[quote]Invictica wrote:
If you’re eating 2600 calories, and you’re not growing then 2600 calories is not enough.
Eat more, you are not above the laws of thermodynamics[/quote]
/thread
[quote]kylec72 wrote:
Crusher Jr. wrote:
jehovasfitness wrote:
SSC wrote:
Crusher Jr. wrote:
It’s beyond me why you guys are using calories as THE unit of measurement here. Forget them entirely.
Yeah, we should probably use Snabblecrooks instead.
LMMAO
I really think this came off the wrong way. I’m glad it’s getting a good laugh though. Anyway, it doesn’t surprise me that T-Nation is home to calories=muscle.
Side note: Troponin Nutrition (Justin Harris, Shelby Starnes, et al) does not use calories as a unit of measure, only grams of protein, fat, and carbs per pound of body weight. I believe THIS is your intended meaning.[/quote]
Yep, that’s it. Pretty much. I just don’t see how anyone can justify a healthy diet by just counting calories. It’s asinine.
[quote]kylec72 wrote:
Side note: Troponin Nutrition (Justin Harris, Shelby Starnes, et al) does not use calories as a unit of measure, only grams of protein, fat, and carbs per pound of body weight. I believe THIS is your intended meaning.[/quote]
Though if you know the grams of protein, fat, and carbs, you also know the calories.
And if anyone thinks that thermodynamics has been repealed and people will lose fat while consuming less calories than they burn, or gain fat while consuming more calories than they burn, they have sadly deceived themselves.
Of course simply knowing the calories is not sufficient: no one said it was. But to say the total calorie figure is irrelevant (if they say that) particularly while specifying protein, fat, and carbs – which in the process specifies calories – would be pretty far off.
[quote]Aprentice wrote:
DB flat Bench: 1x10, 1x10, 1x10, 1x10 (reduced 10 kgs less rest), 1x10 (reduced 10 kgs even less rest)
Seated Rows: 1x10, 1x10, 1x10, 1x10 (reduced 10 kgs less rest), 1x10 (reduced 10 kgs even less rest)
DB Incline Bench: 1x10, 1x10, 1x10, 1x10 (reduced 10 kgs less rest), 1x10 (reduced 10 kgs even less rest)
Inverted Rows: 1x10, 1x10, 1x10, 1x10 (reduced 10 kgs less rest), 1x10 (reduced 10 kgs even less rest)
Flies: 1x10, 1x10, 1x10, 1x10 (reduced 10 kgs less rest), 1x10 (reduced 10 kgs even less rest)
Face-pull (Like a high row): 1x10, 1x10, 1x10, 1x10 (reduced 10 kgs less rest), 1x10 (reduced 10 kgs even less rest)
Would doing that cluster sort of thing at the end of the last sets help? Or should I forget about this?
[/quote]
Where to start…OK, let’s take this piece from your program;
DB flat Bench: 1x10, 1x10, 1x10, 1x10 (reduced 10 kgs less rest), 1x10 (reduced 10 kgs even less rest)
I assume the first 3 sets are with the same weight and then as you fatigue you drop the weight so you can stay at 10 reps…correct? If so, it won’t work. Not well anyway. I’ve done it. Your heart will get a workout, you’ll sweat like a bastard but you won’t get much stronger or bigger.
Try something like this;
DB flat Bench: 1x12(light), 1x6(heavier), 1x3(heavier), 1xheaviest weight…use whatever weight you need to get 4-8 hard, solid reps. Keep track of the result of that set and get it firmly in your mind that you will beat this result the next session.
On the first 3-4 sets (I used 3 above but you might need more) you are warming up for the final heaviest set. Stop a few reps short of failure on these sets. You should be relatively fresh for your last set. Before the final “money” set slow down, get mentally prepared and then beat the fuck out of that set. Some folks do one “back-off” set after this with lighter weight and higher reps to get some volume. It’s up to you but I would recommend against it until you spend a few weeks getting this ramping approach sorted out (do a search if you wish…the topic has been beaten to death). Think of that final heavy set as the reason you went to the gym. If you grow a vagina that day and the results suck, then too bad. Use your disappointment in yourself to fuel a better effort next time.
