moxohol
Caneguru
Biohacker
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Posts: 3,262 
|
Post by moxohol on Jul 2, 2021 7:31:02 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. U get better at performance not necessarily physical development. I totally concur on this premise both intellectually & from a personal perspective. As a geek, I data mine alot of unrelated topics. I've read about archeological digs of finding teenaged peasants found with crippling arthritis due to the hard manual labor they did in life. Medieval archers with structural deformities & arthritis because of the constant practice. Any fool can understand use, misuse & abuse. I've misused myself quite a bit healing. Abused myself way too much around my wife but I digress. U can apply high intensities at low volume but NEVER high intensity at high volume. That's a recipe for disaster. U start going catabolic with heavy lifting in 3 weeks anyways. IMO this protocol is good for office jocks & Lazy Boy Rangers like myself not for Paul Bunyan types. Conceptually, this program is like adding a primer coat before the paint job. Only 1 to 2 compound exercises are supposed to be done per SESSION. BTW, I still have bad shoulders from my WWF match with Hulk Hogan last August. So, I don't work thru my injuries, I work around them. My main shoulder exercise is a kneeling shoulder press using my Forearm Forklifts in the stretched or "starting" position. I substituted dynamic exercises which aggrevate my current injuries with static ones save one exception which is adding dynamic exercise for my legs by doing a 5 count negative squat. I use static exercises for the entire Nucleus Overload program but!.....I perform all the static exercises in the stretched ROM position (long muscle lengths). Time holds are 30/20/10. 30s @half effort, 20s @hard as I dare, 10s @hard as I can (I gradually apply tension on each second count to peak effort). 2 to 3 sets seem work for me? I need to have a solid game plan. So I bother to read the science where applicable to make an informed decision on how to best proceed for the results I want. I don't want to waste my time on experimenting with BROscience & risk further injuries. I have enough of them already. |
|
moxohol
Caneguru
Biohacker
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Posts: 3,262
|
Post by moxohol on Jul 2, 2021 8:55:46 GMT
David Gorski, whose allopathic slash-poison-burn bohemian oncology paycheck with bonuses depends on Lipton being wrong. No conflict there, right?  As someone who has undergone unconventional medical treatments, I can definitely relate to your ending premise. Conventional treatments would have been worse for me. That said: my entire course of treatment was based on factual info & reproduceable results not flawed thinking or outcomes. I had a medical consultant who explained all his crazy methods & why, so I could make a final informed decision. I had a doctor on standby to check my vitals & bloodwork. Spewing out grossly inaccurate hypothesises or definitions doesn't serve the patients interests at all save an author or a treating physician's sinecures. Slash & burn methods I am totally against but giving people misinformation or delusions is a greater harm. Thinking my way out of cancer goes beyond the realm of any sane person's working common sense. Lipton's hypothesis is not all that it's QUACKED up to be. |
|
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 2, 2021 11:06:05 GMT
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. U get better at performance not necessarily physical development. I totally concur on this premise both intellectually & from a personal perspective. As a geek, I data mine alot of unrelated topics. I've read about archeological digs of finding teenaged peasants found with crippling arthritis due to the hard manual labor they did in life. Medieval archers with structural deformities & arthritis because of the constant practice. Any fool can understand use, misuse & abuse. I've misused myself quite a bit healing. Abused myself way much around my wife too but I digress. U can apply high intensities at low volume but NEVER high intensity at high volume. That's a recipe for disaster. U start going catabolic with heavy lifting in 3 weeks anyways. IMO this protocol is good for office jocks & Lazy Boy Rangers like myself not for Paul Bunyan types. Conceptually, this program is like adding a primer coat before the paint job. Only 1 to 2 compound exercises are supposed to be done per SESSION. BTW, I still have bad shoulders from my WWF match with Hulk Hogan last August. So, I don't work thru my injuries, I work around them. My main shoulder exercise is a kneeling shoulder press using my Forearm Forklifts in the stretched or "starting" position. I substituted dynamic exercises which aggrevate my current injuries with static ones. I do add dynamic exercise for my legs by doing 5 count negative squats after my static hold. In fact, I use static exercises for the entire Nucleus Overload program but!.....I perform all the static exercises in the stretched ROM position (long muscle lengths). Time holds are 30/20/10. 30s @half effort, 20s @hard as I dare, 10s @hard as I can (I gradually apply tension on each second count to peak effort). 2 to 3 sets seem work for me? I need to have a solid game plan. So I bother to read the science where applicable to make an informed decision on how to best proceed for the results I want. I don't want to waste my time on experimenting with BROscience & risk further injuries. I have enough of them already. Yup You get better at performance. I really don't have a problem with science. I just don't have patience for it. I'd rather listen to other people's experience/or my own and guys that I respect there knowledge. I like basic stuff because I feel it's not really that complicated. I've experimented plenty which I find pretty fun. One thing I won't do is something because someone else says it's the magic pill knowing it's going to hurt me. Example for me is isometrics. Doing isometrics alone always made my body hurt. Why the heck should I just do isometrics alone if it's hurting me? That's drudgery. I want to enjoy what I do. So for the Nucleus Overload program what exercise are You using for it? Is it the kneeling shoulder press? So You are doing this exercise everyday? Of course You're not doing the 15-20 reps being that You're doing isometrics. |
|
moxohol
Caneguru
Biohacker
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Posts: 3,262
|
Post by moxohol on Jul 2, 2021 12:48:09 GMT
U get better at performance not necessarily physical development. I totally concur on this premise both intellectually & from a personal perspective. As a geek, I data mine alot of unrelated topics. I've read about archeological digs of finding.................................................on each second count to peak effort). 2 to 3 sets seem work for me? I need to have a solid game plan. So I bother to read the science where applicable to make an informed decision on how to best proceed for the results I want. I don't want to waste my time on experimenting with BROscience & risk further injuries. I have enough of them already. Yup You get better at performance. I really don't have a problem with science. I just don't have patience for it. I'd rather listen to other people's experience/or my own and guys that I respect there knowledge. I like basic stuff because I feel it's not really that complicated. I've experimented plenty which I find pretty fun. One thing I won't do is something because someone else says it's the magic pill knowing it's going to hurt me. Example for me is isometrics. Doing isometrics alone always made my body hurt. Why the heck should I just do isometrics alone if it's hurting me? That's drudgery. I want to enjoy what I do. So for the Nucleus Overload program what exercise are You using for it? Is it the kneeling shoulder press? So You are doing this exercise everyday? Of course You're not doing the 15-20 reps being that You're doing isometrics. Theory puts me to sleep yet it is the interesting proposition that gets me all wet. Practical app validates the theory. Where one usually falls into trouble is when there's an imbalance of the two. I got an open mind but not so open that my brains fall out either! I find that isometrics are like any other tool in your toolkit: it is how u use them & recognizing that some tools are better than others. Case in point: I don't use OCI's for hypertrophy because they absolutely suck. The reason why it sucks is because they really don't build contractile proteins (I was initially wrong). Static Contraction Training by Peter Cisco non withstanding. But OCI's are excellent for tendon development & GTO disinhibition for strength. GTOs are the nerves installed at the muscle origins & insertion points which are set at conservative thresholds to prevent you from ripping yourself apart. Tendons & ligaments can't sustain more than 10 minutes of activity. Beyond that, they shut down. On the opposite end of the spectrum is dynamic exercise which does affect muscle directly & can be done for longer periods. That's why isometrics are used to augment existing training protocols in athletic departments all over the world. Not as the main form of training. Nucleus Overload (NO) is used for shoulders & legs. I did the math & extrapolated my results to the cited hold times which are supposed to be equivalent of the prescribed NO rep/set scheme. I'm not infallible. Feel free to question them. I can't emphasize enough that all my compound holds are restricted to stretched ROM positions not contracted ones. After that, you'll notice I prefix 30s hold times at 50%. This is actually a joint specific warm up. The last 30s are divided by "hard as I dare" to "hard as I can". On the latter, it's a gradual peak effort. I don't immediately engage in prescribed intensities at any level. I ease into all the timed holds to the target intensity level. Hitting 100% effort in 6s is a good way to cause injury. I trot to my goals, I don't race to them. Hope that all this claptrap was informative as well as of practical use. |
|
pierinifitness
Caneguru
His sky is always blue over yonder
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by pierinifitness on Jul 3, 2021 23:56:48 GMT
About two and one-half years ago, I wrote a "scholarly article on my blog titled "The Mathematical Proof of CICO" - if you're interested, you can read it here: pierini-fitness.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-mathematical-proof-of-cico.htmlOn June 2nd of this year, I decided I needed to drop some bodyweight that I had gained since retiring. Even though I thought I looked better at my then current bodyweight, I wanted to be lighter like I was one year ago so I could have a better chance of reclaiming the level of burpees performance I enjoyed one year ago. So, I started eating (or at least it was my goal) 500 calories less per day. As is the case with everything, there are measurements that are subject to error but I tried my best to be conscientious about my pursuit. At 500 calories average daily deficit, I should lose about one lb. a week. Well, I hadn't done any analysis like the article since then but today I decided (one month later) to do some math. Here's what my math revealed: (1) Loss in bodyweight from 6/2/2021 to 7/3/2021 (32 days) using a 7-day average weight on 6/2/2021 and 7/3/2021 (this is my average weight for the 7-days ending 6/2/2021 and 7/3/2021 - total weight loss was 4.1 lbs. (2) Total calories deficit during this 32-day period was 11,557 - divide this number by 3,500 calories and the result is approximate lbs. - the math calculated to 3.3 lbs. Again, there's inherent error in the measurement process - morning BW error, calories eaten error (I don't use a scale but I've been doing this a long time so I'm probably better than many), calories expended error (all kind of measurement error potential in this number so I do the best I can but I do use some tools that makes this calculation better than if I winged it.) So as a sequel to the article I wrote, linked above, the CICO formula is pretty darn reliable. Bottom line, if you want to lose weight, you got to eat less, you got to have a calories deficit over time, a lb. is approximately 3,500 calories, and, blah, blah, blah. Who knows how much of this weight loss was fat or lean body mass. I'm not into this measurement at this time although I have been in the past. You can't drink protein shakes to pack on muscle, you got to do the hard work lifting weights, volume, loads and TUT. I'm making gains reclaiming my burpees performance, due to a combination of doing the work and also lightening the BW load. I'm going to continue what I'm doing and should lose another 4-5 lbs. of BW during July. I'm hoping to see improvement in my burpees performance. I'll acknowledge that many people don't need to be a data geek like I am in pursuing weight loss or maintaining it but this analysis reveals the absolute truth, eating following the CICO formula will guide you in achieving your BW goals. The purpose of this analysis is to once again prove to myself that CICO is how I get the job done. I pick my food choices wisely to be satisfied which is critical if you're doing business in the calories deficit zone. If you're fat, it's your own damn fault because you eat too much. Isn't that what The Wildman says, or something like it? My name is Pierini Fitness and I approve of this message. |
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Jul 4, 2021 3:01:43 GMT
Unfortunately, it's never straight calories in-calories out (CICO) because in addition to the reasons you have cited, variations in protein and carbohydrate GROSS calories values (assuming the values are correct and consistent to begin with) will yield DIFFERENT NET calories because of the way the body digests them.
When a person decreases GROSS carb calories and increases GROSS protein calories while maintaining GROSS total calories the NET effect of digesting more protein calories and less carb calories than had been usual makes the calorie subtraction for the person automatically.
The result is lower NET calories and weight/fat reduction while eating exactly the same number of GROSS calories.
|
|
pierinifitness
Caneguru
His sky is always blue over yonder
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by pierinifitness on Jul 4, 2021 4:31:22 GMT
Unfortunately, it's never straight calories in-calories out (CICO) because in addition to the reasons you have cited, variations in protein and carbohydrate GROSS calories values (assuming the values are correct and consistent to begin with) will yield DIFFERENT NET calories because of the way the body digests them. When a person decreases GROSS carb calories and increases GROSS protein calories while maintaining GROSS total calories the NET effect of digesting more protein calories and less carb calories than had been usual makes the calorie subtraction for the person automatically. The result is lower NET calories and weight/fat reduction while eating exactly the same number of GROSS calories. You pointed this out in a previous discussion and I chose not to respond. I was sharing my personal experience and data. Why don’t you share some personal information supporting your experience about this. If none, then post some research so I can understand better. I think water weight is a factor when one eats lower carbs and higher protein and/or fat. That’s how some of these KETO people get these quick weight loss results. There’s a lot that goes into weight loss such as glycogen stores, water retention levels and defecation timing. Another factor is recovery from a hard workout and it’s affect on water retention. My personal experience eating more protein and fat is that I eat fewer calories. If I eat fewer calories over time, I lose weight at about one lb. for every 3,500 calories deficit, on average over the long haul. Again, I’m sharing my real life experience that supports what I’ve shared. |
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Jul 4, 2021 5:35:55 GMT
Unfortunately, it's never straight calories in-calories out (CICO) because in addition to the reasons you have cited, variations in protein and carbohydrate GROSS calories values (assuming the values are correct and consistent to begin with) will yield DIFFERENT NET calories because of the way the body digests them. When a person decreases GROSS carb calories and increases GROSS protein calories while maintaining GROSS total calories the NET effect of digesting more protein calories and less carb calories than had been usual makes the calorie subtraction for the person automatically. The result is lower NET calories and weight/fat reduction while eating exactly the same number of GROSS calories. You pointed this out in a previous discussion and I chose not to respond. I was sharing my personal experience and data. Why don’t you share some personal information supporting your experience about this. If none, then post some research so I can understand better. I think water weight is a factor when one eats lower carbs and higher protein and/or fat. That’s how some of these KETO people get these quick weight loss results. There’s a lot that goes into weight loss such as glycogen stores, water retention levels and defecation timing. Another factor is recovery from a hard workout and it’s affect on water retention. My personal experience eating more protein and fat is that I eat fewer calories. If I eat fewer calories over time, I lose weight at about one lb. for every 3,500 calories deficit, on average over the long haul. Again, I’m sharing my real life experience that supports what I’ve shared. Thanks Ed. I'm not contradicting anything you posted. I'm supplying a possible reason that what you experienced: could have been, at least partially, explained by the proportions of protein to carb ratio that you ate. Did you track your gross (listed?) calories for each macro? I don't track these details as you do, but I have checked calories on everything I eat that contributes to my diet so I have a general idea, like you, of what I'm eating and have found ways to manipulate those two macros to produce a reduction in waist girth. My waist stays in the area of 32" sometimes minus and, if I've been decadent, can be felt as a plus, but I know how to deal with it. Potatoes. Lettuce. More calories from protein, less from carbs & fat. Water. Fruit ( alone - not combined with any other food). |
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Jul 4, 2021 5:58:35 GMT
OK, it appears that I was mistaken. I think somewhere I posted that protein uses ~35% more calories to digest than does carbs, but that's quite not accurate.
Sorry, I was writing from memory and it's not perfect yet.
Still, the concept is valid.
|
|
pierinifitness
Caneguru
His sky is always blue over yonder
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by pierinifitness on Jul 4, 2021 14:52:40 GMT
Looking forward to continuing the discussion later, thanks for your last post.
|
|
pierinifitness
Caneguru
His sky is always blue over yonder
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by pierinifitness on Jul 4, 2021 19:47:34 GMT
So, continuing this discussion, I went to this article titled "10 Science-Backed Reasons to Eat More Protein": www.healthline.com/nutrition/10-reasons-to-eat-more-proteinScrolling down to reason #5 titled "Boosts Metabolism and Increases Fat Burning", it read: "High protein intake has been shown to significantly boost metabolism and increase the number of calories you burn. This can amount to 80–100 more calories burned each day (22Trusted Source, 23Trusted Source, 24Trusted Source)." I went to the websites where the research was posted and read the abstracts. One study was based on a single day of eating high protein versus high carbohydrates for 10 young women. The abstract doesn't indicate if calories consumed were kept constant or what the percentage of calories from protein or carbohydrates eaten for the day. While the abstract did share a conclusion that an added energy-cost associated with high-protein, low-fat diets and may help explain the efficacy of such diets for weight loss, it begs the question for me if whether a person could eat this way day in and day out. If not, the weight loss may not be significant for most people. Try eating high protein day in and day out and see how long you last. The second research abstract shared how gluconeogenesis and energy expenditure after a high-protein, carbohydrate-free diet was higher compared to a higher carbohydrate diet. The high protein diet read more like a KETO diet in that the calories consumed were 30 percent protein, 70 percent fat and zero percent carbohydrates. I don't doubt the outcome eating this way but try it and see how long you'll last. There's no doubt that KETO will result in weight loss, some of the initial loss is water weight loss but another factor, I believe is that those people are eating less calories. Additionally, have you ever heard of the KETO flu? For most people, it's not sustainable for life. The third research abstract shared that the presence or absence of carbohydrates and the proportion of fat in a high-protein diet affect appetite suppression but not energy expenditure in normal-weight human subjects fed in energy balance. Bottom line, I don't think this high protein thing is significant for weight loss. Walking an extra 10 minutes a day would probably do a better job rather than being miserable eating an unreasonable percentage of protein in relation to your total food consumption. I'm sticking with 3,500 calories deficit equals one lb. of weight loss. Given the estimation error of measuring calories consumed and calories expended from lifestyle and exercise activities, this formula is good enough for most people who eat in a way that they can sustain for life. Edit adding a postscript: I went to my My Fitness Pal app that I use to track my feeding. I'm only able to get macros for the day and week. The last week, my macros were 42 percent carbs, 44 percent fat and 14 percent protein. I'd say, but am not 100 percent certain, this macro allocation is how I ate the last month. I don't pay attention to this in choosing my foods. I go intuitively to what my body is telling me it wants to eat. Given that I have a targeted 500 calories per day deficit, I'm going to go with what my mind and body is telling me it wants to be fed. The macros will fall where they may. |
|
|
|
Post by mr potatohead on Jul 4, 2021 21:29:35 GMT
Your postscript will work fine. Anytime a person is underconsuming maintenance calories, they are in ketosis. This is why Clarence Bass can eat lots of carbs and still maintain low BF.
