or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Ask a Fitness Model
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ask a Fitness Model - Page 3

post #31 of 962
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumbie View Post
Issue = my interpretation of your statement - "If you're 2k below what you're using".

I read that [as a stand-alone statement] as the total deficit not just the decreased caloric intake without counting energy expenditure.

ah not a big deal. Even counting energy expenditure you could make a rationale argument that theoretically losing a pound a day is possible due to the number of calories in a pound muscle. The real point though was your body is going to take time to take off the fat, but muscle atrophy is much easier. At 1k calories even if it's entirely protein that's only 250g. counting protein's TEF that takes it down to 175, and the double workout will wreck that number even further through gluconeogenesis. I have no idea how much energy that process takes but I do know it's far from ideal. That's essentially why ketogenic diets work so well but the amount of protein intake is MUCH higher... and generally there are still some carbs. Even so, I lost significant amounts of muscle on it compared to a slower method of dieting.

If you want to maintain any semblance of muscle, a huge defecit is definitely not the right way to go about it imho. Otherwise you might hit your weight goal but be skinny-fat and still not look any better.
post #32 of 962
Where the hell do you get the idea that there's 600kcal in a pound of muscle? It depends on the muscle and so many other factors that such a blanket statement like that is inherently wrong. And muscle atrophy is a fuckload harder than losing fat... Please stop theorizing and actually practice it...you'll see much different results than Windows Calculator gives.
post #33 of 962
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
Where the hell do you get the idea that there's 600kcal in a pound of muscle? It depends on the muscle and so many other factors that such a blanket statement like that is inherently wrong. And muscle atrophy is a fuckload harder than losing fat... Please stop theorizing and actually practice it...you'll see much different results than Windows Calculator gives.
Muscles are around 30% protein (the rest being water, blood, etc. extraneous non-calorie stuff). 1 lb is just over 450 grams. 450 grams *0.3 = 135 grams * 4 calories/gram = 540. Yeah it's a rough estimate, but the blanket statement isn't inherently wrong. Neither atrophy or fat loss is particularly difficult, but at such a defecit it's a real issue if that's not what you're going after. We can agree to disagree, that's fine. If you think what I'm saying is far enough off base to dismiss it altogether, then do so and don't listen. You've pointed out that you think I'm wrong, so let's leave it at that and not derail the thread too much. Everyone is going to respond differently based on their own genetics and predispositions. I'm simply giving my advice and opinions. I do practice what I preach. The numbers are rarely exactly what my spreadsheet pops up, but they're in the vicinity. And it's done well for me thus far.
post #34 of 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir. View Post
I had a client I was working with in preparation for a bodybuilding show who had done some modeling before and introduced me to a few photographers. They liked me and asked if I was interested. I was bored and in okay shape already so I figured what the hell.

The pay was terrible but it was a lot of fun and the girls I shot with were beautiful. I'm sure the top guys do okay, but it's more for shits and giggles. I don't have the face to expect more than a little bit of fun during the process.

I did this for men's clothing for a while. The pay wasn't great, but it every show had women and there was usual some time to mingle. Having to do a pre-show fitting sucked. The deal was usually a few dollars, free food, meet a few ladies and an ego boost for a day of my time. I miss being broke, fit and having time extra time (aka college).

Like OP, I was specifically asked to do a show and it went from there. If you're ever offered the chance, do it!
post #35 of 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir. View Post
Muscles are around 30% protein (the rest being water, blood, etc. extraneous non-calorie stuff). 1 lb is just over 450 grams. 450 grams *0.3 = 135 grams * 4 calories/gram = 540. Yeah it's a rough estimate, but the blanket statement isn't inherently wrong.
Water and IMTG vary a lot. Equating poundages to calories for muscle is just so wrong. Compare london broil to a porterhouse, then turn the london broil into beef jerky for further comparison. It's just wrong...don't do it. Especially since muscle proteins aren't metabolized anything like fat since they're not a ready fuel source and need a whole lot of conversion.
post #36 of 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekunk07 View Post
why is this so? caloric deficit is okay if protein is heavy and workouts are fast but furious. it's prefereable to most people's misconception of dieting and doing high-rep, high-volume training.

I have no objection to calorie deficit while working out. I do it myself when cutting. My qualifier was "severe" and it was in the context of responding to a poster who posed the notion of exercising heavy while on a 1K per day calorie intake. A 500 calorie a day deficit from lowered intake is doable, a deficit of more than 1,200 is, in my opinion, not wise.
post #37 of 962
You advocate training to failure while many influential writers oppose that idea. Could you give your reasoning?
post #38 of 962
Failure is a decent get-you-by method of working out toward a max. It's not essential, but it just helps with beginner programming.
post #39 of 962
Good thread.
post #40 of 962
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
Water and IMTG vary a lot. Equating poundages to calories for muscle is just so wrong. Compare london broil to a porterhouse, then turn the london broil into beef jerky for further comparison.

It's just wrong...don't do it. Especially since muscle proteins aren't metabolized anything like fat since they're not a ready fuel source and need a whole lot of conversion.

Apples to oranges (cooked/dehydrated versus muscles in the body). Like I said we're just going to have to agree to disagree. The poundage loss was a guestimate based on those numbers. I don't agree with such a large defecit because muscle wasting becomes a big concern imo. That's the last I'm going to say on this subject. Everyone is different and behaves differently, so anything must be taken with a grain of salt. Try different things and find what works best for you. This thread is just about what has worked for me in the past. I state everything as fact because it's simpler to get my point across that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kas View Post
You advocate training to failure while many influential writers oppose that idea. Could you give your reasoning?

Honestly, like everything else -- it depends. Complete failure would be like the point where you have absolutely no glycogen left and lifting any amount of weight becomes nigh impossible. I personally don't go to that point any more, though I do know a few people who do and have had a lot of success with it. A few years ago I tried it with a friend for a few months and while we had some success with it, it generally left us feeling like dogshit for the rest of the day and the next (specifically referring to leg days).

I suppose fatigue would be the more opt word choice when discussing rep ranges. Failure to me seems to imply higher rep work. When discussing 6-8 for example, I'm referring to using a weight you can perform between 6 and 8 repetitions using strict form (not cheat or forced reps). Some will choose 8-12 or 6-10 -- this was just trial and error for me. Experiment. I have a tiny frame (6.5" wrists. waist when dieted down is typically between 25 and 27". This is part of the reason I look much larger on camera than my weight would imply.) so I get a lot of benefit from the lower rep ranges with respect to muscle growth. Some heavier built people might benefit from 8-10 or 8-12 more. It's quite hard to say for sure without meeting with the person and at least get a general idea of their build and exercise history.

With respect to the drop sets, I've only included them once before several years ago. It was fun to get the pump and I walked out of the gym feelings more accomplished (say it's an arm day and you can curl 115. by the end of the set you struggle to curl a 45 lb bar even a few times.), but I can't honestly say I noticed any significant difference in growth. I've incorporated it again just to try something different and beat down some of the monotony in the gym. I can see how it could be moderately useful to pre-exhaust as well.

If you could give an example of a writer advocating not training to failure, I would be happy to give a comment or opinion on the matter. There are correct ideas on both sides of the fence on this topic imo.
post #41 of 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir. View Post
Apples to oranges (cooked/dehydrated versus muscles in the body). Like I said we're just going to have to agree to disagree. The poundage loss was a guestimate based on those numbers. I don't agree with such a large defecit because muscle wasting becomes a big concern imo. That's the last I'm going to say on this subject. Everyone is different and behaves differently, so anything must be taken with a grain of salt. Try different things and find what works best for you. This thread is just about what has worked for me in the past. I state everything as fact because it's simpler to get my point across that way.

You can't hide incorrect statements behind platitudes.

It's not apples to oranges anyway. Equating muscle poundages to calories makes assumptions about protein metabolism that don't exist as well as being inherently inaccurate if not completely wrong.
post #42 of 962
This forum aint big enough for 3 people with degrees! (make that 2 and one ungraduated)
post #43 of 962
Pavel Tsatsouline is the first that pops up in my head.
post #44 of 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir. View Post

If you could give an example of a writer advocating not training to failure, I would be happy to give a comment or opinion on the matter. There are correct ideas on both sides of the fence on this topic imo.

For one, Chad Waterbury recommends not going to failure.
post #45 of 962
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
You can't hide incorrect statements behind platitudes.

It's not apples to oranges anyway. Equating muscle poundages to calories makes assumptions about protein metabolism that don't exist as well as being inherently inaccurate if not completely wrong.

The numbers aren't wrong, though I don't think we're talking about the same thing entirely. They seem to be tangential and flirting with the same concept.

"The metabolizable energy in fat is different than the metabolizable energy in muscle tissue. A pound of muscle is not 3500 calories. A pound of muscle yields about 600 calories."

http://www.fitwatch.com/weight-loss/...wrong-237.html

There are journal articles at the bottom to support it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eason View Post
This forum aint big enough for 3 people with degrees! (make that 2 and one ungraduated)

Not intending to make this a dissertation. My degree isn't exercise related anyway. I'll back up what I say as best I can, but the majority is trial and error until you find what works. There is a lot of theory and I am familiar with a lot of it, but there are so many X factors. I'm just giving mine. I honestly don't mind if anyone disagrees, but I'm trying not to harp on it too much and keep it relatively informative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kas View Post
Pavel Tsatsouline is the first that pops up in my head.
For strictly strength gain (which is I believe his forte), I can agree. I don't care to lift heavy any more (1-3 rep range) and I haven't maxed out in over a year and a half. He's also a fan of much lower reps iirc which I've stated aren't hugely conducive for me. It's also quite hard on my body to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond View Post
For one, Chad Waterbury recommends not going to failure.
I think his reasoning dealt with recovery times. I prefer split training so this is not really an issue. He's a big TBT advocate and I can see how recovery time might hinder progress. If you're on a split and work out a muscle group once per week (or twice for smaller groups if you include the larger group - e.g. back day you'll hit biceps, and again if you have an arm day - but they recover faster IME). I think overtraining is overblown though as long as you're eating sufficient food.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Ask a Fitness Model