(09-30-2011 08:31 PM)saito Wrote:  Thanks, kevin bacon. I reckon that your split is better for me than Mark's structure because he's been doing this for 6 years now and I am rather unexperienced and haven't improved my strength toooo much. So I will mainly stick to the core strength excerises the way you suggest it.

I pretty much agree with everything mark said. If i was you i would just listen to mark's advice and ignore everything else in this thread. everything else in this thread is just arguing about stupid stuff that really does not matter. the only 2 things i would add to what mark said would be:

1) not to go heavy if you are just starting out. spend the first 8 - 12 weeks doing low weight, high reps to get your form down. then after that do what mark said.

2) and to split your calories up 40/40/20. that's pretty much the standard. 40% of your calories coming from protein, 40% from carbs, and 20% fat and just figure out how many calories you need from what mark said.

(10-02-2011 04:34 AM)crazyhorse Wrote:  everything is bullshit if you don't place it into context:

the training to failure is used for people who train with high intensity meaning low reps (5-7) and a minimum number of sets (6-7 for big muscle groups) and (2-3 for short muscle groups).

Agree

Training to failure has a bad effort/results ratio if you do it all the time. Mid to long term you will stagnate WAY earlier than if you stop one rep short of it. Also some lifts (eg Deadlift) lend themselves far better to it than others (bench).

Also it depends on how strong you are. If you are pretty weak (Deadlift <2-2,5 BW, Bench <1-1,5) it won't be as important.

(10-02-2011 04:32 AM)Brian Wrote:  

(10-01-2011 10:51 PM)Happy Wrote:  

(10-01-2011 07:18 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(10-01-2011 10:21 AM)Matt T Wrote:  Heh, my diet was pretty strict, and it was working...

And then I ate lasagna last night.


The real problem is that since I'm off campus and I don't have a car, I literally have to bike/walk several miles a day, which along with my gym routine makes me so active that I have mad hunger cravings. Should I just listen to my body and try to eat healthy when I get such cravings, or is it a sign of a more systemic problem?

Often time, when you have sugar craving, it's basically means your brain needs fuel.

Despite what mark sisson likes to bullshit, your body CANNOT synthesize enough sugar to sustain your brain. Your brain actually use quite a bit of calories...around 25 percent. At certain point, you need carb "refeed" mainly to feed your brain. So yes, small doses of sugar is good for your brain but mainly try to eat healthy imo.

Gluconeogenesis (from Amino Acids).
Some people adapt to low carb very well. Some don't. Depends mainly on BF and genetics. (Former) Fatties tend to fare better on lower carbs. But as it depends on your reactions.

I dont see how anyone can adapt to low carbs. By low carbs i mean less than 30 grams per day. Everyone on a ketosis diet feel like complete shit. That is because their brain is screaming out SUGAR!! That's not to say you should consume hundreds of grams of carbs in one meal and spike your insulin, but small doses of good complex carb is needed imo.

A lot of Protein sources (beef eg) "spikes" Insulin more than Carbs. And quite some people do adapt. Everybody isn't you.

(10-02-2011 02:57 PM)kevin_bacon Wrote:  

(09-30-2011 08:31 PM)saito Wrote:  Thanks, kevin bacon. I reckon that your split is better for me than Mark's structure because he's been doing this for 6 years now and I am rather unexperienced and haven't improved my strength toooo much. So I will mainly stick to the core strength excerises the way you suggest it.

I pretty much agree with everything mark said. If i was you i would just listen to mark's advice and ignore everything else in this thread. everything else in this thread is just arguing about stupid stuff that really does not matter. the only 2 things i would add to what mark said would be:

1) not to go heavy if you are just starting out. spend the first 8 - 12 weeks doing low weight, high reps to get your form down. then after that do what mark said.

2) and to split your calories up 40/40/20. that's pretty much the standard. 40% of your calories coming from protein, 40% from carbs, and 20% fat and just figure out how many calories you need from what mark said.

Actually fewer reps 4-6 are often way smarter. Most beginners do fuck up their technique early on by going to high in reps and ingrain bad habits (on complex lifts). It's hard to concentrate for a long set.
Or as Rippetoe wrote:


I'd leave percentages out of it. Rather g/kg. (Why?: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-los...rt-1.html) And way less carbs if saito is overweight (IIRC) and not very active, is often a smarter starting point for designing a good diet.

Anyway, what matters is perfecting compound exercise form, fixing current imbalances and eating unprocessed stuff with an energy deficit. Totally agree, that people get confused and lost in minutiae.

(10-02-2011 09:52 PM)Happy Wrote:  

(10-02-2011 04:34 AM)crazyhorse Wrote:  everything is bullshit if you don't place it into context:

the training to failure is used for people who train with high intensity meaning low reps (5-7) and a minimum number of sets (6-7 for big muscle groups) and (2-3 for short muscle groups).

Agree

Training to failure has a bad effort/results ratio if you do it all the time. Mid to long term you will stagnate WAY earlier than if you stop one rep short of it. Also some lifts (eg Deadlift) lend themselves far better to it than others (bench).

Also it depends on how strong you are. If you are pretty weak (Deadlift <2-2,5 BW, Bench <1-1,5) it won't be as important.

What do you mean by stagnating earlier?

Personally I always do this: I write down every excercise + the ammount of reps + the ammount of weight. The ammount of sets is always fixed and I alwasy go to failure.

Everytime I go to the gym I always try to do better, either by doing more reps (within my range) or by adding more weight.

One thing that I will also add is that your form is way more important then the ammount of weight and it's far better to move ahead to slowly then to move ahead quickly with bad form. I really pay attention to this, especially with squats.

- What do you mean with beef causin insulin spikes? Personally I always try to balance my meals with fat, protein and carbs. Arn't you referring to glychemic load?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_load

Just for the record. I am NOT overweight but rather underweight. And I love complex carbohydrates.

Looks like my old approach was almost fine. I just need to eat more food high in protein and keep track of my weight lifting perfomance so I can actually improve strength and muscle mass within my genetic limits. My new plan is a pretty much what Mark suggests but more focused on splitting thanks to KB:

Three times a week 5x5

Dips
Dumbbell OHP
Bench Press

Squats
Leg ext curls
etc

Deadlifts
Chin ups
Rows

I'd think the incline press would be a nice addition to your program.

I did not know that protein actually spike insulin. Going to do more research now. Thanks Happy

(10-02-2011 10:21 PM)Happy Wrote:  

(10-02-2011 02:57 PM)kevin_bacon Wrote:  

(09-30-2011 08:31 PM)saito Wrote:  Thanks, kevin bacon. I reckon that your split is better for me than Mark's structure because he's been doing this for 6 years now and I am rather unexperienced and haven't improved my strength toooo much. So I will mainly stick to the core strength excerises the way you suggest it.

I pretty much agree with everything mark said. If i was you i would just listen to mark's advice and ignore everything else in this thread. everything else in this thread is just arguing about stupid stuff that really does not matter. the only 2 things i would add to what mark said would be:

1) not to go heavy if you are just starting out. spend the first 8 - 12 weeks doing low weight, high reps to get your form down. then after that do what mark said.

2) and to split your calories up 40/40/20. that's pretty much the standard. 40% of your calories coming from protein, 40% from carbs, and 20% fat and just figure out how many calories you need from what mark said.

Actually fewer reps 4-6 are often way smarter. Most beginners do fuck up their technique early on by going to high in reps and ingrain bad habits (on complex lifts). It's hard to concentrate for a long set.
Or as Rippetoe wrote:


I'd leave percentages out of it. Rather g/kg. (Why?: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-los...rt-1.html) And way less carbs if saito is overweight (IIRC) and not very active, is often a smarter starting point for designing a good diet.

Anyway, what matters is perfecting compound exercise form, fixing current imbalances and eating unprocessed stuff with an energy deficit. Totally agree, that people get confused and lost in minutiae.

i guess when i was saying high rep i was meaning 8 to 12. but whatever, the more important point was to not over do the weight and focus on form.

if you like low carb diets then all the more power to you. personally i don't like to be so restrictive in what i eat. ive always done a 40/40/20 diet and am 5'10 215lbs and 10% body fat. there are many ways to do this stuff and they can all work quite well.

(10-03-2011 05:33 AM)saito Wrote:  Just for the record. I am NOT overweight but rather underweight. And I love complex carbohydrates.

Looks like my old approach was almost fine. I just need to eat more food high in protein and keep track of my weight lifting perfomance so I can actually improve strength and muscle mass within my genetic limits. My new plan is a pretty much what Mark suggests but more focused on splitting thanks to KB:

Three times a week 5x5

Dips
Dumbbell OHP
Bench Press

Squats
Leg ext curls
etc

Deadlifts
Chin ups
Rows

If you want to track your diet, i use fitday, its free.
http://www.fitday.com/