The Overfeeding Overview: High Fat, Carb, Protein, MCTs, Leptin, Testosterone, T3 & Reverse T3 - Get an Overview of the Consequences of Short- & Long-Term Overfeeding

High fat + high carbohydrate foods like mini doughnuts are exactly what you should not eat on a refeed day, let alone during weeks of bulking.

Do you want to know what happens during days and weeks of gluttony? How the effects "bulking" will have on your body weight and composition, depending on where those extra calories come from? Have you wondered what the optimal nutrient composition on refeed days may look like. And are you concerned about the potential the health consequences of bulking?

Yes? In this case, I would suggest you take a closer look at the following overview of the research. An overview that is probably not complete, but it should suffice to provide preliminary answers to the aforementioned questions.

Learn more about the effects of your diet on your health at the SuppVersity

Only Whey, Not Soy Works for Wheytloss

Taste Matters - Role of the Taste Receptors

Dairy Protein Satiety Shoot-Out: Casein vs. Whey

How Much Carbs Before Fat is Unhealthy?

5 Tips to Improve & Maintain Insulin Sensitivity

Carbohydrate Shortage in Paleo Land

• The amount of weight you gain depends on your genes: They are not the only determinant. That's for sure. A 1990 study by Bouchard et al. still leaves no doubt that your genes are one of the most important determinants of the quantity of weight you gain.
  
  In said study the researchers from the Laval University fed 24 sedentary young male twins 1,000kcal extra for six out of seven days of the week. In that the study is not the first to investigate the effects of overfeeding on weight gain in twins. It is yet the first and only one that did this over a period of 100 days and thus with a total energy excess of 84,000 kcal on a diet that contained 50 percent carbohydrate, 35 percent fat, and 15 percent protein.
  

  

  Figure 1: Comparison of the weight (left) and visceral fat (right) gains in twin pairs; high correlations were observed for both, but the correlation was significantly more pronounced for the unhealthy visceral fat than it was for the mere body weight (Bouchard. 1990).

  The data in Figure 1 does probably not need any extra explanations. In view of the fact that similar results have also been observed in previous studies like Poehlman et al. (1986), it should be obvious that the difference between the weight (left) and visceral fat (right) two identical twins gained was significantly smaller the difference between one twin from pair A and one twin from pair B. The statistical analysis of body fat and waist circumference data revealed similar correlations which were most significant for the visceral fat mass and the waist hip sizes, i.e. those quantities that predict the ill health effects of weight gain best.
  
  According to Ukkola, et al. (2001), the genetic differences may partly be mediated by differences in the genetic make-up of ones beta-2 adrenoreceptors with specific variants being associated with greater increases in insulin resistance, body weight and subcutaneous fatness. Other candidates are the cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) gene which appears to affect adiposity in response to long-term overfeeding (Terán-García. 2008). Other scientists use similar genetic polymorphisms to explain a general resistance to weight gain during overfeeding via genetically determined variations in nonexercise activity thermogenesis (Vanltallie. 2001).
• Overfeeding fat, carbohydrate or protein, does it make a difference? Studies that compare isocaloric overfeeding are quasi non-existent. What we do have are studies like the one by Horton et al. (1995) that compared high fat vs. high carbohydrate diets (see Figure 2 for macronutrient composition), where the additional energy came from fat or carbohydrates.
  
  In the Horton study this was a 50% extra that was added in form of fat or carbohydrates on top of the baseline diets of the normal-weight and obese subjects. A 50% extra that lead to significant weight gain.
  

  

  Figure 3: Weight gain (left) and increase in energy expenditure (right) in obese and lean subjects in response to carbohydrate and fat overfeeding (Horton. 1995).

  As you can see in Figure 3, both diets led to a rapid increase in body weight, but the trajectory was different. The main and maybe practically relevant difference, though, was that the rapid increase in water and glycogen in the high carbohydrate group was less resilient weight loss in the post-overfeeding period.

No! Carbs are not necessarily more fattening in the obese. It's a commonly held prejudice that carbohydrates are more readily coverted to fat and stored in the obese, but a study by Minehira et al. that investigated just this found that there was not just no difference in de novo lipogenesis with carbohydrate overfeeding between lean and obese individuals, there was also no increase in de novo lipogenesis, at all, when the when the obese subjects were overfed with a high carbohydrate diet for one day (Minehira. 2004).

• 

  Figure 4: Proportion of the energy that was stored as body fat (Horton. 1995).

  If we take a look at the proportion of energy that was stored as body fat in Figure 4, it is obvious why the fat gains lasted longer than the carbohydrate gains. Why? Well, simply because the 14-day overfeeding on fat lead to a significantly higher relative increase in body fat.
  
  Last but not least, it may also be worth mentioning that the the fat gain in the obese group was 89% and 57% higher in the carbohydrate and fat overfeeding group, respectively. An intriguing result that appears to stand in line with dieting studies, where high fat diets are superior to high carbohydrate diets in the obese, but not in lean individuals.
  
  What was not different for obese and lean individuals, though, was the the fact that the carbohydrate overfeeding lead to higher gains in lean mass than the fat overfeeding. A result that should remind you of a previously reported study here at the SuppVersity, in which a no fat bulk lead to significantly greater muscle and significantly lower fat gains than a low fat bulk (see "If You Go "High Carb", You Better Go Really High!" | more). Overall, "bulking", i.e. eating more than you need on any mixed diet, has repeatedly been shown to produce significant increases plasma Somatomedin-C/Insulin-like Growth Factor (SM-C/IGF-l) and testosterone concentrations as well as insulin, of which Forbes et al. speculate that they promote the lean mass increases that are particularly pronounced when overfeeding is combined with resistance training.
  
  In a more nutrient-type specific study b by Dirlewanger that did not focus on the weight gain or anabolism, but on the leptin response and the increase in resting energy expenditure the subjects experienced a significant increase in leptin (+28%) and resting energy only in the high carbohydrate, yet not in the fat overfeeding arm of their study in young, lean individuals (Dirlewanger. 2000). Other studies, without clear distinction between high carb and high fat overfeeding, indicate that fast food like burgers or fries is an effective short-term leptin stimulator, too - at least if it's consumed in a single binge (Kolaczynski,. 1996).
  

  

  Figure 5: Energy partitioning in young men upon overfeeding with ~5,000kcal per day - mostly carbohydrates, i.e. 1% protein, 3% fat, and 86% carbohydrate (Acheson. 1988).

  In the short run, like on refeed days, for example, carbohydrate overfeeding has another advantage over fat overfeeding, because it takes roughly 500g of carbohydrates (that's 2,000kcal) before even a single gram of those carbs is converted to fat and potentially, but not necessarily stored as body fat (Acheson. 1988) - at "only" 400kcal extra from carbs for one day there was no net lipogenesis at all (see Figure 5). This result is corroborated by data from McDevitt et al. (2000) who observed that the fat gain with fat overfeeding starts with day 1, while there is a time gap in the increase in body fat with carbohydrate overfeeding (McDevitt. 2000).

