Road to Six Pack ABs - Get Ripped!
Replies
-
Can Jeffseekingv and everyone else just agree to disagree? Watching this train wreck is severely cutting into my face stuffing time LOL0
-
Like I've said more than a few times, if he wants to cut to <10% before bulking, that's fine with me. TO ME, that seems counter productive. No more, no less. I never said he would lose ALOT of LBM during the cut and I never said he would gain a ton of fat during the bulk. I'll repeat this again also. In order to make some of the statements about LBM gains at X% vs X=X%, it would take a pretty strict ways of measuring calories, a very strict method of tracking your lifts and a way of having fine control of the macro/micro nutrient values. Along with having a very good way of measuring BF and LBM. It's possible though.0
-
LolBroScience wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »
You just don't seem to compute what's being said in this thread. Honestly it's not the first time you pop into a conversation and don't grasp what we are talking about.JeffseekingV wrote: »
You actually have assume that. It has been your biggest point of argument to this point. You've said several time why should he cut from 14% to 10 or under, end up losing lbm to then bulk to add lbm he lost. The issue is you are overstating how much lbm he will lose from 14 to 10. We train and eat right specifically to prevent or limit lose of lbm to a minimum. So to say he is then just going to bulk to gain what he lost is false.JeffseekingV wrote: »I did not assume or imply anything. I know exactly where is starting and have repeated that more than a few times. I actually assumed he kinda knows what he's going and would go out of his way NOT to lose LBM if possible.
I also said that any gains related to % bodyfat aren't going to be significant enough given the wide variables we are using for this. Ie.. there will be larger variables in training, diet, cardio and actual tracking of all these vs the verifiable gains of bulking at <10% vs 14%. Again IMHO only
The other thing as it has been stated before, bulking at a higher bf% will leave you more susceptible to fat accumulation that wasn't desired.
Comparing what we do to what some bodybuilders do is just misguided. It's easy to fulk when you know that you're riding a bike and can cruise into a cut like a superhuman.
Last thing, your theories, are they based on personal experience or readings?
It's a fact that he will lose some LBM during a cut. He can try to minimize it and that is all. So if he bulks after, he will obviously have to gain back what he lost. There is no question to this.
So how much more susceptible? Quantify it for us. How much more susceptible would he be at <10% vs 14%. And how much of that "favorable" LBM gain be just getting back what he originally lost?
No one is saying he can cruise to anything. But I did GUESS that 14%, he might have an easier time cutting vs bulking. RELATIVELY.
I'm a former powerlifter. Have lost 20lbs over 4 years and have gains most of my strength back. How much LBM is really up in the air as I didn't measure before I started this.
And you?
I'm not going to bother with the whole lbm part with you because you seem to think it's some huge number and your debates and running in circles. It's boring.
I'm not going to bother repeating the other stuff already discussed in this thread. It's a waste of time.
Notice how the OP was getting good advice then you came in with hypotheticals.
Congrats on your loss. I've lost much more than 20 lbs and in a lot less than 4 years. Strength has drastically improved. Thank you.
Actually I probably understand more than you and maybe it's you that's not computing? In our last exchange, I've had to repeat 2-3 of the same discussion I had with others.
Again I NEVER SAID THE LBM LOSS WOULD BE HUGE! How many times do I have to repeat this?
It was others that implied that it would be huge and the fat gained would be huge. I never said any of those things.
Good advice? How to you get to that? Just because it mimics what someone else has said?
Congrats to your larger weight loss. In reality the bulk of my weight loss happened in a lot less time of 4 years. 4 years is about how long I've been doing this here. The weight loss flattened out years ago.
If he wants to cut, bulk and then cut again (there's no other way around this), then that's fine. I'll ASSUME he wants to cut at the end because there's now way to just gain LBM. And if he wants to be at <10%, he's going to want to cut again. I say bulk clean now and cut once vs twice. No need to lose LBM and have to bulk to get that back. How ever small or large that might be
No, you really just don't get it. It's not about losing LBM, it's about your body gaining a higher ratio of fat to lean mass when you have higher body fat. Plus, he can take advantage of hormones rebounding off a cut to gain more lean mass in the first few months. Greater initial bulk gains plus less fat mass gains if he cuts first. I've provided a study already concerning bulking while lean.
