• G-flux: how to eat a fucking shitload while getting BIGGER and LEANER
    21 replies, posted
Disclaimer: Actually requires you to do hard work you lazy fuck. There are no free rides or magic potions. Read these articles: [url]http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_nutrition/gflux_building_the_ultimate_body[/url] [url]http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_nutrition/gflux_redux[/url] Yes it is glorious. Yes you can actually get leaner while getting bigger. No you can't do it with your shitty 3 x a week training approach.
So you up your intake to 6000 and make sure your deficit is 500, so you in essence burn 6500 calories. Sounds good in theory, but 6000 calories is like 8 eggs for breakfast and 4 whole chickens amidst a shit-ton of other stuff.
lmao
[QUOTE=Casusv2;28332783]lmao[/QUOTE] all this is is a bulk for elite athletes how can you even burn 6500 calories a day without committing your whole day to it
[QUOTE=VQ35HR;28336130]all this is is a bulk for elite athletes how can you even burn 6500 calories a day without committing your whole day to it[/QUOTE] lets assume you eat 6000 calories a day and somehow ( you people really over estimate how many calories you burn lifting weights) burn 6500 you would still be at a deficit, meaning ~not enough nutrition for muscle gain~. now in overly fat people with no weightlifting experience you can ,for a short while lose fat and gain muscle. not because you ate a boat load and magically burned off even more calories
[QUOTE=Casusv2;28336222]lets assume you eat 6000 calories a day and somehow ( you people really over estimate how many calories you burn lifting weights) burn 6500 you would still be at a deficit, meaning ~not enough nutrition for muscle gain~. now in overly fat people with no weightlifting experience you can ,for a short while lose fat and gain muscle. not because you ate a boat load and magically burned off even more calories[/QUOTE] wait that`s true how does this diet thing make sense at all then
[QUOTE=VQ35HR;28336338]wait that`s true how does this diet thing make sense at all then[/QUOTE] ~_~_~_~ thats why i said lmao ~_~_~_~
[QUOTE=Casusv2;28336350]~_~_~_~ thats why i said lmao ~_~_~_~[/QUOTE] ~~~~~~ OP please explain this to me further, I read it but I might be getting confused here can you tell me how it's supposed to work?
[QUOTE=VQ35HR;28336367]~~~~~~ OP please explain this to me further, I read it but I might be getting confused here can you tell me how it's supposed to work?[/QUOTE] "magic" - op
Errr what the fuck is wrong with you people did you even READ the whole way through both articles? It's not about eating a magical number of 6000 calories and that's it. It debunking the myth of caloric deficit/surplus being the same whether it's at 2000-2500 or 3000-3500. In a nutshell for those of you with terrible reading comprehension: Traditional thinking suggests that only the caloric surplus/deficit matters for bulking or for cutting. This is not true, at a higher energy turnover (that's both training more often/being more active and taking in more energy), the body is more biased towards putting on muscle and decreasing fat stores. Very rare is it you hear about somebody who put on 3kg of muscle while losing 3% bodyfat without being on gear. I'll use the example in the second article of someone who is cutting. Traditional (read: retarded) thinking suggests that a deficit of 500 calories is the same regardless of taking in 2500 or 3500 calories a day. This is not true. You'll still lose fat of course. But at the higher energy turnover, the body has a much higher muscle retention, influenced in part by a higher workload and nutrient intake, and burns fat far more efficiently. Applied to bulking, if you look at the pubmed study links in the 2nd article, this translate to better CNS adaptions (e.g fancy way of saying strength) and a higher lean mass gains to fat ratio (e.g fancy way of saying you get bigger and leaner). The take home message is more training and eating is always better than less training and less eating.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;28338186]Errr what the fuck is wrong with you people did you even READ the whole way through both articles? It's not about eating a magical number of 6000 calories and that's it. It debunking the myth of caloric deficit/surplus being the same whether it's at 2000-2500 or 3000-3500. In a nutshell for those of you with terrible reading comprehension: Traditional thinking suggests that only the caloric surplus/deficit matters for bulking or for cutting. This is not true, at a higher energy turnover (that's both training more often/being more active and taking in more energy), the body is more biased towards putting on muscle and decreasing fat stores. Very rare is it you hear about somebody who put on 3kg of muscle while losing 3% bodyfat without being on gear. I'll use the example in the second article of someone who is cutting. Traditional (read: retarded) thinking suggests that a deficit of 500 calories is the same regardless of taking in 2500 or 3500 calories a day. This is not true. You'll still lose fat of course. But at the higher energy turnover, the body has a much higher muscle retention, influenced in part by a higher workload and nutrient intake, and burns fat far more efficiently. Applied to bulking, if you look at the pubmed study links in the 2nd article, this translate to better CNS adaptions (e.g fancy way of saying strength) and a higher lean mass gains to fat ratio (e.g fancy way of saying you get bigger and leaner). The take home message is more training and eating is always better than less training and less eating.[/QUOTE] Right, I understood that when I read the 2 links brah. The whole energy turnover thing makes sense, but how do you expect someone who is not a pro athlete to burn such a higher number of calories? The eating part is easy, getting 5000 calories should be no problem, but combining that with burning all of it and then some, I don't think that would work for anyone with only a few hours to workout per day. It makes sense though
