[quote]atg410 wrote:
[quote]Proud_Virgin wrote:
[quote]atg410 wrote:
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
So it took you all that explanation to say, “If you want to maintain your weight as you increase your activity, you’ll have to eat more.”
OK, I got it now. [/quote]
Basically. The point I am trying to make is that a very good option for many people would be to constantly increase activity and constantly increase caloric input with the goal of eating enough calories to support that increased activity but not a large surplus.[/quote]
When you say “increase activity”, do you mean “lift heavier weights over time”?
Because if so, I agree…eat to support the training, not the other way around.
[/quote]
Right, lift heavier weights over time. I also mean increase physical activity during the 90% of the day not spent in the gym. Athletes don’t look athletic because they get in a few sick workouts a week, they tend to have multiple, often conflicting demands on various energy systems. If you want to look like an athlete, you should structure your own training to include these sorts of demands. Progressive weight lifting + sprints + sled drags + low intensity hiking, walking or running etc. Eat enough food to support the activity, get enough sleep to recover.[/quote]
Sounds good, and it’s basically what JB spoke about in two full articles.
Most people will not be able to fit more than 10 hours of activity into their schedules though, except if they choose to spend multiple hours on weekends exercising.
[quote]atg410 wrote:
[quote]jonny142 wrote:
I would cut body-fat as low as possible, or at least as low as you are willing to go. Looking at the bigger picture, you will almost certainly gain some fat when adding muscle, so, in theory, starting from a lower level of body-fat will mean you can afford to gain this extra fat while still looking lean. I appreciate that trying to add muscle when in single digit fat levels may not be optimal from a hormone perspective but that doesn’t mean it is impossible. Equally, the improved insulin sensitivity and anabolic rebound you’ll experience after cutting may improve the results of adding in calories again. [/quote]
Seriously? Does anyone actually do this? Cutting down to single digit body fat levels when your goal is to get bigger seems like a major conflict in direction. 10% bf is not fat. It’s not even chunky. It would seem to me that the more muscular you are the easier it is to lose body fat, the leaner you are the harder it is to gain muscle. [/quote]
I tried it. It was not by intention though…just that I realized how skinny I really was when I first hit single digits. The rebound was pretty awesome, and I gained 20lbs in 10 weeks. Not sure how much was muscle. I like to think more than half. Check out my pics for yourself. I hate to categorize, but for someone who tends more on the “endomorph” side like me, I DEFINITELY recommend leaning out first so you don’t just look like a fat ass when you “bulk.”
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
I highly doubt you gained 4 pounds of muscle in ONE month unless you’re coming back from a layoff or using steroids. [/quote]
Isn’t 1lb/week pretty accepted as a good goal? We’re not talking about someone near their genetic potential
OP - why cut until you have some muscle to show? Lots of people are lean-- if you want to stand out in a crowd, get big first. But it’s really a personal preference.[/quote]
Nobody puts on 1 lb of MUSCLE a week and especially not 4 weeks in a row. Doesn’t happen.
[/quote]
1 lb of weight with creatine is no big deal. It’s mostly water weight and very doable.