Michael
Caneguru
He cuts down trees. He wears high heels, suspendies, and a bra?!
Winner of Twatformetrics Spartan Challenge
Posts: 5,288
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2021 22:14:58 GMT
In the past I've looked at it like this. Although I didn't check bodyfat I use to measure my waist and never worried about my weight. , never got that 29 inch waist or the 32 inch waist that everyone is trying to get. Now that I'm older I tend to say lose weight. What are Your thoughts on what he says?
|
|
MBS
Caneguru
Lean, lithe and feral
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by MBS on Jun 30, 2021 23:27:52 GMT
I agree. Focusing on enhancing body composition is more important than just hitting a number.
Most of us, myself included, had a goal of reaching a certain body weight. Since most of us are active, it’s a safe bet we are losing fat and holding on to our muscle.
|
|
pierinifitness
Caneguru
His sky is always blue over yonder
Posts: 2,704
|
Post by pierinifitness on Jul 1, 2021 0:44:26 GMT
Well I can speak for myself based on BF tests I had done when I was reclaiming my former self a couple years ago.
If you lose weight too quickly, you're going to have muscle loss. That's why I recommend no more than a 500 calories daily deficit which is approximately one lb. of weight loss per week. Now if you have a ton of weight to lose, you can probably get by fine losing more than one lb. per week.
Muscle isn't going to grow at our age by banging down protein shakes or eating a high protein diet. You got to move the muscle with progressive resistance and honestly, I believe heavier loads and lower reps gets the job done the best. I also believe long and slower running and walking does a better job of attacking the fat but, again, you got to have a sensible calories deficit. Starving, prolonged fasting or sustained four-figure daily calories deficits will undoubtedly result in muscle loss.
I had about three of four DXA-Scan readings done to measure my body fat when I was losing weight and chiseling so I've got good evidence documenting my experience. Even though DXA-Scan is considered one of the more reliable methods of measuring body fat composition, there's error in the readings too. I can drink a lot of water and skew the result.
Like Michael has said, the good old fashioned tape measure, measuring waist, hips and neck is a poor man's way of getting some reliable feedback to keep our perceptions real. If you're needing new belt loops when cinching the belt, that's good evidence that you're moving in the right direction.
|
|
Michael
Caneguru
He cuts down trees. He wears high heels, suspendies, and a bra?!
Winner of Twatformetrics Spartan Challenge
Posts: 5,288
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2021 0:59:14 GMT
Pierini,
What are Your thoughts on the set point he talked about? Do You think that changes with age? I've actually lost size by doing lower reps and heavier loads. For me whenever I work on pure strength I always seem to be smaller. I've been playing with higher reps and seem to have regain some size.
|
|
|
Post by ddh on Jul 1, 2021 1:26:40 GMT
About 5 yrs ago, I decided to try to get down to 10%BF. I went on this journey, 6 months before my wife and I went to Hawaii, I got down to 9% 2 weeks before we went , I felt sluggish and not really myself, went to Hawaii, had a few Mai Tai’s, well more than a few! ate good, and decided that was enough for me, having a sensible diet, stay active and move, and everything in moderation is a better way to go , I think.
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Jul 1, 2021 2:07:37 GMT
The slower you go, the more fat you burn. The faster you go, the more glucose you burn
More muscle burns more fat, even while you are at rest.
|
|
pierinifitness
Caneguru
His sky is always blue over yonder
Posts: 2,704
|
Post by pierinifitness on Jul 1, 2021 2:56:01 GMT
Here’s one of my YouTube younger fitness brothers who has been sharing his BF measurements journey.
Want to point out that I could easily get a single digit BF percentage reading using a BIA scale by playing around with my hydration levels and time of day. The truth was I was in the teens.