tbh im to lazy to argue about every detail of this thing even though it sounds somewhat like the book " burn the fat,feed the muscle" which is a p good book. but this is a completely retarded diet just based on the retardedly high amount of exercise you would have to do. a cutting/bulking method is easier to do physically and psychologically ,which i suppose you fail to understand is a key part of adherence
[QUOTE=VQ35HR;28338243]Right, I understood that when I read the 2 links brah. The whole energy turnover thing makes sense, but how do you expect someone who is not a pro athlete to burn such a higher number of calories? The eating part is easy, getting 5000 calories should be no problem, but combining that with burning all of it and then some, I don't think that would work for anyone with only a few hours to workout per day. It makes sense though[/QUOTE] I haven't had problems with it to be honest. I train twice a day, not every day is hardcore lifting, the only constant I have is boxing training for 2-3 hours from Monday to Saturday. I might do actual weight lifting maybe 4 x a week. The rest of my training sessions outside of boxing might be assistance work like sprints or even mobility/agility exercises. Active recovery on sundays and the like might be taking my dogs for a brisk walk. Yes I manage to fit this around a job too. School kids should have it even easier. Actually not sure how much I eat at the moment. I doubt it's 5000 calories. Probably closer to 4500.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;28338397]I haven't had problems with it to be honest. I train twice a day, not every day is hardcore lifting, the only constant I have is boxing training for 2-3 hours from Monday to Saturday. I might do actual weight lifting maybe 4 x a week. The rest of my training sessions outside of boxing might be assistance work like sprints or even mobility/agility exercises. Active recovery on sundays and the like might be taking my dogs for a brisk walk. Yes I manage to fit this around a job too. School kids should have it even easier. Actually not sure how much I eat at the moment. I doubt it's 5000 calories. Probably closer to 4500.[/QUOTE] Well the reason it's working for you is because you do so much physical activity. I used to do competitive water polo 5-7 times a week, would probably work pretty well with this but I wouldn't have energy to lift hard. How do you even have energy to go to the gym after boxing? Don't your arms fall off lol And I go to university, there is no way I can fit in that much stuff anymore :(
The funny thing about being so highly biologically evolved is that we are designed to burn as little energy from any form of locomotion. This is why you only burn like... 200 Calories tops from walking 5 miles or something.
[QUOTE=Master117;28338463]The funny thing about being so highly biologically evolved is that we are designed to burn as little energy from any form of locomotion. This is why you only burn like... 200 Calories tops from walking 5 miles or something.[/QUOTE] dont worry buddy go eat and eat 5k Calories im sure you can burn it all off and even create a deficit through excersice alone
[QUOTE=Master117;28338463]The funny thing about being so highly biologically evolved is that we are designed to burn as little energy from any form of locomotion. This is why you only burn like... 200 Calories tops from walking 5 miles or something.[/QUOTE] Interesting. But this is completely changed when running those same 5 miles right?
[QUOTE=VQ35HR;28338421]Well the reason it's working for you is because you do so much physical activity. I used to do competitive water polo 5-7 times a week, would probably work pretty well with this but I wouldn't have energy to lift hard. How do you even have energy to go to the gym after boxing? Don't your arms fall off lol And I go to university, there is no way I can fit in that much stuff anymore :([/QUOTE] Well that's the great thing. I feel like I have much more energy (so I should with all the shit I'm eating fuck me) and I seem to recover much quicker than I have previously. I remember some bodybuildings twins once said something about recovery = food or something to that effect, and that people overtraining is actually under-eating. The only time I really really fucking feel it, is if I do heavy sprint work at the start of a week, and then my legs make me pay for it throughout boxing for the rest of the week.
[QUOTE=VQ35HR;28338528]Interesting. But this is completely changed when running those same 5 miles right?[/QUOTE] Ok, in that case you'll burn maybe 600-700.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;28338549]Well that's the great thing. I feel like I have much more energy (so I should with all the shit I'm eating fuck me) and I seem to recover much quicker than I have previously. I remember some bodybuildings twins once said something about recovery = food or something to that effect, and that people overtraining is actually under-eating. The only time I really really fucking feel it, is if I do heavy sprint work at the start of a week, and then my legs make me pay for it throughout boxing for the rest of the week.[/QUOTE] when I was bulking, the process of eating food itself made me tired lol brb 7 meals that take 20 minutes to eat
[QUOTE=VQ35HR;28338639]when I was bulking, the process of eating food itself made me tired lol brb 7 meals that take 20 minutes to eat[/QUOTE] Yeah, because metabolizing food takes energy. It also sucks blood from your brain and other areas so it can go to your stomach and other digestive organs so they can function.
[QUOTE=Casusv2;28338281]tbh im to lazy to argue about every detail of this thing even though it sounds somewhat like the book " burn the fat,feed the muscle" which is a p good book. but this is a completely retarded diet just based on the retardedly high amount of exercise you would have to do. a cutting/bulking method is easier to do physically and psychologically ,which i suppose you fail to understand is a key part of adherence[/QUOTE] Finally, someone who read that incredible ebook. Cas, you're a god among gods.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.