Quick question about test e and deca

[supps]

I agree with Cancheezy,  Id stick with test only, maybe add an oral for a few weeks, Good luck bro!

 

[blastthru23]

First, I'm thinking to start with 3000 cals may be too low. For a cutter, that might be fine. I will, for arguments sake, estimate your TDEE at about 2800; it seems to be the average. Therefore, I would suggest starting your diet at no less than 3200 cals per day. Increase cals bi-weekly, but taking care of how your body is responding.

Lets break it down. 180x1.5 (grams per protein) = 300, or 1200 cals per day. Next, let's calculate the fats at 20% of total calories. So .2x 3200= 640 or 71g of fat (640/9=71.1). Now let's figure out the carbs. Add 1200 and 640 of which the total is 1840. Subtract 1840 from 3200 and we get 1360. Divide 1360 by 4, and we get 340. 

Therefore, P: 300, F: 71, C: 340. Not a bad start.  Protein gets divided into 6 equal parts for each meal. Carbs and fats get divided by 4. You should have carbs in meals 1, 2, 4, and 5. Fats in meals 2, 3, 4, and 6. Assuming meal 5 is post workout, which should have <5g of incidental fats and high GI carbs, and whey isolate. Dextrose may be added to both the morning shake (meal 1), and post workout (meal 5).

At 3200 cals, you won't need dirty foods. Actually, you can do it without dirty food the whole cycle.

Protein sources ought to be chicken breast, egg whites, peanuts, whey, and yogurt. Carbs ought to come from white rice, oats, dextrose, and white rice flour. Fats from olive oil and/or coconut oil. Veg I suggest eating are cabbage and asparagus. Brocolli is cool too. By choosing simple foods, preparation is a breeze, and fucking up is reduced greatly. Avoid carbs at the last meal, but if you must, make it a whole food like a helping of rice or oats with casein protein.

Once you get the hang of meal prep, and each food's macro profile, you will be able to easily adjust the macros to meet specific needs. It is my experience that it's ones diet that really gives gear its shine. 

That being said, each individual comes at using aas from a different angle.  Some, like myself, find that really getting the diet down is absolutely necessary. Others go by feel, they know what they need intuitively. Some have very specific goals, others have general goals. All good, and no persons way is better than the other. Find what works for you, and work it until or unless it no longer works, thereupon such discovery, make the required adjustments that you may continue across the open sea to find that rich land  heard about from those who went  before you. 

May Freyja give you a blessed journey, Thor the strength and vigilance to make the journey, and Odin the wisdom to stay the course. 

 

[csancheezy]

I see you have much knowledge and interest in specifics on dieting and obviously experience with honing yours in and trying to help others. That being said it looks like you are a proponent of nutrient timing/meal timing ( "Carbs in meal 1,2,4, and 5, assuming workout in between 4-5") ("Fats in meals 2, 3, 4") (" Dextrose may be added to both the morning shake (meal 1), and post workout (meal 5).".....

Now I tend to mostly disagree with nutrient timing outside of pre workout meals for fuel. It seems a lot of the : carbs for breakfast/no carb for breakfast, anabolic window 30-90 minutes (or whichever figure diff people like to use), carbs before bed/no carbs before bed, immediately replacing glycogen in the muscles by slamming some quick release carbs after a workout, not mixing fats with the carbs after workout so as to not slow the digestion down.....etc. Are all mostly based on pseudoscience, and are atleast dubious in some cases. I am not claiming to be super well versed in this by any means, but for me a lot of what I here for peoples' explanations are just things they have been told by others not really scientific studies or papers from doctors/nutrionists ya know. Here are a few reads to maybe challenge some folks ideas about what they have heard or read before. I know nutrient timing really blew up in the early 2000s and probably before then as well, but it seems a lot of stuff has been published since challenging many claims.

Here is a link to a website that uses mostly peer reviewed studies like from pubmed, this guy had a pretty basic write up about the topic but the sources are whats valuable - https://authoritynutrition.com/does-nutrient-timing-matter/

It seems that many studies to support, immediate post workout nutrient timing, only measure short-term blood markers, which often fail to correlate with long-term benefits.- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24586775

I also just want to play a little devils advocate here. Making it a little spicy. And hopefully learn something.\

Honey Badger.

 

[blastthru23]

i read the articles, but it seems the first one is targeted at a general population. The summary states that one might do the route of nutrient timing once they get their diet in good shape. That's the gist anyhow. I noticed the article didnt mention bodybuilding or aas use. That's a bit telling of the target audience. Not discounting the notion that timing isn't necessary, but it still is a good approach. 

I found an article that, while targeting the general population, does acknowledge nutrient timing as still relevant. You'll have to read through all the fluff or just scroll to the conclusion. (The title of the article is misleading). However, the author makes some good points along the way. 

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/nutrient-timing

Nor to be defensive about my position, but pseudoscience is not likely the correct term given hardly any scientific hypothesis makes it to the level of theory, thus even less so as law. Basically, we are still in the realm of the scientific method, using mostly anecdotal evidence in support of our hypotheses especially in the realm of diet, training, and aas. It's all very individual at the end of day. 

In sum, sure nutrient timing may only be hypothetical, but with a good level of body awareness on can ascertain whether it works for that individual, or just using intuition and a more general apprloach may work fine. Nevertheless, a disciplined approach is also good for ones mind especially since our culture believes the lazier one can be the more happiness they have. In my experience it is exactly the opposite. Planning with a mind toward a goal brings me more satisfaction than winging it, and hoping for the best. No effort goes unrewarded, for in effort one may find satisfaction in having achieved what one set out to do. 

The second article had a very small cross section of participants, and as we more or less know, some are cursed with the chicken leg syndrome always struggling with growth in the leg department. The researchers should take individual genetics into account, and run the experiment for more than 16 weeks, for even  on aas, true lean tissue growth takes a lot longer than one cycle to put on weight.

Well that I guess wasn't quick lol. But, I hope i made sense. Let's keep this rolling along

 

[csancheezy]

Blast. I do have a few comments on your reply but am unable to hammer them down at the moment. But when I settle down this evening I will brother. Oh and will read the link as well, thanks.

 

[blastthru23]

Right on, we be busy mother fuckers round here! Yeah, I spit that out while at work so it was a bit hurried. I prefer to put thought into things of this nature and not be too flippant. Maybe I take it too seriously maybe not enough, shit I don't know

 

[csancheezy]

From what I understood of reading the main article that I had linked along with the studies it used for reference points was that the idea of nutrient timing may only be beneficial (may, as you said there seems to be no definitive and conclusive proven theories thus far) for those who are performance atheletes competing or training multiple times a day. Yes target pop did not include AAS users and I really wish for clarities sake we did have some more studies like that. But the target audience did however seem to be a legit scope of the majority. And we can agree that does not make it correlative to everyone all the time, as almost nothing ever is.

The article is super fluffy like you said lol, but yes I think the gist is that the data is inconclusive for both sides and that its more important how much and what type of food you eat over any given day. He lists research that supports several points even if the points contradict, which of course points even more toward there being no one answer but truly comes down to an individual. Thus this makes the point that we cannot readily apply so many of the principles that we have heard from our local gym rat without being more well rounded in our approach to nutrition. What I have found that in my early years of this lifestyle it was all extremes, when it came to all the stuff you hear like no carbs here, carbs at this time, no fat at this time, only this type of carb or immediately walking out the weight room you need to be guzzling down that shake etc. etc. etc...When the true reality was that these things like you have also stated are not principles but rather ideas that should be approached with a fair hand and tried one at a time while isolating a variable to see what it is that works for you or me.

I think we may be saying the same thing and have the same approach really. I always challenge theories or methods or whatever bc basically I have found a ton of them to not work IRL for me personally so when somebody says oh you have to this, I'm like oh really? You sure? Why? It doesn't work that way for me...

As far as your point about the laziness of our culture and how discipline is an honorable thing....oh man that's a whole different thread lol.

I think it would be very difficult to do a study on such a topic and take genetics into account because we have to have some general things that are being measure with the study (muscle growth, performance, weight loss,) to be able to draw any conclusions. But yeah that's definitely an interesting topic in itself, the way diff people respond diff to food and exercise seems to be a bit mysterious.

As far as using the word pseudoscience I think I meant it in the way that I hear people generally on boards and at gyms and such perpetuate the principles without talking about any science (blood markers, insulin sensitivity, glycolysis and the repletion of glycogen). So as to where they are not truly using the scientific method most the time (which would qualify it as pseudo) but are just doing what they think is right. And no bad on them, we all do that and then like you said begin to learn our bodies and adapt because we are being diligent. Yes we definitely

 

 

[csancheezy]

What happened but two of the paragraphs are out of order and then the part of one last sentence of a paragraph didn't post...idk. I don't have time to re-write but I think it still makes sense like that, ignore the unfinished last sentence.

 

[supps]

I actually prefer NPP over deca, I always gain more mass and i gain it faster... I am not sure why because the only difference is the ester.

Obviously I use Sust or Prop with the npp just too keep the short esters all timed together.

 

[blastthru23]

Great response dude, once I get on a computer I'll answer