The 6 foods that work.. 8 week trial (with pics)

[bezoe]

Very interested to see how this particular diet continues to progress, looking into doing something similar for myself. Great to hear its working out well for you.

Well I'm not 4 percent bf yet lol but I can tell there is something peculiar about it. I know if I was eating like I used to with the same amnt of calories I'd be gaining weight- mostly fat. Like I mentioned before there is def a correlation with the way these foods affect insulin release and regulation.

 

[Vengeance187]

12-15. Any more than that and you tap into oxidative energy pathways that promote muscular endurance.

What makes you think that? Invalid Link Removed They also recently finished a long term study(yet to be published) that showed the same results translated to muscle growth.

...quinoa...that's what I aim for

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Rapz85]

Well I'm not 4 percent bf yet lol but I can tell there is something peculiar about it. I know if I was eating like I used to with the same amnt of calories I'd be gaining weight- mostly fat. Like I mentioned before there is def a correlation with the way these foods affect insulin release and regulation.

Ahh I think I skipped a page, Im on point now though. Still seems like good improvements judging from the pics. Will continue to follow

 

[bezoe]

What makes you think that? Invalid Link Removed They also recently finished a long term study(yet to be published) that showed the same results translated to muscle growth

You should know that studies have all kinds of flaws. What other things were being monitered in these men? Was there a statistically significant number of subjects and were they screened for other anabolic promoting factors? Also, what is volitional failure? That may have been at 15 seconds.. which is not long enough for oxidative pathways to kick in. How did they determine 1RM? Was the method valid? How about growth hormone release? Ill bet the high volume didnt get a spike in GH compared to the 90%. Also, 90% of 1RM is too high to promote significant hypertrophy, which is why we bodybuilders train in the 8-12 rep range (60-80% 1RM) MOST of the time. How about other objective measures such as LBM at the end of the study?

How do you know the researchers weren't trying to prove these results? You cant just look at one or two studies.

I, personally dont train extremely heavy or extremely light but I know if I did 20 reps on all exercises I would deflate like a busted condom.

 

[mugen112]

I also believe that going passed 12-15 will tap into aerobic pathways and this isn't what we want to enhance.

Isn't hypertrophy best achieved activating fast twitch fibers?

Btw I'm going to get on this diet starting Friday.

 

[bezoe]

I also believe that going passed 12-15 will tap into aerobic pathways and this isn't what we want to enhance.

Isn't hypertrophy best achieved activating fast twitch fibers?

Btw I'm going to get on this diet starting Friday.

Yes thats right. Actually its based more on time. First 10 seconds are atp/creatine phosphate, then up to 30 is glycolytic i believe. Anywhere after that is aerobic/oxidative. High volume will cause the body to convert to aerobic energy metabolism. Of course, there are some type II fast twitch muscles with aerobic/oxidative properties- these are a mix between type I and type II fibers. Doing aerobic (high volume/duration) workouts will cause an increase in slow twitch fibers with more mitochondria, and a decrease in fast twitch fibers that account for strength. There are genetic barriers and some people are born with more of one type but conditioning can make a huge difference. "A high endurance muscle is a small muscle". This is why runners are so small.. not sprinters because they only do 40 yards and such. Its more than just the fact they are burning calories.. the entire muscular landscape and function changes.

Good to hear you are trying it out. Im loving it and for some reason im not craving alot of junk food.. its a tolerable diet.

Pretty soon I will begin boiling my chicken breasts instead of baking- this is what Pulcinella did close to the contest.

 

[mugen112]

Cordyceps is supposed to boost the anaerobic pathway... Anyone have luck with that stuff?

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

Cordyceps is supposed to boost the anaerobic pathway... Anyone have luck with that stuff?

magic product. Makes intense cardio a little LESS intense. Example: i am a runner, was running at around 4:45 a km which is about 7:40 a mile. Now im down to 6:30 a mile = 3:50 a km.

more oxygen to the muscles, more intense workouts, more productive, MORE FAT LOSS. My fav cordygeps products:
1. ALL OF MST's cordygen line
2. Drive by App Nut
3. Blue Gene by Controlled Labs (only had a sample size from a supplier in australia. Want more though!!!)

 

[mugen112]

I've read a study saying that Cordyceps doesn't enhance oxygen utilization which is how they determined it boosts your anaerobic pathway. Can anyone dispute this?

