Need advice. Tweaking my macros.
- 11-07-2012, 07:25 AM
- 11-07-2012, 07:26 AM
11-07-2012, 07:29 AM
11-07-2012, 08:40 AM
11-07-2012, 08:43 AM
Hit them on leg day, probably best if leg and back day are separated by at least two days to avoid overworking the lower backOriginally Posted by uvawahoowa
11-07-2012, 10:09 AM
11-07-2012, 11:59 AM
I'm sure others have already said plenty on the matter, but as far as macros go - ur too high on fats. As a bodybuilder u do not need 30% of ur diet to be fats. Why? 2 reasons.
1) Your trying to get lean. Fat is the by far the easiest macro to be converted into fat droplets. Easy solution - reduce fat intake as low as u can.
2) Your eating a ton of carbs and protein, so the argument for fat as energy is moot. You get plenty of energy and nutrients from the other macros. If u need more energy, take MCT oil.
Reduce dietary fat. Supplement with Omega-6 fats (but not too much). You want just enough fat to maintain health. I prefer the 10-15% range myself.
11-07-2012, 12:10 PM
11-07-2012, 04:58 PM
Google "so you think you can bench" and watch parts 1-7. Worthwhile.
Also, if you want more advice start a thread in the training section, people tend to ignore the bulking one if their expertise is in training and program design.
11-07-2012, 05:12 PM
You do not have to have excessive fat intake, but eating fat does not make you fat. So Fueled Passion is incorrect in this regard. Eating in calorie excess will make you heavier.
If you're going to watch one, watch the 2nd one down.
11-07-2012, 07:50 PM
What I'm really hitting on is something that I did not speak about - food efficiencies. Fat has a high food efficiency and therefore requires the LEAST amount of calories from ur body to store up as fat. Its already in proper form and requires little work to process. Sure, it gives energy and abundantly! But it doesn't provide instant glucose energy like carbs do. Carbs are a bit lower in the food efficiency - they require exactly 10 times the amount of energy from the body when compared to fats to be converted over to fatty acids. Protein has an even lower food efficiency along with fibrous carbs and MCT oil tops them all. U burn more calories processing MCT oil than any other macro plus it loads ur body up with ketones to facilitate fat burning.
This topic could go way into technical metabolism topics which I feel.most would want to avoid. However, I do have the knowledge base to expand if needed.
My post is about metabolism, keeping only the minimal amounts of fats in ur body that it needs while keeping the metabolism sky high. Dont believe me? I weigh 157lbs, around 10% BF at this point, and eat 3500 calories per day to maintain my weight. I have to eat as much as a 220lb man to pack on weight with this diet. It doesnt contribute to fat storage at all.
11-07-2012, 09:13 PM
Metabolism is something completely different and rates of cellular metabolism will differ wildly amoung different groups of people and is dependant on a whole range of factors. So anecdotal evidence is moot. I was merely commenting that eating fat does not make you fat.
MCT oil doesnt require energy for utilisation or storage. What do you mean when you say it uses more energy processing?
11-07-2012, 11:02 PM
11-07-2012, 11:04 PM
But speaking on what u were saying before, dietary fat does get stored as fat after u eat it, period. Once stored, this fat may or may not be used for energy depending on what ur diet looks like. Low carb diet do increase fat utilization - I agree. This is a survival aspect. But what I'm sayin is that reducing carbs during a mass building cycle is not the most effective. You need the insulin to provide proper nutrient partitioning to the muscles. Those muscles need glucose for immediate energy, protein and amino acids should be used pre-dominantly for growth and fats should be put on the backburner. Thats why I said to supplement MCT oil in place of cutting the fats. This prevents u from losing energy and calories since MCT's have about the same calories as Long chain triglycerides per gram. I havent disagreed with anything u've said except that fat can make u fat. Just go eat a tub of crisco for a week and see what happens. I know, I know. You'll say thats because total calories exceed the amount burned so u get fat. Well, my point is this: what would happen if you ate 5lbs of chicken breast and 10 cups of brown rice everyday for a week? Would u get fat?
Not all calories are equal. Dietary fat goes into fat cells. Protein tends to go to muscle and carbs can go either way depending on which carbs u eat. Slow releasing and fibrous types go to muscles for energy and simple sugars can go either way depending on when u eat them and how much of them u eat.
I dont disagree with u on just about everything u've said except the idea that fat does not make u fat. It can. Especially if u have a moderate to high intake, a less-than-stellar metabolism and u do very little cardio. In that scenario it doesnt take much fat intake at all to get u chubby.
Again, I say replace a good portion of ur proteins and starches with dietary fats and see if they dont make you fatter. And if it helps, I've done this diet and still do and it has brought me to a much more competitive level than ever before.
11-07-2012, 11:44 PM
11-08-2012, 12:21 AM
More evidence, which proves my point:
On a side note, and Rodja has posted on this before; brown rice is not very good for you. In terms of G.I. and Leptins (I think it was leptins).
But back on track, there are also studies which link high carb diets to obesity, some I have linked to previously;
http://www.dietdoctor.com/how-carbs-make-you-fat (not a study but shows link between leptins and insulin).
And its not a "survival aspect", FFA's are utilised more readily in the Krebs cycle than Glucose (i.e. long steady state exercise relies on fat more than glycogen) whereas the PCr and Glycolytic systems rely on glucose...
Ever heard of Gluconeogenesis? Search it. It is the "making of glucose from non-glucose sources", Glycerol falls into this category.
11-08-2012, 12:48 AM
11-08-2012, 02:58 AM
11-08-2012, 07:56 AM
11-08-2012, 08:02 AM
You guys are posting some great stuff and really helping to educate me. I wish I could rep more, but I have to spread it around first.
11-08-2012, 08:07 AM
11-08-2012, 10:31 AM
It sounds like ur a "latest and greatest" adopter when it comes to diet technique. While I do have each study reference, I'd have to go into my PDF, copy and paste them. Give me a little while to find time for that. Either way, tell me something. Do you even know specifically why a low carb diet promotes fat loss? Did u also know a low carb diet promotes muscle loss as well?
The method I speak of is the common method for amatuer and pro bodybuilders alike (not natural guys) for the past 20-30 years.
The reason Atkins diet "works" (and by works I mean causes both muscle and fat loss) is because of the lack of carbs, ur body has to figure a way to feed itself. It does so in two ways, one is through fat metabolism, which takes time you see. Ur body cannot process fats quick enough for training or any moderate intensity movements or maybe I should say "anaerobic" activity. Fat is only utilized in aerobic activity. (If u try and argue this I'm gonna stop talking on this forum because there r some things u cant argue - this is one of them.) So where does the rest of ur energy come from? Certainly not carbs - u arent eating enouh of those to contribute to energy. The only other place a muscle can gather energy is within itself - the amino acids. It literally eats itself causing muscle wasting to fulfill the workout. Furthermore, as u lose muscle mass u also slow the metabolism down since ur BMR is steadily dropping. So losing weight becomes harder and harder to do. Then u stop the low carb diet and jump back to normal only to find that ur body goes into a survival mode (thanks to cutting carbs) and it stores up lots of fat for the next few weeks after the Atkins diet is over. So u end up with more fat and less muscle. Sounds like a typical "yo-yo" dieter doesnt it? Thats where the term came from - Atkins dieters. I know this to be true too because I've seen it happen to my brother!
However, as a final word from myself on the subject matter, to ur point about high fat diets "working", they only work in the presence of little to no carbs and its not effective AT ALL for muscle preservation. And, looking at the OP's situation, he's not eating a low carb diet...
So he needs to lower his fat intake since he is trying to bulk. I agree that if he wanted to lose weight, not specifying what type of weight, low carb setup is good for him. But as for me, I say the low carb setup is for soccer moms and newbie gym rats who havent figured out that low carb methods cost u more than its worth.
And brown rice is freakin awesome, btw.
11-08-2012, 11:02 AM
And just to clarify - I dont think that everyone else is "wrong" for disagreeing. I just made a suggestion and gave reason for my statement. Every time I mention low-fat I get chastised for such anarchy. I have no idea why. Perhaps its offensive because it challenges common practice in American society - which evidently reveals itself to be a failure.
OP, u at least know my take on the matter. I like to find methods that allow me to "have my cake and eat it, too".
11-08-2012, 11:03 AM
Not sure on lifting experience but maybe your problem is the split program in the first place. Are you training or aesthetics or bodybuilding? Only a bodybuilder needs a workout like this especially since they are not worried about fat gain when bulking. I suggest 3 full body days a week. Also cycle your carbs.... You don't need that many carbs if you are not lifting that day. You seem to have a minor case of broscience as it seems most on this thread do as well. You may want to research mark Berkham and leangains, it could change your life...
11-08-2012, 11:12 AM
It says he's trying to get lean muscular gains. In order to get the muscle to hypertrophy and avoid getting bodyfat, he needs to have a slight excess of calories and relatively low fat intake, very high protein intake. This isn't based on any science, it's what has worked for me and I'm sure several others. You start taking carbs out and increasing fat while trying to get lean gains, you'll be tired and definitely not as lean as you would be with lower fat intake.
11-08-2012, 08:50 PM
11-08-2012, 08:58 PM
I did these today for the first time...kind of awkward, but once I found balance I could get into it. Problem is there's not really enough weight on the stack to feel like I'm challenging myself. I went slow to exaggerate the stretch, but nothing like RDLs or good mornings. Any way to make this one more difficult?Originally Posted by jimbuick
11-08-2012, 09:35 PM
I exaggerate the ROM, I sit really deep and really exaggerate the extension. You may have to try the machines for seated rows as they often have more weight. Moving farther from the pulley could also help.Originally Posted by uvawahoowa
They look strange and I always get strange looks but it really helps with pulling strength IME. It teaches a good hip thrust from the bottom for the initial part of your pull.
11-08-2012, 11:10 PM
You stated that fat intake makes you fat, which is not true, considering it is actually recommened to have at least 30-33% of your calories from fats. Considering that saturated fats aid in testosterone production and other fats aid in hormone transport (steroid hormones which travel unbinded through the blood) and in vitamin storage (fat solubles).
But on a final note, EFA's are essential, nowhere in the diet are carbs essential; beneficial yes, but they are a non-essential macro nutrient. Your body needs EFAs and EAAs for survival (not synthesized by the body).
You also state that fats cannot be utilised for anaerobic activity, this isnt true. Beta Oxidation (in which fatty acids are used as energy) occurs which is the breakdown on fatty acids to produce Acetyl CoA and by-products of the breakdown of fatty acids are called Ketone Bodies which can be used in the replacement of glucose. The process is of course slow to begin with, but as the body adapts to low carb, the process becomes more effecient; allowing for continuation of high intensity exercise in the absence of carbohydrate.
I bolded that phrase above as that is a very broad statement and there is more going on that simply fatty acids entering cells. Yes, fats are utilized for aerobic metabolism (more energy efficient and creates more ATP per molecule than glucose) and this is not disputed, but the process is not black and white. And I quote: "Carnitine transports long-chain acyl groups from fatty acids into the mitochondrial matrix, so they can be broken down through β-oxidation to acetyl CoA to obtain usable energy via the citric acid cycle. In some organisms, the acetate is used in the glyoxylate cycle for gluconeogenesis and formation of carbohydrates".
Going back for a moment, and considering the Krebs cycle, lactate is a by-product of the Glycolytic system and is converted into pyruvate which can be converted into glucose via gluconeogenesis. Interestingly, odd chain fatty acids can be broken down into succinyl CoA which can become pyruvate in the absense of glycogen. Hence how anaerobic energy can be made in the absense of glucose.
This is a very brief breakdown, but I hope it clears it up a bit.
We could argue round in circles, or agree to disagree.
11-08-2012, 11:59 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By Chad in forum General ChatReplies: 23Last Post: 05-18-2007, 04:06 PM
- By muddytraks in forum 35 and OlderReplies: 1Last Post: 01-18-2007, 04:34 PM
- By Fun2Train in forum BulkingReplies: 11Last Post: 12-14-2006, 01:45 AM
- By AlexParty in forum AnabolicsReplies: 24Last Post: 05-06-2003, 01:34 PM