Can y'all share some of your fav workout music/playlists?

I started teaching spin again and would like to refresh my music.

12/5/2012 1:43:15 PM

Where to start.

#1) Matt himself (along with many others) will tell you that compliance and adherence is the most important part of designing an effective plan. It doesn't make any sense to develop a plan around not drinking and then start drinking on day 2. I need to develop a plan that is grounded in the fact that 3-7 nights a week I will consume alcohol in some quantity.

#2) Alcohol is only 7calories and has a high thermic effect so its really only 5.7 calories per gram. I drink clean I'm not out pounding fuzzy navels, riesling, or oatmeal stouts. I'm not taking in carbs or tons of sugar from mixers. A shot of bulleit bourbon is about 73 calories so really a net of 58 calories. At ten shots that's 580 calories, big deal! If I drink the whole pint its barely 1,000. On top of that, by getting sugar alcohol I don't crave sweets in my diet which helps me with food adherence not to eat crap. I could go twenty years without eating chocolate if I wanted.

#3) I'm likely lower percentage body fat than anyone who has weighed in on the conversation yet. I'm 6'0 , 170 with a ~33 inch waist and nearly all of my body fat stores lower abdomen. I've been ripped before when I drank every night . It's not impossible. Hell, I've lost 16 lbs already without altering drinking consumption. I've lost ten lbs before without even dieting simply switching from beer to rum + diet coke for six weeks. Now I don't care to try that one again bc the caffeine kept me up til 3 am every night.

I'm aware drinking isn't ideal for losing fat, but neither is having a job or driving a car or reading the internet. Some things aren't negotiable.

GHB is not something I want to do as it is an illegal substance and the side effects are undesirable to me. Drinking paint thinner, floor remover etc doesn't sound like a good long term alternative. I'm not in college anymore, that one doesn't fit my lense but thanks for the suggestion. Now getting a prescription for amphetamines is a good idea, as it would enhance my productivity as well as my weight loss goals.

12/5/2012 2:01:27 PM

You're delusional.

Drinking that much is terrible for you, even if [you think] you look good.

12/5/2012 2:18:37 PM

post up some before pics, face

12/5/2012 2:32:14 PM

Ok I will. Not tonight because I'm headed to the bar after work and I have a drinking social function Thursday lol.

I will post my weight, bf% according to my scale (I know its not an accurate number, but it will be useful as a point of comparison), and a picture of my waist as a before shot next week.

Then I will proceed to lose significant amounts of fat while drinking . This will help hold me accountable.

12/5/2012 2:49:05 PM

6'0 and 170lbs?

12/5/2012 3:25:54 PM

His legs are a national disgrace.

12/5/2012 3:54:13 PM

i like how the second pic goes from 40# to 25# in the actual curl.

and i agree on the legs.

12/5/2012 4:11:50 PM

Yes I lift once a week usually. Id like to go twice, but I usually don't because I do stuff during the work week.

I also have chronic degenerative knee problems and nerve damage in my shoulder so I don't really mess with compound lifts. Again, looking slender with definition is good enough for me.

12/5/2012 4:38:24 PM

Face will never post a pic. This is a 100 percent confirmed fact.

12/5/2012 5:03:14 PM

Quote :

"I'm 6'0 , 170 with a ~33 inch waist and nearly all of my body fat stores lower abdomen."

that sounds like an enlarged fatty liver due to heavy drinking.

GHB was mentioned because it has similar effects to alcohol in the body, yet it contains no calories and will push natural HGH production way up. just because the a common precursor to GHB used to be found in furniture stripper doesn't make GHB the same thing.

amphetamines would have your body catabolizing muscle like crazy. you can get skinny on them, but that's about it.

12/5/2012 5:59:46 PM

^ Yo dude, send me your WO playlist. You have the best music.

I played Marilyn Manson (Personal Jesus) for my spin ladies today. They liked it. So I need more like it.

12/5/2012 6:21:25 PM

^^ sorry haven't done it in years, not up on the latest formula


And ill post pics of my body, why wouldn't I?

12/5/2012 10:13:01 PM

^^I use John Sines/32 mixes for most of my fitness classes. http://www.johnsines.com

Every now and then I'll play a Girl Talk album.

12/6/2012 3:03:05 PM

i work out to DJ screw

12/6/2012 3:04:40 PM

Here's a list of fitness events for Jan and Feb in Raleigh and the triangle, if y'all are looking to stay active...

http://www.capitalstrength.com/2012/12/07/fitness-events-in-raleigh-nc/

12/7/2012 10:21:11 AM

i work out to DJ randy

it's not always the best selection

12/7/2012 10:23:34 AM

^^you have the KKC list as a "4 Mile Run."

Actually the new course is 4.96 miles

12/7/2012 10:27:05 AM

^^ lulz, I hate when dj randy gets on the 1's and 2's. I may have to instate a No Randy Remix policy at the gym

^ Fixed it, thank you!

Here's some vids of this morning's training session...







[Edited on December 7, 2012 at 11:18 AM. Reason : NRR]

12/7/2012 11:12:29 AM

lol, for the most part i don't mind some of the stuff. its when he gets into the 70s music that i'm less a fan

12/7/2012 11:39:03 AM

^^ low bar or high? Looks like high bar placement, but she's driving her hips back first and she's not going low enough. Still a tad high for low bar as well.

12/8/2012 7:31:10 AM

Quote :

"^^ low bar or high? Looks like high bar placement, but she's driving her hips back first and she's not going low enough. Still a tad high for low bar as well"

I call it "mid-bar".... Which is often where the bar feels most comfortable and allows good-enough mechanics. Could be argued as a high bar position, but I find the traditional high bar, especially with girls, just causes too much pain in the traps for me to spend time on when I am prioritizing aesthetic development.

You are right... Her form is off a little. That is to be expected considering this is the heaviest she's gone (PR lift). And, to add on icing on the cake she's lost about 6lbs over the last 3 weeks, so her strength development is blunted. She's preparing for a pageant competition in Jan.

[Edited on December 8, 2012 at 7:42 AM. Reason : words]

12/8/2012 7:40:04 AM

Alright. Weighed in this morning. Had a bit of an atypical week drinking more than normal due to a 5 PM to 2 AM drink-a-thon Wednesday, brewery event thursday, bars friday night, and nba game saturday night. Decided to recarb as well before I took my measurements so the results would look like a normal person beginning a diet, not someone who's already depleted their glyocgen, emptied their stomach, etc.

My initial measurements are 176 lbs and 22.0% bodyfat. Please note I am definitely not 22% bodyfat, the scale overestimates pretty badly. I am using the 22% as a relative value so I can monitor bodyfat loss, not a true value. I'm probably somewhere around 16-17% bodyfat I'd estimate but I'm not really sure. I do know those bio scales only measure your legs and since I have weak legs, perhaps that is throwing the estimates off some.

I am going to use this diet to show you that you can lose massive amounts of fat while doing the following:

1) No cardio beyond maybe walking 1-2x a month (it's cold outside)

2) Drinking heavily, frequently (8-20 drinks, 4-7 nights a week)

3) Lifting weights no more than 2x per week (prob average 1.5)

4) Eating fatty foods like bacon, cheese, whole milk, peanut butter, etc


All I will be doing is intermittent fasting, cycling my carbs a little bit, keeping my diet protein rich, and supplementing with BCAA, creatine, calcium, vitamin d, caffeine, and low doses of yohimbine hcl.

Also, I will be doing this while attending christmas functions and consuming massive quantities of "unhealthy foods" on many occasions (following the plan I outlined a few days ago to limit fat gain on those occasions).

The results may not be "amazing" this first month given that it is December, but everything is relative.

Ah yes. The pictures. Quite embarrassing. Flabby, weak, whatever. I haven't lifted weights or done cardio on a consistent basis in nearly ten years and I drink ~100 beers/shots a week. Relatively speaking, I look okay I think. This isn't about me trying to live in a gym, eat salads everyday, or pose for a magazine shoot. This is for people who want exercise to be a small part of their lives, still eat foods they like, and not look like a fat pig.

By the end of this diet I will be in the single digits for bodyfat with a six pack, while putting my social life above exercise. It can be done if you take advantage of science. Perhaps that will convince some of you to cut out the protein bars, 6 meals a day, running, or whatever other b.s. you've tried in the past to lose weight.

12/9/2012

12/9/2012 11:20:10 AM

Quote :

"My initial measurements are 176 lbs and 22.0% bodyfat. Please note I am definitely not 22% bodyfat, the scale overestimates pretty badly."

you are every bit of 22% bodyfat in those pictures.

12/9/2012 1:15:16 PM

There is nothing good or healthy about your plan. I don't understand why you would even want to to this. Even if you're able to do it, you're ignoring the damage that you're doing to your body for superficial aesthetic gains. Your liver, kidneys, and gallbladder at the very least are going to hate you. And it's simply not sustainable.

And yes, you are every bit of 22% bf in those pictures.

12/9/2012 1:18:27 PM

Nah, not that high. All of my fat stores in my lower abdomen/hips. Regardless. I'll be single digits when this is complete. The fat just melts off.


^ I have no idea what you are talking about. There is absolutely nothing unhealthy about my plan other than the drinking. In fact, fasting is very healthy.





I look nothing like this guy at 25%, sorry.

[Edited on December 9, 2012 at 1:42 PM. Reason : a]

12/9/2012 1:38:20 PM

It's not just the fasting, it's the plan as a whole. Nothing about it is sustainable or healthy from a whole body view. You're just asking for gall stones, kidney damage, heart arrhythmia, and obvious liver damage. Say hello to fatty liver disease. You may rapidly lose body fat, but you're doing it at a cost to the rest of your body in a way that is not sustainable or with long lasting results. It's basically crap.

Get some blood work done before and after then tell me that what you're doing is healthy.

[Edited on December 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2012 1:50:18 PM

I still have no idea what you are talking about. Dropping significant amounts of fat is in fact very healthy. Fasting is extemely healthy for you.

Eating right is extremely healthy, as is lifting weights.

I shouldn't say I do "no" cardio I do try to hit my VO2 max on occasion. Sometimes I'll do 2 minutes on the elliptical, or sprint for a little bit during a walk, run up the stairs, or hook up. You don't really need anymore than that if you are lifting weights.



[Edited on December 9, 2012 at 1:54 PM. Reason : a]

12/9/2012 1:54:25 PM

You really don't understand how your gall bladder, liver, and kidneys function. Take some time to learn. Rapid weight loss and fasting causes gall stones and kidney stones.

Do you realize that with the type of diet you're proposing along with a high intake of alcohol is only going to lead to diabetes? Drinking interferes with your body's regulation of blood glucose levels. Enjoy yourself.

[Edited on December 9, 2012 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2012 2:02:25 PM

whatever, this is a discussion about losing fat.

This morning I did a fairly high volume lifting workout with minimal rest between sets and hit every muscle group. I consumed approximately 100g or protein post-workout with some fats and very low carbs (just what was in the milk mostly).

Now 3 hours later will consume another ~100-150g of protein with almost no net carbs (just what's in egg whites and brocoli).

At 5 PM I will begin my 48 hour fast. I would expect the scale to reflect approximately 2% bodyfat loss when I weigh in Tuesday evening, taking me under 20% on the scale.

During the fast I will consume nothing but water and caffeine as I will be burning strictly off of my fat reserves for the majority of the 48 hours.

12/9/2012 2:46:12 PM

Quote :

"During the fast I will consume nothing but water and caffeine as I will be burning strictly off of my fat reserves for the majority of the 48 hours."

Is there any truth / science to this? Honest question.

opinions other than face's are welcome.

12/9/2012 3:01:07 PM

a sedentary 48 hour fast will barely deplete the body of it's glycogen stores, and afterwards the body will be burning both fat and muscle.

