Bulking with High Bodyfat?

Training
81

Can I PM you some minor questions Prof? Sorry for asking again if your purposefully deny - not trying to be a spammer; and thanks for your input from your experience.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]earthquake wrote:
So if you go on a sensible bulk but notice you are a bit softer too quick, you can subtract appropriate amounts of food and it will even out until you add more food again?[/quote]

That’s what I did, sometimes adding cardio if I felt too sluggish in the gym…or sometimes eating the same and simply increasing activity.

This is about trial and error.

One thing is for sure though…MOST of the people who act like “185lbs man” above won’t ever get much bigger. Those types usually turn to screaming steroids at everyone much bigger. This is then followed by some hallucinogenic reality where they convince themselves that skinny is built. This may include periods of comparing themselves to quadriplegics so they feel better about their “accomplishments”.

Then they log in here.[/quote]

82

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
I’m trying to tap out of this thread because I think the original question was answered, but I wanted to chime in real quick.

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Why? It shows I know how to get lean.[/quote]
If your picture “proves” you know how to get lean, then the dude pictured above should also be giving diet advice. You know, in his spare time, when he’s not running the free world.

Your lean pic shows a barely noticeable difference in development than his, so we might not want to over-rely on physique pictures to prove who knows what, because truth be told, that’s not going to turn out too well for you.

How about we rely on time spent training effectively, plus one’s actual education in health, nutrition, and exercise science.[/quote]

I think you need glasses,my friend! :))[/quote]

No…we see what’s there.

You don’t. You think you look muscular. Yes, people look MORE muscular than you without even lifting on a regular basis. Go visit a basketball court.[/quote]

In my country we play football.And its called football coz the ball is played with the foot.Got it? :))

83

Dude, just pm me. It’s no big deal. I just don’t always check and don’t always have time.

I’m not ignoring people on purpose.

84

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
I’m trying to tap out of this thread because I think the original question was answered, but I wanted to chime in real quick.

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Why? It shows I know how to get lean.[/quote]
If your picture “proves” you know how to get lean, then the dude pictured above should also be giving diet advice. You know, in his spare time, when he’s not running the free world.

Your lean pic shows a barely noticeable difference in development than his, so we might not want to over-rely on physique pictures to prove who knows what, because truth be told, that’s not going to turn out too well for you.

How about we rely on time spent training effectively, plus one’s actual education in health, nutrition, and exercise science.[/quote]

I think you need glasses,my friend! :))[/quote]

No…we see what’s there.

You don’t. You think you look muscular. Yes, people look MORE muscular than you without even lifting on a regular basis. Go visit a basketball court.[/quote]

Dentists in my country are leaner than you.

85

[quote]Professor X wrote:
One thing is for sure though…MOST of the people who act like “185lbs man” above won’t ever get much bigger. Those types usually turn to screaming steroids at everyone much bigger. This is then followed by some hallucinogenic reality where they convince themselves that skinny is built. This may include periods of comparing themselves to quadriplegics so they feel better about their “accomplishments”.[/quote]

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Are we talking about natural muscle development or not?
[/quote]

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Do you apply the same rating system for natural body builders as for body builders using steroids,insulin,GH,etc.?[/quote]
Prof. for the win.

LOL @ SKELAC. Dude if someone predicts that you will start accusing anyone bigger than you of using super-supplements you lose the argument by bringing it up/asking for clarification. Did you not take debate in school or have an argument with anyone older then 6?

86

[quote]JLone wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
One thing is for sure though…MOST of the people who act like “185lbs man” above won’t ever get much bigger. Those types usually turn to screaming steroids at everyone much bigger. This is then followed by some hallucinogenic reality where they convince themselves that skinny is built. This may include periods of comparing themselves to quadriplegics so they feel better about their “accomplishments”.[/quote]

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Are we talking about natural muscle development or not?
[/quote]

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Do you apply the same rating system for natural body builders as for body builders using steroids,insulin,GH,etc.?[/quote]
Prof. for the win.

LOL @ SKELAC. Dude if someone predicts that you will start accusing anyone bigger than you of using super-supplements you lose the argument by bringing it up/asking for clarification. Did you not take debate in school or have an argument with anyone older then 6? [/quote]

Its a simple question.

Most of the bigger body builders are on juice.You cant compare results of someone natural with someone not.Thats ridiculous.Just look at difference between Mr.Olympia and PNBA champion.

87

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, according to this:

You are just hitting average weight for a SEDENTARY PERSON with a “large frame”.

Congrats for that achievement.

Guess what…you never needed to bulk up or do anything to be average.

It looks like you are the one with the skewed reality.

You aren’t built.

I mean, that chart says you are just 10lbs heavier than the average sedentary WOMAN of the same height.

Please…teach us.[/quote]

We all know that the average weight has increased alot over the years. Especially women. If the average weight for a woman is 170lbs, does that mean that its not fat? Whether thats “normal” or not, that weight is fat for any woman. [/quote]

Your weight is fat for any vampire.

88

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, according to this:

You are just hitting average weight for a SEDENTARY PERSON with a “large frame”.

Congrats for that achievement.

Guess what…you never needed to bulk up or do anything to be average.

It looks like you are the one with the skewed reality.

You aren’t built.

I mean, that chart says you are just 10lbs heavier than the average sedentary WOMAN of the same height.

Please…teach us.[/quote]

We all know that the average weight has increased alot over the years. Especially women. If the average weight for a woman is 170lbs, does that mean that its not fat? Whether thats “normal” or not, that weight is fat for any woman. [/quote]

Your weight is fat for any vampire.[/quote]

Even the sedentary vampires?

89

[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, according to this:

You are just hitting average weight for a SEDENTARY PERSON with a “large frame”.

Congrats for that achievement.

Guess what…you never needed to bulk up or do anything to be average.

It looks like you are the one with the skewed reality.

You aren’t built.

I mean, that chart says you are just 10lbs heavier than the average sedentary WOMAN of the same height.

Please…teach us.[/quote]

We all know that the average weight has increased alot over the years. Especially women. If the average weight for a woman is 170lbs, does that mean that its not fat? Whether thats “normal” or not, that weight is fat for any woman. [/quote]

Your weight is fat for any vampire.[/quote]

Even the sedentary vampires?[/quote]

Are you kidding? Those fuckers are HUGE. I mean…like 185lbs HUGE. Blood-roidz.

90

PM sent, thank you Prof.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dude, just pm me. It’s no big deal. I just don’t always check and don’t always have time.

I’m not ignoring people on purpose.[/quote]

91

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, according to this:

You are just hitting average weight for a SEDENTARY PERSON with a “large frame”.

Congrats for that achievement.

Guess what…you never needed to bulk up or do anything to be average.

It looks like you are the one with the skewed reality.

You aren’t built.

I mean, that chart says you are just 10lbs heavier than the average sedentary WOMAN of the same height.

Please…teach us.[/quote]

We all know that the average weight has increased alot over the years. Especially women. If the average weight for a woman is 170lbs, does that mean that its not fat? Whether thats “normal” or not, that weight is fat for any woman. [/quote]

Rogue,you are right!

Also,there is sedentary women in my building and professor X is just 5 lb. heavier than her and she doesnt even lift weights.If she started to lift,I bet she will get even thicker midsection than prof! :))))

92

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]earthquake wrote:
So if you go on a sensible bulk but notice you are a bit softer too quick, you can subtract appropriate amounts of food and it will even out until you add more food again?[/quote]

That’s what I did, sometimes adding cardio if I felt too sluggish in the gym…or sometimes eating the same and simply increasing activity.

This is about trial and error.

One thing is for sure though…MOST of the people who act like “185lbs man” above won’t ever get much bigger. Those types usually turn to screaming steroids at everyone much bigger. This is then followed by some hallucinogenic reality where they convince themselves that skinny is built. This may include periods of comparing themselves to quadriplegics so they feel better about their “accomplishments”.

Then they log in here.[/quote]

Taking steroids or not is personal decision of every person.But downplaying results achieved without steroids by person juiced up to his gills is really just an inferiority complex. [/quote]

You havent achieved anything. Your “lean” pic is like 12% bf with no muscle. If you posted that shit in RMP you would get 1s and 2s TOPS. People would tell you to start lifting weights.

You’re delusional as fuck.

Look up ebomb’s pics on this site. He’s a natural competitor and he’s around your height. Notice how you and him look nothing alike.

93

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, according to this:

You are just hitting average weight for a SEDENTARY PERSON with a “large frame”.

Congrats for that achievement.

Guess what…you never needed to bulk up or do anything to be average.

It looks like you are the one with the skewed reality.

You aren’t built.

I mean, that chart says you are just 10lbs heavier than the average sedentary WOMAN of the same height.

Please…teach us.[/quote]

We all know that the average weight has increased alot over the years. Especially women. If the average weight for a woman is 170lbs, does that mean that its not fat? Whether thats “normal” or not, that weight is fat for any woman. [/quote]

Rogue,you are right!

Also,there is sedentary women in my building and professor X is just 5 lb. heavier than her and she doesnt even lift weights.If she started to lift,I bet she will get even thicker midsection than prof! :))))[/quote]

If you are a troll, then you are wasting your time and clogging up a forum that is meant to help rank beginners.

If you aren’t a troll, then be cognizant of the fact that you’re now backing up roguevampire, the biggest troll on the site.

94

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, according to this:

You are just hitting average weight for a SEDENTARY PERSON with a “large frame”.

Congrats for that achievement.

Guess what…you never needed to bulk up or do anything to be average.

It looks like you are the one with the skewed reality.

You aren’t built.

I mean, that chart says you are just 10lbs heavier than the average sedentary WOMAN of the same height.

Please…teach us.[/quote]

We all know that the average weight has increased alot over the years. Especially women. If the average weight for a woman is 170lbs, does that mean that its not fat? Whether thats “normal” or not, that weight is fat for any woman. [/quote]

Your weight is fat for any vampire.[/quote]

lol. ok. lol. you might be able to attack, mr. skinny but lean, but i am beyond reproach. I am the top 1% in this world of size and muscularity. Calling me fat is something skinny dudes do or guys that are haters of guys bigger and stronger than they are.

95

[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, according to this:

You are just hitting average weight for a SEDENTARY PERSON with a “large frame”.

Congrats for that achievement.

Guess what…you never needed to bulk up or do anything to be average.

It looks like you are the one with the skewed reality.

You aren’t built.

I mean, that chart says you are just 10lbs heavier than the average sedentary WOMAN of the same height.

Please…teach us.[/quote]

We all know that the average weight has increased alot over the years. Especially women. If the average weight for a woman is 170lbs, does that mean that its not fat? Whether thats “normal” or not, that weight is fat for any woman. [/quote]

Your weight is fat for any vampire.[/quote]

Even the sedentary vampires?[/quote]

how many sendentary anything can incline press what most lifters wish they could bench press.

96

[quote]The3Commandments wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, according to this:

You are just hitting average weight for a SEDENTARY PERSON with a “large frame”.

Congrats for that achievement.

Guess what…you never needed to bulk up or do anything to be average.

It looks like you are the one with the skewed reality.

You aren’t built.

I mean, that chart says you are just 10lbs heavier than the average sedentary WOMAN of the same height.

Please…teach us.[/quote]

We all know that the average weight has increased alot over the years. Especially women. If the average weight for a woman is 170lbs, does that mean that its not fat? Whether thats “normal” or not, that weight is fat for any woman. [/quote]

Rogue,you are right!

Also,there is sedentary women in my building and professor X is just 5 lb. heavier than her and she doesnt even lift weights.If she started to lift,I bet she will get even thicker midsection than prof! :))))[/quote]

If you are a troll, then you are wasting your time and clogging up a forum that is meant to help rank beginners.

If you aren’t a troll, then be cognizant of the fact that you’re now backing up roguevampire, the biggest troll on the site. [/quote]

if troll is defined by someone who likes to get rises out of people by what he says. yes, im sometimes guilty of that. But, if you define a troll as someone who is fake and not what he claims, i have put that to rest awhile ago.

97

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
I’m trying to tap out of this thread because I think the original question was answered, but I wanted to chime in real quick.

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Why? It shows I know how to get lean.[/quote]
If your picture “proves” you know how to get lean, then the dude pictured above should also be giving diet advice. You know, in his spare time, when he’s not running the free world.

Your lean pic shows a barely noticeable difference in development than his, so we might not want to over-rely on physique pictures to prove who knows what, because truth be told, that’s not going to turn out too well for you.

How about we rely on time spent training effectively, plus one’s actual education in health, nutrition, and exercise science.[/quote]

I think you need glasses,my friend! :))[/quote]

No…we see what’s there.

You don’t. You think you look muscular. Yes, people look MORE muscular than you without even lifting on a regular basis. Go visit a basketball court.[/quote]

In my country we play football.And its called football coz the ball is played with the foot.Got it? :))[/quote]
oh skelac, don’t bring Spain into this. You’re not representing us very well. You were better off arguing that the most muscular person is not necessarily the most knowledgeable/best advice-giver. PX has you beat on both counts though. Pride is truly a Spanish trait. Compromise: “fat” means >25% bf. At that point it’s probably better to cut first?

98

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Generally speaking, having a very high bodyfat can make it “easier” to add more fat than muscle when gaining. Long-term, this could make it even more difficult to get lean again. There’s also the idea of “rebound”, when it’s “easier” to make big muscular gains when you start bulking from a very lean condition (like when a bodybuilder gets back to training immediately after a contest).

In any case, I usually recommend forgetting you ever heard about “bodyfat percentage” and base progress on how you’re doing in the gym and how you’re looking in the mirror and/or in clothes. If all of those boxes are checked and you feel you’re going in the right direction (headed towards your long-term goal), keep doing what you’re doing. If not, make the necessary adjustments.[/quote]
For the record, none of that makes much biological sense. If a person starts gaining at 15% or 21%, why would the rate of muscle gained change? That is a genetic issue. I mean, MAYBE you could argue a fatter person would have less conditioning and function in less capacity…but even that ignores the possible benefits that powerlifters seek as far as leverages.

Other than that, I agree that if he is 160lbs this should be no concern…but nothing irks me more lately than seeing people repeat “being minimally fatter means you gain less muscle”…when it makes no sense.[/quote]
It’s not an issue of gaining less muscle because you’re starting off at a higher bodyfat. It’s an issue of, being more fat at the start makes it that much more likely you’ll add more fat in addition to muscle as you go along, because it’s trickier to walk the line of taking in surplus calories (even while training hard) without “spilling over” into whatever you consider unacceptable for yourself.

Also, most people have a tendency to see what they want to see or rationalize “all bodyweight gain is good”, which is why regular progress checks (comparing gym progress to clothes/measurements) is crucial when bulking.[/quote]

…so is the realization that this isn’t about being perfect. Most beginners will likely go through phases where they aren’t looking their best if their goal is to really push that comfort zone out of the way. It seems many are preaching that you should try to get as lean as a cover model…and then stay that way and also expect optimum gains in muscle mass. That is pure fantasy.

That is why people are telling other skinny newbs to lean up before they ever gain a pound of muscle…which is ass backwards from what built most of the huge people the newbs today look up to.
[/quote]

So if a newb starts out at 160-180 lbs with like 15-20% BF you wouldn’t advice they cut down to 10% first like CT seems to suggest?

Wouldn’t this lead to just getting fatter as they build muscle?

99

[quote]Iron.Dan wrote:

So if a newb starts out at 160-180 lbs with like 15-20% BF you wouldn’t advice they cut down to 10% first like CT seems to suggest?

Wouldn’t this lead to just getting fatter as they build muscle?
[/quote]

If a newb who never trained before was less than 20% body fat at only 160lbs (unless very short), hell no. I would have them get on a regular training schedule first to see how their body responds.

You would be ignoring the whole GENETICS portion of this to do anything else. What if that same newb has the genetics to go pro? Do you think he will simply get fatter if he tries to gain as well as start a regular training program?

Also, why 10%? Some people would fine that difficult to reach without losing even more muscle during a period when thy should be growing the fastest.

Further, what about all of these guys under the age of 25 who are wasting precious time running in place or dieting when they will never have the hormonal environment to make gains like that ever again?

Even CT wrote he saw nothing wrong with “15%” body fat in that thread I linked.

I mean, HE WROTE THAT.

100

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Iron.Dan wrote:

So if a newb starts out at 160-180 lbs with like 15-20% BF you wouldn’t advice they cut down to 10% first like CT seems to suggest?

Wouldn’t this lead to just getting fatter as they build muscle?
[/quote]

If a newb who never trained before was less than 20% body fat at only 160lbs (unless very short), hell no. I would have them get on a regular training schedule first to see how their body responds.

You would be ignoring the whole GENETICS portion of this to do anything else. What if that same newb has the genetics to go pro? Do you think he will simply get fatter if he tries to gain as well as start a regular training program?

Also, why 10%? Some people would fine that difficult to reach without losing even more muscle during a period when thy should be growing the fastest.

Further, what about all of these guys under the age of 25 who are wasting precious time running in place or dieting when they will never have the hormonal environment to make gains like that ever again?

Even CT wrote he saw nothing wrong with “15%” body fat in that thread I linked.

I mean, HE WROTE THAT.[/quote]

12-15% isn’t at all unreasonable for an off season %BF during a bulk. But yet again I’m going to say that using %BF as a gauge of anything for beginners is moderately to severely asinine (that’s not directed at you X).

For fatties starting out, it’s just a matter of working light on the big lifts to learn form and cutting down until the BF is at a point where it doesn’t impair performance. Nobody is going to look like a bodybuilder if they haven’t built any muscle yet, so it won’t make sense from a performance OR aesthetic standpoint to get lean before gaining some muscle. Really the only reason to cut when starting out is if you’re too fat to be athletic at all.