Bodybuilding Forums

Below is a plan I followed which was effective in reducing body fat and gaining lean muscle mass (H20 Tank BF analyzed). Problem was I quit prior to reaching my goals. After reading on this site I'm confused. Comments welcomed.

Meal Plan

Breakfast: 4 Egg Whites (just added 1 yolk)
1 Quaker Instant Oatmeal (in water)

Snack 2 scoops Ultra Whey Protein
Vegetable of some sort

Lunch 4 oz Grilled Chkn Breast
4 oz Potato (no condiments) or 4 rice cakes
Vegetable of some sort

Dinner 4 oz Chkn Breast
Vegetable of some sort (shredded broccoli salad w light dressing)

Snack 4 oz Chkn Breast

*** Occasionally substitute Tuna for Chkn. Depending on hunger or bordom will have rice cakes or potato at dinner. Supplements Glutamine, Multivitamin and Lipidex.

Work Out


Monday Chest/ Shoulder (4 sets)
Bench Press
Dumbbell Incline Press
Seated Dumbbell Shoulder Press
Decline Press
Incline Dumbbell Flyes
*** Usually do some cable or machine flyes at end***
1 hour Spinning Class

Tuesday Back
Wide grip seated Pull Down
Seated Rows
One arm Dumbbell Row
Back Extension
Seated Machine Rows
Cables – rear delt crossovers

Wednesday Bi/ Tri/ Shoulder
Standing Barbell Curl
Skull Crusher
Standing Dumbbell Curl – supinated
Standing Triceps push down
Standing Dumbbell Hammer Curl
Dips
Cable Curls – one arm
Cable Pushdowns – one arm
Lateral Raises – cable or dumbbell
1 Hour Spinning
30 minute Ab/ Stretch Class

Thursday 1 Hour elliptical
***Usually take this day off or substitute for Friday

Friday Legs
Machine Hamstring
Machine Extension
Smith Squat
Machine Press
Standing calf raises
Seated Hamstring

Saturday 1 hour spinning every other week
***On spinning days I generally do some misc exercises 30 minutes beore Class

All this being said I do cheat some meals and routine days

Well, for one, where are you confused? We're happy to provide whatever help we can around here.

Looking at that Lipidex product.... not bad actually - CLA and Omegas. It's shocking for a product claiming to help with fat loss to actually have beneficial ingredients, sadly, but if you liked it before I wouldn't steer you away from picking it back up if you're looking to resume cutting. The diet plan looks like a somewhat haphazard GI-controlled plan, and reading it I'm not even a little surprised to hear it worked for you - it looks pretty decent actually. Generally speaking a diet can always be tightened up, you may wanna hop over to [url]MuscleHack.com[/url] and read the articles on GLAD and MANS if you want an idea of what I mean, or spend the money on [ur=www.totalsixpackabs.com]TSPA[/url], which goes pretty in depth on the diet end of it.

Your training, however, looks like enough to kill the average person, and may be verging on overtraining for someone who's experienced with high intensity training. Just what were your lean mass gains? Over what kind of time frame? And was this a "first" routine for you or had you been in the gym a while before beginning this routine? I presume you're looking to get back towards working on your goals - which are what exactly? Like are you looking for a %BF or to bulk up or what? And where are you now in terms of weight and %BF?

Sorry for the delay in responding. I typed out a repsonse and sent it to JoH as a private message. So I thought. There is nothing in my outbox sooooo I assume I didn't hit the send button.

Confusion lies in my routine and diet. My goal at 6'2, 196lbs and 18% BF is to look amazing and see my abdominal wall. If it even exists. The routine/diet I am back on is from another online trainer. It worked initially as I lost 11 fat pounds and gained 3 muscle pounds in just over a month. This was measured using H2O submersion tank. The technician was amazed. Hopefully just good genetics, although I did work my ass off. I stopped due to circumstances I will not allow this time (damn women and alcohol). I have trained/dieted a few differnet time and am not a rookie to the gym. I have been reading TSPA and beggining to calculate my macronutrients. I did leave out that I occasionally use ZMA and eat a grapefruit prior to weight training. I do also cheat a bit. I try to be as good as possible so if I'm hungry I go for baby carrots (do the carbs count) or baby pickles. I'll know how close I am to the macronutrients on TSPA soon, however I do not carb up of fat flush. In addition, my routine is quite different and I need to add weighted abs.

brcyrslf wrote:Sorry for the delay in responding. I typed out a repsonse and sent it to JoH as a private message. So I thought. There is nothing in my outbox sooooo I assume I didn't hit the send button.

Nope. Got a whole lot of nothin...

brcyrslf wrote:Confusion lies in my routine and diet. My goal at 6'2, 196lbs and 18% BF is to look amazing and see my abdominal wall. If it even exists.

