Muscle Mass

meanredspider

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Of course it was, but you lapped it up like a cat with a saucer of milk.


So at what point has your commuting and leisure riding became equal to muscle gains of a dedicated bodybuilder/gym-goer?

I said I'd be happy to believe it. Like I'd be unhappy to believe that I have some aggressive cancer that was growing some massive tumour.

I didn't say that it was comparible to a dedicated body-builder. My nutritional program is put together by a guy that specialises in bodybuilders & athletes and is very similar to that of bodybuilders. He actually a lot less sceptical than you are though said it was unusual. He was also very impressed with the work rate I put into my "commuting and leisure riding". But you keep making the same point over-and-over (still without any idea of my base physique, body type etc etc). And you still haven't come close to suggesting a plausible alternative view.

Cue yet another post saying "You're stupid - it can't be true...."

meanredspider

shedhead wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

liversedge wrote:

You are unlikely to have put on considerable muscle mass in 6 weeks.

On the Supertraining forum, Anthony Pitruzzello, PhD, came up with a potential achievable range of approximately 1.5 to 5 pounds of additional lean muscle per month, after researching scientific studies.

Meanred,
Can you post a link to the supertraining forum please? I'd be interested in reading what Anthony has to say.

Thanks in advance

Hi shedhead - you want liversedge rather than me - it was his post

thiscocks

t.m.h.n.e.t

meanredspider wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Of course it was, but you lapped it up like a cat with a saucer of milk.


So at what point has your commuting and leisure riding became equal to muscle gains of a dedicated bodybuilder/gym-goer?

I said I'd be happy to believe it. Like I'd be unhappy to believe that I have some aggressive cancer that was growing some massive tumour.

I didn't say that it was comparible to a dedicated body-builder. My nutritional program is put together by a guy that specialises in bodybuilders & athletes and is very similar to that of bodybuilders. He actually a lot less sceptical than you are though said it was unusual. He was also very impressed with the work rate I put into my "commuting and leisure riding". But you keep making the same point over-and-over (still without any idea of my base physique, body type etc etc). And you still haven't come close to suggesting a plausible alternative view.

Cue yet another post saying "You're stupid - it can't be true...."

Ok.

You've lost 1kg in 2 months

You do no gym work therefore little to no use of upper body - nevermind enough for hypertrophy.

You cycle a lot

You look leaner

You are limiting carbs

Carbs = the bodies preferred energy source.

Glycogen = A solute which water likes to follow around. Per 1g of glycogen 2.7g water is stored

The average adult will store 375 -475g glycogen between muscle tissue,the liver and blood.

If you for example were storing 375g glycogen before your diet technically you will in all likelyness have lost most if not all of this stored glycogen and 2.7g of water per g.

375 x 2.7 = 1012.5g 1 kilogram 2.2lbs

Theres a plausible theory.................

meanredspider

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Ok.

You've lost 1kg in 2 months

You do no gym work therefore little to no use of upper body - nevermind enough for hypertrophy.

You cycle a lot

You look leaner

You are limiting carbs

Carbs = the bodies preferred energy source.

Glycogen = A solute which water likes to follow around. Per 1g of glycogen 2.7g water is stored

The average adult will store 375 -475g glycogen between muscle tissue,the liver and blood.

If you for example were storing 375g glycogen before your diet technically you will in all likelyness have lost most if not all of this stored glycogen and 2.7g of water per g.

375 x 2.7 = 1012.5g 1 kilogram 2.2lbs

Theres a plausible theory.................

Cool (finally...)

Would that make my waist 2" narrower? (not many muscles there, liver's higher up...)

t.m.h.n.e.t

meanredspider wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Ok.

You've lost 1kg in 2 months

You do no gym work therefore little to no use of upper body - nevermind enough for hypertrophy.

You cycle a lot

You look leaner

You are limiting carbs

Carbs = the bodies preferred energy source.

Glycogen = A solute which water likes to follow around. Per 1g of glycogen 2.7g water is stored

The average adult will store 375 -475g glycogen between muscle tissue,the liver and blood.

If you for example were storing 375g glycogen before your diet technically you will in all likelyness have lost most if not all of this stored glycogen and 2.7g of water per g.

375 x 2.7 = 1012.5g 1 kilogram 2.2lbs

Theres a plausible theory.................

