# Cutting for the Six Pack



## erf777 (Apr 15, 2009)

Hi i know i have really strong abs, i think stronger than most. Somehow i manage to have fairly visible abs even though i have love handles, and was wondering if i could have help with a cutting diet like one that body builders use before competitions to lose the rest of my excess fat. When i workout i burn around 3200 calories a day (i eat 3700 calories to build usually), when i don't work out i burn around 2800, so i was wondering mainly
how many calories, 
how much protein, 
how much carbs,
how much fats,
any training advice.

Willpower is not a problem for me, so intensity of the diet and workouts isn't a problem, i will push myself to do anything. Thanks for any help i can get


----------



## cutnbulk (Apr 15, 2009)

If you say you burn around 2,800 calories with no workout= your maintenance calories.  In order to get your "6-pack" you must consume less calories than you burn.  

My suggestion would be to first, make sure your diet is nice and clean- lean proteins, healthy fats, and complex proteins.  Then, track your daily intake on fitday.com and post the website on here so we can all take a look at your macros (total calories, proteins, fats carbs)- it does all the math for you- all you need to do is measure your food and input it on the fitday account.

Do that, then come back post and ask away.


----------



## Ngordyn (Apr 15, 2009)

erf777 said:


> Hi i know i have really strong abs, i think stronger than most. Somehow i manage to have fairly visible abs even though i have love handles, and was wondering if i could have help with a cutting diet like one that body builders use before competitions to lose the rest of my excess fat. When i workout i burn around 3200 calories a day (i eat 3700 calories to build usually), when i don't work out i burn around 2800, so i was wondering mainly
> how many calories,
> how much protein,
> how much carbs,
> ...



calories is going to be around 2700 for now after a few weeks if your not losing about a pound a week you will need to adjust accordingly 

protein and fat we will need to know your body weight and approximate Bf%

and as for training keep the weight on the bar ,  heavy weight low reps and relatively low volume to , you simply wont have the calories to repair to much muscle while cutting so you will not be able to train as hard as you do while on a bulk


----------



## Merkaba (Apr 15, 2009)

Its all about calories.  cut 20-25% below your maintenance and track your macs.  Shoot for about 2100 or so cals.  Adjust carbs and fats as you need in order to feel happy and watch the scale.  Keep the protein up at a minimum of 1 gram per lb of weight, and keep the weight on the bar and lower overall intensity less you run the risk of burnin' more muscle than necessary.  minimal cardio


----------



## Built (Apr 15, 2009)

If you do ANY cardio, just do a little after you lift, and you can consider a few minutes of sprint intervals followed by a 15-minute walk to cool down.


----------



## AKIRA (Apr 16, 2009)

Speaking of cut..

I am 4 pounds away from my cut goal, but I notice every time i bend over...like to shit, my stomach still looks like shit.  I can grab a handful of skin actually.

This also happens during planks and bent over row varieties.  

This normal?


----------



## gopro (Apr 16, 2009)

You will want a diet high in protein, medium in essential fats and somewhat low in well-timed carbs.

Quick example for a guy who weighs 200 and needs to get to about 180 for a nice 6-pack:

proteins: 270-290 g 
carbs: 65-110 g (depending if training or off day)
added EFA's: 28-35 g (these are over and above fats that naturally occur in chicken, lean meats, fish, etc)


----------



## Built (Apr 16, 2009)

The carbs can certainly go higher than that on training days if calories allow, and the fats, indeed, make sure you get in at least 10g of fish oil daily, to provide 3g combined EPA/DHA.

Avoid flax. It just won't convert.


----------



## Built (Apr 16, 2009)

Akira, yes.


----------



## iceman816 (Apr 16, 2009)

Hi all could i ask a question..i'm just starting to see some muscle def around my abs.. now without going into the sience of it all ...
i'm prsently on a hi protien low carb diet...so if i was to just slightly reduce my carb intake..   what part of the day should i reduce on..i've heard that after lunch or 12.00pm is agood time for less carbs ...what do you experanced people think...


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 16, 2009)

iceman816 said:


> Hi all could i ask a question..i'm just starting to see some muscle def around my abs.. now without going into the sience of it all ...
> i'm prsently on a hi protien low carb diet...so if i was to just slightly reduce my carb intake..   what part of the day should i reduce on..i've heard that after lunch or 12.00pm is agood time for less carbs ...what do you experanced people think...



The best time of day to cut out calories is when you're comfortable doing it.  It's just that simple.  For example, I get very hungry late at night and will actually wake up starving if I don't stuff myself a bit before going to bed but really don't get that hungry during the day.  That in mind, I purposefully often eat upwards of 1/3 my days calories within 1-2 hours of sleep and sometimes as little as 400-600 calories during normal work hours.  Just something to keep in mind.


----------



## iceman816 (Apr 16, 2009)

Thanks danzik17 ...i understand what you mean..i'm the same late at night so...i might reduce my normal work hours intake a bit
Cheers


----------



## Built (Apr 16, 2009)

It is SO MUCH EASIER to diet when you don't have to go to bed hungry.


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 16, 2009)

Built said:


> The carbs can certainly go higher than that on training days if calories allow, and the fats, indeed, make sure you get in at least 10g of fish oil daily, to provide 3g combined EPA/DHA.
> 
> Avoid flax. It just won't convert.



Honestly haven't done too much research into it myself, but do you know of other O3 sources that are better than flax that aren't fish based then?  Can't take fish oil due to that nasty reaction I get from it, so I'm currently stuck taking flax oil.


----------



## Built (Apr 16, 2009)

Non-animal sources just won't convert. I wouldn't use flax, personally. 

How about seal? Or algae?


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 16, 2009)

Built said:


> Non-animal sources just won't convert. I wouldn't use flax, personally.
> 
> How about seal? Or algae?



Will check out algae omega 3 tomorrow since it's getting late.  It looks expensive at first glance, but each pill seems to give 250mg DHA so I would only need 4 pills as compared to 6-10 from flax/fish oil.

As for seal oil, is it legal in the US?  Every site I have gone to refuses to ship to the US in their ToS.  I haven't done any in-depth searching obviously (I'm not THAT fast) but that would suggest to me that there is some kind of law or import restriction that I'm not aware of.  That's a shame too since seal oil seems very comparable in price.

In either case I have time.  The earliest I will be trying new sources of O3 is June 5th...the accutane will be out of my system by that point.


----------



## Built (Apr 16, 2009)

Maybe try the prescription stuff - omacor?

Omacor - splash


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 16, 2009)

Yup.  Bit of searching brought up the "Marine Mammal Protection Act" which makes that illegal among other things.

I'd need a doctor on board for that prescription stuff, and there's no a chance my current doctor would do it.  Although my uncle is a doctor, I don't think he'd be very comfortable with me asking for random prescriptions (or in him giving them out).


----------



## gopro (Apr 17, 2009)

gopro said:


> You will want a diet high in protein, medium in essential fats and somewhat low in well-timed carbs.
> 
> Quick example for a guy who weighs 200 and needs to get to about 180 for a nice 6-pack:
> 
> ...



Repeating this just in case Built wants to contradict me again.


----------



## Paul200 (Apr 17, 2009)

Built said:


> It is SO MUCH EASIER to diet when you don't have to go to bed hungry.



I agree, couse when I hungry I can't sleep


----------



## Built (Apr 17, 2009)

Gopro, I backed up your assertion for EFA, and offered only that there was flexibility in the amount of carbs on high days if calories allow. 

How does this contradict you?


----------



## gopro (Apr 17, 2009)

Built said:


> Gopro, I backed up your assertion for EFA, and offered only that there was flexibility in the amount of carbs on high days if calories allow.
> 
> How does this contradict you?



I was really only playing...just since I have been back here you have in some way disagreed with most of my posts. Please don't take that seriously.

However, I would actually say that on training days he should go higher on either fats or proteins and NOT add to the carbs unless he is the rare person that processes carbs exceptionally well.

I weigh 240 and diet on less than 1/2 my bodyweight in carbs most of the time.


----------



## Built (Apr 17, 2009)

Process, in what way?


----------



## gopro (Apr 17, 2009)

Built said:


> Process, in what way?



Most of us are somewhat insulin resistant and tend to convert ingested carbs to fat.


----------



## Built (Apr 17, 2009)

I understand that lol - but why is this a problem while running a caloric deficit? We store and retrieve fat all day.


----------



## gopro (Apr 17, 2009)

Built said:


> I understand that lol - but why is this a problem while running a caloric deficit? We store and retrieve fat all day.



You bodyfat losses will be greater with a lower carb intake even at a caloric deficit. You only need enough carbs to support muscle reglycogenation and no more. Most people will lose fat even on "caloric maintenance" if they replace 25% of their carb calories with protein calories. This is because fat loss is more than a calorie in/out equation.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 17, 2009)

gopro said:


> You bodyfat losses will be greater with a lower carb intake even at a caloric deficit. You only need enough carbs to support muscle reglycogenation and no more. Most people will lose fat even on "caloric maintenance" if they replace 25% of their carb calories with protein calories. This is because fat loss is more than a calorie in/out equation.



agreed.


----------



## Built (Apr 17, 2009)

gopro said:


> You bodyfat losses will be greater with a lower carb intake even at a caloric deficit. You only need enough carbs to support muscle reglycogenation and no more. Most people will lose fat even on "caloric maintenance" if they replace 25% of their carb calories with protein calories. This is because fat loss is more than a calorie in/out equation.



gopro, before we get off on the wrong foot here, you are talking to someone who was insulin resistant enough to be on Metformin by age 38. I lost most of the weight-loss I've maintained on the Atkins diet, and moderate a board where many of us were low-carb dieters who had finally dropped weight and who were now weight-lifting - we needed support that was specific to low-carb former fatty bodybuilder wannabes LOL - in short, you don't need to convince me of how much or how little carb we all need. 

Okay, disclaimer out of the way, I have been unable to find evidence that there is a metabolic advantage to dieting on low carbs (given protein is sufficient; EFAs, not overtraining blah blah blah...) in fact, Taubes and Atkins have been widely criticized for making this claim. 

Are you suggesting that given sufficient protein and fat, and caloric deficit - in other words, all things being otherwise equal - the person on a lower-carb (but equal-calorie) diet will lose more fat?


----------



## Unreal (Apr 17, 2009)

What about Krill oil?


----------



## Built (Apr 17, 2009)

Krill! That was what I was trying to think of - thanks!


----------



## Unreal (Apr 17, 2009)

Costco - Schiff??® MegaRedâ???¢ Omega-3 Krill Oil


----------



## gopro (Apr 17, 2009)

Built said:


> gopro, before we get off on the wrong foot here, you are talking to someone who was insulin resistant enough to be on Metformin by age 38. I lost most of the weight-loss I've maintained on the Atkins diet, and moderate a board where many of us were low-carb dieters who had finally dropped weight and who were now weight-lifting - we needed support that was specific to low-carb former fatty bodybuilder wannabes LOL - in short, you don't need to convince me of how much or how little carb we all need.
> 
> Okay, disclaimer out of the way, I have been unable to find evidence that there is a metabolic advantage to dieting on low carbs (given protein is sufficient; EFAs, not overtraining blah blah blah...) in fact, Taubes and Atkins have been widely criticized for making this claim.
> 
> Are you suggesting that given sufficient protein and fat, and caloric deficit - in other words, all things being otherwise equal - the person on a lower-carb (but equal-calorie) diet will lose more fat?



If you believe for one second that if you put two people (with the same exact genetics) on a diet of say 3000 calories per day and one of them ate 75% of their calories from carbs vs. 75% of their calories from protein that they would end up with the same body composition you would be sadly mistaken.

And, if you believe that bodyfat loss is a simple calorie in/calorie out process then again, you are way behind the times.

I will not even bother to argue either of these points because they are so factual I would not take my valuable time doing so.


----------



## Built (Apr 17, 2009)

Built said:


> gopro, before we get off on the wrong foot here, you are talking to someone who was insulin resistant enough to be on Metformin by age 38. I lost most of the weight-loss I've maintained on the Atkins diet, and moderate a board where many of us were low-carb dieters who had finally dropped weight and who were now weight-lifting - we needed support that was specific to low-carb former fatty bodybuilder wannabes LOL - in short, you don't need to convince me of how much or how little carb we all need.
> 
> Okay, disclaimer out of the way, I have been unable to find evidence that there is a metabolic advantage to dieting on low carbs (given protein is sufficient; EFAs, not overtraining blah blah blah...) in fact, Taubes and Atkins have been widely criticized for making this claim.
> 
> Are you suggesting that given sufficient protein and fat, and caloric deficit - in other words, all things being otherwise equal - the person on a lower-carb (but equal-calorie) diet will lose more fat?





gopro said:


> If you believe for one second that if you put two people (with the same exact genetics) on a diet of say 3000 calories per day and one of them ate 75% of their calories from carbs vs. 75% of their calories from protein that they would end up with the same body composition you would be sadly mistaken.
> 
> And, if you believe that bodyfat loss is a simple calorie in/calorie out process then again, you are way behind the times.
> 
> I will not even bother to argue either of these points because they are so factual I would not take my valuable time doing so.



gopro, you'll note that I asked you specifically about the situation where protein was sufficient. In a caloric deficit, increased oxidative stress underlies the importance of sufficient protein to ensure nitrogen-positive status. Your straw-man appears to be suggesting a different scenario - that of a caloric deficit with insufficient protein. If this is how you interpreted my question, I'll re-state with an example:

Identical twins, 100 lbs lean mass on each, both trained and in the same condition, both weigh the same. Maintenance calories the same for both.

Twin A consumes 20% below maintenance, with protein at 1.5g per pound lean mass, fat at 0.5g per pound lean mass, and carbs at 1.5g per pound lean mass. Total calories 1650

Twin B consumes 20% below maintenance, with protein at 1.5g per pound lean mass, fat at 0.94g per pound lean mass, and carbs at 0.5g per pound lean mass. Total calories 1650

(somebody please check my math, I suck at math)

Training etc all equal. In this situation, will the lower-carb twin lose more fat than the higher-carb twin? 

If I am in fact, behind the times, I'd like to at least read ONE peer-reviewed source of your information. I'm all about staying current, and I would be delighted to read something new.


----------



## gopro (Apr 17, 2009)

Built said:


> gopro, you'll note that I asked you specifically about the situation where protein was sufficient. In a caloric deficit, increased oxidative stress underlies the importance of sufficient protein to ensure nitrogen-positive status. Your straw-man appears to be suggesting a different scenario - that of a caloric deficit with insufficient protein. If this is how you interpreted my question, I'll re-state with an example:
> 
> Identical twins, 100 lbs lean mass on each, both trained and in the same condition, both weigh the same. Maintenance calories the same for both.
> 
> ...



Yes, more than likely that if the lower carb twin took in the majority of his fats from essential sources he would end up with less bodyfat. When insulin is lower and glucagon (and GH) is higher a more efficient fat burning internal environment occurs.

This is why keto diets ARE so effective for fat loss (although I do not think they are the best diets for bodybuilders).


----------



## AKIRA (Apr 17, 2009)

Well this discussion just got good.

Ive noticed that my calories go above my needed level because of the excess protein I need to consume.  However, I restrain because I do NOT want to go over my calories, so I dont consume as many grams of protein.


----------



## T_man (Apr 17, 2009)

Built said:


> (somebody please check my math, I suck at math)



I thought you were a statistical analyst type person. What good is that job if you suck at maths?


----------



## Unreal (Apr 17, 2009)

Gopro, post a study or something to back up what your saying. I'm with Built on this one. Given equal caloric defecit and enough protein then there should be no difference. If there is a difference it would be so little I don't think it would be statiscally significant.


----------



## T_man (Apr 17, 2009)

Well I love Built but....

I'm with Gopro on this one. Not that you will lose less or more, but rather there will be a difference. Different foods affect your bodily systems/hormones differently and changing the makeup of your food will almost definately change the outcome.


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 17, 2009)

I'm somewhere in the middle and not sure exactly what to think.  Although I tend to agree that a calorie is a calorie, I'm open to other suggestions.

Per Will Brink, protein has the highest thermogenic value of the 3 major macronutrients.  With that in mind, a person eating 64g of protein should theoretically be in a better position than someone eating 64g of carbs who in turn should be in a better position than someone eating 30g of fat (all are equivalent to 270 calories).


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 17, 2009)

A study done comparing two meals of equal caloric content but with differing macronutrients showed that a meal consisting of "high protein" resulted in a higher post meal energy expenditure compared to an "average protein" meal.

Energy expenditure, satiety, and plasma ghrelin, g...[J Nutr. 2008] - PubMed Result


----------



## C6zo6 (Apr 17, 2009)

I agree with Gopro...A calorie is a calorie to an extent...

You mean to tell me that if a person eats 1.5g of protein per body weight, plus their EFA's for the day and the rest of their carbs from sugar, instead of good fiber sources like oatmeal, they will have the same body composition? Go ahead and have your milkshake and see what happens compared to the healthy eater...

You have to factor in trans fat that could be associated with the poor carbs the person is getting...A lot of junk foods have hydrogenated cottonseed oil, which is a trans fat...I highly doubt a calorie is a calorie in this sense...


----------



## Built (Apr 17, 2009)

gopro said:


> Yes, more than likely that if the lower carb twin took in the majority of his fats from essential sources he would end up with less bodyfat. When insulin is lower and glucagon (and GH) is higher a more efficient fat burning internal environment occurs.
> 
> This is why keto diets ARE so effective for fat loss (although I do not think they are the best diets for bodybuilders).




See that's interesting - because my personal opinion of keto diets is that they rock - ESPECIALLY for bodybuilders. Protein and fat, in addition to helping preserve lean mass and endocrine function, are satiating. 



AKIRA said:


> Well this discussion just got good.
> 
> Ive noticed that my calories go above my needed level because of the excess protein I need to consume.  However, I restrain because I do NOT want to go over my calories, so I dont consume as many grams of protein.


Me too. 



T_man said:


> I thought you were a statistical analyst type person. What good is that job if you suck at maths?


Sarchasm - the gap between my joke and you "getting" it. 



Unreal said:


> Gopro, post a study or something to back up what your saying. I'm with Built on this one. Given equal caloric deficit and enough protein then there should be no difference. If there is a difference it would be so little I don't think it would be statistically significant.


See, that's what Lyle said: Is a Calorie a Calorie? | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald




T_man said:


> Well I love Built but....
> 
> I'm with Gopro on this one. Not that you will lose less or more, but rather there will be a difference. Different foods affect your bodily systems/hormones differently and changing the makeup of your food will almost definately change the outcome.



I'm not suggesting malnutrition - I'm suggesting ample protein and healthy fat in both situations. 

I'm also not choosing sides here - show me a study that proves the conjecture, and I'll accept it. 


danzik17 said:


> I'm somewhere in the middle and not sure exactly what to think.  Although I tend to agree that a calorie is a calorie, I'm open to other suggestions.
> 
> Per Will Brink, protein has the highest thermogenic value of the 3 major macronutrients.  With that in mind, a person eating 64g of protein should theoretically be in a better position than someone eating 64g of carbs who in turn should be in a better position than someone eating 30g of fat (all are equivalent to 270 calories).


