or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Random health and exercise thoughts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Random health and exercise thoughts - Page 3135

post #47011 of 47638

Lol. Tiger mom strikes.

post #47012 of 47638
So, I started cutting a few weeks ago, not to look muscular but purely to lose a pudginess around my gut. I'm 5'6" and was 138, and dropped down to 126-128.

My macros were like 8% fat, 80%, 12% protein (if that), back in the day. I was almost vegan except for skim milk and the occasional fish.

Now I load up on good fats, a lot of salmon, etc. I feel a ton better and am macro-ing around 25%,40%,35%. I dropped 10-12 pounds. I mix up cardio and light weight training almost every day, but only about 40-45 minutes a day and nothing too strenuous.

Anyway, is the drop likely to be mostly water? Are those types of macros sustainable? I feel less deprived than losing weight while still carbing it up (dropped from 177 at a fat peak), but I remember the word used to be a calorie is a calorie. Now I'm not so sure.
post #47013 of 47638

You're too skinny.

post #47014 of 47638
First day of three meals worked pretty good. Had a small protein shake with coffee in the week hours of the morning, worked out, had breakfast which was 8 eggs + 2 egg whites, 2 sausage, bowl of grape nuts and strawberry, lunch was 3 cans of tuna on a sandwich, had another shake with gatoriade, dinner was a bit of sushi.
post #47015 of 47638

No human male should weigh 130 lbs.

post #47016 of 47638

Eh depends. I was 145-148 when I was racing. That was pretty specialized to endurance sports. It only makes sense though. Most endurance athletes have a bit of a gut though, i.e. not six pack abs. I think it's due to cortisol response from spending so much time under physiological stress. I can't remember exactly.

post #47017 of 47638
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGrotius View Post

but I remember the word used to be a calorie is a calorie. Now I'm not so sure.

Calorie is a calorie but stick to your new macros. Should be fine if you're getting enough fiber and feeling satiated.
post #47018 of 47638
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by knucks View Post

Real talk, fuji (IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME) , I dont know what you get out of lying about this stuff? I mean, really. Look at Charly, he's got large thigs, he wears rowens because regular pants dont fit.
you wear a size 29 uniqlo right? i just dont believe it man sorry

lol I hung out with him and worked out with him this July in London, he's thick, solid, and tight in all the right places.
Edited by Eason - 8/25/14 at 8:57am
post #47019 of 47638
is that his porn name or what

surely it can't be real
post #47020 of 47638
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGrotius View Post

So, I started cutting a few weeks ago, not to look muscular but purely to lose a pudginess around my gut. I'm 5'6" and was 138, and dropped down to 126-128.

My macros were like 8% fat, 80%, 12% protein (if that), back in the day. I was almost vegan except for skim milk and the occasional fish.

Now I load up on good fats, a lot of salmon, etc. I feel a ton better and am macro-ing around 25%,40%,35%. I dropped 10-12 pounds. I mix up cardio and light weight training almost every day, but only about 40-45 minutes a day and nothing too strenuous.

Anyway, is the drop likely to be mostly water? Are those types of macros sustainable? I feel less deprived than losing weight while still carbing it up (dropped from 177 at a fat peak), but I remember the word used to be a calorie is a calorie. Now I'm not so sure.

You can eat more carbs and still lose weight if your calorie deficit is just as big. You might hold a bit more water initially since carbs make you do that.

I like to always eat slightly higher carbs and lower fat since I have more energy and can perform better that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I<3Bacon View Post

Calorie is a calorie but stick to your new macros. Should be fine if you're getting enough fiber and feeling satiated.

In a calorie deficit, macros don't matter for body recomposition as long as you get enough protein (around 1-1.2xLBM). That's because all the energy you eat will be burned off anyway. What makes you feel good and perform is another question.

In a calorie surplus on the other hand, research has shown that macronutrients play a role in short term changes of bodycomposition since you store the excess calories you eat.

Fat will easily be stored as body fat (subcontaneous fat) when in eaten in surplus and can not be used for energy as long as you have carbs in the system.

On the oter hand, a surplus coming from carbs (that is: low fat, high carb diet) will be oxidized as heat. Carbs will not be turned to body fat at all, unless eaten in extreme amounts (around 700-800g+ a day while not being active) as long as you keep fat low (maybe BWx0.25). When you eat a very large surplus of mostly carbs, it doesn't matter if its 600 or 800g of carbs, all of them will be burned of anyway and your weight remain the same as long as you eat low fat.

