Road to Six Pack ABs - Get Ripped!
Options
Replies
-
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.
If you are being accurate and have been at/under your calorie goal consistently for a while try a refeed. 100g protein, less than 20g fat, rest of it is carbs (avoid fruit sources) and you aim for your TDEE. Not as fun as it sounds, but it fixes leptin levels.0 -
From my understanding, someone like me who naturally has low muscle mass and is a beginner to weight lifting can gain up to 2 pounds of LBM a month. At the present time, I'm aiming for up to half that amount. So since I'm not maximizing my potential in a given time frame, shouldn't that mean I wouldn't need to train as much?JeffseekingV wrote: »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 -
So, you're still going with it's more effective to run a cut and bulk cycle from 14-20% as opposed to say 8-14% when you have a greater chance of those lean gains coming in the form of LBM as opposed to fat while at the lower body fat range. Right?0
-
Oh you're a beginner. In that case start slow and ramp up slow. Good luck0
-
LolBroScience wrote: »So, you're still going with it's more effective to run a cut and bulk cycle from 14-20% as opposed to say 8-14% when you have a greater chance of those lean gains coming in the form of LBM as opposed to fat while at the lower body fat range. Right?
No. I'm saying if his goal is to gain LBM, he shouldn't cut at all. Unless there's some huge significant study that shows LBM is significantly harder to gain at a 14% vs a sub 10% BF, then I'm going with bulking now at 14% vs a sub 10%. He will get to his LBM goal faster, while trying not to gain as much fat in the process and be at a cutting stage sooner vs cutting down first. Again IMHO
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »So, you're still going with it's more effective to run a cut and bulk cycle from 14-20% as opposed to say 8-14% when you have a greater chance of those lean gains coming in the form of LBM as opposed to fat while at the lower body fat range. Right?
No. I'm saying if his goal is to gain LBM, he shouldn't cut at all. Unless there's some huge significant study that shows LBM is significantly harder to gain at a 14% vs a sub 10% BF, then I'm going with bulking now at 14% vs a sub 10%. He will get to his LBM goal faster, while trying not to gain as much fat in the process and be at a cutting stage sooner vs cutting down first. Again IMHO
But then you're still cutting at the end. Cutting sooner, cutting later. See bold.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »So, you're still going with it's more effective to run a cut and bulk cycle from 14-20% as opposed to say 8-14% when you have a greater chance of those lean gains coming in the form of LBM as opposed to fat while at the lower body fat range. Right?
No. I'm saying if his goal is to gain LBM, he shouldn't cut at all. Unless there's some huge significant study that shows LBM is significantly harder to gain at a 14% vs a sub 10% BF, then I'm going with bulking now at 14% vs a sub 10%. He will get to his LBM goal faster, while trying not to gain as much fat in the process and be at a cutting stage sooner vs cutting down first. Again IMHO
But then you're still cutting at the end. Cutting sooner, cutting later. See bold.
Yes, cutting at the end. He shouldn't cut NOW and lose LBM and then try to eat and lift to get it back. This way he has to cut twice as gaining LBM means gaining both fat and muscle (just as little fat as possible).
My way, he cuts once and gets to the cut phase faster. And while he might have to cut a bit longer, the total time to bulk, cut and end time might be faster than cutting, bulking and then cutting again. You have two cut phases and your bulk phase is probably longer because you lost some LBM during the 1st cut phase and you have to eat/lift to get that back. Then keep eating and lifting to get beyond what you just lost.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »So, you're still going with it's more effective to run a cut and bulk cycle from 14-20% as opposed to say 8-14% when you have a greater chance of those lean gains coming in the form of LBM as opposed to fat while at the lower body fat range. Right?
No. I'm saying if his goal is to gain LBM, he shouldn't cut at all. Unless there's some huge significant study that shows LBM is significantly harder to gain at a 14% vs a sub 10% BF, then I'm going with bulking now at 14% vs a sub 10%. He will get to his LBM goal faster, while trying not to gain as much fat in the process and be at a cutting stage sooner vs cutting down first. Again IMHO
But then you're still cutting at the end. Cutting sooner, cutting later. See bold.
Yes, cutting at the end. He shouldn't cut NOW and lose LBM and then try to eat and lift to get it back. This way he has to cut twice as gaining LBM means gaining both fat and muscle (just as little fat as possible).
My way, he cuts once and gets to the cut phase faster. And while he might have to cut a bit longer, the total time to bulk, cut and end time might be faster than cutting, bulking and then cutting again. You have two cut phases and your bulk phase is probably longer because you lost some LBM during the cut phase and you have to eat/lift to get that back
From my personal experience:
If he's new to lifting he can gain on a deficit (not much, but he won't lose) with appropriate calories/macros/lifting.
Coming off a deficit he'll make greater lean mass gains with rebounding hormones.
Either way I guess it doesn't really matter though. He'll probably hate himself a bit more at 20% body fat than he would if he cut and then bulked. Psychologically being fatter is harder (coming from someone who allowed her body fat to get higher on a bulk than she should have).0 -
I assume he's not a newbie but I could be wrong.
I'll concede this. If he is already at this goal LBM and is cutting to a sub 10%. Then I can see him gaining a good portion of his original LBM back w/o the fat that came with it. If that's his goal, then I say that's a reasonable plan.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »I assume he's not a newbie but I could be wrong.
Reading back through the thread...not a newbie.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »I assume he's not a newbie but I could be wrong.
Then let's assume he's got knowledge on how to cut without losing much lean mass. You're acting like he's going to lose 25% of his weight from lean mass like a typical dieter would. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571
If not, here is a great paper with tons of info. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033492/
I provided a link on the page before of a study that suggested that starting a bulk while leaner is better overall for health and gains.0 -
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 only0 -
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?
0 -
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 be0 -
I don't want to live on this planet anymore...0
-
LolBroScience wrote: »I don't want to live on this planet anymore...
I'm sure they will accept you on Planet Fitness with open arms.0 -
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions