My NEW AND IMPROVED diet-

exnihilo · 08-26-2004, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonBlaze

Heres my diet with the foods and ratios. Goal is a slow and steady body recomp/extremly lean bulk. If i stop seeing progress here, i will up the calories another 200, but for now i think it looks good like this.

8:00: 22g Protein, 43g Carbs, 1g Fat-Go lean cereal w/ skim milk

9:30: 16g Protein, 21g Carbs, 11g Fat-Oatmeal + 2 eggs

12:15: 72g Protein, 52g Carbs, 9g Fat-Bobo's secret food #1

1:30: Workout

2:30: 50g Protein, 75g Carbs, 0g fat-Shake w/ creatine

3:45: 16g Protein, 36g Carbs, 4g Fat-Sandwich w/ mustard and 2 pieces of lean ham

5:15: 50g Protein, 4g Carbs, 10g Fat-True protein shake w/ 1/2 serving flax

7:00: 73g Protein, 0g carbs, 8g Fat-Bobo's secret food #2

9:00: 46g Protein, 0g Carbs, 8g Fat-Chicken breast

11:00: 50g Protein, 4g Carbs, 16g Fat-True Protein shake w/ flax

Totals:
Calories: 3170
Protein: 394g (50%)
Carbs: 237g (30%)
Fat: 70g (20%)

The ratios look fine, I'm guessing this bulk isn't in any way androgen assisted? If not, you might want to increase the fats a tiny bit at the expense of protein (I know! Heresy!) - even in the most poorly controlled studies I've read, there's been no improvement in nitrogen retention past ~2.5g/kg, though there is no data on the combination of AAS use and protein intake that I've seen. Fats play a number of roles in the body, and I'm not certain that your hormonal mileau will be operating at 100% efficiency with 70g a day of dietary fat intake (obviously this is much less of a factor with exogenous androgens).

Also (and I defer entirely to lyle mcdonald in this matter as I have not seen the research myself, but I trust him for the most part) your body will tend to partition calories towards muscle or fat based on a number of factors, and the ratio at which this partitioning occurs is referred to as the 'p' ratio. This ratio seems to be fairly static, with fluctuations based on where you are in relation to your set-point. The implication of this is that in the event that, during a lean bulk, you are not gaining muscle at your optimal rate (theoretically about ~3.3lbs of actual muscle tissue growth a month for your typical person, if diet and training were perfect, not accounting for AAS usage), you are still partitioning calories between fat and muscle in much the same manner as if you were eating more food and growing muscle more quickly, thus the ratio of fat to muscle gained is the same, and you are just slowing down your muscular development by eating fewer calories. Obviously, depending on genetic factors the actual amount of muscle you can grow in a month will vary, and we can't expect training to be 100% optimal, but if you can keep high quality records, you might experiment with pushing the calories higher and playing with your training protocol to see if you are getting the best results possible. Exercise is truly the king of nutrient partitioning agents - see how far you can push it.

I'm personally of the opinion that the great majority of people undereat, undersleep, and undertrain - then they turn right around and piss away the majority of their (usually meager) gains by dieting wrong or trying to go too far below their physiological set-point... Then they wonder why they're 6'2" 205 and are putting on maybe 4lbs in a good year. For most people, staying very lean and growing muscle at the same time requires a very drastic androgen load (700+mg of tren a week, anyone?) and if you want to make rapid progress without heavy drug usage you're going to have to accept being a little "husky" most of the time.

Of course, you can always just alternate dbol/tren/test/eq with DNP and forget all of this

Just my two cents,

Ex Nihilo

DieTrying · 08-26-2004, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by exnihilo

and if you want to make rapid progress without heavy drug usage you're going to have to accept being a little "husky" most of the time.

I agree with everything in your post besides this statement. Theres no reason why lifters need to go through life "husky". I've been a heavy guy my entire life and it sucks. Not only from a social standpoint, but I can tell you first hand that being "husky" has been very hard on my joints. I wake up every morning listening to every bone in my body cracking at the age of 21 because I've been dragging around extra fat my entire life. I'm going down and I will never go back up..And if I am 205 and lean, but only add 4 or 5 pounds to my frame every year, by the time I am 31 I'll look pretty good around 250. Slow gains are the best gains.

Sorry to bring so far off topic.

**Yukon Cornelius** · 08-26-2004, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by exnihilo

The ratios look fine, I'm guessing this bulk isn't in any way androgen assisted? If not, you might want to increase the fats a tiny bit at the expense of protein (I know! Heresy!) - even in the most poorly controlled studies I've read, there's been no improvement in nitrogen retention past ~2.5g/kg, though there is no data on the combination of AAS use and protein intake that I've seen. Fats play a number of roles in the body, and I'm not certain that your hormonal mileau will be operating at 100% efficiency with 70g a day of dietary fat intake (obviously this is much less of a factor with exogenous androgens).

Also (and I defer entirely to lyle mcdonald in this matter as I have not seen the research myself, but I trust him for the most part) your body will tend to partition calories towards muscle or fat based on a number of factors, and the ratio at which this partitioning occurs is referred to as the 'p' ratio. This ratio seems to be fairly static, with fluctuations based on where you are in relation to your set-point. The implication of this is that in the event that, during a lean bulk, you are not gaining muscle at your optimal rate (theoretically about ~3.3lbs of actual muscle tissue growth a month for your typical person, if diet and training were perfect, not accounting for AAS usage), you are still partitioning calories between fat and muscle in much the same manner as if you were eating more food and growing muscle more quickly, thus the ratio of fat to muscle gained is the same, and you are just slowing down your muscular development by eating fewer calories. Obviously, depending on genetic factors the actual amount of muscle you can grow in a month will vary, and we can't expect training to be 100% optimal, but if you can keep high quality records, you might experiment with pushing the calories higher and playing with your training protocol to see if you are getting the best results possible. Exercise is truly the king of nutrient partitioning agents - see how far you can push it.

I'm personally of the opinion that the great majority of people undereat, undersleep, and undertrain - then they turn right around and piss away the majority of their (usually meager) gains by dieting wrong or trying to go too far below their physiological set-point... Then they wonder why they're 6'2" 205 and are putting on maybe 4lbs in a good year. For most people, staying very lean and growing muscle at the same time requires a very drastic androgen load (700+mg of tren a week, anyone?) and if you want to make rapid progress without heavy drug usage you're going to have to accept being a little "husky" most of the time.

Of course, you can always just alternate dbol/tren/test/eq with DNP and forget all of this

Just my two cents,

Ex Nihilo

Fats do play major roles but the amounts needed to perform these roles is grossly exaggerated, especially when the fats are in healthy proportions.

I personally beleive people overeat, undersleep and training is relative to the individual. THere are too many people consuming 4-5k+ calories and turning around and trying to cut for 9 months out of the year because of such hugh calories intakes. There is a reason 90% of my clients are trying to lose weight rather than gain and the majority are 220+.

I also believe that people can make quality gains without being "husky". The people that prescribe to those theories that this sport is for the genetically blessed and we should accept our fate do so because they usually have not accomplished their goals because the probably concetrate on the minutia withoth following through with the basics. This doesn't mean you exnihilo as I donn't know your personal view on these things but with most who I've encountered that believe these things, its seems to be the case.

Thats my buffalo nickel...

exnihilo · 08-26-2004, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo

Fats do play major roles but the amounts needed to perform these roles is grossly exaggerated, especially when the fats are in healthy proportions.

I personally beleive people overeat, undersleep and training is relative to the individual. THere are too many people consuming 4-5k+ calories and turning around and trying to cut for 9 months out of the year because of such hugh calories intakes. There is a reason 90% of my clients are trying to lose weight rather than gain and the majority are 220+.

I also believe that people can make quality gains without being "husky". The people that prescribe to those theories that this sport is for the genetically blessed and we should accept our fate do so because they usually have not accomplished their goals because the probably concetrate on the minutia withoth following through with the basics. This doesn't mean you exnihilo as I donn't know your personal view on these things but with most who I've encountered that believe these things, its seems to be the case.

Thats my buffalo nickel...

As far as the fats - I don't really know either way. I read back to his other post that he's on igf-1 so in this case I'd certainly go with the additional protein, though in the "normal" case it certainly would not hurt to switch out for a little fat (of course, as you increase your caloric excess I would certainly keep fat in check).

As far as the whole bulk-then-cut routine, androgens aside, I'm of the personal feeling (in general) that you can gain 20-30lbs in a year, and properly cut down to keep half of that, or you can put on perhaps 5-6lbs and keep it mostly lean. For a mostly natural trainee there seem to be some clear benefits (some of which have been elucidated in set point theory, some of which still seem to be nebulous but supported by large volumes of anecdotal evidence) to maintaining bodyfat at setpoint or slightly higher. Doesn't mean that you have to walk around fat like a powerlifter, but honestly I think most people need a reality check when they think that they'll be able to make their best gains while staying consistently below 15% (genetically gifted and AAS usage aside). Being a natural super-endo I usually end up getting to around 24% before I put the breaks on things and do a reversal, though I get great results this way as far as increases in LBM.

I'll be finishing a diet run in about 4 weeks, then I'll take a nice avatar snap (which will also serve as the before pic for my upcoming AAS cycle). I think for someone who's mostly natural my results speak well for themselves, I don't mind getting fat but in doing so I've managed to pack on a lot of mass, and I like to be lean but not so much that it hinders my gains to any significant degree.

Current stats: 248 glycogen depleted @ 17.5%, 6'1", 19" arm, 30" thigh, 52" chest, 37" waist

EDIT: *9 months* of calorie restriction isn't cutting, that's a an obese fatass on a diet

and when I refer to the undereat, undersleep and undertrain, I'm talking about the 90% of the guys in the gym who are maybe 200@12% who never make any significant progress from year to year.

Ex

**Yukon Cornelius** · 08-26-2004, 07:31 PM

There is no way you need to go to that high of a bf%. 24% is way too high. In fact I rarely ever go above 10-12% when I bulk and I pack it on fairly easily as I am mildy insulin resistant (runs in the family).

If you are getting that fat while bulking then there is something wrong with your diet. Even being a sõper-endo does not justify that much gain in bf%. You could do this in a much smarter way and still make the same gains.

If you actually think this is how it has to be, I feel bad because it certainly does not.

exnihilo · 08-26-2004, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo

There is no way you need to go to that high of a bf%. 24% is way too high. In fact I rarely ever go above 10-12% when I bulk and I pack it on fairly easily as I am mildy insulin resistant (runs in the family).

If you are getting that fat while bulking then there is something wrong with your diet. Even being a super-endo does not justify that much gain in bf%. You could do this in a much smarter way and still make the same gains.

If you actually think this is how it has to be, I feel bad because it certainly does not.

I don't think that's how it has to be, that's just how it's been (I tend to overeat and lift really hard in respond to life stress

). I have no doubt that I could pack it on just about as well without going above ~16-17% bodyfat. I'm mostly referring to people who are 190-200 and feel they have reached their "genetic limit".

You are a lucky man (not to denigrate your level of expertise - I just don't think everyone can do that) if you can make gains and stay around 10-12% at your size without AAS. With moderate AAS use, I agree that is totally doable with some smarts and discipline for most people.

Ex

exnihilo · 08-26-2004, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieTrying

I agree with everything in your post besides this statement. Theres no reason why lifters need to go through life "husky". I've been a heavy guy my entire life and it sucks. Not only from a social standpoint, but I can tell you first hand that being "husky" has been very hard on my joints. I wake up every morning listening to every bone in my body cracking at the age of 21 because I've been dragging around extra fat my entire life. I'm going down and I will never go back up..And if I am 205 and lean, but only add 4 or 5 pounds to my frame every year, by the time I am 31 I'll look pretty good around 250. Slow gains are the best gains.

Sorry to bring so far off topic.

I feel ya bro. If you're growing steadily and you're willing to be very very patient, that's cool. I'm impatient!

**Yukon Cornelius** · 08-26-2004, 08:09 PM

Gotcha. I thought you believed thats how it HAS to be.

As far as doing it I think anyone can do it once they realize how to diet properly at low bf%. It is much different than when you are in your mid to high teens. You have to realize that when I start to bulk I'm usually around 6-7% so I do add on some fat but I limit the amount while still maximing gains. I don't think I'm lucky (as my before pics show). It took a good amount of time to find what works for me in terms of diet.

The majority of my gains are natural but I have used AAS for 3 bulking cycles. Two of those were done wrong. I used the majority of AAS while cutting and made many mistakes doing so.

exnihilo · 08-26-2004, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo

Gotcha. I thought you believed thats how it HAS to be.

As far as doing it I think anyone can do it once they realize how to diet properly at low bf%. It is much different than when you are in your mid to high teens. You have to realize that when I start to bulk I'm usually around 6-7% so I do add on some fat but I limit the amount while still maximing gains. I don't think I'm lucky (as my before pics show). It took a good amount of time to find what works for me in terms of diet.

The majority of my gains are natural but I have used AAS for 3 bulking cycles. Two of those were done wrong. I used the majority of AAS while cutting and made many mistakes doing so.

Heh, I am so unwilling to spend the time and effort to get down to 6-7%. If I wanted to show it off I'd need to shave, and tan, and what not... Not my bag baby

I'm happy being massive and when I'm not so fat as to turn the ladies off

I have my doubts about the average person being able to cycle between 7%-12% and make any significant progress in the long term without AAS, but as that is not my area of expertise I will defer to your here.

I'm planning on hitting up the sauce starting in Oct till new years. My goal is to get my total LBM up to between 232-236 and keep my total weight under 270. That'll make a nice avatar

Ex

**Yukon Cornelius** · 08-26-2004, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by exnihilo

I have my doubts about the average person being able to cycle between 7%-12% and make any significant progress in the long term without AAS, but as that is not my area of expertise I will defer to your here.

It can be done naturally. I train natural competitors both male and female (although they rarely get real low). Its just how you diet at those bf%.