supermeatheads

[mrchariybrown]

very nice lifts knucks!

but one thing, I think you could benefit from exploding more with your hams and glutes at the bottom of your lifts..

btw, your back is looking thick!

[mrchariybrown]

oh yeah, hey kunk.. one more thing..

do you suggest doing a refeed day on a day I lift or rest?

[knucks]

yeah, i've been trying to get my hams/glutes stronger...I should be pulling 600 lol

[mrchariybrown]

six hundred smish hundred...

you're pulling fucking impressive weight already..

heck, I can get maybe 425-445 for one on a good day

[bruised]

knucks. yous a beast. i remember way back when our numbers where almost they same. you just kept on going and going.

[knucks]

six hundred smish hundred...

you're pulling fucking impressive weight already..

heck, I can get maybe 425-445 for one on a good day

where are your issues w/ the weight? off the floor, lockout, what?

I'm fast as fuck off the floor, I've pulled 545 reverse banded for 3, the only issue i had was lockout 2 months back on the final rep...if I can get the weight to slightly above my knees 545 seems easy as fuck

[knucks]

knucks. yous a beast. i remember way back when our numbers where almost they same. you just kept on going and going.

thanks braaa

[mrchariybrown]

where are your issues w/ the weight? off the floor, lockout, what?

I'm fast as fuck off the floor, I've pulled 545 reverse banded for 3, the only issue i had was lockout 2 months back on the final rep...if I can get the weight to slightly above my knees 545 seems easy as fuck

definitely off the floor..

[Guest I GOT DAT GUAP]

sorry, not really meathead related, but what would be a good calorie deficit for someone trying to lose weight, without having the body trying to fight back and possibly plateau?

thanks!

[mrchariybrown]

sorry, not really meathead related, but what would be a good calorie deficit for someone trying to lose weight, without having the body trying to fight back and possibly plateau?

thanks!

really depends on the person.. but I'd say around 400-600 calories off your maintenance caloric intake should give you nice, slow and steady weight loss..

but remember, the number of calories ain't everything.

[bruised]

^^ don't agree. i wouln't go below 300 deficit. just keep protein high (at least 1g/lb body wiehgt). use internet calculator to find resting metabolic rate. factor in cardio (HIIT !!)

when losing weight, calories is everything. more out than in=weight loss no matter what. calories depend on metabolic rate. going too much of a deficit will lower your metabolic rate and make losing weight slower. keeping protein intake high makes you lose more fat than muscle.

[mrchariybrown]

^^ don't agree. i wouln't go below 300 deficit. just keep protein high (at least 1g/lb body wiehgt). use internet calculator to find resting metabolic rate. factor in cardio (HIIT !!)

when losing weight, calories is everything. more out than in=weight loss no matter what. calories depend on metabolic rate. going too much of a deficit will lower your metabolic rate and make losing weight slower. keeping protein intake high makes you lose more fat than muscle.

2600 calorie maintenance

a. person eating 2200 calories a day split up in 3 meals. gets enough protein. but rest of the calories come from high glycemic carbs and bad fats, which the person tends to mix..

b. person eating 2300 calories a day split up in 6 meals. gets enough protein. rest of the calories come from low glycemic carbs and good fats. most of the carbs taken in at meals 1, 2, and 3. most of the fats taken in at 5 and 6.

according to your logic (calories is everything), person "a" will net better results.

I think I'll go ahead and say we should agree to disagree..

[knucks]

yeah bullshit that a calorie is a calorie.

I would try maintenance - 500, see how it goes.

[Raoul Duke]

There was actually a small study done last year on this exact subject. While it doesn't cover an entire diet based on fast food, it does test the bodies response to one meal. The main conclusion is that the body's response to a meal is based on the macro breakdown of the meal, not the source.

Here is the study abstract and the commentary by Lyle Macdonald

Bray GA et. al. Hormonal Responses to a Fast-Food Meal Compared with Nutritionally Comparable Meals of Different Composition. Ann Nutr Metab. 2007 May 29;51(2):163-171 [Epub ahead of print] Related Articles, Links

Background: Fast food is consumed in large quantities each day. Whether there are differences in the acute metabolic response to these meals as compared to 'healthy' meals with similar composition is unknown. Design: Three-way crossover. Methods: Six overweight men were given a standard breakfast at 8:00 a.m. on each of 3 occasions, followed by 1 of 3 lunches at noon. The 3 lunches included: (1) a fast-food meal consisting of a burger, French fries and root beer sweetened with high fructose corn syrup; (2) an organic beef meal prepared with organic foods and a root beer containing sucrose, and (3) a turkey meal consisting of a turkey sandwich and granola made with organic foods and an organic orange juice. Glucose, insulin, free fatty acids, ghrelin, leptin, triglycerides, LDL-cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol were measured at 30-min intervals over 6 h. Salivary cortisol was measured after lunch. Results: Total fat, protein and energy content were similar in the 3 meals, but the fatty acid content differed. The fast-food meal had more myristic (C14:0), palmitic (C16:0), stearic (C18:0) and trans fatty acids (C18:1) than the other 2 meals. The pattern of nutrient and hormonal response was similar for a given subject to each of the 3 meals. The only statistically significant acute difference observed was a decrease in the AUC of LDL cholesterol after the organic beef meal relative to that for the other two meals. Other metabolic responses were not different. Conclusion: LDL-cholesterol decreased more with the organic beef meal which had lesser amounts of saturated and trans fatty acids than in the fast-food beef meal.

