LeanGains

[Totentanz]

Yes we can. The weight stablizing diet prior to the study was to ensure that everyone was starting from the same point.

I'm not really sure why you are so invested in defending this guy for incorrectly using a study to support what he says. It's like somehow it is a personal loss for you to concede that he was wrong.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Critical thinking is very important, it helps us pick the right stuff and dismiss the rest. But this time it's a bit hasty to call names or form conclusions without taking the guesswork out and reading the whole paper. Simply because his opinion is controversial to say the least, in contrast with what the mainstream has used and has taught us, doesn't mean it's untrue.

 

[Sci]

It seems you are so hung up in the idea of wanting "recomping" to be real, that you will ignore reality, and grasp at the opinions of others, just because they are "trainers" and in good shape, so that must know all the magic secrets, right? Not really. There are no magic secrets, because its basically impossible to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time, except in extreme cases, but definitely not for a seasoned, trained, natural bodybuilder.

 

[HST_Rihad]

its basically impossible to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time

My guess prior to reading Eat Stop Eat but after reading the LeanGains stuff was that it is possible, and now Brad essentially backed up my idea. Strictly speaking, not at the same time, but within shortish "cycles" called "days" - why NOT? We train, we eat, we digest, we grow muscle+fat, we fast, we burn fat. It's that simple. Remember, nutritionally our body is always in one of two states: fed or fasted.

 

[Jester]

Critical thinking is very important, it helps us pick the right stuff and dismiss the rest. But this time it's a bit hasty to call names or form conclusions without taking the guesswork out and reading the whole paper. Simply because his opinion is controversial to say the least, in contrast with what the mainstream has used and has taught us, doesn't mean it's untrue.

Stop trying to evade Totentanz's proving that "Brad" is wrong, and furthermore has displayed a lack of critical thinking.

My guess prior to reading Eat Stop Eat but after reading the LeanGains stuff was that it is possible, and now Brad essentially backed up my idea. Strictly speaking, not at the same time, but within shortish "cycles" called "days" - why NOT? We train, we eat, we digest, we grow muscle+fat, we fast, we burn fat. It's that simple. Remember, nutritionally our body is always in one of two states: fed or fasted.

The processes take longer than 24hours. Again ... hormones hormones hormones ...

And you seem to be confused about the importance of whether your body is 'fed' or 'fasted' regarding muscle gain and fat loss. The state at a particular second in time is not relevant. Muscle building and fat loss takes days, and accumulates. This is why magical fairy land 'recomping' doesn't exist. As soon as you eat, the fat you lost is restored. As soon as you begin to deny calories, the muscle building you started is stopped. Trying to gain-lose-gain-lose on a day to day basis accomplishes nothing because the time frame for each is longer than 24hours.

 

[gbglifter]

Just lift weights and build muscle(and gain fat). Then cut and lose fat(whilst trying to retain as much muscle as possible). Then build muscle. Then cut. Watch your diet. Train. Lift some more.

I dont believe Martin, or anyone else, built muscle and lost fat at the same time. He bulked and watched his diet miticulously. Then cut, whilst watching his diet muticulously and holding onto muscle gained. Id really really like to believe you can build and cut at the same time but its like free beer from the supermarket: probably not going to happen.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Stop trying to evade Totentanz's proving that "Brad" is wrong, and furthermore has displayed a lack of critical thinking.

We can't in our right minds claim that Brad is blatantly misguiding others given the little info provided in the [42] abstract... need to see the whole paper first, then form conclusions.

The processes take longer than 24hours. Again ... hormones hormones hormones ...

And you seem to be confused about the importance of whether your body is 'fed' or 'fasted' regarding muscle gain and fat loss. The state at a particular second in time is not relevant. Muscle building and fat loss takes days, and accumulates. This is why magical fairy land 'recomping' doesn't exist. As soon as you eat, the fat you lost is restored. As soon as you begin to deny calories, the muscle building you started is stopped. Trying to gain-lose-gain-lose on a day to day basis accomplishes nothing because the time frame for each is longer than 24hours.

Just for a sec, it makes perfect sense that lacking any nutrition during a fast body resorts to burning fat for its energy needs (metabolic rate), the way it is meant to function. We simply can't deny that as there's no other biological way... muscle can't donate glycogen back.

As soon as you eat, the fat you lost is restored.

Only under the condition of caloric surplus?..

 

[Jester]

We can't in our right minds claim that Brad is blatantly misguiding others given the little info provided in the [42] abstract... need to see the whole paper first, then form conclusions.

Willfully or not, he is mistaken, wrong, incorrect, in error, missed the mark, inaccurate, not quite right ...

Just for a sec, it makes perfect sense that lacking any nutrition during a fast body resorts to burning fat for its energy needs (metabolic rate), the way it is meant to function. We simply can't deny that as there's no other biological way... muscle can't donate glycogen back.

Yes, it burns the fat. Then you eat, and it puts it back ... this is basic physiology. When you eat, your body stores fat. When you starve, it burns it. You lose a net amount of bodyfat by eating less than you burn over a period of time. You seem to think these processes are strictly independent like a light-switch. They aren't. If you want to create your deficit by not eating for 24hrs, twice per week, go for it. But you will achieve the same result as taking the 5 eating-days calories and spreading them out over all 7 days. Stop trying to cheat mathematics.

Furthermore, prefacing an opinion with "It makes perfect sense" doesn't strengthen your argument.

Only under the condition of caloric surplus?..

Caloric surplus as a term is used to refer to a total, or net state, taken over a period of time. The length of that period is not hours or a day, it is days, weeks. If you are in caloric deficit, you will still store bodyfat, you will just burn it as well. The rate and degree of fat storage may be decreased, and digested nutrients will certainly be used for energy in preference to storage, but the assumption that the body does not store fats as adipose tissue in deficit, before then retrieving it and using it is mistaken.

None of these processes ever stop, they are merely increased and decreased in terms of rate and therefore volume//net total.



You're disregarding science for "bro speak" when you idolise Bryan, and then Blade, and then Martin, and now Brad ... be critical, learn the science for yourself and stop quoting from sources that have no authority.


Schwarzenegger wrote multiple books which said he didn't use steroids. Is it true simply because it was in a book?

 

[HST_Rihad]

Willfully or not, he is mistaken, wrong, incorrect, in error, missed the mark, inaccurate, not quite right ...

Ok, although this seems to be everyone else's opinion, I think it's premature to say so without reading the whole paper.

Yes, it burns the fat. Then you eat, and it puts it back ... this is basic physiology. When you eat, your body stores fat. When you starve, it burns it. You lose a net amount of bodyfat by eating less than you burn over a period of time. You seem to think these processes are strictly independent like a light-switch. They aren't. If you want to create your deficit by not eating for 24hrs, twice per week, go for it. But you will achieve the same result as taking the 5 eating-days calories and spreading them out over all 7 days. Stop trying to cheat mathematics.

Sure thing, simple calorie deficit is as effective as far as weight loss goes. But fasting has other health benefits, that's why I want to try it. Furthermore, as I was guessing and as Brad's book confirmed, fasting for only 2 days out of 7 gives us more opportunity to build muscle compared to chronically under-eating. I was only speculating, but he has his info coming from his education and from reading tons of literature. I feel the difference.

Caloric surplus as a term is used to refer to a total, or net state, taken over a period of time. The length of that period is not hours or a day, it is days, weeks. If you are in caloric deficit, you will still store bodyfat, you will just burn it as well. The rate and degree of fat storage may be decreased, and digested nutrients will certainly be used for energy in preference to storage, but the assumption that the body does not store fats as adipose tissue in deficit, before then retrieving it and using it is mistaken.

Sure thing, body may still be storing fat, but to a much lesser degree.

You're disregarding science for "bro speak" when you idolise Bryan, and then Blade, and then Martin, and now Brad ... be critical, learn the science for yourself and stop quoting from sources that have no authority.

Schwarzenegger wrote multiple books which said he didn't use steroids. Is it true simply because it was in a book?

We always need to have our minds open for newer information.
I trust the science and research (the closest we can get to the truth), not opinions.
AFAIK he later admitted taking dianabol.

Several successful athletes and professional bodybuilders have come forward and admitted long-term methandrostenolone use before the drug was banned, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sergio Oliva.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methandrostenolone#Bodybuilding

 

[Jester]

We always need to have our minds open for newer information.
I trust the science and research (the closest we can get to the truth), not opinions.

Open mind = reading the book and critically judging the contentions against information already known.

Open mind =//= accepting the information in the book as correct when it is contradictory to proven biological truths.



You have completely missed the point I made re: Arnold. I am using it to indicate to you that just because someone went to the trouble of having their opinion printed, said opinion does not gain authority.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Open mind = reading the book and critically judging the contentions against information already known.

Open mind =//= accepting the information in the book as correct when it is contradictory to proven biological truths.

Very true. But once again, science isn't hard and fast, it's constantly evolving. After all, the "facts" we know today were determined by these same kinds of researches. Brad quoted one biologist regarding 4 stages of scientific acceptance:

1) This is worthless nonsense
2) This is an interesting but perverse point of view
3) This is true but quite unimportant
4) I always said so

You have completely missed the point I made re: Arnold. I am using it to indicate to you that just because someone went to the trouble of having their opinion printed, said opinion does not gain authority.

No, I understand very well this point of yours, I answered that with "open minds" and "trusting science, not opinion". Quoting Wikipedia was nothing but chatting.

 

[Jester]

I think you should follow Totentanz's advice.



The fact that you think the difference in Martin and Brad's abdominal definition is due to choice of fasting protocol speaks volumes.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Nope, I then remembered how Lyle looked being a valued nutritional expert, and light-heartedly dismissed the fear.


All that matters is how Eat Stop Eat works on other users in general (and on me).

 

[HST_Rihad]

I've just sent Brad this email from his site, hope I'll get a reply.

Hi, Brad. Not meaning to offend you, but why is it that Martin Berkhan's abdominal definition is better than yours?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-05nnNGGDe...rXPjCe1M7o/s400/Leangains+Vs+Eat+Stop+Eat.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dtaWqzV6d7M/SuMlTBIBAZI/AAAAAAAAAfI/2q8FdTPNy0k/s320/DSC00316.JPG

 

[Totentanz]

did you seriously just send him that because that is ridiculous. do you really expect him to take your question seriously?

 

[Sci]

Rihad = Troll


That is poor behavior sending such a stupid email. Typically a troll. Which you have acted like in this site also.

 

[HST_Rihad]

Sci, what's your problem, dude? Have I bothered you anyhow? Then please stop reading my posts.
Totentanz, I didn't mean to offend him, and I don't see anything harsh in my mail, only hard, cold truth.

And I got a reply from him:
Brad: "He's leaner with less fat being stored in his subcutaneous areas."
Me: "Do you believe this has anything to do with the fasting choice (leangains vs. Eat Stop Eat)? Do you think that kind of leanness is possible by simply following Eat Stop Eat years on end?
p.s.: if you don't mind, I'll post your reply here: http://thinkmuscle.com/forum/showthread.php?41808-LeanGains/page16
"
Brad: "Probably the result of numerous factors - genetics, training, calorie intake. You can get that lean by following any form of diet - Eat Stop Eat or 10 meals a day - Look at bodybuilders and fitness competitors as an example. Surely we're not using the anecdotal photos of authors to try to prove one diet style over the other?"

 

[HST_Rihad]

Another reply from Brad in its entirety:

By the way, that thread is misinterpreting this statement:

While the common belief that you need to ‘eat big to get big’, recent research has shown that
any extra calories above your estimated daily needs does not contribute to muscle
gain. In fact, almost every single extra calorie can be accounted for in fat mass
gains. So while there is an obvious caloric need for muscle building it does not seem
to be any higher than your daily calorie needs (building muscle does take energy, but
it also happens very slowly).


How I hoped this was interpreted is as follows:

Estimated daily needs includes the needs created by resistance training for muscle growth.

If you eat past the amount you needed for muscle growth those calories will be stored as body fat.

So

A)There is an obvious caloric need for muscle building

B) However, eating past this amount wont cause MORE muscle growth

Calories are permissive to the muscle growth process, but not the driving force.

Probably my fault for not being clearer in the book.

BP

PS - I don't mind the questioning, or even the suggestions that I'm wrong (it's always possible) but the name calling is uncalled for.

 

[Totentanz]

so basically you're just trying to start an argument between different people again like you did before with blade. whatever dude.

 

[HST_Rihad]

No, this isn't my goal (and wasn't as in the case with Blade), seeking how to build muscle while staying lean is.