yikes! It’s scary in here. I’m out.
[quote]roybot wrote:
I said "eating at below maintenance". Eating. Bodyfat can provide extra calories and take you above what you may perceive as a deficit. I didn’t think I needed to mention the potential energy source that bodyfat represents again, seeing as I’ve already covered it like a million times before.
[/quote]
I understand where the confusion is now…
Your just an idiot. You dont understand how this works. Let me try one last time to make it very simple for you.
Imagine you have 2 bank accounts. Each bank account has $1,000 in it. And you spend $100 a day, and earn $100 a day.
Account A (FAT) : $1000
Account B (Muscle): $1000
TOTAL = $2,000
Now lets say you get layed off from your job. Now you HAVE A DEFICIT. You are still spending $100 a day, but have no income, so that money has to come from one of your two accounts. If you transfer some money from A to B, or build muscle using stored body fat (and im not agreeing with you that this is the primary mechanism for muscle growth while in a deficit), you may end up with…
Account A (FAT): $750
Account B (muscle): $1,150
TOTAL = 1,900
THIS IS A DEFICIT, and there is no other ‘false’ deficit, this is how it works. Im sorry to beat a dead horse here, but while this doesn’t directly explain how muscle is buid or fat is lost, it is the basis for changes in body composition.
While we are on the subject of surplus and deficit, i’d like you to think about this question.
WHAT TIME FRAME DOES A SURPLUS OR DEFICIT OCCUR IN?
For you to be in a “true deficit” do you need be taking in less than you are using for the entire month. Or is it week, or day, or does it go down to the hour? Can you be in a deficit for 12 hours of the day, but be in surplus for 12 hours? In a given week you could have 4 days where you have a 1,000 calorie surplus, and have 3 days where you have a 1,000 calorie deficit. Your weight might not change during this week, but you have the potential to both lose fat and build muscle.
This is nothing new really. This is the basis for zig-zag dieting and cyclical dieting. Im not saying one way is better than the other, because they both have their merits. Ive already stated that if you want a change in overal mass (weight) then you need to change your calorie intake; or expenditure. But you can definately influence body composition without changing mass. Hope some of this is sinking in, but if you haven’t gotten it yet, you probably wont.
[quote]dankid wrote:
roybot wrote:
I understand where the confusion is now…
Your just an idiot. You dont understand how this works. Let me try one last time to make it very simple for you.[/quote] before you start throwing accusations of ‘idiot’ around, you might want to take a long, hard look at your spelling. People in glass houses and all that…Oh, and try graduating before you try to pull the patronizing act on someone who’s already been there and done that.
Yeah. The only problem is that you’ve not answered any of my questions. You’re just paraphrasing things you’ve already said. The fact is, you’ve made no explanation of where the fat goes. And, in your original statement, you made absolutely no provision for that. You’ve tried to make up for that later, but you still ignored it when you first claimed it was possible. It was only later that you tried to account for it with thermodynamics: and that didn’t pan out.
The fat doesn’t even have to be a primary mechanism of muscle growth. I never said that. But even if it contributes to the slightest degree it proves your original statement wrong. Imaginary scenarios with banks don’t change that. You can’t cover your tracks when what you said earlier remains for everyone to see.
[quote]
While we are on the subject of surplus and deficit, i’d like you to think about this question.
WHAT TIME FRAME DOES A SURPLUS OR DEFICIT OCCUR IN?
For you to be in a “true deficit” do you need be taking in less than you are using for the entire month. Or is it week, or day, or does it go down to the hour? Can you be in a deficit for 12 hours of the day, but be in surplus for 12 hours? In a given week you could have 4 days where you have a 1,000 calorie surplus, and have 3 days where you have a 1,000 calorie deficit. Your weight might not change during this week, but you have the potential to both lose fat and build muscle.
This is nothing new really. This is the basis for zig-zag dieting and cyclical dieting. Im not saying one way is better than the other, because they both have their merits. Ive already stated that if you want a change in overal mass (weight) then you need to change your calorie intake; or expenditure. But you can definately influence body composition without changing mass. Hope some of this is sinking in, but if you haven’t gotten it yet, you probably wont. [/quote]
How about we stick with one topic at a time here, hotshot? You haven’t produced concrete evidence of anything yet, and now you want to start a sub-discussion? Nice try, but you can’t worm out of it that easily. I don’t want to have to wade through pages and pages of what you think is right. It’s all the same thing, just differently worded, anyway. I’ll make it easy for you.
If you can provide a quote, link, or post any of the material that led you to the idea that you can make muscle gains while losing fat on a caloric deficit, or alternatively, post up your first hand experiences of this actually happening in real-life (whether its happened to you or someone else -either will do), then I will freely admit I was in the wrong, apologize to you, and go on my merry way.
There you go - I’ve handed you several ways to win this thing.It’s not hard - you either can or you can’t.
I haven’t read the entire thread 'cause holy fuck there is a lot of words but I guess my thoughts are summarized thusly…
[quote]roybot wrote:
roybot wrote:
How about we stick with one topic at a time here, hotshot? You haven’t produced concrete evidence of anything
[/quote]
Sorry buddy. Your clearly a little slow to pick things up. There is no concrete evidence as to this happening. If you understood the theories you’d understand how it can happen. And you dont even understand what a deficit is, so how are you gonna argue that you cant build muscle in a deficit? It doesn’t matter where the fat goes, whether it be converted to glycogen and stored in muscle, or used as energy in processes for building muscle. If you lose weight and increase LBM you are building in a deficit. The reason I called you an idiot is the plain and simple fact that you cant understand this.
Ive had enough of you, and this thread.
And to summarize on my opinions of this topic…
-
Calories in vs. calories out is the primary factor in determining your body mass. If you are heavier than you want to be, then create a deficit, and if you are too lite, create a surplus.
-
New trainees, can achieve large increases in strength without building muscle.
-
More advanced trainees will have to add significant muscle in order to increase their strength significantly.
-
Although not optimal usually, building muscle at maintenance or even in a deficit may a good option for various individuals. The effectiveness of these techniques will depend on the individual, their training status, and individual genetics, and current BF level.
There are many other factors affecting muscle building that we didn’t discuss here, because Roybot got caught up on not understanding what a deficit was, and how it is possible to build muscle in a deficit.
[quote]dankid wrote:
roybot wrote:
roybot wrote:
How about we stick with one topic at a time here, hotshot? You haven’t produced concrete evidence of anything
Sorry buddy. Your clearly a little slow to pick things up. There is no concrete evidence as to this happening. If you understood the theories you’d understand how it can happen. And you dont even understand what a deficit is, so how are you gonna argue that you cant build muscle in a deficit? It doesn’t matter where the fat goes, whether it be converted to glycogen and stored in muscle, or used as energy in processes for building muscle. If you lose weight and increase LBM you are building in a deficit. The reason I called you an idiot is the plain and simple fact that you cant understand this.
Ive had enough of you, and this thread.
And to summarize on my opinions of this topic…
-
Calories in vs. calories out is the primary factor in determining your body mass. If you are heavier than you want to be, then create a deficit, and if you are too lite, create a surplus.
-
New trainees, can achieve large increases in strength without building muscle.
-
More advanced trainees will have to add significant muscle in order to increase their strength significantly.
-
Although not optimal usually, building muscle at maintenance or even in a deficit may a good option for various individuals. The effectiveness of these techniques will depend on the individual, their training status, and individual genetics, and current BF level.
There are many other factors affecting muscle building that we didn’t discuss here, because Roybot got caught up on not understanding what a deficit was, and how it is possible to build muscle in a deficit.
[/quote]
None of this shit matters. Who the fuck cares if you win?
I care. Winner gets e-props!
[quote]dankid wrote:
Sorry buddy. Your clearly a little slow to pick things up. There is no concrete evidence as to this happening.[/quote] Then why are you hanging for dear life to something you can’t prove? [quote] If you understood the theories you’d understand how it can happen. And you dont even understand what a deficit is, so how are you gonna argue that you cant build muscle in a deficit? It doesn’t matter where the fat goes, whether it be converted to glycogen and stored in muscle, or used as energy in processes for building muscle. If you lose weight and increase LBM you are building in a deficit. The reason I called you an idiot is the plain and simple fact that you cant understand this.
Ive had enough of you, and this thread.
[/quote]
This would have been over days ago if you’d have posted proof from the start, instead of procrastinating and defending a point of view that you couldn’t defend. Your science books are calling your name.
[quote]
There are many other factors affecting muscle building that we didn’t discuss here, because Roybot got caught up on not understanding what a deficit was, and how it is possible to build muscle in a deficit. [/quote]
I deliberately avoided talking about these “other factors”, because that would’ve just helped you avoid posting up proof. We don’t discuss what you want to, and you don’t get to ask me questions. That’s just your clumsy attempt to avoid the very direct questions I asked you.
You made the claim, so you need to provide the proof to back it up. Trying to catch me out with semantics won’t prove squat. Trying to substantiate what you claim by saying “I’m an idiot” or “I don’t understand” is a big ol’ sack of wank. You’re only showing yourself up.
You tried this before by telling me that I didn’t ‘understand’ thermodynamics: I posted a definition to prove that I did understand it, after all. I can sit back and whistle dixie from now on and you can yap all you want about your theories being beyond my limits of understanding. Without proof, you’ve got nothing but your opinion and theories -which won’t pan out in the real world.
I’ve asked you for proof you haven’t got.You even say yourself that it doesn’t exist. Is there really anymore to be said? Any author on this site can produce reams of proof at the click of a finger. Here’s a newsflash: maybe, just maybe, that’s why you can’t prove it.
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
None of this shit matters. Who the fuck cares if you win?[/quote]
Obviously winning matters a great deal to Dankid. I tried to let this die quietly a fews days ago, but as usual, he just had to have the last word. I’m not looking to ‘win’ this, all I’m asking for him do is to account for a gap in his theory, which he’d be able to do if he had done his research first and not scrambled to find some afterwards.
He was intent on dragging this shit out indefinitely, despite admitting there is nothing to support his claims. The point is this: random fuckwits shouldn’t post their opinions as facts.His posting history alone is proof enough of the limits of what he does and doesn’t know. It’s not an attack: it’s a fact.
I don’t care what Dankid thinks he knows, I’m not going to take him at his word. I’ve read his previous threads, and he’s proven time and again that he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s doing in his own training, let alone being qualified to advise others. I’ve given him several opportunities to prove me wrong, but he keep trying to use semantics to push this down an argumentative side street.
If your macros are ok and your training is ok then you just ain’t eating enough.
I’m a small dude trying to put on muscle. I was stuck at around 2000-2500 calories and 200g protein. Went up to 3000-3500 calories and 250-350g protein and put on 2lb of ffm and dropped 2% bodyfat in a month while doing GVT.
- Take your weight x 20 that’s a starting point for calories.
- Take your weight x 1.5-2.0 that’s a starting point for protein.
- Eat sugary/starchy carbs in the morning and peri-workout.
- Workout hard. Do work that stimilates muscle growth…each set should last 30-70 seconds. Alternate with work that stimilates strength (6 reps and under).
If you aren’t making gains your problem is with one of the obove 4.
Alan
Two things roybot.
-
where is YOUR definition of thermodynamics, because i dont see it anywehre in what you’ve posted.
-
What are you trying to argue that I have not refuted? I dont see any clear arguments from you other than this “false deficit” nonsense, which I already proved is wrong. And you seem to thing that what happens with stored fat is a big issue, but its not.
Please answer these two questions and i’ll prove you wrong. I promise
For the OP, you should read the stickies on the begginer’s forum.
[quote]dankid wrote:
Imagine you have 2 bank accounts. Each bank account has $1,000 in it. And you spend $100 a day, and earn $100 a day.
Account A (FAT) : $1000
Account B (Muscle): $1000
TOTAL = $2,000
Now lets say you get layed off from your job. Now you HAVE A DEFICIT. You are still spending $100 a day, but have no income, so that money has to come from one of your two accounts. If you transfer some money from A to B, or build muscle using stored body fat (and im not agreeing with you that this is the primary mechanism for muscle growth while in a deficit), you may end up with…
Account A (FAT): $750
Account B (muscle): $1,150
TOTAL = 1,900
THIS IS A DEFICIT, and there is no other ‘false’ deficit, this is how it works. Im sorry to beat a dead horse here, but while this doesn’t directly explain how muscle is buid or fat is lost, it is the basis for changes in body composition.
[/quote]
Hmm interesting analogy. May I enquire as to whether the amount of money ($) is analogous to the mass of muscle & fat (kg) or the energy stored in muscle & fat (kcal)? (Or are they the same?) Also, is the exchange rate between the two acounts 1:1 i.e. $1 in account A can be transferred as $1 into account B?
This would help to clarify the gist of your argument greatly (for me at least). Thanks.
Why is this thread still going?
[quote]Vanre wrote:
dankid wrote:
Hmm interesting analogy. May I enquire as to whether the amount of money ($) is analogous to the mass of muscle & fat (kg) or the energy stored in muscle & fat (kcal)? (Or are they the same?) Also, is the exchange rate between the two acounts 1:1 i.e. $1 in account A can be transferred as $1 into account B?
This would help to clarify the gist of your argument greatly (for me at least). Thanks.[/quote]
For simplicity sake, yes, the mass is = to the energy. 4 cals of protein or carbs = 1g weight. And 9 cals of fat = 1g weight. In real life the exchange rate would be equal between accounts, but there would be various fees for withdrawling, transfering or depositing. The process of building muscle requires energy, just as the process of burning fat requires energy.
Other than that, the only problem with this is that carbohydrate draws in water with it, so this is a little loophole in the conservation of mass. I think its every 1g of carbohydrate stored normally draws in 4g of water. So i guess to add to the analogy, this could be like a 401k and your job is matching you with a really good rate of 4:1.
Theres a very big problem with calories in vs calories out. Its just not that simple. When you factor in carbohydrates effect on insulin release into the blood stream and its effect on fat storage/release, it becomes clear that increasing/decreasing total calories can be made to produce drastically different effects depends on nurtrient partitioning. (Check out references to Gary Taubes for good reading).
However, in the case of T-Nation and the advice that we should be offering to those looking to start out in their quest for getting big, it would be wise to prescribe those techniques that appear to give positive results.
‘Squats and milk’
But seriously, you need to eat to get big. We can go on till the cows come home but regardless of the possibilities on paper, the wisest thing for someone looking to get big is to eat big.
[quote]Neebone wrote:
…the wisest thing for someone looking to get big is to eat big.[/quote]
That quote is so overplayed its retarded.
[quote]Rickilicio wrote:
Sorry, double post. But on a completely unrelated side note, anybody know where to by jeans if you have a small waist and large thighs? I can’t seem to find any jeans that fit me.[/quote]
Was I the only person to see this?!
It smells funny in this thread…