I’m going to add in 2 higher carbs days (one on the same day as a cheat), taking cals up to around 2500 - 3000 on these days.
I’ll put the IF on hold for now and see how my body reacts to the introduction of higher cal days. I’ve had an easier week this week - better sleep, no AM sessions. Feel better in myself as well as physically.
I’ll update on progress in a few weeks
Thanks
M
[/quote]
Cool man, looking forward to hearing how it goes for you.
Just a brief update on my training and nutrition:
My current training is now:
Mon Am - Overhead carries and shoulder isolation (GF training)
Mon PM - light bag and technique (no sparring)
Plenty of carbs after both sessions, protein and fat at lunch (para workout protocols for both sessions with increased carbs)
Tues AM - Trap bar carries + short sprint (and a few KB swings to loosen the hips)
PM - Heavy bag and sparring
Carbs only after PM session
Wed AM - no training, lots of limping around after the 2 hour session th previous night :0)
PM - Full body weight training - lots of carbs para and post workout.
Thursday - all the same as Tuesday
Friday - Same as Monday
Saturday - AM - 30 mins complexes (either BB or KB’s)
PM - HEAVY sparring
Carbs carbs carbs carbs lol…
Eye Dentist, thanks for the in-depth look at your nutrition and training. I’ve read parts of your thread before (like a year ago) and when I read it again this week I found I incorporated some of your principles into my training (particularly around nutrient timing, training split etc.). Looking at your physique it gives me good inspiration to keep persevering over a long time frame and improving my body. I’m about 45lbs lighter than the same time last year and feel that I am still about 15 to 20% body fat but I am continuing to push the leanness envelope to look better (perhaps another 15 to 20lbs away).
This is just a general question to you or other posters: does having a leaner body fat allow to consume more calories and maintain that leanness? I know that’s not a straightforward question (or answer) but what I mean is does the amount of calories that can be consumed increase as we get leaner or is it still a function of muscle mass held, physical activity, NEPA etc.? If I’m not clear please let me know and I’ll try better to explain. Thank you.
[quote]XanderBuilt wrote:
This is just a general question to you or other posters: does having a leaner body fat allow to consume more calories and maintain that leanness? I know that’s not a straightforward question (or answer) but what I mean is does the amount of calories that can be consumed increase as we get leaner or is it still a function of muscle mass held, physical activity, NEPA etc.? If I’m not clear please let me know and I’ll try better to explain. Thank you.[/quote]
Hey, sorry so long in responding (house full of holiday guests until this afternoon).
In my experience, being leaner has not allowed me to take in more calories–in fact, the leaner (and therefore lighter) I have gotten, the fewer cals I’ve been able to consume. I suspect there are several reasons for this, among them being that 1) basal metabolic requirements seem to scale linearly with bodyweight; and 2) once you get to a certain level of leanness, the hormonal milieu seems to shift to a ‘fat protecting’ mode. (This can be envisioned as a reduction in the slope of the function relating BW to BMR.)
If anyone has had a different experience (ie, the ability to increase their caloric intake as a function of getting leaner), please chime in.
[quote]XanderBuilt wrote:
This is just a general question to you or other posters: does having a leaner body fat allow to consume more calories and maintain that leanness? I know that’s not a straightforward question (or answer) but what I mean is does the amount of calories that can be consumed increase as we get leaner or is it still a function of muscle mass held, physical activity, NEPA etc.? If I’m not clear please let me know and I’ll try better to explain. Thank you.[/quote]
Hey, sorry so long in responding (house full of holiday guests until this afternoon).
In my experience, being leaner has not allowed me to take in more calories–in fact, the leaner (and therefore lighter) I have gotten, the fewer cals I’ve been able to consume. I suspect there are several reasons for this, among them being that 1) basal metabolic requirements seem to scale linearly with bodyweight; and 2) once you get to a certain level of leanness, the hormonal milieu seems to shift to a ‘fat protecting’ mode. (This can be envisioned as a reduction in the slope of the function relating BW to BMR.)
If anyone has had a different experience (ie, the ability to increase their caloric intake as a function of getting leaner), please chime in.[/quote]
This has been my experience too. I’m right there with you about weight and calorie intake.
I also think that generally when people are leaner its because they are doing more cardio than when they are carrying around 5-7% more body fat to get to that level of leanness… So they might be expending an extra 1,000-1,500 calories a week on cardio, so if they eat an extra 800-1000 calories of carbs they are still in a deficit. Then when they arent as focused on getting/staying lean they ease up on the cardio and have to back down on the food too.
Hi Brian, the shoulder is doing OK, thanks for asking. So long as I avoid exercises that directly irritate it, I can lift relatively pain free and productively (it feels productive, at least). So knock on wood, I’m hoping to avoid going under the knife indefinitely.
On the other hand, the diet has been a source of significant frustration of late. Despite running a fairly aggressive deficit (according to my calculations), my weight is simply not dropping like I thought it would. In fact, it’s to the point where I’m wondering whether I’ve dieted myself into a suboptimal place with regard to hormonal status. In that regard, I have an appt with my doctor tomorrow, and will request she check my thyroid and T levels.
My left shoulder has a slight SLAP tear and I am very careful with the exercises I do for it. A lot of dumbbell work, no flat benching for me anymore. I’ve just started experimenting with weighted incline push-ups (feet on a chair), and my shoulders seem to tolerate this well. I also get a great pump.
@EyeDentist been doing some reading on cx linking, and saw that sham procedures were included in the trials; what are the odds I paid to have someone shine a bright light in my eye for half an hour??
Also, just re-read this whole thread… shake weights weren’t ever brought up. You’ve been holding out on all of us.
If your keratoconus stabilized, you didn’t get the sham treatment. Also, once the trial ended and was ‘unblinded,’ you would be offered the real treatment, assuming it worked (which it does).
As for Shake Weights, they’re the secret to my fitness success. That, and clenbuterol/trenbolone.
Not EyeDentist, but I am a medical research dude, so…
If you were enrolled in a randomized trial where a “sham” procedure was used as the control group, it should have been explained to you that there was a chance you would be assigned to the “sham” procedure group, and you should have signed an “informed consent” document that indicated you understood the risks and benefits of the research and were made aware that you would be randomly assigned to either sham procedure or real procedure. Of course, they would keep you blinded (pardon the pun) to whether you received the “real” procedure or the “sham” procedure. In a standard, two-group, parallel design with 1:1 randomization, the odds would be 50/50 of receiving sham procedure vs. real procedure.
The purpose of a “sham” procedure is to have a basis for comparison to determine whether the “real” procedure being tested actually improves symptoms / disease. This is necessary to rule out the “placebo effect” where people report an improvement in symptoms merely because they perceive that “something” is being done (i.e. if I have a bunch of people with a common cold and give them all sugar pills, some will claim to feel better soon afterwards merely because they’ve taken something and now trick themselves into believing they feel better).
If you did not sign an “informed consent” waiver that explained that you enrolled in a trial with a random assignment to the real procedure vs. the sham procedure…then forget all of this.
It has changed slightly since the procedure. I was told that isn’t uncommon. I stumbled on the literature when researching why one eye sees everything with a brown filter and the other with a blue filter. Additionally, after reading the literature I began to think about how my contacts have become extremely tight and cause marks on my eyes when I take them out, as well as my recovery after the procedure was the ‘best they had seen’; virtually no pain… It gave me a sneaky suspicion that I had been duped.
That’s good to know
I fucking knew it. You probably write your own prescriptions for Clen. Meanwhile, I’m sitting here huffing on my childhood inhalers.
I do not recall this ever being discussed.
This I definitely recall.
There were possible scenarios, each having a different amount of time/strength of laser. My assumption is that each of those scenarios had sham… possibly?
Because, despite it’s successful use in other countries (England, Canada), our friends at the FDA haven’t seen it as a priority.
With respect to the frustration of your own situation: I’ve been involved in a long debate in another thread on these boards defending the FDA. Not that I don’t have any issues with the FDA process, but by and large it exists for consumer protection. The US has the highest standards in the world for testing safety and efficacy before approving any medical therapy, and while you may certainly quibble with this and point to examples of effective therapies that were adopted sooner in Europe than they were in the US, you must acknowledge the downside of a less-regulated process, which would be allowing therapies into the market for commercial use that are not sufficiently studied to know whether they are safe and/or effective.
In fairness to the FDA (which can be ponderously, ridiculously slow to approve meds/procedures), the sticking point for CXL in the US was a lack of corporate sponsorship, which in turn stemmed from the fact that companies feared the components of the procedure (riboflavin and UV light) couldn’t be patent-protected. This put potential developers at risk of shelling out millions of dollars in the FDA approval process, only to have any-and-every other company interested in the procedure jump in and start doing it. Not exactly an ideal business model.
That said, apparently Avedro (the only US manufacturer with an FDA-approved system) managed to tart up their riboflavin moiety such that it can’t be duplicated without running afoul of patent laws. Hence, we (the US) now have an FDA-approved delivery system for CXL.
To my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, Avedro had to make changes to the specifications of their laser and then provide corrected submittals before the procedure can take place again?
