Hardgainers Don't Exist

Training Bodybuilding
281

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
<<< I don’t know what I was doing that week (I think it’s because I was doing full body workouts three times a week and lots of work which is a manual labour job). >>>[/quote]

So you ate 6000 calories (almost certainly overestimated anyway) for one very active week and declared yourself a hardgainer?

You seem like a smart guy, but you are a perfect example of somebody who has stuffed their head with more information than is currently useful to them. I say this based on several threads. You think too much and hold several debatable philosophical positions based on things you’ve read with unwavering dogmatic certainty.

282

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
its_just_me wrote:
<<< I don’t know what I was doing that week (I think it’s because I was doing full body workouts three times a week and lots of work which is a manual labour job). >>>

So you ate 6000 calories (almost certainly overestimated anyway) for one very active week and declared yourself a hardgainer?

You seem like a smart guy, but you are a perfect example of somebody who has stuffed their head with more information than is currently useful to them. I say this based on several threads. You think too much and hold several debatable philosophical positions based on things you’ve read with unwavering dogmatic certainty.

[/quote]

He believes what he wants to believe. Fast metabolisms don’t make someone a hard gainer. They make you someone who needs a lot more calories to grow. In fact, this isn’t even considered to be a negative at all in bodybuilding. Who would want a slow metabolism?

It is also usually a waste of time trying to convince them otherwise. He likely already has a whole head full of excuses that he has spent years creating that he will not let go.

283

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
ronaldo7 wrote:

6000 calories?!?!!? THATS AWESOME!

I know lol. I don’t know what I was doing that week (I think it’s because I was doing full body workouts three times a week and lots of work which is a manual labour job). I got most of it in through liquid meals (plenty whole eggs!)

I know that in the Royal Marines (military), they have to eat at least 6000 cals per day just to support the high volume of training they do evey day. It’s literally a program of eating and exercise. But when you get up at 6am, train like a mad man, you NEED that much. Plus, most marines that I know are at least 6ft.2" or taller. Even the average bodybuilder doesn’t need that much, it’s just because of the amount of exercise the marines do.

Also, bear in mind that the more you eat (along with exercise), the quicker your metabolism gets (T3 levels go through the roof). This works the other way too; the less you eat, the slower your metabolism gets. Hence the reason why some people can’t even lose fat on 3 salads a day![/quote]

Sorry, but doing a manual labor job, working out 3 times per week TBT style and having to eat in excess of 6000 calories (which I agree with Tirib, is probably overestimated) still does not make you a “hardgainer”.

I used to work in a warehouse collecting and stacking boxes of items all night (12+ hour shifts). The work was intense manual labor and I pretty much was eating just about everything that wasn’t nailed down and I was still losing weight at an alarming rate.

After having quit that job and going back to school for exercise science I once decided to figure out how many calories my body would have needed to just maintain my bodyweight doing that job. It came out to somewhere around 9000 calories a day!

Funny thing was I used to think I was a “hardgainer” as well (especially while doing this job), but when I stopped doing all the crazy manual labor stuff I started to gain weight rather easily.

What changed? My physiology? Did my body somehow drastically change it’s natural hormonal profile or BMR? No. What changed was the energy demands that I was placing on my body.

If you (it’s_just_me) suddenly stopped doing your manual labor job and started a career as a computer programer (where you spent the vast majority of your day sitting in front of a computer screen) I bet you’d be able to make gains off considerably less than 6000 calories a day. Would this mean that your job dictated whether or not you were a “hardgainer”?

And if the distinction were so easily manipulated, would it really be a categorization method that one should put a lot of stock in?

284

i havent empricical evidence but ive got simple logic. if easygainers exist then hard(er)gainers must also exist

285

[quote]eremesu wrote:
i havent empricical evidence but ive got simple logic. if easygainers exist then hard(er)gainers must also exist[/quote]

Did you read the thread?

People aren’t arguing that true hardgainers don’t “exist”, they do, but are the result of muscle wasting diseases or genetic mutations which prevent them from building muscle, and are just as rare as true “easygainers”.

People are saying that unless you have some genetic disorder or disease that prevents you from building muscle (in which case no program, or diet will ever allow you to reach your desired results), and you aren’t making progress; then the problem isn’t that you are a “hardgainer”, it’s that you either don’t understand what is necessary to make your body grow, or you are unwilling to do it.

In other words, you are a “hardlearner”.

286

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
eremesu wrote:
i havent empricical evidence but ive got simple logic. if easygainers exist then hard(er)gainers must also exist

Did you read the thread?

People aren’t arguing that true hardgainers don’t “exist”, they do, but are the result of muscle wasting diseases or genetic mutations which prevent them from building muscle, and are just as rare as true “easygainers”.

People are saying that unless you have some genetic disorder or disease that prevents you from building muscle (in which case no program, or diet will ever allow you to reach your desired results), and you aren’t making progress; then the problem isn’t that you are a “hardgainer”, it’s that you either don’t understand what is necessary to make your body grow, or you are unwilling to do it.

In other words, you are a “hardlearner”. [/quote]

Hardheaded.

