what would you look like if you did this for a year

shadowcomplex

Ate what ever you liked everyday and didnt subscribe to any diet or bodybuilding rules like eating 6 meals a day, low carb, lots of protein,etc.you could have burgers, pizza and beer if you wanted but you had to do 2 things

1.stay 500 calories below maintenance

2.train very hard with weights 4 times a week for an hour

superstoner90

f*cked up

itsallaboutheL

I reckon if you average out my kcal intake over a week, then that's basically what i do, with more lifting.

So to answer your question: You'd look like shiite.

Brian?

Depends what weight you start out at. Theoretically if you eat 500 kcal below maintenance you lose 2 pounds a week, pure guess, so you'd be 104 pounds lighter.

Hanley

briankeating wrote: »

Depends what weight you start out at. Theoretically if you eat 500 kcal below maintenance you lose 2 pounds a week, pure guess, so you'd be 104 pounds lighter.

That's assuming maintenance is constant, which it's not.

And the results of the above would be 100% dictated by protein intake - keep it sufficiently high and you'd probably gain a bit of muscle and lose a bit of fat.

Assuming you adhered 100% and didn't deviate and succumb to the inevitable cravings.

shadowcomplex

Hanley wrote: »

That's assuming maintenance is constant, which it's not.

And the results of the above would be 100% dictated by protein intake - keep it sufficiently high and you'd probably gain a bit of muscle and lose a bit of fat.

Assuming you adhered 100% and didn't deviate and succumb to the inevitable cravings.

The most important factor in maintaining muscle whilst in a calorie deficet is weightraining not protein intake

Hanley

shadowcomplex wrote: »

The most important factor in maintaining muscle whilst in a calorie deficet is weightraining not protein intake

Studies and proof or GTFO.

I find that very, very, VERY hard to believe.

Besides, it's moot because most people will continue to train during a diet anyway. At least anyone with muscle to maintain. Thus protein intake becomes the decisive factor.

Inspector Coptoor

shadowcomplex wrote: »

[
The most important factor in maintaining muscle whilst in a calorie deficet is weightraining not protein intake

Oh dear baby jeebus up in heaven, make the bad man stop.

That statement is absolute brown.

Protein is used for growth & repair.

If you are in a kcal deficit, there'll be v little growth, (in an experience trainee), therefore, the protein ingested will be used to repair any damage done to muscle (&other cells) due to training (resistance and/or otherwise).
You take away this macronutrient for a prolonged period of time & train hard, it's gonna be game over in terms of maintaining lbm.

AntiVirus

shadowcomplex wrote: »

The most important factor in maintaining muscle whilst in a calorie deficet is weightraining not protein intake

I'd agree with this, I don't know why anyone would disagree

1: Weight training.

2: Protein intake.


I'd hit the gym before worrying about protein intake.

Inspector Coptoor

AntiVirus wrote: »

I'd agree with this, I don't know why anyone would disagree

1: Weight training.

2: Protein intake.


I'd hit the gym before worrying about protein intake.

Right,

well sure as an experiment on yourself, mulitply your weight in pounds x 12 and eat that many calories per day exclusively from fats and carbs for a month and see how you get on

Hanley

AntiVirus wrote: »

I'd agree with this, I don't know why anyone would disagree

1: Weight training.

2: Protein intake.


I'd hit the gym before worrying about protein intake.

Ok... polarise it.

1,000kcal deficit - no weight training

1,000kcal deficit - no protein

Who's gonna lose more muscle over a 1 month period?

Anyway, as I've said - it's moot. People with muscle to preserve will probably lift anyway while dieting. Making protein intake the decisive factor.

AntiVirus

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

Right,

well sure as an experiment on yourself, mulitply your weight in pounds x 12 and eat that many calories per day exclusively from fats and carbs for a month and see how you get on

No one here has said you can build muscle's without eating protein? I don't know where you've seen that. All that's been said is the most important thing to build muscles is weight training. That's the number one thing when it comes to building muscle. If you don't lift weights how do you expect to build muscle?

Hanley

AntiVirus wrote: »

No one here has said you can build muscle's without eating protein? I don't know where you've seen that. All that's been said is the most important thing to build muscles is weight training. That's the number one thing when it comes to building muscle. If you don't lift weights how do you expect to build muscle?

No no, go read it again. He said maintaining, while in a kcal deficit state.

AntiVirus

Hanley wrote: »

1,000kcal deficit - no weight training

1,000kcal deficit - no protein

Who's gonna lose more muscle over a 1 month period?

Anyway, as I've said - it's moot. People with muscle to preserve will probably lift anyway while dieting. Making protein intake the decisive factor.

That's a bit of a pointless example as no one here has said not to eat protein?

AntiVirus

Hanley wrote: »

No no, go read it again. He said maintaining, while in a kcal deficit state.

I still think he's right, if you don't work out you're not going to maintain muscle just by eating protein.

Inspector Coptoor

AntiVirus wrote: »

No one here has said you can build muscle's without eating protein?

/
I thought the whole point was that training was more important than eating the right things.
I'm saying that eating and what you eat is actually more important than the training you do.

AntiVirus wrote: »

All that's been said is the most important thing to build muscles is weight training.

I disagree.

AntiVirus wrote: »

If you don't lift weights how do you expect to build muscle?

you can build muscle by never touchin a weight.
gymnastics, sprinting.
explosive movements and bodyweight exercises can give great results without a weight ever being touched.

Hanley

AntiVirus wrote: »

That's a bit of a pointless example as no one here has said not to eat protein?

You said weight training is more important for maintaining muscle than protein no?

If this whole thing is us arguing parallel points and you were actually talking about building muscle and not maintaining while in a kcal deficit state, I'd probably agree with what you're saying.

Hanley

AntiVirus wrote: »

I still think he's right, if you don't work out you're not going to maintain muscle just by eating protein.

No, but you're going to limit the potential loss better than just by lifting weights. Remember - my original position was that assuming protein levels were sufficient.

In a kcal deficit, how is energy to power metabolic processes generated?

AntiVirus

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

you can build muscle by never touchin a weight.
gymnastics, sprinting.
explosive movements and bodyweight exercises can give great results without a weight ever being touched.

Yip I love chin ups, push ups, hand stand push ups etc... but you're still lifting weight effectively.

I'm not saying I'm right here, just that to me the most important factor when building/maintaining muscle is execrise followed by protein.

Hanley

In moderately experienced trainees, I think the key equation is:

1-1.5g/lb bw of protein + low volume high intensity lifting (where intensity is a measure of 1rm)

For the experienced guys, maintaining muscle is the goal when dieting. Best way to do that is low volume high intensity lifting which doesn't create a significant recovery debt.

Obviously this excludes beginners, inters and people looking for specific performance benefits.

Can we agree on that at least?

AntiVirus

Hanley wrote: »

No, but you're going to limit the potential loss better than just by lifting weights. Remember - my original position was that assuming protein levels were sufficient.

I don't know now, you're most likely right. I would have just thought myself that as long as number 1: I'm working out and number 2: I'm eating enough protein all is good.

Hanley wrote: »

In a kcal deficit, how is energy to power metabolic processes generated?

That would be an ecumenical matter.

AntiVirus

Hanley wrote: »

In moderately experienced trainees, I think the key equation is:

1-1.5g/lb bw of protein + low volume high intensity lifting (where intensity is a measure of 1rm)

For the experienced guys, maintaining muscle is the goal when dieting. Best way to do that is low volume high intensity lifting which doesn't create a significant recovery debt.

Obviously this excludes beginners, inters and people looking for specific performance benefits.

Can we agree on that at least?

That sounds about right

Hanley

AntiVirus wrote: »

I don't know now, you're most likely right. I would have just thought myself that as long as number 1: I'm working out and number 2: I'm eating enough protein all is good.

I... I didn't... No... it's not possible... I didn't just.... WIN AN INTERNET ARGUMENT?!?!? :D

In all seriousness, assuming someone is on a kcal deficit, if they're not taking in enough kcals to fuel daily activity, the energy must come from somewhere. When there's also a lack of sufficient carbs, your brain reverts to the use of ketones for energy (which is fatty acids processed thru the liver to create usable energy), it can get up to about 75% of its energy requirements in that manner, but there's still that gap to be filled from glucose. Which get manufactured thru glucogenesis where the body breaks down protein to create glucose, and since there's no real store of protein in your body other than your muscles, they get hit.

Essentially... it's all related. If you've a sufficient carb intake to avoid ketosis, you're probably more likely to retain muscle at a constant protein level than if you were in ketosis. I think.

AntiVirus

Hanley wrote: »

I... I didn't... No... it's not possible... I didn't just.... WIN AN INTERNET ARGUMENT?!?!? :D

In all seriousness, assuming someone is on a kcal deficit, if they're not taking in enough kcals to fuel daily activity, the energy must come from somewhere. When there's also a lack of sufficient carbs, your brain reverts to the use of ketones for energy (which is fatty acids processed thru the liver to create usable energy), it can get up to about 75% of its energy requirements in that manner, but there's still that gap to be filled from glucose. Which get manufactured thru glucogenesis where the body breaks down protein to create glucose, and since there's no real store of protein in your body other than your muscles, they get hit.

Essentially... it's all related. If you've a sufficient carb intake to avoid ketosis, you're probably more likely to retain muscle at a constant protein level than if you were in ketosis. I think.

You lost me after "In all seriousness..."

In short yes I do agree diet is important when building or maintaining muscle. All this talk is just making me hungry now..

