If you want a leaner more muscular physique this is a GREAT READ
Would like to Thank Mike Arnold for this article.
This is a great article that helps most understand the importance of maximizing insulin sensitivity.
As a beginning BB’r, one of the first things we are taught is the importance of nutrition in building a stand-out physique. We learn about things like calories, macro ratios, proper food selection, meal frequency, and how to combine all these things into a single cohesive program suitable for the attainment of our goals. For many BB’rs, that’s about as far as it goes. With these principles in place, many assume they’re doing all they can to support muscle growth on the diet front, but are they?
The truth is that we could eat 6 times a day, adhere to a macro ratio ideal for our metabolism, and eat what most would consider to be healthy foods, but this does not guarantee us maximum progress. At the most basic level, our results are determined not only by what we eat, but more importantly, what our muscles are able to absorb. This often ignored concept is directly influenced by numerous factors, two of which are insulin sensitivity and the ability to mobilize and activate Glut-4 transporters. By manipulating these factors in our favor, we can preferentially shuttle the nutrients we consume toward muscle cells and way from adipose tissue. This is what’s known as nutrient repartitioning and is essential for maximizing muscle growth and minimizing fat storage.
Having already explored the different methods available for up-regulating Glut-4 and increasing insulin sensitivity, we are now going to learn how to implement all of these variables into a comprehensive program for maximum effectiveness. What can we expect by doing this? Aside from the primary perks of enhanced growth and reduced fat gain, adhering to the following guidelines will also provide a variety of other benefits which have largely eluded the current generation of BB’rs. Unlike some today, who tend to criticize the current generation while holding up the 90’s stars as the epitome of physical perfection, I tend to think I have a more balanced view—being able to assess both the strong & weak points of each generation. Most certainly, today’s BB’rs are larger than ever (generally speaking), with bodyfat and water levels the lowest they have ever been, yet it is not uncommon to read comments about how the 90’s BB’rs were in better condition.
Keep in mind, it is not just the fan-boys making these statments, but some of the most respected men in the sport. However, one’s opinion on this subject largely depends on their definition of the word “conditioning”. From a technical standpoint, conditioning is determined primarily by two factors; bodyfat percentage and subcutaneous water levels, as it is these, along with muscle mass, which determine body composition. Using this as a reference point, it is difficult, if not impossible, to dispute the superiority of today’s BB’rs in these 2 areas. Never before have so many competitors exhibited such low bodyfat and sub-q water levels. In terms of water retention, this is readily apparent when comparing the two generations in their entirety. While there were certainly stand-out BB’rs back in the day, such as Dorian Yates, who demonstrated fantastic conditioning, the vast majority held comparatively greater amounts of sub-q water, especially on their backsides (hams & glutes), compared to today’s guys.
If you doubt this fact, I challenge you to compare the Top 15 from the 2013 Olympia to the Top 15 from 20 years ago. Look closely at the level of overall conditioning of the entire line-up from top to bottom and both the front AND back and you will quickly notice a near complete lack of dry, striated backsides. Most of those men had very soft hams & glutes by today’s standards and frequently carried a film of water over their entire body which would now be considered unacceptable. This reality becomes even more difficult to ignore once we venture outside the Top 10. Those who claim 90’s superiority often argue their point by displaying dramatic pictures of a select few BB’rs, or even particular poses/bodyparts, yet anyone with a brain can see through this weak argument. The truth is that there are men from every generation which achieved great conditioning, but they are the exception to the rule and do not represent the majority.
Now, if one defines conditioning as the totality of physical attributes (BF%, water levels, hardness, density, graininess, etc), which combine to form an overall impression of muscularity, then we run into a problem. Despite today’s BB’rs carrying less overall bodyfat and sub-q water, they do not, on average, possess greater hardness, density, separation, or detail (outside of hams & glutes). Common sense dictates that if overall conditioning improves from one generation to the next, that the above attributes would improve as well, yet reality has shown that this is not always the case. Over the last 10-15 years we have observed a growing phenomenon, with many BB’rs demonstrating a certain softness throughout their physiques that belies their improved level of conditioning. Although bigger, their additional size appears to have been obtained by getting hooked up to an air pump, rather than being built from stone.
There are many reasons for this. While genetics are an obvious consideration, its wide-spread occurrence precludes the possibility of genetics being the sole factor. A particular class of so-called performance enhancers, otherwise known as S.E.O’s, or site enhancement oils, have certainly played a role, while insulin & GH use have also been implicated (more on this in a minute). I would also include changing pre-contest steroid regimens on the list. With a preponderance of BB’rs now depending on large dosages of testosterone to help them maintain size & fullness all the way up to competition, hardness and density have been sacrificed. While there are numerous culprits in the development of this new “look”, diet is seldom mentioned as a contributing factor, but if one looks closely enough, they will find that diet, just like drug use, has changed drastically over the last 20 years and can be directly linked to the many of the negative physique effects witnessed today.
|