I'm starting to become skeptical
- Thread starter Joe.Muscle
- Start date
Morgoth the Dark Enemy
New Member
<div>
(colby2152 @ Nov. 01 2007,05:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well, to clarify what my definition of a slow bulk is:
About 250 calories above maintenance level for daily caloric intake.</div>
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO 250 calories over maintenance has effects along the lines of jacksquat
(colby2152 @ Nov. 01 2007,05:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well, to clarify what my definition of a slow bulk is:
About 250 calories above maintenance level for daily caloric intake.</div>
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO 250 calories over maintenance has effects along the lines of jacksquat
Fausto
HST Expert
I just picked this up and think this is really relevant.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The Secret To Bodybuilding Success
The secret to achieving bodybuilding success is a combination of factors described by the formula below:
No matter what your goals are, the formula for success will guarantee that you get the results you want. The only thing that differs is the way in which each individual has to implement it.
This is due to the fact that each individual has different goals. For example, most women like to tone up their waist, legs, and their arms while most men are interested in getting large amounts of muscle size everywhere.
The formula is the following:
S=Dx (T+N+R)
Where:
S is the success that you achieve in your program.
D is the determination that you have to achieve success.
T is the bodybuilding training that you'll use.
N is your nutritional program designed for either lean muscle gains or fat loss.
And R stands for rest & recovery.
How to Apply the Formula
Each component in the formula above can only have two values. A value of 1 is given to a component if it is followed completely.
A value of 0 is given to any component that is not followed or followed halfway.
Therefore, if every single component is followed, you get a maximum value of 3.
In this case the person will get the fastest results possible from their program. If the person stops following one of the components inside of the parenthesis then you get a lesser value and not optimal results.
However note that if you don't have any determination you get a value of 0 and then your whole program fails as you won't get any results.
The reason for this is because determination is by far the most important factor in determining the amount of success you will achieve in your bodybuilding program.
After examining the formula above, now it is easy to see why just purchasing a sophisticated gadget or a couple of "magic pills" at the health food store are not going to cut it.
In order to achieve permanent weight loss all of the factors described above have to be present and in perfect harmony.
Follow one, but not the other one, and your success will be negatively affected. Now that you have an idea of what it will take to get the body of your dreams, let's go into each of the individual components of the formula for success. </div>
Whichever way I look at it I score 66.67% because my nutrition is only followed about halfway, so 2/3 = 66.67%, kinda makes sense why my gains are what they are
Note, I am not complaining, simply being honest, if I want better I gotta jack it up, its that simple!
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The Secret To Bodybuilding Success
The secret to achieving bodybuilding success is a combination of factors described by the formula below:
No matter what your goals are, the formula for success will guarantee that you get the results you want. The only thing that differs is the way in which each individual has to implement it.
This is due to the fact that each individual has different goals. For example, most women like to tone up their waist, legs, and their arms while most men are interested in getting large amounts of muscle size everywhere.
The formula is the following:
S=Dx (T+N+R)
Where:
S is the success that you achieve in your program.
D is the determination that you have to achieve success.
T is the bodybuilding training that you'll use.
N is your nutritional program designed for either lean muscle gains or fat loss.
And R stands for rest & recovery.
How to Apply the Formula
Each component in the formula above can only have two values. A value of 1 is given to a component if it is followed completely.
A value of 0 is given to any component that is not followed or followed halfway.
Therefore, if every single component is followed, you get a maximum value of 3.
In this case the person will get the fastest results possible from their program. If the person stops following one of the components inside of the parenthesis then you get a lesser value and not optimal results.
However note that if you don't have any determination you get a value of 0 and then your whole program fails as you won't get any results.
The reason for this is because determination is by far the most important factor in determining the amount of success you will achieve in your bodybuilding program.
After examining the formula above, now it is easy to see why just purchasing a sophisticated gadget or a couple of "magic pills" at the health food store are not going to cut it.
In order to achieve permanent weight loss all of the factors described above have to be present and in perfect harmony.
Follow one, but not the other one, and your success will be negatively affected. Now that you have an idea of what it will take to get the body of your dreams, let's go into each of the individual components of the formula for success. </div>
Whichever way I look at it I score 66.67% because my nutrition is only followed about halfway, so 2/3 = 66.67%, kinda makes sense why my gains are what they are
Note, I am not complaining, simply being honest, if I want better I gotta jack it up, its that simple!
Personally, I don't think slow bulking is a good idea. Maintenance is always just an estimate. It probably has a margin of error of around 200 calories either way. Just keep your weight gain under control, don't go overboard on your bulks and you should be fine. Regardless of what you do, you will have to cut eventually if you want to keep bodyfat at a certain level.
<div>
(Totentanz @ Nov. 01 2007,07:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Personally, I don't think slow bulking is a good idea. Maintenance is always just an estimate. It probably has a margin of error of around 200 calories either way. Just keep your weight gain under control, don't go overboard on your bulks and you should be fine. Regardless of what you do, you will have to cut eventually if you want to keep bodyfat at a certain level.</div>
This is probably my last comment on the subject as I'll just hold my views of the slow bulk to myself for now on. I really didn't think people would get up in arms about my recommendation of a slow bulk to Joe. I figured he was sick of cutting, but wanted size. The same old bulking and cutting routine wasn't working for him. This was simply an alternative. The results come in slower, but if done right, the results do indeed appear.
Anything about calories is a pure estimate, but after a few weeks of experimentation and careful recording, a person can fine-tune those estimates to be extremely good estimates. Without that, the slow bulk has a lot of variance and is inefficient. Most people are fine with bulking and cutting, and some despise cutting and will want to use a slow bulk. The unfortunate side of a slow bulk is that it is slow. For your bodyfat% to drop, it takes a good amount of time. You also have to precise with calorie counting and the amount of calories you burn because there is a fine line to be walked between maintenance and bulking.
Personally, I won't try and slow bulk until I get to at least 11% bodyfat, and even then I may still continue to cut since I would have been very adapted to a cut at that point. Once again, I was showing Joe an alternative to something that wasn't working for him. Maybe slow bulks wouldn't work as efficiently for some people, but maybe they will. You can't knock something until you try it. This is just my two cents.
(Totentanz @ Nov. 01 2007,07:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Personally, I don't think slow bulking is a good idea. Maintenance is always just an estimate. It probably has a margin of error of around 200 calories either way. Just keep your weight gain under control, don't go overboard on your bulks and you should be fine. Regardless of what you do, you will have to cut eventually if you want to keep bodyfat at a certain level.</div>
This is probably my last comment on the subject as I'll just hold my views of the slow bulk to myself for now on. I really didn't think people would get up in arms about my recommendation of a slow bulk to Joe. I figured he was sick of cutting, but wanted size. The same old bulking and cutting routine wasn't working for him. This was simply an alternative. The results come in slower, but if done right, the results do indeed appear.
Anything about calories is a pure estimate, but after a few weeks of experimentation and careful recording, a person can fine-tune those estimates to be extremely good estimates. Without that, the slow bulk has a lot of variance and is inefficient. Most people are fine with bulking and cutting, and some despise cutting and will want to use a slow bulk. The unfortunate side of a slow bulk is that it is slow. For your bodyfat% to drop, it takes a good amount of time. You also have to precise with calorie counting and the amount of calories you burn because there is a fine line to be walked between maintenance and bulking.
Personally, I won't try and slow bulk until I get to at least 11% bodyfat, and even then I may still continue to cut since I would have been very adapted to a cut at that point. Once again, I was showing Joe an alternative to something that wasn't working for him. Maybe slow bulks wouldn't work as efficiently for some people, but maybe they will. You can't knock something until you try it. This is just my two cents.
Morgoth the Dark Enemy
New Member
<div>
(colby2152 @ Nov. 01 2007,15:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Nov. 01 2007,07:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Personally, I don't think slow bulking is a good idea. Maintenance is always just an estimate. It probably has a margin of error of around 200 calories either way. Just keep your weight gain under control, don't go overboard on your bulks and you should be fine. Regardless of what you do, you will have to cut eventually if you want to keep bodyfat at a certain level.</div>
This is probably my last comment on the subject as I'll just hold my views of the slow bulk to myself for now on. I really didn't think people would get up in arms about my recommendation of a slow bulk to Joe. I figured he was sick of cutting, but wanted size. The same old bulking and cutting routine wasn't working for him. This was simply an alternative. The results come in slower, but if done right, the results do indeed appear.
Anything about calories is a pure estimate, but after a few weeks of experimentation and careful recording, a person can fine-tune those estimates to be extremely good estimates. Without that, the slow bulk has a lot of variance and is inefficient. Most people are fine with bulking and cutting, and some despise cutting and will want to use a slow bulk. The unfortunate side of a slow bulk is that it is slow. For your bodyfat% to drop, it takes a good amount of time. You also have to precise with calorie counting and the amount of calories you burn because there is a fine line to be walked between maintenance and bulking.
Personally, I won't try and slow bulk until I get to at least 11% bodyfat, and even then I may still continue to cut since I would have been very adapted to a cut at that point. Once again, I was showing Joe an alternative to something that wasn't working for him. Maybe slow bulks wouldn't work as efficiently for some people, but maybe they will. You can't knock something until you try it. This is just my two cents.</div>
Then I should definitely try Brian D. Johnston's BlowRep...erm, JRep training, because knocking it otherwise is an impossibility. And Beyonce's Capsaicin&Coffee diet. And a throng of other things. If you bring something up for debate, debate it, don't throw in the towel and say:I just wanted to be helpful, but you meanies are reaming my advice. We're having an exchange, I certainly have an open mind and would like to see proper support for the slow-bulk theory, beyond:"It worked for me".
Sure, we're stealing Joe's thread, but I don't think he minds...does he?
(colby2152 @ Nov. 01 2007,15:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Nov. 01 2007,07:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Personally, I don't think slow bulking is a good idea. Maintenance is always just an estimate. It probably has a margin of error of around 200 calories either way. Just keep your weight gain under control, don't go overboard on your bulks and you should be fine. Regardless of what you do, you will have to cut eventually if you want to keep bodyfat at a certain level.</div>
This is probably my last comment on the subject as I'll just hold my views of the slow bulk to myself for now on. I really didn't think people would get up in arms about my recommendation of a slow bulk to Joe. I figured he was sick of cutting, but wanted size. The same old bulking and cutting routine wasn't working for him. This was simply an alternative. The results come in slower, but if done right, the results do indeed appear.
Anything about calories is a pure estimate, but after a few weeks of experimentation and careful recording, a person can fine-tune those estimates to be extremely good estimates. Without that, the slow bulk has a lot of variance and is inefficient. Most people are fine with bulking and cutting, and some despise cutting and will want to use a slow bulk. The unfortunate side of a slow bulk is that it is slow. For your bodyfat% to drop, it takes a good amount of time. You also have to precise with calorie counting and the amount of calories you burn because there is a fine line to be walked between maintenance and bulking.
Personally, I won't try and slow bulk until I get to at least 11% bodyfat, and even then I may still continue to cut since I would have been very adapted to a cut at that point. Once again, I was showing Joe an alternative to something that wasn't working for him. Maybe slow bulks wouldn't work as efficiently for some people, but maybe they will. You can't knock something until you try it. This is just my two cents.</div>
Then I should definitely try Brian D. Johnston's BlowRep...erm, JRep training, because knocking it otherwise is an impossibility. And Beyonce's Capsaicin&Coffee diet. And a throng of other things. If you bring something up for debate, debate it, don't throw in the towel and say:I just wanted to be helpful, but you meanies are reaming my advice. We're having an exchange, I certainly have an open mind and would like to see proper support for the slow-bulk theory, beyond:"It worked for me".
Sure, we're stealing Joe's thread, but I don't think he minds...does he?
I said everything I have to say regarding a slow bulk except for the following...
For natural trainees, there is a limit of how much muscle they can put on within a span of time such as one week. It has been said that 500 calories over maintenance levels for daily caloric intake is the safe threshold for bulking (i.e. that's enough calories to hit that predisposed muscle gain limit for the average human being). However, a decent increase in adipose tissue is the side effect that comes along with trying to put on a sensible amount of muscle at one time. If a person wants to be healthy and/or look good, then they will need to cut calories to revert back to that state of leanness/low bf%. Cutting has a side effect of losing muscle even if done perfectly right. After bulks and cuts, a person will naturally become more muscular than they started. I am not against bulking and cutting for this reason, but for the following.... People hate cutting... most of us love to eat, so why not find a happy medium (literally) for bulking. Half of 500 calories above maintenance is 250. Obviously, a wrong BMR measurement or exercise estimate or missed donut here can really throw off those 250 calories and you could be eating at maintenance or full bulking. Slow bulks take careful measurements which is one reason why most people wouldn't want to do that. Anyone who knows me knows that I am anal retentive in regards to calorie counting, so it's not a problem for me. Back to the slow bulk... Now the 250 calories won't cover the limit of the amount of muscle that could be gained. Speaking from personal experience and other people's stories, some can gain more than .5lbs of MUSCLE per week on a REGULAR BULK. However, the 250 calories can be spent MOSTLY on building muscle through protein synthesis. Fat gain will be inevitable. I was never saying someone would gain 100% muscle and 0% fat, that is just ludacrous. What I am saying is that the amount of fat gained may bea significantly small amount that even though the amount of adipose tissue on your body goes up, you gain much more muscle and the resulting body fat% lowers. I don't have any scientific backing which is perhaps why you wouldn't listen to me. I am simply speaking from experience. Nevertheless, it seemed like a sensible approach for Joe.
For natural trainees, there is a limit of how much muscle they can put on within a span of time such as one week. It has been said that 500 calories over maintenance levels for daily caloric intake is the safe threshold for bulking (i.e. that's enough calories to hit that predisposed muscle gain limit for the average human being). However, a decent increase in adipose tissue is the side effect that comes along with trying to put on a sensible amount of muscle at one time. If a person wants to be healthy and/or look good, then they will need to cut calories to revert back to that state of leanness/low bf%. Cutting has a side effect of losing muscle even if done perfectly right. After bulks and cuts, a person will naturally become more muscular than they started. I am not against bulking and cutting for this reason, but for the following.... People hate cutting... most of us love to eat, so why not find a happy medium (literally) for bulking. Half of 500 calories above maintenance is 250. Obviously, a wrong BMR measurement or exercise estimate or missed donut here can really throw off those 250 calories and you could be eating at maintenance or full bulking. Slow bulks take careful measurements which is one reason why most people wouldn't want to do that. Anyone who knows me knows that I am anal retentive in regards to calorie counting, so it's not a problem for me. Back to the slow bulk... Now the 250 calories won't cover the limit of the amount of muscle that could be gained. Speaking from personal experience and other people's stories, some can gain more than .5lbs of MUSCLE per week on a REGULAR BULK. However, the 250 calories can be spent MOSTLY on building muscle through protein synthesis. Fat gain will be inevitable. I was never saying someone would gain 100% muscle and 0% fat, that is just ludacrous. What I am saying is that the amount of fat gained may bea significantly small amount that even though the amount of adipose tissue on your body goes up, you gain much more muscle and the resulting body fat% lowers. I don't have any scientific backing which is perhaps why you wouldn't listen to me. I am simply speaking from experience. Nevertheless, it seemed like a sensible approach for Joe.
i think a lot of this depends on your goals,ie if you are a competative bbr then a slow bulk would probably not be your best option,but if you just want to gain some muscle while looking good in the street,then eatinf slightly above maintanance might be better suited to you.
i am not a bbr and have never dieted or intend to
if i need to lose some weight i either carry on eating the same and up the exercise,or just cut out the crap in my diet,or both.
i feel sorry for those top bbrs especially naturals who have to diet for 12 or 16 wks a couple of times a year in the long run it surely cant be good for you,its a bit like yoyo dieting.
also working out your maintanace then adding or reducing is all a bit to anal for me,as well as being almost impossible as my activity levels etc change almost every day.
i am not a bbr and have never dieted or intend to
i feel sorry for those top bbrs especially naturals who have to diet for 12 or 16 wks a couple of times a year in the long run it surely cant be good for you,its a bit like yoyo dieting.
also working out your maintanace then adding or reducing is all a bit to anal for me,as well as being almost impossible as my activity levels etc change almost every day.
I agree with Colby and Faz and would add that for us older guys, 250 over maint. IS a bulk...since fat accumulates much easier than before, and muscle gets really hard to grow.
I'm NOT anal about cals, but can tell by feel what maintenance is. I can stay at a given weight and never look at a scale or nutrition code on a package. I basically just "eat too much" when gaining weight and stay a bit hungry when I feel fat.
If I were totally committed to really blowing my proportions out rather than just easing my way up, I'd just pay more attention to how much I eat and stay away from maintenance...which I call the "comfort zone"!
