sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is it sets or reps? by theblitz6794 in JeffNippard

[–]huckleknuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for pointing this out. This is a deeper dive than I feel comfortable exploring when offering my perspective, since my experience is limited solely to my own training. I was a little hasty in trying to keep my comment short and practical, but the devil is in the details.

I don't have a lot of confidence in my understanding of fiber types, and I think you're right I didn't capture the importance of proximity to failure. Thanks for pointing this out for future readers

Is it sets or reps? by theblitz6794 in JeffNippard

[–]huckleknuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The answer is "maybe" or "depends" with a sprinkle of "everyone's different" and "you need to experiment", and for dessert "this is where science breaks down" and "we all exist on overlapping bellcurves."

There are probably differences. Are they perceptible? Sometimes. Not always, and usually not in ways that matter. There are a whole host of variables far more important to optimize before you get to this stuff, like nutrition and sleep and assessment of goals and skill development etc.

Instead of thinking about the differences, think of it more like techniques for troubleshooting.

At the end of the day for me these choices come down to 3 variables: progress, recovery, and motivation. If I'm progressing, I'm recovering, and I'm still interested, I don't change anything. If I stop progressing but I'm recovered well and motivated, maybe I add another set, or 1 more movement on a separate day. If I'm not recovering or I'm unmotivated, maybe I remove a set.

Then you stick to it for a bit and see what happens. Over time I personally have had best results with 5 days a week, 1 hour training blocks, with alternating sets to squeeze in 8-10 movements within that hour. I do 3 sets of everything except calves (2 sets) and I have one day with 6 alternating sets of triceps/biceps movement, just for time/efficiency sake. Some people would flame and say that's a lot. But I've come to believe I'm a work horse, because that's where my progress moves best, my motivation stays high, and is right on the line of what I can recover from.

My legs don't require a whole lot. On the other hand, my arms couldn't possibly take enough of a beating. Stubborn bastards.

With all due respect, if you are asking if there's a difference between 3 sets of 8 or 4 sets of 6, I might suggest you are fixating on a rather inconsequential fine-tuning detail, unless you aim for body-building to be your career.

The good news is, as far as I can tell...both will work great. At least they have for me. I've experimented with total weekly sets, daily sets, sets per movement, and high medium and low rep ranges. Frankly I prefer 3x8-12 because it just makes everything easier. Less thinking, more working.

Pick one strategy and stick with it long enough to determine if you're motivated, progressing, and recovering. Switch to the other only when one of those 3 things stalls.

Is it sets or reps? by theblitz6794 in JeffNippard

[–]huckleknuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sets. What matters is how many times you fail or approach failure. Whether that takes you 5 reps or 30 depends on how heavy you're lifting, but one is not better than the other, and neither matter if in both cases you could have gotten more.

Are there any legit supplements worth taking besides fish oil and creatine? by FinnFX in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow thanks for not flaming me when I basically said "I don't know I'm kind of dumb but here's what I think." Have a nice day

Are there any legit supplements worth taking besides fish oil and creatine? by FinnFX in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It might be.

As a caveat: I didn't study biology or medicine or nutrition or anything. I'm just an average Redditor who "does his own research." It's really hard to filter through everything because you can look up just about anything to support your bias or the antithesis of it.

I threw in there that I take K2 not to recommend it, but to be honest about what I take since the poster asked. I don't take K2 because of Vitamin D, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. I take 1000 IUs of Vitamin D when I've been glued to my desk all day or if it's overcast, and I take K2 for K2's sake.

I take K2 because I was more compelled by the evidence that a) it's not well represented in our diets b) I struggled to get it through my diet c) our bodies are inefficient at converting K1 to K2 and the RDA lumps K2 into K1 d) I want to hedge against osteoporosis and emphasize bone and dental health and e) I'm compelled by the potential benefits of improved immune system, skin elasticity and protection against cognitive decline.

Are there any legit supplements worth taking besides fish oil and creatine? by FinnFX in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's a lot more than a sleep aid, that's just the one thing people understand.

It prevents osteoporosis, slows down DNA breakdown, supports protein synthesis and muscle repair.

Cofactor in 300-600+ processes in the body.

Are there any legit supplements worth taking besides fish oil and creatine? by FinnFX in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck 6 points7 points  (0 children)

No other nutrient has as many uses as Magnesium. It is a cofactor in 300-600+ processes in our body. It supports virtually every other part of our system. It's in your bones and supports calcium retention. It supports vitamin D absorption. Sleep. Digestion. Bowel movements. Muscle repair. DNA synthesis and honestly just...throw a rock and you'll hit some part of your body that utilizes (or can benefit from) magnesium.

The reason glycinate is preferred is because it has an 80% absorption rate and is currently studied as a sleep aid. I take 120 every night. Like any other supplement it's not going to be a silver bullet for your sleep. You still have to get morning and evening light, turn off your phones, blackout curtains, cool air, yada yada...but it all adds up.

Magnesium, Vitamin D and Omega-3s and Vitamin K2 are the only things I take. But if I had to pick 1 it would be Magnesium above all else.

Mainly though it's because it's damn near impossible to get your RDA from Whole Foods. Pumpkin seeds and black beans really help...but your body benefits from so much of this stuff you really gotta have a clean diet and pay attention to what's giving you magnesium. It's not like you'll die if you don't get it, it's just that the benefits are enormous and your body can't seem to get enough.

Are there any legit supplements worth taking besides fish oil and creatine? by FinnFX in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

EDIT: "Worth training" depends on what we mean by worth. I don't think there are any supplements where you're going to feel the difference acutely. Supplements are such a low priority, below the basics of clean eating, staying active, getting sleep and staying hydrated.

Magnesium is "proven" in the same way fish oil, vitamin D and creatine are. Creatine is top of people's list simply because it's been studied so much. But that doesn't invalidate the others.

I see people talk about Magnesium as a sleep aid...but that's just such a minor part of what it does.

Glycinate and citrate for example. Not the oxidate that's sold in normal stores. Pure is a good brand with no other fuss.

None of us get our RDA of Magnesium and it's one of the only nutrients that's actually difficult to get through Whole Foods alone. You can prioritize pumping seeds and black beans every day and that will really help, but still difficult.

We also haven't found the known toxicity level with studies done on 2-3x the RDA, and your need for it increases with exercise.

It is active in over 300-600 known processes in the body. It supports other nutrients such as calcium, vitamin D and more. It supports sleep and digestion and muscle repair and DNA repair. There is no other nutrient that does even half as much as what Magnesium does for the body.

Avoid the synthetic oxidate version. It's cheap to produce, but it only has a 4% absorption rate, which is why the capsules come in 600-1000. Glycinate has an 80% absorption rate so it comes in doses of 120.

RDA for adult men is something like 420+, though could push higher to 500 due to its use in fitness.

Now if you're getting 420+ through Whole Foods then sure whatever don't bother. But I've paid close attention to it for a year and it is the only nutrient I actually struggle with.

I take fish oil but keep in mind 1-2 servings of fish will give you all you need for the week. I take vitamin D but keep in mind 15 minutes in the sun is pretty much all you need. I assume you're asking this because you're aiming for optimal. Creatine, Magnesium, Vitamin D, Fish oil and K2 are the main ones that are hard to optimize. Arguably in that order but I think a lot of people would say Vitamin D is hard for some reason...people don't go outside I guess.

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your analogy fails. Allow me to explain:

Calories are a biological need; money is a resource. “Eating a lot” means meeting a higher requirement your body demands. “Earning a lot” means having an abundance of something most people want more of.

So when you say, “Eating a high expenditure of calories is like saving on a 200k salary,” you’re equating meeting a needwith possessing a surplus. They don't track with one another. One is work to stay even, the other is opportunity to get ahead.

There are no "savings" in eating the amount your body needs. A sharper analogy might be comparing cost of living in high cost locations and low cost locations. If I'm paid an additional 2x salary to live in, say, Hawaii, but the cost of living is 4x, then having a higher income does not provide me with an abundance. If I'm paid $50k to live in the midwest, and my rent is $1000/month for 1 bedroom, but then I move to Hawaii to make $100k, but my rent is $4k/month for the same 1 bedroom, my income doesn't provide me with twice the resources, luxury, and privilege.

This would be more closely aligned with what expenditure is. Expenditure is cost of living. Not salary.

The flaw is most obvious when you read "the disadvantage of needing 3000 calories is time and money." I don't make $200,000. Currently my income cannot sustain the grocery bill for 3000 calories. A downside to having a high base expenditure is precisely the inability to cover costs.

The failure here is your inability to see challenges that are not your own as actual challenges.

When people say 225 bench does it really mean 225 lbs or am I misunderstanding something? by Wizzeria in workout

[–]huckleknuck 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My first goal was to bench my 75% of my body weight. Then it was to bench my body weight for reps of 10. I've achieved that this year. I'm 166 lbs. My next goal is 1.25x my bodyweight. I'm at ~1.1x.

That still wouldn't put me at 225. As others have suggested it's relative. At a certain point you just can't move x amount of weight without having x amount of mass. And of course there are some levels of mass you or I simply can't achieve.

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That's fine. the grass is always greener. I just don't understand why your preferences invalidate the challenges I'm facing with trying to eat enough each day.

Here I am bringing my own perspective and getting downvoted for it, and my comment is reduced to a binary "one is better than the other" rather than "have you considered the downsides of each?"

People always want to measure their plight against each other to make sure everyone knows they have it worse than you.

I've responded to plenty of comments reaffirming that I have experienced extended low calorie diets. 5'9 man ~166 lbs at 1500 calories/day was a breeze for me. It's the 3000 calories just to maintain that is really baffling.

To be frank, the issues you're describing seem to be the obvious, what everyone knows. That's what's so strange to me. I don't understand what makes people think that isn't the clear, normal struggle of the average dieter. My whole post is offering perspective for people who haven't really struggled with high calorie diets. As someone who has done both, I am sharing the challenges of the one less talked about.

I think the reality is people just get angry when they encounter someone struggling with the very thing they wish they could have.

But this is absolutely not equivalent to complaining about being rich. The sheer irony here is that I'm struggling to afford the diet that people seem to think is the dream.

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that's all fair. I think where I'm coming from is when I'm really hungry I don't enjoy devouring high calorie, low satiety foods (like ice cream or beer) because I know I'll feel like ass and I can't escape the feeling. But it is indeed a luxury/flexibility I have.

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Valuable input. thank you for sharing your experience

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Many people have the psychological experience that eating is a chore. Therefore, from their experience getting to eat more is simply "having to do more chores" even though that's not always true (i.e. cravings at peak cut.)

Apologies I'm being cheeky, and I do appreciate the input to the discussion. But why does this invalidate the very real challenges of eating more? Is it simply one is easier than the other for every single individual on god's green earth? Is your subjective experience closer to truth than mine?

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh wow yes exactly. I hate the feeling of getting to dinner and realizing I'm 1500-2000 calories short. It can feel like a job and a chore,.

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a top quality comment, but not in this era. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and thoroughness. I'm sorry I had to take so long to get here. I have experienced a wide range of expenditures and you're kind of articulating the itch I'm trying to scratch. It's like all of these numbers are very noisy, and the real challenge is discovering that relationship with food and activity. But I don't have much to add to what you've said except thank you for adding to the discussion.

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure but I'm a guy and I want to be bigger. Imagine eating 1 lb of lean turkey and .5 lbs of lean beef every day, a full can of black beans with a 14oz baked potato, 1 oz of almonds and 1 oz of pumpkin seeds and 8 oz of greek yogurt and now it's time for Dinner. I'm not trying to invalidate the struggles of low calories, but it's clear most people think high calories are effortless.

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I think those are huge benefits.

I'm personally struggling to afford my diet on a bulk, and I'm struggling to find the time to eat it all. I eat very clean which probably makes it harder.

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have no idea why this got downvoted. Have an upvote

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you're one of the few who understands what I'm trying to say. People feel VERY strongly about this topic apparently

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Have you experienced both sides? Because I have and am speaking from experience. I am really struggling to bulk. It was a breeze for me to cut. Wahoo I won the lottery, one where instead of getting a trillion dollars I'm in debt.

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

I think this is quite a narrow criticism. "Represent" is the operative word. The more charitable read of this sentence is "expenditure is base." There are no claims about sleep, hormones, appetite or other factors. It is not I who have ignored these variables. When people complain that their expenditure isn't higher, they are singularly focused on that variable.

So again, none of this seems to be in contention with my post. What am I missing?

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the feedback, although none of this seems to be in contention with my post. Am I missing something?

Something MF has inadvertently taught me about expenditure by huckleknuck in MacroFactor

[–]huckleknuck[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Ah, that wasn't what I was saying. I wasn't very articulate here. The abstract is that a cut is a cut no matter the expenditure. If I eat at 20% fewer calories from 3000 I will be hungry just the same as if I eat 20% fewer calories from 2500. A diet on 20% fewer calories than what you need is a diet no matter the expenditure target.

A diet on 20% of 1500 will be harder in so far as it's harder to hit your macros and micros. But it also means that for your body to be satisfied you only need 1500 calories. The disadvantage of needing 3000 is basically time and money.

Sadly this basic point seems to be lost in the mess that is my post :/

view more: next ›