*** The 2016 Gym Rats Thread ***

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quite pleased with myself. I've been at "The rock"'s workout programme since the 18th of Dec and the results are starting to show really well - unemployment is fantastic :D

While I know I needed up up my calories an awful lot to really make it pop, I'm still pleased all the extra crimbo cals went to good use. It's been frigging exhausting though, especially since I did 30 - 40 mins of cardio most days too.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/train-like-dwayne-the-rock-johnson.html

(Only leg day that I coulnd't actually do as many workouts as he does... it murdered my skinny legs far too much)
 
Supercow said:
Quite pleased with myself. I've been at "The rock"'s workout programme since the 18th of Dec and the results are starting to show really well - unemployment is fantastic :D

While I know I needed up up my calories an awful lot to really make it pop, I'm still pleased all the extra crimbo cals went to good use. It's been frigging exhausting though, especially since I did 30 - 40 mins of cardio most days too.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/train-like-dwayne-the-rock-johnson.html

(Only leg day that I coulnd't actually do as many workouts as he does... it murdered my skinny legs far too much)
Click to expand...

That routine looks intense :D It's not surprising he gets up at like 4am to start it.
 
Haven't been to the gym all week :(

Work has exhausted me this week and the cold weather hasn't helped my motivation in the evenings. Problem is I find it difficult to work out what to eat when I am not trying to add muscle now.
 
Deficit <<<<<< Maintenance >>>>>> Surplus

Generally carbs are the macro that's manipulated most to steer your overall calories into one of the above ranges, with protein going up as calories go down (not massively though) into a deficit and fat probably going up a little as well. The easiest way to accomplish this is simply by cutting down on the amount of carb-heavy stuff you eat or swapping things out for lower-carb alternatives, while keeping protein/fat sources largely the same. It doesn't require wholesale dietary changes (assuming you have a varied, nutrient-dense diet in the first place).
 
Well I managed a decent session today and did some personal bests. Grip is limiting me at my deadlift max weight though, so time to get some straps. I still develop my grip with lots of other exercises.
 
What are people's opinions on the best way of transitioning from cutting into bulking? I'm about 3 weeks away from finishing my first ever successful cut (after years of on and off gyming without ever really dieting). Stats - 82kg starting weight, current 75kg, original goal was 73kg by end of Jan which I'm on track for however considering going another week or so to 72kg based on look in mirror.

Naturally after all this hard work I don't ever want to put on tons of fat again. Reverse dieting seems to be recommended by most however it sounds like that could be slow progress getting back to a calorie surplus. Anyone here offer any advice or methods on this?

Thanks
 
CaptainRAVE said:
Well I managed a decent session today and did some personal bests. Grip is limiting me at my deadlift max weight though, so time to get some straps. I still develop my grip with lots of other exercises.
Click to expand...

Clearly not, or your grip wouldn't be limiting you.

The above should read, "grip is limiting my deadlift, so I'm going to do some static holds with my deadlift work sets."

Don't use straps.
 
Illusion said:
What are people's opinions on the best way of transitioning from cutting into bulking? I'm about 3 weeks away from finishing my first ever successful cut (after years of on and off gyming without ever really dieting). Stats - 82kg starting weight, current 75kg, original goal was 73kg by end of Jan which I'm on track for however considering going another week or so to 72kg based on look in mirror.

Naturally after all this hard work I don't ever want to put on tons of fat again. Reverse dieting seems to be recommended by most however it sounds like that could be slow progress getting back to a calorie surplus. Anyone here offer any advice or methods on this?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Reverse dieting in the popular bro coach sense is retarded. All you're doing is prolonging the negative physiological effects of dieting longer by staying in a deficit for ages as you incrementally increase calories at a stupid rate. That is time you could have spent better gaining rather than adding 5g carbs a week for months.

What you should do instead is work out what your maintenance calories are based off your stats at the end of your cut, which will probably be slightly lower than your pre-cut weight (as your overall weight will be lower) and up your calories to those over a period of a couple of weeks max, which will avoid any large water-weight fluctuations that will mess with your head.

Once you're at those predicted maintenance calories, spend another couple of weeks there to see what your weight does so you can see how accurate your predicted maintenance is; add/reduce calories a little as necessary. You'll obviously gain a little weight from water/glycogen in the same way you get a decent drop at the start of the diet but after that we're looking to keep your weekly average weight more or less the same.

After than, start adding calories with rate of weight gain being more or less in line with what's recommended these days (read the comments too).

I'll copy/paste Lyle McDonald's stuff on why long reverse diets are dumb in the next post as it's long.
 
Let this never be asked about again.
***
In the last year or two, the above idea, taking a fairly extended period to return from dieting to maintenance has been called "reverse dieting" at least in the physique community. Basically in the same way that calories are often decreased over time while dieting, the idea is to gradually increase them when the diet is over. And while this is conceptually reasonable for the reasons I outlined above, some of the recommended durations are absurd and pointless to me.

Stories of dieters adding 5-10 grams of carbohydrate per week (which is actually almost unmeasurable in the first place) and spending weeks and weeks in a continued caloric deficit are common and taking weeks or months to raise calories is often recommended. Since this approach is often recommended to deal with the metabolic adaptations that occur with dieting, I fail to see how maintaining a low-calorie intake for 6 weeks to 3 months longer somehow solves the problem. And I see this as both pointless and ultimately self-destructive.

Invariably, the idea is held up either as a way to slowly rebuild metabolism, which it doesn't do since all of the adaptation to dieting will more or less stay in place so long as calories are still below maintenance, or to avoid big water weight spikes. Certainly this second factor is a real issue.

But I have to really question why the types of folks this approach is aimed at, typically post-contest physique athletes, can't get their head around the differences in bodyweight changes (from water and food in the GI) tract and actual body composition changes. Then again, telling a neurotically obsessed physique athletes not to be neurotic is like telling a cat not to cat.

Regardless, from a physiological point of view, so long as you understand that any rapid weight gains are simply water and food in the GI tract, and that the water will be lost once the body get back into water balance, I see no point in taking more than two weeks to get from the dieting caloric intake to maintenance levels. Calories, both from carbohydrates and fats can be raised gradually day to do until the newly established maintenance level is reached.

The same would go for the non-extreme dieter, adding food gradually over a two week period, maintaining the original dietary approach but with additions (in the form of pieces of fruit or even controlled amounts of carbohydrates and fats) gives the optimal balance between avoiding food problems and starting to reverse the metabolic adaptations that occur during dieting.

For those who want more specific values, let's assume that the dieter is going to add 400-500 calories over this two week span. Divided daily that works out to 28-35 calories per day but since that's an amount of food that really isn't measurable, a plan of adding 100 calories every three days (this is about one piece of fruit or one cooked cup of rice or pasta) would fit into this scheme.
Related to the idea of reverse dieting is that of "building metabolic capacity". The idea here is that by gradually raising calories at the end of the diet, metabolic rate will increase and allow people to eat more without getting fat. Invariably the self-reports of people using this strategy report that they are "maintaining their bodyfat on much higher calories" but when you look at the actual numbers they are reporting, they are still in a dietary deficit relative to even their predicted adjusted maintenance.

Basically, despite "eating more" these folks are still dieting and still prolonging the return of any sort of hormonal normalcy which, once again, will only occur once some bodyfat has been regained and they are at a near maintenance calorie level. Adding calories in a small amount in this way is simply delaying the process of any sort of metabolic or hormonal recovery towards even normal levels.

So why do these people maintain that they are maintaining their fat on "so many more calories"? First and foremost, while they may be eating more calories relative to the extremely low diet levels, they are still in in a deficit at the end of the day. The simple fact is that RMR only adjusts itself slightly (by perhaps 10%) over normal to increasing calories and only then when the body is being overfed above normal maintenance. And it takes fairly large scale overfeeding to even make that occur. RMR relative to bodyweight simply doesn't adapt that significantly in the first place (and any gain will be lost immediately when the next diet starts). Frequently they are also gaining weight fat/slightly and that alone is part of the supposed "building metabolic capacity" that is being reported.

This is compounded by the fact that the increased food intake is allowing these individuals to train more and harder. There is also the potential increase in NEAT since they aren't so exhausted from being on low-calories. They aren't gaining bodyfat not due to some magic building of metabolic capacity but because the energy out side of the equation is increasing as they are able to train more effectively.

The above terms, reverse dieting and building metabolic capacity are also used to describe a situation where, after reaching maintenance, individuals gradually increase calories over maintenance (once again at some drastically slow rate); effectively, in the same way that physique athletes often gradually decrease calories on the way down, they do the same on the way up. In premise this is supposed to raise the metabolic rate relative to current bodyweight with reports, once again, being of people "maintaining their bodyfat at much higher caloric intakes than before dieting." in hopes that during the next fat loss diet, calories won't have to go so low.

But once again, research doesn't really support the idea. BMR only adjusts itself minimally with overfeeding and the impact on TEF is also minor. But when this slight increase is coupled with an increased amount of training and/or increases in NEAT, that alone can explain the supposed "new higher maintenance level".

As well, when you consider how slowly true fat gain tends to be (even a 200 cal/day surplus is only predicted to increase bodyfat by maybe one pound every 3 weeks), it's easy to see how people can convince themselves that this is happening. There is often a slight weight gain during this time and that alone will serve to increase metabolic rate and the calories expended during activity.

All of which adds up to an increase in the energy out side of the equation but most of it is from factors that will disappear fairly quickly once the next dieting phase starts. Certainly starting with more muscle mass will have an effect but any increase in BMR relative to weight will go away, any effect from TEF will go away as soon as calories are restricted. It's currently unknown how quickly NEAT moves up or down but eventually it too will decrease as the body senses the energy deficit. So any of the so-called "metabolic capacity" which has been built will also disappear.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wow both posts have been a really informative read, thanks. The first thing that jumped out about "reverse dieting" was just how long it would take for me to get back to a calorie surplus but what I've just read makes a lot of sense and makes it seem doable in 3-4 weeks.

There's a few other things I've spotted in that article that I'd like to do further reading on now so I'll use the last few weeks of dieting to do some serious reading and research.

Thanks again
 
Was at a friends house on Saturday, there was a guy there who's the partner of his girlfriends sister. After a bit of chat, turned out he's a trainer who helped start off "boxercise".

Had quite a long chat about various bits and a few things stayed with me through the day yesterday. The more I think about them, the more they're annoying me. I'm no expert but some of it is really frustrating me.

Told him I was doing Greyskull, he said how long, I said about 5/6 months, told me it was too long then, shouldn't do any routine more than 6/8 weeks. I quizzed him on this as I am getting progressively stronger. His reply was that i'm just training my body to do those lifts, nothing else. Bit my tongue and didn't say much else about that.

Came around to a stronglifts 5x5 discussion later on, can imagine how that went.

Apparently he's friends with Hugh Jackmans trainer and Jackman is on the roids.

He favours a 6/1 routine where you do 6 reps, then 1 rep just below 1 rep max, then back to 6 reps and 1 and so on.

All popular German Volume training is wrong, it shouldn't be straight 10x10.

At the time, i'd had a few drinks, had my "polite" head on as had only known him a few hours. Just wish I had the knowledge to quiz him more on some of his thoughts.

While i've no doubt he's right about a lot of things, he was very dismissive about anything I had to ask and immediately shot down anything I thought was right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom