Eighty to 100 Pound Muscular Gains

Training
141

[quote]TBItruck89 wrote:
I don’t get the point of all the topics about this. If you eat and train like you don’t have a limit, you’ll eventually reach your limit. If you have some number in mind, you’re going to look at your calculator widget and think “hmm, only 5 pounds off from my genetic potential, what’s the point in pushing it to the next level?”

So I guess the point is just to quibble with PX?[/quote]

…and boy aren’t you tired of that? I know I am.

It is making some posters here lose credibility…especially anyone who thinks the only way you can gain 80lbs of lean body mass is to look like Dorian Yates.

142

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]detazathoth wrote:

I gave my answer on page 5
[/quote]

Every answer you gave was fine. I am talking about stronghold. It is difficult to have a discussion here because of the points that yolo brought up.

For the record, you have done great in your progress. I am not sure why you choose to troll the forum instead of adding more to it like you have the great potential for.[/quote]

He doesn’t troll the forum. He trolls the troll.

143

[quote]detazathoth wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Edit: Mega LOL at using me as a primary example. I thought I wasn’t enough a “winner” to be good for anything, but I digress.

This thread almost makes me want to diet down to bodybuilder stage weight, but there’s no chance that I’d be more than 170-175lbs AT BEST.

You do lose LBM when you diet down. [/quote]

I don’t know what you mean I have never said anything negative about you.

I also don’t understand the BB competition reference - no one has said anything about a competition nor that someone will not lose LBM if they embark on a contest diet.

The premise is: can someone gain around 80lbs of LBM (while not being a sumo wrestler, or starting aged 10, or starting at the point of starvation)

I have only used you as an example as you have recently put up stats and these seem to fit pretty closely without this being your primary goal (you want to stay in a certain weight class and maintain/ improve strength to weight).

It therefore seems to make sense to say that yes it is indeed possible against people saying it is literally impossible. That is all. [/quote]

If you do the percentages

215 x .83 (I’m 17% bf) = 178.45

140 x .9 (10% body; When I first started TBH) = 126lbs

subtract those two numbers and you get 52.45lbs

Even if 125lbs was truly my natural bodyweight (which it wasn’t) that’s still only a 65.95 net gain in LBM (125 x .9, 10% bf)
[/quote]
Try 215 @ 10% instead of 17% and see what you come up with. Easily attainable

144

[quote]AzCats wrote:

Try 215 @ 10% instead of 17% and see what you come up with. Easily attainable [/quote]

Det advised me on FB that he would not be returning to this thread. FWIW.

Maybe he will anyway…lol…

145

[quote]detazathoth wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]detazathoth wrote:
I mean we can agree to disagree man. I actually enjoyed this discussion with you, hombre.
[/quote]

Cool we have both made our points and you know your own physiology better than anyone.

Out of interest do you think you will ever compete in a 242 class or do you plan on always staying in 220 or you have no plans either way?

Reason I ask is do you want to hit your max total in a specific class or also hit one regardless of class (which you might do at like 230-235lbs or whatever) as I know you have some ambitious PL goals.
[/quote]

I’d be lying if I didn’t know Dan Green’s stats

Clash for Cash: 9/16/2012 in New Orleans
2033 raw total @220 (760/480/790)
All-Time WR total for 220

USPA Nationals: June 30 2012
1952 raw total @220 (705/474/772)
Broke Larry Pacifico’s 42 year old All-Time American record

I’d to be on that level one day. As for 242lbs, it depends if I want to go further beyond 2000lb barrier at 220. That’s too far into the future for me.[/quote]
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.

146

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[quote]detazathoth wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Edit: Mega LOL at using me as a primary example. I thought I wasn’t enough a “winner” to be good for anything, but I digress.

This thread almost makes me want to diet down to bodybuilder stage weight, but there’s no chance that I’d be more than 170-175lbs AT BEST.

You do lose LBM when you diet down. [/quote]

I don’t know what you mean I have never said anything negative about you.

I also don’t understand the BB competition reference - no one has said anything about a competition nor that someone will not lose LBM if they embark on a contest diet.

The premise is: can someone gain around 80lbs of LBM (while not being a sumo wrestler, or starting aged 10, or starting at the point of starvation)

I have only used you as an example as you have recently put up stats and these seem to fit pretty closely without this being your primary goal (you want to stay in a certain weight class and maintain/ improve strength to weight).

