[quote]scj119 wrote:
I personally haven’t tried the MDD yet.
But I’m hoping everyone whose saying it doesn’t work has tried it themselves. If not, that’s no different than a 150lb skinny dude saying he knows lifting heavy isn’t the key to muscle growth because he’s bench pressed before.[/quote]
Who said a diet “doesn’t work”?[/quote]
“doesn’t work” was a bit vague. What I meant was, there are a lot of dudes in the training log section - people with pretty impressive physiques who are likely very self-aware when it comes to muscle mass and fat mass - who swear that you get more out of each calorie when you eat that way. In fact I’ve yet to see someone developed start eating that way and say it did nothing for them. Small sample size? Anecdotal evidence? Absolutely. But until I’ve tried it how can I say it wouldn’t help me gain faster?
I would say your personal experience with MAG-10 is something in the same vein - the “you” from 5 years ago probably would never believe you could do what you’re currently doing on so few total calories.
Food choice certainly effects body comp. No one is arguing that.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
In fact I’ve yet to see someone developed start eating that way and say it did nothing for them.
[/quote]
I said this a couple pages ago, and I still feel like it is true.
Eating the MDD is going to make a much more significant impact for the dude that is firing on all cylinders and has all his ducks in a row. Particularly the dudes already carrying good amounts of muscle.
I mean, even given Bonez example of needing less overall cals to make gains on the diet. It is going to take someone that has their shit together in the first place to even get this. Someone that has tracked cals for awhile, knows their maintenance and has good experience manipulating his or her body fat and muscle levels.
Is it going to have the same effect on the clueless newb who thinks he is overtraining because he has been under eating the last 3 months and hasn’t gained shit? I doubt it.
And that is where this whole back and forth is breaking down. You guys are just looking at it from different angles.
Is eating the MDD way going to make drastic changes to your body comp and apparently change your caloric requirements? It appears so. If someone is constantly under or over eating buy 1,500-2,200 cals a day, is food choice the main thing to focus on? I would say, fuck no. The second guy needs to get his total cals and macros in order before he worries about food source choice, IMO.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
I personally haven’t tried the MDD yet.
But I’m hoping everyone whose saying it doesn’t work has tried it themselves. If not, that’s no different than a 150lb skinny dude saying he knows lifting heavy isn’t the key to muscle growth because he’s bench pressed before.[/quote]
Who said a diet “doesn’t work”?[/quote]
“doesn’t work” was a bit vague. What I meant was, there are a lot of dudes in the training log section - people with pretty impressive physiques who are likely very self-aware when it comes to muscle mass and fat mass - who swear that you get more out of each calorie when you eat that way. In fact I’ve yet to see someone developed start eating that way and say it did nothing for them. Small sample size? Anecdotal evidence? Absolutely. But until I’ve tried it how can I say it wouldn’t help me gain faster?
I would say your personal experience with MAG-10 is something in the same vein - the “you” from 5 years ago probably would never believe you could do what you’re currently doing on so few total calories.
[/quote]
I’m dieting. There is no way in hell I would eat like this to gain.
I agree that I never would have thought I could DIET on so few calories, but that is more a testament to the type of protein I am using and how frequently I am getting it down than just about anything else.
I seriously doubt the results would be the same if I replaced that with “whey”.
All I can say is, this discussion is about getting huge…not the “I just want maybe 10lbs more muscle” crowd who is claiming people with 15% body fat are lazy and fat.
I have no doubt that eating like I am now works for losing body fat and holding onto muscle mass.
But there is no way in hell anyone should look at that and assume this is the most muscle that can be gained in the same time period.
To get really big will often require some long periods of simply focusing on size gains. Most of the people saying otherwise aren’t really that big…and are often the type telling everyone else that you lose all your muscle when you diet from any higher than 10-12% body fat.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Food choice certainly effects body comp. No one is arguing that.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
In fact I’ve yet to see someone developed start eating that way and say it did nothing for them.