287

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

Sorry, but doing a manual labor job, working out 3 times per week TBT style and having to eat in excess of 6000 calories (which I agree with Tirib, is probably overestimated) still does not make you a “hardgainer”.

I used to work in a warehouse collecting and stacking boxes of items all night (12+ hour shifts). The work was intense manual labor and I pretty much was eating just about everything that wasn’t nailed down and I was still losing weight at an alarming rate.

After having quit that job and going back to school for exercise science I once decided to figure out how many calories my body would have needed to just maintain my bodyweight doing that job. It came out to somewhere around 9000 calories a day!

Funny thing was I used to think I was a “hardgainer” as well (especially while doing this job), but when I stopped doing all the crazy manual labor stuff I started to gain weight rather easily.

What changed? My physiology? Did my body somehow drastically change it’s natural hormonal profile or BMR? No. What changed was the energy demands that I was placing on my body.

If you (it’s_just_me) suddenly stopped doing your manual labor job and started a career as a computer programer (where you spent the vast majority of your day sitting in front of a computer screen) I bet you’d be able to make gains off considerably less than 6000 calories a day. Would this mean that your job dictated whether or not you were a “hardgainer”?

And if the distinction were so easily manipulated, would it really be a categorization method that one should put a lot of stock in?[/quote]

Just to add as little more real world experience to your point here…

In college, I worked manual labor jobs during the summers and I would eat (4) Original Chicken Sandwiches from BK for lunch every day (they were $0.99 and I was broke LOL). Usually, I would throw in fries and a large coke as well (totaling out to over 3,200kcal at lunch alone). Breakfast was about 500-1000 kcal and dinner was never under 1,000 (pizza, burgers, etc.). there were also plenty of Gatorades and Snickers bars in there and I lifted 3-4 times a week, before going out with my buddies.

At 155lbs., I had trouble maintaining weight in the summers and couldn’t gain for shit.
Fast forward a few years and put me in an office job and just 3,000 kcals of clean, “healthy” food in a day had me gaining fat at an alarming rate and well over 200 lbs. (unfortunately very fat and sloppy) while lifting those same 3-4 days per week.

288

It doesn’t matter…
If you have some sort of disease, whether metabolic or otherwise, get it treated if possible… then train on…

Other than that, the metabolism can be slowed down through various means, food absorption can be increased with all kinds of supplements…

If you truly need to eat some 7000+ calories a day in order to get from 120 to 140 pounds (as an example), then get yourself checked out and eliminate/treat the root of your problems instead of just bitching about how you can’t gain weight.

289

That is one of the reason why I like physical jobs…it’s like exercise but you get paid and eat more lol. But seriosuly phyisical jobs are great…i wouldn’t be able to sit in an office all day.

290

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
eremesu wrote:
i havent empricical evidence but ive got simple logic. if easygainers exist then hard(er)gainers must also exist

Did you read the thread?

People aren’t arguing that true hardgainers don’t “exist”, they do, but are the result of muscle wasting diseases or genetic mutations which prevent them from building muscle, and are just as rare as true “easygainers”.

People are saying that unless you have some genetic disorder or disease that prevents you from building muscle (in which case no program, or diet will ever allow you to reach your desired results), and you aren’t making progress; then the problem isn’t that you are a “hardgainer”, it’s that you either don’t understand what is necessary to make your body grow, or you are unwilling to do it.

In other words, you are a “hardlearner”.

Hardheaded.[/quote]

Haha, yeah that works too.

291

It’s this very syndrome that derailed me years ago. I got it in my mind that there was some level of intake that I could never possibly have to exceed to continue making progress. When I stopped growing I just thought that was as big as I could get

It doesn’t matter how much you’re eating, if you’re not growing the answer is more. What is this thing now where hardgainer is defined as somebody who has to eat more than most other people?

If you’re actually eating 10,000 calories a day and cannot break 160 at 6 foot see a doctor.

292

No, but easy gainers do.

293

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sentoguy wrote:
eremesu wrote:
i havent empricical evidence but ive got simple logic. if easygainers exist then hard(er)gainers must also exist

Did you read the thread?

People aren’t arguing that true hardgainers don’t “exist”, they do, but are the result of muscle wasting diseases or genetic mutations which prevent them from building muscle, and are just as rare as true “easygainers”.

People are saying that unless you have some genetic disorder or disease that prevents you from building muscle (in which case no program, or diet will ever allow you to reach your desired results), and you aren’t making progress; then the problem isn’t that you are a “hardgainer”, it’s that you either don’t understand what is necessary to make your body grow, or you are unwilling to do it.

In other words, you are a “hardlearner”.

Hardheaded.[/quote]

I’m suprised this is still going, X.

294

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
its_just_me wrote:
<<< I don’t know what I was doing that week (I think it’s because I was doing full body workouts three times a week and lots of work which is a manual labour job). >>>

So you ate 6000 calories (almost certainly overestimated anyway) for one very active week and declared yourself a hardgainer?

You seem like a smart guy, but you are a perfect example of somebody who has stuffed their head with more information than is currently useful to them. I say this based on several threads. You think too much and hold several debatable philosophical positions based on things you’ve read with unwavering dogmatic certainty.

