Jump to content
big vin

huge and lean on double cream

Recommended Posts

Just now, Sphinkter said:

just waiting on @DLTBB announcing he now uses double cream in his shakes so that the rest of the forum can follow suit, and become fat and extra bloated from the fact none of them run an AI anymore either.

Way ahead of you, already tried it, it makes the shake sit in your stomach for a while after drinking it, not my cup of tea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Devil said:

Yeah I'm not denying that, but the fact is I'm pretty sure he could play around with his macros and eat 4 mars bars a day and have the exact same effects.

Its just bugging me as if some people suggest double cream is some magic potion :lol: 

Yeah that's all good mate if that's the easiest and most prefered way you want those cals then bang on.

Just your original post seemed to suggest you thought magic double cream existed which would make you full huge shredded and lean if you drink it ha

Yes I agree although true  my post was meant to be light hearted 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Devil said:

double cream is some magic potion

No, it certainly isn't, and Vin does like to provoke a response as we all know;)

Having said that I used to make my own shakes when I first started out and I lifted the recipe straight from the muscle mags...

Skimmed milk Powder, Horlicks powder, banana, eggs, honey, and evaporated milk. 1000 cals a go, morning, noon, and night. It's a healthy shake regardless and there's plenty of people suggesting the same nowadays too...

http://www.diethealthclub.com/shakes/shakes-for-bodybuilding.html

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/10502/1/Homemade-Protein-Shakes.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy told me he puts the double cream into his  post work out shake with his whey . I pulled him up on it I said to him you are taking a fast absorbing protein like whey and then adding double cream and the fat in the cream will slow down the absorption of the whey so what you are doing so you are just contradicting yourself and defeating the object .

He told me it's nonsense and that the fat will slow down the absorption by about one one per cent then went on to quote sone studied to back up what he was saying . He is studying sports nutrition and exercise science at university so he does seem to know what he is talking about .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leetflex said:

Look you FKING PLONKERS. Time to have words with you boyos. How long have you c**TS been working out, taking gear and learning about nutrition??? Because I know some of you have a long time... Yet you fkers are believing that FAT builds muscle. This guy is on gear either upped dose or added high insulin... Carbs are far superior to fat, why add fat.. excesses dietary Cal's allow dietary fat to store as fat.. carbs and protein don't do this easily... Fk sake..a huge excess of Cal's won't do s**t once your body is full of glycogen storage from glucose.. no need to eat 1500 cal excess... Double fking cream...When I went on a cycle I used to walk into my gym with a mars bar and coke cola and tell every that is the secret... Because I knew they would question what I was doing so fk em I trolled it lol. Sounds like your mate had the same idea...

Itell

Stick an avi up so we can see how it's working for you then.

I have 200g of fat daily on a cut and I do have some muscle too. As long as you have enough protein it's calories that build you muscle. Nothing wrong with fats.

We know this thread has wind up qualities but, like all the best wind ups, it's based on facts too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, big vin said:

He is not shredded but very lean 

His muscles have grown very quickly he is natural and and has the best physique in the gym by far .He as added so much size lately everyone in the gym has noticed . He is a friend of mine he has no need to lie to me I asked him what he had been taking to get so much bigger and stay lean he told  me the only thing thing he has done is increase his calories and now has between 5-6000 calories a day the extra calorie coming from double cream . 

Come on bro, 6000 calories and natty? This guy would just be fat as f**k, not lean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Leetflex said:

Look you FKING PLONKERS. How long have you c**TS been working out, taking gear and learning about nutrition??? Because I know some of you have a long time... Yet you fkers are believing that FAT builds muscle. This guy is on gear either upped dose or added hgh insulin... Carbs are far superior to fat, why add fat.. excesses dietary Cal's allow dietary fat to store as fat.. carbs and protein don't do this easily... Fk sake..a huge excess of Cal's won't do s**t once your body is full of glycogen storage from glucose.. no need to eat 1500 cal excess... Double fking cream...When I went on a cycle I used to walk into my gym with a mars bar and coke cola, and eat/drink them while working out and tell them that is the secret... Because I knew they would question what I was doing so fk em I trolled it lol. Sounds like your mate has the same idea...

 

You would benefit from reading this:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SkinnyJ said:

Come on bro, 6000 calories and natty? This guy would just be fat as f**k, not lean?

He tells me he had a very fast metabolism he does lots of martial art he is actually a tae -kwon -doe  British  champion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole type of fat and health question is annoyingly complicated and unclear.

