mostly good gym day. i couldn't find the 2.5 plates (there are exactly two in the whole gym) so my press didn't go up, but shot up 20lbs on deadlift. i reset on squats to work on my form, and i feel like it clicked today. it hit my ass a lot more than usual.
Benched 255# for 5 today, then 225# for two paused triples, to make sure I hadn't forgotten how to do a paused bench. 300# is so close I can taste it! I might be able to do it touch and go now, but it's got to be paused to really count.
Has a chance to make running more of a bigman activity. I particularly like this part of the blurb: "We do not recommend this vest to anyone. Please consult your physician before wearing the full amount for any reason."
And I'm in the northwestern burbs of Chicago.
Kakodaimonos on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
Has a chance to make running more of a bigman activity. I particularly like this part of the blurb: "We do not recommend this vest to anyone. Please consult your physician before wearing the full amount for any reason."
I did my deadlifts 3x5 when I first started lifting last year and I was following SS. After making friends with a pro trainer I started figuring out what really worked for me.
I switched up to 2x4, and did a full reset between reps (stand up, stretch, reset grip and stance).
A year later and I do my deadlifts at 5x1 (5 SETS of 1 rep, 1:30 to 2min break between).
Deadlift is a lot of fucking weight and a huge effort. I think it's more important to get a very small amount of max effort in than to treat it like other lifts and do 3x5 or 2x5 or whatever.
And if your grip is bugging you, I'd say go mixed grip first; and if you still feel like you need help get some straps or chalk. It's what I did, and it might work for you. But it's best to really figure out what clicks for YOU.
edit2:
In case anybody comes to my side of the world and wants to work out, I'm in Toyama Prefecture, Japan ;p
many times have i said to myself, before a set of squats, ain't nothin but a peanut
Shazkar Shadowstorm on
poo
0
Options
KakodaimonosCode fondlerHelping the 1% get richerRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Isolate is always more expensive than regular whey protein. It has a higher protein content and lower carb content. It's whey filtered to remove fats and lactose. Regular whey is usually around 40-80% protein by weight, isolate is 90%+
If you get gas or stomach issues from regular protein powders, isolate may be better. Or if you're really keeping a lid on your carb and fat intake.
GOLD STANDARD. How can you beat the gold standard man?
Seriously though, I have no clue. Maybe different mix of things, or could just one brand overpricing their stuff based on "good reputation."
I personally use Myoplex whey at home, and at my gym they make a protein shake using "Muscle Hero Protein" (sometimes I just love Japan's silly English marketing) that I drink after every workout.
But now you've sparked my curiosity and I'll spend the next 3 hours researching protein whey. /shakefist
Objective: Our goal was to determine whether alternate-day fasting is a feasible method of dietary restriction in nonobese humans and whether it improves known biomarkers of longevity.
Results: Subjects lost 2.5 ± 0.5% of their initial body weight (P < 0.001) and 4 ± 1% of their initial fat mass (P < 0.001). Hunger increased on the first day of fasting and remained elevated (P < 0.001). RMR and RQ did not change significantly from baseline to day 21, but RQ decreased on day 22 (P < 0.001), which resulted in an average daily increase in fat oxidation of 15 g. Glucose and ghrelin did not change significantly from baseline with alternate-day fasting, whereas fasting insulin decreased 57 ± 4% (P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Alternate-day fasting was feasible in nonobese subjects, and fat oxidation increased. However, hunger on fasting days did not decrease, perhaps indicating the unlikelihood of continuing this diet for extended periods of time. Adding one small meal on a fasting day may make this approach to dietary restriction more acceptable.
I've been 'fasting' 3 days a week for almost 4 weeks now (I have a protein shake for breakfast on fasting days) and have had some reasonable results with it so far.
Objective: Our goal was to determine whether alternate-day fasting is a feasible method of dietary restriction in nonobese humans and whether it improves known biomarkers of longevity.
Results: Subjects lost 2.5 ± 0.5% of their initial body weight (P < 0.001) and 4 ± 1% of their initial fat mass (P < 0.001). Hunger increased on the first day of fasting and remained elevated (P < 0.001). RMR and RQ did not change significantly from baseline to day 21, but RQ decreased on day 22 (P < 0.001), which resulted in an average daily increase in fat oxidation of 15 g. Glucose and ghrelin did not change significantly from baseline with alternate-day fasting, whereas fasting insulin decreased 57 ± 4% (P < 0.001).
Conclusions: Alternate-day fasting was feasible in nonobese subjects, and fat oxidation increased. However, hunger on fasting days did not decrease, perhaps indicating the unlikelihood of continuing this diet for extended periods of time. Adding one small meal on a fasting day may make this approach to dietary restriction more acceptable.
I've been 'fasting' 3 days a week for almost 4 weeks now (I have a protein shake for breakfast on fasting days) and have had some reasonable results with it so far.
I don't think 3% max body weight loss to 5% of fat mass loss (which is much lower than Lean body mass) are worth the hunger.
Let's do some math
@100 lb supposing 18% body fat which is completely typical at the non-obese range
82 LBM
18 Adipose Fat
3% max BW loss = 3 lb total loss
5% max fat loss = 0.9 lb fat loss
total LBM loss = 2.1 lb LBM loss
losing 2.33 times more muscle than fat doesn't sound very convenient to me
also, from the same study
In conclusion, alternate-day fasting is feasible in nonobese subjects for short time periods, although unlike rodents, the subjects were unable to maintain their body weight. Furthermore, fat oxidation was increased and translated into fat mass loss. Hunger on fasting days did not habituate over the course of the study, which perhaps indicates the unlikelihood of subjects continuing on this diet for extended periods of time.
hectorse on
0
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
Has a chance to make running more of a bigman activity. I particularly like this part of the blurb: "We do not recommend this vest to anyone. Please consult your physician before wearing the full amount for any reason."
And I'm in the northwestern burbs of Chicago.
It's also the stupidest thing to do ever.
It will crush not just your knees but your ankles and hip joints as well.
ACTUAL QUOTE FROM WEBSITE.
We do not recommend this vest to anyone.
At best I would recommend these for walking around only
If your the kind of person wanting to see results enough to fast, you're probably more in the 25-35% body fate range I would think. Even still, that's like 1.2lb of fat to 3 of muscle loss.
But, wouldn't continuing to have a high protein diet and doing strength training keep your body from cannibalizing muscle tissue, since those are continually under demand and are given nutrient supply? I have a feeling the study wasn't combined with strength training.
If your the kind of person wanting to see results enough to fast, you're probably more in the 25-35% body fate range I would think. Even still, that's like 1.2lb of fat to 3 of muscle loss.
But, wouldn't continuing to have a high protein diet and doing strength training keep your body from cannibalizing muscle tissue, since those are continually under demand and are given nutrient supply? I have a feeling the study wasn't combined with strength training.
You bet your ass it wasn't. There is no mention of exercise at all. I don't think they would be able to anyway. The point is moot because the study mentions they couldn't maintain that weight, which basically means they ballooned up again after the study.
I didn't see anything about diet in the study either, I too was curious about that.
Another thing is that is missing from that study is that, unlike rodents and other control animals, it's extremely hard to control a human test subject's diet unless it was controlled, and by their admission of the diet not being a standard one, they didn't.
With a rat, you just put less food on the tray and he can't do anything about it. With a human, he is going to balloon up on McDonald's once he finishes the diet. It's been proven time and time again
hectorse on
0
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
It's good for climbing upstairs if that's your cardio thing
Basically anything which is low impact.
You could probably ride with it as well to make it a bit tougher and I know climbers that train wearing similar things as well for multi day pitches where they do need to carry shit up a hill.
But really if it's low impact you may as well just spend the money on a backpack.
I don't think 3% max body weight loss to 5% of fat mass loss (which is much lower than Lean body mass) are worth the hunger.
Let's do some math
@100 lb supposing 18% body fat which is completely typical at the non-obese range
82 LBM
18 Adipose Fat
3% max BW loss = 3 lb total loss
5% max fat loss = 0.9 lb fat loss
total LBM loss = 2.1 lb LBM loss
losing 2.33 times more muscle than fat doesn't sound very convenient to me
also, from the same study
In conclusion, alternate-day fasting is feasible in nonobese subjects for short time periods, although unlike rodents, the subjects were unable to maintain their body weight. Furthermore, fat oxidation was increased and translated into fat mass loss. Hunger on fasting days did not habituate over the course of the study, which perhaps indicates the unlikelihood of subjects continuing on this diet for extended periods of time.
If you look at Figure 1 from the study the average loss was 0.8kg of fat mass and 0.6kg of fat free mass. Losing 33% more fat than muscle isn't anywhere near as bad as your made up figures.
