Gamechanger: Gain 30, Pull 500.
- Thread starter Sci
- Start date
Some shoes I like:
http://www.amazon.com/adidas-Samba-...&qid=1376265414&sr=8-1&keywords=adidas+sambas
Adidas Samba's. Probably one of the better all-around weight lifting shoes imo. Hard sole, very comfortable fit. If you ever buy olympic weightlifting shoes, they have the bonus of fitting similarly to the Adidas oly shoes, so sizing becomes less guesswork.
Chuck Taylor's Low-tops:
http://www.amazon.com/Converse-Chuck-Taylor-Shoes-M9166/dp/B006DU3EAO/ref=pd_sbs_shoe_3
Similar to Samba's. I actually prefer the low-top, though the Westside guys like the high tops.
http://www.amazon.com/Vibram-Fivefingers-MenS-Kso-Trainer/dp/B0045KGPTG
The Vibram KSO's are surprisingly nice, and you can sometimes find really good deals on them. There are fancier kinds of Vibrams, but these are plenty comfortable and have lasted me years, so I'd probably get something like this for your first venture. You will look like a crazy person with ape feet, but they are one of my favorite weight lifting shoes by far. Particularly useful for deadlifts, since they have almost zero heel, i.e. they're like deadlift slippers, in a sense.
http://www.roguefitness.com/gear-apparel/shoes.php
If I were to get another pair of oly shoes, I'd probably get Rogue's. Note that they offer both a 1/2" and 3/4" heel. There are cheaper alternatives out there, however, including the Adidas power lift shoes on the same page.
http://www.adidas.com/us/product/training-adipower-weightlifting-shoes/DA847
These come highly recommended by the John Broz peeps, and the red looks pretty cool.
http://www.amazon.com/adidas-Samba-...&qid=1376265414&sr=8-1&keywords=adidas+sambas
Adidas Samba's. Probably one of the better all-around weight lifting shoes imo. Hard sole, very comfortable fit. If you ever buy olympic weightlifting shoes, they have the bonus of fitting similarly to the Adidas oly shoes, so sizing becomes less guesswork.
Chuck Taylor's Low-tops:
http://www.amazon.com/Converse-Chuck-Taylor-Shoes-M9166/dp/B006DU3EAO/ref=pd_sbs_shoe_3
Similar to Samba's. I actually prefer the low-top, though the Westside guys like the high tops.
http://www.amazon.com/Vibram-Fivefingers-MenS-Kso-Trainer/dp/B0045KGPTG
The Vibram KSO's are surprisingly nice, and you can sometimes find really good deals on them. There are fancier kinds of Vibrams, but these are plenty comfortable and have lasted me years, so I'd probably get something like this for your first venture. You will look like a crazy person with ape feet, but they are one of my favorite weight lifting shoes by far. Particularly useful for deadlifts, since they have almost zero heel, i.e. they're like deadlift slippers, in a sense.
http://www.roguefitness.com/gear-apparel/shoes.php
If I were to get another pair of oly shoes, I'd probably get Rogue's. Note that they offer both a 1/2" and 3/4" heel. There are cheaper alternatives out there, however, including the Adidas power lift shoes on the same page.
http://www.adidas.com/us/product/training-adipower-weightlifting-shoes/DA847
These come highly recommended by the John Broz peeps, and the red looks pretty cool.
Last edited:
The only issue with boots would be if they restricted ankle movement, at least in squats. A good, deep squat requires a fair amount of shin travel, so I'd think work boots might interfere with that.
Sci
Well-Known Member
I don't have any, so I am not sure. I really like the werksan Olympic shoes because
a) they are designed for lifting, very hard wooden heel, hard rubber sole that wont slip, great foot support when doing things like uber-heavy calf raises.
B) they are designed for squatting, and allow for better form when high-bar or front squatting deep.
They are an all around great lifting shoe, EXCEPT for deadlifts. Then they kind of suck because of the raised heal. I might just get Deadlift slippers that I can stick my foot-lift into, or some other shoe that is really flat.
a) they are designed for lifting, very hard wooden heel, hard rubber sole that wont slip, great foot support when doing things like uber-heavy calf raises.
B) they are designed for squatting, and allow for better form when high-bar or front squatting deep.
They are an all around great lifting shoe, EXCEPT for deadlifts. Then they kind of suck because of the raised heal. I might just get Deadlift slippers that I can stick my foot-lift into, or some other shoe that is really flat.
I used to use chucks and the rubber comes up further on the outside than the actual thickness of the sole inside the shoe. I prefer to deadlift, rackpull, even squat barefoot, I do it in socks at the gym and they seem to let me get away with it. Previous place made me wear the chucks during staffed hours.
I agree with mikey about the low tops. Personally, I feel like the high tops restrict ankle movement too much. I tried high tops before and lifting in them was uncomfortable.
Just don't pull a stevejones and break your leg deadlifting 800 in sneakers when your weight shifts on the cushiony sole.
I agree with mikey about the low tops. Personally, I feel like the high tops restrict ankle movement too much. I tried high tops before and lifting in them was uncomfortable.
Just don't pull a stevejones and break your leg deadlifting 800 in sneakers when your weight shifts on the cushiony sole.
Sci
Well-Known Member
Ok, this has been a very informative thread hijack. SCI approved. Back on subject... I hit my first goal of this training log. I now weigh 220 pounds. (Well, 222 right now, but will probably drop to 220 by morning). My arms 16.5" cold, haven't taken any other measurements just yet, but I am pretty fat, by bodybuilding standards anyway. Probably 18-20%, luckily I carry it well, but still I am much flabbier than I appear in the videos with clothes on.
So I am going to finish this cycle with a couple more weeks of heavy stuff, and pull 405 off the floor before I do a cut. At this point, I think it's mostly all in my head. I think I could pull it now, so I am just going to build up to it and do it at the end if this cycle. Retest all my maxes, no SD, just go right into a slow-cutting cycle for several months. I look much more massive than when I started, so I am pretty sure I'll have a lot to show for it when I cut back down to 10%.
Game on.
So I am going to finish this cycle with a couple more weeks of heavy stuff, and pull 405 off the floor before I do a cut. At this point, I think it's mostly all in my head. I think I could pull it now, so I am just going to build up to it and do it at the end if this cycle. Retest all my maxes, no SD, just go right into a slow-cutting cycle for several months. I look much more massive than when I started, so I am pretty sure I'll have a lot to show for it when I cut back down to 10%.
Game on.
Sci
Well-Known Member
I haven't ever experimented with IF. What is the basic gist of it? My plan was mainly just to cut saturated fats way back, (for the heart benefits, as well as caloric restriction) and just slowly cut down on a lowfat diet. But IF might be perfect for me, if I implement it well enough. Any thoughts on how to do it?
Oh yeah, for training, I plan on doing what I did this last cycle, 2 weeks of 10s, 2 weeks of 8s, then 2 weeks of 5s. Slightly heavier than vanilla, great for cutting.
Oh yeah, for training, I plan on doing what I did this last cycle, 2 weeks of 10s, 2 weeks of 8s, then 2 weeks of 5s. Slightly heavier than vanilla, great for cutting.
Last edited:
Sounds like a good plan.
IF as per how most people run it is really just condensing your eating window to ~8-9 hours. Why would you do that?
1) The amount of meals per day doesn't really seem to matter, all else constant, i.e. if the carbs/fat/protein/total calories end up the same either way
2) There are probably satiety benefits to IF
For #2, a typical IF setup would be like this, assuming a 9-5 type work day. Last meal of the night at ~8-9 pm. Don't eat again until lunch the next day (12 pm). You can have coffee and even stuff like sugar free gum, but you don't start eating until ~12, and continue that for ~8-9 hours. Obviously the specific hours don't really matter, and I actually prefer a ~9 hour eating window personally, but that's the gist. 3 meals in that time works well, and given that you're dividing your entire day's calories into 3 meals, they wind up much larger meals than what you'd get on the typical 5-6 meals a day plan. The logic is that once you start eating for the day, you have effectively primed your brain/body to "expect" food. By delaying the first meal, you surprisingly don't wind up very hungry, and can retrain yourself to get hungry later in the day. Then by the time you start eating, you get to have large, satisfying meals instead of a bunch of little lame meals.
E.g. on a 2100 calories per day type diet, I'd eat 3, 700 calorie meals. That could be something like 8 oz of lean meat, an astronomical amount of vegetables, and then a ****load of fruit. If you divided that into 6 meals like bodybuilding conventional wisdom, you'd wind up with little lame 350 calorie meals. As you might infer, the former is a lot more fun, and despite dieting, you still get to have the feeling of fullness with your meals.
You can add additional logic to that (i.e. having a slightly disproportionate amount of your calories in the post-workout meal, higher carbs on training days and lower on non-training days), but it's really just about shortening the feeding window to give you some appetite advantages, imo. Which, in that sense, it works rather well. For reasons unclear the fasts also seem very useful for purging excess water weight, i.e. you walk around looking/feeling leaner than usual, at least in my experience.
Last edited:
Sci
Well-Known Member
Measurements:
Starting Stats - > Finished stats after bulk.
190 pounds - > 220 pounds (+30 pounds)
Cold measurements
15.5" r. Arm - > 16.5" (+1") mostly lean mass, some fat gain.
42.5" at nipple - > 46" (+3.5") mostly lean mass, some fat gain, lats, pecs and traps all grew visibly larger.
34.5" at navel - > 38.5" (+4") all fat gain.
big gut.
35" at hips - > 37" (+2") almost all fat gain, though some obliques and glutes, etc.
24.5" r. thigh - > 26.5" (+2") about half lean mass, half fat gain.
14.5" r. calf - > 15.5" (+1") all lean mass gain, I have like no fat on my calves.
Pleasantly surprised about the arm and the calf gains. Since I store very little fat in those places. Very pleased with the chest gain, focusing on my upper bakc has really paid off. My lats are larger for sure. Not as pleased with the thigh gains, going to ditch leg presses, and start high bar squatting from now on. The waist gain sucks, my belly fat is humungous. 38.5" is out of hand, time to cut soon.
Still have a ways to grow on my thighs and chest. Going to cut down the bodyfat, then bulk back up to 220 again next year. Next time even leaner and stronger.
Starting Stats - > Finished stats after bulk.
190 pounds - > 220 pounds (+30 pounds)
Cold measurements
15.5" r. Arm - > 16.5" (+1") mostly lean mass, some fat gain.
42.5" at nipple - > 46" (+3.5") mostly lean mass, some fat gain, lats, pecs and traps all grew visibly larger.
34.5" at navel - > 38.5" (+4") all fat gain.
big gut.35" at hips - > 37" (+2") almost all fat gain, though some obliques and glutes, etc.
24.5" r. thigh - > 26.5" (+2") about half lean mass, half fat gain.
14.5" r. calf - > 15.5" (+1") all lean mass gain, I have like no fat on my calves.
Pleasantly surprised about the arm and the calf gains. Since I store very little fat in those places. Very pleased with the chest gain, focusing on my upper bakc has really paid off. My lats are larger for sure. Not as pleased with the thigh gains, going to ditch leg presses, and start high bar squatting from now on. The waist gain sucks, my belly fat is humungous. 38.5" is out of hand, time to cut soon.
Still have a ways to grow on my thighs and chest. Going to cut down the bodyfat, then bulk back up to 220 again next year. Next time even leaner and stronger.
Hey hey, you actually have a back now!