If you consume sugar on a refeed, should you prefer glucose, sucrose of fructose? In view of the fact that I don't suggest you refeed more than 1-2 days and considering the fact that you want to get the majority of your carbs from starches on a true bulks, it does not really matter. In fact, studies show no difference in de novo lipogenesis in 96h overfeeding studies between pure glucose and sucrose, which is a 1:1 combination of fructose or fructose in two studies in lean and obese women by (McDevitt. 2000 & 2001). In the long run, consuming amounts of fructose you could only get by drinking a couple of bottles of coke everyday, will yet not be favorable for your health - even if taking fish oil can blunt the increase in hepatic de novo lipogenesis, it won't blunt the insulin resistance (Faeh. 2005).

• 

  Figure 6: Schematic representation of the main lipid metabolic pathways affected in skeletal muscle during 4 weeks of fat overfeeding. Genes indicated in white boxes were down-regulated during the dietary study, whereas genes indicated in gray boxes were up-regulated (Meugnier. 2007).

  Fat overfeeding, on the other hand, has been show to favor fat storage not just because the dietary fat can be stored without being converted to triglycerides, but also because metabolic and genomic investigations show that the lipid oxidation rate tends to decrease, and 55 genes in the skeletal muscle were modified.
  
  Modifications of which Meugnier et al. show that they stimulate the synthesis of triacylglycerol, inhibit lipolysis and reduce the oxidation of fatty acid oxidation, while promoting the development of adipocytes with an excess of only ~550kcal/day from fat per day (see Figure 6).
  
  Another potential explanation is the change in thyroid hormones, of which the data in Figure 7 from an overfeeding study by Danforth Jr., et al. (1979) tells you that the high protein overfeeding despite a 29.8% lower total energy intake triggered the most, the carbohydrate diet the 2nd most favorable (=in favor of greater energy expenditure) effects on the thyroid hormone.
  

  

  Figure 7: Effects of overfeeding with carbohydrates, fats, and protein on thyroid hormones (Danforth, Jr. 1979).

  Accordingly, high protein diets, of which we know for sure that they are the most satiating hypercaloric diets (followed by high carb and high fat | Johnstone. 1996) and have the highest thermogenic effect (see Figure 8) and can help dieters avoid the yoyo effect after a diet (Lejeune. 2005), should have the least negative impact on your physique.
  

  

  Figure 8: Estimates thermic effect of carbohydrates fats, protein, and alcohol in % energy of the energy that's ingested in form of the respective nutrients (Joosen. 2006).

  And in fact, Jose Antonio et al. (2014) have recently been able to show that a diet that contains fivefold more protein than the FDA recommends (4.4g/kg | 307g/day) is not just benign but will, in conjunction with exercise, will have significant beneficial effects on the physique of healthy resistant trained men (learn more). Furthermore studies indicate that a high protein content may also ameliorate negative effects such as an increase in intrahepatocellular lipid deposition in humans (Bortolotti. 2009).

Beware of bulking the way you did in your twenties! It's almost certainly going to make you fat, because studies indicate that age correlates with a decreased increase in energy expenditure in response to overfeeding (Roberts. 1996). Since the difference is particularly pronounced on day 1 of the respective overfeeding period (see Figure on the left), I would also refrain from excessive "refeed days" if I were 60+ years old, like the subjects in the study by Roberts et al. from which I grabbed the graph that displays the energy expenditure on a diet that contained 956kcal extra per day (phase II in this study).

• Classic overfeeding studies with protein as a single nutrient are yet unfortunately rare. Even less, namely nothing, is known about the effects of ketogenic diets, which is why it's at the moment impossible to tell whether a hypercaloric high fat diet that is devoid of carbs and low enough in protein to actually induce ketosis will have the same negative effects as a high fat diet that still contains 15-30% carbohydrates and some protein.
  Based on the studies we have, it's yet quite certain that the combination of some carbs and a high amount of fat is the most obesogenic variety of "bulking" you could possibly select. Therefore - with the exception of ketogenic diets, where corresponding data is still missing, the rule of thumb is: The more fat in the diet, the more rapid the body fat, but not necessarily the body weight gain.

• MCT overfeeding is less obesogenic - The reason that rodents that are overfed with medium-chain triglycerides (Geliebter. 1983) and assumable human beings store less fat than on long-chain triglycerides as you will find them in your bacon, sausages, dairy & co is an increase in thermogenesis that has been observed in both rodent and human studies.
  

  

  Figure 10: Metabolic rate in healthy men after the ingestion of isocaloric fat meals containing MCTs or long chain triglycerides (Hill. 1989).

  As you can see in Figure 10, this effect does not diminish over time - at least, when only the effect of the infusion of MCTs versus long-chain fatty acids is concerned. In view of the rodent study by Geliebter et al. (1983) and the results of the study by Hill et al. (1989), it appears to be quite obvious that MCTs constitute a valuable addition to hypercaloric diets. The often-heard claim that they cannot be stored as fat is yet misleading - even if they are oxidized in the liver, the increase in available energy will increase the storage of energy from other nutrients. The dream of eating as much as you want without gaining weight does therefore remain a dream - at least for all of us who don't harbor a gene defect that blunts the storage of fat.
  
  Still, in theory it would appear as if using MCTs in a dieting context makes sense. In reality, studies have shown that using MCTs as a major source of your dietary fats does not lead to significant long-term improvements in  fat or general weight loss - even if 27% of an 800kcal/day starvation diet were pure MCT oil (Yost. 1989).

Fivefold More Than the FDA Allows: Extreme High Protein Diet (4.4g/kg | 307g/day) Benign & Non-Obesogenic. Plus: Macronutrient Prescription & Changes in Food Quality | more

Alright, so what's the bottom line, then? I guess, in view of the fact that we still have few studies on high protein overfeeding and no studies on overfeeding on ketogenic diet, a conclusive bottom line cannot be reached, yet. What appears to be true, though is that a diet containing some carbohydrates and a large amounts of fat is the worst choice you can make, when you are bulking.

