Road to Six Pack ABs - Get Ripped!
Replies
-
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Yeah, but at the end of the day it's really just six of one, a half dozen of another, isn't it?
Explain, my coffee intake is low today and I'm running on E
LOL--you're cute
Cut to 10% bulk to 16% or stay at 14% and bulk to 20% then cut to 16%. It's just bulk-cut or cut-bulk. In the end, does it really make much of a difference aside from being a little "fatter" for awhile?
Personally, I don't care, I'm just a chick starting at 16% bf for this bulk.
Let me look and see if I still have a link to the study. It showed that the higher the body fat the less lean mass the person added. It has to do with higher estrogen levels and lower testosterone levels with higher body fat (in males). I think there are other studies that say the same thing and tracked other markers instead of hormones.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Yeah, but at the end of the day it's really just six of one, a half dozen of another, isn't it?
Explain, my coffee intake is low today and I'm running on E
LOL--you're cute Cut to 10% bulk to 16% or stay at 14% and bulk to 20% then cut to 16%. It's just bulk-cut or cut-bulk. In the end, does it really make much of a difference aside from being a little "fatter" for awhile?
Personally, I don't care, I'm just a chick starting at 16% bf for this bulk.
Let me look and see if I still have a link to the study. It showed that the higher the body fat the less lean mass the person added. It has to do with higher estrogen levels and lower testosterone levels with higher body fat (in males). I think there are other studies that say the same thing and tracked other markers instead of hormones.
Excellent! I wasn't sure if there was actual research on that or not--thank you for that. That's why I asked if it was the same or not. I
learning! 0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Which ends being what I just theorizied. IMHO again. If he wants to cut down to be ripped and then try to maintain that leanness during the bulk, he's welcomed to give it a shot. It's not the most efficient way to obtaining those goals IMHO. As long as he's willing to endure that longer process, fine with me. I don't think most bodybuilders prepping for a show goes about their routine in this manner and I'd think they would be pretty efficient about the whole process
Most natural bodybuilders would not start prepping for a show at 20% body fat because they wouldn't ever reach that high of a percentage (at least none that I know of). Most hang out in the lower teens as an absolute ceiling. Cutting from 20% down to single digits is an even longer process.
I don't know what is a longer process. If he's goal is XXlbs of lean body mass, then he's willing to lose some of that to get to <10% body fat. Then he has to bulk to get that back and then starting gaining on top of that to get to XXlbs of lean body mass, then he has to cut back down again. Wouldn't that take longer?0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Which ends being what I just theorizied. IMHO again. If he wants to cut down to be ripped and then try to maintain that leanness during the bulk, he's welcomed to give it a shot. It's not the most efficient way to obtaining those goals IMHO. As long as he's willing to endure that longer process, fine with me. I don't think most bodybuilders prepping for a show goes about their routine in this manner and I'd think they would be pretty efficient about the whole process
Most natural bodybuilders would not start prepping for a show at 20% body fat because they wouldn't ever reach that high of a percentage (at least none that I know of). Most hang out in the lower teens as an absolute ceiling. Cutting from 20% down to single digits is an even longer process.
I don't know what is a longer process. If he's goal is XXlbs of lean body mass, then he's willing to lose some of that to get to <10% body fat. Then he has to bulk to get that back and then starting gaining on top of that to get to XXlbs of lean body mass, then he has to cut back down again. Wouldn't that take longer?
It makes no sense to hover 40 lbs over your stage weight and spend a whole year in a deficit.
As your training age increases your ability to add additional LBM decreases, so getting up to a body fat level of that high is a waste of time.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Which ends being what I just theorizied. IMHO again. If he wants to cut down to be ripped and then try to maintain that leanness during the bulk, he's welcomed to give it a shot. It's not the most efficient way to obtaining those goals IMHO. As long as he's willing to endure that longer process, fine with me. I don't think most bodybuilders prepping for a show goes about their routine in this manner and I'd think they would be pretty efficient about the whole process
Most natural bodybuilders would not start prepping for a show at 20% body fat because they wouldn't ever reach that high of a percentage (at least none that I know of). Most hang out in the lower teens as an absolute ceiling. Cutting from 20% down to single digits is an even longer process.