Also, you say clean bulk and I'm going to assume you mean lean bulk. Clean means 100% whole foods. Lean means slight surplus.
Actually it is SOME about losing LBM. If he's cutting from 14% to <10%, are you stating he is NOT going to lose some LBM? And that he would not have to gain that back during his bulk phase? I'll GUESS that much of that rebounding is just getting back what he just lost.
Can you repost that link? I"ll read it. But it doesn't change what I said above about losing LBM while cutting.
You're making this far to complicated by speaking in hypotheticals.
I think the questions are pretty simple given there are only two: You want to address them? If not, that's okay
1) If he's cutting from 14% to <10%, are you stating he is NOT going to lose some LBM?
2) And that he would not have to gain that back during his bulk phase?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
No. IMHO, his loss in LBM is more significant than the theory that it's better to gain LBM while at a lower BF %
People cut to lower their BF% to show the muscles underneath. For most, it's worth the loss in order to look leaner. Nothing wrong with that.
Again, your ASSUMING the length he'd have to "STRUGGLE" to gain back. I did say at his % it would be relatively harder to gain LBM vs cutting down from above 14%. But that was a GUESS. It's also a TIME issue, cutting, bulking and then cutting again.
In a quick search, women were found to lose ABOUT 23% lbm when cutting for a bodybuilding competition. He's not a woman but I'll use it anyway.
I'll ASSUME he's around 170lbs. At 14%, he has 146lbs of LBM. A quick/dirty calc. If he wants to be 10%, he'll end up at around 160lbs. So he will have to lose roughly 10lbs. So around 2-3lbs of that will be muscle and the rest fat. If he loses it the right way. So IMHO, he'll be in the hole about 2-3 lbs before bulking.
Another post here mentions that "10lbs of muscle gain" might be difficult to do. Which I agree. So the 2-3 lbs he has to gain back represents 20-30% of an optimistic LBM gain.
Maybe this person only wants to gain 5llbs of LBM and not 10? Great. If that is the case, then after his cut, he'd have to gain 7-8lbs of LBM. Getting a little close that optimistic 10lbs right? If he just starts at 14%, he'd only have to bulk up the 5lbs. If he does a LEAN bulk, then the fat gain might not equal 5lbs. Maybe less. So now at 180lbs, he'd have to lose 18lbs to get to a 10% BF ratio again. And hopefully kept on as much muscle as possible.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »No. IMHO, his loss in LBM is more significant than the theory that it's better to gain LBM while at a lower BF %
People cut to lower their BF% to show the muscles underneath. For most, it's worth the loss in order to look leaner. Nothing wrong with that.
Again, your ASSUMING the length he'd have to "STRUGGLE" to gain back. I did say at his % it would be relatively harder to gain LBM vs cutting down from above 14%. But that was a GUESS. It's also a TIME issue, cutting, bulking and then cutting again.
In a quick search, women were found to lose ABOUT 23% lbm when cutting for a bodybuilding competition. He's not a woman but I'll use it anyway.
I'll ASSUME he's around 170lbs. At 14%, he has 146lbs of LBM. A quick/dirty calc. If he wants to be 10%, he'll end up at around 160lbs. So he will have to lose roughly 10lbs. So around 2-3lbs of that will be muscle and the rest fat. If he loses it the right way. So IMHO, he'll be in the hole about 2-3 lbs before bulking.
Another post here mentions that "10lbs of muscle gain" might be difficult to do. Which I agree. So the 2-3 lbs he has to gain back represents 20-30% of an optimistic LBM gain.
