Agreed.
Care to explain how high-rep training along with a slight caloric surplus will lead to fat loss with concurrent muscle gain?
Same as low rep training but quicker.
Really? So the body retains and grows muscle just as well from lifting heavy as it does lifting a light weight lifted over and over and over? Why would anyone train heavy if this were the case?
The one time I managed to get at least reasonably shredded (my avatar and profile pix), I performed low-rep training. Worked a charm, in a way that high-rep training never did.
The way I'm seeing it, in a caloric deficit, you'll have an easier time convincing the body to hang onto a big muscle by lifting a big weight, even if only a few times. Lifting a weight that's light enough to lift in a higher rep-range means you don't need a big muscle - just a lot of endurance. No need for a calorie-draining big muscle when a small, light one that burns very few calories will suffice, right?
I'm interested to know how "all-body" training effects increased GH better than split training.
He's a newby, "all-body" is easier to understand than "compound" or "work hard enough to get your juices going so that you grow instead of putting on fat". Want me to explain that?
No no no - that's not what I was getting at. I'm a fan of compound movements, and I'm a fan of whole-body workouts, especially during a deficit. This sounded like you were implying that training the whole body in a single workout somehow stimulated more growth hormone than split training does. I don't know that it doesn't - that's why I asked. I thought this was interesting, since it was in accordance with what I had long understood anyway. But it appears I didn't understand your post, so it's a moot point now.
I'll translate that for you, for the benefit of the newby/s.
"While I'm trying to be a smart arse, explain how short-term boost in your own hormone levels within levels possible without steroids will push energy towards muscle tissue instead of fat cells"
WHOAH - I was at least partially agreeing with you. I just wanted to understand your reasoning. By the way, steroids don't increase growth hormone. HGH does that, and it's not a steroid - it's a peptide hormone.
While you're at it, perhaps you can explain how a transient increase of endogenous GH within normal physiologic levels will influence partitioning under this setup.
Because his calorie count will be only barely sufficent, forcing the body to use energy for growth but without enough spare for fat cells. You agreed in the first paragraph and now you're asking me to explain how it works?
You see, you WILL get a transient endogenous GH spike from a lot of things that you do - including starving and sitting in a sauna while dehydrated. This transient spike is sadly nowhere near sufficient to compensate for the activities we may perform in order to stimulate it.
If it were, we'd all simply train this way and be shredded.
Bottom line: it might look interesting on paper, but I have yet to see evidence - in a journal or on a human - that supports this. Actually, even the guys who run metric asstons of GH will tell you they don't get big from it - they use it to lean out, and they take it at levels so beyond anything physiologically possible it's in a different universe.
The rest of your post is rather insulting as you misunderstood the tone of my questions, so I'll leave it unaddressed.
Peace.
Would you like it in pig Latin or should I just point out no-one, not even you Built, really knows HOW these things work, we just know they do?
Hormones are just the body's form of non-neural communication with itself (and I was primarily referring to testosterone rather than HGH but you know how loaded that word tends to be with newbys).
I've told you before, I'm not interested in some Latin-throwing or reference-throwing contest. We could bring 3 different expert nutritionists here and get 3 different answers. Bottom line I talk about what works with real people leading real lifestyles, not the latest article in PubMed OR what worked for me personally.
I get 2 or 3 emails every freaking DAY from people sending me screenshots of their graphs or user files or just trying to explain their situation and asking various questions. If I've learnt anything it's that there's no one-size-fits-all solution for everyone but I can certainly see trends, patterns and common occurences. I can say what's LIKELY to work but always stress experimentation.
What I won't do is get into some pissing contest with big words to "prove" anything. I don't need to, I don't want to and it sure as hell won't help the newby.
B.
) that a slightly higher protein, higher fat diet with plenty of vegetables and water keeps me full. sometimes gets to the stage where I dread eating, as I dont want to go too low on the cals
