MuscleMeat

Sticky Wat maakt(e) vandaag jouw dag goed? (42 bezoekers)

Bezoekers in dit topic

  • bodyweight ratio is voor ecto's
     
    jouw 305 was op 104 (?) kg - Geen 3 x bw jij weegt nu 99kg 3 x 99 = 297 - En dat heb je nog niet gelift op dit bw. Blijf jij maar lekker in de 2x+ bw crew :o


    tumblr_inline_nagmdiIy2b1smpdl3.gif
     
    Ga blijkbaar toch carnaval vieren. Iemand cheap last minute outfit idee?
     
    Ga blijkbaar toch carnaval vieren. Iemand cheap last minute outfit idee?

    powerlifter

    riem om, tanktop aan, magnesium mee en op elke goede ass die je ziet een paar handafdrukken achterlaten
     
    jouw 305 was op 104 (?) kg - Geen 3 x bw jij weegt nu 99kg 3 x 99 = 297 - En dat heb je nog niet gelift op dit bw. Blijf jij maar lekker in de 2x+ bw crew :o
    maar wie was jou DL filmpje hoody

    of je squat filmpje huehue
     
    Poverty ghost

    [Afbeelding niet meer beschikbaar]
     
    lel reversie dieting
    im reposting this here publicly because right now the only place its updated is the iifym group and everyone cant see that.

    it seems like the more reverse dieting gets debunked the more uneducated people i see advocating it. here is a comment i posted on a reverse dieting thread that pretty well lays out why its a waste of time.

    1. metabolic adaptation doesnt exceed 18% even in the most extreme situations. 18% was seen on biggest losers in this study.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22535969

    keys et al put men on 1500 calories for 6 months, they showed a 10-15% decrease and didnt stop losing until they were at 5% and even then only stopped losing scale weight due to water retention, they never stopped losing muscle/fat.

    both of these studies used too low of protein, cardio, and no or not enough heavy lifting. these are factors that could decrease adaptation.

    so if metabolic adaptation doesnt explain why people maintain or gain on low numbers, what could it be?

    2. people after a cut are very prone to binging. in keys et al the subjects were literally fantasizing about food, all they thought of was food. after the 6 months they were allowed to eat as much as they wanted, and they went crazy. this can also be seen on many competitors youtube channels. most of us has seen a bikini girl talking about all the food shes planning on eating after her show.

    3. people are very, very bad at reporting calories. kira already posted a link to an article about this study, but there was a study done on obese women who were having this exact problem. they were taught how to keep a food diary and instructed to record everything. they knew itd be checked for accuracy. they were still wildly inaccurate.

    on a related note, some people will say "ive been eating x amount of calories and not losing, while they know theyve been binging." Rose Brock said she was eating 800 calories and not losing in the womens group. when i told her she was wrong a bunch of women jumped on me for "calling her a liar" and insulting her, and i got a pm from her saying she wasnt really eating 800, she was trying to and then binging a lot. just like every other person that makes her initial claim.

    [Link niet meer beschikbaar]

    4. if metabolic adaptation is caused by being in a deficit, why would you possibly stay in a deficit? if you put your hand in boiling water and it hurts, do you pull it out as fast as possible or do you lower the temp gradually? the idea of fixing a problem caused by being in a deficit by prolonging the deficit is ludicrous. there are negative adaptations brought on by eating in a deficit, and guess how you fix them? you stop eating in a deficit.

    5. eating low calories increases cortisol, which causes water retention. this can cause stalls on the scale. adding in more calories can cause this water to drop.

    6. before moving on to the reasons reversing works and why, heres a post that shows some of the things layne has claimed are not even close to physically possible. laynes response to avi saying its impossible was along the lines of "i wouldve agreed with you two years ago, but ive seen too much since then." for a man who claims hes of science, disagreeing with physics doesnt make much sense. its also ironic that layne admits theres no research backing him up, and relies on emails from post contest women, but then demands research from other "gurus" on a regular basis.
    https://www.facebook.com/AviBitterman/posts/10151730799732234

    7. time spent reversing is time that could be spent bulking.

    8. for all the people using anecdotes to back this shit up. read this.

    http://www.skepticink.com/…/smart-trainers-believe-stupid-…/

    why reversing seems to work

    1. more calories increases NEAT. neat is non exercise activity thermogenesis. its all the calories you burn on a daily basis that isnt actual exercise. walking around, tapping a foot, etc. homeostasis uses neat as a tool to maintain, when you eat in a surplus its likely neat will increase, when you eat in a deficit itll decrease. the degree of adaptation is highly variable on the individual.

    2. more calories increases calories burned while training. this is also pretty obvious, you eat more you train better.

    3. more calories increases TEF (thermic effect of food). this is also obvious, the more you eat the more thatll increase.

    4. as stated above, more calories will lower cortisol and help drop water weight thats being held. many times people will be losing fat in a cut and not notice until they add in more, and then not realize they arent losing a lot of fat on the higher calories, theyre just revealing the fat loss they already made by losing water.

    5. reversing can be great to help ease the post contest blues, and most coaches who advocate it do it for psychological reasons. i used to agree with this. itll slow down scale gains due to water and glycogen. however i also always thought it might be counterproductive in the long run. competitors shouldnt feel like they need to stay stage lean after a show, its not healthy. by reversing to stay as lean as possible as long as possible it really only encourages that mindset that one shouldnt gain weight after a show. in the long run its much healthier to learn to accept the water and glycogen gains without worrying about it.

    Alan said pretty much everything ive been saying for months and months in the latest AARR, read it. his final recommendation is very close to what mine has always been (mine was get to maintenance asap and sit there 2 weeks before bulking), dont take more than 2 weeks getting to maintenance and not more than a month before starting a bulk.

    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/aarrindex/

    updates:

    in a study layne was an author on they say that the benefits of reversing come from being in a slight surplus. its clear that laynes methods of reversing do not put anyone in a surplus.

    "In theory, providing a small caloric surplus might help to restore circulating hormone levels and energy expenditure toward pre-diet values, while closely matching energy intake to the recovering metabolic rate in an effort to reduce fat accretion."
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3943438/

    layne likes to use the chris fahs case study as proof to his point. here is a good post by Avi addressing that. also its worth mentioning the subject in the case study was doing a dissertation at the same time as prepping, which obviously would add a lot of stress to the already stressful process. heres a couple posts by avi on the topic.

    Re: That metabolic adaptation case report

    Let's ignore all the problems that would suspect us that the metabolic cart was inaccurate (by the way, it wouldn't require 1217 calories per day, it would require MORE than 1217 calories per day just out of activity alone that 5 hours of strength, 40 minutes of HIIT, 30 minutes of LISS all PER WEEK would have to provide. 1217 calories would be needed just to keep him at the same weight during parts of the study, and the subject lost weight).

    Let's also ignore that now this ~50% drop is being fully attributed to "metabolic adaptation" and none of that 50% is being considered as simply a decrease due to tissue loss, even if it is of small (but not insignificant) contribution.

    Let's ignore all of this. These all come across as legitimate substantial weaknesses of a study, but nothing disingenuous.

    This part though, is what really stood out (towards the end of the paper):

    "Although randomized controlled trials are the norm in scientific literature, it has been satirically and accurately demonstrated that they are not always the best source of information. (cited source: http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459) We believe that our sample size of 1 is thus a strength of our study, as it enabled us to frequently perform a plethora of measurements for a full year in a difficult-to-study subject population."

    Yup. You've read this right. A SAMPLE SIZE of ONE is a STRENGTH to determine metabolic damage in bodybuilders because you also don't need (and it's also not realistic to have) a large sample size trial to show that jumping out of a plane without a parachute is more dangerous than jumping out with one.

    Why do they think this analogy is valid? Because "We are of the opinion that not many bodybuilders preparing for a competition would agree to regular fasted testing, maximal cycling tests, and maximal-strength assessments."

    Firstly, simply because it's harder to gather evidence to support your position doesn't make your position any stronger with less evidence. Weak evidence is weak evidence. And a sample size of 1 should be recognized as just that, a sample size of 1. Granted, weak evidence is better than no evidence, but if the evidence is weak, the least you can do is admit the evidence is weak.

    Secondly, the analogy is ridiculous. I get that it's meant to be comical. But I don't even think the illustrative principle applies that well either. The fact that jumping out of a plane with a parachute can improve your odds of surviving can be addressed using relatively simple principles physics. It's not a question of complex biology where it would simply be too unfathomable to calculate every variable that goes into a metabolic rate and thus one would need to resort to a study. The illustrative principle of it being difficult to get volunteers does apply, but it goes without saying that the magnitude clearly does not (as the degree of harm to the subjects is not nearly as comparable). -Avi

    "Metabolic damage and deceptive partial representation. Here we go again.

    So proponents of metabolic damage are now citing this study to support their claims: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20900/pdf

    And what do you know, the measured caloric reduction in RMR was double the predicted caloric reduction in RMR (617 vs 289). Gosh this is some pretty huge stuff and the stuff we've been saying about metabolic damage must have been wrong.

    Well, not really. And with a little math it isn't too hard to see why:

    Here's the data:

    BLC group:
    Baseline RMR: 2474
    7 month RMR: 1857
    Baseline predicted RMR: 2564
    7 month predicted RMR: 2275

    So simple math would show that 2564-2275 is a predicted drop of 289 for a predicted percent drop of 11.27% of baseline RMR based on body weight changes while what happened in reality was 2474-1857 = 617 drop for a percent drop of 24.93% of baseline.

    But guess what, that also means that only 24.93%(actual percentage drop)-11.27%(predicted percentage drop) = 13.66% of baseline drop is attributable to actual metabolic adaptations not explained by predicted values from weight loss in the first place.

    So basically this is just confirming what critics of metabolic damage were saying all along. That metabolic adaptation at most can only account for around a 15% (in this case it was 13.66%) of a reduction in metabolic rate.

    Any reason why the proponents of metabolic damage didn't mention that part of the study?" - Avi Bitterman

    heres another critique of that study.

    Layne Norton: "A lot of people have been claiming metabolic adaptation can only account for 15% of a reduction in metabolic rate. I would disagree with that. See this study done on a bodybuilder showing a reduction of almost 50% in metabolic rate over the course of a contest prep.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23412685 It doesn't show it in the abstract but MR dropped from 2424 kcal/day to 1283 kcal/day."

    Scott Landis Russell: "For those wondering, the weight change was from 102.85kg to 88.87kg. Then again, his energy intake was never far below 2500kcal, which makes me think the method of testing (metabolic cart) is probably inaccurate in this setting."

    Layne Norton: "Scott Landis Russell you also have to consider his activity level"

    Scott Landis Russell: "1200kcals of activity? Is that a joke?"

    Scott Landis Russell: "Besides the study tells us his training. 5 hours of strength, 40 minutes of HIIT, 30 minutes of LISS. Per week."

    Maurice van der Wardt: “Layne Norton: ''Keep in mind that I also don't think metabolic cart (oxygen consumption) is necessarily accurate. I've seen it tell people they had a metabolic rate of 2300 kcals but they were consuming far less and not dropping weight. I will step right up and say that I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but it's something else I'd like to study.''

    1 mei 2013 om 22:19 [May 1, 2013 at 10:19pm]

    LOL.”

    Layne Norton: “Meaning I thought it overestimated energy expenditure.”

    Scott Landis Russell: “Do you really think the bodybuilder in this study had a bmr of 1283 kcal/day? He was eating double that. That's not to say more severe metabolic adaptation isn't possible, but this study doesn't seem to support it.”

    Layne Norton: “the data is what the data is. I'm quite confident in the ability of all the individuals involved in this study as they are all professors and well versed in measuring metabolic rate. The bodybuilder himself was a professor.”

    Scott Landis Russell: “So you acknowledge that the metabolic cart might overestimate metabolic rate, but wont acknowledge it might underestimate it? And the data on caloric intake and activity also is what it is. Something clearly doesn't add up.”

    Layne Norton: “sure it could be off, but this is going off my own observations and being around labs for a decade and involved with research. You seems to already have your mind made up regardless, so please feel free to continue to believe what you'd like to believe”

    Scott Landis Russell: “Like I said, I'm open to the idea of more severe reduction in MR, but this study doesn't support it."
     
    Back
    Naar boven