My comments: For a couple of decades, there has been an ongoing argument regarding the issue of 'is a calorie a calorie' in terms of changes on body composition and other parameters. I've addressed this in articles on my website and the newsletter and have made the basic argument that, given identical macronutrient intakes (in terms of protein, carbs, and fats) that there is going to be little difference in terms of bodily response to a given meal.

And that, along with that, the major differences in body weight or composition seen has more to do with the fact that people tend to eat more under certain conditions than others. That is, someone eating a 2000 calorie fast food meal will obviously get a different response than someone eating a 500 or even 1000 calorie clean meal. But at this point, folks end up confounding differences in caloric intake with the quality of the food itself.

In contrast, groups that are obsessed (and I use that word somewhat lightly) with 'eating clean' often make arguments that, somehow, a fast food meal containing an identical amount of protein, carbs and fats as a clean meal containing an identical amount will generate massively different responses (usually in terms of blood glucose and insulin response).

Unfortunately, very little research has examined this in much of a controlled way. Until the paper above came out two weeks ago.

The study's explicit goal was to see if the metabolic response to a fast-food meal would differ to a 'healthy' meal of similar macronutrient and caloric value.

Towards this end six overweight men and two women were recruited to take part in the study although the data in the women was excluded due to the low number and possible gender effects.

Each subject got all three meals on different days with one week in between trials. A standard breakfast was provided at 8am and the test meal was given at exactly 12pm and blood samples were taken every 30 minutes for the first 4 hours and every 60 minutes for the next two hours. Blood glucose, blood lipids, insulin, leptin, ghrelin and free fatty acids were measured.

the test meals consisted of the following (I pasted the list from the PDF but took out the source of each of the ingredients).

Fast food meal: A Big Mac, french fries and root beer sweetened with high fructose corn syrup purchased at the restaurant.

Organic beef meal: this meal used certified organic rangefed ground beef; cheddar cheese; hamburger bun made with unbleached all purpose naturally white flour, non-iodized salt, non-fat powdered milk, all natural yeast, canola oil, and granulated sugar; sauce made from canola mayonnaise and organic ketchup; organic lettuce, onion and dill pickles; French fries made from organic potatoes and fried in pure pressed canola oil; and root beer made with cane sugar.

Turkey meal: this consisted of a turkey sandwich made from sliced, roasted free-range turkey breast with no antibiotics or artificial growth stimulants; cheddar cheese; 60% whole wheat bread made with whole wheat and unbleached all-purpose naturally white flours, non-iodized salt, non-fat powdered milk, all natural yeast, vital wheat gluten, canola oil, and granulated sugar; pure pressed canola oil and canola mayonnaise, stone ground mustard; organic lettuce; accompanied by a granola made with Blue Diamond whole natural almonds, Nature’s path organic multigrain oatbrain flakes, wholesome sweeteners evaporated cane juice, Spectrum Naturals pure pressed canola oil, clover honey, Sonoma organically grown raisins and dried apples. The beverage was an organic orange juice.

The composition of each meal was as follows

Fast food: 1044 calories, 28.2 grams protein, 53 grams fat, 151 grams carbs

Beef meal: 1154 calories, 28 grams protein, 60.2 grams fat, 163 grams carbs

Turkey meal: 1260 calories, 34 grams protein, 49 grams fat, 170 grams carbs

Note: the meals were similar but not completely identical in composition and I think this is one limitation of the study.

The biggest difference between meals had to do with the fatty acid composition: the fast food meal contained twice as much saturated and nearly 8 times as much trans-fatty acids with half of the oleic acid compared to the organic beef meal (which is no surprise). Interestingly, the fast food meal actually contained more linoleic acid than the organic beef meal. The turkey meal had less saturated fat but similar amounts of linoleic and linolenic acid to the fast food meal, with the lowest amount of trans fats.

So what happened. In terms of the blood glucose and insulin response, no difference was seen between any of the meals and this is true whether the data was presented in terms of percentage or absolute change from baseline. The same held true for the ratio of insulin/glucose, no change was seen between any of the meals. Fatty acids showed slight differences, dropping rapidly and then returning to baseline by 5 hours in the beef meals but 6 hours in the turkey meal. Blood triglyceride levels reached a slightly higher peak in the organic beef and turkey meals compared to the fast food meal but this wasn't significant. Changes in leptin were not significant between groups; ghrelin was suppressed equally after all three meals but rose above baseline 5 hours after the fast-food lunch but returned only to baseline in the other two meals.

