LIMITS

Training
821

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
I am glad i am a “bigger” guy too, my wife who is a THICK latina likes me big, she likes the fact that when she stands behind me in front of the bathroom mirror i completely block her from view, even now at only 210lbs.

i am also proud of my accomplishments in the sports i competed in, as modest as they were. i have no regrets…[/quote]

Hey, I’ve said it before, but most women seem to be able to tell the difference between big and muscular and “flabby” without all abs being in. Most of the women who like really big guys don’t seem to mind them looking like I did at times. Big difference between that and some 300lbs obese guy eating donuts all day and playing video games.[/quote]

People generally have this idea that girls like ripped guys with abs, my girlfriend must be the exception…

She absolutely loathes me lean[/quote]

Most of the women I have dated like me bigger. The “ripped with abs” thing didn’t even seem to cross their mind. They thought “big muscles” was the same thing unless literally some flabby obese guy. I get more attention now that I am leaner, but honestly, they can’t see abs in clothes. I just look better in tighter clothes which always gets more attention than baggy shit.

822

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Question, if someone had a goal of being really big, why would it be seen as a negative to bulk up like I did?
[/quote]

Why would they bulk up like you did if they could get to where you are now WITHOUT bulking up like you did? Maybe a more reasonable bulk could have led to the same amount of muscle gain. Do you think that is not possible for someone to take a more calculated approach and get to where you are at now? Limits…

[quote]
I mean, am I missing all of the people more muscular than that? Is it really believed I would be anywhere near that size without bulking up to some degree?

Just asking.

These limits seem based on flimsy data.[/quote]

Yes you are missing where people are saying that bulking up to “some degree” is a good thing in terms of building a big AND lean physique. Every big and lean bodybuilder bulks up to “some degree.”

823

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Why would they bulk up like you did if they could get to where you are now WITHOUT bulking up like you did? [/quote]

Then they don’t need to bulk up.

Who is doing this? I don’t see many guys here that size especially like I looked at nearly 290.

It is a great hypothetical. I just don’t see many guys here that big to make that claim.

This is about following your genetics. If someone has the genes to get really big without bulking up, then they should do it. The problem is…how many people are walking around with necks over 20" and big pecs and chests over 50" who didn’t?

[quote]
Yes you are missing where people are saying that bulking up to “some degree” is a good thing in terms of building a big AND lean physique. Every big and lean bodybuilder bulks up to “some degree.” [/quote]

Uh…who is telling people to bulk up past this?

No one is telling anyone to gain as much weight as I did. I gained that weight because muscle was following it.

I thought that much was clear. Who looks like that at 5’10" 290 if they weren’t gaining mostly muscle from what they were doing?

If I was just gaining fat, I wouldn’t have bulked up like that.

824

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Question, if someone had a goal of being really big, why would it be seen as a negative to bulk up like I did?
[/quote]

Why would they bulk up like you did if they could get to where you are now WITHOUT bulking up like you did? Maybe a more reasonable bulk could have led to the same amount of muscle gain. Do you think that is not possible for someone to take a more calculated approach and get to where you are at now? Limits…

[quote]
I mean, am I missing all of the people more muscular than that? Is it really believed I would be anywhere near that size without bulking up to some degree?

Just asking.

These limits seem based on flimsy data.[/quote]

Yes you are missing where people are saying that bulking up to “some degree” is a good thing in terms of building a big AND lean physique. Every big and lean bodybuilder bulks up to “some degree.” [/quote]

I’m taking a firm position on this now. No one has ever got freaky huge by staying lean all the time. Absolutely fucking no one. If you disagree, please provide some good examples to prove your point. Because numbers wise there are a ton more massive people out there that did it the “classic” way. Virtually every major heavyweight bodybuilder out there has pics where they are most certainly not lean.

825

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Well, you, for some reason have driven a tolerant and forgiving guy like me to be thoroughly irritated and in your tyrannical and intolerant way, want to crucify me for having opinions, beliefs, and assumptions and estimations based on reasons the best I see it. You disagree and don’t like my beliefs or reasons. How about settle it at that?!

Maybe I’ll take a cue from you, and be a hostile, intolerant bastard and somehow punish and insult others for believing in things, whether they have basis in fact or not! I’m atheistic, so perhaps I should mentally wear down and insult people who believe in any religious faith involving a diety and all the hocus pocus mythology and tales that are in most religious scripture. [/quote]

people can have beliefs

when they preach their beliefs to others as absolute fact is when it gets annoying

you have to ask where the proof is

also, I don’t have a nutrition degree, I have a graduate degree in CS

I understand the difference between what a proof is and what is not

For you to prove there is a 50 lb limit, you would have to provide a biological basis for why you can only gain that much

Or you could study thousands of natural bodybuilders over the course of decades and figure out how much muscle they’ve gained, and say X% of people gained more than Y LBM, etc.

dunno how religious/delusional people are related to this. [/quote]

Just one person gaining 80 lbs of lean body mass naturally is firm proof it can be done. Just like the four minute mile.

What good does it do to work out supposed statistical limits of past body builders when we have new supplements, medicine and training research being done all the time? So we can pat ourselves on the back and say “you did well reaching the limit of human performance”. I personally gained 45 lbs of lean body mass naturally before I even touched steroids. And at the time whilst talking to people whose opinion I respect I was told I could gain much more without the gear, but to be prepared to put in another ten to 15 years of dedicated training and perfect diet, whereas with gear it would take only a few years and I would have a much bigger potential end point.

