Post: #101

I will do a one month experiment to see if I can finally get rid of that last and very stubborn belly fat. I will not eat or drink dairy for a whole month. As a Dutchman I grew up with an massive amount of dairy. Its probably the reason we Dutch are the tallest people (by nation) in the world. I never been without lots of diary so in April I will see where this leads.

I already (litterally) watered down my proteins shakes and it tastes horrible where it tastes delicious with skimmed or regular milk. It will probably be far worse with only water. Let's see if its worth it.

Post: #102

(03-30-2015 01:19 PM)Spike Wrote:  I will do a one month experiment to see if I can finally get rid of that last and very stubborn belly fat. I will not eat or drink dairy for a whole month. As a Dutchman I grew up with an massive amount of dairy. Its probably the reason we Dutch are the tallest people (by nation) in the world. I never been without lots of diary so in April I will see where this leads.

I already (litterally) watered down my proteins shakes and it tastes horrible where it tastes delicious with skimmed or regular milk. It will probably be far worse with only water. Let's see if its worth it.

Neil, try rice milk or almond milk as a substitute. Can goat milk work for you?

Post: #103

(03-29-2015 06:06 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  Back to the original post, I can see how logical that may sound, but that's not how your body puts on muscle nor loses fat. You can indeed get bigger and leaner at the same time, at a modest pace. Not talking about something like losing 10lb of fat and adding 10lb of LBM simultaneously, but you can achieve (and I've been doing it myself for 18 months now) something modest like losing 5lb of fat and gaining 2lb of LBM, or gaining 3lb of LBM and losing 1lb of fat, every 3-4 months. Those numbers add up fast over a few years.

Before I tried it myself, I didn't think it was possible to put on muscle and lose fat at the same time (based on everything I read). But, it is possible, because I've also done it. I have lost my belly and see a little bit of definition in the abs. I am down at least 1" in the waist based on pant sizes (now wear a 31, 30 might be doable but would be a little tight). Keep in mind I was skinny fat, not fat, before I started. I have also gotten stronger on all lifts I'm doing at the gym. However, my weight has not decreased that much. Maybe 3-5 pounds. So, I have put on muscle and lost fat at the same time.

There isn't really a secret to it. Gio has helped me make my diet more clean, so I am basically free of processed foods. The only "secret" is you have to be a bit anal about your diet consistently. I've been eating 500 cals below maintenance. 1 g/lb protein, and keeping carbs under 100, generally about 60-70 g of carbs. You have to do this *consistently* over a period of months. At least 80-90% of the time you need to be eating like this. I don't consume milk, pasta, bread, etc.

Post: #104

stop complicating things plz, the only issue i have with manosphere. look at the first page in forum , its like for every 20 people visiting Game section there is one in weightlifting section and thats very bad. Just go to GYM , work your ass off like a Man. and u will see the result. i hope it can motivate newbies to start lifting as soon as possible without thinking too much about it.

Post: #105

OP was perhaps not phrased well and I think some are misunderstanding it. It's not about lifting but about your diet. It's getting over complicated with talk of percentages that can't be measured accurately by most anyway.

Most untrained people are probably "skinny fat". Basically, if you are untrained and starting a lifting program and have extra body fat (~ 20% + and the exact % doesn't matter ), take advantage of those first couple of months where the gains are almost all neurological to lean out a bit. Then start increasing your calories when the weight gets heavier.

This way you'll have less to cut later.

Post: #106

Incidentally, I plan on getting my bf measured (DEXA scan) and my metabolism measured (resting metabolic rate), so I have real numbers, especially for the latter quantity. Formulas are one thing, but there's no reason to rely on approximation when $100 will get you the real numbers.

Post: #107

(03-30-2015 04:57 AM)Kieran Wrote:  I'd be interested to hear more about your system for slow muscle gain and fat loss. I've achieved it myself at times by following a strength training program (531), keeping protein high, and eating at maintenance most days, and slightly below on rest days. However, my rate of strength and muscle gain was painfully slow, so I think I could really benefit from a more scientific method.

After Christmas I experimented with bulking for the first time in a long time, and even a modest increase of about 300 cals per day changed how I look for the worse in my opinion.

Sure I'll write something up later this week.

Post: #108

I think something has to be said here.

If I ran into an old friend of mine who said he was going to get lean, then work out and get huge, I would say that his plan is sound.

Then if I saw him a few months later and he was ripped to shreds and slowly putting on muscle mass I'd give him props.

If the general plan is "get huge and shredded", then going through with it is more important than arguing on the internet about the finer points. Nobody in the history of the internet has improved their physiques by posting on message boards.

Post: #109

(03-30-2015 02:28 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 01:19 PM)Spike Wrote:  I will do a one month experiment to see if I can finally get rid of that last and very stubborn belly fat. I will not eat or drink dairy for a whole month. As a Dutchman I grew up with an massive amount of dairy. Its probably the reason we Dutch are the tallest people (by nation) in the world. I never been without lots of diary so in April I will see where this leads.

I already (literally) watered down my proteins shakes and it tastes horrible where it tastes delicious with skimmed or regular milk. It will probably be far worse with only water. Let's see if its worth it.

Neil, try rice milk or almond milk as a substitute. Can goat milk work for you?

I haven't tried rice milk yet. It's not something you'd find in regular supermarkets i guess. I've seen almond milk but it's horribly expensive. Never tried it though and will buy one carton just to try it.

I can't say I like goat cheese so milk will probably be the same.

This is the almond milk we have in Holland but it's about 2.30$ a liter. I drink one liter a day. That really adds up quick. It's low calorie but the carton says it contains starch and corn syrup. That can't be good.

Post: #110

(03-31-2015 05:09 AM)Spike Wrote:  it's horribly expensive.

(03-31-2015 05:09 AM)Spike Wrote:  it contains starch and corn syrup.

It's very easy to make your own nut milk. (almonds, walnuts, etc.)

Just soak the nuts over night and then blend them with water. (you can also add dates, vanilla, cinnamon, protein powder etc. to add flavor)





*****

Dairy makes my belly fat.

Homemade almond milk does not.

Post: #111

That's not a bad idea actually. Almonds are quite cheap here. Haven't used a blender in years but I have a good one. Gonna try this after the milkless month. If I lose bellyfat by NOT drinking dairy milk I will try to switch to almond milk.
How long can you keep it in the fridge after you make it?

Post: #112

I'm about 20% bf. And would like to get down to 12-13% before I start putting on muscle. Should I continue doing Starting Strength in the gym while I'm in a caloric deficit and fasting two days a week? Or should I lower the weight and up the reps to 10-12 range, in the hopes of preventing injury by not lifting too heavily while cutting the calories ?

Post: #113

^^^ I think the second idea is the best option. And why the hell are you fasting two days a week? You don't need to fast at all, just lower your calorie intake and eat small portions per meal.

20bf isn't that shocking. It shouldn't take too long to reach 15% if you keep to a strict regiman of diets and work outs. Below 12% it gets much much harder each %. What's your age? If you're in your 20's you should gain muscle and lose fat relatively easy.

It gets much harder after 35.

Post: #114

For the the guys ITT referring to that Lyle McDonald article, if you read the whole thing it actually concludes that the metabolic and hormonal benefits of the "leaning down before bulking" strategy are overstated: you are limited by your particular partitioning genetics no matter what you do.

Quote:...

So far, so good right; it sure seems like the leaner you are, the better your body composition changes will be during overfeeding? So get lean and then train and eat and you should gain piles of muscle back, right?

The Problem: Naturally Lean People vs. Dieted Down People

The problem with the above analysis, exciting as it sounds, is that there are significant differences between folks who are naturally lean (on whom the original overfeeding research was done) and subjects who have been dieted to leanness.

Let’s consider, for a second the likely physiology of those folks who stay naturally lean. Based on the Geneticcs Hypothesis (3), we’d expect them to have pretty good hormonal status in terms of thyroid levels, low or normal cortisol, maybe decent levels of testosterone, GH and IGF-1. They probably also show a normal nervous system output and an ability to increase fat oxidation when calories are raised as well.

We’d probably expect them to exhibit a spendthrift metabolism (6), one that cranks up in response to overfeeding to burn off excess calories. It wouldn’t be surprising if they were the ones who showed a great deal of Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT, 7) which is what allows them to burn off excess calories without getting fat. All of this, almost certainly with other factors would all contribute to their general lack of fat gain during overfeeding. Of course, if fat gain is limited during overfeeding, that would tend to mean that any weight gain will tend to be LBM, as the P-ratio data described above indicates.