I don't know what is a longer process. If he's goal is XXlbs of lean body mass, then he's willing to lose some of that to get to <10% body fat. Then he has to bulk to get that back and then starting gaining on top of that to get to XXlbs of lean body mass, then he has to cut back down again. Wouldn't that take longer?
It makes no sense to hover 40 lbs over your stage weight and spend a whole year in a deficit.
As your training age increases your ability to add additional LBM decreases, so getting up to a body fat level is a waste of time.
See? That makes sense. Thank you!0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Which ends being what I just theorizied. IMHO again. If he wants to cut down to be ripped and then try to maintain that leanness during the bulk, he's welcomed to give it a shot. It's not the most efficient way to obtaining those goals IMHO. As long as he's willing to endure that longer process, fine with me. I don't think most bodybuilders prepping for a show goes about their routine in this manner and I'd think they would be pretty efficient about the whole process
Most natural bodybuilders would not start prepping for a show at 20% body fat because they wouldn't ever reach that high of a percentage (at least none that I know of). Most hang out in the lower teens as an absolute ceiling. Cutting from 20% down to single digits is an even longer process.
I don't know what is a longer process. If he's goal is XXlbs of lean body mass, then he's willing to lose some of that to get to <10% body fat. Then he has to bulk to get that back and then starting gaining on top of that to get to XXlbs of lean body mass, then he has to cut back down again. Wouldn't that take longer?
It makes no sense to hover 40 lbs over your stage weight and spend a whole year in a deficit.
As your training age increases your ability to add additional LBM decreases, so getting up to a body fat level is a waste of time.
I never mentioned 40lbs over and he never mentioned 40lbs over. And I never mentioned upping the bodyfat only. You can't lose only bodyfat and you can't just gain LBM. If he's goal is LBM, not sure why cutting down is the avenue to that goal. Cutting will only decrease his LBM. Like I said, if he wants to try to gain LBM while maintaining at / near <10%, so be it.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »The tricky thing with my metabolism is working with my appetite. I do try to eat a fair amount of healthy foods, although my diet is certainly not entirely clean. My diet already includes some calorie dense foods such as nuts, cheese, and dried fruits.
I like how those get lumped on the end into "not entirely clean"
all those things I would toss into "clean"
When we talk calorie dense- we are talking peanut butter on top of my full fat moosetracks ice cream with oreos mashed in.
-
time to get dirty my friend.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Based on what I've been eating, I think around 2100-2200. MFP suggests about 1950, but I think that's a little too low.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well, maybe you are right then.@ForecasterJason
The reason it seems ridiculous to you about the concept of how hard it is to do what you are talking about is because reading it and doing it are completely different. When you try it a few times, you outlook changes.
Personally, I am not that far right now from the starting stats I mentioned in that example. For all intents and purposes, I would be considered a complete beginner in consistent weight training. For my entire life I have always been very lean. At this point, I am trying to do a slow bulk. I don't expect to be putting on 20 pounds in the next year at the pace I'm going. But because of my age, muscle/fat ratio, and perhaps other factors, I have been blessed with a lightning fast metabolism right now. I know it will slow down as I get older, and for that reason I am hesitant to slow it down by gaining unnecessary body fat right now. This is why I do believe (for me, at least) gaining muscle on a slow bulk is hard, and why I am setting my expectations low.
But clearly, I seem to be an outlier in this thinking.
What are your maintenance calories at out of curiosity.?
Holy *kitten*! What are your stats? I maintain at 2600. I'm a 29 year old, female, 5'9",190 pounds and 23% body fat. MFP has me around 2200.
this makes me so sad.
I'm not losing on 1700...0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Yeah but the gentleman I was replying to is going to cut to below 10% then start a bulk. I don't know about efficiency but what would take longer? Cutting down to less than 10% or just starting to bulk at 14% and cutting down when you reached your lean muscle mass goal?
IMHO, the only thing "efficient" about waiting until you are lower than 10% is that your body is probably going to be able to rebound faster from just having experienced a cut. But in all likely good, only to where he was before he cut. He'll just be right at 14% and the same lean muscle mass again. And he'd have to be lifting all the time to do that. IMHO of course.
