A 16oz glass of whole milk is roughly 200 calories.
2tbsp peanut butter is roughly 200 calories.
I just found it interesting how easy it is to quantify 200 calories in actual food quantities.
200 over what they were eating from macros each day. Say each day they were at 3000. They bump 200ed so they are now eating 3200. Make sense?
Yes their metabolism will adapt without large increases in muscle.
Just like when dieting the metabolism adapts and slows
[quote]LoRez wrote:
A 16oz glass of whole milk is roughly 200 calories.
2tbsp peanut butter is roughly 200 calories.
I just found it interesting how easy it is to quantify 200 calories in actual food quantities.[/quote]
Calorie dense options you are choosing but yes then add that up over the week and you are eating 1400 extra calories
[quote]LoRez wrote:
A 16oz glass of whole milk is roughly 200 calories.
2tbsp peanut butter is roughly 200 calories.
I just found it interesting how easy it is to quantify 200 calories in actual food quantities.[/quote]
Now, take that knowledge and apply the fact that you can use calories in that range daily just from variance in daily activity and stress levels.
It makes it a poor place to tell someone who is growing the fastest to adjust calories by if the goal is optimal growth and they are seeing no growth now.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
200 cals of the right macros a day will come to half a pound each week. I know what I’m about to say might derail the thread, but a steady 1/2 lb of quality muscle a week is 2 lbs a month. A very optimistically yet realistic figure no matter your genetics (PEDs withstanding of course)[/quote]
Only if we’re talking about adding Crisco to our bodies.
Check out how many calories are in a pound of lean ground beef.
Lol, I’ve watched as intelligent trainers adjust carb intake by as minute an amount as 25g a day and get a visual result from it. That equals 100 cals. At the end of the day, giving your body the nutrients it needs to carry out processes are much more important than just ramming down calories (in b4 “calories are important too”). Thibs once pointed out that the body “sees nutrients, not calories”, and you’ll find that Berardi and others have voiced similar thinking.
Also, I wasn’t the one who initially threw out the 200 cal figure. I merely pointed out that I felt that PXs thoughts on it being too small an amount to make any real difference was incorrect. There are way to many analytical trainers who adhere to just such an approach and have the continual progress to back it up.
S
I had a picture of newbs like in the thread openers photo
I’m sure they could go with around 500 cal jumps ( or 467.3 maybe! )
We seem to be talking about dietary fine tuning for some stage after the newb stage now when smaller adjustments from experienced lifters probably can be useful
I doubt any newbs are this far in though, I’d hope they would be looking forward to tomorrow’s compound movements having just finished a nice meal ( with obligatory fractional cup of rice of course! )
Hopefully if they are they have mentally bookmarked all the macro and cal counting as something they should steadily learn by experience over time ( i still like the earlier idea from Chris i think about a food choice and cooking day a week ) with their focus still on making the consistent exercising part of their lifestyle and are still excited by it all
I guess my outlook is in learning from the entire process. If a small jump will suffice for the time being, then ride it until it doesn’t. It’s the reverse of how most competitors approach cutting. Make as small a change as needed to elicit movement until your body adapts. I don’t think it has anything to do with beginners or intermediates, merely the understanding that results from attention to details throughout the entire journey.
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I guess my outlook is in learning from the entire process. If a small jump will suffice for the time being, then ride it until it doesn’t. It’s the reverse of how most competitors approach cutting. Make as small a change as needed to elicit movement until your body adapts. I don’t think it has anything to do with beginners or intermediates, merely the understanding that results from attention to details throughout the entire journey.
S[/quote]
My thoughts exactly
I don’t see why people are discrediting a 200 calorie bump but a 500 calorie bump is totally fine?
The argument has been that you can burn those 200 extra calories just by being stressed or running for the bus that day yet the se thing could happen for 500 calories.
Double your stress, double your bus run, 500 calories are used up.
I understand and agree with the K.I.S. mentality but starting with a 200 calorie increase isn’t bad.
If 200 calories isn’t enough then you bump it up.
After its bumped by another couple hundred calories you’re right there at the magic “500 calorie increase” mark, it may have just taken another week or two.
What is one or two weeks in a lifetime of lifting?
That’s nothing.
Start slow, see how your body responds and adjust accordingly.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I don’t see why people are discrediting a 200 calorie bump but a 500 calorie bump is totally fine?
The argument has been that you can burn those 200 extra calories just by being stressed or running for the bus that day yet the se thing could happen for 500 calories.
Double your stress, double your bus run, 500 calories are used up.
I understand and agree with the K.I.S. mentality but starting with a 200 calorie increase isn’t bad.
If 200 calories isn’t enough then you bump it up.
After its bumped by another couple hundred calories you’re right there at the magic “500 calorie increase” mark, it may have just taken another week or two.
What is one or two weeks in a lifetime of lifting?