About the only thing everyone would agree on is that trans-fats (hydrogenated fat) is bad for you and the optimal amount to consume is zero.

There are some who take the view that you can eat as much saturated fat as you want with no health consequences but this is a minority view. Anyone who looks at the research in this area and thinks there is a simple clear-cut answer is either only looking at papers to support their view, or doesn't understand what they're reading.

Would I personally consume large amounts of double cream? No.

Here is one summary of fat related research if anyone wants to do some reading:

http://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(13)01672-9/pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Leetflex said:

Yes and it is what I said. Why would I benefit from it.?

"Carbs don’t make you fat via direct conversion and storage to fat; but excess carbs can still make you fat by blunting out the normal daily fat oxidation so that all of the fat you’re eating is stored. Keep  Which is why a 500 cal surplus of fat and a 500 cal surplus of carbs can both make you fat; they just do it for different reasons through different mechanisms.  The 500 calories of excess fat is simply stored; the excess 500 calories of carbs ensure that all the fat you’re eating is stored because carb oxidation goes up and fat oxidation goes down.  Got it?  If not, re-read this paragraph until it sinks in."

so if you eat 75g of fat a day your potential for fat storage is lower....

 

Read the full article, and keep reading it until you've understood it...

(A surplus will make you fat irrespective of macro split.)

It is also nonsense to talk about carbs building muscle but fat not doing so. As has been said, calories are what matter. Where carb/fat split can have an effect on muscle gain is in terms of how it affects gym performance, but this can vary significantly between individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Leetflex said:

No. When the body is starving for fat intake it will increase fat storage from carbs. But as long as the fat intake is adequate it won't do this, say 75g fat/day. If you overeat with 75g fat day that is the potential storage, overeat with 200g fat day then there is more potential for fat storage.

The statement of macro intake not mattering is in the context that carbs can make fat store. But IT DOES matter in the situation I outlined. If it wasn't in this context then the guy is wrong.

If you want me to change my opinion then show a study with a large standardised cal excess, same cal intake, on  low fat Vs high fat. Because I'm sure the high fat will store more fat tissue if the cal intake is high enough not to max out potential fat storage from the low fat group.

 

You're the one making the claim so you post the evidence to prove it. I've already posted a link from one of the most respected experts in the field explaining why you're wrong.

(I don't care what you do personally BTW -  but posted in case it helps you, and so others aren't mislead.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Leetflex said:

No. When the body is starving for fat intake it will increase fat storage from carbs. But as long as the fat intake is adequate it won't do this, say 75g fat/day. If you overeat with 75g fat day that is the potential storage, overeat with 200g fat day then there is more potential for fat storage provided Cal's are high enough not to max out fat storage on the 75g fat intake.

The statement of macro intake not mattering is in the context that carbs can make fat store. But IT DOES matter in the situation I outlined. If it wasn't in this context then the guy is wrong.

If you want me to change my opinion then show a study with a large standardised cal excess, on low fat Vs high fat. Because I'm sure the high fat will store more fat tissue if the cal intake is high enough not to max out potential fat storage from the low fat group.

 

You can lose fat even on high fat diet as long as you carbs are low, I used to bulking on 500g fats a day with 200g of prot and 80g of carbs and I was still quite lean and no water bloat, when I started cut I reduced fat to 300g a day and increased prot to 250g and it worked very well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mingster said:

No, it certainly isn't, and Vin does like to provoke a response as we all know;)

Having said that I used to make my own shakes when I first started out and I lifted the recipe straight from the muscle mags...

Skimmed milk Powder, Horlicks powder, banana, eggs, honey, and evaporated milk. 1000 cals a go, morning, noon, and night. It's a healthy shake regardless and there's plenty of people suggesting the same nowadays too...

http://www.diethealthclub.com/shakes/shakes-for-bodybuilding.html

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/10502/1/Homemade-Protein-Shakes.html

Read Arnold's education of a bodybuilder when I was 15 and used to drink the shakes recommended for mass building made up of milk,  skimmed milk powder, eggs and ice cream:) Those on top of all the additional food recommend was probably in the 5-6000 cal range and certainly worked for a while as I was skinny as fcuk and young with high metabolism but if I hadda kept that up into my twenties I would have turned into pure lard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Devil said:

Why has all of @Leetflex posts been deleted?

Was quite intrigued as to the debate ongoing @Ultrasonic

I would assume that Leetflex deleted them.

I'll just add a couple of thoughts I'd been mulling over...

When someone is glycogen depleted during a cut and then refeeds in excess of their current maintenance I believe it does makes sense to do so whilst keeping fat as low as possible. This is for two reasons: maximising the increase in leptin and minimising fat gain. This is because in this state excess carbs will be stored as glycogen.

This is different to a prolonged calorie excess when 'bulking' where I believe glycogen levels will easily be refilled from one day to the next unless someone is going very low carb. At the point glycogen stores are full the body has nowhere else to store excess energy than fat, so this is what happens. This is slight speculation on my part but what I know is that the consensus amongst all the evidence based coaches I trust is that there is nothing magical you can do by manipulating macros to minimise fat gain, but rather it is the size of any calorie excess that is the factor to focus on. I'm thinking of likes of Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon and Eric Helms here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ultrasonic said:

nothing magical you can do by manipulating macros to minimise fat gain, but rather it is the size of any calorie excess that is the factor to focus on. I'm thinking of likes of Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon and Eric Helms here.

This has always been my understanding of it as well.

Thanks for the info. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should perhaps have added that there are other reasons to consider different macro splits to be better than others for an individual, but I don't believe controlling fat gain is one of them.

I'm thinking of gym performance, bloating, ability to eat enough calories (where whole cream fits in), how enjoyable a diet is and, for naturals, the impact on testosterone levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mingster said:

Why? What difference does being in your 20's make?

I'm in my 50's and I'm not pure lard.

Speaking from my own experience I could get away with eating much more then. In fact I had to struggle to keep my weight up. In my early 40's now and totally different ball game. Really have to watch what I eat now and struggle to loose weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dutch75 said:

Speaking from my own experience I could get away with eating much more then. In fact I had to struggle to keep my weight up. In my early 40's now and totally different ball game. Really have to watch what I eat now and struggle to loose weight.

That's a shame. I've never had an issue with watching what I eat. In fact I really struggle to put weight on tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leetflex why on earth do you keep deleting things??? I've just come back to this thread after having read your paper to comment and see you've now deleted your last post as well!

For the benefit of others...

The main summary is that if any effect does exist (which can be debated) that it is not large enough that anyone should be basing macronutrient decisions on as far as I'm concerned. I'll discuss it a little myself below, but the following brief summary of the posted study and one other related one is a quick and accessible read:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/fat-vs-carbohydrate-overeating-which.html

The full version of the paper that Leetlex posted no longer seems to be available at the link but I thankfully downloaded it last night. The abstract is here. The study involved feeding 14 people a huge calorie excess (50% above maintenance) from either all carbs or all fats for a two week period, in a cross-over design so the same people did both diets a month apart. The study deliberately excluded 'highly trained individuals', with the 'lean' group having about 21% body fat, so not the most relevant to those here likely to be worrying about macros. The participants also had base diets that were pretty high fat: ~35% of total calories.

Over the course of the two-week overfeeding there were no significant differences seen in fat mass gain between the diets. The researchers had however expected this given the short duration. The experiment included the participants spending time in a metabolic chamber, so that lots of parameters could be measured, including energy expenditure. What they found was that energy expenditure went up with carb overfeeding but not not fat overfeeding, which therefore lead to greater energy (assumed fat) storage in the high carb group. If we assume the difference they saw is generally applicable we can run some number to show it still isn't a big deal, as follows:

I'll ignore initial effects. At the end of the 14 days the high carb group was storing 91% of the excess vs 83% for the high fat group (on average). Let's say someone was eating 300 kcal more per day than they needed (i.e. in excess of activity, muscle building etc*): on a high carb diet that would be 249 kcal stored vs 273 kcal for a high fat diet. That's a difference of a whopping 24 kcal per day (or about 10% of the excess). I would suggest that people would be better off focusing on sorting out the other 90%, which they'd do by controlling total calories better.

*Note that this is not the same as what many would refer to as their excess over maintenance, but rather is a smaller figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dutch75 said:

Speaking from my own experience I could get away with eating much more then. In fact I had to struggle to keep my weight up. In my early 40's now and totally different ball game. Really have to watch what I eat now and struggle to loose weight.

That's about needing fewer calories of course, rather than an issue specifically with eating too much fat.

I'll wager that a major part of this is that you're a lot less active now generally than you were in your twenties, although there are other factors.

One of the things that makes some more prone to getting fat than others is how much their bodies adapt to overfeeding (mostly by sub-consciously increasing non-exercise activity). One thing I've never heard discussed is whether this might vary with age for an individual, but if it does this could be another factor here.

Ultimately though it all still boils down to people controlling calorie intake to control fat gain, no matter how old they are.

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

×