now lets refesh my noggin and just to throw some not talked about much info out there but how much does fat % play a role in whether your cutting or bulking
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
have you guys found bulking on the AD to be just as easy as with high carb diets? im looking to get somewhere in the 220-230 range (about 20-30 pounds heavier than i am now) before i cut down which i anticipate in about 5 months or so. im just wondering if thats feasible with this diet or if i should try going with carbs.
i mean so far i cant really complain. ive gained say 20lbs and am at about 12-13%BF although it feels like ive hit a standstill with weight gain. [/quote]
Yeah I’d just take a rest week and maintain for about a week or two to a month. Remember you have to give your fasciaa chance to stretch to accommodate your muscles. I’m pretty sure there is a very recent article on it on here.
After you maintain for a month or more then try re ramping your cals and you should grow. Also be sure to get a large amount of carbs on week ends. If you have been on the AD for more than 6 months then you can start to line your CHO ups more frequently. One that I used for gaining was 4 days low and one day CHO.
-chris
[quote]bkmacky9288 wrote:
now lets refesh my noggin and just to throw some not talked about much info out there but how much does fat % play a role in whether your cutting or bulking[/quote]
If you’re cutting: stay around 55%
If you’re bulking: shouldn’t matter that much if you are doing the CHO’ups correctly, but try for th uppern end: 58-60%
AD
[quote]Avocado wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
have you guys found bulking on the AD to be just as easy as with high carb diets? im looking to get somewhere in the 220-230 range (about 20-30 pounds heavier than i am now) before i cut down which i anticipate in about 5 months or so. im just wondering if thats feasible with this diet or if i should try going with carbs.
i mean so far i cant really complain. ive gained say 20lbs and am at about 12-13%BF although it feels like ive hit a standstill with weight gain.
Yeah I’d just take a rest week and maintain for about a week or two to a month. Remember you have to give your fasciaa chance to stretch to accommodate your muscles. I’m pretty sure there is a very recent article on it on here.
After you maintain for a month or more then try re ramping your cals and you should grow. Also be sure to get a large amount of carbs on week ends. If you have been on the AD for more than 6
months then you can start to line your CHO ups more frequently. One that I used for gaining was 4 days low and one day CHO.
-chris[/quote]
What would you say a good CHO g # would be for a 175lb guy on the weekends, like 300g sat and 300g sun?
Repost if anyone can please answer the following for me:
How do people who have suffered from ‘metabolic damage’ do when trying to jump on the AD bandwagon? People who have not had breakfast regularly and have been under eating for a long time?
I read once on this site - MWA forum - some women who worked with Scott Abel say it took them at least a year to get their metabolism back on track. Is the AD a diet for someone who has had a long history of a solid nutritional plan, or is discipline enough for most people to jump into it?
Also, has anyone had any cholesterol tests done at the start of the diet and for instance after 6 months of being on the AD? I would be curious to see the results. I know a lot of the fats can come from good sources but so much of it is animal fat - bacon, sausage, steak - that I’m curious about the plaque build up in arteries.
[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
bkmacky9288 wrote:
now lets refesh my noggin and just to throw some not talked about much info out there but how much does fat % play a role in whether your cutting or bulking
If you’re cutting: stay around 55%
If you’re bulking: shouldn’t matter that much if you are doing the CHO’ups correctly, but try for th uppern end: 58-60%
AD
[/quote]
Actually, I have the book, and the doctor himself says to start LOWERING fat for cutting once fully fat adapted. Meaning lower than 55%. I think he suggested gradually working down to 40% fat. Protein is supposed to stay high.
[quote]Whey Man wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
bkmacky9288 wrote:
now lets refesh my noggin and just to throw some not talked about much info out there but how much does fat % play a role in whether your cutting or bulking
If you’re cutting: stay around 55%
If you’re bulking: shouldn’t matter that much if you are doing the CHO’ups correctly, but try for th uppern end: 58-60%
AD
Actually, I have the book, and the doctor himself says to start LOWERING fat for cutting once fully fat adapted. Meaning lower than 55%. I think he suggested gradually working down to 40% fat. Protein is supposed to stay high. [/quote]
Uhhh…actually I have the book too and I don’t see where it says that. I just rechecked it to be sure before typing this post.
Either:
A) I missed it in my skim-through and would appreciate it if you cited/showed me where it says what you say.
B) You misinterpreted it to be lower than 55%, when it is really saying lower it from the higher end of the 55-60% range. This would mean lowering it from 60% to 55%.
And I’ll add that (B) is what I did successfully last spring.
AD
I just got some blood work done to check cholesterol levels, and got the results today.
According to the doctor, they are A-OK.
But does anyone know a site or something for which I can compare my current levels to “normal” and “better than normal?”
Still searching on Google, but no luck yet.
AD
[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
Whey Man wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
bkmacky9288 wrote:
now lets refesh my noggin and just to throw some not talked about much info out there but how much does fat % play a role in whether your cutting or bulking
If you’re cutting: stay around 55%
If you’re bulking: shouldn’t matter that much if you are doing the CHO’ups correctly, but try for th uppern end: 58-60%
AD
Actually, I have the book, and the doctor himself says to start LOWERING fat for cutting once fully fat adapted. Meaning lower than 55%. I think he suggested gradually working down to 40% fat. Protein is supposed to stay high.
Uhhh…actually I have the book too and I don’t see where it says that. I just rechecked it to be sure before typing this post.
Either:
A) I missed it in my skim-through and would appreciate it if you cited/showed me where it says what you say.
B) You misinterpreted it to be lower than 55%, when it is really saying lower it from the higher end of the 55-60% range. This would mean lowering it from 60% to 55%.
And I’ll add that (B) is what I did successfully last spring.
AD[/quote]
I don’t get how you don’t understand this if you have the book as well. The concept is repeated quite a bit and even put into big bold boxes. Protein either stays the same or increases, and fat gets decreased (thus descreasing calories). I’m not misinterpreting it, that’s just flat out how it is.
Do you have the old book or something? Lowering the fat is the entire essence of the cut. At some point it’s going to have to be less then 55% for a full blown cut.
As far as where I found it…well…the cutting phase section, dude. Sorry I’m not trying to sound like a douchebag or anything. It was also mentioned in the strength phase section as well.
Again, perhaps you have the older book?
[quote]Whey Man wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
Whey Man wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
bkmacky9288 wrote:
now lets refesh my noggin and just to throw some not talked about much info out there but how much does fat % play a role in whether your cutting or bulking
If you’re cutting: stay around 55%
If you’re bulking: shouldn’t matter that much if you are doing the CHO’ups correctly, but try for th uppern end: 58-60%
AD
Actually, I have the book, and the doctor himself says to start LOWERING fat for cutting once fully fat adapted. Meaning lower than 55%. I think he suggested gradually working down to 40% fat. Protein is supposed to stay high.
Uhhh…actually I have the book too and I don’t see where it says that. I just rechecked it to be sure before typing this post.
Either:
A) I missed it in my skim-through and would appreciate it if you cited/showed me where it says what you say.
B) You misinterpreted it to be lower than 55%, when it is really saying lower it from the higher end of the 55-60% range. This would mean lowering it from 60% to 55%.
And I’ll add that (B) is what I did successfully last spring.
AD
I don’t get how you don’t understand this if you have the book as well. The concept is repeated quite a bit and even put into big bold boxes. Protein either stays the same or increases, and fat gets decreased (thus descreasing calories). I’m not misinterpreting it, that’s just flat out how it is.
Do you have the old book or something? Lowering the fat is the entire essence of the cut. At some point it’s going to have to be less then 55% for a full blown cut.
As far as where I found it…well…the cutting phase section, dude. Sorry I’m not trying to sound like a douchebag or anything. It was also mentioned in the strength phase section as well.
Again, perhaps you have the older book?[/quote]
First, you have a very smart/sarcastic attitude. Someone previously asked why no vets chime in, and it’s attitudes like yours that makes them not want to be here and help out the younger AD’ers.
Anyway:
Does it specifically say drop below 55%?
And no, my book says nothing like what you say. I’ve simply been doing what the vets told/suggested me in the beginning…and it works, I assure you.
AD
OK, in the original AD book the Doc doesn’t specify any macro over the others as far as which calories to reduce in the cutting phase. In the Anabolic Solution book he does actually say to reduce the fat intake and maintain or increase protein.
Keep in mind that the AD book was written for bodybuilders and the AS was for a more generalized audience.
I can see the logic in trimming back the fat some, but I get nervous about boosting protein at the same time. The whole idea behind adaptation is that your body will use whatever it’s given the most of in percentage of calories. I can’t shake the notion that some guys will gouge their fat intake and replace those calories with protein and inadvertently begin burning aminos for fuel.
[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
Whey Man wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
Whey Man wrote:
AlphaDragon wrote:
bkmacky9288 wrote:
now lets refesh my noggin and just to throw some not talked about much info out there but how much does fat % play a role in whether your cutting or bulking
If you’re cutting: stay around 55%
If you’re bulking: shouldn’t matter that much if you are doing the CHO’ups correctly, but try for th uppern end: 58-60%
AD
Actually, I have the book, and the doctor himself says to start LOWERING fat for cutting once fully fat adapted. Meaning lower than 55%. I think he suggested gradually working down to 40% fat. Protein is supposed to stay high.
Uhhh…actually I have the book too and I don’t see where it says that. I just rechecked it to be sure before typing this post.
Either:
A) I missed it in my skim-through and would appreciate it if you cited/showed me where it says what you say.
B) You misinterpreted it to be lower than 55%, when it is really saying lower it from the higher end of the 55-60% range. This would mean lowering it from 60% to 55%.
And I’ll add that (B) is what I did successfully last spring.
AD
I don’t get how you don’t understand this if you have the book as well. The concept is repeated quite a bit and even put into big bold boxes. Protein either stays the same or increases, and fat gets decreased (thus descreasing calories). I’m not misinterpreting it, that’s just flat out how it is.
Do you have the old book or something? Lowering the fat is the entire essence of the cut. At some point it’s going to have to be less then 55% for a full blown cut.
As far as where I found it…well…the cutting phase section, dude. Sorry I’m not trying to sound like a douchebag or anything. It was also mentioned in the strength phase section as well.
Again, perhaps you have the older book?
First, you have a very smart/sarcastic attitude. Someone previously asked why no vets chime in, and it’s attitudes like yours that makes them not want to be here and help out the younger AD’ers.
Anyway:
Does it specifically say drop below 55%?
And no, my book says nothing like what you say. I’ve simply been doing what the vets told/suggested me in the beginning…and it works, I assure you.
AD[/quote]
alright you two are due for a carb indosed coma…but really i should have beeen more specific…with my current training im losing at 3000 cals…however my percentages for fat have risen from 63%-65% to 70%…im getting 1gram of protein for each pound of fat bone and muscle in my body still…so my real question is if im loosing does it matter what my percents are
i do recall the newer AS4BBs mentioning to drop the fat macros and maintain high protein while cutting. ill have to look over again but i know it doesnt say that in the original “Anabolic Diet”
[quote]bkmacky9288 wrote:
<<<< so my real question is if im loosing does it matter what my percents are[/quote]
No.
As long as your carbs are low enough to stay adapted and your progress is where you want it. There is no point in being happy with how things are going unless somebody tells you you shouldn’t be for reasons that you’re in a better position to ascertain than they are.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
OK, in the original AD book the Doc doesn’t specify any macro over the others as far as which calories to reduce in the cutting phase. In the Anabolic Solution book he does actually say to reduce the fat intake and maintain or increase protein.
Keep in mind that the AD book was written for bodybuilders and the AS was for a more generalized audience.
I can see the logic in trimming back the fat some, but I get nervous about boosting protein at the same time. The whole idea behind adaptation is that your body will use whatever it’s given the most of in percentage of calories. I can’t shake the notion that some guys will gouge their fat intake and replace those calories with protein and inadvertently begin burning aminos for fuel.[/quote]
That was my concern as well. That’s why I never go below 40%. Again, I’m not sure where I got that exact percentage, but even if I made it up on my own I still wouldn’t go below that range for the reason given above.
But the fact remains that to go on a cut, it’s the fat that’s supposed to be lowered, not protein.
Sorry to the dude I offended, I’m just saying it like the book says. If a different approach is working for someone else, then great…but it should still be at least noted what the Doctor’s approach is.
LoL protein “adaptation” I suppose can be a bit of an issue when people take the reduction in fat too seriously.
The whole point here is to keep our bodies in a depleted state in terms of carbohydrates (glucose) so that we develop a adaptation towards utilizing fat for energy. Our bodies are smart machines and they will use whichever source of energy is most abundant.
From a day to day standpoint which macro nutrient we have the most of fluctuates, so our bodies aren’t soooo sensitive that one day of no carbs “flips the switch” and all of a sudden we start utilizing fat. This is the reason for the extended break in period, the 12 days sans carb-re-up.
I believe the lowest fat should ever get percentage wise during the week is 45% of our daily caloric intake, absolute bare minimum. I keep at 50 just to be safe. IDK if there is such a mechanism but I tend to believe our body after a while prefers to use whichever source of energy it has gotten used to using. Thats another reason it takes a few days to adapt from carbs to fat. So once we become fat adapted, perhaps we can trim the fat profile down a bit…without fear of switching back to carbs for energy, or even protein.
It is not as if our diets were composed of 80% protein daily, our bodies would just settle for a complete lack of energy. It would use that protein as a source. That being said from what I understand this is really not an issue for normies(carb adapted) or exceptionals(fat adapted) haha because at the end of the day its one or the other in terms of what our body is going to utilize to fuel its existence.
[quote]AlphaDragon wrote:
I just got some blood work done to check cholesterol levels, and got the results today.
According to the doctor, they are A-OK.
But does anyone know a site or something for which I can compare my current levels to “normal” and “better than normal?”
Still searching on Google, but no luck yet.
AD[/quote]
Uh, the only levels that are comparable are your previous levels which is different for everyone. So if this is your first test then these are your new “normal.”
Same thing goes for bone density and hormone function. So get some blood work done to check your base level of test right away. This will make sure that when you are old as fuck you can get some steroids from teh doc.
-chris
So I guess an example of protein adaption would be that rabbit starvation thing I hear about on discover channel.
Go go survivor man!
[quote]plutusplutus wrote:
LoL protein “adaptation” I suppose can be a bit of an issue when people take the reduction in fat too seriously.
The whole point here is to keep our bodies in a depleted state in terms of carbohydrates (glucose) so that we develop a adaptation towards utilizing fat for energy. Our bodies are smart machines and they will use whichever source of energy is most abundant.
From a day to day standpoint which macro nutrient we have the most of fluctuates, so our bodies aren’t soooo sensitive that one day of no carbs “flips the switch” and all of a sudden we start utilizing fat. This is the reason for the extended break in period, the 12 days sans carb-re-up.
I believe the lowest fat should ever get percentage wise during the week is 45% of our daily caloric intake, absolute bare minimum. I keep at 50 just to be safe. IDK if there is such a mechanism but I tend to believe our body after a while prefers to use whichever source of energy it has gotten used to using. Thats another reason it takes a few days to adapt from carbs to fat. So once we become fat adapted, perhaps we can trim the fat profile down a bit…without fear of switching back to carbs for energy, or even protein.
It is not as if our diets were composed of 80% protein daily, our bodies would just settle for a complete lack of energy. It would use that protein as a source. That being said from what I understand this is really not an issue for normies(carb adapted) or exceptionals(fat adapted) haha because at the end of the day its one or the other in terms of what our body is going to utilize to fuel its existence.[/quote]
I remember an interview I read with the Doc and he said for cutting the best thing to do was to lower calories on the week days while keeping the macros the same, but to keep the carb ups normal. I’ll root around and see if I can find it.
[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
I remember an interview I read with the Doc and he said for cutting the best thing to do was to lower calories on the week days while keeping the macros the same, but to keep the carb ups normal. I’ll root around and see if I can find it.[/quote]
That makes perfect sense to me.
What I have read regarding this controversy is support for btoh sides but with context. When cutting Dr. MD recommends both the calorie cut with the big CHO up for the majority of the cut. When he says to reduce the fats below the “high” level is the final days of contest prep where the theory goes that your body will use its homeostatic feedback loops to consume more body fat in place of the dietary fats that is is used to getting.
This follows the same principle of intermittent fasting in some ways. They use the idea that your body expects you to eat roughly the same caloric intake as the previous few days and it adjusts its metabolic expenditure accordingly. this is how your metabolism gets higher and lower etc. In the same vein it expects roughly the same macros (relatively speaking). this is why you get a “carb crash” because your brain is expecting to get more tasty sugar shit and has a bitch of a time transfering to lipid ATP pathways, which are more effective anyhow.
The same with fat. If you are ingesting a certain amount of fat then your system will expect that same amount and when you quit feeding it the same amount in contest prep it will get it from your fat ass. This is exacerbated by the fact that for ADers fat metabolising pathways are moer active than normal people. So it only works with hella vets (6 mo + I’d say).
But the bottom line here is that the fat reduction phase is for pre-contest only and there really is no need beyond that. The reasoning is that your fat metabolism will slow down as you eat less of it. So for more than 3 days this is not feasible. For an extended (more than 2 week) leaning phase you should instead reduce the low CHO day calories and keep a High amount of slow release CHO on CHO ups.
This will work better than dietary fat reduction for a bunch of reasons. I suppose if you pester me I may be bothered to write them down but they are too many for now. But be assured that in his recent text for fat-loss Dr. MD recommends the above and reserves the reduction of dietary fat to force compensation only for contest prep. So if you are a BB then yey. If not then there will never be a reason to reduce dietary fats. You can get below 10% and maintain it with AD. But being at 10% exactly has been proven (used loosely) to be the best BF level to perform athletically, which means stand-up fucking.
Now quit arguing. Make me take a stress bath.
-chris
“Where the hell is my damn ducky…”