RBE, Slow gains and modifying the program.

JV,

Regarding your last post and in defense of HeavyDude, I wrote this as the 1st line on my second post in this thread: "Eating: Yeah, I made dramatic gains and gained some fat when eating big. Then I tried to cut and cut too fast and lost some muscle."

In any case, he is right, it is a dilema for me, I hate to gain any fat because it is hard for me to cut it off and still maintain mass. I feel like I just go back & forth between puffy and skinny. His question (and mine) in regards to that still stands. However, maybe eating more clean when eating for size will help, ok, now I'm just getting ahead of myself, I'll get to that in a minute...

JV, great post regarding the fiber types question, thx! That is pretty much the answer I was expecting. And I do understand what you are saying about lifting light will actually end up developing more type I fibers, making it harder to grow rather than how lifting heavy will eventually lead to having a higher % of type II fibers. I was just testing the waters there, bouncing a theory off of everyone. I have not changed my routine away from lifting heavy (relatively speaking of course).

Good questions HeavyDude, a 400lb squat and liegelord was still skinny, I doubt that, 400lbs is an incredible amount of weight, it hurts my shoulders and back just to imagine hoisting that amount of weight up there, let alone completing a squat with it! And to lift that much and still be "skinny”, sorry, but I can’t believe that.

Yeah! What HeavyDude said, I gain to much fat while bulking (my opinion, apparently some people around here don’t mind gaining an extra 10lbs of fat or so, I do). I also lose too much muscle while cutting. Obviously the easy thing to point at here is diet. But I do count calories, watch fat intake (keeping SF to almost none) etc. I think I eat clean, a lot cleaner than anyone I know. But who knows, maybe eating clean doesn’t matter…some people say calories in vs. calories out is all that matters and what you do to make up those calories is in large part irrelevant. What was the example: you could eat nothing but Oreos and as long as the amount you ate totaled less calories than your maintenance levels you’d still lose weight. Not that I’d suggest a diet like that but it helps illustrate the question:
1) Which is it…really: Is it simply calories in vs. calories out or is eating clean as important as some say it is?

Oh, FAZ, no, that was not my HST routine, it is the routine I am following now, while still sticking to as many HST principles as possible, RBE, progressive loading, etc...Which seems to be giving me better result.

Brak
 
Hey Brak :)

Well, my mistake.

I only read your first and second post. You mentioned that in your third post, which I skipped over. (Yeah, I know "that'd, learn ya!" you say)

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]1) Which is it…really: Is it simply calories in vs. calories out or is eating clean as important as some say it is?
Overall, the most important factor is still the number of calories you take in, so the most effective way is still simply
(calories in > calories out) = weight gain.
If you do that, whether you eat clean or not, you'll gain weight.
If you don't do that, whether you eat clean or not, you won't gain weight, and you'll lose weight if your intake is lower than what you burn.

As for gaining muscle and eating cleanly, take note that you can't just eat "cleanly" by consuming more and more protein and less and less fat and then expect that your muscle gain is getting more and more optimized. You might just end up taking in too much protein. Or too little fat.

Your ability to put on weight is affected by your ratio of protein to carbs. Plotting that in a graph, what will appear is a bell curve, where the highers point (best gain) is when you have 15% protein and 85% carbs. That's when the weight gain is best. If you are a little fat, you can increase protein to 25% to  increase thermogenesis and reduce fat gain.

Also, if you eat "cleanly" and actually lower fat consumption so much, you also lower your testosterone levels. Keeping fat at 30% of your caloric intake is optimum. Too much protein can also lower your free test levels.

Hope that sheds new light to your diet strategy.

Regards and good luck!
-JV
 
Well, Brak, I feel your pain. I have been in the same position for quite some time now. I can gain weight just fine, but no matter how slowly I lose the fat, I end up right back where I started. My last cycle I gained 14 pounds and an inch and a half around my waist. By the time my waist measurement was back down to my pre-bulk size (I took 6 weeks to do it, and never went below maintenance calories), I had lost .... you guessed it, 14 pounds. Unbelievably frustrating.

I've also done several cycles of eating only slightly above maintenance in order to avoid the bulking/cutting dilemma, but, with the exception of one good cycle, never gained another ounce. I have been trying to come up with a solution to this for about a year now.

I have been using HST for a long time now -- a good 6 months before I started posting on this board. I've done TONS of reading and research, and am confident that I understand all of the principles, most of the science, and am doing everything that should work. And yet, I can't break 160 pounds.

Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think that there may not be an answer for guys like us. Not if you want to stay a natural bodybuilder.
 
some say you can cut and still gain muscle some say you cant..is their any scientific evidence that says you have to gain fat to gain muscle,and if there is can you point me to it cheers guys :D
 
Hey guys :)

Semajes, well, I'm really sorry to hear your story. Have you tried Bryan's max-size calculator?
(http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/maximum-size-calculator.html )
I'm thinking you probably already have, but just in case you haven't, check that out. See if your stats are close to what it predicts.

If not, then I'm pretty sure there's still really hope. We may just have to be a little more vigilant in finding it.

Faz, well, nothing actually says fat is necessary to gain muscle, or that fat creation precedes and is a prerequisite to creating new muscle. It's merely the partitioning ratio. As you gain body mass, the body "creates" muscle and fat according to your partitioning ratio - how much muscle to how much fat. The good news is the leaner you are, the better the partitioning ratio becomes (that is, the ratio becomes more muscle to less fat)... the bad news is the fatter you become, the worse the partitioning ratio becomes (that is, the ratio becomes less muscle to more fat).

Regards,
-JV
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (jvroig @ Oct. 06 2005,10:54)]The good news is the leaner you are, the better the partitioning ratio becomes (that is, the ratio becomes more muscle to less fat)...
Only in the case of natural leaness, dieted down leaness changes this.

Fat cells to don't generally disapear, they just lay in waiting. Also fat people still carry a large amount of lean tissue, PL studies have looked at his and even if their fat mass is more than BBs so is their lean.

Exercise has about the best chance of changing P ratios.
 
That does, in a way, support the "ectomorph", "endomorph" and "mesomorph" body types, and I just wanted to avoid it.
Because what actually matters is natural fatness or leanness, this gravitates towards the age-old bodytypes in a way - you can look at it as some people (endomorphs) just have a bad p:ratio, so they just gain fat more than lean body mass, and some people (ectomorphs) just have a fantastic P:ratio working for them.
Well, after all, genetics is a key player in almost everything, so bodybuilding wouldn't really be an exception.
 
JV,

Yeah, I'm nowhere near where my natural limit should be. I'm also naturally lean, so my partitioning ratio should be pretty good. I've tried everything I can think of, and am at a loss.

Isn't it Lyle who says, "your body hates you"? Truer words were never spoken.
 
Sem,

thanks for feeling my pain...I have seen improvement, just not as drastic as articles will lead you to believe. And I just used that calculator, arms 16.8", yeah right, mine are not quite there yet. 44.9" chest, ok, right now I'm more like 41" and that is at 12-14% bf, the calculator said 8%, holy sh*t! Yup, that is where I want to be, all those measurements along with 8% bf. On the sidebar it said after years of bodybuilding. I've only been at this for a year, how many years is reasonable to think that we should see a dramatic difference?

Sounds like we are ectos, Sem. I did not understand this to mean that we have a great partitioning ratio, I understood it to mean that we are simply naturally skinny. So why do we gain fat when we over eat to gain muscle if we are so dang skinny, arrgh!

JV, the macro nutrient ratio you just quoted is outrageous! I have always been fed the line that to lose fat you should cut back on the amount of carbs you eat. So to gain some muscle without fat it seemed resonable to eat more protien than carbs and keep carbs whole grain and to a minimum. Fats, not a problem, I am good at eating healthy fats. I get about 6 pills of fish oil a day, and eat things like nuts, olive oil, etc...good amounts of fat, but very little saturated fat. My macros go about like this: 55% protein, 25% carbs, 20% fats. Hmmm, perhaps this is the problem. Maybe that is why strength gains are so hard to come by...not enough fuel in the tank. But how do I keep eating the 1g of protein per pound of body weight, keep getting a proper amount of healthy fats and increase my carb intake? To even go up to 40%/40%/20%, while keeping 1g of protein per pound, I'd go from 1800-2100 cals per day to 2800-3100. That is scary, I'd think I'd gain fat like Oprah during the holidays.

