-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Any Good 1000 to 2000 cal Weight Gain Sups?
- Thread starter patrick.b
- Start date
jbryand101b
Registered
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 0
- Location
- pushing the prowler in the desert
ultimate nutrition muslce juice revolution 2600.
this is the best.
this is the best.
Muscle Milk 50g Black can
yes! make your own gainers . . most of those on the market are full of shitty nutrient-poor ingredients. And over priced
I usually get the blender out in the morning, load up with oats, whey, raw eggs, banana, frozen berries, cinamin, spirulina, creatine, low-fat milk, a shot of EVOO . . pour that into a 1L thermos to take to work.
This should be about ~2,000cals. I have breakfast at 0530, so I would have 250mls at 0800, 1030 and the last 500mls at say 1530.
dear lord that is gross.
op, isogainer from nutraboolics is ok. but 1000-2000 calories is a lot to get from a weight gainer in lieu of food. making your own is a much better choice. most, MOST weight gainers are whey concentrate and maltodextrin. this is cheap crap, some add in healthy fats, mct's also cheap. they taste alright though, but you can make a food based one that its good for you. oats, fats (olive and/or coconut oil), pb and protein will be healthy and better than anything out there. the only issue is taste and consistency.
i just think of downing it as is, not a fan of that. i made healthy fat cookies once, which was a nice way to bulk.
yes! make your own gainers . . most of those on the market are full of shitty nutrient-poor ingredients. And over priced
I usually get the blender out in the morning, load up with oats, whey, raw eggs, banana, frozen berries, cinamin, spirulina, creatine, low-fat milk, a shot of EVOO . . pour that into a 1L thermos to take to work.
This should be about ~2,000cals. I have breakfast at 0530, so I would have 250mls at 0800, 1030 and the last 500mls at say 1530.
Good recipe have to try that.
dear lord that is gross.
op, isogainer from nutraboolics is ok. but 1000-2000 calories is a lot to get from a weight gainer in lieu of food. making your own is a much better choice. most, MOST weight gainers are whey concentrate and maltodextrin. this is cheap crap, some add in healthy fats, mct's also cheap. they taste alright though, but you can make a food based one that its good for you. oats, fats (olive and/or coconut oil), pb and protein will be healthy and better than anything out there. the only issue is taste and consistency.
How much of each do YOU use to make yours?
nova1970sb
Registered
built suggested the olive oil to me a while back. i just put a shot in my protien shake, dont even know its there! easy way to get a bunch of callories and its cheap to, and i like cheap!
i havent done that in years, ill have to look to see if i have any files hanging around. it all to taste, but i gave that up as i would rather just eat.
Diablo1990
Registered
What kind of olive oil? Virgin, extra virgin, or loose vag?
complete wast of money ingesting 2,000 calories in one shake unless you weigh 300 lbs of rock solid muscle. the body can only utilize so many calories and nutrients in one meal. to gain weight you only need to increase the daily caloric intake 500 cals over maintenance levels. slower weight gain will result in a greater increase in LBM and less fat and will also have less of an impact on sports performance. rapid weight gain does not have a favorable effect on the competitive athlete.
jbryand101b
Registered
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 0
- Location
- pushing the prowler in the desert
500kcals above maintenance is what one would take in to gain aproximately 1lb per week.
not alot of people know what their e.d.e.e. is, or how to find out for that matter.
the type of cals you eat will also be a contributing factor in the type of weight you put on.
500 extra cals of protein vs 500 extra cals of fat. no need to explain.
one can buy a gainer that contains 1500-2000 cals per serving, and split this up throughout the day.
this arbitary number is utter horseshit. What if you're maintence cals are 1700 vs someone whose maintence cals are 3500?
Working in percentages of maintence is the smart way to do it, using increments of 5-10%
bigsalad22
Registered
Optimum Nutrition makes a good weight gainer....mixes real well. Can't remember what its called though.
BUILT.....good idea with the olive oil. i've supplemented with it before, but always just to add some extra fats while dieting (during low carb days). Never thought of it as a weight gainer. awsome idea really. i'm gonna try that as i'm trying to get to 250 this off season. thank you!
BUILT.....good idea with the olive oil. i've supplemented with it before, but always just to add some extra fats while dieting (during low carb days). Never thought of it as a weight gainer. awsome idea really. i'm gonna try that as i'm trying to get to 250 this off season. thank you!
its called serious mass... yes its good too, worked really good for me, olive oil hmmm ill try this learn something new every time i log in here
make sure to use EVOO or a light olive oil...you don't want to put regular olive oil in your shakes it's freaking nasty
Nice post. Number of calories needed varies depending on the individual.
jbryand101b
Registered
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 0
- Location
- pushing the prowler in the desert
actually it is exercise science. but you can call it horse shit too i guess.
if your Estimated Daily Energy Expenditure (maintenance calories in laymans terms) is 1700kcals e/d then you would need to take in an extra 500kcals each day in order to increase your weight by 1lb. If your edee is 3500kcals e/d then you would still need to take in an extra 500kcals each day to increase weight by aproximately 1lb.
3500kcals in a lb.
500*7=3500kcals
so by taking in an extra 3500kcals per week above what your body is using, you would increase your weight by 1lb per week.
It does not matter if your edee is 1000kcals each day. or 5000kcals each day. if you are using x amount of kcals to maintain body weight. you would need to take in an extra amount to add x amount of weight.
most people say "maintenance" cals are x amount, are just tossing out a guess. there is an actual science to determine closely how many calories your body uses each day. most people do not know how to figure this out.
the type of weight you put on will be determined by where your calories are comming from.
the same can be used to loose weight as well. if your body uses 3500kcals each day, then you would need to decrease you calorie intake by 500kcals each do in order to loose 1lb a week.
yes, there are lots of other variables that will/can factor into how much weight a person will put on. but this is the starting point if one is to effectively learn how to increase/decrease/maintain weight systematically.
actually it is exercise science. but you can call it horse shit too i guess.
if your Estimated Daily Energy Expenditure (maintenance calories in laymans terms) is 1700kcals e/d then you would need to take in an extra 500kcals each day in order to increase your weight by 1lb. If your edee is 3500kcals e/d then you would still need to take in an extra 500kcals each day to increase weight by aproximately 1lb.
3500kcals in a lb.
500*7=3500kcals
so by taking in an extra 3500kcals per week above what your body is using, you would increase your weight by 1lb per week.
It does not matter if your edee is 1000kcals each day. or 5000kcals each day. if you are using x amount of kcals to maintain body weight. you would need to take in an extra amount to add x amount of weight.
most people say "maintenance" cals are x amount, are just tossing out a guess. there is an actual science to determine closely how many calories your body uses each day. most people do not know how to figure this out.
the type of weight you put on will be determined by where your calories are comming from.
the same can be used to loose weight as well. if your body uses 3500kcals each day, then you would need to decrease you calorie intake by 500kcals each do in order to loose 1lb a week.
yes, there are lots of other variables that will/can factor into how much weight a person will put on. but this is the starting point if one is to effectively learn how to increase/decrease/maintain weight systematically.
Gain a pound of what?
More than just a few variables here. The old 500 calories per day is a bit outdated, and a gross oversimplification. The following article is talking about losing weight, but it covers the variables involved pretty well. The percentage method suggested by The Captain is the way to go to gain/lose weight effectively. Tom Venuto wrote the article-
Most fitness conscious people know that there are 3,500 calories in a pound of fat, so if you create a deficit of 3500 calories in a week, you lose a pound of weight. If you create a deficit of 7000 calories in a week, you lose two pounds a week, and so on. Right? Well, not so fast...Dr. Kevin Hall, an investigator at the National Institute of Health has done some interesting research about the mechanisms regulating human body weight. He recently published a new paper in the International Journal of Obesity that throws a wrench in works of the "3500 calories to lose a pound" idea...