Maybe this person only wants to gain 5llbs of LBM and not 10? Great. If that is the case, then after his cut, he'd have to gain 7-8lbs of LBM. Getting a little close that optimistic 10lbs right? If he just starts at 14%, he'd only have to bulk up the 5lbs. If he does a LEAN bulk, then the fat gain might not equal 5lbs. Maybe less. So now at 180lbs, he'd have to lose 18lbs to get to a 10% BF ratio again. And hopefully kept on as much muscle as possible.
-1 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »No. IMHO, his loss in LBM is more significant than the theory that it's better to gain LBM while at a lower BF %
People cut to lower their BF% to show the muscles underneath. For most, it's worth the loss in order to look leaner. Nothing wrong with that.
Again, your ASSUMING the length he'd have to "STRUGGLE" to gain back. I did say at his % it would be relatively harder to gain LBM vs cutting down from above 14%. But that was a GUESS. It's also a TIME issue, cutting, bulking and then cutting again.
In a quick search, women were found to lose ABOUT 23% lbm when cutting for a bodybuilding competition. He's not a woman but I'll use it anyway.
I'll ASSUME he's around 170lbs. At 14%, he has 146lbs of LBM. A quick/dirty calc. If he wants to be 10%, he'll end up at around 160lbs. So he will have to lose roughly 10lbs. So around 2-3lbs of that will be muscle and the rest fat. If he loses it the right way. So IMHO, he'll be in the hole about 2-3 lbs before bulking.
Another post here mentions that "10lbs of muscle gain" might be difficult to do. Which I agree. So the 2-3 lbs he has to gain back represents 20-30% of an optimistic LBM gain.
Maybe this person only wants to gain 5llbs of LBM and not 10? Great. If that is the case, then after his cut, he'd have to gain 7-8lbs of LBM. Getting a little close that optimistic 10lbs right? If he just starts at 14%, he'd only have to bulk up the 5lbs. If he does a LEAN bulk, then the fat gain might not equal 5lbs. Maybe less. So now at 180lbs, he'd have to lose 18lbs to get to a 10% BF ratio again. And hopefully kept on as much muscle as possible.
I've done the cut (as a female) and I did not lose 23% of my weight from lean mass. The studies actually say that dieters who do no resistance training and have sub optimal protein intake lose 25% of the weight as lean mass. By the way the women in that study started at 18% body fat and dropped to 12% in 12 weeks (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11360131), which is like a man dropping from 9% to 5%. That's not even close to a man dropping from 14% to 10%.
Let's say he does lose 2 pounds of lean mass. A man can average about 2 pounds of lean mass gains a month for the first 5 years of training. That means after the first month of bulking (ignoring rebounding hormones that would increase his initial gains) he would have it back. If he's been training for 5-8 years then it is about 1.5 pounds of lean mass in a month.0 -
For @LolBroScience and @MrM27: Thought you guys would find this interesting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10865771?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »No. IMHO, his loss in LBM is more significant than the theory that it's better to gain LBM while at a lower BF %
People cut to lower their BF% to show the muscles underneath. For most, it's worth the loss in order to look leaner. Nothing wrong with that.
Again, your ASSUMING the length he'd have to "STRUGGLE" to gain back. I did say at his % it would be relatively harder to gain LBM vs cutting down from above 14%. But that was a GUESS. It's also a TIME issue, cutting, bulking and then cutting again.
In a quick search, women were found to lose ABOUT 23% lbm when cutting for a bodybuilding competition. He's not a woman but I'll use it anyway.
I'll ASSUME he's around 170lbs. At 14%, he has 146lbs of LBM. A quick/dirty calc. If he wants to be 10%, he'll end up at around 160lbs. So he will have to lose roughly 10lbs. So around 2-3lbs of that will be muscle and the rest fat. If he loses it the right way. So IMHO, he'll be in the hole about 2-3 lbs before bulking.
Another post here mentions that "10lbs of muscle gain" might be difficult to do. Which I agree. So the 2-3 lbs he has to gain back represents 20-30% of an optimistic LBM gain.
