Eighty to 100 Pound Muscular Gains

Training
161

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[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.[/quote]
Correct! that would be tough to attain at the height of 5’7". I wasn’t really bringing his height into the equation. Thinking more of someone between 5’9-6’ @ 10% 215lbs… starting at 130-140lbs 10%. That’s 75-85lbs of LBM.

162

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[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)?

[/quote]

LOL @ you not understanding the posts you’re criticizing. GG.

163

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[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)?

[/quote]

LOL @ you not understanding the posts you’re criticizing. GG.[/quote]

As said before, I don’t even understand his posts. Poor reading comprehension and communication skill. Incoherent, sarcastic ramblings.

I also don’t know where this “limit” crap came up. One would have to be a very sensitive fellow to hold himself back from adequate training and nutrition because some guy on the internet said, "It looks like, after five or so decades, that the best natties have gained 50 or so pounds of muscle.

164

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[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)?

[/quote]

LOL @ you not understanding the posts you’re criticizing. GG.[/quote]

As said before, I don’t even understand his posts. Poor reading comprehension and communication skill. Incoherent, sarcastic ramblings.

I also don’t know where this “limit” crap came up. One would have to be a very sensitive fellow to hold himself back from adequate training and nutrition because some guy on the internet said, "It looks like, after five or so decades, that the best natties have gained 50 or so pounds of muscle.
[/quote]

Yea I wasn’t bringing up a specific number as a limit, just saying based on my starting point compared to someone who started out with more LBM, I might not have a reason to hit real high body weights that some guys here talk about (assuming I’d stay natty).

165

As said ad nauseum, this thread is to post the fellas sporting a somewhat lean 120 kilogramos or more. You know, the fellas who toss 180 to 200 pound dumbbells around on incline like beer cans, the fellas who cause the earth to quake as they approach, the fellas who cause a Times Square crowd to part like the Red Sea when it sees him coming, the fellas who everyone and their mama refer to as “the big guy”, the fellas for whom everyone gets off the gym equipment when he asks, the fella who strikes fear into the buffet owner when they see him huffing and puffing in the lobby.

166

ill keep saying it again and again, someone please post a picture of a natty bodybuilder who has gained over 80lb of MUSCLE.

167

OK, someone said the guys I posted were too lean to compare to a more reasonable (?) full house, “not fat” 250 to 300.

Here is a full house-style, a bit chubby Kirk Karwoski, I believe lifting in the 275, likely with 28 inch or greater ham hock thighs.

Anyone here be looking like this? Natty?

168

[quote]csulli wrote:

[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.[/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.

169

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

As said before, I don’t even understand his posts. Poor reading comprehension and communication skill. Incoherent, sarcastic ramblings.

I also don’t know where this “limit” crap came up. One would have to be a very sensitive fellow to hold himself back from adequate training and nutrition because some guy on the internet said, "It looks like, after five or so decades, that the best natties have gained 50 or so pounds of muscle.
[/quote]

i know right, maybe you should have taken some courses that involved proofs… such as Math or CS

maybe you would have learned that when you are stating a proof, you always list your assumptions

best natties gained 50 lbs? So the 130 lb natties here who are around 200 or 250 are the best natties?

laughable, really

but really thanks man, it’s good to know i am the best natty after only 2 years of training, need to stop lifting now because I gained my 84 lbs… must be 34 lbs of fat

inb4 you post “you were underweight” because you don’t know how to state your “limit” in a better way yet write it in every single thread around here

170

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

As said before, I don’t even understand his posts. Poor reading comprehension and communication skill. Incoherent, sarcastic ramblings.

I also don’t know where this “limit” crap came up. One would have to be a very sensitive fellow to hold himself back from adequate training and nutrition because some guy on the internet said, "It looks like, after five or so decades, that the best natties have gained 50 or so pounds of muscle.
[/quote]

i know right, maybe you should have taken some courses that involved proofs… such as Math or CS

maybe you would have learned that when you are stating a proof, you always list your assumptions

best natties gained 50 lbs? So the 130 lb natties here who are around 200 or 250 are the best natties?

laughable, really

but really thanks man, it’s good to know i am the best natty after only 2 years of training, need to stop lifting now because I gained my 84 lbs… must be 34 lbs of fat

inb4 you post “you were underweight” because you don’t know how to state your “limit” in a better way yet write it in every single thread around here
[/quote]

we are not talking about just weight, we are talking about MUSCLE! i see a few 250lb nattys around here and none of them are what i would call lean. so whats your point.

lol at thinking you are on the same level as top natty pros. you didnt gain anywhere near 84lb of muscle in 2 years, sorry.

you would be lucky if 30-35lbs of it was actual muscle mass.

171

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

As said before, I don’t even understand his posts. Poor reading comprehension and communication skill. Incoherent, sarcastic ramblings.

I also don’t know where this “limit” crap came up. One would have to be a very sensitive fellow to hold himself back from adequate training and nutrition because some guy on the internet said, "It looks like, after five or so decades, that the best natties have gained 50 or so pounds of muscle.
[/quote]

i know right, maybe you should have taken some courses that involved proofs… such as Math or CS

maybe you would have learned that when you are stating a proof, you always list your assumptions

best natties gained 50 lbs? So the 130 lb natties here who are around 200 or 250 are the best natties?

laughable, really

but really thanks man, it’s good to know i am the best natty after only 2 years of training, need to stop lifting now because I gained my 84 lbs… must be 34 lbs of fat

inb4 you post “you were underweight” because you don’t know how to state your “limit” in a better way yet write it in every single thread around here
[/quote]

we are not talking about just weight, we are talking about MUSCLE! i see a few 250lb nattys around here and none of them are what i would call lean. so whats your point.

lol at thinking you are on the same level as top natty pros. you didnt gain anywhere near 84lb of muscle in 2 years, sorry.

you would be lucky if 30-35lbs of it was actual muscle mass.
[/quote]

who are you again?

the guy who posts in the steroid thread because he’s reached his limits(aka doesn’t know how to train or eat) at 160 lbs?

lol 30-35 lbs

it’s always the guys who have horrible progress telling others what isn’t possible

172

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

As said before, I don’t even understand his posts. Poor reading comprehension and communication skill. Incoherent, sarcastic ramblings.

I also don’t know where this “limit” crap came up. One would have to be a very sensitive fellow to hold himself back from adequate training and nutrition because some guy on the internet said, "It looks like, after five or so decades, that the best natties have gained 50 or so pounds of muscle.
[/quote]

i know right, maybe you should have taken some courses that involved proofs… such as Math or CS

maybe you would have learned that when you are stating a proof, you always list your assumptions

best natties gained 50 lbs? So the 130 lb natties here who are around 200 or 250 are the best natties?

laughable, really

but really thanks man, it’s good to know i am the best natty after only 2 years of training, need to stop lifting now because I gained my 84 lbs… must be 34 lbs of fat

inb4 you post “you were underweight” because you don’t know how to state your “limit” in a better way yet write it in every single thread around here
[/quote]

we are not talking about just weight, we are talking about MUSCLE! i see a few 250lb nattys around here and none of them are what i would call lean. so whats your point.

lol at thinking you are on the same level as top natty pros. you didnt gain anywhere near 84lb of muscle in 2 years, sorry.

you would be lucky if 30-35lbs of it was actual muscle mass.
[/quote]

who are you again?

the guy who posts in the steroid thread because he’s reached his limits(aka doesn’t know how to train or eat) at 160 lbs?

lol 30-35 lbs

it’s always the guys who have horrible progress telling others what isn’t possible
[/quote]

ive never posted in the steroid forum you tool…

its alright keep living in your little delusional world.

YOU HAVE NOT GAINED ANYWHERE NEAR 84LB OF MUSCLE IN 2 YEARS… it is impossible as a natural, even for majority of people on gear it is an impossible feat.

173

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

As said before, I don’t even understand his posts. Poor reading comprehension and communication skill. Incoherent, sarcastic ramblings.

I also don’t know where this “limit” crap came up. One would have to be a very sensitive fellow to hold himself back from adequate training and nutrition because some guy on the internet said, "It looks like, after five or so decades, that the best natties have gained 50 or so pounds of muscle.
[/quote]

i know right, maybe you should have taken some courses that involved proofs… such as Math or CS

maybe you would have learned that when you are stating a proof, you always list your assumptions

best natties gained 50 lbs? So the 130 lb natties here who are around 200 or 250 are the best natties?

laughable, really

but really thanks man, it’s good to know i am the best natty after only 2 years of training, need to stop lifting now because I gained my 84 lbs… must be 34 lbs of fat

inb4 you post “you were underweight” because you don’t know how to state your “limit” in a better way yet write it in every single thread around here
[/quote]

I have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about at this point.

And you’re seriously not funny, no matter how hard you try to be.

174

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[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)?

[/quote]

LOL @ you not understanding the posts you’re criticizing. GG.[/quote]

As said before, I don’t even understand his posts. Poor reading comprehension and communication skill. Incoherent, sarcastic ramblings.

I also don’t know where this “limit” crap came up. One would have to be a very sensitive fellow to hold himself back from adequate training and nutrition because some guy on the internet said, "It looks like, after five or so decades, that the best natties have gained 50 or so pounds of muscle.
[/quote]

It’s because they don’t actually realise how much muscle that really is, as you’ve said all along the people here don’t realise how big guys are that have put on near 100lbs of muscle

175

[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.

176

[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]

I’ve cut from 200 to 181 to make weight many times before.

177

[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.

178

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
…because I gained my 84 lbs… [/quote]

That is increadable.
Do you have some before and after pics? There is nothing in your HUB and you can’t really tell much by your avi. Post some pics…you must look awsome!

179

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
…because I gained my 84 lbs… [/quote]

That is increadable.
Do you have some before and after pics? There is nothing in your HUB and you can’t really tell much by your avi. Post some pics…you must look awsome! [/quote]

I showed mine but I am obviously 30% body fat and will lose it all if I ever diet the HUGE belly I have off.

180

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
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. [/quote]

LOL. OK, so this whole post was so you could show that your idea of “somewhat lean” means near contest shape?

Uh, thanks?