I'm starting to become skeptical

<div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Nov. 03 2007,14:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well, there's the catch 101 of things, which I've mentioned before:even with drug use, which pretty much means optimal(as in as good as one is ever going to get) partitioning, you know as well as I do that ppl still gain fat, even with moderate excedents.</div>
That will depend largely on how many excess calories they are consuming. But yes, that's true.

The impact that exogenous hormones play can be dramatic, for instance a study done a long time ago looked at healthy men divided into 4 groups.

Placebo and no weight lifting
Placebo and weight lifting
Test and no weight lifing
Test and weight lifting

All groups were standardized to a 36 Kcal/Kg/Day (about 16 Kcal/Lb) diet with 1.5 gm protein/Kg/Day (about .7gm/Lb).

The test with no exercise group increased BW from baseline of 82 Kg to 85 Kg. With a FFM increase from 70 to 73 Kg, so the 3 Kg BW change was close to 100% in FFM.

The Placebo group went from 79 to 80 Kg in BW with a FFM change from 61 to 61 (no change) so the slight weight change was partitioned elsewhere.

The Weight training group w/placebo went from 85 to 86 Kg in BW and 72 to 74 Kg in FFM, showing how even with the slight change in BW most energy was partitioned towards FFM synthesis. But still did not match the Test w/No weight training group in BW gain but actually had a better P-Ratio.

The weight training w/Test went from 76 to 82 Kg in BW with nearly 100% going to FFM (65 to 71 Kg).

So both are great partitioners but of the those with exogenous T supplementation are going to see a larger change (magnitude).

BTW the T was a very modest 600mg/week TE.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Nov. 05 2007,20:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Nov. 03 2007,14:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well, there's the catch 101 of things, which I've mentioned before:even with drug use, which pretty much means optimal(as in as good as one is ever going to get) partitioning, you know as well as I do that ppl still gain fat, even with moderate excedents.</div>
That will depend largely on how many excess calories they are consuming. But yes, that's true.

The impact that exogenous hormones play can be dramatic, for instance a study done a long time ago looked at healthy men divided into 4 groups.

Placebo and no weight lifting
Placebo and weight lifting
Test and no weight lifing
Test and weight lifting

All groups were standardized to a 36 Kcal/Kg/Day (about 16 Kcal/Lb) diet with 1.5 gm protein/Kg/Day (about .7gm/Lb).

The test with no exercise group increased BW from baseline of 82 Kg to 85 Kg. With a FFM increase from 70 to 73 Kg, so the 3 Kg BW change was close to 100% in FFM.

The Placebo group went from 79 to 80 Kg in BW with a FFM change from 61 to 61 (no change) so the slight weight change was partitioned elsewhere.

The Weight training group w/placebo went from 85 to 86 Kg in BW and 72 to 74 Kg in FFM, showing how even with the slight change in BW most energy was partitioned towards FFM synthesis. But still did not match the Test w/No weight training group in BW gain but actually had a better P-Ratio.

The weight training w/Test went from 76 to 82 Kg in BW with nearly 100% going to FFM (65 to 71 Kg).

So both are great partitioners but of the those with exogenous T supplementation are going to see a larger change (magnitude).

BTW the T was a very modest 600mg/week TE.</div>
Quite interesting, thanks for posting it. You wouldn't happen to have the abstract handy, would you?
smile.gif
 
Stupid me!!!    
sad.gif



And I always thought FFM was code for a  correctly partitioned Ménage à trois.    
laugh.gif
 
<div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Nov. 05 2007,14:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Dan Moore @ Nov. 05 2007,20:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Nov. 03 2007,14:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well, there's the catch 101 of things, which I've mentioned before:even with drug use, which pretty much means optimal(as in as good as one is ever going to get) partitioning, you know as well as I do that ppl still gain fat, even with moderate excedents.</div>
That will depend largely on how many excess calories they are consuming. But yes, that's true.

The impact that exogenous hormones play can be dramatic, for instance a study done a long time ago looked at healthy men divided into 4 groups.

Placebo and no weight lifting
Placebo and weight lifting
Test and no weight lifing
Test and weight lifting

All groups were standardized to a 36 Kcal/Kg/Day (about 16 Kcal/Lb) diet with 1.5 gm protein/Kg/Day (about .7gm/Lb).