As far as the first thing you bolded, that's a good thing if you want to lose weight. A diet that has a result of people losing weight is a successful weightloss diet.
The second item you bolded is dealt with in their conclusion where they suggest modifying the diet used in the study to include a small meal on fasting days rather than the 0 calorie day that was required by the study.
There is no mention of exercise at all. I don't think they would be able to anyway.
From the article
The subjects had different levels of physical activity: 7 were sedentary, 3 were moderately active (exercised 1–2 times/wk), and 6 were quite active (exercised 4–5 times/wk).
By their definitions I have maintained my 'quite active' level of exercise (about 9hrs/week) regardless of the diet. My squat 5RM has also been maintained.
The point is moot because the study mentions they couldn't maintain that weight, which basically means they ballooned up again after the study.
OK now I get where you were going wrong before, when rats are denied food half of the time and given free access to food the other half they maintain weight (ie they eat twice as much on the day they get food as they would if there were no food restriction so they don't lose weight). When the study says that the people didn't maintain weight it means that they didn't increase their food consumption on eating days enough to compensate for the fasting days so that they ended up losing weight (the study notes that they were told that they would lose weight unless they doubled their intake on eating days).
The study didn't do a follow-up to see if the weight loss was maintained over time so we have no information on how the diet fared in that respect.
Also, raising your right foot could be a symptom of your shoes not being flat. Try slipping them off next time.
My shoes are flat, but I wear orthotics, because I have a leg length difference. I'm still unsure whether that is safe or not.
Hrm.
That is a good question.
That IS a good question
Were you given the orthotics under the assumption that they would be for daily use, including physical activity? Now, I'm no doctor/physio but lifting weights properly isn't wildly different than many other forms of physical activity.
If they were given to you for wearing during your daily grind but with instructions to remove them for athletic endeavors, take them out while you're lifting. If they were given to you knowing that you would be using them during highly intense physical activity, keep them in.
Well the doctor who gave me the orthotics is also a runner. And he has a partner who wears them and she runs, in fact they were designed because of problems she had while running.
Looks like Rip isn't a fan of the way orthotics change your ankle position for lifting. The ideal thing to do is get proper weightlifing shoes, then get a shoe shop to shim the shoe up.
That's a bit of an investment but would probably work best, for now i'd go with whatever is most comfortable and safe feeling. Also yeah, heed what a doctor says
As if the orthotics weren't expensive enough
To be honest I'd rather just do the squats without them. I only have a 1cm difference anyway, not 3/4" like the OP. From my research it seems that the difference is due to pelvic imbalance instead of anything permanent.
Yes I thought of that, in fact just after hitting reply.
Do you have any idea of what "increased activity" actually is? And my "made up" figures weren't made up at all. I used their numbers o_O
I would rather have them all either do no activity or do some standard level of activity. Otherwise that's another thing out of control.
I still suspect that's a little too much weight muscle weight loss. It doesn't fly with proven "cutting" diets.
I would say 'increased activity' would be any activity more than the normal amount of activity but as I can't find that phrase in either the study or my posts I'm not sure what you think it is or why it is relevant.
I called your figures 'made up' as the actual results of the study participants were available with less mathmatical manipulation than were required to create your example. Your example also selected a bf% that is incogrous with a study that included females and excluded competive athletes (for reference the average bf% of a woman in the normal BMI range is around 30%).
Can you link me a study on one of your 'proven' cutting diets? I'm quite serious here, if you have something that is proven I'd be very interested in looking into it.
Man, I was so fucking happy, for a non-exercise related reason today.
After work, I went to a Uniqlo (clothing store from Britain that we have in Japan), and went looking around for clothes. I usually have zero luck finding clothes that fit in Japan; the last jacket I bought is a 4XL and is tight.
But I was escatic to find ONE pair of black trousers that actually fit me. Largest pair they had in the store, and the only one of that size left. AND MY THIGHS FIT THANK GOD. For about 8 months now I've gone into almost every store and tried on pants, only to get above my knees and I just won't fit. I'm not even that big (by bigman standards).
