-
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
bulking/cutting
- Thread starter raider6969
- Start date
what do u mean"do not diet for more than 10 weeks in a row"?
Ha Ha you are the funny one aren't you
Are you gonna do this for every sentence in my post? lol.
Just kidding.
I mean take a week where you essentially go above your maintenance level of calories to allow your body to "reset" somewhat so you can ensure further fat loss.
And the ten weeks was just a general mark. Not a rule.
10 weeks of bulking or cutting or both?
Yes, I will be truthful I new exactly what he meant.
and I would love to be 100% meso
This is why TPs is lower than TCDs
Originally posted by craig777
This is why TPs is lower than TCDs
Actually I just noticed the title now. Rob is just jealous because I am better looking. And funnier.
Still craig, you have to admit at least slight amusement with this thread. I have now literally laughed out loud three times.
I was refering to dieting at the time.
You can do as many weeks of bulking as you desire - your body isn't gonna do that much to prevent you, besides making food appear repulsive and killing your appetite and hunger if you get too fat (in order to maintain homeostasis - which, in this case, is keeping your bodyfat level around about the place it wants it at, depending on your setpoint).
With dieting, after a while, your body tries to prevent you getting leaner and has a whole host of methods it employs to get you to eat (cause it starts to think there's a famine and you may die).
This ranges from increased appetite, less satiety after eating, upregulation of fat storage enzymes, decreased thyroid output to slow your RMR, muscle catobolism to further reduce your RMR (muscle is a lot more metabolically active than fat is) and to burn for calories in order to spare what fat you have left and a lot more other stuff that ain't too pretty.
Yes, I will agree it is amusing.
I was referring to your grammar
Originally posted by craig777
Yes, I will agree it is amusing.
I was referring to your grammar
Ah, yes. Missed that. Details are not my strength.
See, you have added to the humor here as well.
And Rob, if FOS says so, it must be true.
tcd- how does this sound?
8 weeks bulking followed by 4 weeks of cutting.
once a week eat more carbs.
8 weeks bulking followed by 4 weeks of cutting.
once a week eat more carbs.
Okay....The Great Minds have addressed phenotypes. However, what about this guy's metabolism? Shouldn't this be a factor in determining the duration of his bulk/cut cycles?
Note: The above reference to "The Great Minds" was made as a tongue in cheek/humorous sort of comment, and was not intended to offend or otherwise belittle those to which it was directed, as we greatly appreciate any knowledge these individuals have to offer. Any interpretation contrary to that detailed above is inaccurate and unacceptable.
Note: The above reference to "The Great Minds" was made as a tongue in cheek/humorous sort of comment, and was not intended to offend or otherwise belittle those to which it was directed, as we greatly appreciate any knowledge these individuals have to offer. Any interpretation contrary to that detailed above is inaccurate and unacceptable.
Last edited:
That, of course, is part of ones phenotype.
And yes, it is important in determining length of cuts and bulks, as well as his goals, and other important items
Which is why we have thusfar refrained from telling him what he should do, rather than provide options.
DM, if I didn't know you better, I'd think you were lumping some of us into a category that we neither wish, nor deserve, to be in.
And yes, it is important in determining length of cuts and bulks, as well as his goals, and other important items
Which is why we have thusfar refrained from telling him what he should do, rather than provide options.
DM, if I didn't know you better, I'd think you were lumping some of us into a category that we neither wish, nor deserve, to be in.
You guys crack me up
I am 43, well will be in a few months, I lifted for 20 years going to the gym 6 days a week, doing my cardio almost everyday, 1-2 hours a day working out, my workouts were always the same. In 20 years I went from 180 to 184 lbs.
In the last two years with probably half the testosterone I used to have at 20, I workout 3 times a week, 1 hour or less each workout, no cardio at all, my workouts are never ever the same from week to week, I lift very intense and heavy. In two years I went from 184 to 234.
Now my waist did go from 32 to 36, and that is without watching what I eat. I make sure I get lots of protein and I let the rest figure itself out.
If you want to get big, eat big, and lift big. I know it is a very corny saying but it is the truth.
I am 43, well will be in a few months, I lifted for 20 years going to the gym 6 days a week, doing my cardio almost everyday, 1-2 hours a day working out, my workouts were always the same. In 20 years I went from 180 to 184 lbs.
In the last two years with probably half the testosterone I used to have at 20, I workout 3 times a week, 1 hour or less each workout, no cardio at all, my workouts are never ever the same from week to week, I lift very intense and heavy. In two years I went from 184 to 234.
Now my waist did go from 32 to 36, and that is without watching what I eat. I make sure I get lots of protein and I let the rest figure itself out.
If you want to get big, eat big, and lift big. I know it is a very corny saying but it is the truth.
im on a cut now eating 2100 cals per day.if i wanna start a bulk tomorrow, how many i calculate the cals for the bulk?
What? Categorize you? And/or TCD? Never would I do such a thing!
I was attempting to get you to loosen your informational grip for the poor guy.
As for the phenotype comment.....my bad.
Begin with 15kcals per lb of bodyweight. This is theoretically your maintenance level of calories (a loose rule of thumb).
Amend weight gain like i mentioned in the other thread you started.
Lol people and their hybrid IQ tests.
The established norm for IQ tests is 100. The established number per deviation is 15.
Gifted is considered 2 standard deviations above the norm, or 130+ IQ. Mental retardation is considered 2 standard deviations below, or < 70.
Most generalized tests are capped at 160, or 4 standard deviations. Which makes an initial derivation of an IQ of 164 highly suspect. Generally those ratings are offered as 160+, and the individual is invited to take a more applicable test.
So the previous individual may have been correct in stating that the test capped at 157...or more factually at 157+. Often this is done to say an individual is within the top .1% of the population, at a minimum. Genius is a term that is individual to the test; it ranges from 3 S.D. to 4 S.D., with many lying somewhere in between.
Any test throwing around 164 I.Q. scores from one test that is not administered by a psychologist is probably useless in determining your intelligence quotient.
The established norm for IQ tests is 100. The established number per deviation is 15.
Gifted is considered 2 standard deviations above the norm, or 130+ IQ. Mental retardation is considered 2 standard deviations below, or < 70.
Most generalized tests are capped at 160, or 4 standard deviations. Which makes an initial derivation of an IQ of 164 highly suspect. Generally those ratings are offered as 160+, and the individual is invited to take a more applicable test.
So the previous individual may have been correct in stating that the test capped at 157...or more factually at 157+. Often this is done to say an individual is within the top .1% of the population, at a minimum. Genius is a term that is individual to the test; it ranges from 3 S.D. to 4 S.D., with many lying somewhere in between.
Any test throwing around 164 I.Q. scores from one test that is not administered by a psychologist is probably useless in determining your intelligence quotient.
The test TCD refers to is clearly useless in determining IQ. Aside from other things, it was a British test, with questions using fact patterns with British places, and such.
Proof that it is not valid is that Rob scored better than me. Not that I am particularly smart, just that he is particularly dumb.
Proof that it is not valid is that Rob scored better than me. Not that I am particularly smart, just that he is particularly dumb.
TP you are right. This is funny!
The one i (and TP) did is a mensa organised test.
I've also done a more american based one (it had a question on dollars cents and nickels, whatever the hell the last one is) and i scored 127 on that one. However, that one wasn't timed, unlike the test the nation test which was.