Hanley

AntiVirus wrote: »

You lost me after "In all seriousness..."

In short yes I do agree diet is important when building or maintaining muscle. All this talk is just making me hungry now..

Haha ok, I'll cliff it - if you don't eat enough carbs to fuel activity (like you would on a diet), your body's gonna start taking muscle to convert it to glucose thru a load of complicated process. The bigger your kcals deficit, and the harder you're training, the worse it becomes.

..which is one of the main reasons I was backing protein ahead of lifting for maintaining muscle!

There HAS to have been studies on this. Anyone? Anyone??

Mellor

briankeating wrote: »

Depends what weight you start out at. Theoretically if you eat 500 kcal below maintenance you lose 2 pounds a week, pure guess, so you'd be 104 pounds lighter.

500 defacit a day is 3500 a week so which is c.1lb of fat. Allowing for variance and such.

AntiVirus wrote: »

I'd hit the gym before worrying about protein intake.

Worrying about protein and getting protein are two different things.
You'll get protein passively from various foods, so it might appear like its not important, but without it you'll get ****ed up rather quick.

The guy who eats perfect amount of protein, and does some training, will maintain muscle better than the guy who does lots of training and gets little or no protein.

Besides, diet was the only variable in the OP.
The OP epecting the results to be constant is ridiculous, ie not expecting protien to the decidine factor.

AntiVirus

Mellor wrote: »

500 defacit a day is 3500 a week so which is c.1lb of fat. Allowing for variance and such.



Worrying about protein and getting protein are two different things.
You'll get protein passively from various foods, so it might appear like its not important, but without it you'll get ****ed up rather quick.

The guy who eats perfect amount of protein, and does some training, will maintain muscle better than the guy who does lots of training and gets little or no protein.

Besides, diet was the only variable in the OP.
The OP epecting the results to be constant is ridiculous, ie not expecting protien to the decidine factor.

What about the person who does lots of training with the right amount of protein vs the person who does little training with the right amount of protein. Thats what I'm talking about?

Hanley

AntiVirus wrote: »

What about the person who does lots of training with the right amount of protein vs the person who does little training with the right amount of protein. Thats what I'm talking about?

Well the "right amount of protein" is dictated by activity levels and recovery, so the guy training more will be taking in more and getting more results.

More. More. More.

Jesus. I'm too hyper for this hour of the morning.

alexsmith

lads,its a combination of both....even if you are in a kcal deficit if your not training but taking in enough protein you will lose muscle as apposed to training and taking in very little protein on low cals....i think it could be similar but i cant say.theres no studies on it i dont think.

as for dieting,when on lower cals you ovisly want your protein intake higher to minimize muscle loss.there have been studies to show that protein without resistance training HAS ANABOLIC EFFECTS...even though carbs are better protein sparing then fat...keto is a bastard

mind you,i found one of the best diets (its hard) to maximise fat loss and minimize muscle loss and vice versa (can be used for bulking or cutting and works very well)

insulin manipulation and nutrient timing is the key.pm me if you want more info.

Mellor

AntiVirus wrote: »

What about the person who does lots of training with the right amount of protein vs the person who does little training with the right amount of protein. Thats what I'm talking about?

Well of course the more training = better more results (to a point). Nobody was saying training wasn't a factor at all. Plus in the OP the training was constant, the diet was eat what ever you like. The original reply was that maintenance and recovery from workouts its totally dependant on protein intake.

jive

ITT we discuss things we can't possibly predict accurately

Parsley

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Ate what ever you liked everyday and didnt subscribe to any diet or bodybuilding rules like eating 6 meals a day, low carb, lots of protein,etc.you could have burgers, pizza and beer if you wanted but you had to do 2 things

1.stay 500 calories below maintenance

2.train very hard with weights 4 times a week for an hour

original premise stated exercise was part of the question posed.

Hanley wrote: »

That's assuming maintenance is constant, which it's not.

And the results of the above would be 100% dictated by protein intake - keep it sufficiently high and you'd probably gain a bit of muscle and lose a bit of fat.

Assuming you adhered 100% and didn't deviate and succumb to the inevitable cravings.

thread should have ended here.

shadowcomplex wrote: »

The most important factor in maintaining muscle whilst in a calorie deficet is weightraining not protein intake

this guy didn't see the bit that stated exercise was already part of the OP and f*cked up the thread. possible troll.

shadowcomplex

Firstly let me clarify I didnt say one shouldnt eat protein or specifically go on a low protein diet, all I said was weighttraining(using your muscles) is the most important factor for maintaining and even building muscle.

Furthermore the recomendations of bodybuilders and supplement companies to eat 1-1.5lbs of protein per lb of bodyweight is all hype and fitness marketing just to sell more supplements.

The bodybuilders of the 60s and 70s such as Frank Zane and Arnie didnt get close to this amount, in fact they were closer to 60-70% carbs 20% protein and 10% fat and look at the physiques they built

In fact according to research eating a diet thats 0.5g of protein per lb of bodyweight is actually quite high

shadowcomplex

Parsley wrote: »

original premise stated exercise was part of the question posed.


thread should have ended here.

this guy didn't see the bit that stated exercise was already part of the OP and f*cked up the thread. possible troll.

Have a look who posted the OP

Mellor

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Have a look who posted the OP

That makes it kinda worse.
In your OP, you said train very hard. So its assumed that training hard means training all muscles, compound movements etc.

The diet is the variable. So the answer was it depends on the diet.
Does the training matter too, of course, but not at much as the diet.

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Firstly let me clarify I didnt say one shouldnt eat protein or specifically go on a low protein diet, all I said was weighttraining(using your muscles) is the most important factor for maintaining and even building muscle.

In the OP you refered to a cut, so it wasbuilding muscle. Which is obviously a different situation.

The bodybuilders of the 60s and 70s such as Frank Zane and Arnie didnt get close to this amount, in fact they were closer to 60-70% carbs 20% protein and 10% fat and look at the physiques they built

They weren't on deficits when they were building those physiques. So not relevant.

When you are bulking, you are overeating, so you easily hit enough protein for growth and repair anyway. 20% of Arnies peak intake is still a hell of a lot of protein.
When you are on a deficit, the question in the OP. You are under eating, so "enough protein" automatically becomes a higher % of you intake, due to the deficit.
Nobody mentioned a gram/lb figure. You mentioned burgers pizza etc. The guy who lives on only burgers will do alot better than the guy who eats only chips for example. Can you guess why?

Brian?

Hanley wrote: »

That's assuming maintenance is constant, which it's not.

I know maintenance is not constant. If you eat 500kcal below maintenance for a year you caloric intake will constantly decrease, therefore you'll keep losing weight.

Where x is maintenance calories; x-500=weightloss.

Hanley

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Firstly let me clarify I didnt say one shouldnt eat protein or specifically go on a low protein diet, all I said was weighttraining(using your muscles) is the most important factor for maintaining and even building muscle.

Furthermore the recomendations of bodybuilders and supplement companies to eat 1-1.5lbs of protein per lb of bodyweight is all hype and fitness marketing just to sell more supplements.

The bodybuilders of the 60s and 70s such as Frank Zane and Arnie didnt get close to this amount, in fact they were closer to 60-70% carbs 20% protein and 10% fat and look at the physiques they built

In fact according to research eating a diet thats 0.5g of protein per lb of bodyweight is actually quite high

Ok... that could work. If you'd some way of increasing protein synthesis... Oh... wait - they did

Also, the point is - in the absence of sufficient kcals, you NEED additional protein to ensure muscle wasteage does not occur because protein will get used for energy as described above.

If you are eating sufficient kcals, or in excess thereof, from other sources such as carbs and fat, protein does not become an essential part of the energy production process and can be "stored" (as muscle).

Hence increasing protein on a kcal deficit is necessary to preserve muscle mass, but may not be necessary to build muscle due to your energy demands being met form different sources.

And the numbers you've quoted in the context of Arnie etc are meaningless without knowing total kcal values. Furthermore, there's research out there which points to different phenotypes responding to different carb:fat mixes differently. I believe it points to people with low insulin secretion levels and high insulin sensitivity typically doing better on higher carb diets. And since we can assume bodybuilders are the physical "elite" when it comes to these things, and the two mentioned are two of the best ever, it might be the case that these rules apply to them, and not to the average Joe in the street.

Now, I know that's a complete cop out, but it is relevant

briankeating wrote: »

Hanley wrote: »

That's assuming maintenance is constant, which it's not.

I know maintenance is not constant. If you eat 500kcal below maintenance for a year you caloric intake will constantly decrease, therefore you'll keep losing weight.

Where x is maintenance calories; x-500=weightloss.

Good point. Bad quoting :P

But yah, you're right of course. Maintenance kcals not staying constant is somehting people tend to miss tho so was just saying )

Parsley

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Have a look who posted the OP

congrats for ruining your own thread then buddy.

Degsy

Parsley wrote: »

congrats for ruining your own thread then buddy.

It was only some copied and pasted nonsense anyway.

g'em

shadowcomplex wrote: »

Ate what ever you liked everyday and didnt subscribe to any diet or bodybuilding rules like eating 6 meals a day, low carb, lots of protein,etc.you could have burgers, pizza and beer if you wanted but you had to do 2 things

1.stay 500 calories below maintenance

2.train very hard with weights 4 times a week for an hour

If only you had the same tenacity with training as you do with re-regging timetogetfit.

Permabanned.