prudent bulking vs. pigging out

I have a question
Can you explain any reason as to why one would need 6.000 to 10.000
calories to bulk?
I was reading this article and it said "7.000 calories is not
unreasonable, to get big one has to eat a lot"

But since based on 50% efficiency to grow a pound of muscle the body
needs 2.000 calories; how many pounds of muscle a week one can build?

Let's even say that one can build 3 pounds of muscle a week
One would need 6.000 extra calories to do this
Daily it would be 850 calories

So how could one justify 7.000 calories to bulk when he needs just 850
calories above maintenance?
Some people say that someone who bulk of massive amount of calories
6.000 to 10.000 a day and diet down is going to build more muscles tha
someone who does a prudent bulking?

How is that possible?
If 850 calories above maintenance is all one needs to builk muscle what
6.000 to 10.000 calories (3.000 to 7.000 calories above maintenance)
will build more other than fat deposits?

Thanks
Davide

"Davide" <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:1163718976.154637.93980@b28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> I have a question
> Can you explain any reason as to why one would need 6.000 to 10.000
> calories to bulk?
> I was reading this article and it said "7.000 calories is not
> unreasonable, to get big one has to eat a lot"
>
> But since based on 50% efficiency to grow a pound of muscle the body
> needs 2.000 calories; how many pounds of muscle a week one can build?
>
> Let's even say that one can build 3 pounds of muscle a week
> One would need 6.000 extra calories to do this
> Daily it would be 850 calories
>
> So how could one justify 7.000 calories to bulk when he needs just 850
> calories above maintenance?
> Some people say that someone who bulk of massive amount of calories
> 6.000 to 10.000 a day and diet down is going to build more muscles tha
> someone who does a prudent bulking?
>
> How is that possible?
> If 850 calories above maintenance is all one needs to builk muscle what
> 6.000 to 10.000 calories (3.000 to 7.000 calories above maintenance)
> will build more other than fat deposits?
>
> Thanks
> Davide
>

Are you asking this seriously? How many calories are burned working out?
As you gain muscle you start to burn more calories with everything you do.
Not all caloric surplus is used solely for muscle gains (some fat is usually
gained too).

7000 calories/day is reasonable for a large bodybuilder. A 140lb guy
doesn't need that much but someone at 250+lbs. certainly would.

And I haven't addressed the 2000 calories = 1 lb of muscle part.....

That answer your question?

"Davide" <> If 850 calories above maintenance is all one needs to builk
muscle what
> 6.000 to 10.000 calories (3.000 to 7.000 calories above maintenance)
> will build more other than fat deposits?
>

If you are reading the incredibly lame bullshit that is published in the
bodybuilding magazines (where some steroid monster claims to eat 12,000
calories a day--20 chicken breasts per meal, 10 protein shakes, 50 raw eggs,
etc.); keep in mind that most of those steroid freaks are taking so many
drugs that they can work out several hours at a time and they burn up a lot
of calories (plus the drugs burn up calories too).

Additionally, half of their claims are total bullshit invented by the slob
that is ghost-writing the story or "interviewing" the bodybuilder.

Don't check out my blog at http://ironman63.blogspot.com

Spammers_Should_Be_Shot ha scritto:

> "Davide" <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote in message
> news:1163718976.154637.93980@b28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> > I have a question
> > Can you explain any reason as to why one would need 6.000 to 10.000
> > calories to bulk?
> > I was reading this article and it said "7.000 calories is not
> > unreasonable, to get big one has to eat a lot"
> >
> > But since based on 50% efficiency to grow a pound of muscle the body
> > needs 2.000 calories; how many pounds of muscle a week one can build?
> >
> > Let's even say that one can build 3 pounds of muscle a week
> > One would need 6.000 extra calories to do this
> > Daily it would be 850 calories
> >
> > So how could one justify 7.000 calories to bulk when he needs just 850
> > calories above maintenance?
> > Some people say that someone who bulk of massive amount of calories
> > 6.000 to 10.000 a day and diet down is going to build more muscles tha
> > someone who does a prudent bulking?
> >
> > How is that possible?
> > If 850 calories above maintenance is all one needs to builk muscle what
> > 6.000 to 10.000 calories (3.000 to 7.000 calories above maintenance)
> > will build more other than fat deposits?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Davide
> >
>
> Are you asking this seriously? How many calories are burned working out?
> As you gain muscle you start to burn more calories with everything you do.
> Not all caloric surplus is used solely for muscle gains (some fat is usually
> gained too).
>
> 7000 calories/day is reasonable for a large bodybuilder. A 140lb guy
> doesn't need that much but someone at 250+lbs. certainly would.
>
> And I haven't addressed the 2000 calories = 1 lb of muscle part.....
>
> That answer your question?

