Yes, I think your cut was definitely impressive. Top impressive thing of all time? No. Impressive and commendable? Hell yes.

Definitely try the split and you can always tweak if it makes you hate life. But I assume it will go fine and you'll continue with all dem gains and dat thickness.

dude is mowing lawns on Neptune right now amirite

speaking of reading comprehension, DF actually stated 80% compliance/10% training boost from extra cals (which you seem to be ignoring entirely)/10% #magicmetabolicwindow. those might even be conservative numbers for the latter two; imo they could each be as high as 15%. so, nah, handwaving the compound effects of the calorie and nutrient splits away just because you can't hack it isn't particularly convincing. lol btw that you'd require "a less drastic split"; it's -10/+20 ffs, just about as tame as you can get while still being outside reasonable margins of calorie-counting error.

i mean think about it quantitatively: if you'd been taking advantage of that extra 10-15% (or 20-30%) boost, today your 1RM deadlift could be as brolific as 290 pounds.


lolz wrong again.

What makes you say that, though? because I'm advocating trying to find an extra training edge that you're dismissing due to your vast experience? because I (half-jokingly, half-srsly) suggested that Monte listen to somebody who is, you know, actually strong?

back in the H&F stone age you acted like your **** didn't stink when you parroted advice from the gospel according to Mark. what qualifies you, now, to determine what should and should not be discounted?

I'm not sure SM is saying a split for sure does absolutely nothing, just that he thinks it's a small rock and thinks DF2 would agree. And that he is annoyed by you.

All of these things seem reasonable. It seems to me Monte is going to have the best of both worlds by better compliance and whatever help there is by his split.

I can see calorie/carb cycling on a deficit, even though I don't think it will even make a noticeable difference (and makes weight tracking way harder).

I definitely don't understand the logic on a surplus (outside of compliance).

later, don't feel like getting into it now. Tired etc.

lawnmower.gif all around apparently

I'm not learned enough about nutritional stuff (nor do I really have the desire to research for myself), but the DFII/Euro stance that Euro outlined above plus the fact that I'm naturally hungrier on days I work out than on days I don't makes this seem like a trivial thing to try out. That plus the fact that I tend to slide a little if I don't set concrete goals for myself makes this an easy choice.

It's not like I'm depriving myself; I had some Thai fried rice for lunch today, and the only thing I really need to do to keep myself on track for the day is have my afternoon shake and then have slightly less carbs than I otherwise would at dinner. We've got some hot italian sausages in the fridge, and since I'm going to shoot for a bit higher fat intake on off days, that's a pretty easy choice to make for dinner. Having a plan that clarifies food choices that I was pretty much already going to make at some point in the near future anyway isn't really much of an imposition.

I assume you have cites handy for the 30% increase in <something something> on a caloric surplus by simple calorie/carb cycling. If you did I'd be fairly ecstatic, as a pretty much free 30% increase over not cycling would be awesome.I also enjoyed the random "can't hack it" comment when I stated a preference. You really should learn basic reading skills.


I was talking about the macros, but yeah the split isn't as drastic as DF's. The 450 g carbs would annoy me personally but no biggie.


Your lack in reading comprehension should be rather obvious: I didn't advocate an approach. I stated that compliance > all. So it's not about "listening" to me or DF. Had I stated that no cycling > cycling then your statement would have made sense. I hadn't read DF's posts at this point in time so the magical 20-30% hadn't entered the equation.


See above.

I guess it's theoretically possible I've learned something over the years. Note that people I assume you <3 <3 like kyleb and thremp both parroted a lot of the same advice, like thremp saying DON'T INCLUDE CURLZ ON SS YOUR RECOVERY WILL BE SHOT and kyleb advocating I keep eating 4k+ cals while being an overfat novice regardless of my eventual goal.

Moreover, my initial post was directed at Monte, who's probably got a decent handle on my knowledge level and is able to deduce whether my **** stinks or not.

Wtf my TDEE is 2700ish too and I'm 5'9 167 lbs. what formula did u use? And yea u should def be hitting at least 200g protein everyday. Do u track everything u eat throughout the day?

Soulman,

Don't really have any background on the rustling war you and Euro have going on, but:



EV,

I tracked consistently for ~8 months when I was on my 40 lb cut; since then, I've been kind of lax about doing it consistently, and just ****ing around and (evidently) eating around maintenance since I haven't really gained any weight to speak of since mid August when the cut ended. I'm back on the tracking train now, though (I use MFP).

I use Berkhan's leangains calculator (http://1percentedge.com/ifcalc/) and just reconfirmed; for a 34 year old lightly active male that is 6'4" and 190 lbs, the calculated TDEE is 2766. Seems about right to me?

ETA: The question is protein is less should I be eating 200 g a day (because I do) and more if 250 g+ is too much. I'm not sure I'm getting any extra benefit from eating that much protein other than satiety, which is probably less of a concern on bulking days. I ate some fatty stuff yesterday and managed to hit 200 g protein and ~90 g of fat, which takes some work considering I eat mostly lean stuff.