Maybe this person only wants to gain 5llbs of LBM and not 10? Great. If that is the case, then after his cut, he'd have to gain 7-8lbs of LBM. Getting a little close that optimistic 10lbs right? If he just starts at 14%, he'd only have to bulk up the 5lbs. If he does a LEAN bulk, then the fat gain might not equal 5lbs. Maybe less. So now at 180lbs, he'd have to lose 18lbs to get to a 10% BF ratio again. And hopefully kept on as much muscle as possible.
I've done the cut (as a female) and I did not lose 23% of my weight from lean mass. The studies actually say that dieters who do no resistance training and have sub optimal protein intake lose 25% of the weight as lean mass. By the way the women in that study started at 18% body fat and dropped to 12% in 12 weeks (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11360131), which is like a man dropping from 9% to 5%. That's not even close to a man dropping from 14% to 10%.
Let's say he does lose 2 pounds of lean mass. A man can average about 2 pounds of lean mass gains a month for the first 5 years of training. That means after the first month of bulking (ignoring rebounding hormones that would increase his initial gains) he would have it back. If he's been training for 5-8 years then it is about 1.5 pounds of lean mass in a month.
I said 2-3 lbs so we are right there depending what he actually weighs. If he weighs more, then the actual weight in pounds will be more. Less is he weighs less. If he's been training for 5-8 years, his gains back won't be as great either. And your study didn't account for lifting nor did it discuss specific body fat amounts as one can't lose fat linearly. Ie at high body fat as at very low body fat correct? How long would it take to gain that 1-2 lbs back via lifting and eating? And how much does that add to the amount he wanted to bulk in the first place? And how do you know it wouldn't be faster just to bulk now with a lean gain and just cut once?0 -
More assumptions.JeffseekingV wrote: »No. IMHO, his loss in LBM is more significant than the theory that it's better to gain LBM while at a lower BF %
People cut to lower their BF% to show the muscles underneath. For most, it's worth the loss in order to look leaner. Nothing wrong with that.
Again, your ASSUMING the length he'd have to "STRUGGLE" to gain back. I did say at his % it would be relatively harder to gain LBM vs cutting down from above 14%. But that was a GUESS. It's also a TIME issue, cutting, bulking and then cutting again.
In a quick search, women were found to lose ABOUT 23% lbm when cutting for a bodybuilding competition. He's not a woman but I'll use it anyway.
I'll ASSUME he's around 170lbs. At 14%, he has 146lbs of LBM. A quick/dirty calc. If he wants to be 10%, he'll end up at around 160lbs. So he will have to lose roughly 10lbs. So around 2-3lbs of that will be muscle and the rest fat. If he loses it the right way. So IMHO, he'll be in the hole about 2-3 lbs before bulking.
Another post here mentions that "10lbs of muscle gain" might be difficult to do. Which I agree. So the 2-3 lbs he has to gain back represents 20-30% of an optimistic LBM gain.
Maybe this person only wants to gain 5llbs of LBM and not 10? Great. If that is the case, then after his cut, he'd have to gain 7-8lbs of LBM. Getting a little close that optimistic 10lbs right? If he just starts at 14%, he'd only have to bulk up the 5lbs. If he does a LEAN bulk, then the fat gain might not equal 5lbs. Maybe less. So now at 180lbs, he'd have to lose 18lbs to get to a 10% BF ratio again. And hopefully kept on as much muscle as possible.
And again with the bodybuilder comparison.
If you didn't notice, people stopped listening.
I'm glad you did. So no need to post further0 -
For @LolBroScience and @MrM27: Thought you guys would find this interesting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10865771?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
Um, this looks like a peer reviewed science study. Is that allowed here? ;-)0 -
For @LolBroScience and @MrM27: Thought you guys would find this interesting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10865771?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
Um, this looks like a peer reviewed science study. Is that allowed here? ;-)
I don't anyone in the discussion is obese though right? It's an interesting read though0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »No. IMHO, his loss in LBM is more significant than the theory that it's better to gain LBM while at a lower BF %
People cut to lower their BF% to show the muscles underneath. For most, it's worth the loss in order to look leaner. Nothing wrong with that.
Again, your ASSUMING the length he'd have to "STRUGGLE" to gain back. I did say at his % it would be relatively harder to gain LBM vs cutting down from above 14%. But that was a GUESS. It's also a TIME issue, cutting, bulking and then cutting again.
In a quick search, women were found to lose ABOUT 23% lbm when cutting for a bodybuilding competition. He's not a woman but I'll use it anyway.
I'll ASSUME he's around 170lbs. At 14%, he has 146lbs of LBM. A quick/dirty calc. If he wants to be 10%, he'll end up at around 160lbs. So he will have to lose roughly 10lbs. So around 2-3lbs of that will be muscle and the rest fat. If he loses it the right way. So IMHO, he'll be in the hole about 2-3 lbs before bulking.
Another post here mentions that "10lbs of muscle gain" might be difficult to do. Which I agree. So the 2-3 lbs he has to gain back represents 20-30% of an optimistic LBM gain.
Maybe this person only wants to gain 5llbs of LBM and not 10? Great. If that is the case, then after his cut, he'd have to gain 7-8lbs of LBM. Getting a little close that optimistic 10lbs right? If he just starts at 14%, he'd only have to bulk up the 5lbs. If he does a LEAN bulk, then the fat gain might not equal 5lbs. Maybe less. So now at 180lbs, he'd have to lose 18lbs to get to a 10% BF ratio again. And hopefully kept on as much muscle as possible.
I've done the cut (as a female) and I did not lose 23% of my weight from lean mass. The studies actually say that dieters who do no resistance training and have sub optimal protein intake lose 25% of the weight as lean mass. By the way the women in that study started at 18% body fat and dropped to 12% in 12 weeks (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11360131), which is like a man dropping from 9% to 5%. That's not even close to a man dropping from 14% to 10%.
Let's say he does lose 2 pounds of lean mass. A man can average about 2 pounds of lean mass gains a month for the first 5 years of training. That means after the first month of bulking (ignoring rebounding hormones that would increase his initial gains) he would have it back. If he's been training for 5-8 years then it is about 1.5 pounds of lean mass in a month.
Yeah there were assumptions. That's why I said " I assume". Stating the obvious isn't clear enough? I said 2-3 lbs so we are right there depending what he actually weighs. If he weighs more, then the actual weight in pounds will be more. Less is he weighs less. If he's been training for 5-8 years, his gains back won't be as great either. And your study didn't account for lifting nor did it discuss specific body fat amounts as one can't lose fat linearly. Ie at high body fat as at very low body fat correct? How long would it take to gain that 1-2 lbs back via lifting and eating? And how much does that add to the amount he wanted to bulk in the first place? And how do you know it wouldn't be faster just to bulk now with a lean gain and just cut once?
I typed out a long response with a bunch of numbers and decided it doesn't even matter. I really don't care what he does first. If he's cool with getting fat before cutting that's fine. Gains difference between the methods? Could be zero (because either way he's going to have to cut and will lose lean mass) or it could be 8 pounds.
I frankly don't give a *kitten* at this point. I've lived two bulks and saw how the mass gains worked for lean and not so lean. I've cut to stage ready (which isn't his goal) twice, and I've seen how the fat versus lean mass loss worked. Obviously YMMV.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »No. IMHO, his loss in LBM is more significant than the theory that it's better to gain LBM while at a lower BF %
People cut to lower their BF% to show the muscles underneath. For most, it's worth the loss in order to look leaner. Nothing wrong with that.
Again, your ASSUMING the length he'd have to "STRUGGLE" to gain back. I did say at his % it would be relatively harder to gain LBM vs cutting down from above 14%. But that was a GUESS. It's also a TIME issue, cutting, bulking and then cutting again.
