going to do a 2 week cycle need advice

[505jules]

The proof is in the pudding I only want the best for my new friend. No ego here zilla.

Guys he said it! The proof is in the pudding! History has shown us, that statement is bulletproof!

 

[gill13]

Do you have any scientific evidence for your points?

If so post it up to keep the discussion educational for those reading along.
Otherwise, stop stroking your own ego with these passive-aggressive responses and simply admit that your position has no fundamental base behind it whatsoever (in other words, your wrong).

nah man i'm not being passive aggressive, i just want you to shut the hell up lol

 

[Ghost124]

Guys he said it! The proof is in the pudding! History has shown us, that statement is bulletproof!

What flavor of pudding.....

 

[Milton]

no i wasn't trolling when i was talking about my army days. but sure bro, you do this for a living, you're a professional dietitian and you are on top of the diet game. you know everything there is to know about dieting. good for you man! i applaud you

love,
Gill

is this guy for real? getting smart?

 

[halfwit]

Some people are so far behind in a race they actually think they're winning

It's the Pudding Study, clearly.

I'm so gay for you right now.

 

[omgmike1]

This might shock you, but as an evidence based natural bodybuilding coach I have forgotten more information about this topic than you will EVER learn

Here is a solid review on the subject showing that up to 1% BW loss per week is perfectly fine for muscle preservation while dieting for natural bodybuilders dieting to contest ready condition. The author happens to be someone I keep in regular contact with btw:

JISSN | Full text | Evidence-based recommendations for natural bodybuilding contest preparation: nutrition and supplementation

Now 2 things:
- the OP is NOT getting ready for a contest and doesn't aim to get completely peeled, therefore he can be more severe in his approach than the review recommends.
- the OP is also planning to use clen, an anti-catabolic hormone that will help preserve mass compared to natural bodybuilders highlighted in the review.

With that said, if you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about you would know that 1800cals by itself means absolutely nothing since every individual has different meta-bolic rates & levels of TDEE.
For the OP, 1800cals would equal a 40% caloric deficit. Its high but not even CLOSE to how extreme your making it out to be since it should only lead to around 1.3% BW loss per week.
That means the OP is only SLIGHLTY above what is recommended by the evidence AND isn't planning on getting ready for a contest AND he is using clen AND he is not close to being classified as an "advanced bodybuilder".


There is NO evidence for muscle loss after 2-3 weeks of severe dieting for trained individuals. For more information go read Lyle McDonald's RFL book.

You also forget that LBM is comprised of water, glycogen AND muscle.
The first two go down when dieting and there is jackshit you can do about it without drugs. The final one will be preserved if you diet properly - maintain high protein intake, focus on tension (rather than damage/stress) in the weight room, minimize cardio, etc.


There is NO evidence for your bullshit remark about "slowing down your metabolism" by dieting too hard either.
Meta-bolic slowdown occurs because your dieting REGARDLESS of how slowly you go through the process. This entire process is known as adaptive thermogenesis and you can learn more about it here:

Adaptive thermogenesis in humans

The rest of the meta-bolic slowdown occurs primarily due to too much cardio and happens mostly to women. It has NOTHING to do with the size of the caloric deficit induced through diet.


Anecdotally, I've had clients diet down on very low calories and lose NO more muscle compared to others who have taken the slower approach and had the same start & end points with regards to bf%.
Now they might all happen to be superhuman OR, maybe, just maybe, I know what the fuck I'm doing when it comes to nutrition.


To conclude:
- I AM coming from a position of knowledge.
- YOU need to do more research on the subject
- Provided the OP maintains a high protein intake (1.25g/lb) and focuses on tension in the weight room (weight on the bar, not reps), muscle loss simply isn't a worry at his bf%.

So are u basically saying that: U can reduce ur cals to large deficits and lose up to 2.5-3 lbs a week and u will keep pretty much all of ur muscle as long as: u hit weights, 1.25g/lb protein in take, some carbs, and some sort of gear such as test at maybe 500mg+ a week?

I did do a rapid cut on 500 and lost lots of BF. didn't seem to lose much muscle mass during it.

Just always see this topic debated and it's nice to have it cleared up.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

So are u basically saying that: U can reduce ur cals to large deficits and lose up to 2.5-3 lbs a week and u will keep pretty much all of ur muscle as long as: u hit weights, 1.25g/lb protein in take, some carbs, and some sort of gear such as test at maybe 500mg+ a week?

