Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
fitnessmodel...how do they stay in shape?
- Thread starter marcu_s
- Start date
Tatyana
Elite Mentor
Well it is a good thing I am a science geek then 
After eating, insulin removes glucose from the circulation and has it converted to either
- glycogen
- lipids
Glycogen is stored in the liver (around 70 g) or the muscle (200 g +)
Lipids are stored in fat cells
Insulin also promotes the uptake of amino acids into the muscle.
When the liver and muscle are full of glycogen, then any excess of glucose (or amino acids) are converted to fat.
It is also possible to convert the glycerol backbone of fatty acids (from fats) into glucose, and muscle is also quite happy using free fatty acids as an energy source.
It stands to reason that the greater muscle to fat ratio you have, the more likely that nutrients will be stored in muscle rather than fat.
Quite a few trainers/dieticians, such as Chris Aceto, also agree that muscle growth is hampered when the bodyfat percentage is higher.
After eating, insulin removes glucose from the circulation and has it converted to either
- glycogen
- lipids
Glycogen is stored in the liver (around 70 g) or the muscle (200 g +)
Lipids are stored in fat cells
Insulin also promotes the uptake of amino acids into the muscle.
When the liver and muscle are full of glycogen, then any excess of glucose (or amino acids) are converted to fat.
It is also possible to convert the glycerol backbone of fatty acids (from fats) into glucose, and muscle is also quite happy using free fatty acids as an energy source.
It stands to reason that the greater muscle to fat ratio you have, the more likely that nutrients will be stored in muscle rather than fat.
Quite a few trainers/dieticians, such as Chris Aceto, also agree that muscle growth is hampered when the bodyfat percentage is higher.
Burning_Inside
Elite Mentor
That's really not the case, everyone's tendancy to use fat or muscle for fuel when dieting or putting on muscle or fat when bulking is wide and varied, hence why we say appropriately that people have better genetics than others, and why some people can eat "whatever they want" and still be ripped. It's never a given.Tatyana said:
Burning_Inside
Elite Mentor
Fitness models are people that most likely have great genetics geared towards looking that way to begin with, hence it's just easier. I saw a news reoprt on some show many months ago for example about this kid who was crazy ripped. Now granted his frame was very thin so for most people, he looked a little ill, but regardless, this kid could not get anywhere above 5% bodyfat if he tried. He gave examples of what he ate on a daily basis. I wanted to punch the tv screen. His hormone levels were just that geared in the direction to not gain fat and burn calories like mad.marcu_s said:
So fitness models have somewhat of that genetic luck on their side, or for those that are a few notches worse, it's not like it's any secret "perfomance enhancing drugs" are involved.
But even still most of them put forth a lot of dedication and just enjoy exercising as a hobby, not something that they dread doing because they feel they have to, and when you love something, you get better results from it obviously.
chris69
Banned
Some good points here also..I myself am shorter and stocky, not fat..aprox 11/12 % bf...when i bulk i look Jacked... Now if you take the concept of a tall Bro aprox 5'10" at 11/12 % and have him bulk ., he is not going to look as jacked as me because of his body type !Burning_Inside said:
And ofcourse you hardly see any calvin klien models at 5'6" now do we ! So im sure fitness is about the same as far as who's who...
Tatyana said:Well it is a good thing I am a science geek then
After eating, insulin removes glucose from the circulation and has it converted to either
- glycogen
- lipids
Glycogen is stored in the liver (around 70 g) or the muscle (200 g +)
Lipids are stored in fat cells
Insulin also promotes the uptake of amino acids into the muscle.
When the liver and muscle are full of glycogen, then any excess of glucose (or amino acids) are converted to fat.
It is also possible to convert the glycerol backbone of fatty acids (from fats) into glucose, and muscle is also quite happy using free fatty acids as an energy source.
It stands to reason that the greater muscle to fat ratio you have, the more likely that nutrients will be stored in muscle rather than fat.
Quite a few trainers/dieticians, such as Chris Aceto, also agree that muscle growth is hampered when the bodyfat percentage is higher.
this was music to my ears
DanBoyle
New member
Yes the earlier post about genetics is right on when it comes to models. Why do you think they are hired as models... their genetics allow them to have those killer abs, and super proportional muscles, body parts.
The doesnt mean that for lack of a better work... normal people, can look just as good. It comes down to calories (diet) and maintaining a strong workout. Body fat is the key to looking good though, well as long as you do have some muscle.
Well you will continue to feed your muscles as long as you rip your muscles... your fat will feed it you eat to much of anything good or bad (especially if you don't work out).
The doesnt mean that for lack of a better work... normal people, can look just as good. It comes down to calories (diet) and maintaining a strong workout. Body fat is the key to looking good though, well as long as you do have some muscle.
Well you will continue to feed your muscles as long as you rip your muscles... your fat will feed it you eat to much of anything good or bad (especially if you don't work out).
Tatyana
Elite Mentor
Found this and I thought it was interesting.
Bodybuilding crossroad: bulk or cut?
December 05th, 2007
The idea of “bulking” or “cutting” are bodybuilding terms associated with contrasting periods during a training year. Bulking phases focus on overfeeding and intense training in an attempt to build the most muscle possible. Cutting contrasts the bulk by shaving off accumulated body fat with caloric deficits and frequent endurance training. When making the decision to bulk or cut – gain or lose weight – it’s important to factor in the current stage of development and body composition. These factors determine the degree of specificity a training program should embrace; as well as the body’s potential to properly partition a caloric surplus to fuel muscle growth.
New trainees can embark in a strength-endurance training program and obtain prominent fat loss while gaining some muscle. Initially, consistent resistance training increases motor control efficiency and a tolerance to exercise. Beginners respond well to most strength-building programs; frequently, with a rapid development in force production. The increase in daily activity levels will readily increase fat mobilization – how much fat is lost is primarily affected by these concurrent conditions: diet and nutrient timing; genetic and metabolic conditions; as well as beginning body composition. Nonetheless, it’s easy for someone new to resistance training to mobilize stored fat while building muscle. Their biggest success variable usually lies within maintaining consistency in a healthy and goal-orientated dietary structure, as well as regular strength and endurance workout routines.
Unless genetically gifted, advanced trainees need to prioritize their training periods toward specific goals. Due to their advanced conditioning, a separation must be made between building endurance and strength training. Experienced and well built bodybuilders use superior technique by properly developing the motor skills required for strength training. They generally need lower repetitions, and frequently greater training volume and intensity. When endurance training is accompanied by a restricted diet to promote fat loss, attempts to raise limit strength levels become futile and likely to cause the athlete to over reach. In other words, combining the two training goals will not optimize results. Worse of all, concurrent training could lead to a serious condition of overtraining syndrome.
The question whether to bulk or cut, lies mostly with the advanced trainee. Current body composition should be the deciding factor. If the body’s muscle-to-fat ratio is leading to a soft belly and hanging love handles, it’s time to lean up first. Gilbert Forbes, from the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in New York, demonstrated changes in body weight induced by nutrition, whether negative or positive, comprise both lean (fat-free) and fat mass.
Forbes examined how body fat content influences body composition responses to nutrition and exercise. In experiments of at least three weeks in duration, he found weight gain in thin people comprises 60-70 percent lean tissue, where as obese gain 30-40 percent. The relative contribution of muscle acquisition during weight gain is related to body fat.
A good rule: an athlete should avoid bulking if they’re fat. Anyone with a total body mass containing over 12 percent body fat will be at a hormonal and metabolic disadvantage to properly partition a surplus of incoming calories. Starting a bulking routine at over 15 percent can land an individual up and over 20 percent upon cessation – which is entirely too much fat for an active, healthy person. When venturing over 20 percent body fat, it becomes exceedingly more difficult to return to a hard physique. Losing fat becomes less manageable when an athlete’s environmental and behavioral conditions adjust to caloric splurges and an overweight lifestyle. Even when bulking, it important to practice some dietary restraint. Food is for fuel; never enjoyment.
A novice can often train for both, endurance and strength, to lose fat and build muscle. On the other hand, an advanced trainee should prioritize his or her goals base on their current body composition status.
GILBERT B. FORBES, Body Fat Content Influences the Body Composition Response to Nutrition and Exercise, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 904:359-365 (2000) New York Academy of Sciences
Mattsson, Cecilia; Olsson, Tommy, Estrogens and Glucocorticoid Hormones in Adipose Tissue Metabolism, Current Medicinal Chemistry, Volume 14, Number 27, November 2007, pp. 2918-2924(7): estrogen increases the size and number of subcutaneous adipocytes and attenuates lipolysis.
George A. Bray The Underlying Basis for Obesity: Relationship to Cancer, The American Society for Nutritional Sciences J. Nutr. 132:3451S-3455S, November 2002: One explanation for these cancers is the increased production of estrogenic compounds by aromatase conversion of androstenedione, produced in the adrenal gland, into estrone. Because this rate of production is related to the size of the adipose depots, it can be a significant source of estrogenic compounds, particularly in postmenopausal women.
Nelson LR, Bulun SE., Estrogen production and action. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001 Sep;45(3 Suppl):S116-24: "Estradiol production is most commonly thought of as an endocrine product of the ovary; however, there are many tissues that have the capacity to synthesize estrogens from androgen and to use estrogen in a paracrine or intracrine fashion. In addition, other organs such as the adipose tissue can contribute significantly to the circulating pool of estrogens."
Bodybuilding crossroad: bulk or cut?
December 05th, 2007
The idea of “bulking” or “cutting” are bodybuilding terms associated with contrasting periods during a training year. Bulking phases focus on overfeeding and intense training in an attempt to build the most muscle possible. Cutting contrasts the bulk by shaving off accumulated body fat with caloric deficits and frequent endurance training. When making the decision to bulk or cut – gain or lose weight – it’s important to factor in the current stage of development and body composition. These factors determine the degree of specificity a training program should embrace; as well as the body’s potential to properly partition a caloric surplus to fuel muscle growth.
New trainees can embark in a strength-endurance training program and obtain prominent fat loss while gaining some muscle. Initially, consistent resistance training increases motor control efficiency and a tolerance to exercise. Beginners respond well to most strength-building programs; frequently, with a rapid development in force production. The increase in daily activity levels will readily increase fat mobilization – how much fat is lost is primarily affected by these concurrent conditions: diet and nutrient timing; genetic and metabolic conditions; as well as beginning body composition. Nonetheless, it’s easy for someone new to resistance training to mobilize stored fat while building muscle. Their biggest success variable usually lies within maintaining consistency in a healthy and goal-orientated dietary structure, as well as regular strength and endurance workout routines.
Unless genetically gifted, advanced trainees need to prioritize their training periods toward specific goals. Due to their advanced conditioning, a separation must be made between building endurance and strength training. Experienced and well built bodybuilders use superior technique by properly developing the motor skills required for strength training. They generally need lower repetitions, and frequently greater training volume and intensity. When endurance training is accompanied by a restricted diet to promote fat loss, attempts to raise limit strength levels become futile and likely to cause the athlete to over reach. In other words, combining the two training goals will not optimize results. Worse of all, concurrent training could lead to a serious condition of overtraining syndrome.
The question whether to bulk or cut, lies mostly with the advanced trainee. Current body composition should be the deciding factor. If the body’s muscle-to-fat ratio is leading to a soft belly and hanging love handles, it’s time to lean up first. Gilbert Forbes, from the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in New York, demonstrated changes in body weight induced by nutrition, whether negative or positive, comprise both lean (fat-free) and fat mass.
Forbes examined how body fat content influences body composition responses to nutrition and exercise. In experiments of at least three weeks in duration, he found weight gain in thin people comprises 60-70 percent lean tissue, where as obese gain 30-40 percent. The relative contribution of muscle acquisition during weight gain is related to body fat.
A good rule: an athlete should avoid bulking if they’re fat. Anyone with a total body mass containing over 12 percent body fat will be at a hormonal and metabolic disadvantage to properly partition a surplus of incoming calories. Starting a bulking routine at over 15 percent can land an individual up and over 20 percent upon cessation – which is entirely too much fat for an active, healthy person. When venturing over 20 percent body fat, it becomes exceedingly more difficult to return to a hard physique. Losing fat becomes less manageable when an athlete’s environmental and behavioral conditions adjust to caloric splurges and an overweight lifestyle. Even when bulking, it important to practice some dietary restraint. Food is for fuel; never enjoyment.
A novice can often train for both, endurance and strength, to lose fat and build muscle. On the other hand, an advanced trainee should prioritize his or her goals base on their current body composition status.
GILBERT B. FORBES, Body Fat Content Influences the Body Composition Response to Nutrition and Exercise, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 904:359-365 (2000) New York Academy of Sciences
Mattsson, Cecilia; Olsson, Tommy, Estrogens and Glucocorticoid Hormones in Adipose Tissue Metabolism, Current Medicinal Chemistry, Volume 14, Number 27, November 2007, pp. 2918-2924(7): estrogen increases the size and number of subcutaneous adipocytes and attenuates lipolysis.
George A. Bray The Underlying Basis for Obesity: Relationship to Cancer, The American Society for Nutritional Sciences J. Nutr. 132:3451S-3455S, November 2002: One explanation for these cancers is the increased production of estrogenic compounds by aromatase conversion of androstenedione, produced in the adrenal gland, into estrone. Because this rate of production is related to the size of the adipose depots, it can be a significant source of estrogenic compounds, particularly in postmenopausal women.
Nelson LR, Bulun SE., Estrogen production and action. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001 Sep;45(3 Suppl):S116-24: "Estradiol production is most commonly thought of as an endocrine product of the ovary; however, there are many tissues that have the capacity to synthesize estrogens from androgen and to use estrogen in a paracrine or intracrine fashion. In addition, other organs such as the adipose tissue can contribute significantly to the circulating pool of estrogens."
BULK/CUT cycle?
Why couldn't some one simply bulk 8-12 weeks, cut 2 weeks, and repeat indefinitely. I recall reading Alan Aragon refer to "culking", and while he didn't outline the process precisely, I wondered whether it could follow this path
Wouldn't it be possible to stay around 7-8% bf (for a male and the equivalent for a female) with this strategy.
In 12 weeks of bulking, according to Tat's article, about 60-70% of a gain is muscle (for a lean person). I think I read a similar article though, and it appeared that the diet strategy wasn't optimal, and that it was possible to do better, i.e., a lower fat gain, although of course the same conclusion would apply (bulk at low b.f.,; cut at high b.f.)
This is what I'm hoping to do in 4 weeks when my cutting is over (assuming I can lose about .5% bf per week, although the christmas/new years week may take it to 5 weeks). Suppose you gain 3 kg over 3 months, then that translates into 1kg of fat, 2kg muscle. Then 2 weeks is spent losing it. Continue the cycle indefinitely. 2 week diets are unlikely to decrease leptin sufficiently to slow metabolism or sacrifice LBM.
Could this work for a person who is not aiming to be pro bodybuilder size, but aiming for a muscularity corresponding to BMI of 26 with as little bf as possible. Currently I think I'm 5'6, 69kg with b.f. 9-10% (6 pack, but not quite 8, but no biscep/triscep separation for some reason), aiming to decrease to 67kg b.f. 7%, and then in a year increase to 71-3 (same b.f.), with a long time goal of 73-5.
Why couldn't some one simply bulk 8-12 weeks, cut 2 weeks, and repeat indefinitely. I recall reading Alan Aragon refer to "culking", and while he didn't outline the process precisely, I wondered whether it could follow this path
Wouldn't it be possible to stay around 7-8% bf (for a male and the equivalent for a female) with this strategy.
In 12 weeks of bulking, according to Tat's article, about 60-70% of a gain is muscle (for a lean person). I think I read a similar article though, and it appeared that the diet strategy wasn't optimal, and that it was possible to do better, i.e., a lower fat gain, although of course the same conclusion would apply (bulk at low b.f.,; cut at high b.f.)
This is what I'm hoping to do in 4 weeks when my cutting is over (assuming I can lose about .5% bf per week, although the christmas/new years week may take it to 5 weeks). Suppose you gain 3 kg over 3 months, then that translates into 1kg of fat, 2kg muscle. Then 2 weeks is spent losing it. Continue the cycle indefinitely. 2 week diets are unlikely to decrease leptin sufficiently to slow metabolism or sacrifice LBM.
Could this work for a person who is not aiming to be pro bodybuilder size, but aiming for a muscularity corresponding to BMI of 26 with as little bf as possible. Currently I think I'm 5'6, 69kg with b.f. 9-10% (6 pack, but not quite 8, but no biscep/triscep separation for some reason), aiming to decrease to 67kg b.f. 7%, and then in a year increase to 71-3 (same b.f.), with a long time goal of 73-5.
Burning_Inside
Elite Mentor
Sim882 said:
try it and see if it works for YOU. Makes no sense to ask us if a plan that has already been outlined by people with a lot of knowledge in this game will work for you or not, we don't have psychic bonds to your genetics to ask and see.
Similar threads
