PDA

View Full Version : To Bulk or to Cut, That is the Question - or is it?



Joe Black
08-12-2009, 05:43 AM
To Bulk or to Cut, That is the Question - or is it? (http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/to-bulk-or-to-cut-that-is-the-question-or-is-it/) by Daniel Roberts

If you spend any time on the Wannabebig Forums, you’ll run into that perennial plea for help - ‘Should I bulk or cut?’ In fact, it is probably one of the most commonly debated questions.

And, the answers you get, more than often will be contradicting. Bulk like crazy and eat anything and everything in sight... Keep a clean diet and be patient with a slower, leaner weight gain.

Perhaps there is another way to go about things? Maybe even a much simpler way?

-----------

Be really interesting to hear peoples thoughts on this one as it's a much debated subject. Also, feel free to share with as many people as you can!

Thanks,

Daniel

Off Road
08-12-2009, 08:11 AM
That was an interesting read...I'm still trying to wrap my head around it.

If a guy is 220 lbs, and starts eating as a 250 lb guy, what are the stages he'll go through?

1).I'm guessing he'll start off gaining a good ammount of fat (along with muscle)because of the increased calories.

2). At some point (in the middle let's say) he'll kind of even out the gains between fat and muscle.

3). Twards the end, he'll be maintaining his muscle and decreasing fat because he'll be using more calories to support the added muscle.

Am I anywhere near understanding this?

Daniel Roberts
08-12-2009, 08:43 AM
That was an interesting read...I'm still trying to wrap my head around it.

If a guy is 220 lbs, and starts eating as a 250 lb guy, what are the stages he'll go through?

1).I'm guessing he'll start off gaining a good ammount of fat (along with muscle)because of the increased calories.

2). At some point (in the middle let's say) he'll kind of even out the gains between fat and muscle.

3). Twards the end, he'll be maintaining his muscle and decreasing fat because he'll be using more calories to support the added muscle.

Am I anywhere near understanding this?

As you said, it depends where you start from, but yup, you pretty much nailed it.

Justin Ryan
08-12-2009, 08:44 AM
Great article guys!!
answers a lot of questions!

Off Road
08-12-2009, 08:51 AM
Taking it a step further...

Say that I weigh 240 lbs...I continue to eat as a 240 lber...I will continue to gain muscle and loose fat on a maintenance eating schedule (provided that I continue to get stronger)?

Daniel Roberts
08-12-2009, 09:08 AM
Taking it a step further...

Say that I weigh 240 lbs...I continue to eat as a 240 lber...I will continue to gain muscle and loose fat on a maintenance eating schedule (provided that I continue to get stronger)?

Once you hit the target, you're at maintenance for that target.
Given you're at maintenance there's only so much surplus (bodyfat) to fuel any increase in lean body mass.
You will simply hit homeostasis (the balance point) and you might be able to eek a pound of lbm and lose a % bf but that's where you'll stay unless you change activity levels - drop an activity and you free up a surplus, increase and you create a deficit.

But again your margins are quite small. If a change is required, set a new goal and eat/train accordingly.

Off Road
08-12-2009, 09:12 AM
If a change is required, set a new goal and eat/train accordingly.

That makes sense. I forgot to factor in that there were diminishing returns the closer you are to goal.

given'er
08-12-2009, 09:16 AM
Awsome article. I need to start eating a heck of a lot more lol.

Eric Cartman
08-12-2009, 10:39 AM
I am currently at 165 lbs and 15% BF...about 140 lbs of Lean Muscle..

So my realistic goal in 6 months should be to gain about 15 lbs of lean muscle...

So my goal should be to eat the calories that an 180 lb person would eat?

180x14= 2520 calories

Did I do this math right?

Question: Does this mean I will be very fat for 6 months, until I reach that goal?

EC

Virtron
08-12-2009, 10:57 AM
awesome article... so in the case of wanting to lose 10 lbs of fat and gaining 10lbs of muscle say at 200 lbs... you still end up at 200lbs just leaner? I mean thats pretty much perfection.

dynamo
08-12-2009, 08:32 PM
yay ive totally thought this for a while. good read.

cphafner
08-12-2009, 09:12 PM
Really good read. I agree most of us make this more complicated than it needs to be (myself included).

Al19067
08-12-2009, 10:35 PM
Ok I'm like 210 right now, so if I wanna get to 220 I would take 220 and times it by 16? Bc I do about 7 hours worth of work

Daniel Roberts
08-13-2009, 02:47 AM
I am currently at 165 lbs and 15% BF...about 140 lbs of Lean Muscle..

So my realistic goal in 6 months should be to gain about 15 lbs of lean muscle...

So my goal should be to eat the calories that an 180 lb person would eat?

180x14= 2520 calories

Did I do this math right?

Question: Does this mean I will be very fat for 6 months, until I reach that goal?

EC

You got the maths right.

Will you be fat for 6 months until you reach that goal, it depends entirely on whether all your muscle gains come at once on the final day!

Thing is your current maintenance isn't actually too far from your target, which means you're not drastically increasing your intake such that it would result in huge fat deposition, especially as you're increasing muscle mass.
Incidentally, it is highly unlikely that all your muscle gains will arrive at once - it is more likely to be small gradual increases with a few spikes of greater increases over the duration.

Daniel Roberts
08-13-2009, 03:27 AM
awesome article... so in the case of wanting to lose 10 lbs of fat and gaining 10lbs of muscle say at 200 lbs... you still end up at 200lbs just leaner? I mean thats pretty much perfection.


That's pretty much it.

Daniel Roberts
08-13-2009, 03:30 AM
Ok I'm like 210 right now, so if I wanna get to 220 I would take 220 and times it by 16? Bc I do about 7 hours worth of work


That's correct, and if you find you're not gaining weight do as suggested in the article and add 250kcal and monitor.

DMedley
08-13-2009, 09:41 AM
Daniel, thanks for the article.

I think the results of following this have been pretty well covered.

The timing could not have been better for me. A few weeks ago while out camping for 3 weeks, I was thinking about this very topic. I decided to come home and try it ... no better way to know if something works or not.

Since getting your article yesterday, I am more convinced than ever that this is the way to go.

Al19067
08-13-2009, 10:14 AM
That's correct, and if you find you're not gaining weight do as suggested in the article and add 250kcal and monitor.

Thank you, great article

Painzer
08-13-2009, 05:00 PM
Great article Daniel. Thank you.

Irish Pilot
08-13-2009, 05:37 PM
Great article and interesting read. The one thing that has to be re-inforced is that to be what you want to be at your goal weight, you also have to TRAIN like that guy, not just eat like that guy.

Yamar
08-13-2009, 07:13 PM
This method will work for the heavier guy looking to lose but I'm not sure the other way. In the example of the 250 lb guy targeting 235 makes sense.

I'll use myself as an example. 130 lbs @ 10% BF. Goal is 150 lbs 8% BF. I could simple eat the maintenance calories of a 150 lb man and will gain weight till I hit 150 lbs, only thing is I highly doubt I will be at 8% body fat when I get there. At that point I will be at 150 lbs, lets say 15 %BF. See I'm still short of my goal. My only option would be to do a traditional cut, which would put me under 150 lbs in the end, than I would need to bulk, so it's right back to the traditional approach.

Off Road
08-13-2009, 10:26 PM
At that point I will be at 150 lbs, lets say 15 %BF. See I'm still short of my goal.

But at that time, you'll be eating for a 150 lb guy (maintenance), but you will continue to exercise. So, you will loose some fat. Then you'll be over maintenance, so you'll put on muscle (provided you continue to work out to get stronger). See how that can work?

Daniel Roberts
08-14-2009, 02:37 AM
Great article and interesting read. The one thing that has to be re-inforced is that to be what you want to be at your goal weight, you also have to TRAIN like that guy, not just eat like that guy.

Absolutely right - it's a point I perhaps should have stressed more in the article, although at the time of writing I was wary that I needed to keep focus on the nutrition and not dilute/confuse the message. Good point though.

Daniel Roberts
08-14-2009, 02:41 AM
This method will work for the heavier guy looking to lose but I'm not sure the other way. In the example of the 250 lb guy targeting 235 makes sense.

I'll use myself as an example. 130 lbs @ 10% BF. Goal is 150 lbs 8% BF. I could simple eat the maintenance calories of a 150 lb man and will gain weight till I hit 150 lbs, only thing is I highly doubt I will be at 8% body fat when I get there. At that point I will be at 150 lbs, lets say 15 %BF. See I'm still short of my goal. My only option would be to do a traditional cut, which would put me under 150 lbs in the end, than I would need to bulk, so it's right back to the traditional approach.

See post number 2 and 22 by Off Road.

Food for thought though - if you're goal is 150lbs @ 8% bf and you've worked out the maintenance for a man @ 150lbs @ 8%bf and you're eating that every day and training appropriately, why when you hit 150 @ 15% bf (almost double the target figure - your example) do you think you'd stay that way if you're eating for a man at 8%?

always_losing
08-14-2009, 03:41 AM
Ummm, being doing some maths concerning this.

I don't think this works. You need to seriously doctor numbers to get anything like the appropriate results.

I'll give an example:

I weigh 200lbs at about 10% bodyfat. Lets set my 1 year goal at 210lbs with 8% bodyfat. This seems very reasonable to me.

So my maintenance is 3200 calories and my 'as if' consumption is 3360 calories.
This gives me an initial surplus of 160 calories which my body will use to build muscle and gain fat. I need to gain 1.1lbs of muscle per month to reach my goal, this translates to 0.03666 lbs per day.

So now I can work out my new bodyweight, and hence maintenance and surplus calories for each day. It will take 187 days before this will become a caloric deficit (equivalently I reach 210lbs, 186.78 lean 23.22 fat). Now we need to make an assumption about the continued rate of lbm increase. Even if we assume it remains constant, which is very unlikely, I don't reach the goal set initially. By the end of the year, 168 days later, I am still only at a caloric deficit of 75 calories, definitely not enough to incite the weight loss I need to reach 8% bodyfat.

Eventually I reach the expected lbm, since we gained this at a fixed rate, but I still have 10% bodyfat. If we relax the 'lbm gain' especially after we reach maintenance I get ever further away from my goal. Halving lbm gain after maintenance is reached changes the final picture to my weighing 212lbs at 11% BF.

Personally, I think bulk cut is more efficient.

Clifford Gillmore
08-14-2009, 04:23 AM
Ummm, being doing some maths concerning this.

I don't think this works. You need to seriously doctor numbers to get anything like the appropriate results.

I'll give an example:

I weigh 200lbs at about 10% bodyfat. Lets set my 1 year goal at 210lbs with 8% bodyfat. This seems very reasonable to me.

So my maintenance is 3200 calories and my 'as if' consumption is 3360 calories.
This gives me an initial surplus of 160 calories which my body will use to build muscle and gain fat. I need to gain 1.1lbs of muscle per month to reach my goal, this translates to 0.03666 lbs per day.

So now I can work out my new bodyweight, and hence maintenance and surplus calories for each day. It will take 187 days before this will become a caloric deficit (equivalently I reach 210lbs, 186.78 lean 23.22 fat). Now we need to make an assumption about the continued rate of lbm increase. Even if we assume it remains constant, which is very unlikely, I don't reach the goal set initially. By the end of the year, 168 days later, I am still only at a caloric deficit of 75 calories, definitely not enough to incite the weight loss I need to reach 8% bodyfat.

Eventually I reach the expected lbm, since we gained this at a fixed rate, but I still have 10% bodyfat. If we relax the 'lbm gain' especially after we reach maintenance I get ever further away from my goal. Halving lbm gain after maintenance is reached changes the final picture to my weighing 212lbs at 11% BF.