Also found some exercise shirts and shorts on sale that were max size. Get to break 'em in tomorrow with some squats!
tehmarken on
0
Options
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
My biceps hurt so much
I can't fully extend my right arm
trying repeatedly, and very very hard, to do pullups, has ruined me :O
Fasting is one of the dumbest and worst things you can do for your body, slightly worse than all those moronic cleansing diets (our bodies evolved to cleanse perfectly well, we don't need your stupid diet and your snake oil to do it for us).
psyck0 on
Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
0
Options
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
Fasting is one of the dumbest and worst things you can do for your body, slightly worse than all those moronic cleansing diets (our bodies evolved to cleanse perfectly well, we don't need your stupid diet and your snake oil to do it for us).
I took a nutrition course this semester, and I gotta say... the human body is ridiculously good at self-regulation. Like, to the point where you have to be doing some horrendous shit to throw it off-kilter.
Posts
Benched 255# for 5 today, then 225# for two paused triples, to make sure I hadn't forgotten how to do a paused bench. 300# is so close I can taste it! I might be able to do it touch and go now, but it's got to be paused to really count.
Greenlake area, specifically.
150 LB Weight Vest
Has a chance to make running more of a bigman activity. I particularly like this part of the blurb: "We do not recommend this vest to anyone. Please consult your physician before wearing the full amount for any reason."
And I'm in the northwestern burbs of Chicago.
You hear that weeping in the background?
Yeah, that crying are from my knees.
edit:
@Ham:
I did my deadlifts 3x5 when I first started lifting last year and I was following SS. After making friends with a pro trainer I started figuring out what really worked for me.
I switched up to 2x4, and did a full reset between reps (stand up, stretch, reset grip and stance).
A year later and I do my deadlifts at 5x1 (5 SETS of 1 rep, 1:30 to 2min break between).
Deadlift is a lot of fucking weight and a huge effort. I think it's more important to get a very small amount of max effort in than to treat it like other lifts and do 3x5 or 2x5 or whatever.
And if your grip is bugging you, I'd say go mixed grip first; and if you still feel like you need help get some straps or chalk. It's what I did, and it might work for you. But it's best to really figure out what clicks for YOU.
edit2:
In case anybody comes to my side of the world and wants to work out, I'm in Toyama Prefecture, Japan ;p
why is this:
cheaper than this:
and should I switch over to the ON wone?
many times have i said to myself, before a set of squats, ain't nothin but a peanut
If you get gas or stomach issues from regular protein powders, isolate may be better. Or if you're really keeping a lid on your carb and fat intake.
Now I have something that I get a 5-lb bag from Costco, and costs just as much. I don't think it's isolate though. Just regular ole' whey protein.
GOLD STANDARD. How can you beat the gold standard man?
Seriously though, I have no clue. Maybe different mix of things, or could just one brand overpricing their stuff based on "good reputation."
I personally use Myoplex whey at home, and at my gym they make a protein shake using "Muscle Hero Protein" (sometimes I just love Japan's silly English marketing) that I drink after every workout.
But now you've sparked my curiosity and I'll spend the next 3 hours researching protein whey. /shakefist
it's just that ON is like $60 for little more of what I get for $17
I would like to have Wook's intake on this
Please don't!
The market is full of "Nitroxidoze maxxx T neomolecule endoreactor defibrillator" bullshit
You'll go crazy
Also, I think my new diet plan should be "Never eating again."
http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
edit:
Oddly enough, ON is looking like the best without spending a crazy amount of money.
You could try alternate day fasting if you're looking for a new diet plan that incorporates not eating:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/81/1/69?ijkey=58ec8aef7c0a54d6192ff63ee6b6b5a37fd71696
I've been 'fasting' 3 days a week for almost 4 weeks now (I have a protein shake for breakfast on fasting days) and have had some reasonable results with it so far.
I don't think 3% max body weight loss to 5% of fat mass loss (which is much lower than Lean body mass) are worth the hunger.
Let's do some math
@100 lb supposing 18% body fat which is completely typical at the non-obese range
82 LBM
18 Adipose Fat
3% max BW loss = 3 lb total loss
5% max fat loss = 0.9 lb fat loss
total LBM loss = 2.1 lb LBM loss
losing 2.33 times more muscle than fat doesn't sound very convenient to me
also, from the same study
It's also the stupidest thing to do ever.
It will crush not just your knees but your ankles and hip joints as well.
ACTUAL QUOTE FROM WEBSITE.
At best I would recommend these for walking around only
Satans..... hints.....
But, wouldn't continuing to have a high protein diet and doing strength training keep your body from cannibalizing muscle tissue, since those are continually under demand and are given nutrient supply? I have a feeling the study wasn't combined with strength training.