I'm NOT anal about cals, but can tell by feel what maintenance is. I can stay at a given weight and never look at a scale or nutrition code on a package. I basically just "eat too much" when gaining weight and stay a bit hungry when I feel fat.
If I were totally committed to really blowing my proportions out rather than just easing my way up, I'd just pay more attention to how much I eat and stay away from maintenance...which I call the "comfort zone"!
Change within a program or changing programs is good but it is important to recognize that you will go nowhere with any program if you don’t evaluate certain variables:
Testosterone Levels. If you don’t have any fuel in your car, you cannot start it, period. To gain lean muscle mass, you need to be producing testosterone. If your levels are below 300 or so ng/dl, your lifting results will be unsatisfactory no matter how perfect everything else is. Have your levels checked. Try to get them up to at least the 500-600 range. Testosterone levels can be influenced by many factors. However, to maximize your levels, don’t smoke, lay off alcohol in excess, eat a clean diet, take herbal supplements if necessary don't overdue cardio or, if you are on the downside of midlife like me, consider Androgel. See an Endochronologist to get evaluated.
Diet. Eat clean. Diet is really important if you want to add lean mass. If you just want to bulk up, it is not as important. I typically prioritize my food intake by protein, good fats, complex carbs, simple carbs, bad fats.
Stress. Limit it in your life to the extent you can or it will limit your results. Stress not only defeats results but it indirectly kills more people than anything else. There are ways to deal with it. Try some of them.
Sleep. Get enough of it, at least 7 to 8 hours per night, consistently.
Go get em Joe.
By the way, I have been and still am a firm believer of slow bulking...at least for me.
Testosterone Levels. If you don’t have any fuel in your car, you cannot start it, period. To gain lean muscle mass, you need to be producing testosterone. If your levels are below 300 or so ng/dl, your lifting results will be unsatisfactory no matter how perfect everything else is. Have your levels checked. Try to get them up to at least the 500-600 range. Testosterone levels can be influenced by many factors. However, to maximize your levels, don’t smoke, lay off alcohol in excess, eat a clean diet, take herbal supplements if necessary don't overdue cardio or, if you are on the downside of midlife like me, consider Androgel. See an Endochronologist to get evaluated.
Diet. Eat clean. Diet is really important if you want to add lean mass. If you just want to bulk up, it is not as important. I typically prioritize my food intake by protein, good fats, complex carbs, simple carbs, bad fats.
Stress. Limit it in your life to the extent you can or it will limit your results. Stress not only defeats results but it indirectly kills more people than anything else. There are ways to deal with it. Try some of them.
Sleep. Get enough of it, at least 7 to 8 hours per night, consistently.
Go get em Joe.
By the way, I have been and still am a firm believer of slow bulking...at least for me.
But are you improving your P-ratio when you slow bulk? If not, then really you are just taking longer to get to where you would have got if on a faster bulk - the bigger eater will have already bought the t-shirt and left the building. If you are improving your P-ratio by slow bulking then can you explain how and by approx. how much?
Morgoth the Dark Enemy
New Member
<div>
(Lol @ Nov. 03 2007,04:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But are you improving your P-ratio when you slow bulk? If not, then really you are just taking longer to get to where you would have got if on a faster bulk - the bigger eater will have already bought the t-shirt and left the building. If you are improving your P-ratio by slow bulking then can you explain how and by approx. how much?</div>
Good question. And you're a naughty boy for asking it.
(Lol @ Nov. 03 2007,04:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But are you improving your P-ratio when you slow bulk? If not, then really you are just taking longer to get to where you would have got if on a faster bulk - the bigger eater will have already bought the t-shirt and left the building. If you are improving your P-ratio by slow bulking then can you explain how and by approx. how much?</div>
Good question. And you're a naughty boy for asking it.
<div>
(Lol @ Nov. 02 2007,21:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But are you improving your P-ratio when you slow bulk? If not, then really you are just taking longer to get to where you would have got if on a faster bulk - the bigger eater will have already bought the t-shirt and left the building. If you are improving your P-ratio by slow bulking then can you explain how and by approx. how much?</div>
I personally don't see how they could be, it doesn't work that way.