Yes, but they claim that the surplus is to build muscle alone ... they
don't say that they need extra calories for the extra activity but that
the amount of calories is proportional to the amount of muscles built.
That's what is really weird
In other words they claim that no matter what if you consume more
calories you will end up with more muscles even at the expense of
gaining fat as if the only limiting factor in muscle building was how
many calories you can gorge on ...
What about the 2.000 calories = 1 lb of muscle part?
I thought that was a scientific proven fact like 3500 calories = 1 lb
of fat

Thanks
Davide

Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
> Spammers_Should_Be_Shot ha scritto:
>
>> Are you asking this seriously? How many calories are burned working out?
>> As you gain muscle you start to burn more calories with everything you do.
>> Not all caloric surplus is used solely for muscle gains (some fat is usually
>> gained too).
>>
>> 7000 calories/day is reasonable for a large bodybuilder. A 140lb guy
>> doesn't need that much but someone at 250+lbs. certainly would.
>>
>> And I haven't addressed the 2000 calories = 1 lb of muscle part.....
>>
>> That answer your question?
>
> Yes, but they claim that the surplus is to build muscle alone ... they
> don't say that they need extra calories for the extra activity but that
> the amount of calories is proportional to the amount of muscles built.

Not linearly, but it is sort of "proportional".

> That's what is really weird
> In other words they claim that no matter what if you consume more
> calories you will end up with more muscles even at the expense of
> gaining fat

True.

> as if the only limiting factor in muscle building was how
> many calories you can gorge on ...

There was a study where they measured lean body mass of sumo wrestlers,
high level powerlifters and bodybuilders. Sumo wrestlers had highest
LBM, then powerlifters closely followed by bodybuilders. I didn't read
the study or even an abstract, so do your own search if you are
interested in more details.

> What about the 2.000 calories = 1 lb of muscle part?
> I thought that was a scientific proven fact like 3500 calories = 1 lb
> of fat

Since when calorie is a unit of mass? You need to multiply mass by
speed of light squared to make this kind of equation a "scientific
proven fact".

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa ha scritto:

> Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
> > Spammers_Should_Be_Shot ha scritto:
> >
> >> Are you asking this seriously? How many calories are burned working out?
> >> As you gain muscle you start to burn more calories with everything youdo.
> >> Not all caloric surplus is used solely for muscle gains (some fat is usually
> >> gained too).
> >>
> >> 7000 calories/day is reasonable for a large bodybuilder. A 140lb guy
> >> doesn't need that much but someone at 250+lbs. certainly would.
> >>
> >> And I haven't addressed the 2000 calories = 1 lb of muscle part.....
> >>
> >> That answer your question?
> >
> > Yes, but they claim that the surplus is to build muscle alone ... they
> > don't say that they need extra calories for the extra activity but that
> > the amount of calories is proportional to the amount of muscles built.
>
> Not linearly, but it is sort of "proportional".
>
> > That's what is really weird
> > In other words they claim that no matter what if you consume more
> > calories you will end up with more muscles even at the expense of
> > gaining fat
>
> True.
>
> > as if the only limiting factor in muscle building was how
> > many calories you can gorge on ...
>
> There was a study where they measured lean body mass of sumo wrestlers,
> high level powerlifters and bodybuilders. Sumo wrestlers had highest
> LBM, then powerlifters closely followed by bodybuilders. I didn't read
> the study or even an abstract, so do your own search if you are
> interested in more details.

But scientifically this doesn't make any sense
If the amount of muscle mass you can build in a week/month is limited
and not limitless and we store excess calories as fat because of
survival advantages how could even more calories than those required to
build the limited amount of muscle mass one can build in a week/month
be used to build muscle tissue?

Also lean body mass doesn't mean muscle. A good percentage of LBM is
connective tissue which is often a good percentage of the whole LBM in
fat people. That's why fat people can afford to lose LBM with the fat,
because most of it is connective tissue

Besides wrestling when you weight 500 pounds must be a weight bearing
resistance workout similar to barbel squat

But still how can be physiologically explained that indiscriminate
over-excessive calories are going to be used to build more muscles even
if the threshold of muscle tissue built per week has been already
reached? Logically and scientifically all extra calories from that
point on should be stored as fat ...

Anyone?

Thanks
Davide

Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
>
> Andrzej Rosa ha scritto:
>
>> There was a study where they measured lean body mass of sumo wrestlers,
>> high level powerlifters and bodybuilders. Sumo wrestlers had highest
>> LBM, then powerlifters closely followed by bodybuilders. I didn't read
>> the study or even an abstract, so do your own search if you are
>> interested in more details.
>
> But scientifically this doesn't make any sense

Which rules of nature it violates?

> If the amount of muscle mass you can build in a week/month is limited
> and not limitless and we store excess calories as fat because of
> survival advantages how could even more calories than those required to
> build the limited amount of muscle mass one can build in a week/month
> be used to build muscle tissue?

If your model closely described reality, then simply pigging out
without any exercise would mean pure fat gain. However, it's not true.
While simply pigging out you'll gain 1lb of muscle (or LBM, I don't
remember) per 2 lbs of fat. There was a study I also didn't read, so
check me out if you are truly interested.

> Also lean body mass doesn't mean muscle. A good percentage of LBM is
> connective tissue which is often a good percentage of the whole LBM in
> fat people. That's why fat people can afford to lose LBM with the fat,
> because most of it is connective tissue

Through weight training you also build connective tissue and bone
density.

> Besides wrestling when you weight 500 pounds must be a weight bearing
> resistance workout similar to barbel squat

Yes. Fat people have strong legs.

> But still how can be physiologically explained that indiscriminate
> over-excessive calories are going to be used to build more muscles even
> if the threshold of muscle tissue built per week has been already
> reached?

I don't believe in this threshold.

> Logically and scientifically all extra calories from that
> point on should be stored as fat ...

Why do you say "scientifically"? Is there some well established
knowledge which is overthrown by gaining lean tissue while pigging out?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
>> Andrzej Rosa ha scritto:
>>
>>> There was a study where they measured lean body mass of sumo wrestlers,
>>> high level powerlifters and bodybuilders. Sumo wrestlers had highest
>>> LBM, then powerlifters closely followed by bodybuilders. I didn't read
>>> the study or even an abstract, so do your own search if you are
>>> interested in more details.
>>
>> But scientifically this doesn't make any sense
>
> Which rules of nature it violates?

As I recall, half a year ago Davide was arguing the other way around,
saying that the intermittent fasting and resistance training is an
impossible combination, because you can't get enugh calories to
provide for muscle growth. Go figure.

Dnia 2006-11-17 DZ napisa³(a):
> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
>>> Andrzej Rosa ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> There was a study where they measured lean body mass of sumo wrestlers,
>>>> high level powerlifters and bodybuilders. Sumo wrestlers had highest
>>>> LBM, then powerlifters closely followed by bodybuilders. I didn't read
>>>> the study or even an abstract, so do your own search if you are
>>>> interested in more details.
>>>
>>> But scientifically this doesn't make any sense
>>
>> Which rules of nature it violates?
>
> As I recall, half a year ago Davide was arguing the other way around,
> saying that the intermittent fasting and resistance training is an
> impossible combination, because you can't get enugh calories to
> provide for muscle growth. Go figure.

Ah, now I understand. If you provide just right amount of calorie
surplus, a body is obliged to build pure muscles. Now it makes sense.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

"Davide" <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:1163718976.154637.93980@b28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...

> Can you explain any reason as to why one would need 6.000 to 10.000
> calories to bulk?

Yes, if by eating fewer calories they are not gaining weight, and they
wish to gain weight, it makes sense to eat more. Likewise, if someone
is gaining weight and doesn't wish to, it makes sense to eat fewer
calories. It's just common sense.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

DZ ha scritto:

> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
> >> Andrzej Rosa ha scritto:
> >>
> >>> There was a study where they measured lean body mass of sumo wrestlers,
> >>> high level powerlifters and bodybuilders. Sumo wrestlers had highest
> >>> LBM, then powerlifters closely followed by bodybuilders. I didn't read
> >>> the study or even an abstract, so do your own search if you are
> >>> interested in more details.
> >>
> >> But scientifically this doesn't make any sense
> >
> > Which rules of nature it violates?
>
> As I recall, half a year ago Davide was arguing the other way around,
> saying that the intermittent fasting and resistance training is an
> impossible combination, because you can't get enugh calories to
> provide for muscle growth. Go figure.

Yes I was
But we were arguing about diets in which it was not easy to get 3.000
calories without feeling bloated and almost throwing up. The spokesman
for this diet was a very emaciated, wasted and skinny individual
Just because I said that there's an amount of calories that is too low
for muscle building it doesn't mean that I can't believe there's an
amount that is too much. The two aren't exclusive

I have always known that it works like this: stimulus that damage the
muscle --- > body healing the damaged tissue needing calories --- >
muscle growth

So it is something new for me that just gaining 2 lbs of fat would
result in building 1 lb of muscle even without stimulus. Interesting
.... I will check the studies

But what's the physiological process behind this? What leads to muscle
growth just because of fat storage? The body making itself stronger to
support the fat weight?

While it make sense that if the limiting factor is how much you can
damage your muscles with weight then the amount of calories that will
go into repairing the muscle tissue is limited hence the growth
possible in a week/month is limited. Of course if the mere act of
gaining fat weight lead to muscle building ... it changes everything

Thanks
Davide

Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
>
> But what's the physiological process behind this? What leads to muscle
> growth just because of fat storage? The body making itself stronger to
> support the fat weight?

Probably not. I think that body builds lean tissue, because it can do
it safely. Plenty of food, plenty of fat to sustain you in case food
will be scarce, so why not build some muscles? They are useful, after
all.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

And also this link.
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1308011

#v+
"There was a study some years back which included 3 groups--elite sumo
wrestlers who did no weight training whatsoever, advanced bodybuilders
and advanced powerlifters--about 20 in each group. Now there is a lot
of variables here but they took the lean muscle mass of each group and
divided it by their height in inches. Surprisingly the sumo wrestlers
came out well ahead of the powerlifters (2nd) and the bodybuilders
(very close 3rd). This is a group who did no weight training at all
but engorged themselves with food trying to bring their bodyweight up
to dramatic levels. How is a group that is doing no weight training
having more muscle mass per inch of height than powerlifters and
bodybuilders? For anyone that doubts food is the greatest anabolic in
your arsenal, you better get up to speed and on the same page as what
my trainees have found out. Gee now what would happen if you actually
ate to get dramatically larger like a sumo, but actually weight
trained like a powerbuilder (which is what we train like), and also
did enough cardio/carb cuttoffs etc to keep bodyfat at bay while doing
all this? Are you guys coming around to how I think yet....in how to
become the biggest bodybuilder at the quickest rate but keeping
leaness on that journey?"
#v-

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...TRY=1&SRETRY=0
>
> And also this link.
> http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1308011
>
> #v+
> "There was a study some years back which included 3 groups--elite sumo
> wrestlers who did no weight training whatsoever, advanced bodybuilders
> and advanced powerlifters--about 20 in each group. Now there is a lot
> of variables here but they took the lean muscle mass of each group and
> divided it by their height in inches. Surprisingly the sumo wrestlers
> came out well ahead of the powerlifters (2nd) and the bodybuilders
> (very close 3rd). This is a group who did no weight training

They might not have done any lifting of "iron" but they sure spend a lot of
time wrestling with very heavyweights.

> at all
> but engorged themselves with food trying to bring their bodyweight up
> to dramatic levels. How is a group that is doing no weight training
> having more muscle mass per inch of height than powerlifters and
> bodybuilders? For anyone that doubts food is the greatest anabolic in
> your arsenal, you better get up to speed and on the same page as what
> my trainees have found out. Gee now what would happen if you actually
> ate to get dramatically larger like a sumo, but actually weight
> trained like a powerbuilder (which is what we train like), and also
> did enough cardio/carb cuttoffs etc to keep bodyfat at bay while doing
> all this? Are you guys coming around to how I think yet....in how to
> become the biggest bodybuilder at the quickest rate but keeping
> leaness on that journey?"
> #v-



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
news:4s6scaFug3bcU1@mid.individual.net...
>> <snip> Surprisingly the sumo wrestlers
>> came out well ahead of the powerlifters (2nd) and the bodybuilders
>> (very close 3rd). This is a group who did no weight training
>
> They might not have done any lifting of "iron" but they sure spend a lot
> of time wrestling with very heavyweights.

That's what I was thinking. So maybe it's evidence of the efficacy of a
low-rep/heavy-weight lifting routine?

ep

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Davide wrote:

> But what's the physiological process behind this? What leads to muscle
> growth just because of fat storage?

Insulin.

tom

--
It is better to create badly than to appreciate well. -- Gareth Jones

Davide <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote:
> DZ ha scritto:
>> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
>> >> Andrzej Rosa ha scritto:
>> >>
>> >>> There was a study where they measured lean body mass of sumo wrestlers,
>> >>> high level powerlifters and bodybuilders. Sumo wrestlers had highest
>> >>> LBM, then powerlifters closely followed by bodybuilders. I didn't read
>> >>> the study or even an abstract, so do your own search if you are
>> >>> interested in more details.
>> >>
>> >> But scientifically this doesn't make any sense
>> >
>> > Which rules of nature it violates?
>>
>> As I recall, half a year ago Davide was arguing the other way around,
>> saying that the intermittent fasting and resistance training is an
>> impossible combination, because you can't get enugh calories to
>> provide for muscle growth. Go figure.
>
> Yes I was
> But we were arguing about diets in which it was not easy to get 3.000
> calories without feeling bloated and almost throwing up. The spokesman
> for this diet was a very emaciated, wasted and skinny individual

I practice intermittent fasting but I don't know of any spokesman for
it. Perhaps that spokesman should try some bodybuilding style training.
One lead author of publications from the Nat Inst of Aging does look
very thin but I think he actually eats only every other day and
perhaps doesn't do resistance training either. The regimen surely
doesn't adversely affect his productivity.

> Just because I said that there's an amount of calories that is too low
> for muscle building it doesn't mean that I can't believe there's an
> amount that is too much.

Sure there is. But your argument below is missing the fact that extra
calories is not simply a building material but also provide an
improved anabolic environment.

> I have always known that it works like this: stimulus that damage the
> muscle --- > body healing the damaged tissue needing calories --- >
> muscle growth
>
> So it is something new for me that just gaining 2 lbs of fat would
> result in building 1 lb of muscle even without stimulus. Interesting
> ... I will check the studies
>
> But what's the physiological process behind this? What leads to muscle
> growth just because of fat storage? The body making itself stronger to
> support the fat weight?

DZ ha scritto:

> Davide <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote:
> > DZ ha scritto:
> >> Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Dnia 2006-11-17 Davide napisa³(a):
> >> >> Andrzej Rosa ha scritto:
> >> >>
> >> >>> There was a study where they measured lean body mass of sumo wrestlers,
> >> >>> high level powerlifters and bodybuilders. Sumo wrestlers had highest
> >> >>> LBM, then powerlifters closely followed by bodybuilders. I didn'tread
> >> >>> the study or even an abstract, so do your own search if you are
> >> >>> interested in more details.
> >> >>
> >> >> But scientifically this doesn't make any sense
> >> >
> >> > Which rules of nature it violates?
> >>
> >> As I recall, half a year ago Davide was arguing the other way around,
> >> saying that the intermittent fasting and resistance training is an
> >> impossible combination, because you can't get enugh calories to
> >> provide for muscle growth. Go figure.
> >
> > Yes I was
> > But we were arguing about diets in which it was not easy to get 3.000
> > calories without feeling bloated and almost throwing up. The spokesman
> > for this diet was a very emaciated, wasted and skinny individual
>
> I practice intermittent fasting but I don't know of any spokesman for
> it. Perhaps that spokesman should try some bodybuilding style training.
> One lead author of publications from the Nat Inst of Aging does look
> very thin but I think he actually eats only every other day and
> perhaps doesn't do resistance training either. The regimen surely
> doesn't adversely affect his productivity.

If intermitted fasting means two whole days of eating alternated with
one day of fasting or something like that then I don't see the problems
of not consuming enough calories
But eating every day and just at night makes it very hard to get 3.000
or 4.000 or more calories without having a bloated stomach and feeling
too full, not to mention that there are only health disadvantages in
consuming too much food at one sitting: increased lipemia, increased
glucose intolerance. Ori Ofmekler is emaciated and skinny looking IMO

Davide <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote:
>> I practice intermittent fasting but I don't know of any spokesman for
>> it. Perhaps that spokesman should try some bodybuilding style training.
>> One lead author of publications from the Nat Inst of Aging does look
>> very thin but I think he actually eats only every other day and
>> perhaps doesn't do resistance training either. The regimen surely
>> doesn't adversely affect his productivity.
>
> If intermitted fasting means two whole days of eating alternated
> with one day of fasting or something like that then I don't see the
> problems of not consuming enough calories But eating every day and
> just at night makes it very hard to get 3.000 or 4.000 or more
> calories without having a bloated stomach and feeling too full,

If you feel too full and bloated, it means you ARE eating too much. To
eat more than you'd like to defeats the whole idea. Intermittent
fasting is most often a way of restricting calories.

> not to mention that there are only health disadvantages in consuming
> too much food at one sitting: increased lipemia, increased glucose
> intolerance.

You are wrong. Read this for example -

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=16051710

> Ori Ofmekler is emaciated and skinny looking IMO

I don't need to know anything about this person. Why does it matter
how he looks? If you want to learn about health effects of
intermittent fasting, search pubmed for

"mattson mp"[Author] AND "intermittent fasting"

DZ ha scritto:

> Davide <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote:
> >> I practice intermittent fasting but I don't know of any spokesman for
> >> it. Perhaps that spokesman should try some bodybuilding style training.
> >> One lead author of publications from the Nat Inst of Aging does look
> >> very thin but I think he actually eats only every other day and
> >> perhaps doesn't do resistance training either. The regimen surely
> >> doesn't adversely affect his productivity.
> >
> > If intermitted fasting means two whole days of eating alternated
> > with one day of fasting or something like that then I don't see the
> > problems of not consuming enough calories But eating every day and
> > just at night makes it very hard to get 3.000 or 4.000 or more
> > calories without having a bloated stomach and feeling too full,
>
> If you feel too full and bloated, it means you ARE eating too much. To
> eat more than you'd like to defeats the whole idea. Intermittent
> fasting is most often a way of restricting calories.
>
> > not to mention that there are only health disadvantages in consuming
> > too much food at one sitting: increased lipemia, increased glucose
> > intolerance.
>
> You are wrong. Read this for example -
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=16051710
>
> > Ori Ofmekler is emaciated and skinny looking IMO
>
> I don't need to know anything about this person. Why does it matter
> how he looks? If you want to learn about health effects of
> intermittent fasting, search pubmed for
>
> "mattson mp"[Author] AND "intermittent fasting"

I have been practicing intermitted fasting myself ... but just in
another way
Instead of eating little in the morning and gorging in one or two meals
at night I just fast every two to three days for a whole day. Studies
on animals show this is the way many animals practice intermitted
fasting and this is the way that shows the most increased longevity.
I've read forum about Warrior Diet and many people usually consume
1.500 to 2.000 calories in their night meals. I would need at least
3.500 alone and 600 more in clean bulking phase.
I've never known anyone that was able to consume 4000 clean calories
eating just at night

On the other hand my intermitted fasting is consistent with both
bulking and both health and longevity. An interesting approach I have
learned about bulking is to alternate two to three days of overeating
with one to two days of undereating. The switch in calories happens as
soon as a metabolic adjustement is approaching. That prevent plateau
but also decrese fat gains while limiting lean body mass loss.

Anyway both fasting once per week, or eating just when 80% full, or
undereating every two to three days or not eating during the day and
gorging on food at night are all approaches that have been showed to
work as far as longevity and caloric restriction is concerned on animal
studies. One is not better than the other ... but I don't like the
eating just at night approach as it is not easy to stretch the stomach
so much that it can accomodate 4.000 calories of clean food in one or
two sitting, without feeling discomfort and stomach distress

Davide

"Davide" <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:1163853709.876116.55660@m73g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
>
> DZ ha scritto:
>
>> Davide <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote:
>> >> I practice intermittent fasting but I don't know of any spokesman
>> >> for
>> >> it. Perhaps that spokesman should try some bodybuilding style
>> >> training.
>> >> One lead author of publications from the Nat Inst of Aging does
>> >> look
>> >> very thin but I think he actually eats only every other day and
>> >> perhaps doesn't do resistance training either. The regimen surely
>> >> doesn't adversely affect his productivity.
>> >
>> > If intermitted fasting means two whole days of eating alternated
>> > with one day of fasting or something like that then I don't see the
>> > problems of not consuming enough calories But eating every day and
>> > just at night makes it very hard to get 3.000 or 4.000 or more
>> > calories without having a bloated stomach and feeling too full,
>>
>> If you feel too full and bloated, it means you ARE eating too much.
>> To
>> eat more than you'd like to defeats the whole idea. Intermittent
>> fasting is most often a way of restricting calories.
>>
>> > not to mention that there are only health disadvantages in
>> > consuming
>> > too much food at one sitting: increased lipemia, increased glucose
>> > intolerance.
>>
>> You are wrong. Read this for example -
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=16051710
>>
>> > Ori Ofmekler is emaciated and skinny looking IMO
>>
>> I don't need to know anything about this person. Why does it matter
>> how he looks? If you want to learn about health effects of
>> intermittent fasting, search pubmed for
>>
>> "mattson mp"[Author] AND "intermittent fasting"
>
> I have been practicing intermitted fasting myself ... but just in
> another way
> Instead of eating little in the morning and gorging in one or two
> meals
> at night I just fast every two to three days for a whole day. Studies
> on animals show this is the way many animals practice intermitted
> fasting and this is the way that shows the most increased longevity.
> I've read forum about Warrior Diet and many people usually consume
> 1.500 to 2.000 calories in their night meals. I would need at least
> 3.500 alone and 600 more in clean bulking phase.
> I've never known anyone that was able to consume 4000 clean calories
> eating just at night
>
> On the other hand my intermitted fasting is consistent with both
> bulking and both health and longevity. An interesting approach I have
> learned about bulking is to alternate two to three days of overeating
> with one to two days of undereating. The switch in calories happens as
> soon as a metabolic adjustement is approaching. That prevent plateau
> but also decrese fat gains while limiting lean body mass loss.
>
> Anyway both fasting once per week, or eating just when 80% full, or
> undereating every two to three days or not eating during the day and
> gorging on food at night are all approaches that have been showed to
> work as far as longevity and caloric restriction is concerned on
> animal
> studies. One is not better than the other ... but I don't like the
> eating just at night approach as it is not easy to stretch the stomach
> so much that it can accomodate 4.000 calories of clean food in one or
> two sitting, without feeling discomfort and stomach distress

At the risk of stating the obvious, what you do may work for you and
what DZ does may work for him, and if you switched, it might work and it
might not, and when all is said and done, so what? There is a limit to
the application of science to one's eating habits. Find what works for
you and be happy that you did.

I eat mostly in the evenings, and it has worked out tremendously well
for me. I regularly pass for a couple of decades younger than my actual
age and, after doing the Warrior Diet approach for 4-5 years now, I am
healthier than I've ever been by all objective and subjective measures.
I stop when I've had enough to eat, and if I'm hungry a few hours later,
I just eat some more.

Last but not least, I imagine age plays a part in this. I don't know
your age nor that of Comrade DZ, but I know for a fact that I need far
less food at my current age of 51 than I did 20 or 30 years ago.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Davide <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote:
> I have been practicing intermitted fasting myself ... but just in
> another way. Instead of eating little in the morning and gorging in
> one or two meals at night I just fast every two to three days for a
> whole day. Studies on animals show this is the way many animals
> practice intermitted fasting and this is the way that shows the most
> increased longevity. I've read forum about Warrior Diet and many
> people usually consume 1.500 to 2.000 calories in their night
> meals. I would need at least 3.500 alone and 600 more in clean
> bulking phase. I've never known anyone that was able to consume
> 4000 clean calories eating just at night. On the other hand my
> intermitted fasting is consistent with both bulking and both health
> and longevity. An interesting approach I have learned about bulking
> is to alternate two to three days of overeating with one to two days
> of undereating. The switch in calories happens as soon as a
> metabolic adjustement is approaching. That prevent plateau but also
> decrese fat gains while limiting lean body mass loss. Anyway both
> fasting once per week, or eating just when 80% full, or undereating
> every two to three days or not eating during the day and gorging on
> food at night are all approaches that have been showed to work as
> far as longevity and caloric restriction is concerned on animal
> studies. One is not better than the other ... but I don't like the
> eating just at night approach as it is not easy to stretch the
> stomach so much that it can accomodate 4.000 calories of clean food
> in one or two sitting, without feeling discomfort and stomach
> distress.

Ok, that sounds all good, except I'm very leery of the idea that the
lifestyle and the diet the animals or our biological ancestors were
practicing in the wild is natural and therefore is healthy by
definition. Mother Nature (MN) IS trying to kill us - after we had
left a couple of children or so. We only need to find one example of
species where this is the case to discredit the whole theory. Grandmas
needed to take care of village children notwithstanding - such
longevity polymorphisms are likely optimal in only very low population
frequencies (how'd you feed and maintain a bunch of grandmas?)

Species of salmon with the programmed death is a good example when the
MN has taken this to the extreme. You spawn, you die. There is a
freshwater parasitic mussel living in salmon's gills whose development
cycle is a lot longer than that of the fish. They are relatively rare
and because of their external fertilization the chances of that are
slim unless they live very long. Well, they and their host too. The
infected fish stay for years in the river, keep reproducing, and end
up living 5 times longer than the uninfected.

DZ ha scritto:

> Davide <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote:
> > I have been practicing intermitted fasting myself ... but just in
> > another way. Instead of eating little in the morning and gorging in
> > one or two meals at night I just fast every two to three days for a
> > whole day. Studies on animals show this is the way many animals
> > practice intermitted fasting and this is the way that shows the most
> > increased longevity. I've read forum about Warrior Diet and many
> > people usually consume 1.500 to 2.000 calories in their night
> > meals. I would need at least 3.500 alone and 600 more in clean
> > bulking phase. I've never known anyone that was able to consume
> > 4000 clean calories eating just at night. On the other hand my
> > intermitted fasting is consistent with both bulking and both health
> > and longevity. An interesting approach I have learned about bulking
> > is to alternate two to three days of overeating with one to two days
> > of undereating. The switch in calories happens as soon as a
> > metabolic adjustement is approaching. That prevent plateau but also
> > decrese fat gains while limiting lean body mass loss. Anyway both
> > fasting once per week, or eating just when 80% full, or undereating
> > every two to three days or not eating during the day and gorging on
> > food at night are all approaches that have been showed to work as
> > far as longevity and caloric restriction is concerned on animal
> > studies. One is not better than the other ... but I don't like the
> > eating just at night approach as it is not easy to stretch the
> > stomach so much that it can accomodate 4.000 calories of clean food
> > in one or two sitting, without feeling discomfort and stomach
> > distress.
>
> Ok, that sounds all good, except I'm very leery of the idea that the
> lifestyle and the diet the animals or our biological ancestors were
> practicing in the wild is natural and therefore is healthy by
> definition. Mother Nature (MN) IS trying to kill us - after we had
> left a couple of children or so. We only need to find one example of
> species where this is the case to discredit the whole theory. Grandmas
> needed to take care of village children notwithstanding - such
> longevity polymorphisms are likely optimal in only very low population
> frequencies (how'd you feed and maintain a bunch of grandmas?)
>
> Species of salmon with the programmed death is a good example when the
> MN has taken this to the extreme. You spawn, you die. There is a
> freshwater parasitic mussel living in salmon's gills whose development
> cycle is a lot longer than that of the fish. They are relatively rare
> and because of their external fertilization the chances of that are
> slim unless they live very long. Well, they and their host too. The
> infected fish stay for years in the river, keep reproducing, and end
> up living 5 times longer than the uninfected.

I don't know ... whenever I read about natural selection based theories
I always remember that darwinian evolution if far from being a fact,
far from proved, far from not being disproved by hundreds of exception
and far from explaining anything about life (and no, I'm not religious
at all)
I prefer to base weight training and nutritional theories on more real
science like physiology and biochemistry than speculative efforts that
may be deemed hogwash within a couple of years

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm

Let's agree to disagree

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:45:42 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
wrote:

>Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...TRY=1&SRETRY=0
>>
>> And also this link.
>> http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1308011
>>
>> #v+
>> "There was a study some years back which included 3 groups--elite sumo
>> wrestlers who did no weight training whatsoever, advanced bodybuilders
>> and advanced powerlifters--about 20 in each group. Now there is a lot
>> of variables here but they took the lean muscle mass of each group and
>> divided it by their height in inches. Surprisingly the sumo wrestlers
>> came out well ahead of the powerlifters (2nd) and the bodybuilders
>> (very close 3rd). This is a group who did no weight training
>
>They might not have done any lifting of "iron" but they sure spend a lot of
>time wrestling with very heavyweights.

That is how I see it. They are athletes who use a lot of muscles
practicing their sport. They have to be strong to push the other guy
out of the ring. Their diets are pretty amazing too. I can't believe
how much they eat in a single day.

In comparison I can think of plenty of fat people who have very little
muscle. I doubt sitting on a couch eating potato chips will give you
the same effect of a sumo wrestler.

Here is a link describing some of what they go through:

http://discoverychannelasia.com/sumo...er/index.shtml

I find the skipping breakfast part interesting. People in MFW have
argued with me plenty that skipping meal does nothing to metabolism.

Davide <davideb_music@yahoo.it> wrote:
> DZ ha scritto:
>> Ok, that sounds all good, except I'm very leery of the idea that the
>> lifestyle and the diet the animals or our biological ancestors were
>> practicing in the wild is natural and therefore is healthy by
>> definition. Mother Nature (MN) IS trying to kill us - after we had
>> left a couple of children or so. We only need to find one example of
>> species where this is the case to discredit the whole theory. Grandmas
>> needed to take care of village children notwithstanding - such
>> longevity polymorphisms are likely optimal in only very low population
>> frequencies (how'd you feed and maintain a bunch of grandmas?)
>>
>> Species of salmon with the programmed death is a good example when the
>> MN has taken this to the extreme. You spawn, you die. There is a
>> freshwater parasitic mussel living in salmon's gills whose development
>> cycle is a lot longer than that of the fish. They are relatively rare
>> and because of their external fertilization the chances of that are
>> slim unless they live very long. Well, they and their host too. The
>> infected fish stay for years in the river, keep reproducing, and end
>> up living 5 times longer than the uninfected.
>
> I don't know ... whenever I read about natural selection based theories
> I always remember that darwinian evolution if far from being a fact,
> far from proved, far from not being disproved by hundreds of exception
> and far from explaining anything about life (and no, I'm not religious
> at all)

First of all, I wrote nothing about evolution or selection in the
above. But if you must insist -

Your opinion is formed from reading ABOUT evolution.

It is worthless, just as an opinion about quantum mechanics of
somebody who is not educated in physics, but have read popular books
about it.

> I prefer to base weight training and nutritional theories on more
> real science like physiology and biochemistry than speculative
> efforts that may be deemed hogwash within a couple of years
>
> http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm

No one can possibly learn anything about the subject from this link,
only about Schutzenberger. "Biology is, of course, not my specialty."
That says it all. Show me a scientist who actually studied
evolutionary theory, published on it, and turned away after realizing
its deficiency.

That is how science works. You become intimately familiar with the
subject matter first, and only then become disabused.

If someone doesn't know the subject, he's still welcome to yap about
it, but don't expect the yapping to be taken seriously.

He was (and you still are) under the impression that evolutionary
theory is based on popular science writings like that of Dawkins. Want
to know the actual science behind it? Start here - www.genetics.org -
this journal free archives go back to 1916.