Meltdown Training...Which Diet?

Diet and Nutrition
1

Hello,

I’m 20 yr old, 6’2, 190lbs 14% BF, haven’t trained for several years consistently. I’m very out of shape. My goals are to get down to 5% BF or so, get in good shape, lower blood pressure, be healthy, etc. Then I’ll try to slowly build a little muscle.

My plan is to do meltdown training for 6-8 weeks (probably closer to 6 to get to my target BF %). I’m not sure what diet to use, however.

The author of meltdown recommends the T-Dawg diet, with 2 days 500cals below maintenance followed by 1 day 500 cals above. This would have me at 2350 and 3350 cals, respectively. 285gms protein a day, low carbs, and anywhere from 90-215gms fat (35-58% of total cals). Isn’t this way too much fat? Especially on the days when I’m eating over maintenance but still only 70-100gms carbs?

I’m thinking JB’s “don’t diet” diet would be a more sensible approach. This would have me eating a little over 3000 cals a day, with my macronutrient levels depending on my insulin/glucose sensitivity. Probably 30% carbs, 30% fat, 40% protein. This would also obviously include the correct meal timing principles.

I may be a little hypoglycemic and prediabetic (family history of type II at an older age), so hopefully a lower carb diet coupled with an intense metabolic conditioning workout (aka meltdown) will prevent/reverse this and normalize my marginally high blood pressure (138/80).

Any suggestions? Other ideas? How long could it possibly take to lose 10% (19 lbs) of bodyfat? 6-8 weeks?

I will also be drinking alot of water and am considering a thermogenic (MD6?). Obviously will be using flax, fishoil, a great multi (OptiPack), and ALA on my cheat day. Any other suggestions? I suppose I should get a good during/postworkout drink with glutamine, carbs, BCAAs, and protein…what would a good one be? I know you’re all biased towards Surge, but are there any other good (cheaper!) ones…or is it really that good? Would something like Alpha Male work for someone my age?

Thanks

2

Velocity. :wink:

T-Dawg 2.0 and Don’t Diet will both work. They’re pretty similar in structure, with T-Dawg having a much lower carb allowance, which may make Meltdown more effective. Less carbs = faster fat burning.

As for the fat in T-Dawg, don’t worry about it. Due to the carbs being limited, more fat intake is needed. It won’t hurt you at all, in fact it will benefit with fat loss. As long as it’s healthy fats, anyway.

Out of curiosity though, why do you want to get your body fat percentage so low? If you plan on bulking up after this, what’s the point of having such a low body fat percentage? You’re going to lose that when you start bulking. 5% is extremely low. If you think you’re out of shape, why not shoot for something like 10% and going from there?

3

Thanks for the reply…

I know I’m out of shape cardiovascularly. Meltdown will help this through its intense anaerobic nature.

I don’t like the idea of a traditional bulk/cut cycle. I’d rather get lean and stay that way while closely monitoring bodyfat and perhaps gaining muscle slowly. I have no intense desire to get huge quickly or peak for a certain period. I’d rather have a tight, lean, model appearance year round while gaining quality muscle.

On another note, however, getting lean first will help the partioning effect when I do want to put on some muscle. The meltdown will also increase my mitochondrial density dramatically, allowing me to make alot larger strength/size gains alot cleaner when I do want to start going down that path.

So what will it be, T-Dawg or Don’t Diet? Anyone else?

4

[quote]solidgk wrote:
Hello,

I’m 20 yr old, 6’2, 190lbs 14% BF, haven’t trained for several years consistently. I’m very out of shape. My goals are to get down to 5% BF or so, get in good shape, lower blood pressure, be healthy, etc. Then I’ll try to slowly build a little muscle.[/quote]

14% BF and you think you’re “very out of shape”? You’ll never be able to drop to 5% without muscle. Seems to me your thinking is backwards.

Meltdown is not some magical program that will get you to 5% in 8 weeks.

Ha ha- “way too much fat”. I love it. It’s not the quantity of fat, but the quality that counts.

Probably not the best choice.

Might be? You either are or your not. Just because you have a family history of something does not mean it will affect you. Hell you are 6’-2" and only 190lbs. You’re not even a candidate for Diabetes.

More like 6-8 years if you don’t build a substantial amount of muscle. Seriously.

[quote]I will also be drinking alot of water and am considering a thermogenic (MD6?). Obviously will be using flax, fishoil, a great multi (OptiPack), and ALA on my cheat day. Any other suggestions? I suppose I should get a good during/postworkout drink with glutamine, carbs, BCAAs, and protein…what would a good one be? I know you’re all biased towards Surge, but are there any other good (cheaper!) ones…or is it really that good? Would something like Alpha Male work for someone my age?

Thanks[/quote]

Supps are ok. If you are aiming for fatloss nothing short of HOT-ROX Extreme will do. BCAA’s are very important on a calorie restricted diet. Surge [i]is[/i] that good. Seriously.

I also echo the V-Diet recommendation. But I doubt you’ll have the energy to do the Meltdown. I really think the original recommendation of T-Dawg 2.0 is the best balance between diet and energy.

Sorry if I seemed a little harsh above. I’m sitting in an airport and my flight is delayed. Kind of pisses me off. But really it seems like you’ve done your homework, just not enough of it. I’m glad you asked the questions, but keep an open mind. The first thing you need to accept is that you can diet for the rest of your life and you will never reach 5% BF until you put on muscle. It’s just not possible. I think a more reasonable goal of 10%, then bulk, is the right way to go.

Good luck.

5

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
The first thing you need to accept is that you can diet for the rest of your life and you will never reach 5% BF until you put on muscle.
[/quote]

While eengrms76 is totally correct, this is actually the second thing you need to do. The first is to make up your mind what you want overall. Do you want to “drink 2-12 beers, 1-2 times a week” or be a fitness enthusiast? Both of these are not going to happen at the same time. You may make some straggling progress for a little while because of your youth, but this is one area where you cannot have your cake and eat it too for very long. Mark my words.

–Tiribulus->

6

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
14% BF and you think you’re “very out of shape”? You’ll never be able to drop to 5% without muscle. Seems to me your thinking is backwards.[/quote]

How so? So it is impossible to reach low levels of bodyfat without having a large amount of muscle? What about any victims of starvation? Isn’t it purely a function of calories in/calories out?

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
Meltdown is not some magical program that will get you to 5% in 8 weeks. [/quote]

Easy tiger…that’s why I asked. What’s with the attitude?

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
Ha ha- “way too much fat”. I love it. It’s not the quantity of fat, but the quality that counts. [/quote]

I’m not an idiot-- I understand the difference. I meant in relation to carbohydrates (especially on such a metabolically taxing workout).

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
Probably not the best choice.[/quote]

Why not?

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
Might be? You either are or your not. Just because you have a family history of something does not mean it will affect you. Hell you are 6’-2" and only 190lbs. You’re not even a candidate for Diabetes. [/quote]

Type II diabetes is largely genetic. There are thousands of people in decent shape with diabetes. It is not purely a biproduct of obesity. My doctor said I was a reactive hypoglycemic, but is was based on just what I’ve told him, he didn’t test me. Hence the ambiguity. I’ll be testing myself soon, and you’ll be the first to know!

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
More like 6-8 years if you don’t build a substantial amount of muscle. Seriously. [/quote]

Again, why?

[quote]eengrms76 wrote:
The first thing you need to accept is that you can diet for the rest of your life and you will never reach 5% BF until you put on muscle. It’s just not possible. I think a more reasonable goal of 10%, then bulk, is the right way to go. ood luck.[/quote]

Point taken, but why? Any physiological reasoning?

Thanks

7

[quote]solidgk wrote:
How so? So it is impossible to reach low levels of bodyfat without having a large amount of muscle? What about any victims of starvation? Isn’t it purely a function of calories in/calories out?[/quote]

BF % is a function of the relative fat mass in relation to the rest of your mass, to put it simply. You could diet yourself down to the 3rd world country status to reach the 5 percent, but likely what will happen is your lean mass will go down in starvation mode to protect the remaining fat you have. You have a certain mass that you cannot change, that would be your skeltal system, circulatory system, etc. The mass you can change is the fat mass and the lean mass.

It’s widely known, as I just stated, your body will only let you naturally get down to a certain fat level before protective measures kick in. It surely will cut off the fat loss in favor of catabolism which actually will raise your BF %. The only plausible solution is to increase your lean mass, thereby decreasing your BF %.

Let’s use an example. Let’s say you’re 190 lbs, which coincidentally you are. Your current state of 14% BF means you have 26lbs of fat on your entire body. You would need to diet down, assuming you lose no muscle at all, to about 172lbs to reach 5% BF (to keep the same lean mass of 163lbs). Do you think you can lose 18lbs of fat without losing any muscle?

Let’s continue the example, just because I have time. Let’s say you lose muscle at a 1:2 ratio, so for every 2lbs of fat you lose 1lb of muscle. Pretty average for someone with a lower initial lean mass. So you lose those 18lbs of fat. Good for you. You also lose 9lbs of muscle. You may have reached the 5% BF, but you had to get down to 163lb to do it.

I think I explained that.

I just thought it was funny to still hear people worry about eating too much fat. I really thought by now we were all over the 90’s.

During a fat loss phase you should be taking in more fat and protein that that. I don’t know that much about the diet, but having macros that evenly spread usually doesn’t result in fat loss.

I don’t even want to get into this as it’s been discussed a bajillion times. Your doctor is wrong. If he didn’t test you, but diagnosed you anyway- he’s a bad doctor. Also- Don’t blame genetics. And I didn’t say it was purely a by-product of obesity. Yes there are a thousands of people in decent shape with diabetes. You can eat like shit and be in decent shape. You can also be born with Diabetes and be in good shape. But of course, we all know this is a different type.

[quote]Again, why?

Point taken, but why? Any physiological reasoning?[/quote]

See above.