Michael, I believe in set point but from my own experience you can get around it but it takes a lot of desire, discipline, patience and perseverance most people aren’t willing to invest.
|
|
moxohol
Caneguru
Biohacker
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Posts: 3,275
|
Post by moxohol on Jul 1, 2021 6:00:01 GMT
[Operating under a good plan plus some coaching/mentoring makes all the difference. I've had excellent results with this, German Volume Training w/ isometrics in the stretched positions & a slow carb diet. Cheers]
"There are a lot of misconceptions flying around the net surrounding my Nucleus Overload™ program. In this brief article, I debunk them one at a time. To summarize, Nucleus Overload™ is the 30 day program I created over 9 years ago, which consists of 5 sets of 15-20 reps (close to failure), no more than 5 minutes per session, for 30 days straight. After which you MUST cease all training for 1 to 2 weeks in order to reset mTOR and allow the muscle and Androgen receptors to re-sensitize. No training should be done during the mTOR reset, not even cardio (other than brisk walking). The goal of Nucleus Overload™ is to maximize Satellite cell activity and myonuclei donation, which will make the muscle EXTREMELY sensitive to growth AFTER the entire program is completed. Remember to pick a safe exercise in order to avoid injury and excessive muscle damage. Also, although the duration of the program is 30 days straight, it is ok to take 1-2 days off a week if your body needs the rest. Now on to the top 10 misconceptions and FAQs:
1. Nucleus Overload™ is to build muscle in 30 days: This is false. The goal of Nucleus Overload™ is to increase the muscle’s sensitivity to growth. This is accomplished by increasing the total amount of nuclei in the muscle, which will then make the muscle more susceptible to growth in the future. It IS possible to build muscle during the 30 day period, since muscle protein synthesis DOES go up, and muscle damage is kept to a minimum, but this only happens to those who manage recovery (sleep, water, protein, calories, micros, stress etc.) extremely well.
2. Nucleus Overload™ is to replace normal training: False. The goal is to supplement your normal training. After all, I only recommend it to be performed on just 1 or 2 muscles at a time (for 99% of people).
3. Nucleus Overload™ is very light weights: False. My Nucleus Overload™ recommendation is 5 sets of 15-20+ reps close to failure, which comes out to about 50% of your one rep max. Very light weights would be anything above 50 reps, or less than 30% of your one rep max. Such weights are not practical due to time and recovery constraints.
4. Nucleus Overload™ is to “Overload” the muscle: False. The “overload” I use in Nucleus Overload™ refers to “excessive amount of nuclei”, it is not referring to “extremely heavy weights” or anything of the sort. This confusion arose because several people forget (or don’t know) that “overload” has 2 meanings: 1) heavy weights and 2) excessive amounts of something (ie: information overload, electrical overload, testosterone overload etc.). So when I coined the term Nucleus Overload, I was referring to “an excessive amount of nuclei”, since that is the entire goal of the program. Another cause of this confusion is the “rat study” that I posted back in 2013, which is titled “Myonuclei acquired by overload exercise preceded hypertrophy…”. People eventually saw the “nuclei” in the first part of the sentence, and the “overload exercise” in the latter part, and thought “oh, that must be where Nucleus Overload comes from”. Good theory, but grossly incorrect. The “overload exercise” used in that title is a term researchers use a lot when referring to resistance training or heavy loading/weights. In fact you can find that same combination of words in the title and text of several other studies that have absolutely nothing to do with muscle nuclei.
5. Nucleus Overload™ is every body part (full body): False. I always recommend just 1 to 2 muscles max on Nucleus Overload, mainly because 99% of people are terrible at managing recovery well.
6. Nucleus Overload™ is “overtraining”: False. That word is tossed around far too much outside of proper context. If you are referring to overtraining as in doing slightly more than you’re used to, training harder etc., then yes. But if you are referring to “overtraining” as in doing far more than your body can recover from, then that is 100% false. Nucleus Overload™ is ALL about recovery. In fact, all of my parameters for it (rep range, set range, loading range, mTOR reset, exercise selection) are all carefully selected to prevent excessive damage and to maximize recovery.
7. Nucleus Overload™ is 10 sets a day: False. It is 5 sets a day, no more than 5 minutes per session or exercise. Some might end up with over 5 sets due to overlapping muscles, and some might do more than the recommended 5 sets simply out of curiosity or to experiment, but I never recommend more than 5 sets (or 5 minutes) per session. Why? You guessed it, RECOVERY. Besides, muscle protein synthesis starts to peak after 5 sets anyway, so doing more will simply tap into your recovery reserves without adding any significant hypertrophic benefit.
8. Nucleus Overload™ has no scientific studies to back it up: False. The best proxy for Nucleus Overload™ is blood flow restriction training (1), which I stumbled upon around 2014-2015, but was discovered in the 1960s in Japan by Yoshiaki Sato (He calls it Kaatsu). This method of training uses similar frequency (up to 5x a week, sometimes 2x a day), rep ranges (15-30+), set range (2 to 5 sets), and rest periods (~30 sec) as Nucleus Overload™, and also results in the HIGHEST satellite cell and nuclei activity response ever seen in humans, WITHOUT the excessive muscle damage seen in eccentric training (the previous record holder for maximum satellite cell activation). The only minor difference is that the weights used are extremely light (20-30% of 1RM), which isn’t a concern since the BFR studies have shown that this is just the minimum loading range to see results (other BFR studies have shown that you can go up to 40, 50, 70+% of your 1RM and see the exact same benefits). Also, the BFR bands used to restrict blood flow are nothing magical, as traditional training achieves the same hormonal, EMG, and hypertrophic response without the bands (they are only useful when using 20-30% of your 1RM). I just use the bands anyway because the pump is mind-blowing.
9. Nucleus Overload™ is just high frequency training: Of course it is. But that is like saying “German Volume Training is just weight training”, or “5x5 is just weight lifting”. Of course they are all “weight training”, but they have large differences in goals and structure. High frequency training is a branch of weight training, and it itself has several branches (there are MANY high frequency protocols, all with different structures, rep/set schemes, goals etc.). Nucleus Overload™ is my version, with its own structure, rep range, set range, loading range, exercise selection, and most importantly its own purpose (maximum satellite cell and nuclei activation).
10. Nucleus Overload™ is the future of muscle growth and bodybuilding: 100% correct. I highly believe that high frequency, high weekly volume, and a focus on satellite cells and nuclei are the key to maximum muscle growth, especially for natural lifters. Just look at what happened in the last 9 years, ever since I joined YouTube back in 2011. It was all about “bro-splits” and training each muscle just once a week, which is why I was so heavily ridiculed when I kept pushing for higher frequencies, and showing all the overwhelming anecdotes of those who had done it in the past. But over the years, more and more people emerged who, without even knowing me or watching any of my material (my channel was far too small at the time), began to recommend the same thing. CT Fletcher came out around 2013 and mentioned that he trained arms every day as a kid. Rich Piana also entered the scene around that same year and introduced what he called “Feeder Workouts”, which are extremely similar to Nucleus Overload™. The Norwegian Frequency Project (although unpublished) also broke the scene sometime around then, causing many to scratch their heads. The science also started to catch up as we got an explosion of high frequency training studies in the following years, most concluding that 2x a week is far better than the bullshit 1x a week that “experts” kept shoving down our throats at the time. Fast forward to today, and almost everyone is now recommending at LEAST 2x a week, with many even switching over to Full Body Workouts (which I’ve been recommending since 2012). And now, years after I’ve been beating a dead horse over it, more and more people are slowly looking more into 3-5x a week blood flow restriction training as well. So just mark my words, in the next few years, frequency and a focus on satellite cell/nuclei will be at the forefront of bodybuilding and muscle growth research."
|
|
Michael
Caneguru
He cuts down trees. He wears high heels, suspendies, and a bra?!
Winner of Twatformetrics Spartan Challenge
Posts: 5,288
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2021 10:34:42 GMT
|
|
moxohol
Caneguru
Biohacker
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Posts: 3,275
|
Post by moxohol on Jul 1, 2021 10:53:30 GMT
The above mentioned protocol is good priming the body for more gains for we older guys. No additional drugs, supplements or special menus needed. It's all physiology.
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Jul 1, 2021 11:30:45 GMT
Check out "epigenetics". We are not victims of our genes. We can change our biology. We can manipulate/influence our gene expression - or it can be manipulated/influenced for us - by our thoughts, diet, environment, etc, AND, they can be manipulated/influenced in good ways ..... or in bad ways.
Fear, stress and guilt bring out negative gene expressions and we clearly see this being openly used as a tool for the past year and a half to make people sick, hopeless, fearful, miserable, suicidal, numb, angry, irrational, violent, controlling, etc, etc, and to motivate them to accept things that no one would when they are thinking rationally.
|
|
moxohol
Caneguru
Biohacker
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Posts: 3,275
|
Post by moxohol on Jul 1, 2021 18:02:05 GMT
Check out "epigenetics". We are not victims of our genes. We can change our biology. We can manipulate/influence our gene expression - or it can be manipulated/influenced for us - by our thoughts, diet, environment, etc, AND, they can be manipulated/influenced in good ways ..... or in bad ways.
Fear, stress and guilt bring out negative gene expressions and we clearly see this being openly used as a tool for the past year and a half to make people sick, hopeless, fearful, miserable, suicidal, numb, angry, irrational, violent, controlling, etc, etc, and to motivate them to accept things that no one would when they are thinking rationally. Quack-Quack! Epigenetics: It doesn’t mean what quacks think it means | Science-Based Medicine sciencebasedmedicine.org/epigenetics-it-doesnt-mean-what-quacks-think-it-means/
|
|
pierinifitness
Caneguru
His sky is always blue over yonder
Posts: 2,704
|
Post by pierinifitness on Jul 1, 2021 19:45:27 GMT
|
|
Michael
Caneguru
He cuts down trees. He wears high heels, suspendies, and a bra?!
Winner of Twatformetrics Spartan Challenge
Posts: 5,288
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2021 22:27:22 GMT
The above mentioned protocol is good priming the body for more gains for we older guys. No additional drugs, supplements or special menus needed. It's all physiology. I actually seen this when the guy first brought it up. I remember seeing a video he made. One thing I disagree with in the video I seen was the talk about how different physical labor people have great results or development because they repeat a task over and over. It's not true. When You do a work task Your body develops a better work capacity for that task. You may get a little stronger, maybe a little size but it's not the magic pill. If anything, repeating the same tasks cause over use injuries. Some are lucky. I know I'm going to regret talking to You about this because I hate science. How do You use this protocol? He mentions going close to failure everyday for 30 days? Is this doing the same exercise? I'll give myself as an example. Bodybuilding wise my shoulders would be considered terrible. I guess they would call them drop shoulders, . So I would either do side laterals or a rear delt exercise for 30 days straight? I'm just curious and would like to see if I could learn something from this.
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Jul 2, 2021 6:46:41 GMT
Check out "epigenetics". We are not victims of our genes. We can change our biology. We can manipulate/influence our gene expression - or it can be manipulated/influenced for us - by our thoughts, diet, environment, etc, AND, they can be manipulated/influenced in good ways ..... or in bad ways.
Fear, stress and guilt bring out negative gene expressions and we clearly see this being openly used as a tool for the past year and a half to make people sick, hopeless, fearful, miserable, suicidal, numb, angry, irrational, violent, controlling, etc, etc, and to motivate them to accept things that no one would when they are thinking rationally. Quack-Quack! Epigenetics: It doesn’t mean what quacks think it means | Science-Based Medicine sciencebasedmedicine.org/epigenetics-it-doesnt-mean-what-quacks-think-it-means/David Gorski, whose allopathic slash-poison-burn bohemian oncology paycheck with bonuses depends on Lipton being wrong. No conflict there, right?
|
|