starting strength gym
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Fast or slow cut

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    • starting strength seminar april 2024
    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    Why did you delete a link to a facts-on explanation on the topic and why would that not be good advice in this case?
    Because that is not what's going on here, Marenghi and the advice to "lose as much fat as possible while keeping the most muscle mass as possible" only works if you're already well trained and have a lot of muscle mass. I like talking with Greg, but I'm not linking to his stuff on Rip's site and the video does not apply here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Harlin View Post
    J you deleted the link in the original post but kept it in your response (which got double posted)
    Whoops.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    357

    Default

    I dont see any reason why there would have to be an arbitrary "a lot of muscle mass" before smart dieting works. Because physiologially, it can and in reality, it already has a thousand of times in people without a lot of muscle mass. But given it seems that you wont engage in a factual discussion and are censoring left and right out of a strange fear of what, competition?/evidence? - I wont waste my time. Pity, think youre doing a great job given how busy you are, but sometimes we probably you, me and everyone else including the posters here would profit from additional information.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    Hi Alchemist, no need to make it unnecessarily difficult for yourself by falling into a false "1) or 2)" dilemma: Because if your goal is long-term to have the most strength and muscle mass (thats probably why Jordan immediately asked you about your goals), you simply lose as much fat as possible while keeping the most muscle mass possible. Thats the optimal tempo.

    And there are some rough estimates which ballpark you can aim at in a diet. This explains it nicely(not linking to this) What's the fastest you can cut without losing muscle? - - if youre cautious, you can be a bit more conservative. It shows that ultimately, not a pre-calculated calorie (estimate) dictates your diet, but you adjust given your actual weight loss. So weigh yourself each day, calculate a rolling 5 or 7 day average and go from there.
    I appreciate the response but that is a theory answer....and nothing I don't know. The key I've found having done the cycle a couple times is that what sounds great on paper and in the calculations doesn't quite work well for any length of time for me.

    Jordan, I'll drop you a PM to discuss discussing this if that's cool.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    I dont see any reason why there would have to be an arbitrary "a lot of muscle mass" before smart dieting works.
    That's not what I said, Marenghi. I said it's not a good idea to do it with respect to outcomes unless someone is already carrying a good amount of muscle mass.

    Because physiologially, it can and in reality, it already has a thousand of times in people without a lot of muscle mass. But given it seems that you wont engage in a factual discussion and are censoring left and right out of a strange fear of what, competition?/evidence? - I wont waste my time. Pity, think youre doing a great job given how busy you are, but sometimes we probably you, me and everyone else including the posters here would profit from additional information.
    Marenghi, I'm sorry you feel this way but you may forget the owner of this board and how the person in the link interacted with him. I will not post his stuff here even if I don't have a problem with him. Further, it does not apply to this situation, but you haven't worked with enough people (neither has Greg on this topic) to have a good gestalt on what should and shouldn't be done here.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    357

    Default

    Thanks for your civil response, I appreciate that.

    I disagree on the topic. You keep being very nebulous about your reason of your dismissal why evidence-based dieting wouldnt work here other than insisting on experience. If anything, less muscle mass (and/or lower level of training advancement) makes it easier to avoid losing (going to the extreme of even building) muscle mass, not harder, on a caloric deficit. This is my experience and one that is vastly confirmed by anecdotal experience of many coaches and physiological underpinnings.

    I had no knowledge of personal shenanigans of Grep and Mark. The video was simply a rehash of a study, we can do without the video, this is the scientific paper proper by Albert: A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia - ScienceDirect

    Anyway, thanks for your time and again a pity youre not open to factual discussion. I wont bother trying to contribute on your section, but nevertheless have a nice week!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    Thanks for your civil response, I appreciate that.

    I disagree on the topic. You keep being very nebulous about your reason of your dismissal why evidence-based dieting wouldnt work here other than insisting on experience.
    Please cite the "evidence", Marenghi..... A youtube video is not evidence. Being relatively familiar with the evidence, I'm not sure if you're arguing that losing weight is easier when you have less muscle mass (which isn't true- though not terribly well studies) or if you're saying that eating less while training and maintaining optimal protein intake preserves LBM as much as possible during periods of weight loss, which no one is arguing against.

    What I AM arguing against is trying to do that in this situation given his history, which requires experience combined with education to tease out why it is suboptimal to do what you suggested and why the video was not helpful in this situation.

    If anything, less muscle mass (and/or lower level of training advancement) makes it easier to avoid losing (going to the extreme of even building) muscle mass, not harder, on a caloric deficit
    .

    Please provide citations for this. You're discounting the training effects that can be imparted when you're actually trained and myonuclear domain physiology which are important. Please provide your citations and rationale.

    This is my experience and one that is vastly confirmed by anecdotal experience of many coaches and physiological underpinnings.
    Please provide citations.

    I had no knowledge of personal shenanigans of Grep and Mark. The video was simply a rehash of a study, we can do without the video, this is the scientific paper proper by Albert: A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia - ScienceDirect
    As is unfortunately typical here, I suspect you didn't read the study. The loss of FFM in excess of caloric deficit has been well described previously and this appears to be time mediated, e.g. faster at first and minimal later on. Interestingly, when using radiolabeled amino acid studies, ultrasound, and other more accurate metrics of muscle CSA, muscle mass, etc. we don't see significant differences in loss of muscle mass with fast vs slow weight loss though (owing that FFM is more than just muscle), but performance is a different story- depending on the time course.

    Again, without significant muscle mass, people just tend to end up skinny, not terribly lean (bc no muscle), and under strong. It's a fool's errand to suggest doing what you're suggesting in the wrong population.

    Anyway, thanks for your time and again a pity youre not open to factual discussion. I wont bother trying to contribute on your section, but nevertheless have a nice week!
    You see, the problem is you posted someone else's stuff without any understanding of it and then want me to argue with them (who is not here) and you don't understand why they said what they said. It's frustrating. And additionally, your tone comes across like I owe you something, which I don't. So- you can stay and play or kindly leave. Either way is fine with me.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    Thanks for your civil response, I appreciate that.

    I disagree on the topic. You keep being very nebulous about your reason of your dismissal why evidence-based dieting wouldnt work here other than insisting on experience.

    Anyway, thanks for your time and again a pity youre not open to factual discussion. I wont bother trying to contribute on your section, but nevertheless have a nice week!
    I'm really curious to hear what your advice would be when I remind you that so far your suggestions are things I've read, tried, and had relatively limited short term success with.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    357

    Default

    Sorry, seeing your argumentative behaviour I wont engage again in such a discussion and heres why: I did that twice already, and it went as follows: Because my opinion went against their beliefs, some SS staff demanded evidence for every and each sentence I uttered. Thats fine, Im used to that - after all thats how scientific discussions work. Well, I did cite evidence. What happened then was that - of course - each evidence was dismissed, as every study wasnt quite exactly with the exact study participants desired, the measurement not exactly as wished for - and probably the moon phase not exactly as hoped for. In short, probably no study in the world could hold up to the ecological/external validty demanded. One of the oldest tactics to dismiss scientific evidence. At that point, I still gave the benefit of the doubt that my evidence wouldnt be strong enough and soon be refuted by counter-evidence.

    Well, that never happened. Instead and interestingly, after nearly a dozen peer-reviewed evidence on my behalf for my stance, there wasnt a single scientific evidence for their stance. Just the reassuring claim that experience and logical analysis would always trump (as it trumps exercise science everytime when needed, as after all that is all flawed. ).

    In the end, there was a lot of "common sense" reasoning, analogies and final patting on each others back on their behalf - notably without a single scientific evidence for their opinion given (!) - that their stance is right. Ad hominems spouted seem to garnish that kind of behaviour, which I am not fond of either. So seeing that our discussion proceeds very similar: you insist on being right by experience, you dont give any reasons for your stance, lest scientific evidence - but demand evidence for my stance, its not worth my time discussing in this manner.

    Im sorry if I misjudge you and you behave differently than the other SS staff did. So far it unfortunately resembles my former experiences strongly, that I dont waste my time another time. Maybe I happen to see you in the future discussing with someone who disagress with you in a factual scientific manner - then I will surely be inclined to do so as well again.

    Until then, have a good time and thanks for your time.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    10,199

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by Marenghi View Post
    Sorry, seeing your argumentative behaviour I wont engage again in such a discussion and heres why: I did that twice already, and it went as follows: Because my opinion went against their beliefs, some SS staff demanded evidence for every and each sentence I uttered. Thats fine, Im used to that - after all thats how scientific discussions work. Well, I did cite evidence. What happened then was that - of course - each evidence was dismissed, as every study wasnt quite exactly with the exact study participants desired, the measurement not exactly as wished for - and probably the moon phase not exactly as hoped for. In short, probably no study in the world could hold up to the ecological/external validty demanded. One of the oldest tactics to dismiss scientific evidence. At that point, I still gave the benefit of the doubt that my evidence wouldnt be strong enough and soon be refuted by counter-evidence.
    You have presented no science that has been dismissed. You've been educated that you need to read the papers you post and alternative explanations have been posed. It's convenient that you will not engage.

    Well, that never happened. Instead and interestingly, after nearly a dozen peer-reviewed evidence on my behalf for my stance, there wasnt a single scientific evidence for their stance. Just the reassuring claim that experience and logical analysis would always trump (as it trumps exercise science everytime when needed, as after all that is all flawed. ).
    This has no bearing on the current conversation and, interestingly, having read the dispute you're talking about- you posted a lot of tangential studies with bad data, none of which could logically be used to support your point if looking for good data. What are we supposed to do with that?

    In the end, there was a lot of "common sense" reasoning, analogies and final patting on each others back on their behalf - notably without a single scientific evidence for their opinion given (!) - that their stance is right. Ad hominems spouted seem to garnish that kind of behaviour, which I am not fond of either. So seeing that our discussion proceeds very similar: you insist on being right by experience, you dont give any reasons for your stance, lest scientific evidence - but demand evidence for my stance, its not worth my time discussing in this manner.
    I think you missed my posts suggesting exactly my stance and why, and you spent 10-15 minutes writing this bullshit. Why?

    Im sorry if I misjudge you and you behave differently than the other SS staff did. So far it unfortunately resembles my former experiences strongly, that I dont waste my time another time. Maybe I happen to see you in the future discussing with someone who disagress with you in a factual scientific manner - then I will surely be inclined to do so as well again.

    Until then, have a good time and thanks for your time
    Okay dude, catch you later.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •