shmoony Member

MusclePharm cookies n cream. Available at Costco. Delicious and affordable.

Not sure what you mean by waste. It's still calories. If you're trying to eat at a surplus, get it from wherever. I find it hard to eat more carbs than protein. I'm usually at about 220 each a day with a lbm around 150. Works for me. Seeing strength and size gains.

Quitting sugar is like quitting smoking in the sense that the "addiction" is twofold. There is the craving your body has to fulfill energy demands and maintain blood sugar levels, and there's the craving your mouth and brain have to fulfill the hedonistic desire and comfort that sweet foods provide. Although these two…

Do you ever have anything meaningful to say, or are you all snark al the time? Maybe that's part of being the man everyone wants to be.

Possibly. I never claimed to be inventing the wheel. But it can't really be considered a recomp if I strarted with very low bf% to begin with.

What I meant by overlapping flow is that although your body does not completely enter a fasting state until a certain point or exit a fed state until a certain point, these are not absolute. Immediately following a workout, your body begins the reparation process and has nutritional needs, and continues to do so for many…

Yes, but those systems are in a constant overlapping flow.

I am still looking for a real response to the original question. I promise I'm not trying to stir the pot, I am just very interested in the process. If it is possible to eat a surplus for 6 weeks, then eat at a deficit for 6 weeks and end up with a gain of muscle mass while reducing BF%, why is it not possible to mimic the…

Doesn't the fact that you are capable of actually typing something like that automatically preclude you from being the envy of anyone? Except for O'Doyle and that blonde kid from Karate Kid

small amounts of each obviously, but over the course of weeks and months......

I don't see it as a trick. It makes sense to me. I am still waiting for someone to address the specifics of my theory, and tell me why it wouldn't work. Also, for the majority of the time I was eating right around 2300-2500 calories. As I mentioned in my original thread, I just recently upped my cals a little to see how…

No, you must be thinking of somebody else. Aren't you the guy who doesn't actually add any insightful opinions to a thread, but instead just puts people down if you disagree with their opinions. And for the record "I know you are, but what am I?" is not an insightful opinion.

If you're referring to me, I'm not sure what you're getting at. If a 16 oz package of cheese is seperated in to 16 slices, than my math would say that each slice is an ounce....hold on let me get my calculator.. If I make a recipe and divide the recipe into five ouce servings, then serve myself 5 ounces, that, again, would…

While I agree that it would go faster. My method seems to work without A) ever having to gain fat, and B) having to think about when to bulk and when to cut. It's just a lifestyle. As far as the bf% is concerned, it doesn't really matter if my measurements are perfectly accurate as long as they are accurate relative to…

I'm back. So after a couple days of thought, two things occurred to me. 1) People who have been "bulking" by eating a surplus, lifting heavy and accepting the fact that they will likely add a lttle fat in the process are very threatened by the concept of gaining muscle while decreasing your BF%; hence the barrage of…

I know my scale is wrong. There's no way it's actually 5%. I mentioned that in an earlier post. I just use it to determine relative BF%. The 7-9% was a guestimate. I use the mirror as my primary gauge of progress

My BF% has actually decreased. On my scale, it has gone from 5.6% to 5%. What I meant is that my relative BF has stayed the same, meaning as I've gained muscle, I have not gained fat. Of course, dealing with such small numbers, you never know exactly how accurate it is so my best gauge is looking in the mirror. When you're…

What conclusive evidence could I possibly provide in a text thread of these numbers other than my word. This is rediculous.

I already apologized in an earlier post for titling my OP that. Maybe I should have entitled it "Interesting observations of the way my body has reacted to my routine". That, however, would not change the content herein.

What "data" are you looking for besides my own measurements and observations? Please be more specific. Since when does someone have to have a scienctific study behind their words to make them true? I look down, see a number on the scale. I look up, see my reflection in the mirror, I drive to the gym, move X amount of…

My weight is not debatable My relative strength is not debatable My relative BF% is not debatable My caloric intake is not debatable These things are only debatable if ones opinion is that I am blatently lying. If that's the case, there's no point in having a discussion when you don't believe what one side is saying. And…

This is not a debate whether I did what I thought I did. That is invontravertable. The debate is over why I did what I thought I did. Keep up.

I have had very little input during this exchange from others who also maintain a very low BF% and good muscle development. I know you're out there. What do you eat? All I'm getting is people who are obviously satisfied with a little gel coating....not that there's anything wrong with that. But I was looking for some…

I am stunned at the amount of people that routinely suggest the whole "not logging, properly, eating more than you think theory". It's like the great MFP fallback advice. Not because it doesn't happen often, but because the fact that it happens often makes the simple minded think it's always the case. While I think it is…

I must do a really bad job of explaining myself. I don't use TDEE as a method of establishing my intake, I use MFP. That doesn't mean I don't have a TDEE. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I know what my body needs calorically (net) to maintain my bodyweight. I maintained for 1 year at that amount. Honed it…

What are you talking about? The net intake is the only relevant number when it comes to weight loss / gain. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I consume around 2400-2700 calories / day depending on my activity level, but my net is usualy in the 2200-2300 range. Why would the gross intake be the relevant number?

A) I don't double count my exercise B) I don't underestimate my intake C) If you look carefully at my diary, you'll see that my calories are calculated very carefully. Bottom line guys is that I am the choir when it comes to this stuff. I have logged in for 500 of the last 501 days. I'm that guy. I don't snack…

I think what I have proven is that TDEE estimates are incorrect. If we are not going to rethink the laws of energy conservation and the ability of an organism to create life out of the nothing, we have to assume that the TDEE calculators are often incorrect. In answer t the few people who have suggested that I may not be…

Please point me to a calculator that shows a male with 140 LBM and a highly active lifetstyle has a TDEE of 2100 calories.

I am 155 pounds with a BF% somewhere between 7-9%. I work construction, have a 3 year old and an infant, don't sit down for about 14 straight hours every day and workout hard 4 times a week. I average a net intake of around 2200 calories. You guys tell me whether it should be possible to gain muscle mass with these specs…