Ok, so let's say I try a macro ratio more like that...is there a better time to eat carbs to keep from having an insulin response turn it into fat rather than muscle fuel? Sometimes you read that exercise uses carbs for fuel, so do you carb up before workouts? OR - Sometimes you read that glycogen is depleted after a workout so mass consumption of carbs after workouts is good because all of them go to glycogen replenishment and cannot be stored as fat. Which is it? Or, is it both? I don't want to hear that it is both, because if I am going to eat that many calories I'm going to have to be diligent about doing cardio on off days which mean exercising every day, which means I'd be eating carbs all the time, I've been there, done that and gained muscle and fat, much like Sem described. I'd like to hear the some secret tips about how to eat big, plan carb consumption around workouts strategically to minimize fat gain, learn about why people say I need to eat clean when others say, it doesn't matter, it's calories in vs. calories out, etc. I have learned a lot about bodybuilding training, and there is a lot of info on the web about nutrition, but very little information about nutrition specifically geared to body building (gaining weight without gaining fat), all the advice on nutrition is geared toward losing weight, which many take to mean, losing fat. I am starting to think there is a difference, a big one, and I am a little lost on the kind of nutritional advice someone like me would need to work toward my goals. dang, this is quite difficult.

Dan, your posts are unusually short, I was hoping you'd have much more to say since you are so in the know.

Oh, and JV, I can't believe no one jumped on you for speading the rumor that fat increases test levels. I have seen many posts here from people who seem to know what they are talking about and they claim that is simply not proven and is a typical gym science rumor. Personally, I have no idea, I just flounder around believing what people tell me, especially when they back it up with facts and studies like Bryan, Dan and and many others do. So, JV, thank you very much for all the advice you are giving here, any advice is hard to come by.

Sorry if the long posts are getting annoying, what can I say, I do go on.

Brak
 
Hey Brak :)

(oh, btw, I love the Brak Show, it's outrageous.)

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Oh, and JV, I can't believe no one jumped on you for speading the rumor that fat increases test levels.
Oh, you hurt me, Brak. No one jumped on me because I didn't "spread" some old BB myth or folklore.
What I said was:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Also, if you eat "cleanly" and actually lower fat consumption so much, you also lower your testosterone levels. Keeping fat at 30% of your caloric intake is optimum. Too much protein can also lower your free test levels.
All the fat in the world won't actually increase your test levels. What I said was that if your fat consumption is really way way below what it should be, it affects your test levels negatively. So if you have normal test levels but you eat too little fat (say 5-10%), you might be lowering your test levels to a very undesireable level. But if your normal test level (meaning when you have adequte nutrition including fat consumption) is really below normal, eating a truckload more of fats (no matter what kind: saturated fat, polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, trans fats) won't do you any good as far as your testosterone level is conerned.

There, all clear I hope? :)

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Personally, I have no idea, I just flounder around believing what people tell me, especially when they back it up with facts and studies like Bryan, Dan and and many others do. So, JV, thank you very much for all the advice you are giving here, any advice is hard to come by.
Well, after saying I spread rumors and myths and "gym science", this line strikes me as being a very sarcastic one. I hope that's not the case, and I'm sorry if you feel my "advice" is not based on science or research. Whatever I say doesn't really have to make sense for you - if they don't, then simply don't follow them, it's not like I would be mad at you or lose sleep over it.

All I can say now is you should visit the HST FAQ. Most of your concerns can actually be found in the HST FAQ. They are all explained there, I promise. And you'll find I didn't really tell you any different from what you can learn from the FAQ.

As for Dan's short posts, well, he's far from being selfish, but
he probably wants you to do some reading for yourself (i.e., the HST FAQ), since most of your concerns are found there actually, and in the process you'll most probably learn even more than what you were initially searching for.
 
Brak,

55% of your calories are coming from protein?!? That's over 250 grams of protein for a 2000 calorie/day diet. Wow.

As far as carbs and timing and all that, ... it doesn't seem to make all that much difference, but I think that there is some info on that in the faq. For the most part, I think that there are some who, anecdotally, will swear that certain things work. But as far as being able to consistently reproduce results (based on timing of macronutrients, blah, blah, blah), science tells us that it won't make much, if any, difference.

