Joe.Muscle
Active Member
I just wish I could pop my own back
I need a chiropractor!
I need a chiropractor!
Well, I have a swiss ball at home. My chiropractor has instructed me in how i can pop my back into place with it.
1) You just position the top/dead center part of the ball in between your shoulder blades.
2) Hold your arms straight out, over your head so they are parallel to your torse.
3) Then you take a deep breath and blow out relatively slow and you should hear some cracks.(If i dont get any results from that, I then flex some of my back muscles to force the pop.)
This might not work if your bones are very stiff but a chiropractor will be able to unlock it for you.
1) You just position the top/dead center part of the ball in between your shoulder blades.
2) Hold your arms straight out, over your head so they are parallel to your torse.
3) Then you take a deep breath and blow out relatively slow and you should hear some cracks.(If i dont get any results from that, I then flex some of my back muscles to force the pop.)
This might not work if your bones are very stiff but a chiropractor will be able to unlock it for you.
<div>
(lcars @ Nov. 27 2006,09:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">i dont quite get what your saying there but if it is that when you do a cut youll lose 50/50 muscle and fat,i dont agree.maybe i read it wrong?</div>
It is easy to lose muscle along with the fat when cutting because of the caloric deficit. Very often (and congratulations if this doesn't apply to you) they seem to lose about equal amounts of fat and muscle from the "standard" bodybuilding diet with less food and still working hard. Those that do TCD or LCD to cut seem to keep more muscle. However, many people do lose muscle when they cut and not just fat - whatever approach they take.
That is why in gyms, "how do I cut without losing muscle" is such a common discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My whole point is simply that I feel it's better to avoid having to do a big cut. Why bother gaining 30, 40, or 50lbs on a bulker if most of it is fat? Then you have to go on a cutting diet, add more cardio, and burn it all off. Why not avoid adding excessive fat in the first place.
Sure, some fat gain while bulking is likely and should not be feared. However, why not just do a lean bulk and keep fat gain to a minimum?
And I still say that cardio should be maintained while bulking because it compliments the weight training (not excessive cardio...for example, I won't be doing another triathlon for a while). But a reasonable amount of cardio that doesn't burn up your muscle and you eat enough to support it can only make you a better lifter. Think back to my original statement about squatting better when NOT short of breath.
That's why when I'm bulking I'll still be doing cardio - and feeding it. But I'll be limiting my cardio to MA workouts with HIIT heavy bag sessions. No more endless miles of running, biking, swimming. Maybe some sprints and short rides but nothing that will require long endurance.
(lcars @ Nov. 27 2006,09:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">i dont quite get what your saying there but if it is that when you do a cut youll lose 50/50 muscle and fat,i dont agree.maybe i read it wrong?</div>
It is easy to lose muscle along with the fat when cutting because of the caloric deficit. Very often (and congratulations if this doesn't apply to you) they seem to lose about equal amounts of fat and muscle from the "standard" bodybuilding diet with less food and still working hard. Those that do TCD or LCD to cut seem to keep more muscle. However, many people do lose muscle when they cut and not just fat - whatever approach they take.
That is why in gyms, "how do I cut without losing muscle" is such a common discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My whole point is simply that I feel it's better to avoid having to do a big cut. Why bother gaining 30, 40, or 50lbs on a bulker if most of it is fat? Then you have to go on a cutting diet, add more cardio, and burn it all off. Why not avoid adding excessive fat in the first place.
Sure, some fat gain while bulking is likely and should not be feared. However, why not just do a lean bulk and keep fat gain to a minimum?
And I still say that cardio should be maintained while bulking because it compliments the weight training (not excessive cardio...for example, I won't be doing another triathlon for a while). But a reasonable amount of cardio that doesn't burn up your muscle and you eat enough to support it can only make you a better lifter. Think back to my original statement about squatting better when NOT short of breath.
That's why when I'm bulking I'll still be doing cardio - and feeding it. But I'll be limiting my cardio to MA workouts with HIIT heavy bag sessions. No more endless miles of running, biking, swimming. Maybe some sprints and short rides but nothing that will require long endurance.
What are your opinions on fat burners that actually work? Are any of you currently taking any? Have any of you had success with them?
I i tried 3 pills of hyrdoxycut hardcore within 3 days and when the week was over i lost 7 pounds. I didn't lose any strenth I think because I was still eating normally. I simply added MORE cardio to my getting lean week. You have to be careful with these products because some people have ODed and puked blood out of both ends, some people have died while taking ephedra irresponcibly.
I just would like to know because if taking a fat burner for a couple weeks means muscle perservation, wouldn't you want to take it?
I i tried 3 pills of hyrdoxycut hardcore within 3 days and when the week was over i lost 7 pounds. I didn't lose any strenth I think because I was still eating normally. I simply added MORE cardio to my getting lean week. You have to be careful with these products because some people have ODed and puked blood out of both ends, some people have died while taking ephedra irresponcibly.
I just would like to know because if taking a fat burner for a couple weeks means muscle perservation, wouldn't you want to take it?
I'm not allowed to use them so I have no firsthand experience. I understand that some folks I've spoken to have gotten good results with most of them from hot roxx to stacker2. They are pretty much the same thing. They raise the body temp and metabolic rate making your body less efficient in fuel delivery so it uses more to do the same work.
Based on that theory why not just stack some clen with DNP? They'll get you leaner quicker. They may kill you sooner though.
Personally, when I lost the 160lbs, I did it by alternating LCD with TCD. I took less than 2 years to do it. Most of the loss was in the first year.
I honestly don't think suppliments like fat burners are really needed. Without them I did the following.
Start:
Weight 300lb
FFM - 120lb
FM - 180lb
BF - 60%
Post huge 2 year cut:
BW 170lb
FFM 160lb
FM 10lb
BF 7%
That's a net fat loss of 170lbs (and I thought all this time it was only 160lbs) OOPS. And a LBM gain of 40lbs using my body fat for fuel. (there is where the excess for muscle growth came from 9 big calories/gram of fat).
More recently:
Wt 200lb
FM 20lb
FFM 180lb
BF 10%
Now:
Not good. My mind's been in a terrible, dark place for a few weeks and I actually forgot to eat for a week. I lost 11.5lbs and it was probably all muscle.
Anyway, that's my cutting and bulking history without fat burning "suppliments". I cannot say drug free because I've made no secret of the fact that I'm old and on prescribed TRT. The last year, I've experimented on my body and that's where I got my beliefs about bulking vs cutting from.
That's why I say too much of the wrong cardio that you don't feed will cost you muscle. I say that not eating enough will cost you muscle (seems to contradict what I did the first 2 years) but not really because I was utilizing my own body fat for fuel and was not on the standard bodybuilders diet. The 170 lbs happened twice. The first time I gained muscle to get there...the second time, I lost equal muscle with fat from overtraining and undereating.
Based on that theory why not just stack some clen with DNP? They'll get you leaner quicker. They may kill you sooner though.
Personally, when I lost the 160lbs, I did it by alternating LCD with TCD. I took less than 2 years to do it. Most of the loss was in the first year.
I honestly don't think suppliments like fat burners are really needed. Without them I did the following.
Start:
Weight 300lb
FFM - 120lb
FM - 180lb
BF - 60%
Post huge 2 year cut:
BW 170lb
FFM 160lb
FM 10lb
BF 7%
That's a net fat loss of 170lbs (and I thought all this time it was only 160lbs) OOPS. And a LBM gain of 40lbs using my body fat for fuel. (there is where the excess for muscle growth came from 9 big calories/gram of fat).
More recently:
Wt 200lb
FM 20lb
FFM 180lb
BF 10%
Now:
Not good. My mind's been in a terrible, dark place for a few weeks and I actually forgot to eat for a week. I lost 11.5lbs and it was probably all muscle.
Anyway, that's my cutting and bulking history without fat burning "suppliments". I cannot say drug free because I've made no secret of the fact that I'm old and on prescribed TRT. The last year, I've experimented on my body and that's where I got my beliefs about bulking vs cutting from.
