I don't get this...

[theleip]

Genetics play a huge role in ones ability to store fat and gain muscle. Beyond that also there are hormone disfunctions, insulin sensitivites, nothing is that black and white.

As far as the UFC comment, those guys just so you know do bulk and cut at times. Mostly though they are in a constant clean bulk and with the amount of cardio they do it leaves them with a pretty decent body fat % regardless of effort to actually "cut". They are athletes, are you hitting bags, getting your face kicked in and running drills 5-6 hours a day or more? That is why non-athletes and bodybuilders use a more defined program of bulking and cutting.

Losing fat isn't just calorie deficit, gaining muscle isn't just calorie surplus, however these are the basic needed things to achieve these results. You combine this stuff with the right macro ratios and proper training and the results come. If not, then work harder or better. Look at it like this, you can throw 200 pounds on your back and throw your ass to the ground till it breaks below you, however if you aren't in the genetically gifted or lucky bastard area, if your form is bad, you are just putting stress on your joints and tendons but no work to your muscles. They don't grow, your not eating right, and bam you are giving all your effort to reach no end goal.

Smart diet
Smart training
Knowledge of your genetics
Knowledge of your body in general and fitness
These are the key to reaching your goals. If you do it without this, well you are just a lucky bastard.

 

[martin1]

Don't people cut and bulk and get on certain programs for each because they are faster and more effective ways of putting on muscle or losing fat than just eating whatever and pumping iron all day...?

 

[Cynic]

Don't people cut and bulk and get on certain programs for each because they are faster and more effective ways of putting on muscle or losing fat than just eating whatever and pumping iron all day...?

Yes, trying to do both is a slow process for the inexperienced, impossible for the long time lifter.

And it is possible to out work a bad diet. Waterbury had an article about his amazement at b-ball players who ate crap all the time, but were lean. They do sprints up and down the court all day.

 

[Cryptik]

Very simple breakdown..

Bulking

• Eating a caloric surplus (more than you would normally need).
• Lifting heavier weights to stimulate the larger muscle fibers.

Cutting

• Eating a caloric deficit (eating less that you would normall need).
• Lifting lighter weights (usually higher rep than while bulking). This is to maintain as much muscle as possible. If you were to simply lower your caloric intake, your body would hold onto less muscle mass as it is no longer needed (not being used).

how bout getting stronger and cutting @ same time?

 

[martin1]

Yes, trying to do both is a slow process for the inexperienced, impossible for the long time lifter.

And it is possible to out work a bad diet. Waterbury had an article about his amazement at b-ball players who ate crap all the time, but were lean. They do sprints up and down the court all day.

From experience, the first few months I started weight training, I was putting on a bit of muscle and losing fat at teh same time. This ceased after a few months though.

I remember that article...all I remember is the part you just described though.

 

[martin1]

how bout getting stronger and cutting @ same time?

I can't offer any scientific evidence and whatnot on this, but I am currently cutting and have recently added 10lb to my deadlift.

 

[junkfoodbad]

I'll see you guys in a couple days

nice. a very educated response. i cant believe people arent taking advice from this guy. brilliant

 

[buzz]

ufc..brad pitt..guys inside...lets get one thing straight most of these guys are on gear even if its just to make one film,and its easy to get gear inside.
niceone made some valid points so dissen him is a bit silly its a forum for discussion
bulking and cutting are the best way to gain muscle and then show it of thats why bbrs have done it for years.
but as stated if your natural and eat healthy (slightly above maintanance) and train correctly then that is also possible but it takes longer.

 

[malkore]

how bout getting stronger and cutting @ same time?

quite doable. the bigger issue is energy when cutting carbs on a cutting diet. you tend to get pooped out easier...which is one reason i see no reason to stop creatine when cutting.
carb cycling can also help keep better energy levels, while still cutting at a good rate.

strength training don't tear down muscle fibers as much as training for mass, which is another reason I dig it for a cutting phase...easier to recover for your next workout.

 

[Karky]

I hear that all the time. Genetics this, genetics that.

Genetics is the universal crutch for those refusing to let their workout be 90% of their focus. The plain bare truth, provable by going back in history to the founders of weight training is that your program should be heavy enough to gain necessary mass, and intense enough to create fantastic cardio results.

If you do this, you WILL be strong, you WILL have the necessary mass, and you WILL be cut. -The result: HEALTH.

I train in this exact fashion. When your program is as listed above, and you eat whole foods, and nothing but, you end up FAR better than anyone else with a modern program today.


I disagree.

Veggies and potatoes are NECESSARY to supply the carbs and nutrients your body requires. When you have a high intensity workout, you NEED the whole natural foods and your body does well with them. Those carb sources are not meant to be protein.

Protein does not build muscle by its self, and neither do carbs provide energy by themselves. An intense program breaks down that fat immediately and THEN works on the protein stores. You keep carbs going in and fat eliminated by eating the veggies and such, while burning it by the training program. This keeps the meat and other protein sources available for gaining the bulk.

-And what do I mean by intense?

How about 1 set of 60 squats with butt to floor?
----Right after 1 set of 40 clean-and-presses with only 2 minutes rest until the squats?

THAT is intense. -And no, that isn't a program, that is merely 2 exercises.

40-60 reps? you actually sounded like you knew your ****, until you said that. you will not get strong or big if you do that. Workout is 90%? is that what you are saying? err.. then how come diet is said by many who actually KNOWS their **** to be like 80%? doesnt add up.

I agree you need whole foods, though most of your carbs should come from veggies, but im sure you knew that.
and your program should be heavy enough to gain mass? gaining mass is diet, more cals inn than out = mass gain, just in general.
Right after workout, you can punch inn alot of carbs which will go to the muscles and not be stored as fat, while your body uses your bodies stored fat for fuel, but it doesnt make a big difference meaning you can gain alot of muscle and cut down fat at the same time.

 

[Karky]

how bout getting stronger and cutting @ same time?

you can get stronger when you cut, but you probobly wont gain alot of muscle mass. You probobly wont gain as much strenght as when bulking though. just remember, muscle mass is not the same as muscle strenght.

 

[niceone]

Awww look what I missed.. (stupid sleeping in.. )
Well, I'm sure our friend will just pick a new user name and check the boards.. Anyhow deae1 if you read this, I'm sorry you have so much trouble expressing yourself. I'm also sorry that you live in such a dangerous neighbourhood. I've only had a knife pulled on me a few times, so I can't imagine what it's like to live somewhere where people get stabbed all the time. I assume that is what made you the rude boy you are today. Anyways, good luck with gaining weight, apparently it is easy to do, yet you haven't been able to do it (judging by your previous threads).

And to everyone else, I appologize on behalf deae1 (since he can no longer do it himself).. He grew up in the hood and doesn't know how to express himself well. He's a product of late nights drinking 40's and smoking blunts with his other 17 year old OG's.. I know how hard it is for kids like him because I beat the sh*t out of them regularly just playin..

People who don't have any real background information on the topic of debate will often turn towards insulting the other person outright (for example saying they will do things to members of your family.. I don't have a sister btw) If you are arguing with someone and this happens, you can assume one of 2 things.. 1. You clearly outsmarted them and they are thrashing about wildly trying to grab onto something.. or 2. Your argument is so horrible that you have frustrated the person to the extent that they lash out at you. I hope those who read this read realize how stupid it is to be eTough.. Not only does your brain determine your clout.. But you aren't impressing anyone, aight?

 

[Karky]

amen niceone!
what pisses me the most off in arguments (not this one, but since were on the subject ) is when i make an argument, and they dont argue against it, they just keep saying the same thing, even though ive given a solid point as to why that is not true.

 

[Hoss]

Let's just get this out in the open.

I LOVE an educational debate, as do most other members. But when immature people begin insulting and threatening people, that's too far. Hawk, although disagreeing a lot, does so in a factual way which is enjoyable, same thing with Niceone.

On that note, deae1 will be back in a few days.

 

[niceone]

Indeed..
Repetition of the same points is pretty frustrating, I had one of those a while back and it drove me to drink... lots of protein.

 

[Hoss]

This thread has one more chance to make it before closing.. Let's keep it factual people!

 

[Hawk]

40-60 reps? you actually sounded like you knew your ****, until you said that. you will not get strong or big if you do that. Workout is 90%? is that what you are saying? err.. then how come diet is said by many who actually KNOWS their **** to be like 80%? doesnt add up.

You argued without applying thought to what I posted.

1. I never said high reps build size or mass. I stated a proper PROGRAM does that with a high intensity factor built in for fat loss to create a "cutting" effect, therefore ELIMINATING the insane diet roller coaster everyone agrees is bad, but decides to PROMOTE for looks when weight training.

2. A program of any validity to creating health can incorporate proper metabolism stabilization by SIMPLE dietary practices which can be done WITHOUT higher math and eating tasteless and colorless foods.

My point that genetics is a crutch is abosolutely true. A balanced program is never totally stationary and by having both factors of heavy lifting for mass building, PLUS a factor of high intensity for fat burning does the trick.

Anyone with serious thought, who knows their stuff, will be able to sit down, analyze what I just said, and realize that they have stumbled on to a more effective system than mainstream thought promotes.

The question of perception of what I know or don't know is totally irrelevant to me. I know what I know, I can PROVE what I know, and what is worse is that I didn't dream it up on my own or pull it out of some lab study, but from guys who you aren't even familiar with. -Does Jowett or Inch or Saxon or Calvert ring a bell?

The point here is that the guys who first created strength and health oriented weight training knew their stuff.

Weider took what they did, applied it to BODYBUILDING, --which is not strength, nor health, and then SCIENCE branched off from there. The entire orientation to health and effectiveness has been lost through desire to LOOK better and lab studys that do not take the whole picture into account.

Nutrition has its place.
Science has its place.
Looks have their place.
Nothing matters without health.

If all you do is study one area without the whole picture of context, you are lost.

-And that, ladies and gentlement is a simple synopsis of the majority of weight training today.

I agree you need whole foods, though most of your carbs should come from veggies, but im sure you knew that.
and your program should be heavy enough to gain mass? gaining mass is diet, more cals inn than out = mass gain, just in general.

Diet gains mass. By that rule, diet LOSES mass.

Therefore a long distance runner and a distance bike racer have no reason to be slimmed down because exercise doesn't play a part.

This illustrates my point about the big picture.

Right after workout, you can punch inn alot of carbs which will go to the muscles and not be stored as fat, while your body uses your bodies stored fat for fuel, but it doesnt make a big difference meaning you can gain alot of muscle and cut down fat at the same time.

Carbs after a workout only work if the body is already starving for fuel. -Which is totally unhealthy from a diet rollercoaster standpoint. Again, you believe nutrition creates the body.

Nutrition FUELS the body.

 

[garyl43]

What works well for me if I want to lose 10-15 lbs of fat and build muscle mass at the same time is to keep my weight the same and strength train. I weigh myself every day making sure my weight doesn't go up or down (adjusting my diet accordingly). After about three months the abs start popping out and I look much leaner and more muscular even though I haven't lost or gained any weight. I'm just replacing the fat with muscle. It's slower than doing a lot of cardio and cutting way back on calories, but there's no denying that I'm putting on a lot of lean muscle and losing the fat at the same time.

 

[junkfoodbad]

My point that genetics is a crutch is abosolutely true.

I think you should rephrase that statement. Genetics CAN be a crutch. Some people are predisposed to storing fat more so than others. But to use this as an excuse to not train to the best of your ability is when it becomes a crutch.

It comes easier to some people and others have to work a lot harder to acheive the same results. But to say "I can never have that body, cause of my genetics"...thats when it becomes a crutch.

But to make a blanket statement that genetics is a crutch is pure ignorance.

 

[niceone]

I never said high reps build size or mass...I stated a proper PROGRAM does that with a high intensity factor built in for fat loss to create a "cutting" effect, therefore ELIMINATING the insane diet roller coaster everyone agrees is bad, but decides to PROMOTE for looks when weight training.

I'm a bit confused by this sentence. Earlier on you said this:

Genetics is the universal crutch for those refusing to let their workout be 90% of their focus. The plain bare truth, provable by going back in history to the founders of weight training is that your program should be heavy enough to gain necessary mass, and intense enough to create fantastic cardio results.

So.. Essentially people should lift enough weight that they gain muscle mass, but they should also lift with intensity to lose fat? I think this is what you are saying, sorry if I am getting it wrong.

