Author Topic: Age vs VO2max  (Read 983105 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14565
  • Respect: +2486
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2325 on: August 13, 2014, 04:46:15 am »
0
Well yeah, we would all like to be LeBron, but you gotta see what your structure works best at. Like Adarqui said back in the day - he once went to the heavy side but felt bad and moved bad, and his structure is made to be light.

entropy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1684
  • b00m!
  • Respect: +276
    • View Profile
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2326 on: August 13, 2014, 05:05:08 am »
0
I kinda grappled with these issues lately and have decided it's much better long term to get to and be that featherweight 72kg who is carrying the minimal amount of adipose than always being some fat 80-100kg dude who isn't athletic nor strong and will never be either starting a bulk from there.

The wardrobe issue is a fair one but you can just wear a belt for a while til your bodyweight has stabilised at an athletic bodyweight some time later and you're able to commit to a new wardrobe. I sure as hell am not buying clothes while cutting down to 72kg, nor while bulking up from there until im at a reasonable bodyweight (maybe 75-80kg?). Idk.

Besides, wouldn't you rather be crossing over fools and doing windmills at 72kg than being some unathletic 80kg forward? Im done playing basketball as a shitty unathletic dude, wanna be good even if it means being super lightweight. I'd rather be a guard who is tall and strong for his bodyweight than a weak forward for his bw. Can't really compete with a build forward who has 20-30kg on me anyway, so why fight it just being slow and unfit.. it doesn't make sense. Plus will interesting for gains of muscle mass and strenght to end bulks at 77kg rather than start them at 87kg lol.
Goals: Cutting to 6-8% bodyfat

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14565
  • Respect: +2486
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2327 on: August 13, 2014, 05:23:26 am »
0
Plus, it depends what vag means by being on the heavier side.

If he means being at 85 kg with 9% bodyfat, then I'm 100% with him.
If he means being at 85 kg with 18% bodyfat, then why the heck would you want to be there? Just so you say "I'm heavier and harder to push around and a Mark Rippetoe prototype MAN"?

entropy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1684
  • b00m!
  • Respect: +276
    • View Profile
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2328 on: August 13, 2014, 05:28:34 am »
+1
Plus, it depends what vag means by being on the heavier side.

If he means being at 85 kg with 9% bodyfat, then I'm 100% with him.
If he means being at 85 kg with 18% bodyfat, then why the heck would you want to be there? Just so you say "I'm heavier and harder to push around and a Mark Rippetoe prototype MAN"?

Yeah. Consider this, vag started from 90kg. Has cut to 85kg (i know he's currently low 80s but that's not important for this argument). Is he now athletic at 85kg? Is he lean? Nope. So suppose he bulks from 85kg up to 90kg - he gains some strength and he thinks some muscle. But since he started above 15% now he's would being in the 20%s again. So he cuts back to 85kg and is he suddenly 10%? Nope. So that's the problem with cutting down to a bodyweight that isn't quite lean - it means any bulks will go inefficiently from there and you're effectively just spinning wheels.

But consider vag instead cuts to a legit 10% - maybe for him that means having a bodyweight of 75kg. He bulks up to 85kg. Now he's not lean anymore but, he's definitely holding MORE muscle mass at 85kg than he was cutting from 90kg (even if he'd bulked to 90kg from having cut to 85kg first).
Goals: Cutting to 6-8% bodyfat

Raptor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14565
  • Respect: +2486
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - raptorescu
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2329 on: August 13, 2014, 06:46:11 am »
0
Plus, it depends what vag means by being on the heavier side.

If he means being at 85 kg with 9% bodyfat, then I'm 100% with him.
If he means being at 85 kg with 18% bodyfat, then why the heck would you want to be there? Just so you say "I'm heavier and harder to push around and a Mark Rippetoe prototype MAN"?

Yeah. Consider this, vag started from 90kg. Has cut to 85kg (i know he's currently low 80s but that's not important for this argument). Is he now athletic at 85kg? Is he lean? Nope. So suppose he bulks from 85kg up to 90kg - he gains some strength and he thinks some muscle. But since he started above 15% now he's would being in the 20%s again. So he cuts back to 85kg and is he suddenly 10%? Nope. So that's the problem with cutting down to a bodyweight that isn't quite lean - it means any bulks will go inefficiently from there and you're effectively just spinning wheels.

But consider vag instead cuts to a legit 10% - maybe for him that means having a bodyweight of 75kg. He bulks up to 85kg. Now he's not lean anymore but, he's definitely holding MORE muscle mass at 85kg than he was cutting from 90kg (even if he'd bulked to 90kg from having cut to 85kg first).

Couldn't have said it any better.

So for athleticism, the thing is - go to a lower than "optimal" bodyfat (say 7-8%) and then bulk up and you'll end up an athletic 10-11%.

entropy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1684
  • b00m!
  • Respect: +276
    • View Profile
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2330 on: August 13, 2014, 07:01:50 am »
+1
So for athleticism, the thing is - go to a lower than "optimal" bodyfat (say 7-8%) and then bulk up and you'll end up an athletic 10-11%.

That's a bit abstract and most people will misunderstand what it really means. Lets make it more concrete by talking real numbers of fat mass and lean mass.  Consider 3 people at 10% bodyfat. At 70kg you have 7kg of bodyfat. At 80kg you have 8kg of bodyfat. At 90kg you have 9kg of bodyfat. These 3 guys have pretty much the same amount of bodyfat, going up 1kg when you order them. So what this means is you have very little room to manouvre when it comes to how much bodyfat you can carry while remaining close to your baseline athletic amount (7-9kg).

Starting a bulk at 85kg means now your bodyfat goes up from ~13kg (~15%) to  18kg (~20%). Now you have 10kg more bodyfat than your athletic bodfat amount shud be. Oops. Good luck cutting 10kg off, which wins you not much.

In contrast suppose you cut to 75kg and now have a bodyfat of 7.5kg. You bulk up 10kg, maybe gain 5kg of lean mass (not muscle either, just lean mass which is water etc). So now you have a total fat weight of 12.5kg - which is not a lot but it's manageable, you can cut that down to the baseline of 7-9kg without toooo much trouble. The net effect is you're a muscular 80-82kg (vag's goal) now. Hopefully kinda strong as well.
Goals: Cutting to 6-8% bodyfat

vag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6008
  • Respect: +3800
    • View Profile
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2331 on: August 13, 2014, 09:50:48 am »
0
Fair arguments. But you guys do take it to the extreme.

raptor, there does not exist only 9% and 18%. There is also 85kg/15% which compromises the two words pretty well, and is much more realistic for my case anyway.

entropy, i agree with your bulk&cut logic, i agree a lot. But your examples are evidently wrong and skewed to make your case strong:

Starting a bulk at 85kg means now your bodyfat goes up from ~13kg (~15%) to  18kg (~20%). Now you have 10kg more bodyfat than your athletic bodfat amount shud be. Oops. Good luck cutting 10kg off, which wins you not much.

In contrast suppose you cut to 75kg and now have a bodyfat of 7.5kg. You bulk up 10kg, maybe gain 5kg of lean mass (not muscle either, just lean mass which is water etc).

In the first case, the 85kg 15% guy became 20%bf with 18kg of fat, so he is 90kg. So his added weight was 100% fat?
In the second case, an 75kg-10% guy bulked 10kg and MAYBE 5kg of them was not fat?
Also, i did not cut from 90 to 85, i cut from 92 to 82 and that does make a huge difference.
Also, you are not 15%, you cut from ~95 to ~75, you log that you have a six-pack and visible veins in your abs.
For god's shake, get your numbers stairght!!!

But i still agree with your logic. And yes, bulking is more efficient the leaner you are so you do serve your goals better if you start leaner. But that does not mean 70kg-8%, the threshold that lyle sets for an effective bulk is 15%.

So here is my perspective :  I have done many bulk and cut cycles, and it seems that the efficiency for me is around 60% for both. I track it, i log it too if you search. That means that when i bulk it is 60%LBM-40%fat gain, and when i cut it is 60%fat-40%LBM loss. That means that in every cycle i end up 20% better. This is what i do. And it works, i end up at the same weights ( bulk or cut ) every time at a better bf%. Previous year i was 92kg/19%, this one  i was 92/18, previous year after cut i was 82/16%, now i am 82/15%. Next year i will bulk to 92/17% and cut at to 82/14%. And i will still be at the bodyweight i like being for most of the time and my clothes will fit me well too.


PS : what part of my last post made you both think imma bulk and led you to prompt me not to? I said i do NOT intend to bulk yet like i did all other years, i said i want to explore what happens in this low bw and reconsider:

Still cutting though, and i will not start bulking when i go back to gym in 10 days. Gonna try to stay at 81-82 that i will be by then and improve as much as i can strength and movement efficiency at that weight to see what will happen.

:lololol:
Target training paces (min/km), calculated from 5K PR 22:49 :
Easy run : 5:48
Tempo run : 4:50
VO2-max run :4:21
Speed form run : 4:02

---

it's the biggest trick in the run game.. go slow to go fast. it doesn't make sense until it smacks you in the face and you're like ....... wtf?

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12856
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +7961
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2332 on: August 13, 2014, 12:04:41 pm »
0
somewhere i was reading recently that it's better not to bulk from an extremely or difficult-to-maintain lean state. better to get to a comfortablish baseline and bulk from there. if/when i ever decide to do a genuine bulk, i'll do it from right where i am and have been for years, 173-177 pounds and 10-12% bf. no point in getting leaner than that first.

 :lololol:
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

https://www.savannahstate.edu/cost/nrotc/documents/Inform2010-thearmstrongworkout_Enclosure15_5-2-10.pdf

black lives matter

Coges

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3107
  • Respect: +2267
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2333 on: August 13, 2014, 08:18:53 pm »
0
somewhere i was reading recently that it's better not to bulk from an extremely or difficult-to-maintain lean state. better to get to a comfortablish baseline and bulk from there. if/when i ever decide to do a genuine bulk, i'll do it from right where i am and have been for years, 173-177 pounds and 10-12% bf. no point in getting leaner than that first.

 :lololol:

I've seen this too. Apparently better to reset your baseline otherwise you're just as likely to shoot back to where you were before. Can't speak from experience here but seems to be common opinion.

As far as getting to 7-8% I have not seen anywhere that such a low % is more effective to start from than say 10-12%. Personally I think it's just a recipe for disaster. Much easier to get to and maintain 10-12% for some time than to get to and maintain 7-8%. Completely different mental game.
"Train as hard as possible, as often as possible, while staying as fresh as possible"
- Zatsiorsky

entropy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1684
  • b00m!
  • Respect: +276
    • View Profile
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2334 on: August 13, 2014, 10:55:52 pm »
0
In the first case, the 85kg 15% guy became 20%bf with 18kg of fat, so he is 90kg. So his added weight was 100% fat?
In the second case, an 75kg-10% guy bulked 10kg and MAYBE 5kg of them was not fat?

You got it. In my experience you can gain a lot of strength in that bulk from higher bodyfat 85 to 90 but very little muscle mass to show for it. Your muscles will fill up though and look a lot bigger, from carbs and fats and having a decent pump from using a higher volume regularly. Plus getting stronger, psychologically feeling good about yourself - it's very easy to believe you've put on serious mass. But cutting down you'll  find there isn't really much changed except your fattiness. Maybe you put on half a kilo of actual muscle if you're lucky. The whole thing comes down to being anabolic for that long, makes recovery go well and you can get stronger easier than if you were trying to cut bodyweight or maintain it.

This comes back to another thing i was thinking about. Suppose i'm 10% bf or less. And i wanna get stronger without putting on much bodyweightt. If  I eat a decent amount of carbs  around training so the majority of my caloric surplus is coming from carbs, I won't really get much fatter because (body will burn carbs preferentially than ever store them as bodyfat - it will store dietary fat instead lol so keep that real low which is hard on a dutty bulk!). Though I haven't tried it, it makes a lot of sense that carbs would allow you to circumvent the usual fatfucking that happens when you eat a lot while trying to push strength up significantly. The catch is, if you're doing this at a higher bodyfat, with poor insulin sensititivity your fat storage sky rockets.  Doing it lean with low bodyfat means excellent insulin sensitivity - now you can use those carbs without the excessive fat storage.

But all of this hinges on being able to be disciplined about your eating and training, something you can't take for granted.

Quote
Also, i did not cut from 90 to 85, i cut from 92 to 82 and that does make a huge difference.

It makes no differnce because unless you're starting from that baseline 7-9kg of bodyfat, that number will just go up with any bulk and if you're starting from   say 16kg and go up to 20kg then forget athletic gains (the only exception is if you are a chris hickson and end up pulling 800 as a 260lb and somehow make up for the huge gains in bw with huge really huge gains of strength).

Quote
Also, you are not 15%, you cut from ~95 to ~75, you log that you have a six-pack and visible veins in your abs.
For god's shake, get your numbers stairght!!!

I may be closer to 10% bodyfat when i cut to 75kg than i am around 77-78kg atm, which cud be anywhere from 12% to 15%. I'd be safe and say 15% unless proven otherwise but eiiither way i'm cutting to 75kg and less eventually regardless of unreliable estimates. It's looking more and more likely i need to get to 72kg to be at my athletic bodyfat level of ~7kg.
Goals: Cutting to 6-8% bodyfat

entropy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1684
  • b00m!
  • Respect: +276
    • View Profile
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2335 on: August 13, 2014, 10:59:33 pm »
0
somewhere i was reading recently that it's better not to bulk from an extremely or difficult-to-maintain lean state. better to get to a comfortablish baseline and bulk from there. if/when i ever decide to do a genuine bulk, i'll do it from right where i am and have been for years, 173-177 pounds and 10-12% bf. no point in getting leaner than that first.

 :lololol:

I've seen this too. Apparently better to reset your baseline otherwise you're just as likely to shoot back to where you were before. Can't speak from experience here but seems to be common opinion.

As far as getting to 7-8% I have not seen anywhere that such a low % is more effective to start from than say 10-12%. Personally I think it's just a recipe for disaster. Much easier to get to and maintain 10-12% for some time than to get to and maintain 7-8%. Completely different mental game.

THe problem is anyone who hasnt actually dieted down to low bodyfat will just assume their claimed almost 10% bodyfat which is actually ~15% is close enough to 10% and they're basically at 10% and for arguments sake they'll go on and start a bulk and spin their wheels. You can't make that mistake if you are a legit 10% though because it's visually obvious you're lean enough now.
Goals: Cutting to 6-8% bodyfat

LBSS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12856
  • plugging away...
  • Respect: +7961
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2336 on: August 13, 2014, 11:16:43 pm »
+1
entropy, you are a lunchbox for the ages and we love you.
Muscles are nonsensical they have nothing to do with this bullshit.

- Avishek

https://www.savannahstate.edu/cost/nrotc/documents/Inform2010-thearmstrongworkout_Enclosure15_5-2-10.pdf

black lives matter

Coges

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3107
  • Respect: +2267
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2337 on: August 14, 2014, 12:25:47 am »
0
somewhere i was reading recently that it's better not to bulk from an extremely or difficult-to-maintain lean state. better to get to a comfortablish baseline and bulk from there. if/when i ever decide to do a genuine bulk, i'll do it from right where i am and have been for years, 173-177 pounds and 10-12% bf. no point in getting leaner than that first.

 :lololol:

I've seen this too. Apparently better to reset your baseline otherwise you're just as likely to shoot back to where you were before. Can't speak from experience here but seems to be common opinion.

As far as getting to 7-8% I have not seen anywhere that such a low % is more effective to start from than say 10-12%. Personally I think it's just a recipe for disaster. Much easier to get to and maintain 10-12% for some time than to get to and maintain 7-8%. Completely different mental game.

THe problem is anyone who hasnt actually dieted down to low bodyfat will just assume their claimed almost 10% bodyfat which is actually ~15% is close enough to 10% and they're basically at 10% and for arguments sake they'll go on and start a bulk and spin their wheels. You can't make that mistake if you are a legit 10% though because it's visually obvious you're lean enough now.

What is a legit 10%? Your 10% is different to mine which is different to a caliper tested 10% and a dexa scan 10%.
Too much time spend worrying about the minutiae.
Do it slowly and methodically and do it right.

It was either LBSS or Vag earlier on who said you need to zig and zag. You can trend upwards for a few weeks and downwards for a few weeks and still be moving in the overall right direction. Big picture stuff.
"Train as hard as possible, as often as possible, while staying as fresh as possible"
- Zatsiorsky

entropy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1684
  • b00m!
  • Respect: +276
    • View Profile
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2338 on: August 14, 2014, 12:34:08 am »
0
What is a legit 10%? Your 10% is different to mine which is different to a caliper tested 10% and a dexa scan 10%.
Too much time spend worrying about the minutiae.
Do it slowly and methodically and do it right.

When it's obvious to everyone who looks at a pic of the person in question. When you're clearly at least 10% bodyfat visually. I don't consider a caliper or dexa measurement to be important or useful personally. If there is still room for doubt or debate then you're not at 10% yet, keep cutting.
Goals: Cutting to 6-8% bodyfat

Coges

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3107
  • Respect: +2267
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Age vs Vertical
« Reply #2339 on: August 14, 2014, 12:45:25 am »
0
Nah too much fucking around for my liking. You'll be cutting and losing strength and muscle forever.

Here's how I approach it. If you can see good ab definition (4-6) in the mirror whilst flexing then you're ok to stabilise and start going back the other way.
"Train as hard as possible, as often as possible, while staying as fresh as possible"
- Zatsiorsky