The test with no exercise group increased BW from baseline of 82 Kg to 85 Kg. With a FFM increase from 70 to 73 Kg, so the 3 Kg BW change was close to 100% in FFM.

The Placebo group went from 79 to 80 Kg in BW with a FFM change from 61 to 61 (no change) so the slight weight change was partitioned elsewhere.

The Weight training group w/placebo went from 85 to 86 Kg in BW and 72 to 74 Kg in FFM, showing how even with the slight change in BW most energy was partitioned towards FFM synthesis. But still did not match the Test w/No weight training group in BW gain but actually had a better P-Ratio.

The weight training w/Test went from 76 to 82 Kg in BW with nearly 100% going to FFM (65 to 71 Kg).

So both are great partitioners but of the those with exogenous T supplementation are going to see a larger change (magnitude).

BTW the T was a very modest 600mg/week TE.</div>
Quite interesting, thanks for posting it. You wouldn't happen to have the abstract handy, would you?
smile.gif
</div>
Bhasin (1996) N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 4;335(1):1-7.

If you can't access let me know and I'll send you the full text. I believe the full text is free, you'll have to register though.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Nov. 06 2007,00:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Nov. 05 2007,14:59)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Dan Moore @ Nov. 05 2007,20:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Nov. 03 2007,14:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well, there's the catch 101 of things, which I've mentioned before:even with drug use, which pretty much means optimal(as in as good as one is ever going to get) partitioning, you know as well as I do that ppl still gain fat, even with moderate excedents.</div>
That will depend largely on how many excess calories they are consuming. But yes, that's true.

The impact that exogenous hormones play can be dramatic, for instance a study done a long time ago looked at healthy men divided into 4 groups.

Placebo and no weight lifting
Placebo and weight lifting
Test and no weight lifing
Test and weight lifting

All groups were standardized to a 36 Kcal/Kg/Day (about 16 Kcal/Lb) diet with 1.5 gm protein/Kg/Day (about .7gm/Lb).

The test with no exercise group increased BW from baseline of 82 Kg to 85 Kg. With a FFM increase from 70 to 73 Kg, so the 3 Kg BW change was close to 100% in FFM.

The Placebo group went from 79 to 80 Kg in BW with a FFM change from 61 to 61 (no change) so the slight weight change was partitioned elsewhere.

The Weight training group w/placebo went from 85 to 86 Kg in BW and 72 to 74 Kg in FFM, showing how even with the slight change in BW most energy was partitioned towards FFM synthesis. But still did not match the Test w/No weight training group in BW gain but actually had a better P-Ratio.

The weight training w/Test went from 76 to 82 Kg in BW with nearly 100% going to FFM (65 to 71 Kg).

So both are great partitioners but of the those with exogenous T supplementation are going to see a larger change (magnitude).

BTW the T was a very modest 600mg/week TE.</div>
Quite interesting, thanks for posting it. You wouldn't happen to have the abstract handy, would you?
smile.gif
</div>
Bhasin (1996) N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 4;335(1):1-7.

If you can't access let me know and I'll send you the full text. I believe the full text is free, you'll have to register though.</div>
Thanks, got it. Hopefully, I'll also sneak in some reading of it:)
 
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Oct. 27 2007,15:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Hey guys I am starting to wonder if Full body routines are still benefiting me. I have been doing HST for a while now about 3 years and it was the best thing for me when I started. It basically healed my joints and help with the severe overtraining the Arnold routines gave me.

But one problem I have seen the past year or so is that I am not getting any more Muscular. Now I didnot say bigger but sheer muscle size.

I know how to gain weight and I do it every year this time. I basically bulk like crazy all winter and right up unitl summer.

However my problem has been everytime I cut from bulk..I am not more muscular than I was the previous years.

Sure when i am bulking I look a lot larger but to be honest the majority of the weight is that I am getting fatter. Now I am not implying I am fat...but fatter.

The fact I have discover is that through skin calipers I am not gaining any real muscle mass anymore.

Now I am one of the first people who believes and loves Fullbody routines.

