How to 'Bulk' For Naturals

Training
221

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

I guess I can deep fry all my food in batter and lard now as long as all my macro’s are in check.

222

[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]

Yeah, but the Prof also said leverage in the bench from increased bodyweight is BS.

By the way, X doesn’t squat, or bench, or dead, or pull/chin up, or barbell/dumbbell row, or overhead press, so his leverages in the big lifts aren’t consequential.

223

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

I guess I can deep fry all my food in batter and lard now as long as all my macro’s are in check.
[/quote]

How cool of you got to that extreme and not get what I was implying. I know everything has to be explained with disclaimers and quibbles to some airheads here. Just like when people say, “Oh, a calorie i a calorie. Does this mean I can live on sugar all day?”

224

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

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

[/quote]

If absolute strength is a goal, and some guy leans down and his numbers come down as a consequence then by definition he fucked up his leverages for his aim.

Now, on the other hand, if someone’s interested in maintaining mass, and they do this, even while their big lifts go down, then then altering leverages is of no consequence for his aim.

225

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

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

[/quote]

If absolute strength is a goal, and some guy leans down and his numbers come down as a consequence then by definition he fucked up his leverages for his aim.

Now, on the other hand, if someone’s interested in maintaining mass, and they do this, even while their big lifts go down, then then altering leverages is of no consequence for his aim.
[/quote]

Do you know many people who fucked up their leverages.

Did they approach their weight loss carefully?

Does anyone else?

226

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
I’ve seen you ask several times for actual evidence for faster muscle gain at a lower percentage, claiming there isn’t any (even though those who discuss it have given anecdotal evidence). Therefore in your mind it’s a silly notion. [/quote]

At the present time the only individual that has stated that they built any significant amount of LBM (>30lbs) after their 23rd birthday while remaining in ‘all abs in’ condition is Utah Lama. Everyone else are people that did actually add more fat than they were comfortable with during their bulk periods; dieted it off; and now are of the opinion that they should not have done that; and don’t recommend it to others or are people that have yet to reach the point of significant development and claim they are going to be able to reach the desired level while lean gaining.
FTR…in over 25 years of training I have never personally known any natural lifter that built any significant LBM while lean gaining…I’m not saying they don’t exist; but like big lotto winners, I’ve never met one. [/quote]

I guess more than anything is the claim that as BF% climbs it will hinder muscle gains incrementally as well as a preference to store fat instead of build muscle. I don’t recall what thread or threads it was in (most likely some of the first in this new forum) some posters had given anecdotal evidence and discussed the hormonal balance in regards to this.

ryanbCXG seems to be saying something similar on page 7 here.
[/quote]

I don’t contest the idea of 'diminishing returns’and I am not advocating getting sloppy. If a lifter is training properly, managing their macros, and maintaining their conditioning during the surplus period, many would find it difficult to reach the 10-15% of additional weight I do recommend.

227

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

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

[/quote]

If absolute strength is a goal, and some guy leans down and his numbers come down as a consequence then by definition he fucked up his leverages for his aim.

Now, on the other hand, if someone’s interested in maintaining mass, and they do this, even while their big lifts go down, then then altering leverages is of no consequence for his aim.
[/quote]

Switch the squats in my analogy to pullups. Will losing fat fuck up the leverages? Who will have the most muscle mass at the end?

228

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

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

[/quote]

If absolute strength is a goal, and some guy leans down and his numbers come down as a consequence then by definition he fucked up his leverages for his aim.

Now, on the other hand, if someone’s interested in maintaining mass, and they do this, even while their big lifts go down, then then altering leverages is of no consequence for his aim.
[/quote]

Do you know many people who fucked up their leverages.

Did they approach their weight loss carefully?

Does anyone else?
[/quote]

If you diet down from 330 to like, low 200’s, you will absolutely change your squat leverages by a pretty great amount.

229

[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 don’t go that far back, but we counted everything in the eighties.

230

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

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

[/quote]

If absolute strength is a goal, and some guy leans down and his numbers come down as a consequence then by definition he fucked up his leverages for his aim.

Now, on the other hand, if someone’s interested in maintaining mass, and they do this, even while their big lifts go down, then then altering leverages is of no consequence for his aim.
[/quote]

Switch the squats in my analogy to pullups. Will losing fat fuck up the leverages? Who will have the most muscle mass at the end?
[/quote]

A 330lb person isn’t going to be able to do nearly as many pullups as a 170lb person though, so that comparison is pretty shitty too.

231

BlueCollarTr8n – While we’re in ‘fantasy’ mode, if someone offered you, I don’t know, a bajilliongazillion dollars to add an inch of “quality mass” to your arms, starting right now, same age, same starting body, everything, how would you go about doing it? Let’s add that this offer expires in 1 year (ie. you have one year to do it).

Do you think you could even do it? ← that’s not meant to sound snarky-- just asking that at 50 (or late 40’s or even 60), could a guy with your lifting history and present size/composition do this? Assume natural.

Don’t get caught in the semantics of ‘quality mass’, you know what I’m asking :wink:

232

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

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

[/quote]

If absolute strength is a goal, and some guy leans down and his numbers come down as a consequence then by definition he fucked up his leverages for his aim.

Now, on the other hand, if someone’s interested in maintaining mass, and they do this, even while their big lifts go down, then then altering leverages is of no consequence for his aim.
[/quote]

Switch the squats in my analogy to pullups. Will losing fat fuck up the leverages? Who will have the most muscle mass at the end?
[/quote]

A 330lb person isn’t going to be able to do nearly as many pullups as a 170lb person though, so that comparison is pretty shitty too.[/quote]

Right: totally different lift. And there is pretty much nothing in the way of “leveraging” in a pullup. Same with dips and nearly every bodyweight lift.

233

[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]

That example is invalid, unless we’re talking hammersttrength machines. lol

234

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

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

[/quote]

If absolute strength is a goal, and some guy leans down and his numbers come down as a consequence then by definition he fucked up his leverages for his aim.

Now, on the other hand, if someone’s interested in maintaining mass, and they do this, even while their big lifts go down, then then altering leverages is of no consequence for his aim.
[/quote]

Switch the squats in my analogy to pullups. Will losing fat fuck up the leverages? Who will have the most muscle mass at the end?
[/quote]

A 330lb person isn’t going to be able to do nearly as many pullups as a 170lb person though, so that comparison is pretty shitty too.[/quote]

Right: totally different lift. And there is pretty much nothing in the way of “leveraging” in a pullup. Same with dips and nearly every bodyweight lift. [/quote]

If you follow my analogy from start to finish, both lifters start doing pullups at a bodyweight of 170lbs. They repeat the same workout and rep scheme, and added weight. One lean gains, the other bulks.

Your right there is no leveraging, which is exactly my point. If someone bulks up to 330 from 170, and does it so that they can still do 15 pullups with the same added weight as mr lean, then they will have way more muscle than mr lean…

235

[quote]Mtag666 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]

That example is invalid, unless we’re talking hammersttrength machines. lol
[/quote]

Why is it invalid? Please explain in detail.

236

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

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

[/quote]

If absolute strength is a goal, and some guy leans down and his numbers come down as a consequence then by definition he fucked up his leverages for his aim.

Now, on the other hand, if someone’s interested in maintaining mass, and they do this, even while their big lifts go down, then then altering leverages is of no consequence for his aim.
[/quote]

Switch the squats in my analogy to pullups. Will losing fat fuck up the leverages? Who will have the most muscle mass at the end?
[/quote]

A 330lb person isn’t going to be able to do nearly as many pullups as a 170lb person though, so that comparison is pretty shitty too.[/quote]

Right: totally different lift. And there is pretty much nothing in the way of “leveraging” in a pullup. Same with dips and nearly every bodyweight lift. [/quote]

If you follow my analogy from start to finish, both lifters start doing pullups at a bodyweight of 170lbs. They repeat the same workout and rep scheme, and added weight. One lean gains, the other bulks.

Your right there is no leveraging, which is exactly my point. If someone bulks up to 330 from 170, and does it so that they can still do 15 pullups with the same added weight as mr lean, then they will have way more muscle than mr lean…
[/quote]

The chances of some guy maintaining his max pullup rep strength with 160 more lbs on him is close to none.

237

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

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

[/quote]

If absolute strength is a goal, and some guy leans down and his numbers come down as a consequence then by definition he fucked up his leverages for his aim.

Now, on the other hand, if someone’s interested in maintaining mass, and they do this, even while their big lifts go down, then then altering leverages is of no consequence for his aim.
[/quote]

Switch the squats in my analogy to pullups. Will losing fat fuck up the leverages? Who will have the most muscle mass at the end?
[/quote]

A 330lb person isn’t going to be able to do nearly as many pullups as a 170lb person though, so that comparison is pretty shitty too.[/quote]

Right: totally different lift. And there is pretty much nothing in the way of “leveraging” in a pullup. Same with dips and nearly every bodyweight lift. [/quote]

If you follow my analogy from start to finish, both lifters start doing pullups at a bodyweight of 170lbs. They repeat the same workout and rep scheme, and added weight. One lean gains, the other bulks.

Your right there is no leveraging, which is exactly my point. If someone bulks up to 330 from 170, and does it so that they can still do 15 pullups with the same added weight as mr lean, then they will have way more muscle than mr lean…
[/quote]

All this really shows that a ‘bulk’ would be beneficial if both were just doing BW exercises I suppose. Other lifts like the Bench, OHP are going to be made ‘easier’ with a heavier BW, so if both Mr. Lean and Prof never added weight to pressing exercises, Prof isn’t make much progress probably.

And I’ll go out on a limb and say basically 9/10 times a guy who can Squat 225x15 @ 170 is going to be more muscular then a guy who Squats 105 lbs less then his BW for 15.

238

I do pullups and chinups. I think they’re one of the best exercises for the entire upper body. That’s why my arms and lats look the way they do.

Spidey, I take it you do them too. That’s why your arm looks the way it does in the avatar. :slight_smile:

239

Question for X

How do you know when your body is “ready to grow”?

One of your more common responses to the lean bulk crew is something along the lines of “why would I worry about cutting, when my body is primed for growth?” And you frequently speak as if the only way to gain REAL MASS (what you fancy yourself to have), is to just keep pushing, other wise you will limit your potential. Why do you think disregarding higher fat gain, or accepting higher fat gain means your gaining more muscle as well? Do you, or even the lean bulk crew think your body builds muscle that drastically different at different % ? I think no, which is why the lean bulkers are arguing for trying to stay leaner, because muscle will be built as fast as possible in a reasonable surplus, no greater no less than an even bigger surplus.

I went off on a tangent a little, but how do you personally know IT is ready to gain muscle? If people could literally tell when there body was primed for muscle growth, I dont think most people would ignore it to lean out. But I dont understand how you know. Feel extra hungry, recent strength increase, lookin’ sexy in the mirror, scale weight hasn’t budged lately so you’re “due”, gut instinct??

Not trying to just shoot you down or something, genuinely curious as to how you come to the conclusion your body is about to blossom with muscle so it needs all the food it can get.

240

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
The ratio of fat to muscle gain drops at higher bf.[/quote]

This only applies to obesity.

[quote]
About progress I am happy with technique and progress so far. I am 10lbs heavier than the end of last summer and a notch or two leaner. That to is good progress. [/quote]

No one is saying you didn’t make good progress. I asked you something very specific and you didn’t answer it.

Do you understand that your body will not grow in a predictable cyclical pattern and that the one who takes advantage of when IT is ready to grow will make more progress in the long run than someone who uses that time to lose weight instead?[/quote]

No one besides you is capable of making perpetual progress, so leaning out here and there won’t do any harm considering after a few years, gains come in GRAMS or OUNCES of muscle per year.