Personally, I think bulk cut is more efficient.

Short answer from me on this one, Daniel may have a different view. If you are training as a 210lbs 8% you have to increase your conditioning work to accomodate being the larger athelete, which in turn puts you in a further caloric deficit. And then you have the factor of having more muscle mass that burns more calories just by 'being there', instantly putting you in a further deficit.

I think a goal of 10lbs of lean muscle in half a year is a little bit of bad example on this theory, as its more addressed to smaller people wanting to get into the average definition of 'big'. I also believe it applies to me at 240lbs to 308lbs.

Daniel Roberts
08-14-2009, 04:51 AM
Ummm, being doing some maths concerning this.

I don't think this works. You need to seriously doctor numbers to get anything like the appropriate results.

I'll give an example:

I weigh 200lbs at about 10% bodyfat. Lets set my 1 year goal at 210lbs with 8% bodyfat. This seems very reasonable to me.

So my maintenance is 3200 calories and my 'as if' consumption is 3360 calories.
This gives me an initial surplus of 160 calories which my body will use to build muscle and gain fat. I need to gain 1.1lbs of muscle per month to reach my goal, this translates to 0.03666 lbs per day.

So now I can work out my new bodyweight, and hence maintenance and surplus calories for each day. It will take 187 days before this will become a caloric deficit (equivalently I reach 210lbs, 186.78 lean 23.22 fat). Now we need to make an assumption about the continued rate of lbm increase. Even if we assume it remains constant, which is very unlikely, I don't reach the goal set initially. By the end of the year, 168 days later, I am still only at a caloric deficit of 75 calories, definitely not enough to incite the weight loss I need to reach 8% bodyfat.

Eventually I reach the expected lbm, since we gained this at a fixed rate, but I still have 10% bodyfat. If we relax the 'lbm gain' especially after we reach maintenance I get ever further away from my goal. Halving lbm gain after maintenance is reached changes the final picture to my weighing 212lbs at 11% BF.

Personally, I think bulk cut is more efficient.

Ok, interesting point.

Firstly if you're 200lbs at 10% bf, you're not a novice and you're obviously able to eat and train effectively.

Furthermore a goal of 210 @ 8% bf, (assuming you're of average height and natural) is knocking on your genetic ceiling - margins for error are small in this instance and gains even slower.
Hitting 212 @ 12% bf is not too shabby a result for the period - approx 4lbs lbm for an experienced natural lifter is good going and I'd have to ask how you define 'efficient'. Hitting that theoretical level without having to resort to two different modalities seems pretty efficient to me.

The article also states that as margins grow tighter, progress should be monitored every two weeks and adjusted up or down by 250kcal.

Any theoretical failings you state can quite easily be mitigated by the minor adjustments suggested above and in the article.

Point is, the article doesn't state it is better than bulk/cut it simply offers those trainees not in the position you are, some direction and help with goal setting and let's face it, most aren't about to step on stage, so 212 @ 12% bf for a natural lifter of average height is a goal for many.

For those more experienced and with proven results and a goal in mind why change the process? If bulk/cut works for you crack on.

Daniel Roberts
08-14-2009, 05:01 AM
Short answer from me on this one, Daniel may have a different view. If you are training as a 210lbs 8% you have to increase your conditioning work to accomodate being the larger athelete, which in turn puts you in a further caloric deficit. And then you have the factor of having more muscle mass that burns more calories just by 'being there', instantly putting you in a further deficit.

I think a goal of 10lbs of lean muscle in half a year is a little bit of bad example on this theory, as its more addressed to smaller people wanting to get into the average definition of 'big'. I also believe it applies to me at 240lbs to 308lbs.

Nope, my views echo yours.

It's a simple concept that'll get you to within spitting distance of any reasonable goal you choose to set, at which point, knowing where you need to get to, you can make the necessary adjustments to caloric intake and/or activity.

always_losing
08-14-2009, 06:05 AM
Nope, my views echo yours.

It's a simple concept that'll get you to within spitting distance of any reasonable goal you choose to set, at which point, knowing where you need to get to, you can make the necessary adjustments to caloric intake and/or activity.

Ok, I am fine with this as a conclusion then. It wont necessarily get you to your goals, but it has the potential to get you close (which it does). And once you get close hopefully you'll have a bit of practice with manipulating caloric in/out and you basically bulk/cut the last little bit.

Daniel Roberts
08-14-2009, 06:30 AM
Ok, I am fine with this as a conclusion then. It wont necessarily get you to your goals, but it has the potential to get you close (which it does). And once you get close hopefully you'll have a bit of practice with manipulating caloric in/out and you basically bulk/cut the last little bit.

That's fair. I state in the article that any assumption on caloric intake, future or present is going to be a guess and with that there are inherent margins for error - there is no guaranteed accurate figure.

To hit any physique target dead centre is therefore going to require some adjustments especially as you get closer to it, as you state.

Just getting close is likely to be a major achievement for those previously lost and aimless, besides physique development isn't a single event of 6-12 months effort, it's a constant evolution. Best of luck with yours.

DMedley
08-14-2009, 08:49 AM
always_losing and Daniel, Thank you for this exchange of ideas and views. Again both of you have reinforced what I had been viewing.

No workout works for everyone all the time and no nutrition plan will work for everyone under every condition.

I think this plan will fit a huge number of new people that each year want to Lose fat or Gain some muscle. I hate to think how many times some poor person comes looking for advice and states "I weigh 250#'s with 35% body fat" and the advice they get includes Micro nutrient management. The more complicated the advice the greater the chance of failure. This plan is simple to understand and simple to follow, especially for new people.

Yamar
08-14-2009, 03:16 PM
See post number 2 and 22 by Off Road.

Food for thought though - if you're goal is 150lbs @ 8% bf and you've worked out the maintenance for a man @ 150lbs @ 8%bf and you're eating that every day and training appropriately, why when you hit 150 @ 15% bf (almost double the target figure - your example) do you think you'd stay that way if you're eating for a man at 8%?

Makes sense now. I worked out the numbers and the calorie surplus wouldn't be that great to begin withm and the margine would change the heavier I get.

I'm going to give it a go. My current 20% calorie surplus does feel like to much on most days.

Irish Pilot
08-14-2009, 07:41 PM
I like this train of thought...Im going to give it a shot! I think the only loose ends would be the differences for ecto-endo-etc. Each will have a far different experience and some may require extremes (ectos).

Daniel I think this article and notion are both fantastic, and I would really encourage you to think about a follow up one that addresses the training side to match your nutrition plan. I think the two combined would be a really functional plan for people, and would greatly simply what can be a VERY confusing concept to beginners.

Daniel Roberts
08-15-2009, 05:36 AM
always_losing and Daniel, Thank you for this exchange of ideas and views. Again both of you have reinforced what I had been viewing.

No workout works for everyone all the time and no nutrition plan will work for everyone under every condition.

I think this plan will fit a huge number of new people that each year want to Lose fat or Gain some muscle. I hate to think how many times some poor person comes looking for advice and states "I weigh 250#'s with 35% body fat" and the advice they get includes Micro nutrient management. The more complicated the advice the greater the chance of failure. This plan is simple to understand and simple to follow, especially for new people.

Agreed. Give me a guy who's consistently trained hard and with progression and consistently eaten a simple diet appropriate to his goals and I'll show you someone not far off the best they can be.
Advanced techniques and elaborate and convoluted eating plans may well make the difference to that guy when he's at that point, but for someone not in posession of the bigger picture they only serve to hinder progress.

Daniel Roberts
08-15-2009, 05:59 AM
Thanks for the feedback gents and the suggestion of follow up articles - I'll get my thinking cap on!
Any more questions, just ask.

radioheadhead
08-15-2009, 07:00 PM
cool article, thanks!

tabormcandrews
08-15-2009, 09:34 PM
those pictures of Lee Priest were pretty crazy thats just freaky. thnx for the article

dumbbell
08-16-2009, 05:50 PM
Great article. I really like the notion of simply choosing a goal and going for it. Makes it seem very concrete and tangible. I think a lot of people, like myself, do not train for any formal competitions, and because of this, goals can tend to be more abstract, making them harder to visualize and achieve.

Definitely a good place to start for newbies (self included).

Joe Black
08-17-2009, 03:03 AM
Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who commented on or discussed the article.

It's great to see more interest in the articles and we'll do our very best to keep them coming :)

Daniel Roberts
08-17-2009, 03:40 AM
Great article. I really like the notion of simply choosing a goal and going for it. Makes it seem very concrete and tangible. I think a lot of people, like myself, do not train for any formal competitions, and because of this, goals can tend to be more abstract, making them harder to visualize and achieve.

Definitely a good place to start for newbies (self included).

Thanks and well put too!

Dedaw
08-17-2009, 12:47 PM
So, let me get this straight:
I'm at my goal bodyweight(for now), so I eat at maintenance level and lift. But to lose this fat, do I kick up cardio like I would if I was cutting, or run as much as I would on a bulk?

Clifford Gillmore
08-17-2009, 02:00 PM
So, let me get this straight:
I'm at my goal bodyweight(for now), so I eat at maintenance level and lift. But to lose this fat, do I kick up cardio like I would if I was cutting, or run as much as I would on a bulk?

Essentially, yes. Any activity that puts you into a caloric deficit will help you lose weight, and as long as your macro's are correct (Ie; Allowing more protein and fat, while slightly dropping carbs to end up with an equal daily total) you should lose BF. I'd recommend HIIT over SS cardio for trying to drop BF%, but keep some low level SS for basic conditioning (Since your MMA training will more than likely cover high intesity cardio!)

Dedaw
08-17-2009, 06:22 PM
Essentially, yes. Any activity that puts you into a caloric deficit will help you lose weight, and as long as your macro's are correct (Ie; Allowing more protein and fat, while slightly dropping carbs to end up with an equal daily total) you should lose BF. I'd recommend HIIT over SS cardio for trying to drop BF%, but keep some low level SS for basic conditioning (Since your MMA training will more than likely cover high intesity cardio!)
Ok, thank you. I will definitely keep that in mind. I actually prefer to do HIIT over just running, because I am more of a sprinter anyways. And as far as the MMA, I'm only 15, so I don't have the training yet, and am instead trying to get myself into the utmost shape to start it at 18.

Thanks for the help. :)

freedevil
08-22-2009, 05:36 AM
Nice article but I have a few questions. I started working out and lifting in April 2009. I workout 3 times a week and do cardio 1-2x a week usually 1. I used to weigh 260 and now weigh 245. If i would like to be 190lbs I should eat 190x14 roughly about 2600.

I am currently eating 2300 on workout days and 1800 on off days. I am losing weight. How would eating 2600 affect my weight loss though? Won't I theoretically be slowing it down. My main concern is will eating more help me build muscle instead of the low amount I am eating now? My goal is of course to have muscles and cutting is almost painful now since I have been doing it for a long time.

DMedley
08-22-2009, 07:39 AM
Nice article but I have a few questions. I started working out and lifting in April 2009. I workout 3 times a week and do cardio 1-2x a week usually 1. I used to weigh 260 and now weigh 245. If i would like to be 190lbs I should eat 190x14 roughly about 2600.

I am currently eating 2300 on workout days and 1800 on off days. I am losing weight. How would eating 2600 affect my weight loss though? Won't I theoretically be slowing it down. My main concern is will eating more help me build muscle instead of the low amount I am eating now? My goal is of course to have muscles and cutting is almost painful now since I have been doing it for a long time.