The only significant difference found in the study was that LDL cholesterol decreased more after both of the organic meals compared to the fast food meal, HDL and total cholesterol showed no change after any of the meals. This was thought to be due to differences in the fatty acid content of the meals (saturated fat typically having a greater negative impact on blood lipid levels than other types of fat).

However, beyond that, there were no differences seen in the response of blood glucose, insulin, blood fatty acids or anything else measured.

Now, the study does have a few limitations:

1. It was only examining a single meal. It's entirely possible that a diet based completely around fast food would show different effects.

2. The sample size was small: 6 overweight men. It's possible that differences would have shown up with more subjects. Also, would lean individuals respond differently? Perhaps but I doubt it. I would have liked to have seen the data on the female subjects as there are often gender differences in response.

I guess my main take home message of this paper is that, at least on a single meal basis, fast food is not going to destroy anybody's diet. This is something I've long believed in based on basic physiology (people tend to lose sight of the fact that all carbs eventually turn into glucose, that the difference in protein tend to be fairly negligible for the most part) but it's nice to see it verified in a real world setting.

It's not uncommon for the physique obsessed to literally become social pariahs, afraid to eat out because eating out is somehow defined as 'unclean' (nevermind that a grilled chicken breast eaten out is fundamentally no different than a grilled chicken breast eaten anywhere else) and fast food is, of course, the death of any diet.

Except that it's not. Given caloric control, the body's response to a given set of nutrients, with the exception of blood lipids would appear to be more determined by the total caloric and macro content of that meal, not the source.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

[Raoul Duke]

mrchariybrown, I also noticed in your example that in you differentiated the two people by meal frequency. I recently read a very interesting article that discusses this a little bit.

http://alanaragon.com/an-objective-look-at-intermittent-fasting.html

If you check out that link, the article says that a higher frequency of meals has no effect on the metabolism or body composition.

[the breaks]

One could easily find 10 articles on the net that say otherwise.

[Raoul Duke]

One could easily find 10 articles on the net that say otherwise.

I'm not saying it is the final word on the subject. I still have a hard time believing it because I first learned that more meals were better and that clean foods were the best. It is still interesting to read about the other point of view, which has been backed by scientific study.

[bruised]

2600 calorie maintenance

a. person eating 2300 calories a day split up in 3 meals. gets enough protein. but rest of the calories come from high glycemic carbs and bad fats, which the person tends to mix..

b. person eating 2200 calories a day split up in 6 meals. gets enough protein. rest of the calories come from low glycemic carbs and good fats. most of the carbs taken in at meals 1, 2, and 3. most of the fats taken in at 5 and 6.

according to your logic (calories is everything), person "a" will net better results.

I think I'll go ahead and say we should agree to disagree..

no, ya, i agree with ya, but no need to complicate things for 80% of the population.

if someone where looking to lose weight, bad carbs and fats should be thrown out anyways, and more frequent smaller meals are a given. didn't think it needed to be said. i don't see how my logic nets person a with a better result. person b is eating less cals, = more weight loss.

[mrchariybrown]

no, ya, i agree with ya, but no need to complicate things for 80% of the population.

if someone where looking to lose weight, bad carbs and fats should be thrown out anyways, and more frequent smaller meals are a given. didn't think it needed to be said. i don't see how my logic nets person a with a better result. person b is eating less cals, = more weight loss.

whoops, I meant to write the calories the other way around..

[weidna]

sunday is supercheat day. ready to drift into a food coma right about now after eating more than most people usually do in the course of a week.

[so_CLE4N]

Does anyone have a program to get my bench up?

It is low in comparison to everything else and I feel shitty

[fndmybetterhalf]

i just did low rep high weight and increased 5 lbs at a time every once in awhile. just went with the routine until i hit a weight that i was happy with. im sure theres better ways.

oh and i also focused more on doing db pressed rather than bench

[fndmybetterhalf]

speaking of which, i need to get back on track with lifting...ive been playing too much tennis this past week

[ken shinoda]

http://cgi.ebay.com/MHP-SARM-X-60-Tablets-SARMX-Muscle-Growth-New_W0QQitemZ320294153667QQihZ011QQcategoryZ19261QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

legit?

[Raoul Duke]

ken shinoda, from what I've read it is a scam. Don't waste your time with that product.

[ken shinoda]

Thanks, Raoul Duke.

[Osmosis Jones]

Thought I might post something up.

This was me in the beginning of the summer. 135lbs at 5'10"

and this is after 3 months, working out 6 times a week. 132lbs at 5'10"

[gaydad]

how old are you what are your goals?

thats a nice clock i have one just like that except it has a thermometer on it as well. and air pressure. but i dont really know what to do with that information

[Leeacto]

I don't see a difference.

sometimes it takes more than 3 months to get a lot going

that's like taking a fit pick of your denim, then a followup a week later

[mrchariybrown]

evilcrayon - what are your goals? if it's putting on some size and mass, you're not eating enough.. but I doubt that's your goal since you've lost weight in those 3 months..