Protein works in the same way but is even harder to convert to body fat. When carbs or protein is eaten in extreme amounts for a not so active person, it seems to be turned to the more dangerous visceral fat since the body can't handle the huge amounts of carbs or protein so it just have to store it somewhere, and it won't be subcontaneous fat since your fat intake is very low.
post #47021 of 47638
so we can bulk on 5000 cals as long as its low fat we can't gain fat?

this sounds too good to be true?
post #47022 of 47638
What are your thoughts on doing a 5-day split on sheiko rather than the suggested 3-day split?

Same routine just divided into 5 smaller workouts.
post #47023 of 47638
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeen7908 View Post

so we can bulk on 5000 cals as long as its low fat we can't gain fat?

this sounds too good to be true?

 

Nope, that's not what I said.

 

Carbs in excess do not get stored as body fat as easily as fat. Fat is readily converted to body fat in a calorie surplus. Carbs are not converted as easily and the body will much rather use carbs as fuel. If you eat a lot of carbs you will get warm and it will mostly convert to heat. 

 

Example:

 

Your maintenence is 3000 calories.

 

1) You eat 3800 calories with the macros 700g carbs, 50g fat, 150g protein.

2) You eat 4000 calories with the macros 800g carbs, 40g fat, 150g protein.

 

Although example 2 has 200 more calories a day than 1, you will most likely not get a weight gain proportionate to that increase. The extra 100g of carbs will be burned off as energy and heat. You will not gain the calculated 2 lbs a week from the total weekly 7000 calorie surplus. Note the very low fat intake.

 

If you bump it up the calories even further from more carbs, the body can eventually no longer handle the huge carb intake. The glycogen stores are full and can't store more carbs, and calorie surplus will not be stored as subcontaneous fat since your fat intake is very low. The huge amounts of carbs have nowhere to go but to be stored as visceral fat through de novo lipogenesis (the hard way for the body to convert carbs to body fat).

 

A normal macro breakdown while in a calorie surplus, with the same calories as example 1):

3) You eat a surplus of 3800 with the macros of 500g carbs, 120g fat, 200g protein.

 

You will increase in weight easier on 3) than 1), since the increased fat intake will lead to more subcontaneous fat gain. The less amount of carbs will also lead to that less calories are burned off as fuel. 

 

Example 1 and 2 are extreme diets that hardly anyone is going to try, and you will not get those macros "by accident". They're very hard to reach and they exclude a lot of normal eating and foods. The example does however show that a calorie is not a calorie in extreme dieting.

 

I think that example 3 is best long term since you eat less calories for the same weight gain (no stuffing yourself), the more sensible macros let you eat normal meals, and the subcontaneous fat that you will get from the higher fat intake is less dangerous than the increase in visceral fat that you get in extreme carb intakes without the activitity to burn it off.

 

There was a guy on another forum I post on that tried this. The examples and numbers above are taken from him. He found that he did not gain more weight on 3800 than 4000 calories (example 1 and 2). When he bumped it up to 4200 calories through even more carbs he did start to gain weight, and his explanation was that it was visceral fat gain, as explained above.

 

TLDR; the body burns off calories from carbs more easily than those from fat. Huge carb intakes with low fat intake in calorie surplus can however lead to visceral fat gain which is more dangerous than subcontaneous fat which you gain from a higher fat intake.

post #47024 of 47638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crat View Post

What are your thoughts on doing a 5-day split on sheiko rather than the suggested 3-day split?

Same routine just divided into 5 smaller workouts.

 

It can be done, but it will change the overall stimulus and effect on the body and the structure of the program.

For it to be effective, you will most likely have to increase the total volume by doing more lifts per session to reach the desired stress within every single session. Intensity might also have to go down if you increase frequency. You will also spend more time training over the whole week, which will affect your recovery, calorie demands and possibly injury risk.

 

 

http://sheiko-program.ru/forum/index.php?topic=249.0;nowap

post #47025 of 47638
@conceptionist

Why is de novo lipogenesis more likely to form around organs? Are you sure youre not talking about hepatic (intracellular) steatosis/fat deposition (which comes with health problems of its own)
Do you have a source at all? Im not disbelieving just curious as ive never heard it before

In any case those carb numbers are really high im thinking more 250P, 500C, 30F slow clean bulk: do you think fat creation would be essentially 0 with this?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Random health and exercise thoughts