How to 'Bulk' For Naturals

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:
I guess one of the things that’s frustrating for a guy like me …

Not for me, and not for those of us who get into the iron game because we are endomorphic and have trouble keeping weight OFF. To insinuate that because we need to count to keep calories in check we “don’t know our bodies very well” is complete bullshit.

What about a thread for natty “bulking” for the rest of us?..the ones who are terrified of getting fat, because we actually get fat if we slip just a little.
[/quote]

Dude, if you’re terrified of fat then you’ve identified the problem. Look, I was a chubby kid. I rowed crew and played hockey in college. When I wasn’t doing that, I was running. I straddled 165-170, abs and all but with A LOT of output and in spite of a faddish early 90’s high carb no fat diet (probably wrecked my system).

So, having a propensity for fat, I went against the grain of status quo and PX himself by taking the “eat for size” route in my 30’s and 40’s. My strength gains took off. I didn’t start off very lean at 170 (just having lost 70 lbs), and after 6 years now, I’ve slowly started bringing it down.

But that’s the key: I OWNED IT FOR 6 YEARS. No fat phobia. “Former Fat Boy Syndrome” was invented on this site. It sells supplements. Our hosts here should LOVE bulkers because eventually they need to lose weight and one thing they do well here is weight loss.

That’s not to say ‘go get fat’. My point is if you’ve been dealt the ‘fat hand’, then you have to dig deep and decide what your level of acceptance is and how does that align with your goals. Then you have to constantly reassess.

It was easy for me. I have a hot wife who loves to ride the Steely D, beautiful children, make great money, and have no need to impress women. That’s a plus for me because I don’t have to worry about poodling my abs around on the beach. I know myself. I know myself very well and am comfortable enough to not give a rat’s ass about e-Dudes and know enough that I could take the weight off. I’m doing it now. I’m doing it MY way. Not a drastic cut-- that would be counter productive. I’m doing it slow and easy, because that’s my way and I’m loving the gym, PR’s abound, losing a pound here and there. I held 260 for a year. I posted a pic of me with Joe DeAngelis this time last year. I was 260 (just weighed in that day) I’m 5 lbs lighter now but look a bit leaner (just took a round of pics this week). I believe in “recomp” if you’re working your ass off. Little adjustments to my diet here and there.

If a dumb fuck like me can do it, anyone can.

Remember: Haterz gon’ hate. You gotta OWN it. I respect that.

Look, if you’re a BB competitor, then absolutely makes sense not to make things hard on yourself. If you’re not, then do whatever is right and fuck everyone.

For years guys have gotten big (yes with some fat and smoothed abs), then dieted. It works.

Is the most efficient way? I don’t know, but it works.
Is the healthiest way? I don’t know, but it works.
Is it the best way? I don’t know but it works.
Is wrong? How can it be, it works.

A lot of the dialog here is nothing more than people arguing over the best color of mailboxes.

TL;DR - Fatboy need food.

But, seriously, waaay too much binary thinking on these boards.
[/quote]

Thanks for taking the time to write that all out! I can tell it came from a real place for you and owning what you do is very admirable. I’m trying to find that at the moment. I had it when I was cutting, and kinda became the “cutting guy” around my friends here and to some extent even on this site for the few who followed my prep log. I was in the mindset of a caloric deficit for basically 10 months, so you can understand how it’s uncomfortable territory to turn things around.

Unlike you, I am still wide-eyed and single, so I do feel that compulsion to stay pretty lean if I wanna score a hottie and a keeper. I also do want to compete again, BUT I do want to get on stage much bigger.

So you say “as a competitor, absolutely makes sense not to make things harder on yourself.” I’m guessing you meant that to mean, don’t let bodyfat get out of hand so that prepping means more work. Funny thing is though, I first read it as–don’t make things harder on yourself in the off-season (which is the vast majority of my training career presumably), which is kind of a new angle for me to think about this…even if that’s not what you intended. If the difference between misery and being able to go out to eat here and there with friends is maintaining 12% v. 15% off-season condition, it kinda looks like a no-brainer I suppose!

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]red04 wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
^Yeah, but I believe that, in X’s case, 405 was probably getting close to max effort for him. Therefore, it was probably not safe for him to work with that weight without a spotter, as he probably couldn’t handle it well enough to attempt it when alone. That’s my guess.[/quote]

I always felt like that was more of PX’s bullshit. He claimed all these numbers, then when seen on vid he’s struggling with considerably less WITH band assistance. Yeah, I know he was “injured” and has “asthma” and it was “conditioning” and he’s “fat”, but it still reeked of bullshit. He’s the same guy who claimed there’s only a 5 or so pound difference between hammer strength and free weights…[/quote]

5lb diff between HS and free weight. Ha that’s a new gem[/quote]

His exact quote was “4-5 lb difference”, but he’s recently backtracked to a 10-20% difference. Still doesn’t explain his claim of benching 405 then struggling MIGHTILY with a band assisted 315. He also gripped the bar unevenly a few times, which I always found funny.[/quote]

I thought the same: how can he have a 405 bench if he struggled with a band assisted 315? Also judged this from the way he overhead pressed and the amount on that too (not that i judge people’s lifts but was wondering how he could have a 405 bench based on those two lifts.)
[/quote]

Interesting. So because I was injured and haven’t done a bench press in a decade…you thought I should have been repping with 405 when we weren’t even focusing on strength training?

Strange that you think the way you do.

Considering I didn’t get to warm up before taping ad that was literally the first rep on a bench I had done in quite a while, it is strange you find fault in that.

A truly weak person wouldn’t have been using that first the first time doing the exercise in years…again not to mention CT was using similar weight…[/quote]

You benched 405 at 23 to 25 years old?
[/quote]

I did…

This is me 2 years ago at 23. Not 405, but I could definitely press 405 at the time. I will have a video of me up next week of 405 for around 10ish reps.

And this is me 3 years ago doing 385. I;ve known a few guys in that age range can pump out 405.[/quote]

From a long limbed, narrow clavicled, awful bench presser, I mean this in the kindest way possible: Fuck you =][/quote]

Lol I have tiny narrow clavicles too…

Okay not really sorry bro. Just keep pressing you will get there![/quote]

LOL this made me laugh so hard for some reason lol

Nothing like a burnout set of 405

[quote]LoRez wrote:
So by the same reasoning, that means “increased joint lubrication” isn’t relevant to this discussion. Ok. Not sure why you brought it up in the first place then. Nobody was talking about “near contest condition”.[/quote]\

WTF? Near contest condition is what I would define as less than 10% body fat. How is that not relevant? You seem to just be trying to instigate.

I’m sorry, but what is it you want to hear? Your build is a factor. Your genetics, ability to build muscle mass and progress seen are also factors.

[quote]What exactly are you asking here?

If you’re asking how they would know which factors are involved… then by understanding the theory, its implications, and speculating around that knowledge.[/quote]

Dude, I am not asking you anything…at least not anymore. You aren’t even asking valid questions. You look like you are just trying to sound smart without understanding how variable the answer to your question would actually be.

Ask specific questions whenever you are done with this.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
So by the same reasoning, that means “increased joint lubrication” isn’t relevant to this discussion. Ok. Not sure why you brought it up in the first place then. Nobody was talking about “near contest condition”.[/quote]\

WTF? Near contest condition is what I would define as less than 10% body fat. How is that not relevant? You seem to just be trying to instigate.

I’m sorry, but what is it you want to hear? Your build is a factor. Your genetics, ability to build muscle mass and progress seen are also factors.

[quote]What exactly are you asking here?

If you’re asking how they would know which factors are involved… then by understanding the theory, its implications, and speculating around that knowledge.[/quote]

Dude, I am not asking you anything…at least not anymore. You aren’t even asking valid questions. You look like you are just trying to sound smart without understanding how variable the answer to your question would actually be.

Ask specific questions whenever you are done with this.[/quote]

Lol, well played.

Doesn’t look like there’s going to be any answers forthcoming from you.

Everyone else who took the subject seriously, thank you, seriously.

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Lol, well played.

Doesn’t look like there’s going to be any answers forthcoming from you.

Everyone else who took the subject seriously, thank you, seriously.[/quote]

This is hilarious. Your “questions” were really in depth there, guy.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

It was easy for me. I have a hot wife who loves to ride the Steely D, beautiful children, make great money, and have no need to impress women. [/quote]

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
^Yeah, but I believe that, in X’s case, 405 was probably getting close to max effort for him. Therefore, it was probably not safe for him to work with that weight without a spotter, as he probably couldn’t handle it well enough to attempt it when alone. That’s my guess.[/quote]

I always felt like that was more of PX’s bullshit. He claimed all these numbers, then when seen on vid he’s struggling with considerably less WITH band assistance. Yeah, I know he was “injured” and has “asthma” and it was “conditioning” and he’s “fat”, but it still reeked of bullshit. He’s the same guy who claimed there’s only a 5 or so pound difference between hammer strength and free weights…[/quote]

5lb diff between HS and free weight. Ha that’s a new gem[/quote]

His exact quote was “4-5 lb difference”, but he’s recently backtracked to a 10-20% difference. Still doesn’t explain his claim of benching 405 then struggling MIGHTILY with a band assisted 315. He also gripped the bar unevenly a few times, which I always found funny.[/quote]

I thought the same: how can he have a 405 bench if he struggled with a band assisted 315? Also judged this from the way he overhead pressed and the amount on that too (not that i judge people’s lifts but was wondering how he could have a 405 bench based on those two lifts.)
[/quote]

Interesting. So because I was injured and haven’t done a bench press in a decade…you thought I should have been repping with 405 when we weren’t even focusing on strength training?

Strange that you think the way you do.

Considering I didn’t get to warm up before taping ad that was literally the first rep on a bench I had done in quite a while, it is strange you find fault in that.

A truly weak person wouldn’t have been using that first the first time doing the exercise in years…again not to mention CT was using similar weight…[/quote]

You benched 405 at 23 to 25 years old?
[/quote]

I did…

This is me 2 years ago at 23. Not 405, but I could definitely press 405 at the time. I will have a video of me up next week of 405 for around 10ish reps.

And this is me 3 years ago doing 385. I;ve known a few guys in that age range can pump out 405.[/quote]

Good work, man. And yes, Brick, I did.

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
How I believe a natural should bulk…

Truthfully, I believe Professor X’s method in combination with BlueCollarTr8n’s method is best for a natural to “Bulk”, especially one who is trying to put on as much muscle as possible.

The truth is, other than the most dedicated of weightlifters (mostly only found on websites like these & very rare in real life), will never count calories, nor care to. Every gym rat I?ve ever talked to and asked q?s on how to gain weight, will say eat as much REAL FOOD as possible, and lift as heavy as possible. None will go into calories. I’ve seen way too many weightlifters take the ‘slow & steady’ approach to bulking and fail. Progress is too slow and incremental. Besides, it’s very difficult to overeat when eating REAL “CLEAN” FOOD. Especially for a noob with a raging metabolism and an ectomorph type frame.

This noob should eat as much as possible, while attempting to gain as much strength as possible. He will develop a natural ability to learn what amounts of food he must eat which will result in both weight & strength gain. Changes will be made as progress is made. Breakfast will gradually increase from 3 eggs to 4, then to 5, then to 6, as his body weight, strength, & appetite increases. Lunch can increase from a smaller plate of protein & carbs, to a bigger plate, etc.

Nobody is saying to bulk off pizza and ice-cream. It is very difficult to eat 4K calories of ‘CLEAN’ food aka eggs, rice, potatoes, chicken, beef, etc. The common theme in these forums is people who OVERBULK and now have fat to lose, but at least they gained the muscle. When I look around the numerous gyms I visit, I see more people who are unable to gain weight, rather than those who are gaining too much.
[/quote]

Gotta say that’s a load of crap. A ton of big national level competitors I follow on PM count calories. The best trainers you can hire will have you count calories and you will have amazing progress. Counting cals or macros is very important to good long term progress

Edit: I see that you kinda went back against this and I am in agreement that everyone should track for a while at least and get an idea most people are so out in left field on how much they eat. How many calories that olive oil they use as dressing and cookie or how little they actually eat

But for tracking calories it honestly takes 30s a meal if that. And if you cook in bulk for the week it’s easy to pack meals that have your macros for the day. Now if people don’t want to do this I think they have to accept slightly less than optimal progress. Counting macros everyday and adjusting for goals will allow for maximal progress both bulking and cutting [/quote]

Key word you used was…competitors. Most people just do this as a hobby. It is definitely still possible to make continuous progress without tracking cals. Altho I have already stated that that is probably the BEST way…if you are willing to do so. Most people dont want to do this.

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
How I believe a natural should bulk…

Truthfully, I believe Professor X’s method in combination with BlueCollarTr8n’s method is best for a natural to “Bulk”, especially one who is trying to put on as much muscle as possible.

The truth is, other than the most dedicated of weightlifters (mostly only found on websites like these & very rare in real life), will never count calories, nor care to. Every gym rat I?ve ever talked to and asked q?s on how to gain weight, will say eat as much REAL FOOD as possible, and lift as heavy as possible. None will go into calories. I’ve seen way too many weightlifters take the ‘slow & steady’ approach to bulking and fail. Progress is too slow and incremental. Besides, it’s very difficult to overeat when eating REAL “CLEAN” FOOD. Especially for a noob with a raging metabolism and an ectomorph type frame.

This noob should eat as much as possible, while attempting to gain as much strength as possible. He will develop a natural ability to learn what amounts of food he must eat which will result in both weight & strength gain. Changes will be made as progress is made. Breakfast will gradually increase from 3 eggs to 4, then to 5, then to 6, as his body weight, strength, & appetite increases. Lunch can increase from a smaller plate of protein & carbs, to a bigger plate, etc.

Nobody is saying to bulk off pizza and ice-cream. It is very difficult to eat 4K calories of ‘CLEAN’ food aka eggs, rice, potatoes, chicken, beef, etc. The common theme in these forums is people who OVERBULK and now have fat to lose, but at least they gained the muscle. When I look around the numerous gyms I visit, I see more people who are unable to gain weight, rather than those who are gaining too much.
[/quote]

Gotta say that’s a load of crap. A ton of big national level competitors I follow on PM count calories. The best trainers you can hire will have you count calories and you will have amazing progress. Counting cals or macros is very important to good long term progress

Edit: I see that you kinda went back against this and I am in agreement that everyone should track for a while at least and get an idea most people are so out in left field on how much they eat. How many calories that olive oil they use as dressing and cookie or how little they actually eat

But for tracking calories it honestly takes 30s a meal if that. And if you cook in bulk for the week it’s easy to pack meals that have your macros for the day. Now if people don’t want to do this I think they have to accept slightly less than optimal progress. Counting macros everyday and adjusting for goals will allow for maximal progress both bulking and cutting [/quote]

Key word you used was…competitors. Most people just do this as a hobby. It is definitely still possible to make continuous progress without tracking cals. Altho I have already stated that that is probably the BEST way…if you are willing to do so. Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]
Most people are lazy and that’s why most people are fat lol

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]

Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.

The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
So by the same reasoning, that means “increased joint lubrication” isn’t relevant to this discussion. Ok. Not sure why you brought it up in the first place then. Nobody was talking about “near contest condition”.[/quote]\

WTF? Near contest condition is what I would define as less than 10% body fat. How is that not relevant? You seem to just be trying to instigate.

I’m sorry, but what is it you want to hear? Your build is a factor. Your genetics, ability to build muscle mass and progress seen are also factors.

[quote]What exactly are you asking here?

If you’re asking how they would know which factors are involved… then by understanding the theory, its implications, and speculating around that knowledge.[/quote]

Dude, I am not asking you anything…at least not anymore. You aren’t even asking valid questions. You look like you are just trying to sound smart without understanding how variable the answer to your question would actually be.

Ask specific questions whenever you are done with this.[/quote]

Lol, well played.

Doesn’t look like there’s going to be any answers forthcoming from you.

Everyone else who took the subject seriously, thank you, seriously.[/quote]

LOL

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]

Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.

The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]

What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?

What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nothing like a burnout set of 405

What a fucking beast.

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]

Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.

The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]

What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?

What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]

You’ve reached the heart of the meal frequency debate.

Today, many say it doesn’t matter, as long as your daily macros meets your needs.

However, old school guys bring up things like nitrogen retention and the need for a steady stream of amino acids to prevent catabolism.

I’ve read all the arguments and tried both ways, and in my opinion – and this is N=1, as they say – if trying to add mass you will get better results by eating more frequently.

Furthermore, if trying to lose fat, I would still sip on something like MAG-10 if during fasting periods.

Ducks for cover

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:
Most people dont want to do this. [/quote]

Not just that, “most people” have real jobs where eating every 3 hours or whatever is not always an option even if you prepare ahead of time. That happens to me all of the time. It doesn’t matter how great the diet I prepared was if I don’t get to eat all day because I am in the clinic.

The person avoiding getting the cals in to make sure they eat “perfect” at all times may not grow as much.[/quote]

What do you mean by this? If you couldn’t eat a lot all day, couldn’t you just eat all that’s required to grow later? And still be eating ‘perfect’, it fitting your macros and such?

What does eating every 3 hours have to do with it? No sarcasm, genuinely asking.
[/quote]

Everyone doesn’t have the same appetite. It is easier for me to eat smaller meals than try to get down a ton of chicken breasts in one.

You seem to think all people work like you do.

By the way, there is no real “perfect”.

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nothing like a burnout set of 405

What a fucking beast.[/quote]

Pretty damn impressive.

This thread has added nothing useful to this site. I wish there was a magical place where I could get advice from helpful posters such as SmashingWeights, Stu, Utah, CC, SteelyD, Bauber, etc. without all the baby-back bullshit. Seriously, there is more bickering and nitpicking in this forum than one would see on a children’s playground.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Nothing like a burnout set of 405

Eric Spoto Bench Press 405 20+ reps - YouTube [/quote]

What a fucking beast.[/quote]

Pretty damn impressive.[/quote]
Well he did break the world record lol

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
This thread has added nothing useful to this site. I wish there was a magical place where I could get advice from helpful posters such as SmashingWeights, Stu, Utah, CC, SteelyD, Bauber, etc. without all the baby-back bullshit. Seriously, there is more bickering and nitpicking in this forum than one would see on a children’s playground.[/quote]

The dialog between SteelyD and BlueCollarTr8n was the most valuable part of this thread.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_bigger_stronger_leaner/how_to_bulk_for_naturals?id=5676916&pageNo=11

Other than that, I learned that X is a master at trolling.