Recomp Math

Iron_Feline

But they do because that's how the body works. Or you are you saying the wiki is wrong? See I can twist stuff around too.


That is the problem no one likes to read. Maybe you should read more wikis. Then you would have a basic understanding of how how things work.

If you want to look it up you can see in the 3 decade study it only takes a very small amount of energy to build a lb of muscle, but dont take my word for it look it up and then tell everyone. It doesn't take a lot of cals to put on lean body mass, the math backs it up and so does the science. Just read the wikis and learn.

SezxyStef

But they do because that's how the body works. Or you are you saying the wiki is wrong? See I can twist stuff around too.


That is the problem no one likes to read. Maybe you should read more wikis. Then you would have a basic understanding of how how things work.

If you want to look it up you can see in the 3 decade study it only takes a very small amount of energy to build a lb of muscle, but dont take my word for it look it up and then tell everyone. It doesn't take a lot of cals to put on lean body mass, the math backs it up and so does the science. Just read the wikis and learn.

Sorry but Wiki is not what I would consider a credible source for anything...

and if it doesn't take a lot of energy or calories to build muscle then how come I am not building it now? I lift heavy, am eating at maitenance (pretty much anyway) but I see no gain in my muscle mass...I do however see a loss in my fat stores which is based on the scale weight going down...

based on your post I should be building muscle too...

JoRocka

Substitute "caloric transmogrification" for "alien sighting/encounter" and you're pretty much set.

OMG a Calvin and Hobbs reference.
I just died and went to heaven.


Also OP- body recomp is a slow horribly inefficient process- this is why anyone training for an event who wants results in a timely manner does bulk/cut cycles, and that is mostly all people really need to know.

jimmmer

Also OP- body recomp is a slow horribly inefficient process- this is why anyone training for an event who wants results in a timely manner does bulk/cut cycles, and that is mostly all people really need to know.

^This.

The average person would probably give up in despair at the lack of apparent results before they got a meaningful distance in.

If you've got a long time and plenty of patience have at it. But the results will likely be inferior to a bulk/cut (Although there's plenty of latitude for bollocking that approach up too...)

Iron_Feline

Also OP- body recomp is a slow horribly inefficient process- this is why anyone training for an event who wants results in a timely manner does bulk/cut cycles, and that is mostly all people really need to know.

^This.

The average person would probably give up in despair at the lack of apparent results before they got a meaningful distance in.

If you've got a long time and plenty of patience have at it. But the results will likely be inferior to a bulk/cut (Although there's plenty of latitude for bollocking that approach up too...)

but the op said

" This is why so many people can both gain muscle and lose fat at the same time because, lets stress the fact ,muscle is almost all water and fat has a lot of cal's in it. "

:laugh:

JoRocka

Also OP- body recomp is a slow horribly inefficient process- this is why anyone training for an event who wants results in a timely manner does bulk/cut cycles, and that is mostly all people really need to know.

^This.

The average person would probably give up in despair at the lack of apparent results before they got a meaningful distance in.

If you've got a long time and plenty of patience have at it. But the results will likely be inferior to a bulk/cut (Although there's plenty of latitude for bollocking that approach up too...)

but the op said

" This is why so many people can both gain muscle and lose fat at the same time because, lets stress the fact ,muscle is almost all water and fat has a lot of cal's in it. "

:laugh:

I don't know what you're talking about- my muscles are all made of unicorn tears and pony farts.

CrusaderSam

Fine just read what the nejm has to say about it.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

Two weeks before day 1, the men were instructed to begin following a standardized daily diet containing 36 kcal per kilogram of body weight, 1.5 g of protein per kilogram, and 100 percent of the recommended daily allowance of vitamins, minerals, and trace elements. Compliance with the diet was verified every four weeks by three-day records of food consumption. The dietary intake was adjusted every two weeks on the basis of changes in body weight.

Muscle size was measured by MRI of the arms and legs at the humeral or femoral mid-diaphyseal level, the junction of the upper third and middle third of the bone, and the junction of the middle third and lower third. The cross-sectional areas of the arms and legs, the subcutaneous tissue, the muscle compartment, and the quadriceps and triceps muscles were computed, and the areas at the three levels were averaged.

The men treated with testosterone but no exercise had an increase of 3.2 kg in fat-free mass, and those in the placebo-plus-exercise group had an increase of 1.9 kg. The increase in the testosterone-plus-exercise group was substantially greater (averaging 6.1 kg). The percentage of body fat did not change significantly in any group (data not shown).

So keep thinking what you want, the data is what it is. But who knows, why trust what an MRI and Ph.D have to say about it, better just to make fun of it because its not what you bro told you. Just block it all out because it could change what you know.

Iron_Feline

Fine just read what the nejm has to say about it.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

Two weeks before day 1, the men were instructed to begin following a standardized daily diet containing 36 kcal per kilogram of body weight, 1.5 g of protein per kilogram, and 100 percent of the recommended daily allowance of vitamins, minerals, and trace elements. Compliance with the diet was verified every four weeks by three-day records of food consumption. The dietary intake was adjusted every two weeks on the basis of changes in body weight.

Muscle size was measured by MRI of the arms and legs at the humeral or femoral mid-diaphyseal level, the junction of the upper third and middle third of the bone, and the junction of the middle third and lower third. The cross-sectional areas of the arms and legs, the subcutaneous tissue, the muscle compartment, and the quadriceps and triceps muscles were computed, and the areas at the three levels were averaged.

