Photos of HST veterans
- Thread starter tongzilla
- Start date
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You can't say that its genetics and juice for everyone?</div>
Joe, I share your curiosity/frustration - but some of the biggies in the gyms were biggies before the gym too, so genetics, yes.
I never understood that once a week thing beyond noob gains.
Joe, I share your curiosity/frustration - but some of the biggies in the gyms were biggies before the gym too, so genetics, yes.
I never understood that once a week thing beyond noob gains.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
I agree Quad
It funny though what got me thinking this was a thread over at bodyrecompositon that was talking about this type of stuff and the guy had a point.
I mean for 5 years I went to a BIG college that had over hundreds of thousands of students. At the time the university had a 100+ million dollar recreationals gym to workout in.
I lifted day in and day out with hundreds of my friends. Now I was dedicated as hell but a lot of these guys didn't know there ass from a hole in the ground but workouted none the less regiously.
Not all but a lot of the guys still got pretty damn big back then. I know the majority of them probabley got in .25 grams of protein per pound of LBM back then so it just makes you wonder how much the human body will Naturally grow on its on.
It funny though what got me thinking this was a thread over at bodyrecompositon that was talking about this type of stuff and the guy had a point.
I mean for 5 years I went to a BIG college that had over hundreds of thousands of students. At the time the university had a 100+ million dollar recreationals gym to workout in.
I lifted day in and day out with hundreds of my friends. Now I was dedicated as hell but a lot of these guys didn't know there ass from a hole in the ground but workouted none the less regiously.
Not all but a lot of the guys still got pretty damn big back then. I know the majority of them probabley got in .25 grams of protein per pound of LBM back then so it just makes you wonder how much the human body will Naturally grow on its on.
DWhite2741
New Member
I'm curious myself. The human body seems to adapt in so many ways I doubt the science on it is 100% accurate. When I was around 15 and 16 I used to just do 50 push-ups a night straight before going to bed. Sometimes I could even push for 100 straight. I probably didn't even eat right and I managed to develop a decent looking chest. That might be noobie gains though but who knows. That was before I knew anything about working out.
<div>
(Totentanz @ Jan. 08 2008,19:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(mikeynov @ Jan. 08 2008,18:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">IIRC, most of the evidence for the partitioning stuff doesn't really work like this, in the sense that people who are NATURALLY lean tend to partition calories well when overfeeding, and people who are NATURALLY overfat tend to do the opposite, and this was the context of that research.
I.e. whether you are a naturally lean guy at 12% and overfeeding or a naturally chubby guy who got down to 12% and decides to overfeed are not even close to the same thing.</div>
Can you elaborate on this? I know that whether you are naturally lean or not has a huge impact, but I was under the impression that bodyfat percentage had some impact as well, and that it's not really a good idea to bulk up much beyond 15%. Does it matter at all?
I've never really worried about it much myself, as I have a hard time getting that fat anyway - the main attraction of cutting down for me is that I won't need as many calories to gain weight when I start bulking again. But I've seen that rule of thumb thrown around a lot in the past and always assumed it was at correct.
Conversely, however, we do have a lot of (well, at least a few anyway) examples of guys who bulked up until they were hugely fat, then cut down and now are complete and total bad asses.</div>
A lot of people have emphasized this idea in the past, to only bulk when sufficiently lean, including Thib and some other nutrition gurus.
As far as I know, though, there isn't a heck of a lot of research about how much this actually matters in respect to where calories are partitioned in terms of the way we try to practically apply it. As I said, to the best of my knowledge, the research on partitioning that's usually tossed around here seems to be misapplied. Being naturally lean and partitioning calories well when you eat a fuckload of food does not mean that dieting down a fatty to 10% and then having him overeat will do the same thing.
For this to really work, you'd have to track how people partition calories when lean, and then how those same people partition calories once you've gotten them much fatter. I'm not sure if any research like that actually exists, mainly because it's the opposite direction (losing weight) that attracts the sort of money necessary to finance these things.
All of that said, in as much as fat plays an active role in the endocrine system, I could see some reasons why having too much fat may create an environment conducive to even more fat gain when overfeeding.
But even if the above is plausible, I'm still not sure how much concrete evidence we have about how much it'd actually matter at the end of the day.
(Totentanz @ Jan. 08 2008,19:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(mikeynov @ Jan. 08 2008,18:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">IIRC, most of the evidence for the partitioning stuff doesn't really work like this, in the sense that people who are NATURALLY lean tend to partition calories well when overfeeding, and people who are NATURALLY overfat tend to do the opposite, and this was the context of that research.
I.e. whether you are a naturally lean guy at 12% and overfeeding or a naturally chubby guy who got down to 12% and decides to overfeed are not even close to the same thing.</div>
Can you elaborate on this? I know that whether you are naturally lean or not has a huge impact, but I was under the impression that bodyfat percentage had some impact as well, and that it's not really a good idea to bulk up much beyond 15%. Does it matter at all?
I've never really worried about it much myself, as I have a hard time getting that fat anyway - the main attraction of cutting down for me is that I won't need as many calories to gain weight when I start bulking again. But I've seen that rule of thumb thrown around a lot in the past and always assumed it was at correct.
Conversely, however, we do have a lot of (well, at least a few anyway) examples of guys who bulked up until they were hugely fat, then cut down and now are complete and total bad asses.</div>
A lot of people have emphasized this idea in the past, to only bulk when sufficiently lean, including Thib and some other nutrition gurus.
As far as I know, though, there isn't a heck of a lot of research about how much this actually matters in respect to where calories are partitioned in terms of the way we try to practically apply it. As I said, to the best of my knowledge, the research on partitioning that's usually tossed around here seems to be misapplied. Being naturally lean and partitioning calories well when you eat a fuckload of food does not mean that dieting down a fatty to 10% and then having him overeat will do the same thing.
For this to really work, you'd have to track how people partition calories when lean, and then how those same people partition calories once you've gotten them much fatter. I'm not sure if any research like that actually exists, mainly because it's the opposite direction (losing weight) that attracts the sort of money necessary to finance these things.
All of that said, in as much as fat plays an active role in the endocrine system, I could see some reasons why having too much fat may create an environment conducive to even more fat gain when overfeeding.
But even if the above is plausible, I'm still not sure how much concrete evidence we have about how much it'd actually matter at the end of the day.
scientific muscle
New Member
<div>
(mikeynov @ Jan. 09 2008,01:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">A lot of people have emphasized this idea in the past, to only bulk when sufficiently lean, including Thib and some other nutrition gurus.
As far as I know, though, there isn't a heck of a lot of research about how much this actually matters in respect to where calories are partitioned in terms of the way we try to practically apply it. As I said, as far as I know, the research on partitioning that's usually tossed around here seems to be misapplied. Being naturally lean and partitioning calories well when you eat a fuckload of food does not mean that dieting down a fatty to 10% and then having him overeat will do the same thing.
For this to really work, you'd have to track how people partition calories when lean, and then how those same people partition calories once you've gotten them much fatter. I'm not sure if any research like that actually exists, mainly because it's the opposite direction (losing weight) that attracts the sort of money necessary to finance these things.
All of that said, in as much as fat plays an active role in the endocrine system, I could see some reasons why having too much fat may create an environment conducive to even more fat gain when overfeeding.
But even if the above is plausible, I'm still not sure how much concrete evidence we have about how much it'd actually matter at the end of the day.</div>
That is pretty interesting. I agree with you about partitioning being difficult o influence but what is your thoughts on set-point? I trust Lyle Mcdonald's bodyrecomp research because he is so well read, and he seems to be a big believer in set-point being a heavy factor in the BF% game, and that it gets higher if our BF% gets too high.
(mikeynov @ Jan. 09 2008,01:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">A lot of people have emphasized this idea in the past, to only bulk when sufficiently lean, including Thib and some other nutrition gurus.
As far as I know, though, there isn't a heck of a lot of research about how much this actually matters in respect to where calories are partitioned in terms of the way we try to practically apply it. As I said, as far as I know, the research on partitioning that's usually tossed around here seems to be misapplied. Being naturally lean and partitioning calories well when you eat a fuckload of food does not mean that dieting down a fatty to 10% and then having him overeat will do the same thing.
For this to really work, you'd have to track how people partition calories when lean, and then how those same people partition calories once you've gotten them much fatter. I'm not sure if any research like that actually exists, mainly because it's the opposite direction (losing weight) that attracts the sort of money necessary to finance these things.
All of that said, in as much as fat plays an active role in the endocrine system, I could see some reasons why having too much fat may create an environment conducive to even more fat gain when overfeeding.
But even if the above is plausible, I'm still not sure how much concrete evidence we have about how much it'd actually matter at the end of the day.</div>
That is pretty interesting. I agree with you about partitioning being difficult o influence but what is your thoughts on set-point? I trust Lyle Mcdonald's bodyrecomp research because he is so well read, and he seems to be a big believer in set-point being a heavy factor in the BF% game, and that it gets higher if our BF% gets too high.
I
imported_etothepii
Guest
I think there are a lot of factors that go into partitioning that we may not know about yet. Has anyone heard of the research that found out that the body shuts down almost all fat burning when seated, and starts up again while standing?
That means that bodybuilder A, who works on an assembly line may partition fat better than bodybuilder B who sits in an office all day, eh?
Here's a link to a news report. I haven't tracked down the exact study yet:
Fat burning
That means that bodybuilder A, who works on an assembly line may partition fat better than bodybuilder B who sits in an office all day, eh?
Here's a link to a news report. I haven't tracked down the exact study yet:
Fat burning
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
Let me put this in bro terms for myself and someone please tell me if you agree or disagree. This science **** blows my mind.
But study after study after study basically says…and (correct me if I am wrong).
Train each bodypart 2 times a week 3 times a week if you desire.
Use progressive load as often as possible.
Use a set / rep guideline of 50 to 100 reps per week. Ideally starting with around 70% of your 1 rep max and moving up.
Use enough right now volume in each training session (which I think is about 30 reps)
Eat a surplus of calories and for the sake of gaining muscle it doesn’t matter if they are clean or dirty foods just eat a surplus of calories (wendy’s is no better than grilled chicken from home in the muscle building department if a surplus is met).
After you get a surplus of calories make sure you are eating .7 grams of protein per LBM. Personally I think the requirements are probabley lower than .7 but science doesn’t back that up.
I mean isn’t this basically what every study leads too or am I missing something?
But study after study after study basically says…and (correct me if I am wrong).
Train each bodypart 2 times a week 3 times a week if you desire.
Use progressive load as often as possible.
Use a set / rep guideline of 50 to 100 reps per week. Ideally starting with around 70% of your 1 rep max and moving up.
Use enough right now volume in each training session (which I think is about 30 reps)
Eat a surplus of calories and for the sake of gaining muscle it doesn’t matter if they are clean or dirty foods just eat a surplus of calories (wendy’s is no better than grilled chicken from home in the muscle building department if a surplus is met).
After you get a surplus of calories make sure you are eating .7 grams of protein per LBM. Personally I think the requirements are probabley lower than .7 but science doesn’t back that up.
I mean isn’t this basically what every study leads too or am I missing something?
<div>
(etothepii @ Jan. 09 2008,14:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think there are a lot of factors that go into partitioning that we may not know about yet. Has anyone heard of the research that found out that the body shuts down almost all fat burning when seated, and starts up again while standing?
That means that bodybuilder A, who works on an assembly line may partition fat better than bodybuilder B who sits in an office all day, eh?
Here's a link to a news report. I haven't tracked down the exact study yet:
Fat burning</div>
so does that mean cycling is a waste of time
(etothepii @ Jan. 09 2008,14:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think there are a lot of factors that go into partitioning that we may not know about yet. Has anyone heard of the research that found out that the body shuts down almost all fat burning when seated, and starts up again while standing?
That means that bodybuilder A, who works on an assembly line may partition fat better than bodybuilder B who sits in an office all day, eh?
Here's a link to a news report. I haven't tracked down the exact study yet:
Fat burning</div>
so does that mean cycling is a waste of time
<div>
(quadancer @ Jan. 09 2008,02:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You can't say that its genetics and juice for everyone?</div>
Joe, I share your curiosity/frustration - but some of the biggies in the gyms were biggies before the gym too, so genetics, yes.
I never understood that once a week thing beyond noob gains.</div>
even when doing one body part a wk,there is some carry over onto other muscle groups,ie if you do chest on monday and shoulders on wednesday both will be worked twice.
studies can help but you shouldnt base your whole training lifestyle around them,the fact is some guys are just lucky they can gain muscle and lose fat very easily,others cant.
deal with it
(quadancer @ Jan. 09 2008,02:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You can't say that its genetics and juice for everyone?</div>
Joe, I share your curiosity/frustration - but some of the biggies in the gyms were biggies before the gym too, so genetics, yes.
I never understood that once a week thing beyond noob gains.</div>
even when doing one body part a wk,there is some carry over onto other muscle groups,ie if you do chest on monday and shoulders on wednesday both will be worked twice.
studies can help but you shouldnt base your whole training lifestyle around them,the fact is some guys are just lucky they can gain muscle and lose fat very easily,others cant.
deal with it
eto: It would seem to me that a more obvious/relevant conclusion to draw from that article would be that it's not the sitting down that's the problem but how much muscle is being actively used at the time. I suspect standing still for long periods would produce the same results. And what about lying down? Being able to read the full research paper would probably be a lot more enlightening.
TR: fantastic results! I really hope your shoulder condition improves soon so you can continue building on your progress.
"You see that rock over there, mum? A year from now I'll be lifting that over my head."
"Why set your sights so high, dear? Just start with this little one right here."
TR: fantastic results! I really hope your shoulder condition improves soon so you can continue building on your progress.
"You see that rock over there, mum? A year from now I'll be lifting that over my head."
"Why set your sights so high, dear? Just start with this little one right here."
<div>
(Totentanz @ Jan. 08 2008,19:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(mikeynov @ Jan. 08 2008,18:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">IIRC, most of the evidence for the partitioning stuff doesn't really work like this, in the sense that people who are NATURALLY lean tend to partition calories well when overfeeding, and people who are NATURALLY overfat tend to do the opposite, and this was the context of that research.
I.e. whether you are a naturally lean guy at 12% and overfeeding or a naturally chubby guy who got down to 12% and decides to overfeed are not even close to the same thing.</div>
Can you elaborate on this? I know that whether you are naturally lean or not has a huge impact, but I was under the impression that bodyfat percentage had some impact as well, and that it's not really a good idea to bulk up much beyond 15%. Does it matter at all?
I've never really worried about it much myself, as I have a hard time getting that fat anyway - the main attraction of cutting down for me is that I won't need as many calories to gain weight when I start bulking again. But I've seen that rule of thumb thrown around a lot in the past and always assumed it was at correct.
Conversely, however, we do have a lot of (well, at least a few anyway) examples of guys who bulked up until they were hugely fat, then cut down and now are complete and total bad asses.</div>
WRT P-Ratio
Many things are still unknown in this. One of the biggies IMO is how does the time one is lean or fat affect this and this has not been studied.
For instance you are naturally lean but let yourself go for a number of years and then revert back to thin via diet and exercise, is your genetic set point intact (IE high P:ratio) or did it change (IE low P:Ratio). How did losing the adipose change it? How did the years of increased adipose change it? These are still largely unknown.
Secondly the influence of inter-individuality is a big concern and although we see trends based on populations the actual impact per person may swing wildly.
Lastly how much of an impact does training make? IMO it's the largest controllable aspect, besides drugs, insomuch that those who are resistance training (in particular) can greatly shift this P:Ratio to the left. Again this hasn't been investigated to a great degree.
(Totentanz @ Jan. 08 2008,19:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(mikeynov @ Jan. 08 2008,18:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">IIRC, most of the evidence for the partitioning stuff doesn't really work like this, in the sense that people who are NATURALLY lean tend to partition calories well when overfeeding, and people who are NATURALLY overfat tend to do the opposite, and this was the context of that research.
I.e. whether you are a naturally lean guy at 12% and overfeeding or a naturally chubby guy who got down to 12% and decides to overfeed are not even close to the same thing.</div>
Can you elaborate on this? I know that whether you are naturally lean or not has a huge impact, but I was under the impression that bodyfat percentage had some impact as well, and that it's not really a good idea to bulk up much beyond 15%. Does it matter at all?
I've never really worried about it much myself, as I have a hard time getting that fat anyway - the main attraction of cutting down for me is that I won't need as many calories to gain weight when I start bulking again. But I've seen that rule of thumb thrown around a lot in the past and always assumed it was at correct.
Conversely, however, we do have a lot of (well, at least a few anyway) examples of guys who bulked up until they were hugely fat, then cut down and now are complete and total bad asses.</div>
WRT P-Ratio
Many things are still unknown in this. One of the biggies IMO is how does the time one is lean or fat affect this and this has not been studied.
For instance you are naturally lean but let yourself go for a number of years and then revert back to thin via diet and exercise, is your genetic set point intact (IE high P:ratio) or did it change (IE low P:Ratio). How did losing the adipose change it? How did the years of increased adipose change it? These are still largely unknown.
Secondly the influence of inter-individuality is a big concern and although we see trends based on populations the actual impact per person may swing wildly.
Lastly how much of an impact does training make? IMO it's the largest controllable aspect, besides drugs, insomuch that those who are resistance training (in particular) can greatly shift this P:Ratio to the left. Again this hasn't been investigated to a great degree.
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Jan. 09 2008,16:21)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">For instance you are naturally lean but let yourself go for a number of years and then revert back to thin via diet and exercise, is your genetic set point intact (IE high P:ratio) or did it change (IE low P:Ratio). How did losing the adipose change it? How did the years of increased adipose change it? These are still largely unknown.</div>
And, would you have stayed naturally lean even if you hadn't thrown caution to the wind? Perhaps P-ratio shifts occur with ageing as a natural course of events, according to our individual genetic makeup.
Case in point: my brother (now nearly 40) has always been an active and pretty lean fellow. Recently he decided to diet down to see how low he could go. Whilst he hasn't used refeeds (yet) he has managed to get his bodyweight down to below where it was when he was 18. The difference he says is that he now has a region of adipose on his lower midriff that was never there when he was 18. He reckons that he is leaner everywhere else. He's going to see if he can start to reduce it with further dieting and weekend refeeds, whilst adding some resistance training (to reduce any further muscle loss) to go along with his swimming and biking. Should be interesting.
(Dan Moore @ Jan. 09 2008,16:21)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">For instance you are naturally lean but let yourself go for a number of years and then revert back to thin via diet and exercise, is your genetic set point intact (IE high P:ratio) or did it change (IE low P:Ratio). How did losing the adipose change it? How did the years of increased adipose change it? These are still largely unknown.</div>
And, would you have stayed naturally lean even if you hadn't thrown caution to the wind? Perhaps P-ratio shifts occur with ageing as a natural course of events, according to our individual genetic makeup.
Case in point: my brother (now nearly 40) has always been an active and pretty lean fellow. Recently he decided to diet down to see how low he could go. Whilst he hasn't used refeeds (yet) he has managed to get his bodyweight down to below where it was when he was 18. The difference he says is that he now has a region of adipose on his lower midriff that was never there when he was 18. He reckons that he is leaner everywhere else. He's going to see if he can start to reduce it with further dieting and weekend refeeds, whilst adding some resistance training (to reduce any further muscle loss) to go along with his swimming and biking. Should be interesting.
<div>
(Lol @ Jan. 09 2008,12:04)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Case in point: my brother (now nearly 40) has always been an active and pretty lean fellow. Recently he decided to diet down to see how low he could go. Whilst he hasn't used refeeds (yet) he has managed to get his bodyweight down to below where it was when he was 18. The difference he says is that he now has a region of adipose on his lower midriff that was never there when he was 18. He reckons that he is leaner everywhere else. He's going to see if he can start to reduce it with further dieting and weekend refeeds, whilst adding some resistance training (to reduce any further muscle loss) to go along with his swimming and biking. Should be interesting.</div>
Exactly ad how will training change any partitioning affect. What has been seen WRT to P:Ratio has largely been based on a number of short term studies or one long term study. The longer study (Keys et al aka "The Minnesota experiment"
is a fantastic piece of work but it still leaves many questions. When allowed to re-feed it was ad lib and even though at 100% of recovery of fat mass lean mass recovering was still 50% behind but this ad lib refeed is vastly different than what has been seen during periods of growth, for instances see growth recovery in malnutrition of babies, or weanling animals in which the lean mass recovery can and has been a lot higher irregardless of initial adipose levels but the starvation pulling of energy from lean pools was less, so it was an inverse situation. Now since most BB are concerned with growth and even in a fasted state PS rates are still elevated it would only stand to reason that this act in an of itself would dramatically swing the p:ratio. Now I'm not saying that an adult BB will show the same changes as what is seen in babies or weanling animals but I would bet that Resistance training do play a larger role no matter the original genetic set point or the initial adipose levels.
