Thread: Need Help - Terrible Nutrient Partitioning

Originally Posted by Built

Ah. So you weren't basing this on actual science; your decision was mathematically convenient.

Good luck. You clearly know that you - who have never done this before - are 100% correct and thus you are not listening to science, reason or experience. I'm done.

So far all you have done is discount my research without
any references. I do not consider anyone's own experience sufficient.
Where is your evidence?

I think that there are several points that require attention,
including:

1. Optimal calorie count for body fat reduction, and muscle retention
2. Proof that muscle mass is lost in reference to some calorie count
3. Indications of health hazards at a calorie count

Obviously all of these things are relative to a person, their training
and such but certainly widely-supported ranges exists for all of these points.

I have already supplied some information for #3, which clearly did not
indicate hazard to the amount I've suggested.

Originally Posted by troubador

Even the ACSM distinguishes between differences in training for hypertrophy and strength. Are you saying there's no difference in training for hypertrophy versus strength? If not, why would I focus on strength instead?

There are training differences, although it is mainly centered around
the exercises, number of reps and/or sets. In both circumstances progressive
overload is really the key idea. Or as mentioned, getting stronger.

sosc, seriously, do what you like. I don't care anymore.

(If you care to read scientific literature on the topic of fat loss, Lyle McDonald's "Rapid Fat Loss" has what you seek. Buy the e-book and read it. Whether you choose to actually follow that diet or not, you'll gain the scientific basis of fat-loss you so sorely lack).

Troubador, I hear you on the muscle-gain being a bigger priority than strength gain. The two are highly correlated, but it's not one-to-one. No matter what, it's strength training, but you can focus more on hypertrophy than on strength.

Some folks seem to respond better to higher reps, some to lower, some to a mix depending on which muscle group. I might suggest using whatever rep range you haven't used very often while training at maintenance - see what happens as you try different volumes and rep-ranges.

Do you have a journal? If not, please start one and drop its link in here so I see it.

Originally Posted by troubador

(snip) If not, why would I focus on strength instead?

Because I was under the impression that what you were doing wasn't working.

Originally Posted by Curt James

Because I was under the impression that what you were doing wasn't working.

Thanks but I've said a few times that I was doing Starting Strength. I even posted the workout which looks a lot like the one you later posted.

Originally Posted by Built

Troubador, I hear you on the muscle-gain being a bigger priority than strength gain. The two are highly correlated, but it's not one-to-one. No matter what, it's strength training, but you can focus more on hypertrophy than on strength.

Some folks seem to respond better to higher reps, some to lower, some to a mix depending on which muscle group. I might suggest using whatever rep range you haven't used very often while training at maintenance - see what happens as you try different volumes and rep-ranges.

Do you have a journal? If not, please start one and drop its link in here so I see it.

I've wrote down nearly every workout the last two years but it's all on paper. I did actually make some decent strength gains over the last two years. I added 60 lbs to my squat, about 30 to my military press and nearly 60 to my bent rows(which seems strange but I'll take it).

I'm transitioning back to maintenance Monday. I'll switch things up and see what happens.

Originally Posted by troubador

Thanks but I've said a few times that I was doing Starting Strength. I even posted the workout which looks a lot like the one you later posted.

How long did you work that routine? Also the five-rep sets normally lead to injuries for me.

Originally Posted by troubador

I've wrote down nearly every workout the last two years but it's all on paper. I did actually make some decent strength gains over the last two years. I added 60 lbs to my squat, about 30 to my military press and nearly 60 to my bent rows(which seems strange but I'll take it).

I typically question myself whether increases are actual gains in strength and what can be attributed to looser form.

Originally Posted by Curt James

How long did you work that routine? Also the five-rep sets normally lead to injuries for me.



I typically question myself whether increases are actual gains in strength and what can be attributed to looser form.

I started that routine 01/05/11 and continued up until about 3 weeks ago.

I know, bent rows are especially easy to cheat on. I was even doing 'Pendlay Rows' that were at least 40 lbs greater than before. My squat form for sure improved, I even make a point to try and touch the stop bars ever so often to make sure I'm squatting deep enough and the weight increase isn't because of poor form. My bench didn't improve much at all though.

Well, good luck. I'd recommend you not overanalyze things and just keep hammering away for six to eight weeks at a time on any routine, varying rep ranges, and taking a full week off every six to eight weeks.

If you're built anything like me or your capacity for muscle gaining is as pathetic as mine then you might allow me to reinforce that this is a long-term process. I'm still making PR's and my biceps finally tops 15 inches. As I said, not everyone is made for muscle but we can all improve.

And, not to be a spamming jerk but you could benefit from dropping the -- I think it's fifteen bucks -- money for an Elite Membership. LOTS of e-books and other perks are available with that membership. Click the link in my sig.

Welcome to IronMagazine Bodybuilding Forums!