Time for a change. Ready to get back into it. Advice wanted!

[Taren28]

Hey everyone! My name is Taren and today I've decided it's time for a life style change, a time to rededicate myself to what I love, and I would love your help to get me there.

To give you a short background, I am currently 26 (27 in May) and have been out of the scene of commitment and consistent exercise for about two years now. All through high school and college I was in good shape mostly, but due to working a job over the past two years that requires me to work long overnight shifts, I have found myself in a downward cycle of lack of motivation and thus have gained quite a bit of weight. I am currently 6' tall, 235-240lbs, and as mentioned, 26 years old.

I have been playing ultimate frisbee for nearly the past 10 years of my life. This sport has become a huge passion and I have become an elite player until the past couple of years. Say what you will about the sport, it is a very intense game and if you ever look into it you will find how legitimate it actually is. While I was at my peak during my last year of college I was weighing about 185. I did not do a lot out of practice, but spent countless hours practicing and have been blessed with natural athleticism. My goal is to get back to this stage, but even better by dedicating myself to the gym and defining a new lifestyle. This is what I need your help with.

I know I need to lose weight, but I also want to focus on getting muscle as the Club season for ultimate frisbee begins in about 2.5-3 months. The preseason is about 1.5 months away. I am building a workout plan, but with my workout I would like advice on what type of supplements I should be taking to achieve my goals. I do not need to bulk up for this sport. The fitness level for this sport is comparable to a soccer player with a little more emphasis on agility and vertical jumping. The aspect of lots of short burst of speed followed by periods of jogging relates to soccer in this sport very well. I do not have any health problems or limitations on what type of supplements I can take or prefer to take. I am ready to work hard and would love some of the best stuff on the market to help me achieve these goals.

If you all can help me with any sort of advice I would be extremely grateful. Please let me know if you need any additional information about myself and my goals that may help you more accurately propose a plan for helping me. Thank you in advance!

[hustlehard3r]

Most important would be your diet, then your training, then your supplements

Do you have a plan for your diet and training? Roughly how many calories you will be consuming and the macronutrient breakdown of those calories?

[Taren28]

Most important would be your diet, then your training, then your supplements

Do you have a plan for your diet and training? Roughly how many calories you will be consuming and the macronutrient breakdown of those calories?

For my diet I have gone on several throughout the past couple of years as desperate acts to loose weight fast. Some have worked quite well, some haven't, and some I just quit at. My thought this time was to not have a super strict diet plan, but cut out all the junk food, fried foods, ect and start just making smarter decisions on what I chose to put into my stomach.

I am going to begin writing up my training program tonight and during the next couple days, but it will consist of a lot of cardio (sprints more than long distance), plyometrics, and lower weight lots of reps endurance training in the gym.

Here is what I calculated my macronutrient without a real knowledge of how many calories I should actually be taking in:

CARBS: 252 G PER DAY.
PROTEIN: 252 G PER DAY.
FATS: 56 G PER DAY.

[hustlehard3r]

For my diet I have gone on several throughout the past couple of years as desperate acts to loose weight fast. Some have worked quite well, some haven't, and some I just quit at. My thought this time was to not have a super strict diet plan, but cut out all the junk food, fried foods, ect and start just making smarter decisions on what I chose to put into my stomach.

I am going to begin writing up my training program tonight and during the next couple days, but it will consist of a lot of cardio (sprints more than long distance), plyometrics, and lower weight lots of reps endurance training in the gym.

Here is what I calculated my macronutrient without a real knowledge of how many calories I should actually be taking in:

CARBS: 252 G PER DAY.
PROTEIN: 252 G PER DAY.
FATS: 56 G PER DAY.

That all looks very good! What do you find you struggle with most during your diet? Is it hunger? Energy levels? Strength?

[Taren28]

That all looks very good! What do you find you struggle with most during your diet? Is it hunger? Energy levels? Strength?

Energy levels for sure! With a little struggle of portion control.

[hustlehard3r]

Energy levels for sure! With a little struggle of portion control.

If you don't have any heart conditions, I would consider reading up on the EC stack. start at a low dose, and it will help you with energy and hunger. portion control is just something you will have to deal with for the time being unfortunately. Two glasses of water before every meal will help as well. Intermittent fasting might be something for you to look into as well.

alternatively, if you are finding trouble with energy working out, you could look into pre-workouts that contain caffeine. some good ones sold here are http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/jym/pre-jym.html and http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/ka...pre-kaged.html

http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/jym/shred-jym.html this might also help with your energy levels. but so would a caffeine pill or a coffee. this just has lots of extras that might give you a slight extra edge. up to you to decide!

[Taren28]

Thanks for the help! I've spent some time researching the EC stack and I seem convinced so far. I am having trouble finding a place to purchase ephedrine though, possibly due to a ban by the FDA? Could you link me a place where I can purchase this product?