That's why I say too much of the wrong cardio that you don't feed will cost you muscle. I say that not eating enough will cost you muscle (seems to contradict what I did the first 2 years) but not really because I was utilizing my own body fat for fuel and was not on the standard bodybuilders diet. The 170 lbs happened twice. The first time I gained muscle to get there...the second time, I lost equal muscle with fat from overtraining and undereating.
T-Nation: Here's a controversial question for you: Can an experienced lifter really build muscle and lose fat at the same time?
Chad Waterbury: That's an excellent, albeit polarizing question. Many coaches say that you can't build muscle and lose fat at the same time. Their reasoning usually goes something like this: you need a caloric surplus to build muscle but you need a caloric deficit to lose fat, and since you can't have a surplus and a deficit at the same time it's postulated that you can't gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.
My position is that the answer probably isn't as elementary as merely looking at it from a surplus verses deficit standpoint. It's likely that other complex processes such as the production of mechano-growth factor (MGF), IGF-1, and insulin fluctuations determine whether a person can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.
MGF is derived from IGF-1 and it's expressed in muscles that have been mechanically overloaded: resistance training. Some people might express more MGF than others, and some types of training might produce more MGF than others — we honestly don't know at this point. My postulate, however, is that High Frequency Training (HFT) results in the highest production of MGF. But I don't want to get off on that tangent at this juncture.
From an endocrine standpoint, growth hormone induces both muscle growth and fat loss. So there is a hormone that can do both at the same time. But as many athletes and bodybuilders now know, growth hormone injections rarely end up being worth the effort and expense. So the answer probably isn't as simple as merely focusing on growth hormone.
The answer probably lies in the hormones that are expressed further down the line when skeletal muscles are overloaded — MGF being one that's surfaced over the last few years. There's no doubt that many more will emerge.
Certain real-world observations seem to demonstrate that people can lose fat and gain muscle at the same time. When my buddy went to boot camp he was a fat slob. Over the course of basic training, he lost 20 pounds of fat. But what's interesting is that his pectorals, calves, and forearms all grew!
Importantly, this wasn't a smoke-and-mirrors effect such is the case when someone loses fat and his muscles look bigger because he's more ripped. My buddy's muscles were measurably bigger than when he entered boot camp! And this was in the face of losing 20 pounds.
Now, everyone knows that basic training is probably the most catabolic event ever created, so how was my buddy able to build bigger muscles? Did his body respond to the shock of daily running by producing more MGF in his calf muscles? Or was he fluctuating between a caloric surplus and deficit in the face of constantly changing activity levels?
And if he was in a caloric surplus on some days, how did he still manage to lose 20 pounds of fat in such a short time period? I don't know, but I think it proves that we have much more to figure out before we can say that muscle growth and fat loss can or can't occur in synchrony.
Chris, your Velocity Diet has produced some of the fastest fat loss that the fitness industry has ever seen. And I bet as more data is compiled, it'll be shown that some people gain muscle on the plan. Maybe they gain muscle because of a more effective resistance training plan? Or maybe they gain muscle because of increased protein intake?
Based on the simplistic surplus verses deficit relationship, no one should be able to gain muscle on the Velocity Diet because they spend an entire month in a caloric deficit. But I bet many do. How do we explain that?
Anyway, back to my book. With all that being said, whether or not you can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time is a moot point. If you want to do both, it's simply better to alternate between periods of a caloric surplus and a caloric deficit. The eating plans for fat loss and muscle gain in Muscle Revolution focus on alternating between surplus and deficit periods.
But the fact that I prescribe surplus and deficit periods might not seem immediately obvious when people read Muscle Revolution because the book doesn't prescribe eating plans with fluctuating calories throughout the week. Instead, a person's activity levels will determine whether he's in a deficit or surplus. On his off days he'll be in a surplus; on his training days he'll be in a deficit.
Some coaches organize their client's eating plan so the surplus is on the training day and the deficit is on the off day. I've found that either approach can work. When I wrote the book I tried to make things as easy as possible for people, so I chose an eating plan with unchanging calories.
