How to 'Bulk' For Naturals

Training
301

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Yeah, but what hints do you get that it is ready?[/quote]

better pumps
big increases in strength after periods of leveling off
even feelings of well being meaning “mind set”[/quote]

Have these relationships been studied, or is this just conjecture?[/quote]

Very little related to “maximal muscle growth” has been studied at all.

I don’t need studies to know these are signs my body is ready to grow…because it is growing…and I have been doing this long enough to know what to look for.

302

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Yeah: Which pro athlete are you related to?
[/quote]

I would rather ask you why you think all naturals have “painfully slow growth” after only three years.[/quote]

A combination of:

  1. following bodybuilding for 18 years
  2. reading bodybuilding literature for the same time frame
  3. conversing with pretty good naturals
  4. reading the works of people who’ve really did their homework on muscle gain potential.

I know you don’t like any of the above, but that’s my answer.

[/quote]
Yeah, that is conjecture as well.

This is a personal genetic response…not one related to “three years of great growth for all naturals”.

303

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Yeah, but what hints do you get that it is ready?[/quote]

better pumps
big increases in strength after periods of leveling off
even feelings of well being meaning “mind set”[/quote]

Have these relationships been studied, or is this just conjecture?[/quote]

Conjecture, because you can often experience that with no muscle growth occurring. I highly doubt Mr. Pump himself, John Meadows, significant muscle growth at this point. [/quote]

It is usually taken that if your strength is going up (unless learning a movement for the first time or learning technique) you are gaining muscle.

Obviously this is not 100%…but we don’t even know the human body 100%.

304

[quote]flch95 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
If I’m following a strict “macro based diet” that my coach prescribed (based on the best available methods/calculations for my body size and composition) because I want to grow quickly, and I’m not hungry enough everyday to eat the meals, do I just not eat them?[/quote]
Why wouldn’t you? I find it hard to believe that all the people that got big were hungry all the time. Personally I’m never hungry (then again i’m still a skinny bitch so probably not a good example, lol).[/quote]

Yeah, but we have heard that you should just eat when hungry…which would have left me at 150lbs.

305

Brick, what’s your take on this whole “set point theory”?

My understanding of it is that after getting to a certain weight, you need to give your body time to reset homeostasis around that weight. (I imagine they could also stabilize around a certain bodyfat percentage too, rather than just a weight.)

As a general concept, that makes sense to me, but I’m wondering if the literature and studies actually support it.

306

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Yeah, but what hints do you get that it is ready?[/quote]

better pumps
big increases in strength after periods of leveling off
even feelings of well being meaning “mind set”[/quote]

Have these relationships been studied, or is this just conjecture?[/quote]

Conjecture, because you can often experience that with no muscle growth occurring. I highly doubt Mr. Pump himself, John Meadows, significant muscle growth at this point. [/quote]

It is usually taken that if your strength is going up (unless learning a movement for the first time or learning technique) you are gaining muscle.

Obviously this is not 100%…but we don’t even know the human body 100%.[/quote]

So if your strength stalls, I’ve seen you suggest that you need to start eating more. But based on what you just said, wouldn’t that instead indicate that your body is no longer primed for growth?

307

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Yeah, but what hints do you get that it is ready?[/quote]

better pumps
big increases in strength after periods of leveling off
even feelings of well being meaning “mind set”[/quote]

Have these relationships been studied, or is this just conjecture?[/quote]

Conjecture, because you can often experience that with no muscle growth occurring. I highly doubt Mr. Pump himself, John Meadows, significant muscle growth at this point. [/quote]

I would be nice to know how he can claim such things without real evidence that they mean what he thinks they mean, but refuses to accept any anecdotal evidence he disagrees with from others without medical studies.

No studies to prove BW set point theory, yet speaks about it as truth.

308

[quote]flch95 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
If I’m following a strict “macro based diet” that my coach prescribed (based on the best available methods/calculations for my body size and composition) because I want to grow quickly, and I’m not hungry enough everyday to eat the meals, do I just not eat them?[/quote]
Why wouldn’t you? I find it hard to believe that all the people that got big were hungry all the time. Personally I’m never hungry (then again i’m still a skinny bitch so probably not a good example, lol).[/quote]

This was written:

[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:

Maybe in your pursuit to be the biggest guy in the room at all costs, you are simply talking of it as a concept? Always be in a surplus, and when your body is ready to grow, it will be able to? Seeing as the body doesn’t grow linearly, its safe to say you will always be laying down fat to some extent, and not always muscle.

And I think this is the main argument from the lean(er) bulk crowd. Keep a closer watch on your calories because it is easier to build fat than muscle. Force feeding is likely to result in more fat, not necessarily more muscle. But obviously what you did worked for you. [/quote]

I wouldn’t want to eat (ie. force feed myself) if I’m not hungry else I am likely to just gain fat.

Do I understand this line of reasoning correctly?