Slightly...


danzik17 said:


> A study done comparing two meals of equal caloric content but with differing macronutrients showed that a meal consisting of "high protein" resulted in a higher post meal energy expenditure compared to an "average protein" meal.
> 
> Energy expenditure, satiety, and plasma ghrelin, g...[J Nutr. 2008] - PubMed Result



Protein is most certainly more satiating, no question about it. Re higher TEF, well, take a look at how high the difference was - it was something like an extra 8 kilojoules per minute, right? Look up how many kilojoules are in a calories for me. 

Edit: found one Converting Kilojoules To Calories
1 Calorie = 4.184 kjs
So you'll burn an extra 2 calories a minute in the postprandial period. 

Also, from the bodyrecomp article I cited above:



> Studies Varying Protein Intake
> 
> Most commonly, when folks want to argue that ‘a calorie is not a calorie’, they will use studies comparing higher and lower protein intakes. With very few exceptions, dietes providing adequate protein intake (for dieters 1.5 g/kg lean body mass or higher would be a minimum) to lower intakes find better results than diets with lower protein intakes. This is especially apparent under dieting conditions with any number of studies support the need for higher protein intake to support muscle growth.
> 
> ...





C6zo6 said:


> I agree with Gopro...A calorie is a calorie to an extent...
> 
> You mean to tell me that if a person eats 1.5g of protein per body weight, plus their EFA's for the day and the rest of their carbs from sugar, instead of good fiber sources like oatmeal, they will have the same body composition?


Yes.The sugar-eater might feel like ASS, but it'll work. 





> Go ahead and have your milkshake and see what happens compared to the healthy eater...
> 
> You have to factor in trans fat that could be associated with the poor carbs the person is getting...A lot of junk foods have hydrogenated cottonseed oil, which is a trans fat...I highly doubt a calorie is a calorie in this sense...


Honestly, crystallized cottonseed oil - that abomination created by P&G as a substitute for tallow and re-marketed as a healthful alternative to lard - CRISCO - isn't really a food, it's a plasticized oil. 

Let's keep the discussion germane here - consider healthy choices in adequate amounts, with merely the composition of the hypocaloric diet in question.


----------



## jmorrison (Apr 17, 2009)

Great conversation.  I hope it continues for those of us who are learning!


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 17, 2009)

Built said:


> Protein is most certainly more satiating, no question about it. Re higher TEF, well, take a look at how high the difference was - it was something like an extra 8 kilojoules per minute, right? Look up how many kilojoules are in a calories for me.
> 
> Edit: found one Converting Kilojoules To Calories
> 1 Calorie = 4.184 kjs
> So you'll burn an extra 2 calories a minute in the postprandial period.



I'm playing both sides of the fence here 

2 calories per minute would seem insignificant at first glance yes, but that all depends on the time period the measurements were taken in.  If the measurements were taken 2 hours afterward then that could potentially be a maximum of 240 additional calories burned.  

240 calories for free just by changing the foods I eat with no real "reduction" in calorie intake seems like a good deal if in fact it's true.  Again it all depends on when they took that specific measurement which I didn't find in the article.


----------



## Built (Apr 17, 2009)

I didn't either, and I agree, it would be remarkable if it persisted. 

I've not seen anything to suggest that it does, but because protein and fat are satiating - and carbohydrate tends to stimulate my appetite - I will continue to eat this way. Remember, I was overweight, AND on Metformin for insulin resistance, you don't need to convince ME that a higher protein and lower carbohydrate diet is by far more comfortable, particularly while dieting at a deficit. 

I would love to see strong evidence of a metabolic advantage though. So far, I have not.


----------



## gopro (Apr 18, 2009)

If a calorie is basically a calorie and the body responded as such thena set of triplets on a 500 calorie from maintenance deficit would look exactly the same and have the same body composition after eating for say 8 weeks:


2000 calories from only proteins
2000 calories from only fats
2000 calories from only carbs

Ridiculous. Each of these types of calories not only have different metabolic ad/disadvantages, so to speak, but also affect the hormonal cascade very differently, which has quite a bit to do with where calories end up.

As far as a keto diet, this is FAR from ideal for bodybuilders...especially drug free ones...as they will cause significant lean tissue loss in the majority over time.


----------



## C6zo6 (Apr 18, 2009)

Built said:


> Yes.The sugar-eater might feel like ASS, but it'll work.
> Honestly, crystallized cottonseed oil - that abomination created by P&G as a substitute for tallow and re-marketed as a healthful alternative to lard - CRISCO - isn't really a food, it's a plasticized oil.
> 
> Let's keep the discussion germane here - consider healthy choices in adequate amounts, with merely the composition of the hypocaloric diet in question.



This is relevant...Many people don't know they're consuming these plasticized oils when eating a higher number of carbohydrates. Just because a person goes out and buys healthier bread, doesn't mean it doesn't have trans fat in it...Most of the food we buy does have it. Especially when you go out and eat...I guarantee the butter you eat when going out has it as well...Unless you ask for pure 100% butter.

My point is, the more carbs a person chooses to eat, the more likely he/she will consume trans fat, unless they're freak label readers, which is very rare...

So, why should we assume this person eating most of their carbs from sugar is not getting any trans fat? That's very unlikely...Because obviously we're referring to shakes, candy, etc...You claimed they will feel bad, but essentially the outcome would be the same...Highly doubtful since 90% of these foods are found with hydrogenation...Lets get realistic and not "assume" a person is making healthier choices when getting a milkshake...Come on...


----------



## Built (Apr 18, 2009)

gopro said:


> If a calorie is basically a calorie and the body responded as such thena set of triplets on a 500 calorie from maintenance deficit would look exactly the same and have the same body composition after eating for say 8 weeks:
> 
> 
> 2000 calories from only proteins
> ...



Gopro, enough with the straw-man arguments. (You might consider looking up what that means so you don't do it a third time). Once adequate protein and fat are consumed, please show me ONE piece of peer-reviewed research that establishes a metabolic advantage in line with what you claim.


----------



## Built (Apr 18, 2009)

C6zo6 said:


> This is relevant...Many people don't know they're consuming these plasticized oils when eating a higher number of carbohydrates.


Carbohydrate doesn't contain transfat, 


C6zo6 said:


> Just because a person goes out and buys healthier bread, doesn't mean it doesn't have trans fat in it...Most of the food we buy does have it.


You and I must shop in different stores. 


C6zo6 said:


> Especially when you go out and eat...I guarantee the butter you eat when going out has it as well...Unless you ask for pure 100% butter.


Actually, butter has transfat. CLA is a healthy transfat. But that's not what you're talking about, and I know that, I'm just being pedantic.


C6zo6 said:


> My point is, the more carbs a person chooses to eat, the more likely he/she will consume trans fat, unless they're freak label readers, which is very rare...


I see that you are bringing up the interesting point of food choice, and I actually agree with you - those who eat more processed foods will tend to eat more transfat. I think that's what you're getting at, right? While this is true, it's not what we're discussing. We're discussing metabolic advantage with regard to consuming a lower carb diet while cutting. 


C6zo6 said:


> So, why should we assume this person eating most of their carbs from sugar is not getting any trans fat?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Get it now? Because so far, nobody has given me any evidence of a different outcome. Not to the question I'm asking. I keep getting answers to questions I'm not asking, though!


----------



## Hench (Apr 18, 2009)

This is getting very good.

Gopro, why would a keto diet lead to a greater lose of muscle mass than any other diet?


----------



## C6zo6 (Apr 18, 2009)

Built said:


> Carbohydrate doesn't contain transfat,
> 
> You and I must shop in different stores.
> 
> ...



I understand. 

Your obviously way more knowledgeable about this than i am, so I'm just going to take your word for it, lol. 

About the carbs...

I guess it wouldn't matter where they come from, as long as protein and fat calories are sufficient...It makes sense...

Now, if we had a person eat 75% carbs this would be a problem...This is why a lot of people are obese, because carbs are in everything. But, we are assuming these people get adequate protein and fats, which completely changes everything...


----------



## Built (Apr 18, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> This is getting very good.
> 
> Gopro, why would a keto diet lead to a greater lose of muscle mass than any other diet?


I'd like to know this one, too. My cursory understanding of ketosis is that it has no particular effect in and of itself for fat-loss, but it is spectacular for appetite-suppression, at least, it is for me. This effect seems to be more pronounced the fatter you are - I seem to recall coming across some research to this effect that I'm too lazy to dig up, but I can tell you from experience when I was very fat, ketosis turned my appetite OFF.

It was glorious.


----------



## Built (Apr 18, 2009)

C6zo6 said:


> I understand.
> 
> Your obviously way more knowledgeable about this than i am, so I'm just going to take your word for it, lol.
> 
> ...



Thank you, and yes, that's the particular question I want to address here. 

<muah!>


----------



## C6zo6 (Apr 18, 2009)

Built said:


> Thank you, and yes, that's the particular question I want to address here.
> 
> <muah!>


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 18, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> This is getting very good.
> 
> Gopro, why would a keto diet lead to a greater lose of muscle mass than any other diet?



+1, I'd like to know as well.

Granted I don't have tons of muscle, but I have run several keto diets and have experienced little to no muscle loss.  In fact on my current keto hybrid (UD 2.0) my strength is way UP!


----------



## AKIRA (Apr 18, 2009)

"Protein is most certainly more satiating, no question about it. "

Ive got a question about it..

How come when i consume two grilled chicken breasts, I am full for 30 min then hungry again right away?  Oh and these arent the chicken breasts youd get in a McDonalds Grilled sandwich mind you, these are Perdue breasts.


----------



## Built (Apr 18, 2009)

Probably the bread and the fat overstimulating insulin. If you're at all insulin resistant, excess insulin tends to promote hunger. 

I think.


----------



## C6zo6 (Apr 19, 2009)

AKIRA said:


> "Protein is most certainly more satiating, no question about it. "
> 
> Ive got a question about it..
> 
> How come when i consume two grilled chicken breasts, I am full for 30 min then hungry again right away?  Oh and these arent the chicken breasts youd get in a McDonalds Grilled sandwich mind you, these are Perdue breasts.



Maybe because 2 chicken breasts are only about 400 calories, maybe less and you weigh over 200lbs and lift weights? 

Have something else with it like broccoli. It should fill you up...If not, maybe your not eating enough throughout the day?


----------



## Built (Apr 19, 2009)

Oh, are Purdue chicken breasts something else? I was reading this as chicken sandwiches. 
C6zo6, good catch. 

AKIRA, there are a variety of satiety signals to which we respond. Insulin can promote or suppress satiety depending upon the circumstance. Slowing the rate of gastric emptying can help with satiety, as can the physical feeling of fullness which C6zo6 alluded to - the need to fill up with broccoli in this case. The research suggests males may respond better to "volume" than the stimulation of CCK, where females tend to respond more strongly to CCK, which is induced through the consumption of many proteins and fats. Complicating this is the condition you are in (ie body fatness, dieted-down status) and your activity level. 

All of this is interesting, but ultimately, you have to experiment to find your own satiety cues.


----------



## snake eater (Apr 19, 2009)

*hi guys*

Hi guys, I'm a new member in this forum and from what i read in this thread, all I can say is,"these are some beneficial posts."  The truth is that I have some problems of my own and I'm starting to get sick of it.  I started exercising more than 5 months ago.  My goal is to get the six pack abs I always dreamt of having, but now I can't really see any difference.  I admit that my abs are getting stronger but I really cant see them still. Is there a way or an advice that might help me get these abs? Ya one more thing, I'm not a diet but I'm still watching my calorie intake. Should I start on a diet or should I continue with my regular calorie intake?


----------



## gopro (Apr 19, 2009)

Built said:


> Gopro, enough with the straw-man arguments. (You might consider looking up what that means so you don't do it a third time). Once adequate protein and fat are consumed, please show me ONE piece of peer-reviewed research that establishes a metabolic advantage in line with what you claim.



Built, I do not need to show you anything. That "argument" above is all that is needed because it is totally true. If you have time, go look up the studies yourself. If you do not understand how the body works hormonally and how this cascade completely affects the partitioning of calories that is not my problem. Not to mention that since I have prepped over 100 competitors for competitions (and probably have handled close to 1000 preps in my time), I do not need a study to show me what goes on with the human body in the real world. Half the time studies mean squat anyway because a) They are usually biased, b) They are not replicated a second time, c) There is always a study out there that disproves the one before it.

Go ahead and believe whatever you want to. Whatever works for you is exactly what you should do.


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 19, 2009)

Gopro -

What would your ideal cutting diet/macros look like then?  It's always good to be able to look at things from a few different viewpoints, so indulge me if you don't mind


----------



## gopro (Apr 19, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> This is getting very good.
> 
> Gopro, why would a keto diet lead to a greater lose of muscle mass than any other diet?



Lately there has been a lot of discussion, controversy and disagreement amongst bodybuilders, trainers, nutritionists and coaches within our industry regarding whether natural bodybuilders should use a zero-carb or low-carb approach to dieting when seeking both a ripped and maximally muscular physique (like when prepping for competition). As a pro natural bodybuilder myself who has prepared for about twenty competitions, as well one that has coached both ???enhanced??? and drug-free lifters for hundreds more, I have a very definite opinion on this matter???based on experience and science. Simply put???natural bodybuilders have different requirements than those that utilize performance-enhancing drugs. About this, I have no doubt!

While I certainly would agree that a properly implemented zero-carb diet does work wonders for most of my ???enhanced??? brothers in iron, there are very definite and compelling reasons why the majority (nothing in bodybuilding is universal) of naturals should stay away from this approach. As bodybuilders our goal when getting ready for competition is not just to strip off as much body fat as humanly possible, but also to retain as much muscle mass as we can in the process. I know I don???t want to step onstage looking like an underwear model! Do you? Didn???t think so. And that is the major disadvantage of a zero-carb diet for drug free athletes???the inevitable loss of muscle size!

But why does this occur? It???s just simple physiology really???hormones, signaling molecules, and how they are affected when zero carbs are ingested! That said; let???s get a little more specific about why zero-carb diets (for naturals) are not the Holy Grail, but likely will lead you to fail.

Reason #1: Without any carbs there will be no insulin!

Insulin is a protein-peptide hormone that is released by the pancreas in response to the ingestion of food, with the greatest release occurring by way of the consumption of carbohydrates. Insulin promotes a dramatic muscle-building effect through its ability to drive amino acids, glucose, creatine, etc. directly into muscle cells and by inhibiting muscle degradation. The powerful anti-catabolic properties of insulin are most important first thing in the morning and right after intense training, when an optimum hormonal environment is necessary to build/maintain muscle mass. If you do not elevate your insulin levels at these two critical times you will fail to optimally transport vital nutrients into starving muscle cells, and will perhaps even rob them of amino acids already stored. Result? Muscle loss!

Reason # 2: Without any insulin you will secret more cortisol!

Cortisol is a natural hormone of the adrenal glands and is the primary glucocorticoid. It is released in greater amounts in times of stress (training is a major stress), and possesses many qualities essential to life. However, in too large amounts, cortisol is the enemy of a bodybuilder (yeah, this sucker wears both a white and black hat)! Excess cortisol can directly result in a loss of lean mass by reducing the utilization of amino acids for protein formation in muscles cells. Cortisol can also lead to a redistribution (and increase) of body fat causing a larger amount of storage to occur in the abdominal region. In addition, too much of this devilish little hormone can cause both sodium retention and potassium excretion. Less muscle???more bloat???and a bigger waistline? No thank you!

Reason # 3: With more cortisol there will be decreased thyroid function!

It has been known for quite some time that one of the downfalls of a lengthy zero-carb diet is the negative effect it can have on thyroid activity. One of the possible mechanisms behind this, once again, is increased cortisol secretion. Not only does excess cortisol directly inhibit TSH, or thyroid stimulating hormone, but it may also suppress 5' deiodinase, an enzyme that converts the less active thyroid hormone T4 into the far more powerful T3! The result is a decreased metabolic rate, which of course can make it harder to burn fat. This is why so many drug-free zero-carb dieters often hit a plateau halfway through their diet. Not good!

Reason # 4: More cortisol = less GH!

I find this effect particularly interesting because strong proponents of the zero-carb diet often claim that one of its benefits is increased GH output, leading to higher levels of the anabolic monster, IGF-1. However, you should be aware of another nasty tidbit about cortisol???it increases the output of the GH antagonist, somatostatin! So, there goes that theory right out the window! Less GH = less IGF-1, which in turn = decreased muscle retention while dieting. Man, cortisol is one bad motherfuc%er!



Natural Diet Dilemma: Zero Carb vs. Low Carb
Part 2

This month I will continue my discussion of why I feel that a zero-carb approach to dieting is detrimental to the drug-free bodybuilder.

Thus far I have mentioned that a lack of any carbohydrates in the diet will also cause a lack of insulin, which can compromise one???s ability to rapidly and efficiently uptake amino acids, glucose, creatine and other muscle building compounds into muscle cells at several critical times during the day. As well, this lack of insulin will also result in higher levels of circulating cortisol, which can cause a myriad of problems for the dieting bodybuilder, such as impaired thyroid function and lower GH output. But the negatives do not stop there???

Reason # 5: High cortisol levels can affect sleep patterns!

A little talked about fact in regards to cortisol is that it is actually one of the hormones associated with waking and sleeping patterns. Naturally, levels of cortisol are highest in the morning and lowest at night, with a number of fluctuations during the day. The higher amounts of circulating cortisol in the early hours help to wake us up. When the daily cycle of cortisol secretion is disrupted to a large degree it can cause levels to remain elevated at night, with the result being an inability to relax and fall asleep. I don???t need to tell you just how important sleep is to a bodybuilder, especially one that is dieting to lose body fat while doing everything possible to keep hard earned muscle mass intact. Insomnia? No thanks!


Reason # 6: No carbs pre or post training can compromise the immune system!

The type of intense training that bodybuilders engage in suppresses the immune system, which of course can lead to increased risk of illness. When the body is forced to work harder to fight off bacteria and infection it will have less energy to put towards recuperation, repair and growth. Combating illness is certainly higher on the body???s priority list than building muscle and burning fat. Not to mention that when you are sick, you might not be able to train or do cardio as needed to facilitate maximum progress. Studies show that carbohydrate consumption built around workouts (pre/intra/post) can reduce the immune system reaction to vigorous exercise helping to keep your muscle building and fat burning machinery working at optimum levels. Important stuff!

Reason # 7: No carbs in the diet can impair genes for muscle hypertrophy!

Let???s face it???as a natural bodybuilder dieting down for a competition, photo shoot, or even a nice vacation; your goal is not only to lose as much body fat as possible, but also to retain your muscle size. Most naturals (except the most genetically gifted) simply lose size on zero carbs, and often end up looking more like fitness models or swimmers than serious bodybuilders! And I know this is not acceptable to the hardcore natty readers of Muscular Development!

Robbie Durand, a fellow MD columnist, recently discussed a couple of recent studies (that I also have viewed), which showed that low muscle glycogen concentrations reduce the expression of several genes responsible for muscle hypertrophy! While a 2005 study reported a blunting of an important molecule in cell signaling and protein synthesis pathways called PKB (or Akt), newer research has also proven that low pre-exercise muscle glycogen stores decrease resting levels of two other major genes involved in muscle growth???myogenin and IGF-1! No wonder drug-free athletes tend to ???string out??? on zero carb regimens!


----------



## gopro (Apr 19, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> Gopro -
> 
> What would your ideal cutting diet/macros look like then?  It's always good to be able to look at things from a few different viewpoints, so indulge me if you don't mind



I do not have a cookie-cutter approach. Each person I address individually.


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 19, 2009)

Can you give a general overview though?

If you're not a believer of low carb/keto diets, are you a believer of mid-high carbs with lowered fats then?  Protein does stay relatively constant, so I'm pretty much ignoring that.


----------



## Built (Apr 19, 2009)

gopro said:


> Built, I do not need to show you anything. That "argument" above is all that is needed because it is totally true.


If it's true, you won't have any trouble digging up support for your argument. 


gopro said:


> If you have time, go look up the studies yourself.


You are the one making the assertion. The onus is on you to support your argument. 

So far, all you're doing is bullying me into buying your line. 



gopro said:


> If you do not understand how the body works hormonally and how this cascade completely affects the partitioning of calories that is not my problem.


Yeah, I really wish I understood this process better. My knowledge of physiology is scatty at best. 


gopro said:


> Not to mention that since I have prepped over 100 competitors for competitions (and probably have handled close to 1000 preps in my time), I do not need a study to show me what goes on with the human body in the real world.


You don't, but I do. I haven't had your vast experience, and I don't have anything to go by except a man who claims to be too busy to dig up ONE study to back his assertions, but spends a great deal of time telling me that he's right and I'm wrong. 


gopro said:


> Half the time studies mean squat anyway because a) They are usually biased, b) They are not replicated a second time, c) There is always a study out there that disproves the one before it.


Really! See, this is interesting to me. How come?


gopro said:


> Go ahead and believe whatever you want to. Whatever works for you is exactly what you should do.


At the moment, I don't believe in anything. I'm still waiting for something that resembles proof of what it is that you claim. 

I don't know how they taught it to you, gopro, but when I was earning my science degrees, we were taught that the null hypothesis was "there is no effect" until proven otherwise. 

I am still at the null hypothesis. I will happily reject the null when I have evidence to do so.



gopro said:


> Lately there has been a lot of discussion, controversy and disagreement amongst bodybuilders, trainers, nutritionists and coaches within our industry regarding whether natural bodybuilders should use a zero-carb or low-carb approach to dieting when seeking both a ripped and maximally muscular physique (like when prepping for competition). As a pro natural bodybuilder myself who has prepared for about twenty competitions, as well one that has coached both ???enhanced??? and drug-free lifters for hundreds more, I have a very definite opinion on this matter???based on experience and science. Simply put???natural bodybuilders have different requirements than those that utilize performance-enhancing drugs. About this, I have no doubt!
> 
> While I certainly would agree that a properly implemented zero-carb diet does work wonders for most of my ???enhanced??? brothers in iron, there are very definite and compelling reasons why the majority (nothing in bodybuilding is universal) of naturals should stay away from this approach. As bodybuilders our goal when getting ready for competition is not just to strip off as much body fat as humanly possible, but also to retain as much muscle mass as we can in the process. I know I don???t want to step onstage looking like an underwear model! Do you? Didn???t think so. And that is the major disadvantage of a zero-carb diet for drug free athletes???the inevitable loss of muscle size!
> 
> ...



Really? So if you don't eat any carbohydrate at all, you won't produce any insulin?


----------



## gopro (Apr 19, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> Can you give a general overview though?
> 
> If you're not a believer of low carb/keto diets, are you a believer of mid-high carbs with lowered fats then?  Protein does stay relatively constant, so I'm pretty much ignoring that.



Actually I believe in medium to low carb diets with specific timing...high protein with medium to med-high fats from essential sources.


----------



## gopro (Apr 19, 2009)

Built...I am not trying to bully you at all. You are obviously quite intelligent and you can make up your own mind on the matter. For me to give you studies about why I believe what I do would force me to find and post at least 10 or so, because this process is so complex and requires the need to look at many issues. As I come across some, I will make sure to add them to this thread...but my already 15-16 hour days will keep me from looking actively for now.

As for the insulin...yes, you will still release insulin without carbs, but not in significant enough amounts to reverse the catabolic effects.


----------



## Built (Apr 19, 2009)

gopro, the irony here is you and I are arguing the same point - I prefer a higher protein and fat, lower and targeted approach to carbs for most unassisted bodybuilders, myself, but for different reasons than you. For me, it's all about comfort. I can't tolerate hunger, so if I can diet without hunger, I succeed and this approach allows me to navigate around the truly hungry portions of a cut. I would do it this way even if it were sub-optimal because I CAN'T do it any other way. 

I've had this argument with others, on different fora, from your perspective and I was unable to defend my position. I would love to have something that would allow me to back up the assertion for a metabolic advantage, since it is in line with how I train and diet anyway.

That is why I want proof. I haven't been able to find ANY proof. And it bugs me.


----------



## Hench (Apr 19, 2009)

gopro said:


> Lately there has been a lot of discussion, controversy and disagreement amongst bodybuilders, trainers, nutritionists and coaches within our industry regarding whether natural bodybuilders should use a zero-carb or low-carb approach to dieting when seeking both a ripped and maximally muscular physique (like when prepping for competition). As a pro natural bodybuilder myself who has prepared for about twenty competitions, as well one that has coached both ???enhanced??? and drug-free lifters for hundreds more, I have a very definite opinion on this matter???based on experience and science. Simply put???natural bodybuilders have different requirements than those that utilize performance-enhancing drugs. About this, I have no doubt!
> 
> While I certainly would agree that a properly implemented zero-carb diet does work wonders for most of my ???enhanced??? brothers in iron, there are very definite and compelling reasons why the majority (nothing in bodybuilding is universal) of naturals should stay away from this approach. As bodybuilders our goal when getting ready for competition is not just to strip off as much body fat as humanly possible, but also to retain as much muscle mass as we can in the process. I know I don???t want to step onstage looking like an underwear model! Do you? Didn???t think so. And that is the major disadvantage of a zero-carb diet for drug free athletes???the inevitable loss of muscle size!
> 
> ...



You have time to type a post like that, but dont have time to link one study? Not buying that one. 

And considering your reputation is very closley related to your business, how about you man up and find at least ONE study. 

On another note, as you can see ive been a memeber here for pretty much exactly one year now. In that time I have read very few of your posts and you have only become a regular poster again over the past few weeks. Fair enough, you've got other obligations in the outside world. But in that time Built has been here helping hundreds of people (including myself) change the way they train and diet and in a lot of cases change their lives. Please show a bit more respect.


----------



## jmorrison (Apr 19, 2009)

Following Built's advice I have dropped 31lbs in less than 3 months, reduced my waist size by 6 inches, and have held on to almost all my muscle.  

I will stick with what she tells me.  If she tells me that jumping in front of a bus will cut fat, I guess I will be one flat (but thinner) dude.


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 19, 2009)

gopro said:


> Built, I do not need to show you anything. That "argument" above is all that is needed because it is totally true. If you have time, go look up the studies yourself. If you do not understand how the body works hormonally and how this cascade completely affects the partitioning of calories that is not my problem. Not to mention that since I have prepped over 100 competitors for competitions (and probably have handled close to 1000 preps in my time), I do not need a study to show me what goes on with the human body in the real world. Half the time studies mean squat anyway because a) They are usually biased, b) They are not replicated a second time, c) There is always a study out there that disproves the one before it.
> 
> Go ahead and believe whatever you want to. Whatever works for you is exactly what you should do.



I'll play...
Gopor do you know what peer reviewed means? It would be when all of your competitors stood in front of the judges and agreed on the outcome together of the study you conducted on those said competitors...they have no bias in the study and did not partake in the study itself but they do share knowledge on what a competitor should and should not look like. 

I explained it because you are probably too busy to look that one up.
 Any good scientist would state "here is the proof to back my claim"  changing physiques into something that defies homeostasis is a scientist in their own rights....not sharing the data you have collected or used to promote the success you have claimed is taken as bold, rude and condescending. While we all have lives and appreciate the busy life you have explained that you lead you are also a moderator here so I would think you would be generous to share the vast knowledge you have with _physique science_ you would be willing and eager to share the proof vs just your brass way of stating "_you just know and don't have time to substantiate it because you have had 1000 people change their physiques_" 

If you could just point us to the medical journals, sports journals, nutritional journals etc we would be thrilled to read this substantially new break through in the world of physique science we would greatly appreciate the time you take in typing that into the reply box for us.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 19, 2009)

slowly becoming my favorite thread

patrick


----------



## AKIRA (Apr 19, 2009)

Science evolves by disproving theories, not supporting them.


----------



## C6zo6 (Apr 19, 2009)

Built said:


> Oh, are Purdue chicken breasts something else? I was reading this as chicken sandwiches.
> C6zo6, good catch.
> 
> AKIRA, there are a variety of satiety signals to which we respond. Insulin can promote or suppress satiety depending upon the circumstance. Slowing the rate of gastric emptying can help with satiety, as can the physical feeling of fullness which C6zo6 alluded to - the need to fill up with broccoli in this case. The research suggests males may respond better to "volume" than the stimulation of CCK, where females tend to respond more strongly to CCK, which is induced through the consumption of many proteins and fats. Complicating this is the condition you are in (ie body fatness, dieted-down status) and your activity level.
> ...



Thank you for noticing and agreeing about the broccoli.  I guess i know a little something...lol

*Gopro,* how do you have all this time to defend your points and argue in a 3 page thread, but can't find time to back up anything? That's like driving to another state and saying you don't have time to get gas...


----------



## Built (Apr 19, 2009)

AKIRA said:


> Science evolves by disproving theories, not supporting them.



Exactly. You begin by assuming the null - that is to say, that there is no effect. This is the best guess you have at the truth until you can refute it. 



C6zo6 said:


> Thank you for noticing and agreeing about the broccoli.  I guess i know a little something...lol



Oh yes indeed you do.


----------



## nkira (Apr 20, 2009)

Shit! I just spent on Flax Caps....

New Rule :- Post & get feedback bfore spending on ANY supplement, Period



Built said:


> The carbs can certainly go higher than that on training days if calories allow, and the fats, indeed, make sure you get in at least 10g of fish oil daily, to provide 3g combined EPA/DHA.
> 
> Avoid flax. It just won't convert.


----------



## nkira (Apr 20, 2009)

Mine too



P-funk said:


> slowly becoming my favorite thread
> 
> patrick


----------



## gopro (Apr 20, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> You have time to type a post like that, but dont have time to link one study? Not buying that one.
> 
> And considering your reputation is very closley related to your business, how about you man up and find at least ONE study.
> 
> On another note, as you can see ive been a memeber here for pretty much exactly one year now. In that time I have read very few of your posts and you have only become a regular poster again over the past few weeks. Fair enough, you've got other obligations in the outside world. But in that time Built has been here helping hundreds of people (including myself) change the way they train and diet and in a lot of cases change their lives. Please show a bit more respect.



Did not type that...copied and pasted it.

Regular poster again at Prince's *REQUEST*.

I have nothing against Built. She knows her stuff. And if she has helped people here then that is wonderful.

I have offered my advice and reasoning which is based on how the human body works, and 20 years experience training bodybuilders, athletes, teens, elderly, injured, weekend warriors and regular folk and everything in between. *My life is a scientific study.*

I leave this thread to you guys now. Wish I had more time, but honestly I don't. Doing the best I can to contribute when I can.

Peace.


----------



## OuiSwim (Apr 20, 2009)

Excellent read.
A bit off topic, I want to get my degree for college in science but specifically about the body. Besides Biology and Chemistry what other classes should I sign up for?


----------



## gopro (Apr 20, 2009)

Also, let me point out that Built and I basically believe in the same dieting approach as far as I can see. Higher protein, higher EFA, lower carb diets. Thus, she and I are pretty much on the same page anyway.


----------



## gopro (Apr 20, 2009)

OuiSwim said:


> Excellent read.
> A bit off topic, I want to get my degree for college in science but specifically about the body. Besides Biology and Chemistry what other classes should I sign up for?



Anatomy, physiology, kinesiology, genetics...all that fun stuff!


----------



## OuiSwim (Apr 20, 2009)

Ft. Lauderdale eh?
Feel like taking a newbie under your wing for a summer internship?


----------



## C6zo6 (Apr 20, 2009)

Just want to clarify that i believe *Gopro* is very knowledgeable on this subject. 

Although he hasn't posted a study, it doesn't mean he doesn't have first hand experience. From the tone and attitude in his messages, you can tell he isn't making this stuff up...

It's hard to find anything that proves what he is trying to say...I get where he is coming from.


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 20, 2009)

OuiSwim said:


> Excellent read.
> A bit off topic, I want to get my degree for college in science but specifically about the body. Besides Biology and Chemistry what other classes should I sign up for?



health science degree programs


----------



## gopro (Apr 20, 2009)

OuiSwim said:


> Ft. Lauderdale eh?
> Feel like taking a newbie under your wing for a summer internship?



LOL


----------



## gopro (Apr 20, 2009)

C6zo6 said:


> Just want to clarify that i believe *Gopro* is very knowledgeable on this subject.
> 
> Although he hasn't posted a study, it doesn't mean he doesn't have first hand experience. From the tone and attitude in his messages, you can tell he isn't making this stuff up...
> 
> It's hard to find anything that proves what he is trying to say...I get where he is coming from.



Thank you very much.

What I am basically trying to say is what I told you in our PM...I am not talking about studies on metabolic advantage here, but basic human physiology! The effects that different types of foods have on the hormonal cascade will determine how calories are partitioned and used. You must always consider insulin, glucagon, GH and IGF-1 for the most part and how THEY affect fat storage/burning. This is where "a calorie is not a calorie."

Anyway, carry on. I am glad a nice little discussion was borne from this.


----------



## snake eater (Apr 20, 2009)

...gopro...
can u please help me build an exercise program for my abdominal.
i all ready do cardio but i need some workouts for my abdominal and obliques.
...thank u...


----------



## C6zo6 (Apr 20, 2009)

snake eater said:


> Hi guys, I'm a new member in this forum and from what i read in this thread, all I can say is,"these are some beneficial posts."  The truth is that I have some problems of my own and I'm starting to get sick of it.  I started exercising more than 5 months ago.  My goal is to get the six pack abs I always dreamt of having, but now I can't really see any difference.  I admit that my abs are getting stronger but I really cant see them still. Is there a way or an advice that might help me get these abs? Ya one more thing, I'm not a diet but I'm still watching my calorie intake. Should I start on a diet or should I continue with my regular calorie intake?



In order to get visible abs, you need to start dieting. You need to burn more calories than you consume a day, to get rid of the excess fat over your abdominal. If you don't diet, your abs won't show...Start tracking your calories on LIVESTRONG.COM - Health, Fitness, Lifestyle, or find a calorie tracker.

Abs are in the kitchen, no magic.

Here are some ab exercises you can do. Doing abs 2-3x a week is plenty, especially with a solid workout program. I suggest getting a lifting program 3x a week and doing abs 2x a week, since your core will be utilizyed on lifting days as well...

Top 10 Most Effective Ab Exercises


----------



## OuiSwim (Apr 20, 2009)

LOL = Yes?
Excellent! I'll be on your doorstep first thing this summer


----------



## T_man (Apr 20, 2009)

That was a good debate although I really didnt understand most of it, nor do I have enough control over my diet to put something like that into practice.
bravo


----------



## gopro (Apr 20, 2009)

OuiSwim said:


> LOL = Yes?
> Excellent! I'll be on your doorstep first thing this summer



Do you cook? LOL!


----------



## OuiSwim (Apr 20, 2009)

Cook, clean, laundry, mow. My parents maintain the only reason they had a son was so they wouldn't have to do chores for 18 years 
As funny as it seems now, I would like one day to be a body builder. I forsee a long--loooong, difficult path ahead of me though.


----------



## C6zo6 (Apr 20, 2009)

OuiSwim said:


> Cook, clean, laundry, mow. My parents maintain the only reason they had a son was so they wouldn't have to do chores for 18 years
> As funny as it seems now, I would like one day to be a body builder. I forsee a long--loooong, difficult path ahead of me though.



Yeah, it probably would take a while, since your out cutting grass and doing all these random jobs for your parents, lol. 

Also, it seems evident you like being thin and a bulk isn't something that would interest you. This would make being a body builder very difficult.


----------



## Built (Apr 20, 2009)

Well, he at least likes to cook, that'll help him eat!


----------



## C6zo6 (Apr 20, 2009)

Built said:


> Oh yes indeed you do.



Thank you built. 

lol


----------



## OuiSwim (Apr 20, 2009)

I don't have a problem with mass..it's fat I have a problem with. c6zo6. By the way, the ZR1's are better


----------



## C6zo6 (Apr 20, 2009)

OuiSwim said:


> I don't have a problem with mass..it's fat I have a problem with. c6zo6. By the way, the ZR1's are better



I can't argue this. I want one so bad...They haven't come out around here yet though. I'm definitely going to trade in the C6z for one. 

Over 620fwhp, stock...You really can't beat it...Just a little pricey in my opinion. With a few simple bolt ons, i could easily see 550Rwhp...


----------



## nkira (Apr 21, 2009)

Come on....Throw us a party 



OuiSwim said:


> Cook, clean, laundry, mow. My parents maintain the only reason they had a son was so they wouldn't have to do chores for 18 years
> As funny as it seems now, I would like one day to be a body builder. I forsee a long--loooong, difficult path ahead of me though.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> If a calorie is basically a calorie and the body responded as such thena set of triplets on a 500 calorie from maintenance deficit would look exactly the same and have the same body composition after eating for say 8 weeks:
> 
> 
> 2000 calories from only proteins
> ...


Can you back any of this gopro? I still have yet to see any proven research.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> Can you back any of this gopro? I still have yet to see any proven research.



You can see it in practice #1 Go ahead...try it for a week and see what happens.

It is simple human physiology, which cannot be debated. You cannot debate the effects of different foods on several key hormones that directly affect fat burning vs. fat storage. This is how the body works...period.

Go read "The Essentials of Sports Nutrition and Supplements by Dr. Jose Antonio, one of the *most prolific researchers in the world *on the subject. He wrote an entire chapter on exactly what I am talking about and has been involved in countless studies on the calorie is not a calorie argument.

On this topic, I am done


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

Built said:


> Well, he at least likes to cook, that'll help him eat!



True, and if he cooks my 6-7 meals per day I can spend more time at ironmagazine.com


----------



## snake eater (Apr 21, 2009)

Thanks for the advice, these sites are very beneficial i love them.  just one question does working my abs and cardio help burn fat?


----------



## T_man (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> True, and if he cooks my 6-7 meals per day I can spend more time at ironmagazine.com



ouiswim what are you waiting for??!!


----------



## OuiSwim (Apr 21, 2009)

I'll take the job!!
New occupation: gopro's maide.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2009)

it fits.


----------



## OuiSwim (Apr 21, 2009)

C6zo6 said:


> I can't argue this. I want one so bad...They haven't come out around here yet though. I'm definitely going to trade in the C6z for one.
> 
> Over 620fwhp, stock...You really can't beat it...Just a little pricey in my opinion. With a few simple bolt ons, i could easily see 550Rwhp...



My dad just bought an atomic orange zr1 the price tag was pretty hefty though. After a few customizations I think the total was somewhere in the 120,000$ yikes. No college fund for yours truly.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> it fits.


You and I must be sharing a brain wave


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2009)

heeehheeeeee


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2009)

OuiSwim said:


> Ft. Lauderdale eh?
> Feel like taking a newbie under your wing for a summer internship?


weeswim-what business did you have of posting newb-asinine questions about anavar when you dont look like you went through puberty yet?


----------



## OuiSwim (Apr 21, 2009)

Haha funny guy. Go fuck yourself, I wasn't talking to you.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2009)

thats not nice-I didnt use terrible language. 
But I knew I was funny anyway. What's funnier is your boy-band tranny picture in your avatar. I'm surprised you're not embarassed.


----------



## nkira (Apr 21, 2009)

Guess...u being the maid would be better at it than juggernaut 



OuiSwim said:


> Haha funny guy. Go fuck yourself



That's some show off.....



OuiSwim said:


> My dad just bought an atomic orange zr1 the price tag was pretty hefty though. After a few customizations I think the total was somewhere in the 120,000$ yikes.


----------



## nkira (Apr 21, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> thats not nice-I didnt use terrible language.
> But I knew I was funny anyway. What's funnier is your boy-band tranny picture in your avatar. I'm surprised you're not embarassed.



I know, he should watch his mouth.....


----------



## OuiSwim (Apr 21, 2009)

Don't try to patronize me, both of you.
How about you both post up real pictures of yourselfes if your physique is so mind boggling. The fact that you need to degrade a 17 year old to get your jollies doesn't say much for either of you.
Now, good day.


----------



## nkira (Apr 21, 2009)

No one talked about physique, Ok. It's just ure manners that's all. Even when Built & Gopro had arguments they never used bad language. 

Good Day to you too.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2009)

OuiSwim said:


> Don't try to patronize me, both of you.
> How about you both post up real pictures of yourselfes if your physique is so mind boggling. The fact that you need to degrade a 17 year old to get your jollies doesn't say much for either of you.
> Now, good day.


17 years old and asking about anavar...good lord you are retarded.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2009)

Okay, that's enough. It's all fun and games - UNTIL SOMEBODY PUTS AN EYE OUT!!!

Juggernaut, don't waste your breath. 
Nkira, good point. 
Ouiswim, enough with the disrespectful posts. You've posted up nonsense about your own and your friends' AAS use and you're really too young to even know how much trouble you can get yourself into, both legally and physically, from these substances. Take some time, breathe, count to ten, and start doing some reading.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> As far as a keto diet, this is FAR from ideal for bodybuilders...especially drug free ones...as they will cause significant lean tissue loss in the majority over time.


You're kidding right?


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2009)

Built said:


> Okay, that's enough. It's all fun and games - UNTIL SOMEBODY PUTS AN EYE OUT!!!
> 
> Juggernaut, don't waste your breath.
> Nkira, good point.


Yes ma'am.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> You're kidding right?



Yeah, I'm still interested in this, the keto thing. It doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, you're eating a ton of protein, you remain nitrogen-positive, you induce insulin resistance - all of these are muscle-sparing.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2009)

that was my thinking. Carbs are not truly necessary here, right? You have all the ideal ingredients of maintaining mass with protein and fats. How the heck is this not ideal? Gopro, can you explain further? I'm very confused by this.


----------



## OuiSwim (Apr 21, 2009)

Alright.


----------



## snake eater (Apr 21, 2009)

can anybody tell me whats the best workout for the hamstring?


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2009)

You bet. 

Hamstrings tend to be predominately fast-twitch, and may respond very well to heavy, low-rep range work. My favourite movements for them are as follows:

Romanian deadlifts  - like all deads, these are best kept under say 5-reps for most of your work since form can so easily deteriorate as you rep it out. 

Glute Ham Raises - if you don't have a GHR at your gym, fake it like I do (yes I fake it! LOL) http://youtube.com/?v=Rg_hxBHPX_k





YouTube Video











Good mornings - be sure to get your ass back on these. 

SHELC - these are harder than you think - and a LOT more useful than leg curls. Try 'em in high reps at the end sometime. 

And lest I forget: SPRINT INTERVALS! These work your hams like a mofo. You don't need to think "cardio" for these - sprint intervals are under-20-second blasts and you just have to look at a sprinter's body to know what they'll do for your physique.


----------



## nkira (Apr 21, 2009)

I rest my case.



Built said:


> Okay, that's enough. It's all fun and games - UNTIL SOMEBODY PUTS AN EYE OUT!!!
> 
> Juggernaut, don't waste your breath.
> Nkira, good point.
> Ouiswim, enough with the disrespectful posts. You've posted up nonsense about your own and your friends' AAS use and you're really too young to even know how much trouble you can get yourself into, both legally and physically, from these substances. Take some time, breathe, count to ten, and start doing some reading.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> You're kidding right?



Ohhhhh, no I am not!!!! And if you want to know why no read my previous post. And if you think I am wrong...well, that is your problem.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

Built said:


> Yeah, I'm still interested in this, the keto thing. It doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, you're eating a ton of protein, you remain nitrogen-positive, you induce insulin resistance - all of these are muscle-sparing.



Did you even read the long post I wrote above? Did you actually dismiss it? There are VERY REAL reasons you will lose mass on a keto diet. Read about them!


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> that was my thinking. Carbs are not truly necessary here, right? You have all the ideal ingredients of maintaining mass with protein and fats. How the heck is this not ideal? Gopro, can you explain further? I'm very confused by this.



And who said carbs are not necessary? Yeah, maybe not to sustain life, but to build/retain lean mass? Yes they are.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2009)

You yourself admitted there would be an insulin response, even without carbohydrate.

So what's the problem? Where was that post from, anything peer-reviewed?


----------



## nkira (Apr 21, 2009)

Looking strong 



Built said:


> You bet.
> 
> Hamstrings tend to be predominately fast-twitch, and may respond very well to heavy, low-rep range work. My favourite movements for them are as follows:
> 
> ...


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2009)

Thanks, bud!

It's amazing what getting away from leg curls will do!


----------



## snake eater (Apr 21, 2009)

thanks for your help, built


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> There are VERY REAL reasons you will lose mass on a keto diet. Read about them!


 Could you point me to these reasons...I'm kind of not getting your point, because each time I did a keto-type for my prep, I've come in better than the prior year.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

Built said:


> You yourself admitted there would be an insulin response, even without carbohydrate.
> 
> So what's the problem? Where was that post from, anything peer-reviewed?



*AGAIN...NOT ENOUGH OF A RESPONSE TO DERAIL THE CATABOLIC EFFECTS! *

That post was from an article I wrote, and was published in Muscular Development magazine. The owner of that magazine, Steve Blechman, is a RESEARCH FREAK, and he absolutely loved and agreed with every single point I made.

And let me ask YOU a quick question or two..."Do you base EVERYTHING you know on research studies? Do you believe every study plays out the same in the real world? Would you not count your personal experience...of what you have seen in practical application hundreds of times...at least AS important as "research studies?"


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2009)

snake eater said:


> thanks for your help, built


You are VERY welcome. Read "baby got back" on my blog for more on this. 


juggernaut said:


> Could you point me to these reasons...I'm kind of not getting your point, because each time I did a keto-type for my prep, I've come in better than the prior year.


See, that's the thing. I have had my best success on keto and cyclic keto diets. The pic in my profile and my avatar, for example, I dieted down keto, and I'm still 100% natural there - no sterioids, no prohormones, nothing but food, EC, fish oil and creatine, and heavy freaking pieces of iron. 

And for those of you just tuning in now, no, I'm not natural anymore<gasp!>. My doctor has me on hormone replacement therapy - I use tiny amounts of transdermal testosterone and progesterone. It's not much, but it's not natural. I'll post up a comparison of "before HRT" and "after HRT" at the end of this cut, when I get a DEXA done, with pix and my pre-HRT DEXA. Tiny bit or not, I can certainly feel the difference even a tiny bit of assistance brings.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> Could you point me to these reasons...I'm kind of not getting your point, because each time I did a keto-type for my prep, I've come in better than the prior year.



Lately there has been a lot of discussion, controversy and disagreement amongst bodybuilders, trainers, nutritionists and coaches within our industry regarding whether natural bodybuilders should use a zero-carb or low-carb approach to dieting when seeking both a ripped and maximally muscular physique (like when prepping for competition). As a pro natural bodybuilder myself who has prepared for about twenty competitions, as well one that has coached both ???enhanced??? and drug-free lifters for hundreds more, I have a very definite opinion on this matter???based on experience and science. Simply put???natural bodybuilders have different requirements than those that utilize performance-enhancing drugs. About this, I have no doubt!

While I certainly would agree that a properly implemented zero-carb diet does work wonders for most of my ???enhanced??? brothers in iron, there are very definite and compelling reasons why the majority (nothing in bodybuilding is universal) of naturals should stay away from this approach. As bodybuilders our goal when getting ready for competition is not just to strip off as much body fat as humanly possible, but also to retain as much muscle mass as we can in the process. I know I don???t want to step onstage looking like an underwear model! Do you? Didn???t think so. And that is the major disadvantage of a zero-carb diet for drug free athletes???the inevitable loss of muscle size!

But why does this occur? It???s just simple physiology really???hormones, signaling molecules, and how they are affected when zero carbs are ingested! That said; let???s get a little more specific about why zero-carb diets (for naturals) are not the Holy Grail, but likely will lead you to fail.

Reason #1: Without any carbs there will be no insulin!

Insulin is a protein-peptide hormone that is released by the pancreas in response to the ingestion of food, with the greatest release occurring by way of the consumption of carbohydrates. Insulin promotes a dramatic muscle-building effect through its ability to drive amino acids, glucose, creatine, etc. directly into muscle cells and by inhibiting muscle degradation. The powerful anti-catabolic properties of insulin are most important first thing in the morning and right after intense training, when an optimum hormonal environment is necessary to build/maintain muscle mass. If you do not elevate your insulin levels at these two critical times you will fail to optimally transport vital nutrients into starving muscle cells, and will perhaps even rob them of amino acids already stored. Result? Muscle loss!

Reason # 2: Without any insulin you will secret more cortisol!

Cortisol is a natural hormone of the adrenal glands and is the primary glucocorticoid. It is released in greater amounts in times of stress (training is a major stress), and possesses many qualities essential to life. However, in too large amounts, cortisol is the enemy of a bodybuilder (yeah, this sucker wears both a white and black hat)! Excess cortisol can directly result in a loss of lean mass by reducing the utilization of amino acids for protein formation in muscles cells. Cortisol can also lead to a redistribution (and increase) of body fat causing a larger amount of storage to occur in the abdominal region. In addition, too much of this devilish little hormone can cause both sodium retention and potassium excretion. Less muscle???more bloat???and a bigger waistline? No thank you!

Reason # 3: With more cortisol there will be decreased thyroid function!

It has been known for quite some time that one of the downfalls of a lengthy zero-carb diet is the negative effect it can have on thyroid activity. One of the possible mechanisms behind this, once again, is increased cortisol secretion. Not only does excess cortisol directly inhibit TSH, or thyroid stimulating hormone, but it may also suppress 5' deiodinase, an enzyme that converts the less active thyroid hormone T4 into the far more powerful T3! The result is a decreased metabolic rate, which of course can make it harder to burn fat. This is why so many drug-free zero-carb dieters often hit a plateau halfway through their diet. Not good!

Reason # 4: More cortisol = less GH!

I find this effect particularly interesting because strong proponents of the zero-carb diet often claim that one of its benefits is increased GH output, leading to higher levels of the anabolic monster, IGF-1. However, you should be aware of another nasty tidbit about cortisol???it increases the output of the GH antagonist, somatostatin! So, there goes that theory right out the window! Less GH = less IGF-1, which in turn = decreased muscle retention while dieting. Man, cortisol is one bad motherfuc%er!



Natural Diet Dilemma: Zero Carb vs. Low Carb
Part 2

This month I will continue my discussion of why I feel that a zero-carb approach to dieting is detrimental to the drug-free bodybuilder.

Thus far I have mentioned that a lack of any carbohydrates in the diet will also cause a lack of insulin, which can compromise one???s ability to rapidly and efficiently uptake amino acids, glucose, creatine and other muscle building compounds into muscle cells at several critical times during the day. As well, this lack of insulin will also result in higher levels of circulating cortisol, which can cause a myriad of problems for the dieting bodybuilder, such as impaired thyroid function and lower GH output. But the negatives do not stop there???

Reason # 5: High cortisol levels can affect sleep patterns!

A little talked about fact in regards to cortisol is that it is actually one of the hormones associated with waking and sleeping patterns. Naturally, levels of cortisol are highest in the morning and lowest at night, with a number of fluctuations during the day. The higher amounts of circulating cortisol in the early hours help to wake us up. When the daily cycle of cortisol secretion is disrupted to a large degree it can cause levels to remain elevated at night, with the result being an inability to relax and fall asleep. I don???t need to tell you just how important sleep is to a bodybuilder, especially one that is dieting to lose body fat while doing everything possible to keep hard earned muscle mass intact. Insomnia? No thanks!


Reason # 6: No carbs pre or post training can compromise the immune system!

The type of intense training that bodybuilders engage in suppresses the immune system, which of course can lead to increased risk of illness. When the body is forced to work harder to fight off bacteria and infection it will have less energy to put towards recuperation, repair and growth. Combating illness is certainly higher on the body???s priority list than building muscle and burning fat. Not to mention that when you are sick, you might not be able to train or do cardio as needed to facilitate maximum progress. Studies show that carbohydrate consumption built around workouts (pre/intra/post) can reduce the immune system reaction to vigorous exercise helping to keep your muscle building and fat burning machinery working at optimum levels. Important stuff!

Reason # 7: No carbs in the diet can impair genes for muscle hypertrophy!

Let???s face it???as a natural bodybuilder dieting down for a competition, photo shoot, or even a nice vacation; your goal is not only to lose as much body fat as possible, but also to retain your muscle size. Most naturals (except the most genetically gifted) simply lose size on zero carbs, and often end up looking more like fitness models or swimmers than serious bodybuilders! And I know this is not acceptable to the hardcore natty readers of Muscular Development!

Robbie Durand, a fellow MD columnist, recently discussed a couple of recent studies (that I also have viewed), which showed that low muscle glycogen concentrations reduce the expression of several genes responsible for muscle hypertrophy! While a 2005 study reported a blunting of an important molecule in cell signaling and protein synthesis pathways called PKB (or Akt), newer research has also proven that low pre-exercise muscle glycogen stores decrease resting levels of two other major genes involved in muscle growth???myogenin and IGF-1! No wonder drug-free athletes tend to ???string out??? on zero carb regimens!

Now, let me point out that this does NOT mean keto diets don't "work," because they do...they are just not OPTIMAL for the majority of NATURAL (drugs offset most of the above) bodybuilders. And aside from the points above I also base this on my prep for over 20 shows and doing the prep for hundreds of drug-free athletes, and carefully analyzing the results.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

Built said:


> You are VERY welcome. Read "baby got back" on my blog for more on this.
> 
> See, that's the thing. I have had my best success on keto and cyclic keto diets. The pic in my profile and my avatar, for example, I dieted down keto, and I'm still 100% natural there - no sterioids, no prohormones, nothing but food, EC, fish oil and creatine, and heavy freaking pieces of iron.
> 
> And for those of you just tuning in now, no, I'm not natural anymore<gasp!>. My doctor has me on hormone replacement therapy - I use tiny amounts of transdermal testosterone and progesterone. It's not much, but it's not natural. I'll post up a comparison of "before HRT" and "after HRT" at the end of this cut, when I get a DEXA done, with pix and my pre-HRT DEXA. Tiny bit or not, I can certainly feel the difference even a tiny bit of assistance brings.



*Now, let me point out that this does NOT mean keto diets don't "work," because they do...they are just not OPTIMAL for the majority of NATURAL (drugs offset most of the above) bodybuilders. And aside from the points above I also base this on my prep for over 20 shows and doing the prep for hundreds of drug-free athletes, and carefully analyzing the results.*

I only deal in the _optimal._


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> *AGAIN...NOT ENOUGH OF A RESPONSE TO DERAIL THE CATABOLIC EFFECTS! *


How much do you need for it to counter this effect? 


gopro said:


> That post was from an article I wrote, and was published in Muscular Development magazine. The owner of that magazine, Steve Blechman, is a RESEARCH FREAK, and he absolutely loved and agreed with every single point I made.


Based on what?


gopro said:


> And let me ask YOU a quick question or two..."Do you base EVERYTHING you know on research studies?


No, but I don't get angry and start insulting people and refuse to post up citations when asked:


			
				gopro said:
			
		

> If you do not understand how the body works hormonally and how this cascade completely affects the partitioning of calories that is not my problem.





gopro said:


> Do you believe every study plays out the same in the real world? Would you not count your personal experience...of what you have seen in practical application hundreds of times...at least AS important as "research studies?"


You bet, and when this happens, I humbly accept that although I may not yet have anything to back up my assertion, I have noticed it in practice and, opportunist that I am, I'll use the technique in the meantime because it seems to work better than anything else. It just seems??? I dunno. Nicer. Don't you think?


----------



## Hench (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> *AGAIN...NOT ENOUGH OF A RESPONSE TO DERAIL THE CATABOLIC EFFECTS! *
> 
> That post was from an article I wrote, and was published in Muscular Development magazine. The owner of that magazine, Steve Blechman, is a RESEARCH FREAK, and he absolutely loved and agreed with every single point I made.
> 
> And let me ask YOU a quick question or two..."*Do you base EVERYTHING you know on research studies?* Do you believe every study plays out the same in the real world? Would you not count your personal experience...of what you have seen in practical application hundreds of times...at least AS important as "research studies?"



You wrote the article yourself? Not what were looking for, we already know your thoughts on the matter.

And no, but that might be why you keep getting asked for ''PEER-REVIEWED'' articles.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 21, 2009)

Eric is spending too much time on the MD forums, hence the reason he is not advocating low carb or ketogenic diets, or at least arguing that they're not "optimal" for a natural bodybuilder.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

Built said:


> How much do you need for it to counter this effect?
> 
> Based on what?
> 
> ...



When did I insult anyone my dear? And I am not angry at all. I am actually quite happy.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

Prince said:


> Eric is spending too much time on the MD forums, hence the reason he is not advocating low carb or ketogenic diets, or at least arguing that they're not "optimal" for a natural bodybuilder.



I already HAD this argument with Mr Keto himself Dave Palumbo...but we can't argue at MD anymore because, well, he was fired and I am still an MD columnist


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2009)

I posted what you said. In response to my questions, you accused me of not understanding hormone pathways and partitioning, and have spent a great deal of time posting about how you don't have enough time to dig up the research studies!


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> You wrote the article yourself? Not what were looking for, we already know your thoughts on the matter.
> 
> And no, but that might be why you keep getting asked for ''PEER-REVIEWED'' articles.


My point exactly. gopro, I dont care about self-written views. If I wanted that, I;d stick with Arnolds Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding.  Where are the _FACTS_???


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> You wrote the article yourself? Not what were looking for, we already know your thoughts on the matter.
> 
> And no, but that might be why you keep getting asked for ''PEER-REVIEWED'' articles.



Those are not my feelings...they are facts. The body does not work in some random way.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

Go look up:

-insulin's effects on the body
-cortisol's effects on the body
-GH's effects on the body
-IGF-1's effects on the body
-Myogenin's effects on the body
-Akt's effects on the body

There you will find your answers.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

And again...if you are happy with your diet approach, stick with it! Don't fix what ain't broke! You feel keto works best...rock on!


----------



## Hench (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> Those are not my feelings...they are facts. The body does not work in some random way.



Of course it doesn't, where did you get an idea like that? 

Where did you get these facts from? Studies or you own personal research?

I know it feels like we are giving you a hard time, but if you would just post some sort of link to a peer-reviewed study we would get off your back.


