[quote]Yogi wrote:
basically, this thread can be summarised as follows:
Reed is awesome, JayPierce is mediocre. OP, think who you’d rather be like and follow their advice[/quote]
Haha! I love threads like these.
[quote]Yogi wrote:
basically, this thread can be summarised as follows:
Reed is awesome, JayPierce is mediocre. OP, think who you’d rather be like and follow their advice[/quote]
Don’t forget me. I’m awesome. I dropped out of the conversation for awhile though. So sorry about that.
OP, I think your proposition of 2200 on off days and 2700 on workout days is reasonable, particularly if you have more on days than off days. That will likely get you headed in the right direction. This certainly won’t make you fat in the long run if your macro breakdown is what we’ve all been talking about, and your training is good. I’d quit the burpees though, if they’re optional. Those break you down too much, they’re hard on joints, and will likely hinder muscular growth, which at the end of the day is the key to developing a better physique.
I found the disagreements about the quality of Jaypierce’s deadlift to be interesting. I found it distatestful that he brought up steroids as the reason Reed has been able to do what he’s done. I reached a 500+ deadlift as a 181 lbs lifter, naturally. Gear has brought me close to 600, at the same bodyweight. So obviously it helps.
But my point is, one can get very good at deadlifting (and all other lifting) without getting fat, and without using gear. I also achieved a 315 bench and 400+ squat at the same bodyweight, naturally. And let’s also be honest, Jay. You gained an unhealthy amount of fat, unnecessarily. I realize you’re not recommending exactly what you did, but your perspective that you didn’t do anything wrong in this process is what I think is bothering people in this conversation.
I understand that there are charts that will call a 490 deadlift advanced for a 240 lbs dude. I think the problem is that we’re on TNation, not the real world. In the real world, a 500 lbs deadlift is a heck of a lift at any bodyweight. No doubt. If I see a guy at the gym deadlifting that much, I know he’s put in some work for sure. On here, you’re talking to guys that have far exceeded that, and would never call such a lift ‘advanced’. It’s just the way it is.
Thanks flipcollar good post.
I didn’t bring up steroids as the one and only reason he’s able to DL 600. I brought it up because my point of view is from a natural lifter who used to be in the same situation as the OP, where his view is from a geared lifter. I specifically stated that there’s nothing wrong with that, but comparing that to the OP’s situation is ludicrous.
I’m not so sure about the “unhealthy level of body fat” being unneccessary. 20% really isn’t that bad. I know there’s the whole “get hyooge without ever getting even a little bit fat” movement happening right now, but I’m pretty sure that’s going to peter out pretty quick. I got up to 235 on purpose, following advice of several very large and knowledgeable men, to achieve a particular effect. And it worked.
The advice was to take your goal weight, add 15%, and do whatever it takes to get there. Hold that exaggerated weight for a few months, and then back it down to your goal weight. The concept is to change your body weight set point, and it absolutely worked.
So yes, I got fat. On purpose. And it worked exactly the way I wanted it to. I spent almost three years out of the gym, and my weight stayed pretty close to that new set point without losing much strength at all. Maybe it could be seen as extreme, but it works. Maybe it could be seen as “bullshit bro science”, but it works.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I didn’t bring up steroids as the one and only reason he’s able to DL 600. I brought it up because my point of view is from a natural lifter who used to be in the same situation as the OP, where his view is from a geared lifter. I specifically stated that there’s nothing wrong with that, but comparing that to the OP’s situation is ludicrous. [/quote]
Reed made no such comparison between himself and the OP. Don’t make shit up. He was comparing your stats to his.
The best part is, a steroid user was telling you the OP does not need so much protein while you were arguing to the contrary.
This may be the first time in 2 decades that I’ve ever read or heard such an exchange between a natty and a non-natty.
[quote]I’m not so sure about the “unhealthy level of body fat” being unneccessary. 20% really isn’t that bad. I know there’s the whole “get hyooge without ever getting even a little bit fat” movement happening right now, but I’m pretty sure that’s going to peter out pretty quick. I got up to 235 on purpose, following advice of several very large and knowledgeable men, to achieve a particular effect. And it worked.
The advice was to take your goal weight, add 15%, and do whatever it takes to get there. Hold that exaggerated weight for a few months, and then back it down to your goal weight. The concept is to change your body weight set point, and it absolutely worked.
So yes, I got fat. On purpose. And it worked exactly the way I wanted it to. I spent almost three years out of the gym, and my weight stayed pretty close to that new set point without losing much strength at all. Maybe it could be seen as extreme, but it works. Maybe it could be seen as “bullshit bro science”, but it works. [/quote]
This true if one has EXTREME mass goals for natty standards. Or in the case where one reachs a desired bodyweight regardless of bodyfat level and needs to hold the weight before dieting to prevent muscle loss.
The older lifters have never stated they “purposefully” got fat unless adverse life events necessitated this.
Again, you are throwing out statements made by others without regard for CONTEXT.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I didn’t bring up steroids as the one and only reason he’s able to DL 600. I brought it up because my point of view is from a natural lifter who used to be in the same situation as the OP, where his view is from a geared lifter. I specifically stated that there’s nothing wrong with that, but comparing that to the OP’s situation is ludicrous.
I’m not so sure about the “unhealthy level of body fat” being unneccessary. 20% really isn’t that bad. I know there’s the whole “get hyooge without ever getting even a little bit fat” movement happening right now, but I’m pretty sure that’s going to peter out pretty quick. I got up to 235 on purpose, following advice of several very large and knowledgeable men, to achieve a particular effect. And it worked.
The advice was to take your goal weight, add 15%, and do whatever it takes to get there. Hold that exaggerated weight for a few months, and then back it down to your goal weight. The concept is to change your body weight set point, and it absolutely worked.
So yes, I got fat. On purpose. And it worked exactly the way I wanted it to. I spent almost three years out of the gym, and my weight stayed pretty close to that new set point without losing much strength at all. Maybe it could be seen as extreme, but it works. Maybe it could be seen as “bullshit bro science”, but it works. [/quote]
However you want to phrase your argument, you used the fact that Reed used steroids as a reason he is at the level he’s at now, and that because he uses steroids now, his advice is not appropriate. What you seem to be missing is the fact that every steroid user on the planet has both a natural and a geared perspective, because we were all natural, most of us for a long time. I’ve spent less than a year unnatural, and a decade natural. So most of my opinions were derived from my natural training/dieting.
As for your own bodyfat, I guess I’ve simply assumed that you’re pretty far off on your 20% estimation, given the fact that you did not get all that strong, and you weighed so much. (again all this is relative…) I had surpassed all your lifts naturally, at a bodyweight in the 180s, at 10-12% bodyfat. If you doubled my bodyfat, you wouldn’t be anywhere close to your bodyweight. This makes me assume you were carrying much more fat than you think you were. I realize this is just an opinion, you’re free to disagree. This isn’t my main contention.
It’s fine that you met your goals, and that you made ‘get fat’ a goal. But for most of us (and I’m assuming the OP is in this camp based on everything he’s said), this is not a goal. If you’re going to justify getting fat to get strong by saying ‘hey it works’, then you’re opening the door for ME to say ‘never ever get above 12% bodyfat, because that also works, and I’m stronger than you so it actually works better’. I don’t think that’s really where you want to go with this.
Staying lean while gaining muscle is not a fad. I don’t know why you would think that. It’s addressing training and diet intelligently and efficiently. It’s an advancement. I’ve got a six pack and quite a bit of vascularity, and I seen no reason to change that. The best powerlifters in the world, aside from the SHW’s, are staying lean year round. Hell, even Lilliebridge is pretty damn lean at 300 lbs.
I love this thread.
To summarize, OP has been recommended three different options:
2640kcal 40/40/20 split
2520kcal 25/45/30 split
Carb cycling 2200/2700
Honestly, these are all ok and will most likely get OP’s strength and bodyweight moving in the right direction.
Just to be difficult, however, I’m going to say I really don’t think carb cycling is necessary for him. I’m not against carb cycling, I’ve used it myself, but macro timing/cycling is a really minor variable compared to total caloric/macro intake. I think it’s overcomplicating things, and just not optimal for a complete newbie who’s lifting 3 days / week.
I think he’d be better off just sticking with a good macro target every day, and hitting it as accurately as possible. Start at 2400 - 2500 calories, and adjust based on progress / lack thereof. I like Reed’s macro suggestions.
Finally, again just to be difficult, I’d make one point about Reed’s recommendation above, about gradually adding a few grams of protein/carbs over the weeks if bodyweight isn’t moving. It’s good advice. The vast majority of lifters should employ a nutrition strategy like that. HOWEVER, if there’s any segment of the lifting population that might benefit from a more aggressive approach to weight gain and nutrient intake, it is beginner lifters doing an LP for the first time. I.e., the OP. I do think he should start off on the conservative side, but if the scale doesn’t move at all after a week I’d rather see him add 300 calories than 100 and risk missing reps / wasting another week. Some may disagree, but I really don’t think he’s going to add significant fat in just 2-3 weeks of aggressive eating. Once the scale starts moving reliably, he can moderate intake down slightly if necessary.
Craze, I think you’re pretty much on the money here. I would guess the reason so many are offering conservative calorie approaches is because the OP has expressed quite a bit of concern about gaining fat.
I’m curious though, I’m not sure who presented the 2200/2700 thing besides me. That was what I was in favor of, but I never used the term carb cycling. I’m kind of a dummy, and have never actually read up on what that means. Was my suggestion basically what carb cycling is? I thought I was just advocating ‘eat/drink carbs and protein when you workout’.
For me, it means I consume Plazma on workout days, and I don’t consume those calories when I don’t work out. Is this carb cycling? If it is, I don’t think it’s a minor thing. I believe intra-workout nutrtion is a pretty major thing. I’m not saying the OP needs Plazma, I think that would be overkill. But if he were my client, I might get him on Surge Recovery for training days.
Flip, the fattest picture in my hub is me at my fattest. Maybe I was over 20%, but that was by 7-point caliper measurement. And the goal wasn’t necessarily “get fat”, it was “get to 230 and hold there for three months, and then back down to 200”.
But lets look at this from a different angle; you said you lifted very similar numbers as a natural and never got over 12%. On the one hand, that’s impressive, and I wish I had it that good. On the other hand, you’re saying it took you ten years, if I’m reading your posts correctly. And you were in your twenties. I got to those numbers in five years in my thirties. That’s not meant as a personal attack or a claim than I’m better by any means (everything I’ve posted seems to be taken that way). It’s just an observation. So, thinking back to when you first started, if I told you that you could either:
- Get strong in five years with some fat gain, then diet slowly for six months.
Or
- Get strong in ten years and not have to worry about losing fat.
Which one would you have chosen?
OP, as a former 130lb guy, the best thing i did was focus on getting stronger. Stick to your program, have a general plan for your nutrition, if you want to grow, eat a little more food until you do. Don’t get discouraged if you don’t notice the improvements right away, these things take time. Just give it time and put in the work. Good luck man.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Flip, the fattest picture in my hub is me at my fattest. Maybe I was over 20%, but that was by 7-point caliper measurement. And the goal wasn’t necessarily “get fat”, it was “get to 230 and hold there for three months, and then back down to 200”.
But lets look at this from a different angle; you said you lifted very similar numbers as a natural and never got over 12%. On the one hand, that’s impressive, and I wish I had it that good. On the other hand, you’re saying it took you ten years, if I’m reading your posts correctly. And you were in your twenties. I got to those numbers in five years in my thirties. That’s not meant as a personal attack or a claim than I’m better by any means (everything I’ve posted seems to be taken that way). It’s just an observation. So, thinking back to when you first started, if I told you that you could either:
- Get strong in five years with some fat gain, then diet slowly for six months.
Or
- Get strong in ten years and not have to worry about losing fat.
Which one would you have chosen? [/quote]
Well, your hub’s private, so I have no idea what you looked like.
You also said “I got fat. On purpose.” Those were your words. I’m the one who introduced the word ‘goal’, but I feel it closely represents what you said here.
I had a feeling the time issue would come up, and I’ve discussed this many times on this site, including in my log. I’ll summarize here though. The first time I lifted was in college. I made considerable progress for about 3 years. I was a drug addict for a period of time following that, and ended up in jail weighing approximately what the OP weighs. Meaning I lost everything, my health included. I didn’t really get back into lifting until about 5 years ago, if memory serves me correctly. I started training hard/smart maybe 4 years ago. The start of my log is fairly indicative of when I got serious. You can see the point when I start posting more frequently. And you can see exactly how much progress I made in a given period of time. So in some ways, it’s not particularly accurate to say that I made the progress I have over the course of 10 years. Anyway, that’s the story there. And I do believe that the path I followed (post drug years, at least), was the best way I could have achieved my goals.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Flip, the fattest picture in my hub is me at my fattest. Maybe I was over 20%, but that was by 7-point caliper measurement. And the goal wasn’t necessarily “get fat”, it was “get to 230 and hold there for three months, and then back down to 200”.
But lets look at this from a different angle; you said you lifted very similar numbers as a natural and never got over 12%. On the one hand, that’s impressive, and I wish I had it that good. On the other hand, you’re saying it took you ten years, if I’m reading your posts correctly. And you were in your twenties. I got to those numbers in five years in my thirties. That’s not meant as a personal attack or a claim than I’m better by any means (everything I’ve posted seems to be taken that way). It’s just an observation. So, thinking back to when you first started, if I told you that you could either:
- Get strong in five years with some fat gain, then diet slowly for six months.
Or
- Get strong in ten years and not have to worry about losing fat.
Which one would you have chosen? [/quote]
You seem kinda smug for being 205 at 12-14% body fat. Thats good but not great. But if you are asking people if they would want to be weaker, heavier, and fatter than someone else then you have some mental problems if you think thats the way to go. You probably have another 5 years or so to get on the same level in terms of leanness and strength. Plus working out is a long term thing. If he doesn’t want to gain fat and takes your advice and gets fat he is gonna quit, fuck I took a couple of years after getting up to those levels. Dont want that. Each point given has to be given with his perspective goals in mind not yours. You can’t force your own diet or workouts on people.
And I’ve always liked taking notes from geared people since they were usually the strongest, hardest working naturals for the most part.
[quote]zapata1 wrote:
And I’ve always liked taking notes from geared people since they were usually the strongest, hardest working naturals for the most part. [/quote]
This has NOT been my experience. I have seen way more lazy and stupid people use gear than I have seen the hardest working naturals using it.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]zapata1 wrote:
And I’ve always liked taking notes from geared people since they were usually the strongest, hardest working naturals for the most part. [/quote]
This has NOT been my experience. I have seen way more lazy and stupid people use gear than I have seen the hardest working naturals using it.
[/quote]
Maybe I am not looking hard enough for them then.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
Craze, I think you’re pretty much on the money here. I would guess the reason so many are offering conservative calorie approaches is because the OP has expressed quite a bit of concern about gaining fat.
I’m curious though, I’m not sure who presented the 2200/2700 thing besides me. That was what I was in favor of, but I never used the term carb cycling. I’m kind of a dummy, and have never actually read up on what that means. Was my suggestion basically what carb cycling is? I thought I was just advocating ‘eat/drink carbs and protein when you workout’.
For me, it means I consume Plazma on workout days, and I don’t consume those calories when I don’t work out. Is this carb cycling? If it is, I don’t think it’s a minor thing. I believe intra-workout nutrtion is a pretty major thing. I’m not saying the OP needs Plazma, I think that would be overkill. But if he were my client, I might get him on Surge Recovery for training days.[/quote]
I agree 100% re: workout nutrition.