Monty, any more protein than 160 grams for you is personal preference.

Yeah, from reading your stuff, I understand that may be the case. Just would feel weird/wrong to do something like 160g protein, 70 g fat, and then have like 550 g of carbs. I'm not even sure how I would do that, short of funneling a box of cereal or something.

MC,
the background is mostly that Euro is a poster of the old H&F/OOT school which hasn't received the memo that H&F is now a haven of mellowness and tranquility. I have so longed for the days of endless ******ed arguments with thremp et al though.


Yeah, lightly active seems like the correct category even with lifting 4/week. It's probably lightly active + some cals, titrating should figure that part out.

Well I'm not saying to hit min fat/prot and maximize carbs. I'm just saying don't sweat it if you're at 160 - that's still optimal from what the research indicates.

You can eat 300 grams if you want. Meat is pretty awesome.

I'm actually shying away from this whole "maximize carbs" thing myself. Carbs just aren't that fun anymore; I want more meat.

Soulman,

My boay Euro and I are well acquainted from WW type stuff in POG, and (as I recall) also share the depressing bond of rooting for Philadelphia sports teams. I obviously wasn't around back in the day when H&F was meaner, which is probably a good thing.

Based on my best guess of my recent eating habits, 2700-2900 maintenance seems pretty reasonable for me; I'm not sure it's worth it to drill down much further though (and even if it is, I don't really have the inclination to do so yet).

Sounds like a plan, although I'm not going to go all JonFon with my diet I don't think. ~250 g is a good number for me usually.

How dare you not optimize every single aspect of your life!

Eat 250g bro. The TEF alone will add up to serious poundage at the end of a decade (someone replace 100g protein with 100g carbs for 10 years).

Plus Alan has talked about some research and some benefits to eating 3x your LBM in kilos.
I realize 250g is still about 100 "too high" for your 50kilos of LBM, but like I said the TEF adds up. And this thing about protein is not done. We will know more with time. No flawed 6 to 8 week study gonna show much since natty nat nats actual only gain like .15 pounds of muscle every 8 weeks (outside of the beginners window, which should still be strong for your 50kilo LBM).

Loco - crash course in TEF?

I'm tilted.

Loco, if you wanna recommend 1.25 g/lb protein because "just in case future research may show benefit" that's fine. But higher TEF just means lower calorie intake. And only 40-60 calories at that for your pretty extreme example. Link to AA's comments or research? There was a pretty extensive thread on bb.com involving AA, where it was decided that all research involving "higher" protein intakes compare the intake to obviously deficient intakes. Nothing shows >0.82 > 0.82.

Eric Helms just released new research for his PhD. Basically found no difference between adequate & higher intakes. In DIETING + TRAINED people. With higher requirements than hypercaloric people.

Yugo, how have you been around for this long and not know what TEF is?

ETA: and just to be clear, my stance is NOT "don't eat more protein." it's just that "don't think the research shows any physiological benefit"

I just want to say that loco's subtle troll about me having only 50 kg of LBM did not go unnoticed or unappreciated.

I'm probably just going to eat more protein because I like it; I'm not too concerned with potential TEF effects or anything like that.

Oh, should have looked it up - yes I'm familiar with some amount of the discussion of thermal effect of food. I thought it was something new as I saw loco TEFing in a few recent posts.

Yeah, ok, loco is smoking dat good, good. TEF ain't doin' ****, even over 10 years, protein vs. carbs bro.

Having one extra good workout during those 10 years prolly will do as much, .

Over 10 years it would be some serious poundage dude.

Down with carbs!!!!!

Can't say it's just lower calories. We are more full with that extra protein and in almost all cases lower carbs will control food tilt. Try 250g protein bro, maybe these 5000+ calorie binges will slow down. Those Quest bars are pretty tasty. And I had two in one sitting yesterday (OMG losing control). So the question is, the day you had 5 of them, did you blow up afterwards??

Anyways settle down. When a post of mine contains more than 50% trolling, it means don't take it seriously. This is one is 25% so do take seriously (now 30%).

TEF alone should be enough reason to add more protein. You know why? Yeah cause carbs are worthless and lead to more binge eating.

Down with the carb sympathizers (trolling now up to 40% of content but still below 50% so do take this post seriously).

Ok. This is now a great point. I'm very open minded to this argument. (as I said, my stance is not 'don't eat more protein'). Might be worth a shot. My fat intake could/should be higher as well, so maybe just adding more meat will fix a big double-leak.

loco - solid lels. But ok, the thing is we're all pretty much in agreement that if Monte wants to eat 250g brotein/day, more power to him.

Monte is gonna put us all to shame over the long run while we're sitting here aspying it up.

I have always been of the stance that if you gave all Americans three cans of tuna for
Breakfast, that obesity as we know it will become extinct. Well as long as there is some kind of carb control afterwards. Can't just start drinking soda and eating bread pudding for lunch. That will really open up your appetite for dinner.

Anyways Saw, mostly messing around definitely not picking on your binge eating. Just thought I start my vendetta against carbs again.