You bet your ass it wasn't. There is no mention of exercise at all. I don't think they would be able to anyway. The point is moot because the study mentions they couldn't maintain that weight, which basically means they ballooned up again after the study.
I didn't see anything about diet in the study either, I too was curious about that.
Another thing is that is missing from that study is that, unlike rodents and other control animals, it's extremely hard to control a human test subject's diet unless it was controlled, and by their admission of the diet not being a standard one, they didn't.
With a rat, you just put less food on the tray and he can't do anything about it. With a human, he is going to balloon up on McDonald's once he finishes the diet. It's been proven time and time again
Basically anything which is low impact.
You could probably ride with it as well to make it a bit tougher and I know climbers that train wearing similar things as well for multi day pitches where they do need to carry shit up a hill.
But really if it's low impact you may as well just spend the money on a backpack.
Satans..... hints.....
Backpack + stones
although some backpacks are incredibly expensive! like hundreds of dollars.
But they also serve more purpose than looking badass and impressing bros bro!
Soooo...
swimming?
If you look at Figure 1 from the study the average loss was 0.8kg of fat mass and 0.6kg of fat free mass. Losing 33% more fat than muscle isn't anywhere near as bad as your made up figures.
As far as the first thing you bolded, that's a good thing if you want to lose weight. A diet that has a result of people losing weight is a successful weightloss diet.
The second item you bolded is dealt with in their conclusion where they suggest modifying the diet used in the study to include a small meal on fasting days rather than the 0 calorie day that was required by the study.
From the article
By their definitions I have maintained my 'quite active' level of exercise (about 9hrs/week) regardless of the diet. My squat 5RM has also been maintained.
OK now I get where you were going wrong before, when rats are denied food half of the time and given free access to food the other half they maintain weight (ie they eat twice as much on the day they get food as they would if there were no food restriction so they don't lose weight). When the study says that the people didn't maintain weight it means that they didn't increase their food consumption on eating days enough to compensate for the fasting days so that they ended up losing weight (the study notes that they were told that they would lose weight unless they doubled their intake on eating days).
The study didn't do a follow-up to see if the weight loss was maintained over time so we have no information on how the diet fared in that respect.
Do you have any idea of what "increased activity" actually is? And my "made up" figures weren't made up at all. I used their numbers o_O
I would rather have them all either do no activity or do some standard level of activity. Otherwise that's another thing out of control.
I still suspect that's a little too much weight muscle weight loss. It doesn't fly with proven "cutting" diets.
To be honest I'd rather just do the squats without them. I only have a 1cm difference anyway, not 3/4" like the OP. From my research it seems that the difference is due to pelvic imbalance instead of anything permanent.
Seems such a bullshit condition to have! What a hassle for that kid. He is awesome
I would say 'increased activity' would be any activity more than the normal amount of activity but as I can't find that phrase in either the study or my posts I'm not sure what you think it is or why it is relevant.
I called your figures 'made up' as the actual results of the study participants were available with less mathmatical manipulation than were required to create your example. Your example also selected a bf% that is incogrous with a study that included females and excluded competive athletes (for reference the average bf% of a woman in the normal BMI range is around 30%).
Can you link me a study on one of your 'proven' cutting diets? I'm quite serious here, if you have something that is proven I'd be very interested in looking into it.
After work, I went to a Uniqlo (clothing store from Britain that we have in Japan), and went looking around for clothes. I usually have zero luck finding clothes that fit in Japan; the last jacket I bought is a 4XL and is tight.
But I was escatic to find ONE pair of black trousers that actually fit me. Largest pair they had in the store, and the only one of that size left. AND MY THIGHS FIT THANK GOD. For about 8 months now I've gone into almost every store and tried on pants, only to get above my knees and I just won't fit. I'm not even that big (by bigman standards).
Also found some exercise shirts and shorts on sale that were max size. Get to break 'em in tomorrow with some squats!
I can't fully extend my right arm
trying repeatedly, and very very hard, to do pullups, has ruined me :O
can't wait to squat tomorrow
I became just oh so slightly grumpy on seeing it
But your body needs to cleeaaanse.
Just look at all the nasty stuff on the bottom of your foot? Aren't you glad you had the Kinoki footpad to rid your body of all that... stuff?
I took a nutrition course this semester, and I gotta say... the human body is ridiculously good at self-regulation. Like, to the point where you have to be doing some horrendous shit to throw it off-kilter.