What are your general thought on G FLUX? Basically you exercise more and eat more... But when does that stop being good? So to put this into an actionable question form:
1) Should each individual decide where they are on the exercise/eat spectrum by tracking cal/workouts and then determining where they function best? (Possibly taking years)
2) Are their guidelines you'd advise off the top?
4) Do you think macronutrient breakdown matters at all in the discretionary range? (For the sake of this question lets assume full glycogen repletion, sufficient fats for essential needs, and protein sufficient to general caloric level. Lower for surplus, higher for deficit, lol enhanced.)
Hex Press is something I stole from John Meadows, and is currently the only horizontal pressing I can do where my shoulders don't hate me.
Re: G flux
Note - I have not read any of the studies associated with that. I think on it's face it seems reasonable, at least up to point. From a 'what makes sense to me' standpoint, things like training age, prior training, current (and likely previous) body composition, etc... all would have some factoring there, at least on the significance of the results.
Inserting myself there, currently, I can't imagine I'd have a significant change in body comp if I increased both food and activity. Maybe I should try it sometime?
If we're talking athletes and actual performance metrics, then yea, could be years. If we're talking aesthetics and looking good naked, then almost immediately given proper tracking. So for 1) my answer would be yes, but there are some basics in both training and eating that would make 2) easier.
For 2) are we talking specifically food or training guidelines?
4) Hilarious that you ask this, because it was actually something I was thinking about recently and was going to get your thoughts on it as well.
I currently think that given your assumptions, and based on what we know, nope. Macros don't matter. This is one I'm currently conducting research on though, since I just finished a 780kcal worth of Golden Grahams.
3) looooool, in the context of singles, yes. In the context of 5's, well....
I have no idea how you can answer those questions seriously coming from a guy who has some of the worst training in the whole forum. Off the top of my head the only people that train more donkish are the women and jonfon. And I am not even talking about smolovJr for front squats, actually that was okay to get some quad mass going. Too bad the donk has done almost zero lower body lifting after running the program. Or upperbody. Sigh.
#2 was in the context of if you had strong feelings about G Flux. I wonder if this is why many bodybuilders feel better doing some amount of cardio, and why many people are happier doing occasional hikes, walks, etc that doesn't adversely impact their lifting, since it allows them to eat more and may or may not have synergistic benefits.
I've not seen any good people research, since I'd assume a lot would be dependent on the random response people have to eating more. (Some of the metabolic ward studies show people who become more sedentary with increased cals, seems bad for them.) And I'd assume the people who respond the best to higher caloric intake would be people who have naturally high NEAT responses to increased cals. I doubt we'll see anything meaningful, we're just getting to the point where we have a decent idea of protein intake guidelines for natural trainees.
I think there are some exceptions. Metabolic syndrome is a real thing, but we all know powering down a 2L of soda is bad. Super high alcohol consumption as well. I honestly can't think of why it'd matter from a physical perspective. Maybe some super specific stuff unique to each individual. But obviously for bros who are lifting a bunch and consuming massive amounts of calories, you'd probably see more differentiation in terms of whether someone consumes a bunch of fattier meat (fat discretionary) vs fish/chicken and more carbs. Then again I'm not sure that population should be extrapolated to someone like myself, but atleast it'd provide an interesting data point since we have very limited information on the subject. (Basically ****ty T-nation articles, and lots of DF2 thoughts on the subject.)
wrt athletes it seems that virtually every high level athlete is pushed to max training hours per week and that is pretty much the determinant of caloric intake. Which kinda makes obvious sense when you think about it. WLing shockingly demands less cals than swimming 50 miles or running 150 miles a week.
I think a lot of the bodybuilder stuff is just because it was always done that way. Although that seems to be getting less and less.
And I think in regards to the differentiation of macros, in performance, yes. In body comp, no.
But yea, when I did the g flux reading, it seemed (for high level athletes) that the ceiling for the training time was reached pretty quickly/early on.
There are so many scenarios available with adjusting macros for nutrient partitioning, that I'm not sure anyone will ever know what optimal is, and that's not even looking at the individuality of it.