[/quote]

I don’t know whether to take that as a complement or not but thanks anyway lol. I have to correct you on the 6000 cals thing though, I am a very meticulous person. I measured that amount of calories out very accurately (to the nearest 200 cals) and did it mainly through liquid meals which is quite easy to do. That week, I thought to myself that since my gains had stopped, I would up my calories by 2000 (6000 total)…but instead of gaining, I lost!

Although having a fast metabolism isn’t always the determining factor of a hardgainer, it is a good start. The term “hardgainer” would have not been invented if it didn’t exist - simple as.

Hardgainers have thin bone structures and very fast metabolisms…therefore, making it hard(er) to gain. What’s so complicated about that?

An easy gainer does not have to eat as much to gain, therefore it’s easier for them to bodybuild than it is for a hardgainer. Easy gainers have bigger bone structures, and a larger makeup of fast twitch muscle fibres, therefore they can get a lot bigger than a hardgainer and do it faster…therefore, hardgainers have a hard(er) time.

The problem is, not whether hardgainers exist, but the fact that many hardgainers totally underestimate their potential for size and don’t realize that they can get allot bigger if they eat more etc.

295

Hardgainer:

The ECTOMORPH

Definitive “Hard Gainer”
Delicate Built Body
Flat Chest
Fragile
Lean
Lightly Muscled
Small Shouldered
Takes Longer to Gain Muscle
Thin

Easy gainer:

The MESOMORPH

Athletic
Hard Body
Hourglass Shaped (Female)
Rectangular Shaped (Male)
Mature Muscle Mass
Muscular Body
Excellent Posture
Gains Muscle Easily
Gains Fat More Easily Than Ectomorphs
Thick Skin

The term hardgainer is just like saying that you have really short legs, so therefore need to run more steps than a long legged person to complete a race - it’s not an excuse, it’s a fact.

296

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
its_just_me wrote:
<<< I don’t know what I was doing that week (I think it’s because I was doing full body workouts three times a week and lots of work which is a manual labour job). >>>

So you ate 6000 calories (almost certainly overestimated anyway) for one very active week and declared yourself a hardgainer?

You seem like a smart guy, but you are a perfect example of somebody who has stuffed their head with more information than is currently useful to them. I say this based on several threads. You think too much and hold several debatable philosophical positions based on things you’ve read with unwavering dogmatic certainty.

He believes what he wants to believe. Fast metabolisms don’t make someone a hard gainer. They make you someone who needs a lot more calories to grow. In fact, this isn’t even considered to be a negative at all in bodybuilding. Who would want a slow metabolism?

It is also usually a waste of time trying to convince them otherwise. He likely already has a whole head full of excuses that he has spent years creating that he will not let go.[/quote]

What you’ve said is like saying that beginners don’t exist. If I trained like someone with superior genetics, or even average genetics, then I would not make any gains (overtrain). If I ate the same as someone with superior genetics, I would not gain (not enough calories for my metabolism).

Therefore, I need to train like a hardgainer - that is - eat A LOT more, train with less volume etc. My recovery ability is not as good as an easy gainer (despite eating enough) - I have to wait longer for overcompensation.

It’s not brainwashing, it’s not just what I’ve read, it’s what I’ve experienced;

It’s fact.

297

Do you happen stay lean all the time ?

Edit: just read it in your profile, might want to try staying at a slightly higher BF percentage when bulking.
Helped me big time. (16-20%, more like 20)

298

My wrists are 6.75 inches thick, can anyone who has wrists this thin tell me that they reached 19 inch upper arms in the same amount of time as someone with 10 inch wrists (naturally)? If at all…

299

Most people here in germany have wrists that size dude… none of the ones I know had any problems due to that.

Mine were only 6.5 each when I started 8 years ago, last time I measured them at 7.something (don’t really recall).

Unless you’re a competitive Powerlifter, then I don’t see how wrist size would limit you.
Short fingers are far worse due to the weaker grip you get that way.

If someone has 10 inch wrists, chances are they start bigger/taller anyway, and a 20 inch arm on a 6’5 guy looks nowhere as impressive as on a 5’10.

300

On another note, almost every male over here in europe looks anorexic when untrained (me included), and none of those guys at my gym had any problems reaching 18+ inches within 3-4 years of training, even though we started out at 11-12 inch arms or so.

We all have a narrow, thin build and all,
just focus on eating plenty, use digestive aids
(important for me anyway, would never have reached higher weight classes without those…), increase your lifts…

Edit: formatting

Edit nr 2: true 20 inch arms are very rare, even in assisted lifters, but it’s entirely possible to reach 18+ natural, unless, perhaps, you’re extremely short (in which case you won’t need 18+ arms, look at onemorerep’s 17 inch guns)

Edit nr 3: If that’s you in your avatar, then the potential is there.
With arms almost fully extended, your tris still cover about half your upper arm, which is actually above-average muscle length from my experience.

Not too sure about your bis, look long enough though, but a biceps pose would help to determine that.

You just need to take heart, get your BF to a level where your body thinks fat stores are adequate and then get to gain some serious mass.