http://www.T-Nation.com/readArticle.do?id=882789
I want one.
My girlfriend also asked me last night if I wish she worked out more and cared about nutrition and stuff.
I said uh…I want you do to whatever makes you happy. It was awkward.
[quote]ahzaz wrote:
LOL my school doesnt have a football team[/quote]
Then you can be the big guy who makes the faculty and students wish your school did. Girls like the skinny boy look because, at your age, they aren’t really used to seeing anyone who has passed puberty, much less grown enough muscle to show off at the pool.
I will go out on a limb here and guarantee you that once you start showing some muscle on your frame, you will find out how quickly these girls can change their minds.
In regards to FFBs, I think it all comes down to food choices. A lot of beginners(including myself) have or had no idea of what constitutes a proper bodybuilding diet. If you asked some of these guys to list their meals, you would see that they are either half assing their diet or don’t know what they are doing.
These same guys could very well be screwing up their training as well.
Oh, and I also hate the labeling. I was a “FFB” because I over ate the wrong foods.
[quote]GetSwole wrote:
Here is a true story, last night I showed my girlfriend the world record clean and jerk video from '88. I said watch this beast set a record, she goes “That fat-ass”
[/quote]
That’s funny because Taranenko was actually known for being lean and in good shape for a superheavy. People use to speculate that if he was willing to go all out with the weight gain he would set records that would be completely untouchable but he responded that he didn’t care, he needed to be happy with how he looked as well.
Hah. Interesting. Needless to say, we got in a fight. And it kept me from um…glorified cuddling. (There’s 14 year olds present ;} )
Either way, most women are conducive to training. Glory be the day when a woman is in favor of me eating slabs of beef, lifting heavy shit more often than taking her to dinner, and ripping farts that would make werwolf’s hair stand on end.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Besides, everyone knows that, in high school, it’s the big football players who get the chicks - not the chess club or the XC team.[/quote]
my schools XC team has some of the sexiest girls on it…gosh damn.
I think what people fail to understand is that in general, person x will gain no more muscle if he trains hard and:
A. Ate 1000 calories over his maintainence
B. Ate 2000 calories over his maintainence.
The body will decide what it will use the extra calories for, and considering everyone is limited on how much muscle they can build within a certain set of time, going way overboard with calories doesn’t ensure more muscle is being built, it ensures more fat is being stored. I guess my point is that 150 LB “hardgainer” will not not synthasize any more protein to build muscle if he eats 5000 calories a day as opposed to 4000. SUPER HIGH CALORIE DIETS DON’T LEAD TO INCREASED PROTEIN SYNTHESIS IN THE NATURAL TRAINIEE.
crosscountry
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
I’m a FFB >>>[/quote]
If you see this CT, I was seriously interested in your take on what this term is defined as.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
I’m a FFB >>>
If you see this CT, I was seriously interested in your take on what this term is defined as.[/quote]
Former Fat Boy… the term was coined by Chris Shugart to define someone who, for a long time in his youth was fat.
‘‘In his youth’’ is very important because during that period the body, when fed badly with a lot of junk, can add additional fat cells which can only be removed by liposuction.
The more fat cells you have, the easier it is to gain fat (more storage room) and the harder it is to lose the fat. You CAN empty the fat cells when dieting down/exercising but you can’t remove the fat cells.
I mentioned the youth factor as being important, because during adulthood, fat cell hyperplasia (adding fat cells) only occur under EXTREME cases of fat gain (e.g. going from normal to morbidly obese). Simply gaining 30-50lbs of fat in adults isn’t likely to lead to fat cell hyperplasia, only fat cell hypertrophy.
This is why proper nutrition and physical activity are so important when you are young.
CT, I think they are wanting to know how much weight, specifically, needs to be lost before being considered an FFB. I think the complaint is that guys who’ve barely lost any weight (15-20lbs) consider themselves FFB’s. I think people are wondering how much fat lost constitutes being an FFB.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
I’m a FFB >>>
If you see this CT, I was seriously interested in your take on what this term is defined as.
Former Fat Boy… the term was coined by Chris Shugart to define someone who, for a long time in his youth was fat.
‘‘in his youth’’ is very important because during that period the body, when fed badly with a lot of junk, can add additional fat cells which can only be removed by liposuction.
The more fat cells you have, the easier it is to gain fat (more storage room) and the harder it is to lose the fat. You CAN empty the fat cells when dieting down/exercising but you can’t remove the fat cells.
I mentionned the youth factor as being important, because during adulthood, fat cell hyperplasia (adding fat cells) only occur under EXTREME cases of fat gain (e.g. going from normal to morbidly obese). Simply gaining 30-50lbs of fat in adults isn’t likely to lead to fat cell hyperplasia, only fat cell hypertrophy.
This is why proper nutrition and physical activity are so important when you are young.[/quote]
While it may be true that fat cells can be gained in number during childhood, I think it is a mistake to use this as a way for newbies to label themselves. First, not one person here is going to know how many fat cells they have. Barring extreme obesity, as in above 30% body fat, it should not be thought of as “being chubby in youth means you gained more fat cells”.
In adulthood, again unless you are talking about OBESITY, people shouldn’t be under the impression that “bulking up increases fat cell numbers”. It isn’t that simple. Yes, if you become obese (which is usually considered ABOVE 30% body fat), you MAY gain more fat cells if you keep gaining weight to an extreme degree. Simply gaining any weight at all is not the same.
I remember one article, not by you, CT, which showed some obese guy who had lost what must have been a few hundred pounds holding up loose skin. This article made it seem as if everyone who gained any weight at all should be in fear of this happening to them. That article was complete garbage, one I haven’t seen bumped to the front page since. That extreme type of thinking is what seems to occur when people use facts about more extreme behavior and try to pin this on every action possible.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
To get larger muscles, YOU MUST OVERCONSUME FOOD to some degree for periods of time. That includes EVERYONE ON THE PLANET.
What we are getting at is clarity.[/quote]
Prof,
Like what you said but here’s what I wish you would have also emphasized:
TO SOME DEGREE
Too many a ‘coat rack’ starts to overconsume way too much on the wrong foods (yes, Pizza can be a bulking food, and no, it should not be dinner and breakfast 5 times a week).
Many of these kids/young men/intermediates do not yet know how their body will respond to large amounts of calories and jump right away into consuming 5000 plus calories when 3500 WOULD BE ENOUGH.
Now I know you are NOT espousing to get fat but just like CT’s posts can and are taking out of context, so are yours.
Nice thread by the way, great job Trib.
Marc
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
Professor X wrote:
To get larger muscles, YOU MUST OVERCONSUME FOOD to some degree for periods of time. That includes EVERYONE ON THE PLANET.
What we are getting at is clarity.
Prof,
Like what you said but here’s what I wish you would have also emphasized:
TO SOME DEGREE
Too many a ‘coat rack’ starts to overconsume way too much on the wrong foods (yes, Pizza can be a bulking food, and no, it should not be dinner and breakfast 5 times a week).
Many of these kids/young men/intermediates do not yet know how their body will respond to large amounts of calories and jump right away into consuming 5000 plus calories when 3500 WOULD BE ENOUGH.
Now I know you are NOT espousing to get fat but just like CT’s posts can and are taking out of context, so are yours.
Nice thread by the way, great job Trib.
Marc
[/quote]
I don’t see the problem here, though. That is what bodybuilding involves, monitoring of what you are doing, what results you are getting and whether those results are optimal for your own genetics. If they aren’t optimal, then changes must be made. Yes, it is that simple. Most newbies would also be poor judges of finding that “sweet spot” initially (as it takes YEARS for most of us) so the goal should be to reach their short term goal, not to nitpick and worry to the point that all progress stops.
If you gain “too much body fat” (however much that is), then you cut back on food intake. This used to be common sense. The only thing that could hinder progress in that scenario is some ridiculous fear of any fat gained. It takes weeks or months to lose some body fat. It takes YEARS and YEARS to gain muscle mass. With that in mind, which should be most important to someone looking to make a significant physical change?
Further, why would a newbie jump right into eating 5,000cals a day without paying any attention at all to how their body is responding?
You know, I think the problem here is that some of you believe bodybuilding is for everybody.
If you have been “lifting hard” for 15 years and no one can tell, bodybuilding may not be for you.
If you start eating like a 350lbs lineman when you only weigh 150lbs and completely ignore that you aren’t making any gains in muscle mass (because you sort of left out that whole “work hard and lift heavy” issue), maybe bodybuilding is not for you.
This is a pursuit that involves self discovery. The GOAL is to find what works for you and that, my friend, is going to take some trial and error. If you expect to jump into this and NEVER learn where your boundaries are by actually reaching them, you are in the wrong activity. You can’t expect to avoid finding out what is “too fat” for you. You can’t expect to avoid finding out how much food is too much. You find that out by pushing your own limits, not by following some written guideline as if you can completely avoid trial and error.
For the highschool kid…I know what you mean about girls liking skinny types. Trust me though man, once you pass a certain level of muscularity, girls will start to be impressed. If your skinny and have a six pack, they will like you. If you have big arms, a nice v-taper, big shoulders, and a six pack, well they will begin to like you even more.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
I’m a FFB >>>
If you see this CT, I was seriously interested in your take on what this term is defined as.
Former Fat Boy… the term was coined by Chris Shugart to define someone who, for a long time in his youth was fat.
‘‘in his youth’’ is very important because during that period the body, when fed badly with a lot of junk, can add additional fat cells which can only be removed by liposuction.
The more fat cells you have, the easier it is to gain fat (more storage room) and the harder it is to lose the fat. You CAN empty the fat cells when dieting down/exercising but you can’t remove the fat cells.
I mentionned the youth factor as being important, because during adulthood, fat cell hyperplasia (adding fat cells) only occur under EXTREME cases of fat gain (e.g. going from normal to morbidly obese). Simply gaining 30-50lbs of fat in adults isn’t likely to lead to fat cell hyperplasia, only fat cell hypertrophy.
This is why proper nutrition and physical activity are so important when you are young.[/quote]
This definition makes sense and while reading about it in one of Shugart’s pieces I became convinced that SOME people have a legitimate concern and unconventional methods may serve them better.
Having said that I do agree with Professor X. People to whom this actually applies are in the minority and unconventional is the operative term. Every kid who shows up here without a six pack instantly labels himself an “FFB” and embarks on a noble anti fat campaign worthy of Sir Lancelot.
All any of this takes is a bit of observant experimentation. Nobody has ever said that fat guys should start bulking. nobody has ever said that leaner guys should get fat.
There are threads here started by guys who are literally over 6 feet eating well under 2 grand a day killing themselves trying to get to a certain BF% before trying to gain, but who then still ask why their workouts are suffering and their lifts are actually decreasing.
I think there would be a lot less controversy if all this communication happened in person instead of online.
One can only cheer for anybody who makes a serious effort to improve themselves and for true FFBs they have serious health concerns beyond simply building muscle which puts them in a class by themselves. My problem is with guys who do not have these issues, but think these FFB limitations apply to them.
I know you’re busy, but lemme then ask this. Do you believe that getting very lean is easier achieved with 40 legitimate additional pounds of lean mass on your bones? In other words will the guy with some minor love handles have an easier time shedding those once everything a few years of intelligent training will mean to him are under his belt?
[quote]GetSwole wrote:
CT, I think they are wanting to know how much weight, specifically, needs to be lost before being considered an FFB. I think the complaint is that guys who’ve barely lost any weight (15-20lbs) consider themselves FFB’s. I think people are wondering how much fat lost constitutes being an FFB.[/quote]
I’ll start off by saying that I hate labels and categories. You cannot put people in little drawers: this guy is a FFB, this one is a hardgainer, etc. We are all a specific genetic mix as well as the result of our experience/way of life.
That having been said, to me a FFB is someone who spent a significant portion of his younger years being obese or close to it. Being obese is generally seen as being above 25% body fat for men and 30% for women. I do consider these figures pretty accurate, albeit a bit high. To me, to be qualified as a FFB one would have to have been above 22% body fat for at least 4 straight years during his childhood or early teen years.
Just because someone was slightly pudgy in HS doesn’t make him a FFB.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
While it may be true that fat cells can be gained in number during childhood, I think it is a mistake to use this as a way for newbies to label themselves. First, not one person here is going to know how many fat cells they have. Barring extreme obesity, as in above 30% body fat, it should not be thought of as “being chubby in youth means you gained more fat cells”.
In adulthood, again unless you are talking about OBESITY, people shouldn’t be under the impression that “bulking up increases fat cell numbers”. It isn’t that simple. Yes, if you become obese (which is usually considered ABOVE 30% body fat), you MAY gain more fat cells if you keep gaining weight to an extreme degree. Simply gaining any weight at all is not the same.[/quote]
This is EXACTLY what I just said. 
Honestly this is the best thread this site has seen in a long long time.
hmm… Refering to what CT said, ive been “overweight” for 6 years straight, from 7, to 13. Now i just think im a bit “heavy” but im still the heaviest/slowest, so i dunno. I dont like labelling myself, but you know what i mean. Im pretty sure i was 20%+ bf for all those years. Recently loseing over 20lb i feel better and stuff, but yea… overall i was fat for 6 yrs.
@canadianML:
yep, true, but problem is, im at neither, im not a skinny 6-pack guy, and im not a “built” guy. =/
@CT: Is there like a number or percentage to how much the fat cells hyperplast in youth?