Rich Piana
6 ft, 290# (offseason), not fat
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[
You can’t even seem to follow what is being written.
[/quote]
Neither can you, obviously, by the blabbing you just did.[/quote]
Once again, you avoided responding to anything written…like the part where you lied about saying I never monitored my intake.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]ishinator wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
I know you were in the military. Like I’ve said, I have been a lurker for a bit now. I know your story, so there’s no need to tell me it. Personally, I don’t even need to know about your personal life. Let’s not make it about that. This is just an objective discussion about ways to gain muscle mass and I provided Bauber just as an example of someone who didn’t really do it your way. He gained, realized he had gained too much fat, dieted a bit, gained, etc. That’s all I’m saying. He even said that, once he got up to 335, he didn’t think he looked good at all, and has opted to watch fat gains since. That isn’t exactly “bulking”.
That’s just gaining muscle, losing fat, gaining muscle, round and round. Just like everyone else. Bottom line: Everyone is going towards the same place, which is getting big and lean. People are just taking different routes. I don’t know why you can’t accept that.[/quote]
He took advantage of some very valuable years in his life to gain a lot of mass. This won’t be the same after a certain age. I am now 33 yrs old attempting to rebuild what i did at 18 to 24, which was around 50lbs of mass. Its is not the same. At 18yrs you can literally blow up with minimal fat gain even if you eat crap and don’t sleep much, provided you bring forth the intensity in the gym. Thats not going to happen after a certain age.
[/quote]
Good post.
Some of you can’t seem to understand this.
I did what I had to do to get to this size. This meant not having to DIET all the time so I can build my size.
Your body has a very limited time to get BIG. This is why I have done it and the people who DEGRADE me haven’t.
[/quote]
What was the point of this if only to prove that you are attacking the man and not his advice?
[/quote]
[quote]cueball wrote:
And stop calling monitoring intake “dieting”.
[/quote]
Cueball,
You can “diet” while not being in a caloric deficit.
Some call it “reverse dieting” others just choose a “see food” diet
Lots of lifters track their macros and “diet” to gain muscle while not getting fat.
Some here seem to not know this.
Is this what you were getting at?
Thanks.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Rich Piana
6 ft, 290# (offseason), not fat
[/quote]
Exactly.
Thanks for posting.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
I know you were in the military. Like I’ve said, I have been a lurker for a bit now. I know your story, so there’s no need to tell me it. Personally, I don’t even need to know about your personal life. Let’s not make it about that. This is just an objective discussion about ways to gain muscle mass and I provided Bauber just as an example of someone who didn’t really do it your way. He gained, realized he had gained too much fat, dieted a bit, gained, etc. That’s all I’m saying. He even said that, once he got up to 335, he didn’t think he looked good at all, and has opted to watch fat gains since. That isn’t exactly “bulking”.
That’s just gaining muscle, losing fat, gaining muscle, round and round. Just like everyone else. Bottom line: Everyone is going towards the same place, which is getting big and lean. People are just taking different routes. I don’t know why you can’t accept that.[/quote]
He took advantage of some very valuable years in his life to gain a lot of mass. This won’t be the same after a certain age. I am now 33 yrs old attempting to rebuild what i did at 18 to 24, which was around 50lbs of mass. Its is not the same. At 18yrs you can literally blow up with minimal fat gain even if you eat crap and don’t sleep much, provided you bring forth the intensity in the gym. Thats not going to happen after a certain age.
[/quote]
Best post…and the one thing I have driven home for years.
You have a very limited window where your body will grow the most from what you do…when even if you don’t “eat clean” more muscle will be built from the effort.
I tried my best to take advantage of that time…and it seems to have worked. I am not sure why people are finding fault with that or where the insults are coming from.
Also, if that guy got up to 335lbs, then yes, that is called bulking… It doesn’t matter if HE doesn’t call it that.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
I know you were in the military. Like I’ve said, I have been a lurker for a bit now. I know your story, so there’s no need to tell me it. Personally, I don’t even need to know about your personal life. Let’s not make it about that. This is just an objective discussion about ways to gain muscle mass and I provided Bauber just as an example of someone who didn’t really do it your way. He gained, realized he had gained too much fat, dieted a bit, gained, etc. That’s all I’m saying. He even said that, once he got up to 335, he didn’t think he looked good at all, and has opted to watch fat gains since. That isn’t exactly “bulking”.
That’s just gaining muscle, losing fat, gaining muscle, round and round. Just like everyone else. Bottom line: Everyone is going towards the same place, which is getting big and lean. People are just taking different routes. I don’t know why you can’t accept that.[/quote]
He took advantage of some very valuable years in his life to gain a lot of mass. This won’t be the same after a certain age. I am now 33 yrs old attempting to rebuild what i did at 18 to 24, which was around 50lbs of mass. Its is not the same. At 18yrs you can literally blow up with minimal fat gain even if you eat crap and don’t sleep much, provided you bring forth the intensity in the gym. Thats not going to happen after a certain age.