----------



## Hench (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> And again...if you are happy with your diet approach, stick with it! Don't fix what ain't broke! You feel keto works best...rock on!



I personally prefer slightly higher carb and lower fat (compared to keto) when I diet. However this is for no other reason than personal comfort, I dont believe nor have I ever read any information stating that this is a better way to diet.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 21, 2009)

There actually are no truths.

A true scientist does not admit to know the truth to anything, but rather keeps open the idea that there are other things out there that are not fully understood.

Science proves nothing.  It suggest statical significance.  It tells us what happens when a specific population is placed into a certain situation or given a certain variable under specific conditions.  From there, we attempt to draw conclusions on how this may (or may not) affect the general population (or the population of individuals we are working with).

Those that say, "I just proved this"  or "This is fact", have a limited understanding of science and research in general.  Theories do not suggest fact.  They suggest that based on what we know at the time, after years of evidence, this is what we _believe_ to be true.  This however does not slam the door to everything else.  Science is always looking for ways to prove or disprove theories.

Skepticism, critical thinking and debate are the ways in which science and the profession advances.

Unfortunately in the fitness industry, there is not enough skepticism and people simply accept whatever it is they hear from those who write articles for magazines, or those who are the "big guy" in the gym or those who sell supplements or those who may have gotten good results for themselves doing some totally obtuse training/nutrition program.  We are mesmerized by anecdotal reports (if this weren't true, people would never read those silly 6-page Muscle Tech "special reports" in the lame fitness magazines on the market) and personal accounts.  Yet we fail to seek a deeper meaning for the things that we perceive to be true or hold our own bias's towards.

Some of this stuff is out of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, where he talks about being critical/skeptical of things.

I am hoping to change that with my new podcast (we just recorded the first episode last night and will hopefully have it up soon) where we are going to critically evaluate these sorts of things in the world of training/strength and conditioning, nutrition/supplementation (I think people will be real interested if we can get some of the speakers we want on the show and open that can of worms), physical therapy/rehabilitation and bodywork/massage therapy.

patrick


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> Go look up:
> 
> -insulin's effects on the body
> -cortisol's effects on the body
> ...



Insulin's effect on the body is different in obesity than it is in lean individuals. I'd really like to know just how MUCH insulin is required to blunt catabolism, not to mention how much catabolism we're talking about. Surely this varies with the type and duration of training!

I mean, when you're prepping a competitor, you're using low-volume, low-rep training. Not exactly the monster catabolic load you'd get from the traditional "assisted" high-volume workout. 

Unless you still use high reps for your contest prep, at which point I agree with you - keto would be nasty.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2009)

Patrick, thank you for that. You have always been the voice of reason here, and I really appreciate you for that. 

I am very much looking forward to your podcast.


----------



## AKIRA (Apr 21, 2009)

Thank god an argument started back up.  Now I have something to read later.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 21, 2009)

AKIRA said:


> Thank god an argument started back up.  Now I have something to read later.



seriously.  i wish i had a lap top so i can take it into the bathroom!

patrick


----------



## P-funk (Apr 21, 2009)

Built said:


> Patrick, thank you for that. You have always been the voice of reason here, and I really appreciate you for that.
> 
> I am very much looking forward to your podcast.



Haha, the name of our podcast is *Reality Based Fitness: The Voice Of Reason*

patrick


----------



## Hench (Apr 21, 2009)

P-funk said:


> I am hoping to change that with my new podcast (we just recorded the first episode last night and will hopefully have it up soon) where we are going to critically evaluate these sorts of things in the world of training/strength and conditioning, nutrition/supplementation (I think people will be real interested if we can get some of the speakers we want on the show and open that can of worms), physical therapy/rehabilitation and bodywork/massage therapy.
> 
> patrick



Keep us updated, sounds very interesting.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> *AGAIN...NOT ENOUGH OF A RESPONSE TO DERAIL THE CATABOLIC EFFECTS! *



This is you being nice? Yelling in bold caps? You certainly have a way with words. Why are you so confrontational? 

Also, since we are on the subject, you claim to have readied several in fact, hundreds, of clients for bodybuilding contests. What do they look like before you start training them? How do they fare in placings? 

Finally, is your entire P/RR/S system based on any type of scientific literature? If so, can you site any proven, scientific claims behind your ideas?


----------



## P-funk (Apr 21, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> Keep us updated, sounds very interesting.




Oh I will! 

It is a bit slow getting it up because Keats and I are computer idiots and we are pretty busy right now looking at places to set up our own facility - human performance and soft tissue therapy - here in the phoenix area.

patrick


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

First...I would base my beliefs on ANYTHING on personal experience of the type I have had over 20 years than on ANY study put before me. My past 20 years has been one big, scientific study using more type of populations, circumstances, goals, variables, etc than any study in existence on this subject.

The only reason I am where I am today is because of my careful attention to detail, and the ability to critically evaluate every single thing I do. I have experimented with just about any and every diet/training regimen ever heard of and have recorded and compared results.

That said...I have absolutely nothing to prove here. My track record speaks for itself, which GOD BLESS (I am so grateful) has led me to the successes I have had and continue to have in this industry.

However, just to satisfy some of you, when I get home later, I will give you a few key studies that support my "thoughts" about keto dieting not being optimal because they can lead to lean tissue loss (and you can avoid this by using well times carbs while still losing = amounts of bodyfat).


----------



## P-funk (Apr 21, 2009)

Just curious what you would say to all the research backing intermittent fasting and the idea of performing a 24-hour fast once every 3-5 days.  There are certainly a lot of people getting great results from this and this is way more extreme than ketogenic diets.

patrick


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> This is you being nice? Yelling in bold caps? You certainly have a way with words. Why are you so confrontational?
> 
> Also, since we are on the subject, you claim to have readied several in fact, hundreds, of clients for bodybuilding contests. What do they look like before you start training them? How do they fare in placings?
> 
> Finally, is your entire P/RR/S system based on any type of scientific literature? If so, can you site any proven, scientific claims behind your ideas?



1-That is not yelling...I made that point before and was ignored. I wanted to make sure it was seen.

2-I would not have the place in the industry I do if not for my track record and the results I get for clients.

3-Yes it is. And it has proved itself in the REAL WORLD over and over again, which is why it has garnered the attention it has.

Do you think for one second you can try to discredit my accomplishments in this industry?


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

P-funk said:


> Just curious what you would say to all the research backing intermittent fasting and the idea of performing a 24-hour fast once every 3-5 days.  There are certainly a lot of people getting great results from this and this is way more extreme than ketogenic diets.
> 
> patrick



And I am sure there are many people would get shitty results too. But those cases will not be pointed out by those trying to prove their theory.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> And I am sure there are many people would get shitty results too. But those cases will not be pointed out by those trying to prove their theory.



There are people that will get shitty results doing anything for several reasons:

a) research is population specific, so they might not fall into the category that responds to this sort of thing.

b) other factors complicate things - biochemical, genetic, psychological, etc.


I was simply asking what your opinion was.  Have you read any of the research supporting this?  Have you checked it out?

patrick


----------



## Hench (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> 1-That is not yelling...I made that point before and was ignored. I wanted to make sure it was seen.
> 
> 2-I would not have the place in the industry I do if not for my track record and the results I get for clients.*Of course you could, look at the millions of dollars that fitness magazines generate, yet they are mostly shit.*
> 
> ...



LOL, you really think a lot of yourself, dont you? 

We all know how many years experience you have, how many millions of people youve trained and how much money youve made, but were not interested. FACTS! is what we would like, please.


----------



## nkira (Apr 21, 2009)

Most of the Mods are here,

This thread is a *ARENA!!!*


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

P-funk said:


> There are people that will get shitty results doing anything for several reasons:
> 
> a) research is population specific, so they might not fall into the category that responds to this sort of thing.
> 
> ...



No Pat...I have not checked out the research you are describing here. Is it being done on bodybuilders and athletes?


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> LOL, you really think a lot of yourself, dont you?
> 
> We all know how many years experience you have, how many millions of people youve trained and how much money youve made, but were not interested. FACTS! is what we would like, please.



Actually, I am quite proud of my accomplishments, yes. But I do not think I am "better" than anyone else...and I also consider myself very blessed.

I will post a few studies later for you guys. Then I will leave it in your hands from there.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> LOL, you really think a lot of yourself, dont you?
> 
> We all know how many years experience you have, how many millions of people youve trained and how much money youve made, but were not interested. FACTS! is what we would like, please.



Oh, and my writing for magazines is not what I was talking about. If I did not get results for my clients I would not have clients, and especially not ones that have been with me for 6-7 years and going...

(that was my point)


----------



## P-funk (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> No Pat...I have not checked out the research you are describing here. Is it being done on bodybuilders and athletes?



I have to look at more of it.  Up to now, I have not seen it done on bodybuilders or athletes - primarily due to the fact that those groups are highly specific and don't like to take the chances changing anything for the sake of science.

I'll dig some stuff up and maybe post it here.

patrick


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> 1-That is not yelling...I made that point before and was ignored. I wanted to make sure it was seen.
> *WRONG!*
> 2-I would not have the place in the industry I do if not for my track record and the results I get for clients.
> *What place is that? Can I see the track record? The results you claimed to have given "hundreds"?*
> ...


----------



## nkira (Apr 21, 2009)

Man.....erf777's first post and everything gets rolling, you see he hasn't returned for posting, I think we scared the poor guy.
 God I need sleep!!! I just skipped 2.5 hours of my sleep for this thread 

Hitting bed.....ZZZzzzZZZZzzzZZZzzzZZZZzz


----------



## Arnold (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> I already HAD this argument with Mr Keto himself Dave Palumbo...but we can't argue at MD anymore because, well, he was fired and I am still an MD columnist



I know, I listen to HMR and visit RxMuscle daily.


----------



## Hench (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> Oh, and my writing for magazines is not what I was talking about. If I did not get results for my clients I would not have clients, and especially not ones that have been with me for 6-7 years and going...
> 
> (that was my point)



I didnt say you couldnt get results, of course you can get results.

But we are getting into the finer points of dieting here, and just because it worked for some of your clients doesnt mean it is the best approach as a whole, or was even the best approach for them.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 21, 2009)

*Fasting*

Some interesting research.  What I like about this stuff (aside from the fact that the fasting helps to decrease markers of inflammation (C-reactive protein, Tumor Necrosis Factor, etc) it appears to not only be helpful for fat loss, and also attempts to dispels the idea that if we don't eat every three hours, our muscles will suddenly turn to dust or shrivel up.

Also, I take that back about not being on athletes.  There was a paper just published in the journal of strength and conditioning research were they did 24-hour caloric restriction in pro-cyclists and measured their ability to perform; showing no drop in power output or fatigue following a 24-hour calorie restricted diet, which was preceded with a low calorie diet (for i think 3-weeks if i remember correctly) to help them loose weight.  



> *Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight, body composition, and energy metabolism.*
> 
> Heilbronn LK, Smith SR, Martin CK, Anton SD, Ravussin E. _Am J Clin Nutr._ 2005 Jan;81(1):69-73.
> 
> BACKGROUND: Prolonged dietary restriction increases the life span in rodents. Some evidence suggests that alternate-day fasting may also prolong the life span. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to determine whether alternate-day fasting is a feasible method of dietary restriction in nonobese humans and whether it improves known biomarkers of longevity. DESIGN: Nonobese subjects (8 men and 8 women) fasted every other day for 22 d. Body weight, body composition, resting metabolic rate (RMR), respiratory quotient (RQ), temperature, fasting serum glucose, insulin, free fatty acids, and ghrelin were assessed at baseline and after 21 d (12-h fast) and 22 d (36-h fast) of alternate-day fasting. Visual analogue scales were used to assess hunger weekly. RESULTS: Subjects lost 2.5 +/- 0.5% of their initial body weight (P < 0.001) and 4 +/- 1% of their initial fat mass (P < 0.001). Hunger increased on the first day of fasting and remained elevated (P < 0.001). RMR and RQ did not change significantly from baseline to day 21, but RQ decreased on day 22 (P < 0.001), which resulted in an average daily increase in fat oxidation of > or =15 g. Glucose and ghrelin did not change significantly from baseline with alternate-day fasting, whereas fasting insulin decreased 57 +/- 4% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: *Alternate-day fasting was feasible in nonobese subjects, and fat oxidation increased.* However, hunger on fasting days did not decrease, perhaps indicating the unlikelihood of continuing this diet for extended periods of time. Adding one small meal on a fasting day may make this approach to dietary restriction more acceptable.





> *Influence of a 3.5 day fast on physical performance.*
> Knapik JJ, Jones BH, Meredith C, Evans WJ. _Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol_. 1987;56(4):428-32.
> 
> Eight young men were tested for strength, anaerobic capacity and aerobic endurance in a post absorptive state and after a 3.5 day fast. Strength was tested both isokinetically (elbow flexors, 0.52 rad x s-1 and 3.14 rad x s-1) and isometrically. Anaerobic capacity was evaluated by having subjects perform 50 rapidly repeated isokinetic contractions of the elbow flexors at 3.14 rad x s-1. Aerobic endurance was measured as time to volitional fatigue during a cycle ergometer exercise at 45% VO2max. Measures of VO2, VE, heart rate, and ratings of perceived exertion were obtained prior to and during the cycle exercise. The 3.5 day fast did not influence isometric strength, anaerobic capacity or aerobic endurance. Isokinetic strength was significantly reduced (approximately 10%) at both velocities. VO2, VE and perceived exertion were not affected by fasting. Fasting significantly increased heart rate during exercise but not at rest. It was concluded that there are minimal impairments in physical performance parameters measured here as a result of a 3.5 day fast.





> *Effects of caloric restriction and overnight fasting on cycling endurance performance.*
> 
> Ferguson LM, Rossi KA, Ward E, Jadwin E, Miller TA, Miller WC._ J Strength Cond Res._ 2009 Mar;23(2):560-70.
> 
> In addition to aerobic endurance and anaerobic capacity, high power-to-weight ratio (PWR) is important for cycling performance. Cyclists often try to lose weight before race season to improve body composition and optimize PWR. Research has demonstrated body fat-reducing benefits of exercise after fasting overnight. We hypothesized that fasted-state exercise in calorie-restricted trained cyclists would not result in performance decrements and that their PWR would improve significantly. We also hypothesized that substrate use during fasted-state submaximal endurance cycling would shift to greater reliance on fat. Ten trained, competitive cyclists completed a protocol consisting of baseline testing, 3 weeks of caloric restriction (CR), and post-CR testing. The testing sessions measured pre- and post-CR values for resting metabolic rate (RMR), body composition, VO2, PWR and power-to-lean weight ratio (PLWR), and power output, as well as 2-hour submaximal cycling performance, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and respiratory exchange ratio (RER). There were no significant differences between baseline and post-CR for submaximal trial RER, power output, VO2, RMR, VO2max, or workload at VO2max. However, RPE was significantly lower, and PWR was significantly higher post-CR, whereas RER did not change. The cyclists' PWR and body composition improved significantly, and their overall weight, fat weight, and body fat percentage decreased. Lean mass was maintained. The cyclists' RPE decreased significantly during 2 hours of submaximal cycling post-CR, and there was no decrement in submaximal or maximal cycling performance after 3 weeks of CR combined with overnight fasting. Caloric restriction (up to 40% for 3 weeks) and exercising after fasting overnight can improve a cyclist's PWR without compromising endurance cycling performance.





> *
> Effect of intermittent fasting and refeeding on insulin action in healthy men. *
> 
> Nils Halberg, Morten Henriksen, Nathalie Söderhamn, Bente Stallknecht, Thorkil Ploug, Peter Schjerling, Flemming Dela. _J Appl Physiol 99_: 2128-2136, 2005.
> ...




And another interesting study, not on fasting, but definitely interesting because it looks at a common dogma in the fitness industry:



> *Meal frequency and energy balance.*
> 
> Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM._ Br J Nutr._ 1997 Apr;77 Suppl 1:S57-70.
> 
> Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.



patrick


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

P-funk said:


> I have to look at more of it.  Up to now, I have not seen it done on bodybuilders or athletes - primarily due to the fact that those groups are highly specific and don't like to take the chances changing anything for the sake of science.
> 
> I'll dig some stuff up and maybe post it here.
> 
> patrick



I would be interested to see that...based on the fact that my opinions here are on only bodybuilders/athletes.


----------



## danzik17 (Apr 21, 2009)

P-funk said:


> Oh I will!
> 
> It is a bit slow getting it up because Keats and I are computer idiots and we are pretty busy right now looking at places to set up our own facility - human performance and soft tissue therapy - here in the phoenix area.
> 
> patrick



Off topic but if you need tech assist just let me know, you've helped me out plenty in the past.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 21, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> Off topic but if you need tech assist just let me know, you've helped me out plenty in the past.



I'll PM you so that this thread doesn't get off topic.  Any sort of trouble shooting you could tell us would be greatly appreciated, as we are still amazed at the fact that when we speak into the microphone, the audacity program records us! 

patrick


----------



## P-funk (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> I would be interested to see that...based on the fact that my opinions here are on only bodybuilders/athletes.



posted some up above.  some of that athlete stuff is up there.

bodybuilders are much harder to get research on because they are creatures of habit and typically ascribe to long standing dogma's in the bodybuilding community which often times fly in the face of science and are based more on anecdotal reports.  you can disagree with me if you want on my views here but that just seems to be what i see when i listen to the speak about what they do.

patrick


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

Like I said, when I get home later I am going to post a few pertinent studies on what I have been discussing. Hopefully that will satisfy your desire for some "proof." And even if it does not, well, at least I tried to do it your way.

As for the rest of the stuff being said. I do not feel most of you are truly absorbing what I am saying here. My point is this...and it goes for everything in the fitness industry (training-diet-supplements)...there is NOTHING important than experience and in the trenches data. This in my opinion blows away research studies because 1) For most studies out there, there is one to disprove it, 2) Very often they are poorly designed and/or do not use a relevant population, 3) They do not play out in the real world like they do in "the lab, " (and these are VERY different places) 4) Many of them are biased because the researchers have an agenda (this happens time and again).

Agree with me or not, that is how I feel based on what I have seen and also because I have been able to have many discussions with some of the most brilliant researchers in the industry.

I consider my experiences and all that I have done over the past 20 years one huge scientific study, and I will point to that before anything I read in any journal. And so far, it has rarely ever disappointed me or any one I have worked with.

I do not want any negativity or bad blood with anyone on this board b/c I do not accept negativity into my life. I respect everyone here and none of this stuff is personal. What you mods have done for this board speaks for itself!

So, I will post some studies. I have stated all I need to state. Then I gracefully bow out of this particular discussion wishing all of you the best with whatever approach you wish to take.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

P-funk said:


> posted some up above.  some of that athlete stuff is up there.
> 
> bodybuilders are much harder to get research on because they are creatures of habit and typically ascribe to long standing dogma's in the bodybuilding community which often times fly in the face of science and are based more on anecdotal reports.  you can disagree with me if you want on my views here but that just seems to be what i see when i listen to the speak about what they do.
> 
> patrick



Actually, for the majority, you absolutely correct.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

Prince said:


> I know, I listen to HMR and visit RxMuscle daily.



Oh jeez, I just hope you take what they so over there with a grain of salt


----------



## P-funk (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> Like I said, when I get home later I am going to post a few pertinent studies on what I have been discussing. Hopefully that will satisfy your desire for some "proof." And even if it does not, well, at least I tried to do it your way.
> 
> As for the rest of the stuff being said. I do not feel most of you are truly absorbing what I am saying here. My point is this...and it goes for everything in the fitness industry (training-diet-supplements)...there is NOTHING important that experience and in the trenches data. This in my opinion blows away research studies because 1) For most studies out there, there is on to disprove it, 2) Very often they are poorly designed and/or do not use a relevant population, 3) They do not play out in the real world like they do in "the lab, " 4) Many of them are biased because the researchers have an agenda (this happens time and again).
> 
> ...



I think what is important to note here is that (this is not directed at you specifically, but rather the entire group):

a) Things are not black and white

b) There is a gray area with all this stuff that we need to sort of embrace

c) Accept the fact that real world results are extremely important

d) Accept the fact that research and being "evidence based" is extremely important

e) And, accept the fact that, while research studies are not exactly replicating what happens in real life (usually) and they have design flaws (every study has limitations); we still need to find/read research and have something to base our opinions/philosophies on.

We all come to conclusions on things that we do, our methodology.  Some base their entire methodology on anecdotal reports, which probably isn't good.  Others have their experienced based ideas and come to those ideas by reading research and developing their reasoning. 

You have stuff that you have read that confirms what it is you know or believe to be "true" just like Built does, and I do and anyone who is a professional does (or should).

However, being open to other ideas and new(er) research is also good.  It allows us to further develop our understanding of how things work.


To those who got extremely defensive and went down the road of more personal attacks, this is not good (nor is it professional).  Oftentimes, we hang onto and cling to one, or a few, ideas so much that when we go to engage in argument or debate, instead of using reason or logic, we use emotion.  It is difficult for us to accept the fact that others are not accepting of what it is we believe.  Please, allow yourself to understand that it is okay if people disagree.

patrick


----------



## Hench (Apr 21, 2009)

P-funk said:


> I think what is important to note here is that (this is not directed at you specifically, but rather the entire group):
> 
> a) Things are not black and white
> 
> ...



Agreed.

However I think that most of the 'angst' in this thread was because of Gopro's unwillingness to post links and how he insuinated that his personal experience was worth more than any studys we have read or personal experience we have had.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> Agreed.
> 
> However I think that most of the 'angst' in this thread was because of Gopro's unwillingness to post links and how he insuinated that his personal experience was worth more than any studys we have read or personal experience we have had.



I cannot debate YOUR personal experiences! *If you have tried all methods* and found out one works best for YOU, there is NOTHING I can say.

But still, I will take my personal experience and accummulated REAL WORLD data *(not just based on myself, but my work with hundreds of people)* before ANYTHING I read in a book or journal. Plus, I also base the things I have said on how the physiology of the body generally works. Cause and effect.

Also, I am talking about what I feel is best for the majority of bodybuilders...like with anything, there are exceptions to all "rules."


----------



## Hench (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> I cannot debate YOUR personal experiences! *If you have tried all methods* and found out one works best for YOU, there is NOTHING I can say.
> 
> But still, I will take my personal experience and accummulated REAL WORLD data *(not just based on myself, but my work with hundreds of people)* before ANYTHING I read in a book or journal. Plus, I also base the things I have said on how the physiology of the body generally works. Cause and effect.
> 
> Also, I am talking about what I feel is best for the majority of bodybuilders...like with anything, there are exceptions to all "rules."



We just wanted reference for what you believe, if that was ONLY personal experience, you should have said from the start.

Though I do feel you have explained yourself much better and have been more respectful during the second half of the thread. Thankyou. And you have helped produce probably the best thread ive read since becoming a member. Please stick around so there can be more like it!


----------



## Arnold (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> Oh jeez, I just hope you take what they so over there with a grain of salt



I listen to HMR for entertainment and I like the guests they have on, i.e. last week they had Shawn Philips.


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2009)

gopro said:


> I would be interested to see that...based on the fact that my opinions here are on only bodybuilders/athletes.



Allow me to introduce Martin Berkhan, whose focus with regard to intermittent fasting is enhancement of the physique. Leangains - Intermittent Fasting for Strength Training and Fat Loss




> My name is Martin Berkhan and I work as a nutritional consultant, magazine writer and personal trainer.
> 
> This site is dedicated to my take on intermittent fasting, which shatters peoples preconceived notions on how to eat for muscle gains and fat loss. The approach will be detailed in a book, with contributing nutrition and training guru Lyle McDonald, author of UD 2.0 and The Ketogenic Diet.
> 
> For a no bullshit approach to diet and training, at reasonable prices, contact me at martinberkhan@gmail.com



Martin at age 16: 
youngerdays.bmp (image)

Martin now: IFcut.jpg (image)


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 21, 2009)

And yet another fan of keto...interesting.


----------



## gopro (Apr 21, 2009)

Here, this should help...

*Why Ketogenic Diets May Not Be Conducive for Muscle Anabolism During the Pre-competition Diet* 

Many people on the message boards were asking, ???Where is your proof that you need carbs to build muscle???? There are two studies that lead one to speculate that training in a glycogen-depleted state leads to impaired genes for muscle hypertrophy. This study does not prove that being in a glycogen-depleted state all the time may not be healthy for muscle anabolism. 
The study was published in the Journal of Applied Physiology and reported that performing resistance training in a glycogen-depleted state results in impaired genes for muscle hypertrophy.1 The study follows a 2005 study in which researchers from the Human Performance Lab in Indiana reported that a glycogen-depletion diet blunts the expression of the muscle protein Akt. Akt, or protein kinase B (PKB), is an important molecule in cellular signaling. Akt is also able to induce protein synthesis pathways and is therefore a key signaling protein in the cellular pathways that lead to skeletal muscle hypertrophy and general tissue growth. 

Akt is regulated in response to a wide variety of growth factors, including insulin and more recently has been associated with rapid activation in response to exercise in human skeletal muscle. In the study, they didn???t use rats or cell cultures; they used resistance-trained athletes. (The athletes had trained for almost 8 years, using resistance exercise and had exceptional leg press strength). Resistance-trained males performed resistance exercise in the glycogen-depleted state or with adequate glycogen stores. The next day the subjects returned to the weight room and completed 1-legged leg presses (8 sets of 5 repetitions ~80 percent of a 1 RM) with one leg that was glycogen-depleted while the other leg was not. Muscle biopsies were taken before exercise, immediately after and three hours after recovery. 
When they examined the muscle biopsies, the researchers found that depleted muscle glycogen concentrations reduced the gene expression of muscle hypertrophy genes. Some of the more disturbing findings were that resting levels of genes involved in muscle hypertrophy (Myogenin and IGF-1) were lower in the glycogen-depleted muscle.2 Akt expression was similar in both groups before and immediately after exercise (after 10 minutes of recovery in the high carbohydrate trial). The Akt/mTOR regulates muscle hypertrophy and is downregulated during muscle atrophy. Akt phosphorylation increased 1.5-fold after resistance exercise with glycogen. During the low glycogen trial after exercise, Akt remained unchanged.2 The study concluded that commencing resistance exercise with depleted muscle glycogen does not enhance the activity of genes implicated in promoting hypertrophy. This is the stance that Steve Blechman took on the message boards; low-to-moderate carb diets are better for losing fat and maintaining an anabolic state than a low-carb ketogenic diet. The study raises awareness that low-carb ketogenic diets may not be conducive for putting on muscle mass.

For a look at a brief overview of the study, download a free copy of the National Strength and Conditioning Association???s Performance Training Journal and go to page 5. The article is titled, ???Is Muscle Glycogen A Concern For Athletes Who Want To Stimulate Muscle Hypertrophy???? by Gregory Haff, Ph.D.

http://www.nsca-lift.org/perform/Issues/PTJ0606.pdf


The AMPK Connection

AMPK is activated during states of energy stress such as hypoxia, glucose starvation and restores the energy-depleted status by concomitantly inhibiting anabolic and stimulating catabolic pathways.11-13 Protein synthesis, a major consumer of ATP in mammalian cells, is inhibited upon AMPK activation.14 Protein synthesis as mentioned previously is inhibited by increased levels of AMPK.10 Furthermore, the degree of AMPK activation during sub-maximal exercise was also shown to be dependent on the fuel status of the contracting musculature, with AMPK activity elevated to a greater extent in muscle with glycogen depletion compared with high glycogen levels.15 A new study released this month in the Journal of Applied Physiology reported that low levels of glycogen caused an increase in levels of AMPK. They examined athletes (not resistance trained, but endurance athletes) and assigned them to high fat/low carb/high protein diets. The subjects were prescribed a high-fat (4.6 g/kg/bw, 68 percent of energy), low-CHO (2.5 g/kg/day, 17 percent of energy) diet. High carbohydrate was used as a comparison. CHO was an isoenergetic diet providing 10.3 g/kg/day-70 percent of energy from CHO and 1.0 g/kg/day, 18 percent of energy from fat. Protein content was maintained at 2.3 g/kg/day during both trials and diets were constructed to maximize, or at least match, absorbable energy. After 5 days of a high fat/lo-carb diet, levels of AMPK were higher than those on the carbohydrate-rich diet. This is valuable data, but does not prove that carbs play a role in the regulation of muscle mass.

All Anabolic Reactions Occur in a Hydrated Cell

Many of the research studies investigating ketogenic diets have reported that dehydration is a common adverse event that occurs with low-carb diets. Cells that experience decreased hydration have impaired anabolic reactions. There is evidence that cellular hydration is an important factor in controlling cellular protein turnover, while protein synthesis and degradation are affected in opposite directions by cell shrinking and that an increase in cellular hydration (swelling) acts as an anabolic agent, whereas cell shrinkage is catabolic.16 Additionally, subsequent studies on the effects of cell volume on protein synthesis have reported similar findings. The results strongly suggest that cell volume is an important cellular signal for the control of protein synthesis in general.17 Being on a ketogenic diet naturally disposes you to dehydration and as mentioned previously, training in a dehydrated state also blunts testosterone levels.18 

Ketogenic Diets and Exercise Intensity

Resistance exercise is intermittent in nature so typically, resistance exercise does not result in significant reductions in muscle glycogen. Some of the respondents in the debate say that they feel they can train harder on ketogenic diets. The literature suggests that reduced muscle glycogen is associated with muscle weakness,3 decreased isokinetic force production,4 and reduced isokinetic strength.5  The only athletes who have been shown to benefit from low-carb diets are endurance athletes training at low intensity, which enhances fat oxidation. Some members in the debate reported having increased strength gains on a ketogenic diet??? remember that resistance training at low reps (5 reps are less) is dependent on the ATP-PC system. However, high intensity training using resistance exercise (10-12 reps, multiple sets, with short rest periods) can result in depletion in muscle glycogen.6,7 In a review article written in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research titled ???Carbohydrate Supplementation and Resistance Training,??? the author makes several points about the benefits of carbohydrates and resistance exercise.

Spiking insulin occasionally can increase elevations in GH later in the day through hypoglycemia by insulin. Therefore, occasional carbohydrate spikes lead to increases in GH that may enhance hypertrophy induced by resistance exercise. For example, a study reported that the supplements which promote the greatest insulin spike post-exercise lead to significantly higher GH levels 5-6 hours later. In the study, the supplements that contained carbohydrates and/or carbohydrates/protein caused this spike.8 So occasionally spiking insulin with a carbohydrate may be good for muscle.

The author also concluded in the review article that, ???Current research strongly suggests that resistance training, especially using large-muscle mass free-weight exercises performed with high training volumes with moderate loads, is partially dependent upon muscle glycogen stores. The amount of glycogen used in these exercises also appears to be related to the total amount of work accomplished and the duration of the resistance-training bout. The ingestion of liquid carbohydrate may serve to promote a faster recovery, which may enhance subsequent exercise and training sessions.9???
The bottom line is that there is no universal diet that works for everyone. My graduate professor always told me to remain objective. Each year at major conferences such as Experimental Biology, National Strength and Conditioning Association, and American College of Sports Medicine, scientists present research from their laboratories and at the end of each session, there are other scientists who question the validity of their ideas and research. In the scientific community, being skeptical stimulates thought and leads to other questions and keeps the scientific community pursuing more answers. 
Based on the literature, it seems that carbs, although not essential to the human diet, are needed for muscle anabolism, as indicated by certain genes being blunted during glycogen-depleted states. I am not recommending a high carbohydrate diet, but I am also not recommending a low-carb ketogenic diet. I personally believe that occasional increases in carbohydrates and insulin are necessary to hold on to muscle while losing fat during the pre-competition diet. Based on the literature, training in a glycogen-depleted state adversely affects genes for muscle anabolism. No one has looked at changing the fat ratios either; no study has ever looked at zero-carb diets while using healthy fats (mono and omega-3s). 

Unfortunately, there will probably never be a study performed for bodybuilders dieting for competition and muscle growth. We can only make conclusions based on peer-reviewed research articles; there is no one shoe that fits everyone. Only through trial and error can you find out exactly how many carbs you need and how frequently they should be consumed. 

Key Points:
???Ketogenic diets are great for enhancing fat loss, but may cause more muscle loss.
???Training in a glycogen-depleted state resulted in reduced genes for muscle hypertrophy.
???Weight training performance is limited by low muscle glycogen levels.
???Low glycogen turns on AMPK which is a molecular component of a functional signaling pathway that allows skeletal muscle cells to sense and react to nutrient availability. Interestingly, age-related atrophy and decreased growth capacity is specific to fast-twitch skeletal muscle. When muscle biopsies are performed, AMPK is elevated with age in resting muscle; additionally elevated AMPK activity would correspond with atrophy in growth in fast-twitch muscle.
???Ketogenic diets promote acidosis in muscle (reduced Ph), which can increase muscle tissue proteolysis.

References:
1.Creer A, Gallagher P, Slivka D, Jemiolo B, Fink W, Trappe S. Influence
of muscle glycogen availability on ERK1/2 and Akt signaling after resistance exercise in human skeletal muscle. J Appl Physiol, 2005 Sep;99(3):950-6.
2.Churchley EG, Coffey VG, Pedersen DJ, Shield A, Carey KA, Cameron-Smith D, Hawley JA. Influence of preexercise muscle glycogen content on transcriptional activity of metabolic and myogenic genes in well-trained humans. J Appl Physiol, 2007 Apr;102(4):1604-11.
3.YASPELKIS, B.B.D., J.G. PATTERSON, P.A. ANDERLA, Z. DING, AND J.L. IVY. Carbohydrate supplementation spares muscle glycogen during variable-intensity exercise. J. Appl. Physiol, 75: 1477-1485. 1993.
4.MACDOUGALL, J.D., S. RAY, D.G. SALE, N. MCCARTNEY, P. LEE, AND S. GARNER. Muscle substrate utilization and lactate production during weightlifting. Can. J. Appl. Physiol, 24:209-215. 1999.
5.ROBERGS, R.A., D.R. PEARSON, D.L. COSTILL, W.J. FINK, D.D..PASCOE, M.A. BENEDICT, C.P. LAMBERT, AND J.J. ZACHWEIJA. Muscle glycogenolysis during differing intensities of weightresistance exercise. J. Appl. Physiol, 70:1700-1706. 1991.
6.TESCH, P.A., E.B. COLLIANDER, AND P. KAISER. Muscle metabolism during intense, heavy-resistance exercise. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol, 55:362-366. 1986.
7.TESCH, P.A., L.L. PLOUTZ-SNYDER, L. YSTRO¨M, M. CASTRO, AND G. DUDLEY. Skeletal muscle glycogen loss evoked by resistance exercise. J. Strength Cond. Res, 12:67-73. 1998.
8.CHANDLER, R.M., H.K. BYRNE, J.G. PATTERSON, AND J.L. IVY. Dietary supplements affect the anabolic hormones after weight-training exercise. J. Appl. Physiol, 76:839-845. 1994.
9.Haff GG, Lehmkuhl MJ, McCoy LB, Stone MH. Carbohydrate supplementation and resistance training. J Strength Cond Res, 2003 Feb;17(1):187-96. Review.
10.Rolfe DF, Brown GC 1997 Cellular energy utilization and molecular origin of standard metabolic rate in mammals. Physiol Rev, 77:731-758
11.Long YC, Zierath JR 2006 AMP-activated protein kinase signaling in metabolic regulation. J Clin Invest, 116:1776-1783
12.Hardie DG 2004 The AMP-activated protein kinase pathway??? new players upstream and downstream. J Cell Sci, 117:5479-5487
13.Mu J, Brozinick JT, Jr., Valladares O, Bucan M, Birnbaum MJ 2001 A role for AMPactivated protein kinase in contraction- and hypoxia-regulated glucose transport in skeletal muscle. Mol Cell, 7:1085-1094
14.Wojtaszewski JFP, MacDonald C, Nielsen JN, Hellsten Y, Hardie DG, Kemp BE, Kiens B, Richter EA. Regulation of 5AMP-activated protein kinase activity and substrate utilization in exercising human skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab, 284: E813-E822, 2003.
15.Steinberg GR, Watt MJ, McGee SL, Chan S, Hargreaves M, Febbraio MA, Stapleton D, Kemp BE. Reduced glycogen availability is associated with increased AMPKalpha2 activity, nuclear AMPKalpha2 protein abundance, and GLUT4 mRNA expression in contracting human skeletal muscle. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2006 Jun;31(3):302-12.
16.Latzka WA, Montain SJ. Water and electrolyte requirements for exercise. Clin Sports Med, 1999 Jul.
17.Busch GL, Völkl H, Ritter M, Gulbins E, Häussinger D, Lang F. Water, electrolyte and acid base disturbances in renal insufficiency. Physiological and pathophysiological significance of cell volume. Clin Nephrol, 1996 Oct;46(4):270-3. Review.
18.Judelson, A. et al. Effect of hydration state on resistance exercise-induced endocrine markers of anabolism,catabolism, and metabolism. Journal of Applied Physiology, July 10, 2008.

Ok, so now here is some clinical proof on top of information I have gathered after utilizing both keto diets on myself and with dozens of competitors and then comparing them to both high carb/low fat diets and also, lower carb/higher fats diets...and finding that the latter is the best for both fat loss and lean tissue maintenance FOR THE LARGE MAJORITY of natural bodybuilders whose goal is to be both big and ripped at the same time. There have been a few exceptions in my experience, but 1) They were almost pure mesomorphs and 2) They represent about 5% of the population I have worked with (in terms of bodybuilders).

Ok, I am done now and you guys make up your own minds as what is best for you


----------



## C6zo6 (Apr 21, 2009)

Just out of curiosity, does this fasting diet imply you should not eat after lifting weights on fasting days? I know you can lift when fasting, (It's suggested) but are you recommended to have a meal after weight training? (Although it may be a fasting day)


----------



## Built (Apr 21, 2009)

Gopro thanks for that. It doesn't address my concern though - for one, the first study says muscle anabolism is not supported - but while cutting, we're not going for anabolism. We're just trying to preserve lean mass while dropping fat. 

The second suggests keto is lousy for intense training. Again, anyone prepping for a BB comp should be reducing training volume while dieting on very low carb consumption; for example, while following Lyle McDonald's "Rapid Fat Loss" aka PSMF, my entire workout consisted of EITHER

Workout A: squats, t-bars, bench press

or 

Workout B: RDLs, weighted chins, clean and press

Workout A OR workout B was performed every third day, 3 sets of five. Whole workout took me twenty minutes. Minimal cardio (okay, I went window shopping a few times). 

I don't think this is the same kind of exercise intensity being referred to in the research.


