J-Reps results?

<div>
(Enigma66 @ Jul. 30 2006,00:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm not here to spam or damn you, but IMO I don't put much stock in comparison pics when the 'after' pics always have more favorable lighting.</div>

I agree but I had no idea the method would work as well as it does and was un prepared. I tired to mimic some old poses from before JReps but copying lighting and camera conditions weren’t possible. I am no professional photographer. I am an advanced trainee so 12 lbs on my 155 lb frame (now 167 lbs at 10% B.F.) was good but… with only 4-5 lbs in the top half of my body it is tough to see any change. I only provided photo’s because people ask for them all the time. Now here is why I chose the two that you see.

I saw that the lighting was harsher but the pose was honest. This is a tough pose to look muscular in when you are narrow from to back like me. If you only saw the bottom (the third one) picture of me compared with an older one you would have thought I was much heavier. Straight on lends no depth and thus makes it tough to judge things. When I compared straight on the lighting and the pose just exaggerated it too much. I looked better and it was easier on my ego but my conscience wouldn’t let me ;^) So I compromised and just added my new front shot just for show.

You see even in a unflexed standardized photo you can look far better (or worse ) in the after shot. If I had more carbs that week and a bit of residual swelling from a previous workout and extra glycogen retention from the carbs I would look far bigger. Add to that a darker tan and even in the same light, relaxed, same distance from camera I would look more muscular. Plus, if I wanted to be sneaky and exaggerate it, I could have been totally carb depleted in the first and not only fuller from swelling and carbs in the second but performed a pumping workout prior to the after shot to generate temporary size.

I tried to be honest as much as possible but the real proof is in learning the method.

Regards,
Andrew
www.zone-training.net
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Jul. 30 2006,00:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Weight gain during a cycle is dependent on diet, not training methodology. If you have made horrible gains in the past, it's because you don't know how to eat. No training method is going to make you gain weight unless you are eating enough. It just isn't possible. It violates the laws of physics. You can't create matter from nothing.
So... if you never gained any weight with past routines, it was your fault for not eating enough - not the training programs fault.</div>
First off I don’t look to gain ‘weight’ I look to gain muscle. Second you can pull from fat stores for extra calories to recover from exercise with and to build new muscle. Third in this case I only built 12 lbs in 8 months, not much but good for my frame and at a advanced stage in my lifting career.

Now out of that 12 lbs only 3 ½ maybe 4 lbs tops is actual tissue the rest is water. How much extra food do you think I needed over 8 months to build 3-4 lbs in tissue?!?

Even in the case of a beginner or intermediate trainee who gains say 25 lbs in a year (a very good natural gain) how much is tissue and how much is water. In 12 months – 365 days, you are only growing about 8 lbs of muscle. You don’t need much above maintenance calories to pull that off.

I take in major simple carbs post workout (to immediately and quickly replenish lost glycogen from worked muscles) and eat big on training days and the day after. That is often more than I need but helps keep me out of the catabolic state.

Regards,
Andrew
www.zone-training.net
 
<div>
(AShortt @ Jul. 30 2006,11:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Second you can pull from fat stores for extra calories to recover from exercise with and to build new muscle.</div>
No you can't. You must be taking in a calorie excess to gain ANY weight at all (muscle OR fat) so sorry, but no.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Jul. 30 2006,12:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(AShortt @ Jul. 30 2006,11:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Second you can pull from fat stores for extra calories to recover from exercise with and to build new muscle.</div>
No you can't. You must be taking in a calorie excess to gain ANY weight at all (muscle OR fat) so sorry, but no.</div>
So Sorry? So sorry but I have done it. When you need the calories and you aren't ingesting them you can pull from fat stores. It isn't perfect but it is a process developed by thousands of years of evolution. What do you think fat stores are for?

Regards,
Andrew
www.zone-training.net
 
Fat stores are there to support your body during times when food intake is scarce. Fat stores are not there to allow your body to put on weight while there is little food supply. That's not how the human body works.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Jul. 30 2006,12:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(AShortt @ Jul. 30 2006,11:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Second you can pull from fat stores for extra calories to recover from exercise with and to build new muscle.</div>
No you can't.  You must be taking in a calorie excess to gain ANY weight at all (muscle OR fat) so sorry, but no.</div>
I think there are two different arguments here.

Gaining weight vs. knitting proteins.

As far as protein accretion goes, yes you can. How appreciable it will be will vary based on fat stores available and an individuals P-ratios.

As far as gaining weight, either you're in an anabolic state or a catabolic and or the myriad of steps inbetween. But generally it's next to impossible to gain bodyweight if hypoenergetic.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Jul. 30 2006,14:26)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Fat stores are there to support your body during times when food intake is scarce. Fat stores are not there to allow your body to put on weight while there is little food supply. That's not how the human body works.</div>
Fat stores become calories and that that, why, how and when they are used is a complex matter but it isn’t just for homeostasis. In fact you will waste down quite a bit while still having fat stores because your organs must be protected.

Regards,
Andrew
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Jul. 30 2006,14:26)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Fat stores are there to support your body during times when food intake is scarce. Fat stores are not there to allow your body to put on weight while there is little food supply. That's not how the human body works.</div>
The fat store calories are broken down and used to build new muscle. Gaining or losing weight is not the issue. How much weight you gain or lose will be the resultant ratio. body fat % will drop but body weight may only go up a bit.

*New muscle will hold more water in it (it is mostly water) where as fat stores don’t hold nearly as much water. The specific density of water is quite high especially relative to fat.

Are you now seeing where the new weight comes from Newton?

Regards,
Andrew
 
<div>
(AShortt @ Jul. 30 2006,14:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Jul. 30 2006,14:26)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Fat stores are there to support your body during times when food intake is scarce.  Fat stores are not there to allow your body to put on weight while there is little food supply.  That's not how the human body works.</div>
The fat store calories are broken down and used to build new muscle. Gaining or losing weight is not the issue. How much weight you gain or lose will be the resultant ratio. body fat % will drop but body weight may only go up a bit.

*New muscle will hold more water in it (it is mostly water) where as fat stores don’t hold nearly as much water. The specific density of water is quite high especially relative to fat.

Are you now seeing where the new weight comes from Newton?

Regards,
Andrew</div>
I think the problem being is that in most cases weight gain doesn't occur. Yes compostional changes can occur as evidenced by a couple studies showing increases in Lean Mass while hypocaloric (Demling) but BW still decreased and in most studies Lean Mass was only maintained, even with RT interventions. Indicating that new proteins were synthesized but only matched breakdown.

If I remember correctly there are some studies in animals that showed even without nutritional support the muscle weight increased considerably with chronic overload but has yet to be reproduced in humans.
 
This has gotten way off topic, but it is interesting. I am starting to see why my strength and hypertrophy gains have stopped recently. I put on a ton of muscle in my first max-stim cycle (7 or 8 lb.s in two months with no change in waist size) but I decided I wanted more definition and cut back on my calories...the result has been...STAGNATION, I have not lost or gained any fat, nor have I lost or gained any musle in the past few weeks. I have read elsewhere that you should only try to either gain muscle and be hypercaloric or lose fat and be hypocaloric, but never try both at the same time. I didn't believe this until now. But this recent experience of my hypertrophy going from explosive to null has proved to me that I need to eat more if I want to continue the rapid LBM gain that I experienced during my first cycle. I guess I will make my current goal to hypertrophy, and when I have enough size, only then will I focus on losing fat and getting 'ripped'.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Jul. 30 2006,17:32)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This has gotten way off topic, but it is interesting. I am starting to see why my strength and hypertrophy gains have stopped recently. I put on a ton of muscle in my first max-stim cycle (7 or 8 lb.s in two months with no change in waist size) but I decided I wanted more definition and cut back on my calories...the result has been...STAGNATION, I have not lost or gained any fat, nor have I lost or gained any musle in the past few weeks. I have read elsewhere that you should only try to either gain muscle and be hypercaloric or lose fat and be hypocaloric, but never try both at the same time. I didn't believe this until now. But this recent experience of my hypertrophy going from explosive to null has proved to me that I need to eat more if I want to continue the rapid LBM gain that I experienced during my first cycle. I guess I will make my current goal to hypertrophy, and when I have enough size, only then will I focus on losing fat and getting 'ripped'.</div>

Well I don’t try to gain muscle in a caloric deficit situation if that is what is being implied. I do gain muscle though on a ‘maintenance caloric base' provided I:

- am at least 10% body fat not much leaner.
- The stimulus is new enough and appropriate enough to build new mass.


Chances are ‘scientific muscle’ your 8 lbs was mostly due to the new and unusual nature of your training approach/cycle. More calories at this point (unless you are extremely careful) will lead to fat gains but not much lean mass. Muscle requires very few extra calories to build. Read what I said about muscle being mostly water and I am sure you will see that you don’t need much extra food to build mass. Of your 8 lbs only about 2.5 lbs is tissue the rest is water.

