J-Reps results?

<div>
(AShortt @ Jul. 31 2006,06:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><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>
I bet you can't beat 6&quot; wrists and 8.5&quot; ankles!

I think it's a pretty silly proposition to suggest that jacking up calories isn't immensely useful towards building muscle mass.

Just out of curiosity, when you did previously markedly increase calories, did you notice any difference to your strength?

Every time I've done this, my strength has shot up rapidly. This would imply the potential for more muscle mass on one of two levels, I think.

1) Increased calories --> increase muscle CSA --> increase force output/strength

or

2) Cool hormonal crap as a result of markedly overfeeding --> increased neural magic --> higher training loads --> more muscle

Though IIRC IART focuses on 'unfamiliar stress' as a stimulus for hypertrophy, and fails to identify (or at least emphasize) the primary stimulus behind resistance-induced muscle hypertrophy (progressive tension overload). So you might not think moving heavier stuff over time (in the context of adequate kcals/protein) is going to help you grow bigger in the first place.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Aug. 01 2006,05:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The subjects within this trial fell into the two area that low calories can result in gains

1) noobs
2) fat</div>
Yep, fat cops who sat around and ate donuts. But still no weight gain only compostional change, which is good too, if that's the goal.
 
<div>
(AShortt @ Jul. 30 2006,16:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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.</div>
Hi Andrew,

Given what you've said there would you agree that people doing HST would therefore benefit from eating big all the time (given that everyday is a workout day or the day after workout)?

Cheers

Rob
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Aug. 01 2006,10:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><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>
Just had a thought - if fat people can potentially make gains with low calories does that mean if we bulk like crazy, gain a lot of muscle and fat, we can then continue to make gains when cutting on low calories?

How perfect would that be?!

Cheers

Rob
 
<div>
(robefc @ Aug. 01 2006,19:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(AShortt @ Jul. 30 2006,16:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">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.</div>
Hi Andrew,

Given what you've said there would you agree that people doing HST would therefore benefit from eating big all the time (given that everyday is a workout day or the day after workout)?

Cheers

Rob</div>
Well it would be individualistic (what big would correspond with) If you are training very hard all the time then eating big would just be eating what you need to keep it up.

Regards,
Andrew
www.zone-training.net
 
<div>
(mikeynov @ Aug. 01 2006,15:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(AShortt @ Jul. 31 2006,06:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
</div>
I bet you can't beat 6&quot; wrists and 8.5&quot; ankles!

I think it's a pretty silly proposition to suggest that jacking up calories isn't immensely useful towards building muscle mass.

Just out of curiosity, when you did previously markedly increase calories, did you notice any difference to your strength?

Every time I've done this, my strength has shot up rapidly. This would imply the potential for more muscle mass on one of two levels, I think.

1) Increased calories --> increase muscle CSA --> increase force output/strength

or

2) Cool hormonal crap as a result of markedly overfeeding --> increased neural magic --> higher training loads --> more muscle

Though IIRC IART focuses on 'unfamiliar stress' as a stimulus for hypertrophy, and fails to identify (or at least emphasize) the primary stimulus behind resistance-induced muscle hypertrophy (progressive tension overload). So you might not think moving heavier stuff over time (in the context of adequate kcals/protein) is going to help you grow bigger in the first place.</div>
Yes on a higher than maintenance diet I am a bit stronger ‘at first’ then it levels off. This is akin to how I hold more total muscle at a higher bodyfat%.

You are totally wrong about the IART and should do your homework. The principle of (over)load is a fundamental detailed by the IART years ago in the ‘Theory of Prescribed Exercise’ (download the comprehensive but stripped down version for free in pdf at: http://www.exercisecertification.com/books/RxTheory.pdf )

We consider variation very important but only as a supporting principle to the base/fundamentals.

Regards,
Andrew
www.zone-training.net
 
<div>
(AShortt @ Aug. 01 2006,20:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(mikeynov @ Aug. 01 2006,15:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(AShortt @ Jul. 31 2006,06:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
</div>
I bet you can't beat 6&quot; wrists and 8.5&quot; ankles!

I think it's a pretty silly proposition to suggest that jacking up calories isn't immensely useful towards building muscle mass.

Just out of curiosity, when you did previously markedly increase calories, did you notice any difference to your strength?

Every time I've done this, my strength has shot up rapidly. This would imply the potential for more muscle mass on one of two levels, I think.

1) Increased calories --> increase muscle CSA --> increase force output/strength

or

2) Cool hormonal crap as a result of markedly overfeeding --> increased neural magic --> higher training loads --> more muscle

Though IIRC IART focuses on 'unfamiliar stress' as a stimulus for hypertrophy, and fails to identify (or at least emphasize) the primary stimulus behind resistance-induced muscle hypertrophy (progressive tension overload). So you might not think moving heavier stuff over time (in the context of adequate kcals/protein) is going to help you grow bigger in the first place.</div>
Yes on a higher than maintenance diet I am a bit stronger ‘at first’ then it levels off. This is akin to how I hold more total muscle at a higher bodyfat%.

You are totally wrong about the IART and should do your homework. The principle of (over)load is a fundamental detailed by the IART years ago in the ‘Theory of Prescribed Exercise’ (download the comprehensive but stripped down version for free in pdf at: http://www.exercisecertification.com/books/RxTheory.pdf )

We consider variation very important but only as a supporting principle to the base/fundamentals.

Regards,
Andrew
www.zone-training.net</div>
I didn't just say 'overload,' as you could extend that to 'any progressive, unfamiliar stress.' E.g. doing more work in less time.

