I'm a post-doc in biochemistry at a top university, and I specialize in human metabolism studies. I can answer any of your questions, so please reply with them and I will answer as soon as I can.
I've been lifting since I started my undergraduate degree at MIT in 2006, and I've learned a lot about how muscle builds, what to eat, and how to lift both from experience and from my studies into bio and organic chemistry.
Just to get things moving, I'll start out by saying the common myth of genetics is false, but holds some vague elements of truth. Energy from food is "burned" into CO2 and H2O, which you exhale. How our bodies store that energy is in the form of a proton gradient across a cell membrane. There are more protons on the outside of the mitochondria than inside, and when the cell lets protons across, work gets done to synthesize ATP (energy currency). People in the same family will usually have a similar efficiency of ATP synthesis (usually around 3 protons across the gradient per ATP molecule), but that varies with cell wall efficiency which is a genetic factor.
So it may be harder for some people to lose weight than others, as some people may have more efficient cell walls.
However, this only varies by at most 6% across the species, so there's no excuse for anyone to be 500 lbs, or - by the same regard - a skelly.
I'll be holding science threads from time to time if this one is successful. If people have questions, feel free to ask - they can be full on retarded or nitty-gritty science questions. Try to keep them fitness related.
A myth as in nonexistant? Or a myth as in don't work?
Most supps have some shitty [barely significant] data to back them up. People shit on raspberry ketones a lot around here, but some study a while back showed that when taken (in ridiculous amounts), they helped cut fat w/out cutting muscle. It doesn't mean you should hop down to GNC to buy a $30 shiny jar of bullshit, but it's possible that it may work.
The only OTC supplements that really are proven time and again to work are the ones everyone already knows about. Protein, BCAAs, and Creatine are the big ones. Protein is just essentially a replacement of meat or dietary protein. Think of it like you chased down an antelope, and now you eat it to replenish those gains (lmao cardio).
Creatine has some significant scientific backing to it, but it's not a magic powder that will tack on mass. A lot of people see significant gains when starting creatine, but most of that is due to muscle water retention. Stay hydrated when on creatine.
BCAAs are probably the last fully legitimate supplement. but they aren't magic either. BCAA stands for branched chain amino acids, which are some of the fastest absorbed proteins, which means you can halt muscle breakdown and perhaps feel more energetic during a workout when you have taken BCAAs before it.
That being said, tryptophan is probably the least respected supplement out there. Trp is the slowest absorbed amino acid, and it usually doesn't get absorbed well at all because it's available in small quantities and flushed out by more fast absorbed proteins. If you take TRP just before bed (with juice only, no food) it'll absorb better and you can actually process more of it. Tryptophan is thought to be a precursor to a lot of brain chemicals (indole derivatives) and it increases mood when taken properly.
it doesn't. you'll just need to eat more to stay at a surplus.
Because people ask this shit continuously. People still think genetics don't actually play a role in how your body stores energy.
Ask a question you can't easily find, I can probably answer it.
After 7 or 8 reps, your muscles aren't using O2 the same way. Your blood can't pull oxygen to the muscles fast enough, so your body has to go to anaerobic respiration mode. (Instead of cooking sugars with O2, you ferment them to get usable energy and lactic acid).
So after enough times of putting your muscle cells in anaerobic conditions, they adapt to the change by increasing volume (rather than just multiplying). This works two fold.
1) They have more mitochondrial space, so aerobic respiration can occur more often, and the force output of the muscle is increased (higher bench max)
2) The higher cell volume corresponds to a higher surface area of the cell, and sugars can be fermented and lactic acid more easily transported away.
>and lactic acid more easily transported away.
clarification: this is a result of the anaerobic process. Lactic acid isn't generated in the aerobic process, which occurs usually at sub 6 reps.
this is somewhat related to the above question. Hypertrophy and hyperplasia occur together. You're never going to get only one or only the other. However, to get the most of the desired result, you'll want about 8 for hypertrophy (to really get anaerobic activity going) or below 6 for hyperplasia (to ensure that most cells don't run low on oxygen).
Improper diet, essentially. You can lift every day but if you don't eat right, you'll make 0 gains. In fact, even lifting while hungry is a gains goblin, because your body can't repair the muscles.
>ignores established science in favor of own beliefs
You sound like those faggot antivaxers
there haven't been enough studies on fishoil long term. All of this fucking info comes out every week about how eating X can cure Y, Z is good for gains, etc. But most of this data isn't significant. You'll see a minor change vs placebo group, then the news fucking runs with it and says "chocolate cures cancer!!!!!1!1!"
Take the fucking pills, because they've been shown to help reduce alzheimers in those genetically predisposed to it, if anything. If not, you're just wasting a couple bucks a week.
Vitamin D3 supplementation, 5000-10000 IU daily for light-skinned adult white males with little exposure to direct sunlight. Explain pros/cons, weighted objectively for statistical likeliness, without resorting to "all vitamin megadosing is bad mk"
>tfw highschool feels like a few years ago but it was a decade.
It depends. You can't really do anything with a BS in Chem. Even a masters is bad. If you want to become a "scientist" in the conventional sense, you'll need a PhD. A BS will get you lab technician jobs. If you want, go into chem and become a doctor. Doctors that are did premed as chem students are way more prepared.
If you don't get enough sun exposure, taking vitamin D is good. If you drink vitamin D enriched milk (2 glasses a day), you're getting enough vitamin D. I have a skin condition, and I noticed that once I started drinking Vit D enriched milk, it cleared up and became way more manageable.
From a scientific point of view, though, you should not be taking that much vitamin D. With sun exposure, your body will make as much vitamin D as is required, and then stop. But forcing vitamin D into your body can cause a shitload of complications. You can get a hyperactive thyroid, calcium problems, and scary enough, kidney stones and renal failure. The dose you're suggesting isn't well documented, but single higher doses can kill you.
Taking that much daily can cause a calcium increase in the blood that will, over time, result in kidney problems. I would stick with a standard vitamin D dose, something more around 2000 IU per day, because calcium can bioaccumulate. 40000 IU can result in renal failure, and taking 10000 IU enough days in a row will potentially cause hypercalcaemia
What can you tell us about overtraining?
I.e. why do leg days make me feel tired for weeks to follow; are four rest days really better than two, why can people do 5x5 squats but everything above 1x5 DL fries your cns into oblivion, and how much of a gains goblin are high volume or training to failure?
btw. as an addition to your proton gradients - people are also differently efficient when it comes to the bacteria in their colons, so it's not all thermodynamics.
If you're lazy I suggest you don't go into the sciences. I may have a biased opinion on what college was like for science majors because I attended a difficult school with a particularly difficult chem program, but it's definitely not possible with a "i'll just skate by" attitude.
Mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell
The general consensus is: Meh. Your muscle fibers start breaking down during exercise, but don't stop until sometime after exercise. The idea is to eat protein, sparing enough time so that it gets to the muscles before and during the repair phase. It has enough scientific credence that I personally make sure to drink protein after working out, but the workout isn't "wasted" if you don't get protein.
If you can't get protein after a workout, taking BCAAs before the workout will halt muscle breakdown more readily, so that when you do get protein later, you're not building from nothing. Either one is fine, some people do both. The biggest thing is that you're getting enough protein every day. When you're getting it is less important. (People make sure to pound that post workout shake, but then sit on their ass and eat no nutrition for the rest of the day)
Post workout, what would seem the best choice?
Carbs or protein?
I've always done protein, cuz u know, its easy and cheap as fuck, but im guessing what ur body rly needs in that exhausted state after a workout is fuel; le carbimus?
Overtraining is bad. Leg days exercise larger muscle groups. Doing a BB back squat is one of the most strenuous exercises on the human body. More muscle mass is broken down, and it requires more rest and calories to build the muscle back. It's as simple as that.
As far as rest goes it depends a lot on where you are with your training. Beginners need more rest days generally because when you do a program like starting strength, you're doing varying workouts for the whole body. You can't do a full body workout 5 days a week, because most muscle groups (no matter how experienced you are) need 48 hours (and two full nights of sleep) to fully recover. People that do brosplits or more targeted workouts (Chest/Tris, Back/Bis, Shoulders/Legs) can work out more days per week because while they're training chest, their back can be recovering, and while their training legs, their chest can be recovering. DL is more of a form concern. Although it's equally full body as squat, a botched squat is far less detrimental than a botched deadlift. If squat for gets sloppy, you might miss a rep or two in the third set. If dead form gets sloppy, it's snap city. The 1x5 DL is to ensure that every rep is at maximum energy and proper form.
Not a fitness question, but you planning on going into academia OP? I'm pretty similar to you (currently PhD student in bioengineering at a top university and I did my undergrad at Caltech) and although I used to think I wanted to pursue academia, at this point after being more exposed to it I'm thinking I'll definitely do industry instead.
Carbs and protein are required together. Too much protein will push your body into gluconeogenesis (GNG). Your body will take some of the protein and turn it into carbohydrates (sugars) because it needs energy. Your body can really only process sugar into energy, so if there's no sugar available but there is another carbon source, it's going to make some sugar. Since all of your bodies processes rely on carbohydrate energy (or fatty acid, but that's a different thing), you need that energy to build muscle (put the protein to work).
Carbs and Protein - muscle
Just carbs - storage as glycogen, some fat
Just protein - GNG to carbs, some muscle growth.
Generally, you want a 4 to 1 carbs to protein ratio so as much of the protein as possible gets put to work, with minimal GNG
You sort of can. Fat is used as long term energy storage. It's actually much more efficient for the body to carry lots of fat and some muscle than lots of muscle and no fat. Muscles are higher maintenance, and way more energy to sustain. You can burn fat over time, and some of that energy will become muscle, but the body is smart and won't sacrifice valuable fat stores for unnecessary muscle.
