'Full House' ???

I’ve spoken to zraw and stronghold many times outside of forums. I believe both men are highly intelligent and intellectual. But l think like many intelligent and intellectual men, they grow exasperated when people aren’t dealing with truth and they are able to make reasonable judgments using their knowledge and experience.

I didn’t see specific guidelines for gaining you posted in this thread. I’ll try to find them. Or perhaps you can state them again here if you have the patience (which I understand you might run out of after this outrageously long thread). I think people would actually even appreciate it if you gave the most general guidelines, say effective controlling of food portions (eg, two handful sized portions of carbs at a meal, a tbspn of fat at a meal) rather than “eating big” or “eating more”.

I honestly think calculating nutrition is very pesky thing to do and can be done away with to a degree AFTER someone has become adept at calculating diets and can then use some eyeballing. And you’re right, no one needs to count every morsel of food unless they’re as fanatical as Dorian Yates in his prime or make a living with their bodies.

I also asked you the problem of my recommendation, which is establishing a baseline and making adjustments going forward. In another thread, I asked your suggested five day bodypart split for noobs, which you recommend over a standard 3 day per week full body schedule involving only the basic lifts.

I’d also like to ask, but it’s not a big deal if not answered, what’s so insulting about estimating a 25% bodyfat percentage? It doesn’t take away from one’s entire musculature at all. It’s actually similar to estimating someone’s height based off of comparison with other’s heights.

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I didn’t see specific guidelines for gaining you posted in this thread. I’ll try to find them. Or perhaps you can state them again here if you have the patience (which I understand you might run out of after this outrageously long thread). I think people would actually even appreciate it if you gave the most general guidelines, say effective controlling of food portions (eg, two handful sized portions of carbs at a meal, a tbspn of fat at a meal) rather than “eating big” or “eating more”.
[/quote]

“eating big” alone is rarely anything I even say. It is amazing that people like Steely seem to understand exactly what I mean here, but the rest of you seem to literally imagine what I am saying despite what is written in front of you.

Yes, I spoke on this many times in this thread. To come in after 40 pages and ask me to RETYPE it all is a little disrespectful, no?

Honestly, the thread should have ended with this.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
The funny part about this thread is both sides have the same message, just delivered slightly differently.

Side 1 - eat enough to grow, even if it means putting on a bit of fat in the process. Do not gain fat for the sake of gaining fat.

Side 2 - eat enough to grow, but don?t rationalize the fat you?re gaining by assuming it?s necessary to grow.

Side 1 wants to warn people that by not eating enough, they could be losing out on muscle gains. Side 2 wants to warn people that if they eat too much, they may gain unnecessary fat. But at the end of the day, both sides are saying to eat whatever is necessary to grow optimally.
[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I didn’t see specific guidelines for gaining you posted in this thread. I’ll try to find them. Or perhaps you can state them again here if you have the patience (which I understand you might run out of after this outrageously long thread). I think people would actually even appreciate it if you gave the most general guidelines, say effective controlling of food portions (eg, two handful sized portions of carbs at a meal, a tbspn of fat at a meal) rather than “eating big” or “eating more”.
[/quote]

“eating big” alone is rarely anything I even say. It is amazing that people like Steely seem to understand exactly what I mean here, but the rest of you seem to literally imagine what I am saying despite what is written in front of you.

Yes, I spoke on this many times in this thread. To come in after 40 pages and ask me to RETYPE it all is a little disrespectful, no?
[/quote]

Which is why I asked with caution: “if you have the patience…” It’s not disrespectful. Have you ever ran into some serious disrespect or mistreatment. It usually takes on a more severe form compared to asking someone to post something again.

I’ve not once saw specific recommendations from you. Not once. No equation. No portion control guideline. No macronutrient amount or percentage. So of course it’s left to imagination.

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

I’ve not once saw specific recommendations from you. Not once. No equation. No portion control guideline. No macronutrient amount or percentage. So of course it’s left to imagination.
[/quote]

There is no “equation”. You have seen me speak on trial and error in this thread.

Go back and quote those posts and respond to what you disagree with.

It is really that simple. Most of my posts in this thread have been on topic.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

There is no “equation”. You have seen me speak on trial and error in this thread.

[/quote]

OK, so you don’t like any sort of establishing a baseline with equations, such as the Harris Benedict or calories-per-pound equation.

Fair enough.

So how do you establish a baseline with a noob? If you don’t like equations, do you suggest keeping a food diary for a week or so, see if it provides a maintenance level (no weight gain), and then increasing food intake from there? We’re talking about newbies here and some people who want to take things to the next level.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This thread is a joke. The same bunch of guys fucking up every thread to fuss about ANYTHING I post.

Even attempting a discussion is useless. I do know for a fact that none of you would do well actually discussing this topic one on one without the “posse mob attack” and without the personal attacks.

If you care to try, then do so. State your opinion and allow an actual discussion without your “boiz”.

Let’s see if any of you can actually do that.[/quote]

I made a post about assisted users vs unnassisted users which I am still waiting on a reply for, ill requote it. I do want a smart discussion tbh

[quote]zraw wrote:
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[/quote]

i really wanna see what ppl think about this

The logic of someone being “genetically gifted” to be able to stay lean while gaining vs someone else not being able to is… idk

Wouldnt the “genetically gifted” guy just have a easier time adding mass/more mass?

Following that logic wouldnt the genetically gifted guy benefit more if he was to use the full house approach instead of “staying lean”, in terms of muscle gains?

Everyone can get fat given enough calories…

Wouldnt NOT gaining much fat and staying lean just mean not optimally gaining, in the end?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

tell your posse of zraw to stand down.

[/quote]

… lol

ive been pretty passive on the last 10-15 pages even saying the thread shouldve ended on page 10 and its not because of the lack of things that, imo, make no sense (not an attack so do NOT focus on THAT. It is my opinion and I do NOT wish to discuss it further)

I did not comment on your bodyfat, which has been the subject of the last 10 pages or so

I do not tell anyone to side with me/agree me with/post “in favor” of me or whatever. Everyone is free to agree or disagree with whatever I write

I really am not sure why you feel like this is “zraw and his posse” or why you feel the need to drop my name there…other than to stir some shit, again

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
x2 to both of you

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
wtf is BOI?[/quote]

Bunch Of Idiots

trollolol[/quote]
Problem is most have yet to start shaving[/quote]
I’m Indian, I got made fun of in the 4th grade because I was growing a mustache similar to Kate Upton’s[/quote]
You are Indian? I thought that was you in your avi showing an incredible ammount of honesty and humility

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

There is no “equation”. You have seen me speak on trial and error in this thread.

[/quote]

OK, so you don’t like any sort of establishing a baseline with equations, such as the Harris Benedict or calories-per-pound equation.

Fair enough. [/quote]

It isn’t just far enough. I don’t think some newb should be focusing on a calculator instead of getting a more general understanding of what to look for.

Human biology is not about calculations. It is about adaptation.

[quote]

So how do you establish a baseline with a noob? If you don’t like equations, do you suggest keeping a food diary for a week or so, see if it provides a maintenance level (no weight gain), and then increasing food intake from there? We’re talking about newbies here and some people who want to take things to the next level. [/quote]

Someone new should first get in the gym with minimal changes to diet. I am one who believes learning the importance of that consistency trumps pulling out calculators and impressing all your friends with your numbers.

They should get a gradual better understanding on food intake, but most important noticing changes in the mirror and with weights used.

Are we agreed that 25%+ is obese?
Are we agreed that PX has a faint outline of abs in that pic?
Are we agreed that obese people do not have faint outlines of fucking anything?
Can we agree PX is not 25%+ in that pic?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

There is no “equation”. You have seen me speak on trial and error in this thread.

[/quote]

OK, so you don’t like any sort of establishing a baseline with equations, such as the Harris Benedict or calories-per-pound equation.

Fair enough. [/quote]

It isn’t just far enough. I don’t think some newb should be focusing on a calculator instead of getting a more general understanding of what to look for.

Human biology is not about calculations. It is about adaptation.

I disagree with this.

When I started lifting, my diet was awful and I sacrificed progress for it. During this time, I still managed to go from 130 to 150. When I figured out I needed to sort my nutrition out, I looked at what bodybuilders in magazines were eating and it was chicken, rice, egg whites, lean turkey, whole wheat bread, sweet potatoes, etc, so I switched to those foods. As a 130lber, you don’t have the biggest appetite, so just switching to “bodybuilding foods” just meant that I ate more filling foods and overall fewer calories. When I figured out I needed, vaguely, “more calories”, I ended up on the disasterous dreamer bulk that I have talked about on here before.

I think it’s totally appropriate for a newb to start learning nutrition where it ultimately matters most - caloric intake. Use one of these equations to establish a baseline and learn to be consistent with eating AND lifting because ultimately, both matter if the goal is to have a lean and muscular physique. You can only manage that which you can measure, so how are you going to know if you are eating enough if you don’t even really know how much you’re eating? I like the idea of setting protein at 1.25x bodyweight and calories at 16x bodyweight and noting changes to the mirror, measurements, and scale. Is your goal to gain weight and you’ve been consistently eating that 16x bw number and haven’t gotten any bigger in a month? Add 100-200 calories and see what happens. Of course, metabolism isn’t an exact science, but just going by feel complicates the matter even further as nothing is less predictable than the human mind and it’s relationship with food.

[quote]Iron_Made wrote:
Are we agreed that 25%+ is obese?
Are we agreed that PX has a faint outline of abs in that pic?
Are we agreed that obese people do not have faint outlines of fucking anything?
Can we agree PX is not 25%+ in that pic?[/quote]

I agree

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
so how are you going to know if you are eating enough if you don’t even really know how much you’re eating? [/quote]

Because it isn’t about being EXACT at that stage. There is so much adaptation going on for a newb, the general caloric intake they may need at the very start of a program, may not be what they need 1-2 months in.

Learning to look for changes in strength and muscle gain become way more important then the specific number…one of the reasons so many here are discussing how your view of a “number” in regards to body fat percentage can actually warp your thinking and not help.

The idea is to learn to look for changes, not learn to think of the human body as a static unchanging entity.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
so how are you going to know if you are eating enough if you don’t even really know how much you’re eating? [/quote]

Because it isn’t about being EXACT at that stage. There is so much adaptation going on for a newb, the general caloric intake they may need at the very start of a program, may not be what they need 1-2 months in.

Learning to look for changes in strength and muscle gain become way more important then the specific number…one of the reasons so many here are discussing how your view of a “number” in regards to body fat percentage can actually warp your thinking and not help.

The idea is to learn to look for changes, not learn to think of the human body as a static unchanging entity.[/quote]

My point, with the example of myself, is that if the new trainee doesn’t have an understanding of what he’s eating on a daily basis, how he can he have an understanding of what his body needs at any given point?

That’s the thing, 99% of new lifters will swear all day long they’re “eating tons” but can’t grow. This goes away when I tell them to download a calorie counter app, log all of their food, and eat 2500 calories a day. A week later, they come back to me with “dude this is so much food”.

I agree that the body’s needs change when you start lifting, and I agree that the body is hugely dynamic during the first couple of months of training, but what it seems like you are advocating is to just ignore nutritional changes and focus on consistently going to the gym. If the kid’s diet is garbage to begin with (the typical bowl of cereal, subway sandwich, 2 slices of pizza diet that every college male has had at some point), then all they’re going to do is spin their wheels.

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

My point, with the example of myself, is that if the new trainee doesn’t have an understanding of what he’s eating on a daily basis, how he can he have an understanding of what his body needs at any given point?[/quote]

You think having a general understanding of food intake isn’t enough?

Your body doesn’t even use the EXACT same number of calories daily.

