Question regarding the diet macro ratios during feast
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:13 am
Only 25% of daily consumption should be protein? Any reason to this unconventionally low ratio?
The BODYBUILDING FORUM ARCHIVES is a service of BodyBuildingSupplements.com
https://forum-bodybuilding.com/
Well, 3.0 is the newest version containing the most up to date info...I believe the 25% recommendation is utilizing KA because it works more along the lines of a nutrient partitioner and glucose storer in the muscle meaning its more effective with a higher carb based diet. If using Ebol it works along a more protein based pathway so u might want to up protrin percentage...just what I got from reading some stuff in forums and thru conversations with Rob...visualisation wrote:In 2.0 it says 1.5g of protein per pound of bodyweight. In 3.0 it says 25% ratio of protein. Both are during the feast phase.
1.5g of protein is 900 calories for me, which means my total calories must be 3600 according to the ratio.
So that doesnt make sense
900 calories worth of protein = 225gvisualisation wrote:In 2.0 it says 1.5g of protein per pound of bodyweight. In 3.0 it says 25% ratio of protein. Both are during the feast phase.
1.5g of protein is 900 calories for me, which means my total calories must be 3600 according to the ratio.
So that doesnt make sense
Yup, it is due precisely to the nature of ecdysterone. The Russian scientists who experimented with it, found it works best following caloric deficits when it drastically up-regulates protein synthesis, and does the same even if in a caloric deficit. In fact, farmers utilize ecdysterone in their animals feed because they grow faster than normal even while they are fed less.visualisation wrote:Thanks for that. I hope to get a confirmation from the man himself
Also, any explanation for individuals gaining 6-9 lbs of muscle each cycle when calorie intake is only slightly above maintenance (book says 20 x bodyweight for a few days beginning feast), which is 500 calorie surplus for me. Other days are either at maintenance or decreasing in surplus (as stated in the book). Overall, it does not seem there is enough of a surplus for us to even gain that much muscle. Can someone shed some light on this please?
Thanks man!matter2003 wrote:Yup, it is due precisely to the nature of ecdysterone. The Russian scientists who experimented with it, found it works best following caloric deficits when it drastically up-regulates protein synthesis, and does the same even if in a caloric deficit. In fact, farmers utilize ecdysterone in their animals feed because they grow faster than normal even while they are fed less.visualisation wrote:Thanks for that. I hope to get a confirmation from the man himself
Also, any explanation for individuals gaining 6-9 lbs of muscle each cycle when calorie intake is only slightly above maintenance (book says 20 x bodyweight for a few days beginning feast), which is 500 calorie surplus for me. Other days are either at maintenance or decreasing in surplus (as stated in the book). Overall, it does not seem there is enough of a surplus for us to even gain that much muscle. Can someone shed some light on this please?
Ecdysterone has gotten a bad rap in large part because most people attempt to use it like a steroid(8 weeks on, 4 weeks off, etc). It needs to be utilized in a very specific way to optimize gains, and Rob and the BP nailed it, IMHO...
I would follow the 3.0 Tracker as it does a pretty good job at giving you precisely what you need when you need it. Week 5 and 6 are 80% of maintenance on non-training days, and 100% of maintenance on training days.
What will blow your mind even more is that I followed the Eat, Stop, Eat recommendation of alternate day fasting for a good portion of my feast run, which consisted of two 24 hour fasts(Tuesdays and Fridays) and gained a full inch on my arms, 1.5 inches on my chest and lost 1.5 inches on my waist while dropping 5 lbs...pretty amazing stuff Rob has here, if I do say so myself...
Thank you Rob. Appreciated.RobRegish wrote:Thanks man!matter2003 wrote:Yup, it is due precisely to the nature of ecdysterone. The Russian scientists who experimented with it, found it works best following caloric deficits when it drastically up-regulates protein synthesis, and does the same even if in a caloric deficit. In fact, farmers utilize ecdysterone in their animals feed because they grow faster than normal even while they are fed less.visualisation wrote:Thanks for that. I hope to get a confirmation from the man himself
Also, any explanation for individuals gaining 6-9 lbs of muscle each cycle when calorie intake is only slightly above maintenance (book says 20 x bodyweight for a few days beginning feast), which is 500 calorie surplus for me. Other days are either at maintenance or decreasing in surplus (as stated in the book). Overall, it does not seem there is enough of a surplus for us to even gain that much muscle. Can someone shed some light on this please?
Ecdysterone has gotten a bad rap in large part because most people attempt to use it like a steroid(8 weeks on, 4 weeks off, etc). It needs to be utilized in a very specific way to optimize gains, and Rob and the BP nailed it, IMHO...