I just did my graduate work on human metabolism. I majored in chemistry as an undergrad and entered a biochem graduate track. My work was with a lab that focused on metabolism because it's a main interest of mine (partly inspired by fitness)
whats ur take on the whole
we dont need a lot of whole proteins to make gains, the aminos are the important part. But what about the nitrogen balance in the body? as far as i have understood, its can only be obtained thru complete proteins, and not just from aminos. Also its made out to be quite a big deal in terms of muscle growth
>you want a 4 to 1 carbs to protein ratio
What? So applying the 1.8g protein per kg of mass formula, I should be eating 180 protons and... 720g of fucking carbs? Jesus fucking christ this sounds like bullshit.
>After 7 or 8 reps, your muscles aren't using O2 the same way. Your blood can't pull oxygen to the muscles fast enough, so your body has to go to anaerobic respiration mode. (Instead of cooking sugars with O2, you ferment them to get usable energy and lactic acid).
>After 7 or 8 reps, your muscles aren't using O2 the same way.
That's a kind of silly statement to make without clarifying what you mean by 7 or 8 reps. Or is it purely the duration? Meaning I could do 5 slow reps to compensate time-wise for example? Please explain, we need more people like you.
I did a cycle a year ago or so, with some clen, winny and test to keep strength high on my cut, also to keep me anabolic thru a low cal diet.
Plan was to drop calories quite low, so i made a cut at 2200cals (maintenance at 3100ish).
Yatta yatta, 3 weeks later i hadnt lost shit yet even thru counting cals every day with clen to boost metabolism.
Figured something was wrong, so i upped calories to 2700, and started losing weight. How can this be if u think about it logically? my body recieved less than sufficial energy and still didnt lose shit.
absolutely fuck naw. I want to go into pharmaceutical development. I'm in the right place for it.
pic related. I'm currently 165 lbs, 5'10" down from 178ish at the start of my postdoc. I was at my peak shape in grad school but I'm starting to lose weight because I'm working more, feels batman.
Bench: 225 x 5
OHP: lmao 1 pl8 x 5
DL: lmao 3.5 pl8 x 5
Squat: 305 x 5
not worth the money, in my opinion. However, I did try them a few years back and noticed I was far less sore the next day. They do improve recovery time, so if you want to do a high frequency high volume routine, they will help with that.
"more intensely" is not worth it. You'll get diminishing returns. If you max out on bench, max out on incline, max out on DB press, max out on pec fly, max out on incline db press, by the end you won't really be working your muscles anymore. Think of it this way: Doing a shitload of exercises means your muscles will be super tired at the end. You may feel like they're being worked, but you can't lift nearly as much as you could if they were fresh. That's just a downward curve on the graph. You start out really high, but end really low. A twice a week plan allows you to go pretty hard,but two times per week.
It's similar to the difference between doing a set of 3 pl8, a set of 2 pl8, and a set of 1 pl8 vs. 3 sets of 2 pl8. the latter is better.
>Carbs and protein are required together. Too much protein will push your body into gluconeogenesis (GNG). Your body will take some of the protein and turn it into carbohydrates (sugars) because it needs energy. Your body can really only process sugar into energy, so if there's no sugar available but there is another carbon source, it's going to make some sugar. Since all of your bodies processes rely on carbohydrate energy (or fatty acid, but that's a different thing), you need that energy to build muscle (put the protein to work).
>Carbs and Protein - muscle
>Just carbs - storage as glycogen, some fat
>Just protein - GNG to carbs, some muscle growt
Wait, how come GNG is less effective than external carbs?
>not worth the money, in my opinion. However, I did try them a few years back and noticed I was far less sore the next day. They do improve recovery time, so if you want to do a high frequency high volume routine, they will help with that.
How many times can you contradict yourself man
There are some studies that prove that working out changes/reforms our DNA (not sure if this is the right way to describe this, don't remember anything from biology). So, since i work out, will my offsprings have traits that their ancestors didn't have at all because of the "reformed" DNA?
I am aware that of course they'll have their own traits, but i'm wondering if working out actually creates a kind of "new" DNA to be passed on.
Thanks in advance.
what university are you a post doc in? Im currently working in an analytical chem lab at school, do you think this will limit me to analytical chem for grad school or will i be able to do organic or physical or anything else?
>I've been lifting since I started my undergraduate degree at MIT in 2006
>Look like this
Yeah no. Either you lift once evey month, or you're a lying sack of shit.
If you lose fat in your face your bones will be more pronounced. Other than that, not really anything short of surgery can do that. Sorry m8.
10 amino acids have the same amount of nitrogen as a 10 AA protein chain. It's not so much about nitrogen as it is about peptide bond formation.
Amino acids are absorbed really quickly. Your body needs to have an immediate use for them. Proteins are broken down during digestion, which gives them a longer window for use. BCAAs (and tryptophan, read above) are the only amino acids worth taking. The other's you'll just get from protein and dietary sources.
Immediately post workout, you need a lot of energy, as your body will be working its hardest to replenish all of your depleted glycogen stores AS WELL AS repairing muscle. You need a lot of carbs to do that job. The rest of your day should follow a regular diet.
Hey, OP. Why are forearms and calves the hardest fucking muscles to grow? How do you explain that from a biological viewpoint? They are muscles like any other, right? So why won't the fuckers grow?
how are the job oportunities with biochemistry?
Im currently studying it, but i´m thinking about changing to IT .
Probably a stupid question because i live in germany and you somewhere else, but whatever.
Hair's primarily keratin. Vit E helps with keratin production, as well as aminos Glycine and Alanine . That might help make individual hairs thicker. If you mean you want MORE hair, I don't know what to tell you.
This is a good point. Theoretically, your muscles are doing an exact amount of work on the bar, but the speed of the reps will definitely have an effect. It really is about time under the stress, so 5 very slow reps will have a more hypertrophic effect on muscle than 5 fast reps, but since the net volume of the weight moved (5xN vs 8xN) is going down, you'll see reduced muscle fiber tearing. There will be less to repair. For hypertrophy, still stick to 8-12 reps, although 5 slow reps will give a hypertrophic effect (some hypertrophy observed). Good point.
I'm not really up to snuff with steroids. I know enough about them, but I didn't do any in depth research with anabolic steroid use and its effect on human metabolism. A lot of times when people cut to a drastic calorie deficit, they'll retain water. If you kept on that calories deficit, you may have seen weight loss results. I don't recommend it though. A 1000 kcal deficit is a lot and not healthy at all.
it's like pulling gasoline out of the ground at 5 dollars a gallon when you can buy it for 3. It's effective, but it's kind of the body's way of dealing with improper diet. It shouldn't be relied on for an energy source.
It works sort of, but not worth the money. You can get it if you like the sound of possibly being less sore at a high cost. I prefer just to be in mild pain the next day.
muscles are more hard to maintain than fat. More energy to have a really muscley body than a really fat one.
That being said, when you're at a calories deficit, your body will sooner cut some muscle than cut fat and build muscle.
What do you think about protein and BCAA recommendations?
I've read that the best is to aim for protein sources rich in leucine so that 3-4g of it are obtained to maximize protein synthesis. These should be consumed every 4h because there is a refractory period in protein synthesis, but if you take BCAAs in-between meals you can sort of overcome the "refractory-ness"
Is this science? Broscience? Over-interpretation of data?
i don't know about other people, but deads and squats fucking strain me (6'6 or 198 cm). even with correct form, i feel pain in my back after a certain point. squats and deads are not for everyone.
In response to the steroid one
The winny should have counteracted that, i was dry as a bone with veins up and down my abs/serratus, so i doubt it was water.
And the clenbuterol should have kept me going metabolic wise or whatever.
I was thinking it was more of a thyroid thing, thinking that because i went that low, my body went into a hibernation state. I slept for like 10-12 hours every night and was tired as fuck the whole time.
Maybe this is oversimplifying what you just said, but would you gain more mass if you train for strength (multiplying muscles cells) and THEN train for hypertrophy (increasing the volume of muscles after you just multiplied them) rather than just swelling up muscle cells without getting more of them?
>purely the duration? Meaning I could do 5 slow reps to compensate time-wise for example?
You should be able to feel the difference, your muscles get slow and weaker when you are in anerobic energy production.
what do you think of ray peat? some faggot has been spreading tons of shit from there but i'm pretty sure that you can find conflicting studies for anything.
you can find an example here >>30776628 but the TLDR version is:
fish oil is poisionous
you shouldn't eat fish in general
phytoestrogens are poisonous
PUFAs are poisonous
saturated fats are protective
etc etc etc
Should have gone with this as my trip.
Google "Lamarckism" - traits are almost never passed on if acquired during life. You can sometimes pass on behavioral traits, but the jury is still out on that one
I was in an inorganic lab frosh and soph year of undergrad. I switched to organic, and then to biochem in grad school.
I lost a shitload of weight. It depends on if I'm able to eat enough/lift enough. Some days I'm in my lab for 12 hours. I was really good about lifting and diet in undergrad, but shit gets in the way, you know? Feels bad.
Shit, man. Consult the nutritionist, but hang in there. CF is a shitshow. Can you lift?
If you get enough carbs, you won't do GNG. But a lot of people just think protein>carbs, so they ditch the carbs and just eat protein. If that happens, you still need sugars, so your brain will process proteins into sugars. (The brain can only use glucose as a fuel source. No glucose = severely limited brain function).
It's hard to put strain on them like other muscles. I'm actually not 100% on this, but the mechanics of the muscles are far different. think about what your forearm controls, and where it controls it from. But don't quote me on that.
Well I'm in one of the biotech capitals of the world. Jobs are pretty decent here. I'm looking into pharmaceuticals. You live in germany, get the hook up with Pfizer!
As long as you eat enough before you should be okay. It's helpful to have a "recovery drink" to halt protein breakdown, but it's not critical. I like to chug milk before bed so I sleep through being bloated.
This is a tough one. Read up on fast/slow twitch muscle fibers. It's hard to change that ratio in the body. However I would recommend in order to build fast twitch (anaerobic muscles), you should do a hypertrophy routine (8+ reps)
>branched chain amino acids
>which are proteins
I know you're in biochemistry, but dude, really? It hurts to read this shit. Dumbing it down to /fit/ levels doesn't justify such, for lack of a better word, heresy.
Also you forgot essential unsaturated fatty acids. Tell me why animals can only produce fatty acids with odd-number carbon chains and if you get that one right I know you're actually legit.
If not, you just failed entry level biochemistry.
I think we mean the Scooby with an amazing body at his age. You know, the one with a much better build than 99% of /fit/. I highly doubt most of you faggots will have a body like his when you're his age.
Please answer this question
I am 220 lbs. Do I need 220 grams of protein each day. Other studys say 0.75 g x lbs of body weight so that would be 165 grams. I usually don't get that at all each day. I just eat whatever.
Does it really matter? The other thing is do I have to eat the 165 or 220 grams of protein each day or on workout days
That's a lot of statements. BCAAs like leucine, isoleucine and valine get absorbed very quickly into the body. They help with protein synth and halt breakdown of muscle fibers. I don't really know that much about when to consume what specific amino acid, but BCAAs in general are good to take whenever. They'll pretty much get absorbed before anything else, so taking them with or without food, it doesn't matter. As far as leucine specifically, I couldn't tell you. Sorry m8
Nope I'm just withering.
Good programs. I didn't do it. I was a college athlete and only got into lifting because of my team. Once I was done with that, I just lifted because I liked it. So i never did SS. But it's a great program to build general muscle. I wouldn't stay on it for more than 6-8 months, because you want to change your routine continuously and by that point, you've received most/all of the beginner gains/strength you'll be able to milk out of SS, and it's time to switch it up and give your muscles new challenges.
Yeah the body is pretty good at adjusting. I can't say for sure, but calorie deficits can fuck with a lot of shit (it's better to avoid to steep a deficit). It wasn't healthy, I can tell you that.
It's tough to just get one or the other. You'll always get a mix of hypertrophy and hyperplasia with any workout.
But, yes. Doing hyperplasia is better to start, then move to hypertrophy. There's a reason SS is 3x5 and not 3x8. It's for strength and stability gains, not to look like arnold.
most of these bullshitters have some agenda. People run with the idea that fish contains mercury, and all of a sudden people aren't vaccinating their gains.
Don't listen to any of it. When legitimate scientific evidence comes out about something, the FDA usually takes charge of the situation or you find out from someone who isn't retarded.
walter, please, I am a life science student and I know some organic chem, biology, anatomy and physiology, I also took human nutrition course. but I still don't fucking get with all this knowledge, my body still looks like shit.
My body is soft, or endo-morph like, I don't look lean like other people and I tend to accumulate fat easily.
Sometimes I wonder if my test is low, but it isn't likely. But my dad is type 2 diabetic, and I realized caffeine and processed sugar like dextrose causes flare ups and worsens my acne.
Should I just eat more complex carbs (multigrain, black bean, brown rice) I feel like I am very insulin sensitive and fear that this may be the cause of why I gain fat easily and look soft rather than lean.
What should I do to maximize gains without looking like a fatass? It just baffles me sometimes when I see people who eat practically anything and never gain a single cell of fat but just muscle.
Sodium intake, I never paid attention to this til recently, and i've noticed that when I keep it consistent, my weight fluctuates less. I ask this because I am trying to bulk without putting much fat on, what is a good amount to take daily? Or does this matter upon the individual and their daily activity?
>My work was with a lab that focused on metabolism because it's a main interest of mine (partly inspired by fitness)
Me too. Currently studying biomedicine, but I might have to switch to biochemistry.
I need to have a chat with a counselor, that's for sure
>As far as leucine specifically, I couldn't tell you. Sorry m8
Leucine is an anabolic aget that starts muscle protein synthesis. You can spike your low-protein meals with 8 grams of leucine to mimic the anabolic effect of consuming whey protein, but it'll only get you as far as the essential aminoacids you've already got in your body. You can't synthesise muscle protein without building blocks, so adding leucine to small meals won't do much if your diet's shit.
Hate to cut in on your thread, biochem bro, but it's pretty evident that you just know the basic theory and have no background in nutrition and exercise physiology.