Cool (finally...)

Would that make my waist 2" narrower? (not many muscles there, liver's higher up...)

On it's own probably not. It's also entirely possible you've lost visceral fat,which can accentuate subcutaneous fat. I wouldn't state for 100% certainty that this is the case but it's feasible

meanredspider

Great - I'm only looking for answers. I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing as I (think) I look better and I'm certainly quicker. I might have to buy new trousers as they are self-pleating at the waistband which isn't a good look. I lost 15kg a few years ago (which has stayed off entirely) I'm just struggling to lose weight (mass). If you're correct about the glycogen, my weight should shoot up next week as I'm on vacation and not planning to ride nor am I planning to stick rigorously to the eating regime - I should entirely replenish my glycogen stores. Last time I took a week off (about 3-4 weeks ago) was actually when I went down a kg (actually nearer 2kg). Bodies are incredibly complex things and there's a stunning range of variation even in something as seemingly "simple" as blood. It's not surprising that there's never a one-size-fits-all answer.

rick_chasey

I know this sounds crass given the discussion, but just eat less?

t.m.h.n.e.t

Rick Chasey wrote:

I know this sounds crass given the discussion, but just eat less?

How do you know that intake is high enough to reduce?

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

I know this sounds crass given the discussion, but just eat less?

I could try that though I'm concerned it will just be at the expense of performance. I'm not in a tearing hurry to lose fat - a belt-notch a month has been good enough. My surprise is not to have seen this improvement reflected in the scales in the way that it was last time my waistline shrunk. I'm doing Malin to Mizen in August which will be an opportunity to get into calorie deficit without worrying too much as it's at a reasonably steady pace.

P_Tucker

meanredspider wrote:

I honestly can't begin to think why I'm replying to your constant trolling on here but, just to correct your usual borlocks, let's look at the facts

The mirror has nothing to do with it: both of my belts are over 2 notches "tighter" (perhaps 2 belts that I've owned for many years have both suddenly grown 2.5"?????) People are telling me I look much leaner including my wife that has asked me to stop getting thinner. No doubt you'll have some reason why this is all wrong, in your playground bully mode, and we're all making it up somehow.

Difficult to say for sure of course, but its more likely than your belief.

meanredspider wrote:

And yes, I've got cupboards full of potions and mixtures from Maximuscle, MyProtein, Discount Supplements etc etc and I'm on a very high protein diet - last thing before bed I'm on a casein shake and tablespoon of peanut butter (as a for instance). Eggs for breakfast (on non-riding days) nuts & maximuscle bars mid-morning and mid-afternoon (or venison burgers and green veg), packets of chicken breast, turkey slices, more venison for lunch, high protein tea, recovery shakes after every ride - shall I go on? Am I missing something? Oh yes, BCAAs and a few other things.

I think you're missing a few hundred quid by being sold a load of utter nonsense by a "nutritionist", but you can eat all the protein you like - unless you lift heavy weights (or take steroids) then you aren't going to put on (a meaningful amount of) muscle.

meanredspider wrote:

Finally, the results: fortunately (at least for the purposes of this) the temperatures up here have hardly changed in the last couple of months. Nor has the wind (constant direction and speed). Yet my bike times have universally improved on routes I've been doing for years now. Correlation? I don't know - I'm sure (as is the nature of this particular forum) that people will jump on this and say its rubbish. But the facts speak for themselves.

And if you had increased muscle mass, how would that help you cycle faster? We've been over this in the past FFS. It almost sounds like you're cycling more and getting fitter. Astonishing stuff.

meanredspider

The point I think you're missing in your desperation (and it does come across as desperate) is that the protein in my eating plan isn't there, by design, to build muscle but to aid weight loss and improve recovery. And my point about the improved times was the huge gaping trap I knew you'd jump into with both feet because you're so desperate to be abusive. The point is, whatever is happening, I'm getting faster - I don't care why it's happening particularly. Most weight-loss programmes lead to a loss in performance. I'm definitely leaner (thinner around the waist at least) and definitely quicker - those are straightforward measurements.

P_Tucker

meanredspider wrote:

The point I think you're missing in your desperation (and it does come across as desperate) is that the protein in my eating plan isn't there, by design, to build muscle but to aid weight loss and improve recovery. And my point about the improved times was the huge gaping trap I knew you'd jump into with both feet because you're so desperate to be abusive. The point is, whatever is happening, I'm getting faster - I don't care why it's happening particularly. Most weight-loss programmes lead to a loss in performance. I'm definitely leaner (thinner around the waist at least) and definitely quicker - those are straightforward measurements.

I think you'll find that the Oxford English Dictionary DEFINITION of the word "desperation" contains an illustration of a man failing to lose weight but claiming that he's put on 3kg of muscle in 2 months by riding a bike at 83rpm. I can't stress this enough - NO-ONE puts on 3kg of muscle in 2 months without lifting heavy weights regularly and/or using steroids.

I'm happy that you seem to be pleased with a weight-loss programme that's not making you lose weight. Personally, I'd be p!ssed of if I'd paid someone for that, when you could have just eaten what you used to eat plus some protein powder if you insisted, and the extra time on the bike would have taken care of those extra calories.

We've been here before, and it turned out that I was right. Do you really want to end up having to admit THAT again, given how much of a c0ck I am?

ShutUpLegs

meanredspider wrote:

I'd appreciate some pointers. Thanks.

Really :?:

P_Tucker

ShutUpLegs wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I've already decided what I think the answer is, and I'd like some people to agree with me. Thanks.

Really :?:

FTFH

ctc

Seems like there's some varied opinion going on here

Hormones tell the body to put on muscle - that's why 'roids work
Weight training is one way to induce a hormone response which will trigger muscle being built. Other exercises can also do this.
Exercise will also burn energy supplies - glucose, glycogen fat and protein can all be used. Again different types and times of exercise will tend to use different energy supplies, and this will depend on the level of the supply available. if it isn't there, it can't be used
How you replenish the supplies will determine how much of each supply is available.

Sounds to me like some good exercise has burnt off some of your fat - probably both visceral and subcutaneous.
You have put on some muscle in response to the specific type of exercise you have done.
Your body shape has changed due to loss of fat, and gain of muscle

Your biggest response will be at the beginning. Over time body adaptation will tail off.

If you want to drop weight you need to be in calorie deficit. You will tend to lose fat more than muscle, but you will lose both. However, muscles that are in constant use will tend to reach a point where the loss is at the same rate you put on.

If you've only been at it for a couple of months, and you're on a high protein diet, it's probably a bit early to tell what you are going to end up like, especially if you change your training regime or diet in the not too distant future. Best thing to do is to not keep changing programs too soon. pick one that is going to give the results you are looking for and stick with it. For at least 6 months to one year. At the moment I'm on a body weight program (yep I know it's not cycling...). I've been on it for a year, and I reckon I'm still probably another 2 years off finishing it. However, I'm still making progress towards the end goals. I made a lot of progress early on, and it's slowed down now. I've had to be careful on 'waving' the amounts, intensity and rest periods and how it fits in with the cycling. I'm getting too old to be able to do too much without enough recovery time. Just end up getting more tired and making less progress overall

Roy Gardiner

CTC wrote:

If you want to drop weight you need to be in calorie deficit. You will tend to lose fat more than muscle, but you will lose both.

What I've read doesn't say that; it says that the body breaks down lean over fat for energy, then lays down fat rather than rebuild lean when calorie intake rises. This explains the habitual dieter's stick-thin arms and legs whilst retaining a pot belly.

ctc

Yep - called skinny fat. A lot of people who do low impact cardio only get like this. You need also to be triggering a hormone response to build muscle.
A good forum where a lot of this is discussed is Dragon Door. Not so much a body building forum, but concentrates on kettlebells, bodyweight exercises and 'old time' strong men. Much more about having usable strength rather than just muscle bulk.
Also some interesting stuff on HIT and VO2Max training. Have a look at what's called 'Viking Warrior Training' for a very good way to increase your VO2Max. Again, as you may be able to guess from the name, it's not a cycling specific exercise...

P_Tucker

What do you call someone who's lost fat, not gained muscle and not lost weight?

Full of sh!t! Bwaah ha ha ha

Think about it FFS, for a joke with a punchline "full of sh!t" its actually quite subtle

ShutUpLegs

OnTheUp wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

What do you call someone who's lost fat, not gained muscle and not lost weight?

A w@!ker.

Think about it, it's quite subtle.

Thanks for your input, and welcome to the forum

thiscocks

Roy Gardiner wrote:

CTC wrote:

If you want to drop weight you need to be in calorie deficit. You will tend to lose fat more than muscle, but you will lose both.

What I've read doesn't say that; it says that the body breaks down lean over fat for energy, then lays down fat rather than rebuild lean when calorie intake rises. This explains the habitual dieter's stick-thin arms and legs whilst retaining a pot belly.

If you are starving to death your body will break down muscle for energy. Otherwise it will use food...

dw300

thiscocks wrote:

Roy Gardiner wrote:

CTC wrote:

If you want to drop weight you need to be in calorie deficit. You will tend to lose fat more than muscle, but you will lose both.

What I've read doesn't say that; it says that the body breaks down lean over fat for energy, then lays down fat rather than rebuild lean when calorie intake rises. This explains the habitual dieter's stick-thin arms and legs whilst retaining a pot belly.

If you are starving to death your body will break down muscle for energy. Otherwise it will use food...

Even if you are eating food, it'll break down muscle if you're eating crap quality protein that doesn't have a good amino acid profile. Protein shakes are even more useful when cutting rather than bulking in order to keep atrophy to a minimum while in a deficit.

If you're starving you'll be breaking down all your organs to get what it need too.

P_Tucker

OnTheUp wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

What do you call someone who's lost fat, not gained muscle and not lost weight?

A w@!ker.

Think about it, it's quite subtle.

A walker? I don't get it.

thiscocks

dw300 wrote:

thiscocks wrote:

Roy Gardiner wrote:

CTC wrote:

If you want to drop weight you need to be in calorie deficit. You will tend to lose fat more than muscle, but you will lose both.

What I've read doesn't say that; it says that the body breaks down lean over fat for energy, then lays down fat rather than rebuild lean when calorie intake rises. This explains the habitual dieter's stick-thin arms and legs whilst retaining a pot belly.

If you are starving to death your body will break down muscle for energy. Otherwise it will use food...

Even if you are eating food, it'll break down muscle if you're eating crap quality protein that doesn't have a good amino acid profile. Protein shakes are even more useful when cutting rather than bulking in order to keep atrophy to a minimum while in a deficit.

If you're starving you'll be breaking down all your organs to get what it need too.

I'm not sure about what happens when you are on special weight diets but if you are eating a balanced diet with plenty of carbs, sugars ect.. then your body will always use that as energy. I was under the impression protien wasnt used for energy (unless nothing else is available) but mainly repairing muscle. I am sure even if you are eating crap then your body still would use this and then fats for energy.

ctc

You constantly have anabolic processes (building things) and catabolic processes (breaking down things) happening in your body. It's not static.
These processes are mostly governed by hormones. The levels of certain hormones and availabillity of the building blocks (proteins, fats, sugars, minerals and trace elements) determine what and how much is made or broken down

dw300

thiscocks wrote:

I'm not sure about what happens when you are on special weight diets but if you are eating a balanced diet with plenty of carbs, sugars ect.. then your body will always use that as energy. I was under the impression protien wasnt used for energy (unless nothing else is available) but mainly repairing muscle. I am sure even if you are eating crap then your body still would use this and then fats for energy.

Yeh, it'll use carbs and fats for energy .. proteins in extreme situations. But if you're training for performance you want to retain your lean mass, yet your body wants to get rid of it if you're not using it.

Assuming you are doing some training that stresses the muscles enough to stimulate repair, your body will try to repair that. If you don't have all the amino acids present in your diet that are required for protein synthesis then your body will break down other muscle to get those aminos, resulting in a less overall muscle gain. You're just moving the muscle around. So you're training and getting tired with no benefit.

Combine this with an overall atrophy that happens over time, and not getting sufficient protein for the hard training that you might be doing, and you could well be loosing lean mass and hence performance. In cycling where lots of muscle isn't an advantage its not so important as in some sports, but it's still important to keep what you have.

The thing is, this is most important where you get to the point where you are balancing a low bodyfat, while retaining maximum performance and lean mass required for that. Hitting all your nutrient requirements without really adding bodyfat is the tricky bit. You can hit them by eating more than you need to (from an energy perspective), but you'll not be as lean as you could be.