American Sniper Bulk

Bigger Stronger Leaner
21

The article says he gained 39 lbs, 37 of which was lean mass. Personally, I find this hard to believe. I think it’s more likely, given the calipers comment, that his bodyfat percentage stayed ALMOST the same, went up a little, and some bad math resulted in the conclusion that he only gained 2 lbs of bodyfat when what actually happened was he gained 2 lbs in excess of what he would have, had he maintained bodyfat % exactly. I think he definitely gained more than 2 lbs of fat overall.

As for me, when I said gain “as much weight as possible” in 12 weeks I meant while eating extremely clean, trying to minimize fat gain, and see where I end up. Obviously the goal is muscle gain.

22

This would be perfect.

23

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

37 lbs is not a huge claim for an untrained person and saying he looks like shit is just plain silly. [/quote]

actually 37lbs is a huge claim wtf are you talking about lol. that is a monstrous amount of lean mass to gain in 12 weeks.

in the first pic posted in this thread he does look like shit: fat and untrained.

by continuing to mention people like amit sapir shows you are completely and utterly missing the point.[/quote]

You have no point. Cooper is pretty much the ideal beginner. He had a dedicated strength coach, a fully tailored workout & supplementation program, and (assuming here) a cook. He easily could of been taking other “supplementation.” He gained 40 pounds, 37 of which was supposedly muscle, in 3 months. Ya, it’s a considerable amount, but not some astronomical feat.

Amit was brought up to make a point. That Cooper was not trying to look like a pro bodybuilder, but a 225 Seal.

Again, you have no point. You look at one picture at one weird angle and the guy looks like shit. Ridiculous.

24

[quote]craze9 wrote:
The article says he gained 39 lbs, 37 of which was lean mass. Personally, I find this hard to believe. I think it’s more likely, given the calipers comment, that his bodyfat percentage stayed ALMOST the same, went up a little, and some bad math resulted in the conclusion that he only gained 2 lbs of bodyfat when what actually happened was he gained 2 lbs in excess of what he would have, had he maintained bodyfat % exactly. I think he definitely gained more than 2 lbs of fat overall.

As for me, when I said gain “as much weight as possible” in 12 weeks I meant while eating extremely clean, trying to minimize fat gain, and see where I end up. Obviously the goal is muscle gain. [/quote]

Like I said, calipers are not the most accurate measure.

We know he gained 40 total pounds per the article. We know he was lifting twice a day. We know he was training with Seals for the role, which was probably pretty tough. We know he had a specific supplementation. The only unknown is the diet.

So ya he probably didn’t gain 37lbs of muscle, but I’m willing to bet it was over 30 pounds and probably more like 35.

25

Just for fun, lets say he started at, and stayed, 15% body fat. Not unreasonable given his face and the pic above shows virtually no “cuts” (I haven’t seen the movie, maybe he’s lean but I doubt it.). More than likely he actually gained a few percentage body fat points, but I’ll give the article the benefit of the doubt

If he started at 185 @ 15% = 28 pounds of fat

If he ended at 225 @ 15% = 34 pounds of fat

So he gets to gain a “free” 6 pounds of fat to stay at the same body fat percentage. Add the 2 lbs they say he gained on top of it, he’s at 8 pounds of pure fat.

Given that “lean mass” also means things like water, skin, bone, glycogen, etc… lets say thats another ~6-7 pounds.

So he’s at around ~15 pounds of muscle in 12 weeks, ~6 pounds “fat free mass” and 8 pounds of fat… Seems reasonable to me.

If he gained even a few percent body fat (VERY likely) the amount of fat he gained and muscle he gained become easy to attain I think for a new trainee under that kind of supervision and supplementation.

Even going to 18% body fat, thats another 6 pounds of fat (and 6 pounds less of muscle, putting him at under 10 pounds over 12 weeks)

26

^Not to mention Cooper was already pretty lean so I’m sure he wasn’t stuffing Big Mac’s down his throat to hit 225…

27

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Just for fun, lets say he started at, and stayed, 15% body fat. Not unreasonable given his face and the pic above shows virtually no “cuts” (I haven’t seen the movie, maybe he’s lean but I doubt it.). More than likely he actually gained a few percentage body fat points, but I’ll give the article the benefit of the doubt

If he started at 185 @ 15% = 28 pounds of fat

If he ended at 225 @ 15% = 34 pounds of fat

So he gets to gain a “free” 6 pounds of fat to stay at the same body fat percentage. Add the 2 lbs they say he gained on top of it, he’s at 8 pounds of pure fat.

Given that “lean mass” also means things like water, skin, bone, glycogen, etc… lets say thats another ~6-7 pounds.

So he’s at around ~15 pounds of muscle in 12 weeks, ~6 pounds “fat free mass” and 8 pounds of fat… Seems reasonable to me.

If he gained even a few percent body fat (VERY likely) the amount of fat he gained and muscle he gained become easy to attain I think for a new trainee under that kind of supervision and supplementation.

Even going to 18% body fat, thats another 6 pounds of fat (and 6 pounds less of muscle, putting him at under 10 pounds over 12 weeks)[/quote]

Absolutely, all good points. However, we don’t know when those pictures were taken, we don’t know what bf% he started at, and we don’t know what % he ended at. He very well could of started at 16% and ended at 11%. We really don’t know.

28

[quote]juverulez wrote:

[quote]Gorillakiv83 wrote:
that wasnt what i imagined when i read the article.[/quote]
You actually have read the article? Cooper was playing a stocky Texican killing-machine, not an IFFB pro.[/quote]

yes i read it. it says he gained 37 pounds of lean mass with no significant increase in bodyfat.

29

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Just for fun, lets say he started at, and stayed, 15% body fat. Not unreasonable given his face and the pic above shows virtually no “cuts” (I haven’t seen the movie, maybe he’s lean but I doubt it.). More than likely he actually gained a few percentage body fat points, but I’ll give the article the benefit of the doubt

If he started at 185 @ 15% = 28 pounds of fat

If he ended at 225 @ 15% = 34 pounds of fat

So he gets to gain a “free” 6 pounds of fat to stay at the same body fat percentage. Add the 2 lbs they say he gained on top of it, he’s at 8 pounds of pure fat.

Given that “lean mass” also means things like water, skin, bone, glycogen, etc… lets say thats another ~6-7 pounds.

So he’s at around ~15 pounds of muscle in 12 weeks, ~6 pounds “fat free mass” and 8 pounds of fat… Seems reasonable to me.

If he gained even a few percent body fat (VERY likely) the amount of fat he gained and muscle he gained become easy to attain I think for a new trainee under that kind of supervision and supplementation.

Even going to 18% body fat, thats another 6 pounds of fat (and 6 pounds less of muscle, putting him at under 10 pounds over 12 weeks)[/quote]

And that’s thread. The only problem with the article is that the author apparently forgot how to do some basic proportional math, and said that gaining 40 pounds while staying ~same BF = pretty much all lean mass gains. That’s it. Hell the author may have even said it on purpose.

GASP, slightly bending the truth about how much muscle one gained in an article largely about the supplements being sold on the site it’s printed on… WELL I NEVER!

30

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Just for fun, lets say he started at, and stayed, 15% body fat. Not unreasonable given his face and the pic above shows virtually no “cuts” (I haven’t seen the movie, maybe he’s lean but I doubt it.). More than likely he actually gained a few percentage body fat points, but I’ll give the article the benefit of the doubt

If he started at 185 @ 15% = 28 pounds of fat

If he ended at 225 @ 15% = 34 pounds of fat

So he gets to gain a “free” 6 pounds of fat to stay at the same body fat percentage. Add the 2 lbs they say he gained on top of it, he’s at 8 pounds of pure fat.

Given that “lean mass” also means things like water, skin, bone, glycogen, etc… lets say thats another ~6-7 pounds.

So he’s at around ~15 pounds of muscle in 12 weeks, ~6 pounds “fat free mass” and 8 pounds of fat… Seems reasonable to me.

If he gained even a few percent body fat (VERY likely) the amount of fat he gained and muscle he gained become easy to attain I think for a new trainee under that kind of supervision and supplementation.

Even going to 18% body fat, thats another 6 pounds of fat (and 6 pounds less of muscle, putting him at under 10 pounds over 12 weeks)[/quote]

Absolutely, all good points. However, we don’t know when those pictures were taken, we don’t know what bf% he started at, and we don’t know what % he ended at. He very well could of started at 16% and ended at 11%. We really don’t know. [/quote]

Dude, he got fat. Let it go. Lonnie’s math seems realistic. 10-ish pounds of actual lean muscle and the rest water and fat. Also, he wasn’t untrained. If anyone here honestly believes he gained 37 pounds of muscle and is at the same bodyfat as before then they’re retarded or need an eye exam.

31

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Just for fun, lets say he started at, and stayed, 15% body fat. Not unreasonable given his face and the pic above shows virtually no “cuts” (I haven’t seen the movie, maybe he’s lean but I doubt it.). More than likely he actually gained a few percentage body fat points, but I’ll give the article the benefit of the doubt

If he started at 185 @ 15% = 28 pounds of fat

If he ended at 225 @ 15% = 34 pounds of fat

So he gets to gain a “free” 6 pounds of fat to stay at the same body fat percentage. Add the 2 lbs they say he gained on top of it, he’s at 8 pounds of pure fat.

Given that “lean mass” also means things like water, skin, bone, glycogen, etc… lets say thats another ~6-7 pounds.

So he’s at around ~15 pounds of muscle in 12 weeks, ~6 pounds “fat free mass” and 8 pounds of fat… Seems reasonable to me.

If he gained even a few percent body fat (VERY likely) the amount of fat he gained and muscle he gained become easy to attain I think for a new trainee under that kind of supervision and supplementation.

Even going to 18% body fat, thats another 6 pounds of fat (and 6 pounds less of muscle, putting him at under 10 pounds over 12 weeks)[/quote]

Absolutely, all good points. However, we don’t know when those pictures were taken, we don’t know what bf% he started at, and we don’t know what % he ended at. He very well could of started at 16% and ended at 11%. We really don’t know. [/quote]

Dude, he got fat. Let it go. Lonnie’s math seems realistic. 10-ish pounds of actual lean muscle and the rest water and fat. Also, he wasn’t untrained. If anyone here honestly believes he gained 37 pounds of muscle and is at the same bodyfat as before then they’re retarded or need an eye exam.[/quote]

Err… from his math, it should be 25lbs of lean mass, not 15lbs.

HOWEVER, lean mass, as a generally used term, usually refers to:

Actual muscle tissue plus 70%-80% water and glycogen

Different interpretations of these terminologies is why people get confused. You can’t accurately calculate how much actual dry muscle has been built without, well, drying out the muscle and weighing it.

So, taking into account the additional fat gain of roughly 8lbs since he ended up at a similar bodyfat level, he would have gained an estimated 6.2lbs to 9.3lbs (20% to 30% of 31lbs) of pure muscle mass.

I have no interest in contesting the possibility of such gains. Just saying it doesn’t seem like whoever wrote the article was embellishing anything, at least not intentionally.

32

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Just for fun, lets say he started at, and stayed, 15% body fat. Not unreasonable given his face and the pic above shows virtually no “cuts” (I haven’t seen the movie, maybe he’s lean but I doubt it.). More than likely he actually gained a few percentage body fat points, but I’ll give the article the benefit of the doubt

If he started at 185 @ 15% = 28 pounds of fat

If he ended at 225 @ 15% = 34 pounds of fat

So he gets to gain a “free” 6 pounds of fat to stay at the same body fat percentage. Add the 2 lbs they say he gained on top of it, he’s at 8 pounds of pure fat.

Given that “lean mass” also means things like water, skin, bone, glycogen, etc… lets say thats another ~6-7 pounds.

So he’s at around ~15 pounds of muscle in 12 weeks, ~6 pounds “fat free mass” and 8 pounds of fat… Seems reasonable to me.

If he gained even a few percent body fat (VERY likely) the amount of fat he gained and muscle he gained become easy to attain I think for a new trainee under that kind of supervision and supplementation.

Even going to 18% body fat, thats another 6 pounds of fat (and 6 pounds less of muscle, putting him at under 10 pounds over 12 weeks)[/quote]

Absolutely, all good points. However, we don’t know when those pictures were taken, we don’t know what bf% he started at, and we don’t know what % he ended at. He very well could of started at 16% and ended at 11%. We really don’t know. [/quote]

Dude, he got fat. Let it go. Lonnie’s math seems realistic. 10-ish pounds of actual lean muscle and the rest water and fat. Also, he wasn’t untrained. If anyone here honestly believes he gained 37 pounds of muscle and is at the same bodyfat as before then they’re retarded or need an eye exam.[/quote]

I have a different opinion so I’m retarded. Nice. Go fuck yourself.

33

The interesting question to me is whether he was really “untrained” – i.e., whether this counts as “newbie gains,” or just a bulking phase for a normal lifter. For a skinny absolute novice, 40lbs of mostly muscle in 12 weeks isn’t really THAT unusual, as others in this thread have pointed out.

I haven’t seen “The A Team,” but apparently he already had a decent base of muscle there. Which would mean this 3 month transformation – 31 lbs of lean mass, per dt79’s definition, which seems reasonable – was essentially a normal bulk, for an “intermediate” lifter. Which I’d think would make it more impressive. And is why I’m considering trying the routine.

34

[quote]craze9 wrote:
The interesting question to me is whether he was really “untrained” – i.e., whether this counts as “newbie gains,” or just a bulking phase for a normal lifter. For a skinny absolute novice, 40lbs of mostly muscle in 12 weeks isn’t really THAT unusual, as others in this thread have pointed out.

I haven’t seen “The A Team,” but apparently he already had a decent base of muscle there. Which would mean this 3 month transformation – 31 lbs of lean mass, per dt79’s definition, which seems reasonable – was essentially a normal bulk, for an “intermediate” lifter. Which I’d think would make it more impressive. And is why I’m considering trying the routine. [/quote]

I am curious at one point you consider one to be an intermediate lifter versus a novice versus a beginner. I feel like everyone using their own definition for these terms may be part of the issue.

35

[quote]craze9 wrote:
The interesting question to me is whether he was really “untrained” – i.e., whether this counts as “newbie gains,” or just a bulking phase for a normal lifter. For a skinny absolute novice, 40lbs of mostly muscle in 12 weeks isn’t really THAT unusual, as others in this thread have pointed out.

I haven’t seen “The A Team,” but apparently he already had a decent base of muscle there. Which would mean this 3 month transformation – 31 lbs of lean mass, per dt79’s definition, which seems reasonable – was essentially a normal bulk, for an “intermediate” lifter. Which I’d think would make it more impressive. And is why I’m considering trying the routine. [/quote]

I think it’ll depends on how you define a beginner. Cooper was pretty lean in the A-team, but was not very muscular.

36

Eastwood should have just went with Hugh Jackman for the role. No way does Cooper deadlift more than Jackman.

/thread

37

Well yeah, you’re right there are multiple definitions of beginner/novice vs intermediate. There was a thread on that very topic around here last week.

For the purposes of this thread, I consider “newbie gains” to be when someone is first exposed to resistance training – and eats enough to fuel muscle growth. Most of the examples of guys gaining 40 - 60 lbs of LBM in a few months are young (under 25) and often underweight, starting around 130-150 lbs. Though I think a guy who starts at 165 at 5’9 or 5’10 could also put on 30 lbs of mostly LBM in a few months. There is a range, obviously, but what it comes down to (for me) is whether they’ve ever built significant muscle before in their life. If they haven’t, they’re a “newbie,” for growth purposes.

Cooper was 185 at 6’1, and 39 years old. I really don’t know how untrained he was, but if he lifted weights on and off for years, I assume he had already experienced at least some of his newbie growth. I happen to be the exact same bodyweight right now (at 5’11), and on a “bulk” anyway, which is why the idea of doing the routine intrigued me. I imagine my strength levels are higher than his were, though.

38

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
IMHO Cooper did not look impressive at all in fact he looked soft and pudgy. He looked more “ripped” is A-Team.[/quote]
Left pic from the A-team where he played the suave lady’s man spy guy. Mandatory on screen: Abs and a bright smile. Right pic from American Sniper where he played a pro bronco rider/ranchhand/legit cowboy turned Navy SEAL. Mandatory on screen: Looking imposing in full gear and like he could handle some shit.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
He’s an actor people…[/quote]
Exactly. Same kind of people who call a 45-year old, 6’3" actor/singer/dancer (Hugh Jackman) who deadlifts in the mid-400s “weak” or who wanted Brock Lesnar to get cast as Thor.[/quote]

erm, no.

what is being disputed is:

  1. he gained 37lbs of “lean mass”

  2. he looks good i.e. well built/ muscular/ the-kind-of-build-one-would-aspire-to

with regards to 1. in no way does he look to have gained 37lbs at all never mind 37lbs of “lean mass”

point 2: there is loads of omg look how buff he got in the media, in the majority of the pics he just looks a bit/a lot fatter

why this must be “hating” or something i dont know, it seems like a pretty accurate critique to me
[/quote]
@theCB: While I admire your critical thinking skills, I think that on this occasion you are taking it a bit too far. Like, a thousand miles too far.

Nobody ever said, at least in the original article, that his was a physique to aspire to. Cooper’s job was to transform into Chris Kyle, who as I am sure many will agree, wasn’t the leanest of the lean. Stocky yes, built yes, powerful looking check. The sort of look people will aspire to? Not necessarily. Where did you get that from?

OP, out of curiosity, how much do you weigh? You surely wouldn’t happen to be one of those ehm, ‘hard-gainers’?

BTW, it is ‘with regard to’ and not ‘with regards to’, unless you are sending postcards here on T-Nation.

You are welcome.

39

thread’s getting a little silly now boys. Obviously he didn’t gain 37lbs of muscle in the timeframe. He’d have to be using an INSANE amount of steroids for that to even be a remote possibility.

40

[quote]Yogi wrote:
thread’s getting a little silly now boys. Obviously he didn’t gain 37lbs of muscle in the timeframe. He’d have to be using an INSANE amount of steroids for that to even be a remote possibility.[/quote]

I agree that it is probably less than 37lbs. He could easily have been using steroids too though. We only have a couple of pieces of the entire picture.