The men treated with testosterone but no exercise had an increase of 3.2 kg in fat-free mass, and those in the placebo-plus-exercise group had an increase of 1.9 kg. The increase in the testosterone-plus-exercise group was substantially greater (averaging 6.1 kg). The percentage of body fat did not change significantly in any group (data not shown).

So keep thinking what you want, the data is what it is. But who knows, why trust what an MRI and Ph.D have to say about it, better just to make fun of it because its not what you bro told you. Just block it all out because it could change what you know.

The paper is "The Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Muscle Size and Strength in Normal Men"

Abstract "We sought to determine whether supraphysiologic doses of testosterone, administered alone or in conjunction with a standardized program of strength-training exercise, increase fat-free mass and muscle size and strength in normal men"


What does that have to do with recomping and the point (which I'm still unsure of) that you were trying to make?

What does it have to do with your claim that it is easier to build muscle than fat?

What has it to do with anything you have said?

Did you even read the paper?

Conclusions

Supraphysiologic doses of testosterone, especially when combined with strength training, increase fat-free mass and muscle size and strength in normal men

CrusaderSam

and those in the placebo-plus-exercise group had an increase of 1.9 kg. The percentage of body fat did not change significantly in any group


The study needs a control group

And for the love of all that is holy, I am saying you can gain muscle without fat (or even cutting it) because the the cal's needed are so tiny and the study shows it can and has been done.

Iron_Feline

and those in the placebo-plus-exercise group had an increase of 1.9 kg. The percentage of body fat did not change significantly in any group


The study needs a control group

And for the love of all that is holy, I am saying you can gain muscle without fat (or even cutting it) because the the cal's needed are so tiny and the study shows it can and has been done.

The study did not say if they were eating at maintenance or slightly above, it relied on self reporting for food based on three day diarys every four weeks, and other studies have proved that most people underestimate what they eat.

What this study proved was "Our results show that supraphysiologic doses of testosterone, especially when combined with strength training, increase fat-free mass, muscle size, and strength in normal men when potentially confounding variables, such as nutritional intake and exercise stimulus, are standardized"

And only that.

You can infer other results but since the study was not geared towards that you cannot confirm them - only speculate.


Nobody has ever disputed (as far as I am aware) that you cannot do a recomp. In fact it is often suggested to women who do not want to bulk that a slow recomp could work

Not sure what you needed loads of unnecessary and complicated maths to try to prove that.

What everyone does say is that it is difficult to find the perfect balance and takes far far longer than a standard bulk and cut.


Again - you've basically written a load of nonsense to try to prove something that was not disputed in the first place.

Congrats.

Oh and your reasoning as to why this can be done is quite wrong. Proving that just because you can read something doesn't mean you can actually understand it and apply it.

>>>> Just because muscle is mostly water doesn't mean it is easier to build.

JoRocka

pwwwwwonnnneeeedddddddd

CrusaderSam

What everyone does say is that it is difficult to find the perfect balance and takes far far longer than a standard bulk and cut.

Again - you've basically written a load of nonsense to try to prove something that was not disputed in the first place.

I tried to put something it to layman's terms so you just want to call it nonsense. You don't seem to get that there is a difference in a pure energy standpoint and a biological one.

Also how do you know its more difficult? You have a study? You have a biological reason that a bulk/cut is faster?

mustgetmuscles1

Recomp is code for I suck at cutting. :glasses:

Guess that's why I'm recomping!

Me too. :happy:

jimmmer

Recomp is code for I suck at cutting. :glasses:

Guess that's why I'm recomping!

Me too. :happy:

:laugh:

Iron_Feline

What everyone does say is that it is difficult to find the perfect balance and takes far far longer than a standard bulk and cut.

Again - you've basically written a load of nonsense to try to prove something that was not disputed in the first place.

I tried to put something it to layman's terms so you just want to call it nonsense. You don't seem to get that there is a difference in a pure energy standpoint and a biological one.

Also how do you know its more difficult? You have a study? You have a biological reason that a bulk/cut is faster?

Laymans terms?

I do not think that word means what you think it means. :laugh:



I'm currently on my phone so the best I can give you at the moment is this excellent article from lyle on the subject of muscle gain.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/general-philosophies-of-muscle-mass-gain.html

And while not a study it's a far more relevant that the study you posted to try to back up your claims. Feel free to try to learn from an expert in the field.

Edit: here he addresses it directly.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html

Iron_Feline

What everyone does say is that it is difficult to find the perfect balance and takes far far longer than a standard bulk and cut.

Again - you've basically written a load of nonsense to try to prove something that was not disputed in the first place.

I tried to put something it to layman's terms so you just want to call it nonsense. You don't seem to get that there is a difference in a pure energy standpoint and a biological one.

Also how do you know its more difficult? You have a study? You have a biological reason that a bulk/cut is faster?

Do you realize that if you take information that you have wrong and put it in layman's terms it will still provide wrong information. All you did was make it easier for people to understand that you didn't know what you were talking about.

Next time keep it really really intelligent and complicated and the masses will get confused and many will just say "Man, this guy must know what he's talking about. Look at all that science".

Womp womp womp.

:laugh: :drinker:

yopeeps025

I stop reading once I saw 1g= 9 fat and g=4 protein.

Iron_Feline

I stop reading once I saw 1g= 9 fat and g=4 protein.

Good decision. :drinker:

LAT1963

Title first misread as "Recomp Meth" :noway: :laugh: