I keep some creatine HCl pills for traveling even though I know it’s overpriced. When traveling it comes in handy. Yes most days it’s the powder but I can see why someone would be interested in keeping creatine gummies on hand
On the topic of mini-cuts, Eric Helms just posted (on the 3DMJ channel) that he's going to be doing a mini cut soon, at about 1% bodyweight loss per week for six weeks to get closer to his contest weight, and then lean bulk for 3 months before starting his official prep. I commented on his video asking about what he thinks regarding the meta regression that you mentioned, which showed that more than 500 kcal deficit (for avg weight individuals being studied) lead to muscle loss, and he had this to say: "Take a look at the plot in that meta regression, there’s a huge dispersion around that mean of lean mass loss (not necessarily muscle mass) at 500kcal deficit, and there are a ton of moderators which impact this which are not necessarily accounted for, like the specific setup of training and also the initial body fat of the person in question. Given the data specifically on physique athletes, you wouldn’t expect much if any muscle loss in a mini cut done well, and for sure the period after likely would result in regain [of muscle mass] if there was. As a coach/athlete anecdotally, it’s not something that is a discernible problem when done right" I'm curious your thoughts/perspective on this?
The protein point is something ive experienced. If im cutting, i focus on what seems like excessive protien and always manage to gain strength and muscle while losing fat. This stuff never seems all that mystical
The maximum healthy amount of body fat depends on an individual's capacity of adipocytes, not on how good one looks. It's when their capacity is exceeded that damage to functional organs starts to occur.
@@JAnx01 That wasn't the topic of the comment you responded to, though. It was specifically about 5% body fat being too low. Your information is of no use in this case.
You're probably misinterpreting the left-side of that J-curve for fat and mortality. The increased slope is probably selection effects or some confounder (such as people with diseases which can result in weight loss). In actual RCTs where people lose body fat, they broadly see improved cardiometabolic factors -- and this seems to also be true even for people with "normal" fat levels. Though, a more reliable approach is to check bloodwork at different body fat levels, so people can see more directly if their body tolerates a given body fat percent (since this seems to vary between people). But either way, it's pretty dubious that your #1 conclusion was based on such associative literature.
Yeah my immediate thought when I heard his claim is that there’s probably tons of confounding variables. You can never isolate a single thing and then say “people with this trait live longer healthier lives.” It’s too complex. And there’s no mechanism by which being fat would be protective. If you told me people with higher lbm live longer then at least it would make some sense. How is 22% offering an advantage over 12%? The problem with studies is that they aren’t isolating variables. So how do we know what’s going on? Can’t get too carried away with these kinds of studies. And the protein one as well. What are the actual long term outcome differences between someone who trains for a decade eating 1.6g per kilo vs someone who eats 2.5g per kilo? Little to nothing, most likely. If you’re some one like Jeff Nippard you probably think 1 more pound of muscle is a huge deal. Nobody else does. So you gotta put things in perspective. I’m not spending $50 on protein powder a month just to get no measurable difference to my physique ten years from now.
@@CarlYota part of scientific studies, especially in order to get them approved and funded, is literally isolating variables either for controls or to acknowledge variables that may be statistically relevant in the study. That's how experiments are run. And there is a pronounced difference between 22% and 12%, depending on whether the individual's macros are helping supplement the decrease in fat mass in the body. The point of many of these studies is to use the statistics to then predict long-term outcomes. No study is going to occur for a year. BUT if you simply look at the facts and say "well maybe for that short term," you're ignoring what could be a powerful tool in your fitness toolkit
For the regular people out there, most of these concepts are splitting hairs and the variation in how to approach it may only have 1-2% difference/impact in your long term progress. Bulk first, cut fast or slow, eat 1g/lbs protein or more… doesn’t really matter unless you for some reason need to absolutely maximize your progress - if you’re an average person just trying to be as healthy and fit and you can, you likely won’t notice the difference with the “perfect” approach which is likely going to change in a couple years anyway haha
For real. I have worked out for 1.5 yrs and the more I do it, the more I tend to stick to the basics. I feel like managing so many variables is not sustainable for me in the long term.
@ yea absolutely! More consistency on what matters will get you more results as well as simply being able to do it longer! My focus is always on the basics and how to get the most value with the least input required. Like the 80-20 rule (80% of an achievable outcome comes from only 20% of total input/effort). Works for almost anything haha the basics get you so much of the way there and the minutia make only a small difference.
I think your take on the meta regression about muscle and energy deficit fails to account for muscle regain after the diet. I've seen metas suggesting that specifically after returning to normal diet, rate of weight loss has no effect on muscle mass. Only total weight lost!
This why whenever Dr. Mike talks about losing muscle he always caveats it with “don’t worry you’ll gain it back immediately when you start eating more food. We have known this crap for a long time now. I started training like 15 years ago. The whole slow cut vs fast cut thing just doesn’t matter. Once you go back to normal eating and training you regain all lean mass quickly. Lean mass is hard to build, and that makes it very persistent. It would be horribly inefficient if you could lose all your hard built gains that easily. Highly maladaptive for a system to work like that.
Absolutely. We knew this fifteen years ago and by “we” I mean the science based people. Muscle is persistent. When you go off your cut it comes right back. This is a non issue and has been for decade(s) now. Cutting sucks. Keep protein reasonably high and get it done quick. Move on with life. This all assumes you have control. Laypeople will just get fat again. But I’m assuming we are lifters who know how to manipulate our body comp.
I gotta say, that energy deficit chart at round 5:48 looks like a pretty poor line. It looks more like a step function. Above about 200 energy deficit, you lose lean mass. Below that, you gain.
I strongly disagree on both mini cuts and certain testosterone supplements. 1) Mini cuts are meant to be very short-lived, which you've already mentioned, and when paired with high protein and consistently weight training, muscle loss will be very minimal. So let's say someone would lose some muscle during their 4-6 week mini cut, that amount would be so small that it would barely be noticeable. Not only that, but because of muscle memory, they'll gain it all back in a week or 2. So mini cuts are fine, when done right, and aren't catastrophic for muscle loss 2) There is actually plenty of research showing that when supplementing with zinc and vitamin D, testosterone levels increase noticeably. This is especially for people who are deficient, which many are. That's what those studies have found, so if someone isn't deficient in those two, I agree they won't help. But many people are. So I wouldn't rule those two out
Yeah the body fat percentage I have seen in real life in combat. Mr Jacked and no body fat struggled to keep up with those of us on the healthy but chunkier side of things when we had to post up on mountain tops with full loads and a crew served. Also had issues with constant cramping etc on longer dismounts. Seen it in athletics as well through Jr College. Extremly low body fat is cool for looks but not practical for much else
I encourage people to really invest in the updates of fitness science and research because not only will it help you adjust your lifestyle/decisions more effectively to see the results you desire, but also (at least for me) you learn how nuanced and individualistic health and fitness in general can be, so you’re not holding yourself to standards of “perfection”. I started going to the gym with body dysmorphia, but the more I learn about how to workout, my intentions become less aesthetic-based and more appreciative of overall health- which comes in all kinds of shapes and sizes. I am less hard on myself and don’t feel so keen on comparing how I look to other people because I’ve learned how many invisible factors come into play with health. I also just feel good knowing I put in some form of effort in the first place, whether it be making more balanced food decisions or getting active and enjoying myself. Exercise & fitness really does have a positive impact on mental health. If you don’t like working out with conventional weights and machines, there’s plenty of alternative activities to explore and enjoy.
I love #3. I've been contemplating this concept because I noticed I am gaining more lean mass in my 30s with a significant calorie surplus compared to my 20s, and my protein intake has gone up to 1.2-1.3g/lbs bodyweight. The only chnage was higher protein (a mix of proteins, but high quality). This solves this question for me. I was suspicious of the 0.8g-1g/lbs. I suspect that this increase is only beneficial for those of us who are training at a higher level though... I believe the range of 0.8g-1.3g is dependent on other factors such as but not limited to: training intensity and volume, and also the type of diet you're following (composition of nutrients)
Did you control for calories though? More protein is more calories. That’s a big confounder if you didn’t account for it. “The only change was more protein and thus calories.” Only way to have known is if you tried more calories first, then more protein. Obviously people aren’t gonna run thier life like an experiment. But that also means the anecdotes you derive from your experience are potentially just wrong. It could also be that as you get older you get your life more stable and ytogether which tanks your stress levels. You sleep better. And that’s a huge deal. None of this gets controlled for when people claim “only one thing changed.” This is why it doesn’t count as data.
I definitely think get lean first.Working with clients in the past?Especially women?There goal would be weight loss and inches loss.They start lifting too heavy.Do no cardio and changed nothing in their diet.So they GAINED both weight AND inches.And not good inches.Do light weights.Walk,swim,bike.Just move.Lose the fat?THEN bulk.Just makes more sense.But?I do understand the opposite CAN work for some.I just found that with women?Losing the fat first got far better end results.😊Absolutely fantastic post!👏🏻🙏🏻😊
probably a mental thing, based on individual goals. if my goal was to look better and lose weight, and you had me gaining weight to start id get pretty demoralized and give up. if my goal was to get huge and strong, and you had me cutting to start again demoralization of the individual. My goal with starting working out has been getting as strong as possible, I'm working with a trainer and he has me eating as much as i can as often as i can its brutal, i hate eating so much, but I'm setting new PR's every week. i give zero shits how heavy i am but the recomp of newbie gains still has me looking better than i used to.
Since being lean is part of most people’s goals that makes getting lean important to achieving those goals. His claim was just that you don’t have to do it for health reasons. I doubt his claim that being fatter makes you healthier or live longer but that was his claim. Most people should get lean first. Most people wouldn’t even want to get jacked. Lean would be enough for them.
I personally think its less about the stretch and more about the fact that more stretch usually equals more time under tension in addition to the fact that very few people do much physical activity in that stretched position so there is just some untapped growth that can be accomplished. I suspect that after a while (long-term) studies, the growth profile would even out with more conventional movements in comparison.
Hey, Milo, I'm not in the science field, but I brought that 22% fat paper to a friend who is, and while they are not in the field of exercise physiology, they expressed some skepticism about papers possibly coming from the Iranian government. Although I don't know what hidden agenda of 22% being optimal would help Iran, I'm just wondering about your thoughts on this.
Did they correct for tobacco consumption? Iranian men have some of the highest smoking rates in the world, and as nicotine is an appetite suppressant and also increases metabolism it correlates with lower body fat but also higher mortality rates. Also, even if this was properly done, then it might not translate directly to Western populations because the average Western man with 22% body fat will likely owe a portion of that to alcohol consumption.
Facts! I lost 75lbs in 14 months, 245 to 170lbs. I maintained a 6% body fat for 6 months. As much as I enjoyed it there is a tonne of trade offs like mood and sex drive(which is a blessing because the offers thrown my way this past summer were insane). I’m currently 179lbs @ 9%. I feel way better on the daily especially training but I’m definitely shredding out again this summer but I’m going to keep it down to 3 months this time.
9:00 this is pretty surprising stuff but cool to be able think about protein intake the same as the amount of training days per muscle group. 1.6g/kg is a great start (training muscle once per week) 1g/lb of protein you're going to see a major improvement (training muscle group twice per week) above that is even better but is not gonna be as big as that initial leap up to 1g/lb from 1.6g/kg.
How do you know if this increase in lean mass for more protein intake doesn't come from simply calories surplus because you gotta eat significantly more in order to achieve that amount of protein? Was the total calories also controlled during the study?
I wonder if the health / % body fat graph took age into account. There could be low % body fat malnourished elderly folk, that also have lower ApoB, HbA1c, etc. metrics that tend to skew all cause mortality data where lower numbers are usually associated with health.
What about daily session volume? In some of your videos you've said, that volume up to 30-40 werkly sets can increase hypertrophy more than 20 weekly sets. But one study showed that around 6 sets per daily session every set after that most likely wont add any more stimulus, making those sets "junk volume". By this logic you couldnt do high volume with PPL, right? even Upper/Lower 6 times a week wouldnt be possible. Like, would I have to train a muscle everyday to hit that weekly volume? Obv. using that volume for every muscle group would be insanity. Also if I do that volume, how do I progress, since normally I track reps and weight, but training more volume and more frequently would probably make my reps go down each session, or doesnt it? I cant imagine hitting more reps every day.
@@ayeshaahmad2578 Most of Milo's "recommendations" are confusing and impractical for vast majority of people. While they might work for pro bodybuilders or influencers, 99% of his viewers don't fall into these categories. As I have stated elsewhere: 1. The recommended protein intake for my bodyweight of 200-250g DAILY is simply unsustainable. Unless you're drinking 3+ protein shakes a day (which is ridiculous), this goal is impossible to reach. 2. Maintaining 20+ WEEKLY volume per EACH muscle group with proper form is unrealistic for most people. Those with jobs, school, and other commitments simply can't dedicate that much time to training and proper recovery without sacrificing quality (no "junk" volume) or health. In short, I believe what he says may be an academic truth, but in real life, these benchmarks are unreachable for 99% of people who go to the gym.
@@DzaMiQ you are so true. I am a junior doctor and i can barely go to gym thrice a week. Hitting optimal protein targets are also very difficult for me to achieve. I am happy when i reach 120g 😂😂. There is a lot of diff between academics and practical real life.
10:15. What lead you to make the assumption that total testosterone to free test. ratio would significantly change or change with a clinically relevant amount? This reminds me of calling out studies that measure total cholesterol as a proxy for LDL when measuring saturated fat consumption effects on LDL levels, when the follow-ups reveal that as expected, mainly LDL rises. It's an oversight, but is it a significant one enough to merit being on this popularised video? I claim NO!
A couple of questions about Creatine: (1) One of the things that creatine does is to draw more water into muscle, which may or may not help hypertrophy. However does it also draw water into tendons & ligaments? (2) Is there a brand of creatine gummies, not produced in China, that regularly gets independently tested for their creatine content?
I'm currently in that boat. I'm somewhere between 16 and 20% and thought maybe I should cut to below 15% then try to gain. Perhaps I just start maingaining now? Will I just recomp that way, instead of the old fashioned cut-bulk?
About protein intake. Shouldnt real protein intake recommendations be based on lean body mass? Does your fat, bone, or water mass requires protein? Because they are all part of your total mass. Lets take someone who weight 100kg. A recommended protein intake of 1,6g/kg would be 160g. Lets say person 1 have 20% body fat. His fat free body mass is 80kg and 160g of protein would be 2g/kg of fat free body mass. Person 2 with 10% body fat would have fat free body mass of 90 kg and same recommended 160g of proteins would be only 1,78g/kg. If he would increase his protein to 2g/kg (fat free mass) he would need to consume 180g of protein - 1,8g/kg. So basically if you would recommend protein intake based on fat free mass for a 100kg person depending on his body fat percentage 1,6g/kg for someone with 20% of body fat and 1,8g/kg for someone with 10% of body fat is basically the same. And how about comparing new lifter to advanced lifter. Let say new lifter would gain 5kg of new muscle over given time and advanced lifter gains 1kg. They both need same amount of protein? I know that only a small fraction of proteins consumed turns into muscle, but still. Where does all the protein of advanced lifter go? Thery certainly dont turn into that 4kg of extra muscle that new lifter would gain.
I feel like its wrong to say that the stretch matters nore than the resistance in the stretch. A mid range biased lift with a large stretch like the incline curl still shifts the tension enphasis to the stretched position sinilar to the preacher curl. Looking at the amount of shoulder flexion and elbow flexion at peak tension it does appear that the incline curl has more tension at the stretch for the biceps. I feel like theyre both equally important and using joint angles you can figure out the stretch emphasis overall
Creatine gummies have to be the most unnecessary, and waste of money supplement out there. Creatine monohydrate powder is extremely affordable. I don't know why anyone wouldn't mix it with their protein shake. The taste of creatine powder is irrelevant.
On top of that serving that they suggests contains only 3g of creatine while recomendation is usually 5g. So if you were to up it to 5g you only have like 18 days supply instead of 30 and eat almost 100 calories for no reason.
I've also seen some concerns regarding the actual creatine monohydrate content of gummies. Something to do with creatine turning into creatinine because of exposure to water in the process of making gummies, making a gummy that claims to be 5g be more like 1g. So more expensive, potentially less potent, just to avoid a powder that is typically nearly tasteless anyways.
The taste of creating isn’t irrelevant in anyway for the average person not everyone drinks shakes everyday this comment is only “valid” if u choose ignore countless variables and project personal preferences
@@RaidenBckBckFwd no it’s similar to how u chose to ignore the fact that my comment had nothing to do with anyone other than the original comment that also had nothing to do with that argument
I've pondered this many times. My guess is that, over the long term, the difference will be negligible, so do what you prefer. But of course, I could be wrong.
That’s what I’m wondering because I’m on a cut I’m 272, been losing 3 pounds a week since 292, and in the past I did a cut where I lost a pound a day and lost 100 pounds, and I feel like this is so much easier but a lot shorter than if I try to lose half a percent of bodyweight and as a recovering binge eater it would be less motivating if I had to cut that slow, I feel like I could gain the muscle at the end of the cut anyway
You won't lose muscle on a cut when you are that fat. He says they lost lean body mass. Thats water and glycogen loss due to less carbohydrates and calories being consumed. Theres a huge difference between actual muscle and LBM. Hes completely clueless. Dont believe me, step on one of those scales that measures bodyfat percentage, then drink 2 liters of water and gasp at the difference
The big downside of creatine that I found is that it destroys my cardio or more specifically running performance. I start struggling with even a couple of kms while on creatine while when off it, I can do 5 -10 km runs. Makes sense, all that water in the muscles means they struggle with running.
This makes no sense. Maybe you could argue that the extra pound or two of non-contractile tissue body weight is of detriment to a runner (many runners do think this), but that has never actually been demonstrated. “Water in your muscles” is actually something we specifically want as runners, and is one of the benefits of a successful carb load prior to a long event
@mattheweley Well I felt it and quite acutely at that. Even if it doesn't make sense to you or anybody. Jogging 1.5 kms was a pain when I was on creatine and when I came of it, I was back to doing 3 km and 5km routines from my Samsung watch like I used to before my creatine experiment for a couple of months.
@@Natraj_Chaturvedi strange. The only negative impact I’ve found for myself from creatine on running is it can create or exacerbate gi issues. I just take it at night along with my evening magnesium. If I have any acute gut gurgles, they’re overnight and cleared up by morning
9 calories per gram of fat. 454 grams per pound. 4086 kcal per pound of fat. 16.7% difference. Some or all of the discrepancy could be from inefficiencies in breaking the fast down and transporting to cells that consume it for energy.
How many confounding factors did study about healthies BF% accounted for? Among people I've been training around, I'm yet to see one, who's 20-25 BF% and have blood sugar, blood lipids and blood pressure in healthy range.
@@Antonio_Serdar ok, fatso. But on a serious note: maybe not 20%, cause it's hard to eyeball that correctly, but I meant BF% where you start to not have any muscle definition while having those muscles. It's somewhere around those numbers. And one more point: that BF% range was called "the healthies", not just healthy. I don't think there is lowest point for BF% for men, where, if you got there without drugs and without deficiencies in essential nutrients, you health is just starting to decline because of excess leanness alone.
"To gain weight you need to consume more calories than you burn", I believed that for years but now I think it belongs to the "outdated". Eat 4.000cals per day with the classic 50-30-20 (carbs, protein, fats). Then, eat 4.000cals per day only from protein and fats. Compare your weight progress. You'll see that the amount of calories is not correlated (or poorly correlated) to weight gain.
Many years ago I did a bulk on Carnivore and gained about 20kg of mass, fat and muscle. But the thing is after years of fat matabolism things change. Like, I have an incredible amount of energy and motivation to train and move when eating lots of calories, and my body spends lots of energy on heat. I am almost never cold. With carbs I just get hypo, depressed and fat, no motivation even though energy is there.
There is a much greater difference in the rate your body can convert specific types of protein compared to the rate at which it can access different forms of carbs. If you ate 1000 cals worth of steak you're going to convert around 80% of it to something your body can use whereas if you ate the same on-paper amount of pea protein then you're only going to convert maybe 50% of it and the rest is going out with your next bowel movement. As such you have to pay way more attention to the types of protein you are basing your diet on in order to make sure you are actually at a calorie excess
I agree that slightly higher fat percentages are not bad for health and don't make p ratios worse. I also agree that testosterone-boosting supplements are garbage. Of the benefits of lengthened bias, be it under more or less load, I am more skeptical. The new protein intake meta-analysis is plain wrong, and so is the super-conservative cut speed recommendation.
Do you think, passive insufficiency can be a reason for differences in biceps growth? I wondered for a long time about difference in growth in biceps in a bayesian curl with elbow next to your side against elbow behind your back. Heard about some unpublished study saying both were equal but it's hard to base my views on an unpublished study I dont even have access to.
I love these videos! But I’m also wondering if it’d be possible to get one in the future specifically for people who are significantly overweight but want to keep strength training as a core physical activity. Like does .5% bodyweight per week work for when you’re 300+lbs? What would a good training + caloric deficit protocol look like for very heavy folks?
Split your time between caloric deficit with maintenance training volume, and maintenance calories with enough volume for some growth. Consider specialization where you do maintenance for most of your body but grow one or two muscles that are important to you or lagging.
truth is even if not optimal, the best way to aesthetically get in better shape is just be in a deficit or maintenance calories. Bulking is not worth it for aesthetics, most people especially women will like you more when being lean no matter your muscle density.
I ll make a guess and say that probably less than 22% fat in man was not the group with less risk of mortality becuase because people when have an underliying healthy problem in many cases lose weight.
Nice Video! But why in your example only 200 grmm of protein for anthete with 200 lbs? why not higher to 3,1 g protein per kg when you see better results?
is there health risks to increased protein? SInce your recommendations ive had about 3g/kg , but hear (not through research) that its bad for your body - can you point me in the direction of research please
Gaintain Dec1-March31 +8lbs cut April1-may31 -7lbs Gaintain jun1-Sep30+8lbs cut Oct1-Nov30 -7lbs Nets me 2lbs per of solid mass. No hard cuts , no heavy bulks. Generally feel and look good all year long.
don't suck too hard on him. He's no saint and has been known to bullshit as much as anyone. LOW IQ fools just love the anti-establishment grift a bit too much and can get carried away.
something i havent seen addressed in regards to protein intake: if we go with 1g per lb, does that mean a 350lb obese person needs 350g of protein; or is this based on an ideal lean body weight for based on height and sex?
I just go according to total bodyweight and for clients who have come into the gym who are on little to no protein I get them to start with body weight in kg x1.4g ATLEAST then bump upto x1.6kg as based on the research, this is the best amount for fat loss
Most recommendations I have seen are on lean mass and probably aimed at men into body building specifically. My advice is all assuming you arent trying to be stage ready and are more just trying to be fit, muscular, and/or lean: Personally Id base it on total weight if wanting to put on as much muscle as possible (without caring about leaning out), assuming you arent really keeping track of your other macros too seriously. This is my default for the most part and clean up my diet if I notice Im starting to bulk up - nothing too serious either, I eat to be full and eat to not have headaches/low energy still. If wanting to keep it lean, then go 20-10 percent less then total weight (unless you are significantly overweight) and adjust your other macros about every month based on how much weight you are dropping. If you are getting head aches and overall more tired from lack of calories, increase the amount unless you want to sacrifice for the aesthetics (not worth it IMO unless you are like a model, influencer, or body builder). Most would say increase fibrous intake and reduce sugar, starches, cheese, and sauces if needed to reduce calories. Personally I increase fat intake for more satiation - fatty red meat, butter in my coffee, and avacadoes - but I seem to thrive off more fat then most others and carbs make me constantly hungry and fiber makes me constantly bloated and have head aches. If you are overweight, reducing total calories and especially drinks with calories and probably just sugar in general is where your focus should be. If you want calculate where your protein intake is now and probably keep it there, just reduce starchy or sugary carbs and processed foods where you can. Most people its the binging, snacking, and drinks thats the issue - eat when you are hungry and find foods that satisfy your hunger and keep your energy levels at a good spot - you want to feel good on a diet so you can maintain it. Optimizing protein intake is missing where the focus should be. Optimizing protein intake is for people who have fitness for a job or a hobby mostly.
I get the same question. I think the usual protein recomendations are oversimplified, because science makes everything overcomplicated and stuff. As far as i know protein recomendations should be based on your body composition. But in order to simplify it they just go with 0,8g/pound (having in mind that it is for the average person)
Now that I see how badly Milo wants to get these views by selling BS, I'm no longer sure if being member of lengthened partial gang is worth it any longer. Any thoughts?
I don't think a lot changed, and I've been following him for a while. What I feel is that the quality of the comment section decreased a lot with the new viewers. Tons of negativity, people hating on every detail, or just flauting their own ignorance.
Everytime you mention a study with stretch please say if there was trained or untrained idividuals that i know if all effects come from sacromere edition or not. And dont lie about paul carter. Thats very childish.
"Men were in their best health at 22 percent body fat." (1:47 - 1:57) Really? Wow! This just goes to show you how way off the aesthetic ideal, which the fitness industry peddles, is from what is most conducive for longevity and health. At 22 percent, most guys can't see any muscular definition at all, particularly in their torso.
Just a heads up some of your audience are older females it would be nice to know if there are any studies on resistance training - unfortunately with menopause comes certain issues for example vertigo, frozen shoulders & UTI’s which really limit us with certain exercises as they cause more discomfort than anything else - it would be amazing if there was a study on which exercises were beneficial as we are not looking at gains just to keep muscle 🙏🌻
LMAO mini cuts work amazing, lyle MacDonald solved this ten years ago with protein sparring modified fast. Lean body mass is not muscle, its glycogen from lower carbs. As soon as you increase carbs glycogen refills. You literally have no idea what you are talking about
0:14 Mini-cuts
2:16 Nutrient partitioning
7:50 Protein intake
9:22 Supplements
12:11 Strech vs resistance profile
People like you make videos more enjoyable.
@@fwoggangidkand people like Dr. Wolf who doesn’t put timestamps force us to listen to their humor
Found the tiktok brain rot section
@@Pellegrino1i know it sounds stupid but some people work, and if i can cut video from 15min to 5, i will do it
Hero
Creatine gummies are a cool idea but I'm not paying $43 (CAD) for 90g of creatine
We get 300g of creatine for like 10euros in French supermarket Action which is very cheap
@@lafritegaming7713 That's still a rip off. Action sells that same 300 grams for 7.95 here in the Netherlands.
Just find a recipe for homemade keto gummies and make them yourself.
I keep some creatine HCl pills for traveling even though I know it’s overpriced. When traveling it comes in handy. Yes most days it’s the powder but I can see why someone would be interested in keeping creatine gummies on hand
I got a kilo of creatine for I think 12 USD or so. I couldn’t imagine those prices
On the topic of mini-cuts, Eric Helms just posted (on the 3DMJ channel) that he's going to be doing a mini cut soon, at about 1% bodyweight loss per week for six weeks to get closer to his contest weight, and then lean bulk for 3 months before starting his official prep. I commented on his video asking about what he thinks regarding the meta regression that you mentioned, which showed that more than 500 kcal deficit (for avg weight individuals being studied) lead to muscle loss, and he had this to say:
"Take a look at the plot in that meta regression, there’s a huge dispersion around that mean of lean mass loss (not necessarily muscle mass) at 500kcal deficit, and there are a ton of moderators which impact this which are not necessarily accounted for, like the specific setup of training and also the initial body fat of the person in question. Given the data specifically on physique athletes, you wouldn’t expect much if any muscle loss in a mini cut done well, and for sure the period after likely would result in regain [of muscle mass] if there was. As a coach/athlete anecdotally, it’s not something that is a discernible problem when done right"
I'm curious your thoughts/perspective on this?
The protein point is something ive experienced. If im cutting, i focus on what seems like excessive protien and always manage to gain strength and muscle while losing fat. This stuff never seems all that mystical
the workouts are terrible though, there's barely any calories for carbs
@@nile7999 You can eat carbs. It's just preferable to eat complex carbs, and you have to watch overall calories.
Being 5% body fat is fun until your plane crashes and you starve to death in 3 hours.
The maximum healthy amount of body fat depends on an individual's capacity of adipocytes, not on how good one looks. It's when their capacity is exceeded that damage to functional organs starts to occur.
@@JAnx01
Irrelevant.
@@schmui Very relevant for those who want to stay healthy.
Your body would start breaking down muscle i guess😂
@@JAnx01 That wasn't the topic of the comment you responded to, though. It was specifically about 5% body fat being too low. Your information is of no use in this case.
Non-statisticians fit a straight line to the data in 5:25 and carry on as if nothing's wrong lol
reminds me of the stock market TA videos that youtube tried to get me to watch
Is Myoadapt a meme at this point?
You're probably misinterpreting the left-side of that J-curve for fat and mortality. The increased slope is probably selection effects or some confounder (such as people with diseases which can result in weight loss). In actual RCTs where people lose body fat, they broadly see improved cardiometabolic factors -- and this seems to also be true even for people with "normal" fat levels. Though, a more reliable approach is to check bloodwork at different body fat levels, so people can see more directly if their body tolerates a given body fat percent (since this seems to vary between people). But either way, it's pretty dubious that your #1 conclusion was based on such associative literature.
Yeah my immediate thought when I heard his claim is that there’s probably tons of confounding variables. You can never isolate a single thing and then say “people with this trait live longer healthier lives.” It’s too complex. And there’s no mechanism by which being fat would be protective. If you told me people with higher lbm live longer then at least it would make some sense.
How is 22% offering an advantage over 12%? The problem with studies is that they aren’t isolating variables. So how do we know what’s going on? Can’t get too carried away with these kinds of studies.
And the protein one as well. What are the actual long term outcome differences between someone who trains for a decade eating 1.6g per kilo vs someone who eats 2.5g per kilo? Little to nothing, most likely. If you’re some one like Jeff Nippard you probably think 1 more pound of muscle is a huge deal. Nobody else does. So you gotta put things in perspective. I’m not spending $50 on protein powder a month just to get no measurable difference to my physique ten years from now.
@@CarlYota part of scientific studies, especially in order to get them approved and funded, is literally isolating variables either for controls or to acknowledge variables that may be statistically relevant in the study. That's how experiments are run.
And there is a pronounced difference between 22% and 12%, depending on whether the individual's macros are helping supplement the decrease in fat mass in the body. The point of many of these studies is to use the statistics to then predict long-term outcomes. No study is going to occur for a year. BUT if you simply look at the facts and say "well maybe for that short term," you're ignoring what could be a powerful tool in your fitness toolkit
For the regular people out there, most of these concepts are splitting hairs and the variation in how to approach it may only have 1-2% difference/impact in your long term progress. Bulk first, cut fast or slow, eat 1g/lbs protein or more… doesn’t really matter unless you for some reason need to absolutely maximize your progress - if you’re an average person just trying to be as healthy and fit and you can, you likely won’t notice the difference with the “perfect” approach which is likely going to change in a couple years anyway haha
Yup 😂 they keep changing it
All to sell overpriced supplements!
For real. I have worked out for 1.5 yrs and the more I do it, the more I tend to stick to the basics. I feel like managing so many variables is not sustainable for me in the long term.
@ yea absolutely! More consistency on what matters will get you more results as well as simply being able to do it longer! My focus is always on the basics and how to get the most value with the least input required. Like the 80-20 rule (80% of an achievable outcome comes from only 20% of total input/effort). Works for almost anything haha the basics get you so much of the way there and the minutia make only a small difference.
I just dry scoop creatine and wash it down with water.
Unironically the best way to take it
Yeah, otherwise it's a bit disgusting, and you just linger it if you mix with something
This is the weirdest Nordic curl, and not the one they tested
5:19 bro that one guy didnt eat anything and still kept all his muscle
Genetics 😭😭😭
Or they mis-reported how little they ate
@@petor95definitely the more likely story.
I think your take on the meta regression about muscle and energy deficit fails to account for muscle regain after the diet. I've seen metas suggesting that specifically after returning to normal diet, rate of weight loss has no effect on muscle mass. Only total weight lost!
This why whenever Dr. Mike talks about losing muscle he always caveats it with “don’t worry you’ll gain it back immediately when you start eating more food.
We have known this crap for a long time now. I started training like 15 years ago. The whole slow cut vs fast cut thing just doesn’t matter. Once you go back to normal eating and training you regain all lean mass quickly.
Lean mass is hard to build, and that makes it very persistent. It would be horribly inefficient if you could lose all your hard built gains that easily. Highly maladaptive for a system to work like that.
@@CarlYota well said
Eat big, lift (full ROM) 4+ times weekly, do some cardio, destress, stretch, sleep, repeat. Some of this jumping back and forth can get tiresome.
This man started naming off dinosaurs at the 11:00 mark. Felt like I was watching Power Rangers as a kid again
The whole "let's smash metric and imperial together" with grams per pound drives me nuts
"imperial is the best" proceeds to use grams per pound
Wouldnt muscle memory pretty much rebuild all the muscle loss in a mini cut within a few weeks? If so is it still a bad idea?
@@wan with you there. I'm sick of wasting time cutting forever
Yes, and also mini cuts means more time spent gaining, so you’re better off overall than doing a very long cut while not gaining any muscle at all
Absolutely. We knew this fifteen years ago and by “we” I mean the science based people. Muscle is persistent. When you go off your cut it comes right back. This is a non issue and has been for decade(s) now.
Cutting sucks. Keep protein reasonably high and get it done quick. Move on with life. This all assumes you have control. Laypeople will just get fat again. But I’m assuming we are lifters who know how to manipulate our body comp.
I gotta say, that energy deficit chart at round 5:48 looks like a pretty poor line. It looks more like a step function. Above about 200 energy deficit, you lose lean mass. Below that, you gain.
I was thinking the same thing but I'm retarded so idk
I strongly disagree on both mini cuts and certain testosterone supplements.
1) Mini cuts are meant to be very short-lived, which you've already mentioned, and when paired with high protein and consistently weight training, muscle loss will be very minimal. So let's say someone would lose some muscle during their 4-6 week mini cut, that amount would be so small that it would barely be noticeable. Not only that, but because of muscle memory, they'll gain it all back in a week or 2. So mini cuts are fine, when done right, and aren't catastrophic for muscle loss
2) There is actually plenty of research showing that when supplementing with zinc and vitamin D, testosterone levels increase noticeably. This is especially for people who are deficient, which many are. That's what those studies have found, so if someone isn't deficient in those two, I agree they won't help. But many people are. So I wouldn't rule those two out
I aim for 10g of protein per lb of body weight, no im not working out but im making some crazy weight gains, and there's muscle under there
You still don't know the difference between lean body mass and muscle tissue do you?
its seems that way sometimes, doesn't it.
Make more videos about muscle anatomy, they're the best!
No
@@harvles49 but... have you also considered Yes? It's a bit like No, but better!
@@ninjistu no
No
Yeah the body fat percentage I have seen in real life in combat. Mr Jacked and no body fat struggled to keep up with those of us on the healthy but chunkier side of things when we had to post up on mountain tops with full loads and a crew served. Also had issues with constant cramping etc on longer dismounts. Seen it in athletics as well through Jr College. Extremly low body fat is cool for looks but not practical for much else
I encourage people to really invest in the updates of fitness science and research because not only will it help you adjust your lifestyle/decisions more effectively to see the results you desire, but also (at least for me) you learn how nuanced and individualistic health and fitness in general can be, so you’re not holding yourself to standards of “perfection”.
I started going to the gym with body dysmorphia, but the more I learn about how to workout, my intentions become less aesthetic-based and more appreciative of overall health- which comes in all kinds of shapes and sizes. I am less hard on myself and don’t feel so keen on comparing how I look to other people because I’ve learned how many invisible factors come into play with health. I also just feel good knowing I put in some form of effort in the first place, whether it be making more balanced food decisions or getting active and enjoying myself.
Exercise & fitness really does have a positive impact on mental health. If you don’t like working out with conventional weights and machines, there’s plenty of alternative activities to explore and enjoy.
I love #3. I've been contemplating this concept because I noticed I am gaining more lean mass in my 30s with a significant calorie surplus compared to my 20s, and my protein intake has gone up to 1.2-1.3g/lbs bodyweight. The only chnage was higher protein (a mix of proteins, but high quality).
This solves this question for me. I was suspicious of the 0.8g-1g/lbs.
I suspect that this increase is only beneficial for those of us who are training at a higher level though... I believe the range of 0.8g-1.3g is dependent on other factors such as but not limited to: training intensity and volume, and also the type of diet you're following (composition of nutrients)
Did you control for calories though? More protein is more calories. That’s a big confounder if you didn’t account for it. “The only change was more protein and thus calories.” Only way to have known is if you tried more calories first, then more protein. Obviously people aren’t gonna run thier life like an experiment. But that also means the anecdotes you derive from your experience are potentially just wrong.
It could also be that as you get older you get your life more stable and ytogether which tanks your stress levels. You sleep better. And that’s a huge deal. None of this gets controlled for when people claim “only one thing changed.” This is why it doesn’t count as data.
I definitely think get lean first.Working with clients in the past?Especially women?There goal would be weight loss and inches loss.They start lifting too heavy.Do no cardio and changed nothing in their diet.So they GAINED both weight AND inches.And not good inches.Do light weights.Walk,swim,bike.Just move.Lose the fat?THEN bulk.Just makes more sense.But?I do understand the opposite CAN work for some.I just found that with women?Losing the fat first got far better end results.😊Absolutely fantastic post!👏🏻🙏🏻😊
probably a mental thing, based on individual goals. if my goal was to look better and lose weight, and you had me gaining weight to start id get pretty demoralized and give up. if my goal was to get huge and strong, and you had me cutting to start again demoralization of the individual.
My goal with starting working out has been getting as strong as possible, I'm working with a trainer and he has me eating as much as i can as often as i can its brutal, i hate eating so much, but I'm setting new PR's every week. i give zero shits how heavy i am but the recomp of newbie gains still has me looking better than i used to.
Since being lean is part of most people’s goals that makes getting lean important to achieving those goals. His claim was just that you don’t have to do it for health reasons. I doubt his claim that being fatter makes you healthier or live longer but that was his claim. Most people should get lean first. Most people wouldn’t even want to get jacked. Lean would be enough for them.
I personally think its less about the stretch and more about the fact that more stretch usually equals more time under tension in addition to the fact that very few people do much physical activity in that stretched position so there is just some untapped growth that can be accomplished. I suspect that after a while (long-term) studies, the growth profile would even out with more conventional movements in comparison.
Hey, Milo, I'm not in the science field, but I brought that 22% fat paper to a friend who is, and while they are not in the field of exercise physiology, they expressed some skepticism about papers possibly coming from the Iranian government. Although I don't know what hidden agenda of 22% being optimal would help Iran, I'm just wondering about your thoughts on this.
Did they correct for tobacco consumption? Iranian men have some of the highest smoking rates in the world, and as nicotine is an appetite suppressant and also increases metabolism it correlates with lower body fat but also higher mortality rates.
Also, even if this was properly done, then it might not translate directly to Western populations because the average Western man with 22% body fat will likely owe a portion of that to alcohol consumption.
Facts! I lost 75lbs in 14 months, 245 to 170lbs. I maintained a 6% body fat for 6 months. As much as I enjoyed it there is a tonne of trade offs like mood and sex drive(which is a blessing because the offers thrown my way this past summer were insane). I’m currently 179lbs @ 9%. I feel way better on the daily especially training but I’m definitely shredding out again this summer but I’m going to keep it down to 3 months this time.
porn-hun and other website pop ups are not offers.
9:00 this is pretty surprising stuff but cool to be able think about protein intake the same as the amount of training days per muscle group. 1.6g/kg is a great start (training muscle once per week) 1g/lb of protein you're going to see a major improvement (training muscle group twice per week) above that is even better but is not gonna be as big as that initial leap up to 1g/lb from 1.6g/kg.
How do you know if this increase in lean mass for more protein intake doesn't come from simply calories surplus because you gotta eat significantly more in order to achieve that amount of protein? Was the total calories also controlled during the study?
I wonder if the health / % body fat graph took age into account. There could be low % body fat malnourished elderly folk, that also have lower ApoB, HbA1c, etc. metrics that tend to skew all cause mortality data where lower numbers are usually associated with health.
What about daily session volume? In some of your videos you've said, that volume up to 30-40 werkly sets can increase hypertrophy more than 20 weekly sets. But one study showed that around 6 sets per daily session every set after that most likely wont add any more stimulus, making those sets "junk volume". By this logic you couldnt do high volume with PPL, right? even Upper/Lower 6 times a week wouldnt be possible. Like, would I have to train a muscle everyday to hit that weekly volume? Obv. using that volume for every muscle group would be insanity.
Also if I do that volume, how do I progress, since normally I track reps and weight, but training more volume and more frequently would probably make my reps go down each session, or doesnt it? I cant imagine hitting more reps every day.
This is a thing that confuses me so much too. How the hell can one do 30+ sets per muscle per week.
@@ayeshaahmad2578 Most of Milo's "recommendations" are confusing and impractical for vast majority of people. While they might work for pro bodybuilders or influencers, 99% of his viewers don't fall into these categories.
As I have stated elsewhere:
1. The recommended protein intake for my bodyweight of 200-250g DAILY is simply unsustainable. Unless you're drinking 3+ protein shakes a day (which is ridiculous), this goal is impossible to reach.
2. Maintaining 20+ WEEKLY volume per EACH muscle group with proper form is unrealistic for most people. Those with jobs, school, and other commitments simply can't dedicate that much time to training and proper recovery without sacrificing quality (no "junk" volume) or health.
In short, I believe what he says may be an academic truth, but in real life, these benchmarks are unreachable for 99% of people who go to the gym.
@@DzaMiQ
you are so true.
I am a junior doctor and i can barely go to gym thrice a week. Hitting optimal protein targets are also very difficult for me to achieve. I am happy when i reach 120g 😂😂.
There is a lot of diff between academics and practical real life.
Wouldn't the nordic curl variation you are showing in the video have the same stretch or more than seated curls?
16 mins three product placements man is starting that wallet hypertrophy
I feel incline curls so much more than the preacher curls I don't even care about the research...
🔥
I feel preacher curls way more but unfortunately it's in my elbows and comes in the form of pain
Great stuff! Just one question. Is it possible to get the links to the research articles that you mentioned added to your videos?
10:15. What lead you to make the assumption that total testosterone to free test. ratio would significantly change or change with a clinically relevant amount? This reminds me of calling out studies that measure total cholesterol as a proxy for LDL when measuring saturated fat consumption effects on LDL levels, when the follow-ups reveal that as expected, mainly LDL rises. It's an oversight, but is it a significant one enough to merit being on this popularised video? I claim NO!
A couple of questions about Creatine:
(1) One of the things that creatine does is to draw more water into muscle, which may or may not help hypertrophy. However does it also draw water into tendons & ligaments?
(2) Is there a brand of creatine gummies, not produced in China, that regularly gets independently tested for their creatine content?
Or just dont bulk in the first place as its been vaulted for yrs and just Maingain
Gregging my Doucette so hard right now
I'm currently in that boat. I'm somewhere between 16 and 20% and thought maybe I should cut to below 15% then try to gain. Perhaps I just start maingaining now? Will I just recomp that way, instead of the old fashioned cut-bulk?
You mean lean bulk?
You mean lean bulk. You cannot change the definition of maingain to be something else.
@@Karsius1The study said you gain muscle when you eat at exactly maintenance. How is eating at maintenance considered bulking?
About protein intake. Shouldnt real protein intake recommendations be based on lean body mass? Does your fat, bone, or water mass requires protein? Because they are all part of your total mass. Lets take someone who weight 100kg. A recommended protein intake of 1,6g/kg would be 160g.
Lets say person 1 have 20% body fat. His fat free body mass is 80kg and 160g of protein would be 2g/kg of fat free body mass. Person 2 with 10% body fat would have fat free body mass of 90 kg and same recommended 160g of proteins would be only 1,78g/kg. If he would increase his protein to 2g/kg (fat free mass) he would need to consume 180g of protein - 1,8g/kg. So basically if you would recommend protein intake based on fat free mass for a 100kg person depending on his body fat percentage 1,6g/kg for someone with 20% of body fat and 1,8g/kg for someone with 10% of body fat is basically the same.
And how about comparing new lifter to advanced lifter. Let say new lifter would gain 5kg of new muscle over given time and advanced lifter gains 1kg. They both need same amount of protein? I know that only a small fraction of proteins consumed turns into muscle, but still. Where does all the protein of advanced lifter go? Thery certainly dont turn into that 4kg of extra muscle that new lifter would gain.
she asked me if im creative, i said i never miss my creatine
just checking if long partials are still the thing
Ashwagandha gave me headache for 2 weeks. It started the 2nd-3rd day of the total 4 days I took it.
I feel like its wrong to say that the stretch matters nore than the resistance in the stretch. A mid range biased lift with a large stretch like the incline curl still shifts the tension enphasis to the stretched position sinilar to the preacher curl. Looking at the amount of shoulder flexion and elbow flexion at peak tension it does appear that the incline curl has more tension at the stretch for the biceps. I feel like theyre both equally important and using joint angles you can figure out the stretch emphasis overall
Creatine gummies have to be the most unnecessary, and waste of money supplement out there. Creatine monohydrate powder is extremely affordable. I don't know why anyone wouldn't mix it with their protein shake. The taste of creatine powder is irrelevant.
On top of that serving that they suggests contains only 3g of creatine while recomendation is usually 5g. So if you were to up it to 5g you only have like 18 days supply instead of 30 and eat almost 100 calories for no reason.
I've also seen some concerns regarding the actual creatine monohydrate content of gummies. Something to do with creatine turning into creatinine because of exposure to water in the process of making gummies, making a gummy that claims to be 5g be more like 1g. So more expensive, potentially less potent, just to avoid a powder that is typically nearly tasteless anyways.
The taste of creating isn’t irrelevant in anyway for the average person not everyone drinks shakes everyday this comment is only “valid” if u choose ignore countless variables and project personal preferences
@@donni803 like you chose to ignore the main points of it being more expensive and likely less potent than stated
@@RaidenBckBckFwd no it’s similar to how u chose to ignore the fact that my comment had nothing to do with anyone other than the original comment that also had nothing to do with that argument
Pls turn on the lights when filming
Would you say that despite the muscle loss from cutting too aggressively, it is balanced by how quickly you can put that muscle back on?
I've pondered this many times. My guess is that, over the long term, the difference will be negligible, so do what you prefer. But of course, I could be wrong.
That’s what I’m wondering because I’m on a cut I’m 272, been losing 3 pounds a week since 292, and in the past I did a cut where I lost a pound a day and lost 100 pounds, and I feel like this is so much easier but a lot shorter than if I try to lose half a percent of bodyweight and as a recovering binge eater it would be less motivating if I had to cut that slow, I feel like I could gain the muscle at the end of the cut anyway
You won't lose muscle on a cut when you are that fat. He says they lost lean body mass. Thats water and glycogen loss due to less carbohydrates and calories being consumed. Theres a huge difference between actual muscle and LBM. Hes completely clueless. Dont believe me, step on one of those scales that measures bodyfat percentage, then drink 2 liters of water and gasp at the difference
The big downside of creatine that I found is that it destroys my cardio or more specifically running performance. I start struggling with even a couple of kms while on creatine while when off it, I can do 5 -10 km runs. Makes sense, all that water in the muscles means they struggle with running.
This makes no sense. Maybe you could argue that the extra pound or two of non-contractile tissue body weight is of detriment to a runner (many runners do think this), but that has never actually been demonstrated. “Water in your muscles” is actually something we specifically want as runners, and is one of the benefits of a successful carb load prior to a long event
@mattheweley Well I felt it and quite acutely at that. Even if it doesn't make sense to you or anybody. Jogging 1.5 kms was a pain when I was on creatine and when I came of it, I was back to doing 3 km and 5km routines from my Samsung watch like I used to before my creatine experiment for a couple of months.
@@Natraj_Chaturvedi strange. The only negative impact I’ve found for myself from creatine on running is it can create or exacerbate gi issues. I just take it at night along with my evening magnesium. If I have any acute gut gurgles, they’re overnight and cleared up by morning
You lost me with the creatine gummies my man, can’t take ya seriously
9 calories per gram of fat. 454 grams per pound. 4086 kcal per pound of fat.
16.7% difference.
Some or all of the discrepancy could be from inefficiencies in breaking the fast down and transporting to cells that consume it for energy.
How many confounding factors did study about healthies BF% accounted for? Among people I've been training around, I'm yet to see one, who's 20-25 BF% and have blood sugar, blood lipids and blood pressure in healthy range.
20% bf is perfectly healthy
@@Antonio_Serdar ok, fatso.
But on a serious note: maybe not 20%, cause it's hard to eyeball that correctly, but I meant BF% where you start to not have any muscle definition while having those muscles. It's somewhere around those numbers.
And one more point: that BF% range was called "the healthies", not just healthy. I don't think there is lowest point for BF% for men, where, if you got there without drugs and without deficiencies in essential nutrients, you health is just starting to decline because of excess leanness alone.
"To gain weight you need to consume more calories than you burn", I believed that for years but now I think it belongs to the "outdated".
Eat 4.000cals per day with the classic 50-30-20 (carbs, protein, fats).
Then, eat 4.000cals per day only from protein and fats.
Compare your weight progress. You'll see that the amount of calories is not correlated (or poorly correlated) to weight gain.
Many years ago I did a bulk on Carnivore and gained about 20kg of mass, fat and muscle. But the thing is after years of fat matabolism things change. Like, I have an incredible amount of energy and motivation to train and move when eating lots of calories, and my body spends lots of energy on heat. I am almost never cold. With carbs I just get hypo, depressed and fat, no motivation even though energy is there.
There is a much greater difference in the rate your body can convert specific types of protein compared to the rate at which it can access different forms of carbs. If you ate 1000 cals worth of steak you're going to convert around 80% of it to something your body can use whereas if you ate the same on-paper amount of pea protein then you're only going to convert maybe 50% of it and the rest is going out with your next bowel movement. As such you have to pay way more attention to the types of protein you are basing your diet on in order to make sure you are actually at a calorie excess
Got to 20% on a bulk and wife complained. Now cutting again... Unfortunately, wife disagrees with science on this one.
Wife complained? That raises an eyebrow.
Unfortunate relationship is unfortunate.
Yikes bro
@@blakedavis4209 its normal for people to compromise in a relation ship and try to look good for one another
Simp
I agree that slightly higher fat percentages are not bad for health and don't make p ratios worse. I also agree that testosterone-boosting supplements are garbage. Of the benefits of lengthened bias, be it under more or less load, I am more skeptical. The new protein intake meta-analysis is plain wrong, and so is the super-conservative cut speed recommendation.
Isnt the Biceps the "Biceps Brachii" ? The brachioradialis and brachialis is different from that, there is no such thing as the "brachii" ?
i thought he was gonna tell horror stories with this setup
So what would you reccomend for a 220lb man 220g or 286 or something in between for a bulk
Time stamps pls
nutrient partitioning point is completely incorrect and misses the point of whats being done and WHY its being done, to maximise insulin sensitivity
Do you think, passive insufficiency can be a reason for differences in biceps growth? I wondered for a long time about difference in growth in biceps in a bayesian curl with elbow next to your side against elbow behind your back. Heard about some unpublished study saying both were equal but it's hard to base my views on an unpublished study I dont even have access to.
I love these videos! But I’m also wondering if it’d be possible to get one in the future specifically for people who are significantly overweight but want to keep strength training as a core physical activity. Like does .5% bodyweight per week work for when you’re 300+lbs? What would a good training + caloric deficit protocol look like for very heavy folks?
Split your time between caloric deficit with maintenance training volume, and maintenance calories with enough volume for some growth. Consider specialization where you do maintenance for most of your body but grow one or two muscles that are important to you or lagging.
WERE THOSE STUDIES AT THE END OF THE VIDEO DONE ON TRAINED LIFTERS??!?
truth is even if not optimal, the best way to aesthetically get in better shape is just be in a deficit or maintenance calories. Bulking is not worth it for aesthetics, most people especially women will like you more when being lean no matter your muscle density.
I don't know what you were doing there at the end?
That was absolutely not a Nordic Curl.
I ll make a guess and say that probably less than 22% fat in man was not the group with less risk of mortality becuase because people when have an underliying healthy problem in many cases lose weight.
yeahhhh im in my winter arc bulk.....
Nice Video! But why in your example only 200 grmm of protein for anthete with 200 lbs? why not higher to 3,1 g protein per kg when you see better results?
Hmm, I was thinking to add Tongkat Ali in.
should i count my protein intake with my total weight or with my lean mass weight? Im 40% fat at the moment
1-1.3g of protein per lean mass of body weight?
is there health risks to increased protein? SInce your recommendations ive had about 3g/kg , but hear (not through research) that its bad for your body - can you point me in the direction of research please
On the protein is it g/kg or g/lb .
So re protein, the bros were right all along. Colour me surprised.
Hey Milo, could you make a video about the Energy Flux / G-flux theory? Is it bs or is there something to it?
Gaintain Dec1-March31 +8lbs cut April1-may31 -7lbs Gaintain jun1-Sep30+8lbs cut Oct1-Nov30 -7lbs Nets me 2lbs per of solid mass. No hard cuts , no heavy bulks. Generally feel and look good all year long.
is myoadapt going be free?
People are killing their gains by whimmping on amino's.
You don't need to bulk.. just be normal.
Lyle McDonald is the goat
don't suck too hard on him. He's no saint and has been known to bullshit as much as anyone. LOW IQ fools just love the anti-establishment grift a bit too much and can get carried away.
That was a magnificent cat!
Anything for clicks.. how I can block channels
Hahaha I am at 15bf at the end of an extreme cut 😅
Holy shit a release date
something i havent seen addressed in regards to protein intake: if we go with 1g per lb, does that mean a 350lb obese person needs 350g of protein; or is this based on an ideal lean body weight for based on height and sex?
I just go according to total bodyweight and for clients who have come into the gym who are on little to no protein I get them to start with body weight in kg x1.4g ATLEAST then bump upto x1.6kg as based on the research, this is the best amount for fat loss
Most recommendations I have seen are on lean mass and probably aimed at men into body building specifically.
My advice is all assuming you arent trying to be stage ready and are more just trying to be fit, muscular, and/or lean:
Personally Id base it on total weight if wanting to put on as much muscle as possible (without caring about leaning out), assuming you arent really keeping track of your other macros too seriously. This is my default for the most part and clean up my diet if I notice Im starting to bulk up - nothing too serious either, I eat to be full and eat to not have headaches/low energy still.
If wanting to keep it lean, then go 20-10 percent less then total weight (unless you are significantly overweight) and adjust your other macros about every month based on how much weight you are dropping. If you are getting head aches and overall more tired from lack of calories, increase the amount unless you want to sacrifice for the aesthetics (not worth it IMO unless you are like a model, influencer, or body builder). Most would say increase fibrous intake and reduce sugar, starches, cheese, and sauces if needed to reduce calories. Personally I increase fat intake for more satiation - fatty red meat, butter in my coffee, and avacadoes - but I seem to thrive off more fat then most others and carbs make me constantly hungry and fiber makes me constantly bloated and have head aches.
If you are overweight, reducing total calories and especially drinks with calories and probably just sugar in general is where your focus should be. If you want calculate where your protein intake is now and probably keep it there, just reduce starchy or sugary carbs and processed foods where you can. Most people its the binging, snacking, and drinks thats the issue - eat when you are hungry and find foods that satisfy your hunger and keep your energy levels at a good spot - you want to feel good on a diet so you can maintain it. Optimizing protein intake is missing where the focus should be. Optimizing protein intake is for people who have fitness for a job or a hobby mostly.
I get the same question. I think the usual protein recomendations are oversimplified, because science makes everything overcomplicated and stuff. As far as i know protein recomendations should be based on your body composition. But in order to simplify it they just go with 0,8g/pound (having in mind that it is for the average person)
It's ideal lean body weight. An estimate is height in cm in grams of protein. you'll be in the 1g/lb/protein for ideal weight range ish.
n=9 and n=8 - that is not science, man
Good content man
Interesting you filming in a PureGym
Now that I see how badly Milo wants to get these views by selling BS, I'm no longer sure if being member of lengthened partial gang is worth it any longer. Any thoughts?
I don't think a lot changed, and I've been following him for a while. What I feel is that the quality of the comment section decreased a lot with the new viewers. Tons of negativity, people hating on every detail, or just flauting their own ignorance.
BRO l tell this 10 years ago 300 gram protein a day is best for every avrage lifter man who lift more than 3 years
you want to get big? eat big
lmao, uhm, no.
@@cq2solutions yougayforpay
Everytime you mention a study with stretch please say if there was trained or untrained idividuals that i know if all effects come from sacromere edition or not. And dont lie about paul carter. Thats very childish.
"Men were in their best health at 22 percent body fat." (1:47 - 1:57) Really? Wow! This just goes to show you how way off the aesthetic ideal, which the fitness industry peddles, is from what is most conducive for longevity and health. At 22 percent, most guys can't see any muscular definition at all, particularly in their torso.
December 2024 🙏
Dislike the taste of creatine? Its FLAVORLESS! tf kinda soft ahh shi is that
Why using mikes and jeffs face?
Gets you the clicks but it's becoming very annoying now
I drink 500g of protein a day. And stay under 3500cals at my maintence
Just a heads up some of your audience are older females it would be nice to know if there are any studies on resistance training - unfortunately with menopause comes certain issues for example vertigo, frozen shoulders & UTI’s which really limit us with certain exercises as they cause more discomfort than anything else - it would be amazing if there was a study on which exercises were beneficial as we are not looking at gains just to keep muscle 🙏🌻
LMAO mini cuts work amazing, lyle MacDonald solved this ten years ago with protein sparring modified fast. Lean body mass is not muscle, its glycogen from lower carbs. As soon as you increase carbs glycogen refills. You literally have no idea what you are talking about
Never understood bulking. With calorie partioning you can just gain mass while eating at maintence.
You will just stay weak and small
@kapoioBCS I keep gaining strength. I'm close to 6'8 out of bed in the morning and hovering around 270lbs
commenting for the algo