I did do a rapid cut on 500 and lost lots of BF. didn't seem to lose much muscle mass during it.

Just always see this topic debated and it's nice to have it cleared up.

I seem to remember advising you about your rapid cut - your results don't surprise me at all

And yes, to save muscle on a rapid cut here is what you focus on in order of importance:
- AAS at a decent dose, 500mg is fine for most.

- Focusing on intensity in the weight room (weight on the bar, not volume) and make sure the training suits the diet.
The biggest mistake I see, and what leads to rapid muscle loss, is high volume training + low carbs. Your absolutely begging for muscle loss here since the main fuel source for these workouts are carbs > your not consuming enough > glycogen stores get depleted > protein stores get used for energy.

- 1.25glb protein for most, maybe 1.5g/lb once you dip into single digits.

 

[anzel]

I seem to remember advising you about your rapid cut - your results don't surprise me at all

And yes, to save muscle on a rapid cut here is what you focus on in order of importance:
- AAS at a decent dose, 500mg is fine for most.

- Focusing on intensity in the weight room (weight on the bar, not volume) and make sure the training suits the diet.
The biggest mistake I see, and what leads to rapid muscle loss, is high volume training + low carbs. Your absolutely begging for muscle loss here since the main fuel source for these workouts are carbs > your not consuming enough > glycogen stores get depleted > protein stores get used for energy.

- 1.25glb protein for most, maybe 1.5g/lb once you dip into single digits.

So a typical low volume workout would be around 2-3 sets 8-10 maybe 12 reps?

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

So a typical low volume workout would be around 2-3 sets 8-10 maybe 12 reps?

Yes to the 8-12 rep range and the rest depends on the size of the deficit and your usual training volume

I like to drop volume by around 25-50% based on the size of the deficit.
I don't always do this from the start; for example if your on a small deficit (say 10-15%) then I'd keep volume the same and only drop it by 25% once we reach the halfway point or so.

 

[luckypaul]

I just want to see our friends progress in 2wks. I will wait.

No way in hell is going on an 1800 cal a day diet going to do anything. I'm not the one going off like banshee. Lightn up some. Its bad for your blood pressure.

I will be back in 2 weeks. If im wrong about the advice I gave, I will admit it. I dont think that will be the case.

 

[luckypaul]

This might shock you, but as an evidence based natural bodybuilding coach I have forgotten more information about this topic than you will EVER learn

Here is a solid review on the subject showing that up to 1% BW loss per week is perfectly fine for muscle preservation while dieting for natural bodybuilders dieting to contest ready condition. The author happens to be someone I keep in regular contact with btw:

JISSN | Full text | Evidence-based recommendations for natural bodybuilding contest preparation: nutrition and supplementation

Now 2 things:
- the OP is NOT getting ready for a contest and doesn't aim to get completely peeled, therefore he can be more severe in his approach than the review recommends.
- the OP is also planning to use clen, an anti-catabolic hormone that will help preserve mass compared to natural bodybuilders highlighted in the review.

With that said, if you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about you would know that 1800cals by itself means absolutely nothing since every individual has different meta-bolic rates & levels of TDEE.
For the OP, 1800cals would equal a 40% caloric deficit. Its high but not even CLOSE to how extreme your making it out to be since it should only lead to around 1.3% BW loss per week.
That means the OP is only SLIGHLTY above what is recommended by the evidence AND isn't planning on getting ready for a contest AND he is using clen AND he is not close to being classified as an "advanced bodybuilder".


There is NO evidence for muscle loss after 2-3 weeks of severe dieting for trained individuals. For more information go read Lyle McDonald's RFL book.

You also forget that LBM is comprised of water, glycogen AND muscle.
The first two go down when dieting and there is jackshit you can do about it without drugs. The final one will be preserved if you diet properly - maintain high protein intake, focus on tension (rather than damage/stress) in the weight room, minimize cardio, etc.


There is NO evidence for your bullshit remark about "slowing down your metabolism" by dieting too hard either.
Meta-bolic slowdown occurs because your dieting REGARDLESS of how slowly you go through the process. This entire process is known as adaptive thermogenesis and you can learn more about it here:

Adaptive thermogenesis in humans

The rest of the meta-bolic slowdown occurs primarily due to too much cardio and happens mostly to women. It has NOTHING to do with the size of the caloric deficit induced through diet.


