[quote]NotaQuitta wrote:
[/quote]
Excellent Q’s & insights relating to digestion, micro nutrient needs (ignite assimilation and utilisation processes), toilet time, poop quality (back to digestion), any digestive enzyme needs, fatigue, bloat, mood, blood work, any negative impact on your whole (hole…jk) system by way of eating too much beyond your bodys requirements etc…
Any thoughts / opinions from those who have taken this route, FY?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
Why are a bunch of little guys trying to tell the big guys they know what to do better in a thread with “bulking diet” in the title?
I just started reading only what Ebomb and ProfX are saying[/quote]
HEY! Where the hell have you been?[/quote]
Been lurking and just posting every once in a while
[quote]want2getlean wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
In my opinion, this is a basic breakdown of how muscle building works…
Your body needs a certain amount of rest to optimally build more muscle.
Your body needs a certain amount of fuel (food) to optimally build more muscle.
Your body needs a certain amount of stimulus (weight lifting/exercise) to optimally build more muscle.
Everyones body is different so that “certain amount” will be different for each person.
Ok so here we go…
Will giving your body more rest than it needs to optimally build muscle make you gain muscle faster? I say no.
Will giving your body more fuel than it needs to optimally build muscle make you gain muscle faster? I say no.
Will giving your body more stimulus than it needs to optimally build muscle make you gain muscle faster? I say no.
[/quote]
It’s obvious to anyone but permabulkers. Calorie intake has a point of diminishing returns. This is absolutely well known to everyone, from scientific literature to bodybuilding articles.
‘BUT I GAINED SO MUCH MASS ON MY ALL OUT BULK’
Yes, you gained as much muscle as if you add eaten right, and then a whole bunch of fat.
These guys look like absolute slobs but justify it with ‘mass’.
I mean, how can you even call this bodybuilding? If you look like a turd, and end up 80lbs away from stage condition?
This reminds me of Mac in Always Sunny, which lampooned this phenomenon perfectly.
[/quote]
On the flip side what’s so great about looking like you’re 80 pounds away from getting on stage because you’re so skinny?
No one got to the IFBB Pro level by not losing their abs every once in a while.
[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
On the flip side what’s so great about looking like you’re 80 pounds away from getting on stage because you’re so skinny?
No one got to the IFBB Pro level by not losing their abs every once in a while.[/quote]
Noone here is advocating staying skinny or mantaining contest shape year round, simply avoiding excess fat.
It’s seriously mind boggling how you’re having trouble comprehending such a fucking simple concept.
‘Eat enough to gain muscle. Don’t eat past the point of diminishing returns.’
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
@Steely: i am one those 1 or 0’s you hate me too? 
[/quote]
I didn’t say I “hate” anyone. In the past 10 years, the word “hate” has been redifined to mean “disagree” which is fucking retarded.
Some of your posts indicate to me that you are not a binary thinker. Approaching something full bore to achieve a goal is not binary. I give you more credit than that.
If you suspect that you are a binary thinker, then you’re likely to hit a lot of roadblocks ;)[/quote]
Sorry if that came off serious. It was a sacastic joke. It works much better in real life.
I am not a binary thinking. A very overly scientific and rational to the point where most would call me fairly cold and unemotional. Its a gift and curse.
Just the go all out or dont go at all mentality is what I have. Explailned in one of those posts up there. [/quote]
You’re a goddammed Vulcan arent you??? You can’t hide those pointy ears, mofo!!!
[quote]want2getlean wrote:
… simply avoiding excess fat.
[/quote]
Define ‘excess fat’.
Nevermind. It doesn’t matter, really.
Post som pics please. At least show the obese permabulkers how it’s done.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]want2getlean wrote:
… simply avoiding excess fat.
[/quote]
Define ‘excess fat’.
Nevermind. It doesn’t matter, really.
Post som pics please. At least show the obese permabulkers how it’s done.[/quote]
My dear angry perma bulking friend;
It is sad you are so upset that rather than discussing you’re reduced to begging for pictures of my body.
