[quote]dannyrat wrote:
GOAL OF THE VACUUM POSE= THIN STOMACH
GOAL OF ANOREXIA= THIN STOMACH.
[/quote]
This is the most dumbed down comparison of 2 different equations. Have you known any anorexics? Your example sucks and makes no sense.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
<<< It isn’t even that complicated, or at least it shouldn’t be. Only recently has this board changed its focus so much that you have BODYBUILDING info being handed out right next to individuals who act like any more muscle than “average” will kill them. We shouldn’t even be catering this discussion to include the “I just want to be toned” crowd.
I do believe TC when he essentially says that the direction of the site is being driven by popular demand. (feel free to jump in Mr. Luoma, this is my take) The number of hardcore trainees is dwindling thus making it less and less viable to focus on that demographic. That’s not their fault and their commercial survival is at stake. I don’t know what else their supposed to do. It hasn’t been so much lately, but my dismay arises when size IS the topic at hand and long standing methods of success are viewed as obsolete at best and dangerous at worst. At least by some, I don’t mean to say that this is an actual crusade.
…and you’re right. I sold my bed to make more room for the stripper pole.
That’s great!!! See now you can dispel all those myths about how functionless big guys like you are. Please keep the g-string though before posting vids.[/quote]
We run articles about how to build muscle, articles about how to keep that muscle functional and healthy, and occasionally, articles to improve athletic performance.
I don’t put my finger out to test the breezes of public opinion; I simply run articles that I find interesting and that give me pieces of the “puzzle” of weightlifting. It’s not really driven so much by market forces; just my hopefully logical view of weightlifting.
Just about everything we run can be applied to any athlete, whether that athlete wants to build as much muscle as possible, simply look good naked, or whether that athlete simply wants to jump higher.
I’ve personally employed 90% of the training methodologies we’ve run on the site. Often, what constitutes whether they end up being bodybuilding or strength training or performance enhancing routines is how much food I’m eating at the particular time.
Regardless, if I get an article tomorrow about how to turn into the biggest mofo on the planet and it involves eating 10,000 calories a day, I’d run it…as long as it made sense and gave me another piece of the puzzle.
[quote]TC wrote:
<<< I don’t put my finger out to test the breezes of public opinion; >>>[/quote]
OK, having put myself in your position as I reread my “popular demand” statement, I did not intend the cheap marketeering accusation that this may have sounded like. I really didn’t.
My disappointment is with the steadily plunging aspirations of the weight training world, not T-Nation and certainly not with you. That was the point I was making to Professor X. I meant it when I said I would never presume to be able to tell you how to do your job and that goes for this thread as well.
I took what you were saying a while back about how many fewer hardcore type lifters there were and the exhortation to take a stab at being a bit more constructive with the newbies as a diplomatic way of recognizing that the original Testosterone audience had shrunk and it would behoove us all to learn to live together. If that’s very far off from what you intended then I have misunderstood. If it pretty much is then it doesn’t matter who likes it or not, that’s just the reality of the situation, beyond your or any other individual’s control.
The only piece that really had me scratching my head was the interview with Harris. Not that he isn’t a fully worthy interviewee, but just the way it came off. You weren’t the interviewer, I don’t even remember who was and maybe I put too much stock in that one piece, but it sure did seem like a statement of disapproval of those telling people to eat if they want to grow.
I still like it here and even if I didn’t, that’s my problem. Again, the happily puny lifting public is what’s really killin me.
[quote]TC wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Professor X wrote:
<<< It isn’t even that complicated, or at least it shouldn’t be. Only recently has this board changed its focus so much that you have BODYBUILDING info being handed out right next to individuals who act like any more muscle than “average” will kill them. We shouldn’t even be catering this discussion to include the “I just want to be toned” crowd.
I do believe TC when he essentially says that the direction of the site is being driven by popular demand. (feel free to jump in Mr. Luoma, this is my take) The number of hardcore trainees is dwindling thus making it less and less viable to focus on that demographic. That’s not their fault and their commercial survival is at stake. I don’t know what else their supposed to do. It hasn’t been so much lately, but my dismay arises when size IS the topic at hand and long standing methods of success are viewed as obsolete at best and dangerous at worst. At least by some, I don’t mean to say that this is an actual crusade.
…and you’re right. I sold my bed to make more room for the stripper pole.
That’s great!!! See now you can dispel all those myths about how functionless big guys like you are. Please keep the g-string though before posting vids.
We run articles about how to build muscle, articles about how to keep that muscle functional and healthy, and occasionally, articles to improve athletic performance.
I don’t put my finger out to test the breezes of public opinion; I simply run articles that I find interesting and that give me pieces of the “puzzle” of weightlifting. It’s not really driven so much by market forces; just my hopefully logical view of weightlifting.
Just about everything we run can be applied to any athlete, whether that athlete wants to build as much muscle as possible, simply look good naked, or whether that athlete simply wants to jump higher.
I’ve personally employed 90% of the training methodologies we’ve run on the site. Often, what constitutes whether they end up being bodybuilding or strength training or performance enhancing routines is how much food I’m eating at the particular time.
Regardless, if I get an article tomorrow about how to turn into the biggest mofo on the planet and it involves eating 10,000 calories a day, I’d run it…as long as it made sense and gave me another piece of the puzzle.
[/quote]
I know I don’t have a problem with that. What irks me lately are the huge numbers of people who are so NOT serious that they jump into threads that are clearly for bodybuilding to tell us they exist as if we must acknowledge them at every turn. Did you all start advertising at junior high schools or something?
I like the images you all are now using on the main page. I like the fact that after a couple of years, the “Favorite Bodybuilding Picture” thread is still being read quite a bit. However, I still think this site could benefit from some more blatant support of actual bodybuilding.
I don’t even understand the people who log in here but don’t work out at all. We didn’t see things to this degree a few years ago. What changed?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t even understand the people who log in here but don’t work out at all. We didn’t see things to this degree a few years ago. What changed?[/quote]
Everyone who read Men’s Health found this site.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
CrewPierce wrote:
I think CT’s views are perfect for people that aren’t genetically blessed in building muscle or are prone to retaining fat. If a FFB goes on an all out bulk, he will have to diet down for so long he will likely lose the majority of muscle he had gained during the time, thus offsetting any point in bulking. His ideas are also more ideal for those concerned with their health.
Prof. X’s views match well for those with better genetics such as those who can lose fat easier. The all out bulks are also perfect for the potential mass monsters or someone looking to gain mass quickly for powerlifting or to make the football team as a lineman or something similar.
I just wanted to comment on what you wrote here. First, not one newbie on the planet, unless they are walking around with arms over 18" before they ever lifted a weight, is going to know how good their genetics potentially are. Only recently has this one FACT been downplayed. It used to be well known that you would have to be in this for 3-4 years before you tried to comparatively judge your genetics against someone else.
That means not one person here knew how well they could gain muscle UNTIL THEY ATE ENOUGH AND TRAINED HARD ENOUGH TO GAIN MUSCLE.
You have newbies ASSUMING based on some articles that they are “FFBs” and several other labels when labeling yourself anything when you first walk in a gym is a huge fucking mistake.
I was a skinny kid. Not one person who knew me at the age of 17 would think I would be the size I am now. That means if I had started this assuming I was a “hardgainer”, I never would have reached my potential. My own self inflicted limitations would have hindered my progress.
Also, just because you were a fat sedentary person before you ever lifted a weight, it does not mean you are so predisposed to carry body fat that you need a label or some off the wall approach. What you would need is to get your sedentary chubby ass into a gym for a long time and see what the hell happens when you clean up your diet yet work your ass off under some heavy weights.