A protein and a high(er) carbohydrate, as well as a correspondingly low(er) fat content on the other hand, appear to be the way to go at least in the short run. In the long(er) run, on the other hand, the differences between higher fat and higher carbohydrate overfeeding appears to disappear - albeit with a small, but potentially practically significant difference in terms of the amount of body fat you will gain (see Figure 4) | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Acheson, K. J., et al. "Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man." The American journal of clinical nutrition 48.2 (1988): 240-247. 
• Antonio, Jose, et al. "The effects of consuming a high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained individuals." Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 11.1 (2014): 19.
• Bouchard, Claude, et al. "The response to long-term overfeeding in identical twins." New England Journal of Medicine 322.21 (1990): 1477-1482. 
• Danforth Jr, E., et al. "Dietary-induced alterations in thyroid hormone metabolism during overnutrition." Journal of Clinical Investigation 64.5 (1979): 1336.
• Dirlewanger, M., et al. "Effects of short-term carbohydrate or fat overfeeding on energy expenditure and plasma leptin concentrations in healthy female subjects." International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders: journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity 24.11 (2000): 1413-1418.
• Faeh, David, et al. "Effect of fructose overfeeding and fish oil administration on hepatic de novo lipogenesis and insulin sensitivity in healthy men." Diabetes 54.7 (2005): 1907-1913.
• Forbes, Gilbert B., et al. "Hormonal response to overfeeding." The American journal of clinical nutrition 49.4 (1989): 608-611.
• Geliebter, Ae al, et al. "Overfeeding with medium-chain triglyceride diet results in diminished deposition of fat." The American journal of clinical nutrition 37.1 (1983): 1-4.
• Hill, James O., et al. "Thermogenesis in humans during overfeeding with medium-chain triglycerides." Metabolism 38.7 (1989): 641-648.
• Horton, Tracy J., et al. "Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage." The American journal of clinical nutrition 62.1 (1995): 19-29. 
• Johnstone, A. M., R. J. Stubbs, and C. G. Harbron. "Effect of overfeeding macronutrients on day-to-day food intake in man." European journal of clinical nutrition 50.7 (1996): 418-430. 
• Joosen, A. M., and Klaas R. Westerterp. "Energy expenditure during overfeeding." Nutr Metab (Lond) 3 (2006): 25.
• Kolaczynski, JERZY W., et al. "Response of leptin to short-term and prolonged overfeeding in humans." The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 81.11 (1996): 4162-4165.
• Lejeune, Manuela PGM, Eva MR Kovacs, and Margriet S. Westerterp-Plantenga. "Additional protein intake limits weight regain after weight loss in humans." British Journal of Nutrition 93.02 (2005): 281-289.
• McDevitt, Regina M., et al. "Macronutrient disposal during controlled overfeeding with glucose, fructose, sucrose, or fat in lean and obese women." The American journal of clinical nutrition 72.2 (2000): 369-377.
• McDevitt, Regina M., et al. "De novo lipogenesis during controlled overfeeding with sucrose or glucose in lean and obese women." The American journal of clinical nutrition 74.6 (2001): 737-746.
• Meugnier, Emmanuelle, et al. "Changes in gene expression in skeletal muscle in response to fat overfeeding in lean men." Obesity 15.11 (2007): 2583-2594. 
• Minehira, K., et al. "Effect of carbohydrate overfeeding on whole body macronutrient metabolism and expression of lipogenic enzymes in adipose tissue of lean and overweight humans." International journal of obesity 28.10 (2004): 1291-1298.
• Poehlman, Eric T., et al. "Genotype-controlled changes in body composition and fat morphology following overfeeding in twins." The American journal of clinical nutrition 43.5 (1986): 723-731. 
• Roberts, Susan B., et al. "Effects of age on energy expenditure and substrate oxidation during experimental overfeeding in healthy men." The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 51.2 (1996): B148-B157.
• Terán-García, Margarita, et al. "Effects of cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) gene on adiposity in response to long-term overfeeding." Atherosclerosis 196.1 (2008): 455-460.
• Ukkola, Olavi, A. Tremblay, and C. Bouchard. "Beta-2 adrenergic receptor variants are associated with subcutaneous fat accumulation in response to long-term overfeeding." International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders: journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity 25.11 (2001): 1604-1608.
• Vanltallie, Theodore B. "Resistance to weight gain during overfeeding: a NEAT explanation." Nutrition reviews 59.2 (2001): 48-51.
• Yost, Trudy J., and R. H. Eckel. "Hypocaloric feeding in obese women: metabolic effects of medium-chain triglyceride substitution." The American journal of clinical nutrition 49.2 (1989): 326-330.

Adelfo Cerame: Carbophobia a Thing of the Past - How a Love-and-Hate Affair Turned into a Productive Friendship

The very latest progress pictures from "Your's Truly"; Adelfo Cerame Jr. posted only a couple of hours ago on Facebook - I guess there is no doubt about the success he has with his old fiend and new friend - in "moderation" as he says ;-)

It's Thursday and about time for another update of "Your's Truly" Adelfo Cerame Jr. from the photo Adelfo posted on facebook earlier today (see image on the right), you can see already that he actually not approaching, but more or less already in contest shape, but before I hand the virtual microphone (actually I should type keyboard ;-) over to Adelfo, here is the brief primer on today's SuppVersity Science Round-Up on Super Human Radio.

As you should really know by now, you have three options (not listenting to it is not among them ;-)

1. listen live at 1PM EST,
2. download the show ~2h later either from the "Physical Culture for Your Ears" menu in the sidebar of the SuppVersity, or
3. download the podcast load it right over right over at www.superhumanradio.com

And just to make sure that you know that it will be well worth it, here's the sneak peak on the topics Carl Lanore and I have lined up for you, today:

• the real-world benefits of caloric restriction - what's that all about?
• intermittent fasting works - regardless of whether you do it w/ liquid or solid foods
• alpha lipoic acid (ALA) - still a potent supplement - but who benefits?
• the usual suspects - omega-3, omega-6 & vitamin D
• acidity, diabesity, muscularity and ... ahm, there is no "-ity" for chronic fatigue, I guess

As you should know by now, additional topics and things I mentioned that ended up not making it into the show due to time constraints will be part of tomorrow's SuppVersity Science Round-Up Seconds... that's it. Let's go Adelfo!

Fully and completely getting over my phobia of carbohydrates

It's plain to see and hard to deny: Me + Carbs a.k.a. Mrs. Jones = Got a Thang Goin’ On…

In light of some of the comments I’ve been getting on FB about my carbohydrate intake being very high, I thought it would be prudent to address the issue in my weekly blogpost. Firstly, this saves me hours of precious time, since I don't have to answer the same questions dozens of times, and secondly - my gut tells me I would have benefited, if someone had written a post like this in the past: an article that would have had me rethink my own nutritional regimen, which and this is something I want to point out before I even get into any details clearly isn't "high carb"! With 150-200g of carbohydrates and thus <800kcal of my daily energy intake from carbs this may be high for a "carbophob", as I've been one myself before, but it would still be considered "low carb" both, in the mainstream, as well as in the context of classic bodybuilding diets. Be that as it may, I personally feel a huge relief now that I have finally liberated myself from my personal fears of carbohydrates and have learned to embrace "carbs" in all its forms - my diet has become more flexible, I have a greater variety and - what's most important - I see nothing but benefits from it.

I’ll be the first to tell you that Mrs. Jones (I’ll refer to her as that because this is how I felt about carbs for a while) and I were not on the best terms. It was a 3-year love hate relationship. Just like cash, I thought she was the root of all evil. The first time I ever downloaded and read Dr. Mauro DiPasquale’s Anabolic Solution, I for sure thought I found the Holy Grail to dieting and bodybuilding (true story!), and that’s where my phobia and our tragic love-hate relationship actually began. I thought that I would be shredded year round if only I lived the low carb lifestyle. It worked for a while but then eventually the magic I thought I was experiencing, when I started out, didn’t work any longer. 

Even during my bulk I thought I would still manage to look ripped because I was on low carbs, but again I was wrong! Lol. But I still insisted that carbs were evil just because… honestly, I don't even know why!? Probably because for 2 years I had avoided my Mrs Jones like the plague and only devoured her on my refeeds, cheat days and special social events, which eventually turned into binge fests and late nights in my bed being in a fetal position because I would eat myself silly.

No, carbs just had to be bad,... otherwise I would have had to admit that I'd a mistake, yet not only once, but 365 days a year!

Suggested read: Adel's old post "Carbohydrate Shortage in Paleoland" The article explains pretty well why 150g CHO is something any not 100% sedentary diabetic can easily handle.

If you have a closer look at Not until last year did my opinion start to change towards carbohydrates. My relationship with Mr. Jones gradually improved ever since I started using Intermittent Fasting a la Leangains last year to prepare for my 2012 bodybuilding shows. But even then I still shied away from breads, oats, grains and even rice and just stuck to your typical sweet potatoes and yams. I guess you could say that she and I were at a truce, but not necessarily friends, like secret lovers we knew our boundaries and kept our distance… I stayed away for the majority of the week with the exception of 1-2 days of debauchery out of the week (refeeds).

During the last year, however, a revelation started to dawn on me. Finally, I began to understand the importance of carbohydrates, when it came to performance and the importance of performance, when it comes to making progress - regardless of whether we are talking, cutting, bulking or becoming stronger! More and more foods I had avoided or restricted, because I deemed them "bad" or "extremely detrimental" for my physique found their way back in my diet and not one of my fears about what would happen, when I consumed them more than maximally once per week materialized.

Me + Carbs = Best Friends

Though carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient like fats and amino acids; I’ve realized when it comes to performance and bringing in your best physique… carbs are necessary.

I really kept an open mind when approaching my 2012-2013 contest preparations. Just as I had an open mind with giving intermittent fasting a go last year for my prep, I’ve also had an open mind with giving IIFYM a try this year and combining the two, and needless to say I am very happy that I did. I thought that I enjoyed the perks of Intermittent fasting last year?... Well I’m really enjoying the perks of applying both IF & IIFYM this year! A

Admittedly, it certainly helped to have a coach I can trust. It gave me a lot of reassurance in keeping an open mind – especially when you’re still trying to grasp the fact that all foods are OK to eat in moderation - and yes this includes ice cream, beer and bacon (before some of you new readers out there go nuts and tell me how unhealthy my new protocol is, please refer to my last article and the follow up discussion, so you’ll understand what I’m taking about).

My Take Away: As I always say, balance, moderation & consistency are the keys to a long-term successful diet. Though carbohydrates and I are pals now, I still show the same amount of love to protein and fats as I did before; the only difference is that carbohydrates is treated as an equal now ;-)

Intermittent Thoughts on Intermittent Fasting - Programing Success: Accept Your Weaknesses, Learn From Your Mistakes, Identify Your Strengths and Build a Better Body!

Image 1: You may call it "toning" or "shaping", but in the end it's bodybuilding in the literal sense.

Assuming that you are all "lean and mean" by now and thus ready to build some serious muscle (for those who missed it, read last week's installment on "Why you better lean out before bulking"), we can finally delve into your first steps on your way to ... wait. I hope you did not forget your "motivational elevator pitch" from the first part of this part of the Intermittent Thoughts, where I asked you to come to terms with what it actually is that you want to achieve. Now, the good news is that regardless of whether you are just sick of that lose skin on your upper arms or want to compete against Phil Heath at the 2012 Mr. Olympia, there are a few fundamental principles that apply regardless of whether you are striving for "toned" 11 inch arms or Coleman-esque 22 inch guns.

Gaining weight? Yes! Getting fat? No!

With that we have actually arrived at the very first of three key points, I promised to address in this issue (cf. end of last installment): effective ways to measure your progress. In the "weight loss installment" of this series you have already learned that other than the morbidly obese "King Size Homer", physical culturists and athletes who do not compete in weight-classes are ill-advised to step onto the scale too often.

Figure 1: Lee Priest's transformation is certainly amazing, but let's be honest, do you really want to run around like Michelin man in the off-season and then have to resort to extreme measures to get back in shape for a few days, only? (comparison posted by "Tibo" at the SRTrading Forum)

While dieters (here indicating people who want to lose fat), may get discouraged, because their weight-loss stalls, when they are actually just beginning to finally add some muscle to their increasingly lean physique, many self-proclaimed (hobby-)bodybuilders think that "gaining muscle" is all about increasing their off-season weight (interestingly, many of those people do not even compete and define their off-season as the time when they do not go to the beach to impress the ladies). What could make sense for a professional bodybuilder like Lee Priest (cf. figure 1) certainly is not an appropriate approach for the average gym-rat, whose "weight loss arsenal" is less well-stocked than the ones of a high level pro-bodybuilder ;-) Or put more simply, when former chubby, like Peter Griffin (cf. "Healthy Weight Loss") bulks up the way, Lee did, he will not (and I guarantee that) be able to drop that fat again and achieve the grainy look from figure 1 (right) within a few weeks time before a contest, by diet and exercise (and OTC fatburners), alone...

Figure 2: Other than for the "pros" with their versatile arsenal of "weight loss tools", the journey of the dirtily bulking average self-proclaimed hardgainer is a one-way street.

And even for the self-proclaimed "ectomorph" there is nothing worse than a dirty bulk, where the number on the scale serves as his / her yardstick of success. This is especially true, because many self-proclaimed "hard gainers" are lean mostly because they are still eating like a bird (or missing even the most fundamental basics like a sufficient protein intake of at least 1g/kg per day), even when they claim that would eat until they puke. If those people start forcing down tons of calories in form of sugary weight gainers, most of their weight gain will come from fat. Their initially low fat cell count will soon have to increase to provide enough storage capacity for the "valuable" energy, so that, rather sooner than later, the former "ekto" finds himself in a similar situation as Peter Griffin, who, no matter what he will do, will always have a harder time leaning out than his friends who have never gotten chubby in the first place.