There are different approaches to carb cycling but the only relevant distinction here would be if OP has, say, a target of 2450 calories every day, and simply includes his Plazma/Surge in that calorie/macro total. On off days he would just eat a normal meal in the time he usually goes to the gym (or add more food to other meals), but the total calories/macro intake would remain consistent from day to day.
Having a “normal meal” baseline each day, and then just adding workout nutrition to that on gym days, is also totally valid, but would qualify as a form of carb cycling I think. (E.g. 2350 kcal every day, plus 330 kcal from Surge on gym days. Which would work out to 2350/2680).
I think either is totally fine but imo a 500 calorie gap between workout and non-workout (2200 / 2700) is a bit on the high side. It’s a minor thing, since by the far most important factor is total caloric/macro intake over the weeks, but I’d prefer he err toward consistency for compliance reasons and also to make sure he’s getting enough nutrients on recovery days.
Good to know!! Ty
[quote]zapata1 wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]zapata1 wrote:
And I’ve always liked taking notes from geared people since they were usually the strongest, hardest working naturals for the most part. [/quote]
This has NOT been my experience. I have seen way more lazy and stupid people use gear than I have seen the hardest working naturals using it.
[/quote]
Maybe I am not looking hard enough for them then. [/quote]
That’s pretty reasonable. The failures tend to not stand out, whereas the success do, so it’s easy to get something of a bias.
The Lillibridge and Leeman are fantastic examples of an insane work ethic and steroid use put together creating something insane, but for every 1 of them, there are 10 kids in a commercial gym running a gram of “test” and doing P90X. Too many people thinking they’re the magic pill.
[quote]zapata1 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Flip, the fattest picture in my hub is me at my fattest. Maybe I was over 20%, but that was by 7-point caliper measurement. And the goal wasn’t necessarily “get fat”, it was “get to 230 and hold there for three months, and then back down to 200”.
But lets look at this from a different angle; you said you lifted very similar numbers as a natural and never got over 12%. On the one hand, that’s impressive, and I wish I had it that good. On the other hand, you’re saying it took you ten years, if I’m reading your posts correctly. And you were in your twenties. I got to those numbers in five years in my thirties. That’s not meant as a personal attack or a claim than I’m better by any means (everything I’ve posted seems to be taken that way). It’s just an observation. So, thinking back to when you first started, if I told you that you could either:
- Get strong in five years with some fat gain, then diet slowly for six months.
Or
- Get strong in ten years and not have to worry about losing fat.
Which one would you have chosen? [/quote]
You seem kinda smug for being 205 at 12-14% body fat. Thats good but not great. But if you are asking people if they would want to be weaker, heavier, and fatter than someone else then you have some mental problems if you think thats the way to go. You probably have another 5 years or so to get on the same level in terms of leanness and strength. Plus working out is a long term thing. If he doesn’t want to gain fat and takes your advice and gets fat he is gonna quit, fuck I took a couple of years after getting up to those levels. Dont want that. Each point given has to be given with his perspective goals in mind not yours. You can’t force your own diet or workouts on people.
And I’ve always liked taking notes from geared people since they were usually the strongest, hardest working naturals for the most part. [/quote]
I’m not being smug. Neither my physique nor my lifts are impressive in the least, and I’ve never said they were.
I don’t see what’s so far out about me advising the OP to eat 2640kcal per day with a 40/40/20 ratio. He’s not going to get fat on that.
And I specifically recommended it to him because of his situation and goals.
[quote]zapata1 wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
[quote]zapata1 wrote:
And I’ve always liked taking notes from geared people since they were usually the strongest, hardest working naturals for the most part. [/quote]
This has NOT been my experience. I have seen way more lazy and stupid people use gear than I have seen the hardest working naturals using it.
[/quote]
Maybe I am not looking hard enough for them then. [/quote]
That’s because you wouldn’t even suspect some of them are using.
Behold… “THE TREN LOOK”!