309

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Yeah, but what hints do you get that it is ready?[/quote]

better pumps
big increases in strength after periods of leveling off
even feelings of well being meaning “mind set”[/quote]

Have these relationships been studied, or is this just conjecture?[/quote]

Conjecture, because you can often experience that with no muscle growth occurring. I highly doubt Mr. Pump himself, John Meadows, significant muscle growth at this point. [/quote]

It is usually taken that if your strength is going up (unless learning a movement for the first time or learning technique) you are gaining muscle.

Obviously this is not 100%…but we don’t even know the human body 100%.[/quote]

So if your strength stalls, I’ve seen you suggest that you need to start eating more. But based on what you just said, wouldn’t that instead indicate that your body is no longer primed for growth?[/quote]

Strength stalled? Eat more and force your body to grow.

Strength going up? Eat more because your body is growing.

Sounds right.

310

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Yeah, but what hints do you get that it is ready?[/quote]

better pumps
big increases in strength after periods of leveling off
even feelings of well being meaning “mind set”[/quote]

Have these relationships been studied, or is this just conjecture?[/quote]

Conjecture, because you can often experience that with no muscle growth occurring. I highly doubt Mr. Pump himself, John Meadows, significant muscle growth at this point. [/quote]

I would be nice to know how he can claim such things without real evidence that they mean what he thinks they mean, but refuses to accept any anecdotal evidence he disagrees with from others without medical studies.

No studies to prove BW set point theory, yet speaks about it as truth.[/quote]

Honestly, in the absence of actual data, I’m pretty ok with conjecture… as long as there’s sufficient evidence and reasoning backing it. I.e., more than a sample size of one. Also if there’s no real contrasting evidence.

For me, the fact that my own weight gravitates to the 135-140 range, both when I was sick and lost weight, and after I stopped training and had gained weight, that indicates to me that there’s something to the phenomenon. That, combined with the yoyo dieting that many people experience with fat loss where they just keep coming back to the same weight if they don’t maintain the discipline, makes me thing there’s really something to it.

While it might be useful to know WHY this is happening, the engineering side of me doesn’t care so much and is more interested in how to use that phenomenon to my advantage.

On the other hand, “I know when my body is primed for growth because I get better pumps, etc.” doesn’t really line up with anything I’ve ever heard elsewhere, so I need a bit more than that. Either some real data, or real science, or other examples.

311

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Yeah, but what hints do you get that it is ready?[/quote]

better pumps
big increases in strength after periods of leveling off
even feelings of well being meaning “mind set”[/quote]

Have these relationships been studied, or is this just conjecture?[/quote]

Conjecture, because you can often experience that with no muscle growth occurring. I highly doubt Mr. Pump himself, John Meadows, significant muscle growth at this point. [/quote]

I would be nice to know how he can claim such things without real evidence that they mean what he thinks they mean, but refuses to accept any anecdotal evidence he disagrees with from others without medical studies.

No studies to prove BW set point theory, yet speaks about it as truth.[/quote]

Honestly, in the absence of actual data, I’m pretty ok with conjecture… as long as there’s sufficient evidence and reasoning backing it. I.e., more than a sample size of one. Also if there’s no real contrasting evidence.

For me, the fact that my own weight gravitates to the 135-140 range, both when I was sick and lost weight, and after I stopped training and had gained weight, that indicates to me that there’s something to the phenomenon. That, combined with the yoyo dieting that many people experience with fat loss where they just keep coming back to the same weight if they don’t maintain the discipline, makes me thing there’s really something to it.

While it might be useful to know WHY this is happening, the engineering side of me doesn’t care so much and is more interested in how to use that phenomenon to my advantage.

On the other hand, “I know when my body is primed for growth because I get better pumps, etc.” doesn’t really line up with anything I’ve ever heard elsewhere, so I need a bit more than that. Either some real data, or real science, or other examples.[/quote]

i’m cool with conjecture too, and for the record I tend to agree with BW set point theory. I don’t agree with someone using conjecture and anecdotal evidence to support ONLY what they agree with, and dismiss it and call for evidence when they don’t agree.

And yes, LOL at “I’m growing cuz mah pumps r better”. Bro science at it’s best.

312

[quote]LoRez wrote:
So if your strength stalls, I’ve seen you suggest that you need to start eating more.[/quote]

?? First, that would not be the only thing to do if your strength stops…and I am finding that what many of you say I wrote somewhere…is a bit different than what I actually wrote.

Read above. That is why quoting what I actually write will save you tons of effort and save me from rewriting things I wrote well the first time.

313

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]flch95 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
If I’m following a strict “macro based diet” that my coach prescribed (based on the best available methods/calculations for my body size and composition) because I want to grow quickly, and I’m not hungry enough everyday to eat the meals, do I just not eat them?[/quote]
Why wouldn’t you? I find it hard to believe that all the people that got big were hungry all the time. Personally I’m never hungry (then again i’m still a skinny bitch so probably not a good example, lol).[/quote]

This was written:

[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:

Maybe in your pursuit to be the biggest guy in the room at all costs, you are simply talking of it as a concept? Always be in a surplus, and when your body is ready to grow, it will be able to? Seeing as the body doesn’t grow linearly, its safe to say you will always be laying down fat to some extent, and not always muscle.

And I think this is the main argument from the lean(er) bulk crowd. Keep a closer watch on your calories because it is easier to build fat than muscle. Force feeding is likely to result in more fat, not necessarily more muscle. But obviously what you did worked for you. [/quote]

I wouldn’t want to eat (ie. force feed myself) if I’m not hungry else I am likely to just gain fat.

Do I understand this line of reasoning correctly?
[/quote]

I see what your getting at. That’s a valid point. When I think of a “bulk”, I think of someone making sure they eat a lot vs the guys talking about lean bulk and being a bit more meticulous. Scale not moving on bulk, buffet time. Scale not moving on lean bulk, add 300 calories daily.

I think a lot of the perspectives brought to this stem from where each person started. X was a 130-150lb stick. For him and other “hard gainers” the Nswer often is, eat eat eat eat. Me personally, I grew up the chubby kid, despite eating relatively the same and being equally as active as my fraternal triplet brothers. I have never seen my abs. So it makes me more inclined to side with the lean(er) bulk crew. Although in order to break 199lb I had to force feed a few pb sammies. Now a days, I have to really try to cut below 200.

314

[quote]cueball wrote:
I would be nice to know how he can claim such things without real evidence that they mean what he thinks they mean, but refuses to accept any anecdotal evidence he disagrees with from others without medical studies.

No studies to prove BW set point theory, yet speaks about it as truth.[/quote]

Once again, you would do better if you quoted what I actually wrote.

You fail when you misinterpret.

Real evidence of my body being ready to grow…is me growing muscle.

You wouldn’t need a study for that.

315

[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
Scale not moving on bulk, buffet time. Scale not moving on lean bulk, add 300 calories daily.
[/quote]

Wow.

Who wrote that?

316

I just wanna thank SteelyD and BlueCollarTr8n for their exchange…that was insightful & informative.

317

[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:

I see what your getting at. That’s a valid point. When I think of a “bulk”, I think of someone making sure they eat a lot vs the guys talking about lean bulk and being a bit more meticulous. Scale not moving on bulk, buffet time. Scale not moving on lean bulk, add 300 calories daily.

[/quote]

Well, I guess in my mind, if “force feeding” is the third rail of “lean gains”, then if I have macros based on the best current scientific calculations/formulas (and even if not), and I’m not hungry, then I’m really fucked because I’m scared to death of extra fat and if I’m not hungry, I must not be growing, and I read somewhere that if I eat too much because I don’t know when my body is ready to grow, I’m going to get fat.

I’m not trying to be snarky, I’m just playing out the reasoning and showing that there’s gotta be some common sense, some experimentation, and sometimes, yes, eating when you’re not hungry in order to grow.

318

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:
Scale not moving on bulk, buffet time. Scale not moving on lean bulk, add 300 calories daily.
[/quote]

Wow.

Who wrote that?[/quote]

Gross generalization about “bulking”. Kind of how some of the permabulkers here equate “lean bulk” with contest condition or fear of losing abs.

319

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
So if your strength stalls, I’ve seen you suggest that you need to start eating more.[/quote]

?? First, that wold not be the only thing to do if your strength stops…/and I am finding that what many of you say I wrote somewhere…is a bit different than what actually wrote.
[/quote]

Do you really want me to search for quotes? I’ve seen several one line responses from you (and others) to people who stalled, that boil down to nothing more than “you’ve gotta eat more”.

I wasn’t writing it as “you said this, and then you said that, and it contradicts, so I WIN!”. I have no interest in seeing you proven wrong.

I’m just trying to make sense of things that appear to be contradictions, because one or both of us communicated badly there.

320

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:

I see what your getting at. That’s a valid point. When I think of a “bulk”, I think of someone making sure they eat a lot vs the guys talking about lean bulk and being a bit more meticulous. Scale not moving on bulk, buffet time. Scale not moving on lean bulk, add 300 calories daily.

[/quote]

Well, I guess in my mind, if “force feeding” is the third rail of “lean gains”, then if I have macros based on the best current scientific calculations/formulas (and even if not), and I’m not hungry, then I’m really fucked because I’m scared to death of extra fat and if I’m not hungry, I must not be growing, and I read somewhere that if I eat too much because I don’t know when my body is ready to grow, I’m going to get fat.

I’m not trying to be snarky, I’m just playing out the reasoning and showing that there’s gotta be some common sense, some experimentation, and sometimes, yes, eating when you’re not hungry in order to grow.[/quote]

I agree with what you just wrote. There is always a gray area. And common sense should always be applied.