Eighty to 100 Pound Muscular Gains

Training
221

[quote]detazathoth wrote:

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]detazathoth wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Dan Green is one of those guys who is actually a 242 year round and cuts to the 220’s. On a related note I saw him at the Arnold and the poor bastard looked really haggard. You can tell he is straining his body’s limits.[/quote]

I think most people know that he cuts quite a bit to make weight.

As for the Arnold, I worked at a similar Expo up in New England, those things are draining, I’m not surprised that he looked worn out, he probably was just actually tired.
[/quote]
I just didn’t know if that’s something you ever wanted to do. Cut down from 240 to the 220’s or from around where you are now to the 198’s right before a meet.[/quote]

A lot of guys lifting in the 220 class will cut quite a bit of weight. One of the funniest things ever is standing in line at early weigh in with a bunch of other guys who cut hard to make weight. All you talk about is what you are going to eat teh second you make weight.[/quote]

Usually I go straight to the near IHOP and get one of everything off the breakfast menu[/quote]
I remember reading about… I can’t remember who exactly, I think it may have been Matt Kroc, but anyway he had one of those hotel baggage dollies rolled right up next to the scale at weigh ins, fully loaded with pallets of gatorade ready to go.

222

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
I think some people here are idiots and keep talking about 50 lb limits in every fucking thread and its annoying

I guess the people who choose to stay ~ 200 lbs are the ones who keep telling everyone how much muscle they can gain, without having one shred of evidence to back up their claim… and this forum has a lot of people who would have put on > 50 lbs of muscle since they started

[/quote]

Thing is it’s really not about a 50 pound limit - it’s more of a discussion on what has been seen in some 70 years of bodybuilding history as far as weights/heights and bodypart size. If you haven’t read this yet please do so - it’s a good read and it was a great and fairly definitive discussion on the topic.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/blog_sports_training_performance_bodybuilding_alpha/bodybuilding_genetics_and_reality

And honestly - for a math guy you don’t seem to care much about providing actual numbers, or any real metric of progress other that your word. So, BCT, a highly respected member of this site and a guy who has accomplished a shitton when it comes to BB and PL specifically asked you to provide pictures and stats, and you simply respond with sarcasm.

So, everyone saying there’s a limit has not provided a “shred of proof” yet you’ve gained 84 pounds of pure muscle, natty, in only two years, yet you don’t feel as obligated to provide proof? That just seems odd to me…[/quote]

where did I say 84 lbs of LBM?

it seems like the other side has to misconstrue anything I say because they simply have no arguments

and it’s funny people posting about LBM in “contest condition” in this forum, shouldn’t you guys be in the Bodybuilding forum?

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
This 80 lb rule is beneficial for bbers imo. Is it worth it for a 5’8 natty to get delusional and bulk to 240 lbs 20+% bf? When virtually ZERO 5’8 nattys have competed at 200 lbs or even close? This person would likely have to lose 60-70 lbs to get into contest condition! [/quote]

This forum has nothing to do with contest condition so this post is completely pointless. [/quote]

Well thank you for the clarification mr yolo. Please allow me to explain why this is not a pointless post, if you don’t mind?

People are here saying this 80 lb rule is POINTLESS and can only LIMIT people. My previous post is an attempt to show that this rule can also help keep someone that is natty of average height that has a goal of being big AND lean (Bigger, stronger, leaner. This works right?) from geeting delusional and adding excess fat when it is unrealistic and unnecessary.

I sincerely hope this post passes your strict guidelines for this forum mr yolo. I apologize in advance if it does not.

[/quote]

So people should go off of an arbitrary number instead of having their bodyfat tested, intelligent

why not just look at what the good bodybuilders of your height(natty) have done, add 10-15% to that to account for the bodyfat? is that so hard

223

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
This is pathetic. The same guy all of the time. [/quote]

yuuuuup

224

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
This is pathetic. The same guy all of the time. [/quote]

yuuuuup[/quote]

do you not think that you, utah lama, super saiyan, skynett and cueball in particular are not massively trolling this forum the whole time

generally speaking stronghold and brick never agree with him either but at least they offer some information beyond another fucking ‘best post’ or disputing the most inane crap

225

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
This 80 lb rule is beneficial for bbers imo. Is it worth it for a 5’8 natty to get delusional and bulk to 240 lbs 20+% bf? When virtually ZERO 5’8 nattys have competed at 200 lbs or even close? This person would likely have to lose 60-70 lbs to get into contest condition! [/quote]

This forum has nothing to do with contest condition so this post is completely pointless. [/quote]

Well thank you for the clarification mr yolo. Please allow me to explain why this is not a pointless post, if you don’t mind?