Bottom line: Do not rely on the scale too much. Yes, you want it to go up steadily, but faster weight gain does not automatically equate greater muscle gain. Keep a close eye on your waist circumference and decide a priori when (no matter how close you may be to your superordinate goal, e.g. "achieving 20" arms") you need to cut back on calories to avoid "adipolateral damage" ;-)

Taking stock also implies coming to terms with yourself

Image 2: Just as when you are "dieting", the scale is not the best meter for your progress. A measuring tape, a notebook and a digital camera should be your tools of choice.

Assuming that you have decided that you could use some additional muscle on your scrawny frame, another often overlooked thing you will have to do even before you start "bulking" is to take stock of how "scrawny" you actually are - not by stepping on the scale, but by taking, or rather have someone take measures of your waist, your arms, your chest, your shoulder and thigh cicircumferences. Just like any good custom tailor would do. You will then take a camera and shoot photos, from the front, from the side and (don't neglect that!) from the back. Depending on how much progress you have already made, this may seem ridiculous or even embarrassing at first. After all, you probably do not look any of the cover models you are looking up to... but remember: You take these photos as a yardstick - your yardstick. It won't help you if you keep admiring the girls and guys from the magazine-covers and shy away from your own mirror image.

In order to make a change you must initially objectively assess and accept where exactly you are standing in order to decide what you want to change and by which means you can achieve that. As long as you keep thinking of you and your body as disconnected units, you will never achieve whatever physique it may be that you are dreaming of. So, this kind of  initial stock taking is way more than just setting the baseline reference. It is (at least for many trainees) also a matter of coming to terms with theirselves.

Bottom Line: You are your own yardstick. The figures on your measuring tape and your weekly progress pics are objective measures of your progress, which is defined against where you are coming from. 10" arms are an awesome achievement, if 8" where you are coming from!

Build on your strengths while working on your weaknesses

Start out with your strengths! What is that you like about your physique? What is your most developed muscle part? And if you are already training... ask yourself what it may have been that you have done right, here. I remember that I have always been pissed off that my legs appeared to grow like crazy, while my arms and "most importantly" (my perception at that time) my chest "just wouldn't grow". I looked at the figures and pictures and then peeked at my routine. "How on earth can my legs grow like that if I only train them once a week and do nothing like some warm ups on the leg extensions and some squats?" It was back then, when I eventually realized two things:

Image 3: Do you really think anyone would know Tom Platz, today, if he had decided to neglect his strength (obviously his legs)?

1. Everybody has certain strong and certain weak body parts. Part of this is genetics. Especially if you have not reached your "full genetic potential", an even more important factor is however what you do in the gym, at work or in your free time. If you are carrying beverage crates all day, chances are that your "strong" body parts are your neck and your back, no matter if those are the muscle groups with the greatest genetic potential. If, on the other hand, you are like I once was and have a reasonable training plan for your legs (because people say that you have to train legs ;-), but are so eager to grow your chest and arms that you totally overtrain them, you must not wonder if you grow tree-trunk legs, whie your arms and chest shrivel away.


2. Success comes from building on your strengths, and working on your weaknesses. It does not make sense to stop training legs, to "save the energy" for whatever other bodypart you feel is lagging behind. Not only will you run the risk that your former strength becomes your future weakness. You could also end up with two not one weaknesses by overtraining your weak and detraining your strong body parts.

For me that meant that I had to maintain my leg regimen and adapt my chest and arms routine by cutting out a lot of high volume auxiliary movements and focusing on improving my strength and technique on those movements of which I felt that they worked - and YES! This meant that the classic bench press was no longer a part of my routine!

Bottom line: Cherish your strengths and stop lamenting about your weaknesses. Analyze and build on what worked for you and acknowledge and learn from your own mistakes.

Hearing and listening to what your body is telling you

Image 4: Cable crosses certainly cannot replace the bench or dips, but they allow you to practice to flex your chest against resistance.

I see, that was a shocker. Dr. Andro does not do bench presses!? Well, not exactly, I have reincorporated them into my routine months later only to rotate them out again with the next change in my regimen. While the bench may have built massive chests like the ones of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Franco Culambo, but it just did not build mine.  

Sticking to what does not work, because people keep telling you that it does work is probably the most stupid and yet most common mistake I see in the gym.

If you read all the information in the "SuppVersity EMG Series", then you will be aware which exercises work best for the average trainee in the Boeckh-Behrens and Buskies study. You do not even know if these are also those exercises that work best for "the average trainee in general", but you can easily find out if these are the exercises that work best for you - and more importantly, if they are not, you should give a damn about how they rank in anyone's "Top List" (mine included!).

Bottom line: Never, I repeat, never(!) assume that what worked for someone else, or even the majority of the participants in a scientific study must also work for you. Listen to advice, build new routines based on scientific studies, experiment, but do not stick to a routine / exercise if, after 2 weeks, your body still keeps telling your that it ain't right for you.

Weight is important in weight lifting, posing is key in body+building

Image 5: If you want to maximize muscle gains, posing - or rather learning to flex your muscles against resistance is obligatory (img Johnny Jackson)

In case you are now wondering how on earth you can find out if the bench press or the dip (which is my favorite for chest) is right for you, when you do not have access to the complex measuring apparatus Boeckh-Behrens & Buskies used in their studies, I assume that you have never been posing or deliberately practiced the so-called "mind-muscle-connection" - have you? What? "Posing is ridiculous?" Well, that was what I thought as well, when I began training. I mean, I never even remotely thought about competing, so why on earth would I practice posing? The reason is simple and has little to do with the ability to showcase your muscles, but all with your brains ability to address the motor neurons on your muscle fibers.

If there is one thing I want you take away about goal setting for muscle building from this installment of the Intermittent Thoughts then it is that your primary goal in the gym must always be to work the muscle against resistance and not to break personal records. Here lies a fundamental difference between weight lifting (as in O-lifting or powerlifting) and bodybuilding. As someone whose primary goal is to improve his physique, the lifting weights is only a means to a completely different ends.

If all you want  is to build a bigger bench, fine! But don't expect to make similar gains as someone who understands that he is at the gym to work his muscles, not his ego. By practicing posing and doing what I like to call 1-2 "acclimatization sets" with ~50% of the weight you would use for 6-8 reps before every exercise, not as a warm-up but to memorize the movement pattern, to feel and flex the target muscle and to be able to transfer this pattern to your working sets, you will soon be able to decide which exercises are working for you, and which aren't.

Bottom line: You are not in the gym to move maximal amounts of weight, but to induce maximal muscular stimulation. This requires that you train your mind-muscle-connection and accept that the weights you are using are just a means to another end - the physique of your dreams. Remember: You increase your weights to keep challenging your muscle, and thusly to be able to record a new personal best in the notebook with your body measures, not the one where you keep track of your weights.

Preliminary conclusion(s)

Although, I did not get totally side-tracked this time, I still have to postpone the scientifically based considerations of the implications of the biological underpinnings of skeletal muscle "hypertrophy" (and maybe hyperplasia), at which I have been hinting in yesterday's blogpost, to another installment of the Intermittent Thoughts.

Note, in view of the pictures I have been using in this part of the series, I may have evoked the false impression that these rules apply exclusively to "bodybuilders". This is however not the case. There is no fundamental difference between training "to look good naked" and training for the "Mr. Olympia", as far as the take-home messages from this installment of the Intermittent Thoughts are concerned. Flexing your muscles, "posing" and practicing the mind-muscle-connection for example could be even more important for the ladies who want to "tone" their physiques than for the skinny ectomorph whose primary goal is to "get big".

For the time being, you would be well-advised to get yourself a measuring tape and a camera to take stock of where you are, physique-wise, to (re-)evaluate your strengths and weaknesses, to identify what worked for you and to get to know and learn to flex all the muscles in your body - and yes, there are more than biceps and chest, or chest and biceps ;-)

Intermittent Thoughts on Intermittent Fasting - Programing Success: Building Muscle Begins With Losing Body Fat.

Image 1: Arnold does the "double bicep" + vacuums. If you want to look like a bodybuilder, muscle alone is not enough.

First, I want to thank Jahed, Pablo, RF, Angimal, Garrett and Rudolf for their patience. After all, it has been two weeks now since you have submitted your (meta-)goals, which were all more related to building muscle and increasing performance, then to losing body fat, which was the topic the last installment of the Intermittent Thoughts dealt with. Yet although, at first sight, both topics have little (to nothing) to do with each other, there are are at least three important factors by which a reduction in body fat is very well related to increased muscularity and skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Let's get back to the "Peter Griffin" type of chubby person from the last installment, for a few seconds. Imagine "Peter" has packed on, say 10lbs of lean muscle and now stands in front of you, does the "double bicep" and vacuums, just like Arnold does in image 1... what? Why are you laughing?

Do you want muscles? Or do you want to look muscular?

Now, obviously the first intersection of bodyfat and muscularity (in a broader sense) relates to the question whether or not your body fat level is low enough for any increases in skeletal muscle mass to be visible. I mean +10lbs on the ripped frame of a 202lbs (now 212lbs) bodybuilder look absolutely freekish. On our Peter Griffin, a gain of 10lbs of lean muscle tissue will probably go completely unrecognized - this also puts "chubby" beginners at risk of neglecting the strength training component of their exercise regimen, because, from a mere "cosmetic" stand point, each gram of body fat they drop will make a significant difference in terms of the way they look. Building muscle beneath the thick layers of adipose tissue, on the other hand, initially appears to have little value... but remember: looks are deceptive, and I hope that my elaborations in the last installment made it quite clear "building a bigger metabolic engine" and not starving the latter away on a low-calorie diet, is the cornerstone of maintainable reductions in body fat levels.

Figure 1: Where are you on the fat/muscle mass (FFMI = weight/height[in m]²) continuum? *indicates age-group 20-29 in the NHANES dataset (data based on data from Hattori. 1999; Picket. 2005; CDC, NHANES data from 2010)

Interestingly enough, being lean, or, I should say, the metabolic and endocrine consequences of being lean actually have way more profound implications on "building muscle", than the mere advantage of the immediate visibility of the newly acquired lean body tissue. On "the boards" (meaning bulletin boards like bodybuilding.com, anabolicminds, etc.) it is a recurrent topic whether you should "bulk" (people there interpret that mainly as "eat to gain" and often as "overeat to gain") or "cut" (meaning lose fat) first. And while the answer obviously depends on where you are starting from, it stands out of question that the average American male (aged 27-62) who gets fatter and fatter every year and currently has a body fat percentage of 24.9% (Rohrmann. 2011) would be ill-advised to even think about the word "bulking".

Image 2: Just to put the 24.9% body fat of the average American male into perspective. The average bodyfat percentage of a sekitori sumo wrestler is 28.6%
(Hattori. 1999)!

Please note, that the "no bulk with high body fat percentage" rule does also apply to the female physical culturists out there. The reason that I am mainly addressing the male faction of my readership here, is that women are not so stupid to think, they would have to down 2-3 portions of "weight gainers" (these products are exactly what they are called, they will make you gain weight, not muscle) and 4-5 protein shakes in addition to a hypo-caloric (junkfood-)diet in order to build a muscular physique, anyways. Things would be different, though if the physique of a sekitori sumo wrestler (one of the higher ranked sumos, cf. image 2), is what you are aspiring. In that case you can start "bulking" with weight gainers and all the other "high class" products the industry has to offer... I mean the average sekitori sumo has 109kg of lean muscle tissue hidden somwhere beyond the 45.4kg of fat he is carrying around the dohyo.

If you want to "program success" and your "motivational elevator pitch" from part one of this part of the Intermittent Thoughts Series contains sentences like "look like a cover model." (Garrett; November 14, 2011 3:05 AM) or "[building] a stronger body, bodyfat below 8%" (RF, November 7, 2011 12:22 PM) or my favorite one which obviously nobody was dared to say, yet 90% of the Men's Health readers probably have on their minds "build muscle just to look good at the beach / impress the ladies", it is imperative that you lose your love handles first! Not to (just) to be able to see the gains you are making, but to set yourself up for optimal lean muscle gains (in essence, this is also related to the assumption Jahed Momand's assumption made in his "motivational elevator pitch" that leaning out prior to building his maximal clean and jerk and snatch to compete at 85kg probably is the smartest way to go, after all a low body fat percentage is obligatory if you want to be competitive in the lower weight classes).

The endocrine advantage of low(er) body fat percentages

The first and often overlooked advantage of a decent degree of leanness (cf. "active American", figure 1) is a hormonal one. According to the findings of the latest (published) NHANES data (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III; Rohrmann. 2011) there is a direct correlation between body-fatness as measured by BMI, waist circumference and body fat levels, on the one hand, and total and free testosterone and estrogen levels and their binding globulin SHBG:

Total and free testosterone and sex hormone binding globulin concentrations decreased, whereas total and free estradiol increased with increasing BMI, waist circumference, and percent body fat (all p trend < 0.05). 

Further statistical analysis of the data reveals that a body fat increase of one-quartile (e.g. from the lower 1/4 of the study population to the next fatter quartile) goes hand in hand with a decreases in sex hormones into the next lower quartile (e.g. from the highest into the next lower quartile). A sample calculation for a 50 year old white non-smoker revealed that for each 5.2cm increase in body waist circumference or +2.7% increase in body fat, the free testosterone level decreased by 2%. With an increase of "only" +3.7cm or +1.8% in waist circumference or body-fatness, respectively you can however bump up your estrogen levels by 2%.

Figure 2: Relative free testosterone and free estradiol levels in men from the NHANES study; data expressed relative to serum levels of "lean" men with <84.9cm ~ 33.4" waist circumference; values above the bars are the differences between relative testosterone vs. estradiol levels compared to "lean" men (calculated based on Rohrmann. 2011)

In view of the differential response of androgenic and estrogenic free (i.e. "active") hormones to changes in body-fatness (cf. figure 2), it is no wonder that we see a characteristic and in terms of lean muscle gains highly unfavorable pattern in the "fatter" quartiles of the study population, with maximal  free estradiol levels (1.08pg/ml; +30% vs. min) and minimal free testosterone levels (0.097ng/ml; -13% vs. max) in the "fattest" quartile of the study population (I deliberately selected waist circumference over "body fat levels" which were measured by bio-impedence, as my body fat marker of choice). Even if you as a SuppVersity reader should by now be aware that testosterone alone does not "build muscle", its highly facilitative effect on exercise induced increases in lean body tissue is significantly blunted by the fat-induced reduction in free testosterone and the (by the way fat promoting) increase in free estradiol in "chubby" men.

The endocrine factor: By leaning out first you set the hormonal scene (a higher testosterone to estrogen ratio) for optimal lean muscle gains.

The metabolic advantage of lower body fat levels

While testosterone and estrogen levels obviously figure large in the orchestrate that determines whether the nutrients you ingest (remember no one of you eats "calories") end up being stored as body fat, used as "fuel" or building block for lean muscle tissue, insulin, the "most anabolic agent in the world" (a quote from steroids.com; obviously a very questionable statement), may play an even greater role, when it comes to building muscle, not fat. Those of you have have listened to Dr. Layne Norton's and Dr. Connelly's dissertations on the largely misunderstood role of insulin in relation to the protein synthetic response to exercise, as well as its highly undesirable effects on fat storage during the last episodes of BodyRX Radio, will be aware that the often touted idea that "insulin is the most anabolic agent in the world" applies, above all else, to adipose tissue.

Image 3: "Insulin the most anabolic agent in the world"!? Correct, if we are talking about fat,  not muscle tissue ;-)

While "broscience" and the producers of sugary "weight gainers" and "post-workout recovery formulas" still maintain the myth of the "muscle building insulin spike" the (post-workout) ingestion of large amounts of fast-acting carbohydrates would provide, a recent study from Stuart Phillips lab at McMasters University into the purported benefits of the "insulin spike" produced by the co-ingesting 50g of carbohydrates with your 25g of whey protein post-workout found neither an increase in muscle protein synthesis, nor decreases in muscle protein breakdown, which are often cited as another benefit of increased insulin levels (Staples. 2011). More specifically, the additional +1,250% (!) increase in insulin (over +400% with whey alone) did not have any additional effect on protein synthesis, or, in other words: With insulin some (here 5x above fasted baseline) appears to be good, more, on the other hand is not only not better, it is in fact worse.

That being said, the improvements in insulin sensitivity which go hand in hand with reductions in body fat levels (increases in leptin sensitivity, reductions in inflammation, etc.) will decrease your basal, as well as your postprandial insulin levels, because your body will simply need less of the storage hormone to get the job done. This, in turn, will allow you to fuel your workouts with appropriate (not exorbitant) amounts of carbohydrates without running the risk of storing additional body fat. This is particularly true, in view of the fact that the "type of insulin sensitivity" you acquire when you selectively lose body fat (not muscle) favors the storage of blood sugar as muscle glycogen over its conversion to triglycerides and subsequent storage in adipose tissue (note that the latter happens both in obese and insulin resistant, as well as in "reduced obese" individuals, who have lost a lot of body mass, not fat, on prolonged calorie restricted diets).

The metabolic factor: By reducing your body fat levels first (leaning out vs. just losing weight) you decrease the risk that (superfluous) carbohydrates (and other nutrients) get stored as body fat.

The anti-livelong-obesity advantage of lower body fat levels

Image 4: There are two ways to get fat, adipose tissue hypertrophy and adipose tissue hyperplasia. While you obviously want to avoid both, only the latter is potentially irreversible (Otto. 2005).

The third and maybe most far-reaching  advantage of lowering your body fat level before bulking up is actually related to the leeway you have in terms of the unavoidable fat gain that is part of every "bulk" no matter how "clean" it may be (see also red box below). It should be obvious that just as the myonuclei in your skeletal muscle have a limited capacity to "grow" (also to hypertrophy, i.e. to simply increase their size /we will discuss the three pathways of muscle growth in one of the upcoming installments in more detail), your fat cells can only store a finite amount of lipids before they begin to "burst from the seams" (some scientists even believe that this is part of what triggers the detrimental inflammatory cascade in obese individuals). When that is about to happen, the only way your body can protect itself from suffocating in glucose and triglycerides that can neither be burned as fuel nor stored in the bristling adipocytes is to generate new fat cells (adipocyte hyperplasia).

My definition of a clean bulk: You may now be shocked to hear that even a "clean bulk" will necessarily also increase the amount of body fat you are carrying. That, and this is a very important point, does yet not mean that your body fat % must necessarily increase. A "clean bulk" by (my) definition is a bulk where you add more muscle than fat tissue to your frame. Now, even if you you were an absolute zero in math, you should recognize that this implies that your body fat percentage would actually drop, although your overall body fat levels may increase. Keep that in mind, whenever you are trying to gain muscle. Your goal should never be to cut fat (reduce overall fat mass) and build muscle (increase lean muscle tissue) at the same time - if you try that you program stagnancy, not progress!
Now, the unfortunate truth is that it is pretty easy to "empty" those cells again (you can do this in weeks), yet uncertain on which time-scales (if at all) and by which means (other than surgery) you can get rid of newly acquired adipocytes ever again.

An infant usually has about 5 to 6 billion fat cells, the number of which naturally increases during early childhood and puberty, so that the average healthy adult ends up with 25 to 30 billion fat cells. If those 30 billion adipocytes are already filled up when you start bulking, chances are that your body feels compelled to increase its storage capacity, so that - in the worse case - you end up with the roughly 75 billion fat cells, the typical overweight adult is carrying around on his "chubby" frame. If you still insist that you are not "big" enough and continue to eat whatever you can grab, the number of fat cells can increase up to 250, even 300 billion... it stands to reason that even when you emptied all of those, you would still be "fat".

The anti-obesity factor: By leaning out first, you reduce the risk of a (potentially irreversible) increase in adipocyte number that may set you up for lifelong weight problems.

An intermittent conclusion on the first step of programming skeletal muscle hypertophy

Image 5: After a handful of unsuccesful bulking efforts, SuppVersity Student Duong Nguyen eventually made it right - he leaned out first. If you are interested in his subsequent bulk, check out his blog!

As you may notice, I (once again) went off on a tangent. I hope you don't mind that you have not yet learned about effective ways measure your progress, about how to improve your gains by setting realistic, but challenging goals and about the often-overlooked impact the mind-muscle will (not could!) have on the real world outcomes of your efforts in the gym, in this installment of the Intermittent Thoughts.

But hey! For (hopefully) a minority of you the "time to bulk" may not have come anyways ;-) So, if you have not achieved a degree of leanness comparable to that of the "average active American" (cf. figure 1), I suggest you re-read last week's installment on setting yourself up for body-fat loss and thusly take appropriate measures to increase the effectiveness of your first or next "bulk" and decrease the propensity of doing permanent "aesthetic" or even metabolic damage.

As for the rest of you, I would hope that you could at least gain a few new insights into the challenges your not so lean friends are facing when they are trying to gain muscle without adding another inch to their waistlines.

Adelfo Cerame - Three Months Bulk Wrap-Up + My Three Bulking Guidelines For Pre-, Post and Wendy's ;-)

Adelfo takes measure...  as an aside: This picture goes to show you that the right (or wrong) light and posing can do much more (in this case harm, on the photos I usually post of Adelfo however good!) to your physique than any anabolic steroids and it works in minutes!

I guess I'll make it brief today and won't promise too much for the SuppVersity Science Roundup which starts, as usual, at 1PM (EST) live on Super Human Radio (click here to listen live). It's always a show you don't want to miss, but if you are by any means interested in gyno, prostate and men's health, I am pretty sure we will tackle all that. Not so sure about pseudo-ephedrine being no alternative to the "real deal" and a bunch of other stuff on training, nutrition and supplementation... best you tune in life or check out the Super Human RSS Feed (see navigation on the right where it says "Listen to Physical Culture") for the podcast that will be available ~2h after the show ends.

So much for the self-promotion part and now for something that will segue right into Adelfo's post.

I have been contemplating, whether or not I should address this, but I felt it was necessary to let all people who have not seen the (who wonders) anonymous commenter who indirectly accused Adelfo of being on gear last Friday (click here to be taken right to the comment). I won't repeat what I said about the whole issue in that very post - if you are interested you can read it up, but I do want to quote part of Adelfo's reply or at least parts of it, because I feel that it tells much about the difference between "unknown" on the one hand and my friend Adelfo, on the other hand:

"To be honest; I don't really mind the steroid accusations. [...] With regards to you accusing me of being a lier? Yes that upset me a bit, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion and this is an open forum where people can comment and say what they want so I have no qualms with that but in my defense, I'm a physical culture enthusiast and a student of the game just like all the subscribers on here. I don't claim or ever will claim to know everything, I'm no genius, i'm no guru, I'm a nobody. I was just fortunate enough to be invited by Dr. Andro on a weekly basis to share my experiences with nutrition and fitness as a disabled athlete, and how I apply them to my circumstances. That's all I do; share my experiences, and give advice and pointers based on my experiences." - Adelfo Cerame, September 22, 2012 9:43 AM

Adelfo followed this up with an offer to help "unkown" to identify, where he may improve on his training, nutrition and supplementation regimen, which "unkown" did not accept... so, just in case you just missed it, "unkown", the offer is still valid... I guess you all have heard enough of me (Dr. Andro) for now, so I better hand over to Adelfo and his thursdaily progress updates!

3-month bulk wrap-up: Where I came from, am now and how I got from then to now

It’s final week of my bulk before I start my prep next week, so just thought I’d give you guys a brief final update of how everything went…

Progress facts*
Weight: 140  => 155lbs
Chest: 40 => 41"
Arms: 17.5 => 17.5"
Shoulders: 48.5 => 49"
Waist: 29 => 33"

*  (July 2 => now)

Bottom line: Chest grew about an inch- Shoulders grew ½ an inch- gut grew 4.5 inches (Lol) – but my arms stayed fairly the same. It’s kind of hard to measure the arms yourself it may have grew a tad but not to any significance to where you can noticeably see the measure tape budge.

Kind of tough to measure yourself but this is how I did it in the beginning of my bulk, so hopefully I measured right

Macros for last month: 

• PRO: 150-180g
• CHO: 250-300g
• FAT: 80-100g

Total Energy: 2300-2500kcal

Overall, I feel the whole 3-month bulk went pretty well, much better than my previous attempts at bulking. I was able to stay much leaner this year, while at the same time being able to pack on a tad bit of lean muscle for the short time I had. 

Front pose – Rear Double Bi- Relaxed back pose

I felt I could’ve made a better effort to stay leaner, but it’s really hard when it’s the off-season and you don’t have a show to prepare for in a while. Particularly in the last month, I've been sort of sloppy and got lazy with tracking my macros. I eventually just started eyeballing my food and guesstimating my portions based on my total calories and daily macronutrient goals. It was a very flexible last month.

You can see the "exact" (actually I should say estimate) numbers for the last month in the overview on the right. These are the numbers where I sort of fluctuated around, and most of the days I was on the higher end of my macros and maybe have gone a little over from time to time due to my many PWO meal rendezvous at Wendy’s located right across the street from my gym.

How I tackled the bulk - Three simple dietary guidelines

• 

  Two 4 oz bison steaks, 2-3 cups of rice, 2 cage free eggs, 1 small whole papaya! This is how my PWO meals look like when I’m not being a fat ass eating my PWO meals at Wendy’s which has the advantage of being able make up for the calories I would otherwise miss later on ;-)

  eat a light protein + fat pre workout meal  - sometimes I even trained fasted just w/ BCAA’s and creatine if I was in a rush or on the go
• have 2 big meals after you trained (not including PWO shake) - I just ate until I got full and I used a lot of rice to make up for the carbs, if I felt like I didn’t hit my intake. 1 cup of cooked rice is about 50g of carbs so 2 cups easily will get you 100g of carbs; it goes down pretty easily, so exercise caution ;-)
• make sure not to miss your last meal - I have been real busy and on the go as of late, so it has been really tough to get my last meal in at times, so after my workouts I would just go to Wendy’s (which is right across the street from my gym) - Lol; and when I got home I would just pound a protein shake before bed just to make sure I got enough protein for the day just increase I didn’t.

And as far as training goes... for the first half of my bulk I did a 5x5 strength training and hypertrophy training split, but towards the home stretch I started doing Jim Wendlers 5/3/1 strength training with the same hypertrophy training split. If you want more details, just refer back to my past blogs to check the training regimen I’ve been using for the past 6 weeks using Jim Wendlers 5/3/1 - I could outline it all over again, but don't want to bore you with that.

That’s all I have for now, but stay tuned for next week for my first week of prep!