The problem is that the above physiological profile in no way describes individuals who have dieted down to a low body fat percentage. Rather, dieted individuals typically show a biology that is absolutely not geared towards anything except packing the body fat back on. Typically, the metabolic consequences of dieting include a lowered metabolism, decreased fat oxidation, decreased HSL activity, increased LPL activity impaired hormonal status (including lowered testosterone and raised cortisol), decreased thermogenesis from a reduction in both thyroid levels and nervous system output and a host of other metabolic defects. All of these serve to both slow fat loss during the diet and ensure rapid fat regain when food is reintroduced.

For example, in the classic starvation study (the Minnesota Semi-Starvation study) men were dieted for 6 solid months reaching 4-5% body fat at the end of the study. Then they were refed and body composition was tracked. By the theory being advocated, they should have gained lots of LBM and little fat during refeeding, they were clearly super lean to start out with. But this is absolutely not what happened.

As would be expected based on the metabolic adaptations to dieting, their bodies were mainly primed to replenish fat stores. Reductions in metabolic rate, fat oxidation and thermogenesis all contributed to a preferential gain of body fat and these systems didn’t reset themselves until all of the body fat lost had been regained (8). Quite in fact, signals from body fat (i.e. leptin and the rest) are the mechanism behind this physiology (9).

The bottom line is that, in dieted down individuals, the body is primed to gain body fat at the expense of LBM to replenish what was lost during the diet. Again, this is fundamentally different than looking at genetically lean individuals (for whom a low body fat percentage is their normal level) in terms of what happens when they are overfed.

And even without this research available, anybody who’s dieted to a low body fat percentage can attest to the above. Regardless of the theories being advocated by the individuals looking just at Forbes’ data on P-ratio, the end of the diet is a time when you gain body fat the most easily. Even a brief look at the real world should have pointed out why the theory was incorrect in the first place.

...

Summing up:

So there you have it, a look at the impact of initial body fat and how it impacts on changes in body composition. Contrary to current (mis) interpretations of the literature, individuals who have dieted down to low body fat levels don’t magically put on lots of LBM when they gain. Quite in fact, if anything, the opposite is true. After an extended diet, the body is primed for fat gain.

However, that doesn’t mean that dieting prior to a mass-gaining phase is a bad idea and getting reasonably lean prior to ‘bulking’ is probably the best strategy for the average natural bodybuilder.

If that's the case, then the main reason that's left is for aesthetic purposes.

In bodybuilding we're trying to do two things: 1) get lean, 2) get muscular. Out of the two I think that getting lean is the one to focus on first, for two reasons.

The first reason is that out of the two, getting lean is more important.

Gaining muscle gives you bonus points. Not being muscular is just normal or ordinary. Not being lean however actively makes you unattractive. Besides giving you a gut and thighs and destroying your v-taper, it blobs up your face, which is the worst, as the face is the most important part of looks, even more important than the body. Women are highly attracted to pronounced, dimorphic facial bone features indicative of a youthful and robust hormonal profile - protruding cheek bones, defined jaw, hollow cheeks, etc. - whether you have them showing in your natural state, or you dieted down to them "artificially".

There are a lot of skinny guys out there in the world dating cute young girls. I don't however see fat guys doing the same. It's a huge DLV. Can you name at least 5 male sex symbols who were >20% bf in their peak? I can't. Low body fat is key to male aesthetics. If you take a look at male models you'll see that they all tend to have visible bicep veins, adonis belts, and abs, even though in a shirt they might look like skinny twinks.

The second reason is that it's easier. It can take as little 3 months to reach a body fat you're happy with, while it can take 3 years to build a decent muscle base natty.

If you get lean first and "get it over with", you can commit yourself fully to the extended task of muscle building without interruption and you can have your facial aesthetics and your v-taper all throughout. If you start bulking at a high bf% you'll spend large stretches of time as a potato face, you'll be prone to go on excessive bulks and make the problem even worse because "hey, what the hell, I'm already fat", and you'll waste a lot of your life and precious gaining time spinning your wheels and yo-yo dieting trying to fix the problem that shouldn't have accrued in the first place by going on long, miserable cuts where you lose much of your strength anyway.

This has been my problem. I have a naturally slow metabolism and poor nutrient partitioning. I am a sedentary Indian skinny fat manlet. When I started lifting I was already probably 18-20% bf and I didn't know anything much about dieting (macros, calories in calories out, fat loss, maintenance, lean bulking, etc.); I only knew that you had to lift hard and eat everything in sight, like a bunch of fat roided up powerlifters said so. Seeing as how I'm neither on gear nor genetically gifted I ended up ballooning up to 28-30% bf, going from skinny fat to fat fat. To make matters worse, I still clung to the powerlifers' dangerous advice for some time after, cutting way too slowly, on calories that suited them not me, and not deep enough, going back to more fattening bulks in the pursuit of accelerated gains that never came about. I'm working on cleaning all this up once and for all right now.

I think it's better to only bench 150 lbs at 13% bf than to bench 250 lbs at 26% bf. I mean who cares if you bench that much when you're fat. In terms of visual appeal it goes: lean & natty muscle > lean & ordinary > fat & natty muscle > fat & ordinary. If you throw roids in then okay, lean & roid muscle > fat & roid muscle > lean & natty muscle > lean & ordinary > fat & natty muscle > fat & ordinary.

Post: #115

I cannot take Lyle seriously. He is a skinny nerd.

Post: #116

D&P I believe has mentioned you can either be ripped or you can be big, both not both (if you are like most people training and drug free).

That is where I believe there is a lot of dissonance. Especially because us men are also affected to some degree by the media and external sources suggesting what our ideal body should be. "10% body fat, defined abs, 40 pounds of muscle, without steroids!"

I've been fit but I haven't been big. I haven't yet been ripped, either. As with my other posts in this thread, I see that it will benefit me personally to get as lean as I possibly can before I attempt to maximize my muscle gaining potential. And if you're not yet in the leaner end of the spectrum, it would likely benefit you as well.

Post: #117

Here's an attempt at something vaguely comprehensive on what I believe is the best approach to diet for training:

Fundamentally, I think there is a massive amount of misinformation on the internet. There are a few sites that have cornered the market for all things strength and conditioning with their forums. People who are competitive athletes in strength disciplines are likely to gravitate to these forums, and constitute the majority of their members. What you are usually seeing is a small group of outliers appearing as the norm, as within the outliers there are further outliers who are exceptional even compared to those with a high starting point. For most people who stumble across these sites and knock around in the beginner forums etc, it can be disheartening. You have naturally very strong people laughing at anyone who can't bench 225lbs in their first 6 months of training, and naturally very defined people claiming that you just need to drink a gallon of milk a day and eat 6 meals to grow, do it for a year with 5x5, and you won't get that fat. The coaches on these sites often claim that their beginner athletes are making huge gains in size and strength (40lbs of bodyweight without getting fat in 3 months). I'm sure some of their athletes do, and I'm not calling them liars, but it also serves their interests to tell you these stories to sell their program and build a following.

The other primary factor is that most ordinary people do not train as hard, as smart, or as consistently as they like to claim on the internet. It's not a popular thing to say, and people hate being called to account, but most people are weak because their training is feeble. They swallow the mantra from these bodybuilding sites that 3x/week full body is the golden rule for beginners, or that cardio will kill your gains, and so they half-arse a couple of lifts a few times a week, eat too much food, don't move very much to preserve non-existent gains and then wonder why they are fat, weak and unfit when 'they've done everything right'.

My personal belief is that it is possible for most people to become an objectively fit, objectively strong, objectively muscular human - you just have to work harder, longer, and smarter at it than most people are willing to countenance. You can be 'big' (this will always be relative to your starting size and genes, but it's most likely visibly bigger than you (generic) are now), and you can be lean at the same time, but it requires constant hard work and deliberate effort.

This is why, if you're really serious about this (and unless you're really desperate pulling girls probably isn't a good enough motivation to do the work you need to do), you should spend several months leaning out, because you are forced to learn about your body, and the foods and timings that work for you. This understanding will help you avoid the classic mistakes of eating hundreds of pizzas and attributing it to 'hardgainer bulking bro', and other such unnecessary and ineffective weight gaining strategies. Most people trying to gain weight don't need to eat that more, they just need to learn how to actually do hard fucking work in the gym. Dieting down sucks, badly, but it forces you to treat yourself as an experiment, and that is the attitude you need to have if you really want success with this.

Most people who claim you can't be big and ripped naturally have usually not prioritised being both of those things simultaneously and trained and dieted and spent months experimenting to even get started on the road to it. I would add the caveat that for some people, and perhaps D&P is one of them, it is not possible to be big and ripped. But for some it can be, and if you aren't training for it you'll never know where you fall on that spectrum.

That said, the important thing to consider with a phrase like 'you can't be big and ripped' is that it is totally lacking in objective measure. What's big here, according to who, what's his history of training? A 210lb natural man thinks you can't be big and ripped at the same time, but to him that means that if he cut to 195lbs with abs he'd feel skinny, whereas to you 195lbs with abs may be huge. The goal posts move as you progress and your priorities change, indeed as your understanding of what fit/strong/ripped changes.

Post: #118

Haven't read through the entire thread so not sure if this has been shared already -

http://victorpride.com/how-to-go-from-fa...n-8-weeks/

Quote:How I gained 10 lbs of muscle in 12 days

1. Dieted hard first
2. Ate everything in sight

There is only one way to grow lean. You have to me mega-lean before you start eating a lot of food. Otherwise you will just get fat.

Post: #119

10 pounds of muscle in 12 days is completely impossible even with a shit load of steroids, which judging by the pics those guys are on.

There is a common theme in most of these type of guys marketing schemes. Most claim natty, take a shit ton of streroids, then sell you a bullshit plan and post their pics as proof it works.

Post: #120

Although research has painted a dark picture of getting (not being in) to a low body-fat state, using IF and incorporating refeeds and cycling carbs/fat has let me cut down to 8-10% body fat without the negatives. It seems to be that calorie restriction is the main reason for the drop, not body fat. Martin Berkhan (founder of leangains) has actually answered the question here:

http://www.leangains.com/2009/08/questions-answers.html

Q: "My sex drive just winds down to nearly nothing when I'm running an intense caloric deficit. Is there some documented/anecdotal correlation on this, or is it random according to the individual?"

A: It's not random, it's a fact that weight loss/calorie restriction, even moderate in nature, causes a delayed response to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH). This neurohormone is secreted in a pulsatile manner from the hypothalamus, and upon binding to receptors in the pituitary gland, it activates synthesis of reproductive hormones, luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone(FSH). This axis is partially under control by "master" hormones involved in sensing the general energy status of the body; leptin and insulin, for example.

An energy deficit lowers leptin, which in turn impacts the reproductive axis negatively. This makes complete evolutionary sense, when you consider that reproduction is such an energy costly process. Conversely, high body fat percentage also affects the reproductive axis negatively, through other mechanisms -insulin resistance being one major cause discussed in this context.

Looking at studies on this topic, the effect is proportional to the energy deficit. In one paper, they noted that the delayed response in GnRH pulsatility was "intermediate in extent" when comparing moderate weight loss (-1% body weight/week or some such) to that of anorectics or VLCD (400-800 kcal/day).

My personal experience is that a moderate deficit (i.e net deficit/week is moderate, say -3500 kcal) has no noticeable impact, while a high deficit (i.e -7000 kcal/week) has a negative impact. The latter is augmented on very low carb or straight ketogenic diets. Cyclical diets are superior in this regard.

End of quote.

That said, I think that getting to 6% body fat is pointless for the average dude simply because it takes a long time to get there and has no additional advantages in terms of attraction. However, getting to 8-10% is certainly worth it and getting there shouldn't be that hard if you incorporate leangains, calorie and carb/fat cycling in combination with a sensible training routine.

After you have done the initial cut, start with a very slow bulk (I'm talking 1lb/month) and you will probably never have to do a hard cut again. After the initial newbie gains, you won't be making faster progress anyhow so why put on unnecessary lard.

Also, stop with the ''everyone is a special snowflake who needs to find out what works for him'' thing. There are proven ways to put on muscle and strength and proven ways to get rid of fat. Follow a solid routine depending on your stage (ex. start with Starting strength, move on to RPT and do it for life) and COUNT your macros depending on what goal you have. Do it slowly and be patient.

Post: #121

I've lost 24 lbs in the last two months on a low carb diet , including a 7 day total fast, and my libido has dropped considerably. I think I'm going to take a break from dieting for a month then come back and lose the last 10 lbs, then start back lifting.

Post: #122

-deleted-

Post: #123

Easy way to boost calories, fats and not go crazy on sugar?

Head over to metro and buy unsalted- shelled peanuts.

350 calories per cup

Taste good even unsalted, you just might get thirsty.

Youll feel yourself getting heavier after eating a few cups a day in between breakfast and lunch

Post: #124

Nuts in general are great. I eat raw almonds every day. High calorie density. I buy mine from Amazon on a subscription plan, since I always eat them. It's way cheaper than buying in a store.

Post: #125

(04-15-2015 10:40 AM)Menace Wrote:  Nuts in general are great. I eat raw almonds every day. High calorie density. I buy mine from Amazon on a subscription plan, since I always eat them. It's way cheaper than buying in a store.

They can be dangerously deceptive when it comes to calories though...for those dieting they need to be very, very careful!