Anecdotally, I've had clients diet down on very low calories and lose NO more muscle compared to others who have taken the slower approach and had the same start & end points with regards to bf%.
Now they might all happen to be superhuman OR, maybe, just maybe, I know what the fuck I'm doing when it comes to nutrition.


To conclude:
- I AM coming from a position of knowledge.
- YOU need to do more research on the subject
- Provided the OP maintains a high protein intake (1.25g/lb) and focuses on tension in the weight room (weight on the bar, not reps), muscle loss simply isn't a worry at his bf%.

Cool I can appreciate that you are knowlegable in nutrition, but you are acting like you were dipped in dmso and rolled in a pile of tren.

Peace bro

 

[Milton]

Good info thanks!

 

[cybrsage]

Adaptive thermogenesis in humans

I was honestly going to research this very subject after I was done reading ology today. Seriously, I have been thinking a lot about this recently (since I am on a cut) and wanted to learn it much more in depth. Thanks for this, quite timely!

 

[cybrsage]

Yes to the 8-12 rep range and the rest depends on the size of the deficit and your usual training volume

I like to drop volume by around 25-50% based on the size of the deficit.
I don't always do this from the start; for example if your on a small deficit (say 10-15%) then I'd keep volume the same and only drop it by 25% once we reach the halfway point or so.

What do you mean by volume, do you mean the weight moved?

 

[Havasu]

I've just read through this thread, and my scientific conclusion is "luckypaul" is a fucking idiot. I don't usually insult people on the forums, however a person that sticks to their uninformed, unscientifically proven guns when faced with scientific evidence is a fucking idiot. Not only a fucking idiot, but a stubborn fucking idiot that refuses to ever admit when they are wrong, even in the face of facts.

 

[luckypaul]

I was honestly going to research this very subject after I was done reading ology today. Seriously, I have been thinking a lot about this recently (since I am on a cut) and wanted to learn it much more in depth. Thanks for this, quite timely!

Share that with me bro. Knowledge is us makes us who we are, and if I am wrong, I want to know. All I am saying is that in my experiance in cutting, the most effective method I ever had was to increase lmb. My metabolism goes up and its easy to keep bf down. Decrease yiur caloric intake and your metabolism will slow.

Thats it. Simple. If I am wrong show me. I think we just got of on the wrong foot. It is clear we both want the best for our fellow members.

Paul

 

[omgmike1]

I seem to remember advising you about your rapid cut - your results don't surprise me at all

And yes, to save muscle on a rapid cut here is what you focus on in order of importance:
- AAS at a decent dose, 500mg is fine for most.

- Focusing on intensity in the weight room (weight on the bar, not volume) and make sure the training suits the diet.
The biggest mistake I see, and what leads to rapid muscle loss, is high volume training + low carbs. Your absolutely begging for muscle loss here since the main fuel source for these workouts are carbs > your not consuming enough > glycogen stores get depleted > protein stores get used for energy.

- 1.25glb protein for most, maybe 1.5g/lb once you dip into single digits.

Few Questions:

Lets take for example, a guy, trains for 2 hours long. At the end of the day his total carbs is like 500g. Takes in like a good 100-150 before workout/mornings and then eats rest before sleep. During the 2 hour workout, I'm assuming his stores are depleted after maybe 1.5 hours. Will this point muscle begin to burn? Or does that ONLY happen depending if it's a total deficit at the end of the day and that if it was a surplus, no muscle would have been burnt at the gym workout out and muscle added at the end? Assume high volume training too, lots of drop sets


How low is "low carbs". Are u saying that no matter what during a cut, u should stay above a certain threshold of carbs? Like is below 20 low and maybe 50-80g range okay as a min at all times?

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

What do you mean by volume, do you mean the weight moved?

Total volume = weight x sets x reps

We want to keep the weight high since the data shows that you can reach maximum mechanical tension (the main cause of hypertrophy) with approx. 75-85%RM - in other words the 8-12 rep range.
This range still provides some muscle damage & meta-bolic stress induced growth but not so much as to deplete glycogen levels and increase the risk of unnecessary protein breakdown.

We want to sacrifice sets/reps because they induce growth predominantly through meta-bolic stress (lactate buildup, etc) & muscular damage (satellite cell activation, the "pump", etc).
These 2 processes are absolutely reliant on sufficient fuel availability, something that simply isn't there when dieting especially if carbs are severely limited.

