How to 'Bulk' For Naturals

Training
201

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
I don’t know if old school bulkers counted their macros, but I think the general trend was they trained as hard as possible and ate as much as they needed to recover, as opposed to maintaining a slight caloric excess and regulating training to match recovery capacity
[/quote]

Yes…the ‘old school’ approach involves calculating macros.
[/quote]
I get that the “old school approach” involves counting macros when people use it now… I should’ve specified I was talking about the lifters from way back in the 1940’s - 50’s. Did they really have accurate nutrition information available to count macros? Or did they just train their asses off and make sure they ate more than enough?[/quote]

I’m finishing up reading McCallum’s Complete Keys to Progress these days.

Some of the ideas he proposes:

  • train as hard as you can, for every rep, for every set
  • take as much rest as you need; if you don’t need at least 10 minutes to recover after a 20 rep squat set, you probably weren’t working hard enough
  • again on the “hard work”: with the 20 rep squats, you should be working to well over 300lbs/2x bodyweight
  • you need a major caloric surplus while doing this; he has a number of recipes and he’s very clear about counting protein content. He puts a lot less emphasis on counting macros as a whole, but he definitely counts grams of protein and total calories.
  • when you’re trying to bulk up faster, it’s ok to get a bit soft and do minimal conditioning
  • for all other cases, he recommends running a couple times per week
  • for weight loss, he recommends what basically seem to be barbell complexes

Plenty of other stuff, but those are the relevant points I can think of off the top of my head.

The original articles were published in the 60s, so this shows some macros were counted at least by then. Oh, and as you said, the work wasn’t downregulated based on whether you were properly recovered. Vitamins, minerals, germ oil, more food and more sleep were how you dealt with inadequate recovery. But you still worked just as hard.[/quote]
[/quote]

What’s the calculation for the 20 rep squat?[/quote]

the old breathing squats routine used your 10RM. you do the first 10 reps normal tempo, then rest-pause with the bar on your back and squeeze out the next 10 reps at whatever pace

202

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
I don’t know if old school bulkers counted their macros, but I think the general trend was they trained as hard as possible and ate as much as they needed to recover, as opposed to maintaining a slight caloric excess and regulating training to match recovery capacity
[/quote]

Yes…the ‘old school’ approach involves calculating macros.
[/quote]
I get that the “old school approach” involves counting macros when people use it now… I should’ve specified I was talking about the lifters from way back in the 1940’s - 50’s. Did they really have accurate nutrition information available to count macros? Or did they just train their asses off and make sure they ate more than enough?[/quote]

I’m finishing up reading McCallum’s Complete Keys to Progress these days.

Some of the ideas he proposes:

  • train as hard as you can, for every rep, for every set
  • take as much rest as you need; if you don’t need at least 10 minutes to recover after a 20 rep squat set, you probably weren’t working hard enough
  • again on the “hard work”: with the 20 rep squats, you should be working to well over 300lbs/2x bodyweight
  • you need a major caloric surplus while doing this; he has a number of recipes and he’s very clear about counting protein content. He puts a lot less emphasis on counting macros as a whole, but he definitely counts grams of protein and total calories.
  • when you’re trying to bulk up faster, it’s ok to get a bit soft and do minimal conditioning
  • for all other cases, he recommends running a couple times per week
  • for weight loss, he recommends what basically seem to be barbell complexes

Plenty of other stuff, but those are the relevant points I can think of off the top of my head.

The original articles were published in the 60s, so this shows some macros were counted at least by then. Oh, and as you said, the work wasn’t downregulated based on whether you were properly recovered. Vitamins, minerals, germ oil, more food and more sleep were how you dealt with inadequate recovery. But you still worked just as hard.[/quote]
[/quote]

What’s the calculation for the 20 rep squat?[/quote]

the old breathing squats routine used your 10RM. you do the first 10 reps normal tempo, then rest-pause with the bar on your back and squeeze out the next 10 reps at whatever pace[/quote]
I always thought that was the stupidest thing ever. I still think that.

203

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
I don’t know if old school bulkers counted their macros, but I think the general trend was they trained as hard as possible and ate as much as they needed to recover, as opposed to maintaining a slight caloric excess and regulating training to match recovery capacity
[/quote]

Yes…the ‘old school’ approach involves calculating macros.
[/quote]
I get that the “old school approach” involves counting macros when people use it now… I should’ve specified I was talking about the lifters from way back in the 1940’s - 50’s. Did they really have accurate nutrition information available to count macros? Or did they just train their asses off and make sure they ate more than enough?[/quote]

I’m finishing up reading McCallum’s Complete Keys to Progress these days.

Some of the ideas he proposes:

  • train as hard as you can, for every rep, for every set
  • take as much rest as you need; if you don’t need at least 10 minutes to recover after a 20 rep squat set, you probably weren’t working hard enough
  • again on the “hard work”: with the 20 rep squats, you should be working to well over 300lbs/2x bodyweight
  • you need a major caloric surplus while doing this; he has a number of recipes and he’s very clear about counting protein content. He puts a lot less emphasis on counting macros as a whole, but he definitely counts grams of protein and total calories.
  • when you’re trying to bulk up faster, it’s ok to get a bit soft and do minimal conditioning
  • for all other cases, he recommends running a couple times per week
  • for weight loss, he recommends what basically seem to be barbell complexes

Plenty of other stuff, but those are the relevant points I can think of off the top of my head.

The original articles were published in the 60s, so this shows some macros were counted at least by then. Oh, and as you said, the work wasn’t downregulated based on whether you were properly recovered. Vitamins, minerals, germ oil, more food and more sleep were how you dealt with inadequate recovery. But you still worked just as hard.[/quote]
[/quote]

What’s the calculation for the 20 rep squat?[/quote]

the old breathing squats routine used your 10RM. you do the first 10 reps normal tempo, then rest-pause with the bar on your back and squeeze out the next 10 reps at whatever pace[/quote]
I always thought that was the stupidest thing ever. I still think that.[/quote]
it is. kinda fun though

204

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I suggested 385, on the basis of now being able to do the original weight + 160lbs of bodyweight. Relative to the new bodyweight, I’d imagine this is roughly the same stimulus as 225 x 15 was at 170lbs.

I know the math doesn’t quite add up and that doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s my stab in the dark.[/quote]

The math might be sound, I wouldn’t argue against it as much as I would argue that he won’t gain 160 lbs just squatting 225 for reps like that, his progress would stall at a much lower bw[/quote]

Forget about whether the mass he gains is all fat or all muscle.

Does his workout intensity and total tonnage not change at all as his weight increases? Even if all the weight is fat which we all agree on if you overeat you will gain?
[/quote]

Anyone care to comment?

205

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I suggested 385, on the basis of now being able to do the original weight + 160lbs of bodyweight. Relative to the new bodyweight, I’d imagine this is roughly the same stimulus as 225 x 15 was at 170lbs.

I know the math doesn’t quite add up and that doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s my stab in the dark.[/quote]

The math might be sound, I wouldn’t argue against it as much as I would argue that he won’t gain 160 lbs just squatting 225 for reps like that, his progress would stall at a much lower bw[/quote]

Forget about whether the mass he gains is all fat or all muscle.

Does his workout intensity and total tonnage not change at all as his weight increases? Even if all the weight is fat which we all agree on if you overeat you will gain?
[/quote]

Anyone care to comment?
[/quote]
yes his workout intensity will change, but not as much as someone loading the bar with more weight.

206

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
the old breathing squats routine used your 10RM. you do the first 10 reps normal tempo, then rest-pause with the bar on your back and squeeze out the next 10 reps at whatever pace[/quote]

That’s the way it was written up in Super Squats if I remember right.

McCallum’s take was “for reps 1-10, take 3 deep deep breaths and fill your chest, hold the last one, squat down and back up, when you reach the top exhale explosively, do this between each rep; for reps 11-15, take 6 breaths, and after 15, take as many as you need.” If not that exactly, it’s pretty close.

I think in one of the articles he actually says to do it with your 10RM, and then do 20… but they’re all done with the minimum of 3 deep breaths between reps.

However, he starts out the whole series with high-rep squats, so you end up starting with the bar and just adding weight every session. For the core of the Keys to Progress series, he doesn’t actually specify where you start… since he’s assuming you started with just the bar in the very beginning.

I will say that, for me, it’s actually harder taking the deep breaths between each rep than just going straight through. When I did these before, I’d generally do the first 10-15 reps straight, and then do the rest rest-pause style. I’m guessing it’s harder because of the pressure of holding the bar on your shoulders through all the breathing, but I don’t know for sure.

207

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
the old breathing squats routine used your 10RM. you do the first 10 reps normal tempo, then rest-pause with the bar on your back and squeeze out the next 10 reps at whatever pace[/quote]

That’s the way it was written up in Super Squats if I remember right.

McCallum’s take was “for reps 1-10, take 3 deep deep breaths and fill your chest, hold the last one, squat down and back up, when you reach the top exhale explosively, do this between each rep; for reps 11-15, take 6 breaths, and after 15, take as many as you need.” If not that exactly, it’s pretty close.

I think in one of the articles he actually says to do it with your 10RM, and then do 20… but they’re all done with the minimum of 3 deep breaths between reps.

However, he starts out the whole series with high-rep squats, so you end up starting with the bar and just adding weight every session. For the core of the Keys to Progress series, he doesn’t actually specify where you start… since he’s assuming you started with just the bar in the very beginning.

I will say that, for me, it’s actually harder taking the deep breaths between each rep than just going straight through. When I did these before, I’d generally do the first 10-15 reps straight, and then do the rest rest-pause style. I’m guessing it’s harder because of the pressure of holding the bar on your shoulders through all the breathing, but I don’t know for sure.[/quote]

why 20 though? does mccallum talk about squats in the 30-50 rep range?

208

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
why 20 though? does mccallum talk about squats in the 30-50 rep range?[/quote]

Not sure why 20. He does vary the rep ranges though throughout the series.

I don’t have the book with me right now, but a found a listing of the books’ routines online. Search for “WRITEUP: McCallum’s The Complete Keys To Progress”.

He uses everything from:
2 x 15
2 x 20
5 x 5 straight sets
5 x 5 ramping to two heavy sets
8-10 x 5-3 (working heavier to go from 5 to 3)
5 x 6 heavy followed by 10 x 8 lighter
1 x 20
1 x 30
6 x 10 as part of giant sets
3 x 12
3 x 10 as part of giant sets
5 x 8 as part of giant sets
4 x 12 front squat

And he has some hip-belt squats in there too.

All of those programs have many other exercises, not just the squats. Just one of them is a squat specialization program. Most of the programs are done for a month, some for more than a month.

Honestly, I haven’t really figured out his programming.

The book’s a good read though. Every article is actually told in the form of a story.

209

There’s a lot of this in his programs too:

[quote]That may not seem like much but if you work hard enough on the squats it’ll be plenty. This is a straight breathing squat specialization program.

Work HARD. We’re going to get into advanced bulk and power programs later on, but if you aren’t squatting heavy enough you won’t get anything out of them. For the time being, forget everything else but getting your squats weights up.

Work to the absolute limit. you should need a 15 minute rest after each set of squats. If you don’t you’re not working hard enough.

Force yourself. Drive. Keep adding to the weight over time. Get your poundage up higher and higher and keep adding to it.[/quote]

But for one of his more amusing stories, google “Gain Weight To Build Your Arms - John McCallum”

[quote]
“I am trying,” Eddie said, “to develop arms like Reg Park.” He got to his feet and flexed his biceps. “Is there a noticeable resemble?”

The gym owner picked up his ham sandwich and bit into it. “If there is,” he muttered, “it escapes me at the moment.”

“You don’t think they look anything like Reg Park’s?” Eddie asked.

The gym owner chewed his sandwich thoughtfully. “Actually,” he said, “they look more like my Aunt Gertrude’s.”

Does your Aunt Gertrude have big arms?" Eddie asked him.

“I doubt it,” the gym owner said. “She’s been dead for seven years.”[/quote]

210

[quote]LoRez wrote:
There’s a lot of this in his programs too:

[quote]That may not seem like much but if you work hard enough on the squats it’ll be plenty. This is a straight breathing squat specialization program.

Work HARD. We’re going to get into advanced bulk and power programs later on, but if you aren’t squatting heavy enough you won’t get anything out of them. For the time being, forget everything else but getting your squats weights up.

Work to the absolute limit. you should need a 15 minute rest after each set of squats. If you don’t you’re not working hard enough.

Force yourself. Drive. Keep adding to the weight over time. Get your poundage up higher and higher and keep adding to it.[/quote]

But for one of his more amusing stories, google “Gain Weight To Build Your Arms - John McCallum”

[quote]
“I am trying,” Eddie said, “to develop arms like Reg Park.” He got to his feet and flexed his biceps. “Is there a noticeable resemble?”

The gym owner picked up his ham sandwich and bit into it. “If there is,” he muttered, “it escapes me at the moment.”

“You don’t think they look anything like Reg Park’s?” Eddie asked.

The gym owner chewed his sandwich thoughtfully. “Actually,” he said, “they look more like my Aunt Gertrude’s.”

Does your Aunt Gertrude have big arms?" Eddie asked him.

“I doubt it,” the gym owner said. “She’s been dead for seven years.”[/quote][/quote]

lol I’ll have to check it out

211

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I suggested 385, on the basis of now being able to do the original weight + 160lbs of bodyweight. Relative to the new bodyweight, I’d imagine this is roughly the same stimulus as 225 x 15 was at 170lbs.

I know the math doesn’t quite add up and that doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s my stab in the dark.[/quote]

The math might be sound, I wouldn’t argue against it as much as I would argue that he won’t gain 160 lbs just squatting 225 for reps like that, his progress would stall at a much lower bw[/quote]

Forget about whether the mass he gains is all fat or all muscle.

Does his workout intensity and total tonnage not change at all as his weight increases? Even if all the weight is fat which we all agree on if you overeat you will gain?
[/quote]

Anyone care to comment?
[/quote]
yes his workout intensity will change, but not as much as someone loading the bar with more weight. [/quote]

I agree, but by how much? A pushup approximates to 70% of bodyweight so what do you think a squat approximates to?

212

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I suggested 385, on the basis of now being able to do the original weight + 160lbs of bodyweight. Relative to the new bodyweight, I’d imagine this is roughly the same stimulus as 225 x 15 was at 170lbs.

I know the math doesn’t quite add up and that doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s my stab in the dark.[/quote]

The math might be sound, I wouldn’t argue against it as much as I would argue that he won’t gain 160 lbs just squatting 225 for reps like that, his progress would stall at a much lower bw[/quote]

Forget about whether the mass he gains is all fat or all muscle.

Does his workout intensity and total tonnage not change at all as his weight increases? Even if all the weight is fat which we all agree on if you overeat you will gain?
[/quote]

Anyone care to comment?
[/quote]
yes his workout intensity will change, but not as much as someone loading the bar with more weight. [/quote]

I agree, but by how much? A pushup approximates to 70% of bodyweight so what do you think a squat approximates to?
[/quote]

When considering the above, what percentage of bodyweight are you lifting with a one legged squat?

213

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I suggested 385, on the basis of now being able to do the original weight + 160lbs of bodyweight. Relative to the new bodyweight, I’d imagine this is roughly the same stimulus as 225 x 15 was at 170lbs.

I know the math doesn’t quite add up and that doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s my stab in the dark.[/quote]

The math might be sound, I wouldn’t argue against it as much as I would argue that he won’t gain 160 lbs just squatting 225 for reps like that, his progress would stall at a much lower bw[/quote]

Forget about whether the mass he gains is all fat or all muscle.

Does his workout intensity and total tonnage not change at all as his weight increases? Even if all the weight is fat which we all agree on if you overeat you will gain?
[/quote]

Anyone care to comment?
[/quote]
yes his workout intensity will change, but not as much as someone loading the bar with more weight. [/quote]

I agree, but by how much? A pushup approximates to 70% of bodyweight so what do you think a squat approximates to?
[/quote]
What i’m saying is that someone can progress to heavier weight lifted faster than they will gain bodyweight. It takes much less time to go from a 170 squat to a 330 squat than it does to bulk from 170 to 330. so it makes more sense to focus on adding weight to the bar, not using the same bar weight

214

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Plus, when you “lose” the weight (by taking it off), you don’t have to deal with any muscle loss like you would with a cyclical surplus/deficit cycle.[/quote]

A lifter does not loose LBM during a deficit! [/quote]

I agree. Doing things smart you don’t. People get this notion because they are fatter and more water logged than they think they are.

215

And my contribution…

216

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I suggested 385, on the basis of now being able to do the original weight + 160lbs of bodyweight. Relative to the new bodyweight, I’d imagine this is roughly the same stimulus as 225 x 15 was at 170lbs.

I know the math doesn’t quite add up and that doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s my stab in the dark.[/quote]

The math might be sound, I wouldn’t argue against it as much as I would argue that he won’t gain 160 lbs just squatting 225 for reps like that, his progress would stall at a much lower bw[/quote]

Forget about whether the mass he gains is all fat or all muscle.

Does his workout intensity and total tonnage not change at all as his weight increases? Even if all the weight is fat which we all agree on if you overeat you will gain?
[/quote]

Anyone care to comment?
[/quote]
yes his workout intensity will change, but not as much as someone loading the bar with more weight. [/quote]

I agree, but by how much? A pushup approximates to 70% of bodyweight so what do you think a squat approximates to?
[/quote]
What i’m saying is that someone can progress to heavier weight lifted faster than they will gain bodyweight. It takes much less time to go from a 170 squat to a 330 squat than it does to bulk from 170 to 330. so it makes more sense to focus on adding weight to the bar, not using the same bar weight [/quote]

Adding some weight is not a bad idea, but please bear with me and answer the question. If its close to 90% for a one legged squat, it won’t be far off for two legs either agreed?

I’ll assume you agree its close, but feel free to correct me.

Following this logic, lets take another lifter, we’ll call him Mr Lean, who follows the opposite approach. He eats slightly over maintenance, and adds weight to the bar instead.

Another lifter, we’ll call him The Prof, follows the eat everything to get to 330lbs approach but adds weight to the bar at exactly the same rate as Mr Lean.

They both end up with the same 15RM but The Prof is 330lbs and Mr Lean weighs much less.

Who is actually stronger? Who does the most work during their 15 reps? Who will be stronger if they both cut to reach identical bodyfat levels at the end of this? Lets assume they don’t lose much muscle since they both do a cut the correct way.

217

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I suggested 385, on the basis of now being able to do the original weight + 160lbs of bodyweight. Relative to the new bodyweight, I’d imagine this is roughly the same stimulus as 225 x 15 was at 170lbs.

I know the math doesn’t quite add up and that doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s my stab in the dark.[/quote]

The math might be sound, I wouldn’t argue against it as much as I would argue that he won’t gain 160 lbs just squatting 225 for reps like that, his progress would stall at a much lower bw[/quote]

Forget about whether the mass he gains is all fat or all muscle.

Does his workout intensity and total tonnage not change at all as his weight increases? Even if all the weight is fat which we all agree on if you overeat you will gain?
[/quote]

Anyone care to comment?
[/quote]
yes his workout intensity will change, but not as much as someone loading the bar with more weight. [/quote]

I agree, but by how much? A pushup approximates to 70% of bodyweight so what do you think a squat approximates to?
[/quote]
What i’m saying is that someone can progress to heavier weight lifted faster than they will gain bodyweight. It takes much less time to go from a 170 squat to a 330 squat than it does to bulk from 170 to 330. so it makes more sense to focus on adding weight to the bar, not using the same bar weight [/quote]

Adding some weight is not a bad idea, but please bear with me and answer the question. If its close to 90% for a one legged squat, it won’t be far off for two legs either agreed?

I’ll assume you agree its close, but feel free to correct me.

Following this logic, lets take another lifter, we’ll call him Mr Lean, who follows the opposite approach. He eats slightly over maintenance, and adds weight to the bar instead.

Another lifter, we’ll call him The Prof, follows the eat everything to get to 330lbs approach but adds weight to the bar at exactly the same rate as Mr Lean.

They both end up with the same 15RM but The Prof is 330lbs and Mr Lean weighs much less.

Who is actually stronger? Who does the most work during their 15 reps? Who will be stronger if they both cut to reach identical bodyfat levels at the end of this? Lets assume they don’t lose much muscle since they both do a cut the correct way.[/quote]

The Prof would be stronger, assuming they are doing identical work at different bodyweights. Of course The Prof would have to cut more and for longer than Mr. Lean so the prof has more potential for making a mistake during his cut. I think the Prof would be wiser to aim a little lower than 330 though (unless he’s like 6’6") in which case he should still come out ahead.

218

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I suggested 385, on the basis of now being able to do the original weight + 160lbs of bodyweight. Relative to the new bodyweight, I’d imagine this is roughly the same stimulus as 225 x 15 was at 170lbs.

I know the math doesn’t quite add up and that doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s my stab in the dark.[/quote]

The math might be sound, I wouldn’t argue against it as much as I would argue that he won’t gain 160 lbs just squatting 225 for reps like that, his progress would stall at a much lower bw[/quote]

Forget about whether the mass he gains is all fat or all muscle.

Does his workout intensity and total tonnage not change at all as his weight increases? Even if all the weight is fat which we all agree on if you overeat you will gain?
[/quote]

Anyone care to comment?
[/quote]
yes his workout intensity will change, but not as much as someone loading the bar with more weight. [/quote]

I agree, but by how much? A pushup approximates to 70% of bodyweight so what do you think a squat approximates to?
[/quote]
What i’m saying is that someone can progress to heavier weight lifted faster than they will gain bodyweight. It takes much less time to go from a 170 squat to a 330 squat than it does to bulk from 170 to 330. so it makes more sense to focus on adding weight to the bar, not using the same bar weight [/quote]

Adding some weight is not a bad idea, but please bear with me and answer the question. If its close to 90% for a one legged squat, it won’t be far off for two legs either agreed?

I’ll assume you agree its close, but feel free to correct me.

Following this logic, lets take another lifter, we’ll call him Mr Lean, who follows the opposite approach. He eats slightly over maintenance, and adds weight to the bar instead.

Another lifter, we’ll call him The Prof, follows the eat everything to get to 330lbs approach but adds weight to the bar at exactly the same rate as Mr Lean.

They both end up with the same 15RM but The Prof is 330lbs and Mr Lean weighs much less.

Who is actually stronger? Who does the most work during their 15 reps? Who will be stronger if they both cut to reach identical bodyfat levels at the end of this? Lets assume they don’t lose much muscle since they both do a cut the correct way.[/quote]

The Prof would be stronger, assuming they are doing identical work at different bodyweights. Of course The Prof would have to cut more and for longer than Mr. Lean so the prof has more potential for making a mistake during his cut. I think the Prof would be wiser to aim a little lower than 330 though (unless he’s like 6’6") in which case he should still come out ahead.

[/quote]

The Prof is going to have his leverages change significantly during his dieting down process, which may end up fucking with his squatting ability and leave him possibly even weaker. The Prof is also going to take longer to do this, so Mr Lean could just take that extra time The Prof is to get to the same point to add more weight to his squat and be stronger that way as well.

This is also a horrible, horrible hypothetical that doesn’t really add anything to real world application.

219

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
The core question:

What kind of a modern “bulking diet” would you advocate in order to optimize muscle gains and take advantage of hormonal fluctuations, insulin response, etc.?[/quote]

I would avoid giving out a specific diet right off. I would just get them to understand the basics of how food works in their body.

I would tell them the crap that is likely much less useful to their goals…like cookies…and get them to understand that hamburger meat isn’t evil.

Furthermore, unless someone has the genetics I discussed before, the current concept of “bulking” has been murdered and been replaced with a bunch of internet warriors acting like bulking up means get fat.

That is the only reason this much bickering still exists.

Bulking up used to mean focusing on size and strength alone for a while and keep tabs on your body fat gain. That is all it is…and there is no exact blue print for that. You base it on the results seen.[/quote]

So instead of getting a calorie amount and letting them be flexible with food choices (which would actually allow them to reach a goal)

you have them pointlessly avoid certain foods yet stuff their faces and end up fatter than if they eat what they want in sensible amounts. makes sense. [/quote]

You ever known anyone to eat potato chips or ice cream in sensible amounts?
[/quote]

Yeah, that’s what I do, so long as I don’t go to a daily caloric amount that will get me fat.

Tonight’s dinner: bratwurst, potato salad, sauerkraut, and a beer (gasp!). And no, this is not a cheat, as if there’s anything that should be considered a cheat so long as the daily total caloric, EFA, and protein amounts are appropriate for a goal.

This is what I focus on, and that’s why my arms look the way they do, And my thighs, and my back, and my chest, and my calves, and my delts, and my traps.

220

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Question for everyone.

A hypothetical trainee does a 3x weekly workout of squatting 225 x 15 for 3-5 sets. At the beginning of his bulk he weighs 170 at a height of 5 11. He does the same workout three times per week and nothing else through the whole of his bulk.

He proceeds to eat everything he sees until he weighs 330lbs, doing the same workout (he makes sure his macros are correct and gets ample protein for his lbm the entire time). When he decides to cut off the excess fat, what is his new 15 rep max for his workouts?[/quote]

You mean he always uses 225 lbs, he never adds weight to the bar for his workouts?[/quote]

Yep. Never adds weight to the bar.
[/quote]

I suggested 385, on the basis of now being able to do the original weight + 160lbs of bodyweight. Relative to the new bodyweight, I’d imagine this is roughly the same stimulus as 225 x 15 was at 170lbs.

I know the math doesn’t quite add up and that doesn’t quite make sense, but it’s my stab in the dark.[/quote]

The math might be sound, I wouldn’t argue against it as much as I would argue that he won’t gain 160 lbs just squatting 225 for reps like that, his progress would stall at a much lower bw[/quote]

Forget about whether the mass he gains is all fat or all muscle.

Does his workout intensity and total tonnage not change at all as his weight increases? Even if all the weight is fat which we all agree on if you overeat you will gain?
[/quote]

Anyone care to comment?
[/quote]
yes his workout intensity will change, but not as much as someone loading the bar with more weight. [/quote]

I agree, but by how much? A pushup approximates to 70% of bodyweight so what do you think a squat approximates to?
[/quote]
What i’m saying is that someone can progress to heavier weight lifted faster than they will gain bodyweight. It takes much less time to go from a 170 squat to a 330 squat than it does to bulk from 170 to 330. so it makes more sense to focus on adding weight to the bar, not using the same bar weight [/quote]

Adding some weight is not a bad idea, but please bear with me and answer the question. If its close to 90% for a one legged squat, it won’t be far off for two legs either agreed?

I’ll assume you agree its close, but feel free to correct me.

Following this logic, lets take another lifter, we’ll call him Mr Lean, who follows the opposite approach. He eats slightly over maintenance, and adds weight to the bar instead.

Another lifter, we’ll call him The Prof, follows the eat everything to get to 330lbs approach but adds weight to the bar at exactly the same rate as Mr Lean.

They both end up with the same 15RM but The Prof is 330lbs and Mr Lean weighs much less.

Who is actually stronger? Who does the most work during their 15 reps? Who will be stronger if they both cut to reach identical bodyfat levels at the end of this? Lets assume they don’t lose much muscle since they both do a cut the correct way.[/quote]

The Prof would be stronger, assuming they are doing identical work at different bodyweights. Of course The Prof would have to cut more and for longer than Mr. Lean so the prof has more potential for making a mistake during his cut. I think the Prof would be wiser to aim a little lower than 330 though (unless he’s like 6’6") in which case he should still come out ahead.

[/quote]

The Prof is going to have his leverages change significantly during his dieting down process, which may end up fucking with his squatting ability and leave him possibly even weaker. The Prof is also going to take longer to do this, so Mr Lean could just take that extra time The Prof is to get to the same point to add more weight to his squat and be stronger that way as well.

This is also a horrible, horrible hypothetical that doesn’t really add anything to real world application.[/quote]

Do you know many people that “fucked up their leverages” whilst leaning down? (Not a making a point, I actually want to know)

The hypothetical is an extreme. Not taken so far, the basic logic still holds.

Since we’ve agreed the prof is stronger and can do more work, we know he’s eaten way more food, so between the Prof and Mr Lean, who’s carrying the most muscle mass before the cut?

The Prof agreed?