That’s nothing.
Start slow, see how your body responds and adjust accordingly.[/quote]
Running a block or two doesn’t burn much calories and being stressed burns even less. I worked in a hostile work environment for a year and eight months; it didn’t give me a fat burning advantage.
This reminds me of those saying, “I’m on my feet all day,” when talking about how they’re surprised they can’t lose weight after DECADES of “being on feet all day.” “Being on feet all day” doesn’t do much at all for burning calories ESPECIALLY in overweight or obese people who burn less calories for activity than their fit counterparts.
Same goes for “running after kids”, which burns hardly any calories. I always wondered why this would considering they’re not chasing running toddlers several miles, as if toddlers can run several miles.
Re: Understanding biology and other life sciences.
Question: How many top IFBB pros and elite athletes took life science courses in college or took them seriously and remembered anything from them in high school?
I know an 18 year old who can run a 40 in 4.5 and is looking at a D1 scholarship and I reasonably assume he doesn’t know a goddamn thing about the serious study of kinesiology, biomechanics, or physiology.
Serious question, who burns more than 200 calories by running a block or two for a bus?
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Serious question, who burns more than 200 calories by running a block or two for a bus?[/quote]
Define: block
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Serious question, who burns more than 200 calories by running a block or two for a bus?[/quote]
No one.
Stressful work environments and various other daily stresses will balance out in terms of your diet over time. We’ve all know people with physical labor jobs who still manage to make gains, it’s all about balancing the equation. It’s similar to counting/not counting green vegetables in your daily macros. Either do it one way all the time, or do it then other way all the time. The net balance in terms of if you need to alter #s or adjust work volume with be the same. This was just made to sound much more complicated than it needs to be, that’s all.
S
So uh,… Any other thoughts on the original thread topic?
S
As most of these threads seem to go, this has turned into a debate about whether or not “bulking” is the best option. I understand that diet is an integral part of the equation. It is pretty much imperative that an individual stays on top of satisfying their nutritional needs if they want to make gains. However, I feel that other areas of this lifestyle are often neglected when discussing what is best for the “newb”. Still hate that word.
For instance, I believe that getting enough sleep is mandatory for optimal recovery. When starting out, I made sure to give myself as much sleep to recover as possible, sometimes sleeping for 10 hours or so. A new trainee can blast away in the gym and eat like a monster, but they still need that deep sleep to rebuild tissue. Something else I would advocate that a beginner do is to invest in glutamine or something similar to aid in recovery from DOMS.
I know that, when I was first starting out, DOMS fucking killed me. For some beginners, that can be the deciding factor in whether or not they stick with it and commit to this lifestyle. It’s best that a “newb” handle small things like this very early on in order to facilitate an environment in which it is easiest to keep pushing.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Stressful work environments and various other daily stresses will balance out in terms of your diet over time. We’ve all know people with physical labor jobs who still manage to make gains, it’s all about balancing the equation. It’s similar to counting/not counting green vegetables in your daily macros. Either do it one way all the time, or do it then other way all the time. The net balance in terms of if you need to alter #s or adjust work volume with be the same. This was just made to sound much more complicated than it needs to be, that’s all.
S[/quote]
That’s because the body is amazing at regulating metabolism. Which is why ppl can diet themselves into a hole and not be able to lose on 1500 cals w/ cardio and weights. Or some people who gain in a smart matter can be maintaining or slowly gaining weight at 4-5k with a much smaller amount of activity.
Agreed with the counting as well. I think the easiest way is Shelby’s. count the main macro only. Don’t count green veggies.
[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
As most of these threads seem to go, this has turned into a debate about whether or not “bulking” is the best option. I understand that diet is an integral part of the equation. It is pretty much imperative that an individual stays on top of satisfying their nutritional needs if they want to make gains. However, I feel that other areas of this lifestyle are often neglected when discussing what is best for the “newb”. Still hate that word.
For instance, I believe that getting enough sleep is mandatory for optimal recovery. When starting out, I made sure to give myself as much sleep to recover as possible, sometimes sleeping for 10 hours or so. A new trainee can blast away in the gym and eat like a monster, but they still need that deep sleep to rebuild tissue. Something else I would advocate that a beginner do is to invest in glutamine or something similar to aid in recovery from DOMS.
I know that, when I was first starting out, DOMS fucking killed me. For some beginners, that can be the deciding factor in whether or not they stick with it and commit to this lifestyle. It’s best that a “newb” handle small things like this very early on in order to facilitate an environment in which it is easiest to keep pushing.[/quote]
Yup : " As most of these threads seem to go, this has turned into a debate about whether or not “bulking” is the best option "
Like X proves it soo often, bulking is great for dreamers who are afraid of water.
They have mass and impress themselves and 8 years old girls and 6 years old boys.
They are ahead of their time, they use words from the future like whatever is not yet in the dictionairy.