i prefer keeping all lifts to a low range when cutting. just because it's accessory doesn't mean you can't boost test/gh through it by going low rep/heavy, and also doesn't mean it won't cause enough muscle tear to hinder your mass during a deficit.

1.2? Lol.
Pretty high volume routine 5 days a week plus cardio 6 days a week

He's talking about your actual workout, not the figments of your imagination.

I'm aware and practice leangains

but for somebody who is not aware, carb depleting for long periods before a workout would lead them to have a less productive gym session, until they are used to fasted training

You're missing the point. What's the point of using percentiles when you can work off minimums, which are just as easy to calculate? Again, what's the point of calculating that 40% of my calories should be protein? I'm not saying that you're restricting people's dieting or advocating that, so move away from that. What I'm saying is that the idea of needing to eat 40% of your calories from protein places dietary restrictions on your diet as you need different foods (something that you may not necessarily enjoy) to fit your protein target, which, again, is 40%.

So, taking the 40/30/30 for someone eating 2000 @ 155lbs, we have 200g protein, 67g fat, and 150g carbs. What would be the point of that person 200g of protein when they don't want it nor do they need it? There is no point because percentiles are useless. If that same person, instead, just went off and used 1.7g/kg from the get-go then they would have a workable minimum, which is the least amount they should eat as opposed to something astronomically high that impedes the decision of the foods they eat.

I'm not sure how much simpler I could say it. Workable minimums render percentiles pointless.



Of course it comes with an increase in catabolism. How else would you lose more fat if there isn't an increase in catabolism?



I presume you're a big boy, one capable of typing on the internet and behing able to comprehend things, correct? Scan through some studies that use DEXAs that show minimal LBM loss despite high caloric deficits. Lyle McDonald's RFL, despite its severity, has had fantastic results and quite small LBM loss. This is because it works off the rule of "31," which is the idea that one's maximum fat loss capabilities is 31xBF in LBS. Again, you're a big boy, you can easily research the validity of this.

Also, I had assumed you meant catabolism in general. Catabolism =/= muscle loss. That is an absurd notion. Catabolism breaks down larger molecules such as polysaccharides, fats, and proteins to even smaller ones (monosaccaharides, fat lipids, and amino acids). Lifting weights is a catabolic process. Losing fat is a catabolic process. Catabolism isn't (always) bad and of course increasing one's deficit increases catabolism. That's the whole point. You're assuming a larger deficit means more damage to LBM yet you can look at plenty of studies in athletes or people on a weightlifting routine that lost only some muscle but still have great fat loss.

I am not positing that one should have more than 20% if they are reasonably lean. If anything, this study (Effect of Two Different Weight-Loss Rates on Body Composition and Strength and Power-Related Performance in Elite Athletes) shows that a lower caloric deficit is superior for athletes. My point is to give a blanket recommendation of 20% to people regardless of size is pointless and erroneous. Yes, someone who is 40% BF could cut on a 20% deficit but they would lose considerably more fat on a higher deficit without LBM repercussions. Again, you have fingers, one's that type, and eyes that can see, so surf and look for the studies. You can theoretically attempt to explain anything but if it does not produce results then it's meaningless. Again, in participants with sufficient protein intake and weight lifting, LBM loss was not that severe, especially higher caloric deficits. This isn't true FOR ALL PEOPLE and it will differ, obviously, depending on things like genetics. All I'm saying is your blanket recommendation is pointless. I get that you're trying to do it for ease but if someone fat comes along (quite fat) then telling them to cut for eternity is pointless.

oh of course

dear alienharp, let me burst your bubble:

1st,
the point of eating 200g protein from your example is that:
*it is by no means a risk to the subject's liver/kidneys. 200g is not a lot, even in 1 sitting. denaturation of AAs completely differs from one strand to another, varying to ranges of 2-12+ hours of decomposition.
*150g of carbs is more than enough to maintain & develop strength capabilities. you can go even lower and start refeeding once a week.
*protein has more direct TEF than carbs. meaning the energy expenditure of the body's effort of decomposition is larger by eating more protein, thus making the deficit more efficient.
*let me throw that question back at you- what will more than 150g of carbs give you? more strength? you somehow magically believe your glycemic stores can store as much as you give them, endlessly? no, they have a capacity of about 300g in the liver, +100-150g in the bloodstream, being an average statistic.

2nd,
the only scientific minimum that has any credible proof is the one i posted about protein per kg. your (Ian's) brain fart about 0.25g/lb of fat is- plainly put- dumb. no studies that i know of (and i know of a lot) have taken athletes, or even normal people who simply go to the gym regularly 3 times a week, and dissected their activities to account for the production of testosterone and it's comparatives glucagon + cortisol (+adrenaline) when incorporating: strength training / hypertrophy training / aerobics / etc. therefore the assumption of test production in relationship with a certain g/lb of fat ratio is redonkulous as fats consumption is directly aligned with test/gh and lipids response:


3rd,
it's time you chose your words because you're starting to confuse even yourself. first you're saying you can lose fat without lbm, then you're saying you agree with what i've said, and then you've said i'm wrong by saying you lose only minimal lbm, which is what i said in the first place, given the dieter is properly deficiting. it seems as though you're trying too hard to confuse someone and it seems to be you.

4th,
your little wiki pasta doesn't impress me, kiddo. catabolism is the breakdown for energetic output, duh, since when did i say otherwise? fitness related, try to stay on topic, when the word catabolism pops up, we the posters usually mean the specific term of losing lbm. if you needed it spelled out for you, it is now.
and yes, deary, the greater the deficit, the more lack there is in macronutrients, thus the more catabolic the body has to become in order to reach his end goal of the day- receiving the energy levels, that is, it's flat bmr. don't delude yourself with empiric studies that validate nothing, when biological studies are 100% true after being certified and tested thoroughly and published. as i said priorly, a fatter person would take less time or have less of a loss in lbm when deficiting, but the greater the deficit is, the more lbm it will lose, linearly. if you take another exact person and give him a smaller deficit, the end result would be the slower deficited dieter would end up losing less lbm, and that's a fact.

5th,
have you ever wondered what TEF stands for? you try to present yourself as smart and credible, and i might give you the benefit of the doubt but, seriously, did you stop to consider how TEF is added into the grand scheme of things? let me simplify it for you: *ROUGHLY* 10% of all you consume, at any given time, is the amount taken in energy expenditure of the body to decompose the very food it's trying to ingest. that's the thermodynamic paradox. the body wants to consume 100% of the macronutrients, but has to spend *ROUGHLY* 10% of that food in terms of energy, in order to break it down. the result is somewhere close to a 90% profit for the body in energy. therefore, if you do a simple addition, you'll find that being at a 20% deficit, and receiving just 90% of everything you eat due to the thermodynamic paradox, puts at somewhere near or above 25% of a deficit. even your precious lyle and ian speak of it (poorly).

let me finish by saying that other than wiki copy pastas, i know you've probably had zero articles that you've read or educated yourself in the basics of nutrition, and although i'm no hot shot either, i at least understand the basics. you seemed to have failed at them by trying to rely on goofs like lyle and ian, who still believe in 1980's notions. this topic was made for, and still is meant for, simple fatloss. it is not by any means a specifically detailed guideline compendium on bodybuilding contest-prep, diureticology or refeeding.

your lack of knowledge is nothing new to me, but your persistence is getting on my nerves, especially when you just DON'T know what you're talking about. here are a few people you MIGHT consider reading about: arthur agatston, david amaral, psaty BM & lumley T, and many more.
stop being drawn to what every other dork out there is drawn to: goofs. start adoring actual scientific doctors, if you want idolize anyone at all, as you do now.
p.s feel free to respond, but don't expect i'll waste anymore time on this.



read your post again. "days im not working out or even doing cardio"...

oh you were saying to do that on non-workout days.. alright. thanks m9

Jesus Christ, you have the reading comprehension of a two-year-old. Did I say risk to the kidney's? Did I mention digestability? Did I say anything about needing more carbs?

I said RESTRICTIVE. If you have a minimum of 180g of protein, you are moving more calories into a category that someone may not want there. If someone has more carbs, for example, then they can eat more food that contain carbs. They can eat, for example, more pasta. I'm not saying they should eat more carbs because of physiological benefits but because of psychological. If you use minimums then this gives them more room to toy around with macronutrients as opposed to percentiles which sets something like protein too high. Too high meaning one's food choices are restricted because they'll be too busy trying to hit higher protein instead of having that bagel they want.



So eating under 0.25g/lb of fat has no negative effects on testosterone?



Excuse me? I'm confusing myself? LOL. Good one. First of all, you can lose fat without LBM (one study showed a gain with DEXA in Elite athletes, which I posted, so any way you slice it there it is). Second, you can minimize LBM loss to quite an extent. Again, you're a big boy. Go Pubmed studies with sufficient protein intake (at least 1.4g/kg) and weight training and you'll see LBM losses are quite small (around 0.4kg) when they've lost considerably more fat during a big deficit.

Honestly, I have no clue how I even had any decent amount of respect for you. You're dip shit retarded.



Yeah, you got me! I got copy and pasted! Listen, just because you're vague and you can't say what you mean with any form of clarity (because you have no real grasp of the English language) doesn't mean you should insinuate things via your sheer stupidity.

And where did you say otherwise? You fucking serious? - "BUT it does not come without increased gradient of catabolism, which means, muscle loss." Huh. I wonder how you could have implied such a thing.

And how is that a fact? I have seen studies that are contrary to what you're saying.



I'm glad you're allowing me the last word, so let me clear something up.

You're not smart...at all. You don't know as much as you claim and you're too stupid to do a quick pubmed search to see instances of which I spoke of. I couldn't care less what the fuck you say. I know I'm ignorant and that is something I gladly acknowledge. On the other hand, you're not quite aware that you know relatively little and you make yourself out to be far more intelligent than people who have clearly done more than you and have researched more than you. Even then, I have given you the opportunity many times to go search for the studies. I'm not your little errand boy to go get studies for you. You're a big boy, one that apparently is smart but does not have even the slightest grasp of anything.

Anyone who would take advice from you is stupid. You would force an obese individual to cut at a slow rate because you think they would lose more LBM, which is clearly fucking stupid. The simple fact that you think that shows how wrong you are and there are hundreds of real world results as well as studies showing otherwise but you're too dense to look for it. You're insisting that your stupidity is sufficient evidence but it's not. Please, go tell people like Alan they're dumb for recommending larger deficits for fatter individuals.

In that case, we shall depart from one another and accept that we disagree even though the real result is that you're just too stupid.

This post was edited by AeolianHarp on Apr 2 2012 01:53pm