Page 2 of 2

Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:20 pm
by pdellorto
TimD wrote:More calories equates to more energy for work, and also provides the necessary macronutrients for growth. To exceed the status quo of your weight, you need to exceed the amount of calories you intake to maintain your current weight.

The hard , heavy work (which requires energy) provides a stimulus for growth, and the extra calories you ingest allow that growth to occur.
Tim
That's the best short description I've seen of why you need to eat more to grow stronger.

Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:04 pm
by dyecal
wilburburns wrote:More Starting Strength Info..

The Book Written By Mark RippeToe and Lon Kilgore
http://www.amazon.com/Starting-Strength ... gy_b_img_b

Wikia Page - Not Written by Any of the Book Writers..
http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/ ... ength_Wiki

Great Collection of Videos by Mark Rippetoe regarding each of the SS Basic Lifts..
http://www.youtube.com/user/timdonahey

Cliff
Damn, well on second thought...It's going to be really hard to do his program without easy access to a gym and even then I dont know anyone that would be interested to group up/be a spotter or what not.

Hopefully I can dig around and find a comparable workout routine to Rippetoe's that's just as good...just without the need of a barbell and 2 people. Any suggestions welcome too :D

Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:14 pm
by TimD
Well, you've successfully hijacked this thread. Why not open a new thread up in the general forum under something like "An equivalent to SS with equipment/spotter limitations?". Let us no what you have available as to equipment. We already know you have no spotters, and read the sticky on a "small collection of routines".
Tim

Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:34 pm
by dyecal
Hmmm good idea :)

And I've never seen someone hijack their own thread before haha.

Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:35 pm
by ironmaiden708
And I've never seen someone hijack their own thread before haha
The sarcasm isn't neccesary.

Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:59 pm
by dyecal
ironmaiden708 wrote:
And I've never seen someone hijack their own thread before haha
The sarcasm isn't neccesary.
=\ I wasn't being sarcastic at all, Iron. Why would I be a d*ck to someone I'm asking/receiving help from? I do apologize to you and to anyone else that reads it and finds it offensive though...I just found his statement funny and true, in the fact that I DID pretty much hijack my own thread.

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:59 am
by Porovoz
stuward wrote:Depending on your age and how easy it is to gain fat for you, fat gain may not be an issue. Milk is a good option for bulking and in some places is cheaper than whey. If fat gain is an issue, the sugars in milk will be a problem. Whey has the sugar removed so it's better in that regard. Read all the stickies in the diet section of this forum. There are good links there. Keep in mind that nutrition requirements for a 16 year old trying to gain weight are vastly different than for a middle aged person prone to gaining fat.
Lactose is low on the glycemic index. I understand whole milk, as opposed to skim, being a problem for those susceptible to fat gain. But isn't discounting milk on account of sugar pretty much the equivalent of discounting fruit on account of sugar? :neu:

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:40 am
by stuward
Porovoz wrote:
stuward wrote:Depending on your age and how easy it is to gain fat for you, fat gain may not be an issue. Milk is a good option for bulking and in some places is cheaper than whey. If fat gain is an issue, the sugars in milk will be a problem. Whey has the sugar removed so it's better in that regard. Read all the stickies in the diet section of this forum. There are good links there. Keep in mind that nutrition requirements for a 16 year old trying to gain weight are vastly different than for a middle aged person prone to gaining fat.
Lactose is low on the glycemic index. I understand whole milk, as opposed to skim, being a problem for those susceptible to fat gain. But isn't discounting milk on account of sugar pretty much the equivalent of discounting fruit on account of sugar? :neu:
The first factor that need to come out is whether you think fat or carbs are the main cause of fat retention. You comment "I understand whole milk, as opposed to skim, being a problem for those susceptible to fat gain." indicates to me what side of that fence you're on. First you have to understand that fat intake is not the same as fat retention.

Even low GI carbs can cause fat gains. Recent studies have shown that low GI is not the whole answer. Yes sugar in fruit can be a problem. However it's mitigated but exceptional nutritional benefits. Everyone should eat 1-2 servings of fruit per day but after that there is a diminishing value. Milk itself is less nutritionally dense than fruit. Cheese and cream are better options.

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:40 am
by Porovoz
stuward,

I'm on neither side of the fence. A calorie is a calorie whether it comes from protein, fat, or carbs. If you take in more than your metabolic requirements - you're going to store it, regardless of source. There is, of course, slightly more to this such as it being harder for the body to convert carbs rather than lipids in to stored fat due to the energy expenditures involved... but that is besides the point. If you are eating, give or take, within your metabolic requirements - there is nothing inherently evil or fattening about the 13 grams of lactose in a cup of milk.

Fat intake is quite obviously not the equivalent of fat intake - one can use intake for energy rather than storage. Let me clarify what I mean by saying that I see the value in eliminating the fat in whole by opting for skim milk. As already mentioned, fat gain is a matter of excess calories, and the fat in whole milk is a larger contributer of those than lactose. Unless milk is one's only source of fat, cutting down from 130 calories to 90 calories in a cup by eliminating it, would be in the interests of an individual on the caloric verge of gaining fat.

I can't stress this enough - you're quite mistaken, low GI carbs can't cause fat gain in themselves, even high GI carbs can't. Fat gain is a result of a caloric surplus. Generally, one wants to maximize the nutritional value of food consumed while staying within one's metabolic needs. The lactose in milk isn't highly caloric, nor will it spike one's insulin levels very significantly at all - I don't see why it should serve as a basis for discounting milk's respectable nutrient density. It's quite unfair to arbitrarily treat the lactose in milk or fructose in fruit as evil under the blanket term of "sugar" without distinguishing between the detrimental effects of different sugars.

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:35 am
by stuward
Porovoz wrote:... A calorie is a calorie whether it comes from protein, fat, or carbs. ....
This is the first place I disagree with you.

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:41 am
by stuward
If you want to discuss "a calorie is a calorie" further, move it to a new thread. This is getting off topic here. This is no longer a milk discussion.

Also read this tread.
http://exrx.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4616

For the record, I didn't say you shouldn't drink milk, just that you have to be aware of the consequences of drinking excessive amounts. Fat gain could be a one of them. Eating too much fruit could do the same. If there is 13 grams of lactose in 1 cup of milk, how much in a gallon? That's the recommended amount from some sources and it's at least 4 times what I consider excessive.

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:40 pm
by Ironman
I will just say, all calories are not the same until they are in your blood, completely broken down, ready to be used or stored. If your body was as simple as a blast furnace like those used to determine the calories in different macro-nutrients, then they would all be the same. However your body is many magnitudes more complex then that. You can't reduce a massive equation with hundreds of operations and variables down to an addition or subtraction problem.

For the most extreme example eat 2500 calories worth of cake every day for a month. Then the next month eat 2500 calories of chicken and broccoli every day. You will then understand.