Martin Burkham (Leangains) Consult up for Grabs

Nutrition
141

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]Oregand wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
So, the real essence of IF is this: it doesn’t matter if you eat 6 meals or 3 meals or 1 meal, its about total macros right? (I personally believe this is completely wrong for a bodybuilder. There are many physiological points that MB does not either take into consideration or know about. But I digress).[/quote]

Id be very VERY grateful if you could elaborate on this MODOK. In your opinion, having gone through years of this lifestyle what do you feel is personally right about the “it doesn’t matter how many meals, just macros”?

Its probably a very newbie question but Id still be very interested in hearing your take on it.[/quote]

Thats the centerpiece of intermittent fasting. They claim that 3000 cal and 200 g protein is the same whether you eat it for dinner or spread it out over multiple feedings. They have some short-term studies which they use to back up this idea (never a good idea for justification of something you are going to do for the rest of your life). For fat loss, for a few months, I think it CAN help. You allow your SNS to dominate for a few more hours during the day, mobilizing more FA for energy.

You will not maintain the biggest, fullest muscle bellies at a lean bf though. There is simply too much total time that glucagon is running the show for that to happen. Insulin cannot overcome this with such a limited window of time to work. People get lean, but their muscles develop a stringy look. Thats fine for people who want to look like MB or Brad Pitt…not so much for bodybuilders who need full muscle bellies.

Another big issue is AM cortisol levels. Fasting through the morning allows cortisol to remain elevated far too long…with numerous deliterious effects to the physique. [/quote]

Yeah thats what I took from it,

As long as the Kcals and macros are the same its no an issue how you intake them during the day. I hadnt realized the study’s were so short term, thanks for pointing that out.

So you think it might be a decent tool to use for fat loss from time to time? As for the long run though i.e. getting big and maintenance you wouldnt find it a realistic approach?

In your opinion, how detrimental are AM cortisol levels when losing fat? Say with things like fasted training like MB recommends?

Again, thanks for the insight MODOK.

142

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
And professor x and CC are certainly not “clueless” about nutrition.
[/quote]

I didn’t even bother responding to that comment…but it is amazing how people think guys who have trained hard for several years, made more progress than average and have degrees in biology or medical fields…yet are CLUELESS about nutrition.

They really think like that though…which makes most discussion useless. It’s fun being spoken down to by people less educated. [/quote]

Dude, I know you went to school for all of this. But when have you been single digit body fat? Don’t you ask a lot of questions and need a lot of guidance when it comes to dieting down? You did fine getting big, but can you really say you have an equal or greater amount of knowledge when it comes to dieting? [/quote]

I am not currently single digits. I am down 5" on the waist in the last few months with no apparent loss in muscle mass. If this means “clueless about nutrition” to you, you have issues. No, I have not dieted down to single digits in quite a while. What that has to do with being clueless about nutrition is still a mystery.

My knowledge of CONTEST DIETING is limited, but you would have to be extremely obnoxious and biased to call someone who actually has a formal education in nutrition, more than one degree in a biologically related field who works clinically along with several years bodybuilding “clueless”.

It’s cute.[/quote]

Everyone is jumping all over the clueless thing but that was really directed to C_C. I know it seems like I’m backtracking, but whatever.

143

[quote]Darkane wrote:
eat 2-3 hours[/quote]

What!?!?!

That sounds like something fat couch potatoes do.

144

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
And professor x and CC are certainly not “clueless” about nutrition.
[/quote]

I didn’t even bother responding to that comment…but it is amazing how people think guys who have trained hard for several years, made more progress than average and have degrees in biology or medical fields…yet are CLUELESS about nutrition.

They really think like that though…which makes most discussion useless. It’s fun being spoken down to by people less educated. [/quote]

Dude, I know you went to school for all of this. But when have you been single digit body fat? Don’t you ask a lot of questions and need a lot of guidance when it comes to dieting down? You did fine getting big, but can you really say you have an equal or greater amount of knowledge when it comes to dieting? [/quote]

I am not currently single digits. I am down 5" on the waist in the last few months with no apparent loss in muscle mass. If this means “clueless about nutrition” to you, you have issues. No, I have not dieted down to single digits in quite a while. What that has to do with being clueless about nutrition is still a mystery.