More efficient with nutrient partitioning at a lower body fat percentage I believe was the idea
Which ends being what I just theorizied. IMHO again. If he wants to cut down to be ripped and then try to maintain that leanness during the bulk, he's welcomed to give it a shot. It's not the most efficient way to obtaining those goals IMHO. As long as he's willing to endure that longer process, fine with me. I don't think most bodybuilders prepping for a show goes about their routine in this manner and I'd think they would be pretty efficient about the whole process
Most natural bodybuilders would not start prepping for a show at 20% body fat because they wouldn't ever reach that high of a percentage (at least none that I know of). Most hang out in the lower teens as an absolute ceiling. Cutting from 20% down to single digits is an even longer process.
I don't know what is a longer process. If he's goal is XXlbs of lean body mass, then he's willing to lose some of that to get to <10% body fat. Then he has to bulk to get that back and then starting gaining on top of that to get to XXlbs of lean body mass, then he has to cut back down again. Wouldn't that take longer?
It makes no sense to hover 40 lbs over your stage weight and spend a whole year in a deficit.
As your training age increases your ability to add additional LBM decreases, so getting up to a body fat level is a waste of time.
I never mentioned 40lbs over and he never mentioned 40lbs over. And I never mentioned upping the bodyfat only. You can't lose only bodyfat and you can't just gain LBM. If he's goal is LBM, not sure why cutting down is the avenue to that goal. Cutting will only decrease his LBM. Like I said, if he wants to try to gain LBM while maintaining at / near <10%, so be it.
I'm using 40 lbs as an example for being 20% body fat.0 -
40lbs and 20% bodyfat would make him 200lbs right? He's nowhere close to being that. And he wouldn't have to lose 40lbs. More like 20-25lbs. Which shouldn't take him a year?0
-
Dear God, today I can't even....0
-
Let's say someone spends 10-15 minutes playing basketball vs 10-15 minutes lifting heavy weights. Although basketball is a moderate to high intensity exercise, the muscle fibers wouldn't be torn as would be the case with weight lifting. So while both exercises for that length of time would require a little extra calories, my guess was that the caloric requirements would be increased even further with weight lifting (perhaps just 10-20 calories more) to support muscle repair.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Since I'm trying to do a rather slow bulk, I have increased my calories some. I do think my appetite has increased a bit even with this. Even though my weight lifting routine is not very intense, I'm wondering if this could be from the energy needed to repair the muscles. Like perhaps an additional 25-50 calories may be needed for repair, not counting the increased energy need for maintenance and actual growth?
I don't follow
0 -
Post his actual stats if you want to use 40lbs as an example of his bodyfat amount. If he's carrying 40lbs of body fat @ 20%, what weight does that make him? And how much would he have to lose to get down to a 10%?0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Based on what I've been eating, I think around 2100-2200. MFP suggests about 1950, but I think that's a little too low.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well, maybe you are right then.@ForecasterJason
The reason it seems ridiculous to you about the concept of how hard it is to do what you are talking about is because reading it and doing it are completely different. When you try it a few times, you outlook changes.
Personally, I am not that far right now from the starting stats I mentioned in that example. For all intents and purposes, I would be considered a complete beginner in consistent weight training. For my entire life I have always been very lean. At this point, I am trying to do a slow bulk. I don't expect to be putting on 20 pounds in the next year at the pace I'm going. But because of my age, muscle/fat ratio, and perhaps other factors, I have been blessed with a lightning fast metabolism right now. I know it will slow down as I get older, and for that reason I am hesitant to slow it down by gaining unnecessary body fat right now. This is why I do believe (for me, at least) gaining muscle on a slow bulk is hard, and why I am setting my expectations low.
But clearly, I seem to be an outlier in this thinking.
What are your maintenance calories at out of curiosity.?
Holy *kitten*! What are your stats? I maintain at 2600. I'm a 29 year old, female, 5'9",190 pounds and 23% body fat. MFP has me around 2200.
this makes me so sad.
I'm not losing on 1700...