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2009)

Built said:


> Gopro thanks for that. It doesn't address my concern though - for one, the first study says muscle anabolism is not supported - but while cutting, we're not going for anabolism. We're just trying to preserve lean mass while dropping fat.
> 
> The second suggests keto is lousy for intense training. Again, anyone prepping for a BB comp should be reducing training volume while dieting on very low carb consumption; for example, while following Lyle McDonald's "Rapid Fat Loss" aka PSMF, my entire workout consisted of EITHER
> 
> ...



Real quick...

#1...Unless you are a genetic freak of some kind, bodybuilders that step onstage still need to train like they always do to show a complete physique. You may be the only person I have ever heard of IN MY LIFE that could train like that and compete successfully on any decent level.

#2...The same EXACT process that builds new tissue will also retain muscle tissue. When you dehydrate muscle cells, decrease muscle growth factors, increase cortisol levels, etc, you will cause muscle to atrophy, which is exactly what this article was about.

But its cool. I knew it would not change your mind. 

Anyway, its been a fun discussion!


----------



## Built (Apr 22, 2009)

I don't compete. I just diet and train like I'm going to, and take pix and DEXA scans. To me this entire process is more of an academic curiosity than a performance - although I respect those who approach it differently. It's just not my primary interest. 

My friends who DO compete, do NOT train the same while doing precontest prep as they do while bulking or maintaining. They reduce training volume as their calories drop, as the strategic focus switches from "hypertrophy while eating at a surplus" to "muscle-retention while eating at a progressively stronger deficit". You can talk to Merkaba if you like - I helped him prep for his first show and he came in second. He's lifelong natural too - never touched so much as a testosterone booster.

I realize this is not the industry norm. Most competitors overtrain themselves (or their trainers overtrain them to death) with high-rep, high-volume training and increasing amounts of cardio. For assisted athletes, as you know of course, this isn't as much of a concern. Still not optimal, but the drugs are there to protect lbm. For natty lifters, the safest strategy is what I described. 

Think of it this way - you'd hardly run a business the same way during a recession as you do during an economic boom, right? Same thing.

Joel explains it well: T-Nation.com | Ripped, Rugged, and Dense


----------



## snake eater (Apr 22, 2009)

hey gopro...
I have some questions.
How many days in a week should I train? (i have started training from 5 months.)
Does cardio affect my muscle growth in a negative way? How does it affect it?


----------



## Arnold (Apr 22, 2009)

snake eater said:


> hey gopro...
> I have some questions.
> How many days in a week should I train? (i have started training from 5 months.)
> Does cardio affect my muscle growth in a negative way? How does it affect it?



you should start a new thread for this.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 22, 2009)

gopro said:


> Real quick...
> 
> #1...Unless you are a genetic freak of some kind, bodybuilders that step onstage still need to train like they always do to show a complete physique. You may be the only person I have ever heard of IN MY LIFE that could train like that and compete successfully on any decent level.
> *While I agree that training the way I usually do shouldn't deviate from what got me there, I am trying to present a package that goes beyond the level of conditioning of where I am presently at. This requires intense, specialized training protocols as well as an intricate eating pattern custom-tailored to my needs and beneficial improvement.
> ...


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2009)

Here is my feeling...

I train the same way to maintain muscle as I do to build it, still trying to lift as heavy as possible and push myself to the limit. At no other time is my nutrition, supplementation, rest, and focus more on point then before a show, which is why I can in a sense push myself even further at this point.

The only change I may make before a show is to add in some movements I may not normally use in order to work on some finer details, and/or to address weaknesses as I can now see them with my bodyfat lower.

In order to maintain muscle tissue the body works through the same mechanisms as it does to build it. The only difference is that without a slight calorie surplus there are not enough "building blocks" to increase lean tissue, as when on a diet.

One of the biggest mistakes many competitors make, IMO, is to change their training too much when preparing for a show. 

I am so, so far from a genetically gifted bodybuilder and I am able to always come on stage in shape at near 220 lbs, which is rare for a natural. Thus, I am very confident in my approach.

That said, if something different works for YOU or for let's say Built, then I cannot argue that. I have not seen Built's entire physique, only her abs, but if she can dial her body in, with a complete "stage physique," with as little work as she says she does, I am sorry, but I must put her in the genetically gifted minority. 98% of bodybuilders would fail miserably, IMO, to reach the highest levels of competition with such a plan.


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2009)

Well, I am glad you learned alot from Pat and Built!


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2009)

snake eater said:


> hey gopro...
> I have some questions.
> How many days in a week should I train? (i have started training from 5 months.)
> Does cardio affect my muscle growth in a negative way? How does it affect it?



This is without knowing any details about you...

3-4 days per week should work well for you, which is the normal frequency I recommend to most naturals

Cardio will only affect your muscle growth negatively if OVER done. Even in my offseason when my main goal is to add muscle I still do 4 days per week of 20 minutes on the treadmill.


----------



## Built (Apr 22, 2009)

There's a full pic of me in my profile if you want to see it, gopro.

I'm not contest lean in it - I'm 14%. I'd have to diet down to about 10% for contest-type conditioning. 

I'm forty two in that shot, and I had been quite overweight until the age of 38.

Kindly explain how your training during a cut can bring up finer details?


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2009)

Built said:


> There's a full pic of me in my profile if you want to see it, gopro.
> 
> I'm not contest lean in it - I'm 14%. I'd have to diet down to about 10% for contest-type conditioning.
> 
> ...



You look great in that shot! Kudos!

Meaning that you can specialize on certain areas of the physique through training, such as say lateral deltoids, inner triceps or mid-back, for example. You probably do not believe you can target such areas, but no need to get into that. I am simply answering your question.


----------



## Built (Apr 22, 2009)

I won't concern myself for now with the notion of bringing up specific muscle-parts, but how do you mean "bring up"? You mean "hypertrophy"? We're specifically talking precontest, right, while cutting, hard. 

PS thanks! I was pretty pleased. After spending most of my adult lifetime as "the fat one that's good at math" it was kinda cool to have a ring of veins around my navel.


----------



## Built (Apr 22, 2009)

By the way, here's a larger version of that shot. 

I have it embedded in a link on this article, that basically describes how I did it. 

(you can click on the pic for a bigger version)
Got Built? » Keeping it going - the evolutionary process of fat loss


----------



## gopro (Apr 22, 2009)

Built said:


> By the way, here's a larger version of that shot.
> 
> I have it embedded in a link on this article, that basically describes how I did it.
> 
> ...



Again, you look wonderful!

By "bring up," I do mean hypertrophy in the beginning stages of prep, when calories are still high enough...and then later on it is more of a deep "mental connection" thing that it would take me several pages to fully explain.


----------



## Built (Apr 22, 2009)

Hypertrophy in a surplus I'm jiggy with. Muscle-shaping, well, I'll leave that one to the physiology geeks. I don't know enough about it to argue intelligently about it, and it really doesn't matter what I "believe" now, does it? 

Hypertrophy in a cut, now that's a different matter. Outside of newbie gains - or chemical assistance - that's gonna be a tough sell, although with a muscle-pump and less fat-covering, it can certainly LOOK like hypertrophy, especially after shit-loading! Gotta love a good junk-food pump! 

Mental connection I have more respect for than you might think. For one, although my undergraduate degree is in Math (Statistics, specifically), my minor concentration was Psychology, and the area I spent the most time with was brain and behaviour. 

I'm dealing with a left lat that won't fire properly right now - herniated disk in my neck is pressing on a nerve - and I'm using visualization and muscle-stim among other things to retrain the connection while I floss the nerves to allow for better nutrient flow along the affected neuron. I can imagine that fatiguing a muscle under a variety of conditions would strengthen the brain-body connection, making it easier to fire and therefore, to pump and pose. 

Could make an interesting article, gopro. You should write it.


----------



## Built (Apr 22, 2009)

PS and thanks. I still can't believe I actually did that. I'm about ten pounds away from doing it again. Should be interesting this time now that I'm on "juice".


----------



## nkira (Apr 22, 2009)

Your abs look as if they are chiseled!!! Great to know that you are doing it again. Can't wait to see the latest cut pics.



Built said:


> By the way, here's a larger version of that shot.
> 
> I have it embedded in a link on this article, that basically describes how I did it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Built (Apr 22, 2009)

The abs were insane. A friend I work with was asking me what to do for her abs and I said "chins, heavy compounds, and sprint intervals" - and let her feel them. Her response: "Oh, that's not human..."

I giggled! 

At work - I work in an office, right, trays of candies and donuts and muffins all over the place - I just walk past the trays while fondling my abs... "there there, my pretties..."

Hehehehehe...


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 23, 2009)

I notice that people gawk at me when I go to Dunkin Donuts and refuse a free donut. 
Yeah it's called enjoying the bennies of looking damn good. My friend gets a cruller, a cinnamon bagel and a chocolate donut "for later" and at the same time, mumbles "I gotta lose weight." 

And since I instituted the mdrol, forget about it-that in itself is inspiration alone. I'm down with doing another PH cycle eventually, but for now, the PCT and time on/off will be okay. 

Of course, a Boston Cream donut would be pretty damn fulfilling too.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> Hypertrophy in a surplus I'm jiggy with. Muscle-shaping, well, I'll leave that one to the physiology geeks. I don't know enough about it to argue intelligently about it, and it really doesn't matter what I "believe" now, does it?
> 
> Hypertrophy in a cut, now that's a different matter. Outside of newbie gains - or chemical assistance - that's gonna be a tough sell, although with a muscle-pump and less fat-covering, it can certainly LOOK like hypertrophy, especially after shit-loading! Gotta love a good junk-food pump!
> 
> ...



I am not trying to sell you! Not at all. I was just answering your question is all. I understand you have very strong opinions on things that are not going to change, which is totally cool by me. I know what the body is capable of, and it has surprised me the things it can do when you figure out how to trick it. It's all a game of cat and mouse and you have to learn to stay 2 steps ahead, and after 20 years of mad scientist-like experimentation I feel I have gotten there. Heck, I added 120 lbs of lean mass onto my own frame without drugs, so I even shocked myself, LOL.

As for the mind thing...well, to be honest, this is where I feel you can completely separate yourself from everyone else. My degree IS in psychology, with a heavy emphasis on physiological psychology. The mind/body connection goes so deep that it truly amazes me sometimes. You mention an article, of which I have done a few small ones already...but I am actually working on a book. Hopefully with 14 hour work days 6 days a week I will find time to finish it.

An interesting note: When an athlete strongly visualizes performing a lift or a sprint or similar activity, the muscle fibers will actually fire in the same sequence as if they were actually physically performing the task! Amazing stuff!


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2009)

gopro said:


> I understand you have very strong opinions on things that are not going to change, which is totally cool by me.


Actually, that's not true. 

I have no opinions on any of this stuff. I don't do what I do based on opinion - I do what I do based on evidence. Show me compelling evidence of a claim and I evaluate it to see if the research was conducted in such a way as to support it. If it is, I accept this alternative hypothesis. 

This is the fundamental principal behind the scientific method, and it's called hypothesis testing. 

In hypothesis testing, you start out by assuming the thing you're testing has no effect, or that it has no different effect over the alternative you are evaluating. 

If you don't have strong evidence to accept the alternative hypothesis - in other words, if you and the finest minds in your field can't shoot holes in how the research was conducted and how you drew your conclusions, you reject the null and accept the alternative. 

So many lay-people don't get that about scientists, and think we're closed minded. We're not. We are in fact very open minded - show me the proof and I will change my mind. I've done it many, many times. Often this starts with a personal observation - and hey, *when you find something that works, use it - but don't make claims about it until you can back it up. *

For example, I used to buy the company line about glutamine. Bought it for my friends and family for Christmas presents. Consumed it daily. Then I ran out and... nothing happened. I now understand WHY nothing happened lol - I should have done more reading before getting sucked in. 

Another example was the metabolic advantage conjecture proposed by Dr. Atkins. I SWORE it wasn't the calories. Posted all over the internet to FORGET calories. LOL! I was so green back then lol, and really, I should have known better than to do that. But the weight just FELL off me and I was just in so much SHOCK about how easy it was... the "advantage" really felt real.

So I went BONKERS trying to find ANYTHING to back up my claim. 

I failed - over and over and over. I finally had to accept that I had it wrong. 

Now I wait for proof of efficacy before I go spouting my mouth. Slow learner I guess. 



> An interesting note: When an athlete strongly visualizes performing a lift or a sprint or similar activity, the muscle fibers will actually fire in the same sequence as if they were actually physically performing the task! Amazing stuff!



The brain body stuff is pretty amazing. Look at what yogis can do, for instance, warming one side of a hand, but cooling the palm - all at the same time.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2009)

*I thought this need to be reiterated here.* 



P-funk said:


> I think what is important to note here is that (this is not directed at you specifically, but rather the entire group):
> 
> a) Things are not black and white
> 
> ...


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2009)

Prince said:


> *I thought this need to be reiterated here.*



Indeed. Patrick and I both have formal science degrees, and quite honestly, I've found the mental discipline of critical thinking to be a real blessing in my life.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> Indeed. Patrick and I both have formal science degrees, and quite honestly, I've found the mental discipline of critical thinking to be a real blessing in my life.


I'm not bashing on psychology degrees, I was going to get one. I pretty much found a bachelors degree in psychology useless unless you go allllll the way. However, that being said, there are some incredible studies being done in the area of sports psychology. ie, the whole realm of getting psyched up for a show or competition can be very visual, and that would've been something worthy of my time and perhaps a great thesis.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 23, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> I'm not bashing on psychology degrees, I was going to get one. I pretty much found a bachelors degree in psychology useless unless you go allllll the way. However, that being said, there are some incredible studies being done in the area of sports psychology. ie, the whole realm of getting psyched up for a show or competition can be very visual, and that would've been something worthy of my time and perhaps a great thesis.



any degree these days is a waste unless you go all the way!

my exercise science degree is toilet paper.  it doesn't guarantee me a job or give me anything.  it is silly that it isn't looked at as necessary to work in this industry, since you can spend years working on getting your degree but someone can get a shitty certification in a weekend course and not know anything.

patrick


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> Actually, that's not true.
> 
> I have no opinions on any of this stuff. I don't do what I do based on opinion - I do what I do based on evidence



EXCELLENT! So do I!


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 23, 2009)

P-funk said:


> any degree these days is a waste unless you go all the way!
> 
> my exercise science degree is toilet paper.  it doesn't guarantee me a job or give me anything.  it is silly that it isn't looked at as necessary to work in this industry, since you can spend years working on getting your degree but someone can get a shitty certification in a weekend course and not know anything.
> 
> patrick


Well put patrick. I had the dumbass notion of becoming a special ed teacher/minored in sports nutrition. Taught gangstas for almost ten years until I burned out completely. My degree is a fucking waste. I will never step foot into a classroom again. My fitness center business is unreal and my personal training side has exploded. My regulars whom I think the world of, keep me challanged and make me look for new and interesting ways to develop their bods. 
BTW-my ACSM cert sits in my file cabinet. Not one person as requested it, except my insurance company. NJ is a fucker for that stuff.
People get results and I take pics of them on ongoing process. Some bow out, but others like to see the changes.


----------



## P-funk (Apr 23, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> Well put patrick. I had the dumbass notion of becoming a special ed teacher/minored in sports nutrition. Taught gangstas for almost ten years until I burned out completely. My degree is a fucking waste. I will never step foot into a classroom again. My fitness center business is unreal and my personal training side has exploded. My regulars whom I think the world of, keep me challanged and make me look for new and interesting ways to develop their bods.
> BTW-my ACSM cert sits in my file cabinet. Not one person as requested it, except my insurance company. NJ is a fucker for that stuff.
> People get results and I take pics of them on ongoing process. Some bow out, but others like to see the changes.



I didn't know you had your gym.  Got a website?

patrick


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 23, 2009)

P-funk said:


> I didn't know you had your gym.  Got a website?
> 
> patrick


Tinton Falls Snap Fitness Center - Fitness Club and Gym located in Tinton Falls, New Jersey


----------



## P-funk (Apr 23, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> Tinton Falls Snap Fitness Center - Fitness Club and Gym located in Tinton Falls, New Jersey



So do you own the franchise or are you just a trainer at the gym?

That is pretty cool.

patrick


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 23, 2009)

P-funk said:


> So do you own the franchise or are you just a trainer at the gym?
> 
> That is pretty cool.
> 
> patrick


I own it and do PT...actually it owns me!


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 23, 2009)

and thanks


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2009)

gopro said:


> EXCELLENT! So do I!



When was the last time you had to change your approach to how you do things?

I've detailed a few instances where I had to change mine. 

What rocked your world enough that you had to let go and embrace something new because of irrefutable evidence?


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> Tinton Falls Snap Fitness Center - Fitness Club and Gym located in Tinton Falls, New Jersey



there is one of those right across the street from me, great concept, I think they charge $20/month, but it's just not big enough for me, so I go to 24 Hour Fitness which is $25/month.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 23, 2009)

Prince said:


> there is one of those right across the street from me, great concept, I think they charge $20/month, but it's just not big enough for me, so I go to 24 Hour Fitness which is $25/month.


I know. My place is smaller,but I take on Workout World-one of the shittiest franchises in the business. I took a lot of their customers. People know me. I have no office. I thought open-door policy. I have a desk and all, but I have about 500 customers and I could walk in and probably recite 80% of their names. If there is a problem, they know how to get to me. I am thinking of expanding into the next strip store, but that wont happen until September. 

Thanks for the props. They are a good idea. Access key only for members is a great selling point.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> I know. My place is smaller,but I take on Workout World-one of the shittiest franchises in the business. I took a lot of their customers. People know me. I have no office. I thought open-door policy. I have a desk and all, but I have about 500 customers and I could walk in and probably recite 80% of their names. If there is a problem, they know how to get to me. I am thinking of expanding into the next strip store, but that wont happen until September.
> 
> Thanks for the props. They are a good idea. Access key only for members is a great selling point.



It just so happens that the closest liquor store is right next door to the Snap Fitness by me, and one thing I always wondered when I go by there is how do they monitor who goes in? What would prevent someone from letting a spouse, friend, etc. either go in with them and/or give them the key to go work-out?


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 23, 2009)

its key activated. If you dont pay a bill, I can deactivate you. Your card wont work. If I happen to check the video (I have 8 cameras showing all over), and happen to see Vinny using some girl's card and she doesnt know, I can pick up on it.
True Story: When I first opened in 2007, I had a tanning booth. A good one. When I checked the video every morning, I saw that a couple was using the booth TOGETHER. They were screwing inside. It was rocking back and forth. Its a standalone booth complete with a dressing room. They key needs to activate the door.
When I got in the next day, I cued it and waited for them. I had to tell them to stop the shit. When they came in I asked them both to explain the video. The girl went beet red. Turned out it was his wife's best friend. OH.

On the other hand, I recognize that system isnt perfect, but my members care so much for their place that will spot and tell me everything that is going on and I feel VERY protected by them.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> its key activated. If you dont pay a bill, I can deactivate you. Your card wont work. If I happen to check the video (I have 8 cameras showing all over), and happen to see Vinny using some girl's card and she doesnt know, I can pick up on it.
> True Story: When I first opened in 2007, I had a tanning booth. A good one. When I checked the video every morning, I saw that a couple was using the booth TOGETHER. They were screwing inside. It was rocking back and forth. Its a standalone booth complete with a dressing room. They key needs to activate the door.
> When I got in the next day, I cued it and waited for them. I had to tell them to stop the shit. When they came in I asked them both to explain the video. The girl went beet red. Turned out it was his wife's best friend. OH.
> 
> On the other hand, I recognize that system isnt perfect, but my members care so much for their place that will spot and tell me everything that is going on and I feel VERY protected by them.



I figured it probably worked like that, so it really would be easy for two people to use the same membership after hours, you cannot possibly keep track of 500+ members.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 23, 2009)

Prince said:


> I figured it probably worked like that, so it really would be easy for two people to use the same membership after hours, you cannot possibly keep track of 500+ members.


Most centers are 24 hours. My gym is 5am to 11pm. Yes, it does happen. I cant deny that. But, like I said-everyone knows a lot of people which turned out to be a good thing.


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

gopro--you say you are held tightly to your own convictions of "in the trenches" experience but you also say you had tried it all for over 20 yrs. Now you have the much coveted Holy Grail on body building/fat shedding preparation based on those 20 yrs of self research etc.

Do you feel that over the course of your 20 yrs with trial and errors that you have never been "100% sure" like you are now in regards to keto diets not being "optimal" for shredding down?  I mean I am not at all into the diet till you see abs lifestyle but I cannot disparage the research and knowledge that Lyle and the PSMF etc diets he has designed and over explained so even the most basic reader can grasp the benefits to do a keto style diet for contest prep etc.

I am also wondering how a trained athlete of 20+yrs can still manage to naturally be in an anabolic state while doing a contest prep??


----------



## P-funk (Apr 23, 2009)

Ah..."never being 100% sure!"

This is an excellent question.

I know it wasn't directed at me, but I can say for certain that I am always thinking (and re-thinking) things that I do and the ways in which I explain things to my clients.  I am sort of always in this state of cognitive dissonance. I think it is good!  It helps keep us searching more more meanings.

Patrick


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

P-funk said:


> Ah..."never being 100% sure!"
> 
> This is an excellent question.
> 
> ...



right because I know based on my own experience that what I have been sure of 5 yrs ago does not hold true for me today -fitness or otherwise. So I find it a little distracting to read gopro has done this for 20 yrs, tried it all and is still staunch to not consider it can be better for one individual over another even, regardless of his feeling the body always works the same for each individual.  It does not. 

Even if we could line up say 50 of gopros most successful clients and feed them all the same meals, have them sleep at the same time, train the exact same way with the same amount of volume and load we would not see an exact match in progress, not in fat shedding, atrophy or hypertrophy and I bet a hormone panel would not show us 50 duplicate readings. 

My contention is : gopro states "it is how the body works" yet, it is not how each and every body works. 

Gopor did each of your 1000's clients reach the same amount of leanness as one another? (Of course compliance offers too much of a variance there.) So all that complied 100% were the results duplicated in each individual?


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 23, 2009)

Just_Moe said:


> gopro--you say you are held tightly to your own convictions of "in the trenches" experience but you also say you had tried it all for over 20 yrs. Now you have the much coveted Holy Grail on body building/fat shedding preparation based on those 20 yrs of self research etc.
> 
> Do you feel that over the course of your 20 yrs with trial and errors that you have never been "100% sure" like you are now in regards to keto diets not being "optimal" for shredding down?  I mean I am not at all into the diet till you see abs lifestyle but I cannot disparage the research and knowledge that Lyle and the PSMF etc diets he has designed and over explained so even the most basic reader can grasp the benefits to do a keto style diet for contest prep etc.
> 
> I am also wondering how a trained athlete of 20+yrs can still manage to naturally be in an anabolic state while doing a contest prep??


Excellent questions.


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2009)

gopro said:


> Heck, I added 120 lbs of lean mass onto my own frame without drugs



So did I. 

Big deal. 

Okay, my starting weight was 8 lbs 3 ounces, but still??? 

Seriously, how old were you when you started, and how old are you now? You competed at what, 220 lbs - you started at 100 lbs at what age?


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> So did I.
> 
> Big deal.
> 
> ...



and by "without drugs" gopro do you mean you have never used any gray area supplements that are now classed as illegal?

BTW Built I was 8 lbs 9 ounces so that is explains our size difference.


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2009)

I'm pretty sure he said "lifelong natural".


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> Originally Posted by *gopro*
> 
> 
> _Heck, I added 120 lbs of lean mass onto my own frame without drugs_
> ...


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> I'm pretty sure he said "lifelong natural".



I wanted a clarification for "natural" because I like to make sure I understand things 100%--no vague areas in my logic.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> I'm pretty sure he said "lifelong natural".



I spent 1987 to 2003 having used only basic supps...then in 2003, while working for VPX I tried two of their PH's for 2 weeks each (total of 4). Both times I gained 5 lbs and then lost 7 after coming off. Thus..I was left 4 lbs lighter after this experiment. Since then I again have only been on basic supps.

So, I am guilty of 4 weeks out of 22 years of using gray market products, which I went backwards on. I have stated this publicly several times.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> So did I.
> 
> Big deal.
> 
> ...



I started at 17 and I am 40 now. Starting weight was a not all that lean 125 lbs. In the offseason I have been as high as 273 lbs, but now do not pass 245 lbs because I need to remain leaner.

This is why I said 245, although at one point I had gained 148 lbs over my starting weight.


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2009)

That's cool - you're natty now. You're just not lifelong natty. 

No biggie.


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2009)

How tall are you, gopro?


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

gopro said:


> I spent 1987 to 2003 having used only basic supps...then in 2003, while working for VPX I tried two of their PH's for 2 weeks each (total of 4). Both times I gained 5 lbs and then lost 7 after coming off. Thus..I was left 4 lbs lighter after this experiment. Since then I again have only been on basic supps.
> 
> So, I am guilty of 4 weeks out of 22 years of using gray market products, which I went backwards on. I have stated this publicly several times.




clen?


gopro said:


> Everything! For awhile all they knew about was andro (which is now class III), but some real geniuses in the industry tipped them off to all of the "good stuff." Yeah, it looks like all of it will soon be history. (Hope I can get as much of the PHs as I did of clen, LOL).



because you can get lean with Clen--so the clen with the PH which you hoped to stock pile was only 2 weeks--err, sorry 4 weeks worth?

I am not trying to discredit you at all--I have no bias against assistance from any ergogenesis nor should anyone else in this industry. I am just trying to see the basis for your foundation of the argument.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 23, 2009)

Please tell me what compounds they were...I could always use a couple extra pounds. Sounds interesting. MDrol has been good to me...of course thats a totally different story.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> That's cool - you're natty now. You're just not lifelong natty.
> 
> No biggie.



Oh please...4 weeks out of 22 years? Yeah, I would consider myself lifetime natty since none of those weeks contributed even an ounce to my body. I would look exactly the same...and perhaps .0001% better now if I did not use PH's for 4 weeks.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

Just_Moe said:


> clen?



No, no clen. It was two PH's which were legal and sold OTC at the time.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> Please tell me what compounds they were...I could always use a couple extra pounds. Sounds interesting. MDrol has been good to me...of course thats a totally different story.



They do not exist any more and the weight I gained was simply water, which is why is was gone within a week.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

Just_Moe said:


> clen?
> 
> 
> because you can get lean with Clen--so the clen with the PH which you hoped to stock pile was only 2 weeks--err, sorry 4 weeks worth?
> ...



I did not "stockpile" anything? How do you stockpile clen? Clen has nevr been legal. I was only testing the PH's for the company I worked for, but after this had to use my training partner as the guinea pig because he did not care what he took.


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

gopro said:


> No, no clen. It was two PH's which were legal and sold OTC at the time.



so you stock piled the clen but did not try it, ok fair enough! Thanks for the clarifications, I appreciate the time you took in answering.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

gopro said:


> I did not "stockpile" anything? How do you stockpile clen? Clen has nevr been legal. I was only testing the PH's for the company I worked for, but after this had to use my training partner as the guinea pig because he did not care what he took.



Oh I see your game. Do not refer to anything I said while back with VPX b/c I was hired to be a "salesman." When I got sick of doing that I left them in 2005 precisely because of this.


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 23, 2009)

gopro said:


> Clen has nevr been legal.


Anavar isnt legal...winstrol isnt legal...interesting view.
Interesting how these chems can land into the hands of a nineteen year old kid-but you cant get it because its illegal.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

Just_Moe said:


> so you stock piled the clen but did not try it, ok fair enough! Thanks for the clarifications, I appreciate the time you took in answering.



Oh, you mean clenbutrx (I thought you meant clenbuterol)? That was an OTC legal supplement that natural organizations had not banned at the time. I DID stockpile that and sold all of it off and made a small fortune.


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

gopro asked "How do you stockpile clen?" 
I would don't as I don't need to be shredded for my career or my sport. However I would guess you could keep it in jars or in the original packaging--perhaps Tupperware out of the kids and pets reach if you had to.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> Anavar isnt legal...winstrol isnt legal...interesting view.
> Interesting how these chems can land into the hands of a nineteen year old kid-but you cant get it because its illegal.



I do not give a crap what others take that is illegal...if I DID I would not coach competitors that take drugs. I just know that I myself do not take anything illegal and now I have to piss in a cup randomly to prove it!!! Which is 100% cool by me!

Oh, I am 5'11" Built


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> Anavar isnt legal...winstrol isnt legal...interesting view.
> Interesting how these chems can land into the hands of a nineteen year old kid-but you cant get it because its illegal.



some people choose not to break laws, steroids are very attainable but illegal, which prevents many from using them, so instead they go for the legal "steroids", i.e. pro-hormones.


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

gopro said:


> Oh I see your game. Do not refer to anything I said while back with VPX b/c I was hired to be a "salesman." When I got sick of doing that I left them in 2005 precisely because of this.



you cannot see my game! _Unless you already own my e-book._


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

Just_Moe said:


> gopro asked "How do you stockpile clen?"
> I would don't as I don't need to be shredded for my career or my sport. However I would guess you could keep it in jars or in the original packaging--perhaps Tupperware out of the kids and pets reach if you had to.



Again, I thought when you said clen you meant clenbuterol...did not realize you meant VPX's clenbutrx. I took a few cases with me when it was banned and I sold it off in maybe 3 days. That stuff was like gold to people.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

Just_Moe said:


> you cannot see my game! _Unless you already own my e-book._



I don't, but you don't own mine either so we are even


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2009)

Just_Moe said:


> gopro asked "How do you stockpile clen?"
> I would don't as I don't need to be shredded for my career or my sport. However I would guess you could keep it in jars or in the original packaging--perhaps Tupperware out of the kids and pets reach if you had to.



but there is no point to stock pile Clen, we all stock piled pro-hormones prior to 2004 because we knew they were about to be classified as Schedule III drugs, Clen is not a Schedule III drug and I highly doubt it ever will be, to this day Clen it VERY easy to get and virtually risk free as a "research chemical": www.cemproducts.com


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2009)

gopro said:


> Oh please...4 weeks out of 22 years? Yeah, I would consider myself lifetime natty since none of those weeks contributed even an ounce to my body. I would look exactly the same...and perhaps .0001% better now if I did not use PH's for 4 weeks.



Now listen - my personal feeling about the whole "natty" thing is "who cares", but really, saying you used but are lifelong natty is like saying you've never smoked a joint - but you smoked a few in college. 

You're clean now. 

Now, the legal thing. If someone uses test while living in Mexico, is he natty? Test is legal there.


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> Now listen - my personal feeling about the whole "natty" thing is "who cares", but really, saying you used but are lifelong natty is like saying you've never smoked a joint - but you smoked a few in college.
> 
> You're clean now.
> 
> Now, the legal thing. If someone uses test while living in Mexico, is he natty? Test is legal there.




I was going to ask if I am from Bulgaria and take ergogenic aids--am I still natty? What if I fall down in the woods?


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> Now listen - my personal feeling about the whole "natty" thing is "who cares", but really, saying you used but are lifelong natty is like saying you've never smoked a joint - but you smoked a few in college.
> 
> You're clean now.
> 
> Now, the legal thing. If someone uses test while living in Mexico, is he natty? Test is legal there.



Ok, you are right...because of those 4 weeks I am not "lifelong natty." However, I will state that the physique I have achieved today had ZERO to do with those 4 weeks...that is what is important. Had I been on for several full cycles and done PCT to preserve gains, then I could not say that.


Oh, and about the whole natural "thing," I care very much.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> Now, the legal thing. If someone uses test while living in Mexico, is he natty? Test is legal there.



that all depends on the criteria you're using for being "natural", if the criteria simply using what is legal or is it using anything "unnatural" or "man made".


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

also just to pick at a scab--for 4 weeks total you took gray area. If I did not diet and train for 4 weeks there would be a measurable level of difference, right? 
visa vi? That is the difference in our minds as "life long" or not. We are just finicky people I guess.


----------



## Hench (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> Now listen - my personal feeling about the whole "natty" thing is "who cares", but really, saying you used but are lifelong natty is like saying you've never smoked a joint - but you smoked a few in college.
> 
> You're clean now.
> 
> Now, the legal thing. If someone uses test while living in Mexico, is he natty? Test is legal there.



Youre associating natural with legal.

 I though natural meant steriod free. Doesnt matter whether they're legal or illegal, you still know what steriods are.


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

Prince said:


> that all depends on the criteria you're using for being "natural", if the criteria simply using what is legal or is it using anything "unnatural" or "man made".



I AM man made.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2009)

I could say that someone using 1-Andro keeps them natural because 1-Andro converts to 1-testosterone which is a natural hormone in the body, whereas a compound like 1-Nor Andro would put them in the unnatural category because it converts to nandralone which is not a natural male hormone in the body, its synthetic and would not normally exist.


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> Youre associating natural with legal.
> 
> I though natural meant steriod free. Doesnt matter whether they're legal or illegal, you still know what steriods are.




http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/anabolic-zone/98864-lifetime-natural-not.html


Good question!


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2009)

gopro said:


> Ok, you are right...because of those 4 weeks I am not "lifelong natty." However, I will state that the physique I have achieved today had ZERO to do with those 4 weeks...that is what is important. Had I been on for several full cycles and done PCT to preserve gains, then I could not say that.


I'm sorry Eric, and this must be hard for you because it matters to you, but you can't say that now. You've used steroids. I've seen the pathways. 

Hey - I use 'em too. It's okay. We're still good people.

We're just not natural. I could go off and I'd still never be natural again. 


gopro said:


> Oh, and about the whole natural "thing," I care very much.


I did too, while I was. It was really interesting to push my body as far as I could naturally - and I did okay, I'm really pleased. 

Now I'm enjoying this next step, too.


----------



## Hench (Apr 23, 2009)

For me:

Natural = never chemically increased their ability for hypertrophy

Edit: that doesnt work, they could be used for muscle loss prevention during a cut, thats not hypertrophy?! You know what I mean.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

Just_Moe said:


> also just to pick at a scab--for 4 weeks total you took gray area. If I did not diet and train for 4 weeks there would be a measurable level of difference, right?
> visa vi? That is the difference in our minds as "life long" or not. We are just finicky people I guess.



Just the other day on Super Human Radio I did an interview with Carl Lenore and mentioned my 4 weeks of PH use out of 23 years of training. So you are right, I am 22 years and 11 months natural and 4 weeks gray area. But again, the physique I display today has zero to do with those 4 weeks, and I turned pro using nothing more than BCAA's and vitamins.

I have never failed a drug test, and at 40 am still improving my physique every year...and taking random drugs tests throughout the year, which will be publicly posted.


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2009)

So as long as you pass drug tests, you're natural?


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> For me:
> 
> Natural = never chemically increased their ability for hypertrophy
> 
> Edit: that doesnt work, they could be used for muscle prevention during a cut, thats not hypertrophy?! You know what I mean.



read my earlier post on previous page.

define a chemical.


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

Moondogg said:


> For me:
> 
> Natural = never chemically increased their ability for hypertrophy
> 
> Edit: that doesnt work, they could be used for muscle prevention during a cut, thats not hypertrophy?! You know what I mean.



so if used for strength it is still a natural athlete


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2009)

It wasn't grey area. It was anabolic androgenic steroids.


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> So as long as you pass drug tests, you're natural?



I am waiting for my MLB contract right now in fact!


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> So as long as you pass drug tests, you're natural?



its subjective, in one way or another we are ALL unnatural, we all consume chemicals of some sort or have at one time, maybe not hormones, but man made substances.

For me: a natural bodybuilder is one that is not using anabolic steroids and has not used them for at least one year, because I don't believe anyone can maintain the amount of muscle they will using AAS, its not physiologically possible.


----------



## Just_Moe (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> It wasn't grey area. It was anabolic androgenic steroids.




natty body building _moral turpitude_


----------



## juggernaut (Apr 23, 2009)

ok...great. You're not natural anymore, gorpo. It's ok. I'm not either-I'm enjoying tipping the scales at 230 lbs. Feels good to face reality. So, presumably, you have no business being in a natural federation. 
You should also relinquish this lifetime natural idiom.


----------



## Hench (Apr 23, 2009)

Prince said:


> read my earlier post on previous page.
> *
> define a chemical*.



Thats why I tried to use 'hypertrophy', because how do you define one chemical from another over such a broad spectrum?


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> It wasn't grey area. It was anabolic androgenic steroids.



a pro-hormone is not an anabolic steroid, until converted in the body its inactive.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

Built said:


> So as long as you pass drug tests, you're natural?



I was just mentioning that. Obviously there are ways to beat scheduled drug tests, which is why AAEFX tests its athletes with zero notice. Its basically....go to the lab today and piss. And being that all I use and have used for 22 and 11/12 years out of 23 is the most basic supplements, well, I say bring it on AAEFX!


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> So, presumably, you have no business being in a natural federation.



to qualify as a Natrual NGA Pro you only have to be natural for 7 years, not life.


----------



## gopro (Apr 23, 2009)

juggernaut said:


> ok...great. You're not natural anymore, gorpo. It's ok. I'm not either-I'm enjoying tipping the scales at 230 lbs. Feels good to face reality. So, presumably, you have no business being in a natural federation.
> You should also relinquish this lifetime natural idiom.



I do relinquish it, which is why I publicly state my 4 weeks of use, which has nothing to do with the 220 lbs at low single digit bodyfat I hold onstage today. And the only natural federation I suppose I would have no business being in would be one that is LIFETIME drug free, of which there are none.


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2009)

Prince said:


> a pro-hormone is not an anabolic steroid, until converted in the body its inactive.



Well first up, it is indeed a steroid. Steroids can and are precursors - prohormones - to other steroids - case in point testosterone to DHT, through 5-alpha reductase. 

So the next question: does the prohormone raise the levels of active to supraphysiologic levels?

Because if they don't, then why are they banned by the IOC and natty bodybuilding associations, and why won't gopro use them now? I mean, he's already popped that cherry, it's not like they're new to him.


----------



## Arnold (Apr 23, 2009)

I am closing this thread because it has gone way off topic.


----------



## Built (Apr 23, 2009)

gopro said:


> I do relinquish it, which is why I publicly state my 4 weeks of use, which has nothing to do with the 220 lbs at low single digit bodyfat I hold onstage today. And the only natural federation I suppose I would have no business being in would be one that is LIFETIME drug free, of which there are none.



Good thing, hey? There would be hardly anyone onstage!

A lot of the so-called natty federations are a joke anyway. I had a "natty" guy try to sell me winny out of the back of his car at a wedding. LOL!


----------

