How to 'Bulk' For Naturals

Training
361

[quote]Professor X wrote:

What is a “permabulker” and why do you use this term? I drop weight when necessary…so who is fitting this bill as a “permanent bulker who never diets”?[/quote]

From MW:

"perma-bulker(s) (adj.) - Used to describe the individual who is in a perpetual state of “bulking”. They tend to engage in gluttunous eating habits, dabble with anabolic/androgenic steroids and countless supplements in order to grow as large and as heavy as they can with the false delusions of “ripping it down” for the next bodybuilding pageant 16 months away. As it gets closer to the pageant that was 16 weeks away their plans change to the NEXT pageant 8 months after the previous one. The cycle never ends. Often heard chirping remarks such as… " I should be like 230 at my show, dude… I’m gonna stay a Super, bro… I’m so winning that show next year, man… watch! "

362

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Lets take a hypothetical.

A natural trainee finds a natural supplement which is anti catabolic in muscle tissue. He has an unlimited supply and can take it every day. He takes it religiously. There are some side effects.
[/quote]

Let’s not beat around the bush here.

You’re referring to dessicated unicorn testicles, aren’t you?[/quote]

Woah woah woah… if word gets out demand is going to go up, and that shit is already expensive.

363

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
What I find hard to get my head round is the fact that as a natural, most people who get serious start looking into how to “optimise their hormonal environment” for muscle growth, and spend a literal fortune on supplements that may or may not have physiological effects. [/quote]

Here’s how one optimizes their hormonal environment: train, sleep, and eat adequately. That’s it!

NOTHING increases testosterone significantly except taking testosterone–not high rep squats, not 100 grams of fat a day or eating some whole eggs, not high reps, not low reps!

[quote]

Lets take a hypothetical.

A natural trainee finds a natural supplement which is anti catabolic in muscle tissue. He has an unlimited supply and can take it every day. He takes it religiously. There are some side effects.

Will he gain more muscle than another natural trainee who doesn’t take the supplement? Lets say they are identical twins, eat the same number of calories and protein and train exactly the same.

Brick I’d like your answer to this particularly.[/quote]

On a low calorie diet, the guy taking the supplement will probably lose less muscle. I THINK.

364

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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”.[/quote]

Yeah, there is a genetic response, but I speak GENERALLY, which you also have a problem with.

Also, what occurs in reality isn’t conjecture. When I say, “generally speaking, growth occurs at a snail’s pace after some time,” it’s not a proposition. It’s simply the truth. Even your friend CT said this quite a few times.

365

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Who am the pro athlete?[/quote]

Are you serious with this? If I wanted to write his name out, I would have.

Why keep asking?

Why not tell us why you don’t see your own statements as conjecture regarding the “three year natural limit”.[/quote]

What HAPPENS isn’t conjecture; it’s reality.

366

Lorez: Re: Setpoint

Haven’t looked into it much. I do THINK that bodyfat held for a long time is harder to come off than bodyfat that was gained but lost quickly after the gain.

And yes, after some years of heavy training, even if one slacks off, some muscle mass will stay, even with hardly any training.

So I GUESS there are some setpoints.

I’ve never seen a study on it and out of all the studies I’ve studied, hardly any of them gave me any knowledge on building a physique or getting more fit.

367

Is “muscle memory” a scientifically studied/proven idea or does that fall into the same bucket as set points?

EDIT: Don’t answer that. I’m going to start a thread…

368

[quote]bwilliamsr89 wrote:

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.
[/quote]

Unless one has some unique, insane metabolism, that approach often fails. GENERALLY speaking, MOST guys of average height and frame don’t need more than 4,000 calories a day to grow, which isn’t that hard to do.

369

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
What I find hard to get my head round is the fact that as a natural, most people who get serious start looking into how to “optimise their hormonal environment” for muscle growth, and spend a literal fortune on supplements that may or may not have physiological effects.

Lets take a hypothetical.

A natural trainee finds a natural supplement which is anti catabolic in muscle tissue. He has an unlimited supply and can take it every day. He takes it religiously. There are some side effects.

Will he gain more muscle than another natural trainee who doesn’t take the supplement? Lets say they are identical twins, eat the same number of calories and protein and train exactly the same.

Brick I’d like your answer to this particularly.[/quote]

Captain no pics strikes again…preach on brother!!

370

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
What I find hard to get my head round is the fact that as a natural, most people who get serious start looking into how to “optimise their hormonal environment” for muscle growth, and spend a literal fortune on supplements that may or may not have physiological effects.

Lets take a hypothetical.

A natural trainee finds a natural supplement which is anti catabolic in muscle tissue. He has an unlimited supply and can take it every day. He takes it religiously. There are some side effects.

Will he gain more muscle than another natural trainee who doesn’t take the supplement? Lets say they are identical twins, eat the same number of calories and protein and train exactly the same.

Brick I’d like your answer to this particularly.[/quote]

Captain no pics strikes again…preach on brother!![/quote]

Because pictures are a pre-requisite for logic and reason.

Geez I forgot.

Would you like a picture of my ass?

371

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
What I find hard to get my head round is the fact that as a natural, most people who get serious start looking into how to “optimise their hormonal environment” for muscle growth, and spend a literal fortune on supplements that may or may not have physiological effects.

Lets take a hypothetical.

A natural trainee finds a natural supplement which is anti catabolic in muscle tissue. He has an unlimited supply and can take it every day. He takes it religiously. There are some side effects.

Will he gain more muscle than another natural trainee who doesn’t take the supplement? Lets say they are identical twins, eat the same number of calories and protein and train exactly the same.

Brick I’d like your answer to this particularly.[/quote]

Anti catabolic does not equal growth. [/quote]

Really? Please explain.

372

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
What I find hard to get my head round is the fact that as a natural, most people who get serious start looking into how to “optimise their hormonal environment” for muscle growth, and spend a literal fortune on supplements that may or may not have physiological effects. [/quote]

Here’s how one optimizes their hormonal environment: train, sleep, and eat adequately. That’s it!

NOTHING increases testosterone significantly except taking testosterone–not high rep squats, not 100 grams of fat a day or eating some whole eggs, not high reps, not low reps!

And on a higher calorie diet? The context is gaining muscle and bulking.

373

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
What I find hard to get my head round is the fact that as a natural, most people who get serious start looking into how to “optimise their hormonal environment” for muscle growth, and spend a literal fortune on supplements that may or may not have physiological effects.

Lets take a hypothetical.

A natural trainee finds a natural supplement which is anti catabolic in muscle tissue. He has an unlimited supply and can take it every day. He takes it religiously. There are some side effects.

Will he gain more muscle than another natural trainee who doesn’t take the supplement? Lets say they are identical twins, eat the same number of calories and protein and train exactly the same.

Brick I’d like your answer to this particularly.[/quote]

Anti catabolic does not equal growth. [/quote]

Really? Please explain.
[/quote]

You do realise that growth the the result of the net balance between anabolism and catabolism.

Question for you and Brick.

Your Premise. A reduction in catabolism does not grow muscle.

Question: Does a reduction in anabolism reduce the rate of muscle growth? Does it reduce the amount of muscle you can grow?

374

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
What I find hard to get my head round is the fact that as a natural, most people who get serious start looking into how to “optimise their hormonal environment” for muscle growth, and spend a literal fortune on supplements that may or may not have physiological effects.

Lets take a hypothetical.

A natural trainee finds a natural supplement which is anti catabolic in muscle tissue. He has an unlimited supply and can take it every day. He takes it religiously. There are some side effects.

Will he gain more muscle than another natural trainee who doesn’t take the supplement? Lets say they are identical twins, eat the same number of calories and protein and train exactly the same.

Brick I’d like your answer to this particularly.[/quote]

Anti catabolic does not equal growth. [/quote]

Really? Please explain.
[/quote]

You do realise that growth the the result of the net balance between anabolism and catabolism.

Question for you and Brick.

Your Premise. A reduction in catabolism does not grow muscle.

Question: Does a reduction in anabolism reduce the rate of muscle growth? Does it reduce the amount of muscle you can grow?
[/quote]

I will use small numbers so you can understand. Lets say 5 is how muscle you have normally catabolic process would take away 3 units leaving 2. Super anti catabolic supp is used leaving you with 3 instead. That’s not growth. It would slow the loss of muscle not accelerate the gain of it. And since muscle is not lost on a cut unless people are doing something very wrong (blue talked about this) the anticatabolic will not result in muscle growth

So now you want limit muscle anabolism which is muscle growth I will say yes to that lol

375

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
What I find hard to get my head round is the fact that as a natural, most people who get serious start looking into how to “optimise their hormonal environment” for muscle growth, and spend a literal fortune on supplements that may or may not have physiological effects.

Lets take a hypothetical.

A natural trainee finds a natural supplement which is anti catabolic in muscle tissue. He has an unlimited supply and can take it every day. He takes it religiously. There are some side effects.

Will he gain more muscle than another natural trainee who doesn’t take the supplement? Lets say they are identical twins, eat the same number of calories and protein and train exactly the same.

Brick I’d like your answer to this particularly.[/quote]

Captain no pics strikes again…preach on brother!![/quote]

Because pictures are a pre-requisite for logic and reason.

Geez I forgot.

Would you like a picture of my ass?
[/quote]

I have yet to see any logic from you

376

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
What I find hard to get my head round is the fact that as a natural, most people who get serious start looking into how to “optimise their hormonal environment” for muscle growth, and spend a literal fortune on supplements that may or may not have physiological effects.

Lets take a hypothetical.

A natural trainee finds a natural supplement which is anti catabolic in muscle tissue. He has an unlimited supply and can take it every day. He takes it religiously. There are some side effects.

Will he gain more muscle than another natural trainee who doesn’t take the supplement? Lets say they are identical twins, eat the same number of calories and protein and train exactly the same.

Brick I’d like your answer to this particularly.[/quote]

Captain no pics strikes again…preach on brother!![/quote]

Because pictures are a pre-requisite for logic and reason.

Geez I forgot.

Would you like a picture of my ass?
[/quote]

I have yet to see any logic from you[/quote]

Heres YOUR Logic. A=Units of anabolism; B=Units of Catabolism; X1=Net muscle tissue accrual with no supplement; X2=Net muscle tissue accrual with supplement

With no supplement:

If A-B=X1 and is a positive number, then muscle tissue accrual is occuring.

With supplement:

If A-B=X2 and X2>X1 then no more muscle tissue accrual is occuring

Not very logical my friend.

If anabolism combined with anti-catabolism is so ineffective, why do all pro bodybuilders use drug regimes that maximise both anabolism and reduce catabolism?

377

[quote]LoRez wrote:
This is just sort of a general question, because I don’t really understand.

X, you’ve spent many pages arguing in the past about how your additional education in medicine gives you better insight into lifting than most.

At the same time, whenever I’ve asked for details, you’ve been very vague. For instance, you talk about this “growth signal” as a general term, but I know you have the education to discuss the specific biochemical signaling that occurs, and to speculate about what else might be going on too.[/quote]

How would you ever be able to know the literal biochemical signatures without blood work?

Are you serious? This has never been studied before…so what is it you want to hear?

Your body doesn’t work the way you seem to think it does. There is no specific biochemical signaling that would happen in all people at all times. Increased insulin causes the storage of material. Things like this are fact.

Whether someone shows a “x%” increase is a VARIABLE and based on personal genetics.

maybe if you knew exact;y what you were asking it would be more clear.

What specific hormone are you even talking about?

[quote]

Why haven’t you delved into any details?

A lot of the questions I’ve asked you were specifically because I respected your education, and because I was looking for more than just a bro-science styled answer. If that’s what I wanted, I could have asked anyone else who’s moderately big.[/quote]

I gave you details. You are asking for info I couldn’t know without extensive testing and years of research??

What SPECIFICALLY do you want to know? All you have really done here is take one comment out of context and then take several posts to understand that the CONTEXT the statement was made is most important. What specific questions did you ask that I didn’t answer?

378

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

What is a “permabulker” and why do you use this term? I drop weight when necessary…so who is fitting this bill as a “permanent bulker who never diets”?[/quote]

From MW:

"perma-bulker(s) (adj.) - Used to describe the individual who is in a perpetual state of “bulking”. [/quote]

Who here fits this description?

379

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

What is a “permabulker” and why do you use this term? I drop weight when necessary…so who is fitting this bill as a “permanent bulker who never diets”?[/quote]

From MW:

"perma-bulker(s) (adj.) - Used to describe the individual who is in a perpetual state of “bulking”. [/quote]

Who here fits this description?[/quote]

Aren’t you a permabulker? I don’t think there’s anything wrong with permabulkers, just like there’s nothing wrong with permaleaners.

380

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

What is a “permabulker” and why do you use this term? I drop weight when necessary…so who is fitting this bill as a “permanent bulker who never diets”?[/quote]

From MW:

"perma-bulker(s) (adj.) - Used to describe the individual who is in a perpetual state of “bulking”. [/quote]

Who here fits this description?[/quote]

Aren’t you a permabulker? I don’t think there’s anything wrong with permabulkers, just like there’s nothing wrong with permaleaners. [/quote]

Uhm, I am not in a perpetual state of bulking.

That is one reason I asked you the question…so that means the term does not apply to me…so why keep using it and to whom are you referring now if it is NOT me?