Your abdominal wall exists. If it didn't your organs would all fall out.

Trying to eliminate some of your confusion, your exercise routine really truly does scream overtraining. I'm not surprised you had such great results in a month - I'd just be shocked if a second consecutive month would be remotely as good. Your program simply leaves you nowhere to go when your body inevitably adapts to the training and diet. Switching to TSPA means switching to the routine as well, which will start you at the beginning and allow you to let the cut cycle run longer than month (up to three if you please) meaning less likelihood of plateauing since you have options to defeat your body's tendency toward homestasis (the step downs in the book).

Taking a second look at your diet... where the hell is the fat?! I see lots of lean protein, I see a fair amount of carbs, and zero fat. You do realize that's your hormone production at stake, right? Again, not terribly surprised that you had great success the first month - I'd just hate to see you at the end of month two... I mean, really, based on what you've provided, this is an intake around 1200 calories a day, breaking down as 148g protein, 63g net carbs, and 29g of fat (basically 40% protein, 20% carbs, 20% fat, a very traditional split). That severe of a cut with that extreme of a workout frankly makes me a bit nervous, and it may have been for the best that you fell off the wagon when you did. Last time I cut that severely I lasted about 6 weeks - went from great weight loss and strength gains to hard-core crash, like I actually started gaining weight and my workouts were complete shit before I stopped the cycle 4 weeks earlier than usual. Took me two weeks off to feel 'normal' again. Your mileage may vary, different people have different genetics and I guarantee I'm up against issues that you're not, but you can only eat at a severe deficit for so long before the body goes into starvation-mode. The more severe the deficit, the shorter that cycle can last.

The best way that I can honestly think of to resolve you confusion is to tell you look at what you were doing then as a plan unto itself. It is obviously based on different principles than what Mark uses. It's hard to call one superior to the other - they're different. I would expect them to work better or worse than one another in different circumstances, not one to be universally the better choice if that makes sense.

brcyrslf wrote:The routine/diet I am back on is from another online trainer. It worked initially as I lost 11 fat pounds and gained 3 muscle pounds in just over a month. This was measured using H2O submersion tank. The technician was amazed. Hopefully just good genetics, although I did work my ass off.

Very likely both. Good genetics certainly do help - but barring being cursed with some major medical malfunctions, in terms of fitness and body composition they can almost universally be overcome through working your ass off.

brcyrslf wrote:I stopped due to circumstances I will not allow this time (damn women and alcohol).

Trust, men are no better..

brcyrslf wrote: I have trained/dieted a few differnet time and am not a rookie to the gym. I have been reading TSPA and beggining to calculate my macronutrients. I did leave out that I occasionally use ZMA and eat a grapefruit prior to weight training.

On TSPA and MANS (if you choose to go that route after you're done cutting), that grapefruit prior to training will be history. Pre-workout carbs serve no purpose. At all. Like researched and proven pointless. The ZMA, however, can be highly useful, but you'll want to take that on an empty stomach right at bedtime for maximum efficacy.

brcyrslf wrote: I do also cheat a bit. I try to be as good as possible so if I'm hungry I go for baby carrots (do the carbs count) or baby pickles. I'll know how close I am to the macronutrients on TSPA soon, however I do not carb up of fat flush. In addition, my routine is quite different and I need to add weighted abs.

On TSPA, MANS and GLAD all three, you've gotta cut the cheating - especially if your cheating is carbs. The nice thing is the carb cycling on MANS and TSPA allows you to take those "cheat" foods and just fit them in on your carb load days - you really can look at it almost as a regularly scheduled cheat day, which is kind of nice. As to whether or not the carbs count... on ketogenic (i.e. MANS & TSPA) and GI-controlled (GLAD) diets, the carbs always count. Always. And frankly, I'm highly suspicious of any diet on which they don't. If your diet allows for sloppiness, it's probably over-restrictive and is counting on you cheating to prevent a metabolic crash. You'll find your intake on TSPA to be significantly higher than a lot of cut diets (or at least such is my experience), but you'll also find the loss steadier, more predictable, and with less hunger pangs and less temptation to cheat. Incidentally, the results you got on your program are on par with what is to be reasonably expected following TSPA to the letter.

If this is a matter for whatever reason you'd like to try a different diet or exercise plan, then set that down, pick up TSPA and do it just as prescribed - exercise routine and all. The inverse is also true - if your other plan worked before, it may well work again, though I reiterate my caveats above that this does not at all look like something you can stay on long enough to lose the roughly 18lbs of body fat you'll need to drop to get down under 10% for your abs to show. If you're looking for a "superior" plan, that's going to require you to try both and make an educated decision based on your personal results over the same period of time.