There is definately some wisdom in what O&G said, espeically the hormones comment, this has a great influence over P-Ratios as does exercise but without any influence from exogenous hormones I don't see it changing much.
(Lol @ Nov. 02 2007,21:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But are you improving your P-ratio when you slow bulk? If not, then really you are just taking longer to get to where you would have got if on a faster bulk - the bigger eater will have already bought the t-shirt and left the building. If you are improving your P-ratio by slow bulking then can you explain how and by approx. how much?</div>
I personally don't see how they could be, it doesn't work that way.
There is definately some wisdom in what O&G said, espeically the hormones comment, this has a great influence over P-Ratios as does exercise but without any influence from exogenous hormones I don't see it changing much.
Morgoth the Dark Enemy
New Member
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Nov. 03 2007,15:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Lol @ Nov. 02 2007,21:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But are you improving your P-ratio when you slow bulk? If not, then really you are just taking longer to get to where you would have got if on a faster bulk - the bigger eater will have already bought the t-shirt and left the building. If you are improving your P-ratio by slow bulking then can you explain how and by approx. how much?</div>
I personally don't see how they could be, it doesn't work that way.
There is definately some wisdom in what O&G said, espeically the hormones comment, this has a great influence over P-Ratios as does exercise but without any influence from exogenous hormones I don't see it changing much.</div>
Well, there's the catch 101 of things, which I've mentioned before:even with drug use, which pretty much means optimal(as in as good as one is ever going to get) partitioning, you know as well as I do that ppl still gain fat, even with moderate excedents. I think this will eventually be the great perk of gene therapy/some selective drug that shunts nutrients towards muscle solely...I'm not aware of anything doing this ATM.
(Dan Moore @ Nov. 03 2007,15:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Lol @ Nov. 02 2007,21:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But are you improving your P-ratio when you slow bulk? If not, then really you are just taking longer to get to where you would have got if on a faster bulk - the bigger eater will have already bought the t-shirt and left the building. If you are improving your P-ratio by slow bulking then can you explain how and by approx. how much?</div>
I personally don't see how they could be, it doesn't work that way.
There is definately some wisdom in what O&G said, espeically the hormones comment, this has a great influence over P-Ratios as does exercise but without any influence from exogenous hormones I don't see it changing much.</div>
Well, there's the catch 101 of things, which I've mentioned before:even with drug use, which pretty much means optimal(as in as good as one is ever going to get) partitioning, you know as well as I do that ppl still gain fat, even with moderate excedents. I think this will eventually be the great perk of gene therapy/some selective drug that shunts nutrients towards muscle solely...I'm not aware of anything doing this ATM.
<div>
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Nov. 03 2007,19:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think this will eventually be the great perk of gene therapy/some selective drug that shunts nutrients towards muscle solely...I'm not aware of anything doing this ATM.</div>
Me either. So I'll just keep buying new trousers!
(Morgoth the Dark Enemy @ Nov. 03 2007,19:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think this will eventually be the great perk of gene therapy/some selective drug that shunts nutrients towards muscle solely...I'm not aware of anything doing this ATM.</div>
Me either. So I'll just keep buying new trousers!
i thought that the fitter you were (aerobicly) the better at food partitioning your body becomes,or is the effect so minimal that it hardly makes a difference?.
is it all genetics
Bouchard C, Pérusse L, Dériaz O, Després JP, Tremblay A.
Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Québec.
Variations in human energy expenditure are partly because of an influence of the genotype, even after control for the well-established concomitants of energy expenditure. Using the techniques of genetic epidemiology, we have found that about 40% of the variance in resting metabolic rate, thermic effect of food, and energy cost of low-to-moderate intensity exercise (< or = 5 times the resting metabolic rate) is explained by inherited characteristics. A significant genetic effect has also been reported for the level of habitual physical activity. The existence of a genotype-environment interaction has also been investigated. Thus, in response to chronic overfeeding, as well as negative energy balance, changes in the components of energy expenditure exhibit significant identical twin pair resemblance. Nutrient partitioning is emerging as a major determinant of the individual differences in metabolic rate responses to overfeeding or negative energy balance conditions. Taken as a whole, these observations consistently support the hypothesis that heredity plays a significant role in the various components of energy expenditure in humans.
PMID: 8357495 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
is it all genetics
Bouchard C, Pérusse L, Dériaz O, Després JP, Tremblay A.
Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Québec.
Variations in human energy expenditure are partly because of an influence of the genotype, even after control for the well-established concomitants of energy expenditure. Using the techniques of genetic epidemiology, we have found that about 40% of the variance in resting metabolic rate, thermic effect of food, and energy cost of low-to-moderate intensity exercise (< or = 5 times the resting metabolic rate) is explained by inherited characteristics. A significant genetic effect has also been reported for the level of habitual physical activity. The existence of a genotype-environment interaction has also been investigated. Thus, in response to chronic overfeeding, as well as negative energy balance, changes in the components of energy expenditure exhibit significant identical twin pair resemblance. Nutrient partitioning is emerging as a major determinant of the individual differences in metabolic rate responses to overfeeding or negative energy balance conditions. Taken as a whole, these observations consistently support the hypothesis that heredity plays a significant role in the various components of energy expenditure in humans.
PMID: 8357495 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Morgoth the Dark Enemy
New Member
<div>
(faz @ Nov. 05 2007,11:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">i thought that the fitter you were (aerobicly) the better at food partitioning your body becomes,or is the effect so minimal that it hardly makes a difference?.
is it all genetics
Bouchard C, Pérusse L, Dériaz O, Després JP, Tremblay A.
Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Québec.
Variations in human energy expenditure are partly because of an influence of the genotype, even after control for the well-established concomitants of energy expenditure. Using the techniques of genetic epidemiology, we have found that about 40% of the variance in resting metabolic rate, thermic effect of food, and energy cost of low-to-moderate intensity exercise (< or = 5 times the resting metabolic rate) is explained by inherited characteristics. A significant genetic effect has also been reported for the level of habitual physical activity. The existence of a genotype-environment interaction has also been investigated. Thus, in response to chronic overfeeding, as well as negative energy balance, changes in the components of energy expenditure exhibit significant identical twin pair resemblance. Nutrient partitioning is emerging as a major determinant of the individual differences in metabolic rate responses to overfeeding or negative energy balance conditions. Taken as a whole, these observations consistently support the hypothesis that heredity plays a significant role in the various components of energy expenditure in humans.
PMID: 8357495 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]</div>
I think it was mentioned in this thread before, but it's still good info:roughly 80% of your P-ratio is genetically determined, the rest you can somewhat affect by training/diet/whatever. The best(natural) partitioner seems to be weight-training. After a workout, nutrients partition preferentially towards muscle. This does not happen with SS aerobics. Don't remember about HIIT or around lactate stuff. Could probably look for it.
(faz @ Nov. 05 2007,11:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">i thought that the fitter you were (aerobicly) the better at food partitioning your body becomes,or is the effect so minimal that it hardly makes a difference?.
is it all genetics
Bouchard C, Pérusse L, Dériaz O, Després JP, Tremblay A.
Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Québec.
Variations in human energy expenditure are partly because of an influence of the genotype, even after control for the well-established concomitants of energy expenditure. Using the techniques of genetic epidemiology, we have found that about 40% of the variance in resting metabolic rate, thermic effect of food, and energy cost of low-to-moderate intensity exercise (< or = 5 times the resting metabolic rate) is explained by inherited characteristics. A significant genetic effect has also been reported for the level of habitual physical activity. The existence of a genotype-environment interaction has also been investigated. Thus, in response to chronic overfeeding, as well as negative energy balance, changes in the components of energy expenditure exhibit significant identical twin pair resemblance. Nutrient partitioning is emerging as a major determinant of the individual differences in metabolic rate responses to overfeeding or negative energy balance conditions. Taken as a whole, these observations consistently support the hypothesis that heredity plays a significant role in the various components of energy expenditure in humans.
PMID: 8357495 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]</div>
I think it was mentioned in this thread before, but it's still good info:roughly 80% of your P-ratio is genetically determined, the rest you can somewhat affect by training/diet/whatever. The best(natural) partitioner seems to be weight-training. After a workout, nutrients partition preferentially towards muscle. This does not happen with SS aerobics. Don't remember about HIIT or around lactate stuff. Could probably look for it.
scientific muscle
New Member
The best partitioner (besides anabolic androgenous hormones) IS weight-training by far. Otherwise we wouldn't bother lifting! We could just sit around and eat alot and get huge biceps!