In a quick search, women were found to lose ABOUT 23% lbm when cutting for a bodybuilding competition. He's not a woman but I'll use it anyway.
I'll ASSUME he's around 170lbs. At 14%, he has 146lbs of LBM. A quick/dirty calc. If he wants to be 10%, he'll end up at around 160lbs. So he will have to lose roughly 10lbs. So around 2-3lbs of that will be muscle and the rest fat. If he loses it the right way. So IMHO, he'll be in the hole about 2-3 lbs before bulking.
Another post here mentions that "10lbs of muscle gain" might be difficult to do. Which I agree. So the 2-3 lbs he has to gain back represents 20-30% of an optimistic LBM gain.
Maybe this person only wants to gain 5llbs of LBM and not 10? Great. If that is the case, then after his cut, he'd have to gain 7-8lbs of LBM. Getting a little close that optimistic 10lbs right? If he just starts at 14%, he'd only have to bulk up the 5lbs. If he does a LEAN bulk, then the fat gain might not equal 5lbs. Maybe less. So now at 180lbs, he'd have to lose 18lbs to get to a 10% BF ratio again. And hopefully kept on as much muscle as possible.
I've done the cut (as a female) and I did not lose 23% of my weight from lean mass. The studies actually say that dieters who do no resistance training and have sub optimal protein intake lose 25% of the weight as lean mass. By the way the women in that study started at 18% body fat and dropped to 12% in 12 weeks (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11360131), which is like a man dropping from 9% to 5%. That's not even close to a man dropping from 14% to 10%.
Let's say he does lose 2 pounds of lean mass. A man can average about 2 pounds of lean mass gains a month for the first 5 years of training. That means after the first month of bulking (ignoring rebounding hormones that would increase his initial gains) he would have it back. If he's been training for 5-8 years then it is about 1.5 pounds of lean mass in a month.
Yeah there were assumptions. That's why I said " I assume". Stating the obvious isn't clear enough? I said 2-3 lbs so we are right there depending what he actually weighs. If he weighs more, then the actual weight in pounds will be more. Less is he weighs less. If he's been training for 5-8 years, his gains back won't be as great either. And your study didn't account for lifting nor did it discuss specific body fat amounts as one can't lose fat linearly. Ie at high body fat as at very low body fat correct? How long would it take to gain that 1-2 lbs back via lifting and eating? And how much does that add to the amount he wanted to bulk in the first place? And how do you know it wouldn't be faster just to bulk now with a lean gain and just cut once?
I typed out a long response with a bunch of numbers and decided it doesn't even matter. I really don't care what he does first. If he's cool with getting fat before cutting that's fine. Gains difference between the methods? Could be zero (because either way he's going to have to cut and will lose lean mass) or it could be 8 pounds.
Oddly enough, I've said this same conclusion at least one page ago0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »For @LolBroScience and @MrM27: Thought you guys would find this interesting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10865771?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
Um, this looks like a peer reviewed science study. Is that allowed here? ;-)
I don't anyone in the discussion is obese though right? It's an interesting read though
I'm obese. By BMI standards.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »For @LolBroScience and @MrM27: Thought you guys would find this interesting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10865771?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
Um, this looks like a peer reviewed science study. Is that allowed here? ;-)
I don't anyone in the discussion is obese though right? It's an interesting read though
I'm obese. By BMI standards.
I don't think the study is accounting for your body in the definition of obese.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I just have one question, everyone is trying to put on lean muscle right. If a muscle is not lean, isn't it just fat?
P.S I have gained approximately 10kg or a bit over 20lbs of LBM. Took about 6 years so far.0 -
And FWIW, retention of LBM is a lot easier than gaining it but still in the case of the OP I would recommend cutting first because of the partitioning between muscle/fat gains is not going to be great at above 15% BF unless he has some awesome genetics or drugs basically.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.
Hmmm...have you tried increasing your calories a bit to get things moving?
Because of the way my life ebbs and flows- I over the course of the month wind up with refeeds- so I have high weeks and lower weeks- usually my average winds up at a deficit- but I know around 1800-2000 I will maintain so I'm hesitant to go much higher.
I have mine set to 1650 right now- but for TDEE- % I have room to do 1750- so I aim for a range- I don't think my numbers are "off" I think I could tighten up macros- but I don't really think they are wrong honestly. But holiday's are coming- I could wind up eating closer to maintance and then I'll see how it pans out LOL
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.
Hmmm...have you tried increasing your calories a bit to get things moving?
Because of the way my life ebbs and flows- I over the course of the month wind up with refeeds- so I have high weeks and lower weeks- usually my average winds up at a deficit- but I know around 1800-2000 I will maintain so I'm hesitant to go much higher.
I have mine set to 1650 right now- but for TDEE- % I have room to do 1750- so I aim for a range- I don't think my numbers are "off" I think I could tighten up macros- but I don't really think they are wrong honestly. But holiday's are coming- I could wind up eating closer to maintance and then I'll see how it pans out LOL
Yeah, sounds solid. That's soooooo frustrating!!!0 -
Something else I was thinking about in relation to the argument of going from 8-15% and 14-20%. I think there's a large psychological component to it as well...you have more of a "cushion room".
Starting at 8% and going to up 14% you're essentially moving from a "good" to "decent" in reference to body comp. Moving from from 14% to 20% is like moving from "decent" to "not that great". Most people in that 14-20% range will end up getting fed up with body composition, cutting. Repeating said process causes them to spin their wheels.
Hopefully I worded that correctly... and obviously the level of body fat is subjective, but I'd say on average more people would prefer to be 14% at the end of a bulk, rather than 20%.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »Something else I was thinking about in relation to the argument of going from 8-15% and 14-20%. I think there's a large psychological component to it as well...you have more of a "cushion room".
Starting at 8% and going to up 14% you're essentially moving from a "good" to "decent" in reference to body comp. Moving from from 14% to 20% is like moving from "decent" to "not that great". Most people in that 14-20% range will end up getting fed up with body composition, cutting. Repeating said process causes them to spin their wheels.
Hopefully I worded that correctly... and obviously the level of body fat is subjective, but I'd say on average more people would prefer to be 14% at the end of a bulk, rather than 20%.
I was thinking about this same thing last night. It reminds me of an article about "Former Fat Boy Syndrome" where they reach a slightly uncomfortable level of fat and ditch bulking to cut back down to comfortable. When I posted how long my bulk was and how much I gained there were many people who confessed to lasting less than a month because they couldn't stand to gain more than 5 pounds.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yup, guilty of that fat boy syndrome myself. I always tell people that it's a complete mind fk. Remind yourself that the weight gain this time is part of a plan and you're in complete control.LolBroScience wrote: »Something else I was thinking about in relation to the argument of going from 8-15% and 14-20%. I think there's a large psychological component to it as well...you have more of a "cushion room".
Starting at 8% and going to up 14% you're essentially moving from a "good" to "decent" in reference to body comp. Moving from from 14% to 20% is like moving from "decent" to "not that great". Most people in that 14-20% range will end up getting fed up with body composition, cutting. Repeating said process causes them to spin their wheels.
Hopefully I worded that correctly... and obviously the level of body fat is subjective, but I'd say on average more people would prefer to be 14% at the end of a bulk, rather than 20%.
I was thinking about this same thing last night. It reminds me of an article about "Former Fat Boy Syndrome" where they reach a slightly uncomfortable level of fat and ditch bulking to cut back down to comfortable. When I posted how long my bulk was and how much I gained there were many people who confessed to lasting less than a month because they couldn't stand to gain more than 5 pounds.
I also think there would be a decent amount of people that would bulk into that not so decent territory, get upset with how they are looking and might not use that as the proper motivation but instead just take it to a whole new level of being relaxed. Next thing you know they are Forever Bulking. "It's alright bro, I can eat that, I'm bulking".