I would follow the 3.0 Tracker as it does a pretty good job at giving you precisely what you need when you need it. Week 5 and 6 are 80% of maintenance on non-training days, and 100% of maintenance on training days.
What will blow your mind even more is that I followed the Eat, Stop, Eat recommendation of alternate day fasting for a good portion of my feast run, which consisted of two 24 hour fasts(Tuesdays and Fridays) and gained a full inch on my arms, 1.5 inches on my chest and lost 1.5 inches on my waist while dropping 5 lbs...pretty amazing stuff Rob has here, if I do say so myself...
It's true. It tooks YEARS of me looking at the former Soviet research, hundreds (if not thousands) of Ecdy logs here to arrive at one startling conclusion: It (Ecdy), was being used all wrong here...
This was further validated when I approached the trainers, scientists and athletes using the stuff successfully. You simply can't use a non-hormonal product in a hormonal "cycle like" fashion. It will not magically "transform" it, into something that does the work for you.
Rather, it takes one to "set the table" so to speak, to wring the adaptogenic properties out of Ecdy.
Get that right, and you have GOLD...
Rob I am not a believer in caloric decrements, I preferentially lower carbs.So what I mean is I follow 3.0 but in carb intake, not calorie decrements intake.Does that make sense and will it work the same way to get the max effects out of ecdy and 3.0?RobRegish wrote:Thanks man!matter2003 wrote:Yup, it is due precisely to the nature of ecdysterone. The Russian scientists who experimented with it, found it works best following caloric deficits when it drastically up-regulates protein synthesis, and does the same even if in a caloric deficit. In fact, farmers utilize ecdysterone in their animals feed because they grow faster than normal even while they are fed less.visualisation wrote:Thanks for that. I hope to get a confirmation from the man himself
Also, any explanation for individuals gaining 6-9 lbs of muscle each cycle when calorie intake is only slightly above maintenance (book says 20 x bodyweight for a few days beginning feast), which is 500 calorie surplus for me. Other days are either at maintenance or decreasing in surplus (as stated in the book). Overall, it does not seem there is enough of a surplus for us to even gain that much muscle. Can someone shed some light on this please?
Ecdysterone has gotten a bad rap in large part because most people attempt to use it like a steroid(8 weeks on, 4 weeks off, etc). It needs to be utilized in a very specific way to optimize gains, and Rob and the BP nailed it, IMHO...
I would follow the 3.0 Tracker as it does a pretty good job at giving you precisely what you need when you need it. Week 5 and 6 are 80% of maintenance on non-training days, and 100% of maintenance on training days.
What will blow your mind even more is that I followed the Eat, Stop, Eat recommendation of alternate day fasting for a good portion of my feast run, which consisted of two 24 hour fasts(Tuesdays and Fridays) and gained a full inch on my arms, 1.5 inches on my chest and lost 1.5 inches on my waist while dropping 5 lbs...pretty amazing stuff Rob has here, if I do say so myself...
It's true. It tooks YEARS of me looking at the former Soviet research, hundreds (if not thousands) of Ecdy logs here to arrive at one startling conclusion: It (Ecdy), was being used all wrong here...
This was further validated when I approached the trainers, scientists and athletes using the stuff successfully. You simply can't use a non-hormonal product in a hormonal "cycle like" fashion. It will not magically "transform" it, into something that does the work for you.
Rather, it takes one to "set the table" so to speak, to wring the adaptogenic properties out of Ecdy.
Get that right, and you have GOLD...
Two comments, without letting the dove out of the cape...visualisation wrote:Thanks for that. I hope to get a confirmation from the man himself
Also, any explanation for individuals gaining 6-9 lbs of muscle each cycle when calorie intake is only slightly above maintenance (book says 20 x bodyweight for a few days beginning feast), which is 500 calorie surplus for me. Other days are either at maintenance or decreasing in surplus (as stated in the book). Overall, it does not seem there is enough of a surplus for us to even gain that much muscle. Can someone shed some light on this please?
Two comments, without letting the dove out of the cape...visualisation wrote:Thanks for that. I hope to get a confirmation from the man himself
Also, any explanation for individuals gaining 6-9 lbs of muscle each cycle when calorie intake is only slightly above maintenance (book says 20 x bodyweight for a few days beginning feast), which is 500 calorie surplus for me. Other days are either at maintenance or decreasing in surplus (as stated in the book). Overall, it does not seem there is enough of a surplus for us to even gain that much muscle. Can someone shed some light on this please?