These name tags are stupid. They always have been.[/quote]
I’m going to agree here. I started seriously doing the “bulking” thing when I was 18 and I am 21 now and I finally have a good picture as to which calorie zone is the “money spot” for optimal mass gaining with minimal fat gain. Even now I am still trying to improve upon it.
You want to try to gain as little fat as possible on a bulk? Then bulk on clean foods. You don’t like the fact that you have to eat a lot of clean food to get in the calorie requirements? Then maybe getting bigger isn’t for you.
[quote]GetSwole wrote:
I think it comes down to this.
To say all people get fact just because they lack self control would be like suggesting that all people who aren’t fat have tremendous self control.
It’s just simply not true.
I see just as many skinny kids eating ice cream and cake and going to Mcdonalds and pigging out at pizza buffets as I do fat people. The difference is they just don’t gain weight all that easily.
Thats my point, thin people don’t just have amazing self control. So you cant just tell a fat person to learn self control. [/quote]
Maybe the skinny people don’t pig out as often. He might have made the point too broad, but you are making it too narrow. The law of thermodynamics does apply to everyone.
It’s interesting to note that in Europe there are very few fat people in comparison. They also ride bicycles more and don’t consume fast food, soda pop and ice cream the way Americans do.
As someone mentioned there is no argument between PX and I. We are simply approaching the situation from a different angle.
He approaches it from the ‘‘pure bodybuilding’’ standpoint; which basically means bodyBUILDING (the art and science of getting as huge as humanly possible). As he mentioned this used to be an ‘‘underground’’ world.
On the other end I approached the situation from a ‘‘muscle building to look good’’ angle. Which doesn’t always equate getting as huge as possible. It certainly means adding muscle to your frame, but also focusing on maintaining a good condition/look year round.
I like, no I LOVE, bodybuilding. And as a fan I love the size freaks. Heck, my all-time favorite bodybuilders include Dorian (who was among the first, if not the first to go up to over 300lbs in the off-season), Ian Harrison (who once threw up a meal, put it in a blender so that we could eat it again!) and Lee Priest (who doesn’t really bulk up anymore, but used to get in the 250-280 range on 5’4’').
If my ultimate goal was to be as huge as humanly possible I WOULD use their mentality of eating everything in sight to be able to gain as much weight as possible.
Heck, there was one study that found sumo wrestlers to have more muscle mass than bodybuilders and powerlifters despite not training with weights (only because of chronic food overconsumption).
HOWEVER in my case, as in the case of 90% of the peoples out there, training and nutrition is more a way to look great and feel good than to get as huge as nature will (or will not allow). In that case, chronic food overconsumption is not necessary or ideal.
Getting huge requires food overconsumption, no doubt about that. HOWEVER getting bodybuilding huge ALSO requires the use of anabolic drugs. Now, contrary to what the average gym rat/forum participant believe, these drugs are not magic. I’ve known plenty of teens who where using steroids (and often in no small amounts) who didn’t gain any solid muscle simply because they did not eat enough to take advantage of the enhances capacity of the body to utilize the nutrients.
In simpler terms (and this is somewhat of an oversimplification) the various anabolic drugs’ main action is to enhance the body’s capacity to use the ingested food and turn it into muscle tissue. They are kinda like making your construction crew more efficient at building a house.
Testosterone and synthetic AAS will increase the body’s capacity to use the ingested amino acids/protein and form new muscle tissue from it. It also divert more of the ingested carbohydrates toward the muscles. So you store more of the carbs as glycogen and less as fat.
Insulin (and to a somewhat lesser extent) IGF-1 increase the amount of nutrients that will enter the muscle cell. If you can get more nutrients up there, and have also elevated testosterone levels, you will be able to use yet more nutrients to build muscle.
hGH has both anabolic (increases muscle-building… but mostly through an elevation in IGF-1 levels) and fat-burning properties (by increasing the release of fatty acids to be used for fuel). So in that regard, hGH should be known not so much as a muscle-builder, but rather as a re-composition agent. As such it allow you to use more nutrients to build muscle while reducing the risk of fat gain.