Regardless, I hope you enjoy my larger than Ronny Rockel physique.
And here’s another one posted before: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/forum_images/a/f/af997_ORIG-1.jpg
xOxOxOxO
nice pic lean guy
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Has there ever been proof of this or is it word of mouth? I am seriously interested in this.
[/quote]
I think that the “proof” is from word of mouth. People who have successfully used this method with their own physiques and have seen results are the “proof” that it works. I doubt there has been or ever will be a scientific study on this topic.
I didn’t state that as fact… I said it was my opinion (“IMO”)[/quote]
I would be very interested to see some scientific studies to back up either case. I actually do think that forcing in some extra calories maybe lead to some different adaptations. What those adaptations are and how much they would affect things I dont no but that is just a guess considering how great the body is at adapting.
And yes i am one of those science guys who like to see some science to back things up that happen in the real world. Just because science doesnt support all things seen in the trenches does not mean there isnt a scientific explantion it just means someone hasnt found it yet.
So in the case how many excess calories are needed for maximal muscle gain, it sounds like it hasnt not been studied in weight lifters which is the only thing that would pertain to Tnationers.
I certainly agree though that excessive fat gain is not needed but the problem then lies in what is excessive. Always problems with definitions because they change from person to person and can even change with that same person depending on goals/mood ect
Reiterating i am playing devils advocate and trying to spark dicussion
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
two guys walk into a bar. a ‘permabulker’ who is as big as an NFL linebacker, or a ripped guy who looks skinny in a shirt. which guy do girls notice more. and go![/quote]
Damnit now this thread is starting to go down hill. Cant we try to keep it on topic and not start name calling and derailing a thread, for more than a couple pages.
I was enjoying these last couple of pages.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Has there ever been proof of this or is it word of mouth? I am seriously interested in this.
[/quote]
I think that the “proof” is from word of mouth. People who have successfully used this method with their own physiques and have seen results are the “proof” that it works. I doubt there has been or ever will be a scientific study on this topic.
I didn’t state that as fact… I said it was my opinion (“IMO”)[/quote]
I would be very interested to see some scientific studies to back up either case. I actually do think that forcing in some extra calories maybe lead to some different adaptations. What those adaptations are and how much they would affect things I dont no but that is just a guess considering how great the body is at adapting.
And yes i am one of those science guys who like to see some science to back things up that happen in the real world. Just because science doesnt support all things seen in the trenches does not mean there isnt a scientific explantion it just means someone hasnt found it yet.
So in the case how many excess calories are needed for maximal muscle gain, it sounds like it hasnt not been studied in weight lifters which is the only thing that would pertain to Tnationers.
I certainly agree though that excessive fat gain is not needed but the problem then lies in what is excessive. Always problems with definitions because they change from person to person and can even change with that same person depending on goals/mood ect
Reiterating i am playing devils advocate and trying to spark dicussion [/quote]
Aside from the underlying endocrinology, which was one focus of the Summit talk, I spoke about nutritional periodization. It’s still a relatively new concept among legitimate nutrition authorities. (Yes, nutritionists are a bit behind the now-established policies of strength coaches with regard to mesocycles, but I did just review an actual textbook that formally addressed the topic.) I think this is one area in which I disagree with T-Nation’s Christian Thibaudeau.
I think a purposeful drive to overeat, in a strategic way, is superior to a slow-and-steady approach to muscle mass. Beyond any ludite focus on the nuances of nutritional periodization, my personal experience has repeatedly revealed that guys who try to stay lean while simultaneously gaining muscle end up small.
Let me say that again: life keeps athletes underfed. We can’t rely on hunger, especially when embarking on a new lifting regime. One researcher put it this way: "Increasing energy expenditure did not lead to compensation of energy intake… ". (31) This kind of free-living experiment is hard to control, but you get the point.