I said 'progressive tension overload.' As in applying progressive levels of mechanical strain to muscle tissue over time as being the primary cause of exercise-induced skeletal muscle hyeprtrophy. In practical weight training, this means increasing the weight on the bar (or the selectorized machine or bowflex, in your case, I guess) over time within the context of 'standard' form (versus cheating your way to higher poundages).

Even on zone-training, one of the articles says:

&quot;Weight lifting is a means to an end, and when you become so fixated on how much you can lift for a certain number of repetitions, you are setting yourself up for failure.&quot;

edit:

As an aside, since you were the one to bring up genetics, how do your wrists/ankles measure up?
 
Btw, I love this quote:

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Currently, the only valid, complete, and non-contradictory theory of exercise science is the Theory of Prescribed
Exercise™, which I have coined.</div>

How the **** do you take somebody seriously that starts an 'essay' with something like that? Jesus.
 
<div>
(robefc @ Aug. 02 2006,13:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Just had a thought - if fat people can potentially make gains with low calories does that mean if we bulk like crazy, gain a lot of muscle and fat, we can then continue to make gains when cutting on low calories?

How perfect would that be?!

Cheers

Rob</div>
it does work, just depends if you want to become fat

biggrin.gif
 
If there's a ripped bigger version of me waiting at the other side of fatness...and in the meantime I get to eat as much apple pie and cake as I like...then hell yes!
biggrin.gif
 
For people who just want to be buff (or just plain big and scary), then that would be cool... be fat for a year or so, then start cutting and after a year you'd be almost ripped as hell... that's a viable option for people who aren't actively into BB competitions or who aren't shy of gaining &quot;some&quot; fat. I guess people who used to be thin as a rail won't mind this approach. It makes bulking far easier, and all you gotta worry about is the cutting afterwards, instead of &quot;perfecting&quot; the bulk approach and then also the cutting since you'll eventually have to cut to anyway.
 
My first ever &quot;cut&quot; was the most successful. After bulking for two years, and hitting 225 @ ~ 18% bf, I cut calories and added light cardio for a 10-20% kcal deficit.

The result was 205 @ 8%. If I remember correctly, the time frame was a full summer(~ 3 mos).

Since then, I've never wanted to get fat again. Maybe that's my problem.
 
<div>
(jvroig @ Aug. 02 2006,12:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">For people who just want to be buff (or just plain big and scary), then that would be cool... be fat for a year or so, then start cutting and after a year you'd be almost ripped as hell... that's a viable option for people who aren't actively into BB competitions or who aren't shy of gaining &quot;some&quot; fat. I guess people who used to be thin as a rail won't mind this approach. It makes bulking far easier, and all you gotta worry about is the cutting afterwards, instead of &quot;perfecting&quot; the bulk approach and then also the cutting since you'll eventually have to cut to anyway.</div>
Unless you are very close to your genetic max anyway. Then all the fat bulking and fat cutting would result in minimal gains, right?
 
Actually, by getting fat, you can put on more lean mass than most max size calculators will predict. That's pretty much the only way to put on lean mass once you get to that point, unless you turn to drugs.

For instance, if you bulked up to 300 lbs and found some way to cut down without losing much lean mass, you would be an enormous guy once you got lean.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Aug. 02 2006,19:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">For instance, if you bulked up to 300 lbs and found some way to cut down without losing much lean mass, you would be an enormous guy once you got lean.</div>
If dave gulledge can do it then so can I!

Obviously I have about 120lbs to go...I'm less dedicated...probably got far worse genetics...but h*ll I bet I can beat him in the eating stakes!
biggrin.gif


I should point out, for people that don't know, that dave is a powerlifter. I don't know him or anything but his pics went round all the boards when he injured himself and decided to diet whilst he couldn't squat...turned out to be a massive ripped guy!

Cheers

Rob
 
Realize, however, that you probably won't keep all the extra lean mass when you diet down unless you use some sort of anabolic.
 
<div>
(robefc @ Aug. 03 2006,10:01)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If dave gulledge can do it then so can I!</div>
Do you have the sources he has?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Obviously I have about 120lbs to go...I'm less dedicated...probably got far worse genetics...but h*ll I bet I can beat him in the eating stakes!
biggrin.gif
</div>and missing his special supplements...

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I should point out, for people that don't know, that dave is a powerlifter. I don't know him or anything but his pics went round all the boards when he injured himself and decided to diet whilst he couldn't squat...turned out to be a massive ripped guy!

Cheers

Rob</div>

Sorta like most large powerlifters who decide to diet down. Dave Tates another major one recently.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Aug. 03 2006,00:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Sorta like most large powerlifters who decide to diet down. Dave Tates another major one recently.</div>
So the take home lesson is that fat to ripped works great, if you have good drugs?

And if so, does that mean you like slow and steady bulk and cut for naturals? Something like &quot;never go over 15% BF?&quot;
 
I don’t think bulking is a good idea for natural trainee’s I mean going up to 15% bodyfat is fine but more than that can be detrimental long term.

The more time you spend at a fatter state the more natural this becomes for your body. The bodies main concern is homeostasis. You may well find that too much bulking and cutting and you cannot get really lean without losing ALL the muscle massed gained. That said, you would have been far better advised to stay at a lower bodyfat % and put on the muscle slower but steady and not lose it in a cut. You know like the turtle and the hair.

Regards,
Andrew
www.zone-training.net
 
Back
Top