'Full House' ???

Training
821

I would love to see some members actually show us some progress pics of people who went from being unimpressive or skinny, or even skinny fat, that never traditionaly bulked up but slowly and steadily gained mass.

So many of us say that we wouldnt do it again that way, or wouldnt advice it now, but problem is we all did it(im just generalizing, really want people to prove me wrong.) I just feel like anyone i have seen personally do it where those skinny but “pretty muscle” abercrombie modle etc build that blew up from some dormant genetic potential. And most of them ate like crap just didnt get fat. Other than that I have only seen geared lifters do it.

Im a huge hypocrite too, because i would never tell someone to do what I did, things like force feeding and 5-6k calorie days, but shit…I was a ‘smedium’ 150 dude for years until in college one year I bulked up to a very soft 200 at 5’7". Ive never been the same since. So everytime i tell someone to ‘clean bulk’ im really just being full of shit cause I never did it. I plan on doing it later this year, but hell, I’m already ‘compromised’ as far as a case study.

822

[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]

Aaron Clark used to workout at my gym and that dude had the sickest genetics I’ve ever seen. He would also do these absurd two hour workouts lifting heavy as hell the entire time. It was a site to be seen really. My point being I don’t think he’s the best example to use because he’s on a different level genetically than most of us. BTW I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you’re overall stance, just speaking about this guy specifically not being a good example.

Personally I have no desire to become gigantic at this point in my life so would rather attempt to stay “lean” than going the extreme bulk method. Both because being lean feels real fucking good from a day to day perspective as opposed to pushing the bulking extreme, and because I can fit in normal clothes better (I know I look chubs in my avatar but that is not current and this isn’t a hardcore hobby of mine).

I think most people really need to push the envelope though to get to that extreme size based on what I’ve seen in real life and what some big guys in real life have told me. It really goes back to personal goals and your individual genetics. JUST MY OPINION hopefully I didn’t piss anypone off LOL.

823

719×719 100 KB

No need to go soft…

Yes im n=1 too

824

[quote]Waittz wrote:
I would love to see some members actually show us some progress pics of people who went from being unimpressive or skinny, or even skinny fat, that never traditionaly bulked up but slowly and steadily gained mass.

So many of us say that we wouldnt do it again that way, or wouldnt advice it now, but problem is we all did it(im just generalizing, really want people to prove me wrong.) I just feel like anyone i have seen personally do it where those skinny but “pretty muscle” abercrombie modle etc build that blew up from some dormant genetic potential. And most of them ate like crap just didnt get fat. Other than that I have only seen geared lifters do it.

Im a huge hypocrite too, because i would never tell someone to do what I did, things like force feeding and 5-6k calorie days, but shit…I was a ‘smedium’ 150 dude for years until in college one year I bulked up to a very soft 200 at 5’7". Ive never been the same since. So everytime i tell someone to ‘clean bulk’ im really just being full of shit cause I never did it. I plan on doing it later this year, but hell, I’m already ‘compromised’ as far as a case study.

[/quote]

Many here have agreed that the first bulk mode can be pretty liberal. The muscle gains can be very dramatic and fast in the first two years. And besides, who the heck wants to be so damn meticulous as to finding out the exact amount of calories it takes to grow while minimizing fat gain. So, some softness in that initial gain can be looked at as reasonable. However, it might not be a good idea to get too fat because it can take a lot of work for it to come off, especially when fat has been lying around for a long time.

Most non-behemoth men don’t need above 4,000 calories to grow.

How would you be full of shit for advising someone not to do something that’s not wise or efficient regardless if you, yourself, in the past or not. I’ve done inefficient and even dumb shit in my life and I’d advise others not to do the same.

825

[quote]Marzouk wrote:

[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?

[/quote]

Probably

Do you think PX hold that much more lbm than the top natty bbers?

Do you think Priest and Yates didnt have access to hgh? And 3g test?

To think roids = cant get fat is not understanding things fully…imo…

Following the full house logic eating even more and accepting fat gains would force their bodies to grow even more

826

[quote]BPCorso 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]

Aaron Clark used to workout at my gym and that dude had the sickest genetics I’ve ever seen. He would also do these absurd two hour workouts lifting heavy as hell the entire time. It was a site to be seen really. My point being I don’t think he’s the best example to use because he’s on a different level genetically than most of us. BTW I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you’re overall stance, just speaking about this guy specifically not being a good example.

Personally I have no desire to become gigantic at this point in my life so would rather attempt to stay “lean” than going the extreme bulk method. Both because being lean feels real fucking good from a day to day perspective as opposed to pushing the bulking extreme, and because I can fit in normal clothes better (I know I look chubs in my avatar but that is not current and this isn’t a hardcore hobby of mine).

I think most people really need to push the envelope though to get to that extreme size based on what I’ve seen in real life and what some big guys in real life have told me. It really goes back to personal goals and your individual genetics. JUST MY OPINION hopefully I didn’t piss anypone off LOL.[/quote]

For years on this site people have said do what the pros do. Now that the pros are staying leaner year round those same people are saying do what the pros used to do. AC was just one example of young guys coming up in the sport who aren’t doing the traditional bulk. Genetics will always play a huge role in your ability to get big, or gain while staying lean. My point is that there is no need to get sloppy.

As I said before, going full house mode will allow you to retain more muscle because you will lose some muscle when you diet down. That’s why I think it’s disingenuous to say that a full house guy has made more “progress” than a guy who has a good combo of size and leanness. If that full house guy were to diet down he’s probably not going to retain as much LBM as he thought. This goes back to BlueCollar’s point in another thread about dieting down to see what your LBM gains truly are.

827

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

It’s certainly not an exact metric, but it’s accurate enough to get you within 5% or so for 99% of the population. I also mentioned in my original post that I have rather unfortunate adipose patterning, with the vast majority of my fat being stored on my abdomen (I have had large veins in my quads without having abs before), so it is a safe assumption that if X looks worse than I did at a given bodyfat, he is carrying a larger relative amount than I was. I can’t and won’t put an exact number on it, but it’s not necessary to counter X’s claim that he is “in no way close to 25% bodyfat”.

I’m sure there are more than a few members here who would be willing to pitch in to pay for the cost of DEXA + several hour’s salary if X were to go get his bodyfat (which he both claims to not care about and also adamantly argues is not above a certain point) taken by an accurate means and post the results.

828

I’ll just come back on the “yeah but pros use roids hgh slin yada yada” argument

Yeah they do… so what? Does that mean that they could eat 20K cals and not get fat? No.

It just means that they can probably make better use of 7K cals…

So my question is…

If a full house guy gains fat on 7K cals so still eats that cause the logic is : maximum growth dont wanna miss out on any muscle

Well then following that same logic the pro on 3g gear and whatever you wanna add in the mix should be eating way over 7K cals and probably be around that 15K cals to make sure he maximize all that mucle gains, no?

Cause if you stay lean the logic is you are not MAXIMIZING your gains cause you MAY NOT be getting the MAXIMUM out of all those calories

… so really wether a guy has as much test as a 6yrs old girl or wether one is injecting enough roids per shot to supply 10 jersey shore meatheads really does not matter

829

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[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?
[/quote]

bump

stronghold - what is your estimate then?

830

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[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?
[/quote]

bump

stronghold - what is your estimate then?
[/quote]

Greater than 25%

831

Damn you guys are making me so self conscience about going to Buffalo Wild Wings tomorrow.

Fuckers :wink:

832

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Damn you guys are making me so self conscience about going to Buffalo Wild Wings tomorrow.

Fuckers ;)[/quote]

I hit the barbecue buffet during my lunch break at work today. “Moderation” can also be defined as equal time spent at both extremes.

833

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Damn you guys are making me so self conscience about going to Buffalo Wild Wings tomorrow.

Fuckers ;)[/quote]

I hit the barbecue buffet during my lunch break at work today. “Moderation” can also be defined as equal time spent at both extremes.[/quote]

Phew…now I dont feel so bad, this is the first one they opened in my area I have been craving it for three weeks!

834

I believe a ‘fascination’ with the full house look is not such a fascination, but rather just a state of content. It’s a tradeoff. At a certain point, the sacrifices made to lose bodyfat and keep it down will not match the effort put in to do so. I think we can all agree it is easier to drop from 25% to 20% than from 12% to 7%.

If one can achieve a good look, yet be able to enjoy their vices of choice, be it food, alcohol, whatever it may be, or spend less time in the gym and kitchen and more time for leisure/family/work, (within reason) I think for many who do not compete or intend to compete, that will take preference over losing more bodyfact and constantly working to keep it down.

Would they look better at 5% less bodyfat? Probably. But would they be happier at 5% less bodyfat? Not necessarily.

835

[quote]Marzouk wrote:

[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?
[/quote]
lol @ 3g

836

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Damn you guys are making me so self conscience about going to Buffalo Wild Wings tomorrow.

Fuckers ;)[/quote]

I hit the barbecue buffet during my lunch break at work today. “Moderation” can also be defined as equal time spent at both extremes.[/quote]

See, now you’re speaking my language.

837

[quote]MattyXL wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Damn you guys are making me so self conscience about going to Buffalo Wild Wings tomorrow.

Fuckers ;)[/quote]

I hit the barbecue buffet during my lunch break at work today. “Moderation” can also be defined as equal time spent at both extremes.[/quote]

Phew…now I dont feel so bad, this is the first one they opened in my area I have been craving it for three weeks![/quote]

Dude, all I’m saying is that in your avatar, you look like a goddammed BEAST.

838

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Damn you guys are making me so self conscience about going to Buffalo Wild Wings tomorrow.

Fuckers ;)[/quote]

I hit the barbecue buffet during my lunch break at work today. “Moderation” can also be defined as equal time spent at both extremes.[/quote]

Phew…now I dont feel so bad, this is the first one they opened in my area I have been craving it for three weeks![/quote]

Dude, all I’m saying is that in your avatar, you look like a goddammed BEAST.[/quote]
I think I look far more beastly in mine

839

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Damn you guys are making me so self conscience about going to Buffalo Wild Wings tomorrow.

Fuckers ;)[/quote]

I hit the barbecue buffet during my lunch break at work today. “Moderation” can also be defined as equal time spent at both extremes.[/quote]
Ah I think I understand now. So you’re confirming that my diet of eating nothing in the a.m. and eating tons of McDonalds, ice cream, candy, and beer in the p.m. is a good idea. I mean that’s like carb backloading right? :wink:

840

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Damn you guys are making me so self conscience about going to Buffalo Wild Wings tomorrow.

Fuckers ;)[/quote]

I hit the barbecue buffet during my lunch break at work today. “Moderation” can also be defined as equal time spent at both extremes.[/quote]

Phew…now I dont feel so bad, this is the first one they opened in my area I have been craving it for three weeks![/quote]

Dude, all I’m saying is that in your avatar, you look like a goddammed BEAST.[/quote]
I think I look far more beastly in mine[/quote]

You do, but you may be suffering from hypochromic anemia.