Some of the equations in his paper made my head hurt, but despite the complex math he used to come to his conclusions, his article clearly prompts the question, "3500 calories to lose a pound of WHAT?" His paper also contained a lot of simple and practical tips you can use to properly balance your caloric intake with output, fine tune your calorie deficit and help you retain more muscle when you diet.
Below, I've distilled some of the information into a simple bullet-point summary that any non-scientist can understand. Then I wrap up with my interpretation of how you can apply this in your own fat loss program:
Calculating the calories required to lose a pound and fine-tuning your caloric deficit
* 3500 calories to lose a pound has always been the rule of thumb. However, this 3500 calories figure goes back to research which assumed that all the weight lost would be adipose tissue (which would be ideal, of course).
* But as we all know (unfortunately), lean body mass is lost along with body fat, which would indicate that the 3500 calorie figure could be an oversimplification.
* The amount of lean body mass lost is based on initial body fat level and size of the calorie deficit
* Lean people tend to lose more lean body mass and retain more fat.
* Fat people tend to lose more body fat and retain more lean tissue (revealing why obese people can tolerate aggressive low calorie diets better than already lean people)
* Very aggressive low calorie diets tend to erode lean body mass to a greater degree than more conservative diets.
* whether the weight loss is lean or fat gives you the real answer of what is the required energy deficit per unit of weight loss
* The metabolizable energy in fat is different than the metabolizable energy in muscle tissue. A pound of muscle is not 3500 calories. A pound of muscle yields about 600 calories. If you lose lean body mass, then you lose more weight than if you lose fat.
* If you create a 3500 calorie deficit in one week and you lose 100% body fat, you will lose one pound. p>* But if you create a 3500 calorie weekly deficit and as a result of that deficit, lose 100% muscle, you would lose almost 6 pounds of body weight! (of course, if you manage to lose 100% muscle, you will be forced to wear the Dieter's Dunce cap)
* If you have a high initial body fat percentage, then you are going to lose more fat relative to lean, so you may need a larger deficit to lose the same amount of weight as compared to a lean person
* Creating a calorie deficit once at the beginning of a diet and maintaining that same caloric intake for the duration of the diet after major weight loss fails to account for how your body decreases energy expenditure with reduced body weight
* Weight loss typically slows down over time for a prescribed constant diet (the "plateau"). This is either due to the decreased metabolism mentioned above, or a relaxing of the diet compliance, or both (most people just can't hack aggressive calorie reductions for long)
* Progressive resistance training and or high protein diets can modify the proportion of weight lost from body fat versus lean tissue (which is why weight training and sufficient protein while on calorie restricted diets are absolute musts!)
So, based on this info, should you throw out the old calorie formulas?
Well, not necessarily. You can still use the standard calorie formulas to figure out how much you should eat, and you can use a 500-1000 calorie per day deficit (below maintenance) as a generic guideline to figure where to set your calories to lose one or two pounds per week respectively (at least that works "on paper" anyway).
Even better however, you could use this info to fine tune your caloric deficit using a percentage method and also base your deficit on your starting body fat level, to get a much more personalized and effective approach:
15-20% below maintenance calories = conservative deficit
20-25% below maintenance calories = moderate deficit
25-30% below maintenance calories = aggressive deficit
31-40% below maintenance calories = very aggressive deficit (risky)
50%+ below maintenance calories = semi starvation/starvation (potentially dangerous and unhealthy)
(Note: According to exercise physiologists Katch & Mcardle, the average female between the ages of 23 and 50 has a maintenance level of about 2000-2100 calories per day and the average male about 2700-2900 calories per day)
Usually, we would suggest starting with a conservative deficit of around 15-20% below maintenance. Based on this research, however, we see that there can be a big difference between lean and overweight people in how many calories they can or should cut.
If you have very high body fat to begin with, the typical rule of thumb on calorie deficits may underestimate the deficit required to lose a pound. It may also be too conservative, and you can probably use a more aggressive deficit safely without as much worry about muscle loss or metabolic slowdown.
If you are extremely lean, like a bodybuilder trying to get ready for competition, you would want to be very cautious about using aggressive calorie deficits. You'd be better off keeping the deficit conservative and starting your diet/cutting phase earlier to allow for a slow, but safe rate of fat loss, with maximum retention of muscle tissue.
The bottom line is that it's not quite so simple as 3,500 calories being the deficit to lose a pound. Like lots of other things in nutrition that vary from person to person, the ideal amount of calories to cut "depends"...
References:
Forbes GB. Body fat content influences the body composition response to nutrition and exercise. Ann NY Acad Sci. 904: 359-365. 2000
Hall, KD., What is the required energy deficit per unit of weight loss? Int J Obesity. 2007 Epub ahead of print.
McArdle WD. Exercise physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human performance. 4td ed. Williams & Wilkins. 1996.
Wishnofsky M. Caloric equivalents of gained or lost weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 6: 542-546.
Tom Venuto is a lifetime natural bodybuilder, an NSCA-certified personal trainer, certified strength & conditioning specialist.
jbryand101b
Registered
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2010
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 0
- Location
- pushing the prowler in the desert
a calorie is a unit of energy.
your body uses three sources of energy. carbohydrates, fats, & proteins. in this order.
the level of intensity one exercises will determine the souce your body will use energy from.
protein, fats, & carbs per gram equal different caloric amounts.
the type of weight you loose/gain will be dependant on the type of exercise you are doing & the type of macro nutrient intake your calories are comming from.
the body does not store protein as fat. it can use the skeleton from an amino acid to be converted as glycogen, but it does not readily store protein as energy.
this is not saying the body can not convert protein into a source of energy. it just would only do so as a last resort, if all stores of glycogen & fats had been used.
I would like to read the actual paper that guy wrote, his ideas are flawed, and don't seem to be based off of any real data.
weight lost/gained is determines by amount of macro nutrient intake, as well as level of intensity of exercise.
3500kcals will equal different amounts of protein/carbohydrates/fats. but 3500kcals is a measure of energy used/stored.
Finding out how much energy your body is using on a daily basis is a complex process. and a majority of people who state their "maintenance" calorie intake are just stating this blindly if they have not included their basal metabolic rate, thermic effect of feeding, programed physical activity, & habitual physical activity.
I seriously doubt very many people have a copy of the most recent "mets" recently released by the american college of sports & medicine. there is no way you can come to an acurate estimation of how many calories you are using on a daily basis if you dont know how many mets the activity you are doing uses.
and the calculation has to be done for each activity.
saying there are 600kcals in a lb of muscle is like saying muscle is made up of just one substance & nothing else.
again, the amount/type of weight lost/gained will be dependant upon nutrient intake, as well as type of exercise done.
the author of that paper obviously has no understanding of basic exercise science, otherwise he would not of made such ridiculous statements in the article written.
if you have the actual paper written, please link me to it, i'd like to read it and point out the flaws with actual data and calculations.
It's okay if you do not agree with me. Im sound in the data based equations which I have learned. I can agree that we disagree though.
your body uses three sources of energy. carbohydrates, fats, & proteins. in this order.
the level of intensity one exercises will determine the souce your body will use energy from.
protein, fats, & carbs per gram equal different caloric amounts.
the type of weight you loose/gain will be dependant on the type of exercise you are doing & the type of macro nutrient intake your calories are comming from.
the body does not store protein as fat. it can use the skeleton from an amino acid to be converted as glycogen, but it does not readily store protein as energy.
this is not saying the body can not convert protein into a source of energy. it just would only do so as a last resort, if all stores of glycogen & fats had been used.
