'Full House' ???

Training
801

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
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.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with the sentiment in your last paragraph.

The first paragraph about the ‘top guys’, though, is kind of a red straw fish man. What Kai, Phil, and company do as world class top professional bodybuilders well into their careers as professional world class top professional bodybuilders, like, let’s say the top 10 in the world out of 6 billion people has little comparison to the way just about anyone on the TN forums trains and progresses.

I would also keep pointing to the fact that at some point they have gotten very big and dieted down. To my (poor) bodybuilding knowledge only a couple Olympia class guys ever dieted up to comps (eg. Levrone).

Kai’s new line about ‘weightlifters’ certainly doesn’t jive with his training in the past. He didn’t build those arms with 20# dumbells and a diet of 2000 cals of fish and celery.

802

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
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.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with the sentiment in your last paragraph.

The first paragraph about the ‘top guys’, though, is kind of a red straw fish man. What Kai, Phil, and company do as world class top professional bodybuilders well into their careers as professional world class top professional bodybuilders, like, let’s say the top 10 in the world out of 6 billion people has little comparison to the way just about anyone on the TN forums trains and progresses. I would also keep pointing to the fact that at some point they have gotten very big and dieted down. To my (poor) bodybuilding knowledge only a couple Olympia class guys ever dieted up to comps (eg. Levrone).

Kai’s new line about ‘weightlifters’ certainly doesn’t jive with his training in the past. He didn’t build those arms with 20# dumbells and a diet of 2000 cals of fish and celery.[/quote]

It’s not just these guys though. Successful natural BBers have echoed the same thing and so have elite coaches. If, in their own experience, they have found that getting bloated provides no additional benefit, then who are we to discount what they say? How does getting much fatter in the past help them today? The only thing it did was make the competition prep tougher. These are their own words, not mine.

We are seeing young guys come up through the ranks who have never done the traditional bulk and are extremely successful. And we will continue to see more and more and the traditional bulkers fade out. Aaron Clark is a young guy who comes to mind who, as far as I know, has never been sloppy in the off season.

803

477×720 88.5 KB

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
We are seeing young guys come up through the ranks who have never done the traditional bulk and are extremely successful. And we will continue to see more and more and the traditional bulkers fade out. Aaron Clark is a young guy who comes to mind who, as far as I know, has never been sloppy in the off season.[/quote]

This kid?

And again, those examples are of people whose primary goal is competitive bodybuilding. I’m not arguing against your (or Stu’s) point-- because I think they have merit in context (ie. primary goal is BB comps or purely physique oriented).

I think it’s reasonable to say that the lack of offseason or early pics of some of the example bodybuilders does not mean that they never bulked up.

804

567×663 83.3 KB

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
We are seeing young guys come up through the ranks who have never done the traditional bulk and are extremely successful. And we will continue to see more and more and the traditional bulkers fade out. Aaron Clark is a young guy who comes to mind who, as far as I know, has never been sloppy in the off season.[/quote]

This kid?

And again, those examples are of people whose primary goal is competitive bodybuilding. I’m not arguing against your (or Stu’s) point because I think they have merit in context (ie. primary goal is BB comps or purely physique oriented).

I think it’s reasonable to say that the lack of offseason or early pics of some of the example bodybuilders does not mean that they never bulked up.[/quote]

No, I was talking about this guy. He’s only 24 and his progress has been documented since he was a teen. He was pwrbarboy on this site.

And you’re right about the context. That’s why in my earlier comments I said traditional bulking was unnecessary for “bodybuilding purposes.” If you simply want to be an imposing, muscular guy then full house is the way to go.

805

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

No, I was talking about this guy.[/quote]

I couldn’t tell if it was the same guy. All white people look the same.

806

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

No, I was talking about this guy.[/quote]

I couldn’t tell if it was the same guy. All white people look the same.
[/quote]

LOL white people.

807

750×600 84.6 KB

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

No, I was talking about this guy.[/quote]

I couldn’t tell if it was the same guy. All white people look the same.
[/quote]

Lolz…

808

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
We are seeing young guys come up through the ranks who have never done the traditional bulk and are extremely successful. And we will continue to see more and more and the traditional bulkers fade out. Aaron Clark is a young guy who comes to mind who, as far as I know, has never been sloppy in the off season.[/quote]

This kid?

