Eighty to 100 Pound Muscular Gains

Training
41

[quote]iDrDan wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]iDrDan wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

Instead of being argumentative, can you prove Brick wrong?

[/quote]

argumentative? brick keeps linking people who are 250-300 and saying 180+ lean is somehow a normal starting weight, when it isn’t

according to BMI chart, for 5’10 150 is normal weight… if I have 15% bodyfat, I’m 128 lean

can I get to 208 LBM if I was willing to go up to 250 or 300 lbs, and NOT cut?

natural bodybuilders are around 200+, and that’s with the muscle loss from cutting

I don’t think it’s that ridiculous

[/quote]

So post some examples.[/quote]

use google?

and since you don’t know their starting weight (couldve been as low as 130) obviously they could have gained more than 80 lbs of LBM

or are there no 200 lb+ natural bodybuilders now

[/quote]

80lb of MUSCLE not just lean body mass. this argument is dumb because one side has the last 50 years of natural bodybuilding backing it up, while the other is just nothing but what ifs.

PLEASE! someone post a picture of a contest ready natural bodybuilder, of average height. who is over 200lbs. ill just wait…[/quote]

Ask and you shall receive.
Jeff Willet[/quote]

Hahahaha!

Jeff Willet–natural alright!

Who else can we post as natural–Kiyoshi Moody, Mike O’Hearn, Skip La Cour, Stan McQuay, Markus Reinhardt, anyone who competes in Team Universe or competed in Musclemania?
[/quote]

Okay, so Willet is very muscular and lean. Does that mean he’s on steroids? What other aspects of his physique or appearance make you think he’s riding the bicycle? He has a normal jaw and facial features, tiny head and neck, and good skin, etc. In this video (from 1:25 on) you get a good close look at his head…
Jeff Willet and Steroids - YouTube [/quote]

lol

42

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
80lb of MUSCLE not just lean body mass.[/quote]

the “argument” was always LBM and not 100% dry muscle weight.
[/quote]

Nope, the original quote as I pointed out in the other thread was specified as muscle.

43

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
80lb of MUSCLE not just lean body mass.[/quote]

the “argument” was always LBM and not 100% dry muscle weight.
[/quote]

Nope, the original quote as I pointed out in the other thread was specified as muscle.[/quote]

well if we are talking pure dry muscle we can probably assume no human has ever gained 100lbs of dry muscle weight including everyone posted in this thread.

which makes this thread even more pointless than usual.

hopefully the next thread will be “can anyone bench press 10 thousand pounds?!?!?!”

44

Thanks, guys. I followed Willet and Max-OT stuff back in the day and never heard of or realized that he was on prohormones. I was a little naive to believe that he was “natural” because he didn’t use steroids.

45

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
80lb of MUSCLE not just lean body mass.[/quote]

the “argument” was always LBM and not 100% dry muscle weight.
[/quote]

Nope, the original quote as I pointed out in the other thread was specified as muscle.[/quote]

well if we are talking pure dry muscle we can probably assume no human has ever gained 100lbs of dry muscle weight including everyone posted in this thread.

which makes this thread even more pointless than usual.

hopefully the next thread will be “can anyone bench press 10 thousand pounds?!?!?!”[/quote]

Again, making shit up. the original quote never said dry muscle, just muscle.

46

The problem as I see it is identifying the starting point. Using a lifters weight prior to the end of the maturation cycle[22-23] leaves many ‘open’ variables. Using a calculated LBM while in a ‘less then lean’ condition is worthless IMO. Rather than placing the focus on the undetermined starting point; it’s where a lifter finishes that matters. When you find natural lifters that are at/or very close to 3lbs per inch of height lean(all abs in), they are lifters that have ‘the look’ most of us are shooting for, regardless of the amount of LBM they may have added.

47

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
80lb of MUSCLE not just lean body mass.[/quote]

the “argument” was always LBM and not 100% dry muscle weight.
[/quote]

Nope, the original quote as I pointed out in the other thread was specified as muscle.[/quote]

well if we are talking pure dry muscle we can probably assume no human has ever gained 100lbs of dry muscle weight including everyone posted in this thread.

which makes this thread even more pointless than usual.

hopefully the next thread will be “can anyone bench press 10 thousand pounds?!?!?!”[/quote]

Again, making shit up. the original quote never said dry muscle, just muscle.[/quote]

wtf does that mean then and why can’t LBM be interchangeable with it if you are including water, glycogen etc

there was no mythical “original quote” laid down by Moses either. So you have found a quote from somewhere well done.

48

I’ve gained well over 100lbs of lean body mass since birth.

49

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
The problem as I see it is identifying the starting point. Using a lifters weight prior to the end of the maturation cycle[22-23] leaves many ‘open’ variables. Using a calculated LBM while in a ‘less then lean’ condition is worthless IMO. Rather than placing the focus on the undetermined starting point; it’s where a lifter finishes that matters. When you find natural lifters that are at/or very close to 3lbs per inch of height lean(all abs in), they are lifters that have ‘the look’ most of us are shooting for, regardless of the amount of LBM they may have added. [/quote]

Absolutely. Perfectly stated.

50

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]detazathoth wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Feel free to post a natural who can be assumed to have gained 80 to 100 pounds as well. [/quote]

I like where this is going.

BRB getting my popcorn![/quote]

In your interview you said you started training around 18 years old at 125lbs 5’8 at what looks like 10-12% BF.

5 years later you are 215 at 17%. So “lean mass” from around 110lbs to around 178.5lbs.

A gain of around 68.5lbs.

You say your goal is 225 at 10-12%. Which would be a gain from around 110lbs to around 202.5lbs.

A gain of around 92.5lbs.

Yet you seem to always disagree with the premise that it is not possible to gain 80-100lbs LBM as an adult despite you already being nearly there and it being your goal to fit pretty much exactly within these parameters. Even including the fact you were running long distance when you started or that the 225 will no longer be as a natural (i am assuming) it all seems pretty close enough to fit the argument of 80lbs+ LBM gain.

I don’t understand.[/quote]

Was there an answer to this? I don’t see it.

51

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
The problem as I see it is identifying the starting point. Using a lifters weight prior to the end of the maturation cycle[22-23] leaves many ‘open’ variables. [/quote]

Well said. That is why setting the limit can potentially create more harm than good. Most people who ever get big enough to really stand out in the gym started well before the age of full maturation…which means we have no substantial data for there to even be a “limit” unless the pool of data they are getting this from all started after the age of full maturation.

That means there is no basis at all for this “80lbs” other than someone said that is the limit.

I know I do NOT have the best genetics in the world…and if these guys are now saying all it takes to pass up these limits is the use of a prohormone years ago, then obviously someone out there can gain more lean body mass than I can. To think otherwise makes no sense.

Making the stipulation that the person be in contest condition confuses it even further because it leaves out the world of people who could do it who never competed or ever dieted down for it.

Simply put, unless all of those “natural competitors” all started AFTER THE AGE OF 21 then there is no basis for this strict limit.

52

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Making the stipulation that the person be in contest condition confuses it even further because it leaves out the world of people who could do it who never competed or ever dieted down for it.

[/quote]

But that’s just it - people can “guesstimate” all they want, but until someone truly gets to that BF%, no one can say with certainty exactly how much LBM they really, truly are carrying.

Again, there’s that word - “could” - they either did it, or they didn’t. And until they do (whoever “they” are - another mythical outlier I guess) it’s nothing more than speculation.

53

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Making the stipulation that the person be in contest condition confuses it even further because it leaves out the world of people who could do it who never competed or ever dieted down for it.

[/quote]

But that’s just it - people can “guesstimate” all they want, but until someone truly gets to that BF%, no one can say with certainty exactly how much LBM they really, truly are carrying.

Again, there’s that word - “could” - they either did it, or they didn’t. And until they do (whoever “they” are - another mythical outlier I guess) it’s nothing more than speculation. [/quote]

I do not see you questioning the pool of data that set this limit…so why are you questioning the guys who literally did it?

If someone has to be in contest shape for you to even know this, THEN YOU CAN NOT STATE THIS AS A LIMIT TO ALL NATURAL LIFTERS…since most people will never compete and have no plans to.

I made it clear…to even support some set specific limit like this would mean you are IGNORING that it is doubtful even one of those competitors started all of their training AFTER full maturation.

Therefore, since most start BEFORE FULL MATURATION, why tell them a “limit” like this based on what?

54

Lol @ anybdoy who thinks Jeff Willet is natural, just one look and you can tell. Hahah wow.

55

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
And until they do (whoever “they” are - another mythical outlier I guess) it’s nothing more than speculation. [/quote]

It is pretty funny/ironic that the very first responder to this thread largely meets this critieria.

Detaza-something has gained around 70lbs LBM and has done so:

  1. without this being a primary goal (he is a PL)
  2. intentionally keeping his weight within set parameters due to a weight class and strength/ weight ratio

So don’t we have one of these mythical people right here in this thread?

Without getting into literally laughable semantics over dry weight/LBM must be exactly 80.1lbs or it didn’t happen territory -

He has gained about 70lbs of LBM , and is planning on gaining more.

What are people responses to this? Surely he has proved this himself by and large (70lbs not 80lbs yet).

Hopefully responses can remain civil just like this post is.

56

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
And until they do (whoever “they” are - another mythical outlier I guess) it’s nothing more than speculation. [/quote]

It is pretty funny/ironic that the very first responder to this thread largely meets this critieria.

Detaza-something has gained around 70lbs LBM and has done so:

  1. without this being a primary goal (he is a PL)
  2. intentionally keeping his weight within set parameters due to a weight class and strength/ weight ratio

So don’t we have one of these mythical people right here in this thread?

Without getting into literally laughable semantics over dry weight/LBM must be exactly 80.1lbs or it didn’t happen territory -

He has gained about 70lbs of LBM , and is planning on gaining more.

What are people responses to this? Surely he has proved this himself by and large (70lbs not 80lbs yet).

Hopefully responses can remain civil just like this post is.
[/quote]

it’s an interesting point this. We’ll need to get some clarification from the man himself though just to be sure

57

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Therefore, since most start BEFORE FULL MATURATION, why tell them a “limit” like this based on what?[/quote]

So, you want to include normal, pubertal muscle growth along with gains made after maturation with lifting? Even though even an untrained teenager will gain mass anyway, lifting or not?

Ok…you go ahead and do that then.

But I agree with BCT - 3 lbs per inch natty is about the limit, so at 5 foot 9.5 inches tall, that means with full abs showing, and at my absolute natural limit of muscle gain I’d be 208.5 pounds.

69.5 inches * 3 lbs = 208.5

So, at my limit, I diet down to single digits and weigh 208.5…or, I’m not at my limit, and need to hit 190 before being at the same BF percentage…or maybe 185…or lower…see how it’s all speculation, until you actually do it?

58

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Therefore, since most start BEFORE FULL MATURATION, why tell them a “limit” like this based on what?[/quote]

So, you want to include normal, pubertal muscle growth along with gains made after maturation with lifting? Even though even an untrained teenager will gain mass anyway, lifting or not?

Ok…you go ahead and do that then. [/quote]

? I don’t want to include it at all because I am not the one trying to tell people that no human natural can gain more than x amount of muscle.

The bottom line is, since the population most likely to even look at these limits are guys who start before full maturation WHAT SIGNIFICANCE IS THIS LIMIT AND HOW CAN YOU IGNORE THAT NO ONE LOOKED AT FOR THIS LIMIT STARTED AFTER FULL MATURATION???

I did it or came close to it. I know there are people better than me at gaining muscle…so to me, saying this limit is true makes no sense.

59

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Therefore, since most start BEFORE FULL MATURATION, why tell them a “limit” like this based on what?[/quote]

So, you want to include normal, pubertal muscle growth along with gains made after maturation with lifting? Even though even an untrained teenager will gain mass anyway, lifting or not?

Ok…you go ahead and do that then. [/quote]

? I don’t want to include it at all because I am not the one trying to tell people that no human natural can gain more than x amount of muscle.

The bottom line is, since the population most likely to even look at these limits are guys who start before full maturation WHAT SIGNIFICANCE IS THIS LIMIT AND HOW CAN YOU IGNORE THAT NO ONE LOOKED AT FOR THIS LIMIT STARTED AFTER FULL MATURATION???

I did it or came close to it. I know there are people better than me at gaining muscle…so to me, saying this limit is true makes no sense.[/quote]

Dude - whatever - there’s no talking to you - everyone here knows that. The bottom line is you can keep talking about how much you weigh, how you “did it” and you can do that until you’re blue in the face, but it is my opinion that until you are at a reasonably lean place - like a real, true 10%, then you really have no idea exactly what you will weigh dieted down - which is directly correlated to how much muscle you are really carrying.

And at that we can agree to disagree, because this will go no further on either side. It’s my opinion, I stated it, you stated yours - we don’t agree, so I’ll leave it at that.

60

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
And until they do (whoever “they” are - another mythical outlier I guess) it’s nothing more than speculation. [/quote]

It is pretty funny/ironic that the very first responder to this thread largely meets this critieria.

Detaza-something has gained around 70lbs LBM and has done so:

  1. without this being a primary goal (he is a PL)
  2. intentionally keeping his weight within set parameters due to a weight class and strength/ weight ratio

So don’t we have one of these mythical people right here in this thread?

Without getting into literally laughable semantics over dry weight/LBM must be exactly 80.1lbs or it didn’t happen territory -

He has gained about 70lbs of LBM , and is planning on gaining more.

What are people responses to this? Surely he has proved this himself by and large (70lbs not 80lbs yet).

Hopefully responses can remain civil just like this post is.
[/quote]

HE’S TOO FAT…HE’S NOT NATURAL…HE WON’T EVER DIET TO CONTEST SHAPE.

That seems to be the way we should greet anyone who says they can do it or come close.

We have to make sure there are enough stipulations thrown in to make it seem like they didn’t.