5 ms·

I wish that it was possible to do a caloric restriction study on people who work out. I spent most of my 20s eating roughly twice as much as average and hitting

I wish that it was possible to do a caloric restriction study on people who work out. I spent most of my 20s eating roughly twice as much as average and hitting the gym 3-4 times per week and I never felt better, especially after 20 rep squat sessions that naturally raise hormones like testosterone and HGH. I occasionally cut calories to lose weight or train my metabolism to be "ready" for emergency situations (which was honestly camping or going broke, not exactly military excursions), but in my experience it basically felt like death. Like I could feel my body catabolizing muscle and I had flu-like symptoms if I took it too far for too many weeks. Anecdotally, my parents' boomer generation felt that bodybuilding was generally a waste of time. If you watch old movies from the 60s and 70s, people were especially lean. And then unfortunately juicers in the 70s, 80s and 90s ruined the reputation of bodybuilding so everyone figured that being strong meant taking steroids. It's only been in the last 5-10 years or so that I've noticed a resurgence in natural bodybuilding (check out Jeff Nippard, Steve Cook and Mike O'Hearn for examples of what's possible natty). So personally I really feel that lifting weights from about 15-16 years of age for life probably replicates many of the health effects of calorie restriction. Like, Arnold Schwarzenegger did some of his best work in his 40s when he was in better shape than most people in their 20s. Many athletes in their 70s and 80s look like they're 50. An untrained human bench presses about 100 pounds. When I was growing up, a 300 pound bench was considered mastery. Today with YouTube and better workout programs and supplements, that's probably 400-500 pounds. I personally would choose to have 3-5 times average strength (anything above 4 is metahuman IMHO) rather than spend my life at a withered calorie restricted strength of 1/2. Of course ethically, it would be better for the planet if nobody worked out I guess. That's a separate discussion though, and I feel that some of the downside could be alleviated if the extra calories came from relatively benign sources like rice and beans. So my question is, is this all just vanity? Or would a diet/exercise approach be comparable to calorie restriction?

jotm 7y ago
Seems to me like working out you just naturally need more calories. So it's the same thing - you use more calories than you eat. Like how Michael Phelps are something ridiculous like 10,000 calories a day while training.
- asdff 7y ago
  You can eat like a pig and perform de facto caloric restriction if you work out hard enough. No need to subscribe to whatever diet religion is in vogue on instagram; just burn more calories than you take in and you will loose weight. It's a basic physics equation.
bkovacev 7y ago
While I agreed on everything you said - I simply cannot get over the fact you mentioned Mike O'Hearn as someone who is natty. While this definitely is not a place for arguing about someone's physique or what's attainable naturally, I do not think duck eggs make you get and maintain that much muscle with height of 190cms and sub 10% body fat year around. Do not get me wrong, I have nothing against someone using steroids, but lying about is a bit unethical.
- zackmorris 7y ago
  Ya I'm torn about him. I'm about the same height and weight as he is, although he is big-boned while I started out built like Doogie Howser. So when he graduated high school, he was already as heavy as I was at my prime and probably stronger too. He's 100-200 pounds stronger on every single compound lift than I am. But, ironically I've been using some of his powerbuilding and Mark Bell's powerlifting techniques to make gains even though I'm 42 years old. I started lifting at 21 after 4 years of college drinking. I've been lifting for 20 years, all natty, but it was a struggle to make gains. Meanwhile I've met 18-19 year olds at my gym benching, squatting and deadlifting the same weight as me because they simply have more testosterone. It turns out that literally all that matters in bodybuilding is consistency and periodicity. Mike O'Hearn is so strong primarily because as a celebrity, he had access to all the best food and supplements and never stopped training. He also had Robby Robinson, who introduced him to connective tissue training by alternating weeks of 2-3 sets of 12 with 7 sets of 3 using a full range of motion. The standard 8-12 rep workout pitched by gyms is only for hypertrophy and unfortunately is the worst for strength and power that I know of. My feeling is that Mike MAY have dabbled in steroids early in his career, but there's no way to prove it. He almost certainly took testosterone boosters like horny goat weed or Robbie's TestoFuel during his 30s and 40s. And I guarantee that he has tried every supplement there is so he knows exactly how to get the coveted "dry" look that typically only people on performance enhancing drugs achieve. I've seen him eating tupperwares of just meat in his videos, and he has talked about eating several pounds of fruit before bed, so I think his diet also isn't typical. So to me, he is the gold standard of natural lifter, even though I'm only 70% sure that he never did steroids. Incidentally, I also feel that most of Arnold's numbers were achievable individually without steroids, except his 22.5" arms, 57" chest and 27" shoulder span. Those would probably be about 20-21", 52" and 24" respectively for someone with the right genetics. My thighs for example are the same size as his, and Mike's are quite a bit bigger than either of ours. But most people can only get to 19" biceps without drugs. I've already said too much about this, but if anyone wants to really gain mass as a natty, the only way that worked for me was to eat at least 4000 calories (4-5 full meals) per day, plan to gain at least 30 pounds over your target weight (bench press gains are proportional to body weight gains), and then DO NOT use a 5 day bro split. The best workout I found was a 4 day split of: legs, chest and bis, back and tris, shoulders. Also known as a push-pull workout. Unfortunately I didn't know about periodicity, so I did 5x5 over longer than 6 weeks cycles and wound up with injuries and tendonitis (so watch your elbows). Today I can only do 3-4 week cycles with a 1 week deload, alternating grips frequently with lots of narrow/wide and reverses to prevent injury. I'm curious to hear other perspectives on this though.
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
Since most people aren't going to commit to bodybuilding 3-4x a week for life, I'd imagine a calorie-restricted diet is the superior option for them. Eating a lot and working a lot, might be superior to eating little and working out little, but eating a lot and working out little has to have the worst outcomes.

jotm 7y ago

Seems to me like working out you just naturally need more calories. So it's the same thing - you use more calories than you eat. Like how Michael Phelps are something ridiculous like 10,000 calories a day while training.

asdff 7y ago
You can eat like a pig and perform de facto caloric restriction if you work out hard enough. No need to subscribe to whatever diet religion is in vogue on instagram; just burn more calories than you take in and you will loose weight. It's a basic physics equation.

bkovacev 7y ago

While I agreed on everything you said - I simply cannot get over the fact you mentioned Mike O'Hearn as someone who is natty. While this definitely is not a place for arguing about someone's physique or what's attainable naturally, I do not think duck eggs make you get and maintain that much muscle with height of 190cms and sub 10% body fat year around. Do not get me wrong, I have nothing against someone using steroids, but lying about is a bit unethical.

zackmorris 7y ago
Ya I'm torn about him. I'm about the same height and weight as he is, although he is big-boned while I started out built like Doogie Howser. So when he graduated high school, he was already as heavy as I was at my prime and probably stronger too. He's 100-200 pounds stronger on every single compound lift than I am. But, ironically I've been using some of his powerbuilding and Mark Bell's powerlifting techniques to make gains even though I'm 42 years old. I started lifting at 21 after 4 years of college drinking. I've been lifting for 20 years, all natty, but it was a struggle to make gains. Meanwhile I've met 18-19 year olds at my gym benching, squatting and deadlifting the same weight as me because they simply have more testosterone. It turns out that literally all that matters in bodybuilding is consistency and periodicity. Mike O'Hearn is so strong primarily because as a celebrity, he had access to all the best food and supplements and never stopped training. He also had Robby Robinson, who introduced him to connective tissue training by alternating weeks of 2-3 sets of 12 with 7 sets of 3 using a full range of motion. The standard 8-12 rep workout pitched by gyms is only for hypertrophy and unfortunately is the worst for strength and power that I know of. My feeling is that Mike MAY have dabbled in steroids early in his career, but there's no way to prove it. He almost certainly took testosterone boosters like horny goat weed or Robbie's TestoFuel during his 30s and 40s. And I guarantee that he has tried every supplement there is so he knows exactly how to get the coveted "dry" look that typically only people on performance enhancing drugs achieve. I've seen him eating tupperwares of just meat in his videos, and he has talked about eating several pounds of fruit before bed, so I think his diet also isn't typical. So to me, he is the gold standard of natural lifter, even though I'm only 70% sure that he never did steroids. Incidentally, I also feel that most of Arnold's numbers were achievable individually without steroids, except his 22.5" arms, 57" chest and 27" shoulder span. Those would probably be about 20-21", 52" and 24" respectively for someone with the right genetics. My thighs for example are the same size as his, and Mike's are quite a bit bigger than either of ours. But most people can only get to 19" biceps without drugs. I've already said too much about this, but if anyone wants to really gain mass as a natty, the only way that worked for me was to eat at least 4000 calories (4-5 full meals) per day, plan to gain at least 30 pounds over your target weight (bench press gains are proportional to body weight gains), and then DO NOT use a 5 day bro split. The best workout I found was a 4 day split of: legs, chest and bis, back and tris, shoulders. Also known as a push-pull workout. Unfortunately I didn't know about periodicity, so I did 5x5 over longer than 6 weeks cycles and wound up with injuries and tendonitis (so watch your elbows). Today I can only do 3-4 week cycles with a 1 week deload, alternating grips frequently with lots of narrow/wide and reverses to prevent injury. I'm curious to hear other perspectives on this though.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

Since most people aren't going to commit to bodybuilding 3-4x a week for life, I'd imagine a calorie-restricted diet is the superior option for them. Eating a lot and working a lot, might be superior to eating little and working out little, but eating a lot and working out little has to have the worst outcomes.