I know how to get big, but I just don’t want to get big because I train mma a couple days a week and can’t go up in weight-class.
/sarcasm
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Great rant but how important is it really?
I mean I just want to make sure I understand your question.
Your telling me if I’m 125lbs and want to gain muscle. Then some 100lb guy tells me to “just eat”, and I do this. That the end result is not the same as if some 300lbs muscle behometh says the same thing?[/quote]
Sure it will but that’s like a smoker telling other smokers how to quit, it’s fucking stupid! Don’t be telling people what to do and how to do it if you have not done so yourself, end of story.
[quote]naughtybox wrote:
I’ve been looking at post after post at the “Rate my Physique” area of the boards and I repeatidly see “Eat food” in responce to small, fetus-like children, beind disapointed in their 2.4/10 rating.
After hearing this comment over and over, I question the people saying such things. Are people practicing what they preach? Don’t think of this as a angry rant because it’s not. I’m just curious what these people look like.
I often speak to kids in their late teens, early twentys and find them reporting to me that their “eating a ton” is 3,000 calories for Bean Stock Billy, who’s 6’ 145lb and his emaciated abs. He claims his size is due to his large intake of calories and constant meals. As I respond with, “you should probably be taking in more in the neighborhood of 5-6k calories a day.” They can hardly comprehend how that’s even humanly possible.
So my question really is, what does the guy on the other side of the computer screen really look like? Should he even be allowed to be telling you, “EAT.”[/quote]
You know what? 3,000 calories a day IS a lot.
There’s no denying it.
The average, adult male eats less than that each day, yet weighs more than the teenager. So you can’t blame the teenager’s inability to gain weight on “inadequate caloric consumption”. That’s an obvious fallacy.
How much did your father eat (let’s assume he wasn’t obese)? What about your grand-father in the 1940’s? Probably 3 square meals a day, with a light breakfast consisting of coffee and toast, and MAYBE 2,000 calories total. Were they skinny when they were young? Most likely. Did they get bigger by the time you entered the picture? Yes.
The fact of the matter is that WEIGHT COME WITH AGE.
Everybody knows this. It is a fact of life. People are inevitably larger at 40 than they were at 20. You might as well be “skinny” when you’re young, because it sure as hell isn’t going to be the case later on.
I’ll say it again: 3,000 calories a day is PLENTY. The only people who should truly be getting more than that are dedicated athletes.
And if you think members of the sub-3k crowd regularly over-estimate their caloric consumption, I would have the same suspicion about the 5k-plus crowd.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
You know what? 3,000 calories a day IS a lot.
There’s no denying it.
The average, adult male eats less than that each day, yet weighs more than the teenager. So you can’t blame the teenager’s inability to gain weight on “inadequate caloric consumption”. That’s an obvious fallacy.[/quote]
You can’t be this stupid. Do we really need to discuss activity levels and how most adults barely move except to walk from the house to the car…from the car to work…and from work back home? Do we need to discuss how one is still growing and the other is not? This is an “obvious fallacy”? WTF?
Does posting like this get you off?
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I’ll say it again: 3,000 calories a day is PLENTY. The only people who should truly be getting more than that are dedicated athletes.
[/quote]
So what does someone that is eating a definite 3kcal a day, and lifting heavy regularly, but not gaining any weight do?
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
You know what? 3,000 calories a day IS a lot.
There’s no denying it.
[/quote]
That’s relative. It’s not a lot to my crack-like metabolism. I didn’t start to re-gain weight (after lifting for years) until I bumped up my calories past that…and this was in my mid-30’s…past the “you’ll gain weight when you get older” phase. Unless you believe that magically my weight went up in a year because my body just knew it was now 35, as opposed to my radical change in diet.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
naughtybox wrote:
I’ve been looking at post after post at the “Rate my Physique” area of the boards and I repeatidly see “Eat food” in responce to small, fetus-like children, beind disapointed in their 2.4/10 rating.
After hearing this comment over and over, I question the people saying such things. Are people practicing what they preach? Don’t think of this as a angry rant because it’s not. I’m just curious what these people look like.
I often speak to kids in their late teens, early twentys and find them reporting to me that their “eating a ton” is 3,000 calories for Bean Stock Billy, who’s 6’ 145lb and his emaciated abs. He claims his size is due to his large intake of calories and constant meals. As I respond with, “you should probably be taking in more in the neighborhood of 5-6k calories a day.” They can hardly comprehend how that’s even humanly possible.
So my question really is, what does the guy on the other side of the computer screen really look like? Should he even be allowed to be telling you, “EAT.”
You know what? 3,000 calories a day IS a lot.
There’s no denying it.
The average, adult male eats less than that each day, yet weighs more than the teenager. So you can’t blame the teenager’s inability to gain weight on “inadequate caloric consumption”. That’s an obvious fallacy.
How much did your father eat (let’s assume he wasn’t obese)? What about your grand-father in the 1940’s? Probably 3 square meals a day, with a light breakfast consisting of coffee and toast, and MAYBE 2,000 calories total. Were they skinny when they were young? Most likely. Did they get bigger by the time you entered the picture? Yes.
The fact of the matter is that WEIGHT COME WITH AGE.
Everybody knows this. It is a fact of life. People are inevitably larger at 40 than they were at 20. You might as well be “skinny” when you’re young, because it sure as hell isn’t going to be the case later on.
I’ll say it again: 3,000 calories a day is PLENTY. The only people who should truly be getting more than that are dedicated athletes.
And if you think members of the sub-3k crowd regularly over-estimate their caloric consumption, I would have the same suspicion about the 5k-plus crowd.[/quote]
Coffee and toast? Are you kidding me? Try sausage links, biscuits, homemade jelly, eggs, butter and yes even lard biscuits. I have a picture of my grandfather’s shipmates from WWII, ranging from 20 to 35 years old, they were skinniest bunch of people I have ever seen this side of a refugee camp. Why? Because they did not take in many calories. My father graduated in the 50’s, I weighed more in middle school then he did in 12th grade. Why? Because I ate more. Sure people get bigger as they age: due to lack of exercise, hormonal/metabolic changes, and because they can afford and do EAT MORE. Age does not guarantee size. Ever heard of Gandhi? So what have we learned so far? If you want to put on some serious mass-- talk to a 150lb, inexperienced piano player. 
[quote]lizard king wrote:
Coffee and toast? Are you kidding me? Try sausage links, biscuits, homemade jelly, eggs, butter and yes even lard biscuits. I have a picture of my grandfather’s shipmates from WWII, ranging from 20 to 35 years old, they were skinniest bunch of people I have ever seen this side of a refugee camp. Why? Because they did not take in many calories. My father graduated in the 50’s, I weighed more in middle school then he did in 12th grade. Why? Because I ate more. Sure people get bigger as they age: due to lack of exercise, hormonal/metabolic changes, and because they can afford and do EAT MORE. Age does not guarantee size. Ever heard of Gandhi? So what have we learned so far? If you want to put on some serious mass-- talk to a 150lb, inexperienced piano player. :p[/quote]
Sorry, you’re wrong about people eating more as they age. They actually tend to eat less. People eat the most as children and teenagers. I work as a trainer, and plenty of old timers have told me, “I used to eat everything as a kid”.
There is an old school way of thinking which holds that it’s not good to eat too much or too often. This mindset is very prevalent among older generations. It is ingrained in certain sports, like boxing and running. The adherents of this school of thought like to eat a very light breakfast, so that it “won’t weigh you down the rest of the day”. Hence, the coffee and toast (or slice of bread with cheese). Lunch typically consists of a sandwich with coffee, and dinner is usually the largest meal of the day. This is how generations of men and women grew up eating in this country (and in Europe). Such dietary principles would have been considered part of conventional wisdom up until the past few decades.
I have said before that every one in the world was skinny before 1970. “Huge” people simply didn’t exist. The closest thing you had was “stocky” types - and that was more a function of bone structure than body mass.
Age does guarantee size for the vast majority of the population. Ghandi would have gotten fat if he hadn’t fasted so often. Just look at Buddha.
[quote]rsg wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
I’ll say it again: 3,000 calories a day is PLENTY. The only people who should truly be getting more than that are dedicated athletes.
So what does someone that is eating a definite 3kcal a day, and lifting heavy regularly, but not gaining any weight do?[/quote]
It depends on what he weighs currently. Isn’t that obvious?
If he’s a highly trained athlete sitting at 185 lbs. and 8% BF, then there’s nothing abnormal about that situation. If he wanted to gain weight, this would be the time to add more calories.
If, on the other hand, we’re talking about a sedentary person weighing a mere 160 lbs., who can’t gain on 3,000 a day, then it’s obvious that there are other factors involved. Hormonal imbalanaces are very common. You cannot out-train or out-diet a screwed up metabolism. The solution for this person is to get his health in check.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Kruiser wrote:
I disagree with this attitude completely. There are A LOT of coaches and trainers out there that could never hope to approach the level of their genetically gifted, younger, or chemically enhanced trainees. Sure, it’s great if they can also “walk the walk”, but knowledge and successful training experience count for more in my book. I would learn just as much from someone half my size who could snatch twice their bodyweight as I could from someone my size even though the actual weight is greater. What’s the difference as long as they’re teaching good form with solid methodologies and helping me progress?
As far as the “Just EAT MORE” crowd goes, it’s usually good advice if they’re also stressing healthy food choices. I agree it’s often a silly, flippant response written without any real thought behind it. But again, just because you don’t have a body like Ronnie Coleman doesn’t mean your incapable of teaching someone else how to achieve it.
Knowledge is the key.
These people exist, but are in the infinitesimally small minority. Trainers can earn credibility through the results of their clients, but those individuals will never be encountered in any meaningful way by just about anyone who posts in a thread like this. The big guys are your best bet.[/quote]
I agree these forums are filled with “arm chair experts” and it would be nice if we had a way to determine which posters are in fact “the big guys”, or preferably, “the SMART, big guys”. However, good trainers are not exactly scarce. Many people love a sport but know they lack the genetics to achieve greatness. Many of these people teach.
Honestly, I would love to have Tom Brady teach me how to throw a football. But, if I REALLY wanted to accel at the task, I would prefer to learn it from Belichick and the Patriots coaching staff any day of the week. Yes, even though they’re not as rich or famous or as big.
Bottom line: I’m a 46 year old natural who moves respectable weight in the gym. Sure I see a lot of lifters in there with more mass on their bones and on their bars than me. Watching them lift though I can tell you one thing for sure. The ONLY thing they could teach me is how to stick a needle in my ass. I’m not saying that there are no big, strong AND intelligent lifters out there that could teach me a thing or two. I just think that they’re the ones in the minority. Most of the behemoths you guys are worshipping for their supposed knowledge, got where they are without any. You can’t teach someone else your enhanced genetics or anabolic drug use. The people you want to learn from are the ones who have to struggle to succeed.
[quote]Kruiser wrote:
Honestly, I would love to have Tom Brady teach me how to throw a football. But, if I REALLY wanted to accel at the task, I would prefer to learn it from Belichick and the Patriots coaching staff any day of the week. Yes, even though they’re not as rich or famous or as big.
[/quote]
This is just silly. Tom Brady knows how to throw a football. The coaching staff knows when and where to throw it in a game situation. They take Brady’s ability and tweak it and apply it to game plans.
I would love to talk X’s and O’s with Belichick, but I don’t want to learn physical skills from him. Tom Brady will be able to tell you how he got his arm – whether it was throwing a football 100 times everyday since he was 8, or if it was just a natural talent.
The problem is that people want to equate bodybuilding and getting big with other popular sports. It’s not the same. Bodybuilding is not an athletic skill. A line coach may be able to teach you to use your size and strength to get past the tackle on a pass rush, but you have to have the size and strength first. Learning how to position your fingers and flick the wrist on a curveball won’t get you in the Major Leagues. Having an 80 mph fastball might.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Age does guarantee size for the vast majority of the population. Ghandi would have gotten fat if he hadn’t fasted so often. Just look at Buddha.[/quote]
You do know that Buddha wasn’t just one person, right? No?
A “buddha” is simply someone who has reached enlightenment. I think you meant to refer to Siddh�?rtha Gautama (the buddha who is responsible for solidifying buddhism as a practice).
And just because the statue you see at World Market has a belly doesn’t mean that Siddh�?rtha Gautama was fat.
I know skinny old people and fat old people. I know strong old people and weak old people.
You just aren’t making much sense. i’m not quite sure what your point is.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
rsg wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
I’ll say it again: 3,000 calories a day is PLENTY. The only people who should truly be getting more than that are dedicated athletes.
So what does someone that is eating a definite 3kcal a day, and lifting heavy regularly, but not gaining any weight do?
It depends on what he weighs currently. Isn’t that obvious?
If he’s a highly trained athlete sitting at 185 lbs. and 8% BF, then there’s nothing abnormal about that situation. If he wanted to gain weight, this would be the time to add more calories.
If, on the other hand, we’re talking about a sedentary person weighing a mere 160 lbs., who can’t gain on 3,000 a day, then it’s obvious that there are other factors involved. Hormonal imbalanaces are very common. You cannot out-train or out-diet a screwed up metabolism. The solution for this person is to get his health in check.[/quote]
Um, why would someone SEDENTARY be on a BODYBUILDING website attempting to gain weight? Why do you think people are giving advice to SEDENTARY people? Are you ill? Do you take medication for psychosis?
[quote]rsg wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
I’ll say it again: 3,000 calories a day is PLENTY. The only people who should truly be getting more than that are dedicated athletes.
So what does someone that is eating a definite 3kcal a day, and lifting heavy regularly, but not gaining any weight do?[/quote]
Wait until they’re 40 and save up for bigger clothes in the mean time 
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
You know what? 3,000 calories a day IS a lot.
There’s no denying it.
The average, adult male eats less than that each day, yet weighs more than the teenager. So you can’t blame the teenager’s inability to gain weight on “inadequate caloric consumption”. That’s an obvious fallacy.
How much did your father eat (let’s assume he wasn’t obese)? What about your grand-father in the 1940’s? Probably 3 square meals a day, with a light breakfast consisting of coffee and toast, and MAYBE 2,000 calories total. Were they skinny when they were young? Most likely. Did they get bigger by the time you entered the picture? Yes.
The fact of the matter is that WEIGHT COME WITH AGE.
Everybody knows this. It is a fact of life. People are inevitably larger at 40 than they were at 20. You might as well be “skinny” when you’re young, because it sure as hell isn’t going to be the case later on.
I’ll say it again: 3,000 calories a day is PLENTY. The only people who should truly be getting more than that are dedicated athletes.
And if you think members of the sub-3k crowd regularly over-estimate their caloric consumption, I would have the same suspicion about the 5k-plus crowd.[/quote]
If weight gain is actually correlated to age as opposed to calorific surplus, how would you suggest tackling the current childhood obesity epidemic?
[quote]andersons wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You wrote, “doesn’t mean that I don’t have the knowledge to help someone put on muscle.”. Wouldn’t someone weighing 250+lbs at average height already know themselves how to put on muscle?
No, not necessarily. People can achieve something, especially a physique, without good explicit knowledge of how to achieve it. Your 250-pound guy may have very different genetics and metabolism from you, so what worked for him may not work for you.
Conversely, it is quite possible to learn how to achieve a certain physique through reading research literature and others’ experiences and through coaching others without doing it yourself. Doing it yourself can give you more conviction and passion, and certainly can inspire others, but it’s not necessary for just knowing how.
This reminds me of research that I did several years ago, building on research done by the motor researcher Bernstein many years ago. We found that people who had achieved a high level of motor skill, in this case playing the piano, had in fact INCORRECT knowledge of how they achieved their skill. They were convinced that they were using their arms a certain way, but measurements proved they did not. (Bernstein used high-speed photography; I used a 4D Optotrak camera system with LED emitters.)
The thing was that not only did the pianists have these strong intuitive opinions about their technique, but they also developed teaching methodologies and technical drills around their opinions. These have dominated piano pedagogy for decades.
Based on what I found from the data, I instructed novice pianists differently, and they progressed more rapidly. So my instruction was better than that of pianists far more skilled than I. They had more skill in piano playing, but I had better information about HOW to get where they are.
And it’s not just pianists. Some researchers in Germany have also shown that there are much more effective instructions than the kind traditionally used to teach people golf, skiing, and tennis skills.
Bottom line, if it’s INFORMATION you need, it’s either right or wrong; the characteristics of the deliverer don’t matter. If it’s INSPIRATION you’re looking for, then of course you want to see someone who’s successfully achieved what you want to achieve. Humans are very emotional, so a lot of times, inspiration trumps information in people’s minds. [/quote]
Unless your superior teaching skills have resulted in superior pianists (not in a relative time period but overall) then your study has proved nothing other than that the best don’t use your techniques.
Information is useless until it has been applied, at least we know that the big guys have applied their information on 1 person successfully, that’s 1 more than most of the people arguing with them.
[quote]PozzSka wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Age does guarantee size for the vast majority of the population. Ghandi would have gotten fat if he hadn’t fasted so often. Just look at Buddha.
You do know that Buddha wasn’t just one person, right? No?
A “buddha” is simply someone who has reached enlightenment. I think you meant to refer to Siddh�?rtha Gautama (the buddha who is responsible for solidifying buddhism as a practice).
And just because the statue you see at World Market has a belly doesn’t mean that Siddh�?rtha Gautama was fat.
I know skinny old people and fat old people. I know strong old people and weak old people.
You just aren’t making much sense. i’m not quite sure what your point is.[/quote]
I know who “Buddha” was. It was a joke.
My point is that practically every person alive is physically larger at 40 than they were at 20. You can look at famous celebrities: Marlon Brando, Brad Pitt, Stallone, Kurt Russell, or any one of numerous athletes. There are so many examples of guys who were skinny 20 year olds that turned into full, adult sized-males. You mean to tell me that all of them were eating very little when they were young, and started cramming on the calories in their old age? Bullshit! I think the exact opposite is true. I’ve heard too many stories of “I used to eat everything in sight when I was young and couldn’t put on a pound”.
Do you really think there are lots of 40 year olds eating over 3,000 calories a day? If so, they’d be morbidly obese. “Normal people” just don’t each that much food when they get older.
The one group of people that gets smaller with old age is professional bodybuilders. EVERYBODY else gets larger. Athletes and normal people alike.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Um, why would someone SEDENTARY be on a BODYBUILDING website attempting to gain weight? Why do you think people are giving advice to SEDENTARY people? Are you ill? Do you take medication for psychosis?[/quote]
Anyone who is just getting involved with physical training for the first time could be considered a sedentary individual. It doesn’t have to be an exact definition. If you already look like Arnold and you find that you can’t gain more weight, more calories might be the way to go. If you look like the average skinny guy and you can’t gain weight on 3,000, then it’s time to get some bloodwork done before shoving more crap into your mouth.
[quote]IQ wrote:
If weight gain is actually correlated to age as opposed to calorific surplus, how would you suggest tackling the current childhood obesity epidemic?[/quote]
You tackle it at the source: Stop excess carbohydrate consumption. That’s what’s responsible for this epidemic in both adults and children. The kids, as fat as they are, will only grow fatter if they don’t ditch the sugars and starches.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
You tackle it at the source: Stop excess carbohydrate consumption. That’s what’s responsible for this epidemic in both adults and children. The kids, as fat as they are, will only grow fatter if they don’t ditch the sugars and starches.[/quote]
You aren’t much of a nutritionist. I certainly hope you are a better “trainer”.
There will come a point when, if consuming 3000 cals per day, 3000 cals/day will be maintainence level for an individual, and they will cease to gain weight.
Yet you contend that because of the types of calories they consume, a person will get fatter. They may lose LBM, but there is no way in hell they can get more obese than they already are at 3000 cals/day if that is their maintainence level.
Seriously - if you just want to piss in the swimming pool, admit to it. Stop trying to pass yourself off as an expert in an area that you are so obviously clueless.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Kruiser wrote:
Honestly, I would love to have Tom Brady teach me how to throw a football. But, if I REALLY wanted to accel at the task, I would prefer to learn it from Belichick and the Patriots coaching staff any day of the week. Yes, even though they’re not as rich or famous or as big.
This is just silly. Tom Brady knows how to throw a football. The coaching staff knows when and where to throw it in a game situation. They take Brady’s ability and tweak it and apply it to game plans.
I would love to talk X’s and O’s with Belichick, but I don’t want to learn physical skills from him. Tom Brady will be able to tell you how he got his arm – whether it was throwing a football 100 times everyday since he was 8, or if it was just a natural talent.
The problem is that people want to equate bodybuilding and getting big with other popular sports. It’s not the same. Bodybuilding is not an athletic skill. A line coach may be able to teach you to use your size and strength to get past the tackle on a pass rush, but you have to have the size and strength first. Learning how to position your fingers and flick the wrist on a curveball won’t get you in the Major Leagues. Having an 80 mph fastball might.[/quote]
But it IS the same. If I’m reading you guys right you’re telling me that you have nothing to learn from anyone who is smaller/weaker than you, and anyone bigger/stronger has an almost magical ability to help you achieve your goals. I still maintain that good, helpful knowledge is just that; regardless of its source.
Again, having the best of both worlds is great. I’d love an olympic coach that could impress me with his lifts as well as his knowledge of the subject and teaching skills. If I have to pick one or the other though, I’ll take a good teacher that has learned his stuff the hard way rather than some dumb jock who got where he is by virtue of genetic traits.
Of course, I’m rather cerebral myself (that’s actually me in my avatar) so it’s also a bit of a personal preference. I’ll never discount information from any source until I feel justified deeming in worthless to me. Why would I?