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

I've read a study saying that Cordyceps doesn't enhance oxygen utilization which is how they determined it boosts your anaerobic pathway. Can anyone dispute this?

Flick bnatural and CTDuece a message bro

 

[JudoJosh]

cordyceps products:
1. ALL OF MST's cordygen line
2. Drive by App Nut
3. Blue Gene by Controlled Labs (only had a sample size from a supplier in australia. Want more though!!!)

How did you like drive compared to Cordygen?

I am a BIG fan of MST Cordygen products and haven't had a chance to use drive yet.

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

How did you like drive compared to Cordygen?

I am a BIG fan of MST Cordygen products and haven't had a chance to use drive yet.

I woke up with morning wood for 1 month straight lol...test boost was there. Always my leanest on it...can't afford it now...
It's a great product. A big thanks to Rosie for getting me on it...
Try it bro!!!! Worth every penny (wish for more)
I ran it seperate from Titanium XL so I could tell a diff. Better all around product especially with Forslean in it...

 

[Vengeance187]

Also, what is volitional failure? That may have been at 15 seconds.. which is not long enough for oxidative pathways to kick in. How did they determine 1RM? Was the method valid? How about growth hormone release? Ill bet the high volume didnt get a spike in GH compared to the 90%. Also, 90% of 1RM is too high to promote significant hypertrophy, which is why we bodybuilders train in the 8-12 rep range (60-80% 1RM) MOST of the time. How about other objective measures such as LBM at the end of the study?

I guess you don't think much of Max-OT if you think a 5rm is too low to promote hypertrophy. Invalid Link Removed Volitional failure just means failure. "Failure was recognized when a complete range of motion for the exercise could not be completed." 1-s concentric, 0-s pause, and a 1-s eccentric for 24 reps would be 48 seconds time under tension, Invalid Link Removed There also wasn't any LBM measure during this short term study, but there was in the long term study that's under review for publication.

I also believe that going passed 12-15 will tap into aerobic pathways and this isn't what we want to enhance.
Isn't hypertrophy best achieved activating fast twitch fibers?

Their point is that fast twitch fibers ARE activated by going to failure. Fast twitch fibers aren't just going to be left out of the equation when you're lifting with everything you've got. Also, endurance exercise still increases the number of satellite cells...

Doing aerobic (high volume/duration) workouts will cause an increase in slow twitch fibers with more mitochondria, and a decrease in fast twitch fibers that account for strength..."A high endurance muscle is a small muscle". This is why runners are so small.. not sprinters because they only do 40 yards and such. Its more than just the fact they are burning calories.. the entire muscular landscape and function changes.

So the stronger muscle is the bigger muscle? Look at Tom Platz vs Dr. Squat. Why is the stronger muscle the smaller muscle? Why is the "High endurance" muscle bigger? Tom Platz often worked out in the 25+ rep range and NOONE had bigger legs. "On numerous occasions, he squatted for 10 minutes straight for more than 100 reps with 225 pounds."
Why would you think slow twitch fibers don't hypertophy with the correct stimulus? There's a HUGE difference between doing 24 reps and running a marathon. It's blasphemous to equate the two.

How do you know the researchers weren't trying to prove these results? You cant just look at one or two studies.

"Henneman's work [11] described the recruitment of motor units as occurring in a progressive fashion from small to large (i.e., the size principle). As opposed to the requirement for high intensity contractions we posited that the total volume of contractions, independent of intensity, would result in full motor unit activation and muscle fibre recruitment and would be of equal or greater importance as intensity to the acute stimulation of muscle protein synthesis. Specifically, the same degree of muscle fibre activation and presumably a similar stimulation of myofibrillar (MYO) protein synthesis, would occur regardless of intensity provided that the exercise was performed until volitional fatigue (failure) in line with observations from occlusion training [8], [9], [10]."
So yes, they were trying to prove that lifting lighter would still hypertophy the fast twitch fibers as long as you lift to failure. There also isn't only one or two studies on the subject, as you can see by their references.

I, personally dont train extremely heavy or extremely light but I know if I did 20 reps on all exercises I would deflate like a busted condom.

I assumed that I would shrink too, but I was in a plateau so I decided to give it a shot anyway. I gained .3lb lbm the first week, and .52lb the second week. Invalid Link Removed says they both stimulate different anabolic pathways, so I'm going to do this every now and then, and everyone should be doing both.

 

[rochabp]

i love the science based debate that is taken place. imo thats how we or atleast i, learn

 

[Jasen]

I guess you don't think much of Max-OT if you think a 5rm is too low to promote hypertrophy. Invalid Link Removed Volitional failure just means failure. "Failure was recognized when a complete range of motion for the exercise could not be completed." 1-s concentric, 0-s pause, and a 1-s eccentric for 24 reps would be 48 seconds time under tension, Invalid Link Removed There also wasn't any LBM measure during this short term study, but there was in the long term study that's under review for publication.Their point is that fast twitch fibers ARE activated by going to failure. Fast twitch fibers aren't just going to be left out of the equation when you're lifting with everything you've got. Also, endurance exercise still increases the number of satellite cells...So the stronger muscle is the bigger muscle? Look at Tom Platz vs Dr. Squat. Why is the stronger muscle the smaller muscle? Why is the "High endurance" muscle bigger? Tom Platz often worked out in the 25+ rep range and NOONE had bigger legs. "On numerous occasions, he squatted for 10 minutes straight for more than 100 reps with 225 pounds."
Why would you think slow twitch fibers don't hypertophy with the correct stimulus? There's a HUGE difference between doing 24 reps and running a marathon. It's blasphemous to equate the two.
"Henneman's work [11] described the recruitment of motor units as occurring in a progressive fashion from small to large (i.e., the size principle). As opposed to the requirement for high intensity contractions we posited that the total volume of contractions, independent of intensity, would result in full motor unit activation and muscle fibre recruitment and would be of equal or greater importance as intensity to the acute stimulation of muscle protein synthesis. Specifically, the same degree of muscle fibre activation and presumably a similar stimulation of myofibrillar (MYO) protein synthesis, would occur regardless of intensity provided that the exercise was performed until volitional fatigue (failure) in line with observations from occlusion training [8], [9], [10]."
So yes, they were trying to prove that lifting lighter would still hypertophy the fast twitch fibers as long as you lift to failure. There also isn't only one or two studies on the subject, as you can see by their references. I assumed that I would shrink too, but I was in a plateau so I decided to give it a shot anyway. I gained .3lb lbm the first week, and .52lb the second week. Invalid Link Removed says they both stimulate different anabolic pathways, so I'm going to do this every now and then, and everyone should be doing both.

Very true with the last part, the only way I got 29.5in legs was squats for 30 min then a very brutal workout heck my quads only respond to high reps and I was lure 21 with 34 in.waist most of my female friends had smaller waist than my quads

 

[mugen112]

I don't know that high reps induces hypertrophy, but there r studies that show higher reps can increase protein synthesis better than low reps. This could be why your lbm increased. What do u think?

 

[Vengeance187]

Increased protein synthesis + increased lean body mass = hypertrophy.
I'm going to do 3 weeks at 24 reps, 3 at 12, and 3 at 6. If it works well, that'll be my new cycle.

 

[mugen112]

Increased protein synthesis + increased lean body mass = hypertrophy.
I'm going to do 3 weeks at 24 reps, 3 at 12, and 3 at 6. If it works well, that'll be my new cycle.

Hypertrophy is the enlargement of the actual fibers. There is also the increase in number of fibers which is not hypertrophy.

 

[rochabp]

i prefer to train for Myofibrillar hypertrophy rather than Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy

 

[Vengeance187]

Hypertrophy is the enlargement of the actual fibers. There is also the increase in number of fibers which is not hypertrophy.

i prefer to train for Myofibrillar hypertrophy rather than Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy

As rochabp was getting at, they're both hypertrophy.

 

[mugen112]

As rochabp was getting at, they're both hypertrophy.

But he does prefer one over the other...

 

[bezoe]

I guess you don't think much of Max-OT if you think a 5rm is too low to promote hypertrophy. Invalid Link Removed Volitional failure just means failure. "Failure was recognized when a complete range of motion for the exercise could not be completed." 1-s concentric, 0-s pause, and a 1-s eccentric for 24 reps would be 48 seconds time under tension, Invalid Link Removed There also wasn't any LBM measure during this short term study, but there was in the long term study that's under review for publication.Their point is that fast twitch fibers ARE activated by going to failure. Fast twitch fibers aren't just going to be left out of the equation when you're lifting with everything you've got. Also, endurance exercise still increases the number of satellite cells...So the stronger muscle is the bigger muscle? Look at Tom Platz vs Dr. Squat. Why is the stronger muscle the smaller muscle? Why is the "High endurance" muscle bigger? Tom Platz often worked out in the 25+ rep range and NOONE had bigger legs. "On numerous occasions, he squatted for 10 minutes straight for more than 100 reps with 225 pounds."
Why would you think slow twitch fibers don't hypertophy with the correct stimulus? There's a HUGE difference between doing 24 reps and running a marathon. It's blasphemous to equate the two.

I read throught the whole thing this time. Looks relatively thorough in their methods. Tom Platz is just one guy, and how do you know his legs weren't latent with type I fibers? "Numerous occasions" doesnt prove that is what gave him big legs. Placement of muscle fiber types is highly dependent on genetics. However, typically, most type I fibers are in the calves and other "high use" areas. I'm not saying you absolutely cant make these fibers grow a little, but most fibers in the body are glycolytic and respond to 60-80% 1RM.. its in the literature.

"Henneman's work [11] described the recruitment of motor units as occurring in a progressive fashion from small to large (i.e., the size principle). As opposed to the requirement for high intensity contractions we posited that the total volume of contractions, independent of intensity, would result in full motor unit activation and muscle fibre recruitment and would be of equal or greater importance as intensity to the acute stimulation of muscle protein synthesis. Specifically, the same degree of muscle fibre activation and presumably a similar stimulation of myofibrillar (MYO) protein synthesis, would occur regardless of intensity provided that the exercise was performed until volitional fatigue (failure) in line with observations from occlusion training [8], [9], [10]."
So yes, they were trying to prove that lifting lighter would still hypertophy the fast twitch fibers as long as you lift to failure. There also isn't only one or two studies on the subject, as you can see by their references..

This is a research study not a review study.. those references are only to support data in the article's introduction- they're just studies on resistance exercise and protein synthesis. The fact that they ARE trying to prove this, just makes me more scepticle of their methods. It wasnt double blind

I assumed that I would shrink too, but I was in a plateau so I decided to give it a shot anyway. I gained .3lb lbm the first week, and .52lb the second week. Invalid Link Removed says they both stimulate different anabolic pathways, so I'm going to do this every now and then, and everyone should be doing both.

That link isn't credible and it worked for you but you cant prove cause and effect.
"We propose that this finding provides support for the idea that 30FAIL exercise mode may function as an exercise mode to increase proteins from all fractions in muscle including mitochondrial and myofibrillar proteins leading to both enhanced oxidative capacity and hypertrophy. Such a proposal would of course require testing in a chronic situation."

The findings appear to be true in the short term, but can this type of training sustain a muscle building state over long durations?

Probably not:
Invalid Link Removed

I agree with rochbp, I really appreciate the sophisticated discussion and I appreciate you challenging what I say. That's what science is about. But it will take alot to convince me to train high volume with light weight

As rochabp was getting at, they're both hypertrophy.

An increase in muscle fibers is called "hyperplasia"

 

[bezoe]

Ok... tonight was legs:

Squats 135x10, 225x8, 315x8, 365x5
Leg press 8 plates each side x10, 8, 7 plates x 10
Leg ext's 190x10, 10, 170 x 10, 10

That was it.. i def felt like i hit it hard with only 3 exercises.. had trouble walking up steps leaving gym lol

I was 199.8lbs yesterday morning. I have been boiling my chicken breasts instead of baking.. Im wondering if this type of preparation is making them leaner, meaning less fat in my diet? Anyhow, Im sticking to the plan.. cardio is bumped up to 30 which may also be a factor in the weight loss. Cals as far as I know are still near 4k.

Still not suffering.. that usually only happens on low carb diet for me. I'm not craving any junk right now, but i will say that these damn oats are giving me irritable bowel and loose stools :15: Damn inflammatory lectins lol

 

[Vengeance187]

Tom Platz is just one guy,

Serge Nubret, Nimrod King, there are plenty of examples.

but most fibers in the body are glycolytic and respond to 60-80% 1RM.. its in the literature.

Now, so is this. >8^P

This is a research study not a review study.. those references are only to support data in the article's introduction- they're just studies on resistance exercise and protein synthesis.

At 20-30% 1 RM...

That link isn't credible

Why not? Would you prefer Invalid Link Removed?

"We propose that this finding provides support for the idea that 30FAIL exercise mode may function as an exercise mode to increase proteins from all fractions in muscle including mitochondrial and myofibrillar proteins leading to both enhanced oxidative capacity and hypertrophy. Such a proposal would of course require testing in a chronic situation."

The findings appear to be true in the short term, but can this type of training sustain a muscle building state over long durations?

Probably not:
Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
That study is comparing "marathon" running to weight lifting. Again with the blasphemy. The activity levels they're looking at don't compare to 24 reps in the slightest. That study/review is irrelevant to our conversation.

They already finished the long term study and say the results reflect the short term study. They won't divulge any data until it is published.

But it will take alot to convince me to train high volume with light weight

The study is probably less relevant to a steroid user. 8^P

 

[bezoe]

Serge Nubret, Nimrod King, there are plenty of examples.

Again, arbitrary.

That study is comparing "marathon" running to weight lifting. Again with the blasphemy. The activity levels they're looking at don't compare to 24 reps in the slightest. That study/review is irrelevant to our conversation..

The study is certainly relevant to this conversation. I didn't see "marathon running". I saw "oxidative fibers". The article is demonstrating that your type I fibers have very little capacity to hypertrophy

They already finished the long term study and say the results reflect the short term study. They won't divulge any data until it is published.The study is probably less relevant to a steroid user. 8^P

Did they use valid and reliable methods and were the results significant? I dont care how much protein synthesis increased.. did a large group of subjects increase their lean body mass? The study i posted clearly indicates that increased protein synthesis does not absolutely signify muscle fiber growth. And what do you mean by less relevant to a steroid user? lol A steroid user may actually still build quite a bit of muscle even if he's using your "high rep" protocol

 

[Vengeance187]

The study is certainly relevant to this conversation. I didn't see "marathon running". I saw "oxidative fibers". The article is demonstrating that your type I fibers have very little capacity to hypertrophy

"Understanding in what way oxygen supply (in terms of increased capillarization, hematocrit and expression of myoglobin) can be improved without compromising the capacity for force production is another challenge. For instance, when both high peak power and high steady state power are required, such as in the final sprint of a cycling stage or a marathon, one would need to design a training strategy inducing large fibers with high capacity for oxygen transport to sustain a high steady state power, as well as large glycogen stores to maintain a high anaerobic power during the sprint."

They are most certainly talking about "marathon running", and that is definitely not relevant to lifting weights in the 24 rep range.
Either way, you're wrong and there are numerous other studies proving it. Invalid Link Removed, -Invalid Link Removed, -Invalid Link Removed. -Invalid Link Removed and according to Invalid Link Removed, -Invalid Link Removed also supposedly shows significant hyperthrophy to type I, but you have to pay for it.

And what do you mean by less relevant to a steroid user? lol A steroid user may actually still build quite a bit of muscle even if he's using your "high rep" protocol

A steroid user doesn't need any help increasing anabolism...

 

[mugen112]

A steroid user doesn't need any help increasing anabolism...

hahahahaha

 

[Jasen]

Lmfao!!!!!!!!!!!!^

 

[bezoe]

"Understanding in what way oxygen supply (in terms of increased capillarization, hematocrit and expression of myoglobin) can be improved without compromising the capacity for force production is another challenge. For instance, when both high peak power and high steady state power are required, such as in the final sprint of a cycling stage or a marathon, one would need to design a training strategy inducing large fibers with high capacity for oxygen transport to sustain a high steady state power, as well as large glycogen stores to maintain a high anaerobic power during the sprint."



They are most certainly talking about "marathon running", and that is definitely not relevant to lifting weights in the 24 rep range.
Either way, you're wrong and there are numerous other studies proving it. Invalid Link Removed, -Invalid Link Removed, -Invalid Link Removed. -Invalid Link Removed and according to Invalid Link Removed, -Invalid Link Removed also supposedly shows significant hyperthrophy to type I, but you have to pay for it.

Repetitions can be classified into 3 basic ranges: low (1-5), moderate (6-12), and high (15+). Each of these repetition ranges will involve the use of different energy systems and tax the neuromuscular system in different ways, impacting the extent of the hypertrophic response. The use of high repetitions has generally proven to be inferior to moderate and lower repetition ranges in eliciting increases in muscle hypertrophy (24,71). In the absence of artificially induced ischemia (i.e., occlusion training), a load less than approximately 65% of IRM is not considered sufficient to promote substantial hypertrophy (115). Although such high rep training can bring about significant metabolic stress, the load is inadequate to recruit and fatigue the highest threshold MUs.

All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep (3-5 reps) and Int (9-11 reps) groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep (20-28 reps) or Con groups.

We can post studies back and forth for all day. I already told you and showed you increases in protein synthesis dont necessarily equate to muscle growth and high reps will make you small bro. If doing 24 reps works so well, show us a picture of yourself. I had the most mass out of roughly 20 competitors in my last contest... must be doing something right eh? So "either way", im not wrong.

A steroid user doesn't need any help increasing anabolism...

I guess it went right over your head.. that was my point, your program wont help him. Try to pick up on the punch line.

 

[bezoe]

Did arms tonight. 24 reps for everything.. and im feeling smaller already..














Sike.
Feel good. 201lbs this am. People in gym staring. Love it

Im going back to baking the chicken breasts.. im not sure but it seems like boiling them results in leaner meat and I'm a little hesitant to cut out any more fats

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

Grill them and pat of any excess fat.
George foreman grill?

 

[bezoe]

Grill them and pat of any excess fat.
George foreman grill?

No bra, the point is to keep some fat in them. I need saturated fat/sterols to convert to cholesterol for test production

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

Why not use an MCT?

 

[bezoe]

Why not use an MCT?

From what I understand, mct's are metabolized immediately for energy. I would have to read up on it. I supplement EPA and omega 3's. Does it come in pills or what?

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

Yeah. Liquid. Even use coconut oil instead. They are excellent. Spare muscle glycogen

 

[bezoe]

Ill have to look into it thanks. Some people say they eat coconut oil by the bolus. Supposedly the best source of mct's and the best satty fat in general. Although the misinformed layman will tell you its "bad for you" and it causes heart disease lol

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

Saturated fats are good???blasphemy hahah...
As long as your eating free range chicken bro it's good!!!less conversion of fats in chicken to short chain omega 6s which are not the best. Maybe when using coconut, sub out the oatmeal and grains for starchy vegetables

 

[Vengeance187]

Repetitions can be classified into 3 basic ranges: low (1-5), moderate (6-12), and high (15+). Each of these repetition ranges will involve the use of different energy systems and tax the neuromuscular system in different ways, impacting the extent of the hypertrophic response. The use of high repetitions has generally proven to be inferior to moderate and lower repetition ranges in eliciting increases in muscle hypertrophy (24,71). In the absence of artificially induced ischemia (i.e., occlusion training), a load less than approximately 65% of IRM is not considered sufficient to promote substantial hypertrophy (115). Although such high rep training can bring about significant metabolic stress, the load is inadequate to recruit and fatigue the highest threshold MUs.

Even the guy who wrote that still says you should train in all rep ranges.(As I was)
"Now this shouldn't be interpreted to mean that an individual whose goal is to maximize hypertrophy should solely train in a moderate rep range. A periodized mesocycle of lower rep sets will help to afford the use of heavier weights during moderate rep training, thereby increasing mechanical tension during the hypertrophy phase of training.
And employing a mesocycle of higher rep sets can facilitate increasing the lactate threshold, facilitating a better ability to train through lactate buildup and thus increase the extent of metabolic stress during training."

All three major fiber types (types I, IIA, and IIB) hypertrophied for the Low Rep (3-5 reps) and Int (9-11 reps) groups, whereas no significant increases were demonstrated for either the High Rep (20-28 reps) or Con groups.

"a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest"
Not as reliable as the study I posted. They changed the rest and sets for each group, adding unnecessary variables. Why would they only do 2 sets with 1 minute rest in the high rep group? This study is much more biased and improperly set up than the one you're complaining about.

We can post studies back and forth for all day. I already told you and showed you increases in protein synthesis dont necessarily equate to muscle growth and high reps will make you small bro...So "either way", im not wrong.

While in the same breath saying "your type I fibers have very little capacity to hypertrophy" when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You are absolutely wrong.

I had the most mass out of roughly 20 competitors in my last contest... must be doing something right eh?

Yeah, you're doing steroids right. You take steroids and enter "natural" competitions. Is that an accomplishment?

 

[bezoe]

Even the guy who wrote that still says you should train in all rep ranges.(As I was)
"Now this shouldn't be interpreted to mean that an individual whose goal is to maximize hypertrophy should solely train in a moderate rep range. A periodized mesocycle of lower rep sets will help to afford the use of heavier weights during moderate rep training, thereby increasing mechanical tension during the hypertrophy phase of training.
And employing a mesocycle of higher rep sets can facilitate increasing the lactate threshold, facilitating a better ability to train through lactate buildup and thus increase the extent of metabolic stress during training.""a low repetition group (Low Rep, n = 9) performing 3-5 repetitions maximum (RM) for four sets of each exercise with 3 min rest between sets and exercises, an intermediate repetition group (Int Rep, n = 11) performing 9-11 RM for three sets with 2 min rest, a high repetition group (High Rep, n = 7) performing 20-28 RM for two sets with 1 min rest"
Not as reliable as the study I posted. They changed the rest and sets for each group, adding unnecessary variables. Why would they only do 2 sets with 1 minute rest in the high rep group? This study is much more biased and improperly set up than the one you're complaining about.While in the same breath saying "your type I fibers have very little capacity to hypertrophy" when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You are absolutely wrong.Yeah, you're doing steroids right. You take steroids and enter "natural" competitions. Is that an accomplishment?

Increasing the lactate threshold has nothing to do with hypertrophy. thats actually something distance runners want to achieve..

lol im sure the rest intervals made all the difference... stop nitpicking the numbers. People who know how to build muscle would laugh at your face if you walked up to them and babbled your nonsense. Doesn't make a **** if ive dabbled in PE's or not.. dont attribute my physique to steroids douchebag. You've never worked as hard as me in the gym a day in your life with your 24 reps lol are you kidding me. Take your groundbreaking studies somewhere else we know what works

 

[bezoe]

Saturated fats are good???blasphemy hahah...
As long as your eating free range chicken bro it's good!!!less conversion of fats in chicken to short chain omega 6s which are not the best. Maybe when using coconut, sub out the oatmeal and grains for starchy vegetables

Im pretty sure im eating the arsenic fed ones that are pumped with hormones lol. Yea sweet potato is also on Pulcinella's list

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

Im pretty sure im eating the arsenic fed ones that are pumped with hormones lol. Yea sweet potato is also on Pulcinella's list

Best to eat grass fed when doing it bro.
May even experience better results. Cleaner food.
Yam/sweet potato with cinnamon is good too

 

[bezoe]

Best to eat grass fed when doing it bro.
May even experience better results. Cleaner food.
Yam/sweet potato with cinnamon is good too

I know it. Im still seeking out a farmers market around here. Yea that sounds good and i know cinammon keeps blood glucose stabalized as well

 

[AustrianOakJr]

I would be really curious to know what is it about these six foods that allows you to lose bodyfat over other foods with the same macro nutrient make-up. How would your progress differ if you were to substitute white potatoes, pancakes, and pasta for your carb sources and pork, turkey, and shrimp for your protein? Why would it make any difference at all? Forgive me if this has been covered....I read the first page and the last two and didnt see it mentioned.

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

I would be really curious to know what is it about these six foods that allows you to lose bodyfat over other foods with the same macro nutrient make-up. How would your progress differ if you were to substitute white potatoes, pancakes, and pasta for your carb sources and pork, turkey, and shrimp for your protein? Why would it make any difference at all? Forgive me if this has been covered....I read the first page and the last two and didnt see it mentioned.

The carb sources are least processed. Ie natural state bar the oatmeal...
Chicken is versatile and can be easy and convenient and has the least amount of sat fat omega 6. Tuna is easy and is good source of protein but I would use salmon to balance out omega 6 so you get the added EPA/dha from it.

 

[bezoe]

I would be really curious to know what is it about these six foods that allows you to lose bodyfat over other foods with the same macro nutrient make-up. How would your progress differ if you were to substitute white potatoes, pancakes, and pasta for your carb sources and pork, turkey, and shrimp for your protein? Why would it make any difference at all? Forgive me if this has been covered....I read the first page and the last two and didnt see it mentioned.

To quote Pulcinella "dont ask 'why not this instead?' and 'why not that?'.. this is just what works for me".

I'm really not sure what the science is behind it. Physiologically there has to be some effect on the insulin/glucogon landscape and other components such as leptin and ghrelin which affect satitety and have also been shown to affect adiposity. These foods may be less inflammatory than others with similar macros. I dont believe in calories in, calories out, and this diet has only reinforced that notion.

 

[bezoe]

The carb sources are least processed. Ie natural state bar the oatmeal...
Chicken is versatile and can be easy and convenient and has the least amount of sat fat omega 6. Tuna is easy and is good source of protein but I would use salmon to balance out omega 6 so you get the added EPA/dha from it.