[kingzslayer]

I also have started my gym few months back and want to transform myself this year so I started following Kris Gethin's 12 week of muscle building program which keep you on your edge. You can try that as well. From april I will be following Jim Stoppani's 12-Week Shortcut To Size you can check that out too.

[Partyrocking]

If you want to get stronger but not get any bigger, I'd look at the novice training programs on powerliftingtowin.com. They're designed to get you as strong as possible while allowing you to stay in your weight class, so that should work out well for you.

[TailEnd]

That all looks very good! What do you find you struggle with most during your diet? Is it hunger? Energy levels? Strength?

He weighs 240lbs and you're suggesting 56g of fat per day is good?! OP, I'd look to double your fat intake before anything.

Read this: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...hp?t=156380183

[Starkk]

You can improve strength and agility while burning fat, but you cannot increase muscle mass whilst in a caloric deficit, per the laws of thermodynamics.

[TailEnd]

You can improve strength and agility while burning fat, but you cannot increase muscle mass whilst in a caloric deficit, per the laws of thermodynamics.

This is not true for beginners.

[lucia316]

This is not true for beginners.

Oh beginners some how have magic on their side? It must BCAA supplementation that creates a magic environment where this can occur.

[hustlehard3r]

Oh beginners some how have magic on their side? It must BCAA supplementation that creates a magic environment where this can occur.

You didn't know? It's called noob muscle confusion.

[TailEnd]

A

You didn't know? It's called noob muscle confusion.

Less of the sarcasm and more of the actual facts. People that are brand new to weightlifting can and will make muscle gains whilst losing fat. This isn't groundbreaking news - it's well accepted on this forum and by most reputable bodybuilding coaches.

Do these muscle gains last long? Absolutely not. But it's possible and I've seen it in multiple clients.

[Starkk]

This is not true for beginners.

Do the other laws of physics apply to people just starting their training for the first time?

Genuinely curious, want to be sure I give proper advice to beginners, lest they violate the laws of time and space and end up in the past through some kind of time traveling accident, like Matthew McConaughey in "Interstellar." I don't want to be held responsible for that.

[Partyrocking]

This is not true for beginners.

It's also not true for more experienced lifters.

That being said, it's usually better to focus on one (fat loss or muscle gain) at a time, but to say one cannot do both at the same time is just false. It's been documented repeatedly in different lifting populations.

[TailEnd]

Do the other laws of physics apply to people just starting their training for the first time?

Genuinely curious, want to be sure I give proper advice to beginners, lest they violate the laws of time and space and end up in the past through some kind of time traveling accident, like Matthew McConaughey in "Interstellar." I don't want to be held responsible for that.

Let me quote Alan Aragon for you:

"Gaining muscle in a calorie deficit is possible mostly for newbs & deconditioned folks. Those far past the newb stage stand far less of a chance to experience this. The more advanced you are in your development amd/or level of conditioning, the less this can happen. Perfect examples of who can gain muscle in a calorie deficit are overweight/sedentary newbs who weight train for the first time in years, or ever. Here's a couple research examples:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9280173

This was made on this thread, post 95 http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...1&pagenumber=4

Now, are you going to claim you know more than him?

[lucia316]

It's also not true for more experienced lifters.

That being said, it's usually better to focus on one (fat loss or muscle gain) at a time, but to say one cannot do both at the same time is just false. It's been documented repeatedly in different lifting populations.

I don't think anyone was arguing that recomp wasn't possible, but that's not the same as gaining mass in deficit.

Let me quote Alan Aragon for you:

"Gaining muscle in a calorie deficit is possible mostly for newbs & deconditioned folks. Those far past the newb stage stand far less of a chance to experience this. The more advanced you are in your development amd/or level of conditioning, the less this can happen. Perfect examples of who can gain muscle in a calorie deficit are overweight/sedentary newbs who weight train for the first time in years, or ever. Here's a couple research examples:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9280173

This was made on this thread, post 95 http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...1&pagenumber=4

Now, are you going to claim you know more than him?

Neither of those support the assertion that, "Gaining muscle in a calorie deficit is possible mostly for newbs & deconditioned folks."

The first clearly states, "The addition of an intensive, high volume resistance training program resulted in preservation of LBW and RMR during weight loss with a VLCD."
So, this had nothing to do with actually gaining mass, but preservation of mass while cutting at a ridiculously low level of calories and a liquid diet.

The second clearly states, " In conclusion, strength training significantly reduced the loss of FFM during dieting but did not prevent the decline in RMR."
So, again, this had nothing to do with gaining mass, but reduced the loss of Fat Free Mass (FFM) during the cut. The only thing I could possibly see (without the full study it's hard) would be that, "The strength-training group also showed significant increases (P < 0.05) in anthropometrically measured flexed arm muscle mass."