I don't promote "high" protein diets (whatever "high" means), like Adkins or whatmore. Nor am I promoting high fat, low carb or no carb. It's about raising protein a little and reducing carb and/or fat a little (talking about gross calories here) that will automatically reduce the total net calories due to extra calories required to burn protein.
EDIT: I suppose I need to add that this is not intended to be a full time or lifelong diet. It's just a way to temporarily or occasionally manipulate calories.
I didn't check any of the references in the article. The math just made sense to me based on your numbers of 4.1# loss experienced and 3.3# loss calculated - a ~20% difference. I figured if you experienced it, it doesn't really matter what the "studies" say. This is why I asked if you knew what the gross calories for each macro was and if, by chance, the protein calories had increased compared to your usual consumption ratio with the accompanying reduction of calories from other macros to hit the gross target of 500 calorie per day reduction overall.
James Tiny Vest (posted by Michael, I believe some time ago) was where I first heard of increasing gross protein while reducing the other macros to keep total gross the same, resulting in lower net. As I recall, I also heard Ric Drasin say in a video that he ate a little protein before bed and it helped him manage weight, but I don't remember the details.
It's just a suggestion to partially explain the 0.8# (2800 calorie over 32 days = 87.5 more calories burned per day than calculated) discrepancy you noted between 4.1# and 3.3#.
If what you're doing is giving you the results you desire, good enough.
|
|
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 7, 2021 16:51:39 GMT
Here's a video I found I thought pertained to his discussion. Some of the stuff he talks about makes sense to me and then stuff he talks about with studies is one of the reasons I don't pay attention to them.
|
|
pierinifitness
Caneguru
His sky is always blue over yonder
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by pierinifitness on Jul 7, 2021 17:25:39 GMT
Entire viewing, didn't want to but I did.
Very good video, thank you Michael. Didn't find one thing he said at odds with my almost three years of meticulously tracking my feeding.
Agree about the research studies. I've gone deeper than the abstracts sometimes but the reading comprehension becomes difficult. I took two statistics classes in college so I understand the standard deviation stuff he talked about. The abstracts as a minimum are better than the news articles that some people only read.
Dude had got some impressive traps!
He briefly touched on leptin and ghrelin which are important to understand for the serious weight management buff, particularly the ghrelin beast.
Did you notice his talk about thyroid influences - the T3 and T4 stuff? You may recall on another discussion thread about blood work that I mentioned TSH blood work.
Again, very good video; thanks for sharing.
|
|
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 7, 2021 18:42:46 GMT
Entire viewing, didn't want to but I did. Very good video, thank you Michael. Didn't find one thing he said at odds with my almost three years of meticulously tracking my feeding. Agree about the research studies. I've gone deeper than the abstracts sometimes but the reading comprehension becomes difficult. I took two statistics classes in college so I understand the standard deviation stuff he talked about. The abstracts as a minimum are better than the news articles that some people only read. Dude had got some impressive traps! He briefly touched on leptin and ghrelin which are important to understand for the serious weight management buff, particularly the ghrelin beast. Did you notice his talk about thyroid influences - the T3 and T4 stuff? You may recall on another discussion thread about blood work that I mentioned TSH blood work. Again, very good video; thanks for sharing. Yes I did notice the talk about thyroid influences. I thought overall he touched on some good points. , did notice his traps. When You got a head like that You need traps to hold it up, . |
|
. 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.
