my diet- good or no? [Forum Archive]

Pages: 1

my diet- good or no?

(CLICK HERE here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: DimebagDarrell

ok well heres the story. i am 19 years old and a sophomore in college. i have been lifting for almost 11 months now, since mid-march last year (i had never lifted before in my life!). i have always been skinny, and one day i was looking at some pictures of me from a party and realized i was skinny to no end, and decided to do something about it. anyway, i am 5'10" and started out at 142.4 lbs, and yesterday i was at 172.7 lbs. i was only 158 last november 28, but since then i gained much more rapidly due to picking up a muscle & fitness that talked about eating every 4 hours and keeping my body in an anabolic state all the time. anyway, this is what i do for eating: any suggestions?

10:30 pm: lift (6 days a week, every day but friday, ive got a good split going now)

11:30 pm: get home and have a physique shake (only 22 g of protein, but has tons of vitamins and also has good amount of carbs) and 5 g of creatine (AST micronized creatine monohydrate)

3:30 am: nitro-tech shake (40 g of protein), and go to bed (hey, im a college student, remember?)

7:30 am: wake up and have another nitro-tech shake (40 g protein) and go back to bed

11:30 am: wake up, have lunch at my fraternity house (maybe about 15 g protein, it varies day to day)

-CLASS-

5:30 pm: dinner at the house (probably around 20 g protein, more if im really hungry)

9:00 pm: 4-6 oz of chicken breast, beef round steak, or velveeta shells and cheese (20-30 g of protein for the meat, 21 g for the shells and cheese)

i dont really watch my fat, i got tested and i am only 8.9%, so im not too concerned, since once i hit like 190 im gonna go on a maintenance workout and burn the fat off.... im just concerned with bulking right now. in addition, i manage to take in almost 1/2 gallon of milk a day. that's a total of 221 grams of protein (approx.). anyway, i did a calculator online and it said i should take 144 grams a day.

My split is:

Saturday: Chest, Back, abs
Sunday: Biceps, Triceps
Monday: Legs, Shoulders, abs
Tuesday: Chest, Back
Wednesday: Biceps, Triceps, abs
Thursday: Legs, Shoulders
Friday: off

So here are my questions:
1) Is it ok to mix my creatine with my protein, or will it dissolve too fast? (assuming i drink it within 10 mins of mixing)

2) Should I cut it down to only 20 g of protein per nitro-tech shake?

3) Any other suggestions?

Posted by: Max. Q

Quote:

Originally posted by DimebagDarrell
My split is:

Saturday: Chest, Back, abs
Sunday: Biceps, Triceps
Monday: Legs, Shoulders, abs
Tuesday: Chest, Back
Wednesday: Biceps, Triceps, abs
Thursday: Legs, Shoulders
Friday: off

Wow, if I was going to school and doing that kind of workout routine (Arnold Schwarzenneger??) I'd be exausted and my body would just shut down. Going with what you have, I'd try:

Day 1: Arms
Day 2: Legs
Day 3: Rest
Day 4: Chest/Back
Day 5: Rest
Day 6: Rest
back to Day 1

also..there's the IM articles on training...

http://www.ironmagazine.com/modules....article&sid=31
http://www.ironmagazine.com/modules....article&sid=29

If you haven't seen it yet, here's a great article on supplements. It might help you save some money...

http://www.ironmagazine.com/modules....=Andrew_Natale

Posted by: DimebagDarrell

i actually havent been exhausted at all, i do about 7 different excercises each night, 3 sets each, and am completely dead when done, but i recover pretty quickly

Posted by: w8lifter

I don't know what to say...that diet is really crappy...but if it's working for ya

I would suggest more balanced meals ....and more actual food. You're eating too many shakes IMO. Lots of sugar when you do eat carbs (from those shakes). Do you ever eat veggies, apples, rice, oats, etc? You need more than just protein....healthy fats and slow burning carbs make a well balanced diet....you should be concerned for your health, not just your muscles

Posted by: DimebagDarrell

yeah i wasnt expecting my diet to be like supermans diet, just something that gives me enough protien. this is what i always eat and i havent been sick for two years..... except for allergies

Posted by: P-funk

I don't think when she said "you should be concerned for your health" that she was referring to whether you have gotten sick or not. There is a lot more to your health than the flu. Not eating balanced meals is going to lead to bigger health problems in the future. Just becuase you are so skinny and blessed with a high metabolism does not mean that you are immune health problems that affect those who are obese. There problem just happens to be visble to the world.

Posted by: cornfed

I concur w/ everyone else but have to give you mad props for the screen name. Fuqqin' rock on bro.

Posted by: Twin Peak

In general, I agree with everyone's comments, especially corn's.

BUT

In your case and given your goals, your diet is decent. Here are some comments.

Whatever you heard about protein is bunk. You need at least 1 gram per pound of BW. As a hard gainer (read that skinny mofo) shoot for 2 grams per day.

Also, I agree you shouldn't worry about fats, but you should actually TRY to be getting more EFAs. In other words, supplement with fish oils or flax oil or both. As a hard gainer, you can never get enough of these. Good fats also come from peanut butter, peanuts, mayo.

You should also be trying to get some good carb sources to fuel those workouts. Add in fruits (given your predisposion I wouldn't worry about which ones, try and have 2-3 of your favorites per day). Add things like potatoes, oatmeal, pasta, etc.

This, btw, is a practical approach.

As to your workouts. I personally don't think you should be training each BP only once per week until you have a serious background in training. So keep your approach but throw in an extra days rest between days 3 and 4.

Good luck, and welcome.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally posted by Twin Peak
As to your workouts. I personally don't think you should be training each BP only once per week until you have a serious background in training.

why?

Posted by: cornfed

I agree w/ TP and thanx for the agreement. I've seen beginners do better w/ fullbody or semi fullbody WO's than w/ 1 BP/wk. And that worked for me in the beginning... so I lean that direction for the 1st yr or 2.

Posted by: P-funk

Semi full body workouts worked well for me in the beging also.
I think you might benefit well by trying it out for a little bit.

Also, I must agree....great name......Pantera 4 life

Posted by: Twin Peak

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
why?

Many reasons. Here are the two biggies:

- Muscle "Adaptation" -- newbies need frequent stimulation for their muscles to adapt to training, to learn the exercises, and to develop the mind muscle connection.

- Training Intensity -- effective once per week training is only beneficial if you are training intense enough to justify it an necessitate such a long time off. Newbies cannot lift with adequate intensity. It takes time to progressively learn how to do this.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally posted by Twin Peak
Many reasons. Here are the two biggies:

- Muscle "Adaptation" -- newbies need frequent stimulation for their muscles to adapt to training, to learn the exercises, and to develop the mind muscle connection.

** I do not think they need any more stimulation, in fact I would say less than a seasoned lifter. If they stick with basic compound movements they will learn the "mind-muscle-connection".

- Training Intensity -- effective once per week training is only beneficial if you are training intense enough to justify it an necessitate such a long time off. Newbies cannot lift with adequate intensity. It takes time to progressively learn how to do this.

** If your goal is to build size and strength newbie or not you should be training with intensity in order to overload the muscles. I actually think that it's easier for a newbie to train intensely because they make better gains, and they're hungry!

Posted by: Twin Peak

1) I said more FREQUENT stimulation, not more stimulation

2) It is IMPOSSIBLE to train more intensely as a newbie.

Prince, I don't think you understood my points. Either. As to my second point, perhaps we are defining intensity differently. See DVLM's sig for my definition.

Posted by: calalily1972

TP - did you really mean to say potatoes? Remember newbie.

Posted by: Twin Peak

Quote:

Originally posted by Jodi
TP - did you really mean to say potatoes? Remember newbie.

Yes, I did, given the context. SO THERE!

Posted by: calalily1972

HOLY SHIT A SMILIE! LOL!

Ok so please tell me why potatoes and not sweet potatoes or yams. I thought you believed in the slow burning carbs and I know for a fact that potatoes are not S/B. Hmmmmmmm!

Posted by: P-funk

I think potatoes would be okay given the fact that this guy is a hard gainer with a high metabolism (5'10", 142lbs.).

I say if you can get away with the potato then do it.

Posted by: Twin Peak

Quote:

Originally posted by P-funk
I think potatoes would be okay given the fact that this guy is a hard gainer with a high metabolism (5'10", 142lbs.).

I say if you can get away with the potato then do it.

BINGO. Context.

Plus more context. We are dealing with a college student who lives and eats in a frat house, and who isn't overly concerned with eating, so long as he gets protein. I want to instill that he needs some good carbs.

I believe it is unlikely he'll eat sweet potatoes, though I agree Jodi, they are better.

Posted by: calalily1972

So why not suggest an apple or berries instead, I know they have those at college. Eating a regular potatoe is like eating a bowl of sugar. JMO!

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally posted by Twin Peak
1) I said more FREQUENT stimulation, not more stimulation

2) It is IMPOSSIBLE to train more intensely as a newbie.

Prince, I don't think you understood my points. Either. As to my second point, perhaps we are defining intensity differently. See DVLM's sig for my definition.

I understand, I just think they're outdated opinions.

Why does a newbie need more frequent stimulation? If the goal is to build muscle the frequency and rest is the same IMO.

Obviously the amount of intensity is relative, but they can train with as much as intensity as their ability allows, and really I was speaking from more of a mental aspect.

Posted by: Twin Peak

Quote:

Originally posted by Jodi
So why not suggest an apple or berries instead, I know they have those at college. Eating a regular potatoe is like eating a bowl of sugar. JMO!

Jodi, I did recommend fruit.

And a potatoe is FAR from a bowl of sugar.

Posted by: Twin Peak

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
I understand, I just think they're outdated opinions.

(1) Why does a newbie need more frequent stimulation? If the goal is to build muscle the frequency and rest is the same IMO.

(2) Obviously the amount of intensity is relative, but they can train with as much as intensity as their ability allows, and really I was speaking from more of a mental aspect.

(1) For all the reasons I previously stated. If you understood what I originally said, you wouldn't have misquoted me.

(2) I am talking about absolute intensity, not relative intensity. Until you can train with a certain degree of absolute intensity, there is no need for 6 days of recuperations.

P.S. If you think my "opinion" on frequency is "outdated" what does that mean? That recent science has disproven this or that more people are doing it your way? If its the former, show me. If its the latter, big f-in whoop.

P.P.S. The recent science actually shows that more frequent training is better for EVERYONE, for hypertrophy. I guess you missed that data? I am not saying I am buying into this theory (nor am I discrediting it). I am just saying that there is nothing OUTDATED about what I said.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally posted by Twin Peak
P.S. If you think my "opinion" on frequency is "outdated" what does that mean? That recent science has disproven this or that more people are doing it your way? If its the former, show me. If its the latter, big f-in whoop.

And what recent studies might these be?

If you're trying to build muscle (hypertrophy) you must do two things:

1.) Overload the muscle, to give it a reason to grow.
2.) Allow optimal conditions for recuperation, rest being key here.

Whether or not you're a beginner is irrelevant IMO when it comes to building size/strength.

Conclusion for optimal hypertrophy:

Work and overload each muscle group once every 5-7 days. Otherwise you will just be fatiguing the muscle, which does not cause growth.

Posted by: Twin Peak

You need to read about HST. They provide all the relevant studies, and principles.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally posted by Twin Peak
You need to read about HST. They provide all the relevant studies, and principles.

oh man, that was a cop out!

Posted by: Twin Peak

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
oh man, that was a cop out!

Not really. The info is readily available. I even provided you with the location. Its not like I am discussing some "information that is out there" and not providing you a source.

Besides you are the one who stated that my statement was "outdated" and you did not reference a thing.

Its there if you want the info, if you need a direct website and want read it and get the underlying studies, you can. As you know this most certainly is not my "job" and I have neither the time nor the inclination to get you stuff that you can get yourself.

Besides, you obviously don't believe there are such studies. Believe that if you like, sort of ignorant posistion to take since I told you where you can find there reference.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally posted by Twin Peak
I even provided you with the location. Its not like I am discussing some "information that is out there" and not providing you a source.

all you provided me with is HST, that is not a location, a location is a URL or website name.

you sure get defensive, don't you?

Posted by: Twin Peak

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
all you provided me with is HST, that is not a location, a location is a URL or website name.

you sure get defensive, don't you?

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/

Not defensive, annoyed.

Posted by: Prince

since I have a little bit more time and inclination than you:

In a study performed at the University of Alabama4, two groups of subjects performed the same periodized resistance training routine either once per week or three times per week. The results showed that muscle mass increases were greater in the three workout per week group, compared to the one workout per week group. In addition, the strength increases in this group were on average 40% greater!

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/...iningfreq.html

I did not see the actual study, but based on this it says that group1 performed one full-body work-out per week, and group2 performed 3 full body work-outs per week.

Well, I am not saying this, I am saying that you should perform 3-4 work-outs per week hitting each muscle group once. That is very different from what this study is saying.

The problem is how much intensity can be put forth in a full body work-out? Not much, therefore if you only do it once per week I can see how it would be more beneficial to do a full body work-out 3 times per week.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally posted by Twin Peak
Not defensive, annoyed.

interesting, cause I thought that this was the purpose of a discussion board.

Posted by: Twin Peak

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
interesting, cause I thought that this was the purpose of a discussion board.

I thought the purpose was to discuss. The basis of my annoyance was not the discussion.

1) You failed to understand my point. Or if you understood it, you failed to articulate your disagreement, since you misquoted me.

2) When I pointed this out, you called my reasoning "outdated"; a term that has a very specific connotation, specifically it means that it is an old reasoning that no longer hold water, based on recent trends. One would think that if something is outdated, there is evidence or proof of such. You provided nothing, just your belief that it was outdated.

3) When I suggested that, while you may disagree, there is indeed recent evidence to the contrary. I also said that I was not sure that I agreed with it in a general sense (obviously I do for new trainers) -- but that I was merely mentioning it to show that your "belief" that my reasoning on frequency was "outdated" is just false.

4) You scoffed at this statement, which I found offensive, as if I made it up.

So no, I wasn't defensive, just annoyed.

***
To prove your point you needed to (1) look at the information I was talking about AND (2) provide evidence that my reasoning was "outdated" -- a word you choose.

You have done some of the former (they discuss several studies) and none of the latter.

****
I reiterate, its not your discussion that I have a problem with, but rather your debating skills and perceptions/misperceptions of my arguments.

****
Finally, your analysis of the one HST study is good. It is the first critical thinking you have done in this discussion.

So lets continue from there. I haven't gone back to the site or looked at the study to see if your assumption is correct. But lets assume it is.

How do you know you cannot train with sufficient intensity in a whole body workout? This is where your reasoning breaks down.

First, let me say that I agree with this unprovable proposition. But that makes my point.

You cannot "know" that one cannot train with sufficient intensity any more than I can "know" that a newbie cannot train with sufficient intensity.

In other words you attack the study by saying the people training did not train with sufficient intensity (out of necessity) to justify a week off.

I postulate that I newbie (out of necessity) cannot train with sufficient intensity to justify a week off.

One is not provable than the other, though I believe them both to be true. The difference is you believe the former, but not the later.

******

That is a discussion. If you want to call it outdated, at least back such a statement up.

Posted by: Prince

Well, I guess law school taught you how to write a bunch of mumbo jumbo that sounds good, heh?

For starters, at least I have not resorted to personal attacks, I believe that is referred to as a ad hominem in an argument.

And as far as I am concerned your responses have just made you look like an ASSHOLE.

So, I will not "debate" this issue any further since it annoys you and your only goal appears to be to degrade me.

Posted by: w8lifter

Hey!

WTF does this shit have to do w/ this poor guy's diet question? Don't make me split this thread, I don't have the patience!

Posted by: Twin Peak

Sorry W8.

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
Well, I guess law school taught you how to write a bunch of mumbo jumbo that sounds good, heh?

Of course. Except what I have written here is not mumbo jumbo, but opinion based on fact.

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince For starters, at least I have not resorted to personal attacks, I believe that is referred to as a ad hominem in an argument.

Personal attacks? Hmm, I don't think I did that. At least nothing that wasn't context appropriate. I'll have to reread this and see.

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince And as far as I am concerned your responses have just made you look like an ASSHOLE.

Excellent.

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince So, I will not "debate" this issue any further since it annoys you and your only goal appears to be to degrade me.

This issue does not annoy me. It was your condescension, and tone.

I had, and have, no goal to degrade you. Perhaps if that is how you feel, you should consider how your own posts made you look.

Posted by: Twin Peak

Okay. I have reread the entire "discussion." I am very comfortable with everything I wrote. I neither attacked nor degraded you; and I did not engage in ad hominem personal attacks (such as stating "you are an asshole; you are dumb").

Rather, I made comments about your reasoning in this debate, as well as with regards to your debating skills as related to this debate, so no, no ad hominem. Sorry.

W8, if you want to split this off feel free. The heart of this actually COULD be (have been) an interesting discussion; as well as an important issue for newbies. Ultimately there is no provable answer, but any new trainie could read this issue, critically analze the reasoning and decide for him/herself.

Posted by: The_Chicken_Daddy

For what it's worth, i'd tell a newer lifter to lift more frequently - like full body (moderate to low volume) three days a week (mon, wed, fri) in order for them to get the idea of lifting form and the like.

Nervous system conditioning etc...

Oh yeah, don't resort to name calling

And by the way, you're both homos.

Posted by: Twin Peak

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
Oh yeah, don't resort to name calling

And by the way, you're both homos.

So that makes three of us.

Did I name call? Didn't think I did. Definitely didn't mean too.

Posted by: The_Chicken_Daddy

Nah man, you didn't.

I'm just a hypocrite.

A sexy one, though.

Posted by: Snake_Eyes

Originally posted by Prince
If you're trying to build muscle (hypertrophy) you must do two things:

1.) Overload the muscle, to give it a reason to grow.
2.) Allow optimal conditions for recuperation, rest being key here.

Whether or not you're a beginner is irrelevant IMO when it comes to building size/strength.

Conclusion for optimal hypertrophy:

Work and overload each muscle group once every 5-7 days. Otherwise you will just be fatiguing the muscle, which does not cause growth.

I fail to see how you reach that conclusion as the *only* answer from the two points you listed.

Sufficient overload doesn't always require 5-7 days of recuperation.

As far as the last statement, "Otherwise you will just be fatiguing the muscle, which does not cause growth," that really doesn't even make sense in the context of this argument.

Posted by: Twin Peak

Quote:

Originally posted by Snake_Eyes
Sufficient overload doesn't always require 5-7 days of recuperation.

That's my point, "ALWAYS." It depends on the stimulus and thus the intensity.

Quote:

Originally posted by Snake_Eyes
As far as the last statement, "Otherwise you will just be fatiguing the muscle, which does not cause growth," that really doesn't even make sense in the context of this argument.

I failed to understand this as well.

Posted by: Twin Peak

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
Nah man, you didn't.

I'm just a hypocrite.

A sexy one, though.

Even if in only in your own head.