Yes, it will slow down your weight loss in the beginning. Over a period of time your fat loss will probably add up to the same amount. The faster the weight loss, the greater chance of losing muscle mass and the quicker you can lower your metabolic rate, slowing fat loss.

freedevil
08-22-2009, 08:19 PM
I understand but I lost only 15 lbs in 4 months. It's slow enough. I tried eating 3000, 2800, 2600, 2400 and finally this zag zag has shown some results. What my question is what will be the benefit of eating goal weight x 14 instead of what I am eating now. Would it be more helpful towards building muscle eating at 2600 even though I am cutting?

I should add I am a fat guy not someone with a lot of muscle underneath. My LBM through some various unreliable tests puts me between 165-170lbs


Yes, it will slow down your weight loss in the beginning. Over a period of time your fat loss will probably add up to the same amount. The faster the weight loss, the greater chance of losing muscle mass and the quicker you can lower your metabolic rate, slowing fat loss.

DMedley
08-23-2009, 07:06 AM
I understand but I lost only 15 lbs in 4 months. It's slow enough. I tried eating 3000, 2800, 2600, 2400 and finally this zag zag has shown some results. What my question is what will be the benefit of eating goal weight x 14 instead of what I am eating now. Would it be more helpful towards building muscle eating at 2600 even though I am cutting?

I should add I am a fat guy not someone with a lot of muscle underneath. My LBM through some various unreliable tests puts me between 165-170lbs

I would continue with what you are doing. I don't think there would be any advantage. First the difference between 2400 and 2600 is within the normal 250 calorie adjustment that most of us find we need to make from calorie calculations. The next big advantage to not cutting/not bulking is the simplicity. If you are already doing a zig zag, the simplicity is not as important for you as it might be for some.

Sensei
08-25-2009, 02:33 PM
Well done - I enjoyed the article. It is really that simple. JM Blakely's "Big Boy Menu Plan" has, essentially the same message - if you want to weigh 300lbs, then you need to eat like a 300lb man (or woman). http://www.wannabebig.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78823

Daniel Roberts
08-25-2009, 03:11 PM
Thanks Sensei and thanks for pointing me in the direction of a great read - I think it may have been more entertaining than mine (!) but the message was similar, truth be told most successful approaches, diet and training have more in common than they do apart.

ShaneSauce
08-25-2009, 09:08 PM
Summer is over and school is back, I'm ready to get on my regular workout schedule and diet again.

I'm currently 6'1 270lbs around 20% BF I would say..


Looking to get down to 230-240 or so.

Tell me if I'm looking at this right..

230 x 16 = 3700 this is what I need to take in everyday to get to this weight correct?
270 pounds x 4cal for each gram of protein, so 270g of protein a day and 1100 cals come from that.
How many carbs do I need?
Fat?

Sensei
08-25-2009, 09:32 PM
Thanks Sensei and thanks for pointing me in the direction of a great read - I think it may have been more entertaining than mine (!) but the message was similar, truth be told most successful approaches, diet and training have more in common than they do apart.
Your approach is much healthier! Again, nicely done.

Daniel Roberts
08-26-2009, 01:04 AM
Summer is over and school is back, I'm ready to get on my regular workout schedule and diet again.

I'm currently 6'1 270lbs around 20% BF I would say..


Looking to get down to 230-240 or so.

Tell me if I'm looking at this right..

230 x 16 = 3700 this is what I need to take in everyday to get to this weight correct?
270 pounds x 4cal for each gram of protein, so 270g of protein a day and 1100 cals come from that.
How many carbs do I need?
Fat?

You got the first bit right, provided you're certain that your activity will be moderate.

The second question I'm not going to answer directly, a pain, but I'm going to ask you to read my previous article -

http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/nutrient-timing-when-science-and-marketing-collide/

and this section of the last article -

Determining Macro-Nutrient Split

My preference is to set protein intake as constant (between 1-2 g/lb of lean target bodyweight), fat intake should cover your requirements for Essential Fatty Acids (approximately 20 g - Fish Oil is a great way to achieve this), and beyond that, it’s your choice as to how many carbohydrate calories you displace with fat, based on your individual tolerance for carbohydrates.

As we go through this process, keep in mind the calorific value of each macronutrient: 1 g of protein is the equivalent of 4 kcal, 1 g of carbohydrate is also 4 kcal, and 1 g of fat yields 9 kcal.

Our target is 3760 kcal. Protein is a constant and set at 1.5 g/lb which totals to 322 g (1.5 x 215) per day.

Fat is set at a minimum of 20 g, but I prefer to hit 0.5 g/lb of bodyweight, which is 118 g (0.5 x 235) per day.

After these two values are set, it’s simply a case of adding enough carbohydrate and additional fat and/or protein to hit the total.

Carbohydrate is matched to activity and tolerance, and in this example, we currently have 322 g of protein and 118 g of fat for a sum of 2350 kcal (322×4 kcal + 118×9 kcal), which is 1410 kcal short of the total.

To hit 1410 kcal, you’d need approximately 350 g (1410/4) of carbohydrate. However, there are no set rules for carbohydrate intake, and you could just as easily split the remaining 1400 kcal between fat and carbohydrate, which we will do for this example.

Our guy will be taking in 238 g carbohydrate and an extra 50 g of fat.

His daily total will be 322 g of protein, 238 g of carbohydrate, and 168 g of fat for a total of 3760 kcal per day.



I do this so that you can understand why it's not for me to tell you what those to macros should be, rather for you to determine for yourself, so that you don't get too hung up in the details. Thanks for reading the article and for taking the time and effort to comment.

Virtron
08-26-2009, 09:03 AM
I created a diet based on this and its worked pretty well since the article came out. I haven't seen a change yet, but I don't feel like I'm dying at the end of the day... Its not rigid but this is an example of a typical day... Diet (http://www.wannabebig.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128138)

Edit: forgot to mention that I took out all milk... added the 2 servings of opticen as one meal... I have a meal now after my single serving of nitrean late in the day. (meat and veggies... no carbs) finally before bed I down two servings of nitrean with water. The macros are more or less the same anyway.

ShaneSauce
08-26-2009, 03:31 PM
So I can see around 1000-1200 of my calories coming from protein, and the other 2500 calories should come from either carbs, fats, or more protein?

It makes sense but it seems like if I took in more carbs my progress would be a bit slower.

My activity level is moderate now that I'm not in football.
More time to lift weights!
:D

Daniel Roberts
08-27-2009, 03:16 AM
So I can see around 1000-1200 of my calories coming from protein, and the other 2500 calories should come from either carbs, fats, or more protein?

It makes sense but it seems like if I took in more carbs my progress would be a bit slower.

My activity level is moderate now that I'm not in football.
More time to lift weights!
:D

Sorry, I missed something in your previous post, your protein intake is based on lean body mass NOT target bodyweight, in your case approximately (this is an assumption based on target weight and current bodyfat estimate) 210lbs lean body mass ie 230-240 less 10%bf.

This would put your protein intake at 315g (at 1.5g per pound LBM) which is 1260kcal.


So now you're looking at where to get 2500kcal.

Well the article states that as a minimum you should be at 0.5g x target bodyweight which in your case is 115g, 1035kcal.

This leaves you with about 1500kcal to find.

Read the extract I posted previously as the figures there pretty much match yours.

I don't understand your statement regarding carbohydrate intake slowing progress (which I'm assuming in this case is fat loss) when you're in a calorie deficit, which you will be.

ShaneSauce
08-27-2009, 10:26 PM
315g of protein a day?

Holy crap..

I get 70 from my shake at lunch.
60 from 2 chicken sandwiches I get at lunch.
Another shake when I get home.
I'm guessing I would have to eat tuna or chicken every night for dinner?

Ah its gonna be hard packing in 315g a day.

Daniel Roberts
08-28-2009, 01:04 AM
315g of protein a day?

Holy crap..

I get 70 from my shake at lunch.
60 from 2 chicken sandwiches I get at lunch.
Another shake when I get home.
I'm guessing I would have to eat tuna or chicken every night for dinner?

Ah its gonna be hard packing in 315g a day.

Doesn't have to be 1.5g per lb lean body mass, drop it to 1g which is 210g of protein per day.

That leaves you now with 1900kcal to find. Swings and roundabouts!

Off Road
10-31-2009, 02:41 PM
Daniel, I've been trying this approach since you posted the article. I just wanted to say thanks and so far it's working very well. I weighed myself today and I'm down 10 lbs. My lean mass to fat ratio is improving and my strength is rising nicely. In fact, I would have bet that I'd gained weight because It apears that I'm gaining lean bodyweight, but that may just be an illusion. Thanks for this simple plan. I just picked a goal, did the calculations, layed out a diet on FitDay, and stuck to it. Simple.

LuNa
10-31-2009, 03:51 PM
Seeing as i have done both a bulk and cut cycle and neither really made me happy, im going to follow your advise Daniel. However, i still have some trouble with understanding the following issue. As it is stated in the article, you pick a target bodyweight and multiply it with your particular activity level, to get the total amount of calories per day. Where i get lost however, is that 200, 10% bf would need different calories than 200, 20%bf. How would i go about incorporating that? Due to the fact that muscle needs more calories than fat, the 10% bf guy would need more calories in my opinion than the 20% bf guy, or am i completely seeing this wrong?

Thanks for any help.

Daniel Roberts
11-01-2009, 07:23 AM
Daniel, I've been trying this approach since you posted the article. I just wanted to say thanks and so far it's working very well. I weighed myself today and I'm down 10 lbs. My lean mass to fat ratio is improving and my strength is rising nicely. In fact, I would have bet that I'd gained weight because It apears that I'm gaining lean bodyweight, but that may just be an illusion. Thanks for this simple plan. I just picked a goal, did the calculations, layed out a diet on FitDay, and stuck to it. Simple.

No worries and good effort. And I would bet also that you've gained lean bodyweight.

It'll become apparent in further articles but getting bigger and stronger and leaner are simple processes (distill the science and the processes down and it's still simple) and I like simple, they're just not easy, it's hard work but you sir seem to have got that nailed.

Daniel Roberts
11-01-2009, 07:32 AM
Seeing as i have done both a bulk and cut cycle and neither really made me happy, im going to follow your advise Daniel. However, i still have some trouble with understanding the following issue. As it is stated in the article, you pick a target bodyweight and multiply it with your particular activity level, to get the total amount of calories per day. Where i get lost however, is that 200, 10% bf would need different calories than 200, 20%bf. How would i go about incorporating that? Due to the fact that muscle needs more calories than fat, the 10% bf guy would need more calories in my opinion than the 20% bf guy, or am i completely seeing this wrong?

Thanks for any help.

No you're not seeing it wrong it was a slight omission on my part. The formula has been worked out for all bodyweights but at a target bodyfat of approx 10%.
The implication being that for the biggest sample of trainees 20% bf at any weight is not going to be a goal. That's not to say it isn't a goal for some.

What are your particular circumstances so that I might help you more effectively?

LuNa
11-01-2009, 02:04 PM
No you're not seeing it wrong it was a slight omission on my part. The formula has been worked out for all bodyweights but at a target bodyfat of approx 10%.
The implication being that for the biggest sample of trainees 20% bf at any weight is not going to be a goal. That's not to say it isn't a goal for some.

What are your particular circumstances so that I might help you more effectively?

Ah ok, that is understandable.

Im not quite sure what you mean with particular circumstances, but i am currently 220 pounds at around 18% bf. If any more is needed i can provide you with it. Thanks for the help.

Daniel Roberts
11-01-2009, 02:37 PM
Ah ok, no problem then. Good luck.

kajeaun
11-09-2009, 10:24 PM
Great posts. I was wondering how genetics fit into the equation, or do they?

Daniel Roberts
11-10-2009, 03:43 AM
Good question. With a few exceptions, no-one is that different that the standard suck it and see, adjust as required recommendations in the article won't cover variances in caloric requirements.

Short answer, but that's it. Getting bigger, getting stronger, getting leaner all boil down to a few simple principles that if applied will work on everyone.

broncobuddha
12-03-2009, 12:44 PM
First off, let me say that I really like this approach to reaching one's goals.

I'm glad it got clarified regarding LBM protein calculations vs basing it on target weight. However, the overall caloric intake is still based on the target weight correct?

For instance, I'm 260lbs and I'm not sure of BF%, but I'm sure it's 20 or higher. I set an initial goal of 210lbs at 10%. Is this too lofty or should I set a more mid range goal? At 210x14, that's 2940 cals a day. Seems like a lot I guess. That puts 1g of protein at 189 or 756 cals or 1.5g protein at 283.5g or 1134 cals right? Fat would be 105g or 945 cals, which either leaves me with 1239 cals or 309g carbs or 861 cals or 215g carbs.

In my case, which protein intake might you recommend? I sometimes find it hard now, just getting 200g of protein in.

I was getting confused on how bf% played into your equations. You mentioned they're based on 10% goal regardless of body weight. What then, would starting BF% have to do with this line of thinking?

Off Road
01-16-2010, 08:55 AM
Just a quick update...

I've been following this plan since it was posted. My weight is now down under 230 lbs and my strength keeps rising. That's a drop of about 15 lbs and I know I haven't lost any muscle from it. If anything, it's improving. Just 10 more pounds to goal.

View 1
03-17-2010, 03:28 AM
Just a quick update...

I've been following this plan since it was posted. My weight is now down under 230 lbs and my strength keeps rising. That's a drop of about 15 lbs and I know I haven't lost any muscle from it. If anything, it's improving. Just 10 more pounds to goal.

Are you still fallowing this plan off road and if so how is it going?

Off Road
03-17-2010, 06:28 AM
Are you still fallowing this plan off road and if so how is it going?
I have been about 90% consistent with it the past few weeks. I am holding steady at 230 lbs and strength keeps going up a little at a time. I'll probably have to be 100% consistent or lower the target weight a little to make it to my goal of 220 lbs.

View 1
03-17-2010, 01:18 PM
I have been about 90% consistent with it the past few weeks. I am holding steady at 230 lbs and strength keeps going up a little at a time. I'll probably have to be 100% consistent or lower the target weight a little to make it to my goal of 220 lbs.

Thanks for the reply off road. I have been reading alot of Lyle McDonald's stuff lately and this article is similar to what he recommends as well. Ive always used carb cycling in the past but I also realize that I am not a bodybuilder and I am not a powerlifter, I keep my workouts simple and I am getting bigger and stronger why not do the same with my diet ( plus I wont lie I like carbs ). I have some more reading to do but starting April 1st I think I am going to switch over to this, but go off Lyle's recommendations and shoot for a lower overall calorie intake as I want to lose fat a little faster than a little slower ( but not to fast ).

I will also keep it protein/carb for the first half of the day ( minus workout days ) and protein/fats the second half of the day, and every 2-3 weeks retake weight and make any small adjustments from there.

Lyle also recommends refeeds, but you can also just do 2 cheat meals instead ( dont go super overboard ) and this would work out perfect as that is what I do anyway.

earthbuddy1
04-28-2010, 08:07 PM
View 1, you mentioned Lyle Mcdonald. I did a portion of the RFL plan a few weeks back after a 6 to 8 month mild bulk. After gaining 15 lbs with a lot of fat on my bulk, I did 2 weeks of the RFL, took a two week break but its too strict for me to continue. That is why this article caught my eye. Id rather not bulk and cut, and I think with carbs at 48 to 50% of my total calories on the bulk, I guess I dont tolorate the carbs well so they went to my waist.

Im currently at 148lb now 5'2 male with 18 to 20% body fat. I really wanted to see 145 at 10%bf by this summer, then up another 5 to 10 lbs of LBM by next summer. I had cut down to 135 at 13% last summer since I was cutting down from a fatty due to bad habits. Anyway, Im looking at around 2000 calories total (145x14) with around 200g protein and around 65g fat. I may choose more fat just so limit my carbs. Sound good? Should I also go for a lower calorie intake since im trying to drop this fat by summer?

Moozie
05-26-2010, 10:46 AM
Ok, first post, Hi to everyone, and thanks Daniel for such a great article.

I understand the math, I don't know how to pick a goal weight, and I was hoping for some help.

I am 33, almost 34, 6'1 to 6'2, currently ~227 lbs, ~27% body fat. I really don't care what the scale says my weight is, I want to have a bigger upperbody and get leaner and more defined. My lower body is strong, and well defined, when I flex my legs, the quads and calves pop out and you can see the different muscles. My upper body is really weak (which may have helped with the back injury) and i have a lot of fat around my waist.

I was at 241 pounds about 3 months ago, and I had back surgery back in 2008, which I am still recovering from. I was too hasty in ramping up my exercise, and my hip went out of whack, and is just now recovering.

I have been lifting weights (upper body only so I don't mess my hip up again) and I started out light (again so I didn't reinjure myself) Started benching at 60 pounds, now I am up to 120, maxed out at 140 4 reps. This is my best performance ever, even back in highschool my best bench was 110. Upper body has always been weak.

since loosing the 14 pounds or so, I have gotten compliments on my smaller arms. she meant leaner. I have also noticed my stomach buldge is getting smaller.

I lift weights 3 times a week, cardio 5 times a week, and was trying to get around 2300 calories.

I guess I just don't know what my target weight should be. I definately think I could pack on some LBM in the upper body, I just don't know how to pick a number that makes sense. My wife goes gaga for the Rock, but says I wouldn't look good that big, "too rippily" she says.

I travel a lot for my job, and I can usually hit an eliptical machine (can't jog yet, stupid hip) and I bring push up bars with me trying to keep the muscle. Diet when I travel is obviously hard, but I try to go for more protein and good carbs (salad little dressing, veggies) over normal carbs if possible.

Any recommendations? I would appreciate it.

Sorry for the long post.

Daniel Roberts
05-27-2010, 04:15 AM
Don't worry about the length of the post and I'm glad you liked the article.

Without going into too much detail I'd pick a target bodyweight of 200lbs at a low activity level. That should take you from your current LBM of 166lbs and 61lbs bodyfat to 180lbs lbm and approx 20lbs bodyfat for a 200lbs total.

You have enough bodyfat currently that you can gain muscle whilst losing fat provided you consistently hit your daily target intake and consistently do the training.

Your calorie intake will be 200lbs x14 = 2800kcal.

If you don't lose weight over a two week period on this intake (provided you're consistent) then decrease by 250kcal and re-evaluate in another 2 weeks.

I suggest finding a good program, 5x5, HCT-12 whatever and getting your exercise performance, especially squat and deadlift type movements analysed by someone to allow you to perform them and prevent further injury.

You should be close to target in 6 months time, just be consistent and re-evaluate every two weeks.When you get close to 200lbs let me know and we'll make some tweaks to make sure you hit it.

Moozie
05-27-2010, 06:33 AM
I appreciate the quick feedback.

I was reading the HCT12 last night, I think you wrote that as well, and it looks like the plan for me, when I am not travelling.

I currently have no travel plans for the next 4 weeks, so I am going to hit it hard and see what happens. I was just given clearance to start lower body training, so the timing is perfect. I will probably still go light on the lower body just to be careful.

200 pounds, that sounds good. I could always increase my calories slowly after I hit that goal if I wanted to get bigger. Right?

I do have one question though. Why did you pick low intensity level? the 14 calorie level instead of the 16? Is it so that my body pulls the extra calories needed from my body fat to make up the difference?

I was looking at the HCT12 4 day workout, and I read that since I have 41 pounds of extra fat on my body, I should continue to do cardio, but smaller amounts? I currently do cardio for 75 minutes, low to medium intensity, trying to stay at the top of the fat burning heart rate or the bottom of the cardio heart rate. It looks like I should spend more time lifting and less time on cardio, maybe cut down to 30 mins a day on those 4 days?

When I am home, I lift for 45 minutes, doing 2 sets of 8 reps at about 70% of max, but I do lots of different exercises. 4 chests, 3 shoulders 3 biceps, etc. I really like the one exercise per movement type. It means I can hit the area harder since it is the only time I will work it that day. But I have a newbie question. Will I really get the overall buff look with just one exercise per movement? I have heard and read over and over that the bench press works one section, the incline works the top, the decline works the bottom, flies work the middle, then you have incline flies etc etc. I don't doubt you at all, I am just wondering if I was doing it wrong all this time.

Now I need to go read about nutrition and find some good supliments. I was looking for a nice whey protien powder that I can mix into water or my powerade zero to boost protein but not make it taste like a shake. Any suggestions?

Thanks again for all the help, I think this and the HCT12 is really going to push me over the edge and start me where I want to go.

Daniel Roberts
05-27-2010, 07:53 AM
I appreciate the quick feedback.

I was reading the HCT12 last night, I think you wrote that as well, and it looks like the plan for me, when I am not travelling.

Yup, that's me.


I currently have no travel plans for the next 4 weeks, so I am going to hit it hard and see what happens. I was just given clearance to start lower body training, so the timing is perfect. I will probably still go light on the lower body just to be careful.

200 pounds, that sounds good. I could always increase my calories slowly after I hit that goal if I wanted to get bigger. Right?

That's right.


I do have one question though. Why did you pick low intensity level? the 14 calorie level instead of the 16? Is it so that my body pulls the extra calories needed from my body fat to make up the difference?

Correct.


I was looking at the HCT12 4 day workout, and I read that since I have 41 pounds of extra fat on my body, I should continue to do cardio, but smaller amounts? I currently do cardio for 75 minutes, low to medium intensity, trying to stay at the top of the fat burning heart rate or the bottom of the cardio heart rate. It looks like I should spend more time lifting and less time on cardio, maybe cut down to 30 mins a day on those 4 days?

If you want to cut down, do so, but consider when writing something like that I have to apply it for the majority of the people reading it, not specific cases - so your call.



When I am home, I lift for 45 minutes, doing 2 sets of 8 reps at about 70% of max, but I do lots of different exercises. 4 chests, 3 shoulders 3 biceps, etc. I really like the one exercise per movement type. It means I can hit the area harder since it is the only time I will work it that day. But I have a newbie question. Will I really get the overall buff look with just one exercise per movement? I have heard and read over and over that the bench press works one section, the incline works the top, the decline works the bottom, flies work the middle, then you have incline flies etc etc. I don't doubt you at all, I am just wondering if I was doing it wrong all this time.

Yes you will get the overall 'buff look' following this program - re-read the 'Exercise Selection' and 'Isolation vs Compound' sections in the 'Principles' article.

You don't need to train the muscle from every angle, some variation is ok and is catered for in the program.



Now I need to go read about nutrition and find some good supliments.

Have you read the Nutrition aspect of the HCT-12? That'll set you straight and also the Supplements piece.


I was looking for a nice whey protien powder that I can mix into water or my powerade zero to boost protein but not make it taste like a shake. Any suggestions?

Afraid not, it's something I'd like too.


Thanks again for all the help, I think this and the HCT12 is really going to push me over the edge and start me where I want to go.

Stick with and be consistent and it will. Good luck!

Moozie
05-27-2010, 10:01 AM
yep, I read the entire HCT12 thing last night, nutrition, faq, the science behind it all, everything. I was up 2 hours longer than I should have been.

As far as the amount of cardio, I completely understand as an instructor, the use of generalities. I have to use them all the time.

so the 2800 kcal I need, I can figure the protein and fat from the article, but let's say it takes 60 mins to lift, then 30 mins cardio, is the cardio going to hamper the muscle gain?

2800 is only 500 more than my BMR, well what they "calculated" it at anyways.

I guess I don't want to overwork and not have enough for recovery, but I still want to shed this body fat and gain muscle.

I guess the biggest thing is: how do you know when you are overtraining on cardio? How do I figure out how much cardio I need?

Daniel Roberts
05-28-2010, 02:38 AM
If you like doing that much cardio then do it, it won't hamper your progress provided your diet is in order. If you'd rather reduce the cardio you can do that too, it will be your diet that determines fat loss.

You have approximately 3x as much fat to lose as muscle to gain, so the influence of cardio on muscle gain will be minimal, just get your diet consistent and monitor it accordingly and you'll achieve your goal.

I wouldn't worry about overtraining on cardio, do what you enjoy/feel best doing and let the weight training and diet determine the outcome.

Moozie
05-28-2010, 02:27 PM
Ok, Dan I think I am up for this challenge. If you say that a 2800 kcal diet focused on 200 to 400 grams of protein a day, enough of the proper fats and then enough carbs to make up the rest, no cardio, but doing the HCT 12 hard, I believe you.

I am pretty sure I will be home for at least a month so I can focus on this. I will be posting a journal in the proper forum, and I think I have found good exercises for me and my current situation with my back and hip.

The dead lift is my only concern, I don't know if my workout area has an olympic bar.

Thanks again Dan. I think this may be the turning point I needed in my life. I will keep you informed.

Now i just need to figure out how to get 400 grams of protein a day. :)

goalieman82
08-26-2010, 02:32 PM
Hey Dan
I have a question (okay a few questions:confused:. I have a goal in place and a work out regimen in place too. I'm 5 9 weighing 163. BF calcs online put me at 20% bf with a BMR of 1767 and 2739 Maintenance cals . I want to weigh 180 at 8% bf. So using your formula I should consume 2880 cals/day Which is fine and I can figure out all the macros and all but One question is won't I get fatter getting to that weight instead of getting to 8%? Could I really get to that goal in 6 months? At 20% bf should I lose more bf before trying this? I'm just trying to find the best method for acheiving my goals.

Daniel Roberts
08-31-2010, 04:58 AM
Hey Dan
I have a question (okay a few questions:confused:. I have a goal in place and a work out regimen in place too. I'm 5 9 weighing 163. BF calcs online put me at 20% bf with a BMR of 1767 and 2739 Maintenance cals . I want to weigh 180 at 8% bf. So using your formula I should consume 2880 cals/day Which is fine and I can figure out all the macros and all but One question is won't I get fatter getting to that weight instead of getting to 8%? Could I really get to that goal in 6 months? At 20% bf should I lose more bf before trying this? I'm just trying to find the best method for acheiving my goals.

Hi. The formulas are educated guesswork and as you can see, your online calcs and my simple formula come out very close, in real terms they may as well be identical (accurately keeping within 150kcal every day is an impossibility - unless you weigh absolutely every item of food you eat and even then most food stuffs are given an approximate calorie value based on the values of some standard food).
The only real way to determine whether your true maintenance is the same as your calculated is a historic food diary i.e. log and calculate what you've eaten over the last few weeks (sites like fitday make this easier).



Bit of a ramble but it sets the scene. Anyway the point is you're going to have to monitor whether you gain or lose weight on that intake - no-one can accurately predict which it'll be.
I assume you're a beginner. In which case you're in the enviable position of likely being able to put on muscle and lose fat at the same time.

However, currently you have 130lbs of lean body mass. Your proposed goal would have you at 166lbs of lbm.

36lbs of muscle whilst losing approx 20lbs of bodyfat.

That's a lofty goal in a short time frame.

I'd shoot for the same starting weight of 170lbs (an increase of approx 14lbs of lbm) in 6-12 months and from there to your final goal of 180lbs over the next 12 months.

That's not to say that as a beginner you won't hit those goals a lot sooner, but be prepared for a longer haul.

So redo your maintenance calories for this new target bodyweight, eat at that maintenance and train hard, and re-evaluate after 4 weeks and get back to me.

goalieman82
09-02-2010, 03:39 PM
Hi. The formulas are educated guesswork and as you can see, your online calcs and my simple formula come out very close, in real terms they may as well be identical (accurately keeping within 150kcal every day is an impossibility - unless you weigh absolutely every item of food you eat and even then most food stuffs are given an approximate calorie value based on the values of some standard food).
The only real way to determine whether your true maintenance is the same as your calculated is a historic food diary i.e. log and calculate what you've eaten over the last few weeks (sites like fitday make this easier).



Bit of a ramble but it sets the scene. Anyway the point is you're going to have to monitor whether you gain or lose weight on that intake - no-one can accurately predict which it'll be.
I assume you're a beginner. In which case you're in the enviable position of likely being able to put on muscle and lose fat at the same time.

However, currently you have 130lbs of lean body mass. Your proposed goal would have you at 166lbs of lbm.

36lbs of muscle whilst losing approx 20lbs of bodyfat.

That's a lofty goal in a short time frame.

I'd shoot for the same starting weight of 170lbs (an increase of approx 14lbs of lbm) in 6-12 months and from there to your final goal of 180lbs over the next 12 months.

That's not to say that as a beginner you won't hit those goals a lot sooner, but be prepared for a longer haul.

So redo your maintenance calories for this new target bodyweight, eat at that maintenance and train hard, and re-evaluate after 4 weeks and get back to me.

Thanks for the help Dan. I'll be in touch.

goalieman82
09-30-2010, 03:12 PM
Hey Dan
Well It's been 4 weeks of my workouts and I'm seeing some improvements in strength and maybe 3lbs of musle. I can't really tell if I look bigger though but I gained 3lbs with no bf change so I'm just guessing. Could that just be muscle density (if there is such a thing)? It would be nice to gain a pound a week but I don't think I'll be able to keep that up forever after the noob gains quit. I've been eating more cals than the formula says but that's because I'm playing in goal for hockey 5 hrs a week. Sticking with the 2600 wasn't working. Feeling fatiqued, really sore and my game was getting pretty ugly. I'm right around 3k Cals and I think it's helped. It's a crap load of work to play that much and still work out 3 days a week, but I'm doing it.

Daniel Roberts
10-07-2010, 06:26 AM
Good stuff and thanks for the update. You're right it is a 'crap load' of additional work and you needed to (and did) compensate for this by increasing calories - this eating business is easy once you get the basics covered, being consistent is the difficult part.
You're getting stronger which is a great sign that either you are bigger or are going to get bigger, so just keep at it and adjust as you go along.

If you have a specific question go for it, but you're on the right path.

originalbadman
11-15-2010, 10:14 AM
Sorry to bring back this thread but I am in a similar dilemma (but an ectomorph!)

So I weighed myself this morning and came in at 150.8 lbs. My height is 5'9". My body fat caliper should be arriving today, but I'm guessing that I'm somewhere between 15-17% body fat. I want to get down to 8-10% body fat so abs, etc are visible and body is defined.

I realize that by doing so I will obviously also lose weight, probably have to go down to about 145 lbs. My ultimate goal is to be about 155-160 lbs with 8-10% body fat.

I was lifting prior to these past few months. I wasn't lifting that heavily though - I started with a split routine targeting one muscle group a day then switched to Starting Strength program for about a month. At my peak, I weighed about 158 lbs and was only benching about 145-150 lbs. I was also pretty fat because I was eating A LOT of carbs, protein and fats, basically whatever the hell I wanted, so my body fat % was probably 25-30%.

I decided to recently start P90X and a new, clean nutrition plan to cut that fat because my belly was getting big and I've now dropped to about 150 lbs. Lost muscle obviously but also lost most of my belly. I'm 24. I wouldn't mind gaining slowly, there is no rush. 1 lb a week would be more than enough.

Do I lift heavy now and increase caloric intake to gain about 1 lb/week until I am at around 160 lbs? How much weight will I have to lose though to get to 8% body fat - I don't want to just end up where I started...that's my fear. Don't want to be 150-155 lbs and have 15-20% body fat after gaining 10 lbs.

I understand the article would say "eat like a 157lb person with 8% body fat", however if I did that wouldn't I just gain fat? Is there a certain way I should be eating? Right now, I'm taking in about 1900-2000 calories daily at a 40/40/20 protein/carb/fat ratio.

Like I said, I want to keep my body fat % down as much as possible...

Thanks for any/all help!

RichMcGuire
11-15-2010, 09:24 PM
Sorry to bring back this thread but I am in a similar dilemma (but an ectomorph!)

So I weighed myself this morning and came in at 150.8 lbs. My height is 5'9". My body fat caliper should be arriving today, but I'm guessing that I'm somewhere between 15-17% body fat. I want to get down to 8-10% body fat so abs, etc are visible and body is defined.

I realize that by doing so I will obviously also lose weight, probably have to go down to about 145 lbs. My ultimate goal is to be about 155-160 lbs with 8-10% body fat.

I was lifting prior to these past few months. I wasn't lifting that heavily though - I started with a split routine targeting one muscle group a day then switched to Starting Strength program for about a month. At my peak, I weighed about 158 lbs and was only benching about 145-150 lbs. I was also pretty fat because I was eating A LOT of carbs, protein and fats, basically whatever the hell I wanted, so my body fat % was probably 25-30%.

I decided to recently start P90X and a new, clean nutrition plan to cut that fat because my belly was getting big and I've now dropped to about 150 lbs. Lost muscle obviously but also lost most of my belly. I'm 24. I wouldn't mind gaining slowly, there is no rush. 1 lb a week would be more than enough.

Do I lift heavy now and increase caloric intake to gain about 1 lb/week until I am at around 160 lbs? How much weight will I have to lose though to get to 8% body fat - I don't want to just end up where I started...that's my fear. Don't want to be 150-155 lbs and have 15-20% body fat after gaining 10 lbs.

I understand the article would say "eat like a 157lb person with 8% body fat", however if I did that wouldn't I just gain fat? Is there a certain way I should be eating? Right now, I'm taking in about 1900-2000 calories daily at a 40/40/20 protein/carb/fat ratio.

Like I said, I want to keep my body fat % down as much as possible...

Thanks for any/all help!

It would kind of go like this:

Gain in LBM + Fat
Gain in LBM at the expense of fat
Thermodynamic equilibrium of muscle and fat.

This is a long approach.

But for what you said above, you'd need to lose way more than 5lbs to get your desired bf%.

Lets assume you're at 150 even and we will go in the middle of 16% bf. Lets also assume you want to hit 8% bf.

150 lbs - 16% bf = 129 lbs LBM

Using the formula:
Target body weight = current fat-free mass / (1 - % desired body fat)

Target body weight = 129 lb / (1 - .08)
Target body weight = 129 lb / .92
Target body weight = 140.2
150 - 140.2 = 9.8 or about a 10 lb fat loss.

With Daniel's method, you are in a sense, gaining LBM first with the calculations, and then reducing body fat as metabolic changes occur. That is, your maintenance level will change because of increased LBM. Therefore, LBM would be increased further but at the expense of body fat. In the end, you'd maximize LBM potential and you would hit an equilibrium. Your target body weight / bf%.

The other method is to gain weight at a faster rate and shoot for a heavier weight than your goal. At this point, you'd begin to lose weight and body fat, trying to hit your goal weight and bf%. But more than likely, you'd need many cycles. That is, you may have to lose more weight than your target body weight is in order to get to the level of body fat desired. At this point, you'd need to gain again, and work back to a cut once more. After many cycles, you'd eventually get there.

Daniels method is a more simple approach. You pick your target weight and eat accordingly. Biology takes care of the rest. It's hard to say which method works the best. People often think one way is faster than the other, but in reality, they might be about the same of some individuals. It's not likely someone will nail their target weight on their first bulk / cut cycle attempt.

originalbadman
11-16-2010, 11:44 AM
It would kind of go like this:

Gain in LBM + Fat
Gain in LBM at the expense of fat
Thermodynamic equilibrium of muscle and fat.

This is a long approach.

But for what you said above, you'd need to lose way more than 5lbs to get your desired bf%.

Lets assume you're at 150 even and we will go in the middle of 16% bf. Lets also assume you want to hit 8% bf.

150 lbs - 16% bf = 129 lbs LBM

Using the formula:
Target body weight = current fat-free mass / (1 - % desired body fat)

Target body weight = 129 lb / (1 - .08)
Target body weight = 129 lb / .92
Target body weight = 140.2
150 - 140.2 = 9.8 or about a 10 lb fat loss.

With Daniel's method, you are in a sense, gaining LBM first with the calculations, and then reducing body fat as metabolic changes occur. That is, your maintenance level will change because of increased LBM. Therefore, LBM would be increased further but at the expense of body fat. In the end, you'd maximize LBM potential and you would hit an equilibrium. Your target body weight / bf%.

The other method is to gain weight at a faster rate and shoot for a heavier weight than your goal. At this point, you'd begin to lose weight and body fat, trying to hit your goal weight and bf%. But more than likely, you'd need many cycles. That is, you may have to lose more weight than your target body weight is in order to get to the level of body fat desired. At this point, you'd need to gain again, and work back to a cut once more. After many cycles, you'd eventually get there.

Daniels method is a more simple approach. You pick your target weight and eat accordingly. Biology takes care of the rest. It's hard to say which method works the best. People often think one way is faster than the other, but in reality, they might be about the same of some individuals. It's not likely someone will nail their target weight on their first bulk / cut cycle attempt.

Thanks for the response.

So, you are saying that while Daniel's method may work (me eating at a maintenance level for a 155 lb man with 8-9% body fat), it may essentially take as much time and effort as someone bulking to 165-170 then cutting?

What about a cut then slow bulk? I was thinking of possibly cutting down to 10-12% body fat (probably end up like you said - around 140 lbs) then do a clean bulk slowly (goal of gain .5-1 lb a week), this may help keep the body fat % down to a relative minimum, no?

For example:

1) Diet down to 10-12%. Aim for 1-1.5lb a week lost, high protein, -500 deficit, etc.

2) After reached this goal take 2 weeks to eat at maintenance to normalize everything hormonally (thyroid, leptin, etc.) before switching to a mass gaining phase. Aim for at least 100g/day of carbs during this as well.

3) Up calories slightly so gaining 0.5-1lb a week. At a rate of 1lb a week, hopefully half will be muscle, half will be fat. Continue until reach 15% bodyfat.

4) Eat at maintenance two weeks, bring cardio in (if necessary)

5) Repeat

RichMcGuire
11-16-2010, 03:02 PM
Thanks for the response.

So, you are saying that while Daniel's method may work (me eating at a maintenance level for a 155 lb man with 8-9% body fat), it may essentially take as much time and effort as someone bulking to 165-170 then cutting?

What about a cut then slow bulk? I was thinking of possibly cutting down to 10-12% body fat (probably end up like you said - around 140 lbs) then do a clean bulk slowly (goal of gain .5-1 lb a week), this may help keep the body fat % down to a relative minimum, no?

For example:

1) Diet down to 10-12%. Aim for 1-1.5lb a week lost, high protein, -500 deficit, etc.

2) After reached this goal take 2 weeks to eat at maintenance to normalize everything hormonally (thyroid, leptin, etc.) before switching to a mass gaining phase. Aim for at least 100g/day of carbs during this as well.

3) Up calories slightly so gaining 0.5-1lb a week. At a rate of 1lb a week, hopefully half will be muscle, half will be fat. Continue until reach 15% bodyfat.

4) Eat at maintenance two weeks, bring cardio in (if necessary)

5) Repeat

In terms of the achieving your final goal, bulking/cutting may take just as long as Daniels method. Both work. One is just easier to manage than the other. Like I said, bulking and cutting is trial by error and it takes many many cycles to accurately hit your end result goal.

If you decide to cut first and then bulk up slowly, that would also work. After a period of maintenance, your body would be in a better state to shutting energy towards muscle over fat. How significant this is is up for debate. But keep in mind, 1 lb per week isn't exactly "slow". That's 4 lbs a month. Unless you're just starting out, I'd guess half of that would be fat. Truth be told, if you over eat, you're going to put some fat on with the muscle. It's just that, instead of gaining like 4 lbs per week, you gain 1.

The method you numbered above sounds a lot like information presented in Lyle McDonald's articles and I can say it will work. If you want to do it that way, you will see results.

However, daniel's method also works. And for people who are unclear where they want to over shoot for bulks, and weights to cut down to for losing fat, it may be better.

So after reviewing your posts, it is my opinion that you follow the method you feel best with. Both work. I have done both myself.

originalbadman
11-16-2010, 03:38 PM
In terms of the achieving your final goal, bulking/cutting may take just as long as Daniels method. Both work. One is just easier to manage than the other. Like I said, bulking and cutting is trial by error and it takes many many cycles to accurately hit your end result goal.

If you decide to cut first and then bulk up slowly, that would also work. After a period of maintenance, your body would be in a better state to shutting energy towards muscle over fat. How significant this is is up for debate. But keep in mind, 1 lb per week isn't exactly "slow". That's 4 lbs a month. Unless you're just starting out, I'd guess half of that would be fat. Truth be told, if you over eat, you're going to put some fat on with the muscle. It's just that, instead of gaining like 4 lbs per week, you gain 1.

The method you numbered above sounds a lot like information presented in Lyle McDonald's articles and I can say it will work. If you want to do it that way, you will see results.

However, daniel's method also works. And for people who are unclear where they want to over shoot for bulks, and weights to cut down to for losing fat, it may be better.

So after reviewing your posts, it is my opinion that you follow the method you feel best with. Both work. I have done both myself.

Thanks for your response. I am still a little unclear as to Daniel's method. You are saying if I eat at a maintenance level of a 157 lb man at 9% body fat, then that is what I will achieve after a certain amount of time? No cycling involved? That seems hard to believe...(Apologies in advance for my confusion). I'm still learning about everything.

RichMcGuire
11-16-2010, 07:04 PM
Thanks for your response. I am still a little unclear as to Daniel's method. You are saying if I eat at a maintenance level of a 157 lb man at 9% body fat, then that is what I will achieve after a certain amount of time? No cycling involved? That seems hard to believe...(Apologies in advance for my confusion). I'm still learning about everything.

If I'm not mistaken, his calculations are for a target weight at 10% bf, but still.

Yes, that's the idea though. You eat for your weight, and eventually you get there. In my previous post, your body goes through similar stages as bulking.

1. Increase in muscle mass with an increase in body fat
2. Increase in muscle mass at the expense of body fat
3. Muscle mass maintained while losing small amounts of body fat
4. Energy equilibrium (of muscle and fat) i.e you hit your goal

Thats the idea of it. Don't expect to hit step number 4 for a very long time. It gives you the goal of getting there though without having to over shoot body weight and then focus on Calorie deprivation where you could lose LBM.

Like I said though, both ways work. With Daniels way, a lot of people end up eating more Calories than normal. This increases muscle and fat. If training and Calories remain static, muscle increases become static and if improvements are seen, it's the result of using body fat for energy. This might be comparable to eating at a maintenance level. Before long, RMR changes and the Calorie level becomes a slight deficit. This elicits muscle maintenance and body fat reduction. After a period of time, body fat decreases come to a halt and your still static Calorie level becomes your maintenance level. Hence, there is an energy equilibrium of both muscle and fat.

Does that help?

logo91
11-20-2011, 10:56 PM
so im 250 now probably 20% bf id like to get to 265 and say 20% bf in a year would this be possilbe and then maybe 270 at 16% in the next year??

rick2sliq
01-19-2012, 08:42 PM
Hey all,

I read the article on bulking or cutting and have to say, it was very well written an very informative. I'm new to website and took a read through this thread, and everyone seems to want to help, which is great because I would love some. I'm a 17 year old male, 168 pounds, roughly 14.3-16% bodyfat (used AccuMeasure body fat caliper, but have inconsistent results :( can't seem to find my superilliac). Anyways, I've been doing Stronglifts 5x5 (http://stronglifts.com/stronglifts-5x5-beginner-strength-training-program/) for 10 weeks now, this is my 11th. My goal, weight-wise, is 185. My goal, bf-wise, is 9% bf (10 is to show abs, I figure 1 percent lower couldn't hurt me). A question I have is, Mehdi (Stronglifts 5x5 writer) suggests to eat a lot and keep eating to gain strenght, which will gain muscle. If i follow this articles recommendation, 185x16 = 2960 calories. I can understand the caloric increase, because I weigh 168 and therefore require less calories to maintain, and have a VERY vague understanding of the fat loss once I reach my goal of 185 (someone explain further on the fat loss please!). However, would it still be possible to progressively overload my muscles each workout, as Mehdi suggests? My current workout stats are (these are PR's for me so I'm STOKED!): Squat - 195, Bench - 130, Deadlift - 230(grip failing, help?), Overhead Press - 90, Barbell Row - 115.

Quick Overview: I weigh 168 at 14.3-16% bf, want to weigh 185 at 8-10% bf.

Thanks a bunch in advance! :)

RhodeHouse
01-24-2012, 11:14 AM
WHy would anyone ever cut? You worked so hard to put the weight on and you just waste it by going on a restricted calroie diet? Baffling. I'll never get it. I'll never understand the idea of gaining weight and then losing it on purpose????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

ZAR-FIT
01-24-2012, 11:42 AM
WHy would anyone ever cut? You worked so hard to put the weight on and you just waste it by going on a restricted calroie diet? Baffling. I'll never get it. I'll never understand the idea of gaining weight and then losing it on purpose????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

i feel you and i are going to battle on this one.. but going on a cut and losing weight does not have to mean losing muscle... or atleast alot of gained muscle....

JacobH
01-24-2012, 06:46 PM
WHy would anyone ever cut? You worked so hard to put the weight on and you just waste it by going on a restricted calroie diet? Baffling. I'll never get it. I'll never understand the idea of gaining weight and then losing it on purpose????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Bodybuilders and people training for aesthetics cut weight to drop fat while trying to minimize muscle loss. People do this to look lean and muscular. That's really all there is to it.

RhodeHouse
01-25-2012, 09:27 AM
I get the competitive bodybuilders. That's part of the process. What I don't understand are the guys who cut weight for aesthetics (to get girls). That's the real reason, unless you like showing off your abs to other dudes.

I've always been a believer in kicking ass instead of having a nice ass. The body is made to perform. I get that guys want to be lean, but I am lost when they want to cut weight and have no muscle in the first place.

If you're a 200lb guy, you don't have any muscle unless you're 5'2" and even then you're still pretty small.

Why wouldn't someone get bigger, gain some fat and then once they reach a certain weight just clean up the diet? Instead of actively losing weight, a lot of which will be muscle if you're not on drugs, clean up your eating and keep training your balls off. If you lose a few pounds, so be it. But actively restricting calories is a sure fire way to never really gain any appreciable muscle.

Again, I'm an old man. When I joined the gym men were there to get bigger and stronger. Trying to look better is something that women do.

Behemoth
01-25-2012, 03:11 PM
WHy would anyone ever cut? You worked so hard to put the weight on and you just waste it by going on a restricted calroie diet? Baffling. I'll never get it. I'll never understand the idea of gaining weight and then losing it on purpose????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

It's a matter of preference. I've never understood the mindset of perma-bulking and writing off nearly useless fat as acceptable body mass.


I get the competitive bodybuilders. That's part of the process. What I don't understand are the guys who cut weight for aesthetics (to get girls). That's the real reason, unless you like showing off your abs to other dudes.

I've always been a believer in kicking ass instead of having a nice ass. The body is made to perform. I get that guys want to be lean, but I am lost when they want to cut weight and have no muscle in the first place.


I don't compete but yet get greater satisfaction out of my regular diets and the uncovering of every last striation of the new muscle I've built. Much more so in fact than the process of actually gaining that muscle.

If ones not competing in powerlifting/strongman and they've already attained even moderate strength they're not sacrificing anything functional or necessary by keeping their bodyfat low. Non competitive functional performance is often sacrificed by doing the exact opposite.




If you're a 200lb guy, you don't have any muscle unless you're 5'2" and even then you're still pretty small.


I'm 179 at 5'9" in avi, I see a muscle or two there.




Why wouldn't someone get bigger, gain some fat and then once they reach a certain weight just clean up the diet? Instead of actively losing weight, a lot of which will be muscle if you're not on drugs, clean up your eating and keep training your balls off. If you lose a few pounds, so be it. But actively restricting calories is a sure fire way to never really gain any appreciable muscle.


Have you ever seen a competitive natural bodybuilder? You can retain a plethora of muscle and being extremely large and strong if you do it right.
http://www.wannabebig.com/forums/showthread.php?143180-Alberto-Nunez-in-the-low-160-s/page2

JacobH
01-25-2012, 03:43 PM
If you're a 200lb guy, you don't have any muscle unless you're 5'2" and even then you're still pretty small.


This is an absurd statement.

RhodeHouse
01-28-2012, 11:21 AM
It's a matter of preference. I've never understood the mindset of perma-bulking and writing off nearly useless fat as acceptable body mass.



I don't compete but yet get greater satisfaction out of my regular diets and the uncovering of every last striation of the new muscle I've built. Much more so in fact than the process of actually gaining that muscle.

If ones not competing in powerlifting/strongman and they've already attained even moderate strength they're not sacrificing anything functional or necessary by keeping their bodyfat low. Non competitive functional performance is often sacrificed by doing the exact opposite.



I'm 179 at 5'9" in avi, I see a muscle or two there.



Have you ever seen a competitive natural bodybuilder? You can retain a plethora of muscle and being extremely large and strong if you do it right.
http://www.wannabebig.com/forums/showthread.php?143180-Alberto-Nunez-in-the-low-160-s/page2

Ha! Competitive natural bodybuilder. That's an oxymoron.

If you're happy with what you do, that's great. At 5'9" 179lbs, I doubt there's much muscle, but that's your call. I believe in hitting the weights to be big and strong. At 5'9", you should be at leat 250bs in my world.

But, again, if you're happy, then I'm happy for you. Being small and weak is not my idea of success at the gym. Carrying an avergae amount of bodyfat is very acceptable when it will help your strength and your joints. But whaqt do I know? I'm only 6'4" 304lbs.

RhodeHouse
01-28-2012, 11:24 AM
This is an absurd statement.

Not really. It's all in how you look at it. A very wise and famous man once said, "Any man under 200lbs is a woman." At some point you have to take advantage of the fact that you're a man and have the ability to build muscle.

If you need to take your shirt off for people to know you go to the gym, then you don't have any muscle.

I'm definately from the old-school mindset. Being small and ripped isn't ripped. It's just small. Those are internal organs and tendons and ligaments, not muscle.

J.C.
01-28-2012, 11:28 AM
^^What about competitive athletes who want to have the most efficient body they can? Replacing fat with muscle in order to run faster or fight at a certain weight-class seems like a legit reason for cutting. It's not just about aesthetics.

Behemoth
01-28-2012, 12:53 PM
Ha! Competitive natural bodybuilder. That's an oxymoron.

If you're happy with what you do, that's great. At 5'9" 179lbs, I doubt there's much muscle, but that's your call. I believe in hitting the weights to be big and strong. At 5'9", you should be at leat 250bs in my world.

But, again, if you're happy, then I'm happy for you. Being small and weak is not my idea of success at the gym. Carrying an avergae amount of bodyfat is very acceptable when it will help your strength and your joints. But whaqt do I know? I'm only 6'4" 304lbs.

I didn't say it wasn't acceptable. The unacceptable talk is your view but rather on the topic of being lean. Joint health is a moot point unless ones trotting around with competition levels regularly.

Comical that you have no respect for the dedication natural bodybuilders devote to their passion. A natural trainee is only capable of so much muscle, it's ridiculous to think that getting fat is the loophole to this.

JacobH
01-28-2012, 02:53 PM
I'm definately from the old-school mindset. Being small and ripped isn't ripped. It's just small. Those are internal organs and tendons and ligaments, not muscle.

I don't think those are massive tendons and ligaments bursting out of Behemoth's back in his avatar.

RhodeHouse
01-29-2012, 03:14 PM
I didn't say it wasn't acceptable. The unacceptable talk is your view but rather on the topic of being lean. Joint health is a moot point unless ones trotting around with competition levels regularly.

Comical that you have no respect for the dedication natural bodybuilders devote to their passion. A natural trainee is only capable of so much muscle, it's ridiculous to think that getting fat is the loophole to this.

I respect what they do. I just don't think they're big or muscular.

And as someone with arthritis in my hips, back and neck, joint health is always of the utmost importance. but, I'm also big and muscular at 300+lbs, so...

When did I say getting fat is the loophole? I never said to get fat. You should touch up on your reading comprehension skills.

RhodeHouse
01-29-2012, 03:19 PM
I don't think those are massive tendons and ligaments bursting out of Behemoth's back in his avatar.

You're right. It's grissle.

You'd love the size of my back.

I don't discount the work that's being done. What I discount is someone that small saying they're muscular. Same thing if someone that small says they're ripped. No you're not. You're small.

And don't cry. When I was called small, at 6'4" 185lbs, I just nutted up and got bigger. That's what men do. Guess I'm old-fashioned.

Behemoth
01-29-2012, 04:34 PM
You should touch up on your reading comprehension skills.
You mad that I called you on yours?

chevelle2291
01-29-2012, 04:42 PM
I never said to get fat.


43. Fat, bloated and strong is the ONLY way to go thru life.

http://www.elitefts.com/documents/rhode_rules.htm

JacobH
01-29-2012, 04:44 PM
I understand where you're coming from, really. But everything you are saying about who is muscular and who is not is simply your opinion. The opinion of a 300lb elite powerlifter. You have to understand that 99% of the population would disagree with your view that to be "muscular" you must be (insert massive weight here). Guys like Behemoth, F=ma, Chevelle, etc, are all under 200 lbs (I think) but the vast majority of the general public (and most people who visit this site) would not hesitate for one second to call them muscular.

chevelle2291
01-29-2012, 04:49 PM
I understand where you're coming from, really. But everything you are saying about who is muscular and who is not is simply your opinion. The opinion of a 300lb elite powerlifter. You have to understand that 99% of the population would disagree with your view that to be "muscular" you must be (insert massive weight here). Guys like Behemoth, F=ma, Chevelle, etc, are all under 200 lbs (I think) but the vast majority of the general public (and most people who visit this site) would not hesitate for one second to call them muscular.

Nah bro, I'm pretty small. I just don't like the 'get fat or die trying' approach that once permeated this entire site, and appears to be making a comeback. I've seen guys who want to be 200lbs just to be 200 lbs, and instead of being skinny and weak at 170, they are now fat and weak at 200.

JacobH
01-29-2012, 04:56 PM
Well I'm 5'10, 180lbs so i am among the puny also. I'm sure if I wanted to be 250 lbs I could, but I am not into the bodytype of the dude swinging kettlebells on the front page. Just not how I like to look.

Alex.V
01-29-2012, 05:33 PM
I'm glad you're all getting along so well.

Who gives a shit what other people's goals are. Y'all took Rhodes' bait.

He's got a point: "The body is made to perform. I get that guys want to be lean, but I am lost when they want to cut weight and have no muscle in the first place." What some people don't really understand is this: To go from 168 14% to 185 9% means you need to gain TWENTY FOUR POUNDS of muscle. This takes two years under a perma-bulk, forget the fact that you'd lose muscle while leaning out. So this isn't something where you gain a little weight, cut a little fat, and you're done. This is a serious goal, something that will take time and dedication, and if you don't want to be continuously frustrated by being mediocre for most of that time, you need to commit to getting big and strong. NOT fat, since fat doesn't lift weights, but you can't flip shit if you're not seeing your abs.

Every god damn one of us has some level of body dysmorphia, some of us can't fathom carrying fat, some of us can't fathom being less than 250 pounds. Just be real about the fact that if you want to be out of the ordinary, you're going to have to be, well, out of the ordinary.

JacobH
01-29-2012, 05:40 PM
Well you're right...as always. But I think the major disagreement comes from Rhodes' opinion that you must be fucking gigantic to be considered "muscular".

RhodeHouse
01-29-2012, 08:53 PM
http://www.elitefts.com/documents/rhode_rules.htm

Ah! A brilliant piece of literature written tongue in cheek. You see, I am a excellent writer and I was very good at interpreting poems when I was in school. ie: reading between the lines.

The Rhodestown Rules were written sarcastically, however, if you have any ability to use your creative mind you'll see that they are laced with great ideas for achieving a high level of performance.

Anyone who knows anything about lifting knows that retaining water (fat and bloated- meaning smooth or less ripped when you retain water) will help you lift more weight(strong). So, "fat, bloated and strong is the only way to go through life."

Now, some of the stuff is a reference that only big guys will get. You don't know what it's like to be so big that you can't reach behind your back, or be so big that you have trouble tying your shoes. Those references hit home with guys who know what it's like to sacrifice things in everyday life that little people take for granted.

Clearly, this incredible piece of literary genius was lost on you. Reread with an open and judgement free mind. You'll learn something.

RhodeHouse
01-29-2012, 08:55 PM
You mad that I called you on yours?

I can't be mad at a little guy like you. Besides, I'm very confident in the free education I earned.

RhodeHouse
01-29-2012, 09:03 PM
Nah bro, I'm pretty small. I just don't like the 'get fat or die trying' approach that once permeated this entire site, and appears to be making a comeback. I've seen guys who want to be 200lbs just to be 200 lbs, and instead of being skinny and weak at 170, they are now fat and weak at 200.

You also have to understand that as a powerlifter and strength athlete, fat helps.

My question to you is, what's fat, in your opinion? I've been in the industry for 10+ years. I've been a personal trainer and I'm a college strength coach. I know what's healthy and what's optimal and all that. I run into all kinds of guys who think 15% is fat. Being too lean when a goal is to build muscle will absolutely hinder your gains. You need to gain fat to build muscle. Not a lot, but it needs to happen.

It's an uphill battle to try to stay super-lean AND try to build muscle. It's an exercise in futility. Pack on the lbs and get fatter. You'll get stronger, which means you'll move more weight. More weight lifted equals the potential to build more muscle if you eat and rest properly. Then, you can drop some lbs in an effort to lose fat.

Unless you're on drugs, you'll inevitably lose muscle, too. Thus, lowering your metabolism because you lost muscle mass. I get it if you're a competitive bodybuilder, but most aren't. Most would do well to eat a surplus of good calories with some bad ones mixed in.

You can't serve 2 masters. Trying to stay super lean and build muscle is serving 2 masters.

RhodeHouse
01-29-2012, 09:05 PM
I'm glad you're all getting along so well.

Who gives a shit what other people's goals are. Y'all took Rhodes' bait.

He's got a point: "The body is made to perform. I get that guys want to be lean, but I am lost when they want to cut weight and have no muscle in the first place." What some people don't really understand is this: To go from 168 14% to 185 9% means you need to gain TWENTY FOUR POUNDS of muscle. This takes two years under a perma-bulk, forget the fact that you'd lose muscle while leaning out. So this isn't something where you gain a little weight, cut a little fat, and you're done. This is a serious goal, something that will take time and dedication, and if you don't want to be continuously frustrated by being mediocre for most of that time, you need to commit to getting big and strong. NOT fat, since fat doesn't lift weights, but you can't flip shit if you're not seeing your abs.

Every god damn one of us has some level of body dysmorphia, some of us can't fathom carrying fat, some of us can't fathom being less than 250 pounds. Just be real about the fact that if you want to be out of the ordinary, you're going to have to be, well, out of the ordinary.

Dude! Don't ruin it for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RhodeHouse
01-29-2012, 09:11 PM
Well you're right...as always. But I think the major disagreement comes from Rhodes' opinion that you must be fucking gigantic to be considered "muscular".

Don't be sensitive. My dad always told me, "If someone says something about you and it hurts your feelings, there must be some truth to it."

You guys would look at me and call me fat. I know you would. At 306lbs (as of weigh-ins this morning at the meet) and 17%, you guys would have afield day ripping me. In the right lighting, my abs are ridiculous, in the mirror, of course. There is nothing you can say that would bother me. Why? I built myself up to perform. When I was in college I was a 255lbs DE at 9% my senior year. I was probably easier on the eyes back then. Nonetheless, you can call me fat etc... I don't care what you think mainly because I'm comfortable with myself and you wouldn't have the balls to say it to my face. Big and strong always wins.

chevelle2291
01-29-2012, 09:15 PM
Now, some of the stuff is a reference that only big guys will get. You don't know what it's like to be so big that you can't reach behind your back, or be so big that you have trouble tying your shoes.

You're really making me feel like I'm missing out on something here.


You also have to understand that as a powerlifter and strength athlete, fat helps.

My question to you is, what's fat, in your opinion? I've been in the industry for 10+ years. I've been a personal trainer and I'm a college strength coach. I know what's healthy and what's optimal and all that. I run into all kinds of guys who think 15% is fat. Being too lean when a goal is to build muscle will absolutely hinder your gains. You need to gain fat to build muscle. Not a lot, but it needs to happen.

It's an uphill battle to try to stay super-lean AND try to build muscle. It's an exercise in futility. Pack on the lbs and get fatter. You'll get stronger, which means you'll move more weight. More weight lifted equals the potential to build more muscle if you eat and rest properly. Then, you can drop some lbs in an effort to lose fat.

Unless you're on drugs, you'll inevitably lose muscle, too. Thus, lowering your metabolism because you lost muscle mass. I get it if you're a competitive bodybuilder, but most aren't. Most would do well to eat a surplus of good calories with some bad ones mixed in.

You can't serve 2 masters. Trying to stay super lean and build muscle is serving 2 masters.

I don't disagree with anything you have written here. I get you are from a whole different viewpoint when it comes to what is big. However, disrespecting natural bodybuilders and other weightlifters simply because they aren't bloated enough for you is asinine. Frankly, very few individuals here want to look like a SHW powerlifter.

And no, I would not consider 15% very fat.

chevelle2291
01-29-2012, 09:17 PM
When I was in college I was a 255lbs DE at 9% my senior year.

Pics or this never happened.

RhodeHouse
01-29-2012, 09:27 PM
You're really making me feel like I'm missing out on something here.



I don't disagree with anything you have written here. I get you are from a whole different viewpoint when it comes to what is big. However, disrespecting natural bodybuilders and other weightlifters simply because they aren't bloated enough for you is asinine. Frankly, very few individuals here want to look like a SHW powerlifter.

And no, I would not consider 15% very fat.

In a sick and twisted way, you are missing out on something. None of the stuff I dealt with as a SHW was fun. But, I laughed at myself and enjoyed the process, not to mention the looks I got everywhere I went.

Listen, if you're disrespected by my comments, call the therapist. Weightlifting is a man's game. There are some great female lifters, but they play the game like a man does. There's no room for sensitivity training and discussions about our feelings. If you're not in the gym to

1. Get bigger
2. Get stronger
3. Get ready to perform or compete

Then get out! I respect anyone and everyone that trains their balls or lady balls off. That also means that I'll rip on those same people because they're too small (in my eyes) or to lean or too weak. You can take it two ways.

1. Prove me wrong and shut me up
2. Or go in the corner and sob and talk shit behind my back or worse, behind the keyboard

I use shit that I heard as a kid and it still fuels me. Hell, my high school football coach told me to my face I'd never play football again and I should just focus on lacrosse. So I went and walked on and was part of the 3rd ranked team in the BCS my senior year. Then to top it off, I went and played professional football.

I know I'm off topic a bit, but my point is go do what you do. If you trained with me I'd harass you incessantly, but I'd be psyched for youbwhen you won the female weight class bodybuilding show.

RhodeHouse
01-29-2012, 09:30 PM
Pics or this never happened.

Ha! That's how I tried to explain away the fact I cheated on my college girlfriend. No pictures, no proof.

I'll have to do some searching. My avatar is my senior picture, but you can't tell what kind of shape I'm in.

cphafner
01-29-2012, 09:51 PM
If you're a 200lb guy, you don't have any muscle unless you're 5'2" and even then you're still pretty small.


Thats a little extreme. Brad Davis is 5'5" and the last I could find was about 205 in the offseason. He isn't what I would consider small

http://pics.musculardevelopment.com/photos/transferred/JB5_0467wtmk_OXRGBYRLSA.JPG

RhodeHouse
01-29-2012, 10:00 PM
Thats a little extreme. Brad Davis is 5'5" and the last I could find was about 205 in the offseason. He isn't what I would consider small

http://pics.musculardevelopment.com/photos/transferred/JB5_0467wtmk_OXRGBYRLSA.JPG

I would say he's small. He's 5'5" 200lbs. I'm 6'4". He's tiny. But, for a guy at 5'5" and 200lbs, he is muscular. The guys crying about my comments don't look like this guy, though. His physique is great, but clearly a product of good training, good nutrition and good pharmacueticals.

Don't be the guy that tries to prove the rule with the exception.

Behemoth
01-29-2012, 10:21 PM
I can't be mad at a little guy like you. Besides, I'm very confident in the free education I earned.

Sure you can, it's why you put up such a massive defense against the lean and aspiring lean.

Alex.V
01-30-2012, 05:57 AM
If you trained with me I'd harass you incessantly, but I'd be psyched for youbwhen you won the female weight class bodybuilding show.

Man, coffee tastes like crap once it takes a side trip through your sinuses.

So since I gotta pick this shit up after telling everyone to put it down, let me ask- you don't give much respect to guys who lift for appearance unless they're about to step up on a stage (whether it be for bodybuilding or for $1 bills)?

RhodeHouse
01-30-2012, 10:32 AM
Man, coffee tastes like crap once it takes a side trip through your sinuses.

So since I gotta pick this shit up after telling everyone to put it down, let me ask- you don't give much respect to guys who lift for appearance unless they're about to step up on a stage (whether it be for bodybuilding or for $1 bills)?

Coffee through the nose? Awesome start to the day, right?


I want to say the right thing, but I don't know if I can get on board with training for asthetics. I always found that training for performance usually led to looking good, especially if you were a competitive athlete.

My other experience with asthetics was that I've done it and i was constantly unhappy. I never had enough abs showing. i was never lean enough. All it led to was all kinds of unhealthy dysmophic thoughts. Not that being 300lbs and thinking you're small is healthy, but I'm much happier.

Plus, I'm a former personal traner (10 years). All my clients want is "to look better" and they're never happy. Lookin good does nothing for the mind when there's not something else attached. Training for something (a bodybuilding show, powerlifting meet, road race etc..._ will bring a better physique and a true sense of accomplishment.

Maybe I'm looking at the mental side more than the physical effort. I'll always respect the effort put in. If they train hard, eat well and do trhe right things to achieve their goal, I can't help but respect that. Not many ACTUALLY do that, though. But when you listen to 100+lb guys talking about cutting weight and getting bigger, but not getting too fat...

I feel lucky I never got caught up in that superficial shit.

RhodeHouse
01-30-2012, 10:35 AM
Sure you can, it's why you put up such a massive defense against the lean and aspiring lean.

Don't give yourselves too much credit. I have free time and I like harrassing little people. You guys are so sensitive. It's actually bullying on my part, but it's just too fun sometimes. Thanks for feeding my bad character trait.

Behemoth
01-30-2012, 02:36 PM
Don't give yourselves too much credit. I have free time and I like harrassing little people. You guys are so sensitive. It's actually bullying on my part, but it's just too fun sometimes. Thanks for feeding my bad character trait.
I've taken no offense to date, but I do feel like I almost owe it to you for your effort.

greemah
01-30-2012, 06:11 PM
This discussion needs to end as it just is a battle of opinions going round and round.

Peronsally, since reading RhodeHouse say no one under 200lbs is muscular (or something similar), it became clear to me that his opinion means nothing to me as it is so far from my goals and what I train for. Completely different worlds

RhodeHouse
01-31-2012, 08:53 PM
This discussion needs to end as it just is a battle of opinions going round and round.

Peronsally, since reading RhodeHouse say no one under 200lbs is muscular (or something similar), it became clear to me that his opinion means nothing to me as it is so far from my goals and what I train for. Completely different worlds

Isaid "Any man under 200lbs is a woman" 5 years ago. It still bothers little people. I love my power.

Discussion is opinion. How else would you discuss something if you had the same opinion???????????????????????????????? Unless you just like hearing people tell you how "right" you are.

JasonLift
02-02-2012, 03:22 PM
I appreciate Rhodes sharing his opinion. It differs from the standard drivel you often hear repeated. There is a lot of merit to what he says but people latch on to his more controversial comments. What he was saying about training for accomplishments verse just appearance really rang true to me. I could never train consistently when I trained just to "look better" but when I actually gave myself a purpose (in my case powerlifting) I actually stuck to things and in turn looked far better than just training to look good.

RhodeHouse
02-04-2012, 09:46 AM
I appreciate Rhodes sharing his opinion. It differs from the standard drivel you often hear repeated. There is a lot of merit to what he says but people latch on to his more controversial comments. What he was saying about training for accomplishments verse just appearance really rang true to me. I could never train consistently when I trained just to "look better" but when I actually gave myself a purpose (in my case powerlifting) I actually stuck to things and in turn looked far better than just training to look good.

That's awesome. If you kick ass in your training, chances are you'll have a nice ass, too.

musman1
05-24-2012, 02:37 AM
No worries and good effort. And I would bet also that you've gained lean body weight.
____________________________________________
Ashy Bines Clean Eating Diet Plan (http://www.cleaneatingdietplan.com)