I totally don't get that because between kicking @$$ lifting and dancing, you should be burning well above that!!!!!0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Let's say someone spends 10-15 minutes playing basketball vs 10-15 minutes lifting heavy weights. Although basketball is a moderate to high intensity exercise, the muscle fibers wouldn't be torn as would be the case with weight lifting. So while both exercises for that length of time would require a little extra calories, my guess was that the caloric requirements would be increased even further with weight lifting (perhaps just 10-20 calories more) to support muscle repair.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Since I'm trying to do a rather slow bulk, I have increased my calories some. I do think my appetite has increased a bit even with this. Even though my weight lifting routine is not very intense, I'm wondering if this could be from the energy needed to repair the muscles. Like perhaps an additional 25-50 calories may be needed for repair, not counting the increased energy need for maintenance and actual growth?
I don't follow
How are you expecting to bulk if your weight lifting isn't intense? Also wouldn't you burn more calories playing ball vs lifting? So in order to be at a calories surplus in order to "bulk" you'd need to eat more calories?0 -
I was actually listing those foods as ones I eat that are calorie-dense separate from the statement about clean foods. Most days, cookies/cake (mostly homemade) and chips do make up a small portion of my general diet.ForecasterJason wrote: »The tricky thing with my metabolism is working with my appetite. I do try to eat a fair amount of healthy foods, although my diet is certainly not entirely clean. My diet already includes some calorie dense foods such as nuts, cheese, and dried fruits.
I like how those get lumped on the end into "not entirely clean"
all those things I would toss into "clean"
When we talk calorie dense- we are talking peanut butter on top of my full fat moosetracks ice cream with oreos mashed in.
-
time to get dirty my friend.
I don't remember if I mentioned it before, but my digestive system is a bit more sensitive than normal, and I can't just pack in tons of high-fat foods.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »Post his actual stats if you want to use 40lbs as an example of his bodyfat amount. If he's carrying 40lbs of body fat @ 20%, what weight does that make him? And how much would he have to lose to get down to a 10%?
No... in relation to your comment about bodybuilders bulking in the 14-20% range as opposed to the 10-14% range. I'm not talking about the OP, or anyone else in this thread. I was saying, as a bodybuilder it is a waste of time being in a deficit for long of a period.0 -
Do protein powders agree with your stomach?0
-
bulking up starting this month, I've been eating more than usual with lean and clean diet. definitely more protein and carb.
I have more energy for sure and been lifting 15 lbs heavier than before.
My fit test for pull up increased to 25 pull ups with no stopping, so that is good.
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Post his actual stats if you want to use 40lbs as an example of his bodyfat amount. If he's carrying 40lbs of body fat @ 20%, what weight does that make him? And how much would he have to lose to get down to a 10%?
No... in relation to your comment about bodybuilders bulking in the 14-20% range as opposed to the 10-14% range. I'm not talking about the OP, or anyone else in this thread. I was saying, as a bodybuilder it is a waste of time being in a deficit for long of a period.
I was talking about a guy that wants to bulk but it waiting to go from the 14% range down to a sub 10% range before bulking. IMHO, it's a waste of time to lose muscle on purpose then have to spend time trying to gain it back again. Especially when it's obvious that he wants more bulk than he currently has at 14%0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You're probably right. Though in my particular case, since I'm not trying to bulk as fast as most people, I think I should able to get away with doing a lot less training (i.e., instead of 3-4 25-40 minute weight training sessions each week more like 3-5 10-15 minute sessions).JeffseekingV wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Let's say someone spends 10-15 minutes playing basketball vs 10-15 minutes lifting heavy weights. Although basketball is a moderate to high intensity exercise, the muscle fibers wouldn't be torn as would be the case with weight lifting. So while both exercises for that length of time would require a little extra calories, my guess was that the caloric requirements would be increased even further with weight lifting (perhaps just 10-20 calories more) to support muscle repair.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Since I'm trying to do a rather slow bulk, I have increased my calories some. I do think my appetite has increased a bit even with this. Even though my weight lifting routine is not very intense, I'm wondering if this could be from the energy needed to repair the muscles. Like perhaps an additional 25-50 calories may be needed for repair, not counting the increased energy need for maintenance and actual growth?
I don't follow
How are you expecting to bulk if your weight lifting isn't intense? Also wouldn't you burn more calories playing ball vs lifting? So in order to be at a calories surplus in order to "bulk" you'd need to eat more calories?
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Post his actual stats if you want to use 40lbs as an example of his bodyfat amount. If he's carrying 40lbs of body fat @ 20%, what weight does that make him? And how much would he have to lose to get down to a 10%?
No... in relation to your comment about bodybuilders bulking in the 14-20% range as opposed to the 10-14% range. I'm not talking about the OP, or anyone else in this thread. I was saying, as a bodybuilder it is a waste of time being in a deficit for long of a period.
I was talking about a guy that wants to bulk but it waiting to go from the 14% range down to a sub 10% range before bulking. IMHO, it's a waste of time to lose muscle on purpose then have to spend time trying to gain it back again. Especially when it's obvious that he wants more bulk than he currently has at 14%
What?0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Post his actual stats if you want to use 40lbs as an example of his bodyfat amount. If he's carrying 40lbs of body fat @ 20%, what weight does that make him? And how much would he have to lose to get down to a 10%?
No... in relation to your comment about bodybuilders bulking in the 14-20% range as opposed to the 10-14% range. I'm not talking about the OP, or anyone else in this thread. I was saying, as a bodybuilder it is a waste of time being in a deficit for long of a period.
I was talking about a guy that wants to bulk but it waiting to go from the 14% range down to a sub 10% range before bulking. IMHO, it's a waste of time to lose muscle on purpose then have to spend time trying to gain it back again. Especially when it's obvious that he wants more bulk than he currently has at 14%
What?
You think it's realistically possible to lose only fat when you are cutting from 14% down to a sub 10% bodyfat?
If you're cutting at those numbers, you have to be willing to give up some LBM IMHO. No other way around it except to try to minimize the LBM loss
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Based on what I've been eating, I think around 2100-2200. MFP suggests about 1950, but I think that's a little too low.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well, maybe you are right then.@ForecasterJason
The reason it seems ridiculous to you about the concept of how hard it is to do what you are talking about is because reading it and doing it are completely different. When you try it a few times, you outlook changes.
Personally, I am not that far right now from the starting stats I mentioned in that example. For all intents and purposes, I would be considered a complete beginner in consistent weight training. For my entire life I have always been very lean. At this point, I am trying to do a slow bulk. I don't expect to be putting on 20 pounds in the next year at the pace I'm going. But because of my age, muscle/fat ratio, and perhaps other factors, I have been blessed with a lightning fast metabolism right now. I know it will slow down as I get older, and for that reason I am hesitant to slow it down by gaining unnecessary body fat right now. This is why I do believe (for me, at least) gaining muscle on a slow bulk is hard, and why I am setting my expectations low.
But clearly, I seem to be an outlier in this thinking.
What are your maintenance calories at out of curiosity.?
Holy *kitten*! What are your stats? I maintain at 2600. I'm a 29 year old, female, 5'9",190 pounds and 23% body fat. MFP has me around 2200.
this makes me so sad.
I'm not losing on 1700...
I totally don't get that because between kicking @$$ lifting and dancing, you should be burning well above that!!!!!
seriously- I think the same thing too- except here I am... scale stubbornly still stuck at 160. it's disheartening to be SO busy- pull such long hours- for 7 days a week... and be hungry all the bloody time- and stuck.
I know I could tighten some details up- and get more protein- but for cripes sake. You'd think- at SOME point something would budge- might be time to drift toward "cleaner" food LOL shameful.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
You're probably right. Though in my particular case, since I'm not trying to bulk as fast as most people, I think I should able to get away with doing a lot less training (i.e., instead of 3-4 25-40 minute weight training sessions each week more like 3-5 10-15 minute sessions).JeffseekingV wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Let's say someone spends 10-15 minutes playing basketball vs 10-15 minutes lifting heavy weights. Although basketball is a moderate to high intensity exercise, the muscle fibers wouldn't be torn as would be the case with weight lifting. So while both exercises for that length of time would require a little extra calories, my guess was that the caloric requirements would be increased even further with weight lifting (perhaps just 10-20 calories more) to support muscle repair.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Since I'm trying to do a rather slow bulk, I have increased my calories some. I do think my appetite has increased a bit even with this. Even though my weight lifting routine is not very intense, I'm wondering if this could be from the energy needed to repair the muscles. Like perhaps an additional 25-50 calories may be needed for repair, not counting the increased energy need for maintenance and actual growth?
