Recomposition: Maintaining weight while losing fat
Options
Replies
-
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
Only one of the studies looked at resistance trained men from what I could tell. No impact on body comp or total or free test in that one.
Stuff like this gets away from what is important, IMHO:
Get a bar in your hands (or other implements) and do the work, eat the food and put in the time.
It really doesn't have to be too complicated.
Young people have it easier. Older people have to work a bit smarter/longer. We're all going to make it brah...5 -
Agreed. The most damning thing for an older individual will be over believing their age will reduce their ability.
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
Only one of the studies looked at resistance trained men from what I could tell. No impact on body comp or total or free test in that one.
Stuff like this gets away from what is important, IMHO:
Get a bar in your hands (or other implements) and do the work, eat the food and put in the time.
It really doesn't have to be too complicated.
Young people have it easier. Older people have to work a bit smarter/longer. We're all going to make it brah...
2 -
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
Only one of the studies looked at resistance trained men from what I could tell. No impact on body comp or total or free test in that one.
Stuff like this gets away from what is important, IMHO:
Get a bar in your hands (or other implements) and do the work, eat the food and put in the time.
It really doesn't have to be too complicated.
Young people have it easier. Older people have to work a bit smarter/longer. We're all going to make it brah...
My original point was actually to the poster saying exactly that, who btw was female so this side conversation is not even relevant to. It's totally possible if you are older - its often just a bit slower and you need to be a bit more intelligent with your programming.0 -
Agreed. The most damning thing for an older individual will be over believing their age will reduce their ability.
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
Only one of the studies looked at resistance trained men from what I could tell. No impact on body comp or total or free test in that one.
Stuff like this gets away from what is important, IMHO:
Get a bar in your hands (or other implements) and do the work, eat the food and put in the time.
It really doesn't have to be too complicated.
Young people have it easier. Older people have to work a bit smarter/longer. We're all going to make it brah...
And that was totally the opposite to what I originally posted.0 -
Not sure. Increasing testosterone to supranormal on its own increases muscle mass without increasing activity.
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
And here is the problem with plucking studies out of the aether...
And it is better to assume that just any increase in testosterone will benefit muscle gain, sans clinical evidence?
Testosterone doesn't just increase recovery, despite what some people think. It also increases muscle mass without regard to stimulus. However, the effect isn't linear enough to be appreciable. You need to have supranormal amounts to denote clinically significant effects.
If you want aspartic acid (without regard to testosterone changes it made in subjects), there is this study showing it not affecting muscle mass:
http://www.nrjournal.com/article/S0271-5317(13)00173-5/abstractd-Aspartic acid supplementation combined with 28 days of heavy resistance training has no effect on body composition, muscle strength, and serum hormones associated with the hypothalamo-pituitary-gonadal axis in resistance-trained men
Darryn S. Willoughbycorrespondenceemail, Brian Leutholtz
But were test levels different?
0 -
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
Only one of the studies looked at resistance trained men from what I could tell. No impact on body comp or total or free test in that one.
Stuff like this gets away from what is important, IMHO:
Get a bar in your hands (or other implements) and do the work, eat the food and put in the time.
It really doesn't have to be too complicated.
Young people have it easier. Older people have to work a bit smarter/longer. We're all going to make it brah...
Yeah things are just derailing at this point...c'mon y'all
let's lift and eat0 -
griffinca2 wrote: »All, I'll let you know if age impacts any possible changes. I'm older than most (55+) and will be starting my recomp next week. I lost the 8-9 lbs I wanted to lose but am still carrying more body fat than I want and would also like some muscle definition.
The biggest impact with age is crappier recovery.
But there's various ways to optimise recovery. Also you can adapt programming to work around it.
Agreed - also, potential for orthopedic injuries and degeneration. Biggest risk there though is impact cardio. Second is overly repetitive cardio (not switching things up).0 -
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
You are using the D-aspartic acid studies to show an increase in test but no impact on muscle mass? Or am I interpreting this incorrectly?
Yes, D-aspartic has been shown to increase testosterone, particularly in infertile men, as much as 60%. Even when that large an increase It hasn't been shown to impact muscle mass.
Were these guys on an adequate volume progressive lifting routine with a quantified maintenance or caloric surplus?
Only one of the studies looked at resistance trained men from what I could tell. No impact on body comp or total or free test in that one.
Stuff like this gets away from what is important, IMHO:
Get a bar in your hands (or other implements) and do the work, eat the food and put in the time.
It really doesn't have to be too complicated.
Young people have it easier. Older people have to work a bit smarter/longer. We're all going to make it brah...
Yeah things are just derailing at this point...c'mon y'all
let's lift and eat
Personally, I like to understand someone's assertions (and relevant studies), especially if they are challenging something I have said.
However...that being said, and in line with what I have been saying...and coming from someone who is older than most people in this thread - and female...
.....you absolutely can make muscle and strength gains when older - basically the same way as you would when younger - you may just have to adapt a bit to factor in more recovery time. I know I have and as I say, I am older than most people who have posted in this thread.
0 -
griffinca2 wrote: »All, I'll let you know if age impacts any possible changes. I'm older than most (55+) and will be starting my recomp next week. I lost the 8-9 lbs I wanted to lose but am still carrying more body fat than I want and would also like some muscle definition.
The biggest impact with age is crappier recovery.
But there's various ways to optimise recovery. Also you can adapt programming to work around it.
Agreed - also, potential for orthopedic injuries and degeneration. Biggest risk there though is impact cardio. Second is overly repetitive cardio (not switching things up).
*nods* I have a knee issue (worn cartilage and some bone spurs) - and not from cardio - as I do not do it. I have to work around it/adapt. General recovery itself has never been an issue however (so far that is).0 -
griffinca2 wrote: »All, I'll let you know if age impacts any possible changes. I'm older than most (55+) and will be starting my recomp next week. I lost the 8-9 lbs I wanted to lose but am still carrying more body fat than I want and would also like some muscle definition.
The biggest impact with age is crappier recovery.
But there's various ways to optimise recovery. Also you can adapt programming to work around it.
Agreed - also, potential for orthopedic injuries and degeneration. Biggest risk there though is impact cardio. Second is overly repetitive cardio (not switching things up).
*nods* I have a knee issue (worn cartilage and some bone spurs) - and not from cardio - as I do not do it. I have to work around it/adapt. General recovery itself has never been an issue however (so far that is).
Ah, sorry
Glad your recovery's still ok 
Working around/adapting involves a whole other skillset - and mindset - imo. Like learning to attend to and interpret pain signals with more care, being more conscious of form, etc.
I'm probably not representative of most people here, so for me that means different things as far as the workouts I do, but I'm curious to know - have others approaching their middle years changed their approach to programming, rep ranges, etc.?
I'm thinking about maybe doing some Pilates to address stabilizers (bc of my special issues), and have become more interested in nutrition for health (at least in part to optimize recovery).0 -
If you are worried about your test level, I could start an argument with you each day and lose. Confrontation, and especially coming out dominant in confrontation, raises test levels.
It doesn't stay at that amount, and again, 60% isn't going to make a difference.
The difference in testosterone that occurs with aging isn't normally enough to affect muscle building.HollieWould1 wrote: »
Age has less of an impact with females. Men can gain muscle quicker than women mainly due to testosterone - it decreases in men as they age - we do not have that impact so in theory, the playing field so to speak is leveled out more.
Biggest impact is the additional recovery time we need as we get older - so you often get less work in.
Anything that causes us to be able to put on muscle slower (gender, training age, injury etc) would make recomping or a very slow bulk more desirable (subject to preference and other individual factors) to a quicker bulk and the fat to muscle ratio will be worse. It does not mean you cannot recomp or bulk successfully - its just something to consider when you decide how you want to go about it.
Not arguing - legit question here, but test decreases when you age. Test impacts muscle growth. So why would it not enough to affect it. Not saying its a big impact, but it must impact it. Unless I am getting the basics wrong here.
It isn't a linear response system. Yes, if you pump someone with supranormal levels like quadruple, they'll build more. But even increases in one person of up to 60% as seen from d-aspartic acid, don't actually increase muscle building. So for normal ranges, you aren't going to see any kind of reliable correlation.
On top of that, when signaling hormones decrease in the body, there is a natural tendency to increase receptors - the inverse is pretty much how diabetes happens, cells get rid of insulin receptors because they think the pancreas is broken and over signaling. So as an man ages, his receptors might increase to react to it, thought that's one I don't have empirical evidence for like the d-aspartic acid results.
There is also the complex case of HRT, which does seem to increase muscle, but it is a bit disingenuous to call HRT to a "normal" test level, an actual normal test level. Normally, the body has cycles of test, HRT usually puts the level to "normal" based on the peak morning level and leaves it there 24/7.
wait, +60% test production from DAA? lol? is there a study for that?
if that is actually true then every man on the planet should be taking DAA
http://examine.com/supplements/D-Aspartic AcidThere appears to be an increase in testosterone in most subjects acutely (6-12 days), and while this may persist to the tune of 30-60% in infertile men it is reduced to
baseline within a month in otherwise healthy men with normal testosterone at baseline.
Ah so this is really only even applicable to men who should be on TRT anyway...
I don't know about you but I'd take an extra 60% testosterone any day
0 -
Excellent thread!0
-
griffinca2 wrote: »All, I'll let you know if age impacts any possible changes. I'm older than most (55+) and will be starting my recomp next week. I lost the 8-9 lbs I wanted to lose but am still carrying more body fat than I want and would also like some muscle definition.
The biggest impact with age is crappier recovery.
But there's various ways to optimise recovery. Also you can adapt programming to work around it.
Agreed - also, potential for orthopedic injuries and degeneration. Biggest risk there though is impact cardio. Second is overly repetitive cardio (not switching things up).
*nods* I have a knee issue (worn cartilage and some bone spurs) - and not from cardio - as I do not do it. I have to work around it/adapt. General recovery itself has never been an issue however (so far that is).
Ah, sorry Glad your recovery's still ok
Working around/adapting involves a whole other skillset - and mindset - imo. Like learning to attend to and interpret pain signals with more care, being more conscious of form, etc.
I'm probably not representative of most people here, so for me that means different things as far as the workouts I do, but I'm curious to know - have others approaching their middle years changed their approach to programming, rep ranges, etc.?
I'm thinking about maybe doing some Pilates to address stabilizers (bc of my special issues), and have become more interested in nutrition for health (at least in part to optimize recovery).
Thank you :flowerforyou:
I actually only started lifting at 45 (I lifted before a long layoff...5 year long one - but my goals and therefore routine is very different now - and even then, I don't think I set foot in a gym until I was about 35), so I do not have a good comparison. However, I used to do a lot of volume and lift 5 days a week with no real recovery issues. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) I pinched my synovial membrane in my knee, getting off the couch of all things, and ended up having an MRI that showed the cartilage and bone spur issue as well as a small meniscus tear. There is so much going on there that its hard to assess what is causing the slight pain I still have - so we are playing it safe and only squatting once a week and have adapted my deadlifts (I pull conventional mainly now but I am really a sumo puller). It is impacting my goals as I train for strength as opposed to hypertrophy - the hypertrophy is an added benefit and is also necessary to increase strength to a degree. Anyhoo...back to the point - there are things you can do to work around limitations. I do occluded step ups, split squats and other leg work that has less impact on my knee for hypertrophy for example.
In answer to your question, I did not do anything different to anyone else due to my age. I think that part of it was because I do pay attention to how my body is feeling and do not feel the need to push things past what I think is 'safe'. If I am having a lifting bad session, I will often just cut it short. Not saying I do that all the time, but I think I am more likely to than I was when I was younger. I did have to adapt due to an injury though, that my age is most likely a large contributing factor to (coz I know cardio isn't lol). Ironic - a powerlifter who does no cardio has what is effectively runners knee.
IMO - best way to optimize recovery - get enough sleep (which is an issue for me).0 -
griffinca2 wrote: »All, I'll let you know if age impacts any possible changes. I'm older than most (55+) and will be starting my recomp next week. I lost the 8-9 lbs I wanted to lose but am still carrying more body fat than I want and would also like some muscle definition.
The biggest impact with age is crappier recovery.
But there's various ways to optimise recovery. Also you can adapt programming to work around it.
Agreed - also, potential for orthopedic injuries and degeneration. Biggest risk there though is impact cardio. Second is overly repetitive cardio (not switching things up).
*nods* I have a knee issue (worn cartilage and some bone spurs) - and not from cardio - as I do not do it. I have to work around it/adapt. General recovery itself has never been an issue however (so far that is).
Ah, sorry Glad your recovery's still ok
Working around/adapting involves a whole other skillset - and mindset - imo. Like learning to attend to and interpret pain signals with more care, being more conscious of form, etc.
I'm probably not representative of most people here, so for me that means different things as far as the workouts I do, but I'm curious to know - have others approaching their middle years changed their approach to programming, rep ranges, etc.?
I'm thinking about maybe doing some Pilates to address stabilizers (bc of my special issues), and have become more interested in nutrition for health (at least in part to optimize recovery).
Thank you :flowerforyou:
I actually only started lifting at 45 (I lifted before a long layoff...5 year long one - but my goals and therefore routine is very different now - and even then, I don't think I set foot in a gym until I was about 35), so I do not have a good comparison. However, I used to do a lot of volume and lift 5 days a week with no real recovery issues. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) I pinched my synovial membrane in my knee, getting off the couch of all things, and ended up having an MRI that showed the cartilage and bone spur issue as well as a small meniscus tear. There is so much going on there that its hard to assess what is causing the slight pain I still have - so we are playing it safe and only squatting once a week and have adapted my deadlifts (I pull conventional mainly now but I am really a sumo puller). It is impacting my goals as I train for strength as opposed to hypertrophy - the hypertrophy is an added benefit and is also necessary to increase strength to a degree. Anyhoo...back to the point - there are things you can do to work around limitations. I do occluded step ups, split squats and other leg work that has less impact on my knee for hypertrophy for example.
In answer to your question, I did not do anything different to anyone else due to my age. I think that part of it was because I do pay attention to how my body is feeling and do not feel the need to push things past what I think is 'safe'. If I am having a lifting bad session, I will often just cut it short. Not saying I do that all the time, but I think I am more likely to than I was when I was younger. I did have to adapt due to an injury though, that my age is most likely a large contributing factor to (coz I know cardio isn't lol). Ironic - a powerlifter who does no cardio has what is effectively runners knee.
IMO - best way to optimize recovery - get enough sleep (which is an issue for me).
Ouch! It's often silly things like that that do it, isn't it? (I once gave myself torticollis blow-drying my hair
)
Thank you for offering such a comprehensive response - I think others will gain a lot from it. (I know I have! Occluded step-ups, for example!)
It sounds like you're doing the very best you can, in spite of some unknowns. And obviously, the results are there
Sleep is a huge factor in recovery (and general well-being), I completely agree.0 -
In answer to your question, I did not do anything different to anyone else due to my age. I think that part of it was because I do pay attention to how my body is feeling and do not feel the need to push things past what I think is 'safe'. If I am having a lifting bad session, I will often just cut it short. Not saying I do that all the time, but I think I am more likely to than I was when I was younger. I did have to adapt due to an injury though, that my age is most likely a large contributing factor to (coz I know cardio isn't lol). Ironic - a powerlifter who does no cardio has what is effectively runners knee.
This. You either learn to train smarter as you get older, or you end up not training eventually. Better to stay in the game and actually derive some benefit long-term.IMO - best way to optimize recovery - get enough sleep (which is an issue for me).
And definitely this. First thing people 30+ should get in order along with their eating if they're on any rigorous training schedule. You only have so much recovery in the budget as the years go on, so don't waste it unnecessarily.
0 -
arditarose wrote: »I don't have a start of recomp to current picture because I didn't think to take something that wasn't fully clothed at the time.
I do however have a comparison between when I started lifting and now since I can't begin to praise the difference lifting has made in my body. There's only a 10 pound difference between the left and the middle/right photos. Crappy quality photo but I shows the progress. So this does include the last 3 months of recomp.
Thank you for posting this. I've been freaking out this week about spikes on the scale/not feeling slim enough on the beach and have been considering stopping my recomp, cutting more, and bulking in the late fall. You give me hope though.
So there's a cut in there somewhere between the time of your before picture and your "after", right? I know in the first post you mentioned you are staying at 118. Just curious.
@arditarose I had the exact same worry thinking I should cut more for the summer (so much that I did this weird thing where I'd eat maintenance calories but couldn't bring myself to make the manual change to my calorie goal in the diary settings...which made no logical sense at all lol). I'd love to stay in recomp through the fall if I didn't have a bulk time frame I wanted to hit.
Once I finally made myself take the progress photos I felt a LOT better about it. It's so hard to see the recomp changes when you're just looking at yourself in the mirror.
And yep, there was about an 10 pound cut between the two pictures. I'd say the time difference split was probably 50% cut 50% recomp.0 -
I don't have a start of recomp to current picture because I didn't think to take something that wasn't fully clothed at the time.
I do however have a comparison between when I started lifting and now since I can't begin to praise the difference lifting has made in my body. There's only a 10 pound difference between the left and the middle/right photos. Crappy quality photo but I shows the progress. So this does include the last 3 months of recomp.
Ooft! Well done!
Thanks!0 -
ExRelaySprinter wrote: »@terar21 What a transformation,....you look great!
@ExRelaySprinter thank you!0 -
When I'm logging my calories I have a goal of 2060 calories for maintenance as a 142 lb, 5'9, 19 y/o male. I do NOT, however, log my lifting or running calories. Is it better for me to continue doing this as a recomp or try and log my lost calories as best I can? Any help would be appreciated.0
-
hoppertaylor wrote: »When I'm logging my calories I have a goal of 2060 calories for maintenance as a 142 lb, 5'9, 19 y/o male. I do NOT, however, log my lifting or running calories. Is it better for me to continue doing this as a recomp or try and log my lost calories as best I can? Any help would be appreciated.
Well, a recomp means eating at maintenance - eating what you burn in other words to not lose weight.
If you are NOT accounting for calories burned doing exercise - then are you really eating at maintenance, or in a deficit?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 923 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions