[quote]heavythrower wrote:
here they are now grown up:
[/quote]
do you ever press them?
the question is, how long would it take a big/ripped guy here to get to the “full house” look? I say one month
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
the question is, how long would it take a big/ripped guy here to get to the “full house” look? I say one month[/quote]
do it! Get fat for us
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
the first quote is accurate, but the problem with it is… how do you know what is the “ideal amount”. It’s very hard figuring that out and I’d be more worried about under-eating than over-eating. [/quote]
It’s actually not hard for those with a solid education in nutrition (either self study or academic) and experience and logic. You made a comparison between a starvation level 1000 calorie intake with 5000 calories. A big stretch. Also, after eating a specific amount for two to four weeks and not gaining, anyone with half a brain will consider adding more carbs and calories. Undereating for a day here and there isn’t going to hurt gains despite some popular belief that one can lose muscle if they undereat for a day or go more than 5 hours without eating here and there.
Do you think Dorian Yates or our very own Stu or any other experienced and education person who does their own nutrition couldn’t figure out what was working and what wasn’t?
[/quote]
I wrote 10k I think, not 1k
I don’t think anyone here is advocating the kind of bulk CP is talking about? So why is it relevant
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
It’s obvious he was implying getting overly fat causes insulin sensitivity to go down.
[/quote]
again, no studies show this. And if you study the american population it’s not an accurate study. Maybe their diet or lack of exercise caused it as well?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Studying fat people who got that way on junk food vs studying “fat” people who lift and got that way on healthy foods, maybe their insulin resistance isn’t the same??? Again, even if BF% is correlated with insulin resistance, it does not mean that it causes it.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
not really, look at IF studies. In people who consume carbs in limited timeframes, they have way better insulin sensitiivty. I’m not saying carbs cause it, I’m saying eating carbs 24/7 cause it. People on IF diets consuming the same amount of calories as people on normal or CR diets have better insulin sensitivity. So repeated exposure causes it. And yeah someone bulking may be more prone to IR, since they are eating more, doesn’t mean they will necessarily have it depending on how their diet is set up.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/6/2128.full
probably hundreds of other ones as well
“Christian Thibaudeau: @ bassip… being leaner is generally better… up to a point. Leaner people are more insulin sensitive, meaning that they will store less nutrients in the fat cells (thus more in the muscle). So they can eat more without risking as much fat gain. But there is a point where it doesn’t make a difference… at 8% you would be REALLY insulin sensitive, going down to 6% would not do more. And getting too lean (if your body is not naturally lean) can negtively affect some anabolic hormones”
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Note to readers: I’m not saying that gaining is harder than losing for everyone. I’m not smart enough to know the bro science required to stand behind that statement. Just speaking for me.[/quote]
lol
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
here they are now grown up:
[/quote]
do you ever press them?[/quote]
no. but i do let them pull me on a bike for a few miles a day. MUSH!
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
I don’t understand how one could make the case that you eat a certain amount of caloric surplus, all of which (or the vast majority of which) must go towards growth, then the rest goes to fat…
It seems more logical that of any given caloric surplus, some percentage goes towards fat and some towards muscle. Of course, I would imagine that the surplus is purely fat after you get to the point of consumption that fully fuels the amount of muscle that the body can synthesize in a given period. But the idea that the body preferentially synthesizes muscle instead of adding some fat as well just doesn’t gel…
What am I missing?[/quote]
1 - First off, do keep in mind that logic isn’t foolproof in this arena. Of course, ‘kcals in/out’ is an excellent logical starting point, yet also way too many examples of “logic does not apply” when discussing the dynamic, adaptable human body.
2 - As zraw mentioned, everything changes in response to training stimulus. Granted, we’re talking STRICTLY fast-twitch, anaerobic-type training (heavy lifts, sprints, jumps) which imposes incredible demands on the body resulting in both forced adaptation AND improved hormonal status. (note that this is why the “endless cardio” approach cannot work, as it fails on both those latter points)
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.
[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]
Former.
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I don’t disagree with you. For me, personally, I think the gain phase is physically harder. Early on, I used to sit here with slab of meat in front of me[/quote]
this reminds me of a thread you had years ago called something like La Cucina Italiano Anabolica. It was fucking amazing! I wish you’d do something like that again[/quote]
HAAA!! It’s still there 
You’d be surprised how much time it takes to crop and upload all those pics. I just don’t have time to post those meals anymore!
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I guess I don’t understand what the fascination is with the “full house” look. Would you rather be big, muscular and lean… or BIGGER, muscular and fat? I will choose the former every time. It’s one thing to say getting big, muscular and fat is beneficial to help you acheive the big and lean physique one day, but to look at “full house” as an end goal, in a bbing forum, I just dont get.
Please help me. [/quote]
Fixed.
By BBing standards, lean is probably < 5% bf and fat is anything over that…nobody going for the full house look really plans on being obese, but nor do they care if they sit at a higher bf%. IMO 15% isn’t that unreasonable but by BBing standards it is likely to be considered fat.[/quote]
You have it wrong. No one sits at 4 to 6% bodyfat for more than a few days and most bodybuilders are 10 to 15% and in some cases more in the offseason. Someone would really have to be off their rocker to think that anything greater than 5% is fat!
Is 10 to 15% fat for competition? Yes. For an offseason? Heck no! Also, that’s the bodyfat of most athletes in most sports.
[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]
5’10", 175 pounds, 8% bodyfat. Although it can’t be definite, at least I’d be in good enough shape to reduce the risk of hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. I’d also be in better shape to be able to locomote faster than a walk, run, climb, or swim if need be, pick up some games here and there, and be better able to defend myself if need be.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I guess I don’t understand what the fascination is with the “full house” look. Would you rather be big, muscular and lean… or BIGGER, muscular and fat? I will choose the former every time. It’s one thing to say getting big, muscular and fat is beneficial to help you acheive the big and lean physique one day, but to look at “full house” as an end goal, in a bbing forum, I just dont get.
Please help me. [/quote]
Fixed.
By BBing standards, lean is probably < 5% bf and fat is anything over that…nobody going for the full house look really plans on being obese, but nor do they care if they sit at a higher bf%. IMO 15% isn’t that unreasonable but by BBing standards it is likely to be considered fat.[/quote]
You have it wrong. No one sits at 4 to 6% bodyfat for more than a few days and most bodybuilders are 10 to 15% and in some cases more in the offseason. Someone would really have to be off their rocker to think that anything greater than 5% is fat!
Is 10 to 15% fat for competition? Yes. For an offseason? Heck no! Also, that’s the bodyfat of most athletes in most sports. [/quote]
Exactly. The people shown as full house are well over 15% bf. More like 20%+. 5% bf is absolutley shredded, and I certainly wouldn’t call >5% fat. Lean is 10-12% or thereabouts. I wouldn’t consider 15%bf fat.
[quote]TBItruck89 wrote:
Hafthor Bjornsson has the perfect ‘full house’ look IMO.
[/quote]
lol your kidding me right?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]
5’10", 175 pounds, 8% bodyfat. Although it can’t be definite, at least I’d be in good enough shape to reduce the risk of hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. I’d also be in better shape to be able to locomote faster than a walk, run, climb, or swim if need be, pick up some games here and there, and be better able to defend myself if need be. [/quote]
C’mon, now… We’ve already addressed that either approach lifters take doesn’t always align with ‘a healthier self’. The work and diet it would take to stay at 8% would make all that other stuff you listed tedious at best because of low energy levels and fear of ‘going catabolic’. One would be too irritable to enjoy any of it anyway
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]
5’10", 175 pounds, 8% bodyfat. Although it can’t be definite, at least I’d be in good enough shape to reduce the risk of hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. I’d also be in better shape to be able to locomote faster than a walk, run, climb, or swim if need be, pick up some games here and there, and be better able to defend myself if need be. [/quote]
You are under several different delusions if you think there aren’t guys in the upper 200’s and higher who can’t “locomote faster than a walk” or who can’t run, climb and swim or play sports or who don’t have very healthy insides. And the biggest delusion of all is thinking you could defend yourself against one of them as a 175 pound twink.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]
5’10", 175 pounds, 8% bodyfat. Although it can’t be definite, at least I’d be in good enough shape to reduce the risk of hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. I’d also be in better shape to be able to locomote faster than a walk, run, climb, or swim if need be, pick up some games here and there, and be better able to defend myself if need be. [/quote]
On the subject of self defense, I actually had that question for myself for a while. Before I started powerlifting, I actually fought, with a lot of time spent in martial arts along with some boxing. I used lifting to supplement my fighting. Eventually, I got bit by the iron bug, and had to choose between lifting and fighting. When it came to self defense, it boiled down to the thought that I could either be a smaller guy who knows how to fight when the time comes, or I could just be so big that it serves as a visual deterrent and I don’t need to fight in the first place.
It’s not like I can get in the head of a predator, but I would imagine they would pick “soft targets”.
Although either way, I haven’t been in a non-sport fight since elementary school, so it doesn’t matter, haha.
[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]
So long as health is assumed tip top for both, I’d pick full house all day.