And by nature I am a creature of habit and I don't want to leave the full body routine.

But I am starting to wonder if maybe a higher training volume SPLIT would work for me now. Not one that is excessive like the Arnold routines...but maybe one that is geared around 9 to 12 sets of the large muscle groups once a week and 6 sets for biceps and triceps once a week.

I am considering something very similar to ILCARS routine a while back.

Any thoughts or suggestions. ( Oh by the way I have been getting stronger too and gaining weight) which is why I think the lower training volume of HST is maybe hindering me now at 13+ years of die hard training?

Any opinions?</div>
been away for a while, but decided to put my two peneth in......

well i got to the stage you are at.hst was no longer providing consistant gains. after a couple of years my progress slowed considerably , part of the reason was that when i started training years ago i weighed in around 160lbs(73kg or 11 stone ) so now weighing in at around 220 ive gotten really close to my max potential.

also the workouts i required to &quot;feel&quot; like i was getting the job done were getting too much, thats when i knew that a change had to be made, which would give me some new gains and also, the all important motivation needed to keep at it.

thats why i went back to a standard split incorperating progressive load and decreasing rep ranges. all i can say is this has worked for me so far, ive had some good strength gains too.

i will eventually go back to a more modified hst cycle but not yet.

im not particularly blaming hst for my lack of progress, but i do believe we need to change things up every so often ,so as not to stagnate.the body adapts quickly and even hst cannot keep these adaptations at bay.
 
i made a log with the program im using but just to recap.

i do 2 (good high intensity)sets per exercise and 3 exercises per body part except for arms which i do 2 sets for tri's and bi's respectively, the sets are as close to failure as possible without failing
biggrin.gif
.

i do chest and bi's monday, back and tri,s wednesday, shoulders friday and legs saturday.

this is not really high volume, but while im making progress i may as well ride it out and adjust volume if nessecary. i train as hard and as quickly as possible, get in ,do the job and get out.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Nov. 06 2007,17:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Man, I wondered what happened to you! Good to have you back, bro!</div>
i didnt know you cared
blush.gif
lol.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">All groups were standardized to a 36 Kcal/Kg/Day (about 16 Kcal/Lb) diet with 1.5 gm protein/Kg/Day (about .7gm/Lb).</div>

36 kcal/day? I think a person would die pretty quickly from that! I know what you mean Dan, calories actually means kilocalories, so when you say 36 kcal, you are actually saying 3600 kcal.

I am going to look into as many of Lyle's (and others) P-ratio articles as I can that are FREE.... any links?

BTW Lcars, welcome back!
 
<div>
(colby2152 @ Nov. 07 2007,15:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">36 kcal/day?  I think a person would die pretty quickly from that!  I know what you mean Dan, calories actually means kilocalories, so when you say 36 kcal, you are actually saying 3600 kcal.</div>
No Colby I meant 36Kcal/Kg/Day which is what I said
wink.gif
.

IOW 36 Kcals per Kg of Body Weight per day.
 
<div>
(colby2152 @ Nov. 07 2007,15:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">All groups were standardized to a 36 Kcal/Kg/Day (about 16 Kcal/Lb) diet with 1.5 gm protein/Kg/Day (about .7gm/Lb).</div>

36 kcal/day?  I think a person would die pretty quickly from that!  I know what you mean Dan, calories actually means kilocalories, so when you say 36 kcal, you are actually saying 3600 kcal.

I am going to look into as many of Lyle's (and others) P-ratio articles as I can that are FREE.... any links?

BTW Lcars, welcome back!</div>
colby, i thought dans info was quite clear. he even went so far as to do the conversion math for Kcals and protein per lb.

personally, the research i have done over the past yr or so on p-ratio, insuline (in)sensitivity and related topics has change my whole outlook on lifting and dieting. this isnt to say your research will have the same effect since we all have diff. ratios and sensitivities etc etc and the &quot;truths&quot; i have discovered for myself (from both reading and exper.) may or may not apply to you. the bottom line is the knowledge has helped explain past results as well as keep my future plans based in reality.

