Best Supp to get CUT ~
- 05-03-2006, 02:25 AM
- 05-03-2006, 02:28 AM
- 05-03-2006, 02:29 AM
5-7% isn't an easy task my man, that's gonna take alot of hard work. What time frame were you planning on working in? And when you say "clean", can you post a normal day, because 'clean' can be a pretty relative term...And the best supplement to a clean diet/training regiment is this stuff called Bobo..Runs you around $270, but you'll cut up beautifully and it lasts you a lifetime
05-03-2006, 02:33 AM
Now i am around 12 - 15% and about 215 pounds. I just finished my 1-ad cycle so now its time to cut... I heard people had good results with lipo-6 with minimal muscle loss.
05-03-2006, 02:34 AM
For the most part, theres NO true thermogenic effect, its all a crock. The best cut is a solid foundational diet, basically what your getting in a "fat loss" supplement is a appetite suppressant. So dont go out blowing a whole wad of cash on these products. Since , they would a stimulants, you will want to bounce around to different products because the likelyhood of your body becoming accustomed to the herbal effects is high. Just remember dieting is first and foremost. Cardio is very important, running for a longer period of time at a slower pace than going balls out will burn more fat calories than simply sprint for 10 minutes. Try your 60% max HR and cruise at that pace for 30-45 minutes if you can handle that.
05-03-2006, 02:34 AM
How long ago did you finish your cycle?What was your PCT like, I'd maybe stave off the cutting until you've solidified your gains from the cycle...
05-03-2006, 02:36 AM
Originally Posted by 6paq
Pretty sure I disagree with most of you post.
Fat loss products work. HIIT is better than lengthy slower paced runs, I say.
05-03-2006, 02:37 AM
PCT was basicly Rebound and Zinc.. i know not the best but it worked really good... I just finished the cycle so i think i might have some bloating going on...
05-03-2006, 02:39 AM
05-03-2006, 02:40 AM
I think you might have at least a few weeks to solidify your gains before you consider cutting..The bloat your having troubles with could probably be cured up by cleaining up your diet a little dude...Originally Posted by memo007
05-03-2006, 02:40 AM
05-03-2006, 02:44 AM
If you are going to be doing HIIT or any other strenuous workout I would recommend some Lean Extreme too. Does great for reducing cortisol levels and I posted a study in the supp section about cortisol and how bad it spikes post workout (specially during a stressful, long workout) and the first couple hours of sleep! You want to prevent catabolism as much as possible.
05-03-2006, 12:52 PM
yes definitely watch out for that nasty Cortisol. Also watch your sodium intake, as the bloat from water retention can blur those elusive cuts.
05-03-2006, 02:34 PM
do you have a specific time frame in wanting to cut. Because I only know two "supps" that would cut that much BF% in a quick amount of time and I would be hesitant to recommend them if your just looking cut for non competitive purposes diet and cardio is going to be the best
05-03-2006, 03:53 PM
Diet and exercise work bestOriginally Posted by 6paq
but chemicals can and do work to speed the process along.
anthing from EC stacks to clen or albuterol to t3 or t4 and trimax
all depends if you want to manipulate your thyroid function, body temp, heart rate etc. and to what extent or degree and the risk/reward ratio
05-03-2006, 04:23 PM
05-03-2006, 04:44 PM
Cortisol is also very necessary for life.
The problem with cortisol believe it or not is that it spikes your appetite, especially you crave quick carbs because insulin stomps the heck out of cortisol. Quick carbs = fat.
Cortisol is related to abdominal fat - but really it's the swing in insulin that causes preferential storage in the torso (the same mechanism can actually your extremities and effectively redeposit fat into the torso). Fat in the torso is very, very ready to listen to insulin. "Store some more fat?? YES SIR!! WE'VE BEEN WAITING!"
Cortisol isn't something you need to get rid of unless you have it consistently elevated. Prolonged stress response IS a bad thing.
Most of the studies people refer to involve sedentary individuals with bad diets - wild swings in insulin and blood sugar. Yeah, this causes adaptation as the body tries to shield itself from their stupidity and that adaptation eventually causes insulin resistance, diabetes, etc.
05-03-2006, 08:31 PM
05-03-2006, 08:34 PM
cAMP/Sesamin stack works awesome. Scorch is also solid
Get your FREE RIPPED GUIDE
05-03-2006, 08:42 PM
05-03-2006, 09:47 PM
Youre right. The word thermogenics is an inappropriate term, thermo means heat. You not increasing your body temp. Appetite suppression is the best ingredient in the entire "thermogenic" ring, unless you go to AAS.Originally Posted by sweet-physique
Thanks for the negative rep, whoever it was. I appreciate your ignorance. Do you have a degree in the field?
05-03-2006, 10:25 PM
Try taking some T-3 and when you're waking up in a pile of sweat or have to put the fan on you when your wife tells you that you're nuts...Blame it on the appetite suppression.
Not to mention DNP.
05-03-2006, 10:27 PM
Crazy how people sweat more when on thermogenics. Probably those darn appetite suppressants.Originally Posted by 6paq
General words about thermos:
"stimulates the central nervous system, raises core body temperature, and causes the body to mobilize body fat for fuel."
P.S. Thanks for the neg rep 6paq.
05-03-2006, 10:49 PM
well, I would kind of like to clarify something about your "HIIT is better" thought...Originally Posted by 6paq
Neither HIIT nor low load - long duration exercise is "better" they are just different.
In defense of the low load long duration cardio:
1) maximal fat oxidation is achieved at ~63% of Vo2 max. Going much above 63% causes a quick decline in the amount of fat used and a sharp increase in the carbohydrates used during exercise.
2) HIIT is a VERY catabolic form of training.
3) long term endurance training causes an adaptation of the muscles trained that could help the body preferenitally recruit fat as a fuel source over carbohydrates
In defense of HIIT:
well, I'm not really a huge hit fan, but it does have some merits.
1) HIIT will burn more total calories in a shorter period of time then low load long duration work. It also keeps your metabolism elevated for hours after a session(whether that is good or bad is another discussion altogether).
2) the rather large release of lactic acid is also accompanied by a great increase in the release of GH and other hormones that could possibly have and anti-catabolic effect.
3) Intense endurance training can help strengthen tendons and ligaments which may help prevent injury.
Put simply: low load long duration exercise is less catabolic and recruits a greater amount of fat for fuel.
HIIT has a higher caloric expenditure although those calories burned are primarily carbohydrates.
If you want I can post a better way of determining substrate utilization from my text book as well.
05-03-2006, 11:34 PM
Well since we have jumped off of the actual question of the poster....(I actually answered his question)... I will hi-jack this thread with the most respect to the original poster.
Myths Under The Microscope: The Low Intensity Fat Burning Zone & Fasted Cardio
By Alan Aragon, © 2006
Why do natural bodybuilding contests for the most part look like swim meets minus the pool?
The obvious answer is the relative absence of anabolic and androgenic drugs that enable “enhanced” athletes to hold on to considerably more muscle under prolonged metabolic stress than natural pre-contest trainees. The other part of the answer is that naturals as a group tend to undermine their efforts by copying the training and nutritional practices of their pharmacologically advantaged brethren.
I wrote this review in the hopes of slowly but surely prying open some minds (including my own) by bringing the facts to light. Sometimes concepts can’t be sufficiently conveyed through cyber debates, where emotionally-driven flexing and posturing for the public take priority over honest, objective, and thorough examination of the evidence. I’ll take a look at the hard data, as well as the theoretical extrapolations involved with this highly misunderstood topic.
Warning: This is gonna be lengthy, so save this reading for when you can really sit down and buckle up. I highly encourage you to tread slowly and carefully through the material. For you skimmers out there, I provided summaries of the key research points.
THE “FAT BURNING ZONE” ON TRIAL
Substrate Utilization 101: Origin of the myth
Dietary variables aside, the body’s proportional use of fat for fuel during exercise is dependent upon training intensity. The lower the intensity, the greater the proportion of stored fat is used for fuel. The higher the intensity, the greater proportional use of glycogen and/or the phosphagen system. But this is where the misunderstanding begins. Common sense should make it obvious that although I’m burning a greater proportion of stored fat typing this sentence, Getting up and sprinting would have a greater impact on fat reduction despite its lesser proportional use of fat to power the increased intensity. Alas, sufficient investigation of the intensity threshold of maximal net fat oxidation has been done. In what’s perhaps the best designed trial of its kind, Achten & Jeukendrup found peak fat oxidation to occur during exercise at 63% VO2 max. This peak level got progressively less beyond that point, and was minimal at 82% VO2 max, near the lactate threshold of 87% .
Misunderstanding is perpetuated in fitness circles
It has been widely misconstrued that a greater net amount of fat is burned through lower to moderate intensity work, regardless of study duration and endpoints assessed. In addition the confusion of net fat oxidation with proportional fat oxidation, the postexercise period is critically overlooked. No distinction is ever made between during-exercise fat oxidation, recovery period fat oxidation, total fat oxidation by the end of a 24-hr period, and most importantly, a longer term of several weeks.. Thus, the superiority of lower intensity cardio continues to be touted over the more rigorous stuff that takes half the time to do. Fortunately, we have enough research data to gain a clear understanding. Let’s dig in.
DISSECTING THE RESEARCH
Mixed study protocols + mixed results = plenty of mixed-up bodybuilders
As with all research involving applied physiology, the highly mixed set of results is due to a wide variation of study designs in terms subject profile, dietary manipulation, energetic balance, and actual intensities used. Nevertheless, the body of exercise-induced fat oxidation research can be easily deciphered by stratifying it into 3 subgroups: Acute effect (during exercise & immediately after), 24-hr effect, & chronic effect (results over several weeks).
Acute effects spawn ideas for further research
In addition to measuring fat oxidation during exercise, most acute effect trials look at fat oxidation at the 3 to 6 hr mark postexercise . Fat oxidation during exercise tends to be higher in low-intensity treatments, but postexercise fat oxidation tends to be higher in high-intensity treatments. For example, Phelain’s team compared fat oxidation in at 3hrs postexercise of 75% VO2 max versus the same kcals burned at 50% . Fat oxidation was insignificantly higher during exercise for the 50% group, but was significantly higher for the 75% group 3 hours postexercise. Lee’s team compared, in college males, the thermogenic and lipolytic effects of exercise pre-fueled with milk + glucose on high versus low-intensity training . Predictably, pre-exercise intake of the milk/glucose solution increased excess postexercise oxygen consumption (EPOC, aka residual thermogenesis) significantly more than the fasted control group in both cases. The high-intensity treatment had more fat oxidation during the recovery period than the low intensity treatment. This implicates pre-fueled high-intensity training’s potential role in optimizing fat reduction while simultaneously setting the stage for quicker recovery.
24-hr effects come closer to reality
You can call it Murphy’s Law, but the promise of greater fat oxidation seen during and in the early postexercise periods of lower intensity cardio disappears when the effects are measured over 24 hours. Melanson’s research team was perhaps the first to break the redundancy of studies that only compared effects within a few hours postexercise . In a design involving an even mix of lean, healthy men & women aged 20-45, identical caloric expenditures of 40% VO2 max was compared with 70% VO2 max. Result? No difference in net fat oxidation between the low & high-intensity groups at the 24 hr mark.
Saris & Schrauwen conducted a similar study on obese males using a high-intensity interval protocol versus a low-intensity linear one . There was no difference in fat oxidation between high & low intensity treatments at 24 hrs. In addition, the high-intensity group actually maintained a lower respiratory quotient in postexercise. This means that their fat oxidation was higher than the low-intensity group the rest of the day following the training bout, thus the evening out the end results at 24 hrs.
Chronic effects come even closer
Long-term/Chronic effect studies are the true tests of whatever hints and clues we might get from acute studies. The results of trials carried out over several weeks have obvious validity advantages over shorter ones. They also afford the opportunity to measure changes in body composition, versus mere substrate use proximal to exercise. The common thread running through these trials is that when caloric expenditure during exercise is matched, negligible fat loss differences are seen. The fact relevant to bodybuilding is that high-intensity groups either gain or maintain LBM, whereas the low-intensity groups tend to lose lean mass, hence the high intensity groups experience less net losses in weight [7-9].
The body of research strongly favors high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for both fat loss and lean mass gain/maintenance, even across a broad range of study populations [9-12]. A memorable example of this is work by Tremblay’s team, observing the effect of 20 weeks of HIIT versus endurance training (ET) on young adults . When energy expenditure between groups was corrected, HIIT group showed a whopping 9 times the fat loss as the ET group. In the HIIT group, biopsies showed an increase of glycolytic enzymes, as well as an increase of 3-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase (HADH) activity, a marker of fat oxidation. Researchers concluded that the metabolic adaptations in muscle in response to HIIT favor the process of fat oxidation. The mechanisms for these results are still under investigation, but they’re centered around residual thermic and lipolytic effects mediated by enzymatic, morphologic, and beta-adrenergic adaptations in muscle. Linear/steady state comparisons of the 2 types tends to find no difference, except for better cardiovascular fitness gains in the high-intensity groups .
Summing up the research findings
• In acute trials, fat oxidation during exercise tends to be higher in low-intensity treatments, but postexercise fat oxidation and/or energy expenditure tends to be higher in high-intensity treatments.
• Fed subjects consistently experience a greater thermic effect postexercise in both intensity ranges.
• In 24-hr trials, there is no difference in fat oxidation between the 2 types, pointing to a delayed rise in fat oxidation in the high-intensity groups which evens out the field.
• In long-term studies, both linear high-intensity and HIIT training is superior to lower intensities on the whole for maintaining and/or increasing cardiovascular fitness & lean mass, and are at least as effective, and according to some research, far better at reducing bodyfat.
05-03-2006, 11:41 PM
I agree with mixedup's post. Cuting quickly for the sake of cutting quikly, not competing, would only be temporary. Diet and cardio are the only way to permanenty take of BF and keep it off. Also not healthy. Any of the above mentioned products will take off BF, some better than others, ECA is good, whats works for me may not work as well for you. But you don't wanna go to hardcore for a quik loss or you'll end up sick. Again, unless you are competing, in which case F--- the sickness.
05-03-2006, 11:48 PM
Hey brent, Lot of time researching, probably lost the initial poster by the second paragraph. Next time post a link...holy s***!
05-03-2006, 11:51 PM
Originally Posted by BigDago
I found it at the evil "bodybuilding" forum, so no link.
The original poster wasn't even worried about what is in the article. The thread got a little off track. haha.
05-04-2006, 12:25 AM
well, first off I never said HIIT was "bad" only that both HIt and long duration cardio have their place.Originally Posted by Brent
It's funny that he quotes a jeukendrup study... I'm getting most of my information from his sport nutrition textbook.
If you look, I said that 63% Vo2 max is where the greatest fat utilization occurs. No secret there. I think we agree on this.
As far as the keyboard typing VS. HIIT training: Of course HIIT will burn more calories then keyboard typing... I mean seriously, this shouldn't even be an issue. I'm talking about training at ~63% of Vo2 max. Not f-ing key typing!
Yes, post exercise HIIT will cause greater fat oxidation then low load long duration... I already said that HIIT will put you in a catabolic state for hours after exercise. I really don't get the "setting the stage for faster recovery" part though... How does being in such a catabolic state equate to greater recovery?
At the 24 hour mark fat utilization is equal. Fair enough. I can't argue with that.
As far as the chronic effects go:
These studies don't prove much at all. What are the training backgrounds of the individuals tested?
Think about this:
It has been shown that loads as low as 40% of 1rm can cause significant muscular hypertrophy and strength increases in begining trainee's(according to Siff & Verkoshansky).
Do you think a competitive bodybuilder who has been training for several years would really respond to a load of 40%? Or would training at 40% 1rm actually cause a detraining effect?
Now apply this same thought to HIIT: The begining trainees responded by gaining muscle mass using a HIIT protocal, but was there a weight training regime included? It's obvious that long duration cardio wont increase muscle mass, but is it as catabolic as HIIT could possibly be? I'm leaving that up to the trainee to decide. I personally would use a mixture of both HIIT and long duration training. Get the best of both worlds by doing both over the course of your training cycle.
Now, I really did enjoy that. Honestly. I'm not trying to use an e-ego or anything like that, I just felt that the prescription of HIIT is always better was a bit off.
I gotta go finish studying. I have a final in my nutrition class on friday and three more finals next week.
05-04-2006, 12:39 AM
Similar Forum Threads
- By Alpine in forum SupplementsReplies: 52Last Post: 09-17-2005, 05:35 PM
- By hrdgain81 in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 0Last Post: 03-08-2005, 10:39 AM
- By Clipse in forum SupplementsReplies: 8Last Post: 10-12-2004, 07:14 PM
- By bigmark1972 in forum SupplementsReplies: 8Last Post: 09-16-2004, 06:57 PM
- By sugashane in forum AnabolicsReplies: 5Last Post: 04-08-2004, 08:49 PM