Still waiting on my question >>30815659
Er what? An athlete with more muscle mass will be able to lift more. A distance runner with more fast twitch will lose to a distance runner with more slow twitch. Saying "more muscle mass" is ambiguous.
I've never heard of this. I'll read up and get back to you.
>tips porkpie hat
bull shit. Do you really think test from your bloodstream is going to funnel out your dick? There are studies that show T fluctuations throughout the day, and during/after masturbation, but beat it whenever you want. I don't before going to the gym, because I feel lower energy. Doing it after the gym is fuckin' primo.
My bad m80. I've just been typing stream of consciousness, it comes out. And I tihnk you mean even numbered chains. Acetyl-CoA is tacked on X times, giving you 2X carbon chains. Same with beta oxidation, you cleave off two at a time. With odd numbered carbon chains, you run into problems.
You probably don't need that much, it's just a rough way of determining protein requirements. But you should be eating around that much (150-200 g) every day. Rest days are just as important diet wise.
Hi doc I'm a grill and I've cut down from 220 to 180 (I'm 5'10"). I have done mostly SS but since I'm cutting I haven't progressed much. I don't really mind because I don't care too much about building visible muscle, but should I still change programs after 6-8 months?
does this mean that under 5 reps, there won't be muscle growth at least in size?
so the thing about rep-ranges and hypertrophy is true?
How can 5 reps build strength and size if they do not force anaerobic respiration?
You should talk to a doctor about this. I'm definitely not in the diagnosis business. You should just test your blood sugar after a meal or after carb ingestion. It's easy enough to do. You may be diabetic, bro. But i'm not an MD, so talk to your doc.
Too much sodium = more water loss (your body will get rid of the excess sodium via urine). If you maintain steady sodium and steady water intake, you'll maintain a steady weight.
Leucine aids in the formation of sterols, so people got all hopped up thinking they could dope without actually doping. A shitload of papers came out on this subject and it was determined that a lot of the nonsense was just that - nonsense. Same thing as people taking tryptophan to try to get really happy on brain chemicals. It's a good point but a lot of this information comes out and then people run with it until there's no science backing at all.
The guy who sold me protein said to me that i shouldnt mix whey with milk and instead should do it with water because some bullshit about the purity of the aminoacid or something like that
question is , if like you said earlier i should eat carbs after workout to get dem muscles , shhouldnt i mix milk with whey to get them?
What supplements (if any) are safe for someone with polycystic kidneys and liver to take?
At the moment I take a post-workout protein (Humapro), and that's it. I know I'll never be IFBB big, but I don't care about that.
Also how does ADPKD affect metabolism and weight management? I find weight management easy, but then again my BMR is 3600-3700cal
>And I tihnk you mean even numbered chains
Nope. Remember, you start with one carbon in a carboxylic acid, so with acetyl-CoA adding two at a time you always end up with an odd number. You'd fail my first biochemistry test if you'd answer like that, since that was a pet peeve my doctor. And I was in fucking animal husbandry for fucks sake.
Plants can produce even numbered fatty acids and we can add on to those - that's why we need ALA, EPA and DHA to function properly.
well no. If it works it works. Good for you. Most times people want to switch programs is to work other muscle groups, but since you can lose fat in specific body parts, as long as you're still seeing progress, there's not a real reason to change. Keep at it.
And yes they are achievable, but you need to work for them. (definitely not in two years)
You'll have lower available energy in the form of glycogen stores, so you may feel less "powerful" and explosive, and it may effect your lift. I'd go with cardio on non lifting days.
There still will be (there's muscle size growth even with hyperplasia), but also because there's a little hypertrophy component. Hypertrophy isn't the only way to gain strength. More cells will also do that. Aerobic lifting is arguably more useful, as it's the most powerful reps.
I lifted a 3x5 routine and when i switched to a 3x8, I found those last 2 or 3 were very very hard, but now I'm more used to it and a 5 rep seems much easier. But that's my personal experience.
>Aerobic lifting is arguably more useful, as it's the most powerful reps.
More useful how?
is it more useful for strength or more useful for mass? ore more useful in another way?
By the way, thanks a lot for this man. I love it when a guy who knows his shit comes and clairifies questions ive had forever. i bet I could ask you all day, hope you hit the board once in a while and post more threads like this.
do what you want. Milk is fine and won't effect any bullshit in the whey. Stop shopping at GNC. (Milk isn't that carb dense, though. You should have another source of carbs if that's what you're saying).
You just need protein and carbs in your system. Eating a big lunch before lifting will do it, but I'd prefer to just take a post workout shake than to puke during a DL.
Avoid high doses of vit D. I don't really want to give out medical advice because if I say something wrong or someone fucks up my advice I'll leave /fit/ forever. I've never had a patient, and I'm not going to start on the interwebs. Sorry my man.
Count the carbons in palmitic acid.
Well in the "functional strength" sense. If you just need to lift some heavy shit into a car or something. You can improve your one rep max with aerobic lifting more so than hypertrophic lifting. However usefulness in terms of bodybuilding, most would argue hypertrophic wins.
another question. as I said if i stop and think i can ask you things forever.
what do you think is the optimal caloric surplus for bulking? should I be eating like 6k cals like supermang to grow?
or should i stick to a 300 cals surplus?
at what point do you start getting more fat than muscle, and how does that process work?
Any merit to the idea that sucralose can cause or increase the risk of cancer? One of my buddies is convinced of this. I've done a few brief searches and the evidence seems inconclusive but I would love your input.
Cool thread, thanks for contributing to this board.
HI mr. scienceman, I'm really glad that someone makes an actual quality tread
I have some questions; I've seen the questions you answered and I kinda have a vague idea, but specifaclly; how legit is combining strenght and hypertrophy in the same routine? I started a routine about that and I'm quite satisfied with the results, but I never trained for hypertrophy before.
Second, what do you think about alcohol consumption messing up with your gains? I've read a lot of stuff and while many people pull it off, I noticed that when I stopped drinking at all my stats went up and I was more cut than ever, but that's my experience.
Last one, what do you think about concurrent strenght and endurance training? and about the reciprocal inhibition between the mTOR and AMPc
Have you looked into the ketogenic diet and it's metabolic benefits including dramatically increasing mitochondrial performance ? Have you seen the literature suggesting that cancer is a metabolic disease ? (Think PET scans)
This is a tricky one. People have been messing around with these numbers a lot, and it really depends on your own physiology. However, numbers change in specific ways.
You can only use about your bodyweight in grams of protein. More is not really helping anymore. On the otherhand, carbohydrates are where a lot of people run into trouble, and can vary a lot. Too many carbs, you'll end up storing a lot of it. Too few carbs, you won't have the energy available to rest and rebuild like you need to. Find out what your base needs are (not lifting - calories required in a day to sustain weight). Then, add in lifting. Those are calories burned. You need to replenish the calories burned AND MORE in carbs so your body can rebuild, which also requires energy.
I wish I could give you a number. There's a lot of data out there and it's still debated.
Sorry, but I have no further insights than the rest of the medical community. Inconclusive usually means no. If a correlation isn't found in multiple studies, or if it's debated, it usually indicates that a risk is extremely low if present at all. (but this is an extremely general statement, and don't come to me if your child is born with 3 arms)
How many times should I masturbate a day to maintain optimum gains-building levels, scienceman? I've always tried to keep it above at least 3 a day, but is this enough, should I be hitting higher masturbatory reps?
Sorry guys, I've gotta go. I appreciate that you guys like the concept and I'll be making more threads. I'm a pretty frequent /fit/izen, so I'll be back soon. If this thread is still up, I'll answer more of your questions. If not, I'll browse around and gauge desire for another Q&A.
Keep the gains train rolling
Same here man. 6'3 and I make sure to keep the arch of my back perfectly straight, but I almost always end up with pain at the base of my spine after a squat or deadlift session. I'm pretty sure it's because of mild lordosis
>Google "Lamarckism" - traits are almost never passed on if acquired during life
Transgenerational epigenetics is a thing bro. There's some evidence that patterns of DNA methylation can, in some cases, be inherited.
Though I don't know of any studies into the epigenetics of lifting weights...
med student here - would you do me a favor and explain fasting metabolism so these people can finally understand why keto and IF are actually hormonal manipulations leading to awesomeness rather than bullshit broscience?
I keep trying with big colorful graphs explaining what hormones go up over time since last carb consumption and what these things do for your body, but these people seem to be listening to you more.
well i asked for a bf guesstimate yesterday http://imcute.yt/fit/thread/30795322/#30795485
wait until I get back to my old training volume and calisthenics will forever be > barbells. I hesitated from doing so before for the sake of my values but now is the time.
Prepare to be destroyed
You are fucking tiny. Decent bf%, but no lats, no abs and no quads. Can't tell very well in that pose, but your arms also don't look bigger than 15 inches.
>your arms also don't look bigger than 15 inches.
17 actually. I will also show you that my back is bigger than you think because you have no idea about posing but that will have to wait until later because I'm playing LoL
Just to counter all the hate, I think you look good brah. Calisthenics are underrated. There are so few decent calisthenics people left that there is almost nobody around who deviates from the internet fitness party line, and that needs to change. It was more fun when we had several competing training styles all producing impressive individuals.
I support you, calisthenicsbrah.
Very good thread, you're doing gods work.
I'm currently cutting on 1500kcal and what would be your recommended macro ratio to avoid GNG but still get enough fats for healthy hormone production.
having trouble finding textbook charts, but basically you have stuff like this. Just clean it up and add a trendline for epinephrine and it's the same.
The longer you go without feeding, insulin goes down, glucagon/hgh/epinephrine go up.
Net effect of insulin is intake of resources to muscle/fat cells.
Effect of glucagon: release resources from muscle&fat cells, degrade liver glycogen and release as glucose into bloodstream. catabolism.
Effect of epinephrine: basically the same as glucagon plus metabolic rate increase.
Effect of hgh: fat cell catabolism, glycogen release from the liver, but intake of resources into muscle. Basically hgh breaks down fat and builds muscle simultaneously, which is why bodybuilders pin it.
All of these fasting hormones have a net effect of producing ketone bodies, which the brain can burn as fuel in the absence of glucose.
Once again, as you fast OR go without carbs, the higher your levels of fat burning hormones hgh, glucagon and epinephrine will be. It is literally hormonally impossible to retain fat in this state barring massive metabolic problems.
This is how IF, warrior diet, carb cycling and keto work.
Keto is unique in that by eating food that does not provoke a significant insulin response, you basically trick your body into staying in fasting metabolism for weeks on end. This is why those medical liquid diets for permafats tend to be ketogenic.
One note on ketosis: it becomes more muscle sparing after two weeks or so of continuous ketosis. Initially, your brain only runs decently on ketones, and needs to supplement its glucose via breaking down muscle proteins to turn into glucose. For apparently still unknown reasons the brain improves its efficiency at using ketones for fuel after a few weeks, at which point it stops requiring muscle catabolism. Therefore it seems prudent to investigate carb cycling, cyclic ketogenic diet, warrior diet or IF unless you can commit to keto for months on end.
note: other charts I have seen suggest 20fold increase in hgh over 24 hours fasted, so this chart may be normalized to some kind of percentages. I really should just screenshot my Lippincott's charts.
Great info. Ever seen the literature or anecdotal evidence suggesting that keto can raise SHBG and lower free T? Is this temporary because the body sees adaptation as a huge stress? Does the increased insulin sensitivity mean that the andro receptors are more sensitive to anabolic hormones ?
You know, that's actually something I never looked into much. I myself am on genetic autobulk, never had to try to gain mass but always had to diet and exercise HARD to see my abs. Never looked too hard at stuff to increase test but if I come across anything on google in the next little bit I will follow up.
Feel free to link anything you find and I will do my best to interpret.
currently reading this guy's experiences. his dropped 15% on cyclic keto diet.
Just to throw this out there, but there is a lot of talk about what influences gains on fitness boards but very little discussion on how much each factor matters. For me, lifting in sets of 10 and eating enough seems to be responsible for 90% of my gainz, but I would be interested in somehow quantifying how much overall influence different factors make a difference.
For example, test matters and that's why tprop is a thing, but what kind of difference does it make at physiological doses? The guy I linked went from test of about 14 to about 12, do we have any idea what kind of quantitative lbm difference to expect from that?
I think that would be highly useful, and maybe OP might know how to find that info.
well thats actually really interesting
now the question is, how do you optimize keto? how do you keep insulin at its lowest?
i haven't done any real research yet since im not going to cut until may but there has to be more to it than just not eating carbs
Well, there is some research on that if you head over to Chaos & Pain.
Turns out, and there are known biochemistry reasons for this, epinephrine/adrenaline works antagonistically with insulin. If you can keep adrenaline turned up, insulin release gets turned down, at least if I remembered that correctly.
Yep, that was how it worked. See image.
Layne Norton's talk on metabolic damage indicates that there may be benefits in the long run to doing carb cycling over true keto, but for optimizing ketosis my current understanding is that it means doing like Jamie Lewis says and toking up hard on stims, doing like I said above and making sure to stay in ketosis for like a whole season at a time, and also keeping fats high relative to protein.
A certain percentage of normal amino acids can be converted to glucose, so if you consume too much protein, your body will turn it into enough glucose to provoke an insulin response. This is why keto diets medical and nonmedical tend to keep fat higher than protein by a good measure.
I have noticed in friends who keto diet, and Layne Norton has commented on this, but ketosis is not an all or nothing thing: it happens by degrees, and each person has a different aptitude to enter ketosis.
Some people, like a certain friend of mine, can enter ketosis to the point of having strong keto breath while consuming a solid 100g carbs a day via milk. Others may find it harder to hit that point even on very low carbs.
Anecdotally the people I have talked to who can enter ketosis almost by accident seem to all have fast metabolisms, so there could be something there.
In general though I would point you to chaos and pain, as jamie lewis is basically a grandmaster keto dieter.
>cutting at 1400 kcal (maintenance is 1800 at 200lb)
>taking 150g protein/day (600kcal)
>that leaves 800kcal for fats/carbs
>split in half that's 400kcal or 100g worth of carbs
>med guy says 4:1 carbs:protein ratio for PWO shake
>that would be 120g carbs
>shake would exceed my daily limit for carbs
putting gun in mouth cause the math just doesn't add up for me