What exactly does that mean? The way I understand water weight is really that it is excess water just haging out.
[quote]ZER0 wrote:
What exactly does that mean? The way I understand water weight is really that it is excess water just haging out. [/quote]
Yup. And it’s not a bad thing. It is common when you drop your carbs as you did by beginning the T-Dawg diet. It’s not something to worry about. 22% bodyfat is not lean, but it’s not likely obese enough to drop 6 lbs of fat. Some of it is water. But some of it is no doubt fat. Don’t be surprised if the weight loss tapers off. Judge progress by your progress in the gym, body composition, and the mirror. The scale is only a very rough guide.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZER0 wrote:
What exactly does that mean? The way I understand water weight is really that it is excess water just haging out.
Yup. And it’s not a bad thing. It is common when you drop your carbs as you did by beginning the T-Dawg diet. It’s not something to worry about. 22% bodyfat is not lean, but it’s not likely obese enough to drop 6 lbs of fat. Some of it is water. But some of it is no doubt fat. Don’t be surprised if the weight loss tapers off. Judge progress by your progress in the gym, body composition, and the mirror. The scale is only a very rough guide. [/quote]
Ok then, I still am happy. Man I havent been uder 180 for god knows how long. Its really funny that Im stoked about losing weight because I cant wait to start gaining it again.
[quote]SpeedStrength wrote:
Most people looking to gain size and drop fat cycle bulking and cutting cycles. Also, read the article on the “g flux” or whatever, basically a higher energy flux can help you achieve both at once.[/quote]
I would love to see all of the proof of those doing both at once and surpassing the progress of those who focus on one at a time.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
SpeedStrength wrote:
Most people looking to gain size and drop fat cycle bulking and cutting cycles. Also, read the article on the “g flux” or whatever, basically a higher energy flux can help you achieve both at once.
I would love to see all of the proof of those doing both at once and surpassing the progress of those who focus on one at a time.[/quote]
I’m kind of with X here. G-flux sounds kind of cool, but what’s the science behind it? Obviously Berardi knows his shit, I’m just wondering if this is more of an anecdotal thing (like P+F and P+C) that he’s noticed works.
I know G-Flux as Berardi described it works extremely well.
I was an athlete at a BigTen School and I saw dozens of guys on the track and football team that came to school undersized. After a few years of 4,000 calorie days and 30hours a week of training, these guys on avg gained 20-30 lbs of lean mass. A lot of these guys werent eating particularly well either.
I think the only problem with G-Flux is that unless you are a college or pro athlete, its impractical. 30 hours a week of activity is tough if you have a job, family and house to take care of.
BBC
[quote]BigBaconClassic wrote:
I was an athlete at a BigTen School and I saw dozens of guys on the track and football team that came to school undersized. After a few years of 4,000 calorie days and 30hours a week of training, these guys on avg gained 20-30 lbs of lean mass. A lot of these guys werent eating particularly well either.BBC[/quote]
I don’t get the point here. I went from 150lbs to over 210lbs in college and was fairly lean at the end of it all playing football. It would be false to believe that I gained muscle and lost body fat at the exact same time. There were many ups and downs on the way to 210lbs as is the case with most people who make that much progress.
I don’t think G-Flux is meant for you to lose weight and gain muscle at the same time. Unless someone is extremely overweight or a complete newbie signifigant gains or loss of fat are gonna be pretty much non existant. People come on these board and are like…
“yeah I’m doing G-flux…”
I don’t think its a program,like TBT or WestSide for Skinny Bastards is a program. What I took from the article is it is possible to find an activity level where you can eat alot to gain muscle and gain little to no fat. I believe Dr Berardi has had some atheletes eating as much as 6000 calories a day and gain muscle mass while staying at the same bodyfat. It was also to show that athletes train for hours at a time(maybe not weight training but cardio and drills and stuff) and don’t go into this extreme catabolic state and become some overtrained they aren’t able to fuction like some people seem to believe.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t get the point here. I went from 150lbs to over 210lbs in college and was fairly lean at the end of it all playing football. It would be false to believe that I gained muscle and lost body fat at the exact same time. There were many ups and downs on the way to 210lbs as is the case with most people who make that much progress. [/quote]
So these guys bulked and cut their way to get this result? My point was simply that you can get big and be lean without using bulking + cutting cycles.
KK
[quote]BigBaconClassic wrote:
So these guys bulked and cut their way to get this result? My point was simply that you can get big and be lean without using bulking + cutting cycles.
KK
[/quote]
Yes. They “bulked” and cut like everyone else. Most players lose weight during the season. That is the exact same concept as gaining weight in the off season and then losing weight during the playing season. They didn’t just suddenly transform into mounds of muscle with no body fat and it is unwise to think that you can even pull your body in two directions at the exact same time as a goal.
Whether you call it “bulking” or simply gaining weight in the offseason, that is the same reason I gained muscle and was still relatively lean by my senior year. Why would you assume it all happened at once?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
It is unwise to think that you can even pull your body in two directions at the exact same time as a goal.[/quote]
“Exact” same time, agreed.
My question is: how short can you make the cycles and still make progress on both fronts? Months? Weeks? Days?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Yes. They “bulked” and cut like everyone else. Most players lose weight during the season. That is the exact same concept as gaining weight in the off season and then losing weight during the playing season. They didn’t just suddenly transform into mounds of muscle with no body fat and it is unwise to think that you can even pull your body in two directions at the exact same time as a goal.
Whether you call it “bulking” or simply gaining weight in the offseason, that is the same reason I gained muscle and was still relatively lean by my senior year. Why would you assume it all happened at once?[/quote]
I disagree. Admittedly this did happen to some of the footballers, but it certainly didnt happen in track. The competitions were not as grueling as football games and guys continued to gain lean mass year round due to high energy intake and expenditure… didnt Berardi write an article to that effect?
Also many of the athletes working with Charles Poliquin have simultaneously lost fat while increasing muscle mass.
BBC
[quote]BigBaconClassic wrote:
I disagree. Admittedly this did happen to some of the footballers, but it certainly didnt happen in track. The competitions were not as grueling as football games and guys continued to gain lean mass year round due to high energy intake and expenditure… didnt Berardi write an article to that effect?
Also many of the athletes working with Charles Poliquin have simultaneously lost fat while increasing muscle mass.
BBC[/quote]
The average size of a sprinter in college is less than the average size of a football player and genetics are the predominant factor in muscle gained. Someone with good genetics would have no problem gaining some size with the only stimulus being an increased caloric intake and training.
To make it past that intitial gain in mass will often require periods of working on size and strength as the primary goal instead of aerobic activity. You can pretend as if bodybuilders are just packing on mass while losing body fat at the same time if you want to. That isn’t what seems to be happening in the real world.
A mesomorph gaining 5-10lbs is nothing like someone with a goal of gaining 30+lbs. Until you recognize the difference, what is the point of explaining this further? You pointed out reletively smaller rainers as an example and that is faulted. Most people should be able to gain a minimal amount of size from simply adding training.
We aren’t talking about the MINIMAL. Track stars, while often developed, are not BIG.
Who said anything about sprinters? I’m talking about throwers that have gained 20lbs in a year and still have six-packs at 270lbs.
Maurice Green. More developed than the average non-trainer? Yes, definitely. Would most consider his development “big”? Only unless they don’t train themselves. It shouldn’t take much effort for a guy with good genetics to look like this, especially if they are training everyday. That is why genetics are the primary issue when discussing what one trainer can do or get away with compared to another.
[quote]BigBaconClassic wrote:
Who said anything about sprinters? I’m talking about throwers that have gained 20lbs in a year and still have six-packs at 270lbs.[/quote]
You said TRACK. Now it is throwers? I am glad I quoted you just in case you decided to change it. Maintaining your abs does not mean no body fat was gained over the course of gaining added body weight.
In the picture forum, a picture of Brandon Hancock was posted when he was 17 and then one more currently. The picture above is him now. The next one I post was of him at 17. Clearly he added some body fat but would still be considered lean. Would you still sit there and say he gained muscle and dropped body fat at the exact same time?
Brandon at 17 a little leaner.
[quote]BigBaconClassic wrote:
Who said anything about sprinters? I’m talking about throwers that have gained 20lbs in a year and still have six-packs at 270lbs.[/quote]
Also, just to make it clear, my first year of training I gain 20lbs and remained relatively “lean”. That doesn’t mean that it was exactly 20lbs of muscle gained and I didn’t try to gain muscle and drop fat at the same time.
Da Freak just gained about 40lbs since his contest. He is carry some small amount of extra body fat. If he hadn’t posted his pictures bulked up, would you assume he simply added muscle and dropped fat at the same time? Do you follow these athletes 12 months out of a year?
G-Flux can work for anyone. You don’t have to be huge. So going off that strategy you’d be selling yourself short.
At 6-7k Calories a day, I’m pretty confident I’m at a G-Flux. I adjust muscle mass while still at or around 6%. No one would want to be my size. So accomplishing G-Flux doesn’t always mean you are getting huge.
I am now at the point to try and see if I can possibly put some fat on just to feel like I am supercompensating my calories. I’ve added one whole box of mac and cheese to my diet and I’m working on a second.
Really, go one way or another. At 185 you should go up. G-Flux is for people who are athletes who need to be at a certain weight. You can be at G-Flux and still look like you’ve never touched a weight.
Professor X
Sorry I didnt specify throwers when I was talkiing about track athletes. I just assumed you wouldnt think I was talking about distance runners when I mentioned guys gaining 20-30lbs.
You make a lot of good points. But after reading articles from Berardi and Poliquin, I’m not sold on your point of view. We’ve already touched on the G-Flux article, and I’ve read Poliquin’s German Body Composition book. In it he outlines the workouts and diet he uses to increase mass WHILE decreasing fat. In the plan there are no cutting or bulking phases.
Also, here’s an article about World Champion shotputter Adam Nelson. The article mentions how Nelson gained 25lbs of muscle, decreased his bodyfat by 5% and increased his incline bench from 385 to 525. This took place in a period of 3 months and I assure you there were no cutting phases.
For the article go to the following address and click on “The Giant Killer”
http://www.macthrowvideo.com/articles.htm
Good discussion
Smile,
BBC