He doesnt recommend salmon. He mentions something to the effect of all the fat on the salmon goes straight under his skin. I know that its loaded with healthy omega 3's but its just not in this regimine. I didnt create the plan

He spent 15 years, if i can remember correctly, tweaking this to perfection.

 

[AustrianOakJr]

To quote Pulcinella "dont ask 'why not this instead?' and 'why not that?'.. this is just what works for me".

I'm really not sure what the science is behind it. Physiologically there has to be some effect on the insulin/glucogon landscape and other components such as leptin and ghrelin which affect satitety and have also been shown to affect adiposity. These foods may be less inflammatory than others with similar macros. I dont believe in calories in, calories out, and this diet has only reinforced that notion.

Interesting. So you are basically taking this on as an experiment? Once you have run it for a while and noted its effects, will you switch the food sources? I guess that would help determine if there is anything "special" about these foods.

IMOP, if you are not tracking your calories and macros to a "T" then satiety is an issue. Foods that are high in fiber and those with healthy fats can curb your appetite and keep you from overeating. But ever since I have started weighing, tracking, and counting everything I eat I have never found any benefit to my physique with one food choice over another. I have achieved striated glutes, feathered quads and split hamstrings while eating frozen yogurt and pop tarts. Of course, I believe its important to cover your micro-nutrient bases with a foundation of quality (and diverse) foods but beyond that......a carbohydrate is broken down into glucose for fuel.....the glucose that fuels your workout is the same whether it came from sweet potato or ice cream cake.

 

[CJ_Xfit89]

It's the rate at which it enters the bloodstream. Ice cream etc exerts a higher insulin response compared to say broccoli and sweet potato

 

[bezoe]

Interesting. So you are basically taking this on as an experiment? Once you have run it for a while and noted its effects, will you switch the food sources? I guess that would help determine if there is anything "special" about these foods.

IMOP, if you are not tracking your calories and macros to a "T" then satiety is an issue. Foods that are high in fiber and those with healthy fats can curb your appetite and keep you from overeating. But ever since I have started weighing, tracking, and counting everything I eat I have never found any benefit to my physique with one food choice over another. I have achieved striated glutes, feathered quads and split hamstrings while eating frozen yogurt and pop tarts. Of course, I believe its important to cover your micro-nutrient bases with a foundation of quality (and diverse) foods but beyond that......a carbohydrate is broken down into glucose for fuel.....the glucose that fuels your workout is the same whether it came from sweet potato or ice cream cake.

Correct.. hence the word "trial". I can only dream of being so lucky... Ive counted calories to a "t" while eating poptarts and became a fatass. I have to disagree with all carbs are created equal.. high GI stuff has too much impact on insulin, which, when chronically elevated can blunt receptors and cause insulin resistance, otherwise know as type II diabtes. And not saying you necessarily become "diabteic" but a person can have more propensity to store fat and reluctancy to burn it as fuel.

 

[Vengeance187]

Increasing the lactate threshold has nothing to do with hypertrophy. thats actually something distance runners want to achieve..

Tell that to the guy whose article you were referencing.

lol im sure the rest intervals made all the difference... stop nitpicking the numbers.

As far as I'm aware, all studies on the subject show length of rest and volume make a big difference...

People who know how to build muscle would laugh at your face if you walked up to them and babbled your nonsense.

The reps I'm getting from people much bigger than you for my posts say otherwise...

Doesn't make a **** if ive dabbled in PE's or not.. dont attribute my physique to steroids douchebag.

Don't kid yourself. Steroids make all the difference. You can't honestly think you'd be where you're at without them, otherwise, why the hell would you still do them? That's something I'll never get about the users who claim "It's not because of the steroids"...so then WTF are you taking them for?! An honest user won't BS about it like you apparently do.

You've never worked as hard as me in the gym a day in your life with your 24 reps lol are you kidding me.

If you think a 10 rm of squats is hard, then you wouldn't be able to make it through a 24 rm. If you haven't thrown up working out before, you might after trying that.(unless you stop before your actual max)

Take your groundbreaking studies somewhere else we know what works

Yes, and there are people much bigger than you saying they needed to start doing high reps for legs to get them huge. Doing cycles of 24 reps falls in line with periodization training. To say that bouts of higher reps would have no benefit is just asinine.