[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
You make the claim. You provide theory, mechanisms and modes of action and results within a range of predictable and consistent results.[/quote]
My point isn’t to prove that theory though, my point is to simply support that a 26 lbs lean mass change occurred because it’s been said to be impossible. I believe that lean muscle can deflate and inflate similarly to how fat cells work, but I have no way to prove that. Which is why this type of gain would only be possible after such large lean mass “losses”. It would redefine views on catabolism though which is why most people still explain it away or scream BS.
[/quote]
My best guess would be change in cell volume, but you aren’t redefining anything with a sample of 1 (yourself) based on completely conditional responses, which you have admitted you are an expert at manipulating.
Put differently, your idea is only valid if you have been eating bananas for 6 months followed by a water only diet then followed up with la de da.
That isn’t applicable to anybody else ever, because no one else ever does that.
Okay so some modifications to the program/experiment based on input:
Due to the fact that a true predator’s eating schedule varies and it based on the success of the hunt I will introduce three periods of probability for “hunt success” each lasting a month. The first 30 days will be 100% in order to condition my body to the program and eating schedule (i.e. eating is the reward to the effort). The next 30 days my probability eating after a workout is 75% and will be determined via coin flips after workout. Two heads means I don’t eat try again tomorrow. The last 30 days the probability will be 50% and it will simply be one flip. Heads and I try again the next day. In order to get a coin flip I must workout so that means if I “fail a hunt” I have to “hunt” again tomorrow.
Because the periods of fasting may be greater than anticipated I am also anticipating potential gorges well above the minimum 6 lbs. In previous experiments the most I’ve consumed in a single day is around 9 lbs.
Even though I believe “failures” can create a motive for the body to promote adaptation it would indeed be sub-optimal nutrition to potentially go a significant period of time without protein. Additionally since the workouts are done with 3 sets the first two sets would not have a feeding immediately after the exercise. Therefore I will supplement high doses of BCAA’s and L-Gluatamine after each set. I figured 15g BCAA and 5g L-Glutamine based on my former knowledge of some of Poliquin’s recommendations during failure training, but anyone has any other recommendations for dosage I’d love to hear it.
Because predator’s have a higher stomach acid pH I can also supplement betaine-HCL to potentially help promote better digestion.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Will you be mooning nature or just going in the litter box?[/quote]
Can you really moon something if you’re naked already? I mean predators don’t wear clothes so I was going to have to do that too. And the last time I dumped in the litter box my cat was furious.
to be completely accurate youll have to sometimes go a week without eating, i mean no predator’s eating cycle is set in stone. also how do you feel about the fact that to be completely accurate youll eventually have to be killed by Arnold Schwarzenegger?
why not attack random people and small pet animals on the street and drag them back to your apartment if you manage to put them away. that way you’d be better simulating predators in the wild imho… like a polar bear killing and then dragging a walrus or seal. use minimum cutlery to further improve the experiment.
[quote]1 Man Island wrote:
I thought it might be interesting before, and hoped the best for you… but this coin flip thing is kind of silly.[/quote]
I can’t lose the only person that may be hoping the best for me… It’s just an attempt to randomize success of a hunt as it mimics the potential failure for a predator to have a successful kill. I do believe the body will potentially respond better to failure than success so the three periods of 100%, 75%, and 50% may have different responses.
My thoughts on it anyway… Thanks for the feedback though.
[quote]Paul33 wrote:
to be completely accurate youll have to sometimes go a week without eating, i mean no predator’s eating cycle is set in stone. also how do you feel about the fact that to be completely accurate youll eventually have to be killed by Arnold Schwarzenegger?[/quote]
It’s sucks but winter is coming for everyone anyway…
[quote]jeremielemauvais wrote:
why not attack random people and small pet animals on the street and drag them back to your apartment if you manage to put them away. that way you’d be better simulating predators in the wild imho… like a polar bear killing and then dragging a walrus or seal. use minimum cutlery to further improve the experiment.[/quote]
I did, but my wife started complaining about the missing cutlery and that was the end of that… Ironically my wife is vegetarian by the way…
[quote]kamui wrote:
If i wanted to “learn from nature”, and imitate an animal. I would choose a bear, not a lion.
Meat, berries, nuts, honey, fish.
A lot of sleep.
Could work.
Also, i would not mess with the reward system. I suspect it could be psychologically dangerous.
[/quote]
The Bear Program may be interesting, but it’s the whole hibernation thing that’s the kink. Maybe I should do The Bear Program and only use “the bear” composite lift (clean, front squat, OHP, back squat, OHP).
[quote]jeremielemauvais wrote:
why not attack random people and small pet animals on the street and drag them back to your apartment if you manage to put them away. that way you’d be better simulating predators in the wild imho… like a polar bear killing and then dragging a walrus or seal. use minimum cutlery to further improve the experiment.[/quote]
I did, but my wife started complaining about the missing cutlery and that was the end of that… Ironically my wife is vegetarian by the way…[/quote]
Also, there are no condoms in the wild and the soul reason for predators copulating is reproduction so you better get ready to have a lot of children. Also, I think your wife needs to announce she is “open for business” because predators in the wild have to compete and fight for mating rights. On the flip side of that, any man you can take down makes you automatically entitled to his wife and if you are a good enough fighter and don’t get taken out by a stronger male, you may end up with a nice little harem. Downside, you will probably have to quit your job to stay home and defend what is yours which will make paying for all your many new children fairly difficult.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Also, there are no condoms in the wild and the soul reason for predators copulating is reproduction so you better get ready to have a lot of children. Also, I think your wife needs to announce she is “open for business” because predators in the wild have to compete and fight for mating rights. On the flip side of that, any man you can take down makes you automatically entitled to his wife and if you are a good enough fighter and don’t get taken out by a stronger male, you may end up with a nice little harem. Downside, you will probably have to quit your job to stay home and defend what is yours which will make paying for all your many new children fairly difficult. [/quote]
When I was in high school, I knew a kid who just transferred into my school from Cairo. Their street fights pretty much worked exactly like that. You beat up a guy, you get his girlfriend.
He was an international level teen karate competitor. He also had 8 girlfriends before he moved to the US.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
You make the claim. You provide theory, mechanisms and modes of action and results within a range of predictable and consistent results.[/quote]
My point isn’t to prove that theory though, my point is to simply support that a 26 lbs lean mass change occurred because it’s been said to be impossible. I believe that lean muscle can deflate and inflate similarly to how fat cells work, but I have no way to prove that. Which is why this type of gain would only be possible after such large lean mass “losses”. It would redefine views on catabolism though which is why most people still explain it away or scream BS.
[/quote]
26lb LBM rebound increases are not what is being refered to as impossible. I’ve been training since 1986 and have known at least a dozen lifters that have seen similar ‘rebound’ gains…you’re not Star Strekking here.
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
I’ve already accomplished a lot of things that people would suggest isn’t possible like gaining 26 lbs of lean mass in 7 weeks, going without drinking any liquids for 5 days, going without salt for 6 months, dropping my cholesterol by 204 mg/dL in 23 days, and a few more…
[/quote]
See, the whole “I’ve accomplished a lot of things that people would suggest aren’t possible” angle has a big hole in it. You did these experiments that produced impressive results in a vacuum (“I gained 26 pounds of muscle in 7 weeks!”) and, despite that, you are an average-sized, average-strength guy for someone that lifts weights. As ThePunisher said: “I am of the opinion that, due to your present stats, your rate of lean mass gained is generally not incredibly noteworthy nor does it validate any one method.”
If you had unlocked the secret to gaining muscle with a plan that put 26 pounds of lean mass on you in 7 weeks, why didn’t you just keep doing it?
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
26lb LBM rebound increases are not what is being refered to as impossible. I’ve been training since 1986 and have known at least a dozen lifters that have seen similar ‘rebound’ gains…you’re not Star Strekking here. [/quote]
I completely agree this is not any new frontier, but there are many people that consider the rebound gain in that amount impossible. I think that’s more of my focus that just because people think a particular situation is impossible or even improbable, there are conditions that can illicit said responses and we don’t really know without physical evidence. In the case of something new you need to at least try it before you can say for certain what will or won’t happen.