nice dogs man! Look very healthy and well taken care of. Too much dog for me though, my tiny apartment is barely big enough for my fiancee and me, let alone close to 300lbs of dog!
thanks.
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
nice dogs man! Look very healthy and well taken care of. Too much dog for me though, my tiny apartment is barely big enough for my fiancee and me, let alone close to 300lbs of dog!
[/quote]
so you don’t prefer the “full house” look on dogs either??? ; )
I can see why Steely prefers carrying more fat now, being heavier really helps with benching & it’s not like he’s sacrificing his health like some lifters do, just for the lifts.
@steelyD - thanks for the response and good luck with your goals.
[quote]zraw wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I’m not holding weight just to hold weight. I’m a busy dude. My 2 hrs a day for gym is immutable in my schedule, but to commit to a quick-loss diet is just not in my site right now.
[/quote]
This is really not an attack, at all
But I never seem to get it when ppl use an “excuse” like this… I mean dieting doesnt take more time or energy… you still cook your meals when you are gaining…?
[/quote]
I hear you, but it’s not an excuse. I don’t make excuses for my training-- excuses and progress are mutually exclusive. An excuse would be “I keep trying to progress, but I just can’t because of so-and-so.”. It’s not an excuse because that approach to my lifting (ie. dieting) and physique is not my goal. See the difference? I’m not making excuses for not dieting because I’m not trying to.
It takes a different mindset and commitment and I’m not there. My goal is for my lifts to go up and my arms/yolk to get bigger. I’m meeting those goals (admittedly I wish I could progress faster). When my goal is to drop, you can bet your ass it’ll get done right. I’ve dropped significant weight before, I know the drill. To be clear, my primary goal is not “Bodybuilding” or primarily physique oriented. I’m striking balance. That’s not to say I won’t pursue it in the future.
If you knew me in real life you would know that I am huge on personal responsibility and have no patience for excuse makers.
‘Do or do not’ and all that Yoda shit, you know?
For the record, I do utilize conditioning and cardio in my training to keep fat at bay. At this point, I choose to ‘do more’ rather than ‘eat less’. I usually have weeks of business travel that tempers my eating anyway, so it works for me.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
nice dogs man! Look very healthy and well taken care of. Too much dog for me though, my tiny apartment is barely big enough for my fiancee and me, let alone close to 300lbs of dog!
[/quote]
so you don’t prefer the “full house” look on dogs either??? ; )
I can see why Steely prefers carrying more fat now, being heavier really helps with benching & it’s not like he’s sacrificing his health like some lifters do, just for the lifts.[/quote]
This is the mindfuck. For me, when I start losing scale weight, my bench is the first thing to suffer. Squat not so much, and I don’t really DL anymore. Benching never did much for my development early on (maybe it does now as the weights are significantly higher), so I bench purely for the number. I’m not willing to sacrifice beating my last meet number for ‘abz’.
Incidentally, I’m a belt loop tighter at the same scale weight these past few weeks, so there is some level of recomp going on. What I’m doing seems to be working albeit at a snails pace (and that’s OK).
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Ahh, fuck it. I was going to post this prog pic, then decided not to enter the fray, but, whatever, I don’t really care.
So, this was this week at a gym in Toronto. This is leg day btw. (5-8" and change, 265#). Hard to see, but vascularity in arms and shoulders, smooth but not soft abs.
I don’t know if this is “full house” or not, and I freely admit I could stand to drop 25 lbs. I might be 20% or 30% or 40% fat, clinically obese, or whatever, I don’t know. However, I detected a lot of eyes on me in the gym like I’ve never noticed before in the 2 weeks I was there and I don’t think they were thinking “My God, that dude is one fatass fuck”.
Only one person I saw was near my size and he was just taller (read: took up the same amount of space but not necessarily developed). He was a powerlifter and literally walked across the gym, packed shoulder to shoulder, by the way, to ask for spots. That was a nice implied compliment.
Don’t read this like I’m happy with my current physique, or that I think some shinig example of anything-- I have years of work ahead of me.
However, other than the skewed persective of a small population of e-lifters and competitive bodybuilders could someone look at me (or guys like mmeat, px, the former heavythrower physique) and immediately think “Obesely fat”.[/quote]
you look rediculus steely, every time you post a pic seems you get more impressive. good work and congrats.
ps i want your shoulders. no hommo…well maybe just a little…
[/quote]
Thanks, man, that really does mean a lot coming from you. Yolk and arms can never be too big.
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
In my mind, gaining is about time and patience and a little self control to eat enough to gain. Losing is a mental mindfuck and requires magnitudes more self control and preparation for the right food at the right time.[/quote]
funnily enough, I find the total opposite. I fucking hate having to stuff my face all the damn time to gain, I find dieting easier because I just throw in fasts which I’ve always been able to do quite easily.
