's that if mule piss added muscle Weider would have bottled it to sell and bodybuilders would buy it. You can, at best, push natural processes. To do more leads into bad health, feedback loops and worse (see also disastrous medical studies and outcomes).
The truth is this. You're weight restricted (not a super heavy). Young enough (no age related slowing down of metabolism), physically active in training and at work (been there done that) and self aware enough to eat well and cleanly (something many strength athletes do now). Do less work, eat poorly, switch jobs, train badly and see if you stop being lean and or respond as well. These parameters MUST be taken in consideration and would be in a study. How many such studies use students (young), the untrained and in a fasted state? Because it counts. By way of example I'm no more proof of concept in how I train compared to most. I'm among (if not THE actual strongest) the stronger on most forums. But I do a LOT less volume than most. Heck I probably eat a great deal of carbs too - inc white chocolate bars. Parts of me are lean (no abs though) but as a single example I'm not proof my way is new or better than anyone else is. It's also why most systems and advice are generalized and based on what works for the many and not the few.
Last edited:
