Author Topic: Fitness  (Read 19146 times)

Namino

  • Posts: 430
Re: Fitness
« Reply #325 on: June 01, 2019, 04:27:44 PM »
70g of fat is right in the optimal zone for my fat (.45g of fat x 160lbs bodyweight = 72g of fat a day). I'm a biologist so I have a habit of being incredibly methodical in the approach and just hammering the exact numbers. The most insane part is that I have keto strips to check for ketosis and on 20g of non-fibre carbs a day, I'm testing negative for ketosis. My hypothesis there is I'm not intaking enough fat to switch to ketone body metabolism. On a strict keto diet my fat and my protein values would be swapped but as a serious lifter, I can't afford to eat such a low amount of protein or I'll atrophy.

Something I hypothesized since my last post is that maybe eating 130g of of straight pb might be causing a dietary bolus that is sitting in my gut for a long time and the retained weight is just the result of extremely delayed peristalsis as my gut works at this ball of pb. So I've started blending it with ice to make it more slurry and accessible to the walls of my intestines. 159 this morning, so maybe this is the key?

As far as a healthy weight, yeah. I'm not unhealthy, though my BMI is 26.1 which is overweight.  ;D Nothing like having defined transverse abdominals and having the 'puter call you fat.

Edit: There's also evidence that .8g of protein per pound of bodyweight is where protein has an asymptomatic effect on muscle mass, so 128g at my bodyweight. That being said it's generally supported by metabolic studies that increasing protein while cutting is ideal (some papers say 1.3g per lb bodyweight but fuuuuck that) to preserve your gains as you cut the chaff.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2019, 04:34:01 PM by Namino »

RogueGunslinger

  • Posts: 19079
Re: Fitness
« Reply #326 on: June 02, 2019, 06:15:49 PM »
Are those ketosis tests accurate? If so it sounds like you just need to keep adjusting the diet to fit you, instead of using the template laid out by studies that tends to be more generalized.

What was your diet like before? A month might not be enough to offset other things, like water weight fluctuating. May just take some more time. Stick with it.

Namino

  • Posts: 430
Re: Fitness
« Reply #327 on: June 02, 2019, 07:22:24 PM »
Are those ketosis tests accurate? If so it sounds like you just need to keep adjusting the diet to fit you, instead of using the template laid out by studies that tends to be more generalized.

What was your diet like before? A month might not be enough to offset other things, like water weight fluctuating. May just take some more time. Stick with it.

Basically when I (and most athletes) go through a deliberate cut, it's sort of a deceleration for calories. If I'm eating 3,000 on a bulk, I'll start by dropping back to 2,800, then 2,500, 2,200, ect, increasing the drop every time the weightloss stalls. So my weight has been gradually decreasing for several months now and everything was going per usual based on previous cuts until this month when everything just jerked to a halt no matter how much I've dropped the calories.

Ketosis tests are... relatively accurate, based on previous experience. The most accurate would be blood but I'm not going to go extreme enough to start pricking myself every day for it.

Namino

  • Posts: 430
Re: Fitness
« Reply #328 on: June 02, 2019, 07:24:32 PM »
Are those ketosis tests accurate? If so it sounds like you just need to keep adjusting the diet to fit you, instead of using the template laid out by studies that tends to be more generalized.

What was your diet like before? A month might not be enough to offset other things, like water weight fluctuating. May just take some more time. Stick with it.

Basically when I (and most athletes) go through a deliberate cut, it's sort of a deceleration for calories. If I'm eating 3,000 on a bulk, I'll start by dropping back to 2,800, then 2,500, 2,200, ect, increasing the drop every time the weightloss stalls. So my weight has been gradually decreasing for several months now and everything was going per usual based on previous cuts until this month when everything just jerked to a halt no matter how much I've dropped the calories. It stopped around when I was eating 1650 a day and now I'm all the way down to what should be several hundred calories below my BMR and it's stubbornly not moving the dial.

Even if I had 0 fat left to burn (I have some left), then my muscles should be atrophying and the weight still falling off. The fact that the scale isn't moving at all means that the 1200/1300 a day I'm getting now is enough to totally meet my energy needs and that is just insane for someone like me.

Ketosis tests are... relatively accurate, based on previous experience. The most accurate would be blood but I'm not going to go extreme enough to start pricking myself every day for it.

Whoops, accidentally quoted myself instead of editting. :D

Synthesis

  • Posts: 9783
Re: Fitness
« Reply #329 on: June 05, 2019, 03:45:57 PM »
Sadly, the laws of thermodynamics still apply. If I was losing fat but gaining muscle, the maximum addition of that weight is dictated by the inputs into a system. A closed system can't gain or lose mass (ie, if the system is just me -- bones, organs, fat, muscle and water) by transferring between closed components (ie, moving fat to muscle). The system I have is open (ie, I'm eating and interacting with the universe) the the amount of inputs is, at least on paper, vastly smaller than the amount of output from the system.

I've also been cut/bulk cycling for 7 years now so if somehow I found a way to gain significant muscle mass on a deficit, it'd be be very surprising.

In short: Reeee.

If you've been cut/bulk cycling and lifting religiously for 7 years, every time you bulk, you're probably hitting your genetic limit for muscle mass, and every time you cut from that you're necessarily going to atrophy a little.

You can be lean, you can be strong, or you can be natural, but you can only pick two.  Unfortunately, much of the information out there for bodybuilding falls into three categories:  studies done on pro or semi-pro athletes (not a generalizable population); studies done on untrained noobs (not generalizable to the already-fit population); and bro-science (which is non-scientific and incredibly tainted by a) advertising and b) PEDs).

As far as I've been able to tell, you can't gain muscle mass on a caloric deficit unless you're starting from overweight couch-potato status.  Every time I start to cut calories, my lift weights or reps go down, without fail...regardless of any particular macronutrient ratios I've tried.  However, I am most definitely not a natural athlete, so if you've got amazing genetics that push the mass equilibrium hard to anabolism, you might have different results.

That being said...yo...your diet sounds suuuuuper gross.  :o

Oh, also...losing weight really is as simple as CICO.  You only need the nutritional rocket science if you're trying to minimize muscle loss.  If you aren't losing weight, it's because you're either eating too much or not burning enough calories.  Eat less, or sweat more.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2019, 03:52:26 PM by Synthesis »
Quote from: WarriorPoet
I play this game to pretend to chop muthafuckaz up with bone swords.
Quote from: Smuz
I come to the GDB to roleplay being deep and wise.
Quote from: Vanth
Synthesis, you scare me a little bit.

Namino

  • Posts: 430
Re: Fitness
« Reply #330 on: June 05, 2019, 04:36:29 PM »
Bro, this diet wasn't exactly plan A.  ;D

I can maintain my lifts pretty decently as I drop weight as long as my protein intake is high (1.3g/lb bodyweight). My squat went from 365x4 down to 345x4 over sixish months and 30lbs of loss. I don't think I'm at my limit yet. I can get stronger.

That being said I finally outsourced and got some professional help at one of the campus labs with a DXA scan to figure out what was up with this hard stall in my loss and, well, the most parsimonious answer is usually the correct answer (yellow is fat):



Lmaooo. The Dr. who took it said top 2% fat/muscle ratio she'd seen since working there.

So thirty seconds after I left her office:



We done boys. I'm free.

Synthesis

  • Posts: 9783
Re: Fitness
« Reply #331 on: June 05, 2019, 05:19:25 PM »
If your body fat percentage is that low...why are you worried about cutting?  Do you compete? Have some sort of body dysmorphia?  Just interested in it for science's sake?

The only muscle-sparing weight-loss you can achieve at that point is dehydration, which is only useful going into a competition or a weigh-in.  But...if you're telling the truth about your body weight and your squat reps (and you aren't juicing), you're very near elite-tier genetics, so things that apply to average people aren't necessarily going to apply to you.
Quote from: WarriorPoet
I play this game to pretend to chop muthafuckaz up with bone swords.
Quote from: Smuz
I come to the GDB to roleplay being deep and wise.
Quote from: Vanth
Synthesis, you scare me a little bit.

Namino

  • Posts: 430
Re: Fitness
« Reply #332 on: June 05, 2019, 05:51:00 PM »
365 4x4 squats are not that extreme, not even remotely in the realm of what a person on gear can accomplish. Edit: I would also argue it doesn't require specific genetics either. Every single male and perhaps a section of the female readers of this thread could hit 365x4 with enough time, training, diet and dedication, barring some sort of serious injury or other issue. The WR squat for my division (72kg) is 370kg (814lb). My 1RM was an exceedingly ugly strugglebus 415lb when I was bulking last (way heavier than 72kg at the time).

