[quote]ectolifter wrote:
Admitting that hardgainers exist means admitting that there are people (and you might be one of them–oops!) who in reality are big because, well, they’ve just got the genetics for it but really haven’t “put in their time” any more than the other guy.[/quote]
Bullshit.
It reminds me of people who call themselves hardgainers and say “I eat six meals a day, and this guy only eats four and is still bigger!” and STILL fail to realize that those four meals are 2 plates minimum at buffet restaurants. Eating 6 times a day won’t get you big if you don’t eat big.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
I see the root of this problem as being the same one as with the term ‘‘overtraining’’. People will often look at a word and define it’s meaning solely based on its composition.
In the case of overtraining they see ‘‘over’’ and ‘‘training’’ so they immediately equate ‘‘overtraining’’ with ‘‘training too much’’, which is not the case.
‘‘Overtraining’’ is
A physiological state
Brought on by a chronic amount of physical, psychological and environmental stress (training and non-training related) exceeding the body’s capacity to cope with stress
That leads to a sustained decrease in physical performance
In that sense, ‘‘overtraining’’ is pretty much like clinical depression and burnout. It is NOT the action of doing too much training… but rather a form of ‘‘illness’’.
If you train like a madman and are tired for 2-3 days… you are not overtraining.
If you feel drained and lack motivation BUT after 3-5 days of rest you are back on track you were NOT overtraining.
A REAL overtraining state takes MONTHS of excessive stress to develop and can take even longer to cure.
We can apply the same logic to the term ‘‘hardgainer’’. People will see the term and will automatically think of it as ‘‘hard’’ and ‘‘gainer’’ and will define the term as someone who has a hard time gaining muscle and strength OR as someone who has to work extra hard to gain.
This is not the case. A real hardgainer is a condition, kinda like overtraining is a physiological state. A real hardgainer is the exact opposite of a genetic muscle freak. A true hardgainer is someone who, for some physiological reason, just cannot gain a significant amount of muscle.
These people can train harder than everybody, eat a ton of food and take the best supplements, they will get very little gains (if any). But as I mentioned this is because of a physiological condition which could include:
Naturally very low levels of anabolic hormones (tesosterone, IGF-1, growth hormone)
Androgenic receptor insensitivity (they can thus have a normal level of anabolic hormones, but not be very responsive to it)
Naturally high level of cortisol
Naturally high level of catecholamines
Low levels of digestive enzymes/reduced capacity to absorb food
But true hardgainers, just like genetic freaks are an extreme rarity, less than 1% of the population.
SURE among the ‘‘normal’’ crowd some will have the capacity to grow faster than others, but even those who grow more slowly should rarely categorize themselves as hardgainers.[/quote]
You should write an article on this. People just love to give themselves labels so that they can categorize themselves into neat little boxes and will cling onto any reason (real or imaginary) they have for keeping themselves there. The worry of overtraining is one of the concepts which some people use to hold themselves back. I think that most would be surprised of what their body is really capable of.
Limiting terms on this site which I see all the time are hardgainer, former fat boy and genetic potential (who in the hell ever reaches their genetic potential anyway?).
In the last several months, I have made my best progress by ignoring that inner voice telling me that I can’t change myself because of genetics, past history or current obligations… or whatever else was holding me back, and renewing my focus on what I know that I have absolute and total control over.
[quote]ectolifter wrote:
This is a really pathetic thread. It’s basically a group therapy session for all the alpha males out there that feed off their sense that they have worked so much harder than all the rest, and so that is why they have the bodies they do.
Well for me what is more annoying than the average Joe who labels himself as a hardgainer when he hasn’t ever stepped into a squat rack, doesn’t eat +6 meals a day, has never used a scale to weigh out his foods, and has only been training for a couple months, etc., etc., is the Alpha Male with +17" arms who claims hardgainers don’t exist. It is really astounding.
[/quote]
How many of these “Alpha Males” do you think there are out there though? Like CT said above, and several of us have mentioned previously, those at the extreme end of the spectrum (on either side) are the vast, vast minority.
We’ve already admitted that there are genetic freaks, and that there are people who truly can’t build muscle. We aren’t talking about them though. We’re talking about the majority of the population, and in particular those who mentally limit their gains/make excuses for their lack of progress/effort by labeling themselves “hardgainers”.
I think people have admitted that hardgainers exist, just that they are extremely rare, and if you happen to truly be one, then BB’ing probably isn’t going to be the most satisfying endeavor for you.
First, your statement makes it sound like it’s easy for most people to gain muscle (scale weight is much easier). It’s not. You seem to be making the incorrect assumption that those guys you see in the gyms who are big and muscular just walked into the gym, looked at the weights and presto chango turned into what they look like today.
I’m willing to bet that they busted their asses just as hard, if not harder than the so called “hardgainers”.
Also, you’ve got it backwards that “hardgainers” would need to be stricter to make gains. In my experience, those who have a “harder” time putting on weight/muscle (and in reality it isn’t any harder) need to be far less strict (especially with their diet) than those who put on weight “easily”. If someone can’t get enough calories eating clean, then they should go to McDonalds and order the most calorie dense meal they can get a hold of (at least on days when they are training). Weight gainer shakes (or other liquid nutritional sources which are very high in calories) are also good supplementary aids.
We have already addressed this. But, these individuals are an extremely small percentage of the population, and there really is no training program/diet that is going to give them results. They probably would have to be on hormone therapy or other pharmaceutical aids to allow them to even maintain even a healthy body weight.
And yes, we are probably talking about like 5 people in all of Manhattan, possibly all of New York state.
Ding ding ding ding! And there you have the route of the problem. If guy number 1 isn’t building muscle on the same diet as guy number two, then it’s his own damn fault for not making the necessary adjustments and continuing on that diet for years hoping that by some magical stroke of luck he’ll one day wake up as muscular as guy number two.
No one here has stated that individuals don’t need to make dietary and training adjustments to meet their individual needs. But that is not the same thing as being a “hardgainer”.
There we go back to Modok’s statement about people being “hardlearners”. The guy who is “more defined” obviously hasn’t eaten enough to allow his body to build muscle. The guy who is built like a brickhouse has. They could also change places if they really wanted to. The big guy would just have to pretty much starve himself and the smaller guy would just have to learn how to eat big.
Now you’re getting into individual muscle shape, weak muscle groups and specific body parts. That’s not the same thing as being a “hardgainer”.
Why don’t you define for us what “races” you speak of. I’ve been involved in quite a few discussions about this topic, and while I don’t mind deconstructing people’s concepts of race I don’t really want to hijack this thread.
So, I’ll just say that from a biological standpoint (which is what we would be talking about here) there is no such thing as separate “races” (subspecies) when talking about humans.
No, people complain about the “hardgainer” label because it’s an excuse and we have to listen to people whine and complain about it. You give someone advice on how to build muscle and they come back that “they’re a hardgainer” or worse yet, they start off by stating that. Basically they’ve already got their mind made up that they aren’t going to make progress. Like Tiribulus said, the problem is between their ears, not in their muscles.
The guys who are bigger (in most cases) might not have worked harder (though I highly doubt they worked any less hard), but they were smart enough to make the necessary adjustments that allowed them to build muscle. Using genetics as an excuse is just as poor as using being a “hardgainer” as an excuse.
Make the adjustments that you need to make to see gains. It’s pretty much as simple as that. If you do happen to be one of the very few who truly has some sort of genetic anomaly that prevents you from building muscle, then I’m sorry. But in that case, then no amount of training or dieting is ever going to produce head turning results for you.
[quote]
Hardgainers do exist, and so do averagegainers and so do easygainers. Get over it.[/quote]
Yup, but the two extremes are incredibly rare and most likely shouldn’t even enter into most conversations.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
ectolifter wrote:
<<< Hardgainers do exist, and so do averagegainers and so do easygainers. Get over it.
Yup, but the two extremes are incredibly rare and most likely shouldn’t even enter into most conversations.[/quote]
If someone is not making at least some progress they are doing something wrong. The number of people for whom this is not true is so infinitesimally small as to make even bringing them up without an actual diagnosis of some kind meaningless.
My 12 year old daughter, hardly an alpha male, who has been training for a year and a half has made progress. She has noticeable musculature (for a 12 year old girl) and has gotten a lot stronger under my careful and sensible tutelage.
I submit for the 1000th time, in agreement with Sentoguy and others, that any frickin body without counter pathology will make progress if they WORK, EAT and SLEEP. The person who shows up saying that they are doing these things with no progress does not know what they are doing or talking about.
As a wise man once said, nobody complains about gaining too quickly.
This is a goofy topic. Figure out what works for you and do it. A lot. If you ever make it to the upper levels of athletic competition (or bodybuilding pageants) that is the time to compare yourself to others.
[quote]Ramo wrote:
As a wise man once said, nobody complains about gaining too quickly.
