Following advice from the recent articles by Tate/Roman on nutrition/cutting I have decided to use some of this wonderful knowledge to get my fatass back into shape. Currently roughly 200lbs and 24% bodyfat.
Did the calculations based on LBM, my current body comp, etc. and have designed the following diet:
Meals 1-4 (each meal is following)
125g beef
120g red kidney beans
1-2 servings of green leafy veg
3 fish oil caps
Meal 5 (1 hour before bed)
30g protein powder
3 fish oil caps
154.5g protein
77.5g fat
87.1g carbs
32.3g fiber
1666.4 Calories
Meals 1-4 have been made the same due to simplicity/cost/time management. Each meal will have about 19g fat and about 21g carbs.
On training days there will be another 300 cals from a protein and carb workout shake.
Questions!:
Are there too many carbs with this much fat in each meal for a cutting plan?
Are there too many carbs in general?
How would you guys suggest training with this one?
When diet stalls calories will be recalculated (unlikely to be necessary as most of it is based off LBM which I hope to not loose too much of!), cardio will be increased… and then possibly fat burners considered.
[quote]benmoore wrote:
I’m getting the impression you guys massively object to the guidelines put out by Tate/Roman!
[/quote]
It’s just that at 200 lbs and 24% BF, unless you’re only about 5"2" - it doesn’t sound like you have much muscle. I mean, impossible to say without a picture, and maybe you are 5 feet tall, but it sounds to me like you could be dropping some of that fat while still making gains. Instead of going on such a restrictive cutting diet right off the bat.
Again, I don’t know what your specific goals are, but if they’re to look like a bodybuilder, I say you simply tighten a few things up and continue to gain while losing fat - which at 24% should not be an issue. At that high of a BF level, simple changes and adding a few days of cardio will nudge you in the right direction…
But maybe you have a goal to just be ripped even if it means weighing 160 at average height. And what do I know anyway? I don’t write for this magazine. If that’s the article recommendation and you are purely after fat loss at any cost, that’ll do it.
Bottom line is to do like SkyNett said and take things slow. No need to cut calories drastically right off the bat. Doing so will tank your metabolism so that you will lose what muscle mass you have and you will stall out on fat loss. Keep a food log/diary and track what you eat on a daily basis. Really - try to get more variety than what you described - just keep the macros in check. You should aim for a fat loss of 1-2 lbs per week at most. Any more and you will stall your progress. Adjust your calories up/down after the first couple of weeks if needed. Use the mirror more than the scale to judge your success.
[quote]skank wrote:
Why not just toss everything in a pot and make it the chili diet?[/quote]
Was tempted but I intend on carrying this food around with me and I dont want to stink of chilli all the damn time.[/quote]
True story I had a great recipe for a ‘bulking chili’ and would make it twice a week, put it in a container and take it to work. Once day the top of the tupperware slipped off and my entire bag including my books and work covered in it.
[quote]benmoore wrote:
I’m getting the impression you guys massively object to the guidelines put out by Tate/Roman!
[/quote]
It’s just that at 200 lbs and 24% BF, unless you’re only about 5"2" - it doesn’t sound like you have much muscle. I mean, impossible to say without a picture, and maybe you are 5 feet tall, but it sounds to me like you could be dropping some of that fat while still making gains. Instead of going on such a restrictive cutting diet right off the bat.
Again, I don’t know what your specific goals are, but if they’re to look like a bodybuilder, I say you simply tighten a few things up and continue to gain while losing fat - which at 24% should not be an issue. At that high of a BF level, simple changes and adding a few days of cardio will nudge you in the right direction…
But maybe you have a goal to just be ripped even if it means weighing 160 at average height. And what do I know anyway? I don’t write for this magazine. If that’s the article recommendation and you are purely after fat loss at any cost, that’ll do it. [/quote]
Honestly I’m just content with hitting 180 over the next few months - hopefully at something close to 15% bodyfat. Once I drop under that I’ll start looking towards putting on some size again.
Being this fat is seriously affecting my happiness - long term.
I have been trying the slow and steady approach… training has been spot on with a program from a strength coach I know (not cheap for a student like me!)… diet has mostly been about trying to clean up eating habits without calorie counting. I have been told by a lot of people - and it’s a view I always had myself - that simply cleaning up my eating would result in a profound shift in body composition. My progress has been VERY poor.
Also quite frankly I am a university student and whilst the persuit of size/strengh and all things hardcore and manly was basically my existence for a whole bunch of years…
I got fat due to a bunch of factors including depression, etc.
I don’t want to spend a whole year of university slowly dieting down, not making much in the way of strength gains… and nearly the whole time looking unnattractive to the opposite sex.
Yeah its shallow but I really am done with this blubber.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Ok then - if that’s the immediate goal then follow the article’s plan. You’ll definitely lose fat on a hypo-caloric diet coupled with some training.
Best of luck! : )[/quote]
Thank you - I really appreciate it and I hope to be back into growing as soon as possible!
Another benefit of dropping size/weight means that I can continue to train on a limited budget I guess.
I know it’s a lot to ask but what would you suggest with regards to training here?
Tate seems to like the idea of working in the 8-12 rep scheme still - Not sure about training frequency per bodypart, number of exercises, etc.
Thibs Destroying Fat article is still fantastic but not feasible in my gym.
Ideally would like nothing fancier then straight sets and supersets that use the same piece of equipment or are a reasonable pairing (equipment wise - can’t be hogging half the weights room!)… perhaps some metabolic work in the form of complexes or the such.
On a side note I have just recovered from an injury that affected horizontal pressing only. Super heavy benching is not something I am ready for straight away.
I have always managed to gain chest size quickly however so dropping some mass here isn’t a major concern for me.
I’ve beena all over the place scale wise. Back in college at my heaviest I was 250 probably 25-30% bodyfat. Dropping to below 20 and into 15% range didn’t require a whole lot of calorie counting and just as Skynett said and I’m echoing as a trainer you don’t want to sabotage your progress by dropping calories too low.
Stick to simply clean foods through out the day (meat, veggies, beans, some fruit, nut butter, water) and train hard and use a workout shake and I’d be damned if the weight didn’t come off.
Look into some of Berardi’s G flux articles as that is a good way to go if you aren’t starting with a substantial amount of muscle.
You can do whatever split you want, but I commonly recommend Upper/lower supersetting exercises. And do conditioning work 2-4 times per week and maybe an occasional walk.
I was initially tempted to do something like the following:
Mon:Pull + Triceps, Metabolic finisher
Tue: Walk
Wed: Lower, Metabolic finisher
Thu: Walk
Fri: Push + Biceps, Metabolic finisher
Sat: Walk
Sun: Walk
Or something like:
Mon: Pull + Triceps
Tue: Lower
Wed: Walk
Thu: Push + Biceps
Fri: Walk
Sat: GPP/Metabolic
Sun: Walk
Do these sound reasonable?
And specifically to mch60360: When supersetting upper/lower how would you construct this split? 2-3 whole body sessions and metabolic work on top of that?
I think that you should stick to heavy, basic lifts in the 6 - 8 rep range for the most part. Don’t lighten up the training now if you hope to hang onto any muscle.
I’d watch the volume since 1900 cals (the + 300 on your lifting days) is not a lot to work with.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
I think that you should stick to heavy, basic lifts in the 6 - 8 rep range for the most part. Don’t lighten up the training now if you hope to hang onto any muscle.
I’d watch the volume since 1900 cals (the + 300 on your lifting days) is not a lot to work with. [/quote]
I did a cut once and lost a tonne of muscle - Thibs told me I didn’t do enough volume. What would you suggest in terms of training frequency for a given muscle?
