Eighty to 100 Pound Muscular Gains

Training
81

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Carlos would be between 175 and 180 lbs in contest shape. Assuming that at least some LBM has to be lost as body water will decrease when fat is lost and that he won’t get to 0% bodyfat, that’s right in line with everything we’ve said.

82

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
28 inch not-fat thighs![/quote]

Earl Campbell, 34-inch thighs- I win!! :))

83

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
or are there no 200 lb+ natural bodybuilders now
[/quote]
200+, stage ready, and natural at average height - no[/quote]

does “200+” mean 201 or 299

it is literally impossible for someone to weigh 201lbs on stage?

cos that is what you’re saying[/quote]
read what I posted and read what you posted

84

cliffs:

brickhead is a troll and brings up a vague 80 lb limit without regard to starting starts in every thread (before it was a 50 lb limit)

185 lean is a normal starting weight

natural bodybuilders who actually compete at 200 wouldn’t have any more muscle mass than if they didn’t mind the extra bodyfat and went to 250 or 300

85

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
cliffs:

brickhead is a troll and brings up a vague 80 lb limit without regard to starting starts in every thread (before it was a 50 lb limit)

[/quote]

Cliffs - Brickhead is a registered dietician with a masters in sports nutrition, and did his thesis under Dr. Doug Kalman. He’s an experienced bodybuilder who has a true passion for training and nutrition. Also, he’s one of the most knowledgeable people on these subjects I know.

86

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Carlos would be between 175 and 180 lbs in contest shape. Assuming that at least some LBM has to be lost as body water will decrease when fat is lost and that he won’t get to 0% bodyfat, that’s right in line with everything we’ve said.[/quote]

Neither this thread nor forum has anything to do with “contest shape” so that is irrelevant.

This argument is that no adult natural of average height can gain over 80lbs LBM.

Detaza… is being used as he has recently put up his stats elsewhere.

  1. Started around 18 years old at around 5’8" 125lbs around 10-12%
  2. 5 years later is 215 at 17% a gain of around 70lbs LBM
  3. Goal is 225 at 10-12% which would be a gain of around 90lbs

He is a PLer so his primary goal is not LBM gain it is strength/ weight ratio and staying within a weight class. Yet he is still capable of pretty much doing it.

Even if using the fact he started as a distance runner and the 225 goal may no longer be as a natural - for all intents and purposes he is an illustration that people can get to and possibly bypass the mythical “80lbs LBM” gain.

I am also aware that he is a very serious trainer with good genetics so am not saying it is exactly straightforward to gain this amount of LBM.

Just that to put this number about like it is a fact makes no sense when a regular poster has already come very close (while still planning on gaining more in the future) without this even being a primary goal. Therefore the argument as a whole does not stack up.

Any arguments over semantics such as he was actually 13% not 11% when he started are nonsense, the point is the same.

87

natural bodybuilders who actually compete at 200 wouldn’t have any more muscle mass than if they didn’t mind the extra bodyfat and went to 250 or 300
[/quote]

Yea well if your 200 and 250 w the same amount of muscle at both weights you still have the same amount of muscle … What’s your point?

88

[quote]GymTimeNYC wrote:

Yea well if your 200 and 250 w the same amount of muscle at both weights you still have the same amount of muscle … What’s your point? [/quote]

im sorry

sorry that you have no ability to detect sarcasm

if you really believe the truly natty bodybuilders who are 200 in contest condition wouldn’t have any more muscle mass at 250 or 300, I don’t know what to say

89

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
cliffs:

brickhead is a troll and brings up a vague 80 lb limit without regard to starting starts in every thread (before it was a 50 lb limit)

185 lean is a normal starting weight

natural bodybuilders who actually compete at 200 wouldn’t have any more muscle mass than if they didn’t mind the extra bodyfat and went to 250 or 300
[/quote]

Where did I say it was a limit considering I believe there are men who built even more than that (with drugs of course).

Do you have any reading comprehension? I said the upper achievement for naturals is about 50 pounds.

Way to follow my posts.

Ever considering taking a basic English class to brush up on your reading comprehension, grammar, and sentence structure?

90

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
cliffs:

brickhead is a troll and brings up a vague 80 lb limit without regard to starting starts in every thread (before it was a 50 lb limit)

[/quote]

Cliffs - Brickhead is a registered dietician with a masters in sports nutrition, and did his thesis under Dr. Doug Kalman. He’s an experienced bodybuilder who has a true passion for training and nutrition. Also, he’s one of the most knowledgeable people on these subjects I know.

[/quote]

Thanks for the compliment!

91

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
cliffs:

brickhead is a troll and brings up a vague 80 lb limit without regard to starting starts in every thread (before it was a 50 lb limit)

185 lean is a normal starting weight

natural bodybuilders who actually compete at 200 wouldn’t have any more muscle mass than if they didn’t mind the extra bodyfat and went to 250 or 300
[/quote]

Where did I say it was a limit considering I believe there are men who built even more than that (with drugs of course).

Do you have any reading comprehension? I said the upper achievement for naturals is about 50 pounds.

Way to follow my posts.

Ever considering taking a basic English class to brush up on your reading comprehension, grammar, and sentence structure? [/quote]

no, i only took computer science and math courses, i don’t have a fancy and difficult exercise degree unfortunately… i’m really dumb

lol 50 lbs, think some people gain that much in 2-3 years… unless you’re talking about people who have a “normal” bodyweight of 250 lbs lean

so when PX was 290 or 300, are you saying he was at 50% bodyfat, since he only had 50 lbs of muscle?

92

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
cliffs:

brickhead is a troll and brings up a vague 80 lb limit without regard to starting starts in every thread (before it was a 50 lb limit)

185 lean is a normal starting weight

natural bodybuilders who actually compete at 200 wouldn’t have any more muscle mass than if they didn’t mind the extra bodyfat and went to 250 or 300
[/quote]

Where did I say it was a limit considering I believe there are men who built even more than that (with drugs of course).

Do you have any reading comprehension? I said the upper achievement for naturals is about 50 pounds.

Way to follow my posts.

Ever considering taking a basic English class to brush up on your reading comprehension, grammar, and sentence structure? [/quote]

no, i only took computer science and math courses, i don’t have a fancy and difficult exercise degree unfortunately… i’m really dumb

lol 50 lbs, think some people gain that much in 2-3 years… unless you’re talking about people who have a “normal” bodyweight of 250 lbs lean

so when PX was 290 or 300, are you saying he was at 50% bodyfat, since he only had 50 lbs of muscle?
[/quote]

My degree isn’t fancy and it doesn’t make me special, and this talk doesn’t call for academic accolades. Nor do I know everything. Nor am I so particularly intelligent.

Not sure what percentage fat PX had when he was 290 or 300, but if I remember correctly, he said he was “not fat”. Hence the reason I posted “not fat” offseason bodybuilders here: to see just how goddamn astounding “not fat” 290 to 300 pound men are–what these people look like!

I mean, really, when people speak of 80 to 100 pound muscular gains and relatively lean 250 to 300 pound men and 28 to 30 inch thighs, I ask myself, "Do these people realize what the heck they’re talking about?! Have they been up close to an IFBB behemoth?

93

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Carlos would be between 175 and 180 lbs in contest shape. Assuming that at least some LBM has to be lost as body water will decrease when fat is lost and that he won’t get to 0% bodyfat, that’s right in line with everything we’ve said.[/quote]

Neither this thread nor forum has anything to do with “contest shape” so that is irrelevant.

This argument is that no adult natural of average height can gain over 80lbs LBM.

Detaza… is being used as he has recently put up his stats elsewhere.

  1. Started around 18 years old at around 5’8" 125lbs around 10-12%
  2. 5 years later is 215 at 17% a gain of around 70lbs LBM
  3. Goal is 225 at 10-12% which would be a gain of around 90lbs

He is a PLer so his primary goal is not LBM gain it is strength/ weight ratio and staying within a weight class. Yet he is still capable of pretty much doing it.

Even if using the fact he started as a distance runner and the 225 goal may no longer be as a natural - for all intents and purposes he is an illustration that people can get to and possibly bypass the mythical “80lbs LBM” gain.

I am also aware that he is a very serious trainer with good genetics so am not saying it is exactly straightforward to gain this amount of LBM.

