Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
toprankwrestling

Ask The Pro Trainer: How Do I Cut Without Losing Muscle?

Recommended Posts

I like how people think they have definitive, absolute proof that someone has never taken steroids or PED's when speaking about acquaintances or people they casually know. Further, taking wrestling advice by someone who has never participated in the sport might lead you to take the advice with a grain of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alcohol has chemical effects on people to kill other people ALL the time.

 

And not just in car accidents... domestic disputes, bar fights, etc, etc, etc.

 

Absolutely, and without question, alcohol is a very destructive substance when misused, which unfortunately occurs all the time.

 

However, alcohol in moderation (e.g. a glass of wine or a single 12 oz. beer daily) has been shown to actually have beneficial effects on the heart and vascular system. It's when you go beyond this that the trouble starts. All too often.

 

Not to nitpick but steroids is also beneficial (actually life saving) when used in moderation by cancer patients, aids patients, etc.

 

So its not all bad obviously either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like how people think they have definitive, absolute proof that someone has never taken steroids or PED's when speaking about acquaintances or people they casually know. Further, taking wrestling advice by someone who has never participated in the sport might lead you to take the advice with a grain of salt.

 

Funny. I'd have thought that sense you were positive about exactly what someone (who you don't even know at all) did or did not do in high school that you would be more accepting. I guess since you don't have much experience within the realm of it, I'll inform you that sometimes when you talk to people, they tell you the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Live Science columnist Christopher Wanjek, smoking has a number of health benefits. While the chances of cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc., are far greater health risks, smoking does provide protection against the following diseases and afflictions:

 

1. Smoking lowers risk of knee-replacement surgery

 

2. Smoking lowers risk of Parkinson's disease

 

3. Smoking lowers risk of obesity

 

4. Smoking lowers risk of death after some heart attacks

 

5. Smoking helps the heart drug clopidogrel work better

 

http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to Live Science columnist Christopher Wanjek, smoking has a number of health benefits. While the chances of cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc., are far greater health risks, smoking does provide protection against the following diseases and afflictions:

 

1. Smoking lowers risk of knee-replacement surgery

 

2. Smoking lowers risk of Parkinson's disease

 

3. Smoking lowers risk of obesity

 

4. Smoking lowers risk of death after some heart attacks

 

5. Smoking helps the heart drug clopidogrel work better

 

http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html

 

Don't feel like reading the article- 1. seems like silly stats. Less athletes smoke than the general population so the chance of knee replacement surgery is smaller. Is he saying something more specific?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to Live Science columnist Christopher Wanjek, smoking has a number of health benefits. While the chances of cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc., are far greater health risks, smoking does provide protection against the following diseases and afflictions:

 

1. Smoking lowers risk of knee-replacement surgery

 

2. Smoking lowers risk of Parkinson's disease

 

3. Smoking lowers risk of obesity

 

4. Smoking lowers risk of death after some heart attacks

 

5. Smoking helps the heart drug clopidogrel work better

 

http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html

 

Don't feel like reading the article- 1. seems like silly stats. Less athletes smoke than the general population so the chance of knee replacement surgery is smaller. Is he saying something more specific?

Not sure what you're saying - athletes (and the morbidly obese) have a greater incidence of knee replacement surgery compared to the general population, IIRC. Anyway, the researchers controlled for age, weight and exercise and still found some slight protective effects of smoking for osteoporis. Wanjek speculates that the nicotine in tobacco could somehow help prevent cartilage and joint deterioration.

 

At any rate, I wouldn't entirely dismiss the studies Wanjek cites as just silly stats. For example, the finding that smokers have a 73% lower risk of developing Parkinson's disease could eventually lead to better treatments or possibly even a cure. Medical researchers suspect that there may be chemicals present in tobacco leaves that somehow protect against Parkinson's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alcohol has chemical effects on people to kill other people ALL the time.

 

And not just in car accidents... domestic disputes, bar fights, etc, etc, etc.

 

Absolutely, and without question, alcohol is a very destructive substance when misused, which unfortunately occurs all the time.

 

However, alcohol in moderation (e.g. a glass of wine or a single 12 oz. beer daily) has been shown to actually have beneficial effects on the heart and vascular system. It's when you go beyond this that the trouble starts. All too often.

 

Not to nitpick but steroids is also beneficial (actually life saving) when used in moderation by cancer patients, aids patients, etc.

 

So its not all bad obviously either.

 

Yes, I mentioned those uses in my second post above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Based on what I know of the substances as of right now, yes that is my position. Furthermore my position is I don’t give a flying hoot why they want to use them. That is their own personal decision and their own personal reason. As long as they aren’t harming someone else, or using them to cheat in an officially recognized amateur or professional contest or competition, then I have no quarrel with it."

 

OK, if that is your opinion, fine.

 

"I don’t have to [describe and explain safe steroid regimens], and more importantly I shouldn’t have to. I’ve never taken steroids before, and therefore I’ve never dosed or cycled before. I don’t have to know exactly how to drive a manual transmission car to know that manual transmission cars can be driven effectively and safely. I can just tell from observation. Did I know of steroid users during my six years in independent professional wrestling? Yes, I did. I know steroid users at the gym and I know steroid users in the world of semi-pro MMA. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out which guys are using the substances responsibly and which guys aren’t. You’re literally asking me in the lines of an analogy to, “Explain exactly why driving through a residential area where pets roam and child play at 25 mph, is safer than at 75 mph” It’s like anything else in life. If you’re an idiot about it, you’re most likely going to suffer the ramifications. If you’re intelligent about it, you’ll see the benefits. "

 

Your analogy is flawed because you assume that the long term effects of steroids are as readily obvious as that of seeing whether one can drive a manual transmission safely or whether driving at at high speed vs low speed through a residential area is dangerous. In your two examples, the results are obvious in seconds, whereas by definition, the long term effects of steroids can take months or years to develop, such as liver failure, cardiovascular problems, ruined joints, or permanent neurologic damage. It's similar to how high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, or cigarette smoking might not have any noticeable symptoms or effect on you for a long time until you suddenly end up with a heart attack or stroke after years of allowing these issues to run rampant. Or how relatively small but cumulative doses of radiation have no visible affect immediately until you develop cancer after years of many of these doses. So it's not like "anything else" in life, although yes, you certainly may suffer ramifications.

 

"Then sir, you need to get on the band wagon to start demonizing alcohol on the same level. If the “serious side effects and dependency” of steroids is enough to make you stand to forever have them criminalized, then in all fairness should the “serious side effects and dependency” of alcohol make you stand the exact same way. "

 

Assuming for a second that I have to get on your "band wagon," HOW do you propose to make a stand to criminalize alcohol or at least reduce its consumption among the general population? And how do you know that I haven't tried to do this? On an individual level? Ever try to directly tell an alcoholic to stop drinking? Good luck. On a community level? You can put out all kinds of information out there on the negatives of alcohol abuse, but again, good luck trying to get abusers to listen. On a legal or criminal level? One more time - trying to "forever criminalize" alcohol has been tried before, and DIDN'T WORK.

 

The restrictions on alcohol today are probably the best alternative that society could come up with for fighting abuse. Not perfect by any means but all we've got (If you have a better, more effective plan, I'm sure a lot of people would be glad to hear it) It was a battle that the government realized they couldn't win, and they therefore cut their losses.

 

In the past century, they've gone after smaller fry, such as marijuana, cocaine, and yes, anabolic steroids. "In all fairness," is it right that they managed to make these substances illegal and alcohol not? Maybe or maybe not, depending on your point of view. Like it or not, life is often NOT FAIR. And again, I'm describing the problem, not justifying it or turning a blind eye to it.

 

" How is someone going to be able to tell you about their experiences with taking steroids, especially if it is something that they still continue to do, without indicting themselves? You have a point when someone says, “I took steroids ____ years ago” but for those who are taking them now and continue to take them now, you know as well as I do they can’t speak their minds without the serious risk of ramifications. My answer is once again, that I concur with you that there isn’t, but that there should be. As Bob Clapp has stated, there hasn’t been yet, because the demonizing committee knows most likely that the final results would not be in their favor. Personally I agree with these other countries and their take on it."

 

Beyond maybe a person losing some friends, or maybe a job, because their boss didn't like their stance on the issue, how would one be criminally indicting oneself? Discussing one's experience with steroid cycling is no more illegal than discussing one's experience with recreation marijuana use. If they catch you when injecting or puffing, that's a different story. Yes, taking stands on any issues that are unpopular or politically incorrect carry the danger that certain people will not like you or trust for it, and that's a risk that people take.

 

"Sir, let me make this clear and clarified. Had marijuana ever been legal for an extended period of time, and THEN tried to be criminalized, you would be stating the exact same claim. You feel like you are making such a great and irrefutable statement by using your big “unenforceable” word. You’re not. Marijuana consumption isn’t any different. Yet it is illegal and alcohol isn’t. "

 

No, if marijuana had ever been legal for an extended period of time, and then tried to be criminalized, I would be stating the exact opposite: that it was probably being criminalized because the government and society thought that such a law WAS ENFORCEABLE, and WAS a winnable endeavor, unlike alcohol prohibition.

 

And yes, I do think that it's irrefutable that alcohol prohibition was unenforceable. That's pretty much history. No big words needed to know this. Is it right or "fair" that they managed to make some substances illegal and alcohol not? Broken record, maybe or maybe not, depending on your point of view.

 

"Your concern is fine....However, here’s the major difference. Your suggestion infringes upon the rights, liberties and freedoms of others to make choices concerning their own health. My suggestion is to grant more freedom, rights and liberties to the individual on what they can in regards to their own health....Your curiosity and right to question I don’t have a problem with. Any feelings that your opinion should have one way or the other, weight however, I do have a problem with because they shouldn’t. If John Doe can blacken his lungs, pollute the air, stink up the area around him as he walks himself into the grave, then the Bob Clapp’s of the world should be able to increase the size of their bicep as they walk themselves into the grave. "

 

This is the crux of our differences. You basically say that one should be allowed to do engage in an activity as long as it is not harmful or dangerous to others. And to a certain extent I agree. Where I dissent is along the lines that it's very rare for any action to not have consequences for others in society. There is almost no activity which takes place in a moral vacuum where it has absolutely no affect on others.

 

If John Doe's blackening of his lungs or Bob Clapp's bicep experiment, or some drunkard's daily activities put someone else in a position of having to clean up or deal with their mess in one way or another, then yes, it is their right to at least question these "rights and freedoms." And it is their right to propose laws to limit them. It happens all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheerstress - There's no use of me writing a big huge long response this time around. We're making the same arguments, counterarguments and assumptions of the past over and over again. It's obvious we disagree on this subject and in the long run of things, neither your opinion alone will forever demonize/criminalize steroids and nor will my opinion alone legalize them. I have by the way tried to help an alcoholic stop drinking. While not the main driving force, I'd like to think that some of the long talks that I had with him, and encouragement was one of the many pieces of the puzzle that held to his eventual sobriety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, enough said about steroid use. We all know it has pro and a lot of cons when misused. so how do natural bodybuilders do it? how do people less than 175 pounds do it 130lbs, how do non-builders do it? , the lighter the weight the less I vision steroid use to get shredded. bodybuilders are sometimes at their weakest when cutting for competition, so are wrestlers, till rehydrating and some meaningful nutrition are introduced, so back to the main question....

What's the best way to get lean and not lose all that great muscle? should a wrestler increase protein, aminos or take some other kind of LEGAL supplement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, enough said about steroid use. We all know it has pro and a lot of cons when misused. so how do natural bodybuilders do it? how do people less than 175 pounds do it 130lbs, how do non-builders do it? , the lighter the weight the less I vision steroid use to get shredded. bodybuilders are sometimes at their weakest when cutting for competition, so are wrestlers, till rehydrating and some meaningful nutrition are introduced, so back to the main question....

What's the best way to get lean and not lose all that great muscle? should a wrestler increase protein, aminos or take some other kind of LEGAL supplement?

 

They really are way different things. Bodybuilders go into ketosis and cut out sodium to dry out and get the lean look. What they do for "athletic competition" requires very little oxygen transport. They can reduce the water and glucose in their blood drastically because they do not have to do any aerobic or anaerobic activities. They are posing for a short period of time. College/highschool wrestlers have to train up until weigh ins, then compete in a highly aerobic and anaerobic sport. Going into ketosis, removing water, sodium, and glucose from your system would not only make training impossible, it would make your match performance suck ass.

 

How do wrestlers cut weight and keep muscle? Lift during the season, practice hard, maintain a diet that is not conducive to storing fat, and keep your blood and plasma levels as close to homeostasis as possible when dehydrating for weigh ins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burning the fat while keeping/building muscle when it pertains to the average wrestler or even any average athlete is kind of a misnomer imo. Its virtually impossible for an athleteto do both simultaneously without losing a certain % of muscle tissue. I mean, we are not talking about a person who is unhealthy and weighs 250lbs that decides to start dieting and hitting the gym and 8 months later is 190lb at 13% body fat with increased muscle mass. There are a number of factors that will determine an individuals success in this venture but in ANY case, when u diet down, cut calories and increase exercise, a certain amount of muscle loss is going to happen ( of course unless u start out obese and have never touched a weight in ur life).

 

Wrestlers especially know this to be true. The ones cutting arent simply trying to keep as much muscle as possible but im sure ALL will tell you that losing muscle is par for the course when cutting and keeping the muscle or actually building it during cutting is just not happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when u diet down, cut calories and increase exercise, a certain amount of muscle loss is going to happen ( of course unless u start out obese and have never touched a weight in ur life).

 

This is why wrestlers do not diet down and stay near weight. They figured out a hundred years ago that if you just cut water, you do not have to train on a huge calorie defecit, and you dont have to stay in a dehydrated state for more than a few hours.

 

The trick is figuring out how much training and calories you need to have a low BF, and how much water you can lose and still perform. As you know, it is very individual, that is why you see guys fail so much in HS and college; they havent figured out their own personal method for success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cutting down to stike a pose takes a much different approach than cutting down to face another man who is trying to tear your head off.

And hopefully in your case...does.

 

:lol: :lol:

 

Brog, you're growing on me. That made me laugh too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to Live Science columnist Christopher Wanjek, smoking has a number of health benefits. While the chances of cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc., are far greater health risks, smoking does provide protection against the following diseases and afflictions:

 

1. Smoking lowers risk of knee-replacement surgery

 

2. Smoking lowers risk of Parkinson's disease

 

3. Smoking lowers risk of obesity

 

4. Smoking lowers risk of death after some heart attacks

 

5. Smoking helps the heart drug clopidogrel work better

 

http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html

 

The conclusions of the research (as stated here) are flawed and incorrect; the research at the link cannot provide these conclusions because the study did not use a causal model analysis, i.e. it doesn't prove A causes B. Rather, the analysis merely uses a correlation format, i.e. A and B are related.

 

While it is true that the researcher might speculate as to whether a causal relationship exists based on the findings, this research does not provide that answer. That kind of "overreach" on a researcher's part tends to discredit the researcher - suggesting he/she has an incorrect understanding as to what limitations exist in his/her research. Not good science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The conclusions of the research (as stated here) are flawed and incorrect; the research at the link cannot provide these conclusions because the study did not use a causal model analysis, i.e. it doesn't prove A causes B. Rather, the analysis merely uses a correlation format, i.e. A and B are related.

 

While it is true that the researcher might speculate as to whether a causal relationship exists based on the findings, this research does not provide that answer. That kind of "overreach" on a researcher's part tends to discredit the researcher - suggesting he/she has an incorrect understanding as to what limitations exist in his/her research. Not good science.

 

The columnist simply put together a summary of studies. He stated there those who smoked had a decreased risk of ailments compared to those who didnt. These werent flawed and incorrect studies; they were published in peer reviewed science journals such as The Journal or Neurology and American Heart Journal. Further, the "incorrect understandings" were made by PhD's at places such as Yale and Harvard. What exact parts of these studies did you find incorrect or flawed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the studies show very little- 1st they are correlations, 2nd altho they try to "control" for confounding variables, it is hard to be sure they succeeded without other studies to verify the results.The medical literature is replete with one off studies that were never repeatable. In the TJR study they readily note smokers don't exercise much & perhaps that protects your joints- and ends your life sooner.They weren't studying longevity- just the "risk" of getting a TJR. It maybe that smokers are treating a neurological condition (or neurotransmitter deficiency) with nicotine(that is why they enjoy it more than nonsmokers)- and that same condition protects you from parkinsonism. In other words,nicotine addiction may self select for those that are resistant to parkinsonism.

Furthermore argument with a juicing muscle head is a waste of time- he wants affirmation for the poor choices he is making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, the "incorrect understandings" were made by PhD's at places such as Yale and Harvard. What exact parts of these studies did you find incorrect or flawed?

 

The conclusions of the PhD's at places such as Yale and Harvard are flawed if the statements are indeed attributed to them. I have already stated specifically the flaw in the conclusions based on that research (causal vs. relative empirical methods). One simply cannot draw causal conclusions using that latter form of analysis - simply impossible. The best they can do is hypothesize as to causal relationships, given that research.

 

I have a PhD too - it ain't all that. Bogus claims, no matter who they come from don't scare me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, the "incorrect understandings" were made by PhD's at places such as Yale and Harvard. What exact parts of these studies did you find incorrect or flawed?

 

The conclusions of the PhD's at places such as Yale and Harvard are flawed if the statements are indeed attributed to them. I have already stated specifically the flaw in the conclusions based on that research (causal vs. relative empirical methods). One simply cannot draw causal conclusions using that latter form of analysis - simply impossible. The best they can do is hypothesize as to causal relationships, given that research.

 

I have a PhD too - it ain't all that. Bogus claims, no matter who they come from don't scare me.

 

The way I read it, the researchers were not looking for a cause and effect, merely statistical correlation, which they found. The article reads as a minor upside to smoking in lieu of cancer and premature death, while the research reads as mere statistic correlation rather than probable dependance. I would agree though, trying to relate smoking upsides to the benefits of anabolic substances and hormones is a pretty weak argument. What is your PhD in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I read it, the researchers were not looking for a cause and effect, merely statistical correlation, which they found. The article reads as a minor upside to smoking in lieu of cancer and premature death, while the research reads as mere statistic correlation rather than probable dependance. I would agree though, trying to relate smoking upsides to the benefits of anabolic substances and hormones is a pretty weak argument. What is your PhD in?

 

My issue is with the "(smoking) provide(s) protection against the following diseases and afflictions:" comment and the subsequent five statements. The nature of the research can only ascertain that there is a negative correlation between smoking and those afflictions - not a causal relationship.

 

Fore example, for all we know skinny people might be inclined to pick up the smoking habit more so than obese folks (or vice versa). The statistical results are the same - but the interpretation of the numbers would be totally different than those suggested by the Harvard PhDs. Their interpretation is that smoking is driving the statistical relationship when in fact it might just as easily be a body shape issue that drives the relationship.

 

That's why causal relationships can't be determined from that particular type of empirical analysis. Casual analyses are a lot harder to pull off than are the correlation kinds of analyses, but researchers are notorious for making grand claims that the research simply doesn't support in an effort to gain some notoriety for their research - but it just ain't kosher.

 

I have a PhD in risk management and insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for all we know skinny people might be inclined to pick up the smoking habit more so than obese folks (or vice versa). The statistical results are the same - but the interpretation of the numbers would be totally different

 

Ah, the dreaded specter of multicolinearity! bane to many and sundry scientific studies!

 

its probably the biggest problem with any statistical analysis you see, especially the way most media outlets 'report' science news. its like, hey did you know that ice cream causes people to commit murders? well, ice cream sales and murder rates both go up in the summer at least, but close enough!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's why causal relationships can't be determined from that particular type of empirical analysis. Casual analyses are a lot harder to pull off than are the correlation kinds of analyses, but researchers are notorious for making grand claims that the research simply doesn't support in an effort to gain some notoriety for their research - but it just ain't kosher.

 

I have a PhD in risk management and insurance.

I agree that sometimes researchers make erroneous claims about casual relationships. However, by the same token, sometimes they discover correlations merely suggestive of casual relationships initially, but which are later confirmed by further research.

 

Perhaps we are headed in that direction with regard to the relationship between smoking and Parkinson's disease. For example, below is a link to an abstract of the findings of a research team headed by Dr. Honglei Chen of the Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Chen has both an MD and a PhD, as does several of his fellow researchers. I doubt that such scientists would pursue this type of medical research unless they believed that something about smoking does indeed make one less prone to developing Parkinson's.

 

http://www.neurology.org/content/74/11/878.short

 

P.S. The above doesn't mean I advocate smoking for protection against Parkinson's. I do, however, believe that further research could possibly identify a casual mechanism. If so, that could lead to developing better ways of treating (or protecting) people from developing Parkinson's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×