[/quote]
I don’t disagree with you. For me, personally, I think the gain phase is physically harder. Early on, I used to sit here with slab of meat in front of me taking an hour or two to get it down. Always having the right kind of food and hitting calorie/protein numbers daily, consistently and getting the scale to move up is tough. I just think that it’s more a physical constraint because your body will only gain so fast when it’s ready to.
I find that I lose weight faster than gain. That’s just me.
Note to readers: I’m not saying that gaining is harder than losing for everyone. I’m not smart enough to know the bro science required to stand behind that statement. Just speaking for me.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
so you don’t prefer the “full house” look on dogs either??? ; )
[/quote]
I prefer the “squished face” look on dogs mate.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I don’t disagree with you. For me, personally, I think the gain phase is physically harder. Early on, I used to sit here with slab of meat in front of me[/quote]
this reminds me of a thread you had years ago called something like La Cucina Italiano Anabolica. It was fucking amazing! I wish you’d do something like that again
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Even Charles Poliquin, has some alright things to say:
Poliquin:
" Believing the bulking-up nonsense
In the so-called Golden Age of Bodybuilding where bodybuilders were known by their first names (e.g., Arnold, Louie and Sergio), bulking up in the off-season and then cutting up was standard practice. Besides the obvious health problems associated with adding excess fat, bulking up is a really bad approach to trying to achieve your physique or athletic fitness goals. Here are six reasons why:
ANTI-BULKING FACT #1. Bulking-up diet programs won?t produce any more muscle growth than ingesting an ideal amount of nutrients. Sorry, but it?s simply not possible to force additional muscle growth by overfeeding.
ANTI-BULKING FACT #2. Bulking up develops insulin resistance, which makes it harder in the long run to gain muscle. What happens when you bulk up is that carbohydrates will go preferentially to fat stores, not to muscle tissue.
ANTI-BULKING FACT #3. Bulking up will make it harder for you to get leaner because insulin resistance is hard to reverse. The fatter you get, the harder it becomes to get lean. Female bodybuilders learn this fact quickly, as it is considerably harder for women to reach the low body-fat levels required for competition.
ANTI-BULKING FACT #4. The fatter you get, the more aromatase enzyme your body will produce. In the extreme, getting fat could be considered a form of self-castration, as your own testosterone will be converted into the female hormone estrogen and you will suffer many unwanted side effects. If you?re a man and you enjoy wearing a bra, go right ahead and get fatter.
ANTI-BULKING FACT #5. Getting fatter will ramp down the effectiveness of your thyroid hormone production ? not a good thing, because thyroid production is essential for fat loss. The fatter your abdominal wall becomes, the less conversion there will be of T4 to T3, the metabolically active form of thyroid.
ANTI-BULKING FACT #6. The lower your percentage of body fat, the better your body becomes at nutrient partitioning. This means individuals with low body fat are more effective at storing the ingested nutrients in the muscle (as muscle tissue or glycogen) or in the liver (as glycogen) and less effective at storing nutrients as body fat. To put it in simpler terms, leaner individuals can eat more nutrients without gaining fat.
ANTI-BULKING FACT #7. The idea that ?a calorie is a calorie? is a bunch of bunk. Calories from sweet potatoes are great for building muscle; calories from beer are not. For that matter, getting fat increases the risk of dying from any cause, even terrorist attacks. I?m serious ? you?re a bigger target and you can?t get out of danger as fast.‘’[/quote]
the first quote is accurate, but the problem with it is… how do you know what is the “ideal amount”. It’s very hard figuring that out and I’d be more worried about under-eating than over-eating. If you over-eat you just get some bodyfat, if you under-eat you just wasted your time in the gym and your off days as well (which for me is 4 days total). If you’re talking about someone eating 10000 calories when they can get on 5000, yeah I’d agree with that. But if you gain at 4k, I’d probably go slightly above that number & recomp later.
Bulking causes insulin resistance? lol
Abdominal obesity is correlated with insulin resistance. When you’re studying a population that got fat from eating processed carbs and junk food… I don’t really know how you are going to say that bodyfat causes insulin resistance when you are studying those people and drawing correlations between the two.
Also if you look at CR/IF studies you will see that total calories do not relate to insulin resistance, timing & exposure to carbs do. My guess is repeated exposure to carbs cause it, and if you do not give your body breaks from carbs your body becomes resistant.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
nice dogs man! Look very healthy and well taken care of. Too much dog for me though, my tiny apartment is barely big enough for my fiancee and me, let alone close to 300lbs of dog!
[/quote]
so you don’t prefer the “full house” look on dogs either??? ; )
I can see why Steely prefers carrying more fat now, being heavier really helps with benching & it’s not like he’s sacrificing his health like some lifters do, just for the lifts.[/quote]
This is the mindfuck. For me, when I start losing scale weight, my bench is the first thing to suffer. Squat not so much, and I don’t really DL anymore. Benching never did much for my development early on (maybe it does now as the weights are significantly higher), so I bench purely for the number. I’m not willing to sacrifice beating my last meet number for ‘abz’.
Incidentally, I’m a belt loop tighter at the same scale weight these past few weeks, so there is some level of recomp going on. What I’m doing seems to be working albeit at a snails pace (and that’s OK).[/quote]
Definitely some merit to this. If I’m ever going to bench 500 I’ll almost certainly have to weigh 230+. Once you get to double bodyweight everything gets a little trickier.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I’ve personally been saying that 1st point for years. It sounds like common sense (you can only fill a cup until it’s full, after that it just spills over = you can just address your nutrient needs in building muscle, after that it just spills over), but I know we will always find lifters who adamantly believes they’re the exception.
S[/quote]
Maybe someone can help me get my head around this (fyi, I have essentially no formal education in this stuff–law student).
I don’t see how that analogy really fits. Let’s say that my BMR is 3000 calories for a given day. Let’s say that I eat 4000 calories, for a surplus of 1000 (presumably too much). I don’t see how it is the case that the first, say, 3200 calories go towards recovery from calorie expenditure and then building muscle, then all the rest goes to fat.
I don’t understand how one could make the case that you eat a certain amount of caloric surplus, all of which (or the vast majority of which) must go towards growth, then the rest goes to fat…
It seems more logical that of any given caloric surplus, some percentage goes towards fat and some towards muscle. Of course, I would imagine that the surplus is purely fat after you get to the point of consumption that fully fuels the amount of muscle that the body can synthesize in a given period. But the idea that the body preferentially synthesizes muscle instead of adding some fat as well just doesn’t gel…
What am I missing?
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I’ve personally been saying that 1st point for years. It sounds like common sense (you can only fill a cup until it’s full, after that it just spills over = you can just address your nutrient needs in building muscle, after that it just spills over), but I know we will always find lifters who adamantly believes they’re the exception.
S[/quote]
Maybe someone can help me get my head around this (fyi, I have essentially no formal education in this stuff–law student).
I don’t see how that analogy really fits. Let’s say that my BMR is 3000 calories for a given day. Let’s say that I eat 4000 calories, for a surplus of 1000 (presumably too much). I don’t see how it is the case that the first, say, 3200 calories go towards recovery from calorie expenditure and then building muscle, then all the rest goes to fat.
I don’t understand how one could make the case that you eat a certain amount of caloric surplus, all of which (or the vast majority of which) must go towards growth, then the rest goes to fat…
It seems more logical that of any given caloric surplus, some percentage goes towards fat and some towards muscle. Of course, I would imagine that the surplus is purely fat after you get to the point of consumption that fully fuels the amount of muscle that the body can synthesize in a given period. But the idea that the body preferentially synthesizes muscle instead of adding some fat as well just doesn’t gel…
What am I missing?[/quote]
that you are working out hard and giving the body a “need” to use these calories toward recovery, muscle repair etc whatever u wanna call it
its not just about the caloric surplus… its about giving your body a reason to use these calories like you want it to…
i haven’t read the whole thread but i would just add that the ‘surplus’ of calories implies that you’ve used as much energy as possible in the muscle building process as well as BMR reactions so by definition the rest would be stored as fat… it is energy that is not needed at the moment.
of course, the tricky part is matching your body’s energy needs exactly so that you get optimal growth without the unnecessary caloric energy
[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
the first quote is accurate, but the problem with it is… how do you know what is the “ideal amount”. It’s very hard figuring that out and I’d be more worried about under-eating than over-eating. [/quote]
It’s actually not hard for those with a solid education in nutrition (either self study or academic) and experience and logic. You made a comparison between a starvation level 1000 calorie intake with 5000 calories. A big stretch. Also, after eating a specific amount for two to four weeks and not gaining, anyone with half a brain will consider adding more carbs and calories. Undereating for a day here and there isn’t going to hurt gains despite some popular belief that one can lose muscle if they undereat for a day or go more than 5 hours without eating here and there.
Do you think Dorian Yates or our very own Stu or any other experienced and education person who does their own nutrition couldn’t figure out what was working and what wasn’t?
It’s obvious he was implying getting overly fat causes insulin sensitivity to go down.
[quote]
Abdominal obesity is correlated with insulin resistance. When you’re studying a population that got fat from eating processed carbs and junk food… I don’t really know how you are going to say that bodyfat causes insulin resistance when you are studying those people and drawing correlations between the two. [/quote]
Eating a lot of processed shit and trans fat isn’t good, and neither is getting fat, whether that over fatness was gained from over consuming healthy or shit foods.
I’m not even sure what you’re getting at.
[quote]
Also if you look at CR/IF studies you will see that total calories do not relate to insulin resistance, timing & exposure to carbs do. My guess is repeated exposure to carbs cause it, and if you do not give your body breaks from carbs your body becomes resistant.[/quote]
Well your guess is false and you can eat carbs at any time of day without it causing some malady. Again, I don’t even know if my response here makes sense considering I don’t know what you’re talking about.