[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I have done a lot of reading from a lot of knowledgeable people with too many references and I will take their word over yours sorry[/quote]
That is fine if you take the word of people based on their name alone.
It isn’t the best thing to do, however, because most people in the fitness industry also have a financial motive.
Please show me the evidence that someone gains muscle slower by simply being a few fat percentages higher.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Plus, when you “lose” the weight (by taking it off), you don’t have to deal with any muscle loss like you would with a cyclical surplus/deficit cycle.[/quote]
A lifter does not loose LBM during a deficit! [/quote]
I thought there was muscle loss, especially as cardio was added in.
I thought one of the main concerns in dieting and training during a deficit was how to retain as much LBM while shedding fat.
Clearly there’s some gaps in my knowledge. Could you elaborate a little bit?[/quote]
There will be minimal loss off in any while dropping to respectable leanness. Now contest dieting may be different but that is dieting to a much more extreme level of leanness. Just dropping high singles or 10ish you won’t be losing muscle. [/quote]
I can get on board with this.
However, I can’t help but to think that the devil of this is the timeframe of loss depending on what you’re looking to lose.
I also think this is where genetics and hormonal profile make a huge difference.
I would think that “just bite the bullet and drop the fat” approach would lend itself to losing LBM and zero margin for error, where I nice flat downward curve would retain a bit more, maybe even lend itself to true recomp
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Well, so far, the only benefit I see to “intentionally carrying extra weight for a period of time, before losing it”, is that theory of greater bodyweight → increased bone density → greater muscular growth.
If one person takes a lean gains approach to their diet and ends up at 12% bodyfat in the end, and another takes a “bulk and cut” (i.e, bulk and diet back down) approach to end up at 12% bodyfat in the end… that bone density theory is the only explanation I have for the 2nd person having more muscle than the first.[/quote]
There is much more to it than that.[/quote]
What else is there? Genuinely asking, since your response was vague.[/quote]
I explained it before…from leverage to set point theory to joint lubrication…all of this can effect strength which would also effect gains in muscle.[/quote]
I admit I haven’t read all of your posts on the subject.
You explained the joint lubrication in here, but that was more a matter of joint health than why someone would have more muscle than someone else.
I’m not sure how set point theory relates to the topic either. How does that explain more muscle mass in the 2nd person, after the fat loss, per the example quoted above?
Also, I understand how increased BF could reduce the range of motion for certain lifts, but I’m not following how it improves leverages, or what that has to do with it.
Not disagreeing, but I’m not really understanding either.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Plus, when you “lose” the weight (by taking it off), you don’t have to deal with any muscle loss like you would with a cyclical surplus/deficit cycle.[/quote]
A lifter does not loose LBM during a deficit! [/quote]
Have you also found increases in LBM (or strength) during a deficit? Or does that just sort of go on hold until you get back to a surplus?
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I admit I haven’t read all of your posts on the subject.
You explained the joint lubrication in here, but that was more a matter of joint health than why someone would have more muscle than someone else.[/quote]
They are related. Who makes more progress over ten years…the guy with less injuries or the guy with more?
[quote]
I’m not sure how set point theory relates to the topic either. How does that explain more muscle mass in the 2nd person, after the fat loss, per the example quoted above?[/quote]
The idea is that the human body is adaptive in its response to gains in weight and that by your body being comfortable at a higher weight that may have caused strain previously, you can now grow more muscle into that weight reached. That is it about as simply as I can put it.
[quote]
Also, I understand how increased BF could reduce the range of motion for certain lifts, but I’m not following how it improves leverages, or what that has to do with it.
Not disagreeing, but I’m not really understanding either.[/quote]
That is because you haven’t been that size to know the difference. Getting 140lbs dumbbells into the air gets easier if your full body can help move the weight into position. This is a powerlifting concept.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I think of cutting as what bodybuilders do for a show.
Or what Marz is doing.
Or what HT is doing.
Or what paulieserafini was doing.
I don’t think someone trying to tighten things up a little bit (2-3% like you said) and dial their bodyfat in as “cutting”[/quote]
I agree that the terms ‘bulk’ and ‘cut’ are both useless; especially as bastardized as the terms have become. I prefer surplus and deficit.
Things do reach a point where where there is so much weight to loose that the term cut does apply…I like your examples above. In your opinion; where do you feel that line is…10% of current weight(from 220 to 200), 15%(230 to 200), 20%(240 to 200), or more? [/quote]
If you are talking about how far above your comfortable every day weight or leanness then I would say between 15+% is where a “cut” is in order.
Although that depends on how heavy a trainee is but that’s a rough good estimate.
I’m not sure if that was you meant though?
If you are prepping for a competition or photo shoot then obviously it would be different.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
But…no evidence shows you make better gains simply by being a little leaner.
I have seen no evidence that someone gains muscle faster because they are “10%” over “17%”.[/quote]
This hobby has very little research done on it and much of what we know is based off anecdotal evidence. What do you make of the anecdotal claims of guys saying that they notice better gains from a leaner state than from a not so lean state.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Well, so far, the only benefit I see to “intentionally carrying extra weight for a period of time, before losing it”, is that theory of greater bodyweight → increased bone density → greater muscular growth.
If one person takes a lean gains approach to their diet and ends up at 12% bodyfat in the end, and another takes a “bulk and cut” (i.e, bulk and diet back down) approach to end up at 12% bodyfat in the end… that bone density theory is the only explanation I have for the 2nd person having more muscle than the first.[/quote]
The other major benefit you are missing out there is that a more aggressive approach to eating leads to faster strength and rep gains in the gym, and more productive workouts. As a natural you have very few cards to play that will increase strength and make that happen.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
But…no evidence shows you make better gains simply by being a little leaner.
I have seen no evidence that someone gains muscle faster because they are “10%” over “17%”.[/quote]
This hobby has very little research done on it and much of what we know is based off anecdotal evidence. What do you make of the anecdotal claims of guys saying that they notice better gains from a leaner state than from a not so lean state.[/quote]
I think that everyone is a victim to vanity…so many guys who bulk up and then lean down tend to stay leaner because they like the responses they get.
I like the way I look now leaner than I used to be. But that is like all of those guys who claim they would tell people not to bulk up when they did and now weigh 300lbs as a result.
There would be no way for them to even make that call.
To solve that you would literally have to do identical twin trials for years.
Yes, there are few studies on our population…that is why knowledge of how the human body works in detail is valuable.
I have seen nothing in anyone over several years that supports the idea that being “5% leaner” means you gain muscle faster.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Well, so far, the only benefit I see to “intentionally carrying extra weight for a period of time, before losing it”, is that theory of greater bodyweight → increased bone density → greater muscular growth.
If one person takes a lean gains approach to their diet and ends up at 12% bodyfat in the end, and another takes a “bulk and cut” (i.e, bulk and diet back down) approach to end up at 12% bodyfat in the end… that bone density theory is the only explanation I have for the 2nd person having more muscle than the first.[/quote]
The other major benefit you are missing out there is that a more aggressive approach to eating leads to faster strength and rep gains in the gym, and more productive workouts. As a natural you have very few cards to play that will increase strength and make that happen.
[/quote]
Yep…and time is a HUGE factor. You do not have forever to play with “optimal gains”.
Question for everyone.
A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.
He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Plus, when you “lose” the weight (by taking it off), you don’t have to deal with any muscle loss like you would with a cyclical surplus/deficit cycle.[/quote]
A lifter does not loose LBM during a deficit! [/quote]
Have you also found increases in LBM (or strength) during a deficit? Or does that just sort of go on hold until you get back to a surplus?[/quote]
Depending on the surplus level and time frame, it may take some time to actually be in a deficit after calories are reduced. During this brief period while the ‘momentum’ is still moving in the surplus direction, it may appear that progress is made. However; the idea that LBM can be built in the absence of adequate materials for construction…is nonsense. Strength is different and is affected by the rep. range you mean, changes in program volume, and specific exercise selection…
FTR…the reverse is true when transitioning from a deficit to a surplus.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
I’m not sure how set point theory relates to the topic either. How does that explain more muscle mass in the 2nd person, after the fat loss, per the example quoted above?[/quote]
The idea is that the human body is adaptive in its response to gains in weight and that by your body being comfortable at a higher weight that may have caused strain previously, you can now grow more muscle into that weight reached. That is it about as simply as I can put it.
Given that, at what point would you say that you’ve gained “too much” fat? Assuming you’re actually able to get the food down and keep the training up, at some point you’ll be pushing 300 pounds, then 350, then 400, then 450, etc.
Is there an upper threshold?
EDIT: I mean, is there an upper threshold where the benefits of the additional weight don’t add any value. Diminishing returns etc.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.
A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.
He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]
385?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I have done a lot of reading from a lot of knowledgeable people with too many references and I will take their word over yours sorry[/quote]
That is fine if you take the word of people based on their name alone.
It isn’t the best thing to do, however, because most people in the fitness industry also have a financial motive.
Please show me the evidence that someone gains muscle slower by simply being a few fat percentages higher.[/quote]
I’ve seen you ask several times for actual evidence for faster muscle gain at a lower percentage, claiming there isn’t any (even though those who discuss it have given anecdotal evidence). Therefore in your mind it’s a silly notion.
You do however espouse frequently the set point theory. Other than your own or other peoples anecdotal evidence, do you have any actual evidence, similar to the evidence you require for the above, to prove body weight set points work?
I agree with X.
A little extra fat, lets say 12% to about 20%, definitely helps spare the joints, which in turn allows you to train harder and more frequently.
I recently started preparing to compete in Weightlifting (the Olympic kind), and had to literally try to gain fat because I was taking too much of a beating training at 9-10%.
It seems like something that would transfer to bodybuilding gains as well.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
The core question:
What kind of a modern “bulking diet” would you advocate in order to optimize muscle gains and take advantage of hormonal fluctuations, insulin response, etc.?[/quote]
I though Layne Norton’s research is pretty interesting. I think skinny guys can get away with adding pound on the scale for a while but once they stop being skinny they should learn how to count macros and take a more methodological approach. I do think bluecollar trainers approach is good in that he counts macros, and treats his bulk like a diet.[/quote]
That was some interesting research, and lends some credibility to the importance of milk and eggs in many of the golden-age era diets.
I know of two diets seem to have stood the test of time. You literally can go back several decades and still see variants of these preached in the magazines and books.
I can’t imagine it’s coincidence. If these didn’t work, they’d probably have been weeded out a few decades ago. E.g., people rarely talk about liver or germ oils anymore.[/quote]
The old school methods seem to take advantage of hormonal fluctuations and insulin responses already so they probably don’t need much modification. I forget where I originally read about whole milk as it pertains to mass gaining, but IIRC lactose is especially insulogenic, and the fats and cholesterol ingested are necessary for hormone synthesis. Of course the protein is high quality too
I don’t know if old school bulkers counted their macros, but I think the general trend was they trained as hard as possible and ate as much as they needed to recover, as opposed to maintaining a slight caloric excess and regulating training to match recovery capacity
[quote]cueball wrote:
I’ve seen you ask several times for actual evidence for faster muscle gain at a lower percentage, claiming there isn’t any (even though those who discuss it have given anecdotal evidence). Therefore in your mind it’s a silly notion. [/quote]
At the present time the only individual that has stated that they built any significant amount of LBM (>30lbs) after their 23rd birthday while remaining in ‘all abs in’ condition is Utah Lama. Everyone else are people that did actually add more fat than they were comfortable with during their bulk periods; dieted it off; and now are of the opinion that they should not have done that; and don’t recommend it to others or are people that have yet to reach the point of significant development and claim they are going to be able to reach the desired level while lean gaining.
FTR…in over 25 years of training I have never personally known any natural lifter that built any significant LBM while lean gaining…I’m not saying they don’t exist; but like big lotto winners, I’ve never met one.
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
I don’t know if old school bulkers counted their macros, but I think the general trend was they trained as hard as possible and ate as much as they needed to recover, as opposed to maintaining a slight caloric excess and regulating training to match recovery capacity
[/quote]
Yes…the ‘old school’ approach involves calculating macros.
^Well, there you go, kids. Now, can we move on? I’d like to discuss training more and “what if” scenarios less.