Chad Waterbury: That's an excellent, albeit polarizing question. Many coaches say that you can't build muscle and lose fat at the same time. Their reasoning usually goes something like this: you need a caloric surplus to build muscle but you need a caloric deficit to lose fat, and since you can't have a surplus and a deficit at the same time it's postulated that you can't gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.
My position is that the answer probably isn't as elementary as merely looking at it from a surplus verses deficit standpoint. It's likely that other complex processes such as the production of mechano-growth factor (MGF), IGF-1, and insulin fluctuations determine whether a person can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.
MGF is derived from IGF-1 and it's expressed in muscles that have been mechanically overloaded: resistance training. Some people might express more MGF than others, and some types of training might produce more MGF than others — we honestly don't know at this point. My postulate, however, is that High Frequency Training (HFT) results in the highest production of MGF. But I don't want to get off on that tangent at this juncture.
From an endocrine standpoint, growth hormone induces both muscle growth and fat loss. So there is a hormone that can do both at the same time. But as many athletes and bodybuilders now know, growth hormone injections rarely end up being worth the effort and expense. So the answer probably isn't as simple as merely focusing on growth hormone.
The answer probably lies in the hormones that are expressed further down the line when skeletal muscles are overloaded — MGF being one that's surfaced over the last few years. There's no doubt that many more will emerge.
Certain real-world observations seem to demonstrate that people can lose fat and gain muscle at the same time. When my buddy went to boot camp he was a fat slob. Over the course of basic training, he lost 20 pounds of fat. But what's interesting is that his pectorals, calves, and forearms all grew!
Importantly, this wasn't a smoke-and-mirrors effect such is the case when someone loses fat and his muscles look bigger because he's more ripped. My buddy's muscles were measurably bigger than when he entered boot camp! And this was in the face of losing 20 pounds.
Now, everyone knows that basic training is probably the most catabolic event ever created, so how was my buddy able to build bigger muscles? Did his body respond to the shock of daily running by producing more MGF in his calf muscles? Or was he fluctuating between a caloric surplus and deficit in the face of constantly changing activity levels?
And if he was in a caloric surplus on some days, how did he still manage to lose 20 pounds of fat in such a short time period? I don't know, but I think it proves that we have much more to figure out before we can say that muscle growth and fat loss can or can't occur in synchrony.
Chris, your Velocity Diet has produced some of the fastest fat loss that the fitness industry has ever seen. And I bet as more data is compiled, it'll be shown that some people gain muscle on the plan. Maybe they gain muscle because of a more effective resistance training plan? Or maybe they gain muscle because of increased protein intake?
Based on the simplistic surplus verses deficit relationship, no one should be able to gain muscle on the Velocity Diet because they spend an entire month in a caloric deficit. But I bet many do. How do we explain that?
Anyway, back to my book. With all that being said, whether or not you can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time is a moot point. If you want to do both, it's simply better to alternate between periods of a caloric surplus and a caloric deficit. The eating plans for fat loss and muscle gain in Muscle Revolution focus on alternating between surplus and deficit periods.
But the fact that I prescribe surplus and deficit periods might not seem immediately obvious when people read Muscle Revolution because the book doesn't prescribe eating plans with fluctuating calories throughout the week. Instead, a person's activity levels will determine whether he's in a deficit or surplus. On his off days he'll be in a surplus; on his training days he'll be in a deficit.
Some coaches organize their client's eating plan so the surplus is on the training day and the deficit is on the off day. I've found that either approach can work. When I wrote the book I tried to make things as easy as possible for people, so I chose an eating plan with unchanging calories.
Having a deficit on the off day & surplus on training days would limit gains in either direction.
I think its agreed that people over a certain bodyfat% (im unsure what this is) are able to lose fat and build muscle at the same time if they aren't near their genetic potential (ie pretty much beginners like his buddy) i dont think anyone disagrees with that.
I find the role cardio would play intresting. The main argument being that you need to be anabolic to build muscle and catabolic to lose fat & both cant happen at the same time efficiently in either direction.
But cardio in itself is obviously generally a catabolic activity, so if you were to stay anabolic most of the time and catabolic for small time periods i wonder about the affect this would have if you were able to manage somehow the affect the cardio has on your gains.
I mean the main problem with cardio is the worry that it will limit gains in muscle mass because your gonna be breaking down muscle for fuel, especially if running low on glycogen. But if there were a way to replace any muscle broken down as it happened (having protein in the bloodstream already?) or have your body use that protein in the bloodstream in place of any muscle...that would surely counteract any worries about losing muscle? I have a feeling that because cortisol is high your bodys gonna break down muscle regardless? I dont know enough about it.
But i still think if you ate 1000 calories more than usual, then burned off 1000 calories more than usual during cardio. That the ratio of where the calories you burn come from, will be different to the ratio of calories that you put into your body in terms of pro/carbs/fat.
I think its agreed that people over a certain bodyfat% (im unsure what this is) are able to lose fat and build muscle at the same time if they aren't near their genetic potential (ie pretty much beginners like his buddy) i dont think anyone disagrees with that.
I find the role cardio would play intresting. The main argument being that you need to be anabolic to build muscle and catabolic to lose fat & both cant happen at the same time efficiently in either direction.
But cardio in itself is obviously generally a catabolic activity, so if you were to stay anabolic most of the time and catabolic for small time periods i wonder about the affect this would have if you were able to manage somehow the affect the cardio has on your gains.
I mean the main problem with cardio is the worry that it will limit gains in muscle mass because your gonna be breaking down muscle for fuel, especially if running low on glycogen. But if there were a way to replace any muscle broken down as it happened (having protein in the bloodstream already?) or have your body use that protein in the bloodstream in place of any muscle...that would surely counteract any worries about losing muscle? I have a feeling that because cortisol is high your bodys gonna break down muscle regardless? I dont know enough about it.
But i still think if you ate 1000 calories more than usual, then burned off 1000 calories more than usual during cardio. That the ratio of where the calories you burn come from, will be different to the ratio of calories that you put into your body in terms of pro/carbs/fat.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
great post O and G
i think people worry to much about cardio.
as long as you dont do to much it shouldnt be a problem.
doing weights releases cortisol after aprox 45mins so ss- cardio could probably be done more than that.
hiit-cardio is similar to weights so i would say about 30mins of that would be fine(preferably on non weight days)
also i dissagree that cardio is totaly catabolic
if you take a guy who is a coach potatoe and has never trained,give hime some HIIT-cardio sprints or hill work im positive he would gain some muscle.
as long as you dont do to much it shouldnt be a problem.
doing weights releases cortisol after aprox 45mins so ss- cardio could probably be done more than that.
hiit-cardio is similar to weights so i would say about 30mins of that would be fine(preferably on non weight days)
also i dissagree that cardio is totaly catabolic
if you take a guy who is a coach potatoe and has never trained,give hime some HIIT-cardio sprints or hill work im positive he would gain some muscle.
I
imported_drpierredebs
Guest
<div>
(JonnyH @ Nov. 28 2006,16:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">1. But cardio in itself is obviously generally a catabolic activity
2. ......because your gonna be breaking down muscle for fuel....</div>
1. This is statement is SO false and misleading!
2. Muscle being brokendown for fuel will NEVER, NEVER, Never be a concern with 20-40 minutes cardio sessions that most here perform. Even for 2 hour session, with the right nutrition before, during and after the cardio there will be very little catabolism.
(JonnyH @ Nov. 28 2006,16:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">1. But cardio in itself is obviously generally a catabolic activity
2. ......because your gonna be breaking down muscle for fuel....</div>
1. This is statement is SO false and misleading!
2. Muscle being brokendown for fuel will NEVER, NEVER, Never be a concern with 20-40 minutes cardio sessions that most here perform. Even for 2 hour session, with the right nutrition before, during and after the cardio there will be very little catabolism.
I probably should have put more catabolic, in that i was thinking more along the lines that the speed at which your body breaks down glycogen for glucose, adipose tissue to fatty acids etc is increased.
The rest of the time through eating more than your burning your creating glycogen from glucose and adipose tissue from fatty acids more than your breaking them down for fuel etc so your more anabolic? Perhaps im looking at it all wrong.
