Getting Ripped While Gymnastics Training

Unrealistic expectations are so common.  Learn to love the work and you will arrive.  Instead of 3 months, 5 years is a great timeline for getting ripped.  If you only have 90 days then set your expectations accordingly and significantly lower.

Coach's original post is so accurate and succinct I'm just going to add a photo of Pavel Stankevich. 

I think we can all agree that having a long-term sustainable plan is essential for success in any long term venture; regardless of its nature.

From what I've read, Coach and one or two members here are essentially saying to prioritize whatever effort you can sustain consistently, whether in eating well or in training well so as to avoid crashing when you find you can no longer sustain it. This is great advice and perfectly relevant; however, it is presented in a way that seems to contradict Josh's advice and position when it really does not.

Josh's directions are more or less (sorry for the paraphrasing): Eat about 80% of your required kcal. Eat a good bit of protein in pulses throughout the day, eat carbs too (probably slow carbs - nothing new here), and get some fat too. Make sure to make your deficit from your fat levels and not your protein or carbs.

Is that really that specific? Not really. Very basic stuff. He's not saying to pathologically count your kcal, but is giving some rough numbers that should help the OP. Is it unsustainable? It depends. And in my opinion, because of the subjectivity of sustainability, its imperative that people understand what they are capable of. Obviously Coach's advice rings true here; however, assuming that the OP can control himself and sustain regular training and not eating everything that he sees, then he could move on to more specific rules. If not, then he should just focus on eating stuff and getting enough food. That is simply the way these things work. It's simply a matter of refinement, and it's natural. 

It is no different than mastering elements in the GB courses. You must master (and show consistency) in each one before moving on. Likewise, you must master basic nutrition before moving on to more advanced nutrition. Attempting advanced elements / nutrition before developing a solid base on which to stand for your effort is like trying to push a heavy object while on rollerskates. You must have a foundation, but once you do, you can move on without fear.

I think Coach's advice remains true, but it doesn't contradict Josh's advice. Eat whatever you want and train hard, I'm sure you'll do okay because GST is one helluva training regime. But if your goal is excellence whether in body comp or performance, you cannot go wrong with more precise nutrition to increase the gains from training. If you can't sustain the precision, don't bother. Start really slowly at first and see what happens. Don't make sudden changes, and always know to revert back to basics if you feel like you're slipping.

Body re-composition is not a 5 year project for most people (unless very obese I think). Long term results take time, but being decently lean and muscular does not take 5 years.

That is an impressive physique change regardless of the time-frame, though, dmcmanam.

The only thing I would add to what Patrick is saying is that people in very good shape know what works for their bodies - training and dietary.  When I watch an interview with a talented athlete I'm asking myself how I can take their knowledge and apply it to my training, much of what they are saying may be generally applied and other aspects will be specific to each individual.  When a debate starts to go in circles you often have multiple correct answers for different people.  The pillars to getting ripped via GB are that muscle mass and training hard burn fat like crazy, go ahead and be obsessive about diet too if you feel it is necessary just try not to get too annoyed when someone who trains harder than you and looks better enjoys a huge serving of chocolate cake.

Im with Coach on this one; I think that specific diets and exercise regimes are not sustainable. It is much better to make an adjustment to lifestyle (i.e. make regular practice a part of your lifestyle, or make eating clean, whole foods a part of your lifestyle), rather than inducing a temporary change in hopes to find a shortcut. Even the word "diet" implies that some day it will end and you will be "allowed" to eat crap food again, when the reality is that the day you start eating bad food again is the day you start regressing again. Same with exercise. Why not just do it properly?

for example:

Mr x has a specific diet and exercise regime.  Mr x's appearance is a direct result of those habits and some genetics, no two ways about it. Mr x wants a beach body for summer so does a month (or 2 or 3 or whatever) of hardcore exercise and strict diet.  his appearance changes as a result of the changed habits. He has also invoked change too quickly, (in most cases this is due to overtraining and/or undereating in an attempt to speed up the body's adaptation), so Mr x finds himself lacking energy and generally feeling like rubbish. What happens next? return to the original diet and exercise regime.  Body adapts again and his appearance reverts back to its original form. 
 

People are always in a rush to get to a specific point, but I've never seen a case where a rushed effort has not been at the expense of quality, in any endeavour.  If we try and look beyond the immediate future we can easily see that smart, consistent practice with proper effort and patience is the only way to get anywhere.  It's like furniture: You could go to Ikea and get a slap together flat pack table that can be built in 5 minutes. It might look the part at a distance or on its own but close examination reveals that it is just lino print over poor quality chipboard.  Or you could handcraft a table from a solid piece of wood over a few years, and you end up with a table that lasts several lifetimes, and that looks a million times better than the Ikea table. Furthermore, you put the two tables next to each other and the difference in quality will be obvious.  I know I'd personally rather be like the handcrafted table.

Craig said:

Im with Coach on this one; I think that specific diets and exercise regimes are not sustainable. It is much better to make an adjustment to lifestyle (i.e. make regular practice a part of your lifestyle, or make eating clean, whole foods a part of your lifestyle), rather than inducing a temporary change in hopes to find a shortcut. Even the word "diet" implies that some day it will end and you will be "allowed" to eat crap food again, when the reality is that the day you start eating bad food again is the day you start regressing again. Same with exercise. Why not just do it properly?

 

 

 

I think this is the primary reason why people fail in their diet. A proper diet is something you stick to for your whole life, it should be healthy and sustainable. Its not something to do for 3 months so you can loose a bunch of fat, then go right back to the diet that made unhealthy in the first place. You'll just end up constantly fluctuating between periods of stressful under-eating and anxious over-eating with a generous dose of body dysmorphia on the side. 

I eat like Coach suggested, it's best not to over think things with nutrition timing and messing around with macro-nutrients. But it seems like all the stickies in the nutrition forum are geared towards the body building supplement and nutrient timing approach. I think most of the information in this forum is excellent, but I generally don't agree with the nutrition recommendations. Am I misinterpreting something? Or is there somewhat of a disconnect between what Coach has said and the seemingly official recommendations? Are all his athletes constantly eating between sets when they train?

Coach I'm sure it would be fair to say that your athletes would do far more than just GB conditioning and cardio twice a week.  Surely for us mere mortals extra dietary attention would be required?

Coach Sommer said:

You are all overthinking this.  

 

- If nutrition was 95% of the issue, then all of the healthy-eating non-athletic people in the world would look like Olympic gymnasts.  However they don't, so let's move on.

 

- My own athletes are far more ripped than anyone else on this board.  At one of the last seminars, Allan was measured at approx 4% bodyfat.   Nor is he the leanest of my athletes.  That title would go to Heath.  And I can assure you that they are not following a special diet.  Nor are most of the Olympic level gymnasts that you see on TV.

 

- Do cardio 1-2 times per week, focus on your GST training and eating non-processed foods.  The rest will take care of itself.

 

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Thanks for putting this out here Coach. People assume that diet is everything. Well yes diet is important but training is waaaaay more important. 

Primate said:

Coach I'm sure it would be fair to say that your athletes would do far more than just GB conditioning and cardio twice a week.  Surely for us mere mortals extra dietary attention would be required?

What extra dietary attention would be required for the average fitness enthusiast? If anyone would need extra attention it would be elite level athletes, and even then, apparently not.

I'm pretty sure he meant that for most of us it's easier to outeat our caloric expenditure because we don't have the time or ability for hours of skill work each day. That said, avoiding junk food and eating your greens might be all you need if you're training consistently, and that hardly seems like a "diet."

Trying to rapidly recompose has inherent limitations, because you can't lose more than a certain amount of fat at a time without also losing muscle. This makes it difficult, because rapid recomp requires a lot of dedication and attention to detail. You can do this if you want, and it's not a terrible way to start, but as Coach has mentioned already: this is nothing but a short term solution: In truth, it's nothing more than lying about your lifestyle, because such a lie cannot be maintained forever. You either make the changes that allow you to live a life that transforms your body into what you wish it would be, or you work hard for 8 weeks, look good for a month or two, and eventually end up right where you began: Wishing you looked better than you do right now.