My knowledge of CONTEST DIETING is limited, but you would have to be extremely obnoxious and biased to call someone who actually has a formal education in nutrition, more than one degree in a biologically related field who works clinically along with several years bodybuilding “clueless”.

It’s cute.[/quote]

Everyone is jumping all over the clueless thing but that was really directed to C_C. I know it seems like I’m backtracking, but whatever.[/quote]

It isn’t “whatever”. It was an insult. Some of you are hilarious with this shit…speaking down to people who actually have the credentials that most of you don’t. This act of ignoring the progress someone has made to call them clueless is also ridiculous…as if people are literally gaining over 100lbs of lean body mass all of the time.

Hell, are there even 5 people on this site who have done that and have the pics to prove it?

145

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:
And professor x and CC are certainly not “clueless” about nutrition.
[/quote]

I didn’t even bother responding to that comment…but it is amazing how people think guys who have trained hard for several years, made more progress than average and have degrees in biology or medical fields…yet are CLUELESS about nutrition.

They really think like that though…which makes most discussion useless. It’s fun being spoken down to by people less educated. [/quote]

Dude, I know you went to school for all of this. But when have you been single digit body fat? Don’t you ask a lot of questions and need a lot of guidance when it comes to dieting down? You did fine getting big, but can you really say you have an equal or greater amount of knowledge when it comes to dieting? [/quote]

I am not currently single digits. I am down 5" on the waist in the last few months with no apparent loss in muscle mass. If this means “clueless about nutrition” to you, you have issues. No, I have not dieted down to single digits in quite a while. What that has to do with being clueless about nutrition is still a mystery.

My knowledge of CONTEST DIETING is limited, but you would have to be extremely obnoxious and biased to call someone who actually has a formal education in nutrition, more than one degree in a biologically related field who works clinically along with several years bodybuilding “clueless”.

It’s cute.[/quote]

Everyone is jumping all over the clueless thing but that was really directed to C_C. I know it seems like I’m backtracking, but whatever.[/quote]

It isn’t “whatever”. It was an insult. Some of you are hilarious with this shit…speaking down to people who actually have the credentials that most of you don’t. This act of ignoring the progress someone has made to call them clueless is also ridiculous…as if people are literally gaining over 100lbs of lean body mass all of the time.

Hell, are there even 5 people on this site who have done that and have the pics to prove it?[/quote]

For the last time, I did not call YOU clueless. That was directed at C_C. If you still want to feel insulted by that, that’s your prerogative. If you want to get up in arms over word choice that wasn’t even meant for you, go ahead. You’ve made great progress when it comes to gaining weight. Dieting down is a complete different animal.

Here’s the full sentence. “I know it seems like I’m backtracking, but whatever, it’s the truth.” I am not out to insult you. I even said ‘no offence’ in the original post. You can accept this explanation, but I will not be arguing any further with you on this.

146

You have said that every other time you’ve dieted down you’ve lost substantial lean mass. Does that sound like intelligent, informed dieting to you? You are doing better this time, according to you, but you have not gotten past mid-teens yet, and you’re still figuring out a process that works for you. Actually, you know what, go ahead and continue the argument. I couldn’t care less but I’ll still respond.

147

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
You have said that every other time you’ve dieted down you’ve lost substantial lean mass. Does that sound like intelligent, informed dieting to you? You are doing better this time, according to you, but you have not gotten past mid-teens yet, and you’re still figuring out a process that works for you. Actually, you know what, go ahead and continue the argument. I couldn’t care less but I’ll still respond. [/quote]

Uh, most people do lose some muscle when dieting. In fact, the usual is half and half lean body mass to fat ratio. the only thing that changes that is how you train, your hormones, and your nutrition.

My mistake in the past was CARDIO, not diet. In fact, if you really were interested in anything like that, you would ask instead of jumping to all of these conclusions.

It was believed for years that everyone needed steady state cardio to lean up. Being in the military didn’t help this either.

I have never had a problem losing body fat. I simply never took it that far BECAUSE THE WHOLE GOAL WAS TO GET BIGGER.