[/quote]
I said this a couple pages ago, and I still feel like it is true.
Eating the MDD is going to make a much more significant impact for the dude that is firing on all cylinders and has all his ducks in a row. Particularly the dudes already carrying good amounts of muscle.
I mean, even given Bonez example of needing less overall cals to make gains on the diet. It is going to take someone that has their shit together in the first place to even get this. Someone that has tracked cals for awhile, knows their maintenance and has good experience manipulating his or her body fat and muscle levels.
Is it going to have the same effect on the clueless newb who thinks he is overtraining because he has been under eating the last 3 months and hasn’t gained shit? I doubt it.
And that is where this whole back and forth is breaking down. You guys are just looking at it from different angles.
Is eating the MDD way going to make drastic changes to your body comp and apparently change your caloric requirements? It appears so. If someone is constantly under or over eating buy 1,500-2,200 cals a day, is food choice the main thing to focus on? I would say, fuck no. The second guy needs to get his total cals and macros in order before he worries about food source choice, IMO.[/quote]
Well said. It’s sorta like those old radios where you had to tune the “coarse” knob before the “fine tune” knob. The “fine” knob made an important difference but you had to be in the right ballpark first.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Food choice certainly effects body comp. No one is arguing that.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
In fact I’ve yet to see someone developed start eating that way and say it did nothing for them.
[/quote]
I said this a couple pages ago, and I still feel like it is true.
Eating the MDD is going to make a much more significant impact for the dude that is firing on all cylinders and has all his ducks in a row. Particularly the dudes already carrying good amounts of muscle.
I mean, even given Bonez example of needing less overall cals to make gains on the diet. It is going to take someone that has their shit together in the first place to even get this. Someone that has tracked cals for awhile, knows their maintenance and has good experience manipulating his or her body fat and muscle levels.
Is it going to have the same effect on the clueless newb who thinks he is overtraining because he has been under eating the last 3 months and hasn’t gained shit? I doubt it.
And that is where this whole back and forth is breaking down. You guys are just looking at it from different angles.
Is eating the MDD way going to make drastic changes to your body comp and apparently change your caloric requirements? It appears so. If someone is constantly under or over eating buy 1,500-2,200 cals a day, is food choice the main thing to focus on? I would say, fuck no. The second guy needs to get his total cals and macros in order before he worries about food source choice, IMO.[/quote]
Good post. Learn how important calories and the big three macronutrients are alone before you pretend to be a dietician with a PhD. Get big and then refine.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
To get really big will often require some long periods of simply focusing on size gains. Most of the people saying otherwise aren’t really that big…and are often the type telling everyone else that you lose all your muscle when you diet from any higher than 10-12% body fat.[/quote]
Fair enough. A page or two ago I was posting about my “dirty” eating as a protest to that crowd.
I’m not debating that impressive size takes time. Merely wondering if eating mountain dog style would lead to even better gains than the way it’s usually done. I haven’t experimented with it myself but from what I’ve heard I wouldn’t be shocked if there’s some truth to it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
To get really big will often require some long periods of simply focusing on size gains. Most of the people saying otherwise aren’t really that big…and are often the type telling everyone else that you lose all your muscle when you diet from any higher than 10-12% body fat.[/quote]
Fair enough. A page or two ago I was posting about my “dirty” eating as a protest to that crowd.
I’m not debating that impressive size takes time. Merely wondering if eating mountain dog style would lead to even better gains than the way it’s usually done. I haven’t experimented with it myself but from what I’ve heard I wouldn’t be shocked if there’s some truth to it.[/quote]
Theory is fun.
Until the next 150lbs kid gets truly huge on it, it falls in line with the other 5,000,000 different dieting strategies that come and go to me.
I’m just not one for fads just for the sake of it.
Some work, some work better. In the end, you still have to find what works for you.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
All I can say is, this discussion is about getting huge…not the “I just want maybe 10lbs more muscle” crowd who is claiming people with 15% body fat are lazy and fat.
