Workout Bros

[endofOne]

BUT CARBS KILL YOU! WHEN WE WERE MONKEYS WE DIDN'T EAT CARBS!

No, bro! Carbs are fine! Fruit and veggies! But gluten, dairy, and legumes? That shit will kill you.

Check this **** shit out:



Anything over 150g carbs = insidious weight gain. LULZ WHY AM I NOT OBESE THEN? I cut on 200g carbs per day. **** eating a 16 oz. sweet potato today. Come at me, starchy carbohydrates.

Damn I'm taking in 400 carbs/day and stuck at 175 for 2 weeks. That chart is pretty funny. Kirk, do you go with 1, 1.5 or 2g/lb for protein. If you're cutting I'm assuming you're taking in at least 1.5.

[endofOne]

[kirk]

@Duality -

I think taking a bb.com routine as anything special isn't really wise. What are your goals? There are plenty of routines already available that are far more credible than these ones you're showing. Layne Norton's routine, 5/3/1, Smolov (incorporated with a more set routine), Lyle's GBR, etc. Forget these shitty bb.com generic ones. The whole reason they make those is so they can sell supplements out of them. Notice the "take these supplements for this workout!" shit.

Damn I'm taking in 400 carbs/day and stuck at 175 for 2 weeks. That chart is pretty funny. Kirk, do you go with 1, 1.5 or 2g/lb for protein. If you're cutting I'm assuming you're taking in at least 1.5.

Less than all 3 of those options. I go with ~1 g/pound LBM. Meaning 1g per pound lean body mass. So my body weight minus body fat, even when cutting. Personally between the periods of time where I would cut on 200g per day and the periods of time where I get 160g per day and sometimes even 140-150g, I have no noticed a difference. Maybe my body responds well whereas others might need those 200g, but that's what I've found for my body and myself. I know there are many others like me who find through experimenting that they don't need as much protein as modern day doctrine states. Yesterday I ate 130g protein, and zero **** were given. My strength/fat loss is still linear in this cutting phase.

[endofOne]

@Duality -

I think taking a bb.com routine as anything special isn't really wise. What are your goals? There are plenty of routines already available that are far more credible than these ones you're showing. Layne Norton's routine, 5/3/1, Smolov (incorporated with a more set routine), Lyle's GBR, etc. Forget these shitty bb.com generic ones. The whole reason they make those is so they can sell supplements out of them. Notice the "take these supplements for this workout!" shit.

Damn I'm taking in 400 carbs/day and stuck at 175 for 2 weeks. That chart is pretty funny. Kirk, do you go with 1, 1.5 or 2g/lb for protein. If you're cutting I'm assuming you're taking in at least 1.5.

Less than all 3 of those options. I go with ~1 g/pound LBM. Meaning 1g per pound lean body mass. So my body weight minus body fat, even when cutting. Personally between the periods of time where I would cut on 200g per day and the periods of time where I get 160g per day and sometimes even 140-150g, I have no noticed a difference. Maybe my body responds well whereas others might need those 200g, but that's what I've found for my body and myself. I know there are many others like me who find through experimenting that they don't need as much protein as modern day doctrine states. Yesterday I ate 130g protein, and zero **** were given. My strength/fat loss is still linear in this cutting phase.

Yeah so you go with the sports nutrition guidelines. They suggest 1g/lb lbm. The bodybuilding guidelines always suggest more.

[kirk]

Yeah so you go with the sports nutrition guidelines. They suggest 1g/lb lbm. The bodybuilding guidelines always suggest more.

1g per pound LBM is a standard bodybuilding guideline, actually. It ranges between 1 - 2g per pound LBM. The only times I've ever heard of people needing anything close to 2g per pound LBM is those who are maybe 2-3 weeks out from competition, and have extremely low calories and thus are at higher risk of catabolism. Outside of those ****, most bodybuilders would say that anything beyond 1.25g per pound LBM is probably unnecessary.

[squatta_leader]

Sean, you lost the weight because you found a way to be at a caloric deficit for a long period of time.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Lifting heavy (5x5) is always going to be more efficient when it comes to perserving lean body mass while on a caloric deficit, and increasing lean body mass while on a caloric surplus.

The science is all there and the facts are the facts.

However, the most important thing for people who want to make changes in their life like you did, is finding something that can be replicated day after day, so that the lifestyle change is consistent and long term. This is always going to vary depending on a individual's physical abilities and personality. There is no good or bad, only different.

But, when we are talking about the science behind which is a more efficient method of training (5x5 vs high reps), the facts are clear and the 5x5 bro's always win by default.

[squatta_leader]

Yeah so you go with the sports nutrition guidelines. They suggest 1g/lb lbm. The bodybuilding guidelines always suggest more.

1g per pound LBM is a standard bodybuilding guideline, actually. It ranges between 1 - 2g per pound LBM. The only times I've ever heard of people needing anything close to 2g per pound LBM is those who are maybe 2-3 weeks out from competition, and have extremely low calories and thus are at higher risk of catabolism. Outside of those ****, most bodybuilders would say that anything beyond 1.25g per pound LBM is probably unnecessary.

I'm usually calculating at 1.5 just because it keeps my appetite down so I don't gorge myself with nonsense when I get home from work. But, when I was training hard in summer offseason (and on a caloric deficit), I was easily pushing 2-3g per pound just out of hunger pangs necessity.

I would definitely agree that the average person probably is not going to benefit a whole lot from 1g per pound, but then again they also aren't going to be training like that 6 days a week either.

[kirk]

Sean, you lost the weight because you found a way to be at a caloric deficit for a long period of time.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Lifting heavy (5x5) is always going to be more efficient when it comes to perserving lean body mass while on a caloric deficit, and increasing lean body mass while on a caloric surplus.

The science is all there and the facts are the facts.

However, the most important thing for people who want to make changes in their life like you did, is finding something that can be replicated day after day, so that the lifestyle change is consistent and long term. This is always going to vary depending on a individual's physical abilities and personality. There is no good or bad, only different.

But, when we are talking about the science behind which is a more efficient method of training (5x5 vs high reps), the facts are clear and the 5x5 bro's always win by default.

Solid post. Agree with everything here.

I'm usually calculating at 1.5 just because it keeps my appetite down so I don't gorge myself with nonsense when I get home from work. But, when I was training hard in summer offseason (and on a caloric deficit), I was easily pushing 2-3g per pound just out of hunger pangs necessity.

I would definitely agree that the average person probably is not going to benefit a whole lot from 1g per pound, but then again they also aren't going to be training like that 6 days a week either.

Yeah, no doubt there are benefits beyond the muscle-sparing effects. 2-3g per pound LBM is some crazy shit.

The suggestions that I typically make are for your normal gym-goer, not people who have powerlifting stats like you used to (ALLEGEDLY). And for those normal gym-goers, I'm willing to bet very few would benefit beyond 1g per pound LBM of protein regardless of bulking or cutting.

[squatta_leader]

I see what you did there.

Now I must quit my job, and start training 40 hours a week so that I can out lift you at Vegas Lan.

Cue the montage.

[endofOne]

Sean, you lost the weight because you found a way to be at a caloric deficit for a long period of time.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Lifting heavy (5x5) is always going to be more efficient when it comes to perserving lean body mass while on a caloric deficit, and increasing lean body mass while on a caloric surplus.

The science is all there and the facts are the facts.

However, the most important thing for people who want to make changes in their life like you did, is finding something that can be replicated day after day, so that the lifestyle change is consistent and long term. This is always going to vary depending on a individual's physical abilities and personality. There is no good or bad, only different.

But, when we are talking about the science behind which is a more efficient method of training (5x5 vs high reps), the facts are clear and the 5x5 bro's always win by default.

It depends on what you're after. If you just want to look big and not be able to lift big then sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is the way to go (a large number of bodybuilders). If you want to be strong and bulky with more muscle density then 5x5 with compound lifts is the way to go. Honestly I think the best method is starting out with 5x5 to get as strong and put as much mass on as your genetics will allow then transition over to hypertrophy training with higher rep schemes than 5x5 to fine tune everything. A perfect example of that is Arnold (I know he was all juiced up). He started out competing in powerlifting, built a strong foundation, then made the transition to bodybuilding.