Adarq.org

Bodyweight: 85kg/187lb

Blah how did the scale tip so low? Prob just an anomoly after bball yesterday, im sure it will go back up over the next few days.
Waist is into the 34s though, but that's neither there nor here. I could see a clear defined 4 pac after ball yesterday but im still fat as fuck, i think i should be thinking in terms of 80-82.5kg bw to be lean (10-12%).

Have you ever had your bodyfat tested?  Do you think that you have no muscle?  The reason I ask is a training partner of mine just got his bodyfat tested.  He is a pretty skinny build and has quads about 3'' smaller than mine (so def smaller than yours) and he was at 2.4% bodyfat at 6'3'' 181lbs.  This is a guy that doesn't lift weights (red pants in the video below)...   I really don't see how you can have the muscle mass and big lifts but have such low height/weight ratios required for bodyfat unless your bones are like half the mass of the average person.  Maybe you are more like 7% now.   



<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUVnGGTXp9M" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUVnGGTXp9M</a>

Me neither. Maybe it's for the types of people that have muscles with too low of a fluid content and creatine improves on that and adds better "leverage" if you will for the muscle fibers to push against?

Ehhh...  It probably works by the mechanism supported by all the evidence (more creatine phosphate in the muscle = more alactic ATP).   I doubt the reason some of us don't respond is not because creatine actually works by some until now undiscovered mechanism...

For what it's worth I have multiple anecdotal cases of creatine not working for track athletes speed endurance.  A 200m/400m athlete should benefit most from a longer alactic energy system... but creatine seems to work best in the untrained and those who do little training as far as these energy systems go (powerlifters, etc.)  The only reason I can think is that maybe it's possible that through training one can acquire an efficient enough alactic energy system (and transition to anerobic respiration) that additional creatine does not help, perhaps because the body is beginning respiration after a few seconds anyway, so either you get enough free atp and muscle efficiency to produce the maximum power you body can produce before anerobic respiration through training OR you supplement with creatine to provide the ATP.   As far as training recovery I am not convinced by any study that creatine increases recovery.

I'm having a crisis of faith. I don't think I can ever be considered athletic no matter what I do. It's to do with CNS, tendons, build, things I can't control. No one will ever call me quick. Have probably reached my ceiling with what I can do on and off the court. If you look at where i started, a legit 20" vertical, i'm not going to one day attain a 40". That's probably impossible and i don't want to keep thinking i can somehow get there by wishful thinking. Yes i can dunk ok at 90kg bodyweight but so what, doesn't mean i'll jump 5" higher when i weigh 10-15kg less? In fact it probably wont make any real difference to my jump PR; what it will do is make what was a max effort jump into a sub max one, and possibly my ME would be slightly, if negligibly higher.

Lol.  Yes it does.  All things considered weight loss is the one thing that almost always leads to better performance.  If you jump X inches at 90kg bodyweight and 15% bf and you get to 8% bf without losing tons of strength... You most definitely jump higher on your max jump and sub max jump.  It's the only training "promise" I make to athletes.  Everything else can be false for some people (eg not everyone who raises their squat jumps any higher...).     Keep it up and lose 10kg and you WILL jump higher.  That's a promise.  Maybe 3 inches, maybe 6 inches.  Hard to put an inch number... but significantly higher.  For myself my jump approaches 40'' when I am close to 180, between 33-37 when I am 190-200 and remains above 30'' when I am 200-215.   BIG difference.

What does everyone else who realises they're mediocre athletes do? Become mediocre powerlifters? That doesn't appeal. I need a new hobby.

Getting good at anything involves feeling mediocre.  Unless you are the best in the world.  But even that is fleeting.  Haven't you seen Karate Kid???  Mister Miyagi outlined this wisdom for me when I was about 7 years old.   That's why you have to compete primarily with yourself.  You have to make you goal to run 2 tenths faster or jump 2'' inches higher than a few months ago.  Anything else and you will always find someone to make you feel mediocre.   If you can go from 20'' to 36''...... That's fucking incredible.  Adding sixteen inches to your vertical is amazing. 

35''.....  Your reach is about 1 inch below mine right?   At 35'' I think you might need to start practicing boune dunks or catching alley-oops no?  That's gotta be a decent distance above the rim... With a deload and a small cut I imagine you can't be that far off...

I get the logic, but that mechanism that shifts the percentages of fat vs glycogen ( for the same activity/HR zone ) while being fasted or not is not yet explained, so i still consider it voodoo and unacceptable. I do understand it, the body senses that glycogen storages are running low, so it changes the fuel source. It sounds logical, but that doesn't mean it is valid. I can agree that it makes a lot more sense if you are totaly glycogen depleted, but at that point you should not be running

Edit/PS : I have not read too much about that stuff, so i am also waiting for toddday to confirm i am right... duh, i meant to say to enlihten us! 

I'll expand on that a bit. Walking burns says 70% bodyfat, and 30% carbs. Jogging might burn 40% bodyfat and 60% carbs. And sprinting may be 10% bodyfat and 90% carbs. I don't know the actual values and i don't care for the purpose of this post. So say if you do fasted walking, perhaps it shifts the ratio further towards bodyfat, same with jogging. But jogging expends more calories than does walking, although we're interested in the number of calories that being burned from bodyfat rather than something else. So in the fasted jogging case, you're looking at a bigger number of calories coming from bodyfat than before. This might be a significant amount, maybe not over one day, but over a long period of say several months.  Also your body might have other sources of fuel too, like muscle tissue. Todday will no doubt give a better more factual explanation. Also, when did we decide ageold bodybuilder wisdom is broscience? They're the experts at this stuff, they've been finetuning it over decades!

As far as the fasting/ketosis/cardio debate....

I'm really confused as to what the argument is.  Basically to clear things up a bit.

First of all I know most of this board are disciples of that ornery speed-skater guy who writes books on fat loss.  I have never published a book on fat loss.  But I've done actual research and gotten my PhD and I can tell you that that guy does pick and choose research results and does have a habit of making things seem a little more figured out than they are.  I don't want to argue with his merits but I can give you as one example that his discussion of leptin and its mechanistic role is complete conjecture... The scientists actually working with the rats would not agree with this guy.  Then again he has a motivation to sell books.... so just keep that in mind.

That said.

1) Entropy is correct that Ketosis is not necessary for fat loss.   Your body has multiple fuel sources and as long as you are in negative energy balance you will lose fat as long even if you never run low on glycogen.  That's true.  However... If you are not an endurance athlete than it's damn hard to lose significant fat in a short amount of time without ketosis.   When you are not in Ketosis your body will turn to glycogen/glucose for the majority of the fuel required for your BMR.   Some activity will preferentially use fat as fuel but for a power athlete the majority of their energy expenditure will come with a resting heart-rate.  So, sure a power athlete who does zero aerobic work could in theory continue eating the same, add in some low heart rate aerobic work and burn an extra couple hundred calories a day which would result in really slow fat loss.   Of course this extra aerboic work will make him more hungry so he better be SUPER on point with his diet.  Or he could just get to negative energy balance by restricting his intake.   To sum it up you have two options:  Be super vigilant with your caloric intake, stay out of ketosis, and add aerobic work OR just restrict intake.  I think the last is easier. 

2) Vag is right that fasted cardio is broscience.   Rat after rat has been sacrificed to prove the point is energy balance does not care when you go negative.  First of for all non-muscular people burning muscle tissue is negligent.  Second Entropies example that there is a long term difference in fat loss depending on whether you run before or after breakfast does not make sense.  I don't want to spell out what is actually happening because it's long and complicated but just consider this.....   Person A jogs (always in fat burning zone) before breakfast but person B after breakfast....  So after six months of this every day they have both spent the same amount of energy on jogging and taken in the same as far as intake...  So, if person A is now storing less energy (he is less fat) where did the energy go?   This is magic to imagine he somehow performed the same amount of work but used more energy!

3) Bodybuilders are the masters of broscience!  They think their androgen receptors are "fresh" for steroid cycles!   What they lack in knowledge they make up for in discipline.  The main point of all this is that it really doesn't matter!  That's why people who spout two completely opposite bullshit theories can still make progress if they follow the advice!  I know bodybuilders who swear by fasted cardio and believe what Entropy believes and get SUPER lean with it.  I have a good friend who is a high-level masters bodybuilder who absolutely swears by eating 7-8 small meals a day for his metabolism.... He get's up and eats oatmeal and protein at four in the morning to "keep his metabolism churning" and he also can get extremely lean and maintain muscle.   The fact is that he is disciplined as all hell and weighs and measures his food.   The fact that both methods work is pretty good evidence that neither side of the debate is correct!  That's why when Raptor said he heard arguments for and against fasted cardio..... My answer is that neither argument is correct.... fasted cardio is not something to be for or against! 

4) Vag, why can't we run if we are glycogen depleted?  I get that you will perform really terribly in a marathon if depleted.... but it's not bad for health!

**** As far as if it seems as if I have a side in the debate.... I do!  I think fasting is a far superior method to achieve your body comp goals.  But it's not that I think you can't achieve them without fasting or without ketosis.   In fact for the super lean I think it's probably wise to avoid ketosis.  But.... I just think it's simply easier to plan to reduce intake drastically a couple times per week than it is to follow the extremely strict diet necessary if we never deplete.  Also, binging and feasting is damn fun to do as a celebration.  Fasting allows you to deal with the blow of a large large meal which is simply a good time.

Then what about going on a long walk or run or jog or whatever in a fasted state first thing in the morning? I've heard people for and against this.

Not sure what you mean.  Is it dangerous?  No.  Is it going to lead to more weight loss because you are in a fasted state.  No, not really.  First of all you are not really in a fasted state first thing in the morning.  You haven't come close to depleting muscle glycogen after a nights rest.   But even if you have for the most part "fasted cardio" is another broscience myth.  If you wake up and eat 1000 calories and run 4 miles then your cardio burns 500 calories....   If you BMR then takes care another 1000 than you will be -500.  If you wake up and run 5 miles than you will be at -500.  Then you will eat 1000 calories and be back to plus 500.   Really doesn't matter ether way.   Meal timing and your metabolism has long been shown to have negligible effects.  Get your energy balance negative through training and diet manipulation and you will lean up.   There are some health benefits unrelated to body comp that fasting might provide but IMO the main advantage to fasting is that it is much much easier for the athlete to control.

Wow you know i've never really experienced such big fluctuations, my bodyweight is reasonably stable in comparison!

Not surprising.  You never had much muscle.  You are at your all time most muscular now so fluctuations will be a lot larger.

That's pretty wild though. I never though of it that way -- a guy your size and build and activity will have a daily maintenance requirement of say 3500kcal. And fast a day and you're -3500kcal, which is equivalent to the energy value of about half a kilo of pure bodyfat.

No, not really.  That's the thing.  More muscle means more glycogen.  So a fasted day (that begins in a fed state) without aerobic exercise will probably just put you near the point are running out of glycogen and beginning to use primarily fat.  Of course burning glycogen for 3500kcal will certainly mean a huge difference in bodyweight as you shed all the water bound to it.  But you don't actually get into fat metabolism any faster than the skinny guy.  I recommend you buy some cheap keostix and you can figure out exactly at what point you run out of glycogen and start producing ketones.  For me it's around 36 hours fasted with training.   

Do that for a couple of days and maybe you can burn a decent amount of bodyfat very quickly. There must be some catch to it though, maybe your body will downregulate metabolism a lot harder when you're very lean or worse, start using up muscle tissue for energy. But if you're say 10-20%, i'm sure there isn't such an effect. Pretty cool. I wonder if you can 'trick' your body by only doing it 1-3x a week or so, so it doesn't have a chance to slow down metabolism?

Again, changes in metabolism are greatly exaggerated.  They are very slight and take a long time to occur.  And if you keep up your training they essentially can't happen.  I've run 6x200m w/3 min recovery all under 28 sec in a completely fasted state.  My body is still making energy at that point.   They don't happen faster depending on how lean you are either.  The problem with leanness is that your body won't be as preferential as far as using fat as a fuel instead of amino acids.  That's why when you are lean it's more important that you keep up your dietary protein.  I always tell athletes not to waste their money on protein supplements when they want to bulk.  A normal western diet with a caloric surplus is more than enough protein to build muscle for all non-bodybuilders.  It's when you are lean and want to get more cut while still sparing you protein that you need protein supplementation.  In fact in the clinic it's really the only protein supplementation that is used medically is protein added to modify a fast. 

The downside is probably it will take ages to cut down to your goal bodyweight though as opposed to dedicated daily fasting. And for most people, the problem would be dealing with cravings and binges out of hunger and not being in a stable habit which makes a huge difference because we can humans deal with a lot of severe things that we become used to as opposed to regular disruptive changes. irregular hunger can be insatiable after a while, whereas you can get used to a baseline sort of hunger when dieting. Btw i am aware that daily fasting as in intermittent fasting actually shows a speed up in fat metabolism during the fasting period. Hmm.. lol anyway, something to try one day!
But right now i have to get thru the 3 week hump, after which i find things just settle into a groove and you can cruise along as you stick to the daily habit.

Yeah personally I don't get why people spend so long cutting.  It's going to impede your performance anyway so just fucking get through with it.  Just man up and don't eat.  Get up Monday drink some black coffee and get it in in the gym.  Eat again Tuesday night.  Do the same on Friday to Saturday and you will lean up pretty quick.   All the cravings and headaches are for women or guys who really don't have much mental fortitude.   Not being sexist here btw - women actually have a harder time fasting.

I was going to say, Todday, i actually fasted today, i haven't eaten in 17 hours and i could probably do 24hrs too, it's not so bad on rest days, i just can't train properly on training days, i've tried it before, it kills my performance.

That's all in your head man.  Fast.  Wake up.  Black coffee.  Train.  Man up and you will shock yourself what you can do.  If track athletes can do it you can definitely lift through it.  This type of challenge is probably what you need.

As I linked in the articles discussion section, use of a belt when squatting allows you to recruit more leg musculature. Which is great for training legs. But I find when I use a belt, while I can lift more weight in general, i can lift less weight with good form than if I didn't use a belt. So my technical beltless squat max is actually higher (~157.5kg) than my technical belted squat max (~150kg) while my belted max is around 170kg.

The only way i can explain discrepancy is by pinpointing the ability of quads (maybe hams too) to absorb force.

Currently I don't understand at all what your saying.  I don't understand integrated circuits.  The only way I can really explain how they work to myself is sheer magic... but I know that's probably not true.   That's how I read some of your explanations...  Even still, I'll bite... So you think that if you quads could absorb more force you could have better form with a belt... is that what you are saying?  WHY?