[/quote]
10lbs of pure muscle is A LOT.
Look at The Might Stu. He just stated in another thread that over the past 2-3 years he’s gained 7lbs of stage weight (which is 7lbs of pure muscle obvi) and looks way bigger/better and won his pro card because of it (multiple pro cards actually)
Putting on 10lbs of pure muscle (not water weight/glycogen is a really big deal even if it’s over the course of a year.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
All I can say is, this discussion is about getting huge…not the “I just want maybe 10lbs more muscle” crowd who is claiming people with 15% body fat are lazy and fat.
[/quote]
10lbs of pure muscle is A LOT.
Look at The Might Stu. He just stated in another thread that over the past 2-3 years he’s gained 7lbs of stage weight (which is 7lbs of pure muscle obvi) and looks way bigger/better and won his pro card because of it (multiple pro cards actually)
Putting on 10lbs of pure muscle (not water weight/glycogen is a really big deal even if it’s over the course of a year.[/quote]
Let me make this clear for you…we are NOT talking about someone who is already big or who has trained long enough to be near their own peak. Someone like that is at a point of REFINING all of that size they spent several years building.
10lbs of muscle is SHIT for a beginner…which is essentially what we are discussing…how to eat to get really fucking huge if you have the genetics for this.
Unless someone is already big, praising “10lbs of muscle” makes little sense outside of acknowledging progress made.
yeah, 10 more pounds of muscle on me would be good progress…but then, why the fuck would the issue of making the most muscle possible in a given time period be of concern for me right now? I mean, unless I am trying to hit the O stage…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
10lbs of muscle is SHIT for a beginner…which is essentially what we are discussing…how to eat to get really fucking huge if you have the genetics for this.
[/quote]
Agree to disagree then.
10lbs of body weight isn’t great but IMO 10lbs of pure muscle is… Beginner or not.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
10lbs of muscle is SHIT for a beginner…which is essentially what we are discussing…how to eat to get really fucking huge if you have the genetics for this.
[/quote]
Agree to disagree then.
10lbs of body weight isn’t great but IMO 10lbs of pure muscle is… Beginner or not.[/quote]
?
I’m not sure how to even respond…since I made the point clear above already.
If a beginner gains 10lbs of muscle and stops gaining anything else, I don’t count that as “great”. I count that as pretty fucking average.
This is the same point countingbeans brought up…about being at the right place to even see the right results from a specific strategy.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
All I can say is, this discussion is about getting huge…not the “I just want maybe 10lbs more muscle” crowd who is claiming people with 15% body fat are lazy and fat.
[/quote]
10lbs of pure muscle is A LOT.
Look at The Might Stu. He just stated in another thread that over the past 2-3 years he’s gained 7lbs of stage weight (which is 7lbs of pure muscle obvi) and looks way bigger/better and won his pro card because of it (multiple pro cards actually)
Putting on 10lbs of pure muscle (not water weight/glycogen is a really big deal even if it’s over the course of a year.[/quote]
7lbs on a very advanced guy is actually a really huge gain thats really impressive
I think X was referring to people that dont want to get very big and say they only want to gain 10lbs more muscle and after thats done, thats it they dont want anymore.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
10lbs of muscle is SHIT for a beginner…which is essentially what we are discussing…how to eat to get really fucking huge if you have the genetics for this.
[/quote]
Agree to disagree then.
10lbs of body weight isn’t great but IMO 10lbs of pure muscle is… Beginner or not.[/quote]
?
I’m not sure how to even respond…since I made the point clear above already.
If a beginner gains 10lbs of muscle and stops gaining anything else, I don’t count that as “great”. I count that as pretty fucking average.
This is the same point countingbeans brought up…about being at the right place to even see the right results from a specific strategy.[/quote]
I never said anything about not gaining anymore after that. I just said putting on 10lbs of pure muscle in a year is good no matter what level you’re on. You’re not going to put on 10lbs of pure muscle without gaining some BF (along with water weight/glycogen) so that 10lbs of pure muscle comes with IMO at least 20lbs total weight gain… At least.
[quote]Blackaggar wrote:
I think X was referring to people that dont want to get very big and say they only want to gain 10lbs more muscle and after thats done, thats it they dont want anymore.
correct me if im wrong[/quote]
That’s what I meant.
I think the real question is why I need to repeat myself so much for the original point to sink in.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
10lbs of muscle is SHIT for a beginner…which is essentially what we are discussing…how to eat to get really fucking huge if you have the genetics for this.
[/quote]
Agree to disagree then.
10lbs of body weight isn’t great but IMO 10lbs of pure muscle is… Beginner or not.[/quote]
?
I’m not sure how to even respond…since I made the point clear above already.
If a beginner gains 10lbs of muscle and stops gaining anything else, I don’t count that as “great”. I count that as pretty fucking average.
This is the same point countingbeans brought up…about being at the right place to even see the right results from a specific strategy.[/quote]
I never said anything about not gaining anymore after that. I just said putting on 10lbs of pure muscle in a year is good no matter what level you’re on. You’re not going to put on 10lbs of pure muscle without gaining some BF (along with water weight/glycogen) so that 10lbs of pure muscle comes with IMO at least 20lbs total weight gain… At least.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
To get really big will often require some long periods of simply focusing on size gains. Most of the people saying otherwise aren’t really that big…and are often the type telling everyone else that you lose all your muscle when you diet from any higher than 10-12% body fat.[/quote]
Fair enough. A page or two ago I was posting about my “dirty” eating as a protest to that crowd.
I’m not debating that impressive size takes time. Merely wondering if eating mountain dog style would lead to even better gains than the way it’s usually done. I haven’t experimented with it myself but from what I’ve heard I wouldn’t be shocked if there’s some truth to it.[/quote]
Theory is fun.
Until the next 150lbs kid gets truly huge on it, it falls in line with the other 5,000,000 different dieting strategies that come and go to me.
I’m just not one for fads just for the sake of it.
Some work, some work better. In the end, you still have to find what works for you.[/quote]
Fair enough. I like talking about it for the sake of discussion… but I would not tell someone who is just starting out that they need to worry about whether they are eating organic free range chicken eggs.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
10lbs of muscle is SHIT for a beginner…which is essentially what we are discussing…how to eat to get really fucking huge if you have the genetics for this.
[/quote]
Agree to disagree then.
10lbs of body weight isn’t great but IMO 10lbs of pure muscle is… Beginner or not.[/quote]
?
I’m not sure how to even respond…since I made the point clear above already.
If a beginner gains 10lbs of muscle and stops gaining anything else, I don’t count that as “great”. I count that as pretty fucking average.
This is the same point countingbeans brought up…about being at the right place to even see the right results from a specific strategy.[/quote]
I never said anything about not gaining anymore after that. I just said putting on 10lbs of pure muscle in a year is good no matter what level you’re on. You’re not going to put on 10lbs of pure muscle without gaining some BF (along with water weight/glycogen) so that 10lbs of pure muscle comes with IMO at least 20lbs total weight gain… At least.
That is not bad/mediocre progress IMO.[/quote]
Definitely not bad progress but also depends on how long it took a person to do this aswell. Either way its a lot more then a lot of people will gain after they’re initial beginner gains
OK, way too long thread, but 1 thing I wanna ask the folks here is:
Do you consider fried chicken “junk food”? Talking about deep fried, in breadcrumbs and skin on, the American “Southern Style”. Since we have already established that a good ol’ burger barely qualifies as junk food.
To me, fried chicken is as close to healthy eating as junk food gets. Sat fats (good), no processing (good), white meat (good) and delicious (fuckin good).
My girlfriend thinks its disgusting but that don’t stop me from eating a whole box of fried breasts and drumsticks on leg day LOL. By the way, the fried chicken is usually homemade, but often from McDonald’s or the local Deli as well.