I can see that too. I had a tough time switching from bulk to cut. First, because I enjoyed eating so much. Second, because I gained more fat than planned and sort of said JSF.
I am glad that Kyle brought this aspect up. We've focused mostly on the physiological part of bulking. Bulking and cutting are physiological and psychological. Can't separate brain and body.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »Something else I was thinking about in relation to the argument of going from 8-15% and 14-20%. I think there's a large psychological component to it as well...you have more of a "cushion room".
Starting at 8% and going to up 14% you're essentially moving from a "good" to "decent" in reference to body comp. Moving from from 14% to 20% is like moving from "decent" to "not that great". Most people in that 14-20% range will end up getting fed up with body composition, cutting. Repeating said process causes them to spin their wheels.
Hopefully I worded that correctly... and obviously the level of body fat is subjective, but I'd say on average more people would prefer to be 14% at the end of a bulk, rather than 20%.
I was thinking about this same thing last night. It reminds me of an article about "Former Fat Boy Syndrome" where they reach a slightly uncomfortable level of fat and ditch bulking to cut back down to comfortable. When I posted how long my bulk was and how much I gained there were many people who confessed to lasting less than a month because they couldn't stand to gain more than 5 pounds.
Yep that has been me for the last two years. My bulk/not bulk continues. LOL
0 -
mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »Something else I was thinking about in relation to the argument of going from 8-15% and 14-20%. I think there's a large psychological component to it as well...you have more of a "cushion room".
Starting at 8% and going to up 14% you're essentially moving from a "good" to "decent" in reference to body comp. Moving from from 14% to 20% is like moving from "decent" to "not that great". Most people in that 14-20% range will end up getting fed up with body composition, cutting. Repeating said process causes them to spin their wheels.
Hopefully I worded that correctly... and obviously the level of body fat is subjective, but I'd say on average more people would prefer to be 14% at the end of a bulk, rather than 20%.
I was thinking about this same thing last night. It reminds me of an article about "Former Fat Boy Syndrome" where they reach a slightly uncomfortable level of fat and ditch bulking to cut back down to comfortable. When I posted how long my bulk was and how much I gained there were many people who confessed to lasting less than a month because they couldn't stand to gain more than 5 pounds.
Yep that has been me for the last two years. My bulk/not bulk continues. LOL
That's funny...I always thought it was harder for women because they can never be "thin enough." I didn't realize guys had the same struggle!0 -
mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »Something else I was thinking about in relation to the argument of going from 8-15% and 14-20%. I think there's a large psychological component to it as well...you have more of a "cushion room".
Starting at 8% and going to up 14% you're essentially moving from a "good" to "decent" in reference to body comp. Moving from from 14% to 20% is like moving from "decent" to "not that great". Most people in that 14-20% range will end up getting fed up with body composition, cutting. Repeating said process causes them to spin their wheels.
Hopefully I worded that correctly... and obviously the level of body fat is subjective, but I'd say on average more people would prefer to be 14% at the end of a bulk, rather than 20%.
I was thinking about this same thing last night. It reminds me of an article about "Former Fat Boy Syndrome" where they reach a slightly uncomfortable level of fat and ditch bulking to cut back down to comfortable. When I posted how long my bulk was and how much I gained there were many people who confessed to lasting less than a month because they couldn't stand to gain more than 5 pounds.
Yep that has been me for the last two years. My bulk/not bulk continues. LOL
That's funny...I always thought it was harder for women because they can never be "thin enough." I didn't realize guys had the same struggle!
Yea it sucks. It might be easier for the guys that were not overweight before. I dont know. I got down to 160 from 210. Gained 10lbs back almost instantly and have been bouncing back and forth between 170-175 for a long time now. I am just a recreational lifter and dont have any body building or power lifting goals so it not really a big deal for me but the struggle with the idea of fat gain is real.
0 -
Not that this will "help" either of you, but it's an interesting read.
http://www.jcdfitness.com/2009/10/the-former-fat-boy-syndrome/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