T-Nation and Eating

Everyone here seems to just scream, “eat more!” at all of the posters who comment about wanting to

a) lose fat
b) gain weight/muscle

Now, I don’t know about YOU but it seems to me that all of this eating will just make people FAT. Sure, you can lift and run and you can get away with a couple hundred more calories, but all this nonsense about 500-1,000 calories over maintenance?

According to CW, you should be eating your LBMx16 to gain, x14 to maintain, x12 to lose.

If you’re 160 lbs (I’m a lean 165), that would be approx, 1900 to lose, 2200 to maintian, 2500 to gain.

Eating 2,500 calories is pretty damn simple.

If people are having trouble doing that to gain weight, especially in the face of intense exercise, then they have an eating disorder.

If I wanted to, I could eat 4,000 calories a day without thinking about it. Hell, I probably wouldn’t even be full…but I would be fat.

I agree I don’t get the big push for eating around here either…

[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
If I wanted to, I could eat 4,000 calories a day without thinking about it. Hell, I probably wouldn’t even be full…but I would be fat.[/quote]

Thank you, Capt. Obvious.

:slight_smile:

read JB’s Massive Eating article.

I eat as much as I can. Eggs, deli meats, cheese, sausages…lost 6 lbs the first week, slowly gained it back the last 4 weeks with very minimal fat. The Anabolic Diet is awesome.

[quote]dhuge67 wrote:

If I wanted to, I could eat 4,000 calories a day without thinking about it. Hell, I probably wouldn’t even be full…but I would be fat.

[/quote]

I really think it depends on where you’re getting those calories from.

thje thing is its not as simple as that equation mwe im 237 lets call it 240 eating to gain. your lil 16 x bw = 3840,

well I was eating 4000 a day and lost ten lbs in two weeks, upped it to near 5000 gained 7 of it back in two weeks then this past week at 5000 lost a lb. Hell and I have a slightly suppressed T3 level hence slow metabolism. So upping it again 5500-6000. well see how far that takes me.

I agree hell just friggin etc it can be hard work and it may take 100’s more than some simple equation to work you each individual.

Phill

[quote]Phill wrote:
thje thing is its not as simple as that equation mwe im 237 lets call it 240 eating to gain. your lil 16 x bw = 3840,

well I was eating 4000 a day and lost ten lbs in two weeks, upped it to near 5000 gained 7 of it back in two weeks then this past week at 5000 lost a lb. Hell and I have a slightly suppressed T3 level hence slow metabolism. So upping it again 5500-6000. well see how far that takes me.

I agree hell just friggin etc it can be hard work and it may take 100’s more than some simple equation to work you each individual.

Phill[/quote]

English?

Anyway, like CW says, the equation is slightly different for everyone. Test it out and see where you fall.

[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
Everyone here seems to just scream, “eat more!” at all of the posters who comment about wanting to

a) lose fat
b) gain weight/muscle

Now, I don’t know about YOU but it seems to me that all of this eating will just make people FAT. Sure, you can lift and run and you can get away with a couple hundred more calories, but all this nonsense about 500-1,000 calories over maintenance?

According to CW, you should be eating your LBMx16 to gain, x14 to maintain, x12 to lose.

If you’re 160 lbs (I’m a lean 165), that would be approx, 1900 to lose, 2200 to maintian, 2500 to gain.

Eating 2,500 calories is pretty damn simple.

If people are having trouble doing that to gain weight, especially in the face of intense exercise, then they have an eating disorder.

If I wanted to, I could eat 4,000 calories a day without thinking about it. Hell, I probably wouldn’t even be full…but I would be fat.

[/quote]

Where have you seen someone tell a poster who claims they want to lose weight that they should just “eat more”? I realize some of you consider CW to be the savior reborn, but that equation doesn’t work for everyone because of genetic differences in metabolism. When I weighed 160lbs when I was first getting started, it took a lot more calories than that for me to make signficant progress. If you are gaining weight on only 2,500cals a day, you have it easy…or maybe your metabolism is simply extremely average…one of the two.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Where have you seen someone tell a poster who claims they want to lose weight that they should just “eat more”? I realize some of you consider CW to be the savior reborn, but that equation doesn’t work for everyone because of genetic differences in metabolism. When I weighed 160lbs when I was first getting started, it took a lot more calories than that for me to make signficant progress. If you are gaining weight on only 2,500cals a day, you have it easy…or maybe your metabolism is simply extremely average…one of the two. [/quote]

According to some people, they give advice based on the fact that fat-loss metabolism will be really bad if you aren’t eating enough. While that may be the case, I would think it would be so, rarely.

My metabolism, personally? I used to weigh 220 lbs. Two hundred and twenty pounds. I weigh 165 now. I got to 220 on carbs, carelessness, and a general lack of serious physical activity (minus high school football season).

I know how to eat to “succeed.”

It seems many people here are looking for EXCUSES to eat more, when really, it will just take eating less or eating less junk and more protein in lieu of carbs.

[quote]JKThreeEleven17 wrote:
I agree I don’t get the big push for eating around here either… [/quote]

hmm. i don’t know. maybe because it works?

[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
According to some people, they give advice based on the fact that fat-loss metabolism will be really bad if you aren’t eating enough. While that may be the case, I would think it would be so, rarely. [/quote]

Well gee, fat loss metabolism IS really bad if you aren’t eating enough. Your metabolism SLOWS DOWN over the course of a diet. It doesn’t speed up. That means if you are starting the diet at rock bottom, your body will quit losing body fat eventually because you will wreck your metabolism. Maybe you just aren’t understanding what is being said to other people.

[quote]

My metabolism, personally? I used to weigh 220 lbs. Two hundred and twenty pounds. I weigh 165 now. I got to 220 on carbs, carelessness, and a general lack of serious physical activity (minus high school football season).

I know how to eat to “succeed.”[/quote]

So, because you had a slow metabolism, you think everyone is just like you? You eat ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN GENETICS. That has to be the most basic concept in anything regarding weight lifting. If you missed that one, you really can’t blame anyone else but yourself.

[quote]

It seems many people here are looking for EXCUSES to eat more, when really, it will just take eating less or eating less junk and more protein in lieu of carbs.[/quote]

Everyone isn’t trying to lose weight. Everyone doesn’t have a super slow metabolism and many of these are NOT eating enough which is why they aren’t growing.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
dhuge67 wrote:
Everyone here seems to just scream, “eat more!” at all of the posters who comment about wanting to

a) lose fat
b) gain weight/muscle

Now, I don’t know about YOU but it seems to me that all of this eating will just make people FAT. Sure, you can lift and run and you can get away with a couple hundred more calories, but all this nonsense about 500-1,000 calories over maintenance?

According to CW, you should be eating your LBMx16 to gain, x14 to maintain, x12 to lose.

If you’re 160 lbs (I’m a lean 165), that would be approx, 1900 to lose, 2200 to maintian, 2500 to gain.

Eating 2,500 calories is pretty damn simple.

If people are having trouble doing that to gain weight, especially in the face of intense exercise, then they have an eating disorder.

If I wanted to, I could eat 4,000 calories a day without thinking about it. Hell, I probably wouldn’t even be full…but I would be fat.

Where have you seen someone tell a poster who claims they want to lose weight that they should just “eat more”? I realize some of you consider CW to be the savior reborn, but that equation doesn’t work for everyone because of genetic differences in metabolism. When I weighed 160lbs when I was first getting started, it took a lot more calories than that for me to make signficant progress. If you are gaining weight on only 2,500cals a day, you have it easy…or maybe your metabolism is simply extremely average…one of the two. [/quote]

LOL Im gonna actually totally agree with you. Im about 162, around the size of the original poster talking about CW’s recomendations…I eat 2600 calories a day just to maintain that. Any less and I start losing weight.

Metabolism and activity level play such a HUGE HUGE part in it that I think its plain IMPOSSIBLE to have a general calorie amount that applies to all people of individual bodyweights on how to gain/maintain/lose weight.

I feel like its something you need to experiement for YOURSELF. Keep a food log and find out your own calorie needs rather than having people guess for you.

[quote]V R wrote:
LOL Im gonna actually totally agree with you. Im about 162, around the size of the original poster talking about CW’s recomendations…I eat 2600 calories a day just to maintain that. Any less and I start losing weight.

Metabolism and activity level play such a HUGE HUGE part in it that I think its plain IMPOSSIBLE to have a general calorie amount that applies to all people of individual bodyweights on how to gain/maintain/lose weight.

I feel like its something you need to experiement for YOURSELF. Keep a food log and find out your own calorie needs rather than having people guess for you. [/quote]

Which is why the best recommendation is for someone to track their caloric intake for a couple of weeks in order to find out their maintenance level. That does two things. One, it gets people to pay attention to how consistent they are as far as diet (which may be THE most important aspect of weight lifting as far as seeing progress). Two, it erases the weird fixation some people seem to have on some guru working everything out for them as they follow behind like lost sheep.

Some skinny guy with a super fast metabolism who is active daily will probably not gain significant body weight at only 2,500cals a day. To believe these numbers need to be followed by all shows a huge lack of understanding.

  1. eat a set kcal for two weeks.

  2. measure

  3. assess progres

  4. increase, decrease, maintain kcal depeding on goals

thats how i am now eating 4000 kcal a day at a bw of 158 and gaining muscle with little to no fat.

easy

[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Where have you seen someone tell a poster who claims they want to lose weight that they should just “eat more”? I realize some of you consider CW to be the savior reborn, but that equation doesn’t work for everyone because of genetic differences in metabolism. When I weighed 160lbs when I was first getting started, it took a lot more calories than that for me to make signficant progress. If you are gaining weight on only 2,500cals a day, you have it easy…or maybe your metabolism is simply extremely average…one of the two.

According to some people, they give advice based on the fact that fat-loss metabolism will be really bad if you aren’t eating enough. While that may be the case, I would think it would be so, rarely.

My metabolism, personally? I used to weigh 220 lbs. Two hundred and twenty pounds. I weigh 165 now. I got to 220 on carbs, carelessness, and a general lack of serious physical activity (minus high school football season).

I know how to eat to “succeed.”

It seems many people here are looking for EXCUSES to eat more, when really, it will just take eating less or eating less junk and more protein in lieu of carbs.[/quote]

It sounds like at 220 you were a fat ass because you didn’t know how to eat. It was obviously not a good weight for you. For somebody else who’s 220 with a low bf% thats awesome. I’m eating as much as I can to get as big as I can with minimal fat gain. When I start gaining bad weight is when I’ll lower my calories. From what I’ve read here, people who have built big chiseled bodies have had to eat A LOT.

[quote]GNorm wrote:

  1. eat a set kcal for two weeks.

  2. measure

  3. assess progres

  4. increase, decrease, maintain kcal depeding on goals

thats how i am now eating 4000 kcal a day at a bw of 158 and gaining muscle with little to no fat.

easy[/quote]

This should be posted in the new member email, or the beginner thread.

[quote]dhuge67 wrote:
Everyone here seems to just scream, “eat more!” at all of the posters who comment about wanting to

a) lose fat
b) gain muscle[/quote]

Please point to ONE post where anyone seriously suggested that someone wanting to lose weight needed to “eat more.”

What might have been said was this: Your metabolism is so screwed up that you need to return it to normal. The only way to return to normal gradually increase calories to maintance levels before reducing calories again.

That’s quite different from what a person is who wants to gain weight will be told. That person will be told to eat over maitenance calories.

Is nuance lost on you?

Looks like you just answered my question.

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
GNorm wrote:

  1. eat a set kcal for two weeks.

  2. measure

  3. assess progres

  4. increase, decrease, maintain kcal depeding on goals

thats how i am now eating 4000 kcal a day at a bw of 158 and gaining muscle with little to no fat.

easy

This should be posted in the new member email, or the beginner thread.

[/quote]

this whole thread should be

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Which is why the best recommendation is for someone to track their caloric intake for a couple of weeks in order to find out their maintenance level. That does two things. One, it gets people to pay attention to how consistent they are as far as diet (which may be THE most important aspect of weight lifting as far as seeing progress). Two, it erases the weird fixation some people seem to have on some guru working everything out for them as they follow behind like lost sheep.
[/quote]

Well said.