Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: DK II on May 11, 2009, 03:17:18 AM

Title: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 11, 2009, 03:17:18 AM
(http://www.getbig.com/layout/map/mt030109.gif)

This doesn't stop to crack me off....
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 03:21:48 AM
(http://www.getbig.com/layout/map/mt030109.gif)

This doesn't stop to crack me off....

LOL. Was du geschrieben hast=mich geil machen. ;D

Besser=This stuff doesn't stop cracking me UP. ;)
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Method101 on May 11, 2009, 03:23:17 AM
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 03:26:51 AM


I love it when Japanese dudes speak in that harsh, imperious tone!
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 11, 2009, 04:25:57 AM
LOL. Was du geschrieben hast=mich geil machen. ;D

Besser=This stuff doesn't stop cracking me UP. ;)

Thanks, but getting 127% more muscle cracks me off as well.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

geiler Verschreiber, das kannte ich gar nicht, wenigstens nicht bewusst.







BTW, who else got 127% more muscle?
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 04:42:58 AM
i lowered the dosage because of the stretch marks
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 04:45:19 AM
i lowered the dosage because of the stretch marks

 :'(
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 04:50:59 AM
i lowered the dosage because of the stretch marks

you dieted adonis' way to get in shape?
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 11, 2009, 04:54:47 AM
you dieted adonis' way to get in shape?

You can eat what you want, as long as you take IntraVol, you will shit out everything unused.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 04:56:48 AM
You can eat what you want, as long as you take IntraVol, you will shit out everything unused.

is that better than plasmosis?
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 04:59:18 AM
you dieted adonis' way to get in shape?

Everybody does. It just means that less restrictions are applied.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 11, 2009, 04:59:39 AM
is that better than plasmosis?

Plazmosis will turn a lizard into Godzilla in one week.

Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 05:00:54 AM
Everybody does. It just means that less restrictions are applied.

i don't know man
i'm in normal shape right now and i just don't have the full will to get that lean
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 05:01:26 AM
:'(

everthing is gonna be alright
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 05:05:03 AM
i don't know man
i'm in normal shape right now and i just don't have the full will to get that lean

Stoffen... ;)
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 05:06:21 AM
Stoffen... ;)


i will definitely take ECA after my nose correction but i won't take roids
i can't do it right now
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:07:56 AM

i will definitely take ECA after my nose correction but i won't take roids
i can't do it right now


Are you having a rhinoplasty/nose-job?

If so, good job, it will probably enhanche your appearance quite a bit which most likely will translate into more well being, and more success in life.  8)
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: io856 on May 11, 2009, 05:08:36 AM

Are you having a rhinoplasty/nose-job?

If so, good job, it will probably enhanche your appearance quite a bit which most likely will translate into more well being, and more success in life.  8)

It will also give debussey a boner  ;D
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:10:57 AM
It will also give debussey a boner  ;D

Yes!

Debussey supports cosmetic surgery. It can be a wonderful tool.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 05:12:07 AM
i don't know man
i'm in normal shape right now and i just don't have the full will to get that lean

Me neither when I do a "bodybuilding diet" = eating gross stuff all day.
My current method is easy because I made it the most convenient for me while still yielding optimal results. 8)
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 11, 2009, 05:19:29 AM

i will definitely take ECA after my nose correction but i won't take roids
i can't do it right now

Yes, it's a good think to get rid of that ugly Dönerzinken. Geht a decent german nose, the germans love their Ausländer to integrate themselves into the german society better.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 05:21:40 AM

Are you having a rhinoplasty/nose-job?

If so, good job, it will probably enhanche your appearance quite a bit which most likely will translate into more well being, and more success in life.  8)


yes i'm looking forward to have a better nose
18th may i'm gonna get it done
the nose makes or breakes the face IMO
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 11, 2009, 05:26:40 AM

yes i'm looking forward to have a better nose
18th may i'm gonna get it done
the nose makes or breakes the face IMO

 8)
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 05:29:00 AM
Me neither when I do a "bodybuilding diet" = eating gross stuff all day.
My current method is easy because I made it the most convenient for me while still yielding optimal results. 8)
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Red Hook on May 11, 2009, 05:29:09 AM
Me neither when I do a "bodybuilding diet" = eating gross stuff all day.
My current method is easy because I made it the most convenient for me while still yielding optimal results. 8)

wave, can you post a typical day's diet for you?

you posted that you eat junk food all day and I don't understand how. I find it easier to control my calories when  I eat clearn,  Junk food is very high in calories while being a small portion that I don't understand how you do it
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 05:29:52 AM
fathers will hide their daughters after irons nose job
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 05:30:43 AM
Yes, it's a good think to get rid of that ugly Dönerzinken. Geht a decent german nose, the germans love their Ausländer to integrate themselves into the german society better.

Doenerzinken....lol.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 05:32:00 AM
Actually they are lying about the product. It is 126.3% more muscle not 127%...
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 05:34:10 AM
yes they better be aware that the pussywrecker will become a pussywrecker AAA+++
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 05:35:23 AM
wave, can you post a typical day's diet for you?
you posted that you eat junk food all day and I don't understand how. I find it easier to control my calories when  I eat clearn,  Junk food is very high in calories while being a small portion that I don't understand how you do it

If it's more convenient for you, it's perfectly fine. For me, eating whatever I want (with a few basic restrictions) outweighs the advantage of exact control over daily calories. My experience is good enough that I can maintain a caloric deficit pretty well.

A typical day (on a cut) would be: gulp of sesame or flax oil in the morning, 100g whey protein shake throughout the whole day, chinese buffet for lunch, gulp of fish oil in the evening.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:38:14 AM
yes they better be aware that the pussywrecker will become a pussywrecker AAA+++


How much are you paying for your rhinoplasty? (including surgeons fee, surgery room costs, anethstesia related costs ect)
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 05:39:08 AM
If it's more convenient for you, it's perfectly fine. For me, eating whatever I want (with a few basic restrictions) outweighs the advantage of exact control over daily calories. My experience is good enough that I can maintain a caloric deficit pretty well.

A typical day (on a cut) would be: gulp of sesame or flax oil in the morning, 100g whey protein shake throughout the whole day, chinese buffet for lunch, gulp of fish oil in the evening.

Sorry I have to do this again my friend:

Boom!
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 05:40:13 AM

How much are you paying for your rhinoplasty? (including surgeons fee, surgery room costs, anethstesia related costs ect)


800€
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:41:10 AM
Sorry I have to do this again my friend:

Boom!


Why do people have an issue with this way of dieting? It goes against the current paradigm in BB, but this paradigm is so flawed that nobody should believe it.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 11, 2009, 05:41:38 AM
yes they better be aware that the pussywrecker will become a pussywrecker AAA+++

girls will be buying your sperm for 1000$$ a shot.


800€

Could have bought a lot of roids from that.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 05:41:57 AM
Sorry I have to do this again my friend:
Boom!

:)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=279908.0
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:43:49 AM

800€


800 Euros? ::) What kind of work are you having done? That is like 1/3 to 1/7th of the price most highly acclaimed surgeons take for the procedure... Are you sure the surgeon is legit?

Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 05:44:11 AM

Why do people have an issue with this way of dieting? It goes against the current paradigm in BB, but this paradigm is so flawed that nobody should believe it.

Nah, I am just pulling my good friend Wienerschnitzel's chain. In fact for the last 2 weeks I follow modified wavelength principles which include NO cardio and within reason eating what I want. I just count calories because it is easier.

High Protein
Caloric Deficit
Everything else to a greater or lesser extent irrelevant
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:45:23 AM
Nah, I am just pulling my good friend Wienerschnitzel's chain. In fact for the last 2 weeks I follow modified wavelength principles which include NO cardio and within reason eating what I want. I just count calories because it is easier.

High Protein
Caloric Deficit
Everything else to a greater or lesser extent irrelevant


Don't stop the HIT cardio. On that point Wavelength can go fuck himself.

 8)
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 05:46:26 AM

Don't stop the HIT cardio. On that point Wavelength can go fuck himself.

 8)

But he says cardio irrelevant for body composition; I am confused. ???
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 05:46:55 AM

800 Euros? ::) What kind of work are you having done? That is like 1/3 to 1/7th of the price most highly acclaimed surgeons take for the procedure... Are you sure the surgeon is legit?





yes it's a clinic in essen
and it's not that expensive cause he doesn't need to do that much
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 05:48:00 AM
Why do people have an issue with this way of dieting? It goes against the current paradigm in BB, but this paradigm is so flawed that nobody should believe it.

Actually, scientifically oriented nutritionists (such as e.g. Alan Aragon) already advise a much more relaxed way of dieting. The problem is that most "nutritionists" and "fitness advisors" have no clue and just parrot obsolete theories and articles based on poorly interpreted studies. They think because their methods work, all restrictions of the method are necessary.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:48:47 AM


yes it's a clinic in essen
and it's not that expensive cause he doesn't need to do that much

Well.. good luck, but make sure to check out his former work (and ask the surgeon about the surgeries he has done that went bad, what happened, and how he recified the errors) and check with people that can work as references for him/her.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 05:49:24 AM
Don't stop the HIT cardio. On that point Wavelength can go fuck himself.
8)

I never said cardio doesn't work. It's a convenience factor so that one can eat more on a cut.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 05:49:58 AM
Well.. good luck, but make sure to check out his former work (and ask the surgeon about the surgeries he has done that went bad, what happened, and how he recified the errors) and check with people that can work as references for him/her.

i checked it and believe me here in germany you can usually trust every doctor
it's not romania here^^
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:50:24 AM
Actually, scientifically oriented nutritionists (such as e.g. Alan Aragon) already advise a much more relaxed way of dieting. The problem is that most "nutritionists" and "fitness advisors" have no clue and just parrot obsolete theories and articles based on poorly interpreted studies. They think because their methods work, all restrictions of the method are necessary.

Exactly.

But he says cardio irrelevant for body composition; I am confused. ???

It is not. It does influence, but HIT cardio = more effective. If anything, do it for the health benefits.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 11, 2009, 05:51:31 AM

Don't stop the HIT cardio. On that point Wavelength can go fuck himself.

 8)

qft



yes it's a clinic in essen
and it's not that expensive cause he doesn't need to do that much

Essen is a good city. Dirty and full of scum. Could perfectly be the set for a Resident Evil movie.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 05:51:52 AM
It is not. It does influence

elaborate
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:52:10 AM
i checked it and believe me here in germany you can usually trust every doctor
it's not romania here^^


Good.

And it's not about trust in his credentials and whatnot, but about the doctors actual skills. There = big differences between a surgeon that can do an OK nosejob, and a real pro that truly make every detail work with the rest of your face.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 05:57:28 AM
Actually, scientifically oriented nutritionists (such as e.g. Alan Aragon) already advise a much more relaxed way of dieting. The problem is that most "nutritionists" and "fitness advisors" have no clue and just parrot obsolete theories and articles based on poorly interpreted studies. They think because their methods work, all restrictions of the method are necessary.

Dein scharfes Englisch macht mich an.... :-*
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 11, 2009, 06:01:17 AM
Dein scharfes Englisch macht mich an.... :-*

Your german is not that bad either, stud.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 06:01:47 AM
elaborate


Doing cardio vs not doing cardio will give a different result, thus, it influences the outcome (Decidie phrased it as if cardio did not have an effect at all).

That being said, papers on HIT cardio (done properly) shows that it can definitely improve fatloss through the metabolic effect after exercise and raise levels of IGF1 ect compared to normal cardio (not sure how complete the diet control was). If: (Effect of normal cardio = reducing daily calories with the amount burned in cardio), it = fair to assume that the enhanched effect of HIT cardio would mean: (effect of HIT cardio > the effect of reducing calories burned during HIT cardio).

At the same time it does not fuck with your progress in the gym, and it is quite healthy for your cardiovascular system. The elevated levels of IGF1, and the general elevation of your metabolism for up to 24 hours later = also useful.

Debussey needs to check up the scientific references a bit more, but it thinks that the arguments above = scientifically sound.

Duck says that when she did diet down from 350 pounds, she did HIT cardio. She monitored her BF%, weight, strength in the gym and overall feeling of energy (ranked on a scale from 1 - 10) in a spreadsheet for consecutive diets with and without HIT cardio, accounting for the different variables, and found that HIT cardio had a good effect. (vs. normal cardio or no cardio at all which could not be ascribed only to other variables).

Also Layne Norton supports HIT cardio, and he has certainly done his homework more than most people. That in itself serves as a good indicator of its effectiveness.

For Wavy: Please post studies done specifically on HIT cardio done properly to show that it = irrelevant for body composition. This form of cardio = a different animal than low intensity boring cardio.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 06:02:47 AM
Your german is not that bad either, stud.

Kann....nicht tippen...zu geil.................... . :P
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 11, 2009, 06:03:44 AM

Doing cardio vs not doing cardio will give a different result, thus, it influences the outcome (Decidie phrased it as if cardio did not have an effect at all).

That being said, papers on HIT cardio (done properly) shows that it can definitely improve fatloss through the metabolic effect after exercise and raise levels of IGF1 ect compared to normal cardio (not sure how complete the diet control was).

At the same time it does not fuck with your progress in the gym, and it is quite healthy for your cardiovascular system.

Debussey needs to check up the scientific references a bit more, but it thinks that reducing the calories per day with the small amount of calories burned during a Tabata session and not doing it compared to doing it and keeping calories higher will yield a different result.

Duck says that when she did diet down from 350 pounds, she did HIT cardio. She monitored her BF%, weight, strength in the gym and overall feeling of energy (ranked on a scale from 1 - 10) in a spreadsheet for consecutive diets with and without HIT cardio, accounting for the different variables, and found that HIT cardio had a good effect. (vs. normal cardio or no cardio at all which could not be ascribed only to other variables).

Also Layne Norton supports HIT cardio, and he has certainly done his homework more than most people. That in itself serves as a good indicator of its effectiveness.

x2.

HIT cardio is great. I never did it until this year, but it definitly makes a difference in life quality. Cardio makes life better.

Kann....nicht tippen...zu geil.................... . :P

Hrrrr!
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 06:04:22 AM

Doing cardio vs not doing cardio will give a different result, thus, it influences the outcome (Decidie phrased it as if cardio did not have an effect at all).

That being said, papers on HIT cardio (done properly) shows that it can definitely improve fatloss through the metabolic effect after exercise and raise levels of IGF1 ect compared to normal cardio (not sure how complete the diet control was). If: (Effect of normal cardio = reducing daily calories with the amount burned in cardio), it = fair to assume that the enhanched effect of HIT cardio would mean: (effect of HIT cardio > the effect of reducing calories burned during HIT cardio).

At the same time it does not fuck with your progress in the gym, and it is quite healthy for your cardiovascular system.

Debussey needs to check up the scientific references a bit more, but it thinks that reducing the calories per day with the small amount of calories burned during a Tabata session and not doing it compared to doing it and keeping calories higher will yield a different result.

Duck says that when she did diet down from 350 pounds, she did HIT cardio. She monitored her BF%, weight, strength in the gym and overall feeling of energy (ranked on a scale from 1 - 10) in a spreadsheet for consecutive diets with and without HIT cardio, accounting for the different variables, and found that HIT cardio had a good effect. (vs. normal cardio or no cardio at all which could not be ascribed only to other variables).

Also Layne Norton supports HIT cardio, and he has certainly done his homework more than most people. That in itself serves as a good indicator of its effectiveness.

Still irrelevant for body composition....
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 06:05:41 AM
Still irrelevant for body composition....


Why?
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 06:11:50 AM

Doing cardio vs not doing cardio will give a different result, thus, it influences the outcome (Decidie phrased it as if cardio did not have an effect at all).

That being said, papers on HIT cardio (done properly) shows that it can definitely improve fatloss through the metabolic effect after exercise and raise levels of IGF1 ect compared to normal cardio (not sure how complete the diet control was). If: (Effect of normal cardio = reducing daily calories with the amount burned in cardio), it = fair to assume that the enhanched effect of HIT cardio would mean: (effect of HIT cardio > the effect of reducing calories burned during HIT cardio).

At the same time it does not fuck with your progress in the gym, and it is quite healthy for your cardiovascular system. The elevated levels of IGF1, and the general elevation of your metabolism for up to 24 hours later = also useful.

Debussey needs to check up the scientific references a bit more, but it thinks that the arguments above = scientifically sound.

Duck says that when she did diet down from 350 pounds, she did HIT cardio. She monitored her BF%, weight, strength in the gym and overall feeling of energy (ranked on a scale from 1 - 10) in a spreadsheet for consecutive diets with and without HIT cardio, accounting for the different variables, and found that HIT cardio had a good effect. (vs. normal cardio or no cardio at all which could not be ascribed only to other variables).

Also Layne Norton supports HIT cardio, and he has certainly done his homework more than most people. That in itself serves as a good indicator of its effectiveness.

I would still have to see a scientifc study that shows effect on body composition as long as all other factors (including rate of weight loss) are kept the same. In my experience, the effect is insignificant. I do agree that if there is any other reason for doing cardio (health, fun, raising aerobic fitness level, job requirements, etc.), one should do it.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 06:14:22 AM
I would still have to see a scientifc study that shows effect on body composition as long as all other factors (including rate of weight loss) are kept the same. In my experience, the effect is insignificant. I do agree that if there is any other reason for doing cardio (health, fun, raising aerobic fitness level, job requirements, etc.), one should do it.

It seems like yours and Ducks experiences = different.

Have you done a detailed study on yourself over time to check this effect?

Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 06:16:03 AM
For Wavy: Please post studies done specifically on HIT cardio done properly to show that it = irrelevant for body composition. This form of cardio = a different animal than low intensity boring cardio.

Don't know of such studies but I also don't know of ones that show the opposite.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 06:17:18 AM
It seems like yours and Ducks experiences = different.
Have you done a detailed study on yourself over time to check this effect?

Did duck adjust her calories in two different cuts so that the same rate of weight loss was achieved and compared body composition improvements?
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 06:20:13 AM
Did duck adjust her calories in two different cuts so that the same rate of weight loss was achieved and compared body composition improvements?


This is Duck: Yes. The avg. weight loss were very similar, the BF% starting points were similar, and strength in the gym and overall feeling of energy were accounted for.

Addition: BF% was measured on a continous basis as well, if that was not clear from the first version of this post.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 06:21:05 AM

Why?

Don't mind me. Wavelength is my lord. I am just following his word.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 06:22:12 AM
qft

Essen is a good city. Dirty and full of scum. Could perfectly be the set for a Resident Evil movie.

essen is quite nice i think
one of the nicer cities in the ruhrpott
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 06:28:49 AM
essen is quite nice i think
one of the nicer cities in the ruhrpott

Essen ist ein Scheissloch. Bild dir nix ein.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 06:30:13 AM
essen is quite nice i think
one of the nicer cities in the ruhrpott

Why is the town named "eat"?
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 06:31:29 AM
Essen ist ein Scheissloch. Bild dir nix ein.

how you wanna know hombrone?
und warum einbilden lol
i don't live there but i think it's one of the nicer towns in germany
germany in general is pretty boring
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 11, 2009, 06:38:22 AM
how you wanna know hombrone?
und warum einbilden lol
i don't live there but i think it's one of the nicer towns in germany
germany in general is pretty boring

I have lived there, and it sucks.

Why is the town named "eat"?

Beats me, the city sucks anyways.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 06:39:33 AM
nothing beats the niederrhein though
dead streets after 6pm ;D
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 11, 2009, 06:53:15 AM
nothing beats the niederrhein though
dead streets after 6pm ;D

nice.

Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 06:54:07 AM
nice.



i hate it
i bet new york would be a city for me to live
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 09:39:46 AM

This is Duck: Yes. The avg. weight loss were very similar, the BF% starting points were similar, and strength in the gym and overall feeling of energy were accounted for.

Addition: BF% was measured on a continous basis as well, if that was not clear from the first version of this post.

what was the difference in body fat in the end?
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 09:42:33 AM
what was the difference in body fat in the end?


Herr, befehlt mir! Ihr seid das Licht!
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: SamoanIrishman on May 11, 2009, 09:48:53 AM
Actually they are lying about the product. It is 126.3% more muscle not 127%...

Good thing that only 78.623038946% of all statistical claims are made up on the spot here on GB  ::)
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 09:49:34 AM
Herr, befehlt mir! Ihr seid das Licht!

Although Debussey obviously knows nothing about bodybuilding, Duck seems to be quite an expert. I always listen to experts when their opinion goes against my experience. 8)
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The_Punisher on May 11, 2009, 10:20:12 AM
Thanks, but getting 127% more muscle cracks me off as well.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

geiler Verschreiber, das kannte ich gar nicht, wenigstens nicht bewusst.







BTW, who else got 127% more muscle?



Ronnie coleman got 128% more muscle
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 11:27:18 AM
what was the difference in body fat in the end?


This is Duck: Pretty similar in the beginning, but as the diet progressed and lower BF% were attained, the HIT cardio session seemed to maintain BF%loss at a better rate with less muscle and strength loss,  compared to the two others (low intensity cardio was a disaster for strenght, energy and muscle). The biggest difference were seen when the diet process had been ongoing for a long time and a very low BF% was attained, the HIT cardio seemed to play a pretty big role here. For some reason, the overall well being on the diet while doing HIT cardio was also quite a bit better than not doing it.

I need to revisit the old data to make more accurate percentage estimates, but the fat loss must have been at least 25-35+% (depending on the phase in the diet) better with less loss in strength and muscle mass. Again, especially at the end of a long diet, it really worked. For one of the HIT cardio diet periods, strength actually increased in conjunction with a more powerlifting based program, although this diet was not taken into the very low BF%.
All these numbers are based on caliper measurements, weight logs and daily dieting with a gram weight for months at the time. The data must still be taken with a grain of salt, as more accurate methods of measurement should have been used to get very valid + reliable data, plus what works for THE DUCK might not work well for other people. I have always been very explosive, always ran the fastest, jumped the highest in class ect without any direct training on it.
Compared to HIT cardio, the low intensity cardio diets were an absolute failure with less fat loss, and a lot more loss of muscle/power, and overall energy was in the toilet after the sessions, which made my obsession with the queen of sciences (my pussy) very hard to maintain. HIT cardio actually "gave" me power it felt like.

One note: The HIT cardio sessions were H.A.R.D. Puking was iminent many times, and after a session I had to lie down, and the entire body was aching severely. (but after this initial period of exaustion, the energy level really went up and other types of work could be done.)
I was given a study by a professional in the field that found that HIT cardio that showed that it did not work well without the body being pushed to its limit, and that you had to be in really good shape to be able to push your body into these territories in the first place.

One point: In the non HIT cardio rounds (especially the "only weights") the calories had to be reduced quite a lot to maintain the targeted weightloss, but in the HIT cardio rounds the weight loss were more consistent while not reducing calories much. Hit cardio was done 4 times per week then, and not in "Tabata style" (but a 12 minute program from hell on the running track).

THE DUCK can revisit the old data later and give more accurate numbers.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 12:07:29 PM

This is Duck: Pretty similar in the beginning, but as the diet progressed and lower BF% were attained, the HIT cardio session seemed to maintain BF%loss at a better rate with less muscle and strength loss,  compared to the two others (low intensity cardio was a disaster for strenght, energy and muscle). The biggest difference were seen when the diet process had been ongoing for a long time and a very low BF% was attained, the HIT cardio seemed to play a pretty big role here. For some reason, the overall well being on the diet while doing HIT cardio was also quite a bit better than not doing it.

I need to revisit the old data to make more accurate percentage estimates, but the fat loss must have been at least 25-35+% (depending on the phase in the diet) better with less loss in strength and muscle mass. Again, especially at the end of a long diet, it really worked. For one of the HIT cardio diet periods, strength actually increased in conjunction with a more powerlifting based program, although this diet was not taken into the very low BF%.
All these numbers are based on caliper measurements, weight logs and daily dieting with a gram weight for months at the time. The data must still be taken with a grain of salt, as more accurate methods of measurement should have been used to get very valid + reliable data, plus what works for THE DUCK might not work well for other people. I have always been very explosive, always ran the fastest, jumped the highest in class ect without any direct training on it.
Compared to HIT cardio, the low intensity cardio diets were an absolute failure with less fat loss, and a lot more loss of muscle/power, and overall energy was in the toilet after the sessions, which made my obsession with the queen of sciences (my pussy) very hard to maintain. HIT cardio actually "gave" me power it felt like.

One note: The HIT cardio sessions were H.A.R.D. Puking was iminent many times, and after a session I had to lie down, and the entire body was aching severely. (but after this initial period of exaustion, the energy level really went up and other types of work could be done.)
I was given a study by a professional in the field that found that HIT cardio that showed that it did not work well without the body being pushed to its limit, and that you had to be in really good shape to be able to push your body into these territories in the first place.

One point: In the non HIT cardio rounds (especially the "only weights") the calories had to be reduced quite a lot to maintain the targeted weightloss, but in the HIT cardio rounds the weight loss were more consistent while not reducing calories much. Hit cardio was done 4 times per week then, and not in "Tabata style" (but a 12 minute program from hell on the running track).

THE DUCK can revisit the old data later and give more accurate numbers.

Interesting because I have to admit that I have never tried HIT cardio for a cut. Maybe I'll try on my next cut. In any case, my ratio of fat loss vs. muscle loss could not become a lot higher than with my current method. On my last cut I barely lost any muscle mass and also increased strength on some exercises.

I would still be very interested in studies. Duck's experience seems to be legit but the question is how dependent it is on all the unknown factors. What do you mean by low BF values (when the difference became noticable)?
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 01:29:50 PM
Interesting because I have to admit that I have never tried HIT cardio for a cut. Maybe I'll try on my next cut. In any case, my ratio of fat loss vs. muscle loss could not become a lot higher than with my current method. On my last cut I barely lost any muscle mass and also increased strength on some exercises.

I would still be very interested in studies. Duck's experience seems to be legit but the question is how dependent it is on all the unknown factors. What do you mean by low BF values (when the difference became noticable)?



This is Duck: As the methods of measurement were not as reliable as they could have been with advanced equipment, my findings could have been a result of unknown factors, so take these findings with a grain of salt.
Update after checking up a bit: Noticeable after a few weeks on the diet. Especially noticeable from about 14%.
More important: Progress on a diet tends to be best in the beginning, and then it might slow down a little over time. The HIT cardio seemed to counteract this effect.

Another interesting tidbit is that HIT cardio seems to help me maintain mental focus better under strong physical stress, for example when training combat sports.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 01:36:28 PM


This is Duck: As the methods of measurement were not as reliable as they could have been with advanced equipment, my findings could have been a result of unknown factors, so take these findings with a grain of salt.
Update after checking up a bit: Noticeable after a few weeks on the diet. Especially noticeable from about 14%.
More important: Progress on a diet tends to be best in the beginning, and then it might slow down a little over time. The HIT cardio seemed to counteract this effect.

Another interesting tidbit is that HIT cardio seems to help me maintain mental focus better under strong physical stress, for example when training combat sports.

Say thanks to duck for the great info. :)
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 01:42:17 PM
Say thanks to duck for the great info. :)


Why are you talking to this Duck bitch? Debussey knows that Duck = still a fat fuck and .... EEEEEEEEW she smells! :-X
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 01:46:08 PM

Why are you talking to this Duck bitch? Debussey knows that Duck = still a fat fuck and .... EEEEEEEEW she smells! :-X

Duck and Debussey both are fat weaklings... :-X
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 01:46:51 PM
boom shake shake shake the room
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 01:47:26 PM
Duck and Debussey both are fat weaklings... :-X


Yes! But Duck sure has some power in those hooks as Debussey has become keenly aware of :-X :'(


She still smells! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEW :-X
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 01:52:43 PM
boom shake shake shake the room

Maul halten und Doener servieren!
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: ironneck on May 11, 2009, 01:54:01 PM
Maul halten und Doener servieren!


you'Re walking on fucking thin ice billy zane
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 01:55:46 PM

Why are you talking to this Duck bitch? Debussey knows that Duck = still a fat fuck and .... EEEEEEEEW she smells! :-X

Well based on my experience, I will still have to stick to my opinion for now. In my case, it can't really provide much of a difference anyway, my ratio of fat loss / muscle loss was close to 10 on my last cut without any cardio.

Rules might change below 8% for me though, I don't know that yet.

In any case, I fully agree to all the other potential benefits of (HIT) cardio and really can see no reason not to do cardio other than being a lazy fuck who likes to sit his ass down in the recliner and drink a few glasses of wine instead. :D
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 01:57:53 PM
Well based on my experience, I will still have to stick to my opinion for now. In my case, it can't really provide much of a difference anyway, my ratio of fat loss / muscle loss was close to 10 on my last cut without any cardio.

Rules might change below 8% for me though, I don't know that yet.

In any case, I fully agree to all the other potential benefits of (HIT) cardio and really can see no reason not to do cardio other than being a lazy fuck who likes to sit his ass down in the recliner and drink a few glasses of wine instead. :D

Dammit, you are in love with Duck, aren't ya? This is the longest love letter you have written to her so far >:(


This is the LAST time Debussey will allow that filthy whore to write anything besides Debussey's dictated posts for months. That bitch won't see the light of day any more >:(
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 01:59:52 PM
Dammit, you are in love with Duck, aren't ya? This is the longest love letter you have written to her so far >:(

How do you know that?
Debussy doesn't have to know everything. :-*
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 02:01:31 PM
How do you know that?
Debussy doesn't have to know everything. :-*


Gary Busey told Debussey to watch out. Duck is getting all girly and shit, and her masculinity = diminishing. She wears her old ballerina dress more often these days >:(

All thanks to you :-X

Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 02:08:10 PM
How do you know that?
Debussy doesn't have to know everything. :-*

Herr, ich beuge mich Eurem Willen!
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 02:17:35 PM
Herr, ich beuge mich Eurem Willen!

then watch this ;D



Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Samourai Pizzacat on May 11, 2009, 02:26:19 PM
Cardio has been shown to increase metabolic rest rate, increasing effectiveness during a cut, Ill  dig up some studies and articles when I have the time.
The health benefits of cardio are so valuable that I would advise no cut without cardio. Now the lower you get in BF the lower your calory intake will have to be to avoid having to do catabolic amounts of cardio.

Cardio>eating less
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Red Hook on May 11, 2009, 05:26:30 PM
I don't see how wave can cut his calories that low and function normally let alone lift with any intensity. Duck mentions doing HIT cardio to the point of throwing up, um..no thanks. Why not pop an ECA and do target heart rate cardio?

Right now I am trying keto with slow cardio, this just happens to be the wedding season as well BBQ and weekend drinking time. So it goes without saying that I am not having much success.

•sent from my iPhone.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 11, 2009, 05:28:23 PM
I don't see how wave can cut his calories that low and function normally let alone lift with any intensity. Duck mentions doing HIT cardio to the point of throwing up, um..no thanks. Why not pop an ECA and do target heart rate cardio?

Right now I am trying keto with slow cardio, this just happens to be the wedding season as well BBQ and weekend drinking time. So it goes without saying that I am not having much success.

•sent from my iPhone.

Both are extemists. Wavelength is extremely lazy and Duck is manically obsessive/hardcore. Both are to be admired because both have great, ripped physiques...
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:29:06 PM
I don't see how wave can cut his calories that low and function normally let alone lift with any intensity. Duck mentions doing HIT cardio to the point of throwing up, um..no thanks. Why not pop an ECA and do target heart rate cardio?

Right now I am trying keto with slow cardio, this just happens to be the wedding season as well BBQ and weekend drinking time. So it goes without saying that I am not having much success.

•sent from my iPhone.


This is Duck: Different folks, different strokes. HIT cardio works best when you go all out, and I like the potential for gaining mental toughness and enhanched sports performance when accepting pain to achieve a goal.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:30:10 PM
Both are extemists. Wavelength is extremely lazy and Duck is manically obsessive/hardcore. Both are to be admired because both have great, ripped physiques...


This is Duck: I'm still a fat bitch at 215 pounds (down from 500 pounds at the highest), but at least I'm not like that little scrawny dipshit Debussey :o
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:39:21 PM

This is Duck: I'm still a fat bitch at 215 pounds (down from 500 pounds at the highest), but at least I'm not like that little scrawny dipshit Debussey :o

Ignore Duck. She is just pissed off because she sucks.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:40:18 PM
Ignore Duck. She is just pissed off because she sucks.


This is Duck: Don't listen to Debussey. It is pissed off today because I refused to let him suck my tits from its wheelchair.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:41:32 PM

This is Duck: Don't listen to Debussey. It is pissed off today because I refused to let him suck my tits from its wheelchair.


You can't stay away from Debussey's sucking power Duck. You have never been able to go more than 2 days before getting your tits manhandled by Debussey's tounge again :-*
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:43:20 PM

You can't stay away from Debussey's sucking power Duck. You have never been able to go more than 2 days before getting your tits manhandled by Debussey's tounge again :-*


This is Duck: You are such a boring mongoloid that I have to do SOMETHING to let time pass. Your drooling tickles when it flows down my boobs and this is the only time you can make me laugh.

If you don't behave Debussey I won't fuck you for a week >:(
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: The Master on May 11, 2009, 05:44:49 PM

This is Duck: You are such a boring mongoloid that I have to do SOMETHING to let time pass. Your drooling tickles when it flows down my boobs and this is the only time you can make me laugh.

If you don't behave Debussey I won't fuck you for a week >:(

Shut your mouth you dumb fat bitch.

What? Put that S&M outfit AWAY! Don't put it on for christ sakes. The whipmarks from last time = still present on Debussey's ass!

NO! DOn't.! Do.! It!
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 11:32:04 PM
I don't see how wave can cut his calories that low and function normally let alone lift with any intensity. Duck mentions doing HIT cardio to the point of throwing up, um..no thanks. Why not pop an ECA and do target heart rate cardio?

Never took any fat burners. Plus E is illegal where I live AFAIK. Doesn't sound too healthy either.

Right now I am trying keto with slow cardio, this just happens to be the wedding season as well BBQ and weekend drinking time. So it goes without saying that I am not having much success.

Keto didn't work for me. No energy in the gym.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 11:33:33 PM
Both are extemists. Wavelength is extremely lazy and Duck is manically obsessive/hardcore. Both are to be admired because both have great, ripped physiques...

I'm also "hardcore" but only where it is necessary = in the gym.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 11, 2009, 11:35:03 PM
Cardio has been shown to increase metabolic rest rate, increasing effectiveness during a cut, Ill  dig up some studies and articles when I have the time.
The health benefits of cardio are so valuable that I would advise no cut without cardio. Now the lower you get in BF the lower your calory intake will have to be to avoid having to do catabolic amounts of cardio.

Cardio>eating less

Would be interested in studies on body composition. I don't know any which eliminate all other factors.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Method101 on May 11, 2009, 11:37:00 PM
I'm also "hardcore" but only where it is necessary = in the gym.
thats why it took you 4 years to bench 225?
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 11, 2009, 11:50:25 PM
Would be interested in studies on body composition. I don't know any which eliminate all other factors.

http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/HIITvsET.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028502

And, too lazy to look them up now...

1. Bahr, R., and O.M. Sejersted. Effect of intensity of exercise on excess postexercise O2 consumption. Metabolism. 40:836-841, 1991.
2. Ballor, D.L., J.P. McCarthy, and E.J. Wilterdink. Exercise intensity does not affect the composition of diet- and exercise-induced body mass loss. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 51:142-146, 1990.
3. Bryner, R.W., R.C. Toffle, I.H. Ullrish, and R.A. Yeater. The effects of exercise intensity on body composition, weight loss, and dietary composition in women. J. Am. Col. Nutr. 16:68-73, 1997.
4. Burleson, Jr, M.A., H.S. O'Bryant, M.H. Stone, M.A. Collins, and T. Triplett-McBride. Effect of weight training exercise and treadmill exercise on post-exercise oxygen consumption. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 30:518-522, 1998.
5. Coyle, E.H. Fat Metabolism During Exercise. [Online] Gatorade Sports Science Institute. 6. Dickson-Parnell, B.E., and A. Zeichner. Effects of a short-term exercise program on caloric consumption. Health Psychol. 4:437-448, 1985.
7. Gaesser, G.A., and R.G. Rich. Effects of high- and low-intensity exercise training on aerobic capacity and blood lipids. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 16:269-274, 1984.
8. Gillette, C.A., R.C. Bullough, and C.L. Melby. Postexercise energy expenditure in response to acute aerobic or resistive exercise. Int. J. Sports Nutr. 4:347-360, 1994.
9. Grediagin, M.A., M. Cody, J. Rupp, D. Benardot, and R. Shern. Exercise intensity does not effect body composition change in untrained, moderately overfat women. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 95:661-665, 1995.
10. Grubbs, L. The critical role of exercise in weight control. Nurse Pract. 18(4):20,22,25-26,29, 1993.
11. Hickson, R.C., W.W. Heusner, W.D. Van Huss, D.E. Jackson, D.A. Anderson, D.A. Jones, and A.T. Psaledas. Effects of Dianabol and high-intensity sprint training on body composition of rats. Med. Sci. Sports. 8:191-195, 1976.
12. Imbeault, P., S. Saint-Pierre, N. Alméras, and A. Tremblay. Acute effects of exercise on energy intake and feeding behaviour. Br. J. Nutr. 77:511-521, 1997.
13. Katch, F.I., R. Martin, and J. Martin. Effects of exercise intensity on food consumption in the male rat. Am J. Clin. Nutr. 32:1401-1407, 1979.
14. Laforgia, J. R.T. Withers, N.J. Shipp, and C.J. Gore. Comparison of energy expenditure elevations after submaximal and supramaximal running. J. Appl. Physiol. 82:661-666, 1997.
15. Mahler, D.A., V.F. Froelicher, N.H. Miller, and T.D. York. ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, edited by W.L. Kenney, R.H. Humphrey, and C.X. Bryant. Media, PA: Williams and Wilkins, 1995, chapt. 10, p. 218-219.
16. McMillan, J.L., M.H. Stone, J. Sartin, R. Keith, D. Marple, Lt. C. Brown, and R.D. Lewis. 20-hour physiological responses to a single weight-training session. J. Strength Cond. Res. 7(3):9-21, 1993.
17. Melby, C., C. Scholl, G. Edwards, and R. Bullough. Effect of acute resistance exercise on postexercise energy expenditure and resting metabolic rate. J. Appl. Physiol. 75:1847-1853, 1993.
18. Pacheco-Sanchez, M., and K.K Grunewald. Body fat deposition: effects of dietary fat and two exercise protocols. J. Am. Col. Nutr. 13:601-607, 1994.
19. Phelain, J.F., E. Reinke, M.A. Harris, and C.L. Melby. Postexercise energy expenditure and substrate oxidation in young women resulting from exercise bouts of different intensity. J. Am. Col. Nutr. 16:140-146, 1997.
20. Rasmussen, B.B., and W.W. Winder. Effect of exercise intensity on skeletal muscle malonyl-CoA and acetyl-CoA carboxylase. J. Appl. Physiol. 83:1104-1109, 1997.
21. Smith, J., and L. McNaughton. The effects of intensity of exercise on excess postexercise oxygen consumption and energy expenditure in moderately trained men and women. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 67:420-425, 1993.
22. Thompson, D.A., L.A. Wolfe, and R. Eikelboom. Acute effects of exercise intensity on appetite in young men. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 20:222-227, 1988.
23. Tremblay, A., J. Simoneau, and C. Bouchard. Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism. Metabolism. 43:814-818, 1994.
24. Tremblay, A., J. Després, C. Leblanc, C.L. Craig, B. Ferris, T. Stephens, and C. Bouchard. Effect of intensity of physical activity on body fatness and fat distribution. Am J. Clin. Nutr. 51:153-157, 1990.
25. Treuth, M.S., G.R. Hunter, and M. Williams. Effects of exercise intensity on 24-h energy expenditure and substrate oxidation. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28:1138-1143, 1996.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 12, 2009, 12:04:41 AM
thats why it took you 4 years to bench 225?

Did I say that? You remember more than me.

In any case, I started out benching 88lbs. I was a 125lb weakling when I was 18.
Many factors contribute to one's strength at a certain point in time.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 12, 2009, 12:06:28 AM
http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/HIITvsET.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028502

And, too lazy to look them up now...

1. Bahr, R., and O.M. Sejersted. Effect of intensity of exercise on excess postexercise O2 consumption. Metabolism. 40:836-841, 1991.
2. Ballor, D.L., J.P. McCarthy, and E.J. Wilterdink. Exercise intensity does not affect the composition of diet- and exercise-induced body mass loss. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 51:142-146, 1990.
3. Bryner, R.W., R.C. Toffle, I.H. Ullrish, and R.A. Yeater. The effects of exercise intensity on body composition, weight loss, and dietary composition in women. J. Am. Col. Nutr. 16:68-73, 1997.
4. Burleson, Jr, M.A., H.S. O'Bryant, M.H. Stone, M.A. Collins, and T. Triplett-McBride. Effect of weight training exercise and treadmill exercise on post-exercise oxygen consumption. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 30:518-522, 1998.
5. Coyle, E.H. Fat Metabolism During Exercise. [Online] Gatorade Sports Science Institute. 6. Dickson-Parnell, B.E., and A. Zeichner. Effects of a short-term exercise program on caloric consumption. Health Psychol. 4:437-448, 1985.
7. Gaesser, G.A., and R.G. Rich. Effects of high- and low-intensity exercise training on aerobic capacity and blood lipids. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 16:269-274, 1984.
8. Gillette, C.A., R.C. Bullough, and C.L. Melby. Postexercise energy expenditure in response to acute aerobic or resistive exercise. Int. J. Sports Nutr. 4:347-360, 1994.
9. Grediagin, M.A., M. Cody, J. Rupp, D. Benardot, and R. Shern. Exercise intensity does not effect body composition change in untrained, moderately overfat women. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 95:661-665, 1995.
10. Grubbs, L. The critical role of exercise in weight control. Nurse Pract. 18(4):20,22,25-26,29, 1993.
11. Hickson, R.C., W.W. Heusner, W.D. Van Huss, D.E. Jackson, D.A. Anderson, D.A. Jones, and A.T. Psaledas. Effects of Dianabol and high-intensity sprint training on body composition of rats. Med. Sci. Sports. 8:191-195, 1976.
12. Imbeault, P., S. Saint-Pierre, N. Alméras, and A. Tremblay. Acute effects of exercise on energy intake and feeding behaviour. Br. J. Nutr. 77:511-521, 1997.
13. Katch, F.I., R. Martin, and J. Martin. Effects of exercise intensity on food consumption in the male rat. Am J. Clin. Nutr. 32:1401-1407, 1979.
14. Laforgia, J. R.T. Withers, N.J. Shipp, and C.J. Gore. Comparison of energy expenditure elevations after submaximal and supramaximal running. J. Appl. Physiol. 82:661-666, 1997.
15. Mahler, D.A., V.F. Froelicher, N.H. Miller, and T.D. York. ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, edited by W.L. Kenney, R.H. Humphrey, and C.X. Bryant. Media, PA: Williams and Wilkins, 1995, chapt. 10, p. 218-219.
16. McMillan, J.L., M.H. Stone, J. Sartin, R. Keith, D. Marple, Lt. C. Brown, and R.D. Lewis. 20-hour physiological responses to a single weight-training session. J. Strength Cond. Res. 7(3):9-21, 1993.
17. Melby, C., C. Scholl, G. Edwards, and R. Bullough. Effect of acute resistance exercise on postexercise energy expenditure and resting metabolic rate. J. Appl. Physiol. 75:1847-1853, 1993.
18. Pacheco-Sanchez, M., and K.K Grunewald. Body fat deposition: effects of dietary fat and two exercise protocols. J. Am. Col. Nutr. 13:601-607, 1994.
19. Phelain, J.F., E. Reinke, M.A. Harris, and C.L. Melby. Postexercise energy expenditure and substrate oxidation in young women resulting from exercise bouts of different intensity. J. Am. Col. Nutr. 16:140-146, 1997.
20. Rasmussen, B.B., and W.W. Winder. Effect of exercise intensity on skeletal muscle malonyl-CoA and acetyl-CoA carboxylase. J. Appl. Physiol. 83:1104-1109, 1997.
21. Smith, J., and L. McNaughton. The effects of intensity of exercise on excess postexercise oxygen consumption and energy expenditure in moderately trained men and women. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 67:420-425, 1993.
22. Thompson, D.A., L.A. Wolfe, and R. Eikelboom. Acute effects of exercise intensity on appetite in young men. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 20:222-227, 1988.
23. Tremblay, A., J. Simoneau, and C. Bouchard. Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism. Metabolism. 43:814-818, 1994.
24. Tremblay, A., J. Després, C. Leblanc, C.L. Craig, B. Ferris, T. Stephens, and C. Bouchard. Effect of intensity of physical activity on body fatness and fat distribution. Am J. Clin. Nutr. 51:153-157, 1990.
25. Treuth, M.S., G.R. Hunter, and M. Williams. Effects of exercise intensity on 24-h energy expenditure and substrate oxidation. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28:1138-1143, 1996.


Thanks, question is which ones (if any) fit the description. I'm pretty sure I know a few of them, gotta check.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 12, 2009, 12:07:29 AM
Did I say that? You remember more than me.

In any case, I started out benching 88lbs. I was a 125lb weakling when I was 18.
Many factors contribute to one's strength at a certain point in time.

Well, i don't think there are many guys that bench 225 on the first day in the gym.

Thanks, question is which ones (if any) fit the description. I'm pretty sure I know a few of them, gotta check.

the first two links fit what you wanted i think.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 12, 2009, 12:26:08 AM
Acoording to scientific studies, 30 minutes of moderate cardio done at least 3 times a week is just as effective at reducing depression as the antidepressant Zoloft, without all the side effects.

I would believe that. I could definitly make out a difference when i started cardio. Along with the weight training and improved strength, if you have cardiovascular fitness, everyday life challenges are like relaxing all the time.

For me, i feel like a kid lately. Kids tend to run all the time, have you ever realized that? They don't walk, when they want to go smoewhere, they run. For me, after doing cardio, it has become the same. At least when i am alone, when i want to go somewhere, i run or jog there. It feels natural, is faster and the small runs don't bother me at all.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 12, 2009, 01:56:59 AM
the first two links fit what you wanted i think.

At first glance, both studies seem to compare a certain low intensity with a certain high intensity cardio protocol regarding total fat loss. That's not the same as a study on body composition comparing two methods where in both cases, total calories are adjusted to establish the same rate of weight loss.

As I said in another thread, if I would do cardio, I would probably do HIIT since it seems to provide good results in a short period of time. Cardio works for fat loss, no doubt. The question is just if it works better (for body composition) than caloric restriction on the same rate of weight loss.

I also fully agree to all the other potential benefits of any type of cardio. There is really no reason not to do cardio (other than a time issue) if any of those benefits are experienced.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Red Hook on May 12, 2009, 05:59:32 AM
I wonder if a couple pick up games of basketball would fall into the category of HIT. 

It is stop and go movement, burst of speed followed by stop/slowing.  I asked because I tried playing basketball for the first time in 5 years and I nearly died of a heart attacked. Yet, I can do 45 minute of target rate cardio every day like a champion  ;D
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: DK II on May 12, 2009, 06:05:03 AM
I wonder if a couple pick up games of basketball would fall into the category of HIT. 

It is stop and go movement, burst of speed followed by stop/slowing.  I asked because I tried playing basketball for the first time in 5 years and I nearly died of a heart attacked. Yet, I can do 45 minute of target rate cardio every day like a champion  ;D

Probably, why not.

This kind of "cardio" is always the best, if you have fun playing Basketball, why go onto the threadmill? If you like running more than basketball, don't do it.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 12, 2009, 07:21:00 AM
At first glance, both studies seem to compare a certain low intensity with a certain high intensity cardio protocol regarding total fat loss. That's not the same as a study on body composition comparing two methods where in both cases, total calories are adjusted to establish the same rate of weight loss.

As I said in another thread, if I would do cardio, I would probably do HIIT since it seems to provide good results in a short period of time. Cardio works for fat loss, no doubt. The question is just if it works better (for body composition) than caloric restriction on the same rate of weight loss.

I also fully agree to all the other potential benefits of any type of cardio. There is really no reason not to do cardio (other than a time issue) if any of those benefits are experienced.

eben
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Necrosis on May 12, 2009, 10:49:59 AM
cardio causes a wide range of benefits that exist after the cardio is done that influence body composition.
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 12, 2009, 10:54:43 AM
cardio causes a wide range of benefits that exist after the cardio is done that influence body composition.

irrelevant for body composition

wavelength approved
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: wavelength on May 12, 2009, 11:07:27 AM
cardio causes a wide range of benefits that exist after the cardio is done that influence body composition.

Yes but do those benefits yield better results than just reducing calories? Chris Aceto recently posted his critique on cardio here:

"possibly...there's always the right diet which can get you there with almost no cardio"

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=115850501
Title: Re: 127% MORE MUSCLE!!
Post by: Deicide on May 12, 2009, 11:10:53 AM
Yes but do those benefits yield better results than just reducing calories? Chris Aceto recently posted his critique on cardio here:

"possibly...there's always the right diet which can get you there with almost no cardio"

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=115850501

The Schnitzelman owning again! ;D