(Lol @ Jan. 09 2008,12:04)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Case in point: my brother (now nearly 40) has always been an active and pretty lean fellow. Recently he decided to diet down to see how low he could go. Whilst he hasn't used refeeds (yet) he has managed to get his bodyweight down to below where it was when he was 18. The difference he says is that he now has a region of adipose on his lower midriff that was never there when he was 18. He reckons that he is leaner everywhere else. He's going to see if he can start to reduce it with further dieting and weekend refeeds, whilst adding some resistance training (to reduce any further muscle loss) to go along with his swimming and biking. Should be interesting.</div>
Exactly ad how will training change any partitioning affect. What has been seen WRT to P:Ratio has largely been based on a number of short term studies or one long term study. The longer study (Keys et al aka "The Minnesota experiment"
is a fantastic piece of work but it still leaves many questions. When allowed to re-feed it was ad lib and even though at 100% of recovery of fat mass lean mass recovering was still 50% behind but this ad lib refeed is vastly different than what has been seen during periods of growth, for instances see growth recovery in malnutrition of babies, or weanling animals in which the lean mass recovery can and has been a lot higher irregardless of initial adipose levels but the starvation pulling of energy from lean pools was less, so it was an inverse situation. Now since most BB are concerned with growth and even in a fasted state PS rates are still elevated it would only stand to reason that this act in an of itself would dramatically swing the p:ratio. Now I'm not saying that an adult BB will show the same changes as what is seen in babies or weanling animals but I would bet that Resistance training do play a larger role no matter the original genetic set point or the initial adipose levels.bluejacket
New Member
<div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Jan. 09 2008,10:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Let me put this in bro terms for myself and someone please tell me if you agree or disagree. This science **** blows my mind.
But study after study after study basically says…and (correct me if I am wrong).
Train each bodypart 2 times a week 3 times a week if you desire.
Use progressive load as often as possible.
Use a set / rep guideline of 50 to 100 reps per week. Ideally starting with around 70% of your 1 rep max and moving up.
Use enough right now volume in each training session (which I think is about 30 reps)
Eat a surplus of calories and for the sake of gaining muscle it doesn’t matter if they are clean or dirty foods just eat a surplus of calories (wendy’s is no better than grilled chicken from home in the muscle building department if a surplus is met).
After you get a surplus of calories make sure you are eating .7 grams of protein per LBM. Personally I think the requirements are probabley lower than .7 but science doesn’t back that up.
I mean isn’t this basically what every study leads too or am I missing something?</div>
joe,
i dont think your too far off the mark with what youve written here. obviously some indiv. w/o or diet protocols will lean heavier on one area or another but overall i think youve hit on the main idea.
as mentioned by others p-ratio, insuline sensitv. issues, genetics etc. still plays a greater role in the changes (or potential for change) that take place then does hitting on the perfect w/o or diet plan. this prob. explains (to a large degree) some of your earlier examples of guys doing less the optimal eating and training yet having superior (relative) results.
(Joe.Muscle @ Jan. 09 2008,10:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Let me put this in bro terms for myself and someone please tell me if you agree or disagree. This science **** blows my mind.
But study after study after study basically says…and (correct me if I am wrong).
Train each bodypart 2 times a week 3 times a week if you desire.
Use progressive load as often as possible.
Use a set / rep guideline of 50 to 100 reps per week. Ideally starting with around 70% of your 1 rep max and moving up.
Use enough right now volume in each training session (which I think is about 30 reps)
Eat a surplus of calories and for the sake of gaining muscle it doesn’t matter if they are clean or dirty foods just eat a surplus of calories (wendy’s is no better than grilled chicken from home in the muscle building department if a surplus is met).
After you get a surplus of calories make sure you are eating .7 grams of protein per LBM. Personally I think the requirements are probabley lower than .7 but science doesn’t back that up.
I mean isn’t this basically what every study leads too or am I missing something?</div>
joe,
i dont think your too far off the mark with what youve written here. obviously some indiv. w/o or diet protocols will lean heavier on one area or another but overall i think youve hit on the main idea.
as mentioned by others p-ratio, insuline sensitv. issues, genetics etc. still plays a greater role in the changes (or potential for change) that take place then does hitting on the perfect w/o or diet plan. this prob. explains (to a large degree) some of your earlier examples of guys doing less the optimal eating and training yet having superior (relative) results.
<div>
(bluejacket @ Jan. 09 2008,20:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">this prob. explains (to a large degree) some of your earlier examples of guys doing less the optimal eating and training yet having superior (relative) results.</div>
Plus there's the relative test level (and other hormones) of each trainee. That will also affect partitioning. Some folks are just born (well, you know figuratively speaking) with a higher level of the good stuff.
(bluejacket @ Jan. 09 2008,20:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">this prob. explains (to a large degree) some of your earlier examples of guys doing less the optimal eating and training yet having superior (relative) results.</div>
Plus there's the relative test level (and other hormones) of each trainee. That will also affect partitioning. Some folks are just born (well, you know figuratively speaking) with a higher level of the good stuff.