Hi there everyone!
Over the past year and a half I have lost about 45 lbs. I used to weigh in at around 237-245 lbs, I was approximately 5'8-5'10 and 15 years old. I am now 17 and weight in at about 188 lbs, I am 6'2. I am getting pretty slender, not stick thin or anything but definately not 'big'. And I feel that now would be the best time to burn off the rest of my fat and well 'change' it into muscle . I don't know if I want to be thick, but I do want to be defined. As in I want to have good sized muscles etc. but I don't want to get 'huge' in the mean time. (at least not right now).
I've recently had the flu and have just gotten 'well' within the past few days, and I thought to myself what better time than now to start an awesome new routine??
I eat very healthy (in my opinion) and to be honest I like it. I try to eat about 4 meals per day which consists of:
Breakfast:
Oatmeal w/ Almond Milk
Banana
Lunch:
Chicken / Turkey
Vegetables / Rice (brown)
Fruit
Pre/Post Workout:
Fruit / Protein
Dinner:
Chicken / Fish
Vegetables / Rice (brown)
Fruit
As you can see I am generally heading in the right path all I need is a little guidance . Can anyone help or send me in the right direction? thanks a bunch!
Sincerely,
Josh
|
-
09-25-2011, 09:44 AM #1
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: San Jose, California, United States
- Age: 30
- Posts: 16
- Rep Power: 0
In need of a good Muscle Building Fat Burning Routine
-
09-25-2011, 01:57 PM #2
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: Massachusetts, United States
- Age: 35
- Posts: 181
- Rep Power: 0
I personally believe you can't effectively (key word) burn fat and build muscle at the same time. If your trying to put on muscle mass and get "ripped" you first need to build muscle. This involves a lot of eating to replenish your muscles and allow them to grow. That also means gaining a little fat. You should stick with lean proteins like chicken fish beans etc. and plenty of complex carbs from rice or pasta etc. Once you go through the bulking phase and you feel like you've gained enough muscle, then you can lose the fat on top of that muscle. This obviously involves cardio and cutting your calories. I would then start changing up your routine to include cardio and super sets etc.
I would also increase to 5 - 6 smaller meals a day to really send your metabolism into overdrive. Every meal should contain protein and complex carbs. Also cycle your calories to help lose fat as well. This means one weak you may consume 2000 calories a day, then the next week drop down to 1600 calories then back up the next week and so on.Last edited by videophile88; 09-25-2011 at 03:02 PM.
-
09-25-2011, 02:31 PM #3
-
09-25-2011, 02:51 PM #4
Im pretty much trying to do the same. My main goal is to gain about 10lbs and get really defined muscles. For me i just eat whenever i feel hungry or when convienient, but i do count my calories and im trying to cycle them according to the zig zag diet. All i can say is after adding protein shakes to my diet and pushing myself at the gym, i feel alot better
Anyways I'm trying right now moderate weightlifting at the gym, with the insanity program afterwards. Also going to throw in a ab routine of my own do to every other day alternating with 30 mins of yoga. Sunday will be my only off day with an hour of yoga or stretching whatever i feel like at the time. After i finish the insanity program gonna start training for a 10k, so got alot on my plate, but hopefully everything will work out.
Well good luck to you, and if I find that what im doing works, i will be sure to let you know!
-
-
09-25-2011, 03:29 PM #5
-
09-25-2011, 03:35 PM #6
-
09-25-2011, 07:23 PM #7
-
09-26-2011, 12:44 AM #8
Carbs look good in diet.
You look a little short on the protein though. Also, I know this is mostly bro-science, but I have seen better gains with muscle when incorporating lean beef into my diet, as oppose to just chicken. I think more % of the protein in beef gets absorbed than chicken/turkey (don't quote me on this, but beef is about 69%?). I would throw some casein protein before bed, and more dairy based proteins throughout the day. Especially in the morning. Greek yogurt can serve you well with this. Or milk.
30% of the calories in protein will get burned off in the digestion process because it is so difficult to to break down. So a 1000 calorie steak, ends up being 700 calories when it actually makes it into your system.
Also, take a Tblspoon of olive oil a day. Healthy fats are win. Your meals look like bird food, which is great, if you want to look like a bird :P. Bro-tip on this: hold your nose, and have water next to you. Sh*t will probably make you gag.
Your diet looks great for someone @ age 30, but your 17. Eat more beef. Drink more milk. Live a little, lol.
-
-
09-26-2011, 01:00 AM #9
-
09-26-2011, 01:41 AM #10
- Join Date: Jun 2009
- Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 47
- Posts: 19,532
- Rep Power: 0
Your diet looks like my little sister's when she wants her anorexic look back. You will not gain muscle on such a low fat (where is your saturated fat and EFAs?) diet. You did not even include macros... how are you going to recomp without knowing exactally what you eat on a daily basis in terms of macros and calories?
Recomping (gaining muscle while losing fat) is difficult enough, and will be nigh impossible with your current food selections.
To one of your other questions, meal timing is fairly irrelevant. What you eat is far more critical than when you eat it.
-
09-26-2011, 06:41 PM #11
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: San Jose, California, United States
- Age: 30
- Posts: 16
- Rep Power: 0
okay good to know, so what types of things specifically should I include into my diet? I am rather "new" to this so I appreciate all of the feedback. I guess I could eat more things like avacados etc... and to address tuna guy, I am lactose-intolerant (last time I checked) so I tend to drink almond milk instead of regular milk.
Like I said i'm just getting back into it so I really appreciate all of the comments
-
09-26-2011, 06:58 PM #12
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,398
- Rep Power: 150404
Actually, I found an interesting publication "the results suggest that delaying the ingestion of a carbohydrate supplement post-exercise will result in a reduced rate of muscle glycogen storage."
This may actually prove to be beneficial if you are on a low carb diet, as this would induce ketosis quicker. Though this is only helpful if your diet is in check.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/64/4/1480.short
OP At this point, it may be more beneficial to start doing a slow bulk on a strength gaining program. The comment about "gaining too much muscle" is borderline retarded. Once you have some significant muscle, your cut will be easier and the reward will be a muscular figure, not a sack of flesh.
Awesome progress though so far. Congrats.
-
-
09-26-2011, 07:01 PM #13
-
09-26-2011, 07:15 PM #14
-
09-27-2011, 12:07 AM #15
- Join Date: Jan 2007
- Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 54,512
- Rep Power: 1340335
Much as a I'd like to poke a hole in the "meal timing is irrelevant" parrots over at the nutrition forum, I suspect that this study is already known about since it's from 1988. It doesn't say but it is probably done using a fasted protocol which is great if you are an IFer but as Aragon points out in his sticky thread - most people are in the post prandial state most of the day which is why meal timing is, ultimately, not important.
By the way, I always eat a large carb rich meal post workout as directed by Berkhan...
-
09-27-2011, 06:00 AM #16
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,398
- Rep Power: 150404
Anything is irrelevant if you apply enough restrictions to it. So meal timing is irrelevant if you don't follow an IF or Ketogenic diet, which just happen to be two of the most popular forms of cutting diets. Most people are in the post prandial stage because the nutrition industry has beat into everyone's head that eating 6-8 meals a day is optimal for losing fat.
The point was, if your "your diet is in check" (IF or Low Carb) I would imagine you could take serious advantage of the reduced glycogen uptake.
-
-
09-27-2011, 06:45 AM #17
-
09-27-2011, 09:55 AM #18
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,398
- Rep Power: 150404
As you know, the purpose of inducing ketosis is to induce beta oxidation. You burn significantly more fat while in a glycogen deprived state. The only time glycogen is really relevant is during anaerobic activity. This would lead me to believe that carb intake (again, on an IF / Keto diet) approximately 2 hours before exercise would insure adequate energy levels during an anaerobic workout.
Adequate protein intake before during and after workout would also inhibit muscle catabolism, as gluconogenesis would create enough glucose to support brain function. There is no need for glycogen stores during LISS or everyday activities other than working out.
Furthermore, while I did find Alan Aragons articles interesting. I find some of his methodologies lacking.
http://www.alanaragon.com/an-objecti...t-fasting.html
1. He cites one source (Stote) as having poor methodology when Stotes ideas do NOT support his thinking, yet cites him as a credible source when Stotes ideas supports his own.
2. He admits that frequent meals have NO effect on body composition.
3. In all the studies he cites, it stands to reason that all participants have a typical "western" diet i.e. eat throughout the day. It would only stand to reason that major changes in diets would induce hunger. So stating that IF doesn't reduce hunger is a near sighted statement.
4. He slams IF, as being ineffective for weight training, though I doubt any advocates of IF would EVER suggest a fasted workout.
It's pretty easy to say something is ineffective, if you don't do it correctlyLast edited by acrawlingchaos; 09-27-2011 at 10:03 AM.
-
09-27-2011, 10:03 AM #19
- Join Date: Jun 2009
- Location: Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Age: 47
- Posts: 19,532
- Rep Power: 0
I think deitary carbs for weight training are over-rated, for some individuals at least. I never had issues training completely carb depleted while doing the anabolic diet on a bulk, and seeing solid strength gains without any pre or post workout carbs. It isn't as if you are burning through 200g of carbs during your weight lifting unless you are doing insanely high volume workouts. The energy needs can easily be provided through glycogenolysis of up to 42% of your protein calories and 10% of your fat calories (through gluconeogenesis via the phosphate shuttle... which does allow for glycogenolysis of glycerol).
-
09-27-2011, 10:16 AM #20
-
-
09-27-2011, 10:59 AM #21
Describe or link me to exactly where I have used Stote et al selectively to support differing opinions of mine without mentioning the study's limitations.
2. He admits that frequent meals have NO effect on body composition.3. In all the studies he cites, it stands to reason that all participants have a typical "western" diet i.e. eat throughout the day. It would only stand to reason that major changes in diets would induce hunger. So stating that IF doesn't reduce hunger is a near sighted statement.4. He slams IF, as being ineffective for weight training, though I doubt any advocates of IF would EVER suggest a fasted workout.
It's pretty easy to say something is ineffective, if you don't do it correctlyLast edited by alan aragon; 09-27-2011 at 11:20 AM.
-
09-27-2011, 11:41 AM #22
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,398
- Rep Power: 150404
I am not try to lay waste to your credibility. I was not the one to use YOUR name as a reference, without any citation. I am not as familiar with your work as others may be. Additionally, I found this article on your website. A quick look will show that the article I cited is the only one that clearly shows any sort of relevance to IF.
http://www.alanaragon.com/articles.html
To answer your question, about Stoles.
Stote's team compared 1 versus 3 meals per day [17]. Among other results, the 1-a-day group reported significantly higher levels of hunger and an increased desire to eat, with the severity of both phenomena increasing throughout the length of the trial. In a recent alternate-day fasting study [18], Heilbronn’s team concluded, “Overall, these results suggest that a prolonged schedule of fasting and feasting would be marred by aversive subjective states (eg, hunger and irritability), which would likely limit the ability of most individuals to sustain this eating pattern.”
This statement implies that you are using Stoles work to support negative side effects of IF.
A recent study led by Stote compared the effects of 1 meal with 3 meals per day, and was the first trial of its kind to control calories between randomly assigned groups [17]. Curiously, the 1-a-day group lost slightly more bodyweight and bodyfat, and gained a small amount of lean mass. Given those results, it's heralded in some fitness circles as the long-awaited shred of research supporting Ramadan-style (12-16 hour daily) fasting for achieving the Holy Grail of body re-composition.
As always, things are never as simple as they seem once the details are exposed. A number of serious design flaws, including common ones such as a small sample size (15 participants completed the trial) and short duration (2 week lead-in, 6 week treatment periods) plague the quality of the conclusions.
This statement implies that you are criticizing Stoles work when it does NOT support your theory of IF
You cite this report when it fit your theory, and dismisses it for poor methodologies when it doesn't fit. Going through your references, I see only one for Stoles. This would indicate you support part of the study, but not the other. Poor methodology is poor methodology. Either the source is acceptable, or it is not.
Pardon my paraphrasing at point #2. That was irresponsible of me and I do apologize.
I am not familiar with the lean gains program (though I will familiarize myself with it now), so no, I am not superimposing any 3rd party idea to the article . My thoughts and opinions are based largely from independent research of Biochem and biology.
I was simply arguing the point that macro timing can play a huge role in IF and carb reduced diets, nothing more.Last edited by acrawlingchaos; 09-27-2011 at 12:05 PM.
-
09-27-2011, 12:17 PM #23
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,398
- Rep Power: 150404
On a side note. I realize that there are no absolutes. Exercise and nutrition are absolutely dependent upon many factors including goals and preferences of the individual. IF is not the end all be all answer, and is most likely counter productive or non-sustainable for some.
My opinion is always absolute, but changes with new information. In a forum setting we occasionally just answer a question because we believe what we say, and novices rarely care about in depth dissertations. They simply want an answer. Though I will always clearly state why I believe what I do in detail when asked.
-
09-27-2011, 12:22 PM #24
You are jumping to your own conclusions once again. That statement clearly mentions the increase in hunger seen in the two studies cited. Nothing more, nothing less. My reporting of the results of those studies was accurate.