the most difficult hurdle for many seems to be the realization that so much of what goes into gaining actual muscle is largely out of our hands. no sense worrying about it though.........the main idea is to arm yourself with as much &quot;real&quot; info as possible so you can def. have a positive effect on that which you do control.

as far as getting started........read the link LOL provided which explains p-ratio about as well as one can. it also goes into leptin etc. etc. its from lyles book (ud 2.0) and it is all excellent info. next i would sign up at lyles site and wear the search button out. im not 100% sure on your level of interest in area besides p-ratio but if your interested its probably on there...with links to the science it comes from (if that your thing).

another helpful site (imo) for much of the broad strokes of this type info is &quot;clutch fitness&quot;. basically a fitness site/forum by one of br.coms regular posters. not real familiar with it yet but has a lot of diet/nutrition info stickied and posted in an easy to find and read format from a variety of sites (although very lyle heavy....sensing a theme). im not much of a science/abstract reading or understanding type of guy so i need to do big picture 1st then slowly work in the details of how all these aspects of diet and training fit.

hope some of this helped...good luck
 
Oh okay, I got it Dan..

Bluejacket, I am actually a man of science, a surprise to many on this board. However, I have stayed away from it for the most part in respect to lifting because of what you just said - it's out of my control. I have really put a lot of focus into diet, and I think that's about all I can do. Bryan provided the framework of the HST principles based on a lot of research.

I'll start doing my own research in the P-ratio. Thanks for the help guys! I am still defending the slow bulk, but I would be a fool to turn my head to such knowledge.
 
It (Lyle's Ch.4 excerpt from his Ultimate Diet 2.0 book) is a pretty good read, but if you truly agree with what he says, then a lot of what we say about bulking and cutting in general is meaningless. If the p-ratio is essentially the same whenever we cut or bulk, then all muscle gained in a bulk would be lost in the cut. I don't believe this, nor does anyone here.

In regards to the slow bulk, we can all agree that the efficient gains will eventually stop. This notion is universally accepted that the leaner you are, the tougher it is to lose mostly fat when cutting. However, when you bulk from a lean state, the question arises: Will most of the weight be fat or muscle? Obviously, this varies for every single approach. I defend the slow bulk because I know it has worked for me. I am in no way prescribing it for everyone. In this instance, it seems like a reasonable strategy for Joe to try.

Back to Lyle's writings... He seems to support the work of Dr. Barry Sears, the man behind the Zone diet. Both of them talk in detail about hormone and insulin response. However, Sears gives more credit toward the diet. I will side with Sears on this one simply because I believe his research about controlling eicosanoids and insulin levels is true. Lyle even wrote about how increased dopamine levels in the brain can affect how your brain reacts to leptin levels - which in affect may increase the P-ratio. How can one do this? The answer seems to be astonishingly simple: with the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids that are found in mostly fish.

With that said, I still stand as a huge proponent of the diet. My Optimizing your Caloric Intake thread has been slowly going through various methods. Now, I actually walk the talk, and I experiment on myself before I recommend others to try something with their diet. Each individual is different, and finding what works for you and your body is a process of trial and error.

Thanks for the link to some of Lyle's work. I must say that this thread has been a great debate, and sadly I couldn't be 100% into it until now (just had two actuarial exams).
 
REF: Lyle McDonald
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> So, when you diet, the fatter you are, the less LBM (and more fat) you will lose. Conversely, the leaner you are, the more LBM and less fat you will tend to lose when you diet. This makes sense in evolutionary terms, the more fat you have to lose, the more your body can lose without having to burn off muscle tissue; the leaner you get, the less fat you have and the more muscle you end up losing. Anyone who’s dieted naturally to sub 10% body fat levels knows this to be true: the leaner you get, the more muscle mass you tend to lose

So what about overfeeding and gaining weight? Well, in general, the same holds but in reverse: leaner individuals will tend to gain more LBM and less fat and fatter individuals will tend to gain more fat and less LBM. This actually makes sense when you think about it. The fat individual loses a lot of fat/a little LBM when they diet and gains a lot of fat and little LBM when they overfeed while the leaner individual does the opposite. P-ratio appears to be constant going in both directions. That is, P-ratio appears to be constant for a given individual (5).

So, typically, when overfed, thin/lean individual will gain 60-70% lean body mass (LBM) while fat individuals may gain only 30-40% LBM. Note that these percentage gains are without exercise, simply with overfeeding from a starting body fat level. Although research hasn’t examined overfeeding nearly as much as underfeeding, we might expect intensive weight training to skew these numbers to an even better point.</div>

More reasoning to show that if a slow bulk does indeed work for an individual, than they should practice this caloric intake at a lower body fat percentage.
 
<div>
(colby2152 @ Nov. 08 2007,14:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">REF: Lyle McDonald
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> So, when you diet, the fatter you are, the less LBM (and more fat) you will lose. Conversely, the leaner you are, the more LBM and less fat you will tend to lose when you diet. This makes sense in evolutionary terms, the more fat you have to lose, the more your body can lose without having to burn off muscle tissue; the leaner you get, the less fat you have and the more muscle you end up losing. Anyone who’s dieted naturally to sub 10% body fat levels knows this to be true: the leaner you get, the more muscle mass you tend to lose

So what about overfeeding and gaining weight? Well, in general, the same holds but in reverse: leaner individuals will tend to gain more LBM and less fat and fatter individuals will tend to gain more fat and less LBM. This actually makes sense when you think about it. The fat individual loses a lot of fat/a little LBM when they diet and gains a lot of fat and little LBM when they overfeed while the leaner individual does the opposite. P-ratio appears to be constant going in both directions. That is, P-ratio appears to be constant for a given individual (5).

So, typically, when overfed, thin/lean individual will gain 60-70% lean body mass (LBM) while fat individuals may gain only 30-40% LBM. Note that these percentage gains are without exercise, simply with overfeeding from a starting body fat level. Although research hasn’t examined overfeeding nearly as much as underfeeding, we might expect intensive weight training to skew these numbers to an even better point.</div>

More reasoning to show that if a slow bulk does indeed work for an individual, than they should practice this caloric intake at a lower body fat percentage.</div>
here is the rest of that piece by lyle, originally from his news-letter.

Feature Article - Initial Bodyfat and Body Composition Changes Part 1



For many years (decades?) a common suggestion was that one should attempt to gain some muscle mass mass (through resistance training and possibly overeating) prior to beginning a diet. Well meaning individuals would suggest you spent 3-4 weeks or more training hard and eating well to gain muscle mass. The goal was to raise metabolism so that the diet would go more effectively.

In that current data indicates that each pound of muscle might burn an additional 6 calories (as opposed to older values of 25-40 cal/lb or even higher) (1), this argument is no longer tenable; to significantly affect metabolic rate would require a monstrous gain of muscle mass, far more than you could gain in 3-4 weeks.

Even if you gained 10 pounds of muscle, that would only add up to an additional 60 calories burned per day, hardly enough to worry about and certainly not enough to affect the following diet. Which isn't to say that diets don't work better after short or even medium periods of overfeeding, mind you, it's simply not because of gains in muscle mass.

A more recent idea making the rounds in bodybuilding nutrition is that, prior to trying to gain lean body mass, people should diet down first. This reasoning is based on a variety of data that has examined the changes in body composition that occur when you overfeed either thin or fat individuals (see for example, reference 2 or just about anything Gilbert Forbes has written).



A primer on the P-ratio

The above recommendation is based on a lot of data on something called the P-ratio (which stands for partitioning ratio) which essentially represents the proportion of protein (LBM) you gain relative to the total weight you gain (this isn't the technical definition of P-ratio, by the way, I'm just trying to simplify it a bit).

Now, a lot of factors control P-ratio including genetics, hormones, diet and training (to a smaller degree than you'd expect) and probably some I'm forgetting (3). But by and large, the primary predictor of P-ratio is starting body fat percentage. Basically, your starting body fat percentage predicts the great majority of what you will lose/gain when you diet/overfeed (4).

So, when you diet, the fatter you are, the less LBM (and more fat) you will lose. Conversely, the leaner you are, the more LBM and less fat you will tend to lose when you diet. This makes sense in evolutionary terms, the more fat you have to lose, the more your body can lose without having to burn off muscle tissue; the leaner you get, the less fat you have and the more muscle you end up losing. Anyone who's dieted naturally to sub 10% body fat levels knows this to be true: the leaner you get, the more muscle mass you tend to lose

So what about overfeeding and gaining weight? Well, in general, the same holds but in reverse: leaner individuals will tend to gain more LBM and less fat and fatter individuals will tend to gain more fat and less LBM. This actually makes sense when you think about it. The fat individual loses a lot of fat/a little LBM when they diet and gains a lot of fat and little LBM when they overfeed while the leaner individual does the opposite. P-ratio appears to be constant going in both directions. That is, P-ratio appears to be constant for a given individual (5).

So, typically, when overfed, thin/lean individual will gain 60-70% lean body mass (LBM) while fat individuals may gain only 30-40% LBM. Note that these percentage gains are without exercise, simply with overfeeding from a starting body fat level. Although research hasn't examined overfeeding nearly as much as underfeeding, we might expect intensive weight training to skew these numbers to an even better point.

So far, so good right; it sure seems like the leaner you are, the better your body composition changes will be during overfeeding? So get lean and then train and eat and you should gain piles of muscle back, right?




The problem: naturally lean people vs. dieted down people

The problem with the above analysis, exciting as it sounds, is that there are significant differences between folks who are naturally lean (on whom the original overfeeding research was done) and subjects who have been dieted to leanness.

Let's consider, for a second the likely physiology of those folks who stay naturally lean. Based on the Geneticcs Hypothesis (3), we'd expect them to have pretty good hormonal status in terms of thyroid levels, low or normal cortisol, maybe decent levels of testosterone, GH and IGF-1. They probably also show a normal nervous system output and an ability to increase fat oxidation when calories are raised as well.

We'd probably expect them to exhibit a spendthrift metabolism (6), one that cranks up in response to overfeeding to burn off excess calories. It wouldn't be surprising if they were the ones who showed a great deal of Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT, 7) which is what allows them to burn off excess calories without getting fat. All of this, almost certainly with other factors would all contribute to their general lack of fat gain during overfeeding. Of course, if fat gain is limited during overfeeding, that would tend to mean that any weight gain will tend to be LBM, as the P-ratio data described above indicates.

The problem is that the above physiological profile in no way describes individuals who have dieted down to a low body fat percentage. Rather, dieted individuals typically show a biology that is absolutely not geared towards anything except packing the body fat back on. Typically, the metabolic consequences of dieting include a lowered metabolism, decreased fat oxidation, decreased HSL activity, increased LPL activity impaired hormonal status (including lowered testosterone and raised cortisol), decreased thermogenesis from a reduction in both thyroid levels and nervous system output and a host of other metabolic defects. All of these serve to both slow fat loss during the diet and ensure rapid fat regain when food is reintroduced.

For example, in the classic starvation study (the Minnesota Semi-Starvation study) men were dieted for 6 solid months reaching 4-5% body fat at the end of the study. Then they were refed and body composition was tracked. By the theory being advocated, they should have gained lots of LBM and little fat during refeeding, they were clearly super lean to start out with. But this is absolutely not what happened.

As would be expected based on the metabolic adaptations to dieting, their bodies were mainly primed to replenish fat stores. Reductions in metabolic rate, fat oxidation and thermogenesis all contributed to a preferential gain of body fat and these systems didn't reset themselves until all of the body fat lost had been regained (8). Quite in fact, signals from body fat (i.e. leptin and the rest) are the mechanism behind this physiology (9).

The bottom line is that, in dieted down individuals, the body is primed to gain body fat at the expense of LBM to replenish what was lost during the diet. Again, this is fundamentally different than looking at genetically lean individuals (for whom a low body fat percentage is their normal level) in terms of what happens when they are overfed.

