|
-
11-21-2010, 11:12 AM #151
-
11-21-2010, 11:28 AM #152
- Join Date: Jun 2009
- Location: North Carolina, United States
- Posts: 32,237
- Rep Power: 302251
-
-
11-21-2010, 11:32 AM #153
-
11-21-2010, 01:23 PM #154
- Join Date: Apr 2010
- Location: Concord, California, United States
- Age: 54
- Posts: 863
- Rep Power: 3660
Sorry for the slow response. OK, yes, I DEFINITELY could have been more clear - I gained 5 pounds of weight; this may or may not have been lean body mass.
And perhaps I can explain why I CANNOT accurately determine how much weight is fat and LBM. It's a small matter of the accuracy and statistical significance of measurements, something that many people don't really understand. Here's what I did:
I took frequent bathroom scale measurements of my weight.
I took frequent caliper measurements of my body fat percentage.
I calculated my lean body mass from these two measurements.
The resulting LBM had day-to-day variations of up to 10 pounds. Obviously my LBM is not changing that fast. Therefore, the measurements are inaccurate. They are only useful when MANY such measurements are made, allowing the results to be statistically significant.
So using statistical software, I plotted the linear trend lines for these measurements.
The trend lines say I gained about 5 pounds, and essentially ALL of it was lean body mass.
However, the waist of my pants also got tighter. This suggests that the trend lines are incorrect, and that at least SOME of the gain was in body fat. This suggests that I did not have enough measurements to accurately determine my increase in LBM. I intend to take at least daily measurements the next time I'm on X-Factor Advanced, which I'll be starting in a couple weeks.
Here's a picture of what I'm talking about. A picture is probably worth a thousand words about why I can't trust that I gained 5 pounds of lean body mass, even if the results are suggestive, and therefore the experiment worth repeating. (Edit: And yes, I'm a big fatty.)
-
11-21-2010, 03:47 PM #155
-
11-21-2010, 03:55 PM #156
It is possible to have a net loss in BF with a sort of redistribution of fat stores. So, you may have overall lost fat, but for whatever reason (there are a number of situations in which fat is preferentially stored in the gut) your belly got fatter therefore causing your pants to fit tighter.
And yes, you're right about the stats probably being inaccurate. And it is often hard to take reliable BF measurements yourself. This is why us former personal trainers generally recommend the mirror method.
On your last point: if you really are a fatty as you say, it's probably not a good idea to be supplementing with ArA. You are likely to be in a metabolic state that urges towards ArA's bad side.
-
-
11-21-2010, 04:59 PM #157
- Join Date: Apr 2010
- Location: Concord, California, United States
- Age: 54
- Posts: 863
- Rep Power: 3660
Can you explain? Or if not, I guess I have some more reading to do. I'm aware that you want to push the ArA into the muscles, and NOT into, say, fat stores, though I'm not remembering why at the moment (other than it being wasteful). I do take it right before working out in an attempt to do that. And I'm also not a couch potato just getting into working out. I've worked out off and on since my teens, though only REALLY got serious over the past couple years, during which I've put on quite a bit of muscle, and stopped getting fatter. I'm not losing fat since adding muscle is more my current priority. I'm sure that will change eventually. I probably work out about 5 hours per week, almost entirely weightlifting. As far as stats, I'm 6'3" and 300 lbs, 40" waist, and the calipers say 240 lbs lean body mass, though I bet it's a bit lower than that. I just can't imagine that if I were sitting here with a six pack that I'd still be well over 250. Anyway, hopefully that gives you enough information about my metabolic state to say if you still think it's a bad idea for me to be taking ArA. Thanks!
-
11-21-2010, 05:54 PM #158
- Join Date: Feb 2005
- Location: Hagerstown, Maryland, United States
- Age: 38
- Posts: 6,449
- Rep Power: 3188
I assume he's referring to how ArA is seemingly distributed in tissues differently in obese models and is theorized to cause greater secretions in insulin and some other things I'm sure I'm unaware of. Also, I believe obese models have higher inflammatory markers typically.
Speller Extraordinaire. Don't believe the lies.
-
11-22-2010, 05:30 AM #159
-
11-28-2010, 05:42 PM #160
-
-
11-28-2010, 06:00 PM #161
- Join Date: Nov 2009
- Location: New York, United States
- Posts: 8,436
- Rep Power: 43637
The reasoning would not necessarily differ from that of a pre-workout dosage, but the most efficient allocation of the doses is indisputably pre-workout. That's not saying it has no application on non training days (i.e. taking the full dose in a post absorptive state, maybe with some forskolin and caffeine), but I would personally save it for pre-workout.
Driven Sports
-
11-28-2010, 06:33 PM #162
-
11-28-2010, 06:48 PM #163
-
11-28-2010, 06:51 PM #164
-
-
11-28-2010, 07:04 PM #165
-
11-28-2010, 07:12 PM #166
-
11-28-2010, 07:20 PM #167
Sorry that 390 chicken egg I wrote was incorrect. It it actually much less than that.
I rechecked on google and there is 65mg-135mg ArA per chicken egg yolk.
I think chicken egg yolks are not the replacement for X-Factor because who can eat 1g of ArA from chicken egg yolks pre workout? And you won't save much money by doing so anyways
I do think it will be excellent to add lots of egg yolks in the diet though to increase the total amount of ArA during a 50-75 day cycle.
EDIT: Here is a good link with comparisons:
http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...ic-acid-x.htmlLast edited by barbarian1543; 11-28-2010 at 07:27 PM.
-
11-28-2010, 07:35 PM #168
mg of arachidonic acid per 100 g of food, and error ranges:
891 free range duck egg yolks ±172 = 719 to 1063
390 chicken egg yolks ±72 = 318 to 462
294 ox liver (aka beef liver) ±64 = 230 to 358
153 lamb kidney ±11 = 142 to 164
100 Atlantic salmon (no skin) ±92 = 8 to 192
75 skinless turkey (breast, leg, and whole bird) ±24 = 51 to 99
63 turkey with skin (breast, leg, and whole bird) ±13 = 50 to 76
56 pork (leg steak, aka leg cutlet, fresh ham steak) ±8 = 48 to 64
56 skinless chicken legs ±3 = 53 to 59
49 lamb fillet ±7 = 42 to 56
35 beef (rump steak, aka round steak, rump roast) ±5 = 30 to 40
31 skinless chicken breast ±2 = 29 to 33
There you go!
-
-
11-28-2010, 07:38 PM #169
- Join Date: Nov 2010
- Location: Lakewood, Washington, United States
- Age: 41
- Posts: 393
- Rep Power: 3200
-
11-28-2010, 08:14 PM #170
-
11-28-2010, 08:54 PM #171
-
11-28-2010, 09:28 PM #172
-
-
11-29-2010, 06:33 AM #173
-
11-29-2010, 12:34 PM #174
-
11-29-2010, 12:52 PM #175
-
11-29-2010, 06:44 PM #176
Similar Threads
-
not taking it too seriously anymore... thoughts?
By JACCK3D in forum NutritionReplies: 4Last Post: 01-24-2010, 01:54 PM -
taking creatine then stopping and not taking anymore
By monkey20 in forum Teen BodybuildingReplies: 4Last Post: 01-06-2010, 07:37 PM
Bookmarks