A recent study led by Stote compared the effects of 1 meal with 3 meals per day, and was the first trial of its kind to control calories between randomly assigned groups [17]. Curiously, the 1-a-day group lost slightly more bodyweight and bodyfat, and gained a small amount of lean mass. Given those results, it's heralded in some fitness circles as the long-awaited shred of research supporting Ramadan-style (12-16 hour daily) fasting for achieving the Holy Grail of body re-composition.
As always, things are never as simple as they seem once the details are exposed. A number of serious design flaws, including common ones such as a small sample size (15 participants completed the trial) and short duration (2 week lead-in, 6 week treatment periods) plague the quality of the conclusions.
This statement implies that you are criticizing Stoles work when it does NOT support your theory of IFYou cite this report when it fit your theory, and dismisses it for poor methodologies when it doesn't fit. Going through your references, I see only one for Stoles. This would indicate you support part of the study, but not the other. Poor methodology is poor methodology. Either the source is acceptable, or it is not.Pardon my paraphrasing at point #2. That was irresponsible of me and I do apologize.I am not familiar with the lean gains program (though I will familiarize myself with it now), so no, I am not superimposing any 3rd party idea to the article . My thoughts and opinions are based largely from independent research of Biochem and biology.
-
-
09-27-2011, 01:00 PM #25
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,398
- Rep Power: 150404
In this readers opinion...
The article you wrote cited sources that primarily indicated that while IF has benefits, there are far more negative side effects. Additionally, information about grazing patterns that you provided are presented in a way that suggested it's superiority. Any cited results indicating it's inferiority are quickly dismissed.
Convenience issues aside, for the purposes of controlling appetite, research indicates the superiority of a higher frequency over a lower one.
So much for the magic of stoking the metabolic furnace with an extreme grazing pattern. It bears mentioning that lower 24-hour insulin levels as well as lower fasting and total LDL-cholesterol levels have been observed with higher meal frequencies [5,6] However, in discovering this, studies have used unrealistic protocols for the higher frequency treatments, comparing 3 meals to 9 or 17 meals per day.
You "PRESENT" Stoles in a favorable light when his study indicates IF negatively, and "PRESENT" Stoles in a dismissive manner when the same study indicates a positive attribute of IF. This sort of presentation is obvious that the article is not objective, which was how you presented it as.
The tone and presentation of your article, as presented, would seem to heavily favor grazing over IF. The tone and presentation of the article does not present itself as unbiased.
I know that my research capabilities and retention capacity are just fine, thank you for the concern.
-
09-27-2011, 01:24 PM #26
What are you not understanding about my article's claim that based on the evidence at the time, lower meal frequency increased hunger compared to higher frequency in the majority of studies, but still does not lower metabolic rate compared to higher frequency? This claim is completely accurate as of 2007, when the article was written. You are being far too imaginative about your interpretation of my article. And on the contrary, I'm stating facts.
-
09-27-2011, 01:37 PM #27
- Join Date: Sep 2011
- Location: New Hampshire, United States
- Age: 47
- Posts: 16,398
- Rep Power: 150404
As stated earlier. The prominence of the article on your site http://www.alanaragon.com/articles.html simply indicated to this reader that the opinion within was still a current opinion of yours. Without any other article discussing the topic (on your site), this was the resource I had available that demonstrated what you believed to be true (as current literature lead you to present the article as you did. I figured that your website would be a fair representation of your opinion. I don't believe this was a poor assumption.
So when your name was brought up, this was the source I used.
Rarely do I have the luxury of being able to converse with the author of the articles I critique. Now understand that the information prominently displayed on your website, is no longer an accurate representation of what you believe.
-
09-27-2011, 01:56 PM #28
-
-
09-27-2011, 02:12 PM #29
-
09-27-2011, 02:15 PM #30
Okay, cool. My critique of the ISSN position stand on meal frequency indeed captures the current state of affairs. Perhaps what I'll do is switch the order of the articles on my site & put that one near the top so it doesn't get missed.
Last edited by alan aragon; 09-27-2011 at 02:20 PM.
Similar Threads
-
Good Gains and Bad Gains
By sefmoc in forum Workout ProgramsReplies: 6Last Post: 08-30-2009, 07:39 AM -
Fat Loss and Quick
By dathan1 in forum Losing FatReplies: 26Last Post: 12-24-2008, 09:02 PM -
Please do not post in this thread!
By Ronnie Rowland in forum Workout ProgramsReplies: 53Last Post: 11-27-2008, 11:09 AM -
Cycle of failure, help needed with diet/workout
By Hamstermancer in forum Workout ProgramsReplies: 2Last Post: 08-25-2005, 01:02 PM
Bookmarks