When we couple the unreliability of hunger with the fact that even the accepted 3000 kcal per day recommendation for college-age men may be too low, (7, 28) you can see that we have to purposefully and consistently overeat to gain size. Considering that the synthesis of one pound of living muscle tissue costs about 2800 kcal above maintenance needs, a hard fact rings true: it takes heroic effort to break new ground.
For years I’ve used the very bricklayer analogy that has resurfaced here on the site recently. But it’s worth focusing on the “gas” in the bricklayer’s equipment. Ample energy (kcal) is that gas, and it’s a long-recognized necessity. Here are several quotes:
â?¢ “… studies show that insulin stimulates androgen production in the ovary. Recent data [JCEM 1995;80:654-658] suggests that insulin stimulates Testosterone production and suppresses SHBG production in normal and obese men.” (Haffner, Horm Res 1996)
â?¢ “N balance increased from 7.2 to 23.8 to 33.3 mg N.kg-1.d-1 in the ascending calorie series (0, 15, 30% above kcal “needs”) and decreased from 27.8 to 17.6 to 4.8 mg N.kg-1.d-1 in the descending calorie series.” (Chiang & Huang, Am J Clin Nutr 1988)
â?¢ “Specific amino acids (e.g., leucine) stimulate protein synthesis and inhibit (autophagic) protein degradation… because they stimulate mTOR, which is one of the components of a signal transduction pathway used by insulin. When the cellular energy state is low, stimulation of mTOR by amino acids is prevented.” (Meijer, J Nutr 2003)
â?¢ “Protein requirement studies in man generally avoid deficient dietary energy intakes because they decrease the efficiency of nitrogen utilization.” (Garza, Am J Clin Nutr 1976)
â?¢ “There is net protein catabolism in the fasted state and net protein synthesis in the fed state, when the rate of synthesis increases by 20-25%.” (Murray, Harper’s Illustrated Biochem 2006)
â?¢ “At high intensity activities, energy balance becomes even more critical in the utilization of protein: when energy balance is negative, an intake of protein as high as 2 g [per] kg body weight per day may be inadequate.” (Butterfield, Med Sci Sports Exerc 1987)
â?¢ “A positive energy balance is required for anabolism.” (Phillips, S., Nutr 2004)
Even guys who overeat a thousand kcal per day on a (pretty lousy) average diet and don’t bother to exercise gain 13% of the weight gain as muscle. (29) In no way am I suggesting that an 87% fat gain is preferable; I’m merely pointing out that even a worse-case scenario of overfeeding stimulates protein deposition.
The physics and physiology of this fact alone offers some hope to desperate ectomorphs who may otherwise concede that they’re just “hardgainers.” And with a number of training and macronutrient adjustments we can vastly improve the partitioning toward muscle. How far? Good question.
Studies vary, but all things considered, a 70/30 muscle-to-fat gain seems realistic. I’ll certainly take that ratio right now, particularly as I remember several local guys who’ve remained lean over the years but whom I’ve long since blown past in strength and muscle size.
[quote]want2getlean wrote:
My dear angry perma bulking friend;
It is sad you are so upset that rather than discussing you’re reduced to begging for pictures of my body.
Regardless, I hope you enjoy my larger than Ronny Rockel physique.
And here’s another one posted before: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/forum_images/a/f/af997_ORIG-1.jpg
xOxOxOxO
[/quote]
Name calling really needed?
Whats your story? How long you been training? Whats your diet look like? You do it the lean gains way? Or were there times where the abs were a bit fuzzy?
Good physique. Bicep peaks are pretty damn big
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
two guys walk into a bar. a ‘permabulker’ who is as big as an NFL linebacker, or a ripped guy who looks skinny in a shirt. which guy do girls notice more. and go![/quote]
Damnit now this thread is starting to go down hill. Cant we try to keep it on topic and not start name calling and derailing a thread, for more than a couple pages.
I was enjoying these last couple of pages.[/quote]
LOL kk too far. deleting
[quote]want2getlean wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]want2getlean wrote:
… simply avoiding excess fat.
[/quote]
Define ‘excess fat’.
Nevermind. It doesn’t matter, really.
