[quote]flch95 wrote:
^^^don’t know how you have the patience sometimes, lol.[/quote]
Hey, enough people tell me they appreciate it to block out the nonsense.
This particular crap was getting on my nerves though…having people with no pics do nothing but throw insults and fuck up threads nonstop for over two years has gotten old.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
In the end, some people want to lift heavy weights for some reason or another. Maybe their goal is a PR, maybe it’s to win a strongman, maybe something else. Some of those like having abs, and some like to take up as much space as possible with an imposing but not chiseled physique.
Some women prefer to have big fat asses and some prefer other looks.
We might as well be discussing the best color for bathroom towels. I’m partial to maroon.[/quote]
I just giggle that this forum is called Bigger, Stronger, Leaner
Apparently leaner is the frowned upon one as if you’ll instantly lose muscle and/or size if your pursue leanness equally to size and strength.
It’s such a weird (and false) paradigm [/quote]
Maybe it’s the ambiguity of the title. As a guy who deals with business and technical requirements daily, I read it as:
Bigger (and/or) Stronger (and/or) Leaner
On a more personal note, my hands have gotten bigger over the years. Hasn’t affected my guitar playing much 
Maybe we should debated lean fingers vs. sausage fingers and styles of playing.
[/quote]
Good post.
Also, remember, Casey Butt says those hands and wrists can’t grow.
Either way, there seem to be a lot of people still here just to start shit.
I would like that crap to die quickly because decent discussions can take place here.
Posting the same memes and crap you see in off topic forums is not needed here at all.[/quote]
My fingers were a lot bigger when I was 40 lbs heavier.
They didn’t teach you that the body can store excess fat in the hands and fingers in medical school? I learned that there.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Hopefully not too many people throw me under an 800lb bar for dick ridin X, but honestly, regardless of how you feel about his attitude, I can’t let this anonymously sized solarFLARE say that this is considered “not really built”. I mean for fucks sake that’s a depressingly high standard for a lot of people trying to build muscle on here.[/quote]
According to Brick, that is “25% body fat”.
I am not sure if everyone posting here actually lives in reality with the rest of us.
I think emotions overrode a lot of common sense lately.
Hopefully we can get this forum back on track.[/quote]
Someone can have a ton of muscle while being very built. Just look at Donnie Thompson who has over 25%.
Did I ever say you don’t have a lot of muscle?
In this picture here, I think you’re under 25%. In others, not so. And I doubt you weren’t OVER 25% when you weighed 285 to 300.
But again, where have I said you’re not jacked? I even commended you several times on your progress. You got annoyed that I THINK you’ve gained a TRAINING induced (not puberty induced, that is) 30 to 40 pounds of LBM, which is A LOT for a natural. How you get bothered by this is beyond me considering the upper limit for most natties is 40 to 50 pounds.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Hopefully not too many people throw me under an 800lb bar for dick ridin X, but honestly, regardless of how you feel about his attitude, I can’t let this anonymously sized solarFLARE say that this is considered “not really built”. I mean for fucks sake that’s a depressingly high standard for a lot of people trying to build muscle on here.[/quote]
According to Brick, that is “25% body fat”.
[/quote]
I would say that Brick’s assessment is accurate. I looked leaner than that in pictures taken when I DEXA’d at 26% at 217 lbs, and I tend to store the more bodyfat in my central abdominal area, as my coach (Ebomb from these boards) can attest to, so I look worse than most people at a given % bodyfat.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I watched one of your vids and while you look like you lift, you don’t seem “extremely muscular” to me.
[/quote]
You’re right, X. Det doesn’t carry that 220lbs at 5’7" very well. Definitely not going to turn heads looking like this.
I’ll also add: if you were to work your lower body as hard as you did with CT in that clip of you sumo deadlifting with chains, you might even be able to eek out some more whole body LBM gain.
I’ve never spoken about your bodyfat estimation to discredit your size progress. I’ve discussed it when it was a topic at hand and couldn’t grasp how you were speaking on body composition.
I also don’t think estimating bodyfat is insulting, even if it’s an over- or underestimation because that is simply mistaking, which humans do.
When I went to a powerlifting seminar by a very well known writer on THIS site (and all over the internet), he showed me how powerlifters bench. I said, “How come I just don’t feel right with this position. I actually feel weaker!” He responded, “Because you don’t have the pec or lat or shoulder strength for it now. You gotta work on that.” I said, “Oh, OK man, I understand.” I didn’t feel insulted (because he didn’t insult me) or flabbergasted that he said that and realized that was just the truth and just criticism.
I use that as an example relating to why I don’t know why discussion about body composition and LBM gains is so emotionally loaded and can’t simply be looked at for what it is.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I watched one of your vids and while you look like you lift, you don’t seem “extremely muscular” to me.
[/quote]
You’re right, X. Det doesn’t carry that 220lbs at 5’7" very well. Definitely not going to turn heads looking like this.[/quote]
Lol
He sure looks like a moran.
Why are top bodybuilders eschewing the old bulking methods of the past when they worked fine? Is it a new idea to bulk with a tighter grip on the overall calories or was the odd bodybuilder doing it in back in the day when the trend was to bulk up with a looser approach and not be too concerned with greater fat gain. I am curious about the origins of this approach, is it a paradigm shift or is it just a fad?
There is vast empirical reasoning behind the old school bulking what is the reasoning behind the new approach? I am not siding with anyone or any argument in this I am just curious when time honoured methods get sidelined.
I’d say he’s higher than that. Closer to 40% at the very least.
I looked leaner than that when I DEXAed at 50% bodyfat last week while organizing a summer camp for albino midgets.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Hopefully not too many people throw me under an 800lb bar for dick ridin X, but honestly, regardless of how you feel about his attitude, I can’t let this anonymously sized solarFLARE say that this is considered “not really built”. I mean for fucks sake that’s a depressingly high standard for a lot of people trying to build muscle on here.[/quote]
According to Brick, that is “25% body fat”.
[/quote]
I would say that Brick’s assessment is accurate. I looked leaner than that in pictures taken when I DEXA’d at 26% at 217 lbs, and I tend to store the more bodyfat in my central abdominal area, as my coach (Ebomb from these boards) can attest to, so I look worse than most people at a given % bodyfat.[/quote]
[quote]steven alex wrote:
There is vast empirical reasoning behind the old school bulking [/quote]
I’m not exactly sure if that’s accurate. The old school BBers did a lot of things that weren’t really optimal, they just didn’t know better. Also, the state of ‘contest condition’ was quite different than the extremes you would see today (or even in the 90’s, when things were just crazy), so “lean” had a different definition to most people.
Yes, I do realize that in some instances, “gym-science” can actually precede real science, but in others, it’s just more gym-myths. I can’t tell you how many times when I first started training that I’d see guys downing 5 slices of pizza in their efforts to ‘bulk up’. You can’t honestly tell me that such an approach increased the amount of muscle their bodies were able to build.
Because now that science has caught up, so to speak, we realize that it’s not only not necessary, but can actually be unhealthy (although there will always be people who will always argue this).
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
There is vast empirical reasoning behind the old school bulking [/quote]
I’m not exactly sure if that’s accurate. The old school BBers did a lot of things that weren’t really optimal, they just didn’t know better. Also, the state of ‘contest condition’ was quite different than the extremes you would see today (or even in the 90’s, when things were just crazy), so “lean” had a different definition to most people.
Yes, I do realize that in some instances, “gym-science” can actually precede real science, but in others, it’s just more gym-myths. I can’t tell you how many times when I first started training that I’d see guys downing 5 slices of pizza in their efforts to ‘bulk up’. You can’t honestly tell me that such an approach increased the amount of muscle their bodies were able to build.
Because now that science has caught up, so to speak, we realize that it’s not only not necessary, but can actually be unhealthy (although there will always be people who will always argue this).
S
[/quote]
if profx or others what to chime in please do, but im having trouble understanding something.
as a natural you CANNOT force feed muscle growth. after a certain point the extra calories are not used for muscle building, instead they are stored as fat. for someone with bodybuilding goals, why have a surplus any larger than 250-500cals?
also what is people reasoning for holding alot of weight for an extended period of time after gaining it?
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
There is vast empirical reasoning behind the old school bulking [/quote]
I’m not exactly sure if that’s accurate. The old school BBers did a lot of things that weren’t really optimal, they just didn’t know better. Also, the state of ‘contest condition’ was quite different than the extremes you would see today (or even in the 90’s, when things were just crazy), so “lean” had a different definition to most people.
Yes, I do realize that in some instances, “gym-science” can actually precede real science, but in others, it’s just more gym-myths. I can’t tell you how many times when I first started training that I’d see guys downing 5 slices of pizza in their efforts to ‘bulk up’. You can’t honestly tell me that such an approach increased the amount of muscle their bodies were able to build.
Because now that science has caught up, so to speak, we realize that it’s not only not necessary, but can actually be unhealthy (although there will always be people who will always argue this).
S
[/quote]
if profx or others what to chime in please do, but im having trouble understanding something.
as a natural you CANNOT force feed muscle growth. after a certain point the extra calories are not used for muscle building, instead they are stored as fat. for someone with bodybuilding goals, why have a surplus any larger than 250-500cals?
also what is people reasoning for holding alot of weight for an extended period of time after gaining it?