826

Where is this one person?

827


Dorian Yates, offseason, low 300’s or high 200’s, not fat.

828

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Dorian Yates, offseason, low 300’s or high 200’s, not fat. [/quote]

Which post was this in response to?

829

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Dorian Yates, offseason, low 300’s or high 200’s, not fat. [/quote]

Which post was this in response to?
[/quote]

Nearly any comment about building 80 to 100 pound muscle gains and being a 250 to 300 pound behemoth with no sloppiness or achieving more than every natural in the past 60 years.

830

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Dorian Yates, offseason, low 300’s or high 200’s, not fat. [/quote]

Which post was this in response to?
[/quote]

Nearly any comment about building 80 to 100 pound muscle gains and being a 250 to 300 pound behemoth with no sloppiness or achieving more than every natural in the past 60 years. [/quote]

I don’t get it, what exactly are you trying to say with that picture?

831

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Question, if someone had a goal of being really big, why would it be seen as a negative to bulk up like I did?

I mean, am I missing all of the people more muscular than that? Is it really believed I would be anywhere near that size without bulking up to some degree?

Just asking.

These limits seem based on flimsy data.[/quote]
X as far as I can recall the debate wasnt about whether you were wrong to bulk the way you did but that there is another way which the majority on here are choosing to go with. You chose what I regard as the “classic” approach and it has worked for you so why not leave it at that? I have said it before but I know of no person so sensitive as to what other people think of them as you.

832

390×600 34.5 KB

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Dorian Yates, offseason, low 300’s or high 200’s, not fat. [/quote]

Which post was this in response to?
[/quote]

Nearly any comment about building 80 to 100 pound muscle gains and being a 250 to 300 pound behemoth with no sloppiness or achieving more than every natural in the past 60 years. [/quote]

I don’t get it, what exactly are you trying to say with that picture?
[/quote]

Depicting what a not-fat 290 to 315 pounder looks like.

833

418×612 72.9 KB

Semblance of abs.

834

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Semblance of abs. [/quote]
But you arent saying that X looks like this guy are you?

835

hey brick, if that is a recent pic in your avatar, if so, your quads are stoopid big.

836

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Dorian Yates, offseason, low 300’s or high 200’s, not fat. [/quote]

Which post was this in response to?
[/quote]

Nearly any comment about building 80 to 100 pound muscle gains and being a 250 to 300 pound behemoth with no sloppiness or achieving more than every natural in the past 60 years. [/quote]
If i were you i’d have left this thread 30 pages ago. You’ve said the same thing 50 times now and no one’s listening.

837

[quote]flch95 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Dorian Yates, offseason, low 300’s or high 200’s, not fat. [/quote]

Which post was this in response to?
[/quote]

Nearly any comment about building 80 to 100 pound muscle gains and being a 250 to 300 pound behemoth with no sloppiness or achieving more than every natural in the past 60 years. [/quote]
If i were you i’d have left this thread 30 pages ago. You’ve said the same thing 50 times now and no one’s listening.[/quote]

Uh, we are listening. That is the problem.

I was nearly 290lbs in that picture and I wouldn’t call that “sloppy” even though I wasn’t lean. I gained that much muscle to pull that off unless you really think that picture is of someone who only gained 40lbs of muscle total.

It has nothing to do with people not listening. He is simply wrong and posting pictures of Dorian Yates isn’t supporting his argument at all.

838

[quote]steven alex wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Question, if someone had a goal of being really big, why would it be seen as a negative to bulk up like I did?

I mean, am I missing all of the people more muscular than that? Is it really believed I would be anywhere near that size without bulking up to some degree?

Just asking.

These limits seem based on flimsy data.[/quote]
X as far as I can recall the debate wasnt about whether you were wrong to bulk the way you did but that there is another way which the majority on here are choosing to go with. You chose what I regard as the “classic” approach and it has worked for you so why not leave it at that? I have said it before but I know of no person so sensitive as to what other people think of them as you. [/quote]

No, the argument was that you can build the same muscle mass at the same speed by not bulking up and I would beg to differ. This isn’t about being sensitive about what people think of me. It is about people acting like there are people as big as the people who DID bulk up in majority…when we are NOT seeing that on this forum.

How many people here have necks over 20" who never bulked up and HUGE traps?

By “HUGE” I mean really big enough to attract attention for that alone.

839

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Dorian Yates, offseason, low 300’s or high 200’s, not fat. [/quote]

Which post was this in response to?
[/quote]

Nearly any comment about building 80 to 100 pound muscle gains and being a 250 to 300 pound behemoth with no sloppiness or achieving more than every natural in the past 60 years. [/quote]

I don’t get it, what exactly are you trying to say with that picture?
[/quote]

Depicting what a not-fat 290 to 315 pounder looks like. [/quote]

Actually, you are posting pictures of guys in posing shape near contest time when they aren’t even in full off season mode.

Nasser bulked up pretty big in his off seasons back then so posting a picture of him when he is posing stage ready is a tad skewed.

We get it, your idea of “not fat” is near contest shape.

That doesn’t change gaining 80lbs of lean body mass being an actual possibility for some people.

840

Man… The GH guts in those pics… Makes me wish bodybuilding would go back in time a couple decades.