And again, those examples are of people whose primary goal is competitive bodybuilding. I’m not arguing against your (or Stu’s) point because I think they have merit in context (ie. primary goal is BB comps or purely physique oriented).

I think it’s reasonable to say that the lack of offseason or early pics of some of the example bodybuilders does not mean that they never bulked up.[/quote]

No, I was talking about this guy. He’s only 24 and his progress has been documented since he was a teen. He was pwrbarboy on this site.

And you’re right about the context. That’s why in my earlier comments I said traditional bulking was unnecessary for “bodybuilding purposes.” If you simply want to be an imposing, muscular guy then full house is the way to go.[/quote]

Now if that kid was to put on enough fat to cover those abs he would be far more impressive

810

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[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]

Not sure what it is you dont understand.

I looked leaner than X does at a bodyfat that is higher than X estimates himself to be, therefor, X isn’t actually as lean as he thinks he is.

Clear enough?

811

Oh lord…

If you stop gaining at X number of cals and your “setpoint” weight becomes 280lbs… and you stop adding scale weight… wouldnt that mean that afterward you are juste “recomping” very slowly so in reality you are not “setting” any point you are just building muscles… and losing fat…

Hence why its easier to “keep/hold/getback to” that weight afterward…

…

812

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[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]

Not sure what it is you dont understand.

I looked leaner than X does at a bodyfat that is higher than X estimates himself to be, therefor, X isn’t actually as lean as he thinks he is.

Clear enough?[/quote]

ok so

  1. you were 26% BF
  2. X is noticeably/significantly higher in BF than you were

so what do you estimate his BF to be then? 30%? 35%?

if it’s visually clearly enough for you to say it is higher than you at 26% then it must be 30% minimum I would guess?

813

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

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]

I looked leaner than X does at a bodyfat that is higher than X estimates himself to be, therefor, X isn’t actually as lean as he thinks he is.[/quote]

How you looked at a certain BF% vs. how another lifter looks is not an accurate method to compare BF levels.

814

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
We are seeing young guys come up through the ranks who have never done the traditional bulk and are extremely successful. And we will continue to see more and more and the traditional bulkers fade out. Aaron Clark is a young guy who comes to mind who, as far as I know, has never been sloppy in the off season.[/quote]

This kid?

And again, those examples are of people whose primary goal is competitive bodybuilding. I’m not arguing against your (or Stu’s) point because I think they have merit in context (ie. primary goal is BB comps or purely physique oriented).

I think it’s reasonable to say that the lack of offseason or early pics of some of the example bodybuilders does not mean that they never bulked up.[/quote]

No, I was talking about this guy. He’s only 24 and his progress has been documented since he was a teen. He was pwrbarboy on this site.

And you’re right about the context. That’s why in my earlier comments I said traditional bulking was unnecessary for “bodybuilding purposes.” If you simply want to be an imposing, muscular guy then full house is the way to go.[/quote]

Now if that kid was to put on enough fat to cover those abs he would be far more impressive[/quote]

That guy is the exception, not the rule.
If you have genetics like that, getting bigger will not be your problem.

815

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
We are seeing young guys come up through the ranks who have never done the traditional bulk and are extremely successful. And we will continue to see more and more and the traditional bulkers fade out. Aaron Clark is a young guy who comes to mind who, as far as I know, has never been sloppy in the off season.[/quote]

This kid?

And again, those examples are of people whose primary goal is competitive bodybuilding. I’m not arguing against your (or Stu’s) point because I think they have merit in context (ie. primary goal is BB comps or purely physique oriented).

I think it’s reasonable to say that the lack of offseason or early pics of some of the example bodybuilders does not mean that they never bulked up.[/quote]

No, I was talking about this guy. He’s only 24 and his progress has been documented since he was a teen. He was pwrbarboy on this site.