Question…why is this so hard for some of you to understand? Some of you act like people are reaching my size everyday. They aren’t…and it is hilarious watching as some of you see to think otherwise.

That is why comments like I was “inefficient” are comedic. That could only be the case if reaching my size was a norm. It isn’t.

I am dieting now because I feel I am big enough now to be satisfied doing it. Why the hell would I have dieted down back when I only weighed 220lbs? That was NOT the goal.

To conclude that this means I can’t diet is just stupid.

148

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
You have said that every other time you’ve dieted down you’ve lost substantial lean mass. Does that sound like intelligent, informed dieting to you? You are doing better this time, according to you, but you have not gotten past mid-teens yet, and you’re still figuring out a process that works for you. Actually, you know what, go ahead and continue the argument. I couldn’t care less but I’ll still respond. [/quote]

Uh, most people do lose some muscle when dieting. In fact, the usual is half and half lean body mass to fat ratio. the only thing that changes that is how you train, your hormones, and your nutrition.

My mistake in the past was CARDIO, not diet. In fact, if you really were interested in anything like that, you would ask instead of jumping to all of these conclusions.

It was believed for years that everyone needed steady state cardio to lean up. Being in the military didn’t help this either.

I have never had a problem losing body fat. I simply never took it that far BECAUSE THE WHOLE GOAL WAS TO GET BIGGER.

Question…why is this so hard for some of you to understand? Some of you act like people are reaching my size everyday. They aren’t…and it is hilarious watching as some of you see to think otherwise.

That is why comments like I was “inefficient” are comedic. That could only be the case if reaching my size was a norm. It isn’t.

I am dieting now because I feel I am big enough now to be satisfied doing it. Why the hell would I have dieted down back when I only weighed 220lbs? That was NOT the goal.

To conclude that this means I can’t diet is just stupid.[/quote]

Noone has ever doubted your ability to gain weight. I’m going to keep my mouth shut and wait for the final results of your cut. If you diet down successfully I’ll be more than happy to congratulate you and ask your advice. Hopefully you’ll help me.

149

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:

Noone [/quote]

Shit, ALREADY!?

I’m late for work…

150

Interesting idea about most efficient way to put on muscle. Based on reading the experiences of guys like Stu, it seems like getting real lean primes the body to put on quality muscle mass - the so called rebound effect after contest dieting. It would be interesting if the most efficient way to build mass actually involves periodic cuts as a means to 1) Assess weak points & 2) employ the rebound effect. Another thing of interest is John Meadows comments in his latest livespill where he thinks getting to 18-20 % bf is “not smart”

http://www.T-Nation.com/strength-training-topics/1393

Question:
ryanbCXG: @JM: sorry if i have missed it before in your articles or comments but are you of the belief that if you want to gain a large amount of muscle in your life you should do a fairly large and long “bulk” at the start? Or do you think slow and maintaining a lower bf% is the way to go? Just wondering yoiur opinions on this. And how far would you take a “bulk” ? I am not meaning get to over 20% fat and eat shit bulk. I am talking eating lots of clean food and training yoiur ass off but maybe not worrying about abs or bf%. I hope that was phrased ok

Answer:

09-10-2011 22:06John Meadows, CSCS: ryan - there are alot of factors that play into this, but in terms of bodyfat…I think people get TOO fat. Once you get above a certain bodyfat %, it has absolutely no benefit to muscle growth…I don’t know exactly what that is…but probably around 10%, maybe slightly more, maybe slightly less…getting fat just makes you insulin resistant…not good for muscle building…

Question:

ryanbCXG: 10% shit that is lean. WHat would you say a god judge of 10% is without getting measured
…
ryanbCXG: so do you do mini cuts during a bulk to keep the body fat in check? just cut cals for a couple weeks or more to clean up then continue?

Answer:

09-10-2011 23:53John Meadows, CSCS: ryan - yea 12% even is robably fine…alot of factors to consider…no real magic number…but going to 18-20% etc is not smart. Yes, I think mini cuts are good…very good in fact… you should be able to see the outline of your abs…not have etched abs…just see that they exist and aren’t covered by a blob…this is possible at 10-12%…

151

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Interesting idea about most efficient way to put on muscle. Based on reading the experiences of guys like Stu, it seems like getting real lean primes the body to put on quality muscle mass - the so called rebound effect after contest dieting. It would be interesting if the most efficient way to build mass actually involves periodic cuts as a means to 1) Assess weak points & 2) employ the rebound effect. Another thing of interest is John Meadows comments in his latest livespill where he thinks getting to 18-20 % bf is “not smart”

http://www.T-Nation.com/strength-training-topics/1393

Question:
ryanbCXG: @JM: sorry if i have missed it before in your articles or comments but are you of the belief that if you want to gain a large amount of muscle in your life you should do a fairly large and long “bulk” at the start? Or do you think slow and maintaining a lower bf% is the way to go? Just wondering yoiur opinions on this. And how far would you take a “bulk” ? I am not meaning get to over 20% fat and eat shit bulk. I am talking eating lots of clean food and training yoiur ass off but maybe not worrying about abs or bf%. I hope that was phrased ok

Answer:

09-10-2011 22:06John Meadows, CSCS: ryan - there are alot of factors that play into this, but in terms of bodyfat…I think people get TOO fat. Once you get above a certain bodyfat %, it has absolutely no benefit to muscle growth…I don’t know exactly what that is…but probably around 10%, maybe slightly more, maybe slightly less…getting fat just makes you insulin resistant…not good for muscle building…

Question:

ryanbCXG: 10% shit that is lean. WHat would you say a god judge of 10% is without getting measured
…
ryanbCXG: so do you do mini cuts during a bulk to keep the body fat in check? just cut cals for a couple weeks or more to clean up then continue?

Answer:

09-10-2011 23:53John Meadows, CSCS: ryan - yea 12% even is robably fine…alot of factors to consider…no real magic number…but going to 18-20% etc is not smart. Yes, I think mini cuts are good…very good in fact… you should be able to see the outline of your abs…not have etched abs…just see that they exist and aren’t covered by a blob…this is possible at 10-12%…
[/quote]

Dave tate showing us how to build muscle inefficiently by getting too fat. I bet if he leaned up…

152

Come on, my comment wasn’t a statement of fact, merely a hypothesis. Additionally, Meadows (who’s frickin shreaded in his contest pics) made the statement of not getting over 20%.

Dave is definitely over 20% BF in that picture. The real question is, do you get significantly better muscle growth being at 20% over 15%? Doesn’t seem likely. More fat volume to take up nutrients. Tate himself has admitted that he had a crappy diet and loads of health problems carrying all that excess fat.

Seriously, how much excess is too much for BB? Seems like there are very few types of athletes that need to carry around BF in excess of 15 %. Maybe linebackers and top weight class lifters / fighters / wrestlers.

153

343×743 61.8 KB

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Come on, my comment wasn’t a statement of fact, merely a hypothesis. Additionally, Meadows (who’s frickin shreaded in his contest pics) made the statement of not getting over 20%.

Dave is definitely over 20% BF in that picture. The real question is, do you get significantly better muscle growth being at 20% over 15%? Doesn’t seem likely. More fat volume to take up nutrients. Tate himself has admitted that he had a crappy diet and loads of health problems carrying all that excess fat.

Seriously, how much excess is too much for BB? Seems like there are very few types of athletes that need to carry around BF in excess of 15 %. Maybe linebackers and top weight class lifters / fighters / wrestlers.[/quote]

You mean like this weightlifter who was over 15% bodyfat. I bet if he leaned up…

154

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Come on, my comment wasn’t a statement of fact, merely a hypothesis. Additionally, Meadows (who’s frickin shreaded in his contest pics) made the statement of not getting over 20%.

Dave is definitely over 20% BF in that picture. The real question is, do you get significantly better muscle growth being at 20% over 15%? Doesn’t seem likely. More fat volume to take up nutrients. Tate himself has admitted that he had a crappy diet and loads of health problems carrying all that excess fat.

Seriously, how much excess is too much for BB? Seems like there are very few types of athletes that need to carry around BF in excess of 15 %. Maybe linebackers and top weight class lifters / fighters / wrestlers.[/quote]

This is getting ridiculous.