[/quote]
Yup. And considering that after the second year, naturals gain 5 pounds of LBM or less per year, I’m still confused on the whole overeating mentality.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
There is vast empirical reasoning behind the old school bulking [/quote]
I’m not exactly sure if that’s accurate. The old school BBers did a lot of things that weren’t really optimal, they just didn’t know better. Also, the state of ‘contest condition’ was quite different than the extremes you would see today (or even in the 90’s, when things were just crazy), so “lean” had a different definition to most people.
Yes, I do realize that in some instances, “gym-science” can actually precede real science, but in others, it’s just more gym-myths. I can’t tell you how many times when I first started training that I’d see guys downing 5 slices of pizza in their efforts to ‘bulk up’. You can’t honestly tell me that such an approach increased the amount of muscle their bodies were able to build.
Because now that science has caught up, so to speak, we realize that it’s not only not necessary, but can actually be unhealthy (although there will always be people who will always argue this).
S
[/quote]
I know you compete in natural shows Stu so is this approach more prevalent in nattys training protocols where dieting and preserving muscle is harder without assistance or is it pretty much all competitive BBs that do it this way now? I always thought it must have been hell dieting for months on end for a show yet still having to train as hard as fuck to keep as much of that hard won muscle.
I think in the long run keeping your cutting phase to a minimum makes sense as I could imagine the run into a show is fraught with increased risk of injury and I would suspect also bouts of depression when in a prolonged period of strict dieting. I remember years ago reading about Tim Bellknap(?) existing on very few calories after a bulk and I believe he was a BIG bulker LOL. Must be very hard to be used to high energy levels for training then running on empty as your contest approaches.
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
There is vast empirical reasoning behind the old school bulking [/quote]
I’m not exactly sure if that’s accurate. The old school BBers did a lot of things that weren’t really optimal, they just didn’t know better. Also, the state of ‘contest condition’ was quite different than the extremes you would see today (or even in the 90’s, when things were just crazy), so “lean” had a different definition to most people.
Yes, I do realize that in some instances, “gym-science” can actually precede real science, but in others, it’s just more gym-myths. I can’t tell you how many times when I first started training that I’d see guys downing 5 slices of pizza in their efforts to ‘bulk up’. You can’t honestly tell me that such an approach increased the amount of muscle their bodies were able to build.
Because now that science has caught up, so to speak, we realize that it’s not only not necessary, but can actually be unhealthy (although there will always be people who will always argue this).
S
[/quote]
if profx or others what to chime in please do, but im having trouble understanding something.
as a natural you CANNOT force feed muscle growth. after a certain point the extra calories are not used for muscle building, instead they are stored as fat. for someone with bodybuilding goals, why have a surplus any larger than 250-500cals?
also what is people reasoning for holding alot of weight for an extended period of time after gaining it?
[/quote]
Oh I was kind of wanting to avoid that if we can I am sure the opinions of which is the best approach has been done to death in other threads. What I wanted to ask is why there is a groundshift away from one methodology in favour of another. I am sure even those people who adhere to the old style bulking approach would acknowledge that there does seem a movement away from it and I was curious as to why now?
I would suspect that scientific study has pointed the way, maybe a better understanding of how muscle is built or of nutrition in general beyond that of empirical data by BBs of the past. If that is the case where are the studies? Or is it infact down to the data supplied by a new wave of up and coming BBs who have built impressive physiques using the new method?
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
Hopefully not too many people throw me under an 800lb bar for dick ridin X, but honestly, regardless of how you feel about his attitude, I can’t let this anonymously sized solarFLARE say that this is considered “not really built”. I mean for fucks sake that’s a depressingly high standard for a lot of people trying to build muscle on here.[/quote]
According to Brick, that is “25% body fat”.
[/quote]
I would say that Brick’s assessment is accurate. I looked leaner than that in pictures taken when I DEXA’d at 26% at 217 lbs, and I tend to store the more bodyfat in my central abdominal area, as my coach (Ebomb from these boards) can attest to, so I look worse than most people at a given % bodyfat.[/quote]
lol wtf are you talking about
so you are implying the pic shows someone up to 30% BF then if it looks higher than your 26
and no i am not “nut hugging” as you always always say about anyone who doesnt side with you
just pointing out you are an idiot with this post
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
My muscular size hit its peak after years of slowly, and consciously starting to pay attention to my diet and training, and all after the age of 30.
S[/quote]
key point…most of the advice for any type of extreme bulking has been aimed at people YOUNGER THAN 30. I mentioned that right here as well. Maybe people thought I was older than I was when I first started posting. I always made the point that I wouldn’t be bulking up much over the age of 30-35.
I wouldn’t expect someone over the age of 30 to see the same benefit especially if it took even longer past that to learn to eat right.
By 30 I had much of that worked out from several years of trial and error.[/quote]
So what would you tell someone mid 30s, in the 150-170lb range just starting out with the goal of adding size?
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
There is vast empirical reasoning behind the old school bulking [/quote]
I’m not exactly sure if that’s accurate. The old school BBers did a lot of things that weren’t really optimal, they just didn’t know better. Also, the state of ‘contest condition’ was quite different than the extremes you would see today (or even in the 90’s, when things were just crazy), so “lean” had a different definition to most people.
Yes, I do realize that in some instances, “gym-science” can actually precede real science, but in others, it’s just more gym-myths. I can’t tell you how many times when I first started training that I’d see guys downing 5 slices of pizza in their efforts to ‘bulk up’. You can’t honestly tell me that such an approach increased the amount of muscle their bodies were able to build.
Because now that science has caught up, so to speak, we realize that it’s not only not necessary, but can actually be unhealthy (although there will always be people who will always argue this).
S
[/quote]
That’s exactly right. I wouldn’t say the traditional bulk doesn’t work, it’s simply unnecessary for bodybuilding purposes. Elite coaches and bodybuilders are reaching this consensus. Think about that. The top guys who do this for a living are doing away with the traditional bulk. Phil Heath, Toney Freeman, Ced McMillan, Kai Greene, Jay Cutler have all talked about the benefits of staying leaner year round, and the list goes on and on.
Now, you will have some more muscle utilizing the full house look. Why? Because there’s always SOME muscle loss when you diet down. If you never diet down you’re retaining more muscle. If that’s the look you prefer then that’s OK. But to pretend that getting bloated will somehow make you look better at a lean weight is just not true.
Discussion about staying leaner. Farah begins at 23:13. Kai adds his thoughts at 24:07
[quote]samoth2 wrote:
He sure looks like a moran.
[/quote]
Ha! Good one!
[quote]steven alex wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
There is vast empirical reasoning behind the old school bulking [/quote]
I’m not exactly sure if that’s accurate. The old school BBers did a lot of things that weren’t really optimal, they just didn’t know better. Also, the state of ‘contest condition’ was quite different than the extremes you would see today (or even in the 90’s, when things were just crazy), so “lean” had a different definition to most people.
Yes, I do realize that in some instances, “gym-science” can actually precede real science, but in others, it’s just more gym-myths. I can’t tell you how many times when I first started training that I’d see guys downing 5 slices of pizza in their efforts to ‘bulk up’. You can’t honestly tell me that such an approach increased the amount of muscle their bodies were able to build.
Because now that science has caught up, so to speak, we realize that it’s not only not necessary, but can actually be unhealthy (although there will always be people who will always argue this).
S
[/quote]
I know you compete in natural shows Stu so is this approach more prevalent in nattys training protocols where dieting and preserving muscle is harder without assistance or is it pretty much all competitive BBs that do it this way now? I always thought it must have been hell dieting for months on end for a show yet still having to train as hard as fuck to keep as much of that hard won muscle.
I think in the long run keeping your cutting phase to a minimum makes sense as I could imagine the run into a show is fraught with increased risk of injury and I would suspect also bouts of depression when in a prolonged period of strict dieting. I remember years ago reading about Tim Bellknap(?) existing on very few calories after a bulk and I believe he was a BIG bulker LOL. Must be very hard to be used to high energy levels for training then running on empty as your contest approaches.
[/quote]
This is where people get confused. PEDs enhance your protein synthesis rate (I don’t have a background in the specifics, so don’t start firing questions), but at the end of the day, whatever rate that is, it is. Force feeding nutrients beyond what can actually be used to build new tissue, and support the energy expenditure from training and daily activities won’t help, no matter if you’re utilizing PEDs or not. Obviously the rate of synthesis, unique genetic predispositions aside, can vary from natties to assisteds, but the whole force feedings aspect? In my opinion it’s mental.
I’ve worked with several ‘enhanced’ competitors over the years, and they seem to put much less faith in their training and diet, and much more in “what can I get my hands on this week, lemme throw that into the mix”. Now don’t jump down my throat,I can’t speak for everyone I have no doubt that the more analytic guys will always rise to the top, but the whole self perception of being “the big guy” seems to exert the most subconscious drive to overeat IMO.
(waiting for the sh-t storm on this one -lol)
Cool that you mention Belknap. I believe he was one of the first guys to make use of Insulin (?). Obviously getting a leg up on your body utilizing nutrients isn’t a bad thing. Surprisingly, as I’ve accumulated tons of out of print publications, and books over the years, I’ve realized that many of the older guys (Mentzer, Platz etc) had ridiculously low levels of nutrients in their diets. I would imagine that as they gained better understandings of the entire process they relied on the added anabolics for growth and retention, realizing that they didn’t actually need to force feed themselves as much as previously thought.
S