These hormones, to work their magic, NEED a caloric surplus. You can put a guy on every steroid in the book; if he eats like an anorectic gymnast he will not grow (heck, even enhanced bodybuilders sometimes lose muscle when they diet down).
NOT eating big when using these products is a waste. At least when it comes to building brutal size.
The other products used like thyroid hormones, clenbuterol (and other beta-agonists like albuterol, ractopamide HCL, etc.) and even DNP will also drastically increase fat loss. In the case of thyroid hormones we’re talking about an elevation in energy expenditure of around 10%, 5-10% for beta-agonists and up to 60% for DNP.
I think that it is idiotic to believe that someone who is not using these products will be able to lose fat as fast as someone who is.
A natural will not be able to lose 70lbs of fat in 12 weeks while preserving muscle like Lee Priest did.
So what I’m saying is this:
ANABOLIC products increase your capacity to use food to build muscle. Avoiding large food consumption is a sure way to not take full advantage of these products.
FAT LOSS products increase your capacity to lose fat. As such they allow you the leeway to overconsume even more food, to ensure maximal growth, because even if you gain more fat it will be easier to lose it.
I agree with PX that if you have one specific goal in mind you should look for peoples who were successful in achieving that goal and do what they did.
However the average Joe must realize that those who were successful in getting bodybuilding huge, while they DID overconsume food, also used a myriad of anabolic aids to take advantage of the high food intake; and used fat loss products to ‘‘iron out’’ any fat they might have gained in the process.
YES seek what those who succeeded did before you; but in that case you have to accept the whole answer/situation.
Getting bodybuilding huge DOES require chronic food overconsumption but it also requires the use of AAS and other growth drugs.
A natural simply does not have the biochemical state to use the large quantities of food consumed by a huge bodybuilder and as such his ratio of fat to muscle gain will be much much higher.
That having been said; a newbie who is built like a coat rack should probably learn to ea before learning to training on the latest training program fad.
CT, I don’t think anyone is arguing that if you want to stay lean year round there’s anything inherently wrong with that. However the problem is there are many newbies who seem to have the idea that they will be robbing themselves of gains if they can’t see their abs before they try to put on muscle.
On the other hand, several people on this board argue that even for a natural trainee who’s goal is getting as huge as possible food overconsumption and putting on as much body fat as you’re comfortable with to put on muscle as efficiently as possible is still the best route because unless you’re over doing it considerably everyone should only be a few months away from being very lean.
In your original beast evolves article for example you went from 18 percent body fat to 5 in 14 weeks natural. Nobody [I don’t think] is suggesting people need to reach a level of body fat higher than that, and so what I’m trying to say in this long winded post is would you agree that it would still be the most efficient route for someone who doesn’t care about being smooth in the meantime but wants to build as much muscle as possible without anabolics?
Edit: rereading your post, you did basically answer this question already. Mostly I mean to point out that I don’t believe fat loss to be all that difficult even for a natural trainee if you’re viewing this from a long term perspective
Hello…
In my case i joined this site maybe 2 weeks ago.
I admit i did want the Bard Pitt “ripped” look at the start (plz dont kill me) but the more i read and saw the images, more my opinion changed, to the stage i WANT to bulk up and myabe enter a competition !
I dont think T-Nation is that far off a bodybuilding site, spent the last 2 weeks poring over everything here. BUT one thing has stood out, if i want SIZE i need to over-eat. GREAT but if i over-eat as a NATURAL im going to gain FAT, pretty damn EASY to GAIN a lb of fat(see pop tarts), pretty damn HARD to LOSE a lb of fat.
So any hope of a natural as i see it GAINING say 20lbs of muscle is going to lead to fat gain, and also as i see it the LOSING fat side of it will be so damn time consuming WITH the added possibility of LOSING some of that muscle while dieting to make it a moot point of gaining.