My sense is you are rushing between exercises and not getting focused so you can move some weight. You can alternate chest and back exercises if you want. I like it because it is time efficient.
Without determining what heavy is and working with those weights consistently you won’t fix the problem that you have identified…lots of effort for poor results. If you keep doing what you are doing, regardless of your diet, you will be disappointed. Plan, focus and execute and it will happen.
Oh, and I would cut down, or eliminate, the flies and facepulls (a couple of sets is fine). At this point, they are distracting you and wasting your time in the gym and probably impacting your recovery. Use that extra time for longer rest periods between sets. I do both sometimes but not often. Facepulls because they are supposed to be good for my shoulders.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
kylec72 wrote:
Side note: Troponin Nutrition (Justin Harris, Shelby Starnes, et al) does not use calories as a unit of measure, only grams of protein, fat, and carbs per pound of body weight. I believe THIS is your intended meaning.
Though if you know the grams of protein, fat, and carbs, you also know the calories.
And if anyone thinks that thermodynamics has been repealed and people will lose fat while consuming less calories than they burn, or gain fat while consuming more calories than they burn, they have sadly deceived themselves.
Of course simply knowing the calories is not sufficient: no one said it was. But to say the total calorie figure is irrelevant (if they say that) particularly while specifying protein, fat, and carbs – which in the process specifies calories – would be pretty far off.
[/quote]
In regard to Troponin Nutrition, calories are not necessarily treated as irrelevant; it’s simply not used as a unit of measure to determine one’s diet. Furthermore, protein is only accounted for in ‘protein’ foods (i.e. lean meats, whey), fat for ‘fat’ foods (i.e. nuts, oils), and carbs for ‘carb’ foods (i.e. oats, rice). The other incidental macros found in foods, such as the protein and carbs in peanut butter, are not counted, which can potentially add up to at least a couple hundred more calories per day, depending on the overall macro nutrient count.
Meals are set up to require X amount of protein, fats, carbs, and/or green vegetables, so you can easily choose the appropriate foods and quantities to meet the required/expected macro nutrient goal for a particular meal, and in the end this will add up to Y amount of calories. The recommend food choices for each macro are typically high in that specific macro and low in the others. For instance, lean meats are high in protein (low fat, no carbs) and rice is high in carbs (low protein, fat), which minimizes the amount of trace macros. This helps to keep the diet ‘clean’ and within one’s specified needs.
The method used in Troponin Nutrition is only a means to an end – an easily achievable balanced diet (carb cycling & carb timing as well). Certainly there are many other ways to eat a balanced diet, and this is only one of them.
It would seem, going back to the origin of this discussion, Crusher’s point was to emphasize the importance of macros in a balanced diet under the perception some posters often give out advice with only a stated calorie goal.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
kylec72 wrote:
Side note: Troponin Nutrition (Justin Harris, Shelby Starnes, et al) does not use calories as a unit of measure, only grams of protein, fat, and carbs per pound of body weight. I believe THIS is your intended meaning.
Though if you know the grams of protein, fat, and carbs, you also know the calories.
And if anyone thinks that thermodynamics has been repealed and people will lose fat while consuming less calories than they burn, or gain fat while consuming more calories than they burn, they have sadly deceived themselves.
Of course simply knowing the calories is not sufficient: no one said it was. But to say the total calorie figure is irrelevant (if they say that) particularly while specifying protein, fat, and carbs – which in the process specifies calories – would be pretty far off.
[/quote]
Yes there are as one, the same mathematically, interchangeable in one aspect.
BUT when offering advice because someone lacks proper nutritional habits, suggesting to eat “X” of calories means absolutely nothing to his or her success. In fact it suggests that they are all that counts. If you focus on just calories you MIGHT be eating right (probably not) but if you focus on all of the macro and micro nutrients needed for growth you WILL get it right. Sure the calories are there but there are non-existent. No one needed to count them in the first place.
I do see what you mean by the measurement of 1g of protein = 4cal but it’s not sufficient advice for someone with nutritional problems.
[quote]Aprentice wrote:
For the squats i went from 100 pounds to 350 and leg press from 150 to 270)
[/quote]
what the fuck. This is bullshit
Dude I bet any amount of money if you cut down the volume on both days your gonna see growth.
Ps. Eat more :]