Post som pics please. At least show the obese permabulkers how it’s done.[/quote]
My dear angry perma bulking friend;
It is sad you are so upset that rather than discussing you’re reduced to begging for pictures of my body.
Regardless, I hope you enjoy my larger than Ronny Rockel physique.
And here’s another one posted before: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/forum_images/a/f/af997_ORIG-1.jpg
xOxOxOxO
[/quote]
You go, girl!
I am really a fan of Lowery. I loved all of his articles. Wish he would write more
He is a man of science that i can relate to because he studies all shit we muscle heads do. BUt then of course he is massive, strong and competes as well which just adds a new level of respect
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
two guys walk into a bar. a ‘permabulker’ who is as big as an NFL linebacker, or a ripped guy who looks skinny in a shirt. which guy do girls notice more. and go![/quote]
Oh lordy lord, you’re definitely bulking up the wrong tree here with this one!
Are you claiming to know what women want? Because if you do’ you should write a book because you’ll make a squillionmillion dollars lol!
Hardgainers. Nutrient micromanagers. Guys “stuck” on a muscle-gain plateau. What do these people have in common?
Answer: They’re trapped in their current state. Last month they weighed 180 pounds. Next month they’ll weigh 180 pounds. Next year they’ll weigh… you guessed it.
They’re training hard and eating a dutifully calculated surplus of calories. So what’s the underlying problem? Bad genetics?
No. Back up. The problem is this: they only think they’re eating the right amount of calories to trigger muscle gain!
Let’s fix that right now.
Lowery Does Mass
Last year when I was early in my mass phase, exacting calculations were getting me nowhere. The myriad variables of life conspired against me and the excess calories I thought I was providing my muscles weren’t truly excess. No surplus. No new muscle.
Regardless of predicted gains or beliefs, physics (energy-in versus energy-out) stubbornly persisted to hold true. There were only two possibilities:
I was forced to acknowledge something my old college physics professor used to derisively say to some of us physiology guys: “Biology is messy, but physics is perfect.”
To solve my problem, my buddy “Fortress” Fortney and I took what I knew about a phenomenon called dynamic metabolism and came up with a plan for the summer and fall.
By Thanksgiving, I had gone from 200 pounds (at about 15 percent fat) to 216 pounds with a very similar percent body fat. Lifts were clearly much heavier and muscles bigger. For the first time in years, I’d gained a large amount of quality weight in just a few months. That’s what a mass season should be like!
Now, using what I learned, let’s talk about how you can put on 10 to 15 quality pounds and break that plateau!
The Secret Life of Dynamic Metabolism
Chances are, your calorie calculations for mass gain have failed you. Why? Because of dynamic metabolism.
When a bodybuilder calculates his metabolic rate and caloric needs with a formula like the Harris Benedict equation or the Mifflin equation, there are assumptions being made.
First off, the use of simply body weight in those calculations, rather than fat-free mass, is bound to lead to problems. Second, those formulae aren’t made for bodybuilders and hardcore athletes.
But here’s the big one: Those calculations assume stasis. That is, the number that results for resting metabolic rate ? which gets up-calculated with activity factors ? is presumed constant from week to week. If height, weight, and age are fixed, so is the calorie needs result. That’s incorrect!
Factors like thyroid and leptin changes are simply considered “normal” and “healthy” whereas they actually rise and fall fairly quickly. And there are no accommodations in those equations for other life variables. Activities of daily living change (non-exercise physical activity), training performance ebbs and flows, psychology and moods undulate, work stress waxes and wanes, and sleep patterns vary.
Using the Harris-Benedict formula, a bigger-than-usual, 5’9", 198 pound, 26 year-old guy needs about 2008 calories just to stay functional. He needs 3214 if we factor in his moderate activity. Now let’s add 400 extra calories of “surplus” so can build one pound of muscle per week. Total: 3613.4 kcal needed for progress.
So, if this lifter eats 3,613 calories every day, he’s guaranteed gains, right? Nope! Not when he subtracts calorie-draining variables from his 400-calorie surplus!
What kind of variables? Well, take off about 200 calories for his hyped metabolism due to recent weight gain (see below), another 200 for muscle soreness, and perhaps another 50 for greater work done in the gym. Now this lifter is struggling to break even on the calorie front, let alone gain mass.
Add to this an appetite that’s probably no larger than before and he needs some help.
A good example is a study from Leibel and colleagues (1995), who demonstrated clearly that daily energy expenditure rises significantly, 15-20% above baseline, after a 10% weight gain: “…an unanticipated increase in energy expenditure that countered the gain in body fat.” (McArdle W., 2010)
Metabolic rate actually “uncouples” from body weight or even from fat-free mass. In other words, those carefully-calculated 400 surplus calories our sample guy is getting are really far less. His speedier metabolism has chewed through many of them.
Additionally, a higher-calorie intake encourages less fatigue in the gym, an element of injury resistance and more motivation to train. Workouts become more intense and/or longer. A guy may not notice or may simply be pleased at the bump in strength, viewing it as a positive. Ironically, this extra work further reduces any true energy surplus toward substantial muscular gains.
And don’t overlook this fact: a recently-grown body is larger and thus takes more work (and energy) to carry around all day. It may not be a huge amount, but imagine carrying a backpack around with you containing a ten-pound dumbbell. Walking around town or campus, in the gym, everywhere, the extra calorie expenditure adds up.
Finally, recurring muscle soreness has a calorie cost itself. Did you know muscle soreness on a whole-body level carries an element of hypermetabolism not totally unlike some injuries and even minor surgeries? Big eating can lead to big lifts and thus big soreness. It’s yet another calorie drain that the magic formulas don’t account for.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
You go, girl!
[/quote]
LOL @ arnie pic
10 Pounds of Scale Weight
Step 1: For a while, you’re going to focus on the scale. Your first goal is to “eat on” 10 pounds of scale weight.
Step 2: Reach your new body mass: 10 pounds, or about 5-8% above your baseline body weight. Don’t pussy-foot around. If you’re eating like a man, you should be half-way there in a month.
Step 3: Hold your new size for six months to recompose it with heavier and more intense lifting. As a bigger man, you can lift more. If you aren’t lifting hard, you’ll just get fat.
Theoretical Physiology
Listen, there’s no proving that your body will perfectly recompose rapidly, but we do know three positive things about overeating and weight change.
The tough thing here is to figure out ? for you ? how long it will take to “hold” a new set point before your brain, endocrine system, and tissues accept it as the new you. In our experience, this takes about six months.
It’s not exact science and the whole set point concept has multiple mechanisms behind it. We do know that some individuals respond more (or less) favorably to over and under-feeding. In any case, we’ve seen this approach work for otherwise stuck, small, and frustrated guys.
For Lonnie, this meant a slow and steady re-composition from perhaps upper teens in percent fat back down to mid-teens at his new higher body weight. Perhaps best, the new mass was carried into his next phase of training.
Frequent meals with enough fat in them are an insurance policy against lower luteinizing hormone and T levels that occur during periods of fasting and/or low-fat, high-fiber dieting. (Cameron, 1991, Dorgan, 1996; Huang, 2008; Wang, 2005)
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]want2getlean wrote:
My dear angry perma bulking friend;
It is sad you are so upset that rather than discussing you’re reduced to begging for pictures of my body.
Regardless, I hope you enjoy my larger than Ronny Rockel physique.
And here’s another one posted before: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/forum_images/a/f/af997_ORIG-1.jpg
xOxOxOxO
[/quote]
Name calling really needed?
Whats your story? How long you been training? Whats your diet look like? You do it the lean gains way? Or were there times where the abs were a bit fuzzy?
Good physique. Bicep peaks are pretty damn big[/quote]
I’ve been training for 3 years, 2 seriously
I only eat clean these days. I did the megabulk shit once, leaned back down and decided it was not worth it. Never letting myself get fat again.