If cardio has no effect on gains why not eat a 500 calorie surplus & then later burn off 300calories from nearly entirely fat/carbs. Result being less fat gain & same amount of muscle mass increase.
The rest of the time through eating more than your burning your creating glycogen from glucose and adipose tissue from fatty acids more than your breaking them down for fuel etc so your more anabolic? Perhaps im looking at it all wrong.
If cardio has no effect on gains why not eat a 500 calorie surplus & then later burn off 300calories from nearly entirely fat/carbs. Result being less fat gain & same amount of muscle mass increase.
I
imported_drpierredebs
Guest
AGAIN: in 30 minutes of cardio, the energy burned is first the carbs/gylcogen in your blood and then if you have not properly feed before the cardio, muscle glycogen gets burned. After the the muscle glycogen gets used up, which can be fast if the cardio is performed at a high intensity, then depending on the cardio-fitness of the performer, some ratio of fat and muscle will start to get burned. To prevent the burning of muscle, one needs only to understand how to feed oneself before, during and after the cardio and this involves feeding during the exercise of maltodextrin and amino acids. HOWEVER, noone here on the board is going to get to this point with the types and duration of cardio they are doing. The goal of people doing cardio on this board, as I understand it, is to burn up calories ingested. No stored fat or protein is going to get burned with 30 minute cardio sessions.
<div>
(JonnyH @ Nov. 29 2006,09:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I probably should have put more catabolic, in that i was thinking more along the lines that the speed at which your body breaks down glycogen for glucose, adipose tissue to fatty acids etc is increased.
The rest of the time through eating more than your burning your creating glycogen from glucose and adipose tissue from fatty acids more than your breaking them down for fuel etc so your more anabolic? Perhaps im looking at it all wrong.
If cardio has no effect on gains why not eat a 500 calorie surplus & then later burn off 300calories from nearly entirely fat/carbs. Result being less fat gain & same amount of muscle mass increase.</div>
jonny some people do use cardio for cutting,
they dont do any or very little untill they want to lose some fat then they do loads of cardio and still eat the same as normal ,and use the extra cals from cardio.
(JonnyH @ Nov. 29 2006,09:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I probably should have put more catabolic, in that i was thinking more along the lines that the speed at which your body breaks down glycogen for glucose, adipose tissue to fatty acids etc is increased.
The rest of the time through eating more than your burning your creating glycogen from glucose and adipose tissue from fatty acids more than your breaking them down for fuel etc so your more anabolic? Perhaps im looking at it all wrong.
If cardio has no effect on gains why not eat a 500 calorie surplus & then later burn off 300calories from nearly entirely fat/carbs. Result being less fat gain & same amount of muscle mass increase.</div>
jonny some people do use cardio for cutting,
they dont do any or very little untill they want to lose some fat then they do loads of cardio and still eat the same as normal ,and use the extra cals from cardio.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
Its not that cardio is bad or catabolic.
Its that most people don't eat enough and overtrain...and then do cardio...which at best is great for the heart...but at worst burns even more calories.
Its that most people don't eat enough and overtrain...and then do cardio...which at best is great for the heart...but at worst burns even more calories.
Right Herr doctor, so your adovocating really slow bulking right?
I agree with you that protein needs are overrated.
I agree with you that if someone ate at maintanance (approx) while training consistently they're bf% will go down and their strength and muscle mass will go up.
But right, I'm 105 kgs at 6''1, probably around 10% bfat, you agree that to really pile on the muscle its bulk time yes?
I agree with you that protein needs are overrated.
I agree with you that if someone ate at maintanance (approx) while training consistently they're bf% will go down and their strength and muscle mass will go up.
But right, I'm 105 kgs at 6''1, probably around 10% bfat, you agree that to really pile on the muscle its bulk time yes?
<div>
(style @ Nov. 29 2006,09:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But right, I'm 105 kgs at 6''1, probably around 10% bfat, you agree that to really pile on the muscle its bulk time yes?</div>
It depends on how you define "bulk". If you want to just weigh more quickly, eat a lot more. Then you can cut and see what happens. However, bear in mind that fat cells, as well as muscle cells have memory capabilities as well. Once you have been fat, whatever your definition of fat is, it is easier to get fat again and harder to stay lean. If you want to gain more muscle than have less fat, eat a proper small surplus diet and make sure your training is in line with your diet and goals.
Many, if not most, people will refute the above. That is fine by me. Nothing I like better than being compared to a much younger unlean person.
(style @ Nov. 29 2006,09:18)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But right, I'm 105 kgs at 6''1, probably around 10% bfat, you agree that to really pile on the muscle its bulk time yes?</div>
It depends on how you define "bulk". If you want to just weigh more quickly, eat a lot more. Then you can cut and see what happens. However, bear in mind that fat cells, as well as muscle cells have memory capabilities as well. Once you have been fat, whatever your definition of fat is, it is easier to get fat again and harder to stay lean. If you want to gain more muscle than have less fat, eat a proper small surplus diet and make sure your training is in line with your diet and goals.
Many, if not most, people will refute the above. That is fine by me. Nothing I like better than being compared to a much younger unlean person.
<div>
(Old and Grey @ Nov. 29 2006,11:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Once you have been fat, whatever your definition of fat is, it is easier to get fat again and harder to stay lean.</div>
This is wrong. Your setpoint is determined by genetics. For instance, I have a low setpoint - I was naturally around 8% before I started doing anything. Now that I've started getting bigger, it is still easy for me to lean out, despite the fact that I've gotten up to 15% bodyfat and slightly beyond.
Similarly, people who have a naturally high setpoint will always struggle when trying to get lean, even when they gotten very lean in the past. This is all based on genetics.
(Old and Grey @ Nov. 29 2006,11:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Once you have been fat, whatever your definition of fat is, it is easier to get fat again and harder to stay lean.</div>
This is wrong. Your setpoint is determined by genetics. For instance, I have a low setpoint - I was naturally around 8% before I started doing anything. Now that I've started getting bigger, it is still easy for me to lean out, despite the fact that I've gotten up to 15% bodyfat and slightly beyond.
Similarly, people who have a naturally high setpoint will always struggle when trying to get lean, even when they gotten very lean in the past. This is all based on genetics.
bluejacket
New Member
<div>
(Totentanz @ Nov. 29 2006,14:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This is wrong. Your setpoint is determined by genetics. For instance, I have a low setpoint - I was naturally around 8% before I started doing anything. Now that I've started getting bigger, it is still easy for me to lean out, despite the fact that I've gotten up to 15% bodyfat and slightly beyond.
Similarly, people who have a naturally high setpoint will always struggle when trying to get lean, even when they gotten very lean in the past. This is all based on genetics.</div>
i do not know if this is a scientifically proven "fact" but i do agree as it has been my experience as well.
one thing i will add though is as i have gotten older (past mid 30's) my metab. seemed to slow from "hyper" to "moderatly fast" and this has obviously had an effect on my "set point"
(Totentanz @ Nov. 29 2006,14:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This is wrong. Your setpoint is determined by genetics. For instance, I have a low setpoint - I was naturally around 8% before I started doing anything. Now that I've started getting bigger, it is still easy for me to lean out, despite the fact that I've gotten up to 15% bodyfat and slightly beyond.
Similarly, people who have a naturally high setpoint will always struggle when trying to get lean, even when they gotten very lean in the past. This is all based on genetics.</div>
i do not know if this is a scientifically proven "fact" but i do agree as it has been my experience as well.
one thing i will add though is as i have gotten older (past mid 30's) my metab. seemed to slow from "hyper" to "moderatly fast" and this has obviously had an effect on my "set point"
I
imported_drpierredebs
Guest
<div>
(Totentanz @ Nov. 29 2006,14:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Old and Grey @ Nov. 29 2006,11:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Once you have been fat, whatever your definition of fat is, it is easier to get fat again and harder to stay lean.</div>
This is wrong. Your setpoint is determined by genetics. For instance, I have a low setpoint - I was naturally around 8% before I started doing anything. Now that I've started getting bigger, it is still easy for me to lean out, despite the fact that I've gotten up to 15% bodyfat and slightly beyond.
Similarly, people who have a naturally high setpoint will always struggle when trying to get lean, even when they gotten very lean in the past. This is all based on genetics.</div>
Yes, We are born with a more or less a set number of fat cells. Whether fat cell have a memory or not, I doubt it. I think it is more that people have a memory how and what they like to eat lots of and when they get lazy do just this-Eat a lot of what they like and if they do this without burning more energy, they get fat.
It is very hard for me to get lean because I have, as Totentanz pts it, a high set point. I doubt I could ever get under 10% naturally, but I don´t care. 10-12 % is fine for me. I actually feel like **** at 10% and when I was my leanest, I was always felling like doodoo!
(Totentanz @ Nov. 29 2006,14:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Old and Grey @ Nov. 29 2006,11:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Once you have been fat, whatever your definition of fat is, it is easier to get fat again and harder to stay lean.</div>
This is wrong. Your setpoint is determined by genetics. For instance, I have a low setpoint - I was naturally around 8% before I started doing anything. Now that I've started getting bigger, it is still easy for me to lean out, despite the fact that I've gotten up to 15% bodyfat and slightly beyond.
Similarly, people who have a naturally high setpoint will always struggle when trying to get lean, even when they gotten very lean in the past. This is all based on genetics.</div>
Yes, We are born with a more or less a set number of fat cells. Whether fat cell have a memory or not, I doubt it. I think it is more that people have a memory how and what they like to eat lots of and when they get lazy do just this-Eat a lot of what they like and if they do this without burning more energy, they get fat.
It is very hard for me to get lean because I have, as Totentanz pts it, a high set point. I doubt I could ever get under 10% naturally, but I don´t care. 10-12 % is fine for me. I actually feel like **** at 10% and when I was my leanest, I was always felling like doodoo!
<div>
(Totentanz @ Nov. 29 2006,14:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Old and Grey @ Nov. 29 2006,11:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Once you have been fat, whatever your definition of fat is, it is easier to get fat again and harder to stay lean.</div>
This is wrong. Your setpoint is determined by genetics. </div>
This is not true. It has been proven that overeating, especially of junk food, by adolescents, results in the hyperplasia of fat cells. That is, the number of fat cells actually increases from what was genetically inherited. What is still unknown at this time is if overeating of the wrong types of food by adults will also cause hyperplasia of fat cells. The answer is suspected by scientists of being "no" but I am not convinced that science will eventually prove that out. That is one of the reasons that fat kids very often become fat adults and remain fat adults no matter what their diet. Even if they manage to slim down, they still may have that "skinny-fat-soft" look because of their increased number of fat cells, no matter how much the cells may have shrunk in size. I have seen many former fatties who, through exercise and diet, have leaned way down but can never achieve sculpted six packs unless they have lipo suction to remove the excess number of fat cells covering their abs.
The 'set point' theory works for you (and I) because we have not experienced hyperplasia of fat cells and have less cells to "defalte" when cutting than a former fat kid.
(Totentanz @ Nov. 29 2006,14:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Old and Grey @ Nov. 29 2006,11:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Once you have been fat, whatever your definition of fat is, it is easier to get fat again and harder to stay lean.</div>
This is wrong. Your setpoint is determined by genetics. </div>
This is not true. It has been proven that overeating, especially of junk food, by adolescents, results in the hyperplasia of fat cells. That is, the number of fat cells actually increases from what was genetically inherited. What is still unknown at this time is if overeating of the wrong types of food by adults will also cause hyperplasia of fat cells. The answer is suspected by scientists of being "no" but I am not convinced that science will eventually prove that out. That is one of the reasons that fat kids very often become fat adults and remain fat adults no matter what their diet. Even if they manage to slim down, they still may have that "skinny-fat-soft" look because of their increased number of fat cells, no matter how much the cells may have shrunk in size. I have seen many former fatties who, through exercise and diet, have leaned way down but can never achieve sculpted six packs unless they have lipo suction to remove the excess number of fat cells covering their abs.
The 'set point' theory works for you (and I) because we have not experienced hyperplasia of fat cells and have less cells to "defalte" when cutting than a former fat kid.