A natural basically is stuck with CT’s way of doing things (see get shredded thread) and ad 50g carbs to every meal. Which if i read it right is DIET to 6-7% bf THEN bulk, but honestly who the hell after getting to 6-7% is going to try bulk up by over eating to the extent your suggesting. FUCK NO, maybe add 500-700 cals but it took a natural so damn long to get there getting HUGE just is not worth the damn effort, unless your ready to invest in drugs besides protein powder.
Just my take on things since i joined.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Getting huge requires food overconsumption, no doubt about that. HOWEVER getting bodybuilding huge ALSO requires the use of anabolic drugs. Now, contrary to what the average gym rat/forum participant believe, these drugs are not magic. I’ve known plenty of teens who where using steroids (and often in no small amounts) who didn’t gain any solid muscle simply because they did not eat enough to take advantage of the enhances capacity of the body to utilize the nutrients.[/quote]
I wish you woulsd post this in the Steroid Newbie forum. Steroids are not a magic mass pill. I can’t tell you how many times I have posted “whether you bulk up, or cut down on this cycle will depend almost exclusively upon your diet”.
Most AAS newbies, not just kids, think that all they have to do is inject the test, and they will get huge. At 43, I could only pray that it was that damned easy.
[quote]In simpler terms (and this is somewhat of an oversimplification) the various anabolic drugs’ main action is to enhance the body’s capacity to use the ingested food and turn it into muscle tissue. They are kinda like making your construction crew more efficient at building a house.
Testosterone and synthetic AAS will increase the body’s capacity to use the ingested amino acids/protein and form new muscle tissue from it. It also divert more of the ingested carbohydrates toward the muscles. So you store more of the carbs as glycogen and less as fat.
Insulin (and to a somewhat lesser extent) IGF-1 increase the amount of nutrients that will enter the muscle cell. If you can get more nutrients up there, and have also elevated testosterone levels, you will be able to use yet more nutrients to build muscle.
hGH has both anabolic (increases muscle-building… but mostly through an elevation in IGF-1 levels) and fat-burning properties (by increasing the release of fatty acids to be used for fuel). So in that regard, hGH should be known not so much as a muscle-builder, but rather as a re-composition agent. As such it allow you to use more nutrients to build muscle while reducing the risk of fat gain.
These hormones, to work their magic, NEED a caloric surplus. You can put a guy on every steroid in the book; if he eats like an anorectic gymnast he will not grow (heck, even enhanced bodybuilders sometimes lose muscle when they diet down).
NOT eating big when using these products is a waste. At least when it comes to building brutal size.
The other products used like thyroid hormones, clenbuterol (and other beta-agonists like albuterol, ractopamide HCL, etc.) and even DNP will also drastically increase fat loss. In the case of thyroid hormones we’re talking about an elevation in energy expenditure of around 10%, 5-10% for beta-agonists and up to 60% for DNP.
I think that it is idiotic to believe that someone who is not using these products will be able to lose fat as fast as someone who is.
A natural will not be able to lose 70lbs of fat in 12 weeks while preserving muscle like Lee Priest did.
So what I’m saying is this:
ANABOLIC products increase your capacity to use food to build muscle. Avoiding large food consumption is a sure way to not take full advantage of these products.
FAT LOSS products increase your capaocyt to lose fat. As such they allow you the leeway to overconsume even more food, to ensure maximal growth, because even if you gain more fat it will be easier to lose it.
I agree with PX that if you have one specific goal in mind you should look for peoples who were successful in achieving that goal and do what they did.
However the average Joe must realise that those who were successful in getting bodybuilding huge, while they DID overconsume food, also used a myriad of anabolic aids to take advantage of the high food intake; and used fat loss products to ‘‘iron out’’ any fat they might have gained in the process.
YES seek what those who succeeded did before you; but in that case you have to accept the whole answer/situation.
Getting bodybuilding huge DOES require chronic food overconsumption but it also requires the use of AAS and other growth drugs.