This is a goofy topic. Figure out what works for you and do it. A lot. If you ever make it to the upper levels of athletic competition (or bodybuilding pageants) that is the time to compare yourself to others. [/quote]
Now you just had to go and do the pageant thing didn’t you =]
Hardgainer is a relative term. Take two people, if one of them has to work harder than the other (harder training, stricter diet, etc), then, by comparison, that one is the “hardgainer”.
The real issue, though, isn’t if someone is a hardgainer in comparison to any particular person, but to the idea they have in their head of how much it “should” take.
If you have it in your head that you “should” be able to grow from lifting twice a week and eating whenever you feel like it, and doing so does not result in gains, you’ll consider yourself a “hardgainer”.
So regardless of if someone is more of or less of a hardgainer than someone else, whats going to make the difference is them raising the bar for themselves till its at their level, where ever that may be.
It’s simple. If you’re truly eating big,(by this I mean counting calories so you know for a fact you’re eating alot)giving it your all at the gym and you still don’t see some sort of results in a year or two then consider your self a hardgainer. However I don’t think many of these so called “hardgainers” have the dedication to stick to the plan for long enough to actually see how their body reacts to weight lifting.
[quote]ronaldo7 wrote:
It’s simple. If you’re truly eating big,(by this I mean counting calories so you know for a fact you’re eating alot)giving it your all at the gym and you still don’t see some sort of results in a year or two then consider your self a hardgainer.[/quote]
Ridiculous. Most people who claim this title also claim they are all “eating big”. Most of the time they have no clue what that actually means. Therefore, leaving it up to them to assume they are makes no sense. Judging their progress based on this makes even less sense.
This is the biggest and most used excuse ever in weight lifting, “but I eat all of the time and can’t gain weight!” Well, gee, if you aren’t gaining weight, then you are STILL not eating enough.
Some people with extremely fast metabolisms may need to take in over 4,000cals a day just to see any weight gain. That amount of food takes a great deal of dedication for someone to get down EVERY SINGLE DAY. Most people don’t have that kind of consistency and drive. It also doesn’t make them a hardgainer. It makes them someone who refuses to eat enough to grow and then complains about it.
[quote]ronaldo7 wrote:
It’s simple. If you’re truly eating big,(by this I mean counting calories so you know for a fact you’re eating alot)giving it your all at the gym and you still don’t see some sort of results in a year or two then consider your self a hardgainer. However I don’t think many of these so called “hardgainers” have the dedication to stick to the plan for long enough to actually see how their body reacts to weight lifting.[/quote]
It is impossible to eat big, train hard and not gain. I am a hardgainer but I do gain when I forcefeed myself. No need to count calories, just jam it in.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Some people with extremely fast metabolisms may need to take in over 4,000cals a day just to see any weight gain. [/quote]
So wouldnt that make that person a “hardgainer” as compared to someone who can see muscle gain on a 3,000 calorie diet? Because its ‘harder’ to eat 4,000 cals a day than 3,000?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Some people with extremely fast metabolisms may need to take in over 4,000cals a day just to see any weight gain.
So wouldnt that make that person a “hardgainer” as compared to someone who can see muscle gain on a 3,000 calorie diet? Because its ‘harder’ to eat 4,000 cals a day than 3,000?[/quote]
So, the “hardgainer” has to eat more caloric dense, possibly more enjoyable food, and has more options of what to eat than another person.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
ronaldo7 wrote:
It’s simple. If you’re truly eating big,(by this I mean counting calories so you know for a fact you’re eating alot)giving it your all at the gym and you still don’t see some sort of results in a year or two then consider your self a hardgainer. However I don’t think many of these so called “hardgainers” have the dedication to stick to the plan for long enough to actually see how their body reacts to weight lifting.
It is impossible to eat big, train hard and not gain. I am a hardgainer but I do gain when I forcefeed myself. No need to count calories, just jam it in.[/quote]
Yes that is exactly my point. If you are training hard, eating big you should get results but it seems alot of people don’t know what that means, specially the eating part.
The calorie counting was an example. Just like the professor said, some of these so called “hardgainers” say they eat big but don’t know what it means. Counting calories for a day or two would give them an idea of what it really means.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Some people with extremely fast metabolisms may need to take in over 4,000cals a day just to see any weight gain.
So wouldnt that make that person a “hardgainer” as compared to someone who can see muscle gain on a 3,000 calorie diet? Because its ‘harder’ to eat 4,000 cals a day than 3,000?[/quote]
Gee, I am someone like that. Does that make me a “hardgainer”? I didn’t gain weight until I starting taking that much and more when I only weighed around 150lbs. I doubt anyone would call me a “hardgainer” according to my progress.
Needing more calories simply means you need more calories. It also makes dieting a hell of a lot easier as the amount of food I am eating now would add weight to most people. It also means I need to worry less about “eating clean” all of them time.
Keep thinking up excuses though. I am sure it helps some lazy jackass out there sleep better at night.
I don’t understand why anyone would call themselves a hardgainer. What purpose does it serve? If there were a valid reason for it, I would understand. If you are not making progress, you have to eat, work out, and recover better. This applies to everyone. Some gain fast and some not at all but isn’t the answer to gaining still the same? In the absence of having a reason for the classification “Hard Gainer”, it seems like it is just an excuse. I could call myself a hard gainer because I still struggle with making progress but what is the point? I am going to take responsibility for my progress. I don’t need a label to justify my failure. I just need to figure out how to make better progress.
[quote]christine wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Some people with extremely fast metabolisms may need to take in over 4,000cals a day just to see any weight gain.
So wouldnt that make that person a “hardgainer” as compared to someone who can see muscle gain on a 3,000 calorie diet? Because its ‘harder’ to eat 4,000 cals a day than 3,000?
So, the “hardgainer” has to eat more caloric dense, possibly more enjoyable food, and has more options of what to eat than another person.
And then they whine and bitch about it?
Bunch of wimps if you ask me.[/quote]
So the “hardgainer” has to forcefeed themselves, especially when they arent hungry, to the point that they dont even enjoy “more enjoyable food” anymore.
So the “hardgainer” has to budget significantly more towards their diet, particularly difficult when they have a limited income.
So the “hardgainer”, while still eating more, may still have to be super strict lest they gain significant fat in exchange for marginal muscle gains.
I dont consider myself a hardgainer; I also dont feel the need to talk shit about people on the other side of the fence just because I think the grass “may” look greener on their side.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Some people with extremely fast metabolisms may need to take in over 4,000cals a day just to see any weight gain.
So wouldnt that make that person a “hardgainer” as compared to someone who can see muscle gain on a 3,000 calorie diet? Because its ‘harder’ to eat 4,000 cals a day than 3,000?
Gee, I am someone like that. Does that make me a “hardgainer”?
[/quote]
In comparison to someone who would have to eat less to gain quality mass, yes.
[quote]
I didn’t gain weight until I starting taking that much and more when I only weighed around 150lbs. I doubt anyone would call me a “hardgainer” according to my progress.
Needing more calories simply means you need more calories. It also makes dieting a hell of a lot easier as the amount of food I am eating now would add weight to most people. It also means I need to worry less about “eating clean” all of them time.
Keep thinking up excuses though. I am sure it helps some lazy jackass out there sleep better at night.[/quote]
What excuse? I said that someone who has to eat 4k to gain is a hardgainer as compared to someone who has to eat 3k to gain.
Where is the excuse in that? Its a fucking observation.
I move that we expunge this idiotic term from the English language once and for all. It has absolutely no discernible constructive purpose any more, if it ever did.
Geez, if you can’t figure out how to make gains call yourself whatever you want and take up checkers.
So the “hardgainer” has to forcefeed themselves, especially when they arent hungry, to the point that they dont even enjoy “more enjoyable food” anymore.
So the “hardgainer” has to budget significantly more towards their diet, particularly difficult when they have a limited income.
So the “hardgainer”, while still eating more, may still have to be super strict lest they gain significant fat in exchange for marginal muscle gains.
I dont consider myself a hardgainer; I also dont feel the need to talk shit about people on the other side of the fence just because I think the grass “may” look greener on their side.
[/quote]
What point are you trying to make? ALL OF US could be considered “hardgainers” when compared to someone like Ronnie Coleman. What good would this label do for us if the only qualification for meeting it is that you have to work harder than someone else? That’s called reality.
There are many people who may not be as smart as their general physician. Does that mean they should call themselves “mentally challenged”?
In comparison to someone who would have to eat less to gain quality mass, yes.[/quote]
Ridiculous. I like the fact that I have to eat more to gain weight even though I disliked it as a beginner. Having a faster metabolism is not a hinderance at all. The only people who gain muscle that easily without taking in many calories are strict mesomorphs who gain muscle more than any other specific body composition.
It isn’t just an observation. It is a label that means someone is deficient in an area. I am not deficient in terms of building muscle mass. My body just needs a different stimulus to grow than someone who gains weight by breathing. You aren’t making much sense and your points are weak.