I don't follow
How are you expecting to bulk if your weight lifting isn't intense? Also wouldn't you burn more calories playing ball vs lifting? So in order to be at a calories surplus in order to "bulk" you'd need to eat more calories?
If you're cutting the time down, that's fine but I don't think that means you can cut the intensity.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Post his actual stats if you want to use 40lbs as an example of his bodyfat amount. If he's carrying 40lbs of body fat @ 20%, what weight does that make him? And how much would he have to lose to get down to a 10%?
No... in relation to your comment about bodybuilders bulking in the 14-20% range as opposed to the 10-14% range. I'm not talking about the OP, or anyone else in this thread. I was saying, as a bodybuilder it is a waste of time being in a deficit for long of a period.
I was talking about a guy that wants to bulk but it waiting to go from the 14% range down to a sub 10% range before bulking. IMHO, it's a waste of time to lose muscle on purpose then have to spend time trying to gain it back again. Especially when it's obvious that he wants more bulk than he currently has at 14%
What?
You think it's realistically possible to lose only fat when you are cutting from 14% down to a sub 10% bodyfat?
No, I don't. But, I fail to see how that's losing muscle on purpose?0 -
I think this is a summary of the research. Frankly my brain hurts from this conversation, which made reading it a chore.
http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2013/06/bulking-done-right-what-can-latest-100.html0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Based on what I've been eating, I think around 2100-2200. MFP suggests about 1950, but I think that's a little too low.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well, maybe you are right then.@ForecasterJason
The reason it seems ridiculous to you about the concept of how hard it is to do what you are talking about is because reading it and doing it are completely different. When you try it a few times, you outlook changes.
Personally, I am not that far right now from the starting stats I mentioned in that example. For all intents and purposes, I would be considered a complete beginner in consistent weight training. For my entire life I have always been very lean. At this point, I am trying to do a slow bulk. I don't expect to be putting on 20 pounds in the next year at the pace I'm going. But because of my age, muscle/fat ratio, and perhaps other factors, I have been blessed with a lightning fast metabolism right now. I know it will slow down as I get older, and for that reason I am hesitant to slow it down by gaining unnecessary body fat right now. This is why I do believe (for me, at least) gaining muscle on a slow bulk is hard, and why I am setting my expectations low.
But clearly, I seem to be an outlier in this thinking.
What are your maintenance calories at out of curiosity.?
Holy *kitten*! What are your stats? I maintain at 2600. I'm a 29 year old, female, 5'9",190 pounds and 23% body fat. MFP has me around 2200.
this makes me so sad.
I'm not losing on 1700...
I totally don't get that because between kicking @$$ lifting and dancing, you should be burning well above that!!!!!
seriously- I think the same thing too- except here I am... scale stubbornly still stuck at 160. it's disheartening to be SO busy- pull such long hours- for 7 days a week... and be hungry all the bloody time- and stuck.
I know I could tighten some details up- and get more protein- but for cripes sake. You'd think- at SOME point something would budge- might be time to drift toward "cleaner" food LOL shameful.
Hmmm...have you tried increasing your calories a bit to get things moving?0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »Post his actual stats if you want to use 40lbs as an example of his bodyfat amount. If he's carrying 40lbs of body fat @ 20%, what weight does that make him? And how much would he have to lose to get down to a 10%?
No... in relation to your comment about bodybuilders bulking in the 14-20% range as opposed to the 10-14% range. I'm not talking about the OP, or anyone else in this thread. I was saying, as a bodybuilder it is a waste of time being in a deficit for long of a period.
I was talking about a guy that wants to bulk but it waiting to go from the 14% range down to a sub 10% range before bulking. IMHO, it's a waste of time to lose muscle on purpose then have to spend time trying to gain it back again. Especially when it's obvious that he wants more bulk than he currently has at 14%
What?
You think it's realistically possible to lose only fat when you are cutting from 14% down to a sub 10% bodyfat?
No, I don't. But, I fail to see how that's losing muscle on purpose?
Perhaps a bad choice of words but the fact remains. If he's cutting, that means he's giving up LBM. And if he KNOWS this, that means he giving up muscle intentionally, on purpose or otherwise. Which is to me, counter productive to his goal of gaining LBM. For a guy that hovers around 14%? I'd think cutting down might not be the difficult part.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions