I'm not quite ready to get into a mass phase yet.....but it’s around the corner.
Thinking ahead to this time I've realized that I have a couple of questions that I keep pondering. I was hoping to get some input from the fine folks here.
1) Is the Former Fat Boy (FFB) effect real? And do I qualify?
Do you think that there is really such a thing? And if so are the guidelines here valid (i.e. don't bulk until you're really lean, cycle bulking, etc.)How do I know if these things apply to me? I was 150lbs. at my smallest "adult" weight at the age of 18 right out of Army Basic Training (I'm 5'10" by the way). I ballooned up to 245lbs. February of last year. I've never been very lean. At 150lbs. I was fairly lean, but I was also so thin that I didn't have very much muscle mass. I walked around at 165 for most of my military time. At that point I was probably around 13-16% Body fat. The swing from 150 to 245 happened over the course of 15 years. I was above 200lbs. for about the last 6 years. I'm 171lbs. as of this morning.
2) What to do (if anything) about the gap between a "flat" scale weight when reaching your weight loss goal and the "loaded" weight (i.e. when you're full of water and glycogen after eating above maintenance for a single day).
Admittedly, this is kind of pedantic, but I'm curious so bear with me. My target weight is to get to 165lbs. Here is a bit of a hypothetical to show what I mean. I know that I can weigh in on a Sunday morning at a flat 170lbs. At that point I'm low of glycogen, low on water weight, etc. If I eat above maintenance (or eat at maintenance) I'll gain about 5 pounds on that first day. Obviously, it’s not all fat. But, if I'm trying to measure my progress while adding mass do I simply ignore that first five pounds? Should I have my goal to be at 165lbs. while "full" meaning that I'd really need to get close to 160lbs before bulking?
3) Do things like "clean" bulks, or cycling mini-bulks and mini-cuts work?
I keep reading about how so many people are simply underfed. But, I'm also a little worried about putting on tons of fat. Especially, if the things about being a FFB are true. Do practices like clean bulks, and cycling short cutting phases into your bulking really work to improve body composition? Or, am I simply undoing what I've worked to gain? Is it a valid practice or am I just spinning my wheels?
I'm clearly not an expert on bulking, but I wonder why you're so worried about scale weight. I've been looking at a lot of weight-loss research for various upcoming projects, and it's hard to find any real correlation between body weight and health variables.
The BMI classification of "overweight" seems to be the healthiest, in terms of who lives the longest. For you, at 5'10", that's roughly 175-210 pounds. But that, too, is meaningless if those aren't good weights for you, in terms of appearance, comfort, and performance.
Strength by itself is also highly correlated with longevity, but if you're already lifting, you're probably near the top of the range used in those studies.
So here's my question: Why not just lift and eat clean, paying close attention to pre- and post-workout nutrition, and let your weight take care of itself?
I'm clearly not an expert on bulking, but I wonder why you're so worried about scale weight.
So here's my question: Why not just lift and eat clean, paying close attention to pre- and post-workout nutrition, and let your weight take care of itself?
It's really because I'm trying to get my bodyfat lower. Right now I'm at around 14-15% body fat. If my math is correct I should be at 12% at 165lbs. But, those figures are a guess as I don't have any consistent way to measure my body fat. Because I can't directly measure body fat, I'm focusing on scale weight, while also keeping my strength up. Thats the only real way that I have to measure my progress towards that goal.
From everything that I've heard the body fat percentage that you're at when you begin your "bulk" has a big impact on the amount of fat versus lean body mass you'll gain. That's why I'm trying to get leaner.
My long term goals are to get a lot stronger. In order for that to happen I'll need to gain some size. But, I want to gain lean mass, not fat. I've already lost so much weight that it just seems logical to keep it going until I'm fairly lean. At that point I'll want to gain strength and eating more has to be a part of that right?
So, I guess I'm not really bulking in the traditional sense, but I want to get stronger, without putting on a lot of fat. Does that make sense?
Thanks for repsonding Lou!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja
what the hell happened here?
Are you talking about the font? I wrote it up in word, and for some reason thats the way it looked when it was posted. It does look weird.
My modem rebooted when I was writing my reply, but that's never been a problem before -- I just wait for the modem to come back online before I post the reply.
I noticed that Chad's original post came up in a different font and type size, so maybe there was some code embedded in it that caused my reply to show up as part of his post.
I wouldn't stress on scale weight, just try to find a consistent "reference" weight. First thing in the morning is often easiest. If you consistently weight yourself end of day, that would still be pretty decent over the long term.
From everything that I've heard the body fat percentage that you're at when you begin your "bulk" has a big impact on the amount of fat versus lean body mass you'll gain. That's why I'm trying to get leaner.
But how do you know you won't get leaner if you add some size? You can hit a plateau training for pure fat loss, as you can training for any goal. You may simply not have enough muscle mass at this point to get the most out of your current fat-loss program. (Of course, I say that not having any idea what your current fat-loss program looks like.)
Quote:
My long term goals are to get a lot stronger. In order for that to happen I'll need to gain some size. But, I want to gain lean mass, not fat. I've already lost so much weight that it just seems logical to keep it going until I'm fairly lean. At that point I'll want to gain strength and eating more has to be a part of that right?
Why not just train to get stronger now, and see if the new training stimulus has an effect on your body composition?
The link you posted didn't work, so maybe it pointed to some research I'm not aware of. In the absence of that, my hunch is that you'll get the best results if you mix things up and focus on a different goal for a while.
Even if you gain some fat with whatever muscle you pack on while pursuing strength and/or hypertrophy, you might still end up with better body comp, since that number is relative to your body weight.
But even if you don't, you'll probably find it easier to lose fat down the road if your muscles are bigger and stronger.
Lou, I don't think that this article is based on research. I could be wrong. I think its based on anectdote and "Bro-ism."
I don't know if I'll get leaner? I've never done it. But, I've set a goal up to reach 165lbs. and I'm feeling that to abandon that goal now would be a cop out. I've been struggling to get close and over the last few days I've started to see the scale move downward. But, I'm wondering if I'm just being stubborn!?!?
I'd love to get up to 180 or 190 and still be at or below 15% body fat! If I start to add in some more calories and find out that I'm putting on more fat than I'd like, how do I respond? Do I go back to dieting but get to a much lower body fat percentage?
But, I think I'll wait until I get to 165lbs. before I do that....just because I'll feel like I quit on my goal otherwise. Perhaps that isn't a valid way of operating?
I think I'll wait until I get to 165lbs. before I do that....just because I'll feel like I quit on my goal otherwise. Perhaps that isn't a valid way of operating?
Chad, that's your call. There's no right or wrong approach, just what makes the most sense to you, based on your goals.
Quote:
If I start to add in some more calories and find out that I'm putting on more fat than I'd like, how do I respond? Do I go back to dieting but get to a much lower body fat percentage?
Tissue, whether it's fat or muscle, has to be made of something. You need a caloric surplus to gain weight. If you go from one challenging training program to another, then the caloric surplus will have to come from added food, vs. reduced physical activity.
Simple enough, right?
So let's say you start eating more, creating what you assume to be a caloric surplus. If you give yourself a reasonable period of time (at least 2-4 weeks, I'd suggest), and see that you've added body weight, you next need to figure out if it's the right kind of weight.
Again, that's pretty simple and straightforward. Just use a tape measure to see if you're adding girth to your waist. Since those are tonic muscles, they should hypertrophy at a slower rate than the muscles in your thighs and shoulder girdle.
If your waist seems fleshier and your waist measurement is bigger after a few weeks, then you can assume you've gained too much fat, and you can eliminate the caloric surplus. No surplus, no excess tissue.
I wouldn't think of it in terms of dieting, which has connotations of a continual caloric deficit. That's a time-limited strategy -- the longer you stay in a deficit, the worse the side effects (like a slower metabolism) will become.
I wouldn't think of it in terms of dieting, which has connotations of a continual caloric deficit. That's a time-limited strategy -- the longer you stay in a deficit, the worse the side effects (like a slower metabolism) will become.
Uh oh! I've been on a diet for 18 months! But, I do refeeds....or I guess it's more like cheat days. I wonder if I've done any damage?
In case anyone is wondering, the reason why I've been dieting down to get to the 12% range is because of stuff I've read from Lyly MacDonald like this:
Quote:
If you start a mass gaining phase at too high of a body fat percentage (say 12-15%), you’re going to gain some fat during that phase and end up in the high teens or worse. This makes dieting back to a non-fat assed body fat percentage a real hassle. Better to keep things in check by alternating periods of cutting and gaining.
As well, it seems empirically that once body fat gets to the 15% range or so for men, fat gains tend to accelerate during mass gaining phases. I suspect this is due to the development of systemic insulin resistance which causes calories to go into fat stores more readily. Keeping body fat levels below that may be helpful.
I should mention that there was always an anecdotal idea that mass gains were best with body fat about 10-12% body fat (for men, add 9-12% for women). While I had always dismissed this as being an excuse to stay fat, I suspect it’s probably close to correct. Based on what’s going on hormonally and physiologically at both low and higher body fat percentages, this may very well be a sweet spot for mass gaining. You’re fed and healthy enough to lift well and make gains but not so fat that other problems arise. Practical Recommendations
Ok, enough theory crap. Based on the above data, here’s what I would generally recommend to bodybuilders or athletes who want to put on muscle mass (i.e. all of them).
If you’re above 15% body fat (about 24-27% for women), diet first. If you can get to the 10-12% (19-24%) body fat range or so, I think you’ll be in an overall better position to gain mass. Trying to get super lean will probably end up screwing you in the long run because your body will be primed to put back fat on (and most other physiological systems are screwed up as well) when you get super lean.
There are hormonal reasons not to bulk outside that range of body-fat Lyle lists. Doesn't mean you can't do it, just means that you probably won't enjoy the results.
If you're a "former fat guy", then I must stress this point: do not do an all-out bulk. Years and years ago, when I was 125-130 lbs, I "couldn't gain weight" - meaning I didn't eat worth a damn. After a few years had gone by and I was 165 or so, I got sick of being tiny, so I force-fed myself up to 195 or so. A few years after that I'd pushed over 220 lbs.
I'm mot that big anymore, currently just under 200 and heading down, but what I'm getting at is that due to some factor (whether it was age or getting that big or some of both), it became much harder for me to lean out. Whereas I couldn't gain weight for anything 7-8 years ago, these days it takes a lot just to get under 90kg.
Like it or not, there's only so much LBM any given frame will hold without drugs. If you're near or at that value, then "bulking" is kinda pointless. You're only going to get fat, and dieting is not fun.
Chad, have you read my book? If not I'd give it a read, as I discuss a lot of these matters in it.
Short summary: I try to get people to stop thinking of strength training in discrete terms. In my view, there are no "strength" programs or "hypertrophy" programs; it's all a function of where you choose to focus time and energy.
Or even simpler, strength is size, size is strength. In my outlook, the only difference between hypertrophy training and strength training is the exercise selection and total volume of work done. Yeah all the textbooks like to make it into discrete nicely-packaged things, but reality is a bit different.
If you're a relative beginner, you'll tend to see recomposition effects just by getting stronger. Strength is size, at least up to a point.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
I haven't read your book. I remember hearing that you were giving it away on your website. I have a lot of respect for that. But, I'm not in a position at this time to donate, and didn't want to take anything without being able to give something. But, perhaps I will grab it from you. I hoped that you would comment on this thread simply because I've read a lot of what you're written here and respect what you have to say.
I hear what you're saying about not trying to do a traditional bulk with tons of calories and poor food choices. I can also tell you that I'm not carrying that much muscle mass. My LBM is around 145-150lbs. and I don't think that's very much for a guy my height. So, I can definitely stand to gain size.
What I'm hearing from everyone is this:
Add calories in slowly while paying attention to body measurements. Try to find the caloric balance that leads to increased body weight without increasing (much) around the waistline.
No need to add a huge surplus of calories, and cut the calories back if too much of the weight gain is fat.
Perhaps I've been dieting too long and the change would do me good.
Continue training for strength performance with a good caloric base and it's likely that the body comp results will be positive.
Thanks!
Lou,
Why is it that you think that focusing on strength with a calorie surplus could actually result in a leaner body? I've heard this before but never really understood why or how that could be. I've always just accepted that if you gain weight some of it will be fat.
Why is it that you think that focusing on strength with a calorie surplus could actually result in a leaner body? I've heard this before but never really understood why or how that could be. I've always just accepted that if you gain weight some of it will be fat.
Matt said, "Strength is size, and size is strength." My version isn't at catchy, but it's the same idea: Train for function -- in this case, strength -- and form will follow.
When you get stronger you get bigger, unless you're an advanced strength athlete competing in a weight class. When you get bigger, everything you do requires more energy, so you burn more calories training, recovering from training, and doing recreational sports and GPP.
You should end up with improved body comp, even though you're eating enough to have a slight caloric surplus.
Again, this isn't something you can do for an extended period of time -- a few months with a modest surplus should be enough.
BUT.... can't you have the same goal and not by hypocaloric? In people who are fairly significantly overweight isn't it quite possible to be slightly hypercaloric and still gain strength? I see it all the time in the logs...
The trick here is to be "slightly" one way or the other. If your diet isn't really tight then the "slightly" part will be hard and you could really throw your goals one way or the other.
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
isn't it quite possible to be slightly hypercaloric and still gain strength? I see it all the time in the logs...
I know that I've gained tons of strength while being on a long term diet. But, I've just attributed that to newbie gains from being so out of shape a year ago. My training age is still very young. But, I've also noticed that I've gained strength in certain movements (deadlift) and no strength in other lifts (bench press). In fairness, I don't bench press very often.
Matt said, "Strength is size, and size is strength." My version isn't at catchy, but it's the same idea: Train for function -- in this case, strength -- and form will follow.
When you get stronger you get bigger, unless you're an advanced strength athlete competing in a weight class. When you get bigger, everything you do requires more energy, so you burn more calories training, recovering from training, and doing recreational sports and GPP.
I would note however that there is a practical end-point to this process if you start to over-specialize.
In my case, being 210-220 lbs took a lot of specialized effort, in terms of cutting out "extra" activity, eating a lot of calorie-dense foods, and spending a lot of time in the gym.
If you're just talking the average gym-noob, and one that's doing a multi-faceted program (which will include some manner of conditioning work), then I agree 100%. Get stronger and body comp will follow if the diet is in line.
It's just that I think some people can take it to the logical conclusion and end up in a bad place - namely by throwing everything they have into "getting bigger".
That just gets you fatter.
Quote:
Again, this isn't something you can do for an extended period of time -- a few months with a modest surplus should be enough.
Pretty much. The closer you get to the asymptote, the less productive it'll become.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
BUT.... can't you have the same goal and not by hypocaloric? In people who are fairly significantly overweight isn't it quite possible to be slightly hypercaloric and still gain strength? I see it all the time in the logs...
I'd attribute this to the training program as much as the diet. And not just the written component, but the effort being put in at the gym.
From my viewing, what I see is people willing to put in "work" in the sense of doing a lot of exercises and a lot of sets, but not so much "work" in the sense of high-quality, high-effort progression.
Take my example, I've gone from 96.8kg to 89kg in the last 7-8 weeks, just by dieting with mostly protein + veggies and adding in a few carb-ups per week.
In that time I've managed to improve just about every lift, even the squat and bench which tend to be very sensitive to weight (not just LBM) loss.
Now, I do have to concede that much of this is rebuilding strength. Due to a variety of injuries, I've had little in the way of productive strength training for around 2 years now. So it is a little different in my case, coming from years of building a foundation of muscle and strength.
That said, I still think people can make more gains on strength while dieting than they might think - but it's going to come down to lower-volume, higher-quality training.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
If you're just talking the average gym-noob, and one that's doing a multi-faceted program (which will include some manner of conditioning work), then I agree 100%. Get stronger and body comp will follow if the diet is in line.
It's just that I think some people can take it to the logical conclusion and end up in a bad place - namely by throwing everything they have into "getting bigger".
That just gets you fatter.
But, you would agree that your present body fat levels affect how much fat you'll gain in a surplus? Or would you think that it would be best to operate as close to maintenance as possible? Or just at a very small surplus?
After having become so convinced of the "deficit equals loss, and surplus equals gain" way of thinking is difficult to see how the recomposition could happen. We hear all the time that losing fat and gaining muscle are exclusive of each other and that we need a deficit for fat loss, and a surplus for muscle gain, that it's hard to think otherwise. Even though I've personally gained muscle mass while dieting I just dismiss it as newbie phenomenon.
At the same time I've heard lots of coaches (Dos Remedios comes to mind) saying that focusing on performance will equate to body comp changes. It gets hard to know what to think.
I guess my question then becomes how do you approach the nutritional side of the equation to get those kind of results? I definitely won't go out and try to eat a cow at each sitting. But, now I'm more confused than I was before?
This is what I'm thinking. Tell me if I'm in the ballpark.
- Still finishing up my dieting portion to get to or close to 12% body fat.
- Measure body parts.
- Two weeks of eating at what I think should be maintenance.
- Weigh and measure.
- Add 200 hundred calories.
- If possible increase total volume of exercise?????????? Not sure!?!?
- Wait four weeks and measure and weigh again.
- Adjust calories and training volume according to perceived fat and muscle gains
- Do this until I get to about 15% body fat, or 185lbs.
- Diet again.
- Try not to get bogged down by minutia.
Matt, and Lou! Thanks to both of you for your input!
I get your hesitation to believe that body recomping can happen because it does seem to have slower visible results. But I see it all the time on the logs and it is happening with me too. I am being made to stick to more of a recomp diet nutritionally. So far the hardest part of the diet for me is having faith that I am moving in the right direction. Without the scale moving, it really is scary and there are so many paradigms surrounding this.
But it does happen. Honestly, if you can live with how you look now... I would start recomping right away and forget about the bulk/cut thing. That stuff is more for bodybuilders than real people IMHO. Since you seem to want to reach lower bf% as a priority I would think that maintenance minus 250 cals or so would be perfect (assuming you are an accurate dieter) If you stick with this and incorporate the proper lifting program (heavy and quality) then recomp will happen and you can accomplish all the stated goals at one time over the next year or so.
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
Ah, so you're saying eat near your maintenance and just adjust the calories a little in the direction you're trying to go. So, I could eat at a small deficit and then as my bodyfat percentage drops over time I can add in more calories if I want to add size. Being so close to maintenance I won't have as many of the side effects of dieting. And with proper pre and post workout nutrition I should actually be able to gain some muscle mass as I'll be supplying calories to the body when it needs them and can use them best.
Am I finally getting it?!?
Training at 2600 calories would be so much better than training at 1600-2000 calories!
But, you would agree that your present body fat levels affect how much fat you'll gain in a surplus? Or would you think that it would be best to operate as close to maintenance as possible? Or just at a very small surplus?
To a point it does affect partitioning, but you have to remember that at the end of the day you can only do so much to affect that.
A lean person in the 10-12% range as Lyle suggested is going to be "primed" for weight-gain (note the 'weight' term) due to hormonal sensitivity and such, so as long as you're doing it correctly you can exploit the favorable partitioning.
Somebody that's fatter is going to be more resistant to tissue gain, and it is a bit easier to pile on fat if you're already fatter.
Quote:
After having become so convinced of the "deficit equals loss, and surplus equals gain" way of thinking is difficult to see how the recomposition could happen. We hear all the time that losing fat and gaining muscle are exclusive of each other and that we need a deficit for fat loss, and a surplus for muscle gain, that it's hard to think otherwise. Even though I've personally gained muscle mass while dieting I just dismiss it as newbie phenomenon.
It's also got a lot to do with experience. Somebody that's just starting out and is significantly away from their "muscle gain asymptote" can benefit from a surplus.
Somebody that's been doing it awhile and is a lot closer to that plateau will probably just get fat (as in my case).
The former can benefit from just "bulking" reasonably. The latter will need to be much more careful and focus on recomp strategies vs. just "bulking".
The closer you get to your natural limits, the more care you'll have to take to gain mass w/o getting fat.
And then you've got the third category: guys that go on the sauce. Which basically just resets your system to a new upper limit, which the body will then try to move towards.
Quote:
At the same time I've heard lots of coaches (Dos Remedios comes to mind) saying that focusing on performance will equate to body comp changes. It gets hard to know what to think.
Focusing on performance won't hurt, and given the way approximately 99.8% of everyone, everywhere, approaches "bodybuilding", it's a vast improvement.
I just struggle to see how generalizations of any kind are superior to a specialized methodology for physique training (which is what I lean towards).
That just reeks of the "labeling" process I hate so much. Training to add muscle mass is about applying a specific kind of overload to your muscles - I don't particularly care how that overload comes about. Conditioning for fat loss is about burning up calories - I don't particularly care how that calorie burn comes about.
Trying to compare "bodybuilding" and "strength training" and "functional training" is missing the point, IMO.
Quote:
I guess my question then becomes how do you approach the nutritional side of the equation to get those kind of results? I definitely won't go out and try to eat a cow at each sitting. But, now I'm more confused than I was before?
This is what I'm thinking. Tell me if I'm in the ballpark.
- Still finishing up my dieting portion to get to or close to 12% body fat.
- Measure body parts.
- Two weeks of eating at what I think should be maintenance.
- Weigh and measure.
- Add 200 hundred calories.
- If possible increase total volume of exercise?????????? Not sure!?!?
- Wait four weeks and measure and weigh again.
- Adjust calories and training volume according to perceived fat and muscle gains
- Do this until I get to about 15% body fat, or 185lbs.
- Diet again.
- Try not to get bogged down by minutia.
There's a saying I like: keep it simple until simple stops working
The easiest way for you to start the process is what you outlined - count calories and add a little to your totals.
Work on bringing up strength in your big lifts and add in a little extra volume for individual muscle groups.
As you said, test and re-evaluate every so often just to make sure you're in the ballpark.
What you laid out there is about as good a way to do it as I've seen.
Quote:
Matt, your mailbox is full!
Yeah, I know. I prefer people to email me, since there's about a 90% chance I'll respond to a message if it shows up in Thunderbird. I have a bad habit of ignoring PMs.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Ah, so you're saying eat near your maintenance and just adjust the calories a little in the direction you're trying to go. So, I could eat at a small deficit and then as my bodyfat percentage drops over time I can add in more calories if I want to add size. Being so close to maintenance I won't have as many of the side effects of dieting. And with proper pre and post workout nutrition I should actually be able to gain some muscle mass as I'll be supplying calories to the body when it needs them and can use them best.
Am I finally getting it?!?
Training at 2600 calories would be so much better than training at 1600-2000 calories!
Exactly! Train with just a tiny little deficit and that will give you strength as well as give you some fat loss. If you are brave train at maintenance and don't lose any weight for a whole year. But train to increase lifts. See if your before and after pics don't show one really badass recomp. (problem is most people don't have the faith to do it and end up either cutting or bulking instead)
We are all such scale whores....
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
Exactly! Train with just a tiny little deficit and that will give you strength as well as give you some fat loss. If you are brave train at maintenance and don't lose any weight for a whole year. But train to increase lifts. See if your before and after pics don't show one really badass recomp. (problem is most people don't have the faith to do it and end up either cutting or bulking instead)
We are all such scale whores....
Which goes totally back to what Lou was saying from the very beginning! See, it sometimes takes hearing the exact same thing said a different way before it clicks!
Exactly! Train with just a tiny little deficit and that will give you strength as well as give you some fat loss. If you are brave train at maintenance and don't lose any weight for a whole year. But train to increase lifts. See if your before and after pics don't show one really badass recomp. (problem is most people don't have the faith to do it and end up either cutting or bulking instead)
We are all such scale whores....
I don't know. a year of faith is an awful long time to look back and realize that you could have done better. There are better ways.
I would not say to cut and bulk in large cycles, because that's get fatter, get slimmer, get fatter, get slimmer. I would suggest to break things down into manageable cycles of slight calorie surpluses and slight calorie deficits.
Sun, low cal, off Mon, low cal, then WO at in the PM with higher trans-WO nutrition and then high(er) cal food Tue, high(er) cal, off Wed, high(er) cal, WO Thu, high(er) cal, off Fri, high(er) cal, WO Sat, high(er) cal
This gives you 1.5 to almost two days of low calorie. After a while, you'll know if your highs are too high or too many. You can go even lower calorie, lower the highs, or add an extra low day. You can go with a 14 or 21 day cycle, too. Any cycle period will work, just adjusting the ratio of highs:lows.
Since we can never truly know if we are at maint anyway, this gives us plenty of room to somewhat dynamically adjust the ups and downs until we are happy with progress on whatever the goal.
Which goes totally back to what Lou was saying from the very beginning! See, it sometimes takes hearing the exact same thing said a different way before it clicks!
I learned it from Lou first "New Rules for Women" GREAT book and concept. Just that most chicks cannot deal with the whole scale not moving thing....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Dog
I don't know. a year of faith is an awful long time to look back and realize that you could have done better. There are better ways....
I think we are saying the same thing just different ways to get there. I would not do so well on the plan you laid out. I prefer more linear type diets or cyclical but not too extreme. Both are effective I think. Net is... Eat to where the scale doesn't move or barely moves and lift really hard and heavy. Doesn't matter if you eat 6 meals a day, eat late at night, or low one day, high another... just keep it so the scale barely or doesn't move for a really long time...
Next topic will be what is the optimum macros for this feat of recomping?
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
I know you were being dramatic about going a year, but there are people who might do that without any real checking or changing of processes. I've answered posts, PMs, and emails from people who write that they have been following _____ for 6 months and are getting frustrated because they are fatter or not-leaner. They saw that nothing has been happening, but the program said to do ______ so they just kept plugging along. They assume that it's going to work eventually?
On the specifics of my post, though, I'm assuming a few things.
A, the person has had a weight issue in the past
B, therefore, he's counting calories or using some method to restrict from where he was in the past.
C, he's not really where he wants to be yet from a body composition perspective.
IMO (partially based on my own fat to not-fat transition), going a long period of time with little feedback on fat/muscle changes is a bad thing and could lead to loss of motivation. While you have the scale to indicate that you are not eating too much or too little, the other changes can be painfully slow.
People who are new to training might find that they DO see changes with the simple approach. They build muscle in the beginning without the bigger highs and lows.
Now, if you are pretty happy with your body and want to maintain or go for strength, then that's great. You have ways to measure progress or lack of. Muscle gain and fat loss may very well be there at the end of the period, but not necessarily.
There are slightly pudgy, scrawny guys at the gym who've looked the same for years. Some even have decent programs and are getting stronger, but I look different and they look the same. I'm not huge by a long shot, but I have maintained my leanness and gotten slowly leaner at about the same weight.
Couple of Specific Questions about Gaining Mass
Linear Mode