It therefore seems to make sense to say that yes it is indeed possible against people saying it is literally impossible. That is all. [/quote]

If you do the percentages

215 x .83 (I’m 17% bf) = 178.45

140 x .9 (10% body; When I first started TBH) = 126lbs

subtract those two numbers and you get 52.45lbs

Even if 125lbs was truly my natural bodyweight (which it wasn’t) that’s still only a 65.95 net gain in LBM (125 x .9, 10% bf)
[/quote]
Try 215 @ 10% instead of 17% and see what you come up with. Easily attainable [/quote]

Well to be honest going from 215 at 17% to 215 at 10% is a significant loss in fat and a significant gain in muscle.

215lbs at 10% BF at 5’7" as a natural really is not easily attainable.

147

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
215lbs at 10% BF at 5’7" as a natural really is not easily attainable.[/quote]

don’t you do it! Don’t you talk about limits! Don’t you realise you’re holding people back with talk like that? Jeez

148

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
215lbs at 10% BF at 5’7" as a natural really is not easily attainable.[/quote]

don’t you do it! Don’t you talk about limits! Don’t you realise you’re holding people back with talk like that? Jeez[/quote]

Please.

If he was going around telling everyone that no natural can gain exactly “x amt of muscle” then we would have a problem.

I agree, without great genetics, reaching that size at that height would be rare.

Huge difference between saying something is “hard to do” and literally drawing a line in the sand and saying NO HUMAN CAN DO MORE THAN THIS.

149

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
215lbs at 10% BF at 5’7" as a natural really is not easily attainable.[/quote]

don’t you do it! Don’t you talk about limits! Don’t you realise you’re holding people back with talk like that? Jeez[/quote]

lol

my gripe is with the phrase “easily attainable” that’s all

150

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Huge difference between saying something is “hard to do” and literally drawing a line in the sand and saying NO HUMAN CAN DO MORE THAN THIS.[/quote]

oh really?

sigh

you might be able to get a cheap, second hand sarcasm detector on craiglist

151

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

oh really?

sigh

you might be able to get a cheap, second hand sarcasm detector on craiglist[/quote]

They sold out…right after the sale on “gay-dar”. I used that one cueball.

152

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

oh really?

sigh

you might be able to get a cheap, second hand sarcasm detector on craiglist[/quote]

They sold out…right after the sale on “gay-dar”. I used that one cueball.[/quote]

LOL

oh you…

153

[quote]Professor X wrote:

This was a well thought out post. I didn’t see a response to it.[/quote]

The king of ignoring other posts calls me out for this? Fucking please, X. Do I need to post the same research review 6 times again so you can cherry pick a single word out of it and totally miss the point?

I was at work, you know, working. At my job it matters that I’m paying attention. I don’t know what kind of patients you have that don’t mind you flaming away on T-mag while you clean their teeth, but I was busy between the hours of 8 and 5pm today. Sorry for not caring as much about the internet as you do.

Anyways, here:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

-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.

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 myself.

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. [/quote]

I bring up 30% bodyfat and the sumo wrestlers as a means of making my point that whatever “LBM” (NOT MUSCLE) that you hold at a higher bodyfat is irrelevant because LBM isn’t exclusively muscle and it is possible to gain no muscle and increase “LBM”. Not sure why this is a difficult concept for you.

Det Azathoth (Azathoth is a surname, pet peave) started with 110# of lbm and currently has 178# lbm. Not sure how 68=80, but I have a feeling your calculations are off. Take into account the multitude of confounding factors that youre willing to write off in support of your argument (physical immaturity at age 18, CLINICALLY underweight endurance athlete, ambiguous natural status, etc) and that 68# number quickly falls into or very near to our established range. So, that’s ~50-55 lbs of LBM gained as an individual who currently holds an all time top 30 total in powerlifting at age 23. Safe to say Det Azathoth has not only worked very hard, but is north of the mean genetically.

154

[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]

Only a moron makes absolute statements like that.

155

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

This was a well thought out post. I didn’t see a response to it.[/quote]

The king of ignoring other posts calls me out for this? Fucking please, X. Do I need to post the same research review 6 times again so you can cherry pick a single word out of it and totally miss the point?

I was at work, you know, working. At my job it matters that I’m paying attention. I don’t know what kind of patients you have that don’t mind you flaming away on T-mag while you clean their teeth, but I was busy between the hours of 8 and 5pm today. Sorry for not caring as much about the internet as you do.

Anyways, here:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

-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.

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 myself.

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. [/quote]

I bring up 30% bodyfat and the sumo wrestlers as a means of making my point that whatever “LBM” (NOT MUSCLE) that you hold at a higher bodyfat is irrelevant because LBM isn’t exclusively muscle and it is possible to gain no muscle and increase “LBM”. Not sure why this is a difficult concept for you.

Det Azathoth (Azathoth is a surname, pet peave) started with 110# of lbm and currently has 178# lbm. Not sure how 68=80, but I have a feeling your calculations are off. Take into account the multitude of confounding factors that youre willing to write off in support of your argument (physical immaturity at age 18, CLINICALLY underweight endurance athlete, ambiguous natural status, etc) and that 68# number quickly falls into or very near to our established range. So, that’s ~50-55 lbs of LBM gained as an individual who currently holds an all time top 30 total in powerlifting at age 23. Safe to say Det Azathoth has not only worked very hard, but is north of the mean genetically.
[/quote]

i gave my thoughts on all of the above in some earlier posts to Det if you are at all interested you can read them.

if you don’t care no problem i respect the views you’ve outlined and there isn’t anything else to be gained in me quibbling about whatever small things i might not agree on.

156

Again, it’s OK that others post about “limits” in this thread. After all, I’m not the mayor of this board.

However, I posted this thread to post pictures of “somewhat lean” OR “shredded” 250 to 300 pound behemoths and 30 inch thighs.

157

I’ve got an actual question here. So if we accept that around 50lbs is the most a natty can gain (which I’m not argueing with) then would the amount of LBM one started with be a limiting factor for a specific trainee. Like take two people of the same height, one starts off with 130lbs lbm and one with 150lbs, then person a theoretically could max his “genetic potential” around 180 and person be around 200?

158

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
I’ve got an actual question here. So if we accept that around 50lbs is the most a natty can gain (which I’m not argueing with) then would the amount of LBM one started with be a limiting factor for a specific trainee. Like take two people of the same height, one starts off with 130lbs lbm and one with 150lbs, then person a theoretically could max his “genetic potential” around 180 and person be around 200?[/quote]

Yeah. It most likely depends on frame size too. A wiry ectomorph will most likely not gain the same amount of LBM as a mesomorph with a barrel chest, sausage fingers, cankles, and a bull neck.

159

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
I’ve got an actual question here. So if we accept that around 50lbs is the most a natty can gain (which I’m not argueing with) then would the amount of LBM one started with be a limiting factor for a specific trainee. Like take two people of the same height, one starts off with 130lbs lbm and one with 150lbs, then person a theoretically could max his “genetic potential” around 180 and person be around 200?[/quote]

Yeah. It most likely depends on frame size too. A wiry ectomorph will most likely not gain the same amount of LBM as a mesomorph with a barrel chest, sausage fingers, cankles, and a bull neck. [/quote]

Ah alright thanks.I was thinking about this because Im 6’3" and always see guys saying I’ll have to be 250 to look like I lift, but I started off at a skinnyfat (19%) 171 a few years ago, so now at 215 midteens bodyfat, I already gained a decent amount of LBM.

160

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
I’ve got an actual question here. So if we accept that around 50lbs is the most a natty can gain (which I’m not argueing with) then would the amount of LBM one started with be a limiting factor for a specific trainee. Like take two people of the same height, one starts off with 130lbs lbm and one with 150lbs, then person a theoretically could max his “genetic potential” around 180 and person be around 200?[/quote]

Yeah. It most likely depends on frame size too. A wiry ectomorph will most likely not gain the same amount of LBM as a mesomorph with a barrel chest, sausage fingers, cankles, and a bull neck. [/quote]

Ah alright thanks.I was thinking about this because Im 6’3" and always see guys saying I’ll have to be 250 to look like I lift, but I started off at a skinnyfat (19%) 171 a few years ago, so now at 215 midteens bodyfat, I already gained a decent amount of LBM.
[/quote]

250? Just stop at 221, as long as you maintain the same bodyfat, you won’t go over the 50 lb limit that is impossible for anyone to cross despite newbies crossing it within 2 years

and lol… some of the posters here trying to draw a distinction between LBM and muscle/dry muscle weight, as if anyone who talks about muscle gain is referring to dry weight (tell me how they get this number, do they biopsy ronnie colemans muscles and put it back)?