Hello Friend,
If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.
It will be the most efficient use of your time.
And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.
Thank you for visiting and have a great day!
Also will add that when mixed together Brown Rice and Green Pea proteins also have a 1.00 score due to balancing out amino acids the other is missing or low in. Actually has a very similar profile to whey.
Eggs, meat, fish, chicken, veggies, shakes. It's actually not that hard. The first time I did, I definitely over did it. While I was fat and didn't have that much muscle, I looked like a patient from cancer after 2 months, people were asking me if I had AIDS or some **** like that. I got crazy with any little amount of fat I had on my body, and I was doing IF, Cardio, lifting heavy, sometimes 48hrs fast, was eating only a huge meal per day. It was not in a healthy way, but man I was ripped, but definitely not sustainable, at least not naturally sustainable. So be careful with it.
You look great man, better than 99% of guys in their prime age. Are on TRT or PEDs?
I was specifically disputing claims which @BackInTheGame78 made regarding massive GH spikes and muscle sparing effects of IF compared to sustained caloric deficits. Your comments appeared to be in support of his claims - so I was challenging both of you in that.
Thanks! The short answer is yes. I started TRT when I was 48. I competed in drug free powerlifting and physique into my mid forties. My doctor whom I trained at the time put it to me like this. He said if your vision wasn't optimal, say 20/100, you would want to get that fixed. It's the same with your "T" levels. Why not operate at optimal. So TRT, DIM, and MK677 is my current regimen. It's certainly not the panacea to muscle and strength but it's helped slow and maybe sometimes stop the decline. Fewer injuries and better recovery too. I also have a younger Asian gf with a high libido so it's helped there also. lol
Layne Norton was on JRE with a keto research PhD Dom D'Agostino, highly recommend it. None of this is settled yet.
I was supporting the rise in GH specifically. I don't recall ever seeing a study where it was 7X. I've seen anything from double and maybe up to 5x. That said, It's been a minute since I've read up on it. I guess to me it's the difference between $10M and $15M. They're both a lot of money. I think the last time I read up on it was before I decided to use MK677 and not for fasting. Of course more GH isn't always a good thing.
Cool, we're moreso in alignment than not. I was only disputing the 7x claim.
I may ask for some specific ones, not because I don't believe you - but because I would like to read up on them myself and discuss with some other meatheads I'm in contact with. I'll just quote the part and ask for the source on it specifically, if that's not too much trouble.
Source?
I'm of the belief that if someone is fat (>20%BF) and/or not trained/detrained, that muscle can still be gained during a deficit (recomp). Once getting lean beyond those numbers, or if already carrying significant muscle mass, I would agree that muscle stops accruing when in a deficit.
And I appreciate yours, truly. Thank you for the thoughtful post.
Here is a breakdown of a peer reviewed study that showed 20x boost for men in GH and 13x boost for women.
Not even a DOI number?Here is a breakdown of a peer reviewed study that showed 20x boost for men in GH and 13x boost for women.
Study finds routine periodic fasting is good for your health, and your heart
New evidence from cardiac researchers at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Utah demonstrates that routine periodic fasting is also good for your health, and your heart. The study found that fasting not only lowers one's risk of coronary artery disease and diabetes, but also...www.eurekalert.org
Sorry no time to try and track that one down right now in the actual study...it was peer reviewed and presented at a cardiologist conference so it's not nothing.
Right, I don't dispute that GH can conserve muscle mass when in a caloric deficit.Sorry no time to try and track that one down right now in the actual study...it was peer reviewed and presented at a cardiologist conference so it's not nothing.
Here is one that talks about GH inhibiting muscle protein breakdown while fasting
The protein-retaining effects of growth hormone during fasting involve inhibition of muscle-protein breakdown - PubMed
The metabolic response to fasting involves a series of hormonal and metabolic adaptations leading to protein conservation. An increase in the serum level of growth hormone (GH) during fasting has been well substantiated. The present study was designed to test the hypothesis that GH may be a...pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I am pretty sure I posted a link to one of the studies showing a 700% increase in one of the other times this topic has come up...I will try and find it in a bit.
It depends.
NP! Katch McArdle. But instead of height I inputted bf%. Then I added another variable which I neglected to mention. Moderate activity. The study I used was young men moderately active.
Here is a quote from the study below. The parenthesis are mine" The main thesis of this paper is that the FM (fat mass) is able to transfer energy to the FFM (fat free mass) up to a maximum rate of (290±25) kJ/kg d. In realistic energy deficit situations, the actual transfer rate is decreased by activity considerations."
So based on those variables you could be right, I don't know. A severe caloric restriction may have a person losing lean mass in 4-5 days. Tren and/or Anavar would definitely increase protein synthesis as long as the person is consuming enough protein over and above his maintenance needs and with the right stimulus. Another variable. Both sedentary and extreme workouts can induce muscle loss under the right conditions. (Food energy and rest). I think to give it a chance a person should be at a calorie deficit each week while eating in surplus around training days. To my original comment. Somewhere in my Dropbox I have a study that shows caloric restriction of a year on nonobese people. Health markers got better, they got stronger, and...................................lost muscle mass. But again, variables.
It works! Certainly not sustainable but not designed to be. Lyle wouldn't know me but he used to give me advice on cuts on an old forum called Cyberpump in the mid nineties. He's always had a cloud over him because he associated with Dan Duchaine and because he has only his undergraduate. He was putting into practice what many researchers were only theorizing about. Someone would tell him a scientific reason why something won't work while it's been working for him and his athletes for 20 years, and he knows why. His books may not be heavy in citations but I bet he knows them. Put more citations in his books and they would put many doctorial dissertations to shame.
You guys could be more in agreement than you think. The thing with studies is that researchers have to do their best to get published and garner headlines. This may help them get more notoriety among their peers and funding for future research. One way they do this is presenting results using absolute increases/ decreases or relative increases/ decreases, whichever fits their agenda. The statin industry is excellent at this. Say 3.7% of people taking statins died of heart attack and 4.8% taking a placebo die from heart attack. Then the absolute risk reduction of taking a statin is a paltry 1.1%. When it goes to the press it will show a 23% reduction in death if you take their statin. (Relative effect). 1.1% divided by 4.8% = 23%. So it's hard to come to a consensus sometimes when one person is arguing the absolute benefit while the other is touting relative benefit when they could both be right. I haven't looked at any of the research you guys have put up, so I could be wrong, just saying.
There's a lot to unpack here. It's awesome that you got to work with Lyle in any fashion.
