- Joined
- May 29, 2005
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I've been thinking about this topic for days now and I really appreciate your input on this, so bare with me with this rather long post please ..
After this past mesocycle for me of cutting, I learned that for me - it's very hard to get down to the single digit bodyfat %'s without cardio. I also learned that I was consuming too little calories that slowed my metabolism down way too much to be oxidizing any fat to make any significant changes in body composition, even though the kcal I consumed was around 2,000 calories, and my mantenance is 2,500. Should've worked right? Nope ..
So I got to thinking, is calories in vs. calories out really the only way to lose fat? Because (this is going to be hard for me to put in words), what if someone, like myself, who's 5'8 and 170 pounds, around 11% BF, who's maintenance level is around 2,500 calories, consumed over 3,500 or ever 4,000 calories a day? You would say, he would gain weight - muscle and fat (since it's too large over maintenance; 500 would be the best increase). Now, what if the same person did cardio everyday (split up between lifting), preferably HIIT & medium intensity cardio? Would I be gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time? Or would the cardio be a waste?
See here's my theory, nutrient partitioning is a MUCH more important subject to me than just calories in vs. calories out - it's where the calories go. Eating as much as 4,000 calories a day, while doing cardio and lifting pretty much everyday (with a rest day), you agree my metabolism would go from being a Honda Civic to a Supercharged 2003 Ford Mustang Cobra (drools), agreed? And your resting metabolic rate is the breaking point to how much fat you oxidize in a day. While you're doing cardio and lifting, you're buring lots of those calories - but you're also telling your body to "lose the fat and partition calories to muscle cells", even in a surplus, right? While doing HIIT cardio (every other day with regular cardio in between), and weightlifting, insulin sensitivity is also very high = greater muscle partitioning. And even though you're in a calorie surplus, doing lots of cardio (as if cutting) you're making your body much more effecient at oxidizing fat, even though the surplus is not enough to lose WEIGHT (but not fat). You're still eating enough to stimulate muscle growth, and with the cardio you're increasing your metabolic rate so much that it's burning a higher fat:glucose ratio daily which should mean fat loss, and leave less glucose burned for more muscle partitioning.
I came up with this theory basically while looking at athletes that lift and do cardio and then eat like the world depended on it. They're very lean, ripped, yet still putting on muscle mass. How is that possible? I used to sit in my college cafeteria and watch them consuming 3 plates full of food every meal and then coming back each day more ripped - while I'm there eating a small meal so I won't break 2,000 calories which is 'under my maintenance', and nothing really happened. I also started looking into this because I see many of the DC trainee's consuming 4,500-5,000 calories a day while staying between 8-10% BF.
Does this theory make any sense? Obviously this theory wouldn't work without a sound corresponding diet, which I want you to assume is mostly protein, moderate carbs and moderate fats, and also the person is consuming all the necessary supplements and vitamins such as a multi, calcium, vitamin c, creatine, green tea, etc.
I would really appreciate your comments on this.
- Chris.
After this past mesocycle for me of cutting, I learned that for me - it's very hard to get down to the single digit bodyfat %'s without cardio. I also learned that I was consuming too little calories that slowed my metabolism down way too much to be oxidizing any fat to make any significant changes in body composition, even though the kcal I consumed was around 2,000 calories, and my mantenance is 2,500. Should've worked right? Nope ..
So I got to thinking, is calories in vs. calories out really the only way to lose fat? Because (this is going to be hard for me to put in words), what if someone, like myself, who's 5'8 and 170 pounds, around 11% BF, who's maintenance level is around 2,500 calories, consumed over 3,500 or ever 4,000 calories a day? You would say, he would gain weight - muscle and fat (since it's too large over maintenance; 500 would be the best increase). Now, what if the same person did cardio everyday (split up between lifting), preferably HIIT & medium intensity cardio? Would I be gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time? Or would the cardio be a waste?
See here's my theory, nutrient partitioning is a MUCH more important subject to me than just calories in vs. calories out - it's where the calories go. Eating as much as 4,000 calories a day, while doing cardio and lifting pretty much everyday (with a rest day), you agree my metabolism would go from being a Honda Civic to a Supercharged 2003 Ford Mustang Cobra (drools), agreed? And your resting metabolic rate is the breaking point to how much fat you oxidize in a day. While you're doing cardio and lifting, you're buring lots of those calories - but you're also telling your body to "lose the fat and partition calories to muscle cells", even in a surplus, right? While doing HIIT cardio (every other day with regular cardio in between), and weightlifting, insulin sensitivity is also very high = greater muscle partitioning. And even though you're in a calorie surplus, doing lots of cardio (as if cutting) you're making your body much more effecient at oxidizing fat, even though the surplus is not enough to lose WEIGHT (but not fat). You're still eating enough to stimulate muscle growth, and with the cardio you're increasing your metabolic rate so much that it's burning a higher fat:glucose ratio daily which should mean fat loss, and leave less glucose burned for more muscle partitioning.
I came up with this theory basically while looking at athletes that lift and do cardio and then eat like the world depended on it. They're very lean, ripped, yet still putting on muscle mass. How is that possible? I used to sit in my college cafeteria and watch them consuming 3 plates full of food every meal and then coming back each day more ripped - while I'm there eating a small meal so I won't break 2,000 calories which is 'under my maintenance', and nothing really happened. I also started looking into this because I see many of the DC trainee's consuming 4,500-5,000 calories a day while staying between 8-10% BF.
Does this theory make any sense? Obviously this theory wouldn't work without a sound corresponding diet, which I want you to assume is mostly protein, moderate carbs and moderate fats, and also the person is consuming all the necessary supplements and vitamins such as a multi, calcium, vitamin c, creatine, green tea, etc.
I would really appreciate your comments on this.
- Chris.