12/9/2012 3:07:48 PM

It's not my opinion. It's science. ^ I did a high volume weightlifting workout this morning on my entire body, so it's not completely sedentary.

Quote :

"After you eat, insulin and fatty acids are elevated. You are in the fed state and there's zero fat burning going on. Your body is relying completely on glucose oxidation during the hours following the meal. One way of measuring this is via the respiratory quotient (RQ). An RQ of 1.0 denotes pure carbohydrate metabolism ("storage mode"), while 0.7 denotes pure fat metabolism. To put this into perspective, consider that RQ is 0.95-1.0 for about 1.5-2 hours after a meal, 0.82-0.85 after overnight fasting and 0.72-0.8 after 16 hours of fasting. As the hours go by and the nutrients from the meal are done being absorbed, RQ drops in conjunction with insulin. There's a shift towards fat burning and mobilization of stored fat. This process is mediated by insulin and blood-borne fatty acids; when levels drop, an energy deficit is "sensed" and catecholamines (adrenaline and nordrenaline) increase. The catecholamines travel through the blood and bind to receptors on fat cells. A receptor can be thought of as a "lock." Hormones and neurotransmitters are keys that fit into that lock and make something happen. In this case catecholamines trigger fat mobilization by activating hormone sensitive lipase (HSL), which then shuttles the fat out of the cell to be burned off. Now here's the critical difference between regular fat and stubborn fat: regular fat have a lot of beta-2 receptors in proportion to alpha-2 receptors. In The Stubborn Fat Solution Lyle McDonald used the analogy of b2-receptors being "accelerators" for fat loss and a2-receptors acting as "breaks" for fat loss. That's the easiest way to think of them without getting too deep into the physiology. The ratio between b2-receptors and a2-receptors determines how easy it is to facilitate fat loss from one region of the body. "Easy" fat has a high ratio of b2-receptors to a2-receptors, while stubborn fat has a high ratio of a2-receptors to b2-receptors. One notorious example that Lyle brings up in his book is that women have up to nine times (!) as many a2-receptors as b2-receptors in their hip and thigh fat. Though I can't recall if similar numbers are available for lower ab and lower back fat for men, you can be sure that the a2-receptors outnumber the b2-receptors in these areas as well.How can intermittent fasting then selectively target stubborn body fat more effectively than other diets? Well, to target stubborn body fat we need to activate b2-receptors while deactivating a2-receptors. Intermittent fasting achieves this by the following mechanisms. How can intermittent fasting then selectively target stubborn body fat more effectively than other diets? Well, to target stubborn body fat we need to activate b2-receptors while deactivating a2-receptors. Intermittent fasting achieves this by the following mechanisms. 1. Fasting increases catecholamine levels. 2. Fasting increases abdominal subcutaneous blood flow, which means that catecholamines will have an easier time reaching those hard-to-get areas. 3. The low insulin level reached during the fast inhibits a2-receptors. A greater time spent in the low insulin state equals a greater time spent in a state where fat can be mobilized from stubborn areas. Now you're probably thinking "why not just go on a low carb diet" to keep insulin low, but keep in mind that triglycerides inhibit HSL in a similar manner as insulin. 4. My research has indicated that the ideal state of fat burning is reached after 12-18 hours of fasting. Coupled with high levels of catecholamines, increased blood flow to stubborn regions, and low insulin for a2-receptor inhibition, this time interval is the "golden age" of stubborn fat mobilization. Let me just explain real quick what I mean by the ideal state of fat burning. Studies have examined free fatty acid (FFA) oxidation from anywhere between the overnight fasted state to three days of fasting. While FFA oxidation increases the longer time you spend in the fasted state, the contribution of fatty acids to whole body fat oxidation changes. In short-term fasting there's a significant increase in subcutaneous FFA oxidation. That's just a fancy way of saying that you're mainly burning body fat and nothing else. For up to 14-20 hours* after a 600-calorie meal in normal-weight subjects, fat is only mobilized from body fat stores in resting individuals. * 14-20 hours in a completely sedentary state should easily equal 12-18 hours in real life. Past this time point, fat burning increases further. That goes without saying. But it's not necessarily the type of fat you're after that you'll be burning. Somewhere in between the 10- and 30-hour time point, the oxidation of intramuscular fat increases greatly, but no increase is seen in subcutaneous fat. Subcutaneous fat simply can't keep up with demand, so you're playing a game of diminishing returns if you push the fast too long. Coupled with the escalating rate of de novo gluconeogenesis, and subsequent risk of muscle catabolism, fasting for too long may not be very conducive for a lean individual seeking optimal lean mass retention while targeting stubborn body fat. "

[Edited on December 9, 2012 at 3:14 PM. Reason : a]

12/9/2012 3:09:17 PM

^ Since I'm too lazy to read any further up, when does catabolism begin?

12/9/2012 3:12:02 PM

Catabolism will depend on your glycogen stores and how much protein you flood your body with before the fast.

Quote :

" This myth hinges on people's belief it's important to have a steady stream of amino acids available to not lose muscle. As I explained earlier, protein is absorbed at a very slow rate. After a large high-protein meal, amino acids trickle into your blood stream for several hours. No studies have looked at this in a context that is relevant to most of us. For example, by examining amino acid appearance in the blood and tissue utilization of amino acids after a large steak, veggies and followed up with some cottage cheese with berries for dessert. That's easily 100 grams of protein and a typical meal for those that follow the Leangains approach. We are left to draw our own conclusions based on what we know; that a modest amount of casein, consumed as a liquid on an empty stomach is still releasing amino acids after 7 hours. With this in mind it's no stretch to assume that 100 grams of protein as part of a mixed meal at the end of the day would still be releasing aminos for 16-24 hours. Few studies has examined the effects of regular fasting on muscle retention and compared it to a control diet. None of them are relevant to how most people fast and some are marred by flaws in study design and methodology. Like this study which showed increased muscle gain and fat loss, with no weight training or change in calorie intake, just by changing meal frequency. While I would love to cite that study as proof for the benefits of intermittent fasting, body composition was measured by BIA, which is notoriously imprecise. Only in prolonged fasting does protein catabolism become an issue. This happens when stored liver glycogen becomes depleted. In order to maintain blood glucose, conversion of amino acids into glucose must occur (DNG: de novo glucogenesis). This happens gradually and if amino acids are not available from food, protein must be taken from bodily stores such as muscle. Cahill looked at the contribution of amino acids to DNG after a 100 gram glucose load. He found that amino acids from muscle contributed 50% to glucose maintenance after 16 hours and almost 100% after 28 hours (when stored liver glycogen was fully depleted). Obviously, for someone who eats a high protein meal before fasting, this is a moot point as you will have plenty of aminos available from food during the fast."

12/9/2012 3:22:12 PM

A moderate to heavy drinker will deplete his or her glycogen stores in a matter of hours. That's why after drinking most people are hypoglycemic. Hence, they feel like shit. This is worsened by the fact that your body's glucose production is inhibited as you metabolize the alcohol. A high protein diet combined with fasting and high alcohol consumption is just begging for problems.

face is just regurgitating Martin Berkhan.

12/9/2012 4:07:03 PM

Quote :

"By the end of this diet I will be in the single digits for bodyfat with a six pack, while putting my social life above exercise."

I thought besides wanting to look good naked, we are all excercising to improve our overall health, quality of life, and longevitiy...and you're consuming that much alcohol.

12/9/2012 5:19:39 PM

Quote :

"A moderate to heavy drinker will deplete his or her glycogen stores in a matter of hours."

I really don't understand this... Please elaborate.

From my understanding alcohol consumption inhibits the oxidation of glucose and fat. In other words, fat nor glycogen will be depleted by alcohol consumption.

12/9/2012 6:12:16 PM

In order to perform glycolysis, the body then turns to the liver's glycogen stores because the necessary glucose is not present. Unfortunately, in those who consume alcohol the liver's glycogen stores are already low because instead of building up glycogen stores while at rest, it's busy using up those reserves because of low glucose levels after drinking.

To read about it in all its uber scientific glory:
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-4/291-299.htm

Anyway, alcohol is bad for you, mkay. It's not going to help you lose fat. It's not going to help you gain muscle. If anything, it's going to destroy your body and lead to all sorts of nutritional deficiencies even with a healthy diet that includes supplementation.

[Edited on December 9, 2012 at 6:53 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2012 6:48:49 PM

Fat people have the best advice about how not to stay fat

12/9/2012 7:19:55 PM

I really don't think what that article discusses applies to moderate drinking.

12/9/2012 7:43:25 PM

I know this is the lounge, but is there a single person in this thread that wants face to keep posting?

1.

& btw, 22% body fat looks about right to me.

12/9/2012 8:16:06 PM

I don't mind him posting, it stirs up the pot a little bit.

Some of his ideas aren't bad. He just needs to admit that drinking heavily is not conducive to aesthetics and health.

12/9/2012 8:34:50 PM

Well you can omit moderate from my previous post if it satisfies you, but I don't believe that face's planned alcohol consumption is 'moderate'and falls more 'to heavy' consumption. There are also numerous other places that discuss alcohol consumption depleting the liver's glycogen stores. That particular article just discusses the how.

12/9/2012 8:46:52 PM

Nah, I'm probably around 18% or so. Those scales are fooled quite easily whenever you have a lot of water weight, food in your stomach, etc.

Tuesday when I weigh in again, I'll be under 20% on the scale. Is it possible to lose 2% bodyfat in 48 hours? Probably not. That reading will give me a much more accurate measurement of about where I'm at.

Upper abdominal muscles are not visible at 22% bodyfat.

Just to give you an idea, when I had a 6-pack and low bodyfat, that scale measured 16-17% body fat. When I was measured with calipers in high school by a professional I was at 6.4% bodyfat overall, yet my legs were still measured at like 12%.

I don't recall ever seeing that scale measure me above 23% bodyfat, and I used to weigh 186 and was not lifting weights or dieting at all. There's simply no way to lose 10-15 lbs like that with visible bodyfat loss and only drop 1% bodyfat or so.

12/9/2012 8:55:53 PM

From those grainy pics, I'd guess 18-20%. It heavily depends on how much muscle you are carrying.

When I am at 16-18%, I look significantly fatter than I am because my muscle mass adds a lot of bulk under the fluff.

12/9/2012 9:06:04 PM

upper abdominal muscles aren't visible in your pictures, and they can be visible at 22% bodyfat. You can make out my entire 6-pack at 15% bodyfat.

12/9/2012 10:07:38 PM

Looks between 20 and 22 percent to me.

Quote :

"you can lose massive amounts of fat while doing the following:"

Define "massive"

12/9/2012 10:58:26 PM

Not going to argue with you. I'm not 22% bodyfat, period. If you want to believe that fine, it'll just make my results more impressive.

I'm 7 hours into the fast. Not remotely hungry yet. I may not make the full 48 hours though because I fell asleep watching football and never got to eat my eggs at the end to have some slow digesting proteins. Only consumed about 200g protein today which was about 50g short of what I wanted, so I'll play by ear. Not going to consume muscle just to prove a point obviously, but I will be doing a minimum of ~28 hours for sure.

12/9/2012 11:07:23 PM

Quote :

"Nah, not that high. All of my fat stores in my lower abdomen/hips. Regardless. I'll be single digits when this is complete. The fat just melts off. "

lol you have fat storage in your lower abdomen from alcohol bloat.

Quote :

"Not going to argue with you. I'm not 22% bodyfat, period. If you want to believe that fine, it'll just make my results more impressive. "

this comments reminds me of a person when they try to say the scale is off by 20 pounds and there's no way they're X weight.

and by the way - yes you are right around 22% body fat.

12/10/2012 7:50:43 AM