01dragonslayer
Iron Killer
Mad Referrer
Jacked Immortal
EG Auction Sniper
VIP Member
Shout Master
Mutated
Fully Loaded
- EG Cash
- 1,050,113
Fat loss is a goal that has escaped most Americans, as the rates of obesity escalate. Yet, for decades, bodybuilders of all races and nationalities have demonstrated that it is possible to achieve body fat percentages in the low-to-mid single digits. The disparity between the burgeoning midline of the public versus the lean abdomens of the Olympians begs for an explanation, in the hope that the experiences of these men might open therapeutic avenues of research. Sadly, the politics involved and social stigma attached to the exhibition sport of bodybuilding impedes any such melding.
The basis for reaching a non-age adjusted body fat percentage of 3 percent or less is founded first and foremost on disciplined dieting. Nobody gets lean without controlling their calorie intake? regardless of drugs, surgery, and exercise. Contestants on the television reality show ?The Biggest Loser? lost tremendous amounts of weight in a relatively short period; sadly, the producers focused on the more exciting exercise routines and emotional drama rather than the boring diet plans.
Exercise is no chump-change player when it comes to fat loss, and professional bodybuilders know it well. They typically exercise from 75 to 180 minutes a day, if one includes posing and morning low-intensity cardio as part of their exercise regimen.
One needs to bear in mind that the extreme amount of skeletal muscle developed places an equivalent metabolic demand. Sports commentators were in awe of Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps? reported daily intake of roughly 10,000 calories, which he managed to burn through the many hours of swimming, aided by his youthful metabolism. Professional bodybuilders may consume 4,000 to 5,000 calories a day at various phases of contest preparation. Obviously, as they close on the contest date, bodybuilders pare those calories down and manipulate the macronutrient intake. During the last few days leading up to a show, a 260-pound bodybuilder may reduce his calories down to 1,300 to 1,500; some continue to consume as many as 3,000 or more.
Many recreational athletes diet and train with similar intensity and discipline, but fail to come even close to the ?peeled? appearance of the Olympia contestants. The difference lies in genetics and drugs. People need to remember that these men represent the ?best of the best? in those departments. The ability to respond to the conditions applied to the body (diet, training, drugs, etc.) depends heavily on the individual?s unique genetic predisposition.1 The role of genes as the final determinant of potential makes the allure of gene-doping almost irresistible for elite athletes in all sports, something the World Anti-Doping Agency is already preparing to face.2
As of now, there is no documented or proven way to buy new physique-enhancing genes in humans. Every year, some adolescent television comedy dusts off the worn-out line, ?You can?t pick your parents, but you can pick your nose.? In a few years, gene doping may change that? hopefully retiring that tired punchline.
In the absence of having perfect genes, aspiring titans resort to drugs to trigger metabolic reactions. In bodybuilding, the desired reactions are increasing muscle size and decreasing subcutaneous fat and total fat mass.
The basis for reaching a non-age adjusted body fat percentage of 3 percent or less is founded first and foremost on disciplined dieting. Nobody gets lean without controlling their calorie intake? regardless of drugs, surgery, and exercise. Contestants on the television reality show ?The Biggest Loser? lost tremendous amounts of weight in a relatively short period; sadly, the producers focused on the more exciting exercise routines and emotional drama rather than the boring diet plans.
Exercise is no chump-change player when it comes to fat loss, and professional bodybuilders know it well. They typically exercise from 75 to 180 minutes a day, if one includes posing and morning low-intensity cardio as part of their exercise regimen.
One needs to bear in mind that the extreme amount of skeletal muscle developed places an equivalent metabolic demand. Sports commentators were in awe of Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps? reported daily intake of roughly 10,000 calories, which he managed to burn through the many hours of swimming, aided by his youthful metabolism. Professional bodybuilders may consume 4,000 to 5,000 calories a day at various phases of contest preparation. Obviously, as they close on the contest date, bodybuilders pare those calories down and manipulate the macronutrient intake. During the last few days leading up to a show, a 260-pound bodybuilder may reduce his calories down to 1,300 to 1,500; some continue to consume as many as 3,000 or more.
Many recreational athletes diet and train with similar intensity and discipline, but fail to come even close to the ?peeled? appearance of the Olympia contestants. The difference lies in genetics and drugs. People need to remember that these men represent the ?best of the best? in those departments. The ability to respond to the conditions applied to the body (diet, training, drugs, etc.) depends heavily on the individual?s unique genetic predisposition.1 The role of genes as the final determinant of potential makes the allure of gene-doping almost irresistible for elite athletes in all sports, something the World Anti-Doping Agency is already preparing to face.2
As of now, there is no documented or proven way to buy new physique-enhancing genes in humans. Every year, some adolescent television comedy dusts off the worn-out line, ?You can?t pick your parents, but you can pick your nose.? In a few years, gene doping may change that? hopefully retiring that tired punchline.
In the absence of having perfect genes, aspiring titans resort to drugs to trigger metabolic reactions. In bodybuilding, the desired reactions are increasing muscle size and decreasing subcutaneous fat and total fat mass.