Barely met significance, but it would depend on when the measurements occurred possibly, but my understanding anthropometrically measurement is that it's proportion based, so that could be due to the fact that that group retained more FFM than the other groups. It still doesn't directly show that they are increasing mass while at a deficit based on abstract alone.

Since I can't pull up the full studies and only abstracts, I also can't see what the diets looked like for the second study, but it's clear that the results were focusing on the maintenance of FFM and not increasing mass. Caloric deficit was obviously achieved as all the groups were losing weight.

So - in this case and since these studies don't actually show a decrease in fat and an increase in mass while at caloric deficit - I'd ask Alan how he's coming to that conclusion, "Gaining muscle in a calorie deficit is possible mostly for newbs & deconditioned folks," based on these studies he linked.

Outside of anecdotal experience and claims which I'd argue have more to do with noobs not knowing what they are doing and, potentially, creating an unintended recomp situation, I don't see any evidence of noobs and the obese gaining muscle mass and losing fat at the same time.

I believe that these noobs and obese people also, anecdotally, make claims based on what they see and not on what may be reality. Examples:

1) They create the unintended recomp
2) They see muscle mass starting to protrude where fat once existed and assume that their muscles are growing too
3) They aren't actually at a deficit and are increasing mass and start to see the muscles poking up through the fat and assume they're getting skinnier.

Perception issues abound here.

Edit: And reading through that thread was a disasterbacle of epic proportions.

[alan aragon]

Neither of those support the assertion that, "Gaining muscle in a calorie deficit is possible mostly for newbs & deconditioned folks."

The first clearly states, "The addition of an intensive, high volume resistance training program resulted in preservation of LBW and RMR during weight loss with a VLCD."
So, this had nothing to do with actually gaining mass, but preservation of mass while cutting at a ridiculously low level of calories and a liquid diet.

The second clearly states, " In conclusion, strength training significantly reduced the loss of FFM during dieting but did not prevent the decline in RMR."
So, again, this had nothing to do with gaining mass, but reduced the loss of Fat Free Mass (FFM) during the cut. The only thing I could possibly see (without the full study it's hard) would be that, "The strength-training group also showed significant increases (P < 0.05) in anthropometrically measured flexed arm muscle mass."

From the 1st link, you missed this: "The strength-training group also showed significant increases (P < 0.05) in anthropometrically measured flexed arm muscle mass and grip strength." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9280173

As for the 2nd link, I meant to post this study instead: "The cross-sectional area of slow twitch and fast twitch fibers was unchanged by treatment in C subjects but significantly increased in WT subjects. It appears that weight training can produce hypertrophy in skeletal muscle during severe energy restriction and large-scale weight loss." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8379514

So, there ya go. I'll edit the change into the original post that was referenced.

[lucia316]

From the 1st link, you missed this: "The strength-training group also showed significant increases (P < 0.05) in anthropometrically measured flexed arm muscle mass and grip strength." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9280173

As for the 2nd link, I meant to post this study instead: "The cross-sectional area of slow twitch and fast twitch fibers was unchanged by treatment in C subjects but significantly increased in WT subjects. It appears that weight training can produce hypertrophy in skeletal muscle during severe energy restriction and large-scale weight loss." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8379514

So, there ya go. I'll edit the change into the original post that was referenced.

Thanks Alan. I saw the reference in the first study and noted that:

The only thing I could possibly see (without the full study it's hard) would be that, "The strength-training group also showed significant increases (P < 0.05) in anthropometrically measured flexed arm muscle mass."

Barely met significance, but it would depend on when the measurements occurred possibly, but my understanding anthropometrically measurement is that it's proportion based, so that could be due to the fact that that group retained more FFM than the other groups? It still doesn't directly show that they are increasing mass while at a deficit based on abstract alone.

My question now is the bold that since we couldn't read the whole study, I'm assuming you have access? Or I am misunderstanding athropometric measurement?

So a couple of questions about the new second study since I can't see the complete study and only the abstract and assuming you have access to the complete study:

1) What did the macro breakdown look like? Would assume a little wonky based on liquid diet, low number of calories outside of a very short (under 5ft) and (140lb female) if using BMI to determine obesity?

2) Was "obesity" determined by BMI?

3) Does it seem odd that anyone was gaining anything at 802 calories per day (3360 kj/d divided by 4.184)? I mean, I could understand losses going on at what seems a crazy severe deficit liquid diet, but gaining anything simply by lifting weights seems a bit specious?
Again, without the full study details, it's tough for one to really say anything, but for an average height woman at 5'5", obesity by BMI is consider 185 or higher. At 185 a K-A calculated BMR is ~1700 calories. Assuming sedentary 1.2 factor, you're 2040 calories which yields a 1200 calorie deficit.

My thought here is that unless this was run on BMI determined obese shorties, 90 days of starvation at a 1200ish calorie deficit on the average sedentary woman while training, doesn't seem anywhere near feasible.

Am I crazy, or just without enough information due to not having the full study?