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
  #1  
Unread 11-30-2010, 08:03 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 23,178
Default Does the Training Determine the Diet or the Diet Determing the Training?

Article on the main site
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 11-30-2010, 04:12 PM
Aussieguy Aussieguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 80
Default

Under, "When does the diet determine the training"
But the point is this, the extremeness (is too a word) or RFL very much determines the types of training that can or should be done.

....I think should be "of"?

Enjoyed the article! I'm learning to find an approach that works for me, that fits in with what I want to do.....
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 11-30-2010, 07:19 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 23,178
Default

You are correct, good catch and thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 12-01-2010, 01:10 PM
Fitnesschicky Fitnesschicky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 714
Default

Great read, and one of the many reasons the book UD2 is so valuable as it truly correlates the types of workouts with the diet for optimal results. I couldn't imagine power training on virtually no carbs, or having a large defecit with large volumes of hard training. Actually the 2nd one I've done before, prior to finding this site...won't be doing that again!
__________________
"Everybody wanna be a bodybuilder but nobody wanna lift no heavy azz weight!"

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 12-01-2010, 01:32 PM
Nigeepoo's Avatar
Nigeepoo Nigeepoo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yateley, Hants, United Kingdom
Posts: 344
Send a message via MSN to Nigeepoo
Default

In title: Determing
__________________
"You lost fat by raising calories. Because of magic and voodoo. Or leptin. One of those." McDonald L.

Blog
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 12-01-2010, 05:06 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 23,178
Default

Whoops. Good catch, you're the only one who caught it.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 12-01-2010, 07:49 PM
tayjeremy tayjeremy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 600
Default

I saw this tomming, people seeing the results of RFL or UD2.0 but want to "customize it" for their purposes / shortcomings and then at the end saying "I am a snow flake. it didn't work for me because:
1...
2...
3... "
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 10-01-2014, 06:15 PM
roberto roberto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
i’d note that usually in these situations the volumes and/intensities of training being done in the first place not only require fairly moderate dietary deficits but a goodly amount of carbohydrate intake; folks doing that much training shouldn’t need any heroic approaches to losing fat unless they got way out of shape in their off-season. Trying to use any extreme approach is a mistake under these circumstances; much less ones as specific or brutal as UD2 and RFL respectively.
would it make sense that if someone is doing large amounts of volume/frequency of training (weights) for whatever reason even though there taking in a good amount of carbs can the deficit still be large since there activity level is so much and carbs are just enough to get through training but not massive (basically eating more but burning so much more so there large deficit is actually being made through there training) and also note frequency and volume has not gone up compared to where it was in the off season so not purposely adding volume.As well big caloric deficits and lots of activity would apply either because the deficit is more from activity because sufficient energy is being taken in and REFEEDS will be used. Is this a sensible or possible way of looking at it or is it more of a square peg round whole?

Last edited by roberto : 10-01-2014 at 06:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 10-01-2014, 07:15 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 23,178
Default

Find your shift key and some punctuation and try it again.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 10-01-2014, 07:53 PM
roberto roberto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
Find your shift key and some punctuation and try it again.
Sorry about that Lyle here is an edited version. Any advice?

Would it make sense that if someone is doing large amounts of volume/frequency of training (weights) for whatever reason and they are taking in a good amount of carbs can the deficit still be large? For the reason being that there activity level is so much and carbs are just enough to get through training, but not massive. Basically eating more but burning so much more, so there large deficit is actually being made through their training. In addition, frequency and volume has not gone up compared to where it was in the off season, so volume has not been purposely added. I don’t feel that “Why Big Caloric Deficits and Lots of Activity Can Hurt Fat Loss” would apply both because the deficit is more from activity and sufficient energy is being taken in. Refeeds would be used as well. Is this a sensible or possible way of looking at it or is it more of a square peg round hole situation?
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 05:14 PM.


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