[/quote]
Best post…and the one thing I have driven home for years.
You have a very limited window where your body will grow the most from what you do…when even if you don’t “eat clean” more muscle will be built from the effort.
I tried my best to take advantage of that time…and it seems to have worked. I am not sure why people are finding fault with that or where the insults are coming from.[/quote]
You realize that you cant use ‘best post’ more than once without it defeating the purpose of its own context? There cannot be more than one best post by defination.
Still waiting for you to respond to my earlier question por favor.
[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
Just because the Prof thinks that one has to do things the way he did to get to where he is doesn’t make it true.
[/quote]
Actually, all I did was say that there are few guys my size or bigger who never bulked up at all…to which you used an example of a guy who got up to 335lbs, thought he was a little too fat and then dieted…WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FUCK I DID.
No one has said someone needs to hit a certain body fat percentage. It is about listening to your own body and doing what it takes to make optimal growth if that is your goal.
You don’t have much to argue about, do you?
[quote]Waittz wrote:
You realize that you cant use ‘best post’ more than once without it defeating the purpose of its own context? There cannot be more than one best post by defination.[/quote]
Well it could just be the best post until such a time as someone else posts something worthy enough to supplant it as the new, reigning best post. Said post will remain the best and better than all its predecessors until it too is usurped.
Also an important dynamic to introduce would be context (as you mentioned in your OP). The best posts can be categorized by their understood context. Best post could refer to the best post in a given thread, the best post by a given poster, the best post on a given day, etc. You can also combine said understood perimeters to create contexts such as best post by a certain poster in a certain thread on a given day.
Along a similar vein is a third dynamic to consider. Are you familiar with the multiverse theory? It is conceivable that each thread, or even each post in each thread behaves like it’s own universe and thus all of the best posts are literally the best posts at the same level of bestness existing simultaneously in a theoretically infinite number of micro universe posts.
I’m preparing a treatise on best posts and their rhyming name derivatives.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
You realize that you cant use ‘best post’ more than once without it defeating the purpose of its own context? There cannot be more than one best post by defination.[/quote]
Well it could just be the best post until such a time as someone else posts something worthy enough to supplant it as the new, reigning best post. Said post will remain the best and better than all its predecessors until it too is usurped.
Also an important dynamic to introduce would be context (as you mentioned in your OP). The best posts can be categorized by their understood context. Best post could refer to the best post in a given thread, the best post by a given poster, the best post on a given day, etc. You can also combine said understood perimeters to create contexts such as best post by a certain poster in a certain thread on a given day.
Along a similar vein is a third dynamic to consider. Are you familiar with the multiverse theory? It is conceivable that each thread, or even each post in each thread behaves like it’s own universe and thus all of the best posts are literally the best posts at the same level of bestness existing simultaneously in a theoretically infinite number of micro universe posts.
I’m preparing a treatise best posts and their rhyming name derivatives.[/quote]
Best Post By a Poster Willing to Fight Wild Animals With His Bare Hands
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
And stop calling monitoring intake “dieting”.
[/quote]
Cueball,
You can “diet” while not being in a caloric deficit.
Some call it “reverse dieting” others just choose a “see food” diet
Lots of lifters track their macros and “diet” to gain muscle while not getting fat.
Some here seem to not know this.
Is this what you were getting at?
Thanks.[/quote]
I thought your diet was just what you eat on a day to day basis?
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
You realize that you cant use ‘best post’ more than once without it defeating the purpose of its own context? There cannot be more than one best post by defination.[/quote]
Well it could just be the best post until such a time as someone else posts something worthy enough to supplant it as the new, reigning best post. Said post will remain the best and better than all its predecessors until it too is usurped.
Also an important dynamic to introduce would be context (as you mentioned in your OP). The best posts can be categorized by their understood context. Best post could refer to the best post in a given thread, the best post by a given poster, the best post on a given day, etc. You can also combine said understood perimeters to create contexts such as best post by a certain poster in a certain thread on a given day.
Along a similar vein is a third dynamic to consider. Are you familiar with the multiverse theory? It is conceivable that each thread, or even each post in each thread behaves like it’s own universe and thus all of the best posts are literally the best posts at the same level of bestness existing simultaneously in a theoretically infinite number of micro universe posts.
I’m preparing a treatise on best posts and their rhyming name derivatives.[/quote]
Best Post By a Poster Willing to Fight Wild Animals With His Bare Hands[/quote]
I hope to heavily reference super saiyan’s lengthy contributions to best post theory in my paper.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
And stop calling monitoring intake “dieting”.
[/quote]
Cueball,
You can “diet” while not being in a caloric deficit.
Some call it “reverse dieting” others just choose a “see food” diet
Lots of lifters track their macros and “diet” to gain muscle while not getting fat.
Some here seem to not know this.
Is this what you were getting at?
Thanks.[/quote]
I thought your diet was just what you eat on a day to day basis? [/quote]
Exactly.
That changes based on your goals at the time.
Some here only think of “dieting” as trying to lose weight.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
And stop calling monitoring intake “dieting”.
[/quote]
Cueball,
You can “diet” while not being in a caloric deficit.
Some call it “reverse dieting” others just choose a “see food” diet
Lots of lifters track their macros and “diet” to gain muscle while not getting fat.
Some here seem to not know this.
Is this what you were getting at?
Thanks.[/quote]
I thought your diet was just what you eat on a day to day basis? [/quote]
It is. I am not sure what the hell he is talking about…in most posts he puts up.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
And stop calling monitoring intake “dieting”.
[/quote]
Cueball,
You can “diet” while not being in a caloric deficit.
Some call it “reverse dieting” others just choose a “see food” diet
Lots of lifters track their macros and “diet” to gain muscle while not getting fat.
Some here seem to not know this.
Is this what you were getting at?
Thanks.[/quote]
I thought your diet was just what you eat on a day to day basis? [/quote]
Exactly.
That changes based on your goals at the time.
Some here only think of “dieting” as trying to lose weight.[/quote]
“Dieting” does mean lose BODY FAT. Whether you gain or lose weight has to do with if you gained or lost any muscle mass in the process.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[
You can’t even seem to follow what is being written.
[/quote]
Neither can you, obviously, by the blabbing you just did.[/quote]
Once again, you avoided responding to anything written…like the part where you lied about saying I never monitored my intake.[/quote]
LOL
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
And stop calling monitoring intake “dieting”.
[/quote]
Cueball,
You can “diet” while not being in a caloric deficit.
Some call it “reverse dieting” others just choose a “see food” diet
Lots of lifters track their macros and “diet” to gain muscle while not getting fat.
Some here seem to not know this.
Is this what you were getting at?
Thanks.[/quote]
I thought your diet was just what you eat on a day to day basis? [/quote]
Exactly.
That changes based on your goals at the time.
Some here only think of “dieting” as trying to lose weight.[/quote]
“Dieting” does mean lose BODY FAT. Whether you gain or lose weight has to do with if you gained or lost any muscle mass in the process.[/quote]
Bzzt. Sorry. This makes no sense whatsoever. You can lose body fat and lose weight. You can gain body fat and lose weight, given enough time and de-training. Gaining and losing weight is not relegated exclusively to muscle mass. But, how would you even know without a biopsy, amIrite?
A “diet” can be what an organism habitually eats and drinks
or a “diet” can be a prescribed system of eating and drinking (deficit or surplus notwithstanding)
“Dieting” can be to engage in said prescribed system of eating and drinking.
Although most people think of dieting as being in a deficit, it deosn’t have to be so.
Any eating or drinking that is - on the whole - purposeful and not ad libitum should be considered a diet.
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
Bzzt. Sorry. This makes no sense whatsoever. You can lose body fat and lose weight. You can gain body fat and lose weight, given enough time and de-training. Gaining and losing weight is not relegated exclusively to muscle mass. But, how would you even know without a biopsy, amIrite?[/quote]
WTF? Uh, you could take a body fat reading and then calculate lean body mass.
Why would a biopsy be needed? Are you looking for a disease?
Do you know what a biopsy is?
[quote]
A “diet” can be what an organism habitually eats and drinks
or a “diet” can be a prescribed system of eating and drinking (deficit or surplus notwithstanding)
“Dieting” can be to engage in said prescribed system of eating and drinking.[/quote]
LOL> Uh, no. In bodybuilding, “DIETING” means losing body fat. People are seriously arguing this now?
Wow. Thanks for that lesson.
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
A “diet” can be what an organism habitually eats and drinks
or a “diet” can be a prescribed system of eating and drinking (deficit or surplus notwithstanding)
“Dieting” can be to engage in said prescribed system of eating and drinking.
Although most people think of dieting as being in a deficit, it deosn’t have to be so.
Any eating or drinking that is - on the whole - purposeful and not ad libitum should be considered a diet.
[/quote]
Bingo.
It seems some here understand what is written.
The thought process that “dieting” means restricting intact and calories in order to lose weight is a very outdated mentality and one that I am surprised to find on a bodybuilding website.
As if guys like Phil, Kai, Jay and others didn’t adjust their diets (so yea, thwy were “dieting”) in order to gain during offseasons without getting fat.
edit- good post Mad Martigan and even better screen name. I love that movie.