A natural simply does not have the biochemical state to use the large quantities of food consumed by a huge bodybuilder and as such his ratio of fat to muscle gain will be much much higher.
That having been said; a newbie who is built like a coat rack should probably learn to ea before learning to training on the latest training program fad. [/quote]
Seriously, CT - you should consider writing a steroid article that addresses most of these points. I would avoid the DNP discussion, as it could be fatal to a newb that thinks it is the answer to prayer, and OD’s on the stuff.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
<<< HOWEVER in my case, as in the case of 90% of the peoples out there, training and nutrition is more a way to look great and feel good than to get as huge as nature will (or will not allow). In that case, chronic food overconsumption is not necesssary or ideal. >>>[/quote]
OK, a few things I don’t think you’re going to disagree with and I’m sure you noted that I was careful to come right out of the gate and make clear that I wasn’t viewing this as a shouting match between yourself and Professor X.
The above portion of your post is a major point and does represent most people these days. It would be extremely useful if that point were made more clearly more often.
I must touch on a few of the other points you made though.
You are using the term “bodybuilding”, at least here, as being straight across synonymous with the super natural results that are undeniably only possible with pharmaceutical enhancement. I don’t share that definition though I have no problem with enhancement.
In the strictest sense anybody looking to get bigger at all is bodybuilding to that degree, but in my mind (whatever that’s worth) someone with bodybuilding goals is looking to maximize whatever potential they have as an individual, enhanced or not.
Only an utterly uniformed fool is going to argue that natural lifters can take either end of the bulking and cutting spectrum to the same levels, especially in the same time frames as enhanced lifters. However the rules themselves are the same. Chronic overconsumption, as you call it, is still necessary to maximize even natural results, albeit to a much more conscientious and controlled degree. More or less depending on the individual which they can only learn in practice.
In fact, even for the “just look good nekkid” crowd, SOME overconsumption for SOME period of time is going to be necessary unless they are already within a relatively few pounds of their size goals and have some body fat to spare.
I think T-Nation/Biotest are a first class outfit and have never blamed them for the lack of understanding of some of it’s, many of it’s readers. The one thing that kills me is the guy who shows up saying “I’m workin my ass off in the gym and I’m not growing”, and we tell him he needs more food and out come all the “I don’t want to be huge” guys bombarding him with scholarly sounding arguments about how whatever else he does he should under no circumstances accept a gain in body fat as a part of getting bigger and like it or not, they many times claim you as an ally in this view.
You qualified your views on this long ago in the aftermath of the “truth about Bulking” article. I’m not calling you on anything, I’m only reporting what happens.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I must touch on a few of the other points you made though.
You are using the term “bodybuilding”, at least here, as being straight across synonymous with the super natural results that are undeniably only possible with pharmaceutical enhancement. I don’t share that definition though I have no problem with enhancement.
In the strictest sense anybody looking to get bigger at all is bodybuilding to that degree, but in my mind (whatever that’s worth) someone with bodybuilding goals is looking to maximize whatever potential they have as an individual, enhanced or not.
Only an utterly uniformed fool is going to argue that natural lifters can take either end of the bulking and cutting spectrum to the same levels, especially in the same time frames as enhanced lifters. However the rules themselves are the same. Chronic overconsumption, as you call it, is still necessary to maximize even natural results, albeit to a much more conscientious and controlled degree. More or less depending on the individual which they can only learn in practice.
In fact, even for the “just look good nekkid” crowd, SOME overconsumption for SOME period of time is going to be necessary unless they are already within a relatively few pounds of their size goals and have some body fat to spare.
I think T-Nation/Biotest are a first class outfit and have never blamed them for the lack of understanding of some of it’s, many of it’s readers. The one thing that kills me is the guy who shows up saying “I’m workin my ass off in the gym and I’m not growing”, and we tell him he needs more food and out come all the “I don’t want to be huge” guys bombarding him with scholarly sounding arguments about how whatever else he does he should under no circumstances accept a gain in body fat as a part of getting bigger and like it or not, they many times claim you as an ally in this view.
You qualified your views on this long ago in the aftermath of the “truth about Bulking” article. I’m not calling you on anything, I’m only reporting what happens.[/quote]
Well said.
Newbies will take his post as saying the following, “Bodybuilders try to get huge by taking steroids which is the only reason they can “overconsume” food for long periods so THEREFORE, I should not “overconsume” food.” Sure, CT, this may not have been what you wrote, but I have no doubt at all that this is what newbies will take from that post.
I also bet a few were shocked to read that you condoned a body fat percentage as high as 15%. I am positive a few coatracks passed out at the thought.
To get larger muscles, YOU MUST OVERCONSUME FOOD to some degree for periods of time. That includes EVERYONE ON THE PLANET.
This is NOT just for steroid using bodybuilders. It is for everyone who wants bigger muscles (gawd I hope no one starts arguing about gaining muscle and losing fat).
The argument, CT, isn’t just about how YOU see your own writing. It is more about how others PERCEIVE what you are trying to say.
Also, I have had people twist what I’ve written for years. Waterbury even tried to do it in a debate I had with him as if I was telling newbies to start eating every meal at Mc Donald’s.
What we are getting at is clarity.
[quote]will to power wrote:
CT, I don’t think anyone is arguing that if you want to stay lean year round there’s anything inherently wrong with that. However the problem is there are many newbies who seem to have the idea that they will be robbing themselves of gains if they can’t see their abs before they try to put on muscle. [/quote]
CT, this is true and literal. There are people logging on who have read their body fat at 15% yet, despite having no muscle on them, begin dieting down because of what they think they are reading on this site.
Hell, I’m not even blaming you for someone else’s reading comprehension deficit, but clearly your intended message is getting lost.
[quote]
On the other hand, several people on this board argue that even for a natural trainee who’s goal is getting as huge as possible food overconsumption and putting on as much body fat as you’re comfortable with to put on muscle as efficiently as possible is still the best route because unless you’re over doing it considerably everyone should only be a few months away from being very lean
… Mostly I mean to point out that I don’t believe fat loss to be all that difficult even for a natural trainee if you’re viewing this from a long term perspective[/quote]
Well said. To get big AS A NATURAL TRAINER, you will STILL have to eat more food than it takes to maintain your body weight. This is ALSO “overconsumption” of food.
The basic action of what bodybuilders are doing is NOT different and never has been.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< What we are getting at is clarity.[/quote]
I wrote on Sept. 10th, 2006 less than a month after I joined here:
I dunno, I never had a problem picking up on what your thing (and a few others) was right from the start and I’m long past having run out of ways to make it clear that I’ve been both fat and scrawny, didn’t like either and wouldn’t wish em on anybody.
Some level headed reading comprehension on the part of the masses would be fabulous. For all the guys who just want to be fit, that’s a damn sight better than most of the population, have at it. For guys who want to be big, ya gotta eat. Learn that before you’re looking back at the anabolic half of your life wishing you had.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Seriously, CT - you should consider writing a steroid article that addresses most of these points. I would avoid the DNP discussion, as it could be fatal to a newb that thinks it is the answer to prayer, and OD’s on the stuff.
[/quote]
Honestly I would; but it might not be the smartest thing to do under the current circumstances. I’m not a baseball player but still…
I have a few questions:
-After how many lb of weight lost are u considered a FFB (yes i know u hate labels, just asking)
-Is it EVER possible for a FFB to be ripped at a possibly higher weight (180lb+) with ALL abs showing, vascularity in arms and legs, etc. (bf 6% or something)
-Is it possible without AAS (im probably never going to take them, so dont say something like “ur too young to use AAS”)
How come i have friends that probably eat like 100-150g of fat with probably 200-300g of carbs, and hardly any protein, yet they sport a 6-pack (theyre not big by any stretch of imagination, 13> arms, 19> legs) but if i eat anything similar to them i gain like 10lb a month all fat?
At what bf% do:
- moobs dissappear
- vascularity in bicep and forearms is present
- 6-pack
Sorry if some of these questions are a bit off topic, but i thought that since a lot of people who know this stuff are on this forum, they could answer.
This questions can be answered with reading and is more appropriate in another discussion.
I’m a FFB and can maintain 8% body fat easily without really eating that good. BUT to reset my set point I had to make a lot of efforts to stay very lean for 2-3 years. Then the body adjusted and it’s much easier for me to stay lean.
As for your question about your friends, one word: genetics. Some peoples are naturally built to be lean. They combine:
-
A naturally high insulin sensitivity, which basically means that for the same amount of food they eat they produce less insulin and if you produce less insulin you will store less food as fat.
-
A spentdrift metabolism as opposed to a thrifty metabolism seen in those who gain fat easily. Without going into too much details, a spentdrift metabolism means that more excess calories are spent as heat or semi-unvoluntary movements and thus less is stored as fat. On the opposite end, a thrifty metabolism is more effective at storing nutrients are fat. So for the same amount of food they eat, they will gain more fat.
ALSO do not neglect the fact that MAYBE your friends are really not eating as much as you think they are. Just because you seen them eat one junk meal every 2 days or even one every day, doesn’t mean that they are eating a lot of food.
Two examples… I was training a junior hockey player who had problems gaining size, He was 6’2’’ and 165lbs. He told me that he really ate a ton of food. So I asked him to note every thing he ate during the week.
His daily pattern was always something like this:
- Very small (if any) breakfast
- Big lunch, often of junk food
- Nibbling throughout the day just because he felt super full from the big lunch and wasn’t hungry.
Since he was just grazing in the afternoon he would snack on low quality items like crackers, chips, granola bars, etc.
But despite the big meal, his total caloric intake was less than 2000 calories on average (around 1000-1200 of which were at lunch).
This is NOT A LOT of food for an athlete training with weights 4x per week, skating 3x per week and running 4x per week.
Another example is actually a former training partner of mine. He has great abs and was super lean but had no muscle and had problems gaining any.
It turns out that he would only eat chocolate bars during the day and one solid meal with his parents in the evening. NOW, while chocolate bars have a shitty nutrients profile, they still ‘‘only’’ provide around 220-250 calories on average. So let’s say that my friend would eat 6 bars per day, that would give him around 1200-1500 calories. His supper was probably around 400-600 calories, so once again he had a very low intake, especially since he ran the 400m on top of his weight training.
So if your friends are eating shitty food, they can still be eating very little calories during the day and as a result, and coupled with their higher insulin sensitivity and good metabolism, it allows them to not gain fat.
As for your questions about moobs, veins and abs. I cannot answer that as it’s an individual thing.
Plus, moobs are often due to excessively high estrogen (female hormone) levels, not only fat.
[quote]ahzaz wrote:
I have a few questions:
-After how many lb of weight lost are u considered a FFB (yes i know u hate labels, just asking)
-Is it EVER possible for a FFB to be ripped at a possibly higher weight (180lb+) with ALL abs showing, vascularity in arms and legs, etc. (bf 6% or something)
-Is it possible without AAS (im probably never going to take them, so dont say something like “ur too young to use AAS”)
How come i have friends that probably eat like 100-150g of fat with probably 200-300g of carbs, and hardly any protein, yet they sport a 6-pack (theyre not big by any stretch of imagination, 13> arms, 19> legs) but if i eat anything similar to them i gain like 10lb a month all fat?
At what bf% do:
- moobs dissappear
- vascularity in bicep and forearms is present
- 6-pack
Sorry if some of these questions are a bit off topic, but i thought that since a lot of people who know this stuff are on this forum, they could answer.[/quote]
[quote]ahzaz wrote:
I have a few questions: >>>[/quote]
You’re 14 chief. All kinds of things nobody can predict will happen to you in the next few years no matter what you do.