As for the reason for cutting, I cut weight because the Wilk's coefficient, which is the metric by which powerlifters are judged, is based on the amount of weight lifted divided by a formula that derives much of its value from the bodyweight of the lifter. You can increase your score by lifting heavy or by losing empty weight. Also the science is an amusing diversion for a researcher like myself.

Here's the 4th set of 335 last Tuesday when I was clocking the scale at 160. Didn't go for the usual 345 that day because we were (clearly) doing form checks, hence the video.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2e6ca8s32rcq7wk/20190528_072947.mp4?dl=0
« Last Edit: June 05, 2019, 05:55:39 PM by Namino »

Synthesis

  • Posts: 9783
Re: Fitness
« Reply #333 on: June 05, 2019, 06:08:23 PM »
Elite-tier isn't defined by how close you are to the world record, it's defined by how far you are above average.  A 415 lb. 1RM squat at 160 lbs body weight is very, very far beyond what most people can do.

Also...if you're looking at competition lifts, I think most standard weigh-ins are 24 hours prior to the start of the competition, so a serious competitor who weighs in at "160" lbs is realistically anywhere from 170 to 180 actual lbs.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2019, 07:13:48 PM by Synthesis »
Quote from: WarriorPoet
I play this game to pretend to chop muthafuckaz up with bone swords.
Quote from: Smuz
I come to the GDB to roleplay being deep and wise.
Quote from: Vanth
Synthesis, you scare me a little bit.

Riev

  • Posts: 5427
Re: Fitness
« Reply #334 on: June 06, 2019, 09:51:25 AM »
Doesn't it take an incredibly high fat intake coupled with a low-to-zero intake of carbs to enter into ketosis? Its a deliberate thing and used to be something that had to be done specifically while in-patient.
Masks are the Armageddon equivalent of Ed Hardy shirts.

Synthesis

  • Posts: 9783
Re: Fitness
« Reply #335 on: June 06, 2019, 11:17:10 AM »
Ketosis is a relative and dynamic thing.

Dietary fat and protein can still get converted to glucose, and from glucose to glycogen.  Even though it's metabolically inefficient.  Lack of dietary carbohydrates probably drives the equilibrium harder for someone on a ketogenic diet than for someone eating a "regular" diet...but...who knows?  The shit is massively complicated:

Quote from: WarriorPoet
I play this game to pretend to chop muthafuckaz up with bone swords.
Quote from: Smuz
I come to the GDB to roleplay being deep and wise.
Quote from: Vanth
Synthesis, you scare me a little bit.

Namino

  • Posts: 430
Re: Fitness
« Reply #336 on: June 06, 2019, 12:14:24 PM »
Understanding metabolic pathways is not necessary for individuals not involved in actually doing proteomics. There's approximately 20,000 genes in the human genome. If you look at the gene ontology terms for those, ten thousand or so are involved in metabolism in some way or the other. Does that mean you have to worry about them all? Hell no.

You as a person are not in control of any of the catalytic enzymes involved in that process. It is a Fools errand to worry about how fast your pyruvate is being converted. All you can do is modulate your input conditions (food) and output conditions (exercise) to set the conditions and let the metabolic pathways work. Unless you have some major disorder, it'll end in predictable(ish) results.

As far as keto, there is a very lively community that put themselves into keto for weight loss and health reasons independent of any medical treatment.

Synthesis

  • Posts: 9783
Re: Fitness
« Reply #337 on: June 06, 2019, 12:33:24 PM »
All I'm saying is that many (probably most) folks who claim to be on keto aren't actually going into ketosis, except when they're actively exercising, because after mealtime, those metabolic pathways are going into overdrive promoting gluconeogenesis and glycogen synthesis.  Then the rest of the day, you end up burning mostly glycogen, not ketones.  It doesn't matter if you're on a daily caloric deficit, because you aren't taking in calories at a steady rate, and you aren't burning them at a steady rate.

I also have a pet theory that dietary fats and proteins are less bioavailable than dietary carbohydrates, so when you match daily caloric intakes calorie-for-calorie between diets, keto diets result in lower actually-absorbed calories.  So "keto works!" really means "I was starving myself a bit more than I thought I was!"
« Last Edit: June 06, 2019, 12:43:03 PM by Synthesis »
Quote from: WarriorPoet
I play this game to pretend to chop muthafuckaz up with bone swords.
Quote from: Smuz
I come to the GDB to roleplay being deep and wise.
Quote from: Vanth
Synthesis, you scare me a little bit.

Namino

  • Posts: 430
Re: Fitness
« Reply #338 on: June 06, 2019, 12:46:30 PM »
All I'm saying is that many (probably most) folks who claim to be on keto aren't actually going into ketosis, except when they're actively exercising, because after mealtime, those metabolic pathways are going into overdrive promoting gluconeogenesis and glycogen synthesis.  Then the rest of the day, you end up burning mostly glycogen, not ketones.

I also have a pet theory that dietary fats and proteins are less bioavailable than dietary carbohydrates, so when you match daily caloric intakes calorie-for-calorie between diets, keto diets result in lower actually-absorbed calories.

I trust people who say they're in ketosis only when they have diagnostic evidence in urine strips or blood pricks, which is how I knew I wasn't getting there. Based on my scan I'd assume it's because the bf was much lower than I had assumed so the availability of material to convert to ketone bodies was just not available.  Wark wark.

As far as bioavailability, I can believe that. Ketone bodies are the backup for a reason. As the default metabolic drive, you'd expect carbs to lead the pack at bioavailability. That being said, research into the subject of 'protein timing' has shown that in cases where there's too much protein to be absorbed, your body doesn't simply excrete it. Peristalsis slows down to give your gut time to work out as much as it can,  so I don't think you'd miss calories. Early hominids supposedly had a very boom or bust nutrition strategy so our peristalsis is modular to accommodate slowing down when we have a lot of material (like from a mammoth fall) to work through.

Is Friday

  • Posts: 6454
    • My Twitch Channel
Re: Fitness
« Reply #339 on: June 07, 2019, 08:05:00 AM »
Apparently I don't do enough HITT because that tabata was challenging.
And then I sat there going "really? that was it? that's so stupid."

I still think the best closure you get in Armageddon is just moving on to the next character.

MeTekillot

  • Posts: 10317
Re: Fitness
« Reply #340 on: June 07, 2019, 06:34:48 PM »
Struggling back into the routine after a week long cold. Pressing 40 lbs above my bodyweight for my sets.
It's a lot more admirable to be strong in a game where strength comes at enormous risks.

boog

  • Posts: 10918
Re: Fitness
« Reply #341 on: June 07, 2019, 10:31:27 PM »
Apparently I don't do enough HITT because that tabata was challenging.

oh god, I sprinted at intervals today while running and well

DITTO
Case: he's more likely to shoot up a mcdonalds for selling secret obama sauce on its big macs
Kismet: didn't see you in GQ homey
BadSkeelz: Whatever you say, Kim Jong Boog
Quote from: Tuannon
There is only one boog.

Namino

  • Posts: 430
Re: Fitness
« Reply #342 on: June 07, 2019, 11:36:57 PM »
Day 3 of the bulk. I ate a burger with two 1lb patties and hit 4 sets of 300lb squats for 8 reps each.

I'm in heaven.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2019, 11:40:21 PM by Namino »

MeTekillot

  • Posts: 10317
Re: Fitness
« Reply #343 on: June 09, 2019, 09:11:23 PM »
I'm at 160. Give or take water weight and food and that's probably 5 lbs of muscle I've put on in the last few months. Quite pleased.
It's a lot more admirable to be strong in a game where strength comes at enormous risks.

boog

  • Posts: 10918
Re: Fitness
« Reply #344 on: June 11, 2019, 11:50:24 AM »
So, Namino, you're gonna do my keto macros for me?  ;)
Case: he's more likely to shoot up a mcdonalds for selling secret obama sauce on its big macs
Kismet: didn't see you in GQ homey
BadSkeelz: Whatever you say, Kim Jong Boog
Quote from: Tuannon
There is only one boog.

Namino

  • Posts: 430
Re: Fitness
« Reply #345 on: June 11, 2019, 12:17:27 PM »
I don't know if I'm qualified considering I never went into ketosis at least while I was trying to measure it. ;D

365 x 3, 375 x 2, 345 x 4 squats today! Thank you,  food