Eating whole foods, and making sure that those whole foods include a LOT of vegetable matter, is the foundation of good nutrition. You don't need to worry too much about individual foods: That's where people get lost and confused. What you need to do is eat things that grew directly from the ground, and eat animals that ate a diet as similar to what they eat in the wild as possible. For veggies, get lots of different colors each week. You should always check with your doctor to make sure there are not certain foods you, personally, need to stay away from.

If you do this, AND you are physically active, you will look fantastic eventually.

Why does it take time? Because how you eat influences your body composition AND what your hormone levels are, AND how sensitive to these hormones your body is. Hormonal changes happen slowly, and your hormone levels are a primary determinant of how you look. They influence how easily, and to some degree where, you store fat; they also determine how easily you build muscle. As all of this improves, which takes months, and often years, to truly optimize, you will continue to look better.

The same is true of your physical activity, because your physical activity is what sends the signals that tell your body what to do with the foods you are currently eating. You give your body bad food, you should expect disappointing results for the amount of effort you put in.

This is the healthy, lifestyle-oriented approach that we want all of our members, and visitors, here to strongly consider adopting. It takes a lot of stress out of your life.

In some sense this discussion has turned into a bit more of a philosophical debate, which I sort of enjoy. I am looking for a short term solution for reasons that are primarily related to ego. Is this a healthy thing? Well, no and yes. I don't want to get ripped because I think it will make me a better athlete or a better person. I just think it would be fun! So while I am looking for a "quick fix" now, I am always looking to make more sustainable adjustments for the future. It is in that mindset that I am taking on this challenge, and hopefully in the process I will learn some additional skills that will benefit me going forward.

I would hope that would include epiphanies and adjustments that I can integrate into my long term diet going forward.

One thing I should say: I try to eat a mostly vegan diet and I think I am still mostly uncertain on what a long-term sustainable plan in that mode looks like. I am still an "omnivore" at heart, and cheat pretty often (2-3 times a week) and I'm still not sure what my vegan protein options and requirements should be. But that's probably more of a discussion for the Nutrition forum.

That's true, Josh. I think it is absolutely possible to rapidly recompose for a short period of time and then transition into a less strict regime for the long term, though. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the intent of most of the people here who want to recompose and have the energy to focus hard on it. Put in a bit more work at first to speed things up a bit and then transition into a more relaxed regime.

It's more or less just stricter portion control and timing that makes the big difference in recomp, right? I don't think there would be any drastic food choice disparity between any a short term diet and a long term diet you'd recommend.

(just my 2 cents)

--

IcedDante, your protein options have been discussed quite thoroughly in the Nutrition section. A few searches should get you far.

Your protein requirements won't be any different because you're a vegan, and I would definitely follow Josh's recommendations that he gave earlier in this thread.

IcedDante said:

In some sense this discussion has turned into a bit more of a philosophical debate, which I sort of enjoy. I am looking for a short term solution for reasons that are primarily related to ego. Is this a healthy thing? Well, no and yes. I don't want to get ripped because I think it will make me a better athlete or a better person. I just think it would be fun! So while I am looking for a "quick fix" now, I am always looking to make more sustainable adjustments for the future. It is in that mindset that I am taking on this challenge, and hopefully in the process I will learn some additional skills that will benefit me going forward.

 

I would hope that would include epiphanies and adjustments that I can integrate into my long term diet going forward.

 

One thing I should say: I try to eat a mostly vegan diet and I think I am still mostly uncertain on what a long-term sustainable plan in that mode looks like. I am still an "omnivore" at heart, and cheat pretty often (2-3 times a week) and I'm still not sure what my vegan protein options and requirements should be. But that's probably more of a discussion for the Nutrition forum.

You are correct that a discussion about your diet is a topic for the Nutrition forum

I've given you what you need for the short term solution in a way that will prepare you for longer term success as well. I do not recommend more than a 20% deficit.

Partrick:  For a short recomp, like 8 weeks, high intensity resistance exercise (in the 5-7RM range) is a requirement. It's very important to recruit all of the muscle as quickly as possible, because you won't have enough food to maintain large workout volumes.

Other than that, stricter portion control and timing is the essence, but the portion control is somewhat more important. It is also important to get at least 2g of protein per kg of body weight, but not more than 2.8. There is a lot of literature that shows, very consistently, that this is an important modification to make during short term weight loss in order to preserve lean mass. It drastically reduces lean mass loss, but for the full effect you need the high intensity exercise too... you only keep what you use.

Joshua Naterman said:

Partrick:  For a short recomp, like 8 weeks, high intensity resistance exercise (in the 5-7RM range) is a requirement. It's very important to recruit all of the muscle as quickly as possible, because you won't have enough food to maintain large workout volumes.

 

Other than that, stricter portion control and timing is the essence, but the portion control is somewhat more important. It is also important to get at least 2g of protein per kg of body weight, but not more than 2.8. There is a lot of literature that shows, very consistently, that this is an important modification to make during short term weight loss in order to preserve lean mass. It drastically reduces lean mass loss, but for the full effect you need the high intensity exercise too... you only keep what you use.

Right. And I assume the high intensity resistance exercise becomes less important the longer the recomp is... 

Question: If someone eats for maintenance with the proper macro's and trains hard doing F1/H1 and a decent amount of cardio, will that person recomp faster or slower than the person who does the -20% ?

My line of thought was:

On the one hand, the guy doing the -20% would be getting leaner quickly while maintaining muscle mass (best case scenario), and on the other hand it seems like the guy eating for maintenance will be getting leaner at a slower rate (but consistently) while gaining muscle pretty quickly instead of just trying to maintain it... It sounds to me like the second choice is the better, but I'm not sure. What do you think?

Probably not as fast, no, but you will have a very easy time maintaining the changes as they come, because they are a reflection of a general lifestyle as opposed to a concerted effort to lose fat quickly. In other words, the slower recomp that results from eating much better foods at maintenance calories won't force to find ways to maintain your new body composition, which is something that all short term recompositions have issues with.

Think about it: You've been eating less, and now you're done with your 8-12 weeks of super-strictness. How do you know what to eat in order to maintain the new body comp without being so mind-numbingly strict? Your thyroid hormone levels will have dropped some, so you'll have to slowly phase more food back in to allow it to rise in synch with your increased calories, which requires yet more effort to do in a controlled fashion, but hey... at least the habit of being meticulous is there lol!

In the end, it takes a lot less concerted daily effort to simply live a healthier life than it does to successfully perform and maintain a rapid recomposition. Of course, it also takes a commitment to actually buy into the new lifestyle and make it the new "normal," but the results are longer lasting and all in all this ends up being a much easier path to take.

Joshua Naterman said:

...timing is the essence...

I think worrying about nutrient timing is just something that's going to cause a lot of added difficulty and risks derailing somebodies diet plan. Our bodies are a lot smarter than we give them credit for and the 'anabolic window' isn't really something to worry about unless you don't eat for a long, long time after working out.

Focusing on whole foods with the right nutrients and caloric content in a 24 hour period is all that's really necessary from my point of view. Which makes dieting a lot more straight forward and easy to follow.  B)

There's a very interesting article (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.it/2009/12/body-fat-setpoint.html)

by a neurologist who specializes in obesity research about what he calls the 'body fat set point'. Which attempts to explain why people who diet tend to rebound pretty quickly afterwards. He makes a compelling argument.

This is what I tell myself before I get the bright idea of a diet:

Eating balanced and well for decent performance, with appearance a bonus -  is healthier.

People get obsessed and neurotic about appearance, and eating disorders follow.

A new hairstyle and clothing will approve appearance faster.

Who are you looking to be ripped for - your buddies in the gym? 

You meet most girls when you have your clothes on.

A few percentage bodyfat points isn't going to make as much difference to your performance either as

much as better training can.  And most of the time when weight loss 

is attempted beyond what the body naturally supports (whatever that means) it

comes back on and worse - eventually.

So, do something sustainable your body can adapt to, or risk a roller coaster ride...

Yup I say that to myself!

thecolin said:

I think worrying about nutrient timing is just something that's going to cause a lot of added difficulty and risks derailing somebodies diet plan. Our bodies are a lot smarter than we give them credit for and the 'anabolic window' isn't really something to worry about unless you don't eat for a long, long time after working out.

 

Focusing on whole foods with the right nutrients and caloric content in a 24 hour period is all that's really necessary from my point of view. Which makes dieting a lot more straight forward and easy to follow.  B)

 

 

 

There's a very interesting article (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.it/2009/12/body-fat-setpoint.html)

by a neurologist who specializes in obesity research about what he calls the 'body fat set point'. Which attempts to explain why people who diet tend to rebound pretty quickly afterwards. He makes a compelling argument.

Your body is smart once you've educated it, but many people are so unbalanced hormonally (leptin and ghrelin issues, cortisol issues, etc) that their bodies literally cannot send them the right signals.

The timing is mostly important in the beginning, because once your body gets on track it's like you say... it will tell you, very very clearly, when you need to eat, and even how much you need to eat, and often what macros you need. This is something of a skill, but it is a skill that is each and every one of our birthrights, and we can all reclaim this skill. It eventually becomes second nature.

As for post-diet rehab, there are a LOT of factors. Regarding the article that your link is based on: Without the full text, I can't say much. I'm going to try to get it at school this week.

One of the major things going on here is an energy balance issue, but  I can't get into specifics because i don't have access to the subject data. Based on the abstract and your link, I think that the majority of what was happening had to do with hormonal regulation.

Part of why there is a "set point" is that it takes many months to make a statistically significant difference in hormone levels through proper nutrition, particularly thyroid hormone levels. Statistically significant does not mean optimal, it just means that at this point it is almost certainly not due to anything other than the dietary intervention.

Consider this: 450 ng/dL of testosterone is significantly different from 495. Over the course of a year and a half, mine changed from 454 to 709. That was 18 months of really solid nutrition. This is just an illustration of how much hormones can change beyond mere "statistical significance."

Most people do not maintain truly optimal nutrition, for them, because they don't know what to do and/or they don't see visible results after 8 weeks. For most hormone levels, 8 weeks isn't enough to reach statistical significance, much less optimal levels for that body.

The other main issue is lean mass. Most people lose weight by using large caloric deficits, and this leads to greater than expected lean mass loss. This means that their metabolic rate is actually lower than you would think it is, and they can overeat without realizing it, leading to a slow rebound even after eating "the right amount" after their weight loss! How many people get an actual BMR test, with a metabolic cart and the whole protocol, after their weight loss? I'm willing to bet almost zero percent. What really sucks is that on top of THAT tragedy, they have also reduced their thyroid hormone levels, and that leads to slower whole body metabolism on a completely independent basis from the reduction in lean mass. BAM! We just created Rebound City!

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if you have chance to go through the information. Did you find the rest of the (5?) articles in the series?  It's unfortunate that he doesn't provide direct links from one part to the next, navigating his blog can be a bit cumbersome. But in general I quite like the information provided there, there are a lot of interesting articles. I have a fascination with nutritional sciences, but I lack the education to effectively read through papers with a critical eye so I need to rely on people smarter than my self to explain it in a way I can understand.   I like how he presents the data, he keeps it hyperbole free and doesn't present many ideas as absolute fact, and if something is uncertain or controversial, he'll say so. He also presents interesting ideas on paleo eating (which I don't do, but it's still interesting) that contradicts some of the dogma that surrounds the diet.

The metabolic consequences of diet and the loss of lean mass is an idea I've tried to impart on my mother. But she started reading Gary Taubes's books, so she's convinced she can drink butter as long as she avoids carbs and exercise is pointless.    One thing that really annoys me about some of the research surround the effects of exercise and health/weight loss is that often the assumption is made that all exercise is equal. When in fact resistance training has a protective effect on lean mass during a caloric deficit, whereas excessive cardio can potentially be detrimental to lean mass. And it seems like the default assumption for most people is that if you want to lose weight, start jogging 5 times a week.

FutureisNow said:

A few percentage bodyfat points isn't going to make as much difference to your performance either as

much as better training can.

See, I think the same thing, but then I hear coaches story of how his leanest athlete just busted out a 15 second iron cross like it wasn't a big deal and I think "yeah, I could stand to lose a few pounds"

In the end this is bodyweight training.  If you have less bodyweight, everything is easier.

Oh for God's sake! Come on.

At elite levels, it does make a difference, but that was an erroneous message to receive. If Allan was at Heath's body comp he still wouldn't have  15s Iron Cross. That's a big difference from 10s.

Some people are inherently stronger than others, and no amount of body recomposition is EVER going to change that. EVER.

A more correct, and useful, viewpoint is that when performing body weight work, UNNECESSARY body weight will slow you down. Less is not better, less EXCESS is better.

The following is assuming you are actually training straight arm strength correctly:

If you want ultimate straight arm strength, leg muscle is excess. If you stayed the same weight, but had larger pecs, lats, triceps, deltoids, and traps, for example, your straight arm strength would improve, even though your body weight has not changed.

That's probably what you were thinking, I know, but I feel it's worth clarifying for all the casual readers.

Bipocni said:

See, I think the same thing, but then I hear coaches story of how his leanest athlete just busted out a 15 second iron cross like it wasn't a big deal and I think "yeah, I could stand to lose a few pounds"

 

In the end this is bodyweight training.  If you have less bodyweight, everything is easier.

It doesn't always work out that way. For example, additional muscle mass in the right places can make everything easier, but it increases your bodyweight. But above a certain point, additional muscle becomes more bulky than helpful. Just as there is an optimal level of musculature (which will vary from person to person) there is an optimal level of body fat (which will also vary from person to person). 

Fat is not just dead weight. It plays an important role in hormonal regulation, energy storage, and several other miscellaneous tasks. When you have too little fat,  your overall energy levels will be low, you'll begin to loose muscle mass, and you may experience other negative effects as well. 

Thinking along the lines of "Oh, I weigh 150 lbs, and I'm 10% body-fat, so I could be 7.5 lbs stronger if I just dropped down to 5% body-fat!" is mechanically correct, but biologically speaking those strength gains are not always realizable. It's possible that Heath would actually perform even better if he gained a few pounds of fat. 

INA said:

 

 

 

WOW. Is there a picture of Heath anywhere in Foundation1 or H1?

 

Thanks 

This is a video of him training cross pulls:

https://www.gymnasticbodies.com/forum/page/index.html/_/tutorials/straight-arm-strength/working-iron-cross-pulls-r113

To follow up on the OP, I'm currently in week 9 of a leangains cut. I'm doing this under the supervision of an on-line nutritional coach. It's a 3-month period that I'm working with him on this. I started F1 (as well as HS1 as soon as it came out) concurrent with starting this cut... so the cut lines up nicely with my first 12 week cycle of F1/HS1.

So far, so good: I'm keeping up with all of my weekly progressions in F1 and HS1, and have lost fat and maintained muscle mass. Stating this publicly is a big step for me, and will hopefully have positive effects on the process.

I understand that considering my current condition 3 months is not enough time to "get ripped" but the idea is start with a sustainable foundation that I can easily continue, as opposed to a a short term crash diet to loose weight quickly.

Perhaps when I'm done in 3 weeks I'll post the full before and after stats about everything (both my body compistion results as well as strength results).

Very cool!

Looking forward to your results! Any chance of pictures?