Trying to get big then rip down is a mistake. Weight loss always brings muscle loss with it.

Regards,
Andrew
www.zone-training.net
 
I don't know where you learned all this stuff, but if you are going to contend that you can build significant mass on a maintenance diet, without drugs, then you are going to need to post some studies to prove it. NOT studies on newbies or obese individuals, but studies on trained people gaining significant muscle on a maintenance diet, without drugs.
How many calories do you think it takes to build a pound of muscle? I've read that it takes 2300-3500 calories to build each pound of new muscle mass. I don't see how you are going to do that on a maintenance diet. Eating a typical daily excess of 500 calories will result in about 3500 calories extra a week, which should be just enough to build a pound of muscle.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Jul. 30 2006,19:03)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I don't know where you learned all this stuff, but if you are going to contend that you can build significant mass on a maintenance diet, without drugs, then you are going to need to post some studies to prove it. NOT studies on newbies or obese individuals, but studies on trained people gaining significant muscle on a maintenance diet, without drugs.
How many calories do you think it takes to build a pound of muscle? I've read that it takes 2300-3500 calories to build each pound of new muscle mass. I don't see how you are going to do that on a maintenance diet. Eating a typical daily excess of 500 calories will result in about 3500 calories extra a week, which should be just enough to build a pound of muscle.</div>
First off each pound of stored fat I use is worth over 3000 calories. Second I highly doubt it takes anything close to that to build a pound of muscle which is mostly water. Third who knows exactly what maintenance is at any moment anyway. What you eat per day is different than what you eat per week or per hour. What you need while sitting as opposed to moving as opposed to sleeping as opposed to training is all different. You are thinking in a bubble. The body is dynamic and how much calories are needed is a variable thing. It varies based on your metabolism, lifestyle, training style, as you age etc.

Again to build 12 lbs in muscle over 8 months took what amounted to very little extra calories and I am not even sure I needed them. It is just as I saw that JReps were working I started to eat a bit more on training days and the day after for insurance. After about 3 months I started to go up a bit in body fat % and had to ease back a bit on total caloric intake. This wasn’t just due to the extra food but that the method caused me less systematic drain than I was use to. Once I got really good at the method I was training harder than ever and was able to raise calories a bit.

And don’t quote me studies for anything more than interest sake. Studies don’t prove squat. The researchers are still arguing one set vs. multiple, what is happening on the static and eccentric etc. The rat/mice stuff is interesting and points the way to further research but it doesn’t translate into much in the weight room.

Regards,
Andrew
 
As this has gotten way off topic, but I wish to continue on the subject of diet for bulkibg/cutting we have started, I will open a new thread in the diet and nutrition forum...please post diet responses there, and leave this topic for the 'j-reps'.
 
Nice way to dance around the issue. I was going to cite my source for the calorie amount I posted, but there isn't any point debating this with you. You've already made up your mind, which is probably why you reported such poor gains your whole life, with the exception of what J-Reps gave you. Maybe if you opened your mind a bit, you'd keep making gains all the time like the rest of us on this site do.
 
<div>
(AShortt @ Jul. 31 2006,08:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The fat store calories are broken down and used to build new muscle. Gaining or losing weight is not the issue. How much weight you gain or lose will be the resultant ratio. body fat % will drop but body weight may only go up a bit.

*New muscle will hold more water in it (it is mostly water) where as fat stores don’t hold nearly as much water. The specific density of water is quite high especially relative to fat.

Are you now seeing where the new weight comes from Newton?

Regards,
Andrew</div>
Except that the amount of energy removed from fat will be a lot greater than what is required to build the muscle, so you will not gain weight on the caloric restriction even if you gain muscle.

you can doubt it all you want, but life sucks
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Jul. 30 2006,21:14)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Nice way to dance around the issue. I was going to cite my source for the calorie amount I posted, but there isn't any point debating this with you. You've already made up your mind, which is probably why you reported such poor gains your whole life, with the exception of what J-Reps gave you. Maybe if you opened your mind a bit, you'd keep making gains all the time like the rest of us on this site do.</div>
Whoa big feller, how condescending. First off I have eaten more in the past to see if will help gains...it didn’t. Furthermore I didn’t make poor gains my whole life except for JReps. I am slight of build so the gains I made from the get go were reasonable. I started at 125-130 lbs in my early twenties and worked up to the mid 150’s – about 25 lbs in muscle growth – a major portion of my starting weight when already full grown and in shape.

I am pleased as punch with Zone Training because most advanced guys like me (I’m 38) don’t add much muscle no matter what we do. The ratio of how much the 25 lbs of muscle I gained is, is what most consider a genetic limit. Now to gain 12 more lbs in only 8 months is simply great! That is almost half of what I had gained in the past while pigging out or not. Site whatever studies you want I have read them all and this point of view a decade ago. Look at Johnston’s 200 lb pics on the same site. He also built this physique without eating much in the way of extra calories (like 500 per day). Of course he started out with a bigger build than I but you get the point.

No skirting the issue here, the notion of so many extra calories being the only way to build lean tissue is outmoded. Bulk all you want you will just have fat to shed off later.

How do you determine your RMR and BMR anyway? I use a Bio Analogics machine, which is both highly accurate and very consistent. It determines exact body comp in lean mass, water weight and fat weight. It is based on anthropometrical measurements, ‘full' body (hand to foot) impedance, weight, sex, age etc. Perhaps you just think your RMR, BMR are lower than they actually are.

Regards,
Andrew
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Jul. 31 2006,05:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(AShortt @ Jul. 31 2006,08:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The fat store calories are broken down and used to build new muscle. Gaining or losing weight is not the issue. How much weight you gain or lose will be the resultant ratio. body fat % will drop but body weight may only go up a bit.

*New muscle will hold more water in it (it is mostly water) where as fat stores don’t hold nearly as much water. The specific density of water is quite high especially relative to fat.

Are you now seeing where the new weight comes from Newton?

Regards,
Andrew</div>

Except that the amount of energy removed from fat will be a lot greater than what is required to build the muscle, so you will not gain weight on the caloric restriction even if you gain muscle.

you can doubt it all you want, but life sucks</div>
My life doesn't suck, yours does?

Not sure what you mean the amount of energy removed? What are you talking about? The point I am making is you do see some weight gain on only maintenance calories because the new muscle has you holding more water, water which is heavy because it is dense. Fat doesn't hold nearly as much water as muscle. The weight doesn't come out of the blue it is from retaining more water. We are mostly water so it makes a noticeable difference.

Regards,
Andrew
www.zone-training.net
 
<div>
(AShortt @ Aug. 01 2006,00:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">My life doesn't suck, yours does?</div>
Not in the slightest,

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Not sure what you mean the amount of energy removed? What are you talking about? </div>In order for energy to be available, it has to be removed from adipose. From the research there appears to be a limit to the amount of energy that can be released from adipose (represented as kcals per lb fat mass)

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The point I am making is you do see some weight gain on only maintenance calories because the new muscle has you holding more water, water which is heavy because it is dense. Fat doesn't hold nearly as much water as muscle. The weight doesn't come out of the blue it is from retaining more water. We are mostly water so it makes a noticeable difference.</div>

I dont think i said anything about water so what is your point?

The energetic cost to create the protein (not water) within muscle is very high, in general is listed similar or higher than is available per pound of fat.

In the calorie reduced situation all ~3500kcals of energy from a pound of fat is not available to the muscle to do something it does not want to do (especially as the anabolic hormones all drop under lower calories while the catabolic hormones raise). The body is trying to maintain large amounts of essential metabolic activities, building muscle is not one of these.

So how do you in a negative caloric situation use more energy than is available to create something that is of no importance to the body under the negative caloric situation?

Im sure Macgyver could do it, but normal humans are not going to make muscle from a spoon, a poptart and a 2&quot;x2&quot; piece of duct tape.
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Jul. 31 2006,09:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think the problem being is that in most cases weight gain doesn't occur. Yes compostional changes can occur as evidenced by a couple studies showing increases in Lean Mass while hypocaloric (Demling) but BW still decreased and in most studies Lean Mass was only maintained, even with RT interventions. Indicating that new proteins were synthesized but only matched breakdown.</div>
The subjects within this trial fell into the two area that low calories can result in gains

1) noobs
2) fat

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
If I remember correctly there are some studies in animals that showed even without nutritional support the muscle weight increased considerably with chronic overload but has yet to be reproduced in humans.</div>

IF I remember some of the animal studies, the gains in the calf were associated with a loss of muscle tissue in other areas and an overall decrease in fat mass.

Would explain the chest and bicep boys, mainly becuase htey are willing to make their twig legs smaller in order to make their arms bigger.
ghostface.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top