People are here saying this 80 lb rule is POINTLESS and can only LIMIT people. My previous post is an attempt to show that this rule can also help keep someone that is natty of average height that has a goal of being big AND lean (Bigger, stronger, leaner. This works right?) from geeting delusional and adding excess fat when it is unrealistic and unnecessary.

I sincerely hope this post passes your strict guidelines for this forum mr yolo. I apologize in advance if it does not.

[/quote]

But…the rule is based on people who did NOT wait until after full maturity to start training…so how is it even relevant or scientifically accurate?[/quote]

I’ve seen you pushing this point the last couple of days and I’m surprised you don’t see why it doesn’t matter.

If the people who have gained the most LBM (natural bodybuilders in our assertion) have only gained 50 pounds but they started training before full maturation, that would mean part of their 50 pound LBM gain was due to normal adolescent puberty growth, thereby decreasing the true amount of their gain.

You keep making your point as if that means the population would have gained more LBM if they started training after full maturation.

Any growth attributed to training, even if it was part of the normal adolescent growth process, would only serve to bump up any perceived limit, not lower it.

This will be my only post on this particular aspect because I’m sure you see what I’m talking about, but I question how you’ll respond and I don’t feel like talking in circles.

226

Long time lurker but I decided to create an account to speak my peace. Take it or leave it.
I’m sure most will leave it though

These arguments threads are pointless and only drive quality and reputation of this forum down.

Professor X is not going to convince his opposers that his way or views are correct.

The Professor X detractors are not going to convince him that his ways or views are incorrect.

It is a negative cycle that is just being perpetuated over and over to no end. It also does not serve the forum in a positive manner, unless you count lurker views/clicks like mine as positive.

It appears to me that this entire sub forum was created as a place to have these arguments without detracting from the actually helpful threads in the Body Building section.

I think everyone involved would be better served by taking the advice of Zraw and ignoring Professor X if you do not agree with him.

If people that disagree with Professor X stop responding to him then these pointless threads will die out. Please just give out your advice or thoughts on a subject and avoid the nitpicking arguments and this entire site would be better served.

Neither side is going to convince the other that they are wrong so, please, give it a rest.

227

[quote]Professor X wrote:
12% may not be “all abs in” for all people.

10% may not be all abs in for all people.

All abs in depends highly on where and how you store body fat…which is GENETIC. I would not use that alone as a standard for all people.[/quote]

This is a valid point and deserves consideration. It is true that for some lifters it may be an incomplete ‘rule of thumb’ and is why I don’t specificy a BF%. These lifters represent a small % of the whole and people who have been around a while recognize them from the get go. It is directly related to a persons fat distribution. I have always used a 7 point caliper method. I have never had a scapula reading over 14 regardless of my bodyweight but have known a number of lifters with even distribution patterns that have a reading in the mid-twenties while appearing to be leaner than me in the mid-section. These are the lifters that can pull off the ‘Full House’ look. Most lifters couldn’t make that happen regardless!

I still believe that using calculations while carrying bodyfat above 14% or so, provides data that is suspect at best for determining gains/progress. That is not to say that I believe there is no benefit to training with an additional 10-15% of bodyweight [perhaps as much as 20% for some lifters] over the known ‘lean’ weight. However, after a retrun to the ‘lean’ condition the weight that remains is the gain…the rest was imaginary.

Again I believe the whole ‘how much LBM’ any given lifters has added is an indeterminable value. Yes, the ‘Full House’ lifter may need to dig deeper to bring out the mid-section, but the vascularity in other areas will be obvious as they approach single digits. Most lifters with significant development are ‘abs all in’ or very close at 10%.

FTR…I do not consider PX to be fat. I believe he carries more BF than he probably does and suspect he would be in my neighborhood if he cut to 10% or fairly close. I believe as he gets older he will gradually reduce his weight and I hope I’m around then, but if and when he chooses to do so is his decision not mine.

228

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
I think some people here are idiots and keep talking about 50 lb limits in every fucking thread and its annoying

I guess the people who choose to stay ~ 200 lbs are the ones who keep telling everyone how much muscle they can gain, without having one shred of evidence to back up their claim… and this forum has a lot of people who would have put on > 50 lbs of muscle since they started

[/quote]

Thing is it’s really not about a 50 pound limit - it’s more of a discussion on what has been seen in some 70 years of bodybuilding history as far as weights/heights and bodypart size. If you haven’t read this yet please do so - it’s a good read and it was a great and fairly definitive discussion on the topic.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/blog_sports_training_performance_bodybuilding_alpha/bodybuilding_genetics_and_reality

And honestly - for a math guy you don’t seem to care much about providing actual numbers, or any real metric of progress other that your word. So, BCT, a highly respected member of this site and a guy who has accomplished a shitton when it comes to BB and PL specifically asked you to provide pictures and stats, and you simply respond with sarcasm.

So, everyone saying there’s a limit has not provided a “shred of proof” yet you’ve gained 84 pounds of pure muscle, natty, in only two years, yet you don’t feel as obligated to provide proof? That just seems odd to me…[/quote]

where did I say 84 lbs of LBM?

it seems like the other side has to misconstrue anything I say because they simply have no arguments

and it’s funny people posting about LBM in “contest condition” in this forum, shouldn’t you guys be in the Bodybuilding forum?

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
This 80 lb rule is beneficial for bbers imo. Is it worth it for a 5’8 natty to get delusional and bulk to 240 lbs 20+% bf? When virtually ZERO 5’8 nattys have competed at 200 lbs or even close? This person would likely have to lose 60-70 lbs to get into contest condition! [/quote]

This forum has nothing to do with contest condition so this post is completely pointless. [/quote]

Well thank you for the clarification mr yolo. Please allow me to explain why this is not a pointless post, if you don’t mind?

People are here saying this 80 lb rule is POINTLESS and can only LIMIT people. My previous post is an attempt to show that this rule can also help keep someone that is natty of average height that has a goal of being big AND lean (Bigger, stronger, leaner. This works right?) from geeting delusional and adding excess fat when it is unrealistic and unnecessary.

I sincerely hope this post passes your strict guidelines for this forum mr yolo. I apologize in advance if it does not.

[/quote]

So people should go off of an arbitrary number instead of having their bodyfat tested, intelligent

why not just look at what the good bodybuilders of your height(natty) have done, add 10-15% to that to account for the bodyfat? is that so hard
[/quote]

lol then you have completely missed the point of this thread, were not arguing about simply gaining alot of weight over a few years. we are talking about adding actual muscle mass…

you claimed to be better than top natty pros because you gained 84lb of weight in 2 years. regardless if you believe it or not, over 40lb of that is simply fat.

229


Alright, some guys, not knowing that some of the offseason guys I posted were not in “near contest shape” because they probably had 10 to 12 weeks of dieting for competition, were not happy. So I’ll post some softer 250 to 300 pound behemoths, some of them being the quintessential full housers!

First up, Glen Chabot, who got up to 300 pounds at one time, and had the raw bench record before Scot Mendelson. Please take note of just how big this man was.

230


GC again.

231

GC again.

232

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Alright, some guys, not knowing that some of the offseason guys I posted were not in “near contest shape” because they probably had 10 to 12 weeks of dieting for competition, were not happy. So I’ll post some softer 250 to 300 pound behemoths, some of them being the quintessential full housers!

First up, Glen Chabot, who got up to 300 pounds at one time, and had the raw bench record before Scot Mendelson. Please take note of just how big this man was. [/quote]

hasn’t Professor X posted tons of pictures where he looks similar to this guy

and a pro 10-12 weeks out from a show is still insanely lean and very far from “not fat” shape

i am sure most people here understand how big a muscular 250+ guy is i dunno what your point really is anymore unless this is all for LOLs?

233

kirk Karwoski, not sure if in the 242 or 275 class here. Looks pretty lean so I think it’s 242.

Probably 28 to 30 inch thighs.

This is what a semi lean monster looks like with those kind of thighs.

234

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

lol then you have completely missed the point of this thread, were not arguing about simply gaining alot of weight over a few years. we are talking about adding actual muscle mass…

you claimed to be better than top natty pros because you gained 84lb of weight in 2 years. regardless if you believe it or not, over 40lb of that is simply fat.[/quote]

when you are older you will understand sarcasm

235

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
This is pathetic. The same guy all of the time. [/quote]

yuuuuup[/quote]
BEST POST

236

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
This is pathetic. The same guy all of the time. [/quote]

yuuuuup[/quote]

do you not think that you, utah lama, super saiyan, skynett and cueball in particular are not massively trolling this forum the whole time

generally speaking stronghold and brick never agree with him either but at least they offer some information beyond another fucking ‘best post’ or disputing the most inane crap[/quote]

I’ve contributed what I can on other threads in the forum in a positive manner, I’ve even asked civil questions on this one out of general interest.

237

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Alright, some guys, not knowing that some of the offseason guys I posted were not in “near contest shape” because they probably had 10 to 12 weeks of dieting for competition, were not happy. So I’ll post some softer 250 to 300 pound behemoths, some of them being the quintessential full housers!

First up, Glen Chabot, who got up to 300 pounds at one time, and had the raw bench record before Scot Mendelson. Please take note of just how big this man was. [/quote]

hasn’t Professor X posted tons of pictures where he looks similar to this guy
[/quote]

This, lol. From what i’ve seen of prof X, he looks somewhere close to that size and also looks to be a taller guy. Also unless kingbeef is on steroids and we don’t know it, didnt he precisely gain about 80lb LBM with no fat gain?

238

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Alright, some guys, not knowing that some of the offseason guys I posted were not in “near contest shape” because they probably had 10 to 12 weeks of dieting for competition, were not happy. So I’ll post some softer 250 to 300 pound behemoths, some of them being the quintessential full housers!

First up, Glen Chabot, who got up to 300 pounds at one time, and had the raw bench record before Scot Mendelson. Please take note of just how big this man was. [/quote]

hasn’t Professor X posted tons of pictures where he looks similar to this guy

and a pro 10-12 weeks out from a show is still insanely lean and very far from “not fat” shape

i am sure most people here understand how big a muscular 250+ guy is i dunno what your point really is anymore unless this is all for LOLs?[/quote]

Apparently.

239

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
12% may not be “all abs in” for all people.

10% may not be all abs in for all people.

All abs in depends highly on where and how you store body fat…which is GENETIC. I would not use that alone as a standard for all people.[/quote]

This is a valid point and deserves consideration. It is true that for some lifters it may be an incomplete ‘rule of thumb’ and is why I don’t specificy a BF%. These lifters represent a small % of the whole and people who have been around a while recognize them from the get go. It is directly related to a persons fat distribution.[/quote]

Which is why so many of us are against these “number freaks” running around lately. It doesnt matter if someone recahes “exactly 10% body fat” because that number does not guarantee “looking great with abs”.

[quote]
I have always used a 7 point caliper method. I have never had a scapula reading over 14 regardless of my bodyweight but have known a number of lifters with even distribution patterns that have a reading in the mid-twenties while appearing to be leaner than me in the mid-section. These are the lifters that can pull off the ‘Full House’ look. Most lifters couldn’t make that happen regardless! [/quote]

But, most lifters can’t build muscular arms over 18" so “most lifters” aren’t even what most of my posts are for. That is why I specify the goal so often. Some guy trying to look like a underwear model probably should train and eat like one.

[quote]

I still believe that using calculations while carrying bodyfat above 14% or so, provides data that is suspect at best for determining gains/progress. That is not to say that I believe there is no benefit to training with an additional 10-15% of bodyweight [perhaps as much as 20% for some lifters] over the known ‘lean’ weight. However, after a retrun to the ‘lean’ condition the weight that remains is the gain…the rest was imaginary. [/quote]

I think your choice of words is interesting. I agree that the more fat someone carries, the less you can tell EXACTLY how much is muscle…but we are also talking about guys who are big enough to justify it so it is painfully obvious they are carrying a lot of muscle whether you can tell EXACTLY how much or not.

[quote]

Again I believe the whole ‘how much LBM’ any given lifters has added is an indeterminable value.[/quote]

Which means this “limit” again makes no sense.

[quote]

Yes, the ‘Full House’ lifter may need to dig deeper to bring out the mid-section, but the vascularity in other areas will be obvious as they approach single digits. Most lifters with significant development are ‘abs all in’ or very close at 10%. [/quote]

I think overall we agree…es[pecially when it comes to vascularity.

The pic that heavylifter posted is NOT all abs in…but by his vascularity and seperation it is very clear most of that he is carrying is flat out muscle tissue.

I doubt anyone would see him in real life in that condition and claim he must diet down to tell if he is very muscular or not.

[quote]

FTR…I do not consider PX to be fat. I believe he carries more BF than he probably does and suspect he would be in my neighborhood if he cut to 10% or fairly close. I believe as he gets older he will gradually reduce his weight and I hope I’m around then, but if and when he chooses to do so is his decision not mine. [/quote]

I already did that. I am trying to understand how so many people can be that critical of my progress yet ignore the progress I made right here.

240

Guys, I’m NOT saying Professor X isn’t impressive. However, with the possible exception of ONE person on this board and to the best of my knowledge (I can be wrong), there is NO ONE here with the muscle mass of Glen in his prime. We’re talking about someone with the total body musculature for benching in the low 700’s and used a fair share of drugs. Please take note of his arms in the photographs above.