Once again I am the voice of doom. ;)
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Heavy Duty dude @ Oct. 04 2005,1:51)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (liegelord @ Oct. 01 2005,12:24)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
I was so tired of being skinny while squatting and deadlifting 400 lbs that I just don't care if I put some fat on.  I started HST in Nov. 04 at 174 at 5'11 and now weigh 215; a gain of 41 pounds.  Yes, some is fat, probably a good eight pounds.  
Are you natural?
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
If you want to get bigger, then train according to the HST principals and eat over maintenance.  I think Ectosquat was the one who wrote there are no "hardgainers" only under-eaters.  Don't worry about getting some fat, you can always diet it off.
Brak has explained his problem. He gained muscle initially but too much fat. When he tried to lose the fat he lost the muscle with it. So what do you suggest?

Yes I'm natural.  I would suggest he may have eaten too much and should watch his diet better.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Brak @ Oct. 06 2005,8:31)]Dan, your posts are unusually short, I was hoping you'd have much more to say since you are so in the know.
I'm practicing the Aaron_F speed posting method ;)
 
Dan, you are funny! That is so true, I remember reading Aaron's posts and thinking, dang, this guy really knows his stuff, why won't he offer up anythng more than one liners? Ah, I suppose that is the way, the more you know, the less you post, Bryan almost never posts. Ah, but I do generalize, there are notable exceptions to every rule. Like JVROIG...

JV, when I said I flounder about I meant to imply that I don't really know one way or another how fats affect test levels. Given that, I also meant to convey that when I was speaking about you spreading gym rumors I was speaking for the people whom I was surprised didn't jump on you. I've seen people chime in with comments like the ones I made, so I repeated what I heard them say so I could get your take on it. And as with the rest of your posts you handled it quite well and made clear for me something that had been confusing me even though I had done some reading about it. When I thanked you, it was sincere, when I said I believe what people tell me, I meant you and others who post on this site. I used Dan & Bryan as an example of people who cite specific studies, because, well, they do and since they do, it is very easy to believe their advice. When people post on a board that they lurk on, it is good to know that almost any advice given on that board will be either solid, or will be struck down by them. Internet boards and e-mails are funny in that without being able to hear the tone of one's voice, it is easy to misunderstand someone's intent. Nah, I didn't mean to sound sarcastic and had we been able to have a real conversation, I'm sure I wouldn't have. I do thank you for the advice. And it is good to find someone else who enjoys making long posts while explaining things well, keep em coming man!

So are you saying the answer to my specific question about timing of carb consumption is in the FAQ...I think not...I've read em all. But I could be wrong I suppose.

Thanks all,
Brak
PS-Yeah, All Hail Brak. (The "real" one, not me).
 
Hey Brak :)
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Ah, I suppose that is the way, the more you know, the less you post, Bryan almost never posts. Ah, but I do generalize, there are notable exceptions to every rule. Like JVROIG...
Umm... no, I'm not the exception to that observation. The exception is Dan The Man (DKM). Saying I'm the exception would be giving me too much credit. Let's give credit to those who deserve it, and that would be Dan in this case. Way to go Dan, ur the man
thumbs-up.gif


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So are you saying the answer to my specific question about timing of carb consumption is in the FAQ...I think not...I've read em all. But I could be wrong I suppose.
Not just the timing of carb consumption... I meant almost all of your concerns you voiced out here, and even what I said.
For example:
- Fiber Types - in the FAQ
- Effect of Training Type I only - somewhere in the FAQ
- the macronutrient ratio I said that you described as outrageous - also in the FAQ
- timing of carbs - yes, in the FAQ

Well, might as well answer your questions since I'm already typing away anyway.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]is there a better time to eat carbs to keep from having an insulin response turn it into fat rather than muscle fuel? Sometimes you read that exercise uses carbs for fuel, so do you carb up before workouts? OR - Sometimes you read that glycogen is depleted after a workout so mass consumption of carbs after workouts is good because all of them go to glycogen replenishment and cannot be stored as fat. Which is it? Or, is it both?

Let's start at why you should eat more carbs (since you mentioned that you eat more protein than carbs, right?). Like previously mentioned, if you want to gain weight, the optimum ratio of protein to carbs is around 15:85. That doesn't mean you won't gain weight with any other ratio (like 30:70 for example), but around 15:85 is the peak of the bell curve of the graph that plots the relationship between mass gain and protein-carb ratio.

Also, you should remember that protein is always more anabolic with carbs. As "The Bryan" once posted, it is important to get in carbs (a lot of them) in order to have a more anabolic environment.

You also asked how you can get in 1g protein/lb of bodyweight if you want to increase the carb intake and regulate fat intake into something like 30%? Good question. The answer is that you may actually be eating too much protein anyway. It is more accurate to use fat-free mass (FFM) when measuring your protein intake - so your "needed" protein intake will now be reduced a little already, since you now count only FFM. Plus the often-quoted "optimum" protein intake of 1g/lb of bodyweight is rounded up, 0.7g/lb is the actual mean - again, this brings down your "needed" protein intake a lot. If that's not enough, you can still bring it down more, I remember that 0.8 - 1.5g/kg is sufficient (take note, that is per kilogram of bodyweight, not pound, which is why you'll come up with less protein requirement), as Dan once posted, and Aaron also didn't say any different.

As for timing of carbs... it makes little difference when you eat your carbs if what you are looking for is "how to make my body turn them into muscle instead of fat". It doesn't work that way. Like I already mentioned in a post in this same thread in answer to a concern by Faz, how much muscle and fat you gain when you gain mass is determined by your partitioning ratio. And as Dan noted, exercise has the best chance to change that. Timing your carbs to affect the partitioning ratio will simply frustrate you.

But that's not to say timing your carbs won't have any good effect at all. If you want fat to be mobilized more in your workout, don't include carbs in your pre-workout nutrition. You may also want to cut back a little on the carbs on your meal before your workout. Take note that this won't mean you'll be a fat-burning furnace, but it will help, and sometimes every little bit helps.
 
Thanks man! Lots of good stuff there. When you said this: "If you want fat to be mobilized more in your workout, don't include carbs in your pre-workout nutrition. You may also want to cut back a little on the carbs on your meal before your workout. Take note that this won't mean you'll be a fat-burning furnace, but it will help, and sometimes every little bit helps"
That was exactly the kind of advice I was looking for.
And thanks for easing the pain of gulping down mega amounts of protein, carbs are far less expensive and a better balance seems like it will do me a lot of good. Woohoo!

Care to entertain another question?

So if I can feel free to eat carbs and I want a certain amount of fat...then what the heck is "eating clean" I understand I don't want too much of anything, but what is a dirty food while eating clean. Fruit is a healthy carb and as such would seem like fair game, but it is packed with sugar, is sugar dirty or clean? Many think that low-fat is eating clean, but getting a good amount of healthy fat is contrary to that...well, ok, I think everyone agrees that saturated fat and trans fat is "dirty" when "eating clean". Anything else to be on the lookout for?

Thx again,
Craig
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Brak @ Oct. 07 2005,8:09)]then what the heck is "eating clean" I understand I don't want too much of anything, but what is a dirty food while eating clean. Fruit is a healthy carb and as such would seem like fair game, but it is packed with sugar, is sugar dirty or clean? Many think that low-fat is eating clean, but getting a good amount of healthy fat is contrary to that...well, ok, I think everyone agrees that saturated fat and trans fat is "dirty" when "eating clean". Anything else to be on the lookout for?
Thx again,
Craig
What I want to know is what is Dirty Dancing?? IS there really anything called Clean Dancing?? What if the dancing isn't quite Dirty but maybe Dusty?? What constitutes "Dusty" dancing?? Is "Dirty" Dancing better or worse than say..."Muddy" dancing or "Grubby" dancing or "FILTHY" dancing??

Moral of the story, what is clean, what is dirty eating? Brings to mind lucid dreams of me and Jennifer Anniston on a beach but that's another story, dang sand :mad:
 
In Bryan's most recent "Think Muscle" newsletter, he quoted a study comparing the fat oxidation rates during workouts between a group taking high GI carbs and low GI carbs before hand....low GI burnt more fat.
 
I work in the medical device manufacturing industry and sometimes we would get complaints about there being a grain or two of dirt in with the product. But it had been sterilized. So it was clean dirt.
 
Back
Top