Great work on the bulk. Some of your waist gain will be the lower back, abs and obliques getting a bit bigger but obviously a lot of it is fat. You can still see abs and rib outlines so I wouldn't stress about it or anything.
Next year seems an awfully long time to wait for bulking again. Skip the SD, eat maintenance (IF, regular, whatever works for you) and cut for 6-10wks then SD and bulk agai
Great work on the bulk. Some of your waist gain will be the lower back, abs and obliques getting a bit bigger but obviously a lot of it is fat. You can still see abs and rib outlines so I wouldn't stress about it or anything.
Next year seems an awfully long time to wait for bulking again. Skip the SD, eat maintenance (IF, regular, whatever works for you) and cut for 6-10wks then SD and bulk agai
Good job, Sci. Now get that 405 deadlift, stabilise bw for a couple of weeks and then get stuck into slicing some of that fat off. I'll be interested to see how well you are able to maintain strength levels. Mine have historically always dropped off a bit. I think it's generally to be expected if you aren't new to lifting.
Nice development in the traps. Compare those to your first pictures in this log, yes you've gained fat but don't focus on that so much. Realistically, comparing your pictures, your abdominal definition hasn't changed a whole lot, your stomach sticks out more but that happens when you bulk. Your stomach is always full, so it sticks out more. You could have possibly gained some visceral adipose tissue making it stick out more as well, I suppose, but by and large, you aren't significantly less defined. Your back does look less defined when comparing pictures but that could be the lighting, you had much better lighting in those first pictures. You can tell just from a glance that you've gained considerable lean mass. Your arms are looking bigger too, everything is bigger, but the traps are really starting to pop. You can tell most when you put both your front shots together, in the first picture your traps kind of look like stringly connective tissue on a chicken wing, now they have metamorphosed into slabs.
Once you finally get to the point where you are going to do your cut, do it right. Slow and steady just like this bulk. Don't rush it. Then take come pics of that, compare it to your first ones in this thread and imagine what you will look like after next bulk is done.
Once you finally get to the point where you are going to do your cut, do it right. Slow and steady just like this bulk. Don't rush it. Then take come pics of that, compare it to your first ones in this thread and imagine what you will look like after next bulk is done.
Attachments
Last edited:
Sci
Well-Known Member
Yeah, the before and after pics don't do the bulk justice. The 'before' pics have better lighting and I took them right after a workout when I was all pumped up. The 'after' pics I took in crappy lighting, no pump at all. It's hard to tell in the photos, but my back is WAY thicker now. Lats, traps, everything is thicker and jutting out more. It will be more obvious when I cut down to show the gains off.
Yeah back looks noticeably thicker, whole upper body is thicker.
I think maybe you should, before you end your bulk for good, go to the gym, do a nice workout and do some metabolic sets to get the pump going, then take some pictures in the same area you took the other ones, with the same lighting and everything. That would be even more instructive. Your pictures actually look roughly similar to when I bulked in 2008 up to 230 lbs, aside from a few differences due to our genetics. I would guess you probably only need to cut down to an even 200 lbs or so before you can bulk again. Being conservative, that might take 15 weeks to do it right, which is three months or so. If you IF the diet, you could probably do 10-12 weeks without much worry of significant lean mass loss. Just don't follow the diet I did after my 2008 bulk, I used the divorce diet, didn't work very well.
I think maybe you should, before you end your bulk for good, go to the gym, do a nice workout and do some metabolic sets to get the pump going, then take some pictures in the same area you took the other ones, with the same lighting and everything. That would be even more instructive. Your pictures actually look roughly similar to when I bulked in 2008 up to 230 lbs, aside from a few differences due to our genetics. I would guess you probably only need to cut down to an even 200 lbs or so before you can bulk again. Being conservative, that might take 15 weeks to do it right, which is three months or so. If you IF the diet, you could probably do 10-12 weeks without much worry of significant lean mass loss. Just don't follow the diet I did after my 2008 bulk, I used the divorce diet, didn't work very well.