YOU may not need to go above 11% body fat ever. That doesn’t mean that guy over there will see the same progress by trying to stay that lean.

We are talking about guys who have nearly doubled their weight in muscle mass compared to guys who never got that big.

This should be obvious…why isn’t it?

I got heavier because more muscle came with it. If someone was still walking around with 17" arms after gaining for a decade, then I could understand the criticism. if they end up with arms bigger than 98% of the population, it would be extremely foolish to think they did it wrong.

155

[quote]Mexecutioner wrote:

You mean like this weightlifter who was over 15% bodyfat. I bet if he leaned up…[/quote]

I bet he’s “clueless about nutrition” also…or can’t diet down.

156

[quote]Mexecutioner wrote:

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Interesting idea about most efficient way to put on muscle. Based on reading the experiences of guys like Stu, it seems like getting real lean primes the body to put on quality muscle mass - the so called rebound effect after contest dieting. It would be interesting if the most efficient way to build mass actually involves periodic cuts as a means to 1) Assess weak points & 2) employ the rebound effect. Another thing of interest is John Meadows comments in his latest livespill where he thinks getting to 18-20 % bf is “not smart”

http://www.T-Nation.com/strength-training-topics/1393

Question:
ryanbCXG: @JM: sorry if i have missed it before in your articles or comments but are you of the belief that if you want to gain a large amount of muscle in your life you should do a fairly large and long “bulk” at the start? Or do you think slow and maintaining a lower bf% is the way to go? Just wondering yoiur opinions on this. And how far would you take a “bulk” ? I am not meaning get to over 20% fat and eat shit bulk. I am talking eating lots of clean food and training yoiur ass off but maybe not worrying about abs or bf%. I hope that was phrased ok

Answer:

09-10-2011 22:06John Meadows, CSCS: ryan - there are alot of factors that play into this, but in terms of bodyfat…I think people get TOO fat. Once you get above a certain bodyfat %, it has absolutely no benefit to muscle growth…I don’t know exactly what that is…but probably around 10%, maybe slightly more, maybe slightly less…getting fat just makes you insulin resistant…not good for muscle building…

Question:

ryanbCXG: 10% shit that is lean. WHat would you say a god judge of 10% is without getting measured
…
ryanbCXG: so do you do mini cuts during a bulk to keep the body fat in check? just cut cals for a couple weeks or more to clean up then continue?

Answer:

09-10-2011 23:53John Meadows, CSCS: ryan - yea 12% even is robably fine…alot of factors to consider…no real magic number…but going to 18-20% etc is not smart. Yes, I think mini cuts are good…very good in fact… you should be able to see the outline of your abs…not have etched abs…just see that they exist and aren’t covered by a blob…this is possible at 10-12%…
[/quote]

Dave tate showing us how to build muscle inefficiently by getting too fat. I bet if he leaned up…
[/quote]

Hey you fucking moron, you are using Dave tate as an example? Someone who fucking abuses anabolics and growth? Lol I mean I love tate and eltiefts and it doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know what he’s doing but last time I checked he had to hire Shelby and then John Meadows just to diet down…and with the help of a lot of stuff. That is not what we are discussing here. Yeah I can get super lean taking slin, growth, tren, and test too while hiring the top diet coaches around. And by Dave’s own admission he said he was fat and sloppy, that his diet was horrible, and that his blood work reflected it. Do your fucking homework or get lost.

157

[quote]fd24 wrote:

[quote]Mexecutioner wrote:

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Interesting idea about most efficient way to put on muscle. Based on reading the experiences of guys like Stu, it seems like getting real lean primes the body to put on quality muscle mass - the so called rebound effect after contest dieting. It would be interesting if the most efficient way to build mass actually involves periodic cuts as a means to 1) Assess weak points & 2) employ the rebound effect. Another thing of interest is John Meadows comments in his latest livespill where he thinks getting to 18-20 % bf is “not smart”

http://www.T-Nation.com/strength-training-topics/1393

Question:
ryanbCXG: @JM: sorry if i have missed it before in your articles or comments but are you of the belief that if you want to gain a large amount of muscle in your life you should do a fairly large and long “bulk” at the start? Or do you think slow and maintaining a lower bf% is the way to go? Just wondering yoiur opinions on this. And how far would you take a “bulk” ? I am not meaning get to over 20% fat and eat shit bulk. I am talking eating lots of clean food and training yoiur ass off but maybe not worrying about abs or bf%. I hope that was phrased ok

Answer:

09-10-2011 22:06John Meadows, CSCS: ryan - there are alot of factors that play into this, but in terms of bodyfat…I think people get TOO fat. Once you get above a certain bodyfat %, it has absolutely no benefit to muscle growth…I don’t know exactly what that is…but probably around 10%, maybe slightly more, maybe slightly less…getting fat just makes you insulin resistant…not good for muscle building…

Question:

ryanbCXG: 10% shit that is lean. WHat would you say a god judge of 10% is without getting measured
…
ryanbCXG: so do you do mini cuts during a bulk to keep the body fat in check? just cut cals for a couple weeks or more to clean up then continue?

Answer:

09-10-2011 23:53John Meadows, CSCS: ryan - yea 12% even is robably fine…alot of factors to consider…no real magic number…but going to 18-20% etc is not smart. Yes, I think mini cuts are good…very good in fact… you should be able to see the outline of your abs…not have etched abs…just see that they exist and aren’t covered by a blob…this is possible at 10-12%…
[/quote]

Dave tate showing us how to build muscle inefficiently by getting too fat. I bet if he leaned up…
[/quote]

Hey you fucking moron, you are using Dave tate as an example? Someone who fucking abuses anabolics and growth? Lol I mean I love tate and eltiefts and it doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know what he’s doing but last time I checked he had to hire Shelby and then John Meadows just to diet down…and with the help of a lot of stuff. That is not what we are discussing here. Yeah I can get super lean taking slin, growth, tren, and test too while hiring the top diet coaches around. And by Dave’s own admission he said he was fat and sloppy, that his diet was horrible, and that his blood work reflected it. Do your fucking homework or get lost. [/quote]

ur a retard

158

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]165StateChamp wrote:
You have said that every other time you’ve dieted down you’ve lost substantial lean mass. Does that sound like intelligent, informed dieting to you? You are doing better this time, according to you, but you have not gotten past mid-teens yet, and you’re still figuring out a process that works for you. Actually, you know what, go ahead and continue the argument. I couldn’t care less but I’ll still respond. [/quote]

Uh, most people do lose some muscle when dieting. In fact, the usual is half and half lean body mass to fat ratio. the only thing that changes that is how you train, your hormones, and your nutrition.

My mistake in the past was CARDIO, not diet. In fact, if you really were interested in anything like that, you would ask instead of jumping to all of these conclusions.

It was believed for years that everyone needed steady state cardio to lean up. Being in the military didn’t help this either.

I have never had a problem losing body fat. I simply never took it that far BECAUSE THE WHOLE GOAL WAS TO GET BIGGER.

Question…why is this so hard for some of you to understand? Some of you act like people are reaching my size everyday. They aren’t…and it is hilarious watching as some of you see to think otherwise.

That is why comments like I was “inefficient” are comedic. That could only be the case if reaching my size was a norm. It isn’t.

I am dieting now because I feel I am big enough now to be satisfied doing it. Why the hell would I have dieted down back when I only weighed 220lbs? That was NOT the goal.

To conclude that this means I can’t diet is just stupid.[/quote]

The reason you hate dieting down is because how can you fall back on “OMG IM BIGGER THAN YOU BECAUSE I WEIGH MORE, I HAD TO EAT TO GET HERE, WHO ELSE GAINED A LOT OF WEIGHT”…Like we have all said, congrats on gaining weight, some of us don’t share your same goals. Some of us don’t want to be 20% body fat. Clearly, because you were so skinny and small at a young age, it has a major impact on your psyche even today. Nobody cares that you gained a bunch of weight, you should be training for yourself. In my eyes, and apparently john meadows, skip harris, shelby (all guys who are much bigger than you) etc…getting too high of levels of body fat is not necessary to gain muscle. And so I would take that as far as saying gaining all the excess body fat is an INEFFICIENT way of gaining muscle. Once again, did you make progress? Yes. Did you gain weight? Yes. Are you a big guy? Yes. Did you possibly gain too much fat? I guess that’s a personal opinion and one that will be answered when you diet down completely. But why you act like everyone wants to reach your size or body fat is beyond me. Who cares if you are bigger than the norm? Some people want to have aesthetically pleasing physiques…athletic physiques…lean physiques.

Believe it or not but weighing as much as possible isn’t the key to life and I think you would have figured that out by now. I have a bunch of friends who love bulking up to 280 or 290 because then they can tell everyone how much they weigh, how big they are, and it makes them feel good because they are very insecure. And then they mature (some do), they learn, and they see how horrible their blood work is and things change. Before you go on a rant about your blood work I was making a statement about my personal friends so please read carefully so as not to misconstrue things as you often do.

159

[quote]Vicomte wrote:

[quote]fd24 wrote:

[quote]Mexecutioner wrote:

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Interesting idea about most efficient way to put on muscle. Based on reading the experiences of guys like Stu, it seems like getting real lean primes the body to put on quality muscle mass - the so called rebound effect after contest dieting. It would be interesting if the most efficient way to build mass actually involves periodic cuts as a means to 1) Assess weak points & 2) employ the rebound effect. Another thing of interest is John Meadows comments in his latest livespill where he thinks getting to 18-20 % bf is “not smart”

http://www.T-Nation.com/strength-training-topics/1393

Question:
ryanbCXG: @JM: sorry if i have missed it before in your articles or comments but are you of the belief that if you want to gain a large amount of muscle in your life you should do a fairly large and long “bulk” at the start? Or do you think slow and maintaining a lower bf% is the way to go? Just wondering yoiur opinions on this. And how far would you take a “bulk” ? I am not meaning get to over 20% fat and eat shit bulk. I am talking eating lots of clean food and training yoiur ass off but maybe not worrying about abs or bf%. I hope that was phrased ok

Answer:

09-10-2011 22:06John Meadows, CSCS: ryan - there are alot of factors that play into this, but in terms of bodyfat…I think people get TOO fat. Once you get above a certain bodyfat %, it has absolutely no benefit to muscle growth…I don’t know exactly what that is…but probably around 10%, maybe slightly more, maybe slightly less…getting fat just makes you insulin resistant…not good for muscle building…

Question:

ryanbCXG: 10% shit that is lean. WHat would you say a god judge of 10% is without getting measured
…
ryanbCXG: so do you do mini cuts during a bulk to keep the body fat in check? just cut cals for a couple weeks or more to clean up then continue?

Answer:

09-10-2011 23:53John Meadows, CSCS: ryan - yea 12% even is robably fine…alot of factors to consider…no real magic number…but going to 18-20% etc is not smart. Yes, I think mini cuts are good…very good in fact… you should be able to see the outline of your abs…not have etched abs…just see that they exist and aren’t covered by a blob…this is possible at 10-12%…
[/quote]

Dave tate showing us how to build muscle inefficiently by getting too fat. I bet if he leaned up…
[/quote]

Hey you fucking moron, you are using Dave tate as an example? Someone who fucking abuses anabolics and growth? Lol I mean I love tate and eltiefts and it doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know what he’s doing but last time I checked he had to hire Shelby and then John Meadows just to diet down…and with the help of a lot of stuff. That is not what we are discussing here. Yeah I can get super lean taking slin, growth, tren, and test too while hiring the top diet coaches around. And by Dave’s own admission he said he was fat and sloppy, that his diet was horrible, and that his blood work reflected it. Do your fucking homework or get lost. [/quote]

ur a retard[/quote]

Precisely. No reason for you to be in this thread. Thanks.

160

Jesus mexifuckus, I never said they couldn’t get lean! Just reflecting on John Meadows comments from the livespill. You know, the huge ripped guy who just competed and then said that for BB purposes, he didn’t see the value in going to 18-20 % BF.

It’s true, you can’t have a damn discussion on these boards without someone thinking it’s a personal attack on them.