Well, actually, what he found is that he gained to that sizer faster than anyone else had at the time…which is the goal. [/quote]
That sort of bulking doesn’t lend to faster muscular gain.
[/quote]
You seem to focus heavily on the “oh my gawd he got fat” issue and not the “damn look how much overall muscle was built in a given time frame” issue.[/quote]
I have no problem with people wanting to get fat. It’s been implied or even stated that outrageous bulking offers some advantage over a tighter approach.
Well, actually, what he found is that he gained to that sizer faster than anyone else had at the time…which is the goal. [/quote]
That sort of bulking doesn’t lend to faster muscular gain.
[quote]
You seem to focus heavily on the “oh my gawd he got fat” issue and not the “damn look how much overall muscle was built in a given time frame” issue.[/quote]
I have no problem with people wanting to get fat. It’s been implied or even stated that outrageous bulking offers some advantage over a tighter approach.
That sort of bulking doesn’t lend to faster muscular gain. [/quote]
Yeah, I would disagree with this because at no point during his bulk was his body in a deficit. he made sure his body had enough to grow. He also got the benefit of joint protection when you can’t deny can help a heavy lifting weight lifter.
[quote]
I have no problem with people wanting to get fat. It’s been implied or even stated that outrageous bulking offers some advantage over a tighter approach. [/quote]
I think I have mentioned what some of those benefits are several times. There are negatives to bulking up heavy like some of these guys do…but to act as if there are NO benefits at all is disingenuous.
Someone who has trouble losing body fat should never bulk up like that…so it is NOT for “the average lifter” to start with.
Well, actually, what he found is that he gained to that sizer faster than anyone else had at the time…which is the goal. [/quote]
That sort of bulking doesn’t lend to faster muscular gain.
[/quote]
You seem to focus heavily on the “oh my gawd he got fat” issue and not the “damn look how much overall muscle was built in a given time frame” issue.[/quote]
I have no problem with people wanting to get fat. It’s been implied or even stated that outrageous bulking offers some advantage over a tighter approach. [/quote]
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Haha, I love the Bruce Randall example. Yeah, it was worth it to get up to 400 pounds, and then having to diet down to to the 220’s to compete![/quote]
He built a great physigue,he did it fast and he lived to be 80.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Haha, I love the Bruce Randall example. Yeah, it was worth it to get up to 400 pounds, and then having to diet down to to the 220’s to compete![/quote]
He built a great physigue,he did it fast and he lived to be 80.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Haha, I love the Bruce Randall example. Yeah, it was worth it to get up to 400 pounds, and then having to diet down to to the 220’s to compete![/quote]
He built a great physigue,he did it fast and he lived to be 80.
Pretty solid,dont you think?[/quote]
Having to cut 180lbs to look ripped is down right dumb and a pure wast of time. If he stayed leaner his diet would of been easier and I bet he could got the same physique in the same time
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Haha, I love the Bruce Randall example. Yeah, it was worth it to get up to 400 pounds, and then having to diet down to to the 220’s to compete![/quote]
He built a great physigue,he did it fast and he lived to be 80.
Pretty solid,dont you think?[/quote]
Having to cut 180lbs to look ripped is down right dumb and a pure wast of time. If he stayed leaner his diet would of been easier and I bet he could got the same physique in the same time [/quote]
180? He dropped to over 220lbs. He also did it faster than most overall considering the starting point.
The question is why some of you seem to think he would gain the same muscle mass. If there is a benefit of joint protection alone it would mean more overall progress and less potential injuries with heavier weights used.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Haha, I love the Bruce Randall example. Yeah, it was worth it to get up to 400 pounds, and then having to diet down to to the 220’s to compete![/quote]
He built a great physigue,he did it fast and he lived to be 80.
Pretty solid,dont you think?[/quote]
Having to cut 180lbs to look ripped is down right dumb and a pure wast of time. If he stayed leaner his diet would of been easier and I bet he could got the same physique in the same time [/quote]
180? He dropped to over 220lbs. He also did it faster than most overall considering the starting point.[/quote]
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Haha, I love the Bruce Randall example. Yeah, it was worth it to get up to 400 pounds, and then having to diet down to to the 220’s to compete![/quote]
He built a great physigue,he did it fast and he lived to be 80.
Pretty solid,dont you think?[/quote]
Having to cut 180lbs to look ripped is down right dumb and a pure wast of time. If he stayed leaner his diet would of been easier and I bet he could got the same physique in the same time [/quote]
180? He dropped to over 220lbs. He also did it faster than most overall considering the starting point.[/quote]
400-220= 180. I guess dentists don’t do much math
[/quote]
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Haha, I love the Bruce Randall example. Yeah, it was worth it to get up to 400 pounds, and then having to diet down to to the 220’s to compete![/quote]
He built a great physigue,he did it fast and he lived to be 80.
Pretty solid,dont you think?[/quote]
Having to cut 180lbs to look ripped is down right dumb and a pure wast of time. If he stayed leaner his diet would of been easier and I bet he could got the same physique in the same time [/quote]
180? He dropped to over 220lbs. He also did it faster than most overall considering the starting point.[/quote]
400-220= 180. I guess dentists don’t do much math
[/quote]
Nice. More insults.
Once again, he gained that muscle at a very fast rate and dieted the fat off.
1st year - 20-25 lbs (2lb a month)
2nd year - 10-12 lbs (1lb per month)
3rd year - 5-6 lbs (0.5lb per month)
4th year - 2-3 lbs (not worth calculating)
[/quote]
It’s GENERALLY how it goes though - you know, for like 99% of people lifting. [/quote]
Do people GENERALLY run properly structured, tonnage adjusted, periodised programs in line with what the russians came up with?
1st year - 20-25 lbs (2lb a month)
2nd year - 10-12 lbs (1lb per month)
3rd year - 5-6 lbs (0.5lb per month)
4th year - 2-3 lbs (not worth calculating)
[/quote]
It’s GENERALLY how it goes though - you know, for like 99% of people lifting. [/quote]
Do people GENERALLY run properly structured, tonnage adjusted, periodised programs in line with what the russians came up with?[/quote]
Please explain how this statment in anyway relates to the discussion
1st year - 20-25 lbs (2lb a month)
2nd year - 10-12 lbs (1lb per month)
3rd year - 5-6 lbs (0.5lb per month)
4th year - 2-3 lbs (not worth calculating)
[/quote]
It’s GENERALLY how it goes though - you know, for like 99% of people lifting. [/quote]
Do people GENERALLY run properly structured, tonnage adjusted, periodised programs in line with what the russians came up with?[/quote]
Hell no!
Dont trust those commie bastards
1st year - 20-25 lbs (2lb a month)
2nd year - 10-12 lbs (1lb per month)
3rd year - 5-6 lbs (0.5lb per month)
4th year - 2-3 lbs (not worth calculating)
[/quote]
It’s GENERALLY how it goes though - you know, for like 99% of people lifting. [/quote]
Do people GENERALLY run properly structured, tonnage adjusted, periodised programs in line with what the russians came up with?[/quote]
Please explain how this statment in anyway relates to the discussion [/quote]
How did your insults relate to the discussion? Why not let Brick answer for himself?
1st year - 20-25 lbs (2lb a month)
2nd year - 10-12 lbs (1lb per month)
3rd year - 5-6 lbs (0.5lb per month)
4th year - 2-3 lbs (not worth calculating)
[/quote]
It’s GENERALLY how it goes though - you know, for like 99% of people lifting. [/quote]
Do people GENERALLY run properly structured, tonnage adjusted, periodised programs in line with what the russians came up with?[/quote]
Please explain how this statment in anyway relates to the discussion [/quote]
How did your insults relate to the discussion? Why not let Brick answer for himself?[/quote]
My Insult directly related to your math skills when we were talking about losing dumb amounts of weight to actually look good.
My Insult directly related to your math skills when we were talking about losing dumb amounts of weight to actually look good.
[/quote]
No, what I see is people acting like assholes constantly and acting like they are justified in doing so…which makes no sense outside of hypocritical rants.
1st year - 20-25 lbs (2lb a month)
2nd year - 10-12 lbs (1lb per month)
3rd year - 5-6 lbs (0.5lb per month)
4th year - 2-3 lbs (not worth calculating)
[/quote]
It’s GENERALLY how it goes though - you know, for like 99% of people lifting. [/quote]
Do people GENERALLY run properly structured, tonnage adjusted, periodised programs in line with what the russians came up with?[/quote]
Hell no!
Dont trust those commie bastards[/quote]
The russians know there shit when it comes to periodisation. That stuff works, period. And it is possible to know when you are about to put on a few pounds of muscle. It’s nearly always in the deload week after setting new PR’s. Best time to bump calories more than usual, and IMO, the only time to consider overeating.
And it’s relevant to bricks comment that I quoted about how much muscle you can expect to put on GENERALLY. (im really trying to stop this caps thing put speech marks seem…well, gay??) Most people GENERALLY have no freaking idea what tonnage is, let alone how to structure it in a program.
My Insult directly related to your math skills when we were talking about losing dumb amounts of weight to actually look good.
[/quote]
No, what I see is people acting like assholes constantly and acting like they are justified in doing so…which makes no sense outside of hypocritical rants.
You spend much of your time here hurling insults.[/quote]
And you don’t? Lol. Man I was away from this site since school started in aug. but this shit is now entertaining again because I have time until next semester. And I only insult ppl that do it to others
1st year - 20-25 lbs (2lb a month)
2nd year - 10-12 lbs (1lb per month)
3rd year - 5-6 lbs (0.5lb per month)
4th year - 2-3 lbs (not worth calculating)
[/quote]
It’s GENERALLY how it goes though - you know, for like 99% of people lifting. [/quote]
Do people GENERALLY run properly structured, tonnage adjusted, periodised programs in line with what the russians came up with?[/quote]
Hell no!
Dont trust those commie bastards[/quote]
The russians know there shit when it comes to periodisation. That stuff works, period. And it is possible to know when you are about to put on a few pounds of muscle. It’s nearly always in the deload week after setting new PR’s. Best time to bump calories more than usual, and IMO, the only time to consider overeating.
And it’s relevant to bricks comment that I quoted about how much muscle you can expect to put on GENERALLY. (im really trying to stop this caps thing put speech marks seem…well, gay??) Most people GENERALLY have no freaking idea what tonnage is, let alone how to structure it in a program.
[/quote]
I am fine with using juicers as an example but it should also been known Becuase that changes what can be expected.