Thank you for your time reponding to posts such as mine. The information you are able to share is exceptional and extremely helpful. Keep posted. I am going to get a H2O measurement on Saturday as an accurate measurement. I used electronic calipers this am and supposedly 16% BF at 194. I have to mention I restarted my program 2 weeks ago and weighed 207. I am sure alot of the initial weight loss was water from poor eating habits. Additionally, I swear eating a grapefruit prior to a workout (especially arm/ chest) give me a better workout (more energy and I lift heavier). Going back two years I worked with a nutritionist (editor for Men's Health - lucky he is local) and had some gains on his plan as well but lost confidence since he also provided a "routine" although he wasn't a trainer. I'll contact him regarding the dieet and get his input to share in the forum. If interested. Biggest thing is consistency and continuous pursuit of my goal. Again, much appreciation.

brcyrslf wrote: If interested.

Always interested. The only unhelpful knowledge is knowledge you have not obtained, and nothing anyone ever shares with you can make you dumber.

Interesting bit about the grapefruit... that stuff has strange properties. Like there's a compound in the juice that affects your stomach lining and can impact uptake of certain chemicals and compounds - a lot of drugs have warnings not to take them with grapefruit for this reason. Kinda makes me wonder if it made you absorb more of anything you were taking pre-workout...?

Here is what a Nutritionist's comments are regarding my plan:

Your plan - both the training & the diet - look like they were made by a competitive bodybuilder in the 1980's, hahaha. In internet slang, this plan is filled with broscience.

It wouldn't be ineffective, but the diet is needlessly restrictive in terms of food choices - plus I don't know any sane person who can eat chicken breast all their lives. The diet is too low in fat. Bottom line is, all you need to know how to do is hit your macronutrient targets each day - how you do that is up to you, just keep the majority of your foods whole & minimally processed. Rice cakes? Hahahaham, tha'ts so 80's. I'd rather see you eating something healthier like fruit. As for the supplement, ZMA has been proven useless in 2 consecutive studies. The only study showing ZMA's effectiveness was funded by Victor Conte, the crook who holds the patent on ZMA. Here;s the non-vested research on ZMA showing that it's crap:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18500945
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v63/ ... 2899a.html

Glutamine is a tremendous waste of money. It's been proven useless for athletic/bodycomp purposes multiple times, here's the research:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11834123
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11822473
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17111006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17618004

Instead of pouring $$$ into Lipidex, all you need is a fish oil supplement to cover your omega-3 requirements (4-6 grams of fish oil is sufficient), and the Kirkland Signature brand - Costco's house brand - is USP-verified. Lipidex has not gone under anything close to that degree of rigor in terms of quality control certification. Also, it contains a bunch of intert, useless crap.

As far as training goes, this plan is your typical 1x/weel bodypart split that steroid-using bodybuilders in the 80's were on. It's just not optimal. all you need to do is get on a split that trains each muscle group twice a weel, 4-8 work sets per session. This will put you in the research-supported sweet spot for training volume & frequency for optimal gains in strength. But, don't take my word for it, have a look at the research; here's a quote from a recent meta-analysis on muscular strength development:

"For untrained individuals, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training
intensity of 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 3 days per week, and with a
mean training volume of 4 sets per muscle group. Recreationally trained nonathletes
exhibit maximal strength gains with a mean training intensity of 80% of 1RM, 2 days
per week, and a mean volume of 4 sets. For athlete populations, maximal strength
gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and
with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373

Now you know where the confusion starts.

hmmm
I like controversy.
I think Mark's plans are for maximum muscle size. His calculations put the POP at one week because of the diet and intensity of each set.
I *think* that is what is happening. (ssshhhhh, don't tell my muscles anything different, they keep getting bigger)

brcyrslf wrote:Here is what a Nutritionist's comments are regarding my plan:

Your plan - both the training & the diet - look like they were made by a competitive bodybuilder in the 1980's, hahaha. In internet slang, this plan is filled with broscience.

It wouldn't be ineffective, but the diet is needlessly restrictive in terms of food choices - plus I don't know any sane person who can eat chicken breast all their lives. The diet is too low in fat.

I KNEW the fat count was way too low!

brcyrslf wrote:Bottom line is, all you need to know how to do is hit your macronutrient targets each day - how you do that is up to you, just keep the majority of your foods whole & minimally processed. Rice cakes? Hahahaham, tha'ts so 80's. I'd rather see you eating something healthier like fruit.

Kind of surprised your nutritionist didn't caveat this at all. Some fruit is very high in terms of overall carbs, sugar, and glycemic index. I'd aim for berries and lower GI fruits (like raspberries and strawberries) versus the super sweet ones (like oranges)

brcyrslf wrote:As for the supplement, ZMA has been proven useless in 2 consecutive studies. The only study showing ZMA's effectiveness was funded by Victor Conte, the crook who holds the patent on ZMA. Here;s the non-vested research on ZMA showing that it's crap:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18500945
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v63/ ... 2899a.html

Look! It's a pubmed link! My favorite research tool ever in the history of the world!! Saving all these links for later reading. I <3 my student library accesses.

brcyrslf wrote:Glutamine is a tremendous waste of money. It's been proven useless for athletic/bodycomp purposes multiple times, here's the research:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11834123
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11822473
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17111006
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17618004

Yep... stacks here I come... but if this is the case at least I'm only partly throwing my money away since I don't buy straight glutamine!

brcyrslf wrote:
Instead of pouring $$$ into Lipidex, all you need is a fish oil supplement to cover your omega-3 requirements (4-6 grams of fish oil is sufficient), and the Kirkland Signature brand - Costco's house brand - is USP-verified. Lipidex has not gone under anything close to that degree of rigor in terms of quality control certification. Also, it contains a bunch of intert, useless crap.

Question - your nutritionist is obviously spot on that you can totally get a cheaper fish oil supplement, but your Lipidex is both fish oil and CLA, which isn't in the Kirkland product AFAIK. Just curious if your nutritionist noticed that on the panel, or if it's because of what he thinks about CLA supplementation.

brcyrslf wrote:
As far as training goes, this plan is your typical 1x/week bodypart split that steroid-using bodybuilders in the 80's were on. It's just not optimal. all you need to do is get on a split that trains each muscle group twice a week, 4-8 work sets per session. This will put you in the research-supported sweet spot for training volume & frequency for optimal gains in strength. But, don't take my word for it, have a look at the research; here's a quote from a recent meta-analysis on muscular strength development:

"For untrained individuals, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training
intensity of 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 3 days per week, and with a
mean training volume of 4 sets per muscle group. Recreationally trained nonathletes
exhibit maximal strength gains with a mean training intensity of 80% of 1RM, 2 days
per week, and a mean volume of 4 sets. For athlete populations, maximal strength
gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and
with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373

I know that study. I also know that department and that school - it's one of the three institutions that comprise my educational background. And while ASU is generally a great school, all academic institutions have their share of blockheads. While the basic premise is obviously correct - different populations have different dose-dependent responses to training - experience dictates that the Department of Exercise and Wellness is blathering from looney tooney land again with a meta-analysis of a pair of meta-analyses rather than real primary research. This is the same school that still spews the disproven gospel of low-fat low-cholesterol diets as though the Messiah gave it to them on top of Camelback Mountain. ASU has largely gutted this department - and for a while it sat at ASU Polytech, which is akin to being mothballed. Not sure if they're still out west, but it wouldn't surprise me, considering the current sacred cow program at Nursing is Nutrition - which is starting to lead the charge on high protein, low carb diets, and is currently working to kick over the apple cart on vegetarianism (like they're the first research institution I've seen speak directly to the nutritional inadequacies of vegan plans).

But enough background on the school. I don't buy E&W's work here (surprise surprise). I remain unconvinced that the cohorts are properly and consistently defined, and I think there's more at play than baseline activity and training levels in terms of maximal efficacy - namely, the "distinct muscular adaptations" that have such heavy influence over the efficacy of one training regiment versus another are going to vary dramatically from one person to the next. Anecdotally, we already know this. It's why some guys can pull off 12 week training cycles before they plateau and some guys are swapping out routines every 8 weeks. I think individual variations within the cohorts merits a closer look - i.e. what are the factors that give rise to the adaptations that thwart continued progress and require both modification of routine and variation of dose, and can we influence them or are they genetically predetermined? I also think that, as usual, E&W is regurgitating someone else's work and neither raising new questions nor furthering our understanding of the metabolic and genetic issues at play. Kinda hope the one professor left in that department enjoys the smell of camphor and naphthaline...

brcyrslf wrote:
Now you know where the confusion starts.

YUPPERZ!!

But I agree with John - the controversy is good. It creates the space we experiment in by bringing forward issues that demand further scrutiny and research, which in turn furthers our knowledge of the subject matter at hand. Kind of why I'm always interested in more research (and really looking forward to getting the full articles of those PubMed links), even when it's things like something I've been buying is actually garbage and I may have been a dolt to have made the purchase.

Hey Gentlemen. I will follow up with the Nutritionist regarding the CLA.

I went and weighed in on Saturday for a start point using the submersion tank. Interstingly at 189.25 I am at 20% BF. Since my last weigh in I have lost four pounds of lean mass and fat weight is the same. I'll re-weigh in 6-8 weeks and see where I'm at.