I think what people (me included) were getting at earlier is that when you lift high frequency (or intensity as you put it) You are actually stimulating small muscle fibers, which are typically what you see on long distance runners.. Those runners are strong and have great stamina, but they are usually tiny. In order to oxidize fat during your workout, you must have a maintained elevated heart rate and in many cases, you must deplete the glycogen in your liver.
Dieting goes only so far in that eating clean with proper nutrient timing will lessen the chances of stored fat (amongst all the other very important functions).. BUT, not everyone will see growth and fat loss at once. I'm sorry, you can't prove that your argument is so black and white and pertains to everyone..

2. A program of any validity to creating health can incorporate proper metabolism stabilization by SIMPLE dietary practices which can be done WITHOUT higher math and eating tasteless and colorless foods.

Agreed, Simply knowing your body and how it reacts is often enough when it comes to general health.. People use 'higher math' to track caloric intake because they can then tweak their diets very finely. It's also a great way of finding out which ratios work best for you. You cannot determine which ratios to use if you do not use math.

My point that genetics is a crutch is abosolutely true. A balanced program is never totally stationary and by having both factors of heavy lifting for mass building, PLUS a factor of high intensity for fat burning does the trick.

Does the trick? What does that mean exactly? Having both factors is counterintuitive in some situations because.. sometimes the factors cannot exist at the same time. To burn fat, generally you require a caloric deficit, to gain muscle you typically require a caloric surplus. You can argue all you want that genetics are a crutch and that people are weak for not finding their true potential, but I assure you.. I know how my body reacts to: high intensity, low intensity, cardio, high frequency, low frequency etc etc.. And I don't gain muscle and lose fat. I can find a sweet spot where i gain very little fat while bulking, but with my fast metabolism, I know that I need to eat frequently, and eat right. I don't lose fat when I eat frequently. If you can show me one study that says genetics do not play a role in ones ability to synthesize muscle or oxidize fat, I will bow down declare you the winner

Anyone with serious thought, who knows their stuff, will be able to sit down, analyze what I just said, and realize that they have stumbled on to a more effective system than mainstream thought promotes.

So for those of us who don't realize the effectiveness of your system, we don't know our stuff?.. Sorry that's a bit of a cheap shot. You haven't really said anything to back up your claims.. WHATSOEVER.

The question of perception of what I know or don't know is totally irrelevant to me. I know what I know, I can PROVE what I know, and what is worse is that I didn't dream it up on my own or pull it out of some lab study, but from guys who you aren't even familiar with. -Does Jowett or Inch or Saxon or Calvert ring a bell?

Do it..

The point here is that the guys who first created strength and health oriented weight training knew their stuff.

I'm not going to argue that these fine fellows weren't able to build impressive physiques blah blah blah.. But would you say physiological studies hold no ground?

Weider took what they did, applied it to BODYBUILDING, --which is not strength, nor health, and then SCIENCE branched off from there. The entire orientation to health and effectiveness has been lost through desire to LOOK better and lab studys that do not take the whole picture into account.

I agree with you man. A lot of people do things that are NOT healthy in order to build up their bodies. A healthy medium is best.

Nutrition has its place.
Science has its place.
Looks have their place.
Nothing matters without health.

While that is very inspiring.. How is it healthy to do 60 ATG squats in a row? HOW?

If all you do is study one area without the whole picture of context, you are lost.

I would incorporate a little bit of science into your belief system.

Diet gains mass. By that rule, diet LOSES mass.

Therefore a long distance runner and a distance bike racer have no reason to be slimmed down because exercise doesn't play a part.

This illustrates my point about the big picture.

K.. confused again..
Runners and cyclists tend to be small. Is that what you are arguing?

Carbs after a workout only work if the body is already starving for fuel. -Which is totally unhealthy from a diet rollercoaster standpoint. Again, you believe nutrition creates the body.

Nutrition FUELS the body.

This diet rollercoaster is what controls whether you lose fat or not. Do you actually know what factors need to be present in order for the body to shed fat? Not just that the olden day lifters knew their stuff.. But do you actually understand the physiology behind fat oxidization?



...

Sorry to anyone who actually read all that. I owe you a beer.