Fausto
HST Expert
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I just saw a site where a guy says he found the seceret to gaining muscle and loosing fat at the same time link (warning, he is selling his book, and it is just a big add). But I am not willing to pay $40 to find out what his secret is. </div>
That guy is Tom Venuto and he's not into B.S., although he does not quite put it like that, you are talking about Burn the Fat Feed the Muscle right, may be worth your 40 $ afterall, it is a long book and besides the training which he fancies split routines I have not much to cut, and that is because I fancy HST
That guy is Tom Venuto and he's not into B.S., although he does not quite put it like that, you are talking about Burn the Fat Feed the Muscle right, may be worth your 40 $ afterall, it is a long book and besides the training which he fancies split routines I have not much to cut, and that is because I fancy HST
Tom Venuto is a good guy if you are starting out. I'd recommend his book to newbies, or to lifters who know jack about nutrition. Kind of expensive though. If you already know what you are doing, then it may be an interesting read but probably won't help you much.
Fausto
HST Expert
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If you already know what you are doing, then it may be an interesting read but probably won't help you much. </div>
I agree! Still busy reading it, but surely there is always something one can learn! HST wise though it will not help, except the nutrition side! Here, Tot is absolutely right!
I agree! Still busy reading it, but surely there is always something one can learn! HST wise though it will not help, except the nutrition side! Here, Tot is absolutely right!
Anyone else tried eating only 250 cals over maintenance? im intrested in the ideas behind this. How would you keep that consistant? i mean what would you look to gain on the scale per week/month etc.
As already said how do you know you are consistantly in a surplus? Perhaps you got your results from being 250 calories over maintenance some days and 100-200 calories below maintenance other days because your energy expenditure increased for some reason.
There would be a difference between consistantly being in a surplus and frequently switching between surplus and deficit.
Simply switching your rep schemes from 15's-10's-5's would have quite a big effect on the number of calories burnt following your workout id assume, so im wondering how this would be managed well. Thats not taking into account the possible difference in normal everyday activity from day to day.
As already said how do you know you are consistantly in a surplus? Perhaps you got your results from being 250 calories over maintenance some days and 100-200 calories below maintenance other days because your energy expenditure increased for some reason.
There would be a difference between consistantly being in a surplus and frequently switching between surplus and deficit.
Simply switching your rep schemes from 15's-10's-5's would have quite a big effect on the number of calories burnt following your workout id assume, so im wondering how this would be managed well. Thats not taking into account the possible difference in normal everyday activity from day to day.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">i mean what would you look to gain on the scale per week/month etc.</div>
.5 lb/week
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Perhaps you got your results from being 250 calories over maintenance some days and 100-200 calories below maintenance other days because your energy expenditure increased for some reason.</div>
You treat it just like a bulk and underestimate what you are eating. Therefore you should not have days that are actually under maintenance. Read my previous post as to why data over time such as body weight measurements, bf%, and the amount of calories you eat will help you figure out your BMR with or without given equations.
.5 lb/week
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Perhaps you got your results from being 250 calories over maintenance some days and 100-200 calories below maintenance other days because your energy expenditure increased for some reason.</div>
You treat it just like a bulk and underestimate what you are eating. Therefore you should not have days that are actually under maintenance. Read my previous post as to why data over time such as body weight measurements, bf%, and the amount of calories you eat will help you figure out your BMR with or without given equations.
Thinking aloud....everyones going to build muscle at a different rate, dependant on training state, age - hormones, genetics...etc so id assume different people are going to be able to use differing amounts of excess calories in terms of building muscle.
Someone young and newer to lifting would surely be able to generate more muscle from a 500 calorie surplus than someone who is older and has been training for a longer amount of time, or those who had been training for a longer period would be able to gain muscle just as quickly as newbies from the same amount of surplus calories & we know the rate of muscle growth slows with time.
So im not sure we can get a good idea of the best ratio of muscle vs fat that is possible for each of us by generalizing a specific amount of excess calories all the time. Beginners to lifting could probably get more gains in muscle mass from a bigger surplus than someone whod been lifting for a while and again simply individually people could probably use differing amounts.
Apart from that in the end some days your bodys going to need more energy than other days. If you then eat the same amount everyday some of it is going to be stored as fat on the days you dont need it, if you eat lower than that all the time your possibly sacrificing gains on the days your body could use more of those extra calories to grow.
So the most efficient way would surely be to eat slightly less on the days you dont train for example? I know this has been mentioned before & obviously your bodys still growing so you still need a surplus of calories....but you dont need as many as the days your expending a load of calories during and after chucking heavy weights around i wouldnt think.
Why not have it so you eat a 500 calories surplus on training days and a 250 calorie surplus on non training days.
Or a 750 calorie surplus on training days and a 500 calorie surplus on non training days for those who are younger or newer to lifting etc
Any thoughts?
Someone young and newer to lifting would surely be able to generate more muscle from a 500 calorie surplus than someone who is older and has been training for a longer amount of time, or those who had been training for a longer period would be able to gain muscle just as quickly as newbies from the same amount of surplus calories & we know the rate of muscle growth slows with time.
So im not sure we can get a good idea of the best ratio of muscle vs fat that is possible for each of us by generalizing a specific amount of excess calories all the time. Beginners to lifting could probably get more gains in muscle mass from a bigger surplus than someone whod been lifting for a while and again simply individually people could probably use differing amounts.
Apart from that in the end some days your bodys going to need more energy than other days. If you then eat the same amount everyday some of it is going to be stored as fat on the days you dont need it, if you eat lower than that all the time your possibly sacrificing gains on the days your body could use more of those extra calories to grow.
So the most efficient way would surely be to eat slightly less on the days you dont train for example? I know this has been mentioned before & obviously your bodys still growing so you still need a surplus of calories....but you dont need as many as the days your expending a load of calories during and after chucking heavy weights around i wouldnt think.
Why not have it so you eat a 500 calories surplus on training days and a 250 calorie surplus on non training days.
Or a 750 calorie surplus on training days and a 500 calorie surplus on non training days for those who are younger or newer to lifting etc
Any thoughts?
You're right Jonny- although there is a little overlap timewise from a caloric level or training; such as eating for bulk a couple days after a cycle...you still make gains from the cycle. It seems like the body has some sort of momentum from whatever stimulus or diet it's been on.
For me, I bulk and hit a day or two where I have to do paperwork or I'm just riding around checking on stuff...and I find myself not burning what I'm eating. I begin to believe that if I was into cardio it might help offset that problem. I'm also going to do my next bulk a lot cleaner.
I couldn't say wether or not newbies need more calories or not, but guys in their teens and early 20's should.
For me, I bulk and hit a day or two where I have to do paperwork or I'm just riding around checking on stuff...and I find myself not burning what I'm eating. I begin to believe that if I was into cardio it might help offset that problem. I'm also going to do my next bulk a lot cleaner.
I couldn't say wether or not newbies need more calories or not, but guys in their teens and early 20's should.
Yeah, perhaps thats the reason people doing cardio are better able to handle fat gain. Normally the idea is to do it on the days you dont lift...and this would simply increase the energy expenditure on those days also which i suspect may be when much of the surplus of calories goes towards fat?
Its all guess work, the metabolic effects of resistance training can last for up to 38 hours from what ive read, so that would work slightly against needing to lower calories to much on the days you dont train. Though i would still think youd have a larger calorie expenditure on the days you train rather than the ones you dont? Unless for some reason the rate of metabolism gradually increases after resistance training rather than staying elevated for a long amount of time and slowly dropping....
Its all guess work, the metabolic effects of resistance training can last for up to 38 hours from what ive read, so that would work slightly against needing to lower calories to much on the days you dont train. Though i would still think youd have a larger calorie expenditure on the days you train rather than the ones you dont? Unless for some reason the rate of metabolism gradually increases after resistance training rather than staying elevated for a long amount of time and slowly dropping....
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thinking aloud....everyones going to build muscle at a different rate, dependant on training state, age - hormones, genetics...etc so id assume different people are going to be able to use differing amounts of excess calories in terms of building muscle.</div>
I am trying to see your argument, but 3500 calories = 1 lb, no matter what hormonses, genetics, training state, or age you have. Those four would affect your BMR, not the thermodynamics of physiology.
I am trying to see your argument, but 3500 calories = 1 lb, no matter what hormonses, genetics, training state, or age you have. Those four would affect your BMR, not the thermodynamics of physiology.
3500 = 1LB of fat. Ive seen estimates for calories needed to build 1lb of muscle go from 2500-3500 calories.
What im saying is people build muscle at different rates depending on a number of things, therefore not everyone is going to use the same amount of excess calories and get exactly the same gains in muscle mass from them.
Someone older, whos been training for a long amount of years & is closer to their genetic potential will send less of a 500 calorie surplus towards muscle, than someone young, untrained & miles away from their genetic potential.
It still takes both of them for example say 2500 calories to build muscle.
But they dont send the same amount of excess calories towards that 2500 at the same time.
The young, beginner would get there quicker than the trained lifter & the trained lifter would send more of that towards fat.
If this didnt happen everyone would grow at the same rate regardless of age, sex, hormones, training state, genetics..
What im saying is people build muscle at different rates depending on a number of things, therefore not everyone is going to use the same amount of excess calories and get exactly the same gains in muscle mass from them.
Someone older, whos been training for a long amount of years & is closer to their genetic potential will send less of a 500 calorie surplus towards muscle, than someone young, untrained & miles away from their genetic potential.
It still takes both of them for example say 2500 calories to build muscle.
But they dont send the same amount of excess calories towards that 2500 at the same time.
The young, beginner would get there quicker than the trained lifter & the trained lifter would send more of that towards fat.
If this didnt happen everyone would grow at the same rate regardless of age, sex, hormones, training state, genetics..
I
imported_davidwillis
Guest
<div>
(Fausto @ Dec. 08 2006,05:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That guy is Tom Venuto and he's not into B.S., although he does not quite put it like that, you are talking about Burn the Fat Feed the Muscle right, may be worth your 40 $ afterall, it is a long book and besides the training which he fancies split routines I have not much to cut, and that is because I fancy HST
</div>
I may have to look into it. I am just not a big fan of e-books. They are not cheap and they usually just have the same stuff in them that you can find for free. Maybe this one is different. Does he have any real seceret to gaining muscle while loosing fat, or is it just eat good, and work out? It has me interested, especially after hearing good things about him here.
(Fausto @ Dec. 08 2006,05:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That guy is Tom Venuto and he's not into B.S., although he does not quite put it like that, you are talking about Burn the Fat Feed the Muscle right, may be worth your 40 $ afterall, it is a long book and besides the training which he fancies split routines I have not much to cut, and that is because I fancy HST
I may have to look into it. I am just not a big fan of e-books. They are not cheap and they usually just have the same stuff in them that you can find for free. Maybe this one is different. Does he have any real seceret to gaining muscle while loosing fat, or is it just eat good, and work out? It has me interested, especially after hearing good things about him here.
I believe it's got something to do with nutrient partitioning; just like cardio fitness, different ages, metabolisms, diets etc. are going to be used differently by the body. I eat better than I ever have, yet put on fat quicker than ever before.
Metabolic rate changes are a proven fact, are they not? I don't see how anyone can bluntly say that a set amount of calories will be processed the same in everyone. Even the more muscle one gains, is said to burn more fat.
A monkey wrench in the works: Somewhere I read an aerobics article that said it takes around two weeks to raise or lower the metabolism significantly. If that's true, then perhaps the day to day raising and lowering of calories makes no difference for the offdays? Or would the calories burned (work) be more of an immediate effect? I get confused here.
Metabolic rate changes are a proven fact, are they not? I don't see how anyone can bluntly say that a set amount of calories will be processed the same in everyone. Even the more muscle one gains, is said to burn more fat.
A monkey wrench in the works: Somewhere I read an aerobics article that said it takes around two weeks to raise or lower the metabolism significantly. If that's true, then perhaps the day to day raising and lowering of calories makes no difference for the offdays? Or would the calories burned (work) be more of an immediate effect? I get confused here.
If you do an hour of cardio, you are burning those calories then and there.
Muscle doesn't actually consume that much calorie-wise compared to fat. It's supposed to only be more metabolically active than fat when you are exercising, otherwise at rest it burns the same amount of calories as fat. The moral in that particular story reinforces the need for frequent, vigorous exercise.
Muscle doesn't actually consume that much calorie-wise compared to fat. It's supposed to only be more metabolically active than fat when you are exercising, otherwise at rest it burns the same amount of calories as fat. The moral in that particular story reinforces the need for frequent, vigorous exercise.
Okay, I see. But then what is this phrase, "resting metabolic rate" referring to? Or is that just some new-age goop someone made up?
And I didn't think fat consumed ANY calories in fact. I always thought it just kind of sat there, since it has very little function. (outside of blind date surprise...)
And I didn't think fat consumed ANY calories in fact. I always thought it just kind of sat there, since it has very little function. (outside of blind date surprise...)
Fausto
HST Expert
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Muscle doesn't actually consume that much calorie-wise compared to fat.</div>
Don't know if I can agree with that, since muscle is more metabolicly active than fat, it burns more calories just to maintain itself, whereas fat does not.
RMR, or BMR rest or basal metabolic rate, calories needed to maintain current body weight without exercises or at rest.
Don't know if I can agree with that, since muscle is more metabolicly active than fat, it burns more calories just to maintain itself, whereas fat does not.
RMR, or BMR rest or basal metabolic rate, calories needed to maintain current body weight without exercises or at rest.