Re:Being Fit May Be as Good for You as Not Smoking
by bitexploder on Wednesday December 19, 2018 @02:42PM
(#18718757)
What is a "big calorie deficit" relative to others? I am just curious because the general physiology is pretty simple and I have read some things that pretty thoroughly debunk endomorph vs. ectomorph. It is must more useful to classify based on muscle fiber composition. People with a lot of fast twitch muscle fiber build muscle quicker, etc.
Re:Being Fit May Be as Good for You as Not Smoking
by 0x8BADF00D on Wednesday December 19, 2018 @02:51PM
(#18718866)
What is a "big calorie deficit" relative to others?
For me, I’ve found 400-500 below my maintainence works best.
> It is must more useful to classify based on muscle fiber composition. People with a lot of fast twitch muscle fiber build muscle quicker, etc.
I agree with you here. I needed labels to bin the two (very general) categories of body composition types, so I chose those two.
Re:Being Fit May Be as Good for You as Not Smoking
by bitexploder on Wednesday December 19, 2018 @03:06PM
(#18719028)
Makes sense. I have had my RMR tested and I am dead average. I have never had success with small deficits because I am not disciplined enough to maintain -700 net cals per week or whatever.
Some people are ectomorphs. I have friends who are hardgainers, and believe me, it is a struggle for them to bulk. You have to eat a massive surplus of calories per day and most of that has to be protein.
Conversely, some people are endomorphs. It’s very difficult to cut (in my case). I need a big caloric deficit relative to others, and do cardio on my rest days in order to keep my body fat at a reasonable percentage.
Eugenics should be actively encouraged. We have the technology to make it so many will never have to suffer metabolic issues or chromosomal abnormalities.