Bah goergen, don't come here with your observations when the theory says otherwise!

Anyway, my homebrewed, probably really inaccurate way of seeing it is a graph displaying "nutrition concentration" as a function of time. When you're very high on the graph, you're building both fat and muscle, lower down you're building mostly muscle, around the zero line nothing is really happening, farther down you're in the negative and mostly fat is being burned, and at the bottom both fat and muscle is being burned.

As you eat the graph rises sharply, then drops gradually as the nutrition is getting processed, until the next meal where it rises again. Eating a few big meals a day gives a few big zigzags, many smaller meals give smaller deviations.

It's very possible to eat in a way that means you're crossing the 0 line several times a day, with periods building muscle following a meal, then losing fat as the line drops below zero before the next meal.

That's my take on it anyway

It explains why most say the get best results on many, smaller meals (they're able to remain in either the "mostly just building muscle" or "mostly just burning fat" bands on the graph), and why those who both lose fat and build muscle don't do either very fast (they're not in the building muscle all the time like bulkers are and they're wasting time crossing the 0 line where nothing is happening).

Now that was funny.

That is an interesting thought on the frequent meals.

Though I do not think that everything needs to be buttoned down exactly to get the results people want.

There was a guy in the gym who is on his 4th year of training. He came there to get better results. He gained 23lbs over the summer and lost 2% bodyfat. (he was pretty lean to begin with)

There was no special diet. The overwhelming advice was. "just friggin' eat more. we don't care what it is."

3 or 4 meals a day. Skipped breakfast half of the time. Lots of Moe's after workouts with his training partners.

The body will adapt to any situation if you force it to. I want to make sure that people know that great results can, are, and will continue to be had, even outside the perfect nutritional situation.

so are you suggesting that its something some people just experience or something that can be aimed for?

if so what training and diet does one need? increased but well timed cardio?

(also, its sort of obvious that a clean bulk will decrease body fat %, providing your adding more muscle than fat)

i hate the idea of bulking and cutting, i play sports a lot so bulks tend to weigh me down, whilst cutting leaves me energy-less for competetive and practice sports.

I love your no BS style

It's important to mention though that the people who do this and get results also work really hard. The last thing someone should do is start to eat like you but train like a ****y (as you already mentioned, most people don't train that hard).

Of course it can be aimed for. Generally that means swallowing ones pride, going to get help, and having it thrust upon you. I have seen very few hit these results without help from someone.

One needs hard training. I am not a big believer in cardio. I find that it is generally unnecessary for great results. I go back to one of my previous posts.

The only way to learn to train hard is by training with someone who already knows what hard training is. There is no description for it on a forum.

Bulking and cutting are bodybuilding terms. Athletes (and most people who just want to look good) do not need bulking and cutting portions of a program.

An athlete needs to get stronger, faster, and more agile. If that happens, he will gain muscle size and will not gain fat.

With proper training, nutrition for most people only needs to be decent. It does not need to be perfect.

How is this possible? It is a lot easier, and a lot more fun to train hard 3 - 5 days per week than it is to eat perfect all the time. The average person is more likely to stick to a great training program than a strict diet. Especially if the change is going to be a "rest of their life" type of thing. If nutrition is decent and the program is good. Results will be had.

Thanks CCR. Your the man.

"The world is moving so fast now-a-days that the man who says it can't be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it."
– Elbert Hubbard

Deficit Diet, the Fat Burner without an equal on the same stage.

This in its basic form is true. However there is an exception. A person just beginning in training (say with deficit dieting), can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. How long this period lasts, is largely dependent upon the body's adaption period, so this will vary. However, after this period is over, gaining muscle in a deficit diet is nearly impossible, and getting the abs to show is a function of low body fat brought by diet and exercise complimenting this diet.

Surplus diet; the weight gainer.

With proper training stimulus, rest and recuperation, and proper surplus diet, one will gain weight in a surplus environment. The amount of weight gained can be controlled (to a degree) with watching how the body reacts to the caloric surplus numbers you are providing during the course of the week. Meaning that if the (fat to muscle ratio) isnt to your liking, say fat accumulation is too high (for exanple), one can tweak the surplus range (or possibly nutrient ratios), and refine it a bit. What I am trying to example is that one can control the amount of fat gained that reduces the visibility of the abs, if one cares about this sort of thing when bulking.

As you can see to gain tissue (and I say tissue because it can be both muscle and fat) one has to be in a surplus. To lose tissue (muscle and fat) one has to be in a deficit, and these are complete opposites.

First, I take the postion, the direction you go, is the one that will make you most happy for some its not all about muscle, one can be small lean and mean.

You could separate this into two separate goals in two separate time frames, and set the path----on the goal that makes you MOST HAPPY. In my opinion its not all about being HUGE.

You may want to think about bulking (surplus) for a time period (controlled), and then revert back to a Cut (deficit). This way you can put on some possible lean muscle, and then revert back to attempt to obtain the abs you desire; I am thinking along the lines of just some lean tissue at the beginning stages, that will show themselves when you cut back later.

Do you have any pics that could show your current composition distribution?

Go with what makes YOU the most happiest, and one that will keep you on path you choose.

Best regards,

Chillen

Goergen, what's a hard workout?

I know you say you can't explain it on a forum, but give it a go

Are you going with shorter rest periods (most suggest 60-120s), longer workouts (less than 60 minutes seem to be the norm), or doing something like switching each set between 2 exercises that hit different muscles without rest?

Or is it just about pushing yourself harder, lifting heavier weights at the same rep count?

thats the kind of news i like to hear

i dont think its the sort of news that you should be taking as gospel. aim for perfection and stay as damn close to it as you can, and then any straying has minimal effects.

until Goergen can backup his example with reasoned theory its not much use to anyone. im not saying he's wrong at all; just that average joe will not experience the same results by just training hard.

if Goergen can offer a way to do this i'll be the first to test it out, until then im heading for as clean a bulk as possible.

yeh its ok i wont b goin along that route, as much as i'd like to..
im still findin it hard to decide tho.. its difficult to describe without u knowin wot my build is like i guess...
i wouldn't say im fat and im smaller than average but im not skinny.. iv got a belly and just small arms..
im not after a massive body buildin look.. i just wna tone up my body and build on my arms slightly.. this is why i dont know wot route to take...

just pointing out. If he bulked very clean, and gained 23 pounds with no, or very little fat, his body fat % would be lower simply because he added more total weight to his body. He dind't necessarily lose fat.

I'm in a similar situation as Narb here. Same age, about the same weight (I'm about 155 lbs), but I have a pretty decent muscle build, and almost all of the weight I'm trying to lose is coming from my stomach.

I'm doing the supposed more difficult approach of combining fat loss and muscle gain. Everyday I run for 1 mile and a quarter, it's just my warm-up. I have two different days: one for my arms and upper body the other for my abs and cardio. On cardio/abs days I do leg raises, crunches and sit-ups, and I end it with a 10 minute bike ride on level 10 (not to mention my everyday run on the treadmill).

This combination of fat loss and muscle gain worked for me a few summers ago. I did, however, have the benefit of a strenuous outdoor job at the time. By the end of three months, I lost 15 pounds (from 155 to 140).

Actually, I don't know if you guys mean by muscle gain to result in weight gain because I define it as just looking more muscular even thought I dropped weight.

id really suggest looking at adding some muscle first. mentally, you'll have plenty of energy to kick start what is going to be a long process, and as soon as you see a muscle grow like you've not seen before you'll be hooked. physically you're a lot better off looking a little fat than skinny, plus its coming to autumn and winter and you're going to be covered up. you'll also be able to start a cut in a few months determined to get the body you want and safe in the knowledge that its there, ready to be revealed by trimming some fat. i suspect you'll also be suprised how much better you look simply by putting on some lean size.

first off, all of the below is not geared towards arguing, but simple discussion and learning

i am skeptical of some of georgen's examples.
like the one above...when the man with 4 years experiance gains 23 solid pounds over 3 months and still lower his body fat %
that is extra ordinary results, especailly because his diet wasnt optimal.
he must have had very good genetics because 23 solid pounds in a year is very good progress considering the average human body's ability to create muscle mass.
are you suggesting that his hard work in the gym is mainly responsible for his great gains?
are you saying that the popularly used information given on this site is innacurate?: "diet will determine most of your gains"

and because you said 98 percent of trainees have not experianced a hard workout, do you mean that the workouts the trainees are doing are not difficult?
or just that the trainees themselves have not yet pushed themselves beyond your standard of "hard work" in their routine?

and how can one make such great progress when they truly push themselves in the gym, tearing up their body with a "hard workout", but then when their body requires nutrients and substinance to recover and build muscle, they simply feed themselves "decently"?

and perhaps all the trainees you have seen, whom have gotten great results from just hard work and decent eating, just have good genetics

is the strongest lifter of a highschool football team the hardest worker, considering the whole team does the same workouts? or does he simply have better genetics, or diet...or a mosh of all combined?

Let me know what you decide to do (PM if necessary).