[quote]
That’s the thing, 99% of new lifters will swear all day long they’re “eating tons” but can’t grow. This goes away when I tell them to download a calorie counter app, log all of their food, and eat 2500 calories a day. A week later, they come back to me with “dude this is so much food”.[/quote]

That would be WHY I have said focusing on weight, the mirror and weights used is how yiou approach it. The person would know right off they weren’t eating enough if the scale never changes.

[quote]
I agree that the body’s needs change when you start lifting, and I agree that the body is hugely dynamic during the first couple of months of training, but what it seems like you are advocating is to just ignore nutritional changes and focus on consistently going to the gym.[/quote]

Really? Where have you seen me write “ignore nutritional changes”? in fact, I wrote to initially not make huge changes in diet. You seem to see what you want…which makes discussions pointless.

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Yeah, the problem with that is, the body you have at 20 IS NOT the body you have at 35.

For instance, your tendons can repair themselves MUCH faster under the age of 35…which means who is going to make more progress and recover faster from truly heavy all out workouts that stress those tendons and require more recovery?

If someone were over the age of 30-35, I would have them be more cautious with their caloric increases because your risks of effecting blood pressure and not having the metabolism to grow optimally become a greater factor.

Anyone trying to move more than 4 plates a side on any movement understands what mean about tendon recovery…which can short change muscle recovery and growth completely…especially as you age.

Bulking up and working on all out size is about understanding these biological differences, not ignoring them or acting like what I am writing is impossible.

Some of you act like the info some of us are writing is nonsense…when the results speak for themselves.

But hey…everyone is just adding body fat if we listen to some of you.

anyone not showing all abs is “over 25% body fat”.[/quote]

Please X, tell me the problem with finding maintenance calories and increasing by 10 to 15%.

There’s also the Harris Benedict equation that takes into account age and activity to set a baseline.

Or someone can use what they’re currently eating provided their daily menu isn’t horrible if it is maintaining weight and going from there.

Please tell us YOUR guidelines for people of varying age groups: teenagers, 20s, and 30+. Give us some specific guidelines other than “eat big” or “eat more” (anything involving MORE would involve an accurate sense of what happened before or now).

I challenge you go to give your best and not respond with some vague answer or one that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, for example talking about tendon robustness when we’re trying to map out a damn diet! Please inform us. We have a contest prep coach in this thread, people who are using nutrition and training coaches, and I myself, a dietitian, who want to be schooled or improve our professional or physique practices.

Let us know. If my GENERAL recommendations (they have to be general because I’m not working closely with people in threads on the internet) aren’t good, what do you say?

Oh by the way, if we want to play the “look who agrees with me” game, I can participate: there are writers on THIS very site, T-mag, who have given IDENTICAL general guidelines as I have, not to mention hundreds or thousands in articles all over the internet, in magazines, books, and classrooms.

Care to offer something new?

I even gave you a case study sometime, something along the lines of a person with X age, X years of experience, and X body composition and asked for your input on gaining. You didn’t respond.

Also, although someone will likely be in a better position for most things physical in their teens, 20s, and early 30s, nothing magical happens for people except a tiny few, with most people making gains of about pound or two of muscle in a month, if that. Are there cases of one pound of muscle in a week by some natties at young ages? I think so, in RARE cases, but those sorts of outrageous gains don’t go on unduly and certainly not for long.

In regards to the whole: “You should mega bulk because we only have one time to go around and if you don’t get it done fast, you might never get there.”

As I’ve said before, for a natty, provided they do things right from the start, after the third year, nothing significant is happening in terms of muscular gain, say gains of 5 pounds of muscle or less per year. So it’s not like they need decades of force feeding and constantly recomping to get where they want to be. This phenomenon is also why some of us get skeptical when someone talks about constant, seemingly NEVER ENDING recomping progress and talk of 80 to 100 pound muscular gains. [/quote]

Test post.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Really? Where have you seen me write “ignore nutritional changes”? in fact, I wrote to initially not make huge changes in diet. You seem to see what you want…which makes discussions pointless.[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Someone new should first get in the gym with minimal changes to diet.

[/quote]