Few Questions:

Lets take for example, a guy, trains for 2 hours long. At the end of the day his total carbs is like 500g. Takes in like a good 100-150 before workout/mornings and then eats rest before sleep. During the 2 hour workout, I'm assuming his stores are depleted after maybe 1.5 hours. Will this point muscle begin to burn? Or does that ONLY happen depending if it's a total deficit at the end of the day and that if it was a surplus, no muscle would have been burnt at the gym workout out and muscle added at the end? Assume high volume training too, lots of drop sets

Muscle loss is only an issue when in a negative caloric balance. At maintenance/bulking, as long your protein intake isn't crazy low you have nothing to worry about.

How low is "low carbs". Are u saying that no matter what during a cut, u should stay above a certain threshold of carbs? Like is below 20 low and maybe 50-80g range okay as a min at all times?

That's not what I'm saying at all - you can drop carbs as much as you wish PROVIDED the training is suited to the diet.

If your only doing 2-3 sets of 8-12 reps per muscle group, like Anzel mentioned as an example, then you simply don't have to worry about glycogen stores being depleted even with super low carbs. Chuck in a carb load here and there and muscle loss should be close to non-existent.

However, if you want to avoid mechanical tension and go with a high rep, low rest "pump" style training AND your on a low carb diet then this is what happens:

JISSN | Full text | A nutrition and conditioning intervention for natural bodybuilding contest preparation: case study

Natural bodybuilding prep case study showing the guy losing 43% FFM by the end of 14 weeks dieting....
That's almost 1lb LBM for 2lb fat...
That sucks.
Really sucks.

High volume + lack of tension + low carbs = muscle loss

 

[cybrsage]

Total volume = weight x sets x reps

We want to keep the weight high since the data shows that you can reach maximum mechanical tension (the main cause of hypertrophy) with approx. 75-85%RM - in other words the 8-12 rep range.
This range still provides some muscle damage & meta-bolic stress induced growth but not so much as to deplete glycogen levels and increase the risk of unnecessary protein breakdown.

We want to sacrifice sets/reps because they induce growth predominantly through meta-bolic stress (lactate buildup, etc) & muscular damage (satellite cell activation, the "pump", etc).
These 2 processes are absolutely reliant on sufficient fuel availability, something that simply isn't there when dieting especially if carbs are severely limited.

Awesome, thank you. That, as it turns out, is exactly what 3J is having me do.

 

[cybrsage]

Share that with me bro. Knowledge is us makes us who we are, and if I am wrong, I want to know. All I am saying is that in my experiance in cutting, the most effective method I ever had was to increase lmb. My metabolism goes up and its easy to keep bf down. Decrease yiur caloric intake and your metabolism will slow.

Thats it. Simple. If I am wrong show me. I think we just got of on the wrong foot. It is clear we both want the best for our fellow members.

Paul

Here is the link: Adaptive thermogenesis in humans

It basically says that it does not matter what amount of caloric deficit you are in, your body automatically reduces its metabolism by 10-15% (I don't have the article up anymore, but I think that was the percentage - regardless, it was the same for a 500 cal deficit and a far larger deficit). It also says that the body of an obese person becomes more efficient when they drop their body mass by >10% and are no longer obese - that they burn 200-300 cals less than an identical person who was never obese. It says it takes a minimum of 6 months (and therefor the average time needed for most people can be assumed to be higher than that) for the body to stop doing that and become like everyone else...but if you go from not being obese to being obese, it takes mere days for the body to adjust and being obese becomes normal. Here is what it says exactly:

Maintenance of a 10% or greater reduction in body weight in lean or obese individuals is accompanied by an approximate 20%-25% decline in 24-hour energy expenditure. This decrease in weight maintenance calories is 10***8211;15% below what is predicted solely on the basis of alterations in fat and lean mass. Thus, a formerly obese individual will require ~300***8211;400 fewer calories per day to maintain the same body weight and physical activity level as a never-obese individual of the same body weight and com********** Studies of individuals successful at sustaining weight loss indicate that reduced weight maintenance requires long-term lifestyle alterations

It is rather interesting that the human body actively fights weight loss to such a degree, essentially treating all weight loss the same and then going as far as to make its energy use far more efficient as a method to prevent that loss.