And even without this research available, anybody who's dieted to a low body fat percentage can attest to the above. Regardless of the theories being advocated by the individuals looking just at Forbes' data on P-ratio, the end of the diet is a time when you gain body fat the most easily. Even a brief look at the real world should have pointed out why the theory was incorrect in the first place.

the end

colby
imo, doesnt really discount the benefits of a &quot;slow bulk&quot; approach following a diet (cut), if anything it reinforces them but....................it does clarify the huge diff. between naturally lean folks who start bulking (especially when lifting and really especially when lifting for the 1st time) and folks who diet down to a lean state. dieting down from 15-18% all the way to say 8-10% and then expecting to reap the same minimum 60-70%lbm gains that nat. lean 1st timers enjoy may result in an unpleasant surprise. then again, who knows, as mentioned, much of it is based on your own personal p-ratio (if you believe such stuff that is) and if yours happens to be good then that will shine thru as you come back up. provided of course you dont shift gears immed from cutting to serious bulking.

as far as this opening from your other post..........

It (Lyle's Ch.4 excerpt from his Ultimate Diet 2.0 book) is a pretty good read, but if you truly agree with what he says, then a lot of what we say about bulking and cutting in general is meaningless.  If the p-ratio is essentially the same whenever we cut or bulk, then all muscle gained in a bulk would be lost in the cut.  I don't believe this, nor does anyone here.

...........i would have to disagree.

if lyle (and others)hung all muscle gains and losses on p-ratio then there would be no point for the diet book, now would there. he would have simply devised a simple way to determine your ratio and then marketed a diet/workout for those who had good ones. keep in mind the book is designed for folks who are typically poor gainers and losers of wgt which typically translates into those with insuline sensitivity issues as well as poor p-ratios (most likely). i believe he even mentions in the book if you were joe avg who didnt have these issues then aside from contest prep perhaps you wouldnt need to search out answers to questions like &quot;when i gain, why is it mostly fat?&quot; &quot;when i diet, why dont i keep some of the muscle i gained...i just seem to go back to skinny?&quot;

from the article i believe he posted the p-ratio aspect that is controlled by genetics, hormones etc (and therefore out of our control minus drugs) at 80-85% which leaves @15-20% which we can effect.

the main point to me is not that you have no control over your gains but that you have less then many would have you think. planning to eat clean, slow bulk, lift heavy and freq., sleep well etc etc can all be steps in the right direction towards improving your muscle over fat gain for a bulk but like i mentioned before you are not going to go from having a 1lb muscle/2lbs fat gain ratio (normal eating standard bulk) to suddenly a 5lbs muscle/1lb fat ratio because of those changes.....despite what muscle and fitness and flex magazine tell everyone. you can improve your ratio but your not going to completely re-work it.

ok, that is by far the longest post ever for me so ill have to take a time out now.
 
Even though way off from the original topic I don't feel like starting another one, even though that probably would be best for this discussion but anyway.

Colby,

What Lyle is saying is true and I have read the studies he cites plus many more he doesn't. The emphasis though as I see it is....... Not only the rate of fat loss but the magnitude as well has a large part to play along with your natural set point (P-Ratio). In fact this is why Forbes' model has been reevaluated as of late to include the more current trends in extreme magnitudes of loss as seen in many of the newer bariatric surgeries and such. In the case of refeeding (bulking) I am sure this would hold up as well, not only the rate but magnitude of weight gain would have a considerable effect. At the same time we also have to take into account that these studies were not on body builder types and even though, yes, the newer information on the energy impact off added muscle may not be as large as earlier proposed there are other impacts as well. Such as the possibility of RE (Resistance Exercise) causing increased abdominal lipid oxidation. Even though, on an actue basis, this is generally been seen as small the added impact on a prologed term may prove to be more advatageous than not.

Lastly I don't think that when anyone here is speaking of bulking they are recommending eating 1000Kcal over maintenance levels, in fact I believe the concensus to be about 250 Kcal (give or take) above maintenance.

Also I have to commend Blue Jacket on that very well thought out post, it was a pleasure reading it. Especially <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">despite what muscle and fitness and flex magazine tell everyone. you can improve your ratio but your not going to completely re-work it.</div> as I couldn't agree more, especially without the aid of &quot;supplements&quot;.

Lastly if you are interested in reading some of the science behind partitioning let me know via email and I'll help you where I can.
 
C'mon Dan, shortcut!!! Just tell us what to do/eat/think!

Heheh, I doubt that there's much hope for partitioning us geezers out anyway!
laugh.gif
 
Back
Top