Just that to put this number about like it is a fact makes no sense when a regular poster has already come very close (while still planning on gaining more in the future) without this even being a primary goal. Therefore the argument as a whole does not stack up.

Any arguments over semantics such as he was actually 13% not 11% when he started are nonsense, the point is the same. [/quote]

Contest shape is relevant because it’s entirely possible to carry more LBM (which is NOT all muscle) at higher bodyfat levels. If you’re 30% bodyfat, your LBM isn’t reallly relevant unless you’re in the business of being a fat fuck for the sake of knowing you have more LBM under there than anyone else but will never be able to hold onto it when you get lean for it to matter without drugs. This is why that stupid sumo wrestler study is so irritating.

You’re also brushing off a lot of really important factors here. What if he was underweight from runnign 50+ miles/week? Not unimaginable that his “normal” weight would be 15-20 lbs heavier, chopping a good portion of that total weight gain. What if he wasn’t natural and had gained 15-20 lbs from a few cycles? There’s another good chunk of that total weight gain. Suddenly, 80lb number you’re talking about is down to 50lbs, which is pretty reasonable. It’s obvious from your posts that you’re really only interested in looking at facts and arguments that support your preconcieved notions, just like the good Dr.

94

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
cliffs:

brickhead is a troll and brings up a vague 80 lb limit without regard to starting starts in every thread (before it was a 50 lb limit)

185 lean is a normal starting weight

natural bodybuilders who actually compete at 200 wouldn’t have any more muscle mass than if they didn’t mind the extra bodyfat and went to 250 or 300
[/quote]

Where did I say it was a limit considering I believe there are men who built even more than that (with drugs of course).

Do you have any reading comprehension? I said the upper achievement for naturals is about 50 pounds.

Way to follow my posts.

Ever considering taking a basic English class to brush up on your reading comprehension, grammar, and sentence structure? [/quote]

no, i only took computer science and math courses, i don’t have a fancy and difficult exercise degree unfortunately… i’m really dumb

lol 50 lbs, think some people gain that much in 2-3 years… unless you’re talking about people who have a “normal” bodyweight of 250 lbs lean

so when PX was 290 or 300, are you saying he was at 50% bodyfat, since he only had 50 lbs of muscle?
[/quote]

Not sure what height calls for a “normal” bodyweight of 250. However, you seem to be stuck on Dorian’s starting weight, which I assume you think is too high of a normal weight for a man of his height.

So, if 185 is already high (alluding to higher than normal), then this means because of his stage weight of 270 and his offseason weight of 300, it can be implied he gained even MORE than 80 pounds of muscle from weight training.

And again, look at what he looks like! Please show me a person on this board, or anywhere, who has done that drug free.

And once again: I didn’t post this thread to talk about limits. I posted it so possibly people can stop and THINK what 250 to 300 pound behemoths who’ve gained 80 pounds or so of muscle look like and what some “not fat” ungodly measurements look like!

95

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
cliffs:

brickhead is a troll and brings up a vague 80 lb limit without regard to starting starts in every thread (before it was a 50 lb limit)

[/quote]

Cliffs - Brickhead is a registered dietician with a masters in sports nutrition, and did his thesis under Dr. Doug Kalman. He’s an experienced bodybuilder who has a true passion for training and nutrition. Also, he’s one of the most knowledgeable people on these subjects I know.

[/quote]

Also want to add that you know I think of highly of you too.

I think I’ve tried hard to learn some things, but there are some VERY intelligent men on this board most with no formal academic credentials, like Stu, Stronghold (who I think is genius or near genius), anonym, and some others, and all the guys actually competing.

I went from wannabe bodybuilder to Men’s Health guy to wannabe-competitive bodybuilder and then after giving up the thought of competing, back to Men’s Health-“in shape”- wannabe-Crossfit guy. :wink:

ALWAYS will be a die hard bodybuilding fan though!

96

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]GymTimeNYC wrote:

Yea well if your 200 and 250 w the same amount of muscle at both weights you still have the same amount of muscle … What’s your point? [/quote]

im sorry

sorry that you have no ability to detect sarcasm

if you really believe the truly natty bodybuilders who are 200 in contest condition wouldn’t have any more muscle mass at 250 or 300, I don’t know what to say
[/quote]

I’m sorry your posts lead me to believe you might be that dumb

97

[quote]SkyNett 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]

Lol - absolutely. Anyone arguing this bullshit, making claims about mythical outliers and natty gains of 80 pounds pure LBM…read the link to our THOROUGHLY exhaustive discussion on the matter that I just posted. Read it ALL, then post an actual case study of a natty who gained 60 - 80 pounds of PURE LBM without drugs. Read that whole thread - no one could do it then, and no one can do it now. You can certainly speculate a bunch of nonsense about starting weight, split hairs about semantics, but in the end, no nattys weigh 250 + on average height with sub 5% BF…no one.

[/quote]

this.

ill say it again someone post a picture of a natty who competes over 200lbs. Or shut the fuck up.

like brick said a true 80lb MUSCLE gain is fucking huge! even for people on moderate amounts of gear. these arguments are always the same, one side posts proof and has the entire history of natty bodybuilding backing it up. the other side crys and tries to argue semantics, while posting no proof of someone that has accomplished what is being discussed.

98

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Contest shape is relevant because it’s entirely possible to carry more LBM (which is NOT all muscle) at higher bodyfat levels. If you’re 30% bodyfat, your LBM isn’t reallly relevant unless you’re in the business of being a fat fuck for the sake of knowing you have more LBM under there than anyone else but will never be able to hold onto it when you get lean for it to matter without drugs. This is why that stupid sumo wrestler study is so irritating.

You’re also brushing off a lot of really important factors here. What if he was underweight from runnign 50+ miles/week? Not unimaginable that his “normal” weight would be 15-20 lbs heavier, chopping a good portion of that total weight gain. What if he wasn’t natural and had gained 15-20 lbs from a few cycles? There’s another good chunk of that total weight gain. Suddenly, 80lb number you’re talking about is down to 50lbs, which is pretty reasonable. It’s obvious from your posts that you’re really only interested in looking at facts and arguments that support your preconcieved notions, just like the good Dr.[/quote]

-why are you talking about 30% BF and sumo wrestlers - I am mentioning an example where the person is between around 10%BF at the start and 17%BF currently both of which are perfectly reasonable and normal BF levels.

-the running: you have just added 15-20lbs of weight out of nowhere. Sure what if he wasn’t running and was a fat fuck who started at 250lbs? But he wasn’t, again I am using the actual facts and not making things up. Distance runners at 18 5’8" 125 are not by definition underweight AT ALL - a picture has been posted he looks like a typical skinny young guy, not like he is about to die from malnourishment.

-he has always claimed to be natural, so the next 15-20lbs you have just knocked off is also nonsense. you know him well, if he is not natural fair enough, but that has never been mentioned before (no, I am not saying he is obliged to am just pointing it out).

It is a joke that you say I am only interested in facts that support my argument. You have just made a bunch of shit up to support yourself. I am only going off stuff this guy has said about himself.

Ultimately, I didn’t say that Detaza… was the perfect example to prove this point. But he has CLEARLY come close to this “80lbs LBM” thing which people are saying is IMPOSSIBLE. It has not even been this guy’s aim to do this and i think you would agree it is reasonable to assume he does not have significantly superior genetics to anyone that has ever lived. Which means other can do similar. Which means this specific limit is stupid.

99

I think a large part of the argument is based upon the starting point. If the starting point is skinny 15 year old lifting his first weight at 110 lbs then there is a decent chance the 50lb mark is pretty easily broken. If the starting point is a 18 year old who has physically developed and is up to 150, not so much. If it is 185, nah.

I like my chances to go to 50+lbs if I stick with it, but then again I am 6’5

100

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
like brick said a true 80lb MUSCLE gain is fucking huge! even for people on moderate amounts of gear. these arguments are always the same, one side posts proof and has the entire history of natty bodybuilding backing it up. the other side crys and tries to argue semantics, while posting no proof of someone that has accomplished what is being discussed.[/quote]

absolutely.

That’s why I always cringe when I hear newbs say they’re adding 1lb of muscle a week. There was a guy in the supps & nutrition forum a while back who claimed he had gained 1lb of muscle or more a week for the last three months, with a decrease in bodyfat. That would mean 90lbs of muscle at least! In three months! Madness.