I would like to read the actual paper that guy wrote, his ideas are flawed, and don't seem to be based off of any real data.
weight lost/gained is determines by amount of macro nutrient intake, as well as level of intensity of exercise.
3500kcals will equal different amounts of protein/carbohydrates/fats. but 3500kcals is a measure of energy used/stored.
Finding out how much energy your body is using on a daily basis is a complex process. and a majority of people who state their "maintenance" calorie intake are just stating this blindly if they have not included their basal metabolic rate, thermic effect of feeding, programed physical activity, & habitual physical activity.
I seriously doubt very many people have a copy of the most recent "mets" recently released by the american college of sports & medicine. there is no way you can come to an acurate estimation of how many calories you are using on a daily basis if you dont know how many mets the activity you are doing uses.
and the calculation has to be done for each activity.
saying there are 600kcals in a lb of muscle is like saying muscle is made up of just one substance & nothing else.
again, the amount/type of weight lost/gained will be dependant upon nutrient intake, as well as type of exercise done.
the author of that paper obviously has no understanding of basic exercise science, otherwise he would not of made such ridiculous statements in the article written.
if you have the actual paper written, please link me to it, i'd like to read it and point out the flaws with actual data and calculations.
It's okay if you do not agree with me. Im sound in the data based equations which I have learned. I can agree that we disagree though.
a calorie is a unit of energy.
your body uses three sources of energy. carbohydrates, fats, & proteins. in this order.
the level of intensity one exercises will determine the souce your body will use energy from.
protein, fats, & carbs per gram equal different caloric amounts.
the type of weight you loose/gain will be dependant on the type of exercise you are doing & the type of macro nutrient intake your calories are comming from.
the body does not store protein as fat. it can use the skeleton from an amino acid to be converted as glycogen, but it does not readily store protein as energy.
this is not saying the body can not convert protein into a source of energy. it just would only do so as a last resort, if all stores of glycogen & fats had been used.
I would like to read the actual paper that guy wrote, his ideas are flawed, and don't seem to be based off of any real data.
weight lost/gained is determines by amount of macro nutrient intake, as well as level of intensity of exercise.
3500kcals will equal different amounts of protein/carbohydrates/fats. but 3500kcals is a measure of energy used/stored.
Finding out how much energy your body is using on a daily basis is a complex process. and a majority of people who state their "maintenance" calorie intake are just stating this blindly if they have not included their basal metabolic rate, thermic effect of feeding, programed physical activity, & habitual physical activity.
I seriously doubt very many people have a copy of the most recent "mets" recently released by the american college of sports & medicine. there is no way you can come to an acurate estimation of how many calories you are using on a daily basis if you dont know how many mets the activity you are doing uses.
and the calculation has to be done for each activity.
saying there are 600kcals in a lb of muscle is like saying muscle is made up of just one substance & nothing else.
again, the amount/type of weight lost/gained will be dependant upon nutrient intake, as well as type of exercise done.
the author of that paper obviously has no understanding of basic exercise science, otherwise he would not of made such ridiculous statements in the article written.
if you have the actual paper written, please link me to it, i'd like to read it and point out the flaws with actual data and calculations.
It's okay if you do not agree with me. Im sound in the data based equations which I have learned. I can agree that we disagree though.
The study is mentioned in the body of the article, and all citations are listed at the bottom. Google the article and read it for yourself. Sounds like your mind is pretty well made up. Theories in nutrition and sports science are hardly cast in stone. They evolve over time. Venuto's article is not the only one suggesting this, and there is a great deal of research in this area. I'll just agree to disagree with you.
Last edited:
independent
Registered
If im gay how many extra cals do I need?
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 19,276
- Reaction score
- 288
- Points
- 83
- Age
- 38
Are you factoring in your semen intake? If not, go figure it out and come back with the macros.
May vary dramatically depending on if you are the pin or the cushion. I think more research is in order.
Last edited:
