The Ectomorph's Guide to Gaining Lean Mass

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Nitrox View Post
    Thx for the posts guys.

    I have done some Googling and it seems that 'carb sensitive' is being used interchangably with 'insulin resistant.' I think this is highly innacurate.

    Why? Two reasons.

    Firstly, insulin resistance is affected by overall energy intake within a specific time period. That means that carbs, fats, proteins, and alchohols (all sources of energy) all affect insulin levels and sensitivities. Singling out carbs is unfair.

    Secondly, the insulin 'sensitive' individual is considered to be the normal one - the one who efficiently uses glucose. An insulin 'insensitive' person is like a type 2 diabetic or person with syndrome-X (pre-diabetes). These people have an impaired ability to use/store energy and hence have trouble GAINING weight. They can be overweight to begin with and show symptoms if they continue eating at surplus energy levels or they could be a lean diabetic like myself who was never overweight.

    I think the misinterpretion comes from the fact that the terminology often refers to (plasma) glucose in the bloodstream. Of course glucose is a carb so people start thinking of dietary carbohydrate not what is circulating in the bloodstream (which does not specifically have to come from dietary carbs).

    What was originally proposed, that some individuals store a much larger proportion of energy intake as bodyfat when that energy is sourced from carbohydrate, is not the same as differing insulin sensitivity (or resistance - one is just the inverse of the other).
    While misinterpreted, it is not highly inaccurate - reason being, while most of the people whom use this misnomer describe it as 'carb sensitive', they do so merely because of a misunderstanding of energy metabolism as a whole. Most likely, these individuals have energy expenditure (or lack thereof) issues as a whole, but assume inefficient glucose metabolism is the exclusive culprit.

    As I alluded to earlier, a great number of metabolic processes can affect the metabolization of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, aside from Insulin.


  2. So going back to the OP and the objections to his carb recommendations, I still don't think there is any basis to single out carbs as the cause of fat gain. Either they are consuming too many calories (not counting, counting wrong, or cheating) or they are consuming carbs irresponsibly (e.g. one 1000 cal serving of dextrose vs. say, 10 x 100 cal apples spread throughout the day).
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    As I alluded to earlier, a great number of metabolic processes can affect the metabolization of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, aside from Insulin.
    Most certainly. No argument there.

    However, where are the measurements? If something cannot be measured and empirically proven or all other alternate possibilities discounted why bother talking about it?

    If a diet of X + Y + Z = W calories leads to unnacceptable fat gain then adjustment of any combination of X, Y, or Z so that W is less will suffice.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Nitrox View Post
    So going back to the OP and the objections to his carb recommendations, I still don't think there is any basis to single out carbs as the cause of fat gain. Either they are consuming too many calories (not counting, counting wrong, or cheating) or they are consuming carbs irresponsibly (e.g. one 1000 cal serving of dextrose vs. say, 10 x 100 cal apples spread throughout the day).
    Exactly. The issue here is energy metabolism as a whole (and more importantly, the lack of understanding surrounding it). As you said, a specific inefficiency of glucose metabolism is indicative of IDDM, or at the very least NIDDM, and would be cause for concern. However, as I have stated, energy expenditure pathways are incredibly complex and work in an aggregate fashion - that is, cumulative minor inefficiencies, while not major enough to warrant therapy or specific notice, when combined, can produce different nutrient utilization in two otherwise comparable individuals.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Exactly. The issue here is energy metabolism as a whole (and more importantly, the lack of understanding surrounding it). As you said, a specific inefficiency of glucose metabolism is indicative of IDDM, or at the very least NIDDM, and would be cause for concern. However, as I have stated, energy expenditure pathways are incredibly complex and work in an aggregate fashion - that is, cumulative minor inefficiencies, while not major enough to warrant therapy or specific notice, when combined, can produce different nutrient utilization in two otherwise comparable individuals.
    Ah ok. Sounds like were taking different approaches to saying the same thing. Phew...
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by eggplant21 View Post
    I will try to be kind with this reply. First, again 5500 was a rough estimate, but I think for an ectomorph who is very lean anywhere around 5000 is a good place to start. Whole milk is calorie dense, high in protein, and high in fats (which are proven to actually be burned for energy very readily). A Quarter Pounder with Cheese "every once in a while" as I said is truly not a bad thing, though every day would be dreadful. You did have one thing right, is isn't 1991 anymore. Also I would ask what your current diet looks like. I would guess at 165 you probably could use a few more cals. All of this was based upon pure experience. I went from 6 foot and 150 to 208 and 6.5% bodyfat in one year and three months. So I feel as though my system was very effective, would you agree? I was just trying to share my current system so that maybe some skinny fellows out there could benefit. If you have problems with the guide, then kindly provide your feedback in a civil manner and I will gladly respect that.
    Your numbers from 150 to 208 w/ 6% bodyfat seems a little exaggerated. No proof but little to optimistic or there are other factors involved.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by thewrx View Post
    Your numbers from 150 to 208 w/ 6% bodyfat seems a little exaggerated. No proof but little to optimistic or there are other factors involved.
    They are actually a little underexaggerated if I may be honest, I really started at like 147.5 and am currently at 208.3, body fat is still 6-7%. I'm not sure what your last sentence meant, but I can assure that I am not lying.

  8. So what if you are an Ecto (6'3" 205) and carb sensitive/insulin resistant as I am. I have always stuck to a diet of 60/30/10-50/30/20, but this is not a good idea if you are carb sensitive.

    What are bulking options for the insulin resistant?

  9. i did a writeup vaguely similar

    Gaining mass in a nutshell (a big nutshell)

    i also am an extreme ecto - graduated HS around 135 lbs at 5'9" then had dropped to 117 when i joined the army a year later. i've been training seriously for two years, and am 181 lbs right now around 10% body fat.

  10. 4000-4500 calories and training 4x week i just got fat. and those were 90% clean cals with a slice or two of pizza on sunday afternoons. i do better around 3000 with lots of sleep!!!
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. How to gain lean Mass?
    By Sarbeland in forum Bulking
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-21-2013, 02:37 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-10-2012, 01:26 AM
  3. What is the best workout routine to gain mass?
    By boowhda in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 05-16-2009, 01:44 AM
  4. Need to gain lean mass.. need more calories
    By bigCountry000 in forum Bulking
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-19-2008, 05:01 PM
  5. What's the best pro-hormone to gain mass?
    By JockoJohnson in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-16-2008, 09:40 PM
Log in
Log in