And you’re right about the context. That’s why in my earlier comments I said traditional bulking was unnecessary for “bodybuilding purposes.” If you simply want to be an imposing, muscular guy then full house is the way to go.[/quote]

Now if that kid was to put on enough fat to cover those abs he would be far more impressive[/quote]

That guy is the exception, not the rule.
If you have genetics like that, getting bigger will not be your problem.
[/quote]

One could argue that by assuming this guy is the exception and telling people that you will need to accept getting soft in order to become very impressive we would be setting limits on the guys with the most potential… :confused:

Im just playing… but still

816

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

No, I was talking about this guy.[/quote]

I couldn’t tell if it was the same guy. All white people look the same.
[/quote]

CRACKA ASS CRACKAS!

817

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
That guy is the exception, not the rule.
If you have genetics like that, getting bigger will not be your problem.
[/quote]

One could argue that by assuming this guy is the exception and telling people that you will need to accept getting soft in order to become very impressive we would be setting limits on the guys with the most potential… :confused:

Im just playing… but still[/quote]

If you have followed my posts you know I have specific guidelines for bulking that do not match what is currently being referred to as the traditional bulk. Some lifters can make great progress while remaining fairly lean, others may have to ‘fade’ their mid-section some before they are in their training sweet-spot. As others have mentioned the conditioning standard is different today than in the past and this must be taken into consideration by lifters with plans to compete. I haven’t spent much time in your threads and don’t know what your stage weight is or how much you add after a contest, but I suspect our approaches have more in comman than differences.

818

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
That guy is the exception, not the rule.
If you have genetics like that, getting bigger will not be your problem.
[/quote]

One could argue that by assuming this guy is the exception and telling people that you will need to accept getting soft in order to become very impressive we would be setting limits on the guys with the most potential… :confused:

Im just playing… but still[/quote]

If you have followed my posts you know I have specific guidelines for bulking that do not match what is currently being referred to as the traditional bulk. Some lifters can make great progress while remaining fairly lean, others may have to ‘fade’ their mid-section some before they are in their training sweet-spot. As others have mentioned the conditioning standard is different today than in the past and this must be taken into consideration by lifters with plans to compete. I haven’t spent much time in your threads and don’t know what your stage weight is or how much you add after a contest, but I suspect our approaches have more in comman than differences. [/quote]

Oh i totally agree with you I was just being a dick in reference to the “natty limit” thread lol

Most people shouldnt aim to look like AC while.gaining, i agree

Something im surprised no one mentionned is that a reason why Pros do not get as soft nowadays is cause of the higher number of contest/guest posing appearance

They still manage to grow though

In tje end i think : do whatever the f you like as long as it makes u happy

819

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
That guy is the exception, not the rule.
If you have genetics like that, getting bigger will not be your problem.
[/quote]

One could argue that by assuming this guy is the exception and telling people that you will need to accept getting soft in order to become very impressive we would be setting limits on the guys with the most potential… :confused:

Im just playing… but still[/quote]

If you have followed my posts you know I have specific guidelines for bulking that do not match what is currently being referred to as the traditional bulk. Some lifters can make great progress while remaining fairly lean, others may have to ‘fade’ their mid-section some before they are in their training sweet-spot. As others have mentioned the conditioning standard is different today than in the past and this must be taken into consideration by lifters with plans to compete. I haven’t spent much time in your threads and don’t know what your stage weight is or how much you add after a contest, but I suspect our approaches have more in comman than differences. [/quote]

Oh i totally agree with you I was just being a dick in reference to the “natty limit” thread lol

Most people shouldnt aim to look like AC while.gaining, i agree

Something im surprised no one mentionned is that a reason why Pros do not get as soft nowadays is cause of the higher number of contest/guest posing appearance

They still manage to grow though

In tje end i think : do whatever the f you like as long as it makes u happy
[/quote]

Don’t the pros ‘mamange’ to grow without getting soft because of 3g of test a week, plus hgh, insulin etc while in the off season?

820

[quote]flch95 wrote:

[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]

Find maintenance calories and add 10 to 15% to that or set calories at 15 calories per pound, see what happens, and make adjustments from there, not “eat big to get big”. These are the same sensible guidelines for gaining for people of any age.