BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > Articles on the Main Site
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Unread 09-14-2009, 12:54 PM
Morkai's Avatar
Morkai Morkai is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,083
Default

"basically because the rest of them is disappearing small..."

I guess that depends on how many calories you get in the first place. As stated in RFL for a small female sometimes even vegetables can be overdone. I count every calorie I eat.

If it works for you then go for it.. I'm not going to speak for Lyle but I think it's nuts to ignore something that adds up personally.
__________________
My RFL Log
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Unread 09-14-2009, 12:56 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Stalingrad View Post
basically because the rest of them is disappearing small...
And the problem is that this gets people into drastic trouble: thye start ignoring the little tagalongs and by the time you add it up, a little has become a LOT.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Unread 09-14-2009, 01:13 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Also note that using RFL as a model here is a mistake. RFL isn't based around calories, it's based around protein. And that means that, within the realm of proper food choices, worrying about tagalong carbs/fat isn't necessary. You're not TRYING to hit a specific caloric intake. You ARE trying to hit a specific protein intake.

In terms of what the article was actually discussing, it all counts. Because if you don't count it all, you can end up with wildly incorrect caloric tallies (not that they are 100% accurate anyhow)
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Unread 09-15-2009, 03:15 AM
Dr. Stalingrad's Avatar
Dr. Stalingrad Dr. Stalingrad is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Heidelberg
Posts: 92
Default

OK It makes things clear...

But let us remember, that those BWx10-12 are all estimations and the nutritional content of food is not standartized, and cooking makes changes in its turn...

And the question is how should it look from practical standpoint. You have your general caloric estimation - you count your need for protein and fat, turn it into calories and substract the value from the general caloric estimation, then the rest are your calories for carbs - and you turn this value into gramms. Now you have you gramms for protein, fat and carbs and your general calories. How you will finally turn it into your menu?

For me I would err on the calories side into "less" direction and win some freedom planing nutrients / food sources...

And then correlate the diet with what scales / caliper says.
__________________
Everytime you do partial squats, Jesus kills a kitten..
Save kittens! Squat deep!!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Unread 09-15-2009, 08:43 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

So...what I said repeatedly through that and every other article I've ever written on the topic?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Unread 09-15-2009, 09:20 AM
Dr. Stalingrad's Avatar
Dr. Stalingrad Dr. Stalingrad is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Heidelberg
Posts: 92
Default

two things in this concern:

(1) read that f@cking article
(2) it's a starting point...


__________________
Everytime you do partial squats, Jesus kills a kitten..
Save kittens! Squat deep!!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Unread 12-10-2009, 10:25 AM
pwtucker's Avatar
pwtucker pwtucker is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6
Default Simple question

I've read the Baseline Diet 2009 articles, the Fat Loss for Athletes series, and a bunch more. This question follows that reading, and if it's already been answered somewhere in the archives, my apologies for not being able to find it.

Simply put: sound theory proposes that an athlete gain muscle till he's at 15% body fat, then diet down to 10%, and repeat.

Speaking in generalities, if you're currently at 12%, should you gain first, or diet down to 10% first, or does it simply not matter?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Unread 12-10-2009, 10:39 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Doesn't matter
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Unread 12-10-2009, 10:46 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Id add

1. Dieting first has the potential advantage of needing less time to get to 10% (since you're starting lower)
2. Giving you a longer gaining period before toppping out at 15% (if that'sa concern to you).

Cons of dieting first are
1. It's the holidays and it sucks to diet now.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Unread 12-10-2009, 12:20 PM
pwtucker's Avatar
pwtucker pwtucker is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6
Default

Ha. Indeed. Thanks for the speedy reply, and in general for the excellent material on your site. It's proving incredibly educational.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.